The EU seed industry has just published a new issue of it’s trade magazine, including the main arguments under discussion for an update of the EU seed law. Ostensibly there are two sides to the discussion, one for updating the EU seed law, and the other against.
The against side is presented by a representative of the EU seed industry.
The for side is presented by Austrian seed saving organization Arche Noah. In fact Arche Noah has suffered a similar fate as sister organization Seed Savers Exchange of the US. They accepted money from the wrong people, which resulted in the management being largely expelled. They exist now in name only, as a brand, and are completely unresponsive to their membership. They claim to represent seed savers, farmers and so on, but I am unable to see any evidence of this. The reality is they now represent the people who have taken over the organization, which ultimately comes down to the wealthy families who control the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The EU seed industry says the seed laws have served them well for decades now. They say a number of things have changed recently, climate change, biodiversity strategy, EU Green Deal, and so on. In addition there are new technologies and ways of testing seeds. All of these could justify minor adjustments to the EU seed laws, but not opening the whole can of worms of legislation.
Arche Noah pretty much only says they want to bring EU laws in line with the CBD. The CBD is actually a very large legal instrument now, and what Arche Noah means specifically is the ABS (Access and Benefit Sharing) provisions of the CBD. There are actually a number of parts of the CBD that deal with farmers and seed savers rights, but these are less interesting to them. They are also only pursuing a small relaxation of the EU seed laws, for the purpose of aggressively marketing and monetizing a few specialized crops, probably by way of organic certification, something not very useful to true seed savers and farmers. For seed savers the consequence of these changes would probably be significantly more administrative burden and violation of privacy, by way of registration requirements and plant health red tape.
I say there are two sides to this discussion, but in fact, the wealthy families who now control Arche Noah are also the ones who own and control the seed industry. It’s a bit like the left hand arguing with the right, and it seems almost certain the seed law will change for the worse. There’s a reason both sides of the argument appear in a seed industry trade magazine.
The Reality for Seed Savers
The EU seed laws are a major problem for seed savers, and have been for decades now. At the same time, seed savers have found their way around some of the barriers, and negotiations have taken place with the seed industry. For a long time genetic resources were considered to be in the public domain, and in most places there were full breeders’ rights. This meant industry plant breeders could frequently trade materials with independent plant breeders and seed savers, and these trades often took place.
On the other hand, completely the opposite is true with the CBD. Representatives of the CBD have taken over and gutted organizations that once represented seed savers, stole their seeds and treated them like brand names that they could use to represent their members. The CBD has been promising for decades to support the worlds biodiversity, but every year they fail to reach their own targets. There is virtually no chance of success here.
Seed savers cannot accept anything but very minor administrative burden for what they do. They also cannot accept registration requirements that require them to state in detail the varieties they work with, or to submit to DNA testing of their plant materials, because this is a serious violation of their privacy. Of course almost all seed savers would like to cooperate with controlling plant diseases and pests, but this has to be based on risk, and can’t have an unreasonable or intrusive administrative burden or DNA testing. They cannot accept any registration fees. Seed savers cannot accept patents on life.
Much has been said about the difference between commercial and non-commercial food and seed production. Most seed savers, independent plant breeders and small farmers don’t have the expectation of making large amounts of money from what they do, but at the same time need to cover their expenses and survive financially. Of course everyone needs to have a light at the end of the tunnel, and sometimes these people hope for a time they can make real profits with what they do. It’s not always possible to accept a partner in this kind of activity, and so there needs to be a reasonable possibility to grow independently. This whole financial picture needs to be renegotiated from time to time. With climate change and and the collapsing of biodiversity worldwide, there should be good financial potential for seed savers, and they should be free to pursue this legally and independently.
Realistically, seed savers cannot cope with these revisions of EU seed law. If we try to organize efforts to lobby for a good outcome, this will be undermined and taken over by the same people who have taken over seed saving organizations. We don’t have the money. Too many points of view make coming to a common statement too difficult.
Proposal for EU Seed Law Change
The best seed law outcome for seed savers would be a withdrawal of the EU seed law directives.
The seed industry should be happy with this. The seed laws could be replaced with industry certification. Industry could set their own rules and procedures. What is now done by civil servants could be done in-house by the seed companies, who could manage the costs themselves. Marketing could be managed with relationships with supplies. Best of all there would be no more of these legislative revisions of the EU seed law.
Arche Noah won’t be happy with this, but if what they say about implementing the CBD and supporting the rights of seed savers is true, they will support the idea.
Implicit in this would have to be no patents on life, and full breeders’ rights. Full breeders’ rights is the idea that plant varieties can be protected, but the genes within the varieties cannot. This means if a plant breeder crosses a protected variety with a different but related plant, the cross and resulting generations are unprotected until a new stable variety is created and protected.
Also implied in this is biodiversity exists in the commons. Industry uses and profits from biodiversity, and must pay for it’s maintenance, but also has a responsibility to share it. If a public domain variety is genetically engineered, the result is a public domain variety. If a protected variety is genetically engineered, as long as the variety is protected so is the genetic engineering.
As a naive SSE supporter, I wonder if you could give any detail about the takeover of the organization and the problems you see? Also, the “wealthy families who control the CBD.” Also, I don’t understand the opposition to the OSSI. I thought the mission of the OSSI is to allow fair and open access to the genetic material. Isn’t that what you want?
Hi Marc,
Thanks for your comment. The notification ended up in my email spam folder, so I didn’t notice you left it two weeks ago. Sorry for the delay in replying. I can understand if you’re relatively new to all of this, some things in this post might seem a little out of context.
I live in Europe and haven’t been a member of the SSE for about 15 years. I don’t have any idea what’s going on there. I wrote about my past experiences, and you can find those posts by searching here on ‘SSE’. If you have a different experience, I wish you the best of luck. I’m not likely to ever be a member again. The main problem is it’s not run by seed savers or their members anymore, and doesn’t serve their needs.
Do you drink diet cola because you think sugar is bad? If you do you should be aware there are people who don’t think there is any real proof table sugar is bad for you, and the idea Nutrasweet is healthier for you is an outright lie. This is a little bit of the problem of OSSI. The OSSI makes a bunch of assertions about patents that are dubious at best, and their solution is an outright lie. I was involved in the starting of OSSI in Europe, and know some of the original people. Their intentions were not good, and the underlying mechanisms are not what you would expect. If you want to read more, there are other posts on this blog. Try searching on OSSI.
I have written some posts on the CBD, again you can search on this. Nearly every country in the world is a member, except the US. The US generally supports it, and it’s goals are to privatize biodiversity. This means it’s controlled by the wealthy families behind it. Think about Rockefellers, Bill and Melinda Gates and other wealthy US and European families.
Don’t be afraid to ask more questions if you’re still confused. In an email I can more easily send links to specific posts, the interface for leaving comments is limited in this way. For sure this is a complicated topic.