Posted on

EU Inception Impact Assessment

Introduction

This post is directed towards at least two very different audiences. The first is the EU Commission as a formal response to a possible revision of plant and forest reproductive material legislation (also known as the EU Seed Law). The second audience are the readers in general of this blog, and since I haven’t posted on this in a while, this means I also have to provide a lot of background information. Since my readers fall into a number of categories, you may even consider there are many more than two different audiences.

Everyone reading this has their own expectations about what I should say and how I should say it, and probably many will be disappointed. All I can say, like usual, is the comments section below is open.

Response to the Commission Proposal

For the members of The Commission reading this, let me first say I choose the baseline policy choice: Do Nothing. The remainder of this post is my justification.

Background

In 2013 there was a legislative attempt to change the EU seed laws. Recollections vary, but this attempt failed. Few people were happy with what was proposed. On a technical level, this was an attempt to replace 12 EU directives with a regulation, which would have meant little or no space for local/national interpretation, something that nearly all stakeholders found problematic.

Shortly after this food industry representatives came to an agreement with the Danish Seed Savers to reinterpret the 12 EU directives into local Danish law. Many including myself consider this to be a ‘Gold Standard’ in legislation. Because of how the EU works, this means in principle any European can open a seed company in Denmark and operate under local Danish laws.

Shortly after this was the Organic Regulation. I was politely asked not to participate in these discussions, which was fine because I don’t have a lot of interest in certified organic food. What was clear was that civil society was all but excluded from these discussions. In reality these discussions were on adapting EU Seed Laws to standards established by the Convention on Biological Diversity. In simple terms, they were largely between the seed industry and the world’s wealthy families and individuals, who are in the process of privatizing biodiversity. Since not many people care about certified organic food, there was not a lot of attention paid to this. An interesting ‘third party’ in these discussions was Copa-cogeca, Europe’s largest farmers union, whose position is probably closer to that of civil society than any of the other players. There was quite a fight between the various parties over the Organic Regulation, that is partly still ongoing, but the Organic Regulation has passed and will come into force.

It would be one thing if the wealthy families of the world formed their own political party, or otherwise their own identity. At least then we would all know who we are talking to and negotiating with. In the case of EU seed laws, the wealthy families have simply taken over civil society’s seed movements, and now use them as a mouthpiece for their own political goals. The entire seed movement in many parts of the world has been all but decimated. In Europe the main mailing list the seed movement uses to communicate has been taken over by the ultra-wealthy and all discussions are managed. I think this is short-sighted, because I think an intact seed movement could be a benefit to a lot of people in a lot of ways. I also think it’s dishonest for the ultra-wealthy to pretend to be in agreement with civil society. It’s just a big lie.

It’s interesting how the battle over our food has become something of a microcosm of society as a whole, and how there won’t be any solutions until world governments figure out how to tax wealthy people and corporations. It’s also interesting EU seed law has become a battle between the world’s ultra-wealthy and corporations, when the ultra-wealthy own the corporations. It’s only the legal definition of a corporation that keeps them from teaming up together.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Everything depends on the next meeting of the CBD in Kunmig, China in October. Hopefully they will decide the very problematic privatizing of the world’s biodiversity should be scraped. This would be in the interests of civil society, and strangely enough also the seed industry in Europe. I’m pretty sure this would also be what the farming union Copa-cogeca would prefer as well. This is really the most important issue, more important than any relaxation of seed laws in Europe or elsewhere. This privatizing of biodiversity is much worse than any patents, IPR, seed laws or anything similar we currently face. Literally we are facing the ultra-wealthy owning all the worlds biodiversity, dolling it out gene by gene, and turning our food and nature into something that’s marketed by startups like energy saving light bulbs, electric cars or new mobile phone features.

Being able to implement the privatizing of biodiversity depends on being able to achieve many of the things civil society have been working on for a long time. For example patents, PVP, other IPR and limitations on what farmers can grow all stand in the way of implementing privatization. The ultra-wealthy are working very hard on these issues, fraudulently, in the name of civil society.

Civil society therefore needs to do an about face, and take positions counter-intuitive when compared to the past. We need to join forces with anyone who opposes the privatization biodiversity, and this means standing by the seed industry and Copa-cogeca for the time being. The seed industry did work with us on changing the Danish seed laws, and has indicated this could be a model for the future. The ultra-wealthy are currently standing in the way of this, and any future change in EU seed laws puts the current Danish seed laws at risk. If the CBD decides to abandon privatization, we will certainly want to reconsider.

It’s also to the advantage of civil society to (carefully) let the battle between corporations and ultra-wealthy rage on and wear out both sides.

Current Legislative Proposal

While Seed Law reform in Europe is desperately needed, this is not the time or way for it to be done. This is something the ultra-wealthy has to do, and win. There is no place for the opinions of civil society, and these have been successfully silenced.

Reform of the EU seed law is something that should be cause for celebration. Current EU seed laws date back to WWII and the eugenics program. The current EU seed law has genetic tests called DUS and VCU. DUS or Distinct, Uniform and Stable is the test that gives our food blond hair and blue eyes. VCU or Value for Cultivation and Use gives our food superior intellect. These tests don’t serve any purpose, and should be scraped. We are still undergoing a Holocaust in our food systems. Freeing ourselves from this has parallels with every other form of racism in society today.

Instead of celebrating, we have to oppose the changes in order to prevent privatization under the Convention on Biological Diversity. This isn’t a cause for celebration, it’s not a news story, it’s nothing. We have no choice but sit back and wait to be screwed one way or another.

Posted on

Kunming CBD Wish List

In October Convention of Biological Diversity delegates will travel to Kunming for the delayed Conference of the Parties. In the hope my opinion matters, here’s a wish list of what I think needs to be accomplished in order to stimulate biodiversity.

End Nagoya Protocol: This is so complex and theoretical that no one understands what it means. This has effectively stopped the legal transfer of genetic material between people, across many scientific disciplines, and has brought the work of many people to a complete standstill. Not only should this be ended, but there should be no replacement protocol considered.

End or Adjust Worldwide Plant Health Restrictions: I have not been able to identify any working document justifying these restrictions. There doesn’t seem to be any peer-reviewed research suggesting such overly broad restrictions will have an impact on plant health, nor do there seem to be any strategy documents detailing what is attempting to be accomplished. If there are true plant health risks, and some measured restrictions might be of help mitigating these risks, then restrictions might be justified. Where there are no risks, there should be no restrictions. Where there are risks, these should be clearly explained and restrictions justified. Above all else, these restrictions should be open for democratic discussion and debate.

DNA testing and seed sample collection cannot be justified for reasons of plant health, and these should be stopped. Above all else, stop lying. If it’s not for reasons of plant health, be honest about what it’s for.

Stop DNA testing of seeds without permission of grower: DNA testing of seeds has enormous privacy implications for people using those seeds, just like DNA testing of people does. There should be no databases or analysis of those seeds unless requested by the user.

Stop the Open Source Seed Initiative: Seeds and documentation have been collected for this under misleading circumstances, and the people providing this are not aware of the true consequences of their participation. Return these seeds to the public domain.

Return all genetic materials to the public domain: Genetic materials that have been collected under the auspices of the CBD have been done so under misleading circumstances. It’s unlikely very many people have given their materials up with fully informed consent. These materials have always existed in the public domain, and the CBD has no right to them. The rules the CBD have placed on these materials makes them unusable for a great many people who could otherwise be working seriously on the greatest existential crisis the world has ever faced, global warming and biodiversity loss. The CBD should either be helping people with their work, or get out of the way. In the current direction, the CBD is a substantial hindrance.

Before the CBD these materials were always considered in the public domain. Collections were maintained and paid for by the companies making profits from their exploitation, and everyone had the right to receive free samples. We need to return to a similar situation, combined with collections funded with taxes imposed on the wealthy.

Stop all administrative burden: There should be no administrative burden for using biodiversity. No sMTA’s, no registrations or declarations. Biodiversity belongs to everyone, and no one has the right to demand paperwork just in order to use it.

Stop all patents on life: Genes exist in nature. Collecting and editing these genes do not constitute invention or innovation. Genes are naturally occurring and should not be subject to patents. Patents give too much power to the patent holders. It’s a ridiculous situation that governments must fund the research leading to COVID vaccinations, then companies are allowed to patent them and restrict their manufacture and use. It gives too much power to pharmaceutical companies to overcharge patients and ignore unprofitable treatments, especially in places without universal health care. It’s unreasonable to expect people who work to promote biodiversity to contend with patent restrictions. We need to pay for this sort of R&D with taxes on the world’s wealthy, or simply find another way.

It’s very possible millions of people in the world may die because patents on COVID vaccinations might prevent their efficient manufacture and distribution in poor countries. This must not be allowed to happen, and in any case must never happen again.

No payments for biodiversity services: The expectation of such payments was probably a factor in Bolsonaro’s encouraging the destruction of the Amazon, and there should be no payments to him for stopping what he’s doing or reversing the damage. Such payments should be discussed and debated in a democratic way, and paid for from taxes on the wealthy. There should be no automatic mechanisms that might stimulate biodiversity loss.

Existential crisis: Above all else remember the world and it’s biodiversity are in a real crisis. We all know we need to do a lot more than just stopping the release of greenhouse gases, we need to start removing CO2 from the atmosphere. If we aren’t going to wait for Elon Musk to develop the technology to suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere, our only choice is to develop biodiversity in such a way that CO2 is sequestered in healthy farming soils, old growth forests and other living areas of biodiversity. Please get serious and act now.

Posted on

Biodiversity = People

The Green Revolution was all about separating farmers from their seeds. The ideas from this came out of WWII. It was to address world food shortages and food insecurity, with the idea that agriculture needed to be taken out of the hands of people. Large investments could be made to increase production, then commodities could be tracked so investments could be rationalized. This worked, with a huge price paid by the environment and biodiversity.

Now we’re making the same mistake all over again. We’re turning nature into commodities and, in order to make large investments, we’re taking matters out of the hands of people.

Removing People from the Equation

It all starts with the very undemocratic and faceless Convention on Biological Diversity. The only thing this institution is concerned with is manipulating the finances behind agriculture and biodiversity, and has no interest in ordinary people. The fact that I might have some tiny bit of influence there is the source of well founded resentment among many who work with biodiversity, because who’s listening to them?

Doesn’t anyone else share my concerns over plans to give the Brazilian government a lot of money to protect their biodiversity? Just how is this going to work, and how is this going to help? What’s president Bolsonaro going to do when you give him a big pile of money? Buy a new car? Since this money has been under discussion for so long, it seems likely the destruction of the Amazon has been accelerated, in order to increase the urgency of this payment. It’s the people of Brazil that should be paid for taking care of their own environment, not the government.

The issue of over-fishing the oceans can be solved through reorganizing it’s use. Reduce the size of vessels and nets to make it small scale, and limit markets to local populations. Fish is not a human need, and this isn’t rocket science. The world finally addressed the problems with tobacco use by restricting marketing and use. Many problems can be solved in a similar way, including the way oceans are managed.

New supranational institutions are going to further remove people from the equation and make matters worse.

Biodiversity Emergency

We’re in the middle of a covid emergency. We’re all aware of the drastic measures that have been taken. It’s now time for environmental and biodiversity emergencies of the same scope. Not by making the same mistakes and paying large amounts of money to governments or institutions to do the wrong things, but by addressing real needs in an urgent way.

Importantly biodiversity is inextricably linked to people and the genes within them. This idea goes far beyond something philosophical. Biodiversity depends on good management from people, and people depend on the many things biodiversity gives them. Only people, as individuals, can restore their environment. The most important things needed to accomplish this are the freedom and capacity to move forward.

Posted on

Reconstructing Biodiversity

Stock Photo
Stock photo

In what can only be described as a well funded and coordinated effort, biodiversity is in the news again.

…the financial value of ‘ecosystem services’ is increasingly guiding policy.

I find the idea of this almost too ridiculous to comment on. About all I can say is whatever guiding policy is developed, it shouldn’t interfere with real work others are trying to get done. What’s been done so far has been so clumsy, it doesn’t seem likely anything useful will emerge, but there’s still a lot of potential for destroying ecosystems and interfering with people’s work. A top down approach like this will never succeed, and time is precious at the moment. It’s really an imperative that efforts like this fail as quickly as possible, so the world can move on to something that works.

Mangrove Forests

Consider for example the Bezos Earth Fund recent contribution to the WWF in order to restore mangrove forests. While I don’t know the details of this particular contribution, I think in general this is the worst kind of solution. Certainly nothing is going to be gained by planting a new forest where one used to be, without addressing the causes of the deforestation in the first place. A better overall approach might be to focus on preserving the mangrove forests that remain, or community building in general.

The WWF is not in the business of community building, but a healthy forest can’t exist without a healthy community having a vested interest in it. A healthy mangrove forest is much more than planting a bunch of mangrove trees, and biodiversity in general needs to be considered. The community needs much more than a few $15/hr jobs that last a short time during planting, and maybe come back at harvest time when it’s time to export the wood products. If the mangrove forest is owned by a corporation, it’s going to contribute to the problem of land grabbing, and put land ownership beyond the means of many people. No one is going to care about a forest if they don’t own it.

Building Communities

A healthy community needs universal health care. Everyone needs enough money to buy what they need, on a level that’s ideally middle class. The forest and local economy then needs to be developed, and produce products and services for people to spend this money on, like food, housing, energy, clothing and so on. At the beginning, and times of crisis, it’s probably going to mean direct cash payments to individuals and small businesses, much in the same way many governments are providing COVID relief. The costs of this needs to be paid for either by donations made by wealthy people, or taxes imposed on them. The long term problems will never be solved without reducing the big gaps between rich and poor.

Land needs to be given to members of the community. This might be made available for purchase at a reasonable price, or for example in the form of 100 year land grants. These land grants could be renewed if the land continued to be put to good use.

The focus of these forests needs to be producing sustainable products for local consumption. This means legalizing and eliminating administrative and financial burdens associated with these products. For example seed laws need to be eliminated so people can grow their own food and save their own seeds. Patents, IPR and regulations need to be eliminated that interfere with day to day needs and affairs.

In order for communities around the world to support one another, laws that interfere with this need to be eliminated. Biodiversity needs to be maintained in-situ, in multiple locations independently, and needs to be able to move and be used freely around the world. There should be no central ‘doomsday vault’ whose existence means other collections need to be destroyed. Of course genuine plant health issues need to be considered, but when these issues don’t exist, they shouldn’t be regulated.

Bottom up approach

Of course biodiversity issues are all more complex than what’s laid out here, but attempts at a top down approach need to stop. Paying governments or corporations for ‘ecosystem services’ is not going to solve any problems, or make anyone care. It’s time to start on a bottom up approach, beginning with basic human needs, and progressing to helping people take care of their own environments.