Oliver Moore: Victory for organic seed producers
This represents a huge victory for organisations which campaigned against it.
Under the guise of improving and modernising the seed market, the EU Commission proposed the regulation in 2013.
It was to be a “package of measures to strengthen the enforcement of health and safety standards for the whole agri-food chain”, providing “more simplified and flexible rules for the marketing of seeds and other plant reproductive material, with the aim to ensure productivity, adaptability and diversity of Europe’s crop production”.
“The package responds to the call for better simplification of legislation and smarter regulation, thus reducing administrative burdens for operators, and simplifying the regulatory environment.
“Special consideration is given to the impact of this legislation on SMEs and micro enterprises, which are exempted from the most costly and burdensome elements”.
But too many people involved in seeds were simply not convinced.
To summarise what campaigning organisations like Arche Noah, Garden Organic, Save Our Seeds and others pointed out, the proposed legislation was too broad (it included too many small scale producers); too restrictive (it would have taken away member state flexibility, it contained a lack of seed heterogeneity, and defined niche organisations as too small); and it was too compulsory (legislated for too many non-commercial varieties).
The legislation was withdrawn, quietly, earlier this month.
Already, after a continent-wide campaign, which was especially strong in Germany and Austria, it was rejected by the parliament this time last year.
However, the machinations of the European Parliament being as they are, this could have meant that an earlier, even more unacceptable draft may have come into play, because of pressure on timelines.
So the old system remains in force for now.
Seed regulation at EU level currently relies on 12 directives, which allow in practice for many sensible derogations at member state level for small scale growers and others.
These would have been lost, if the new regulation came into force without taking them into account, as was likely.
As often is the case with these efforts at modernisation and supposed efficiency, the small guy would have lost out. Seed-saving organisations were concerned about the cost and indeed the ethics of registration of seed varieties. A swath of unrealistic and excessive costs would have been introduced for small scale producers, who would have had to go through the costly, time-consuming process of registering commonly owned heritage varieties. This would have ridden roughshod over participatory and open breeding practices for many generations.
Campaigners also took issue with the EU’s exemption for organisations with less than 10 employees. Why so micro? Seed saving is a labour intensive business, and many small organisations employ over 10 people.
According to Iga Niznik of Arche Noah, “If the new EU seed regulation had been adopted, it would have meant huge administrative hurdles and hefty limitations for biodiversity and farm-saved seeds. It would have threatened local varieties, ignored costumers’ and seed users’ freedom of choice, and imposed agribusiness interests.”
She adds: “A start-up would be virtually forced to give up its efforts to enter the seed business. It is thus imperative that a future oriented seed marketing legislation allows fair and free competition between different private quality schemes, as well as offer incentives for small and biodiversity-oriented breeders and producers. Farmers, home gardeners and other seed users must not be forced to become customers of the industrial seed producers.”
For now, however, this is not a concern. The legislation has been withdrawn, and a good type of business-as-usual can continue.
