Mandated in November 2019 by the European Council to carry out a study on the options to reform the EU seeds marketing rules, the European Commission had already published the study carried out by the external consultancy ICF on 29th April, accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Document and followed by an Inception Impact Assessment, which was open for comments from the public until the 13th July 2021.
In the newsletter’s previous issue, we analysed the content of said inception impact assessment. We now delve into the details of the feedback received by the European Commission to the document.
Results of the inception impact assessment
The inception impact assessment gathered a total of 65 responses (two responses came from the same organisation, UFS). More than half of the responses came from business organisations (total of 36), only 5 of which are SME’s. 16 different civil society organisations submitted feedback, compared to 7 public authorities, 2 research institutions and 3 private citizens.
When looking at the geographic distribution of feedbacks, the weight of Belgium is apparent. This can be attributed to the important presence of Brussels-based EU advocacy organisations in the process, with 9 EU level business associations and 3 organisations self-qualified as NGOs (Act Alliance EU and IFOAM Organics, to which the author adds the European Coordination Via Campesina, considered as a business organisation in the formal calculations of the Commission). Only one national Belgian SME and one regional association (Réseau Meuse Rhin Moselle) has in reality provided feedback with a truly Belgian perspective. The dominant country is by far Germany with its 12 responses, followed by France and the Netherlands, each with 7 stakeholders, and then Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Italy with 3 responses each. Feedback also came from Finland, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, and Slovakia.
While most of the feedbacks stemming from NGO’s and SME’s openly favoured Option 2 with listed conditions for its success (which foresees a strict scope for the future regime, excluding sale to amateur gardeners & seed conservation networks, and an ad hoc framework for farmers’ seed exchange), most of the feedback from business associations did not directly refer to a preferred option, but rather listed their wishes for the future regime. Few feedbacks directly noted their preference for Option O (do nothing): Bifurcated Carrots, the Dutch authority NAK, the French seed industry association UFS & its sister hybrid organisation GNIS/SEMAE, and to a certain extent Dachverband (if Option 2 is not inclusive and ambitious enough), while some also proposed to carve out a new option, with optional variety registration (Campaign for Seed Sovereignty, Arche mit Zukunft, Permasinka). Option 1 was listed as a formal preference of Czech national authorities, while the third option had very little formal endorsement, probably on account of its integration to the framework of Official controls.
It should be noted at this stage that some of the feedback concerned specific types of plant reproductive material. Indeed, 6 responses solely related for forest reproductive material, which unanimously asked for a separate legal framework. They highlighted the need for modernisation, but keeping flexibility, at times advocating for a limited scope to the marketing of material for forestry purposes or integrating more consideration for genetic conservation units. Two feedbacks only addressed the ornamentals sector, while other sector-specific feedback was given for seed potatoes, maize, vine, and compound feed.
An analysis with different lenses and comparing the stances of stakeholders
In order to provide a cross-cutting overview of the content of the responses to the consultation, we will analyse it through different lenses, and compare the stances of different stakeholders on (a) the place and weight given to agrobiodiversity and to the goals of the European Green Deal, (b) the success of the current legal regime, (c) considerations on the scope of the legislation, (d) the different derogatory regimes for market access, (e) the reduction of administrative burden and delegation of tasks to operators, and (f) the “modernisation of the framework” through the recourse to bio-molecular techniques and digital tools, embracing ‘innovation’.
(a) Agrobiodiversity and the European Green Deal
Not surprisingly, most of the feedback from NGO’s referred to the need to recognise the value and the many contributions of cultivated agricultural biodiversity in seed, farming and food systems, reflecting those values in the future reform. In the majority of these responses, the European Green Deal and its Farm to Fork strategies were presented as tools towards more sustainability, inclusion, and valuation of agrobiodiversity.
Conversely, another dominant argument put forward relates to the fact that the seed marketing Directives themselves already contribute to the conservation of agrobiodiversity, the EGD and its Strategies, by allowing the marketing of a high number of plant varieties for different farming systems (Euroseeds, BDP, Anove, GNIS). Ensuring diversity through extensification of farming model was even viewed as a risk by the ‘Controlled Environment Agriculture Industry’
(b) Success of the current legal regime
Several industry contributions highlighted that the legislation was fit for purpose (Euroseeds, BDP, Anove), and that the findings of the Commission study were too severe on the detrimental effects of current rules (GNIS, UFS and the Czech national authority). All industry contributions also insisted that the two pillars of the legislation (variety registration and seed lot certification) be maintained in the future reform (CIBE, Copa Cogeca, Polish Seed Trade Association, Euroseeds, BDP, Anove, GNIS/SEMAE, Rijk Zwaan, FNPSMS, Czech Seed Trade Association, Plantum, Bundesverband Saatguterzeuger, French UFS, Raiffeiseinverband, VO-Firmen Bundesverband, Bayerische Saatbauverbände, Deutscher Bauernverband, Hortiadvice). This sentiment was echoed in the contributions of public authorities from the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Germany. All of these contributions cited high seed quality, consumer protection through clear identity, fair competition, international competitivity and trade as important features of the regime that need to be preserved.
On the other hand, most of NGO and research institutes welcomed the main findings of the study which delineated some of the problems created by the legislation well, even when pointing out the shortcomings of the exercise, especially with regards to the evaluation of the legislation’s social and environmental impacts (Dachverband, OBV, IFOAM Organics, Arche Noah, Pro Specie Rara, amongst others).
(c) Scope of the legislation
With regards to the future scope of the legislation, very diverging views were expressed. Several contributions, especially those supporting the Commission’s Option 2, voiced their support for the exclusion of seed conservation networks and the sale to amateur gardeners from the scope of the legislation (ECVC, Arche Noah, RMRM, Maghaz, IFOAM Organics, Rete Semi Rurali, Pro Specie Rara), additionally emphasising that adherence to an association should not be required to benefit from such exception (ECVC, Dachverband, Arche Noah, Peliti). Industry reactions to the proposal are quite different: some accepting the idea, while making sure that knowledge about seeds is conveyed (Dansk Gartneri), others arguing that the distinction between professional and non-professional sectors would be artificial because of existing intricate linkages between the two (GNIS, UFS), others worried about potential abuse and lack of consumer protection (BDP), proposing that only the non-commercial marketing by private end users be outside of the scope (Raiffeiseinverband), or completely rejecting the idea which would lead to the illegal use of possibly low quality seeds (NAK). While German public authorities are open to the idea, albeit in the respect of phytosanitary rules to avoid spread disease into professional sector, the Czech authorities are seemingly very vehemently opposed to any exception of any sector from the scope of the legislation.
Most feedbacks also touched upon the future of seed exchanges between farmers. Many contributions cite the UNDROP (ECVC, ACT Alliance EU, Geneva Academy, Arche Noah, Pro Specie Rara, RMRM, Dachverband, Semailles, Kokopelli, OBV, amongst others) as a baseline to delineate the contours of this regime, where not only exchange but also the sale of seeds should be allowed (Danish Seed Savers), in the framework of ‘mutual aid’ to be defined with the active participation of peasants in the process (ECVC, Geneva Academy). While other feedbacks are alarmed by the risk of two speed regulation for exchanges between farmers (UFS), some industry actors accept and welcome the flexibility allowing seed exchanges between farmers within certain limits to avoid abuse in professional settings (Plantum), or by referring to restrictions in traded quantities (up to 500 kgs in final delivery, Europatat).
(d) Derogatory regimes for market access
Some argued for the design of a new pathway to the market in lieu and place of the current derogations for conservation and amateur varieties, either through the establishment of a diversity varieties regime (Arche Noah, Pro Specie Rara), or a pathway inspired by the model of organic heterogenous material (Kokopelli), maintaining different options to enter the market (Demeter & IFOAM Organics), creating in the end a light touch and relaxed regime for non-industrial varieties (Semailles, Peliti) or small actors (Michèle Perrin-Taillat).
Other contributions proposed changes to the current regime to simplify the registration conservation & amateur varieties, with guarantee minimum information for users (Copa-Cogeca), or making concrete suggestions for the registration of landraces, taking more into account their specificities (Greek Universities). Industry contributions generally underline that currently existing exceptions should be only minorly adjusted not to undermine the well-functioning system (Rijk Zwaan), weaken the innovative power of breeding, and may cause economic damage to farmer because of sale of ‘inferior seeds’ (Bundesverband Saatguterzeuger), or create unfair competition (BDP). Some argue that objective tests should be required even for small cultivars with small market value (Raiffeseinverband).
A lot of differences can also be seen with regards to the adaptation of DUS and VCU protocols for organic varieties, between those voicing their support for such evolution and the continuous adaptation of these protocols in light of the experiment to be carried out in line with the new Organic Regulation (IFOAM Organics, Demeter, Rete Semi Rurali, Maghaz), those rejecting the need of having different protocols to begin with (EU Federation of Maize Production, GNIS/SEMAE, Anove), mostly because current rules have inherent built-in flexibility to accommodate all types of material (Euroseeds) or those criticising the rejection of uniformity for organic farming purposes (Plantum).
(e) Reduction of administrative burden & Delegation of tasks to operators (“Official supervision”)
The reduction of administrative burden by shifting specific tasks and responsibilities to private operators is definitely a key priority for the seed industry. As a result, all their contributions unsurprisingly support the notion of “testing and control under official supervision’, which would delegate certain tasks currently carried out by public authorities to authorised private operators.The notion of having ‘One key several doors’ was also similarly reiterated by several industry contributions, so that the DUS tests for market access also be recognised in procedures for the grant of plant variety protection to decrease costs for operators.
Unsurprisingly, all public authorities also demand the reduction of administrative burden, either through less documentation (Flemish Region), or welcoming the delegation of tasks to official supervision (Naktuinbouw, Arbeitsgemeinschaft). The main worry of these authorities seem to be the potential integration of the seeds marketing legislation into the official controls realm, which they view as potentially reducing existing flexibility and increasing administrative burden, even though they seem to welcome the idea of risk-based controls.
(f) ‘Modernisation’ through bio-molecular techniques and digital tools
Industry feedbacks heavily emphasise the need for operators to have access to the latest technological developments and innovations, referring more openly to biomolecular techniques and hinting at other innovations less bluntly. Some contributions nonetheless highlight the need to maintain a phenotype-based system (ECVC, Demeter, IFOAM Organics, Copa-Cogeca), which would not jeopardise SME’s and that the use of BMTs should remain optional (Semailles, Arche Noah, IFOAM Organics, amongst others).
The worry to see the integration and promotion of new GMO’s in seed marketing rules was highlighted by many NGO’s, asking for transparency of the breeding methods to be available to the public, while most industry contributions refrained from directly citing ‘new breeding techniques’ in their feedback, but rather emphasising on the need to take into account innovation and technological developments (Euroseeds, Polish Seed Trade Association). Unhidden support for the integration of so-called new breeding techniques came from the compound feed industry, asking for alignment with new regulatory tools to come, and from a Danish SME, calling for integration.
Next steps
The Commission’s DG SANTE Plant Health Unit has contracted an external consultancy to carry out the formal Impact Assessment work, for which upstream work has begun. Another more detailed public consultation is foreseen from November 2021 until February 2022, with the aim of tabling a proposal by the end of 2022.
Contact us at info@liberatediversity.org.
