Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements

[ChrisB]

Am I reading this correctly - that despite an overwhelming vote against the legislation they plan to go ahead anyway?  How can that happen?  Maybe I've misunderstood...

[Maggi Young]

Yes, I think that is correct , Christine - that's how I understood it too -  that's bureaucracy for you......

[Tim Ingram]

I wonder what the great French philosopher and rather clever man, Voltaire, would have thought of this... At some point complexity collapses back to simplicity - will this happen? It seems to me that human affairs work on the smaller scale with accommodation between different sets of values and some degree of good will, and commerce works by individual contacts and negotiation rather than constant reference to small print. But then gardeners have little impact on the world. I'm not sure there are sufficient number of lawyers to institute such bureaucracy and whether the result of it would correspond to the vision of those relatively few people who have drawn it up. The truth surely is that placing a value on plants and informing people about them, just what specialist societies like the SRGC do, and specialist nurseries do (which presumably also has wider environmental implications too), is the very thing that is necessary - rather than actually inhibiting this. There has to be a pressure valve rather than a piling on of the pressure.

[ChrisB]

This is absolutely crazy.  We're all going to end up in jail then.  I'm not going to stop buying plants just because some official in another country hasn't got it listed on some stupid database.  And I hope nurseries will also ignore it so I can buy the plants I want.  Common sense will have to prevail surely?

[David Nicholson]

Is there any wonder why the campaign in the UK to leave the EU continually gathers momentum?  How can any democracy allow an entirely un-elected body (ie The Commission) to make legislation. Propose it, yes but actually make it-No?

[Tim Ingram]

I don't think we are likely to end up in jail - life will just become a lot more boring and nondescript and some of the heart will be taken out of it. Realistically I don't believe anything will change much for knowledgeable gardeners like those in the SRGC because we will carry on exchanging and selling plants to each other regardless of any EU regulations. There would be little point restricting our activities and you never know some lawyers may also be gardeners?

[ChrisB]

I love your optimistic approach Tim!  But someone somewhere has got to breathe some sense into this ridiculous legislation.  It doesn't just affect us it's the whole of Europe and that has got to be a lot of gardeners and nurseries.

[Tim Ingram]

Chris - don't you think that smaller 'society' (and societies) arise through personal shared values and beliefs. I'm not sure I'm particularly optimistic; it is more a case of viewing what will actually 'work'. There is such a thing as civil disobedience even for a gentle group of people such as gardeners, and law really works retrospectively - it looks to situations in the past and learns from those and tries to use them to avert situations in the future. But we all know the future is uncertain and so it can't be ruled by law. There is such a thing as best practice but you can't force that onto people because we don't all agree what this is. If I lose my personal freedom to grow and try and sell plants then the law becomes an ass. For other people my personal freedom is of no particular relevance - hence why I get so much stimulation from this Forum and the SRGC and many of the people on it. On the other hand I regard the divisions that occur between plantspeople as ludicrous, and these EU proposed regulations do seem to show that our different plant societies often bicker between each other rather than discovering our common interests. Only here does this seem to be discussed, which I find quite impressive.

[Maggi Young]

More on the Proposed plant reproductive material laws voted down by European Parliament - from HortWeek

"The European Commission's proposal for plant reproductive material law was voted down by the European Parliament on 10 March, amid concerns that it would give the Commission too much power and leave EU countries without any leeway to tailor the new rules to their needs.

Following the Commission’s refusal to withdraw its draft text and table an improved one, Parliament closed the first reading.

The Commission's draft text was rejected by 650 votes to 15." Matthew Appleby Tuesday, 11 March 2014

Article continues :
Agriculture committee chair Paolo De Castro said: "Today's vote shows the depth of Parliament's dissatisfaction with the Commission's proposal, which failed to meets its core objectives such as simplifying the rules and promoting innovation. It also prompted many concerns among MEPs, for instance about merging 12 directives into a single directly-applicable regulation with no leeway for member states to tailor new rules to their needs."

Rapporteur Sergio Paolo Francesco Silverstris said: "As MEPs, who co-legislate with the Council, we want to take our full responsibility for this legislation. For this reason we cannot decide in a hasty manner on this proposal, which is crucial for many growers’ associations, companies and citizens. The high number of ‘delegated acts’ would give Commission excessively wide powers over certain issues in areas which, due to their sensitivity, should be defined in the legal text.

"We therefore regret that Commission has declined to withdraw this widely-disputed text and come up with a better one. It is clear that the draft new rules must be redesigned to better respect different situations in different member states and bring about real improvements for all producers, consumers and the environment. We hope member states will be strong enough to follow Parliament's position and reject this unsatisfactory proposal."

Since the Commission refused to withdraw its proposal after Parliament rejected it, MEPs finalised the first reading and sent their position to the Council.

If the Council supports Parliament's rejection, then the legislation process will end.

Alternatively, the Council could amend the original Commission's proposal. If it does so, then Parliament could either reject the Council's amendments at the second reading - and thus kill the legislative proposal for good - or it could start negotiations with the Council on the final wording of the new seed legislation.

http://www.hortweek.com/news/1284636/Proposed-plant-reproductive-material-laws-voted-down-European-Parliament/

[Matt T]

So it sounds as though the likely outcomes are that the Council rejects it and it's dead in the water or the send it back with amendments and it's redrafted? Let's hope so at least.

I agree with Tim, as it stands this legislation would be unenforceable. What nation state has the resources (or indeed the desire) to check up on and 'police' every exchange of plant material? A simple exemption is all that is required for home-collected seed, exchanges run by specialist societies, ex-situ conservation projects etc. as well as some small-scale, specialised farming activities.

Out here, the Uists are the last place where arable cropping on the machair takes place at any significant scale and it's a great example of "High Nature Value" farming. There are lots of specialised aspects to this - low inputs/organic, crop:fallow rotation, traditional harvesting (and corn stacks) etc. but I believe most important of all is the seed they use. It's a mixed cereal crop based on a high proportion the non-commercial small oat (Avena strigosa). This plant has become adapted to these conditions over a very long time. Not many other cereals will grow in our nutrient poor soils and extreme weather conditions. The seed is saved by crofters, with many saving their own from year to year (and for generations in many cases). Seed is 'traded' on a small scale within the islands and I'd guess rarely at a profit. You can't buy it on the agricultural seed market as it is of little commercial interest (although I believe it is used on a small scale to 'clean' bulb fields because it has nematode suppressant properties). It is so variable that it is likely each crofter is growing a slightly different 'strain'. This means there is great diversity in the mixtures grown, which increases the biodiversity on the machair and increased genetic diversity in the cereals themselves, which will help face future challenges such as climate change. It also means that each crofter might have To register each strain. Crofting is an extremely marginal activity as it is, part-time and subsistence level farming. Regulating the seed they depend upon would be a nail in the coffin. There are similar farming systems in other European countries that could likewise be affected.

Common sense must prevail, for the good of some of our last examples of traditional, wildlife-friendly farming as well as seed exchanges like ours.

[David Nicholson]

Common sense must prevail...............................................................

A quality that seems sadly lacking amongst the EU 'powers that be'

[Matt T]

A quality that seems sadly lacking amongst the EU 'powers that be'

Agreed David. It's a sick irony that the cropped machair is protected under a number of European designations as some of the finest habitats in all of the continent, but Europe itself is threatening its very survival, because it's richness is dependant upon the crofters' small-scale farming activity.

[Hillview croconut]

Hi,

If I may join in the conversation again. My understanding of representative democracy is that the people express their opinions, feelings, hopes, etc through individuals (parties these days) who put themselves forward as candidates through a process of election. Those elected sit in a Parliament on our behalf and propose, consider and pass legislation which becomes law. The Public Service, as the name implies, serves that process. Of course Sir  Humhrey Appleby might have had different ideas but even he would have recognised the limits of his ambitions given  the Westminster conventions. Can I ask what sort of animal have you Europeans created when the entire process looks to be overturned by an unelected cadre who stamp their feet and won't't take no for an  answer. Tail wagging the dog methinks? Hasn't the parliament got the right to tell these people to stick their proposed legislation up their . .. jumper?

[Hillview croconut]

PS Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that no matter how much huffing and puffing the Commission does, unless the Parliament passes the proposed bill it can't become law?

If thats the case then get your pens out again! The pollies have got to keep on feeling the hot breath of electoral fury on their necks ... just to strengthen their resolve. M

[Maggi Young]

Quoting again from HortWeek.com on 21st March:

Plant reproductive material concerns persist
Friday, 21 March 2014

Campaigners have expressed concern after the European Commission's proposal for plant reproductive material law was voted down by the European Parliament on 10 March.

There were concerns that it would give the commission too much power and leave EU countries without any leeway to tailor the new rules to their needs. Following the commission's refusal to withdraw its draft text and table an improved one, Parliament closed the first reading. The draft text was rejected by 650 votes to 15.

NFU horticultural adviser Chris Hatfield said: "This is a huge mess and the worst of all possible outcomes. Not only do we have no changes made by MEPs, going forward the second reading is always much harder to influence. The second reading will start on the basis of the council position and MEPs will have much less opportunity to put forward amendments.

"Industry success going forward will be more dependent on getting support from member state representatives, which is fine if everyone agrees on an issue. But if there is any difference in opinion of stakeholders, we know the member state position tends to only reflect the most common position."

Plants for Europe owner Graham Spencer said: "It seems not to be the best outcome. By finalising the first reading, Parliament has said 'this is too hard for us to put right', whereas pushing for the amendments that the stakeholders suggested and were proposed by MEPs could have changed the regulation into something the industry could work with.

"Consequently, the commission could push through its text unless council kills it, which seems unlikely, and we would end up with a regulation that includes most if not all of the issues that worried us in the first instance."

Binsted Nursery director Martin Emmett said: "The analysis is correct. This topic has now gone into EU constitutional deep water. I am seeking further guidance."

Campaigners have said PRM could cost nurseries thousands because it would require more work registering and describing plants.

Plant Heritage plant conservation officer Mercy Morris said: "It's impossible to predict what will happen next. It would be very disappointing to have the opinions of our elected representatives ignored. I urge everyone to maintain the cooperation between different areas of UK horticulture that has served us well so far, and be vigilant for developments."