Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum

General Subjects => Flowers and Foliage Now => Topic started by: Maggi Young on August 21, 2013, 04:18:09 PM

Title: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on August 21, 2013, 04:18:09 PM

Do we feel strongly about keeping plants growing and flowering?

Australian growers will be aware of continuing regulations being imposed on the importation of seed etc.  Now Western Australia is proposing yet another layer of regulation - and cost -  on gardeners, amateur and professional alike.

As Marcus Harvey of Tasmania says:
"Some people get terribly troubled by conflict but  this is a very important issue for all Australian gardeners. And it does have a sting in the tail for overseas specialist organizations like the SRGC. From now on any WA members must pay the Western Australian government $56 to receive their seeds DESPITE them already being inspected and cleared at the Federal level."
 
This is an article by Marcus  online:
http://gardendrum.com/2013/08/21/western-australias-new-plant-import-fees/ (http://gardendrum.com/2013/08/21/western-australias-new-plant-import-fees/)

Further notes from Marcus:

The decision to charge home gardeners – Western Australia- Marcus Harvey

The decision to charge home gardeners $56, for what in the most part are simple
inspections, is short-sighted and monumentally unfair to home gardeners because it
effectively prices them out of the import process. I have set out detailed reasons why this is
a bad decision and why it needs to be reversed.

Massive Price Hike on Gardeners
This fee charge leaps from zero to $56 with immediate effect, with no warning and no
gradual introduction. This is massive slug (a 500% increase) on those who have no choice but to use the system. By point of comparison NO other state imposes a similar inspection fee on home gardeners. Even the Federal agency (DAFF),which has the central and far more
complex task of defending Australia's national borders, charges less for the same block of
inspection time.

Fails to discriminate between Amateur Gardeners and Professional Horticulturalists
This fee applies equally to both amateur gardeners pursuing a hobby and professional
horticulturalists who are businessman. This is a grossly unfair situation. Professional
horticulturists can achieve economies of scale by importing large volumes thus reducing the
impact of the fee and they can also claim such costs as a tax deduction. The home gardener
(whose purchases in most cases would not even exceed $56) can do neither and is left facing a very disproportionate impact.

Unreasonable Fees Will Undermine Biosecurity
An "onside" gardening public is a powerful force for good in maintaining strong biosecurity.
However when fees are perceived as unfair and unreasonable civil disobedience will
inevitably follow resulting in increased illegal importations. Such activities will undermine
the State's biosecurity not improve it. This is a perverse and counterproductive outcome for
a fee increase that, to quote the department, "is essential to protect Western Australia's
borders".

Most of the hard work has been done already
All plants imported into WA arise either from quality assurance schemes or have passed
through quarantine protocols that the State proscribes. These processes were established to
achieve efficiencies and high standard biosecurity outcomes. They are paid for by the
exporters and the biosecurity agencies in those exporting states. It is therefore staggering
that the WA's Department of Agriculture and Food, which it already greatly benefits from
this arrangement, seeks to extract a further massive fee from a system to which it
contributes no additional services.

Tax on Gardening is an Attack on Positive Community Values
Gardening is widely regarded as a social good. It is strongly correlated with positive health
outcomes, community engagement and pro-environmental behavior. This recent price slug
on gardeners is in effect a tax on positive community values and diminishes a powerful force
for social good.

Unjustifiable Interference in the Free Market

Massive fee increases inevitably lead to price rises and a reduction in the range of products
on offer to the market. Smaller specialists are forced out, consumers are compelled to
purchase from a limited range of suppliers and oligopolistic behaviour is favoured. In this
scenario gardeners and the gardening market in WA are unjustifiably worse off when
compared with any other Australian state and this raises the question of undue interference
on free trade.

Narrow Focus leads to Poor Outcomes
This recent fee increase is at best, either a fund-raising exercise, or at worst, a "backdoor"
deterrent. Whatever it is it appears have little to do with simple cost recovery. Perhaps if the department was more adequately funded then it would be less focused on itself and be
more proactive in producing good policy outcomes for all of the stakeholders and not just
the chosen few? Perhaps if it actively sought more internal efficiencies it would not have to
gouge its clients? For example, what about abandoning the WA approved list, which is
extraordinarily inefficient, and opt for the ready-made federally funded system with a locally determined prohibited list (as all the other states do)?

Biosecurity benefits EVERYONE and Gardeners should not be asked to pay a
Disproportionate Price

Biosecurity benefits EVERYONE and the gardening community should not be made pay a
disproportionate price to continue to pursue their interests. Their activities are miniscule in
comparison to other stakeholders, like for example, agribusiness and large-scale horticulture. I have heard that the department is entering into special arrangements with
exporters in other states to reduce the impact. This is just another dreadful example of cost
shifting onto a group who already pay most of the present costs associated with export to
your state. These are bad decisions because they are highly unfair and inequitable. West
Australian gardeners and the garden community should not be treated as cash cows. Nor
should their right to fair treatment be completely ignored and as such be delegitimized.

--------------------------

As another Australian member says :

It may not be affecting you directly at this stage but if it goes un-protested there it could easily be adopted by other states which would spell the end of bringing seeds into Australia, which could also affect groups which have seed exchanges such as the AGS, SRGC, NZAGS and NARGS.

It has been suggested that an online petition could be started by the Aussies to protest this and letters written to Australian  parliamentary representatives.

These measures, and others like them around the world, will seriously impact the legitimate exchange of garden seed between gardeners around the world - be aware of what regulations may be being mooted in YOUR area, and organisations like ours will be  the poorer for them.


Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on August 21, 2013, 04:36:38 PM
The European Union  is working on regulations that, while allowing some limited leeway for amateur gardeners, might still end up having a draconian effect on the likes of our Seed Exchanges.
The proposals from this Spring(all 147 pages of them!) are shown here :
 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/docs/proposal_aphp_en.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/docs/proposal_aphp_en.pdf) 

There's a more simple explanation here : http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw.html (http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw.html)   and here :
http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds_european_commission_registration.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds_european_commission_registration.html)


A petition, such as has been suggested for the Western Australia situation,  has been raised for the EU  :
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/We_dont_accept_this_Let_us_keep_our_seeds_EU (http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/We_dont_accept_this_Let_us_keep_our_seeds_EU)

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: arillady on August 21, 2013, 11:12:15 PM
I have just posted a link to this thread on facebook where it will certainly reach more people. I hope this helps more than it might bring scammers out.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Neil on August 21, 2013, 11:22:59 PM
All it will mean is it will go underground,
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on August 22, 2013, 11:00:01 AM
Quote
All it will mean is it will go underground


That is one of the daft things about these draconian regulations made  with no regards to legitimate things like the organised seed exchanges - organisations like SRGC, AGS, NZAGS, NARGS and so on will be closed down and some people will  move to "underground" attempts and end up as law breakers.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on August 22, 2013, 01:01:43 PM
Hi Maggi,

I recently read a piece in The Garden about this crazy scheme for disallowing seeds that weren't registered.

This is yet another example of the point I was trying to make in my article: there is a massive disconnect between what gardeners do and what governments and business do. And it is becoming increasingly apparent to anyone watching these things that gardeners are not considered legitimate stakeholders and are becoming increasingly marginalized. Some of this is because we are not organized around a common goal of  optimizing our self interest or defending it. As a result our interests, our activities and our opinions are "below the radar" to those who have other powerful agendas.

Cheers, Marcus

PS Sadly us gardeners run a very poor second to more sharply focused groups like organic farming and permaculture.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on August 22, 2013, 01:13:50 PM
I will add one final observation. One powerful reason why this situation has arisen is because "the market" determines all. All of us are now regarded as passive consumers rather than active participants. If you don't have a business number or a lobby group you don't have a right. I'll stick my neck out here and venture to suggest that's why many people in the UK feel disappointed in the EU and want their government to leave.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: John Kitt on August 23, 2013, 12:40:47 AM
This certainly seems like a genuine issue that Garden Clubs of Australia might take up on behalf of its 800 odd Garden Clubs and probably more than 30,000 members.  It seems to me that they do little more than arrange Club Insurance and publish a magazine.  If there are other GCA members reading this Forum, the Secretary is John Graham  (galstongardens@gmail.com)
I'll send you a separate email over the weekend Marcus re this.

John
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on August 23, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
These two papers are related to the main subject of the thread

Plant Hunting.
The text of a talk on the legal restrictions on plant hunting given by Michael Wickenden at the Museum of Garden History, Lambeth, London on 1st October 2012. ( Download as a pdf)

The Nurseryman as Plant-Hunter (http://www.callygardens.co.uk/The-Nurseryman-as-Plant-Hunter.pdf)

Plant Breeders Rights (http://www.callygardens.co.uk/Plant_Breeders_Rights.pdf)

Michael Wickenden is to be  featured in 'Gardener's World' BBC TV programme 23/08/13
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: John Kitt on October 24, 2013, 01:26:02 AM
 Maggie,
Your post on this issue and in particular the issue of Plant Breeders Rights rang some warning bells for me and I have done just a little research. (I don't want this to be a long diatribe).  In Australia, and I guess in other countries, there is Plant Breeders Rights legislation that protects the intellectual property of breeders (good thing). It also prohibits unlawful sale of these plants for profit.  My concern is that Garden Clubs all over Australia, mine included, operate a "trade table" at meetings and members donate plants etc  for sale.  I don't know whether I am drawing a long bow, but if we sell a plant (potted-on from a cutting by a member) to another member and that plant is covered by Plant Breeders Rights, are the "directors" of the Garden Club liable? Have other Garden Clubs to which forum members belong, faced this issue?  Does this situation imply that we have to identify every plant, seed, bulb and satisfy ourselves that they are not covered by Plant Breeders Right before we can sell them to our members?  HELP!!

John
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: fermi de Sousa on October 24, 2013, 08:16:23 AM
Hi John,
I've always understood that a plant covered by PBR is not to be propagated for sale without the correct plant label/tag and therefore the "royalty" paid! You can propagate such plants for your own use but not for on-selling (you're not even supposed to give them away). If someone finds you selling such material you can be prosecuted! At FCHS all plants are checked for this sort of thing - we couldn't sell Geranium 'Rozanne' for that reason.
Plants grown from seed aren't covered as far as I know.
Perhaps a nurseryperson who has experience of these matters might make a comment?
cheers
fermi
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on October 24, 2013, 09:53:13 AM
I think you'll find comments about PBR elsewhere in the Forum - sorry, I no time at the moment to  make the search. If I remember correctly:   it is possible to  propagate and sell what you like- but you CAN NOT call it by the registered, official name, protected by PBR.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: fermi de Sousa on October 24, 2013, 11:43:53 AM
The most ridiculous thing I heard about was friends who imported a plant but later someone else also imported it and got the PBR on it so my friends couldn't legally sell the plant!
cheers
fermi
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: John Kitt on October 24, 2013, 10:25:13 PM
Hi Fermi,
There seems to be a great number of "urban myths" surrounding PBR and my reading of Michael Wickenden's paper  (see Maggie's post above) would indicate that the situation in the UK is similar to that in Australia.  I suspect that people don't read the Act. (In Australia, Plant Breeders Rights Act 1994). Some misconceptions include, seeds are covered by the Act; you can propagate for private use but not for commercial sale; can give away but not swap (barter).
My primary concern is the possibility of prosecution of my garden club if we include donated material on our trade tale for sale to members.  Let me give you an example. At this time of year, a member brings along a number of tomato seedlings for sale on the table.  I have no way of knowing whether these are seedlings of a variety covered by PBR (The PBR data base shows pictures of the tomato, not the plant or the seeds)  As a "director" of the Club, am I "excused" under the Innocent Infringement provisions of the Act?

I'd be interested in knowing more about your procedures in your club to avoid this potential problem.  Maybe you might send me a PM.

Regards
John
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 23, 2013, 09:15:51 PM
Hi,
I hope I am not going to ruffle too many feathers with what I am about to say but I just HAVE to say it!

As I understand it the European Commission is about to vote on the regulation of the sale and marketing of All ornamental plants currently being held in nurseries, national collections, botanic gardens, etc.

Also as I understand it the EU is about to decide whether to make it illegal to grow, swap or trade All plant seeds.

These decisions are being taken next month and they are being opposed by many organizations, including the Plant Heritage Society, the RHS, and the British Horticultural Trades Association, just to name a few. These decisions will probably see the end of the specialist plant trade, the loss of cultural heritage, plant diversity and organizations like the SRGC.

The only comments I have seen on this matter here, apart from Maggi's, and one other, are from non-EU members ..... Huh!?

Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 23, 2013, 09:29:27 PM
Hi,

I need to amend the second point. It will be illegal to grow, swap or trade plant seeds that are not registered with the Commission.

If I am wrong please someone enlighten me.

Could ANYONE enlighten me as to why this isn't the most shriekingly hot topic on the Forum? Could anyone enlighten me as to why I wouldn't be right to believe that this will mark the end of the SRGC seed exchange?

Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on November 23, 2013, 09:45:13 PM
Surely the whole point of laws are that you agree with them or challenge them. They work at the level of the individual. In Tasmania when there were proposals to dam the Franklin River people simply wrote 'No Dams' on their voting papers. In a free world I imagine one can collect seed in one's own garden, exchange them with like minded people, and grow plants and endeavour to sell them. What point would there be in making this illegal?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: maggiepie on November 23, 2013, 10:27:59 PM


Could ANYONE enlighten me as to why this isn't the most shriekingly hot topic on the Forum? Could anyone enlighten me as to why I wouldn't be right to believe that this will mark the end of the SRGC seed exchange?

Marcus

I certainly can't.
It occurs to me that if these laws pass then the only way to get seeds would be from the big seed companies ?
I can't even wrap my mind around how even the idea of these new laws came about.
I guess the 'who stands to gain' rule applies here.

 :'(

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 23, 2013, 10:59:17 PM
Hi again,

I am looking at this from afar so I don't have all the facts.

Tim I think the intention of the regulations and the outcomes they produce are two different things. The scope and definitions in the currently proposed regulations need to be amended so that unintended damage does not result.
There needs to be a rethink about the range of stakeholders affected and what are the consequences.

At present I can't tell if you, for instance, will be able to commercially trade a cultivar of say a geranium that you have bred without first registering the name and description with the EC. This apparently will cost you around 500 pounds. If you don't do this you and you sell it commercially you will be liable for prosecution. Even more absurd, you may be liable for selling a variety, say, Geranium Johnstons Blue, that's commonly been in the trade for Yonks if somebody hasn't submitted a registered description.
Likewise if the SRGC lists Cyclamen coum Maurice Dryden on its seed exchange or Geranium sanguineum Cedric Morris, or even Nomocharis x finlayorum .... is it liable for prosecution?

From my reading I am not even sure if pure species are exempt .... ANYONE any ideas?

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Garden Prince on November 24, 2013, 07:30:57 AM
Could ANYONE enlighten me as to why this isn't the most shriekingly hot topic on the Forum? Could anyone enlighten me as to why I wouldn't be right to believe that this will mark the end of the SRGC seed exchange?

There has been opposition to the proposed new seed regulations of the EU in many countries. See for example:

http://www.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/ (http://www.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/)

But there are many more, a lot written in the language of the country itself.

The opposition has been mainly concerned with seeds of commercial foodcrops. I think this is because the big corporations (like Monsato) that are in favor of the proposed new legislation are mainly active in this field.

I think many people do not realize what the possible  implications of the proposed new legislation can be for ornamental gardening.

The Dutch parliament approved a motion against the new seed regulation in May 2013.

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 24, 2013, 08:39:00 AM
Hi,

thanks for the information.  I too have seen much opposition to these proposed regulatory changes but does anyone know how the UK members of these committees are feeling about this? Do they care?  If not why not?  Has anyone contacted any of the committee members an expressed an opinion?  Has the SRGC officialy approached these committees and made a formal submission?  A list of committee members is published on the Plant Heritage Society as well as a draft letter that interested people can use to register their opposition.

Cheers,  Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Garden Prince on November 24, 2013, 10:25:19 AM
I have looked into this topic somewhat further.

In late October 2013 the amendments to the new EU seed laws were published. You can find them at this link:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-514.766+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-514.766+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN)

As I read these amendments (not for the faint hearted, 55 pages of tawdry jargon) seed exchanges like those of the SRGC are allowed under the ammended rules (because non-commercial).  What this exactly means for small scale commercial seed sellers of ornamental plants is  not quite clear to me. Maybe a lawyer should look into this. My gut feeling says that it will be allowed to sell seeds of plants that are not protected by Plant Breeders' Rights. But I could of course be wrong.

The European Seed Association (ESA),  which represents the big commercial firms like Monsanto and Syngenta, is against the amendments.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Margaret on November 24, 2013, 10:55:54 AM
Oh dear, only just read this thread. The standard letter of objection on the Plant Heritage site (attached) does not fit SRGC members very well. I started to amend it but find I don't know enough about the Clubs activities (shame on me!)  If anyone thinks it is a good idea to send please could they help with the necessary amendments. Draft below

pilar.ayuso@europarl.europa.eu, martina.anderson@europarl.europa.eu, martin.callanan@europarl.europa.eu, chris@chrisdaviesmep.org.uk, jill.evans@europarl.europa.eu, nick.griffin@europarl.europa.eu, linda.mcavan@europarl.europa.eu, paul.nuttall@europarl.europa.eu, glenis.willmott@europarl.europa.eu, marina.yannakoudakis@europarl.europa.eu, godfrey.bloom@europarl.europa.eu, vicky.ford@europarl.europa.eu, jacqueline.foster@europarl.europa.eu, julie.girling@europarl.europa.eu, james.nicholson@europarl.europa.eu, struan.stevenson@europarl.europa.eu, rebecca.taylor@europarl.europa.eu, sergio.silvestris@europarl.europa.eu, johnstuart.agnew@europarl.europa.eu, diane.dodds@europarl.europa.eu, julie.girling@europarl.europa.eu, george.lyon@europarl.europa.eu, james.nicholson@europarl.europa.eu, alyn.smith@europarl.europa.eu, richard.ashworth@europarl.europa.eu, john.bufton@europarl.europa.eu, jill.evans@europarl.europa.eu, anthea.mcintyre@europarl.europa.eu, brian.simpson@europarl.europa.eu, 

 
Re: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL On the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law)
/* COM/2013/0262 final - 2013/0137 (COD) */
 
 
Dear Member
 
I am writing as a member of the Scottish Rock Gardening Club, a charitable organisation that has for the last 80 years worked to conserve the biodiversity of plants in cultivation in the UK.
 
As you are aware the European Commission is looking to combine 12 existing EU directives on the production and marketing of plant reproductive material (which includes everything from seeds to young plants) into a single simpler regulation: The Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law) (COM(2013) 262 final).
 
It has been stated that there is no intention to introduce tighter rules for ornamentals. However, industry representatives have identified that the worst-case scenario for the current proposed regulation could prove devastating for nurseries and growers. A new requirement that any plant marketed as a cultivar or variety needs to have an ‘officially recognised description’ has been proposed and the concern is that the vast costs of developing, maintaining and monitoring these officially recognised descriptions for the estimated 75,000+ ornamental plant varieties currently on sale in the UK would prove impossible to meet. The Royal Horticultural Society Plant Finder lists over around 52,000 plant cultivars marketed solely in the UK; of these around 2,000 cultivars already have an official description that conforms to the requirements. The RHS Plant Finder does not include non-terrestrial orchids, cacti or annual and seed cultivars.  There are, at a conservative estimate, more than 75,000 ornamental plant taxa for sale in the UK. The result of imposing this requirement for an officially recognised description would potentially be a massive reduction in the number of cultivars grown for sale in the UK.
 
Many of the 12 existing directives covering the marketing of seed and propagating material contain listed genera and species to which more rigorous requirements apply. These listed genera and species, are carried across into Annex 1 of the current Commission proposal. There is no indication that Annex 1 taxa will be considered solely under the use under which they were originally listed (for example Castanea as a forest tree, rather than an ornamental or a food plant), so it appears possible that the more rigorous application will be followed for all uses.
 
 The current proposal makes the rules with respect to ornamental plant material significantly more onerous than the previous directive, as it removes the options to market varieties that are 'commonly known', or entered with a detailed description on a supplier list (catalogue). Instead, the minimum requirement under the proposed regulation would be to list an officially recognised description onto a public or private list.  This is neither proportionate, nor sustainable for an industry which is already under great financial pressure. It is likely to result in a dramatic cut in the number of cultivars available to gardeners, and thus create a loss of biodiversity. Precisely what the UK has agreed to prevent under the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: (http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/)).
 
In addition to concerns about the wider horticultural industry as noted above, relating more narrowly to cultivated plant conservation, we have the following worries: It is stated in the proposals that the regulations do not apply to ‘material intended to be or maintained in gene banks organisations and networks of ex-situ and in-situ or on-farm conservation of genetic resources’. However it appears that ‘professional operators’ (defined as ‘any natural or legal person carrying out as a profession at least one of the following activities with regard to the plant reproductive material a) producing, b) breeding, c) maintaining, d) providing services, e) preserving, including storing, f) making available on the market) are all subject to the legislation.
It seems from our perspective that an assumption has been made that the only bodies that carry out conservation work are organisations like botanic gardens or networks developed purely for that purpose.
 
An organisation like the Scottish Rock Gardening Club which has worldwide membership and encompasses some smaller commercial operators  has not been considered. However it is unlikely that the conservation of cultivars would be possible on such a scale if it were not for some form of commercial involvement; after all in many cases that is why they were created in the first place.
 
We are therefore very concerned that the changes will affect the profitability of horticulture, if not the existence of the ornamental plant trade in its current form; and in addition not protect those in the industry who are conserving plants; thus meaning that conservation of plants becomes the preserve of only botanic gardens and individuals with no commercial involvement, and the concomitant loss of biodiversity that this would cause.
 
Yours sincerely

Margaret Turner


 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 24, 2013, 11:09:27 AM
The whole idea of having to register with the EC seeds of plants that you or I want to grow is a ludicrous proposition.  It should be restricted to crops and farmers and not rolled out to include ornamentals. If anyone has taken the time to read Michael Wickenden's piece on PBR you will see the same backsliding MO. Who wants this?  Anyone apart from the big end of town and the bureaucrats in Brussels?  I haven't heard a good word for it bit somehow inexorably it rolls on.

If anyone has the time read the latest blog post from Noel Kingsbury and his piece in the Telegraph and you will get a fairly dismal picture as to where all this is going.

Thanks for the link - will take a look.

Cheers,  M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 24, 2013, 11:31:48 AM
Dear Margaret,

Garden Prince has pointed to recent amendments that exclude organizations like the SRGC from the general thrust of the regulations pertaining to seed exchange so there is probably no need to tailor your own letter of complaint in this regard.

However the more pressing issue is the support of small specialist nurseries who will be gobbled up by the insane registration requirements for plant varieties.  If this is allowed to go ahead not only will the UK lose many of these types of businesses but it will lose a great chunk of its garden heritage because many heirloom varieties are kept in existence by small commercial enterprises.  Diversity will be lost as well as the "engine room" of new plant varieties, that is small small scale horticulture,  will be lost to cold hand of bureaucratic interference.

Cheers,  Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Margaret on November 24, 2013, 12:12:29 PM

Thank you, Marcus. I will just sent a personal email from an avid plant collector.  These guys are going to have bulging in boxes! ;D
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on November 24, 2013, 01:17:18 PM


If anyone has the time read the latest blog post from Noel Kingsbury and his piece in the Telegraph and you will get a fairly dismal picture as to where all this is going.


http://noels-garden.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://noels-garden.blogspot.co.uk/)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/plants/10463535/Save-our-small-nurseries-from-the-European- (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/plants/10463535/Save-our-small-nurseries-from-the-European-)
Commission.html

http://www.nccpg.com/News/Plant-Heritage-Urges-Urgent-Action-over-European-C.aspx (http://www.nccpg.com/News/Plant-Heritage-Urges-Urgent-Action-over-European-C.aspx)

http://www.nccpg.com/News/EU-regulation-on-Plant-Reproductive-Materials.aspx (http://www.nccpg.com/News/EU-regulation-on-Plant-Reproductive-Materials.aspx)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10311033/European-Commission-proposal-will-see-plants-disappear-from-garden-centres.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10311033/European-Commission-proposal-will-see-plants-disappear-from-garden-centres.html)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/10313512/European-Commission-threat-to-our-plants.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/10313512/European-Commission-threat-to-our-plants.html)


Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on November 24, 2013, 01:22:08 PM
People I have spoken too describe this proposed legislation as a "thin end of the wedge"  - I fear they may be right. While it is hopeful that organisations such as SRGC.  VRV, NRV, AGS and so on would be exempt from such regulations- if little or  no feedback is received from us then it will be easier for those in favour of thes measures to spread their net wider. 
Why would that happen ? Simply because it can.
Could protests make a difference?
Yes, we have seen success in other campaigns- but for people to rally to a cause they first need to know it exists!
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on November 24, 2013, 03:28:42 PM
Photo of the note from the November copy of RHS  The Garden:
[attachimg=1]

http://tinyurl.com/cdnd2kc (http://tinyurl.com/cdnd2kc) - this is the link to the original 147 page paper

 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-514.766+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-514.766+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN)    this is the link to the 28th October  55 page  draft report on the paper
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on November 24, 2013, 06:49:02 PM
This proposed legislation filtered down to our Kent HPS AGM today and whilst Noel Kingsbury is probably right that many small scale nurseries and individuals will remain under the radar, and Coen Jansen that 'you don't eat the soup whilst it is hot', there seems an attack on free will in the divide between big business and the smaller scale. In many European countries agriculture and horticulture retains some of its smaller scale roots that you see in mixed farms and local produce - some may feel this is valuable to retain. A garden/specialist nursery is a resource like any other, but inevitably not on the scale of farms and much larger commercial nurseries, so is impossible to treat in the same way. It seems highly likely that mistakes in names (whether accidental or deliberate) will remain just as much as they do now simply due to the general cussedness that results from regulations! Hopefully some reason will prevail.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 25, 2013, 06:44:33 AM
The simplest solution to the registration problem is to have ornamentals exempt from the process. After all is just not sufficiently jusifiable to have such an expensive system in place to ensure product  reliability. Sure I can understand the need for quality control and certification for food or fibre crops but not for ornamentals. We all have had the experience of feeling a bit cheated if we receive a different plant to the one we ordered but I am sure we would opt for this occasional blunder than a grossly over-regulated world where many of our old favorites just disappear (because lack of large-scale demand causes them to be dropped from the big boys' catalogues) and the only new varieties will be those mass-produced for the garden centre market, a la Hellebore Anna's Red and Penny's Pink (gratingly ghastly names for simpletons or the Simpsons - sorry my snobery is showing!).

That probably won't happen because of bureaucratic vested interest and the propensity of the big end of town to grab an opportunity no matter how our wiser it comes from.  At least EU members can try and, as they say,  save the furniture, by demanding, pleading, begging the committee members to apply the eminently sensible commonly know criteria.

So come on you guys in Europe do it for all of us!  Send in a letter.  Make your thoughts known.  Demand reasonable, sane regulations that work for everyone. Maggi has said people can't rally if they are unaware of the cause. I will add policy makers won't react to stakeholder pressure if they have no idea that group exists nor anything of their concerns.

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 25, 2013, 06:56:13 AM
 Postscript: for those who don't have the time to follow all the ins and outs of this, " commonly known" criteria could be applied to all those many thousands of plants that are well known in the trade and should require no further registration description than "Commonly known". Ditto plants already on existing registration lists like the registers of lily cultivars, daffodils, tulips, etc.

M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Margaret on November 25, 2013, 07:13:42 PM

Hi Marcus

Your efforts were not in vane with me anyway. I emailed yesterday and got the reply below today ;D.  Since she invites further correspondence I would be happy to put any other comment (within reason!!) you would like to make to her.

Come on everyone contact your MEP!

 Dear Ms. Turner, 
Thank you for your email regarding the Plant Reproductive Material Proposal.
On your behalf I have contacted Ms. Julie Girling MEP, who is the Conservative Shadow Rapporteur on this file in the European Parliament. Ms. Girling informs me that she will be working with Mr. Silvestris, and also DEFRA in the run up to the amendment deadline, which has been set for the 4th December. Ms. Girling also informs me that she will bear your comments mind when she comes to amend the draft proposal.
As your London MEP I would be happy to receive further comments and suggestions on this legislative issue as it moves through the European Parliament. I have offices in London and in Brussels, and if there is anything else you would like to bring to my attention please do not hesitate to get in touch. I am here to work on your behalf and would be delighted to hear from you.
Yours sincerely,
Marina Yannakoudakis, Conservative MEP for London
 
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 26, 2013, 08:22:35 AM
That's terrific Margaret. Lets hope all the EU members who visit the Forum and benefit so much from it see the significance of this protest and put their pens or keyboards into service.   I am honestly still very surprised by the lack of comment on the forum about this matter  :-\

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Margaret on November 26, 2013, 08:08:17 PM
Hello Marcus and Everyone

I've had another reply. This time from the Eastern Counties MEP, Stuart Agnew .  Great support from him. Anyone else had a reply?

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on November 26, 2013, 08:27:45 PM
I think that  in such a campaign to protect freedom and rights for amateur gardeners and the precious small nurseries, we should be grateful for support from whatever party will offer it. This area of Scotland is represented by six MEPs  from various political parties - I'm writing to all of them.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 26, 2013, 08:35:55 PM
You grab your support where you can. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend .... temporarily.  M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 26, 2013, 09:32:41 PM
At the risk of batting on about this to long ... maybe a close to home example of what could happen might raise some interest.

Michael Wickenden of Cally Gardens and nursery has been mentioned several times on the Forum recently. Michaell is fiercely opposed to PBR and refuses to offer plants that are registered under this scheme and only sells plants that are not.  Under these imminent changes to plant registration he will be hugely disadvantaged, even more so if the majority of his  catalogue are from his own breeding program,. This is because under these rules the onus will fall on him to register descriptions of plants he is currently offering BEFORE he can start selling these again. This will cost him around £500 a plant.  You do the maths ... its not a great incentive to carry on bringing new plants into the market.  The only group who are advantaged by this are the mass marketers where economy of scale is the key and plants run a long second. This dear friends is the likely scenario for the future unless people wish to save the inventive and interesting segment of the market protest now.

Does ANYONE on this forum know whether species are included in this insane system?  Or will their published descriptions stand as sufficient? This is a major issue to clear up. Please someone try and clarify the position on this!

Cheers,  Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Palustris on November 27, 2013, 10:40:42 AM
This came from someone at Monsanto who are being blamed for some of this proposal.
Take it anyway you choose.

Actually Monsanto is not driving this as we already have most of the IP protection we need under existing legislation.

As is often the case we are blamed for most things, only some of which are true.

This is quite a good resource for sifting out the most lurid fabrications from what is true:

www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/Issues-and-Answers.aspx (http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/Issues-and-Answers.aspx)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on November 27, 2013, 12:01:15 PM
Personally, I  do think it is useful to see that at least one member is taking these potential threats to our nurseries and clubs seriously enough to bother to contact legislators and to show their responses -  clearly we can all draw any conclusion we like from the party political comments made by certain MEPs , but at least it shows he bothered to reply - which may encourage others to make contact with their representatives.
Clearly some members take offense at the comments of the UKIP MEP - but as a  UKIP member replying to a member in England - he might be expected  to take that tack.

As  has been said,  in  the event of even the possibility of  the seed exchanges of all our clubs being shut down and the specialist nurseries - so important to our interests -  forced out of business, I think support must be garnered  form every source and the widest possible number of MEPs informed of the  worries being caused by this  matter - and not just in  the UK but in all the countries of the EU - where we have so many members.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Gerry Webster on November 27, 2013, 02:07:44 PM
I have no objection to people lobbying MPs or MEPs on matters of concern to them. However, I do object when an MEP uses  these concerns as a pretext to promote xenophobia - already bad enough in the UK - & to indulge in a spot of ignorant EU bashing.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on November 27, 2013, 06:10:57 PM
Maggi - having had a quick scan through the 140 plus pages of proposals, small scale enterprises and specialist societies exchanging plant and seeds between members are effectively exempt. In theory it looks like species are included as much as anything else but there are several paragraphs relating to small scale and niche growers - see the following extracts:-

Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
On the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material
(plant reproductive material law)

Furthermore, plant reproductive material exchanged in kind
between two persons other than professional operators is excluded from the scope of
the Regulation.

Derogation on niche market plant reproductive material
In addition, proportionate and sustainable rules for small scale activities concerning
plant reproductive material, which is adapted to local conditions, and made available
on the market in small quantities, should be established. Such varieties should be
exempted from the requirements on registration and making available on the market.
This material is defined as niche market plant reproductive material. The exemption
should concern e.g. farmer-breeders or gardener-breeders whether being professional
operators or not. However, some basic rules on labelling and traceability of the
material should be laid down. In order to prevent an abuse of the exemption the
material should only be made available on the market in a defined size of packages.

(27) Plant reproductive material which is made available on the market only in limited
quantities by small producers (“niche market plant reproductive material”) should be
exempted from the requirement of belonging to a registered variety. That derogation is
necessary to prevent undue constraints to the making available on the market of plant
reproductive material, which is of lesser commercial interest, but is important for the
maintenance of genetic diversity. However, it should be ensured that that derogation is
not regularly used by a wide range of professional operators and it is only used by
professional operators which cannot afford the costs and administrative burden of
variety registration. This is important to avoid abuses of that derogation and to ensure
the application of the rules of this Regulation. Therefore, niche market material should
only be made available on the market by professional operators employing a small
number of persons and with a small annual turnover.

This is not to say that these proposals seem excessively bureaucratic and intrusive. The real problem with smaller scale enterprise is convincing many gardeners that plants are a lot more interesting and significant than they presently realise, which has never been easy. In practice it is hard to see how many of these proposals can ever be instituted in such a varied market.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on November 27, 2013, 06:15:53 PM
Yes Tim, I agree that there do seem to be some protections available meantime - my concern - and that of others who have made pivate contact about this - is to make sure that there is awareness by the legislators that such protection is vital and that erosion of any protection offered is not contemplated - it is  much easier to close the stable door while the horse is still inside!

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: meanie on November 27, 2013, 08:21:12 PM
Although I have signed several petitions on this, Margarets letter/email was so good that I copied it, edited it a wee bit (just details such as my name etc) and emailed it to my MEP. Sadly he's a Tory, so I doubt that I'll get a response.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on November 27, 2013, 08:27:32 PM
I've sent the Plant Heritage letter to all South East MEPs, which include Nigel Farage. Interested to see responses!
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 27, 2013, 09:34:05 PM
Hi Tim,

Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that all reproductive material includes species?? Why isn't the whole of the botanical garden world up in arms? Effectively this is an attempt to claim these naturally occurring organisms as commercial entities. It's one thing to produce a commercial entity through a breeding program and wish to protect its economic worth through regulatory instruments but it's an entirely different ballgame when people with vested interests start claiming every last stick on the face of the earth.
Also why do species which have already been specifically described in botanical detail be required to be described again for commercial purposes. Just to suit a bureaucrat in Brussells?
Do the amendments make it clear what the definition of small scale is and what rights of entry these entities have in the market? Do they make it clear what sort of regulatory burden small scale operators will be obliged to shoulder to actually operate? I think,  as our much maligned MP thinks, that any concessions are sops to placate the naysayers.
Instead of moaning and groaning about the motivations of politicians it would be far more fruitful to ask them specific questions about what where they stand on this matter. That way you can stop them from  grandstanding on their own agenda.  God knows there's enough to alsk about!

Does anyone know where Kew or Edinburgh BC stand on this?  Or are they just happy that they're exempt and the barbarians can carve up the rest of the spoils.

Cheers,  Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on November 28, 2013, 01:33:55 PM
Unless small scale is clearly defined in the regulation, say by reference to annual turnover, it will be a minefield which will benefit nobody except the lawyers.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on November 28, 2013, 05:38:31 PM


I've had another reply. This time from the Eastern Counties MEP, Stuart Agnew .  Great support from him. Anyone else had a reply?


 I've had my first reply from a local MEP- Ian Hudghton - who, while  although not directly involved in the committees considering these matters,  says he will liase with his colleagues and bear in mind the possible detrimental consequences of this proposed legislation on the horticultural industry in Scotland, the UK and all of Europe.
 


Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Palustris on November 28, 2013, 06:02:08 PM
To me the worrying part of the piece written by Tim, is this
Quote
Therefore, niche market material should
only be made available on the market by professional operators employing a small
number of persons and with a small annual turnover.
Surely that would stop someone like me from selling a new cultivar which I may have developed?
Or have I read it wrong?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 28, 2013, 08:42:51 PM
Hi Palustris,

It will mean that you will have to register it yourself through a regulatory system set up by the EC. You are trapped into a legal process which benefits nobody except lawyers and bureaucrats. But here's the thing,  the biggest winners will be the large-scale nursery businesses because instead of opting for the  expensive rigmarole outlined above you will sell the rights to them and they will register it ..... that's of course if they feel inclined.

This happens all the time in PBR. Eventually small operators lose out because they don't have the resources or the expertise to negotiate the system and are shut out.  The public suffer because the market loses diversity and competition and becomes unnecessarily distorted because of bureaucratic interference, which will,  mark my words, increase over time. So much for free trade .... And all this because SOMEONE has noticed a problem with fakery in the  ornamentals market. Did anyone from the SRGC, or the AGS or for that matter, a consumer advocates group make a formal complaint to Brussells ... I dont think so. Letter writers you need to ask your reps just what is the driver for this "sledge hammer to crack a walnut" regulatory change.

Cheers,  Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 28, 2013, 09:15:04 PM
Postscript: far be it to tell people what to say in their personal protest letters but I have found it very useful to use specific outcome examples of the type I have outlined in my previous post rather than just a generalized plea for help. Focusing on a personalize example is excellent because it humanized the issue,  the earlier post I made regarding Michael Wickenden and Cally Gardens puts a face to the problem and shows first hand the negative impact this regulatory change will have on good, hard-working people who bring benefits to our lives and to the local economy.

Cheers,  M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on November 29, 2013, 03:42:09 PM
We visited the Hillier Arboretum yesterday, though not enough time to look around the Arboretum proper. It is of course a magnificent collection of plants. What struck me is the connection it has with 'partner' gardens (Kew, Wakehurst, the National Botanic Garden of Wales). This is very similar to the RHS and its diversity of partner gardens and to the National Trust. All of these are concerned with Heritage, as is Plant Heritage itself (NCCPG) and organisations like The Gardens Trust. The question this raises is how much are private gardeners and specialist nurseries (and societies) concerned with plant heritage in an intellectual or practical sense? I have argued in the AGS Bulletin that very many individual gardeners growing and propagating plants has as much a role as fewer larger organisations in a simple statistical sense if nothing else. Many may be through National Collections of plants - and this is a reason why Plant Heritage so strongly opposes many of these proposals (especially since many collections are maintained by specialist nurseries without other financial input). On the other hand few of the above organisations have any great involvement with growing and maintaining (and most important, disseminating) alpine plants in particular, or many of the rarer and unusual species listed in the Plantfinder. It might be of note that the Plantfinder itself was devised by a member of and first published by the Hardy Plant Society. It resulted therefore from the interests of keen gardeners rather than larger institutions. This may have some relevance to this debate.

The conclusion that might be drawn is that people tend no longer to garden as much themselves, but instead visit larger gardens with significant resources and manpower. The intellectual curiousity of the individual gardener is perhaps in decline.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on November 29, 2013, 07:03:22 PM
I've had a reply from the Green MEP for the South-East:


Dear J R Carpenter,

 


Many thanks for writing to Keith about this important issue, who has asked me to respond on his behalf.

 

Like you, Keith, and the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, are very concerned about the Commission's proposal to create a single EU wide regulation on seed production and certification. Keith would like to thank you for your comments on how these proposals will effect horticultural organisations like Plant Heritage - please be assured that I have forwarded your concerns to the Green group advisors for the Agriculture Committee (AGRI) so they can take these into consideration.

 

Keith agrees with you that the current proposal for an EU Regulation "On the production and marketing available on the market of plant reproductive material" will be very damaging for seed heritage and biodiversity. Keith has highlighted the impact the proposals will have on small breeders and seed savers: while small companies (with less than 10 employees or €2 million in turnover) will be exempted from the authorisation process, the plans risk pushing regional and organic producers into a niche market, denying them full market access. This plays directly into the hands of larger corporations that prioritise mass-production of monoculture seed varieties, and places the marketing and certification of seeds fully in the hands of the seed industry. Keith also takes on board your comments that the impact the proposals will have has not been considered with regards to more complex organisations, such as Plant Heritage.

 

As I'm sure you're well aware, the knock-on effect will be the watering down of years of seed heritage and the endangering of the genetic diversity. In order to preserve genetic and biodiversity within agricultural systems we need heterogenic plant material, which carries greater genetic variety than most of the certified varieties. Breeding companies within the seed industry concentrate on certain aspects of the genetic code, and so reduce diversity.

 

The Greens have been responsible for a number of reports in the Parliament on seed marketing laws, introducing exemptions for the marketing of traditional seeds which are in danger of disappearing. On a Green initiative, the Commission has been running an EU- wide program for the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources which allowed NGOs and small breeders to coordinate their activities across the EU.

 

However, Keith believes the Commission's proposal is a backwards step, The Greens have called the proposals a slap in the face to those who have pushed for greater diversity in plant cultivation, and highlighted the social and environmental benefits of such diversity.

 

Keith has said:

 

“These proposals from the Commission would give even more power to agri-business and reinforce the already prevalent mass-production of monoculture seed varieties.

 

We need variety within farming systems to protect genetic difference and biodiversity. I’ll be keeping a close eye on these proposals from the Commission and working with Green colleagues to protect biodiversity across Europe by voting against the proposed legislation when it comes to the parliament.”

 

Last month, the Greens in the European Parliament launched a new campaign against the "Seed Monopoly Law" with the international campaigner, Vandana Shiva. Their petition calls for the end to any law that illegitimately makes seed the exclusive private property of corporations and contradicts the overall objective of conservation and enrichment of diversity. You can read more about the campaign here: http://www.greens-efa.eu/join-the-seed-freedom-campaign-10639.html (http://www.greens-efa.eu/join-the-seed-freedom-campaign-10639.html) and sign the petition on the campaign website:

http://www.seedfreedom.eu/en/ (http://www.seedfreedom.eu/en/)

 

Keith is committed to maintaining our rich diversity in local seeds and plants, for the crucial role it plays in promoting sustainable agriculture, local food production and global food security. Keith also works to promote local growing initiatives and local food production throughout the South East of England. To read more about Keith's work on food and farming, please visit his website: http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/category/food-farming/ (http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/category/food-farming/)
 
 

Keith and the Greens/EFA Group will continue to fight at a European level against the seed industry's potential monopoly on seeds and plant reproductive material. Please be assured that the Green MEPs on the Agriculture Committee will be working hard to counter these damaging proposals.
 
 

I hope that this information is useful. Thank you again for taking the time to write to Keith about this issue. Please don't hesitate to get back in contact if you have any further questions.

 

Kind regards

 

Katy Cadwallader

 

Constituency Caseworker

Office of Keith Taylor MEP

Green Party MEP for South East England

The European Parliament

Rue Wiertz

1047 Brussels, Belgium
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 30, 2013, 06:10:48 AM
Hi again,

I endorse what Tim has said regarding private gardens and specialist nurseries playing an important role in maintaining diversity and conserving plant heritage and importantly, disseminating  this material. Sadly we appear to be living on another planet than the one envisaged by the EC. This is readily apparent in the letter John received from the Greens MP. While he believes in the same principles as us his main focus is agriculture, food security and market diversity and efficiency, and so it should be. And that's where these pending relations should stay. His letter is in fact an argument for leaving ornamentals OUT of these regulatory changes. They simple don't matter enough to big picture and they just shouldn't be there.  They are not going to change the face of agriculture,  food security or production.

Following up on Tim's comments on interest in gardening and plants.  I can envisage a day when all plants will be locked up in botanical gardens in the interests of  biosecurity and commerce (they will be either be deemed a threat
or the property of business Inc.) While we may be permitted to go and look at examples of them we will have to pay for the privilege and sign a disclaimer to the effect that we relinquish the right to take cuttings or seeds or maybe even photos. Oh ... and we relinquish any right we might think we have to talk about them,  write about them or even think about them unless we have purchased the relevant intellectual property licence from the Office of the Commision for Natural Resources ... a joint supra-governmental and industry initiate for the efficient transfer of public property into private hands and for the promotion of a safer, risk-free world.

Cheers,  M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Diane Clement on November 30, 2013, 08:04:57 AM

I can envisage a day when all plants will be locked up in botanical gardens in the interests of  biosecurity and commerce ... While we may be permitted to go and look at examples of them we will have to pay for the privilege

Joni Mitchell predicted this in the 60s:

They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
Then they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see them
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on November 30, 2013, 08:28:40 AM
 ;D oh God how true! And for those who don't think its gonna happen,

"Don't it always seem to go
But you don't know what you got till its gone
A green paradise put up a plant police shop"


Apologies to Joni for the poetic license on the last line ....

Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Dionysia on December 01, 2013, 11:23:11 AM
Or what about Karn Evil 9 by Emerson Lake & Palmer?
'There behind a glass is a real blade of grass,
be careful as you pass.
Move along! Move along!'
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on December 01, 2013, 12:28:57 PM
Joni Mitchell predicted this in the 60s:

They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
Then they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see them

Taking account of inflation, that's now $8.87
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Richard Green on December 01, 2013, 03:49:29 PM
I see that the December 2013 issue of the RHS's "The Garden" magazine has an update, and there is also a full page news article in the December issue of "The Plantsman" giving more detail.  On 22 October a stakeholders group of Royal Horticultural Society, Horticultural Trades Association, National Farmers Union, Plant Heritage, and some growers and agents met to draft suggested changes to the proposed regulations.  These changes will be proposed by the UK's DEFRA on behalf of the UK when legislation comes before the EU Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee in early 2014. 

However, as a backstop, all interested parties are still being encouraged to write to their MEPs in case the changes are thrown out and there is a debate in Strasbourg.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 02, 2013, 09:31:05 PM
Some of the details of the thrust of the amendments for small business as proposed by Holland and I assume, UK, are briefly discussed on Noel Kingsbury's latest blog post http://noels-garden.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/updates-eu-legislation-and-oudolf-meadow.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+NoelsGardenBlog+%28Noels+Garden+Blog%29 (http://noels-garden.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/updates-eu-legislation-and-oudolf-meadow.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+NoelsGardenBlog+%28Noels+Garden+Blog%29)

M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 03, 2013, 08:26:43 PM
Part of a reply received from Brian Simpson by a member who has taken the time and trouble to write to  MEPS on this matter:

"The Plant Reproductive Material Regulation that you are concerned about was published by the Commission in May of this year and we are at this moment taking a very critical look at it.

The first seed laws were introduced to protect farmers from unscrupulous seed merchants selling either cheaper seed or even dust and sand. Therefore the main objective of the legislation on plant propagating material is to ensure a broad and informed choice, so that the user gets the necessary information on the identity of the material and that the health and quality of the material is ensured.


The marketing of seeds and plant propagating material legislation is currently composed of 12 basic Directives and approximately 90 other legal acts, dating back to the 1960's. The Directives have been developed at different times and with different approaches so that understanding the requirements in their entirety is not simple, neither for competent authorities who have to implement the legislation nor for plant growers that have to comply with them. The Commission proposed therefore to replace the existing Directives with one single Regulation with an aim to simplify, update and modernise the current rules.

Both the current and proposed legislation provide a basic level of consumer protection for the quality and identity of reproductive material of plant species of minor or no importance for food production. For ornamental plant reproductive material sold under a variety name, the current legislation requires the variety to be at least ‘commonly known’ or ‘on a suppliers list with its detailed description’. The Commission’s new proposal removes this possibility and requires plants to have 'an officially recognised description', obliging farmers to include more technical information on their plant propagating material. Our concern is that the more detailed description would increase costs for growers, as providing more specific information would require an experienced person with access to plant material of that variety.

We welcome the Commission's attempt to simplify the current rules and reduce red tape. We do not however believe this change for ornamental plant reproductive material could bring any benefit. We are worried it could impose a financial burden on plant cultivars. Plant breeders who sell their varieties only in modest numbers might not be able to afford it anymore and would be deleted from the catalogues. This could, as you mentioned in your email, reduce the number of ornamental plants on the market leading to less consumer choice and the loss of biodiversity.

We are very grateful for the inspiring work plant conservation organisations, such as the Plant Heritage, are doing. It is essential for the preservation of biodiversity and reintroduction of plants which would have otherwise been lost. We agree with you that the Plant Heritage, encompassing many commercial operators, is clearly a plant genetic resources network and it needs to be recognised as such.

Initial consideration of the proposed text is done for the Parliament through the Agriculture Committee. The Committee decided on a rapporteur who is responsible, on behalf of the Committee, for drafting a report on the Regulation. The report has just been published and Members of the Agriculture Committee can submit amendments by 4th December. As the European Parliamentary Labour Party spokesperson on agriculture, I am carefully analysing the proposed changes, discussing how to best tackle different issues raised. I will table amendments to reverse the change for ornamental plant reproductive material, since there is no evidence of consumer dissatisfaction in the ornamentals market and no evidence to support the need for more regulation. Moreover, I intend to clarify that plant conservation organisations do not need to be statutory in order to be treated as a plant genetic resources networks."



 
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 03, 2013, 08:31:50 PM
Note to concerned members:

While there is some recognition of the merits of  the protest against these proposals, it is important that those of us likely to be affected by them are, as the latest RHS comments suggested,  diligent in contacting  MEPs to show the depth and breadth of opposition to the threats to the European proposals for ornamental plants- clearly the views of concerned individuals are worth submitting to the legislators.
  - the list of people to contact was given earlier from the Plant Heritage  pages :
pilar.ayuso@europarl.europa.eu, martina.anderson@europarl.europa.eu, martin.callanan@europarl.europa.eu, chris@chrisdaviesmep.org.uk, jill.evans@europarl.europa.eu, nick.griffin@europarl.europa.eu, linda.mcavan@europarl.europa.eu, paul.nuttall@europarl.europa.eu, glenis.willmott@europarl.europa.eu, marina.yannakoudakis@europarl.europa.eu, godfrey.bloom@europarl.europa.eu, vicky.ford@europarl.europa.eu, jacqueline.foster@europarl.europa.eu, julie.girling@europarl.europa.eu, james.nicholson@europarl.europa.eu, struan.stevenson@europarl.europa.eu, rebecca.taylor@europarl.europa.eu, sergio.silvestris@europarl.europa.eu, johnstuart.agnew@europarl.europa.eu, diane.dodds@europarl.europa.eu, julie.girling@europarl.europa.eu, george.lyon@europarl.europa.eu, james.nicholson@europarl.europa.eu, alyn.smith@europarl.europa.eu, richard.ashworth@europarl.europa.eu, john.bufton@europarl.europa.eu, jill.evans@europarl.europa.eu, anthea.mcintyre@europarl.europa.eu, brian.simpson@europarl.europa.eu,

 
Re: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL On the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law)
/* COM/2013/0262 final - 2013/0137 (COD) */



Am  amended template of  Plant Heritage's suggested letter is :

Dear Member
 
I am writing as a member of the Scottish Rock Gardening Club, a charitable organisation that has for the last 80 years worked to conserve the biodiversity of plants in cultivation in the UK.
 
As you are aware the European Commission is looking to combine 12 existing EU directives on the production and marketing of plant reproductive material (which includes everything from seeds to young plants) into a single simpler regulation: The Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law) (COM(2013) 262 final).
 
It has been stated that there is no intention to introduce tighter rules for ornamentals. However, industry representatives have identified that the worst-case scenario for the current proposed regulation could prove devastating for nurseries and growers. A new requirement that any plant marketed as a cultivar or variety needs to have an ‘officially recognised description’ has been proposed and the concern is that the vast costs of developing, maintaining and monitoring these officially recognised descriptions for the estimated 75,000+ ornamental plant varieties currently on sale in the UK would prove impossible to meet. The Royal Horticultural Society Plant Finder lists over around 52,000 plant cultivars marketed solely in the UK; of these around 2,000 cultivars already have an official description that conforms to the requirements. The RHS Plant Finder does not include non-terrestrial orchids, cacti or annual and seed cultivars.  There are, at a conservative estimate, more than 75,000 ornamental plant taxa for sale in the UK. The result of imposing this requirement for an officially recognised description would potentially be a massive reduction in the number of cultivars grown for sale in the UK.
 
Many of the 12 existing directives covering the marketing of seed and propagating material contain listed genera and species to which more rigorous requirements apply. These listed genera and species, are carried across into Annex 1 of the current Commission proposal. There is no indication that Annex 1 taxa will be considered solely under the use under which they were originally listed (for example Castanea as a forest tree, rather than an ornamental or a food plant), so it appears possible that the more rigorous application will be followed for all uses.
 
 The current proposal makes the rules with respect to ornamental plant material significantly more onerous than the previous directive, as it removes the options to market varieties that are 'commonly known', or entered with a detailed description on a supplier list (catalogue). Instead, the minimum requirement under the proposed regulation would be to list an officially recognised description onto a public or private list.  This is neither proportionate, nor sustainable for an industry which is already under great financial pressure. It is likely to result in a dramatic cut in the number of cultivars available to gardeners, and thus create a loss of biodiversity. Precisely what the UK has agreed to prevent under the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: (http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/)).
 
In addition to concerns about the wider horticultural industry as noted above, relating more narrowly to cultivated plant conservation, we have the following worries: It is stated in the proposals that the regulations do not apply to ‘material intended to be or maintained in gene banks organisations and networks of ex-situ and in-situ or on-farm conservation of genetic resources’. However it appears that ‘professional operators’ (defined as ‘any natural or legal person carrying out as a profession at least one of the following activities with regard to the plant reproductive material a) producing, b) breeding, c) maintaining, d) providing services, e) preserving, including storing, f) making available on the market) are all subject to the legislation.
It seems from our perspective that an assumption has been made that the only bodies that carry out conservation work are organisations like botanic gardens or networks developed purely for that purpose.

An organisation like the Scottish Rock Gardening Club which has worldwide membership of amateur and professional gardeners  which includes some smaller commercial operators  has not been considered. However it is unlikely that the conservation of cultivars would be possible on such a scale if it were not for some form of commercial involvement; after all in many cases that is why they were created in the first place.
 
We are therefore very concerned that the changes will affect the profitability of horticulture, if not the existence of the ornamental plant trade in its current form; and in addition not protect those in the industry who are conserving plants; thus meaning that conservation of plants becomes the preserve of only botanic gardens and individuals with no commercial involvement, and the concomitant loss of biodiversity that this would cause.
 
Yours sincerely

 your name!
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on December 03, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
I've sent the letter to all those named.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 03, 2013, 08:56:22 PM
Well done, Ralph, the more the merrier.

I would certainly  hope that at the least, anyone with a care for the continuance of  Seed Exchanges like ours would be active on this matter.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 03, 2013, 09:00:38 PM
Hi everyone,

I second everything Maggi has posted. This is probably the SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT facing ornamental horticulture and especially those of us in the niche markets of the special and the rare, as well as hobbyists. Dont think bad things aren't going to happen or you can fly under the radar because once the gate is shut there will be no going back.

PLEASE all EU forumists get involved, defend our interests and WRITE! Push the envelope!

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe formal submissions end today? However forumists CAN STILL email their MEPS right up until the Committee meets early in the New Year. There are simply no social, economic or consumer protection grounds for such a heavy-handed and disproportionate regulatory change. It benefits no-one except bureaucratic and large-scale business interests.

Cheers,  Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 03, 2013, 09:21:07 PM
For those who need more convincing check out this article in The Guardian by Graham Spencer on the likely future of UK gardens and horticulture under the proposed regulatory changes.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gardening-blog/2013/sep/26/eu-regulation-garden-plants (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gardening-blog/2013/sep/26/eu-regulation-garden-plants)

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 03, 2013, 09:28:13 PM
More on this  from Graham Spencer on his website http://www.plantsforeurope.com/2013/11/new-european-commission-regulation-on-plant-reproductive-material/ (http://www.plantsforeurope.com/2013/11/new-european-commission-regulation-on-plant-reproductive-material/)    - and bear in mind this is a man whose company would earn lots of money from the proposed rules- and he is very much against the proposals.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: meanie on December 03, 2013, 09:58:25 PM
As predicted, no reply from my MEP. Not even an auto-generated message.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 03, 2013, 10:54:28 PM
Bypass your MEP and write directly to DEFRA, cheers, M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 04, 2013, 12:00:25 AM
On second thoughts keep on at your MEP. DEFRA are already onside and working with stakeholders to get these regs amended.  :)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 04, 2013, 12:09:47 AM
On second thoughts keep on at your MEP. DEFRA are already onside and working with stakeholders to get these regs amended.  :)

I agree that the MEPs are the first line of contact, Marcus.
I think it might be  worth contacting  MPs as well - in the hope they give their MEP colleagues an extra  nudge. 
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ashley on December 04, 2013, 12:24:01 AM
I've sent the letter to all those named.
Similarly to all Irish MEPs, as a member of The Irish Garden Plant Society.

Update: MEP Mr Seán Kelly (http://www.finegael.ie/our-people/meps/sean-kelly/) has written to Commissioner Borg communicating these concerns.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on December 04, 2013, 12:16:34 PM
On second thoughts keep on at your MEP. DEFRA are already onside and working with stakeholders to get these regs amended.  :)
And in any case if you wrote to DEFRA you would get a reply drafted by a (very junior) official, even if signed by a Minister. I have experience in this area!
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Mike Ireland on December 06, 2013, 04:45:13 PM
Maggie, posted amended template of  Plant Heritage's suggested letter to all on the list provided and have received a reply as follows:-

Dear Mr. Ireland, 

Thank you for your email regarding the Plant Reproductive Material Proposal.

On your behalf I have contacted Ms. Julie Girling MEP, who is the Conservative Shadow Rapporteur on this file in the European Parliament. Ms. Girling informs me that she will be working with Mr. Silvestris, and also DEFRA in the run up to the amendment deadline, which has been set for the 4th December. Ms. Girling also informs me that she will bear your comments mind when she comes to amend the draft proposal.

As your London MEP I would be happy to receive further comments and suggestions on this legislative issue as it moves through the European Parliament. I have offices in London and in Brussels, and if there is anything else you would like to bring to my attention please do not hesitate to get in touch. I am here to work on your behalf and would be delighted to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,

Marina Yannakoudakis, Conservative MEP for London 

Maybe some people do care.

Mike
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 06, 2013, 06:10:42 PM
Excellent news - I have received a similar reply.

I am told there is an article on the EU changes but I do not have it- can anyone post a scan for information?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ChrisB on December 07, 2013, 10:30:59 AM
Thanks for doing that letter template Maggi.  I've sent off to my MEP and had a note from the sec saying she'll get back to me.  Mine is Fiona Hall - never knew until this issue blew in  ::)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 10, 2013, 06:50:08 PM
Not good news : this report copied form Horticulture Week today :

http://www.hortweek.com/Ornamentals/article/1223510/Concessions-omitted-EC-plant-report/ (http://www.hortweek.com/Ornamentals/article/1223510/Concessions-omitted-EC-plant-report/)

Concessions omitted from EC plant report

By Matthew Appleby Monday, 09 December 2013

The European Commission's new report on plant reproductive material (PRM) contains none of the concessions wanted by the UK Government and growers to help prevent a potential £35m cost to the industry.

A joint campaign by growers, industry bodies and the media had looked as though it had helped progress changes in European PRM legislation that in its original form would have brought new regulation to ornamental horticulture, drastically reducing the range of plants available in the trade.

All plants known by "common knowledge names" would, under the proposal, have required lengthy and costly contentious article 50 "officially recognised descriptions" (HW, 13 September).

Defra and the industry reached "a degree of unanimity" on a new HTA draft on the measures at a meeting on 22 October and Defra will now use it as a negotiating position with the EC to try and force through changes.

Plants for Europe owner Graham Spencer, Farplants director Martin Emmett, the RHS, NFU, Plant Heritage and others campaigned on the issue. But Spencer said EU rapporteur Sergio Silvestris's new report makes "no change" to the crucial wording "commonly known as" in article 50.

"This could still change," said Spencer. "Defra's position paper includes a solution to that problem but we need to see it adopted." The deadline for amendments was 4 December. Spencer added: "There will be more changes, but it is not going as well as Lord de Mauley is making out. It's not a done deal."

De Mauley told the All-Party Parliamentary Gardening & Horticulture Group annual reception last week that the EC is "relenting" on proposed "onerous" PRM rules following "concerted pressure from Defra".

Spencer said a new EU ComEnvi report is equally unhelpful. "Neither of them satisfy all our concerns. Neither addresses the article 50 problem (officially recognised description). The rapporteur addresses the problem of ornamental plants listed in annex 1, albeit only to move them to the scope of article 50. ComEnvi makes life much harder for conservation bodies."

For further details, see www.europarl.europa.eu (http://www.europarl.europa.eu).

Industry view

"I'm already onto Vicky Ford MEP, who sits on ComEnvi and had promised to help us on this issue. I've got a conference call lined up with her for next week. If the ComEnvi changes went through, it would actually make things worse. How Lord de Mauley can say the PRM issue is under control, I have no idea."   Graham Spencer, owner, Plants for Europe

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 10, 2013, 08:23:58 PM
It stretches credulity that such a concerted, broadly supported and powerful argument can fall on deaf ears.  I am a long way away from this but it seems to me that there is no good argument not to accept the amendments!  Your excerpt does not present any hint of the reasons given to oppose them.
Surely the cost to industry, the loss of market diversity,  the negative effect on R&D, the impoverishment of consumer choice and the general loss of personal liberty should compel some reasoned response? It should also compel am explanation as to why such controversial and destructive regulatory changes are needed and what are their net benefit.

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ChrisB on December 10, 2013, 10:06:43 PM
Maybe if we could work in something about Human Rights ..... seems to work for so many other issues!
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Martin Baxendale on December 11, 2013, 08:14:34 AM
Hopefully there will be last minute concessions. If not, there's always the option of a campaign of concerted civil disobedience - small nurseries and gardening clubs deliberately arranging events to sell plants and seeds as normal on agreed dates, informing the authorities in advance and saying "Right, take us to court." Such staged events nationwide would attract massive media interest and put the authorities on the spot. Some kind of derogation would have to be initiated. Otherwise the UK courts would be clogged with stupid and pointless time-wasting cases as happened with the Poll Tax protests.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: David Nicholson on December 11, 2013, 09:42:47 AM
It would be nice to get some views on this from our French, German, Dutch and Spanish members. I suppose we could the same as our Italians friends do in the face of legislation they don't like, totally ignore it and carry on as before ;D


Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: David Nicholson on December 11, 2013, 11:06:42 AM
Whoops, missed our famous Belgians!
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 11, 2013, 12:02:05 PM
Lets hope for those concessions!  The problem with the civil disobedience approach is that it needs an informed gardening public and a solid concerted effort. Hard to pull off on such an issue.  Call me a fuddy duddy but it doesnt somehow feel right that a group of unelected, faceless people in another country can exert such negative influence on another sovereign jurisdiction. If the UK refused to accept the proposed regulation change does that mean it can no longer export into the rest of the EU horticultural market? If that was the case would it have any further bearing on the internal domestic trade? Maybe not?

Cheers,  Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 11, 2013, 01:19:29 PM
If the UK refused to accept the proposed regulation change does that mean it can no longer export into the rest of the EU horticultural market? If that was the case would it have any further bearing on the internal domestic trade? Maybe not?

Cheers,  Marcus

According to RHS figures from a document last year;  horticulture contributes £9 billion to the UK economy each year as an industry and employs around 300,000 people, from crop growers and gardeners to scientists, tree surgeons and turf specialists.
 I read the other day - though I cannot find the reference - that the value of UK horticultural exports  to the EU is some 57 million euros.

This industry is obviously not inconsequential  to the overall well being of our economy- quite apart from any impact on the environment, ecology etc.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Martin Baxendale on December 11, 2013, 06:56:08 PM
The UK has a history of excusing itself  from EU regulations by way of derogations, so that's always a possibility. How it would affect sales to the rest of the EU I don't know. Presumably only a problem if the plant or seed being sold isn't properly documented according to the new rules, and whether the sender gets caught. How they expect to police it at the level of small businesses and individuals I have no idea. They'll have to resurrect the East German Stasi.

Re civil disobedience if the new rules go ahead un-amended, I'm sure the UK Green Party won't be sitting still and doing nothing about it. As a long-term Green Party activist I can be pretty sure about that.  And there are local Green Parties in almost every sizeable UK town and every city, with links to all kinds of other campaigning organisations. The threat to biodiversity, food security, heritage food and ornamental plant varieties, etc will ensure  that there are plenty of people prepared to join in any campaign of protest and civil disobedience. And  as far as the UK authorities are concerned they should be pushing against an open door with Defra etc onside already.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 11, 2013, 08:53:14 PM
Interesting scenarios but as Maggi has pointed out this trade is worth a lot to the UK and I presume it will be punished for non-compliance.  It's little wonder that the push against changes is being led, in part,  by the trade sector.

Personally I think small players will be able to escape detection because as Martin says compliance requires surveillance and this will be focused on the usual trade channels. But these changes make criminals out of ordinary people going about their ordinary business. And for what?  I haven't heard a single convincing argument in relation to the horticultural trade.

I am sure the Greens will pursue these matters but I think their focus is elsewhere on food production and market diversity and ornamental horticulture will run a long way second. They are apples and oranges.  Ornamental horticulture just doesn't warrant the same attention.  Consumers can vote with their feet - they don't need  a Nanny state to do it for them and break the model in the process.

At the risk again of ruffling feathers, I, like David,  would like to hear what other non-British EU members think about this issue. Surely living in the EU hasn't put everyone entirely to sleep?

Cheers,  M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: David Nicholson on December 11, 2013, 09:04:53 PM
At the risk again of ruffling feathers, I, like David,  would like to hear what other non-British EU members think about this issue. Surely living in the EU hasn't put everyone entirely to sleep?

Er! just a point, the EU isn't a 'State' so you can't live in "it" but you can live in a 'State' that is a member of "it". In the case England, Wales and Northern Ireland membership of "it" may well be temporary, can't speak for Scotland though as they have other fish to fry in 2014. I was serious though about reading some views from those living in Mainland Europe.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 11, 2013, 09:16:43 PM
Should have put inverted commas around my reference to nanny state ... Sorry using my tablet and it makes one a bit lazy.

I would like to know if the SRGC has a collective position on this matter and if it has formally expressed it? Or if it has given support to the collective delegation currently making the push for concessions?  It would appear a bit of a cop out to urge members to get behind this whilst not being involved itself. Just a thought ....
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 11, 2013, 09:22:04 PM
Can one then live inside the EU? ;D
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: David Nicholson on December 11, 2013, 09:46:21 PM
Can one then live inside the EU? ;D

Only if you have masochistic tendencies ;D
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 11, 2013, 09:49:57 PM
 ;Dx ;D
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 11, 2013, 10:01:23 PM
  It would appear a bit of a cop out to urge members to get behind this whilst not being involved itself. Just a thought ....

This forum, unless stated otherwise, expresses the views of the forumists - no more no less.

There are those  of us who feel this is an important matter and are prepared to get involved as best we can and to encourage others to do the same.

Some  probably do think that a "corporate " view  would be helpful. There  may even be those who feel that the SRGC as an entity should have no place in such matters.

It seems to me, personally, that such legislation could be a death knell to Seed Exchanges like that of the SRGC and our sister societies and to many of the specialist nurseries that are so dear to our  interest and members.

For me, that is worth working for.


Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 12, 2013, 05:55:48 AM
It would appear a bit of a cop out to urge members to get behind this whilst not being involved itself. Just a thought ....

Mmm ... maybe I should have put this a different way  ;D

I have a view, Maggi has a view and I am sure many others have a view but does the SRGC have a view? Or should it?
Personally I think as a stakeholder with a lot to lose it most definitely should have. And after all, at a guess, it probably has 15,000 EU members and that's a lot of heft in comparison to one individual. It could also offer some leadership in relation to shaping interest and opinion. It could also be acting in concert with the AGS to put forward their member's special concerns and considerations.

This should not be a controversial issue and the potential loss of something as attractive and valuable as the Seed Exchange for starters should be sufficient reason to definitely get a view and rally the troops.

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: meanie on December 12, 2013, 07:59:12 AM
As predicted, still no reply from my MEP. I forwarded it to my local MP, but he has been too busy taking "selfies" in SA this week to reply!!!!

So where to now as an individual? The Green Party was a good thought and so it has been handed on to my local rep. They always get my vote at a local level, so no maybe it is time for them to stand up and be counted at a national level.

Civil disobedience? I could sell someone a cutting of (for example) S.perscandens which is almost certainly too much of a niche product to get registered for a quid and then "dob" myself in. But for this to be effective (even if only to make a point) it would need a few thousand people to do the same, all on the same day, notifying the relevant authority by way of registered post. Who on earth would want to co-ordinate that?

Has anyone forwarded this issue to 38degrees.org?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 12, 2013, 10:18:52 AM
A civil disobedience project of mass postings to the EC of selfies "in the act of criminality" involving poking one's tongue out  ;D?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Palustris on December 12, 2013, 10:25:31 AM
I would not be surprised if this comes to pass, that it is the Organisers of an event where plants are sold 'illegally' who are prosecuted not the individual plant seller.


Death knell to the Members plant stalls at shows!
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: meanie on December 12, 2013, 11:17:37 AM
A civil disobedience project of mass postings to the EC of selfies "in the act of criminality" involving poking one's tongue out  ;D?

A solution as absurd as the proposed legislation - like it!
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: meanie on December 12, 2013, 11:25:12 AM
I would not be surprised if this comes to pass, that it is the Organisers of an event where plants are sold 'illegally' who are prosecuted not the individual plant seller.


Death knell to the Members plant stalls at shows!

So everyone selling becomes a member of the committee then?

Not the death knell as long as the stalls only sell approved plants. So yes, the death knell as far as I'm concerned.
There's a village near here that holds an annual plant sale in aid of the village hall. It is well supported by the villagers and well attended not only by the locals but by gardeners from miles around owing to the plants that are on offer. I missed out on a Fuchsia boliviana by but three steps (it's like the January sales when the doors open) for £2 - if they can't sell such rarities then ultimately it will be the community that misses out.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 12, 2013, 11:44:56 AM
There's a village near here that holds an annual plant sale in aid of the village hall. It is well supported by the villagers and well attended not only by the locals but by gardeners from miles around owing to the plants that are on offer. I missed out on a Fuchsia boliviana by but three steps (it's like the January sales when the doors open) for £2 - if they can't sell such rarities then ultimately it will be the community that misses out.

These are the stories that never make it to the rarefied air of the EC committee rooms.  Decisions like the one we confront here never pay any attention to the damage to community, to local participation,  or to cultural amenity. All that matters is business and governance. The greatest threat to liberty has been the rise of managerialism. A creeping, clogging malaise with no cure and no comfort.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Giles on December 14, 2013, 07:25:14 PM
If one takes this legislation to its logical conclusion, all that will be left for people to grow will be F1 hybrid seed strains, and vegetatively propagated cultivars which are covered by plant breeders rights (as these will be the only seeds and plants that breeders will be able to get a return on, to cover the cultivars registration process).


Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on December 14, 2013, 07:55:33 PM
If things go on like this, gardeners will become the second largest class of criminals (after motorists). Its already too easy to break the law, in the EU anyway, with restrictions on pesticides for example. When I was studying at Hadlow College a fellow student suggested using dilute washing-up liquid in a spay for aphids; she was told that this would be illegal as washing-up liquid is not an approved pesticide. Armillatox was developed as a fungicide for Honey Fungus (the clue is in the name), but it is now illegal to use it for that in the EU. I could go on.....
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: meanie on December 14, 2013, 09:59:51 PM
If one takes this legislation to its logical conclusion, all that will be left for people to grow will be F1 hybrid seed strains, and vegetatively propagated cultivars which are covered by plant breeders rights (as these will be the only seeds and plants that breeders will be able to get a return on, to cover the cultivars registration process).
If the letter of the law is followed then yes.
However, as John says.....................


If things go on like this, gardeners will become the second largest class of criminals (after motorists). Its already too easy to break the law, in the EU anyway, with restrictions on pesticides for example. When I was studying at Hadlow College a fellow student suggested using dilute washing-up liquid in a spay for aphids; she was told that this would be illegal as washing-up liquid is not an approved pesticide. Armillatox was developed as a fungicide for Honey Fungus (the clue is in the name), but it is now illegal to use it for that in the EU. I could go on.....
The idiocy of the EU summed up really. So whilst I cannot legally use a drop of washing-up liquid to sort the whitefly out, I can (in fact I'm probably encouraged) if I want chuck the washing up water over the beds instead of using fresh water from the tap.
Sad thing is that I'm actually in favour of the basic concept of the EU. And it would be disastrous for us economically to leave now. But we just keep on putting idiots into the European parliament.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Gene Mirro on December 14, 2013, 11:21:41 PM
All extremism should be opposed by reasonable people.  Especially the kind of self-serving extremism that comes from big expensive bureaucracies.  They will chip away at your personal liberties until there is nothing left.  And all because they feel insecure about their employment.  This is happening because of the passivity of the average citizen.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: meanie on December 14, 2013, 11:42:39 PM
All extremism should be opposed by reasonable people.  Especially the kind of self-serving extremism that comes from big expensive bureaucracies.  They will chip away at your personal liberties until there is nothing left.  And all because they feel insecure about their employment.  This is happening because of the passivity of the average citizen.

Whilst I tend to agree, let us not forget that the seed (no pun intended) of these ideas come from non elected interested parties, be they big business, the human rights industry, etc.

On a constructive note, I have a local Green Party activist coming around on Monday to discuss this issue. He is a keen allotment grower and was blissfully unaware of the proposed legislation, or to be more precise the far reaching ramifications of it.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Palustris on December 15, 2013, 10:32:59 AM
Discussing this with someone on Friday night, I was told that as far as he knew, the British government have stated that they will refuse to implement this legislation if it comes to pass. Cannot find any official announcement to this end though.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: meanie on December 15, 2013, 11:24:50 AM
Discussing this with someone on Friday night, I was told that as far as he knew, the British government have stated that they will refuse to implement this legislation if it comes to pass. Cannot find any official announcement to this end though.

So maybe it is time for us to lobby our local Green Party members in order to drum up some pressure in Westminster?

Question; Through an on-line contact I was lucky enough to receive a couple of Passiflora from Dr.Maurizio. One's a rare species and the other is one of his hybrids. The deal is that I report on hardiness. As I'm not an accredited organisation am I correct in saying that such an arrangement will make me a criminal in the future?

Another thought. If I'm on holiday, see something that I like (assuming that it is not a protected species) and collect ripe seed from it would this be illegal?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on December 15, 2013, 08:07:21 PM
Hi,

I think the UK not adhering to the proposed regulatory changes is unlikely because of the potential economic loss but if Holland also was on board then that significantly changes things. I guess both could refuse to drop the "Commonly Known" descriptor. Now that would be interesting. And good on them if they did. Just on cost alone it is crazy to ditch this approach in favour of a unique descriptor.

As to the question of the criminality of receiving or collecting seeds? Well who knows? These are questions the SRGC and the AGS need to be asking on behalf of their members. Don't forget there appears to be some exemptions, for example, small businesses and botanical institutions but that doesn't cover conservation of varieties or the loss of cultural heritage adequately. Not does it pay attention to questions of civil liberty or local participation.

Where individuals stand in all this? Well who knows? In view of the fact that this is about business regulation probably nowhere. I don't think the EC has a position on such things. After all in this equation we are just consumers. My understanding is that if one doesn't trade then it doesn't count. But the ramifications depend on the definition of trade. Is the SRGC seed exchange a trading entity? That's a question the SRGC needs to be asking on behalf of its members.

Whether species are included within Annex 1? And if so, which ones, and why? Who knows? These are questions the SRGC needs to be asking on behalf of its members.

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ChrisB on January 03, 2014, 11:49:35 AM
Here's the response from my MEP Fiona Hall:

Dear Ms. Boulby,

 

Thank you for your email regarding the revision of EU legislation on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material.

 

The proposal for a Regulation on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material is part of the European Commission’s package on health and safety standards of the agriculture-to-food chain which was announced on 6 May 2013. The Regulation aims to harmonise 12 existing Directives, but there is a lot of room for improvement on the Commission’s proposal.

 

There are a number of concerns, particularly regarding the potentially adverse effect this Regulation would have on gardeners, ornamental growers and businesses supplying niche markets. My Lib Dem colleague George Lyon MEP, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee, wants to ensure that these sectors are able to continue operating and not face unnecessary administrative burdens as a result of this revised legislation.

 

George has been working closely with the UK Government and drawn up a number of amendments to the Committee’s report that exclude ornamental plants, home gardeners and businesses that serve niche markets from this proposed regulation. These were also co-signed by my Lib Dem colleague Chris Davies MEP who is a member of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee.

 

While we do need to ensure that the quality of the material bought is of a sufficient standard and that it is traceable, Lib Dem MEPs also believe that ornamental products and seeds sold in niche markets should fall out of the scope of this Regulation. We believe that there will be widespread support for these amendments when they are voted on in the Agriculture Committee. MEPs in the Agriculture Committee are expected to vote on the report and on proposed amendments early this year.

 

Thank you again for your email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Fiona Hall MEP
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 04, 2014, 11:03:13 PM
Thank God for common sense! Looks like the bulldozers will meet with a bit of resistance for a change.

All Good! And a great start to the New Year.

Thanks for sharing this.

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on January 05, 2014, 02:34:29 PM
The SRGC stance on this legislation and a plea for members to become involved is on the main site.
Note from the President :

The Scottish Rock Garden Club joins many other gardening organisations in calling for changes to the proposed EU Plant Reproductive Material legislation.
The SRGC is highlighting that the proposed EU Plant Reproductive Material legislation, in its currently-drafted form is likely to have serious unintended consequences for rock gardeners and for the valuable exchange of seeds between individuals and clubs.

The draft legislation, which was said to be intended to improve consumer protection and allow businesses and amateurs to be sure that seed they are buying is true to the label, has raised comprehensive catch-all clauses which mean that ‘home garden’ seeds will be treated in the same way as the most widely-used commercial crops.

The SRGC wishes to raise awareness of the potential negative impacts of the proposed legislation that currently requires ‘breeders’ or sellers to pay a fee of between £300 and £500 to register each plant name.  With the thousands of wild species exchanged by seed exchanges, this cost would be totally prohibitive, lead to the loss of seed exchanges and potentially jeopardise ex-situ plant conservation projects. 

The SRGC suggests either that this proposed legislation should be rejected, or is amended to exempt non-commercial, amateur and ‘home garden’ seed from the regulations, as is the case in the existing legislation.  We suggest that members might like to write to their MEPs, and
a.   let them know that you are very worried by the proposed EU Plant Reproductive Material legislation.
b.   tell them that amateur gardeners should be able to choose any decorative plants they wish to grow in their own gardens (subject to national and/or international pest or conservation legislation), rather than from a list of 'EU-approved' species.
c.   explain that you should continue to be able to buy and exchange small packets of seed suitable for private gardeners, as opposed to seed for large-scale agriculture or horticulture.
d.   If the legislation were to persist, any plant species in the International Plant Nomenclature Index (IPNI) or any variety listed in the UK Royal Horticultural Society’s ‘Plant Finder’ should be considered to have an approved description and registered name.
e.   Ask them to ensure the draft legislation is amended to exempt amateur and non-commercial seed sales and exchanges.

The relevant MEPs within Scotland are
•   George Lyon
•   Struan Stevenson
•   Alyn Smith

As President, I am writing to the MEPs using the points raised in the attached, our members should do likewise.

Dr Carole Bainbridge
SRGC President

-------------------------------------------
For other MEPS in other countries:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/map.html (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/map.html)   
 
and those  closely involved in the relevant committees:

pilar.ayuso@europarl.europa.eu, martina.anderson@europarl.europa.eu, martin.callanan@europarl.europa.eu, chris@chrisdaviesmep.org.uk, jill.evans@europarl.europa.eu, nick.griffin@europarl.europa.eu, linda.mcavan@europarl.europa.eu, paul.nuttall@europarl.europa.eu, glenis.willmott@europarl.europa.eu, marina.yannakoudakis@europarl.europa.eu, godfrey.bloom@europarl.europa.eu, vicky.ford@europarl.europa.eu, jacqueline.foster@europarl.europa.eu, julie.girling@europarl.europa.eu, james.nicholson@europarl.europa.eu, struan.stevenson@europarl.europa.eu, rebecca.taylor@europarl.europa.eu, sergio.silvestris@europarl.europa.eu, johnstuart.agnew@europarl.europa.eu, diane.dodds@europarl.europa.eu, julie.girling@europarl.europa.eu, george.lyon@europarl.europa.eu, james.nicholson@europarl.europa.eu, alyn.smith@europarl.europa.eu, richard.ashworth@europarl.europa.eu, john.bufton@europarl.europa.eu, jill.evans@europarl.europa.eu, anthea.mcintyre@europarl.europa.eu, brian.simpson@europarl.europa.eu



Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 06, 2014, 11:46:06 PM
Brilliant!

Please all SRGC members resident in the EU get behind this and write, even if its an exact copy of the SRGC's official stance on this matter!!

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ashley on January 17, 2014, 03:34:11 PM
Following on from message #71 (http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=10845.msg288356#msg288356) above, my MEP Mr Seán Kelly received this response from Commissioner Borg (attached). 
This suggests to me that activities like the SRGC seed exchange are not threatened in any way (?).  Rather the intention is to strengthen the rights of commercial customers across the EU.

Some gender reassignment happened along the way but in a good cause ;) ;D 
Je ne regrette rien.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 17, 2014, 09:23:41 PM
Hi,  I don't quite read it that way. There is a lot of window dressing in the letter but it's very light on detail. Well does the SRGC qualify as an organization for the "conservation of genetic resources"? I think it's scope is broader than that.

While there is a "softened" approach to descriptors and labelling its still front and centre. And even though the letter states that requirements for ornamentals should be less budensome it then goes on to muddy the water by specifically referring to non-listed species/varieties I.e. those not listed in Annex 1).
What about Annex 1 listings?
And what level of description is required?
Have pre-existing registration/description lists been considered as perfectly adequate resource for descriptors?
BTW does anyone know what the qualifying criteria are for placement in Annex 1?
Are species to be placed on Annex 1. If so, why? And if so, why aren't their ALREADY published descriptions adequate?
Another problem I perceive is the adequate description of seed raised strains. Take hellebores. It is impossible to set strict limits on the range of shades in a strain of say, "Blue Lady" (straight out of Jelitto's recent catalogue). Does that mean these can't be marketed under the proposed regulations? Does that mean only flowering hybrid hellebores can be sold because thats the only way to achieve adherence to "the descriptor"?

By now we all should understand the purpose of the regulations. Mr Borg begins his letter with a very persuasive statement about  strengthening consumer choice. However its much more complex than just the commercial exchange between businesses and customers and I still don't believe that is being addressed sufficiently well enough.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 17, 2014, 09:35:30 PM
PS I ran out of room on my tablet to put this last bit in.

Bureaucrats see the world as one big opportunity to be codified and organized according to their understanding of it. They are, afterall, just people like you and I, although I am now sure there is a gene for busybodiness, and they get very attached to their solutions. Dont be fooled by mothehood statements or soft, nice-sounding phrases like "ensure consumers' choices". All very well but don't let them "chuck the baby out with the bathwater" because I can guarantee once its out there will be no getting it back in.
Cheers, M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 17, 2014, 10:34:12 PM
Hi again, some food for thought:

Janis Ruksans lists over 30 Corydalis solida cultivars on his current catalogue. Under the proposed regulations will he be required to register individual descriptions for each and every one with the EC before he can sell them in the EU? Or will he be lucky and find that the whole genus is not included in Annex 1? Or maybe C. solida IS and all the other species aren't?  Why is that? If that was the case who or what provides the legal decription for Corydalis solida? Will all of Janis' cultivars meet that descriptors requirements? If not, can he register them as vareties and avoid having to provide full descriptions for those that don't?

Will Janis' business be exempt from such torturous convolutions? Imagine the rigmarole!

So much for Mr Borg's nice sounding, "It is important that the marketing of ornamentals remains proportionate and less burdensome than for EU listed plant species". BUT HANG ON it just might be listed!

As I said previously take with a grain of salt sweet sounding motherhoods from those in charge.
. The reality is always more complex and difficult questions need to keep on being asked.

Cheers, M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on January 17, 2014, 11:29:13 PM
Annex 1 is contained in pages 94-99 of the 147page document  listed earlier in this thread.
Here it is:
[attachurl=1]
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 18, 2014, 01:56:57 AM
That's a relief! But is Janis still required to register these cultivars with full descriptions under the proposed regulations posited for ornamentals? Or can he just list them as varieties of the known species and thus require no more than the description he provides in his catalogue?

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on January 18, 2014, 11:09:04 AM
One of the real difficulties as I see it is that already the "goal posts" have been changed  - e.g. the blanket exemption that was first included for smaller companies has been removed  - and  who knows what other changes might be included even before the act is finalised if those with a valid interest do not make their position clear to the officials?
If  our concerns are not expressed at this stage, there is little hope of any notice being taken of protests at a later date.

 It will be a case of  rearrange these words into a well known English phrase :

 has door the after bolted closing the horse stable ........  ::)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 19, 2014, 08:15:49 PM
Yes, one can be sure that Brussells will want a nice all inclusive package if they can get away with it and that those on the other side of the table will be looking after their own interests. Small Business doesn't have a champion to puts case directly and has to rely on proxies. But if those who will be affected remain silent then,  as you say,  you can shut the gate.
I wonder what approach Evolution Plants, who have literally only just begun, and Cally Gardens are taking?

Cheers,  M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on January 24, 2014, 01:54:43 PM
A response received to an email yesterday by Derrick Donnison-Morgan  to this MEP :

Thank you for your further email about the EU Plant Reproductive Material Law.
 
The proposal for a Regulation on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (COM(2013) 262) is part of the European Commission’s package on health and safety standards of the agriculture-to-food chain which was announced on 6th May last year. The aim of the proposal is to cut red tape for farmers and businesses whilst taking a more risk evidenced based approach to health.  A summary of the proposal is available here:http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/docs/cs-plant-seeds_en.pdf and you can find more information as well as FAQs and impact assessments on this website: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/animal-plant-health_en.htm. (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/animal-plant-health_en.htm.)
 
The regulation aims to harmonise 12 existing directives, but there is a lot of room for improvement on the Commission’s proposal.  My Liberal Democrat Euro MP colleagues and I had a number of concerns, particularly regarding the potentially adverse effect this regulation would have on gardeners, ornamental growers and businesses supplying niche markets.  Therefore, we have tried to ensure that these sectors are able to continue operating and not face unnecessary administrative burdens.
 
In particular, my colleague George Lyon MEP, has worked closely with the UK Government and drawn up a number of amendments that exclude ornamental plants, home gardeners and businesses that serve niche markets from this proposed regulation.  While we do need to ensure that the quality of the material bought is of a sufficient standard and that it is traceable, I believe that ornamental products and seeds sold in niche markets should fall outside the scope of this regulation.
 
I understand the current position is there are nearly 1,500 amendments have been tabled in the Agricultural and Rural Development Committee, most of which deal with the concerns of gardeners and seed producers.  The Committee is provisionally scheduled to begin starting discussions on the amendments on 27th January 2014.
 
Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.  My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I take your specific concerns very seriously and will follow these proposals closely during the on-going negotiations.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 
Catherine Bearder MEP
 
Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament for the South East of England
Constituency Office
27 Park End Street
Oxford
OX1 1HU
+44 1865 249838
www.bearder.eu (http://www.bearder.eu)
 
 
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on January 24, 2014, 06:48:20 PM
There is also reference to this in the Comment section of 'The Garden' by Nigel Colborn, so it is steadily getting more and more on the agenda which must be good news.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 29, 2014, 08:32:41 PM
It's great that this is now a sticky topic. Hopefully this interest is  translating into submissions and letters to pollies. The SRGC represents a large bloc of potential agitation and community concern so let's hope individual members come to understand this and get writing.

Cheers,  Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on January 31, 2014, 09:38:46 PM
An Irish friend has just sent me this link - He thinks  it is good news and on a brief reading I think he's right. 
Thanks, H..

 MEPs vote against EU seed Regulation  by  Oliver Tickell

31st January 2014

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2261055/meps_vote_against_eu_seed_regulation.html (http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2261055/meps_vote_against_eu_seed_regulation.html)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on February 01, 2014, 08:10:24 PM
Hi,  this looks good news for seed exchanges but has it been reported elsewhere? I guess there will be a lag in the paper media but some enlightened blogger should have raised their hat by now.

I am a long way from the action but it looks to me that issues around plant registration and niche markets still need to be resolved. However if the size of this rejection is anything to go by then the outlook is favourable.

Thank God for commonsense.  I am still shaking my head in disbelief that such an idiotic proposal ever got to fly.

Cheers, M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on February 04, 2014, 07:19:34 AM
For those members who may want to read something about this battle in another language other than English this site may be useful http://www.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/ (http://www.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/)

Much of the discussions centre on food seeds but many of the principles are valid for all of us who wish to trade, swap, buy and grow seeds.

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on February 04, 2014, 07:24:36 AM
Keith Taylor Greens MP, who I believe has had a letter posted on this thread has some interesting things to say in his latest blog post http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/2014/01/31/keith-opposes-commissions-new-seed-law/ (http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/2014/01/31/keith-opposes-commissions-new-seed-law/)

M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on February 04, 2014, 10:05:05 AM
There has been opposition to the proposed new seed regulations of the EU in many countries. See for example:

http://www.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/ (http://www.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/)

But there are many more, a lot written in the language of the country itself.

I think many people do not realize what the possible  implications of the proposed new legislation can be for ornamental gardening.

The Dutch parliament approved a motion against the new seed regulation in May 2013.



 Thanks for the repeat of the link for the Seed Sovereignty site, accessible in several languages, Marcus.

While the news so far is good, there is still more to be done to assure that draconian measures are  dismissed and the more of us across Europe who support the action against this legislation which might  be catastrophic for ornamental seed and plant  distribution, the better.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on February 04, 2014, 08:05:41 PM
Apologies to Garden Prince - its becoming a long thread!

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on February 10, 2014, 06:04:47 PM
Quote from Horticulture Week :

http://www.hortweek.com/news/1230025/Delay-forecast-plant-reproductive-material-legislation/ (http://www.hortweek.com/news/1230025/Delay-forecast-plant-reproductive-material-legislation/)

Delay forecast for plant reproductive material legislation
Friday, 07 February 2014

Plant reproductive material legislation may not come in until 2015, campaigner Graham Spencer has suggested.

Many growers are against the controversial EU legislation 2013/0137(COD). They have pointed out that under initial drafts, article 50 "officially recognised descriptions" (HW, 13 September) requiring "common knowledge names" would have resulted in lengthy, contentious and costly descriptions.
Plants for Europe owner Spencer said the EU environment committee has voted unanimously (49-0) against draft legislation and he now expects the agriculture committee to follow suit when it votes next week.

With a new EU Parliament and Commission due this year, Spencer said decisions are likely to be delayed. However, he warned: "It's not gone away."

HTA horticulture manager Raoul Curtis-Machin added: "We've now got to wait for the Commission's response, which may be a while off yet with European elections due in May."

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on February 11, 2014, 10:41:30 AM
Sounds like the Night of the Living Dead! 

Surely this issue has a stake throughs its heart after the MEPs overwhelming voted it down?  How come it can be resurrected?

Cheers,  M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on February 11, 2014, 10:44:42 AM
Sorry,  I see now that it was the Environment Committee that voted it down .... . God these bureaucrats are tenacious bubble dwellers! M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on February 12, 2014, 07:34:08 PM
Hi,  for those that haven't been following this closely or are just plain confused by the process here is a link that can help http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw2.html (http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw2.html)

While the focus is on vegetable seeds the principles are the same and the process going forward is simply explained.
Cheers,  M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on February 12, 2014, 08:38:04 PM
I have quickly browsed the Environment Committee's report and the situation is not as rosy as reported.  The committee voted down the proposed version and has come up with their own set of amendments. Some of these are very contentious and are in fact tougher than the EC's position.  For example,  contrary to the EC 's proposal for small businesses servicing niche markets to be exempt, the Committee wants them to be included and stricter definitions be set for what constitutes a niche market and how many units of a particular variety can be sold into it. Page 20 of the report,  between recommendations 30 and 31 should be read by those visiting the forum who have commercial interests.  It doesn't  inspire confidence.

On a brighter note, it is my understanding that the committee is NOT supportive of a register for clonal material BUT is for seed varieties. This is to ensure and maintain confidence in their purity. I may be wrong about this because I can find any mention on The Real Seed website and seeing that such a regulation will directly affect their activities.

Maybe some other forumists can take the time to have a look at the report?

Cheers,  M
Title: Update on Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 12, 2014, 04:22:00 PM
Updates  via Plant Heritage :
http://www.nccpg.com/News/European-Commission-proposal-confusion-after-lates.aspx (http://www.nccpg.com/News/European-Commission-proposal-confusion-after-lates.aspx)
Quote :

 " European Commission proposal confusion after latest round of voting

European Commission proposal confusion after latest round of voting
Plant Heritage is warning that the proposed new European legislation has been thrown into confusion this week after the EU Parliament voted yesterday overwhelming to reject the proposal.
 
The Plant Reproductive Materials regulations, which could endanger many National Plant Collections, numerous nurseries and endanger the survival of many ornamental plants, was rejected by the Parliament in Brussels yesterday amid concerns that it would give the Commission too much power, and leave European countries without any leeway to tailor the new rules to their needs.
 
The Commission was left reeling and responded saying that, whilst it was prepared to enter discussions to improve the proposal, it was not prepared to withdraw it. As a result Parliament closed the first reading, voting against the Commission’s draft text by 650 votes to 15. Chair of the Agricultural Committee, Paolo De Castro, said the vote showed 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.
 
“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,” Mr De Castro said.
 
At present it is not known what the outcome of yesterday’s voting means but with no changes made to the proposal at this point in the process it means that it could be much harder for MEP’s and industry campaigners to influence a second reading.
 
The concern now is that although negotiations will continue in the European Council and amendments will be made, Council has agreed that in principal the regulation is needed, potentially putting the economic viability of many National Plant Collections and nurseries in doubt.
 
Plant Heritage is grateful to everyone who lobbied MEPs before Christmas. This seems to have had a major impact on their decision yesterday: “As MEPs, who co-legislate with the Council, we want to take full responsibility for this legislation,” said rapporteur Silvestris. “For this reason we cannot decide in a hasty manner on this proposal, which is crucial for many growers’ associations, companies and citizens,” he added.
 
Referring to these latest developments Plant Heritage Conservation Officer Mercy Morris said that the industry now needed to establish the impact of yesterday’s developments and clarify what could be done moving forwards.
 
Speaking on the directive Ms Morris said: “It appears to be impossible to predict what will happen next; though it would be very disappointing, in the run-up to the European elections to have the opinions of our democratically elected representatives ignored. I would urge everyone involved to maintain the cooperation between the different areas of UK horticulture that has served us well so far, and be vigilant for future developments”
 
The current wording of the legislation requires all plant varieties sold in Europe to be listed on an official register thus making it illegal to sell unregistered varieties. At present only 2,000 of the estimated 77,000 cultivars sold in UK are registered, and with an administrative cost of as much as £500 per variety to register, many small nurseries could be forced to close. This would also include a large proportion of our National Plant Collections, many of which are held in large and small nurseries."
Title: Update to Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 12, 2014, 04:25:09 PM
Clearly there may be more  to be done by us all in the way of  contacting MEPs etc - to ensure that these proposals are fully rejected.

 Further link to news : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140307IPR38202/html/MEPs-reject-draft-seed-regulation (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140307IPR38202/html/MEPs-reject-draft-seed-regulation)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ChrisB on March 12, 2014, 05:20:51 PM
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...
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 12, 2014, 05:57:52 PM
Yes, I think that is correct , Christine - that's how I understood it too -  that's bureaucracy for you......
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on March 12, 2014, 06:46:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ChrisB on March 12, 2014, 08:47:45 PM
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?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: David Nicholson on March 12, 2014, 09:04:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on March 12, 2014, 09:39:07 PM
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?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ChrisB on March 13, 2014, 06:51:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on March 13, 2014, 07:58:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 14, 2014, 12:20:00 PM
More on the Proposed plant reproductive material laws voted down by European Parliament - from HortWeek


Quote
"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.

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

Title: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Matt T on March 14, 2014, 12:51:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: David Nicholson on March 14, 2014, 01:12:23 PM

Common sense must prevail...............................................................
A quality that seems sadly lacking amongst the EU 'powers that be'
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Matt T on March 14, 2014, 01:29:02 PM

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.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on March 15, 2014, 06:07:53 AM
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?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on March 15, 2014, 06:19:23 AM
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
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 24, 2014, 12:46:31 PM
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."
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Anthony Darby on April 09, 2014, 09:10:58 AM
This is the sort of crap I have to deal with. Just received a letter from the "Ministry for Primary Industries" about a "Mail Item Held" saying the following items sent to you.......do not meet the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and has been held by the... [MPI]"

Item description: "19 sachets of seeds for sowing with unreadable scientific name. whole parcel".

I attach a photo (which you can clearly read the labels) of the very "unreadable" packets sent to me. There was a list (all on the MAF list) enclosed with the seeds. Perhaps if they could actually employ someone who could read it would help! >:(
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: fermi de Sousa on April 10, 2014, 01:04:01 AM

I attach a photo (which you can clearly read the labels) of the very "unreadable" packets sent to me. There was a list (all on the MAF list) enclosed with the seeds. Perhaps if they could actually employ someone who could read it would help! >:(
Strange; they've never had trouble reading Marcus' writing before (as Lesley can attest).
The Aussie "MAF" have now taken to destroying anything they can't identify and telling us after the fact!
cheers
fermi
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Afloden on April 10, 2014, 01:49:18 AM
Was the person who could not read these blind and needed it in braille? :P
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Anthony Darby on April 10, 2014, 06:48:27 AM
Received this from MQS Auckland Airport Mail Centre:

"Hi Anthony

Thank you for the seed names you forwarded.
I have matched them to the biosecurity index and all are permitted entry into NZ. I have released your parcel today, sop[sic] happy gardening.

Regards Susan"

They must have installed new software to their seed packet reader - an ability to read. If they can match a typed list to individual packets the labels must be legible after all!!!

I sent a thank you.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on April 18, 2014, 03:57:53 PM
I see that the EU is set to ban Rhododendron ponticum (now Rhododendron x superponticum I believe), making it a criminal offence to own the species or any cultivar derived from it. I wonder what proportion of the plants in Scotland's West Coast gardens will have to be grubbed up and burnt if this goes through.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Corrado & Rina on December 23, 2014, 08:34:00 AM
I see that the EU is set to ban Rhododendron ponticum (now Rhododendron x superponticum I believe), making it a criminal offence to own the species or any cultivar derived from it. I wonder what proportion of the plants in Scotland's West Coast gardens will have to be grubbed up and burnt if this goes through.

Let alone three quarters of Yorkshire privately owned woodlands, including the Forestry Commission's. Are they going to set up a special branch of the forces, Rhodocop?

Regards

Corrado
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hoy on December 23, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
This is the sort of crap I have to deal with. Just received a letter from the "Ministry for Primary Industries" about a "Mail Item Held" saying the following items sent to you.......do not meet the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and has been held by the... [MPI]"

Item description: "19 sachets of seeds for sowing with unreadable scientific name. whole parcel".

I attach a photo (which you can clearly read the labels) of the very "unreadable" packets sent to me. There was a list (all on the MAF list) enclosed with the seeds. Perhaps if they could actually employ someone who could read it would help! >:(

Anything can happen with packets of seeds. I lost one shipment last summer as the custom defined the seeds as "food". Although I am allowed to import almost all kind of seeds someone suddenly decided to redefine seeds as food which is restricted. No argument could change that decision.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on December 23, 2014, 06:55:02 PM
The latest elsewhere on the Forum is that the EU have dropped these proposals, at least for the time being.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 23, 2014, 07:02:44 PM
The latest elsewhere on the Forum is that the EU have dropped these proposals, at least for the time being.
 
John is right -  See here : http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=11232.msg319585#msg319585 (http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=11232.msg319585#msg319585)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on December 26, 2014, 10:07:46 AM
Post copied from the December (2014) in the Southern Hemisphere thread - the subject was raised as aresult of the confusion of the so-called Lilium Lancon /Lankon ....  see various posts on the thread  http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=12515.00 (http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=12515.00)

Hi Guys, and the best Season's Greetings!

Concur with the previous lily boys but the Bellingham and Bullwood hybrids can throw identical plants.

Which leads me to an area that NO ONE will want to go to BUT the Lilium" Lancon"situation is a prime example of the sort of thing the EU bureaucrats, who want to "protect" consumer interests by regulating description and ensuring the correct product is in the market, would be rubbing their hands over. Right up their alley - thanks drongo marketing morons!! A case of money trumping commonsense. 

Maggi, maybe this issue can placed on/ at the Regulatory Threats to Plant Movements, etc. thread? This is one of the practices which MUST stop if the arguments for commonsense are to be listened to. Seems innocent enough to us but it is a form of dumping which destroys trust and credibility and plays right into the Commissions hands.
Maggi, on second thoughts maybe my comments can be moved there and a reference may from there to here for illustration?
Apologies on breaking the flow but it needs to said somewhere.

Cheers, Marcus
This rave may probably not mean a thing to southerners but maybe a few will be savvy to whats at stake.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on January 03, 2015, 06:28:00 PM
Let alone three quarters of Yorkshire privately owned woodlands, including the Forestry Commission's. Are they going to set up a special branch of the forces, Rhodocop?

Regards

Corrado
Love the  Rhodocop joke by the way!
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnstephen29 on January 15, 2015, 08:59:07 PM
Hi isn't rhododendron ponticum classed as a plant pest or something like that? I know several woods here in Lincolnshire and up in yorkshire that are overun with it.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on January 17, 2015, 07:16:31 PM
Certainly is, but the taxonomists tell us to call it Rhododendron x superponticum these days - they reckon it's a hybrid. Shame that one rogue species/hybrid gets a bad press for the whole genus.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnstephen29 on January 17, 2015, 09:15:52 PM
Hi Ralph yes it is, rhododendrons are beautiful shrubs when in flower. I can see the need for regulations to stop other nightmare plants getting in eg Japanese knotweed, azolla, but some people like in Anthony's case are a bit over zealous.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Corrado & Rina on January 19, 2015, 11:37:07 AM
Love the  Rhodocop joke by the way!

Thanks John :) Can imagine it bogged down in some Yorkshire wood fighting with the rodhodendron x superponticum (what a fantastic name for a super villain) ....
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ChrisB on January 26, 2015, 10:19:57 AM
I'm seeing a new outbreak of panic on Facebook today about the European Govt going ahead with regulation of seed for commercial growers, with an eye to gardeners in the future.  Is this a new thing or a bit more of what we already know?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on January 26, 2015, 10:30:58 AM
There was some talk in December that there may be a chance for the  proposed legislation to be amended again and re-presented  :

Quote from http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw2.html (http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw2.html)
"LATEST UPDATE 19 December 2014

As of this month, it is still looking like the most probable result is that the seed law proposals will be formally withdrawn - it is on the 'kill list' of Commission proposals. However, there is still some possibility that there may be a move simply to modify it - the wording on the Commission document says:

"Following its rejection of the proposal in 1st reading in April 2014, EP has asked COM to withdraw in letter by EP President dated 11/09/2014 D(2014)41887."

Which sounds like a withdrawal, but apparantly leaves a window open for modification to be agreed instead. We will post more details as soon as we have anything further to add - almost certainly after the Christmas break at the earliest. "


 And the "EU Issue Tracker " site  says :

EU Plant Reproductive Material Law
Commission proposal for a Regulation on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law) [COM(2013)262 final] | Dossier 229 | Status: "Current Proposals" | Updated: 20 Jan 15  -   

 but I have not yet found the full details.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ChrisB on January 27, 2015, 08:44:40 AM
Thanks Maggi  Here is the link from the Facebook alert: http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds_European_Commission_registration.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds_European_Commission_registration.html)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Cruickshank Friend on January 27, 2015, 09:27:56 AM
Yes, that link is to an older report. I think at the moment the proposals are still in limbo.  It's something that may return in future though.  :(
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 27, 2015, 06:27:39 PM
If I may join in?  There is obviously a very strong desire by the EU Commission to get something done about this.  Equally there appears to be a very strong desire by the trade to resist having their interests subsumed by bureaucratic zealousness. I AM SURE there is a lot of argie bargie going on behind the scenes.

Wouldn't it be in the interests of the SRGC (and hopefully the AGS and the Hardy Plant Society) to RESTATE their position at this stage to the Commission or the Committee?  Proactive defending, a bit of joining together for the common cause,  having a strong and united front would seem like a good stance to take? Even a bit of a mail around to pollies, etc who took up the cause and acknowledged the natural right of individuals to be free of such over-binding regs wouldn't be a bad idea.
We are collateral damage in all of this, just dross on the workshop floor and too easily forgotten about.  Its up to the parent bodies to ensure this doesn't happen. We shouldn't wait to be stomped on.

Any ideas about this?

Cheers,  Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on January 28, 2015, 12:51:19 PM
If what Michael Wickenden  of Cally Gardens (http://www.callygardens.co.uk/) says in his latest catalogue is fact - and I personally  have no reason to doubt him - it could prove hard in many ways  to get official responses made to the Commission from the various plant organisations.
I am glad that we have at least tried to raise awareness here.

I quote Michael's comments :

"Prison for Plant Hunters and Thirty Years of Cally Gardens

Thirty years ago I was writing my first catalogue by the light of an oil lamp in my cottage on the banks of Strangford Lough, County Down, with curlews calling on the shore and the Mourne Mountains visible across the water. Having spent years collecting and propagating plants I had over 800 varieties and was ready to try my hand at being a nurseryman. Inspired by Graham Stuart Thomas’ book Perennial Garden Plants, I decided to specialise in unusual perennials, and the selection process was simple; anything Mr Thomas liked  but Blooms Nursery did not have, I went for. This paid off and I was able to start a nursery with virtually no capital on half an acre next to a tumble down cottage with no electricity. This was possible because I, along with everybody else, had free access to the greatest ‘capital’ of all, nature.
I remember when it dawned on me that there are 300,000 species of plants out there and that I could grow, propagate and sell any of them. The following year I moved to Cally Gardens in South West Scotland.

As soon as I had sold some plants and made some money I wanted to go plant hunting to see them in the wild and, I hoped, to collect some seeds. I decided to go to Chile that was just beginning to emerge from the very dark days of the Pinochet regime and had been off the plant hunting agenda for some years. I did not assume that I could just wander around Chile collecting seeds. I did not know what the position was so I went to the Chilean Embassy in London where a charming Chilean diplomat was surprised but pleased that I had bothered to ask for permission at all. I spent three months travelling up and down the Andes and some of the plants I raised from the seed are still around, including  Scabiosa ‘Chile Black’, Mitraria ‘Lake Caburgua’ and  Buddleia globosa ‘Cally Orange’.

I hardly realised it at the time but I was making use of the right to interact freely with nature that we all took for granted in those days - the right to grow what we wanted for sale and to collect seeds subject to the normal standards of courtesy. Thirty years later those rights have mostly been removed, by people who had a financial interest in doing so. First Plant Breeders Rights (PBR) used the quite reasonable argument that plant breeding should be rewarded to introduce something very different, a system that awards the rights (in effect a copyright on a plant) whether plant breeding has taken place or not. This happened despite an on the record
promise by the government that PBR would only be for the results of long expensive breeding programs.

I can no longer comb the nursery catalogues looking for new varieties for my customers because many of them are subject to PBR, and because PBR are available retrospectively. If a variety is selling well the grower can obtain PBR and then propagation for sale becomes illegal. Any I have grown in the meantime must be thrown away or a royalty paid that is then passed on to my customers. They are likely to end up paying for plant breeding that never took place. A major source of new plants is no longer available.

The plant hunting situation has changed dramatically in the last few months.

The Nagoya Protocol,  part of the Convention on Biodiversity, was approved by the EU parliament in March 2014 and states that plant hunters, who do not have a benefit sharing contract with the government of the country they are in, are committing a criminal offence with two years in prison as the ultimate sanction. These contracts are unlikely to be available for small-scale horticultural collectors such as myself. Botanic Gardens and other prestigious
organisations that can get them are not allowed to release any of the material collected to gardeners because the ‘intellectual property’ stays with the country of origin.
(No one has ever explained how natural genetic resources that have evolved over millions of years, such as plants, could be anyone’s intellectual property.)
As  a result another source of new plants has gone, along with the most exciting aspect of my work.

The horticultural writers and personalities who earn their living from the gardening public have done little to alert them to these fundamental changes. The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS, an organisation of which I was a member for forty years) not only failed to inform its members and promote discussion; they quietly conducted meetings with the government that legitimised the process. These took place in May 2014 when they were simultaneously heaping praise on Crug Farm’s fine display of wild collected plants at the Chelsea Flower Show. Perhaps the idea is that the gardening public’s appetite for new plants is to be satisfied by the stream of patented novelties that attract a royalty, rather than wild collected plants that are supposed to remain
in the common domain. It is worth remembering that without plant hunters there would be no gardens, no RHS, no Chelsea Flower Show, and no patented novelties.
My conclusion is that this privitisation of nature away from common property is incompatible with the sort of gardening I have lived by all my life. Surely nature is not ‘intellectual property’, it is life and life should not be owned. For the background to all this, as I see it, please go to  www.callygardens.co.uk (http://www.callygardens.co.uk)   have a look at
my essays  ‘The Nurseryman as Plant Hunter’  and  ‘Who owns Nature’.

Michael Wickenden."




Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: SJW on January 28, 2015, 01:46:17 PM
What an excellent albeit depressing article by Michael Wickenden. The comments about the RHS are very interesting. If members aren't impressed by RHS's actions then we should let them know - without the members there wouldn't be an RHS...

And what are Kew's and RBGE's views in all of this?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on January 28, 2015, 02:32:06 PM
Not very easy to find information on that, Steve, from Kew, RBGE or most  places.
The RHS rel;eased this statement 19th December 2014:
http://press.rhs.org.uk/RHS-Science-and-Advice/Government-Relations-Statement--EU-Plant-Reproduct.aspx (http://press.rhs.org.uk/RHS-Science-and-Advice/Government-Relations-Statement--EU-Plant-Reproduct.aspx) 

 I quote from it here :
"RHS statement in response to the withdrawal of the proposed EU Plant Reproductive Material legislation from the European Commission’s Work Programme for 2015

Following the rejection earlier in the year by the European Parliament (EP) of the proposed EU Plant Reproductive Material legislation by 650 votes to 15, the President of the European Parliament has subsequently requested that the proposal be withdrawn. The European Commission (EC) announced its Work Programme, which sets out the legislation that the EP will be working on in 2015, earlier this week in which it signalled the withdrawal of this contentious piece of legislation.

Since the legislation was proposed, the RHS and many other horticultural institutions in the UK have been working together to highlight the potential negative effect it could have on the horticultural sector. Working with colleagues in Defra, meeting with representatives of the EU Commission, briefing MEPs, and drafting amendments to the proposals enabled us to effectively represent the interests of gardeners. The outcome, although it will have consequences for other sectors, is a testament to the effectiveness of this hard work, which has also considerably raised the profile of horticulture within the EU.

It is unclear what next step the EC will take on this issue. However the RHS will be closely monitoring future developments and liaising with other horticultural organisations to ensure that momentum on this important issue is kept up and that the interests of gardeners and the horticultural industry continue to be represented at the highest level. We will also be building links with like-minded organisations in other Member States to increase co-ordination of activities in support of horticulture.

If passed, the new law could have seen breeders having to pay a fee of between £300 and £500 to register plant names, a cost that would inevitably be passed on to UK gardeners. The knock on effect of increased costs and bureaucracy could have resulted in a reduction in the range of plants available to buy in garden centres."

Again there is mention of the continued possibility of a re-introduction of the proposals.

Is anyone aware of any contact between RHS and any other organaisations, even in the UK, about the " liaising with other horticultural organisations " ?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Giles on January 28, 2015, 07:42:57 PM
... vegetable growers already live with registration and National Lists...
£100 to register an amateur variety...  ..they take credit cards..
So it's not without precedent (I'm afraid)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Giles on January 28, 2015, 07:50:34 PM
If you're interested:
https://www.gov.uk/national-lists-of-agricultural-and-vegetable-crops (https://www.gov.uk/national-lists-of-agricultural-and-vegetable-crops)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Sophie on January 28, 2015, 11:44:26 PM
Regarding the PRM legislation, there has been no announcement since the official withdrawal of the proposal in December 2014 (see http://www.hortweek.com/plant-reproductive-material-legislation-european-commissions-withdrawals-list-2015/ornamentals/article/1326823 (http://www.hortweek.com/plant-reproductive-material-legislation-european-commissions-withdrawals-list-2015/ornamentals/article/1326823)).
While this may seem as a victory, it remains worrying as the Commission might decide at any point to put it back on the table.
To reply to your "liaising with other horticultural organisations " question, the UK working group (RHS, DEFRA, NFU, Plant Heritage, HDC, BGA etc) which was set up to study the proposal, try to understand its consequences, and write amendments is still very much alive, and ready to react if...

Nagoya, mentioned in Michael Wickenden's piece is a completely different issue (global legislation, on access and use of genetic material).
The Nagoya protocol is officially in place since October 2014, however every country has to work on its own ways of implementing it. This has to be done by October 2015, but I believe that for the UK DEFRA and Kew are still working on it. For now, nobody really knows what it entails, how or whether it will be enforced at all, by whom, etc...which is the reason why the RHS has not yet issued a statement. Even gardens are only just starting to think about it - there's a PlantNetwork meeting soon on that topic (http://plantnetwork.org/news/booking-opens-nagoya-protocol-day-kew/ (http://plantnetwork.org/news/booking-opens-nagoya-protocol-day-kew/)).
For those who are interested (it's a bit dense - policy paper), here's an early report on Nagoya and how it could affect various sectors: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10324_WC1016_FinalreporttoDefra.pdf (http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10324_WC1016_FinalreporttoDefra.pdf)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: SJW on January 28, 2015, 11:53:07 PM
Regarding the PRM legislation, there has been no announcement since the official withdrawal of the proposal in December 2014 (see http://www.hortweek.com/plant-reproductive-material-legislation-european-commissions-withdrawals-list-2015/ornamentals/article/1326823 (http://www.hortweek.com/plant-reproductive-material-legislation-european-commissions-withdrawals-list-2015/ornamentals/article/1326823)).
While this may seem as a victory, it remains worrying as the Commission might decide at any point to put it back on the table.
To reply to your "liaising with other horticultural organisations " question, the UK working group (RHS, DEFRA, NFU, Plant Heritage, HDC, BGA etc) which was set up to study the proposal, try to understand its consequences, and write amendments is still very much alive, and ready to react if...

Nagoya, mentioned in Michael Wickenden's piece is a completely different issue (global legislation, on access and use of genetic material).
The Nagoya protocol is officially in place since October 2014, however every country has to work on its own ways of implementing it. This has to be done by October 2015, but I believe that for the UK DEFRA and Kew are still working on it. For now, nobody really knows what it entails, how or whether it will be enforced at all, by whom, etc...which is the reason why the RHS has not yet issued a statement. Even gardens are only just starting to think about it - there's a PlantNetwork meeting soon on that topic (http://plantnetwork.org/news/booking-opens-nagoya-protocol-day-kew/ (http://plantnetwork.org/news/booking-opens-nagoya-protocol-day-kew/)).
For those who are interested (it's a bit dense - policy paper), here's an early report on Nagoya and how it could affect various sectors: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10324_WC1016_FinalreporttoDefra.pdf (http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10324_WC1016_FinalreporttoDefra.pdf)

Thanks for this update and useful links, Sophie.

(Interesting blog, by the way :) )
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on January 29, 2015, 09:07:35 AM
Thank you for this informed comment, Sophie - and a warm welcome to the Forum.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Matt T on January 29, 2015, 09:34:46 AM
Interesting report Sophie references re Nagoya. I strongly believe that the principle of social justice should prevail so that big businesses can't benefit from indigenous knowledge/other countries resources without giving something back. However, it's possible that the unintended consequences for small-scale activities will be lost sight of with so many activities and industries involved/affected. Also, the activities and interests of many SRGC members - valuable research, accessions and conservation work - fall between the 'Horticulture' and 'Botanic Garden' categories which the process doesn't seem to acknowledge. I can feel the cold fingers of regulation tightening their grip.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 29, 2015, 10:17:13 AM
Hi Matt,

This has already happened in SO many ways. I could give you lots of examples from Australia but suffice to say I, as  a small businessman who dares to do something "outside the box" is slammed with increases in fees and compliance until I am priced out of the market.  Who cares?  Certainly the bureaucrats couldn't care less because their narrow focus is only on the "big boys"  and their  own organizational interests.  The market?  It doesn't care because its interest is short term profits and it will work with the bureaucrats, whom it has leverage with to achieve that goal alone.  The consumers? They don't care because they don't know.  The garden media? They don't care (much) because they are in the pocket of the market.

Its a depressing picture. The last frontier owned lock, stock and barrel, by vested interest under the pretext of preserving biodiversity.  Cheers, M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 29, 2015, 10:52:59 AM
PS One  doesn't have to look too far too see what Michael is talking about.  Many countries are very keen to sign up to international and supranational agreements,  memos of understanding,  treaties, you name it .... to push their ownership agenda but do little in the way of practical measures to protect their endemic species.  Grazing in national parks and conservation areas,  unfetted development (just look at the unmitigated disaster "strip mining" coastal regions by tourism interests is), wholesale clearing of land workout nerry a mention of an enviromental impsct statement, .... need I go on?

One example: Fritillaria conica is listed in the EU Red Book of Endangered Species. It is reported to be known from only 4 sites in a small area in the extreme SW of the Peloponnese. I would contend that it is now extinct in two of these sites.  Of the other two: the best site of over 600 plants is extensively and continuously grazed. There is no interpretive signage,  no barriers to entry,  etc. One large section of the population has been completely destroyed by the development of a small scale olive Orchard which uses herbicides ( how did this happen? ).
The other site is on the island of Sapientza off Methoni. Safe place you'd think?  Well yes until the local  authorities introduced a wild goat and a wild sheep species to there in the 1990s. How did that happen?  Had anyone been prosecuted under EU biodiversity law for such a flagrant disregard for the protection of this CRITICALLY endangered species? Did anyone know it existed there?  Did anyone care?  Were the sheep and the goats being introduced to their former range?  Did anyone think to ask what we're the likely impacts?  I don't think so.
And these are the same sort of countries "pushing" for control of its "intellectual" property.  I think anyone with half a brain can see where this is all going.

M



Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Sophie on January 30, 2015, 10:36:07 AM
Thanks for the welcome. I am an avid reader of the forum, glad I finally got around to registering.

the activities and interests of many SRGC members - valuable research, accessions and conservation work - fall between the 'Horticulture' and 'Botanic Garden' categories which the process doesn't seem to acknowledge.
I work for Plant Heritage, so I am well aware of that  :-\
This is what we have issued to Collection Holders regarding ABS/Nagoya (that is really all we know for now): https://collectionholdernews.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/access-and-benefit-sharing-the-nagoya-protocol/ (https://collectionholdernews.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/access-and-benefit-sharing-the-nagoya-protocol/)

It all comes down to a philosophical question - who owns nature? International bodies have decided to solve that question by putting a legal frame around every natural resource, whether it is plants, animals or entire habitats. Will it help conservation in the long run and on a global level? I personally doubt it. Unlike the PRM legislation, there is little scope for negotiation around Nagoya. The only thing we can hope is that countries will implement it in the least-damaging way, but we won't know if that's the case until a few months/years.
Ultimately, I think it makes conserving ex-situ collections (especially non-botanic garden ones) even more crucial...
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on January 30, 2015, 12:14:46 PM
I would agree with that. In addition to conservation there is also knowledge about plants which individual specialists (such as Marcus has shown) are often more aware of than anyone else, and concerned about. Knowledge is more than just lists and resulting regulations - it has a scientific base which builds and integrates and is shared.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 31, 2015, 05:45:50 AM
Hi again,

Sophie poses this interesting question, "It all comes down to a philosophical question - who owns nature?"

I think that question has already been answered as far as our happy band of Internationalists are concerned, hence Michael's lament. The problem with all this is there is no evidence to show a direct link between owning nature and better conservation outcomes. I have attempted to give examples of this in my previous email and I could give countless more.

The real question here is Cicero's, "Who benefits?". Well certainly not the plants or I would contend, the habitats. To have successful outcomes one must have in place the right value systems and you won't find these in most of the countries who are rushing to "sign up".

I think what Michael is lamenting is fair and reasonable use/access/consultation to/about these resources. This can be done in a variety of ways like it has been in the past but I feel sure, as Michael does, that in the future it will be restricted to prestigious institutions and no-one else will get a look in.
Tim's point is an excellent one but sadly this isn't REALLY what the countries in question are interested in. We currently have people on this forum doing ground-breaking taxonomic work, who, I dare say, have to do it out of the way of the authorities! That's crazy.
It's unfortunately all about ownership. Nothing more nothing less. I'm sorry to appear so cynical but I see nothing in my experience that tells me anything else. And these international regulatory "hijacks" just go hand in glove with such base instincts.

Cheers, Marcus
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 31, 2015, 07:03:05 PM
PS I just had a look at Sophie's link and in particular the section on due diligence and National Collections. As far as I can see these requirements are unrealistic,  particularly in their retrospectivity and ridiculous demands, both in terms of compliance and record-keeping. In the view of these matters the ONLY entities that would undertake such collections would be those either fully funded by govrrnment (read the tax payer) or institutions who can recover costs by charging a fee to those wishing access to their collection.
In regards to current collection holders who can't meet retrospective compliance, and I would wager this will be a large number,  what happens to the collection holder and their collection?

Again I lament,  along with Michael W, that this is becoming a lawyer's picnic, the output of which bears little in common with what is happening "on the ground" and what has happened in the past.  It squeezes out diversity of interests and leaves only those with major financial resources or who operate under the largesse of State support to "play in the game". All the other little people can pack up their stalls and move on.

Would like to hear what other people think?  I am an Aussies so praise be to God we don't have to deal with this sort of "hijack" just yet. But those who operate small specialist nurseries,  run seed exchanges,  or hold national collections within the EU, as far as I can see,  should be quaking in their boots!

M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 31, 2015, 07:17:01 PM
PPS I agree again with Michael W when he says this is yet another plank in the coffin of diversity of interests and a narrowing of participation in the the horticultural industry, which increasingly resembling a oligarchy. It is the final "stitch up" between States and large commercial interests,  and just as PBR has been used as a pretext for something else,  Nagoya is using biodiversity and conservation to pander the same commercial "arrangements".
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on January 31, 2015, 08:06:41 PM
PPPS

It's a lose-lose for the ordinary person.  One end is a "stitch up" between States and commercial interests while at the other is an over burden of red tape that makes "The Labours of Hercules" look like a walk in the park.

Where do these people come from?  Another planet?

M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: razvan chisu on March 03, 2015, 07:39:15 PM
Following a talk I heard yesterday given by Tom Mitchel of Evolution plants, I began to look into the Nagoya protocol.
Tom said that this protocol spells the death of plant hunting and in the long run of small scale nurseries.

Information is sparse and the legal jargon so convoluted one has difficulty understanding, but the guidelines on the Plant Heritage website seem quite straightforward.

Users will be expected to be able to demonstrate that they have exercised ‘due diligence’ with regard to their acquisition and use of genetic resources Due diligence includes the seeking, keeping and transfer of information; it covers both parties in the exchange of material. It has been described as an ‘obligation of actions, not results’ – meaning that if there is a query over material, it will be important to be able to demonstrate actions that you have taken to ensure yourself that it is legitimately obtained.

It is important to record the source and date acquired of all your plants – even those from commercial sources.

For wild collected material, even if you did not make the collection yourself, you need to record the Collector’s number and retain a copy of the paperwork (permits, agreements etc) if you have access to it. The Collector’s number allows the paperwork for the original collection to be connected to the plant. If you have purchased the plant commercially, you should find that the number is traceable to the collector, and they will retain the paperwork. If you need to discover details of the agreement under which that plant was collected you can contact them. This effectively means users maintaining a ‘paper trail’ of information related to plants that have been collected in the wild.


Therefore the Nagoya Protocol does not apply to genetic resources and traditional knowledge acquired prior to 12th October 2014.

This all sounds like the 'users' (collection holders, nurseries, plant breeders, etc) are required to do a large amount of detective work, in order to insure the legality of the acquisition. In the UK trade probably most of the plants sold/exchanged are non-native, falling thus under the requirements of this protocol. This means that buying any new plant will need a proof that either it has been acquired before 2014 or that it has been collected legally. I wonder how many nurseries have a 'paper trail' for each and every one of their plants.

My plan was to start growing plants commercially this year. If this protocol applies to nurseries too than I will probably have to spend more time chasing documents for all the plants/seeds that I acquire than actually growing the plants themselves. And I start to wonder if it is really worth it.

And a final question. How will this apply to the SRCG, AGS, NZAGS, etc wild collected seed distributions? Are the seed exchange managers expected to show due diligence as well?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 03, 2015, 08:08:22 PM
The problem with such propsals is that they take no account of what is actually happening now in horticulture, outside the bigger commercial concerns. Think of CITES,  regulations for animals which were applied to plants almost as an afterthought, and which take  no account of habitat destruction by whatever means - an animal can at least move - a plant has no such choice.
If no dispensations are agreed for amateur or small commercial uses, or the likes of charities like SRGC, AGS and so on, our world of plants as we know it will tumble into a deep ditch and probably die.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Helen Johnstone on March 05, 2015, 08:28:53 PM
Hi Margaret
This came into force in October 2014 so is more than a proposal. I think it will be a real problem for seed schemes such as AGS and SGRC. Bob Brown was talking about it at our HPS meeting and he was quite concerned
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 05, 2015, 08:45:16 PM
I agree, Helen , for the Nagoya Protocol http://www.cbd.int/abs/ (http://www.cbd.int/abs/)   -  I was thinking more of the PRM  proposals of the EU which I think are still under consideration.
Can't find that ref. right now.......


In December this was the situation

"Following its rejection of the proposal in 1st reading in April 2014, EP has asked COM to withdraw in letter by EP President dated 11/09/2014 D(2014)41887."


This RHS page is from December 19th 2014     http://press.rhs.org.uk/RHS-Science-and-Advice/Government-Relations-Statement--EU-Plant-Reproduct.aspx (http://press.rhs.org.uk/RHS-Science-and-Advice/Government-Relations-Statement--EU-Plant-Reproduct.aspx)

"Friday 19 December 2014
RHS statement in response to the withdrawal of the proposed EU Plant Reproductive Material legislation from the European Commission’s Work Programme for 2015

Following the rejection earlier in the year by the European Parliament (EP) of the proposed EU Plant Reproductive Material legislation by 650 votes to 15, the President of the European Parliament has subsequently requested that the proposal be withdrawn. The European Commission (EC) announced its Work Programme, which sets out the legislation that the EP will be working on in 2015, earlier this week in which it signalled the withdrawal of this contentious piece of legislation.

Since the legislation was proposed, the RHS and many other horticultural institutions in the UK have been working together to highlight the potential negative effect it could have on the horticultural sector. Working with colleagues in Defra, meeting with representatives of the EU Commission, briefing MEPs, and drafting amendments to the proposals enabled us to effectively represent the interests of gardeners. The outcome, although it will have consequences for other sectors, is a testament to the effectiveness of this hard work, which has also considerably raised the profile of horticulture within the EU.

It is unclear what next step the EC will take on this issue. However the RHS will be closely monitoring future developments and liaising with other horticultural organisations to ensure that momentum on this important issue is kept up and that the interests of gardeners and the horticultural industry continue to be represented at the highest level. We will also be building links with like-minded organisations in other Member States to increase co-ordination of activities in support of horticulture.

If passed, the new law could have seen breeders having to pay a fee of between £300 and £500 to register plant names, a cost that would inevitably be passed on to UK gardeners. The knock on effect of increased costs and bureaucracy could have resulted in a reduction in the range of plants available to buy in garden centres."
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on March 05, 2015, 10:46:02 PM
The way things are going, gardeners may become the second largest class of criminals, after motorists. Of course, if you garden and drive........
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 07, 2015, 10:30:47 AM
Helen has made a blog post on this subject : https://patientgardener.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/the-future-of-plant-hunting/

One wonders where the displays of newly imported plants such as that from Crûg Farm Plants at Chelsea last year from the much-vaunted plant-hunters Bleddyn and Sue Wynn-Jones  will end up in the light of these protocol agreements ?

It will spell the end of ex-situ conservation and organisations such as SRGC,  NARGS, AGS, NZAGS, RHS, HPS etc will be scuppered as regards seed exchanges, unless  a lot changes. 
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: David Nicholson on March 07, 2015, 06:56:22 PM
Politicians as a group are a body with limited thought facilities. This is not to say that many of them are very well educated and quite clever people but I do not change my first assertion. They (Politicians) are involved in a fantastic number of actual and potential fields of activity and cannot hope to be expert in them in all. In this case many of them will take advice (without much knowledge of why); some will not take advice but struggle man(woman)fully to give the impression that they are expert and blag their way through it; others will attempt to learn before they open their mouths and a very small number will have learned and understood what the potential problem is and can speak well in favour, or dis-favour as the case might be.

There are, of course, others involved such as Biologists, other Scientists, Civil Servants and their equivalents in other countries and the UN. Civil Servants particularly will have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions, endless committee functionings that have lead to the Protocol and they will have enjoyed it all the more because their political (masters!!) will not have the faintest idea what they are talking about; they will enter any discussion with political (masters!!) in an oblique way so as not to put themselves in a position where they need to spend over-much time in explaining to their (masters!!) what it is they are involved in and why and thus will be free to continue their meetings and discussions in all kinds of exotic locations in full knowledge. These are the dangerous ones.

If there is anything that makes a Politician damp around the collar and brow it is a forthcoming election because they, at last, find themselves, for the first time in five years, accountable to us and facing the possible danger of falling off the gravy train.

I would suggest that all of you who intend to vote should, by some means, arm yourselves with no more than one side of an A4 sheet drawing attention to the Protocol and what it intends, who it is intended by and when it is being intended. You should add then a couple of paragraphs which summarises how the Protocol will affect you as a humble gardener and will affect the Societies you are a member off. You should aim then to give a copy of your A4 sheet to every candidate you come across during the lead-in to the Election and ask every candidate their views about the Protocol (you will get a lot of blank views as well as lot made up on the spur of the moment which will be rubbish, but no matter. Those Politicians you expect to serve in the next Government, whatever happens to be your political view, should also be sent a copy of your A4 sheet asking for their response.

Of the current batch of Politicians I would rate one as standing heads above the rest in terms of such matters as concern us. That would be Zac Goldsmith. He alone, in the furore the current Government created when it was disposed to sell of our Forests, took them on and fully understood the brief. Send him a copy of your A4 sheet as well.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on March 08, 2015, 08:05:27 PM
The CBD has done EVERYTHING it can to criminalise plant collecting in what can only be described as a fit of paranoid post colonial guilt. Their daft approach is as poorly thought out as the USA's War on Drugs. Another example of classic heavy-handed, out of touch bumbling that accomplishes nothing useful and in the meantime creates a new class of  outlaw. Wopee do! More bits of paper to shuffle and stamp ... oh and to pick up a nice little earner from.

As I have stated before on this thread: The REAL threat to plant biodiversity is habitat destruction, over-exploitation of the environment and state indifference NOT collecting a few seeds, which afterall is a trivial activity compared to the aforemention.

As to the equally mad situation in the EU And so it goes the juggernaut continues to move on, despite everyone's best efforts ... Just goes to show vested interest, no matter how well dressed and reasonable it appears, trumps commonsense everytime.

I ask again ... what planet do the perpetrators come from?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 08, 2015, 08:21:40 PM
"The REAL threat to plant biodiversity is habitat destruction, over-exploitation of the environment and state indifference "

I agree - I cannot see how anyone can think that habitat destruction is not the biggest threat:   we can see , for instance, from sadly too many instances shown in this forum of, for example, the illegal building of homes and entire villages in Spain, on land which is supposedly "protected" - with all done with impunity. No prior arrangement for preservation by removal etc , no comeback on the transgressors......



Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Matt T on March 08, 2015, 08:40:14 PM
Habitat destruction by over-grazing is rife across the world. Too many animals munching their way across the landscape is the biggest problem in my eyes, but it's a brave man who tries to stop a poor farmer feeding his family and making an honest living.

I'm saying nothing about the huge agri-environment subsidies that are all too often paid out to those who least need them...  :-X
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on March 08, 2015, 08:48:18 PM
"As I have stated before on this thread: The REAL threat to plant biodiversity is habitat destruction, over-exploitation of the environment and state indifference NOT collecting a few seeds, which afterall is a trivial activity compared to the aforemention".

BTW the above is where the REAL work needs to be directed.  Oh, but that's way too hard and involves getting individual countries to take some responsibility (I have provided examples earlier on).
So,  instead the perpetrators of this puffery pick on soft targets and feel like they have achieved something useful.  Well, no, habitats will still go on being destroyed,  plant populations still still be lost ....  Rome burns while Nero fiddles! And these drongos get paid for this or do they just turn up to make up the numbers?
M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on March 08, 2015, 08:58:36 PM
Hi Mat,

Point taken but let the powers that draft this legislation be honest about that rather than pick on what is,  and I repeat for EVERYONES' benefit, a trivial issue.

 Seed collection in the face of the BIG issues is a pimple on a pumpkin yet so much effort and do much legislative heft has been put this way one would be forgiven for believing that THIS ISSUE is the BIG one!

The people involved in dragging up and ratifying this garbage are more guilty of committing destructive acts towards BD than any plant Hunter could ever be.

M
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Susan Band on March 12, 2015, 08:09:05 AM
The EU has withdraw its proposed legislation regarding plant propergation material. http://www.euroseeds.org/commission-withdraws-proposal-new-eu-seed-law (http://www.euroseeds.org/commission-withdraws-proposal-new-eu-seed-law)

Common sense prevails at last
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: arisaema on March 12, 2015, 11:41:08 AM
"The REAL threat to plant biodiversity is habitat destruction, over-exploitation of the environment and state indifference "

I agree - I cannot see how anyone can think that habitat destruction is not the biggest threat:   we can see , for instance, from sadly too many instances shown in this forum of, for example, the illegal building of homes and entire villages in Spain, on land which is supposedly "protected" - with all done with impunity. No prior arrangement for preservation by removal etc , no comeback on the transgressors......

For someone living in China I can second, third and one bilion this, the biggest threat is habitat destruction, whether from grazing, farming, construction - or wild digging of plants. Lilium yapingense is a perfect example, 80% of the bulbs growing at the one known (type) location had been dug up sometime between July and October of 2014. The local government is also talking about creating a "national park" tourist destination in the very location in grows, and if no one digs the remaining bulbs I'm sadly almost certain they'll succumb to "future tourist development". I know ex situ conservation is generally frowned upon, but if I hadn't introduced the species to cultivation I have to wonder what would have happened to it in 5-10 years time... Hopefully it is more widespread than currently known!
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Lewis Potter on March 19, 2015, 06:20:43 PM
The EU has withdraw its proposed legislation regarding plant propergation material. http://www.euroseeds.org/commission-withdraws-proposal-new-eu-seed-law (http://www.euroseeds.org/commission-withdraws-proposal-new-eu-seed-law)

Common sense prevails at last

These EU bureaucrats like to muddle with as much of our lives as possible. I don't think its common sense, I think they now understand the current debates about the United Kingdoms membership of the EU, and they will do anything they can to persuade us to stay in. Even things like a "Seed Law"

Even so, I am glad that they have withdrawn it. I just feel sorry for the Aussies here that have the burden of the law on their shoulders.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ian mcdonald on March 19, 2015, 06:58:18 PM
Arisaema, I agree with you about ex-situ conservation being frowned upon but think it is the last resort. Do we "do the right thing" and not interfere. If respected scientific organisations such as the RBGE for instance, took this view, then "at risk" plants would become endangered and endangered plants would be locally extinct. Our wildlife and habitats need to be protected against "development,"  whether it is housing, industry or tourism. Our ancestors destroyed our natural environment and we are destroying the man made environment at an ever increasing rate. How can this countries government criticize other countries for destroying their environment when we lead the world in destruction.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on March 19, 2015, 07:44:20 PM
This is such a difficult thread to read at times because it revolves around learning and a knowledge of the world in all its diversity, and in its local diversity, where many (most) people are really concerned with self-interest. Here is a quote taken from the reviews of 'The Diversity of Life' by Edward O. Wilson - made by T. H. Watkins in the Washington Post:

'Wilson takes us by the hand and leads us through the wilderness of diversity ... a mad, wonderful saraband of complexity and cohabitation that Wilson conducts with eloquence, clarity and wit'.

I wonder how many people in general or specifically concerned with drawing up these protocols, or lawyers potentially involved in instituting them, or those who ponder what results they will really have, have read this book (or others like 'Plant and Planet' by Anthony Huxley, or 'The Secret Life of Trees' by Colin Tudge), or perhaps view this website? It's not so much that there are answers - there are in specific situations like that mentioned by Arisaema relating to a rare lily, even if in the long term this plant is likely to disappear - there is simply an increased sensitivity to the environment which you have especially when you work with and on the land. Much of this seems to be to do with standing your ground against unsustainable and unregulated development, and this doesn't look to have changed greatly over the century or more since a figure like John Muir founded the Sierra Club and caused National Parks like Yellowstone to come into being in the USA. Here, I think, I might disagree with Ian because even if we lead the world in its destruction (debatable) we are at the same time much more aware of this, and to be aware is to react.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnstephen29 on March 22, 2015, 07:33:56 AM
Hi I have been read this thread with great interest, especially about habitat destruction. Would it be fair to say we gardeners have played our part in that in certain places. I am of course talking out peat, when I lived in Doncaster, I remember the moorlands to the east of the village of Hatfield having the peat harvested, once the peat is gone that beautiful place is changed forever. I'm not sure if it is still happening as I haven't been there in ages. If there wasn't a demand for peat in the horticultural trade there wouldn't be peat extraction going on, having said that, I have heard that the composts on sale to try to wean you away from peat haven't been much good.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ian mcdonald on March 22, 2015, 11:39:39 AM
Hello John, I think some of the problem with "green compost" i.e. collected garden waste, is that it includes woody material which is not broken down fine enough or composted for the required length of time. If it were I think it would be equally as good as other materials. I once suggested that there are two materials that people want to be rid of, sewage and straw.  Most straw is now chopped by an attachment on the combined harvester and ploughed into the soil. This is because there are less dairy herds so less winter bedding is required. Ploughing straw into the soil also encourages  slugs and slug pellets need to be spread on the fields. I was told that human sewage could not be used in Horticulture because it contains heavy metals. I wonder where the heavy metals came from before they got into the sewage? Composting sewage and straw would make a horticulture medium and recycle two problems in one go. We used to use animal waste to grow edible plants and still do. Human sewage is also "piped" into fields to grow crops. It is piped because people complained of the smell.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 23, 2015, 05:08:20 PM
I don't know if this is correct - but this article claims that "Seed  sharing is illegal in nearly 30 states of the USA.  These regulations may not often be enforced, but the penalties are pretty tough if they were to be - certainly smacks of overkill :

http://www.the-open-mind.com/seed-sharing-is-illegal-in-nearly-30-of-us-states/ (http://www.the-open-mind.com/seed-sharing-is-illegal-in-nearly-30-of-us-states/)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnstephen29 on March 23, 2015, 05:35:43 PM
How ridiculous is that Maggi, I don't know about anyone else but I find one of the best things about gardening is swapping plants and seeds with family and friends. It's also one of the pleasures of membership of the srgc, can you imagine if that was law over here.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ian mcdonald on March 23, 2015, 07:04:07 PM
I was once told of someone, many years ago, who was taking a holiday in the west indies. He read that they do not have rose bay willowherb there so he took some seed.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnralphcarpenter on March 28, 2015, 06:07:21 PM
Blustery old day for the Great Dixter Plant Fair today, some excellent nursery stands (bought a snowdrop from Joe Sharman). Tom Mitchell  gave an excellent talk on the evils of the Nagoya Protocol and the death of plant hunting. Seems to me that if a plant was not in cultivation by 2014, it never will be.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: François Lambert on March 30, 2015, 11:20:44 AM
Hello John, I think some of the problem with "green compost" i.e. collected garden waste, is that it includes woody material which is not broken down fine enough or composted for the required length of time. If it were I think it would be equally as good as other materials. I once suggested that there are two materials that people want to be rid of, sewage and straw.  Most straw is now chopped by an attachment on the combined harvester and ploughed into the soil. This is because there are less dairy herds so less winter bedding is required. Ploughing straw into the soil also encourages  slugs and slug pellets need to be spread on the fields. I was told that human sewage could not be used in Horticulture because it contains heavy metals. I wonder where the heavy metals came from before they got into the sewage? Composting sewage and straw would make a horticulture medium and recycle two problems in one go. We used to use animal waste to grow edible plants and still do. Human sewage is also "piped" into fields to grow crops. It is piped because people complained of the smell.

Most of the human sewage goes straight through the drain to the sea - eventually after having been cleaned up in a water treatment plant.  Using human sewage to fertilize crops is not such a good idea because it closes again the cycle of a number of gastric parasites.  Sewage may contain several poisons, but these will not originate from what we sent away in the toilet.  Using straw may sound a good idea - however it will over time decompose further to leave just a few % of it's original volume.  I use home made potting soil which is a mix of old potting soil enriched & amended with fresh compost (including straw that we use for bedding for the chickens).  After a few years a substantial part of the soil disappears in my pots, which is a very natural process.

Besides that, farmland has lost a lot of it's organic matter after horses were replaced by tractors and where using manure has been replaced by massive use of mineral fertilizers, leaving the soil getting more compact and crops more vulnerable.  We (the farmers) must revert this trend.  Farmers have targets on organic content of their farmland and can apply for subsidies to grow green manure crops like yellow mustard - at least it is so over here.

I have been experimenting with coir-based potting mixes and have mixed feelings.  Pure it is best suited for growing epiphyte plants but lacks some compactness for many other plants.  Mixed with my old potting soil however it does seem to make a very good substrate.  Now just wait for time to tell us how long it takes for the coir to decompose.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ian mcdonald on March 30, 2015, 07:43:13 PM
Hello Francois, in England sewage is transported in large lorry tankers with the words, Low Hazard, on the back. The outflow from our local sewage works is liquid. The solids are collected by these road tankers. As a demonstration of the outflow purity someone from the water authority drank a glassful. I wonder if he is still OK.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnstephen29 on March 31, 2015, 04:08:56 PM
Rather him than me Ian, that reminds me of a certain Tory minister who had his daughter eat a beef burger in front of the camera's to prove beef was ok.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Matt T on March 31, 2015, 04:30:59 PM
I think he gave her a burger but she didn't actually eat it?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnstephen29 on March 31, 2015, 06:21:23 PM
Oh right, I remember it happening, did he eat his?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Steve Garvie on March 31, 2015, 06:43:15 PM
Rather him than me Ian, that reminds me of a certain Tory minister who had his daughter eat a beef burger in front of the camera's to prove beef was ok.

The right honorable John Selwyn Gummer MP!

He is now in the House of Lords ....so perhaps he did develop a form of Prion disease.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: David Nicholson on March 31, 2015, 06:52:28 PM
The right honorable John Selwyn Gummer MP!

He is now in the House of Lords ....so perhaps he did develop a form of Prion disease.

Given that he will be able to claim (provided he's not paid a salary for any  HoL office) an allowance of £300 per sitting day he's obviously still got all his chairs at home ;D
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on April 01, 2015, 11:17:33 AM
Oh right, I remember it happening, did he eat his?

 They both chomped on their burgers ......   [attachimg=1]

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Matt T on April 01, 2015, 01:06:21 PM
In the video she refuses it because it's 'too hot', and the one she's holding in the posed picture has enormous adult-sized bites taken out of it, which suggests an aide was perhaps force fed the morsel instead of Cordelia?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: johnstephen29 on April 01, 2015, 07:57:05 PM
Poor kid, nice name though, a lot better than Selwyn. reminds me of that character that the brilliant bill maynard played years ago, Selwyn Froggitt I think they called him. Heck i'm showing my age there  ;D
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on June 12, 2015, 08:23:53 PM
Robbie Blackhall-Miles' take on the  Nagoya Protocol on his Guardian blog :
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gardening-blog/2015/jun/12/nagoya-protocol-plant-hunters-need-to-step-up-to-this-new-challenge (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gardening-blog/2015/jun/12/nagoya-protocol-plant-hunters-need-to-step-up-to-this-new-challenge)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on June 29, 2015, 01:34:04 PM
That is a good piece of writing about the Nagoya Protocol which I hadn't seen before, if you have faith in the good sense of the legislation and its implementation - i.e.: that it doesn't impose onerous restrictions on small, often local, specialist growers who in many cases will be those with significant knowledge and understanding of particular groups of plants. (There are good examples on this Forum!). But we have just visited Strasbourg, a city full of cultural and artistic heritage - and investment - and a strong intellectual and scientific tradition (plus by chance or not :), the European Parliament and Legislature), and I was dismayed by the lack of resources and energy put into the Botanical Garden, even if this is relatively small and restricted in possible development. The basis of conservation is an understanding of ecology and diversity and Botany underpins this despite at times appearing an out of date and neglected branch of Biology and the Sciences. Botany and gardening are soul-mates because there is little point knowing about plants if you don't also grow them. The Chelsea Physic Garden, by comparison, carries on the practical traditions of observing and describing plants infinitely better in an area of similar size.

(Interestingly there was an exhibition at Strasbourg BG of plants that had been carved in the stonework of the Cathedral, compared to the living examples, which shows how closely plants have been observed in the past).
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on July 07, 2015, 01:56:22 PM
"Call to attend RHS Nagoya Protocol meeting at Wisley
 New legislation is about to fundamentally change the way wild-collected plants make their way into horticulture; join us on 27 July to help formulate a response to the changes.
 
Quote
RHS Nagoya Protocol Statement
The Royal Horticultural Society is committed to following national laws where plants are collected and supports the conservation and ethical principles enshrined in the Nagoya Protocol.
However, we are also acutely aware of and share the concerns raised by other industry sectors on understanding what the practical implications and impact of the Nagoya Protocol legislation will be on the horticultural sector’s activities and businesses.

"Have your say

It is key that the response to the Nagoya Protocol is from across the horticulture sector and in collaboration with Defra and NMRO. The RHS, will therefore, over the next few months be engaging with key stakeholders from horticulture, Defra and National Measurement and Regulation Office (NMRO) to raise awareness on the Nagoya Protocol, to formulate a shared response and to work towards informing the process of ‘best practices’. This will include holding a meeting for those with concerns about or an interest in the Protocol and the legislation to share their views with Defra and the NMRO, and this will form the basis of how UK horticulture can respond constructively to the legislation.
 
This meeting will be held at RHS Garden Wisley on 27 July with representatives of Defra and NMRO being present. Those interested in attending this meeting please contact Laura Robins on scienceadmin@rhs.org.uk with your name and email address. "
 

https://www.rhs.org.uk/science/science-blogs/science/july-2015/nagoya-protocol (https://www.rhs.org.uk/science/science-blogs/science/july-2015/nagoya-protocol)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on July 28, 2015, 04:24:39 PM
John Grimshaw tweeted this picture and comment - about Robbie Blackhall-Miles' contribution to the discussion at Wisley yesterday:

"Robbie @fossilplants smoothing away some horticultural fears about the Nagoya Protocol @The_RHS today "

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Corrado & Rina on July 28, 2015, 05:37:31 PM
Dear Maggie,

Do you know whether the videos of the meeting will be made available, or who in the RHS we should contact if we are professionally interested?

Best,

Corrado
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on July 28, 2015, 05:46:41 PM
I have no idea -  but I suggest contacting  the person given as a contact initially for  the event  Laura Robins  - on scienceadmin@rhs.org.uk  She should be able to help or tell you who can.

We  do hope to have an article from Robbie Blackhall-Miles  for The Rock Garden. 
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tristan_He on September 23, 2015, 08:45:19 PM
This isn't good. Email from Gothenburg Botanic Garden. Translation by Google translate so apologies to any Swedes reading this.

"We have decided not to sell the seeds via the connoisseur club anymore because , unfortunately, the demand has decreased in recent years . Furthermore, new EU rules on how the plant material may be used , a larger administrative work. You will still be able to buy some seeds collected in the garden of Botany store.

We naturally think that this is boring and to all our loyal customers , we would like to extend a warm thank you and hope to see you in the Botanical Garden .
Want to get access to an exclusive range of bulbs and tubers , we recommend you to join our Friends of the Friends of Botany . Every year you can order bulbs as a member selected by the Botanical Curator Henrik Zetterlund"

Not sure whether the EU rules or decline in demand are primarily at fault here - new rules are sometimes a convenient excuse.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on September 23, 2015, 09:06:48 PM
I have yet to discover exactly, but I suspect that the  regulations referred to may relate to the  various protocols  about  Botanic Gardens being restricted in being able to share seed and plants with "outsiders"  who might use them for commercial gain. This would contravene rules that any commercial benefit from wild origin seeds and plants must be shared with the country of origin.

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on September 24, 2015, 11:36:25 AM
Game, set and match  .... the suits should be pretty pleased with themselves.

I really can't see the connection between distributing a small number of seeds to interested enthusiasts and  a significant threat to any country's biodiversity (when compared to habitat loss and destructive agricultural practices). In fact the opposite is probably the case.

As to the question of renumerating the country of origin.  That's a bit of a long bow when the seeds in question come from plants that are several generations removed. Also the claim that there would be serious money involved in this process is almost laughable.  It would probably cost more to administrate the recover of funds than the value of the funds themselves.

But hey,  that's not the purpose of these conventions ..... their main purpose is to put a dead hand on anyone or any activity that dares challenge ownership.

Cheers,  (a disgruntled) Marcus

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Parsla on September 24, 2015, 12:57:09 PM
Well said Marcus,

Perhaps the worst thing is that by restricting distribution to enthusiastic gardeners, many interesting species in threatened habitats will simply disappear - effectively into extinction.

It's another (terribly) sad reflection on the effect power brokers are bringing to bear on the world we live in, particularly our natural environment.
Certainly wipes out any competition.

Jacqui.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tristan_He on September 24, 2015, 08:33:02 PM
@ Marcus and Jacqui - I don't think this is about gardeners, or even about the 'horticultural industry'. It's more about pharmaceuticals. The idea is that if developing countries are allowed to share in the profits from pharmaceuticals and other good things developed from biodiversity, then they have more incentive to conserve their natural habitats and the species in them.

It's a good principle. Problem is that I don't see it being workable in practice, for all kinds of reasons, both related to the complexity of nature and to the way that business is very good at playing the system.

Meanwhile, those most likely to follow rules (e.g. botanic gardens) do so even when there is perhaps no need to (is there really a risk that Gothenburg Botanic Garden would be prosecuted by a foreign government for running a seed exchange)? By and large the police have better things to do than trawl through seed lists on the off chance that something being circulated might be off limits under some convention.

As for plants being conserved in gardens, who are we really kidding? Sure, quite a few plant species grown in gardens are threatened in one way or another. But how many of the specimens we grow will ever be planted out into the wild as part of a restoration programme? What precautions do we take to prevent hybridisation and maintain genetic diversity? I've no doubt there are a few examples where species have been re-established into the wild from gardens, but overwhelmingly we grow plants in gardens because we like them. In many cases they don't survive for anything like as long in the garden as in the wild, either. Gardening is a fabulous thing and I'll defend it all day long, but let's not pretend it is the answer to plant conservation.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on September 24, 2015, 09:39:35 PM
I would agree with Tristan on that - it's more the sense of an over-riding bureaucracy inhibiting the individual which galls, but on the whole there are still quite plentiful sources of seed from collectors and the ability to collect seed from the plants you grow yourself and obtain from friends, which is the basis of a specialist society like the SRGC.

I wrote this piece in October 2012 based on an article in the AGS Bulletin back in 1934 re. Lloydia serotina. That sense of being custodians of plants is strong but in reality it is the environments they grow in that have to be conserved. The point about gardening is that it heightens a knowledge and understanding of ecology and the natural ways populations of plants persist, even if it is easy to become pessimistic about this. This is why the specialist garden societies and nurseries are so important for us individually and are more than worth supporting.

*****

One of the most fascinating articles published in the early Bulletins was a survey of the ‘Alpine Plants of the Snowdon Range’ by Norman Woodhead (from the University College of Bangor). Naturalists and botanists have not surprisingly found Snowdonia a place of great interest for centuries, and a recent book on ‘The Plant Life of Snowdonia’ (edited by Peter Rhind and David Evans) summarises this beautifully. The undoubted ‘Queen of Snowdon’ is the little lily Lloydia serotina, even though only known to a few, and it caused a kerfuffle in these early days of the Alpine Garden Society, which rare and localised plants have always been likely to do, but perhaps not so seriously. Lloydia is one of the most rare and localised of British plants, found on just a few cliffs in Snowdonia. Its nearest relatives are in the Alps and it is thought to have survived as a relict species, either in refuges free of ice in the last Ice Age, or by following the retreating ice as temperatures warmed. There is a danger in being rare and special and sad to say members of the AGS were brought to task for uprooting bulbs of Lloydia serotina at a Nature Lovers Conference in September 1934. The AGS obviously abhorred such an incident, but what also comes across is a sense of the Society being stung by the criticism, which must have related to the feeling of many gardeners that they also were custodians of plants. The final sentence of the AGS reply was: ‘As the driving force of the Conservation Board and the AGS is the love of plants, cannot a unity of action be established between them towards the furtherance of its demonstration?’ Here is the age old dilemma of arguing from the specific to the general - it can’t be done and each case has to be argued on its own merits.

Nowadays the reaction to such an incident would be very strong and many more people would probably be aware of the ‘Snowdon Lily’. Then, the final and wisest words came from Prof. D. Thoday, Professor of Botany at Bangor, who made the simple statement that Lloydia had survived for thousands of years in its natural home and was unlikely to do so for more than a few decades in cultivation, even at a Botanic Garden. Conservationists would always say that it is the environment that should be protected, but ironically it could be that this little lily is more at risk from rock climbers who would only see it as another tuft of grass. So a sophisticated and balanced view of plants and the environment is most likely to come from the awareness that gardening brings, even when it is such extreme and negative cases that catch the headlines.

(15 October 2012)

http://www.alpinegardensociety.net/discussion/miscellaneous/Random+Nuggets+from+the+Bulletin/16872/ (http://www.alpinegardensociety.net/discussion/miscellaneous/Random+Nuggets+from+the+Bulletin/16872/)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on September 25, 2015, 12:02:02 AM
Tristan, I understand the arguments but I think (respectively) that your view is to some extent a little naivè. If it was just about stopping nasty pharmaceutical companies from ripping off 3rd world countries then why aren't there provisions  to exempt or at least accomodate specialist horticulture. There ain't. In fact the silly record keeping requirements have probably forced Gotenburg to their decision.

Also these protocols and conventions are supposed to be about protection of biodiversity. Setting up laws to aid commercial arrangements between multinationals and governments under their guise seems to me to be a little off target. These protocols' main focus should be loss of habitat and protection of species in situ. Not making criminals out of botanical institutes and collectors. Hey, but that would require some real decision-making and some hard choices. Easier to pass the parcel.

As to the question of whether species could ever be re-established in the wild? Well that's a complex question which I don't intend to go into here but I will make one observation. If you think it's not possible then you had better let the people at the Kew Millenium Seed Bank know that they are on the wrong track and it's all a waste of time.

I want to see genuine attempts by governments to protect their biodiversity by managing local populations and putting in place protective mechanisms. Pharmaceuticals are another issue altogether.

Cheers, Marcus

PS I think you may have miss-read what Parsla and myself were batting on about. We are not claiming that gardening can save the planet. We are saying that focussing on trivial and second order issues is useless and unnecessarily damaging especially when it avoids (very neatly) the important issues around biodiversity protection.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tristan_He on September 25, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
Marcus,

These 'silly record keeping requirements' are really very standard in all walks of life (e.g. digital image rights). They really are not that onerous, and any botanic garden or serious collection is likely to be keeping them anyway. Older specimens, where these details are more likely to have been lost, are exempt anyway. There was a lot of similar concern when the Freedom of Information Act came in in Britain. In reality I think it's been a good thing that has forced government to sharpen up its act and shine a light on some darker recesses. Whitehall whitewashes are less easy these days.

Will this really stop wild plant collecting? That depends what you mean. All governments are still able to license collecting for any purpose. If you mean seed collecting, I don't think so, nor should it. If you mean digging up of plants from the wild, for whatever purpose, then I hope so.  Basically I think it's like asking someone from seed or cuttings from their garden, rather than just assuming the right to take them. It's not new either - animal collectors like Gerald Durrell were collecting things under license from various countries half a century ago.

As to habitat protection, of course I agree 100%. It's not just (or even mainly) about legislation either, but also about resourcing it. Nature reserves and biodiversity action plans are one thing but if they aren't correctly managed and funded, they have much less impact. In that context the recession is a bad thing, because certain departments are protected from cuts, whilst others (including environment) get cuts of 40% and more. Personally I'd rather see an international convention in which countries pledged to devote 1% of their GDP to conservation of ecosystems.

I think the seed bank is a good thing. But mainly because it acts as a hub for conservation projects and knowledge transfer, not because of the ex situ conservation work.

Best, Tristan
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Dionysia on September 25, 2015, 11:29:57 PM
Although the Nagoya Protocol was a consideration, the main reason the Gothenburg Connoiseur Club is folding is that the person who ran it for 25 years is retiring and nobody else wants to take over. It has also not been making any money particularly since being converted to web based.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Parsla on September 25, 2015, 11:49:51 PM
Harking back to your first comment Tristan,

If it was about incentives to conserve habitat it would be admirable, but it seems not. And wild populations end up as goat fodder or simply built over in many cases. Many lessons to be learnt from recent history.

Nobody is talking about saving the world, but I'm afraid that if seed collecting and distribution becomes too difficult it will not be possible to maintain many of the lovely treasures we see on these pages.

A zoo of sorts? Well, yes. But preferable to extinction for those who love them.

And seemingly idiotic restrictions ARE making seed collecting more difficult in some instances, as we in  melbourne  recently heard in a delightful presentation by Chris and Basak Gardner, authors of Flora of the Silk Road.

For my part, I am extremely appreciative of collectors like Arisaema who put back into the system, e.g Lilium henricii.

Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tristan_He on September 26, 2015, 10:55:47 AM
Hi Parsla,

The CBD and subsequent international legislation certainly is intended as an incentive to conserve both habitats and species. You can certainly question its effectiveness, but it does aim to save the world (or words to that effect). What lessons do you think we should learn from recent history?

A zoo of sorts? For me that is terrifying - hundreds or even thousands of zombie species, extinct in the wild, struggling to survive in a few botanic gardens. Most will perish within a couple of decades, I suspect. If their habitat genuinely has been destroyed, then there is no way back (overgrazing is different as this may wipe out some species but many survive in the seed bank, in sheltered crevices or as small, stunted plants).

In terms of restrictions - if we want to save or protect something, that probably means some sort of restrictions. Some of these are really important (I would argue that better paperwork has helped to stimulate laboratory propagation of many orchids, helping protect wild populations from overexploitation). How these are designed to achieve a balance between effectiveness and proportionality is key. That all depends on how signatories implement the restrictions. If I were running a seed exchange I would tend to let sleeping dogs lie.

I too am very appreciative of Arisema and others' efforts, and ordered from him this list this spring. But like most gardeners, my contribution from his seed will be the challenge of growing them, the joy of flowering them, and the warm glow of sharing them. Hopefully they will become established in clutivation. But I have no expectation of any of them being part of a conservation programme.

Chris Chadwell says something very interesting on his blog, which I shall quote here:
'Regardless of current regulations... gardeners have never had the right to attempt to grow a particular species (no matter how ornamental) in their private or even 'botanic' gardens, at the expense of populations in the wild'.

For me, small scale seed collections of seed (relative to the overall size of the population) come into the category of sustainable exploitation. But they are exploitation of wild populations nonetheless, and for future conservation it would probably be better if a system were in place where we, the gardeners, could pay a bit extra for this seed to countries like Nepal to help protect these beautiful places from goats and deforestation. God knows, they need the money.

Best, Tristan
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on September 26, 2015, 01:52:10 PM
Tristan, again you appear (deliberately?) to misunderstand Parsla's point. She is NOT saying that collection of wild seed should be allowed because it stands as a legitimate conservation strategy. Please give the correspondent the courtesy of reading their contribution instead of bulldozing over them.

There is no evidence that I have personally seen that supports your contention that international and regional conventions have done anything meaningful to prevent habitat loss or species destruction. Can you outline the specific mechanisms  by which this is going to be achieved?

You also ask the question what recent historical examples? Oh come on they are all around you if you care to look. Flip a few pages back on this thread and you will discover the sad tale of Fritillaria conica, a Red Book listed species. If you want more I will gladly provide them.

As to your belief that licencing is a real option may I suggest you read Michael Wickenden's articles on the subject.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on March 16, 2016, 12:59:15 PM
Moving from seed  to plants : https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160315131906.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160315131906.htm)

"Trade in rare plants on social media must be monitored
People buying rare plants through social media are placing species at risk of extinction"

Date:
    March 15, 2016
Source:
    University of Kent
Summary:
    Trade in rare plants on social media must be monitored, say experts. People buying rare plants through social media are placing species at risk of extinction, suggests a new study that represents the first large-scale global survey of wildlife trade via a social-media site, using the orchid trade as a case study.

More : http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/uok-tir031516.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/uok-tir031516.php)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tim Ingram on March 16, 2016, 01:35:45 PM
Interesting to see that quote from Chris Chadwell above that Tristan refers too after that discussion that arose from a different thread on the BBC article. I think that shows that there is a moral background to obtaining and growing plants which is held perfectly well by many(most) individuals as well as instituted by law and politics. For the specialist plant societies their own seed exchanges must be fundamental in maintaining the diversity of plants in gardens, and preventing those of us who do garden from the sense of exploiting natural populations. Social media must be quite a factor but it can work to advantage by making dubious and, conversely, legitimate sources of plants highlighted quickly - eg: in a different way, snowdrops! There has been plenty of exploitation of plants before the advent of social media :(.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on March 28, 2016, 10:41:54 AM
Hi Forumists,

Some might be interested in what Tom Mitchell has to say about CBD and in and ex situ conservation,.

Cheers, Marcus

http://www.revolution-snowdrops.co.uk/galanthus-trojanus/ (http://www.revolution-snowdrops.co.uk/galanthus-trojanus/)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Hillview croconut on March 28, 2016, 12:32:33 PM
PS And for those who have doubts about seed banks, ex situ plant zoos or re-establishment of species and habitats, then  maybe have a look at this lecture by Timothy Walker, former director of Oxford Botanic Gardens.

https://vimeo.com/141396973
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ashley on March 28, 2016, 12:35:29 PM
Thanks Marcus.  As you have done too, Tom shows very clearly the unintended and detrimental consequences of these controls that distract from the core problem of habitat loss.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tristan_He on March 28, 2016, 11:54:25 PM
Hi Forumists,

Some might be interested in what Tom Mitchell has to say about CBD and in and ex situ conservation,.

Cheers, Marcus

http://www.revolution-snowdrops.co.uk/galanthus-trojanus/ (http://www.revolution-snowdrops.co.uk/galanthus-trojanus/)

Marcus, interesting indeed. I think the trouble with it is that no explanation is provided of what steps he or botanical institutions have taken to work with the Turkish authorities and / or people to conserve this species in situ. Has he spoken to the Turkish conservation organisation, a botanic garden there for example, or even to the farmer? A sympathetic landowner makes a huge difference and often / usually farmers have no idea of the biodiversity value of their land. Safeguarding the habitat is clearly paramount here.

Likewise, I must confess I do not understand the conservation value, in situ or ex situ, of Kew having a single plant that they are not allowed to propagate? Are Kew really conserving this species or simply collecting/researching it?

My own view is firmly that in situ needs to be the default setting for plants and animals, because it is tried and tested over millions of years. Sometimes ex situ conservation is needed - a sort of intensive care for species - and whether that is for Mallorcan Midwife Toads, Bengal Tigers, Golden Mantellas, Tecophilaea cyanocrocus or Lady's slipper orchids, then action needs to be taken. It also needs to be part of an overall conservation plan, because species cannot be maintained in gardens or seed banks for ever.

It's also odd to claim that Galanthus are not worthy of CITES listing. Millions of snowdrops (and cyclamens, and aconites and no doubt other things) were dug up every year from Turkey every year and exported to gardens, where many died due to storage in unsuitable conditions. Thank goodness this trade has greatly diminished, and I'm sure that the red tape associated with CITES has helped* home growers become more economic. It's also much better for gardeners because the snowdrops (although perhaps more expensive) are far better quality.

* There's been a big cultural change too which has been at least as important in my opinion.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tristan_He on March 29, 2016, 12:41:19 AM
PS And for those who have doubts about seed banks, ex situ plant zoos or re-establishment of species and habitats, then  maybe have a look at this lecture by Timothy Walker, former director of Oxford Botanic Gardens.

https://vimeo.com/141396973

He needs someone to work on his jokes!

More seriously, the idea that ex situ animal conservation is impossible is complete nonsense - there are loads of examples. However the key problems are the large resource requirement and unintentional domestication. I would imagine that the same is true of plants, especially when they are grown away from their natural environment and climate. Different Madagascar animal groups needed different reserves, so the idea of a fundamental difference between animal and plant requirements is a misinterpretation. It's just a consequence of looking at different datasets and of taking an arbitrary area (10%) as the starting point.

I didn't think he made much of an argument for seed banks, beyond quoting somebody else who said that every plant species can be conserved in this way. Personally I think this highly unlikely to be technically possible, and it's not my idea of conservation. I find it very strange that he and Tom Mitchell can observe the damage done to our beautiful natural world, and then say that the way to solve it is to put lots of seeds in a freezer. It just seems to miss the point. However, as with other forms of ex situ conservation, seed banks can certainly form part of the solution. The danger is that they divert resources from habitat conservation and then that seed may not be viable.

The above notwithstanding, ex situ conservation of plant species is easier and cheaper on a per species basis than animal conservation, and therefore ex situ conservation has greater potential in plant conservation. That said, many terrestrial ecosystems consist mainly of plants, so it's quite hard to conserve animals without also conserving lots of plants!

I thought the last 15 minutes or so when he talked about habitat restoration / management / creation were very good and thought that the signage working to stop picking of snakeshead fritillary was a good example of community education. I wonder if it would work in Fred's wood in Belgium? It's a pity that in the arable meadow restoration they did not try some deep ploughing or scraping back of soil to see if they could resurrect an ancient seedbank. It has worked very well in other circumstances, and who knows what might come up?

https://ghostponds.wordpress.com/ (https://ghostponds.wordpress.com/)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Tristan_He on March 30, 2016, 08:38:03 AM
Ian's enquiry about Woodsia ilvensis on another thread prompted me to post these. This is the notes from a symposium I came across recently from a symposium on collecting and wildlife in the UK from 1967 - see particularly Derek Ratcliffe's article. Ratcliffe was a leading light in UK conservation at that time and it's reasonable to suppose his views will have substantially shaped the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. It's interesting to see what has changed (butterfly collecting, digging up plants) and what has not (wildfowling), and the discussion that would have helped frame approaches to legislation.

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/7088/1/03.pdf#page=24 (http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/7088/1/03.pdf#page=24)

Back to Woodsia, there were attempts to carry out ex situ conservation during the 1990s and 2000s, which were only partially successful. See http://archive.bsbi.org.uk/BSBI_Recorder_11.pdf]
[url]http://archive.bsbi.org.uk/BSBI_Recorder_11.pdf (http://[url)[/url].
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ian mcdonald on March 30, 2016, 05:21:43 PM
Hello Tristan, some Woodsia was propagated ex-situ, with some "spare" plants. These were offered to the public but I found out too late. Only bona-fide organisations should carry out this vital work, with permission from the relevant authority i.e. NE or the Scottish govt. or Welsh or Irish govts. The collection of plant material on an un-regulated basis would mean that once common plants would become scarce and scarce plants would become rare etc. Derek Ratcliffe seemed to have covered much of the country and wrote extensively on Conservation of habitats. The RBGE have been involved in propagating plants ex-situ and re-introducing them to former habitats.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: ian mcdonald on March 30, 2016, 05:48:27 PM
One thing puzzles me about seed collection in this country and the Seed Bank. The Seed Bank ask for quite large amounts of seed to be gathered by voluntary collectors. Every so many years a proportion of each species of seed is subject to germination trials, to check that the seed is still viable. I asked the seed bank if this germinated seed could be sold to the public, so that we could grow the plants on, in our gardens. I was told that this was not possible. It seems like a waste of resource to me. As a quantity of seed has been used for these trials then more seed needs to be gathered to make up the deficit. The system should provide for the retention of these seedlings in cultivation. I am not referring to "weed" species but those species that are garden-worthy. As already pointed out, if the original habitat where the seed was collected has altered so that it no longer supports those species, who decides the fate of the rarer species?
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on August 03, 2016, 08:49:13 PM
From Robbie Blackhall-Miles : UK group issues Nagoya Protocol statement
 
 The Nagoya protocol working group has been meeting now for quite some time to work out how UK horticulture can work within the realms of this piece of international legislation. Today we issued a statement on the matter.
 
 
 The full Nagoya protocol working group statement can be found .....HERE (http://files.srgc.net/general/Nagoya-Protocol-statement-3.pdf)

RHS page on Nagoya https://www.rhs.org.uk/about-the-rhs/blogs/news-blog/August-2016/nagoya-protocol-statement (https://www.rhs.org.uk/about-the-rhs/blogs/news-blog/August-2016/nagoya-protocol-statement)
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: vivienne Condon on August 23, 2016, 10:16:03 AM
What worries me if we do not collect small amounts of seed in the wild is that the plants in all their forms will be lost forever. Yes some plants don't last in our gardens as long as the plants in the wild, but while we struggle with some plants someone else just down the road is growing it beautifully in their garden and collecting the seed to exchange with others on the seed exchanges.
When you go to countries to see plants growing in the wild it is so frustrating to see the mountains, National Parks covered in goats and cattle there is no one to police and control these animals the governments do not have the money to be spent controlling this, they are usually on the verge of bankruptcy. So even if they bring in all these rules who is going to police it.
I know this is a simplistic view, but that is how it is no one can win.
Title: Re: Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements
Post by: Maggi Young on September 06, 2016, 03:13:28 PM
Another thread on the subject of the Nagoya Protocol here : http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=14702.0 (http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=14702.0)
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal