Regulatory threats to seed exchanges and plant movements

[Hillview croconut]

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

[Sophie]

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/

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...

[Tim Ingram]

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.

[Hillview croconut]

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

[Hillview croconut]

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

[Hillview croconut]

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".

[Hillview croconut]

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

[razvan chisu]

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?

[Maggi Young]

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.

[Helen Johnstone]

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

[Maggi Young]

I agree, Helen , for the Nagoya Protocol 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

"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."

[johnralphcarpenter]

The way things are going, gardeners may become the second largest class of criminals, after motorists. Of course, if you garden and drive........

[Maggi Young]

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. 

[David Nicholson]

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.

[Hillview croconut]

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?