EU seed law in turmoil?

Good reasons to take the weekend off include the fact that by not being too keen, one avoids certain errors. So I’m glad I didn’t see Patrick’s original post on an opinion delivered by an EU Advocate General in the matter of Association Kokopelli vs Graines Baumaux SAS. 1 At least, not until after he had got things straighter. Here is Patrick’s view of the Advocate General’s views:

First of all the Advocate-General said it is not legal to interpret EU or French Seed Laws as meaning you cannot sell unlisted varieties. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO SELL UNLISTED VARIETIES.

Secondly, the provisions of EU Seed Law that refer to the DUS standard are NOT VALID.

Don’t get your hopes too high for a legal seed supply revolution in Europe. As Patrick explains, there’s a lot more that still needs to happen. But the possibility is that it just might happen, and then Europeans will be in the happy state enjoyed by the entire rest of world, able to buy, sell and grow whatsoever varieties they choose.

Nibbles: Rice breeding, West African agriculture, Asian AnGR, Wheat breeding, Chinese semiotics, Neglected plant at NordGen, Fledermaus, PPB

Nibbles: Bananas, No Bananas, Climate change and agriculture, Biodiversity loss, Malnutrition and property, Breeding

Telling it like it is for rice in Nepal

I’d like to pretend that our absence yesterday was a mark of solidarity with all the netizens protesting against the proposed SOPA/PIPA laws in the US. It wasn’t; we were just both snowed under. But we do think SOPA/PIPA is a mistake.

The latest issue of IRRI’s magnificent organ Rice Today contains an article on Seeds of life in Nepal. All good stuff, about how private companies and the state supply less than 10% of Nepal’s rice seed needs. The rest comes from the informal seed sector. IRRI stigmatizes those seeds as being “low quality”. So, along with the National Rice Research Program, IRRI swung into action, setting up farmer trials of modern varieties, which “within a short time … were identified as superior to local lines”.

They were Radha-32, Ghaiya-2, IR55435-5, Pakhejhinuwa, Radha-4, Ram Dhan, Barkhe-3017, Sunaulo sugandha, Barkhe-2024, and NR-1824-21-1-1.

To get seed to farmers, the project helped set up local seed producer groups, which ramped up production from 4 tonnes to 30 tonnes over three years. Even that, however, was enough for only about 1 in 10 of the farmers in the immediate neighbourhood. More groups followed in other villages, and everyone is now happy.

Except us and some people in Nepal.

The article boasts that “millet and maize that used to replace rice on the table are now feeds for livestock and poultry”. Is that an unalloyed good thing?

Were the local varieties really that bad, and were they conserved? Nepal has a good record of participatory plant breeding (PPB) and community seedbanks and seed producers, set up with local NGOs and other research centres, although one wouldn’t know it from IRRI’s article. Some of the PPB varieties produced in those projects were used by IRRI in the on-farm trials; no mention of those either. Were they rubbish? Or are their names in the list without saying where they came from? LI-BIRD, the NGO most closely associated with PPB and seed producer groups in Nepal, recently published its report for 2009-2010; it contains an article on Community based seed production and another on Community seed banks.

Nibbles: Doggy-style diversity, Livestock diversity, Pomato, Non timber, Non beer, Popcorn, Drying rice, Svalbard