Prince buys apples

Regular readers will remember last year’s flap over the UK’s National Fruit Collection, which is looked after by the Brogdale Horticultural Trust and managed by the University of Reading at Brogdale, Kent. I won’t rehearse the details again, but suffice to say there was some doubt about the collection’s future. There’s now news from the Daily Telegraph that the collection has been “saved” by the Prince of Wales:

…three separate collections of the 1,000 most important breeds have been sold to the Prince of Wales, the Co-operative supermarket group and an anonymous Scottish businessman. 1 Each will plant their saplings in different parts of the country.

There’s not much more detail than that in the article, and of course we’ll work our contacts to try to find out more, and indeed to verify the accuracy of the newspaper accounts. But there are a couple of points about this statement that are a little worrying. At the very least, the whole thing raises a lot of interesting questions.

Let me start by saying that it’s certainly a good idea to safety duplicate (or triplicate in this case) germplasm collections in different places, especially field collections, which are particularly prone to accident and mishap. 2 But how exactly were the thousand accessions chosen? There are 2,300 apple varieties in the collection. How does one measure the “importance” of each of these? One measure might be how much they’ve been used, either directly in plantations or in breeding. But wouldn’t such varieties be the ones in least need of conservation? It would be good to know what criteria were used to make the selection.

My second worry is over the fact that the germplasm has been “sold.” For how much, exactly? And how was the amount calculated? And what does that mean about access to that material by potential users, either in the UK or overseas? 3 Apple is on Annex 1 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Ex situ conserved Annex 1 material in the public domain and under the control of a Party to the Treaty, which the UK government is, is supposed to be made available to users under a “facilitated” access and benefit sharing regime. Does this privatization of part of the collection affect its status under the Treaty? If so, has the Treaty Secretariat been informed? It’s not as if the new owners won’t be trying making money out of it:

The Co-op intends to produce a “heritage apple juice” from some of the breeds by the end of this year. William Barnett, who heads up The Co-operative Farms’ 800-acre fruit-growing operation at Tillington in Herefordshire, where the apple trees are being planted, said: “Some of the apples date back to pre-Victorian times. They were originally dessert apples, but became less fashionable and failed as modern commercial varieties.”

What if someone else wants to try the same thing? Under what conditions will they have access to the material?

As I say, lots of questions. If anyone out there has the answers, we’d love to hear from you.

Nibbles: Tea, Commodity dependence, Wild pigs, Organic ag, Fungus

The EU and “geographic indications”

CTA’s Brussels Office has a useful blog tracking relations between the EU and ACP countries in the fields of agriculture and fisheries. There was an interesting entry yesterday, but unfortunately it doesn’t have a permalink, so I’ll quote it in full:

In its March 2008 issue, ICTSD Trade negotiations insight indicates that EPA negotiations include discussions on intellectual property rights (IPRs). Within the chapters on intellectual property rights, the draft EU texts enclose detailed provisions on ‘geographical indications’. Geographical Indications (GI) is a designation which identifies certain qualities, characteristics or the reputation of a particular product to a specific geographical locality. For centuries communities across Africa have produced goods with a quality associated to a special area and which enjoy a strong reputation with national and international consumers, such as Nile Perch from Lake Victoria, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. Geographical indications are by essence a collective right. They allow for the protection of existing products and traditional methods of production and knowledge. GIs encourage variety and diversity of production and allow for a better redistribution of ‘added value’ in the production chain – from the raw material producer to the manufacturer. Yet, GIs come at a certain price: it can take time and effort to build a strong quality product including labelling and marketing. Moreover, a legal framework allowing for registration of indications needs to be put into place, which covers production methods, the technical standards of the product and a verification process safeguarding the specifications set. ACP countries or regions must begin by evaluating the potential benefits GIs could bring to key products such as fish. These must be weighed against the potential costs they could generate. But in the long term, if ACP countries can focus on developing, identifying and protecting GIs on the domestic market, the system could be a valuable tool for sustainable development and economic growth.

Source: ICTSD