Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt e.V.
Unsere Ziele Die Vielfalt der Kulturpflanzensorten und Nutztierrassen in der Landwirtschaft und im Gartenbau stellt unser lebendes kulturelles Erbe dar. Sie sichert nicht nur die Grundlagen der menschlichen Ernährung, sondern sie ist außerdem wesentlich für das ökologische Gleichgewicht der Kulturlandschaften. Vor allem aufgrund der Uniformität in der indus-triellen Landwirtschaft ist diese landwirtschaftli-che Vielfalt, zu der auch das Wissen über deren Pflege und Nutzung gehört, schon weitgehend verloren gegangen. Der Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt e.V. hat sich daher zum Ziel gesetzt, einem weiteren Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt in der Landwirtschaft entgegenzuwirken. Kulturpflanzensorten und Haustierrassen müssen in landwirtschaftlich-gärtnerischen Zusammenhängen erhalten und genutzt werden. Genbanken sind nur eine Notlösung, denn dort wird zwar die Lebensfähigkeit aufrechterhalten, aber die laufende Anpassung der Pflanzen und Tiere an Veränderung (...)
ID: 732268751489-16
Lobbying Activity
Response to Evaluation of the EU legislation on plant variety rights
14 Mar 2025
The UMBRELLA ASSOCIATION ON CULTIVATED PLANT AND LIVESTOCK BREED DIVERSITY has 25 member organisations in German speaking countries and works for the development of legal and policy frameworks supportive to on-farm diversity conservation since 2009. ---- We note with great worries that intellectual property rights over living organisms and everything around their trade are being strengthened. The seed market is dominated by a few companies that collect increasing numbers of increasingly broad IPR titles. ------ A business model seems to develop that is focused on IPR license and royalty incomes. Questions arise whether UPOV as well as the European Patent Convention are still functional, if IPR-triggered incomes of a given corporation can be several times the amount spent on research and development of the corporation. IPR titles seem to have acquired a function that goes far beyond the financing or re-financing of R&D for breeding. ----- Indeed, smaller breeding companies complain about problems to use the existing innovations for further breeding, with regard to patents, to an extent that endangers their further breeding activities. This would reduce independent breeding activity. While there is no change of patent laws and their too broad approvals re non-biotech plants within sight. The breeders exemption in Plant Variety Protection is therefore even more crucial than in the past. Concerning breeders exemption, there should be no limitation regarding time or other. Also, the time validity of IPR titles should not be extended beyond the current number of years (20-30 years depending on species) but rather made shorter. After all, a variety is remaining in the market for only less than ten years on average. ----- It should be noted that the organic breeding sector provides varieties specifically bred for organic cultivation, not conventionally bred varieties just multiplied under organic conditions. This organic breeding sector has flourished after the legal framework was changed to include amateur and conservation varieties as well as Organic Heterogeneous Material. The vast majority of their breeding products are not IPR-protected. This is financially possible although difficult as there is extremely little public funding of organic research available. The vast majority of breeding research funding goes to the non-organic industry, in particular biotechnology. ----- The proof of novelty in the PVP application requirements is not sufficient. It is paramount that the source of the genetic material is mentioned in the PVP application. Business secret is not a valid argument in this respect. Varieties of common knowledge should not only include varieties that have been registered so far in official registers, but also landraces and varieties listed by publicly available on-farm conservation catalogues and by gene banks. ----- Regarding farm saved seed, there should be no state involvement in the royalty collection, as collection is a private matter and evidently should be covered by license fees. Already, the UPOV 1991 fails to honour Farmers Rights as defined by the ITPGRFA and by UNDROP. Both international commitments are not restricted to the Global South, but the ITPGRFA is signed by the EU and its Member States, and UNDROP has the same legal status as the UN Declaration on Human Rights. ---- In addition, we support the positions of APREBES/ ProSpecieRara, and of Arche Noah.
Read full responseResponse to Amendment of protective measures against pests of plants - Tomato brown rugose fruit virus
4 Nov 2024
Our association for cultivated plant and livestock breed diversity has 25 member organisations and a wide network of people who are active in the on-farm conservation of traditional open pollinating varieties, either professionally or as a hobby. We would like to thank the EU Commission for the opportunity to comment on the revision of Implementing Regulation 2019/2072 regarding protective measures against Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus. We note that according to the recent Pest Risk Analysis report by European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation EPPO the number of affected countries in the EPPO region has increased from 9 in 2020 to 31 in 2024, in spite of multiple and costly prevention and eradication measures. In the EU, only Sweden, Denmark and Romania had no outbreaks. Some countries were affected to a considerable extent. In Italy and Greece, the virus was established; in the Netherlands, the virus was present in about one third of tomato growing areas. In some other countries, e.g. in Germany, only a handful of greenhouses were infested each year. The seed trade, in particular imports in the EU as a source of entry is tightly controlled. Health certificates were needed, since the virus was regulated as a quarantine pest for several years. The tomato and pepper fruit trade, however, including imports in the EU, from infected production sites was hardly limited. This has contributed considerably to the spread of the virus. Producers were advised not to allow any tomato or pepper fruit from outside into production sites, e.g. lunch brought from home by the employees. Europool, a company that provides rental boxes to tomato producers has intensified costly disinfection systems in view of the ToBRFV spreading via fruits. ...see attachment
Read full responseResponse to Targeted amendment of the Plant Health Regulation
29 Dec 2023
The umbrella organisation for crop and livestock diversity brings together 25 organisations in German-speaking countries with the aim of improving the conditions for their on-farm conservation work. Many of us have in 2021 commented the evaluation of the Plant Health Regulation on the subject of plant passports (Article 79). During the evaluation, a petition was organised against the obligation to register for seed savers. More than 10,000 affected people across the EU have signed: https://www.openpetition.eu/petition/online/making-seed-savers-register-could-slash-the-saving-of-seeds Professionally engaged seed savers must officially register and fulfil a list of obligations if they want to sell seeds and seedlings of rare varieties of tomatoes, beans and some other vegetables, or cuttings of rare fruit and nut varieties to hobby gardeners, and if they want to use a webshop to do so. Due to the additional administrative work, many of those affected could give up their already labour-intensive conservation work or not even start their professional engagement. Also, due to the regulations on traceability and eradication, rare varieties could simply be destroyed. The risk of so-called quarantine pests spreading in our gardens is low. We have no monocultures, do not operate large propagation and hybridisation areas, not even in other climate zones of our planet, and do not sell our seeds worldwide in large quantities for commercial cultivation. We pay attention to the health and resistance of each mother plant that we have selected to harvest seeds of our rare varieties. In the field of plant health, tracing and eradication of pests are not the only scientific approach, nor is there a scientific consensus. However, they form the sole basis of legislation. In addition, modern breeding favours mono- or oligogenic resistances. However, these resistances are broken through too often or too quickly to represent a sound strategy for maintaining plant health. Other scientific approaches show that vital plants can also be carriers of harmful organisms without becoming ill. It would be wrong to destroy healthy plants just because they carry harmful organisms. It is precisely the polygenic properties underlying plant health in these cases that are important for climate-resilient cultivation systems. Exemptions for genetic resources conservation are possible, as shown in Switzerland that is basically using the EU Regulation: Operators that are already implementing the plant passport can save considerable work and inspection fees by applying for an exemption. It is granted in years in which the current quarantine pest on tomatoes and peppers, the TBRFV virus, does not occur. Micro-enterprises and individuals would hardly benefit, if they cannot cope with the phytosanitary regulations anyway. They can only develop sufficiently and maintain diversity if they are not burdened with administrative tasks or inspection fees. Even a possible reimbursement of fees would mean an unfeasible administrative burden. On-farm conservation is dependent on these actors. Their opinions were barely mentioned in the evaluation report. There were "no conclusive results" from the extensive evaluation of plant passport Article 79. The EU Commission has not proposed any amendments to Article 79. The EU Commission's amendment proposal does not take any account of the threat to on-farm conservation of cultivated plant diversity posed by the registration and consecutive obligations of professional operators. The Plant Health Regulation could significantly slash on-farm conservation. We therefore demand: No obligation to register and no further obligations for individuals and micro-enterprises professionally involved in diversity conservation!
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the plant and forest reproductive material legislation
7 Dec 2023
Das von der Europäischen Kommission im Juli 2023 vorgeschlagene neue EU-Saatgutrecht hat unter anderem die Erhaltung der Kulturpflanzenvielfalt zum Ziel. Deren Erhaltung wird durch den internationalen Saatgutvertrag und durch UNDROP geregelt, die angemessen umgesetzt gehören. Eine Saat- und Pflanzgutverordnung kann dies nicht leisten. Die Vielfaltserhaltung steht nicht im Wettbewerb mit dem Saatguthandel für den kommerziellen Anbau. Mit ihren am Ziel vorbei formulierten Ausnahmen würde die Verordnung die Erhaltung und Verbreitung der Kulturpflanzenvielfalt bedrohen. Sie missachtet zudem das Recht der Landwirte, ihr eigenes Saatgut zu ernten, zu verwenden, auszutauschen und zu verkaufen, wie es im internationalen Recht verankert ist. Für eine Umsetzung der Strategien der EU, die landwirtschaftliche Produktion an die Klimaerwärmung anzupassen und ihren Beitrag zu den Treibhausgasen wirksam zu verringern, ist der Vorschlag auch nicht geeignet. Wir fordern die Entscheidungsträger auf, den Vorschlag für das EU-Saatgutrecht zu überarbeiten und Rechtsvorschriften zu verabschieden, die die Verbreitung von Vielfaltssorten nicht behindern, die biologische Vielfalt fördern, die Rechte der Landwirte respektieren und die Grundlage für ein nachhaltiges, widerstandsfähiges und vielfältiges Lebensmittelsystem schaffen: Die Erhaltung und nachhaltige Nutzung der Kulturpflanzenvielfalt darf nicht von der Verordnung erfasst werden. Dazu gehört auch deren Verkauf. Nicht nur die Aktivitäten von HobbygärtnerInnen, sondern auch der berufsmäßige Verkauf der Vielfaltssorten durch die darauf spezialisierten SaatguterzeugerInnen (Einzelpersonen und Kleinstbetriebe) muss ausgenommen werden, ebenso wie die Arbeit von Genbanken und Erhalterorganisationen. Das Menschenrecht der LandwirtInnen und GärtnerInnen, Saatgut zu ernten, zu verwenden, zu tauschen und zu verkaufen, muss vollständig umgesetzt werden. Die in der Ökoverordnung festgelegten Saatgutregelungen müssen bleiben. Neu zugelassene Sorten dürfen nicht von Pestiziden oder synthetischen Düngemitteln abhängig sein.
Read full response