Les verdicts sont tombés : l'association Kokopelli est lourdement condamnée :
- 12.000€ pour le grainetier Baumaux
- 23.000€ pour l'état et la fédération des industriels de la semence (FNPSPF).
Malgré les directives européennes, les avis de l'ONU, du Sénat, de scientifiques, d'agronomes affirmant l'urgence de sauvegarder la biodiversité végétale alimentaire, l'état français refuse de libérer l'accès aux semences anciennes pour tout un chacun.
C'est ce qui permet aujourd'hui aux magistrats d'infliger ces lourdes peines à l'association Kokopelli.
Dans le cas du procès de la SAS Baumaux pour concurrence déloyale, M. Baumaux verra donc son bénéfice de 800.000€ augmenté de 10.000€ et recevra 2.000€ pour ses frais.
L'état français recevra 17.500€ au motif que KOKOPELLI vend des semences illégales, 5.000€ seront consacrés aux frais et à l'information du bon peuple sur les pratiques dangereuses de l'association KOKOPELLI. Les semences qui ont nourri nos grands-parents et qui servent à nous nourrir aujourd'hui par le jeux des croisements, sont donc devenues illégales et dangereuses.
~ Lire la suite ~
Limans, 17 February 2008
Urgent : Biodiversity under threat !
The French seed association Kokopelli condemned for protecting
biodiversity
Severe risk of a disastrous directive being adopted by the European
Union concerning seeds of conservation varieties
Dear friends,
Seeds represent a genetic heritage built up over 10,000 years of
human selection, one of the oldest and most precious treasures
belonging to all humanity. The future of this priceless heritage is
at stake and decisions of great importance will be taken in the
coming months. Will this enormous wealth of traditional seeds which
forms the basis of all life on earth be freely available to farmers
and gardeners as it was for thousands of years, or will it only
belong to a few multinational seed companies?
The French seed industry is leading an unprecedented war for control
in this field. It has done all in its power to ensure that national
legislations and European directives make illegal the production and
sale of reproducible seeds that are not registered in the official
catalogue of breeds and varieties. This catalogue is almost entirely
made up of sterile varieties. The situation differs throughout
Europe. A country like Austria, for example, has taken the opposite
approach and provides considerable support to initiatives seeking to
maintain and protect the seeds of traditional varieties.
In the most recent episode of this open war Kokopelli has just been
condemned in two trials2. This association has created one of the
largest European collections (2500 reproducible varieties) of
vegetable, flower and cereal seeds reproducible and accessible both
to amateurs and to professionals. There are many larger seed banks,
but they are the property either of big agro-industrial trusts
(Limagrain, Syngenta, Pioneer…), which reserve them for the
production of clones and GMOs, or of states which provide little or
no access for the wider public.
These verdicts could become a dangerous jurisprudential precedent
affecting the whole of Europe and could prevent other organisations
seeking to preserve biodiversity from distributing and selling seeds.
It is urgent to react throughout the European Union. We must make
clear to all national governments and to the European Commission that
the citizens of this continent consider it to be absolutely essential
to protect our heritage of cultivated genetic biodiversity. It is
therefore vital to adopt European directives that enable associations
like Kokopelli to pursue the invaluable work they are doing in this
field.
It is in fact the French government that is keeping Kokopelli in an
illegal position. For ten years a European directive (98-95 CEE) has
clearly indicated that everything must be undertaken to safeguard
varieties under threat of genetic erosion. However, neither France
nor the European Commission have appled this text which has not been
transposed into the national legislation. This would have enabled
Kokopelli to continue its work of conservation and distribution in
full legality, a task the state is no longer guaranteeing.
Since 1998 other directives have been adopted, partially replacing
Directive 98-95 CEE. European legislation on seeds is so complex and
confusing that the European Commission recently decided to carry out
an evaluation with the aim of ensuring that there is a coherent
harmonised legal situation throughout the EU. This evaluation, which
is to be completed by the end of this year, is being carried out in a
very undemocratic manner with a total lack of transparency. As yet it
has been impossible to find out which external body has received the
mission to carry it out. It is essential that there is a genuine
debate and consultation with all of the actors in the seed sector,
including organisations involved in the defence of traditional seeds
and in the conservation of biodiversity.
Everything indicates that the Commission intends to completely
remodel European seed legislation on the basis of this evaluation,
which would no doubt take place in 2009. Despite this fact, in its
meeting on 25 February in Brussels the « Standing Committee on
Seeds» will be debating the first of four proposals3 on the seeds of
conservation varieties. These include severe geographic and
quantitative restrictions to the production, use and sale of seeds
under threat of genetic erosion (see annexe). The Commission is
basing its plan to impose such restrictions on the content of
existing directives which will soon become null and void.
This is why we call on you to send letters, as rapidly as possible,
to the Minister responsible in your country for the questions of
seeds and cultivated biodiversity. There are three key demands to make :
Seeds of conservation varieties should not be considered to be a
matter of minor importance within the general question of seeds,
subject to regulations imposed without a public debate and
consultation with all those involved in the sector ;
No directives on seeds of conservation varieties should be adopted
before the completion of a transparent and democratic evaluation and
the adoption of new European legislation which reflects the views of
organisations promoting biodiversity. Discussion of the three draft
directives on the agenda of the meeting on 25 February should be
postponed until this date ;
A moratorium should be established covering the period of the
evaluation and the adoption of definitive new European seed
legislation to enable the many associations and companies throughout
Europe to pursue their vital work for the safeguard and distribution
of traditional seeds. Without such a moratorium these organisations
will face the risk of being taken to court for the illegal sale of
seeds. A year without activity in this field will exacerbate the
already serious erosion of traditional plant varieties.
Please send us copies of your letters. In this way we will be able to
inform the European Parliament and Commission as well as the media
that there is Europe-wide concern about this matter.
With our best wishes,
Nicholas Bell
European Civic Forum
Annexe
The texts of the three proposed directives on the agenda of the
meeting on 25 February are not available yet, either to the public or
the European Parliament. We can, however, suppose that they will
resemble the documents already proposed in April 2007.
Draft Commission Directive providing for certain derogations for
acceptance of
agricultural landraces and varieties which are naturally adapted to the
local and regional conditions and threatened by genetic erosion and
for marketing of seed and seed potatoes of those landraces and varieties
We are strongly alarmed by this proposal because we consider that it
does not serve the needs of a satisfactory “on farm” conservation
of plant genetic resources. Instead of simplifying market access for
small-scale farmers and producers, it provides for a highly
restrictive framework for the marketing of seeds of conservation
varieties.
According to the present proposal, the production, marketing and use
of the seeds of a conservation variety will be restricted to their
place of origin. Apart from the fact that the origin of a variety is
often outside Europe, this is an inappropriate barrier, contradicting
the idea of consumer and farmer choice. In addition it would block
the further development of biodiversity which requires exchange to
ensure regeneration. These restrictions would therefore create an
obstacle to the viable long-term conservation of varieties facing the
threat of genetic erosion. They also go against the fundamental
principle of the free movement of goods within the EU, and contradict
the principle of the freedom of trade and industry, without any
justification being presented.
Moreover, there are also quantitative restrictions affecting the
amount of seeds of a conservation variety which may be produced.
There are two forms of restriction: a ceiling of 0,5% of the seeds of
the same species used in the same season in a given member state
(0,3% of certain species), or of the quantity of seed needed to sow
20 hectares of the particular variety. These are extremely small
quantities and are not sufficient to ensure the daily and long-term
use which is the only way of avoiding the extinction of particularly
threatened varieties. Once again, no justification is given.
The present proposal would require controls of seed production on
site, of quantities of marketed seed and of the surface planted for
each variety. These controls would be expensive and do not comply
with the principle of proportionality, in view of the modest economic
relevance of conservation varieties.
The geographic and quantitative restrictions, together with the
control obligations, put a burden of costs and bureaucracy on to
farmers and small-scale breeders, instead of facilitating the
maintenance of conservation varieties through their daily use. This
goes against the goal of the conservation of biodiversity in
agriculture, as defined in various international commitments made by
the EU as well as in the EU Biodiversity strategy. The restrictions
and control obligations also seem disproportionate with regard to
consumer protection, as almost no risk for consumers exists, apart
from purchasing a less uniform selection of seeds. When consumers buy
seeds of a clearly labelled "conservation variety", they are aware of
this fact.
What is more, there is a strong call both from farmers and consumers
that old traditional varieties should be made available again and
thus find their way back to our plates. All of the restrictions
proposed by the European Commission represent unjustifiable
distortions of the freedom of economic operators.
Finally, the geographic restrictions would appear to be totally
counter-productive, if not suicidal, when one considers the growing
risks of climate change. Certain zones of origin of plant varieties
may become no longer adapted for such plants due to problems of
drought or temperature change. On the other hand, traditional plant
varieties originating from other countries or even continents may be
better adapted to these new climatic conditions. It is therefore
essential to ensure that this heritage built up over millenia is able
to adapt gradually to changing circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment