A direction of travel is emerging among EU countries on the proposed overhaul of EU seed legislation – but according to seed association ARCHE NOAH, this might be the opposite direction to that of cultivated biodiversity. Conversely, negotiations on new genetic modification techniques failed to reach agreement before the Belgian Presidency left office.

At a meeting of EU agriculture ministers on Monday 24 June, the Belgians – who have held the reins of the rotating EU presidency over the past 6 months – presented a paper with a state-of-play on the plant reproductive materials (PRM) proposal.

As a refresher, the European Parliament sealed its position on the new seed law back in April. This sparked mixed reactions, but is generally seen as a “constructive proposal” which recognises the importance of seed diversity, according to seed campaign group ARCHE NOAH.

This is the position that the Parliament will use as a basis to enter into inter-institutional talks, known as ‘trilogues’. These trilogue discussions will hash out the final compromise position between the three institutions. Ultimately, the final shape of the law will land somewhere between the Commission’s, Parliament’s and Council’s positions.

First, the good news. Compared to the Commission proposal, lawmakers in the Parliament voted for more flexible rules for the access, sale, and transfer of conservation varieties in “small quantities” – which means 500g for vegetables or up to 1000kg for seed potatoes.

In this way, the proposed text aims to free up seed exchanges between farmers and for conservation purposes from new bureaucratic requirements.

For organics association IFOAM, the position “could contribute to a balanced regulation and a conducive environment for organic plant breeding”.

But now the not-so-good news – notably that there are still some concerns when it comes to the scope of the flexibility to formally established conservation organisations, excluding other conservation associations – something that ARCHE NOAH warned may “severely restrict” conservation efforts in Europe.

"Many actors in Europe contribute to saving the diversity of varieties, including local seed producers, individual farmers, but also public initiatives such as seed libraries,” the association pointed out.

Another bone of contention for the association is that there is no prohibition of GMO or seeds produced using new genomic techniques (NGTs) in conservation varieties.

Meanwhile, the Parliament’s counterparts over in the Council have not yet fixed their position on the law – and the direction of travel doesn’t look as hopeful from the Council’s side, according to ARCHE NOAH, who sounded a “double alarm” over the paper as it currently stands.

This is because rules for the commercial seed market are to be applied to activities to save seed diversity in a “completely inappropriate way,” the association argues. This would heap bureaucratic burden on small conservation initiatives which would struggle to comply – to the point that the association warned this would see an “effective ban” on seed selling

"The proposed revision is an attack on diversity and a gift to large agrochemical companies," Magdalena Prieler, seed policy expert at ARCHE NOAH, said, noting that it makes it “impossible” to preserve diversity and violates the EU's international obligations.

As such, if the proposal goes through in this form, the association warned it would be a “disaster for European agriculture and diversity, for our independence from a few global corporations, for farmers who have a human right to their own seeds, and ultimately for citizens who want and need diversity on their plates”.

The actual negotiations between the EU institutions are not expected to begin until the winter, so there is still time for things to change between now and then.

Last but not least on the legal front. At the end of June, the EU's proposal to relax the rules on gene editing was rejected by the European Council, leaving the project on ice.

The EU had put forward plans to loosen rules on these technologies back in July, 2023. And while the Parliament sealed their position on the plans back in February, things have been more complicated over in the Council where it has been stuck at an impasse for months over the sticky issue of patents.

Another reason for the stalemate in the negotiations was the warnings against hasty adoption of the legislation by European organisations, including environmental NGOs, farmers and beekeepers, who had issued a joint statement calling for "sound and scientifically based regulation" for the technology, as well as mandatory risk assessments in each case and rigorous monitoring of all plants after their introduction onto the market.