- Npos_2018 - lists.testbiotech.de

Zusammenfassung / Summary for Tel / Zoom today 1, 30 p.m.
by Christoph Then 26 May '20

26 May '20

dear all after some question form Anne Charlotte I would summarize our position and key question as follows: Our position: In patent world, 'random' mutagenesis (using physico-chemical mutagens) is a 'conventional' or 'essential biological' method (which always requires further crossing and selection to establish a sufficiently defined breeding characteristic or 'trait') and therefore it is not patentable. Our question: What we now should discuss is if our demand (to exclude this method under Article 53b from patentability) is in line with G3/19 (G2/07 and G1/08). The answer to this question will drive our further strategy. DEUTSCH: Unsere Position: Im Patentrecht, ist 'zufällige' Mutagenese (bei der physikalisch-chemische Mutagene verwendet werden) eine 'konventionelle' bzw. 'im Wesentlichen biologische' Methode (bei der immer Kreuzung und Selektion notwendig ist, um eine züchterisch ausreichend definierte Eigenschaft (trait) zu erhalten). Deswegen ist sie nicht patentierbar. Unsere Frage: Ist unsere Forderung (diese Methode unter Art. 53b von der Patentierbarkeit auszuschliessen) in Übereinstimmung mit G3/19 (G2/07 und G1/08). Die Antwort auf diese Frage bestimmt unsere weitere Strategie. so let us talk an 1,30 p.m. Cheers Christoph

1 0

Draft letter to AC and welcome to Gudula
by Christoph Then 24 May '20

24 May '20

Dear all welcome to Gudula from Gene ethical Network which replaces Judith which is on parental leave! please see attached the draft letter to be sent to the Member States of the EPO asap. I also will prepare a German version. I think, after further reading of G2/07 and G1/08, there are very good chances to sort out the issue the one way or the other. The wording seems to be stronger than I remembered. I included a condensed legal overview which is adding some new elements (after all discussions ...). Please come back with your comments till Thursday. Cheers Christoph

4 9

the text for the letter amended and teilweise auf Deutsch
by Christoph Then 24 May '20

24 May '20

Dear all please see attached the letter amended in English and German (sorry, die rechtliche Analyse ist noch nicht übersetzt). in addition, thanks to Ruth and her team, a tabled overview of patents on plants granted after Rule 28 (2) was adopted. we can discuss on Tuesday in our phone conference an then should proceed. cheers Christoph

1 0

Conference call
by Johanna Eckhardt no-patents-seeds.org 22 May '20

22 May '20

Dear all, I suggest a conference call between 25 May and 4 June. Please fill in the doodle until Monday, 18 May. We will then fix a date the day after. https://doodle.com/poll/3i925aaqd6hg6xpy In the last couple of weeks some security concerns in regards to Zoom have been raised. But as far as I checked most of the security bugs have been fixed and in general there shouldn't be a higher risk than with any other communication via internet. I checked as well our settings and made some minor changes, f.e. data server only US (obligatory) and Europe, no other countries or the use of a password to participate at the meeting. So I would suggest to continue using Zoom. Please let me now if you disagree and have other proposals. Best, Johanna Johanna ECKHARDT Project Coordination Tel. +43 680 21 26 343 <mailto:johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.org> johanna.eckhardt(a)no-patents-on-seeds.org NO PATENTS ON SEEDS! <http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/> www.no-patents-on-seeds.org <http://www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds> www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds <http://www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed> www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed

2 2

Fwd: Draft letter to AC and welcome to Gudula
by Christoph Then 20 May '20

20 May '20

see attached G1/08 (should be more or less identical to G2/07) -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: AW: [Npos_2018] Draft letter to AC and welcome to Gudula Datum: Wed, 20 May 2020 11:42:01 +0000 Von: ARCHE NOAH Katherine Dolan <katherine.dolan(a)arche-noah.at> An: Christoph Then <info(a)no-patents-on-seeds.org> Hi Christoph I am getting there but could you send me the opinion on G2/07 and G1/08 or the link to it? I can’t find it on the EPO homepage. Thanks Katherine *Von:*Npos_2018 [mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de] *Im Auftrag von *Christoph Then *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 20. Mai 2020 09:38 *An:* npos_2018(a)testbiotech.de *Betreff:* Re: [Npos_2018] Draft letter to AC and welcome to Gudula Hi Katherine welcome. please see short comments below. Your question are very helpful. Lets prepare for phone conference next week. I think we can sort it out. Cheers Christoph Am 19.05.20 um 21:55 schrieb ARCHE NOAH Katherine Dolan: Hi Christoph, Thanks for this explanation, which makes some things clearer but also throws up some questions (I basically need some more information on the points you make – I have looked at the cases you refer to but can’t quite follow your logic, particularly on how we exclude random mutations from patentability by the relying on case law). > /on the case law: I only refer to G1/08 (and G2/07) - I hope I did not mix up the numbers of the decisions. If you read the headnotes (as quoted in G3/19) point 1 and 2 are very clear. Point 3 is not so clear. But leaves room for our interpretation (please be aware the decision is stating direct insertion of a TRAIT. Random mutation, typically, is not enough to generate a defined TRAIT. see may explanation in the condensed overview) / /point 4 reads rather problematic. It seems they pick up all of our arguments and says they are not relevant. Further problem: in the text, they also refer to irridation as part of a historical explanation. / /But you need to read the whole decision to find out, how to interpret. By doing so, at the end, you will find the quote I inserted in may condensed analysis. I think this quote is in line with the EU Commission statement. It is in line with our interpretation. and it is binding. It solves the problems and uncertainties as created by point 3 and 4. However, looking to the examiners decision making, this legal understanding so far is not reflected on the level of examination. This is astonishing. If we raise our demand as suggested, we can sort out these contradictions. Or, in case, we go for further changes of Rules and Laws. / I would be very keen to have a call (this week?) to discuss some of the details and the next steps so we have a common understanding before the letter is finalised. /It looks like we have phone conference next week on 26. we can discuss. I also will do further work on the text. So we can manage to send it off next week. we might double check with the schedule of meetings at the EPO, to be right in time. / On the bigger / more strategic issues: · I am not a fan of the disclaimer as it is not a binding, transparency rule and still puts the onus on civil society to be alert and check it is being applied fully. But if we can really achieve what we want on the other two points in an easy way, I guess we could live with it, and see how it works in the next year. If it doesn’t work e.g. on the new GMOs we would anyway have to get active again. /I do not mind, to raise stronger demands (like no absolute product protection under Art 53 b) - we will see if it flies. / · Regarding the process: You are suggesting that the Admin Council adopts a text that basically replaces the proposal made by the President in 2017 and which will then be reflected in the examination guidelines? Can we check that the Admin Council is able to do this legally? I also wonder strategically if it makes sense to straight away propose this “light” option. On the one hand, I see what you say that they are more likely to be interested in an easy solution. But on the other hand it will be difficult to us to demand a change in the implementing regulations at a later stage if we do not do so now. Again, it is probably better to discuss this together on a call. /The idea on the process: for each decision to change rules or laws, there are some preparatory documents. These documents are relevant for the interpretation of the decision, they are not binding law as such. But they are binding in case of questions of interpretation. We want the AC to add another preparatory document. Normally this is no problem. And, important to know: The text is already in the examination guidance. I think some further clarification might be needed. But this can be done by the EPO, it is not in the remit of the AC. We just pave the way to get the right decisions on the level of the EPO. Anyway: the text which is legally binding is G1/08. Please read carefully. I might be wrong in my interpretation. It we have to prepare a argumentation which is in contradiction to G1/08, this will be hard task (I already started on it - it might work, but for the moement, I am not convinced that it will work)/ On a separate note the Austrian Ministry called for a change to the Convention in her press release (her team don’t understand the issue yet). I have asked for a meeting but I will hold off on following up until we have agreed on our demands internally: https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20200516_OTS0001/keine-patente-auf-… Thanks Katherine -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Npos_2018 [mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de] Im Auftrag von Christoph Then Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Mai 2020 17:50 An: npos_2018(a)testbiotech.de <mailto:npos_2018@testbiotech.de> Betreff: Re: [Npos_2018] Draft letter to AC and welcome to Gudula Dear Katherine thanks for your comments. I agree that this letter is somehow a change in our communication towards the Members of the AC. But it is not a change in our goals! I have to admit, when I started to work on this letter, I already had much more arguments and reasoning written down in a longer draft version, before I finally again studied the Decision G1/08 and was happy to find there is a new, smart and more precise way to move the AC. But maybe I should explain. We need a common understanding. So thanks for your question. In our original response to the 2017 decision we were not fully aware of the obvious contradiction between the President's document and the Decision in G2/07 and G1/08. Therefore, we did not point out these contradictions. But now we should use it. My conclusion: Our position is much stronger than we thought. Also within the current jurisprudence of the EPO, they can not just leave it with this incorrect interpretation of the President. We should be aware that the decision of G1/07 is already introduced into the examination Guidelines (at least partially). I always was wondering about the strong wording in the Guidelines about fundamental differences between GE and conventional breeding. But I was too stupid and not aware that this is the wording from G1/08. I think at the level of the Technical Board, we might have been made aware that this wording is already quite effective (but this is just some guessing). Being aware of the facts and findings as summarized, I would like to keep our demand as much as streamlined and easy as possible, to move the delegates to take initiative. Also after our talks with the German ministry, I am sure, we will get most interest and support in our demands if we can show that they can be fulfilled it without changing the Rules or the text of the EPC. So I would like to follow this path. Would it become legally binding if the AC would adopt the text as proposed? In itself, it would not have a legally binding effect such as a new Rule or change of law. But this is not necessary: We just have to make sure that there is no longer any contradiction between the decision of the AC and (what we think is) the correct interpretation of Rule 28 (2). If my understanding is correct, the desired legal binding effect will simply result from G1/08 and not from the new decision of the AC. In short: my understanding is that the problem (with the definition) is solved as soon as the AC agrees with us that the text of the President is an incorrect interpretation. If my analysis is not correct, the AC will not follow it and we have to raise stronger demands anyway. Similarly, the demand that all products and materials needed for breeding are excluded does not seem to by a major problem. I think this demand is supported by all contracting states. There is only a contradiction introduced by the text of former President: It says, that cells still are still patentable. If we get rid to this text, the problem should also disappear. On the scope of patents, I guess we will have to live with the disclaimer. I see no way to convince the AC to come up with stronger initiatives. But if the proposed text would be adopted, it could support our position. I am not so happy with this situation, but do not think we can go further on the basis of G3/19. As indicated above, after the decision of the Enlarged Board, the interest of the European governments to get active on this topic might by minor. But nevertheless, I am (for the first time) optimistic we can still reach our goals. Let us go for it. In addition, what we still could add to the draft letter, is a a change in national law (definition of essentially biological processes and scope of patents). I missed that to add in my draft, but I would like to add. If needed we also can have a chat on the telephone (or zoom conference). I think this is a huge opportunity and we should use it asap. But we also should have common understanding of the situation. Cheers Christoph Am 19.05.20 um 15:44 schrieb ARCHE NOAH Katherine Dolan: > Dear Christoph, > > Thanks for the draft. I have a couple of questions and based on your reply I would make some more detailed comments on the letter: > > 1) In my view we are too complementary about the 2017 decision. I am conscious we should show that we appreciate their efforts, but they did after all ignore our warnings that the proposal didn't go far enough. In Austria we also have the specific situation that we heavily criticised the proposal in 2017 as formally establishing loopholes that were previously informal (https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20170626_OTS0008/arche-noah-europae…) and it was this criticism that got Austrian government to vote against it. So it is awkward for us to be too positive now - particularly as we don't want to expect less of the current minister than the minister in 2017, especially as she is a green. > > My question - is it ok for you in general if we are less complementary about the 2017 decision or is this very important for you? > > 2) > > You call on the AC to "adopt and publish a text for clarification". Do you know what legal binding form this can take? Why are we not aiming for a further change in the Implementing Regulations? > > Thanks > Katherine > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Npos_2018 [mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de] Im Auftrag > von Christoph Then > Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Mai 2020 13:26 > An: npos_2018(a)testbiotech.de <mailto:npos_2018@testbiotech.de> > Betreff: [Npos_2018] Draft letter to AC and welcome to Gudula > > Dear all > > > welcome to Gudula from Gene ethical Network which replaces Judith which is on parental leave! > > please see attached the draft letter to be sent to the Member States of the EPO asap. I also will prepare a German version. > > I think, after further reading of G2/07 and G1/08, there are very good chances to sort out the issue the one way or the other. The wording seems to be stronger than I remembered. I included a condensed legal overview which is adding some new elements (after all discussions ...). > > Please come back with your comments till Thursday. > > > Cheers > > Christoph > > _______________________________________________ > Npos_2018 mailing list > Npos_2018(a)testbiotech.de <mailto:Npos_2018@testbiotech.de> > https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018 _______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018(a)testbiotech.de <mailto:Npos_2018@testbiotech.de> https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018 _______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018(a)testbiotech.de <mailto:Npos_2018@testbiotech.de> https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018

1 0

Interview Switzerland
by Johanna Eckhardt no-patents-seeds.org 20 May '20

20 May '20

Dear all, here is a radio interview with Francois (in German): <https://rabe.ch/2020/05/19/contact-tracing-app-was-bringts/> https://rabe.ch/2020/05/19/contact-tracing-app-was-bringts/ Thanks to Judith for the link and to Francois for the great interview! Best, Johanna Johanna ECKHARDT Project Coordination Tel. +43 680 21 26 343 <mailto:johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.org> johanna.eckhardt(a)no-patents-on-seeds.org NO PATENTS ON SEEDS! <http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/> www.no-patents-on-seeds.org <http://www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds> www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds <http://www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed> www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed

1 0

FW: Press release: EPO decision on patents on seeds: A step forward but concerns remain
by Fulya BATUR 19 May '20

19 May '20

Hello everyone, Congrats on the decision, it's a great step in the right direction indeed ! I do remain wary on its temporal aspects, and also on the limited reach this decision might have on the issue of native traits, but they got the memo... Below a PR from ECVC, FYI. Best Fulya Fulya BATUR, PhD Training, Advocacy & Legal Affairs Kybele SRL (Seeds & Biodiversity) 0032.484.77.86.18 Subject: [New-gm-eur] Press release: EPO decision on patents on seeds: A step forward but concerns remain [cid:image002.png@01D62DE2.2AD24350] Press release 19 May 2020, Brussels EPO decision on patents on seeds: A step forward but concerns remain On 14 May, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued opinion G 3/19 (Pepper)<https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/communications/2020/20200…> concluding that plants and animals exclusively obtained by essentially biological processes are not patentable. This is the outcome of a long legal dispute<https://www.eurovia.org/swiss-seed-company-syngenta-obtains-permission-to-p…> between those who oppose patents on living organisms and the unethical behaviour of the biotech industry, that aims to privatise nature. The Enlarged Board of Appeal of EPO's decision represents, for European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC), an interesting step forward but one that could become useless if the scope of patents granted for genetic information of genetically modified plants or animals can still be extended to seeds and animals from conventional crossing and breeding. ECVC considers it contradictory and dangerous that the board decided this new interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC given in G 3/19 will not have a retroactive effect on European patents containing such claims which were granted before 1 July 2017. In the last few years, ECVC has been denouncing such patents not only because of ethical concerns, but also because of the clear contradiction with peasant and farmer's rights as established in Article 9 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)<http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/overview/texts-treaty/en/> and in article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)<https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/73/165>. Beyond that, patents are the driving force behind biopiracy and the concentration of a huge market force in the seed sector, which reduces the diversity of seed supply and causes seed prices to rise exponentially. See the entire text of the decision online<http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/44CCAF7944B9BF42C125…> here See ECVC's press release on this issue back in December 2018<https://www.eurovia.org/swiss-seed-company-syngenta-obtains-permission-to-p…> See the report and the video of the ECVC's conference on New GMOs, seed patents and peasants' rights to seeds (20th of February 2020)<https://www.eurovia.org/report-ecvc-public-conference-new-gmos-seed-patents…> See ECVC's Factsheet on patents on seeds in Europe<https://www.eurovia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Fact-sheet-EN.pdf> Contacts: Guy Kastler - ECVC Seeds Working Group: +33 603945721 (FR) Antonio Onorati - ECVC Seeds Working Group: +39 3408219456 (EN, FR, IT, ES) Alessandra Turco - ECVC Coordination Committee: + 39 3476427170 (IT, ES) -- European Coordination Via Campesina Rue de la Sablonnière 18, 1000 Brussels,Belgium www.eurovia.org<http://www.eurovia.org/> info(a)eurovia.org<mailto:info@eurovia.org> T: +32 (0)2 21 73 112 [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima…]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…>

1 0

Update from Demark
by Erling Frederiksen 19 May '20

19 May '20

Dear all and congratulation So far there has been nothing in the Danish medias about the Enlarged Board decision. I came home late on the 14th - and sent the English press release of to the four environment-journalists we have in DK. The Danish nation Radio called the next morning - but so far nothing. And the good journalist, Mie Stage, at "Ingeniøren" wrote back the same evening, that she would contact me, but so far not .. She will write something sooner or later, but she has a lot to do and two small children. I have now made a Danish version of the press release and sent it to most medias this evening. In Denmark the way to the politicians goes through the medias... And Christoph! - The Carlsberg patent applications from 2019 should now be withdrawn? And how much are the patents from before 2017worth, if Carlsberg can't make follow ups? I wrote to Kofoed and asked him - so what now? He wrote a short mail back, that the whole farming lobby Organisation (Landbrug og Fødevarer) where he now is the vicepresident is very happy with the decision of the Board, and that they will make some statement in the press in a few days. In 2017 they were not too eager to support the NPOS (and Kofoeds) points of view. We hope it will be better this time. And the government always do, what Landbrug og Fødevarer tells them to do........ Kofoed thinks not much will happen till the end of the year, but that there are evil forces still trying to get patents on some product linked to mutations (he writes this short and unclear) but his final statement is that there should be no patents on mutation at all. I hope to write again soon - with positive political news. Best wishes and cheers Erling -- Erling Frederiksen Landevejen 26 4532 Gislinge Tlf.: 28 21 29 89 erling.frederiksen(a)protonmail.com erling.frederiksen(a)gmail.com

2 1

!! after the decision - how to go on?
by Christoph Then 18 May '20

18 May '20

dear all, Thanks to all of you for quick reactions yesterday and to Johanna to send everything out in time! So what are the next steps? there is one goal and one major strategy and a limited time frame: > We have to move the political decision makers to exclude all breeding methods and products used within conventional breeding > the strategy can be changes in national patent laws or decisions via the Admin Council. Or both. > if we miss the momentum of the meeting of the AC in June, we might loose the most relevant opportunity. What does that mean for our work? 1. we need a wording to show how the problem can be solved; this should brought forward to all relevant political decision makers asap. 2. we need a strong justification to show the issue is urgent 3. We have to identify some allies for this decisive period (Plantum?) Next steps: We draft a letter to the AC with possible solutions to be sent next week. Then we approach selected governments. In parallel we work on a new factsheet: we again will show the problem with rule 28 (2) and the interpretation by the EPO. I will try to work with Ruth. I think we will need a factsheet with some cases from examination processes. Interesting (!): We might have lost the Carlsberg case by the decision of the EBoA - the patent application was filed before July 2017. I guess the same problem arises for severed broccoli and the lettuce and the pepper. The text for solutions: we have to make a proposal in writing how a text may look like that can be adapted by the AC or national laws. How about a phrases like that (I try to avoid the word 'conventional breeding' which may take us some time to define): "For the interpretation of rule 28 (2), the AC shall adopt the following: * Spontaneous, random, non targeted processes such as physico-chemical mutagenesis cannot escape rule 28 (2). Only targeted interventions such as transgenesis and genome editing may give rise to patentable inventions. * All products used in or emanating from ‘essentially biological processes’ are captured by rule 28 (2), including all breeding material plant/animal parts, cells and genetic information. * Patents on products derived from technical process in breeding do not extent plant or animals that fall under rule 28(2)." please let me know your comments. cheers Christoph

3 4

Question regarding the decision by EBOA
by francois.meienberg＠prospecierara.ch 18 May '20

18 May '20

Dear All Congratulations to all for the good work. In Switzerland we issued a media realease onyl Friday and the response has been limited so far. Regarding the decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal I like to raise the question if we should not more heavily criticse their decision that the new interpretation should only be valid for patents filed after 1. July 2017. We also raised this in the Swiss Press Release. It was also criticised by german breeders. Just some thoughts on this: The EBoA argued in the following way: «In order to ensure legal certainty and to protect the legitimate interests of patent proprietors and applicants, the Enlarged Board considers it appropriate that the new interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC given in this opinion has no retroactive effect on European patents containing such claims which were granted before 1 July 2017, when Rule 28(2) EPC entered into force, or on pending European patent applications seeking protection for such claims which were filed before that date.» This would mean that : * there will be even patents (filed before 7/2017) on conventional plant to be granted in the future (would be nice if Ruth could tell us how much patents fall under this criteria: filed before July 17 but not granted so far). * all oppositions and appeals halted in the last years will still be interpreted using the old interpretation! * We will have many valid patents on conventionally bred plants valid for the next 15 years. I think it would be good to check with a lawyer if such an approach is common ( I do not think so). What the EBoA has decided in not to stop a retroactive effect but to perpetuate the old interpretation into the future (as future decisions on old patents will still grant patents on conventional bred plants. I think the only correct approach would be that all decisions by the EPO (granting patents, decisions on oppositions and appeals) have to follow the now valid interpretation from now on. Would be good if other decision by the EBoA in the other direction (e.g. when he decided to broaden the scope) had the same effect that patents filed before the broadening of the scope are not granted I doubt. As a fallback : It would be possible to argue that only after the first decision by EBoA in 2015 (and before the decision by the admin council) a patent holder had certainty that he will get a patent on conventionally bred plants. Therefore all patents filed before 2015 should not fall unter the old interpretation. The EboA argues they do this in order to ensure legal certainty. But the contrary is the case. As we know the commission, the parliament and all member states follow the new interpretation. Therefore it is forseeable that also national courts and the european court of justice would follow this rule. So it rather seems that this kind of patents will be enforceable in front of courts. But when the EPO still grants patents which cant be enforced this does rather increase the legal uncertainty. The mess continues. Therefore I think we should also use the upcoming administrative council to question this part of the decision taken by the EBoA. Best François PS: Etappensieg! Nach über 10 Jahren Kampf zusammen mit der Koalition «No Patents on Seeds» hat das Europäische Patentamt Patente auf konventionell gezüchtete Pflanzen verboten. <https://www.prospecierara.ch/de/erleben/news/news-detail/news/patente-auf-k onventionell-gezuechtete-pflanzen-verboten.html> Mehr ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ProSpecieRara Schweizerische Stiftung für die kulturhistorische und genetische Vielfalt von Pflanzen und Tieren François Meienberg - Projektleiter Saatgutpolitik Tel. direkt +41 (0)61 545 99 19 Sekretariat +41 (0)61 545 99 11 (vormittags) ProSpecieRara, Unter Brüglingen 6, 4052 Basel Spendenkonto CH29 0900 0000 9000 1480 3 <http://www.prospecierara.ch/> www.prospecierara.ch <https://www.facebook.com/ProSpecieRara> auf Facebook <https://www.instagram.com/prospecierara/> auf Instagram

2 1