Dear all,

I hope I'll see most of you during the call in a few minutes, but wanted to share a quick update on our work of trying to get something about patents in the EU seed legislation to the whole list, including the concrete text so you can read it. Apologies for this coming so late! The first two points are the update and the last is an invitation to a webinar tomorrow (May 23) at 12pm on the EU seed marketing rules:

1) For the vote in the EU plenary end of April, unfortunately and decided on the last minute, no amendments on the definition of "essentially biological" or the scope of patents was tabled. At the same time, there was a lot of discussion about it, and we got a lot of feedback that the issue is very important. But beyond some strategic considerations (of "saving" the whole report), one major concern prevented our draft amendments to make it: MEPs and parties find it a very complex issue, and then get different advice on what should be done - especially on random mutagenesis/the definition of essentially biological. This leads to them not doing anything.

We had a few discussions in our team, and overall feel that the biggest learning from this for us, is that we now think it is unlikely that we will get anything on EU level that creates opposition from the so-called "French" groups - but this is not only ECVC, and not only from France, it's felt as a very strong division on EU level. And when we as a movement are seen as that divided over something that very few people actually understand, it makes the demands fail, regardless of who is right. Thus, I think it would be great to think a bit about our mid-term strategy again in the coming weeks and months.

2) Other than regarding the mentioned points on patents, the EP vote was a very clear step towards more diversity, especially compared to the original proposal of the EU Commission. But also on patents, beyond our core demands, we got several "small wins". It is now up to the agricultural ministers to find their position on the EU seed legislation. For those of you working on patents on national level, it would be worth considering to ask your agricultural ministers to support these points.

In the application for a new variety, the EP asked that the following information is included (Article 56, para 1, point o):

"(oa) the breeding techniques used for the development of the variety; (ob) the existence of any intellectual property rights covering the variety, its components, and characteristics, within the limits of the rights applied for or granted for that variety to the applicant, including where the applicant has signed a contractual licence or has obtained a compulsory licence for the use of a patent owned by another operator."

This information then has the be included in the European as well as the national variety registers (Annex VII, paragraph 1, point t):

(ta) where applicable, the respective intellectual property rights covering the variety, its components, characteristics and development process, including, where applicable and appropriate, the number of any relevant granted or pending patent(s) which the competent authority needs to provide and update;

Article 17, paragraph 2, on the label of seeds, also has language on intellectual property rights:

The official label and the operator's label shall be legible, indelible, not modifiable if tampered with, printed on one side, made of untearable material unless it is an adhesive label, not having been used previously, and easily visible. It shall include, where applicable, a reference to the plant variety right and a reference to the register referred to in Article 46 in the case of further intellectual property rights.

And in the article on definition conversation varieties (Article 3, para 1, point 29), it says that they should be

(ba) not subject, as a whole or in genetic components, to intellectual property rights that limit its use for conservation, research, breeding, education, including on farm by a farmer who uses the PRM grown on the farm, of that variety for those objectives;

As you might have seen, there are no written consequences foreseen, if the patents are not disclosed, so we have to assess the possible impacts. But for sure it at least pushes the question of transparency more to the front, and is not voluntary. Of course this does not solve the problem of these patents existing in the first place!

The whole text of the EP vote is available here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0341_EN.html

3) We want to warmly invite you to a lunchtime webinar in which Fulya Batur will present the main results of the EP vote.

The webinar of 1,5h will go through the main changes proposed to the Commission proposal on seed marketing by the European Parliament's position (first reading) adopted on 24th April 2024, focusing on aspects relevant to organisations and individuals active on agrobiodiversity conservation. It will give you the chance to ask questions and find out how to best use the EP position for advocacy work on the council. The webinar is organised by Arche Noah, with the kind support of the Software AG Stiftung.

When: May 23, 2024 12:00 - 13:30 PM Brussels Topic: ARCHE NOAH SAGST Webinar EU Seeds Marketing EP Plenary Results

Please register here for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_wg4i3537QdSEc0UsDg8CfA

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Best, Dagmar