Integration of Conservation Strategies of Plant Genetic ... - Genres

Conclusion
Obviously, co-operation can take many forms, but two factors will be paramount. First is the
development of trust; no progress will be made if either sector regards the other as in any way
inferior. The key distinction is not between informal and formal, or in-situ and ex-situ, but
between final users; big professionals -- whether growers or breeders -- need access to plant
genetic resources just as surely as amateurs. It happens that gene banks, with their emphasis on
long-term storage in the absence of selection, are better suited to supply professional breeding
programmes, while seed savers, with their emphasis on conservation through utilisation, are better
suited to supply growers. But both sectors are absolutely essential to the preservation of plant
genetic resources.
Second is the question of financial support. With very few exceptions, the informal sector is
involved in a constant struggle for its own survival. Long-term funding for curatorial
conservation is just as hard, if not harder, to find outside national programmes as inside them.
A little official recognition of the true value of crop biodiversity -- manifested perhaps by changes
in legislation and funding -- would go a long way to ensuring its continued availability.
Appendix
Alternative List for Amateur and Garden Supplies of Vegetable Seed:
Proposal for discussion
1 There is growing acceptance of the unfortunate impact on the availability of varieties to
gardeners and small growers of existing crop variety registration legislation at home and
in the EC.
2 We therefore welcome the Anglo/French EU initiative, which seeks to open up the process
of marketing certain varieties.
3 The HDRA has already commented (to MAFF PVRO UK) on some aspects of the
proposal, such as the arbitrary time limit and the overlarge maximum allowable seed
weights. Although we have had no feedback on this, we assume that the validity of our
comments has been recognised.
4 The greatest outstanding problem remains that of consumer protection. Varietal identity,
seed purity and seed quality all need to be controlled. In this paper I put forward the
outline of a working system that is intended to save the valuable baby of quality control
while throwing out the bathwater of unnecessary, costly, and burdensome regulation.
5 The current system of DUS testing is too restrictive, not least because the lack of
uniformity in, for example, maturity dates is often a desirable quality. It is also, as
currently operated, too expensive for the scale of enterprise envisaged. In its place, I
propose a deposit system, analogous to the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC).
6 This scheme could easily apply to the entire European Community, with a single
designated body.
7 For each variety, each person marketing seed would be required to lodge a name and
description of the variety with an approved designated body.
8 The person would also be required to deposit a bulk sample for storage and several
aliquots for germination testing. These samples would be used only in the case of a
dispute over varietal identity.
81 The samples would be prepared for long-term cold storage, i.e. dry and foil packed.
82 The designated body would keep the samples in cold storage.
83 Germination would be tested by the designated body on a regular basis