lantmännen lantbruk boplatsgatan 8 213 76 malmö - …amsem.ro/esa/reuniuni/20130419 16.04.2013...

European Seed Association 02.04.2013 ESA_13.0210.1

of 4

ESA Section Board Oil & Fiber Plants – SOF (open to SOF section members)

Tuesday, 16st April 2013

13.30h – 18.00h

Lantmännen Lantbruk Boplatsgatan 8 213 76 Malmö

Sweden

Annotated Agenda

I. Opening, welcome and approval of the agenda

II. ESA Anti-trust guidelines ESA_11.0246.1

The participants are invited to take note of the ESA Anti-Trust Guidelines and to act accordingly.

III. Minutes

a. SOF Board meeting 24-04-2012 ESA_12.0281.4 Comments were received on the draft from Mrs Nilsson, Matrai, Rousseau, Segonds and UFS, which have been taken up. The items on the action list have been taken up. b. SOF Section 15-10-2012 ESA_12.0795.1

There were no comments on the draft minutes of the SOF meeting held on October 15 which therefore were finalized and approved according to the ESA internal communication policy. After finalization comments were made by P.Rousseau on his contribution in October. These comments were not addressed last year but can be taken upon in the minutes of today’s meeting. The Secretariat will inform on the state of play regarding the items on the action list during the meeting.

IV. Seed Treatment

a. Update on ESTA b. Neonicotinoids ESA_13.0119

ESA_13.0263

The Secretariat will give a presentation on the state of affairs regarding the implementation of the ESTA scheme and the developments in relation to a possible ban on neonicotinoids.

c. Procedure for the registration of seed treatment products.

This item has been placed on the agenda on request of BDP. D. Ruecker will give a presentation during the meeting to explain the background.

V. Evaluation of the EU legal framework


of 4

a. Plant Reproductive Material package

General update ESA_13.0132 The background document describes the state of play in relation to the PRM package and the time lines. A compromise paper from DG SANCO is expected in the next few weeks. Possible additional information will be presented during the meeting.

Possible re-classification of plant pathogens ESA_12.0226.3-SOF

The ESA Working Group Plant Health (WGPH) has met on March 8 and has addressed the evaluation of the EU legal framework on Plant Health and the possible re-classification of pathogens. The recommendations of the WGPH are listed in document. The participants are invited to analyse and approve the recommendations of the WGPH.

b. A technical solution for GMOs in seed

The Secretariat will give an up-date on the latest developments as elaborated by the ESA Working Group Biotech.

VI. OECD matters ESA_13.0109

The background document (ESA_13.0109) contains a report of the recent meeting of the OECD Standing Working Group. The Secretariat will report in particular on the items of special interest for SOF which are:

how to resolve issues in relation with the implementation of the OECD Seed Schemes

The possible role of chemical and molecular techniques in identifying varieties

identification of seed not yet listed SOF members are invited to study the conclusions in the report in particular in relation to the possible deletion of the requirement for maximum seed lot sizes.

VII. EU implementation Nagoya ESA_13.0121

The background document provides information on the state of play regarding the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in the EU. The Secretariat will give a presentation on this topic and inform on its impact on the day-to-day business of seed companies.

VIII. Implementation ESA IP position paper ESA_13.0122 The background document ESA_13.0122 identifies the main issues in relation to the implementation of the ESA position paper on Intellectual Property Rights. The Secretariat will inform during the meeting on the state of affairs regarding the ESA patent database.

IX. Issues related to Oil crops

a. iLUC esa_13.0258


of 4

esa_13.0259

The background documents provide information on Oilseed rape in relation to the discussion on iLuc. The Chairman will give an up-date on recent developments, including recent discussions within the European Oilseed Alliance.

b. Oilseed Rape

DUS testing of components and hybrids of Oilseed rape ESA_13.0107 The SOF WG DUS has addressed in its Conference Call on February 11 issues in relation to the obligatory testing of so-called “grandmother lines” in Oilseed rape and the consequences of the one-key-several-doors approach on DUS testing of hybrids. Concerns were raised by some participants on both issues as well as on the adopted ESA SOF position on testing of hybrids of OSR. The Secretariat will present the concerned raised for further discussion. The participants are invited to discuss the issues and decide on the way forward.

Purity level in spring oilseed rape The different purity levels (90 % compared to 80%) for spring oilseed rape in the EU compared to Canada were for the first time discussed in 2009. In 2010 the Commission was requested by letter to lower the purity level for SOR to 85%. The issue was discussed by the Standing Committee on Seeds which turned down the proposal because of concerns on the possible effect of such a change to the levels of Glucosinolate in the harvested product. In 2011 the SOF Board decided to set up a technical experiment with the aim to prove the opposite. The experiment, including samples of 5 companies, was conducted in 2012 on 7 sites. The results will be presented during the meeting. The participants are invited to analyse the results and decide on further actions towards the Commission.

Glucosinolate standard for oilseed rape- Implementation in the Common Catalogue

This issue was tabled in the October meeting but postponed due to time constraints. In 2011 the Commission has taken over the ESA proposal to re-define the definition of 00-OSR varieties and has introduced additional footnotes in the Common Catalogue for different the Glucosinolate levels. On proposal of Mrs Malin Nilsson the SOF Board has discussed the implementation by EU Member States in spring this year and agreed that the approaches in different countries are still quite different. It was decided to carry out a survey on the implementation on National level to verify the situation. The Secretariat will present the results of the survey during the meeting. The SOF members are requested to analyse the results and decide on further steps to improve harmonisation.

c. Sunflower

market update Philippe Rousseau will present an up-date regarding the sunflower market in Europe.

X. Issue related to Fibre crops


of 4

a. Cotton – Market update Charles Grange has volunteered to give an up-date during the meeting on the market of cotton in the EU. b. Flax SOF members active in flax have been asked to provide an up-date on the market situation for flax.

XI. Miscellaneous

a. CPVO matters

on-line application Since two years the CPVO offers the possibility to file applications for Community Plant Variety Rights on-line. On request of CPVO the Secretariat will present during the meeting statistics on the use of this tool.

Proposal for a CPVO R&D project in Winter Oilseed rape ESA_13.0260 Geves proposes to start a research project on WOSR as indicated in doc ESA_13.0260 and has asked the Secretariat for support. The proposal was received only recently and has been forwarded to the SOF WG DUS for an opinion, which will be communicated during the meeting. The participants are invited to discuss and approve the opinion of the WG regarding the proposal. b. Trade related issues

Turkey In 2012 Turkey introduced more stringent import restrictions in particular for hybrid crops. Recently the 2013 import requirements have been published without significant changes. The Secretariat has contributed to the Turkted Annual Meeting and will report on the developments.

c. ESA Position paper “Breeding for the bioeconomy” ESA_13.0151.2

ESA adopted a position on “Breeding for the bioeconomy” that outlines why plant breeding is the underpinning science and technology for ensuring the sustainable supply of biomass, which is the basis for the transition towards a bio-based economy. A survey was carried out among the different ESA Sections including SOF, where valuable insight was provided on how breeding companies in specific crops see their role and their collaboration with the rest of the bioeconomy value chain. The survey confirmed that although it is difficult to separate breeding research for specific bio-based products and agricultural production (all breeding is biobased), breeding companies do nevertheless work in collaboration with downstream industries on developing varieties with specific characteristics.

XII. Closure and confirmation of next meeting

The next SOF section meeting will take place in the framework of the ESA Annual Meeting 2013 on October 14, 2013 in Warsaw. A Conference Call of the SOF Board might be organised in September to prepare the October meeting.

ESA

European seed association

Anti-trust guidelines

European Seed Association 29.03.2011

ESA_11.0246.1

It is common practice for competitors of a business sector to work together in the framework of

industry associations and therefore to regularly participate in meetings where often key issues,

where common understanding and action of the sector is necessary, are discussed. European

competition law prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of

undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which

have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the

common market.1 Common activities by competitors or exchange of information among them may

be regarded as beneficial, producing efficiencies for consumers but they are generally in the focus

of suspicions of competition authorities.

Each ESA member is responsible for complying with antitrust rules and for ensuring that its

employees respect and are aware of their obligations under such antitrust rules. These guidelines

only contain the most basic principles to be respected under antitrust law and they serve as a

reminder for participants of ESA meetings. Meeting participants should be entirely familiar with

these rules and should consult a competition lawyer in case any specific issue arises.

DO NOT:

a) in any case, formally or informally, in fact or in appearance, exchange with competitors

information containing:

any potentially commercially sensitive data;

company level data on prices, price changes, discounts, differentials, costs, pricing

policy or any other data from which prices can be deducted;

company level data on production, sales volumes, capacities, orders, deliveries,

export quantities etc.;

company level data relating to customers, specific offers, contract terms etc.;

data on market shares;

present or future plans of individual companies concerning strategic business

decisions on pricing, production, distribution, marketing etc;

any of the above categories of data in a format allowing for identification of

individual companies.

b) in any case raise any of the above topics at meetings or other discussions with your

competitors.

DO:

a) always make sure that you have an agenda.

b) always make sure that you get the minutes and that they reflect properly what was discussed

and agreed at the meeting.

c) raise your objections against any discussions or activities that appear to be in conflict with

competition rules; distance yourself publicly (i.e. in a way that it is clear for all other meeting

participants) from such discussions or activities and leave the meeting immediately.

1 Article 101(1) TFEU (former Article 81(1) EC)


Page 1 of 12

ESA Section Board Oil & Fiber Plants – SOF (open to SOF section members)

Tuesday, 24st April 2012

13.30h – 18.00h

RAGT Seeds Limited Grange Road

Ickleton Essex CB10 1TA

UK

Minutes (in order of the agenda)

Participants: Brauer (Chair), Mrs Maplestone, Mrs. Nilsson, Mrs. Pauchet, Cottey,

Devisme, Edgley, Henriksson, Jackson, Krog-Meyer, Labuda, Lesigne, Mann, Matrai, Moore, Ossiewatsch, Pavelek, Rucker, Schlunder, Segonds, Tabel

Apologies: Mrs Tudor, Mrs. Bartkowiak Broda, Angenendt, Barta, Carruthers, Grange,

Rousseau, Sauvaire, Taillardat, Villaroel. Special Guest: Menou (BASF) ESA: Judson, Scholte


Dietmar Brauer, SOF Chairman, welcomes all participants but in particular Mr. Daniel Segonds (RAGT) and Mr. Claude Tabel (RAGT) hosting todays’ meeting. Mr. Segonds thanks the Chairman for having the meeting at the premises of RAGT in Ickleton (UK) and welcomes all participants. Mr. Segonds gives a short introduction regarding the history of the company RAGT and informs that a more comprehensive presentation regarding the activities and organisation of RAGT will be given the following day during the visit to NIAB in Cambridge. The Chairman thanks Mr Segonds for the invitation and the introduction and opens the meeting. The participants present themselves in a tour de table. The agenda is approved as circulated.

II. ESA Anti-trust guidelines ESA_11.0246.1

The participants take note of the ESA antitrust guidelines and agree to act accordingly.

III. Minutes ESA_11.0893.2

There were no comments on the draft report of the meeting held on October 17 which therefore were adopted as circulated. All items on the action list have been taken care of or are coming back on the agenda of today’s meeting.

IV. Seed Treatment


Page 2 of 12

a. Update on ESTA K.Schlunder introduces the subject and gives an up-date on the European Seed Treatment Assurance scheme (ESTA). In his presentation (*) K.Schlunder informs on the new ESTA Standard and compliance issues with national standards in different countries. The ESA Board has agreed on the recruitment of an ESTA manger within ESA which will be taken up in the short term.

b. Labelling of treated seed

In the second part of his presentation K.Schlunder informs on the EU guidance document on treated seed which will be discussed by the STAT Working Group shortly. Most relevant points are that Member States want to link Heubach dust levels with percentages of active ingredients in dust; that MS refuse the proposed pictograms and insist on nationally defined S-phrases. In relation to the ESA standard no significant modifications were made. Therefore seed companies should assure to label their seed bags with the required C1 label (in case of certified seed), separate product labels for insecticides and/or fungicides and a multi-lingual generic label. The Chairman thanks K.Schlunder for his presentation and opens the floor for discussion. D.Ruecker questions the role of the ESTA manager in case national systems are in place and the related costs. In reply K.Schlunder states that in fact there are two separate costs levels in place; at the one hand a levy in relation to ESTA; at the other hand a fee per unit of seed in relation to assessments of seed processing plants, which could be different in countries having a national standard in place and in other countries. The final set-up regarding the financing of the ESTA scheme is still in discussion. D.Segonds informs that the ESA Board has discussed these aspects in detail and has agreed that indeed there is a difference in the level of support of the ESTA manager in future in countries having a national system in place, as France and Germany, and other countries. In countries not having a national system in place ESTA is better placed regarding advising and communication. The Board agreed that the ESTA manager should focus his/her activities in future on those countries. Daniel Segonds added that, regardless of having already a system in place in their country, all companies should consider ESTA project as a unique opportunity to set up and promote a European standard and favour free movement of seed which in the end will equally benefit to all. No further issues being raised the Chairman summarises the discussion in stating that the ESTA project is well under way but that additional discussion is needed in relation to the financial aspects in countries as France and Germany. (*) The Power Point presentation as presented by K.Schlunder is available in the folder of the respective SOF section meeting on the Members Area of the ESA Website under ESA_12.0282.

V. Evaluation of the EU legal framework

a. Seed Marketing Directives

State of play – evaluation ESA_12.0044

In referring to the annotated agenda B.Scholte informs that the Commission has finalised the Impact Assessment which was addressed by the Impact Assessment Board in January and has started drafting the legal proposal. The Commission has re-confirmed that a legal draft will be


Page 3 of 12

published in the 3rd quarter of 2012. Until then the Commission will not provide information on their line of thinking. Recently however the Commission has indicated that the process might be delayed until the 4th quarter of the year. The Chairman thanks B.Scholte for the information and opens the floor for questions. P.Lesigne confirms the situation as presented by B.Scholte and calls upon the participants that in case National Association would receive (parts of) the draft proposal via the authorities in their respective countries to share this information with the ESA Secretariat and ESA members. No further questions being asked the Chairman closes the subject.

Possible additional tasks CPVO ESA_12.0224 B.Scholte introduces the subject and informs that during the March meeting of the CPVO Administrative Council the Commission has presented its ideas regarding the possible new role of CPVO in the framework of the evaluation of the Seed Marketing Directives, as listed in ESA_12.0224. An important element is that due to pressure of several Member States and ESA the Commission has dropped its original idea to involve CPVO in VCU testing. As indicated in the document ESA supports the proposal that the CPVO should be in charge of the administration of the Common Catalogue, denomination checks in relation to listing, the co-ordination of DUS trials and quality assurance of DUS testing in the framework of national listing. However ESA does not support the proposal to involve CPVO in food safety aspects nor in comparative trials related to seed certification. Finally he informs that the Administrative Council will continue the discussion in its next meeting in the end of the year. The Chairman thanks B.Scholte for his information. The participants discuss the different items and support in general the ESA position as presented. In particular the fact that the Commission has abandoned its ideas in relation to VCU is welcomed. No more questions being raised the Chairman closes the subject.

Possible impact of the Kokopelli case ESA_12.0044 esa_12.0175

As indicated in the annotated agenda the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has given her opinion on January 19 on the admissibility of the current seed marketing legislation in stating that the current Seed Marketing Directives indeed form an impediment for the marketing of amateur and conservation varieties. B.Scholte informs that depending of the final ruling of the ECJ this will impact the future seed legislation. It is noted that the Commission is considering introducing the possibility to market seed under a so-called supplier label. The quality requirements for this type of seed will be set on a lower level than for official certified seed. The ESA Board has discussed this important issue too and decided to verify the possible impact of the Kokopelli case on the different crop groups in order to be able to decide on possible actions on a horizontal level. The Chairman thanks B.Scholte for the introduction and opens the floor for discussion. D.Segonds is of the opinion that we should prepare ourselves for the situation when the ECJ will follow the opinion of the Advocate-General. He states that some changes to the Seed marketing Directives can be expected and that especially for the marketing of amateur and conservation varieties more freedom to operate can be expected. Mr Segonds also wonders if the ECJ could restrict its ruling to vegetable species as the Kokopelli case is on vegetables species only. In reply B.Scholte states that he is less optimistic and that it is to be expected that the ECJ will give a ruling covering both vegetable and agricultural crops. D.Ruecker is of the opinion that the impact will depend on the size of the company. P.Lesigne expects that the impact for self-pollinating crops will be higher than for hybrids. K.Schluender states that as the commodity prices are high farmers will continue looking for objective variety information independent if this information is coming from official trials or from


Page 4 of 12

other sources. D.Segonds is of the opinion that the impact will very much depend of the seed company concerned. The most powerful companies could decide to market their varieties under their private label and thus undermine the system of official trials. N. Moore states that indeed the Commission might decide to base the revision of the SMD on Scenario 4, providing for a voluntary system of official trials and seed certification while at the same time allowing for marketing of seed under private label. He is of the opinion that as seed industry it is important to consider the respective labelling aspects and suggests wording as “this variety has not been (VCU / DUS) tested “. Mrs Nilsson (SE) is also of the opinion that a scenario 4 approach would not be in the interest of the seed industry. Mr Matrai (HU) and Mr Pavelek (CR) inform that the Kokopelli case is not subject of debate in their respective countries. The Chairman summarises the discussion in stating that ESA has a clear position favouring the current system of variety identity based on DUS, listing on the basis of DUS and VCU (for agricultural crops) and seed certification. He confirms that the impact of the decision of the ECJ will depend of the crop and the seed company. B.Scholte informs that the depending of the final ruling of the ECJ the Secretariat will consider possible follow-up actions on the basis of the discussion in the different crop sections. A conference Call could be organised to address the matter.

b. Plant health

Evaluation Plant health regime esa_12.0182-extr

In referring to the annotated agenda B.Scholte informs that the evaluation of the EU Plant health regime is connected with the evaluation of the Seed Marketing Directives as well as with the evaluation of the legislation on Food and Feed Controls. Currently the Commission is drafting the new legal text which is expected to become publicly available in the 3rd quarter of this year. As indicated in relation to the evaluation of the Seed Marketing Directives the process might be delayed until the 4th quarter of the year. During the process the Commission will not provide any information to stakeholders regarding possible changes.

c. GMO, EU policy and outlook ESA_12.0181

The Chairman introduces the subject and invites Mr J-P Judson, the newly appointed Manager Policy Affairs in the ESA Secretariat, to provide an update on the state of affairs and outlook regarding the EU policy on GMOs. In this presentation (*) J-P Judson informs on the Barroso promise on GMO plantations in the EU following the problems in 2011 on adventitious presence of un-authorised GM events in a production field of the GM potato variety Amflora and the Commission proposal launched in July 2010 to re-nationalise the authorisation of GM plantings and coexistence rules. This proposal did not make it in the Council on March 9th of this year. In 2011 a technical solution was found for Low Level Presence (LLP) of GM events for feed imports. The Commission is currently considering extending this solution to food imports which would establish a 0.1% tolerance level for LLP for events not approved in the EU. In a recent meeting of the Advisory Group Seeds (AGS) the Commission has indicated to be willing to work on a proposal for thresholds of Adventitious Presence of GM seeds in conventional seed lots provided sufficient support from Member States. In the second part of the presentation information is provided on the situation in Hungary and the actions taken by ESA and the outlook for the future. J-P Judson finalises his presentation by informing on the ESA position regarding coexistence, the need for simplification regarding AP / LLP, a seed threshold of 0.4% for all crops and the need for having a standard sampling and testing protocol. The Chairman thanks J-P Judson for the introduction and notes that there is no progress regarding the issue of Adventitious Presence since long time. He then asks T.Matrai to inform on the situation regarding sampling and testing for GM in Hungary. T.Matrai informs that the situation in


Page 5 of 12

Hungary has somewhat improved. This spring seed lots imported from other EU Member States and from 3rd countries are handled in the same way as seeds produced in Hungary. The authorities have to indicate within 5 days in case samples will be taken and that in case samples are taken the results must be provided within 30 days. Therefore in principle in case AP is detected in seed lots the results are available before sowing and destruction of crops as occurred in 2011 should be prevented. It is noted that the Hungarian Seed Association is working on further improvements of the legislation. No further questions being asked the Chairman closes the subject and moves on to the next item on the agenda.

d. Intellectual Property Rights (including FSS)

Evaluation CPVR system In referring to the annotated agenda B.Scholte informs that the Commission is in the process of drafting the Impact Assessment report on the evaluation of the CPVR system but has a clear focus in 2012 on the evaluation of the Seed Marketing Directives. As discussed under PoA Va the Commission is working on the new role of the CPVO in relation to seed marketing. However it remains unclear if apart from that the Commission is willing to address more fundamental and controversial changes in the CPVR legislation as for example in relation to FSS. Therefore ESA will continue monitoring the activities of DG SANCO on this item and if needed decide on the appropriate actions.

Farm Saved seed of hybrid varieties in EU countries P.Lesigne introduces the subject and presents an up-date on FSS in Winter Oilseed rape. In his presentation (*) he informs on an experiment carried out in France by Cetiom comparing the performance of crops grown by FSS with crops grown by certified seed. In this experiment the crop produced by FSS yielded 3-5 dt lower compared to the crop produced with certified seed corresponding to 10-15%. On the TGW and qualitative traits as oil content and Glucosinolates no significant differences could be observed. In the next part of his presentation P.Lesigne informs on the Community Plant Breeders Rights system which explicitly excludes the use of FSS of hybrids protected by CPVR. P.Lesinge finalises his presentation by informing on the tools available to fight against the use of FSS and possible actions of the seed industry through ESA. The Chairman thanks P.Lesigne for his introduction and opens the floor for questions. C.Tabel states that the trials are carried out by Cetiom, an independent inter-professional organisation on Oilseeds and Fibre crops in France, and that UFS does not support such trials. Mrs. Maplestone informs that mobile cleaners in the UK would like to conduct similar trials in the UK but that BSPB and all its members refuse to cooperate both on principle as on technical reasons as the results of such a trial are predictable on the basis of the genetics involved. It is noted that article 13 par 5 of the CPVR provides that varieties whose production requires the repeated use of the protected variety are covered by the PBR of the respective parental lines and that therefore even if the hybrid itself is not protected it is covered by the PBR of the parental lines. B.Scholte questions this approach in relation to FSS and informs that the issue will be placed on the agenda of the CIPR for consideration. The Chairman summarizes the discussion in concluding that that the participants do not support trials on FSS and closes the subject. (*) The Power Point presentation as presented by P.Lesigne is available in the folder of the respective SOF section meeting on the Members Area of the ESA Website under esa_12.0285.


Page 6 of 12

Revision CPVO Fee structure AC+CA 120118 B.Scholte informs the participants that the CPVO Administrative Council has decided in its March meeting this year to lower the application fee from 900 Euro to 650 Euro as from January 1st 2013. In addition the AC is addressing a possible change of the CPVO fee structure as indicated in the annotated agenda and the related document AC+CA 120118. Three different scenarios are addressed:

- option 1: Maintenance of current systems - option 2: Full Costing - option 3: Full costing with direct relationship

ESA has always advocated for transparency and full cost recovery. Also a direct link between the applicant and the respective Examination Office is preferred to avoid unnecessary delays in communication in particular in case of problems in DUS testing. In that spirit option 3, full costing with a direct relationship between the applicant and the Examination Office, would be the most efficient. This would also have the advantage that no longer administrative involvement is required of the CPVO. Within ESA the Committee on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) is in charge of the dossier. The different ESA crop sections are invited to express their opinion on the different scenarios in their spring meetings. The participants generally support the proposal of the Secretariat regarding option 3. However it is agreed that SOF members will have two weeks after the circulation of the draft minutes to provide their possible comments on the proposals in writing. C.Tabel raises the issue of the EU patent by informing that in the National patent laws in France and Germany a breeder’s exemption is taken up. In the Netherlands a comparable provision will be taken up in the National patent law. At present a proposal is being discussed on the level of the European Parliament which does not contain such a provision and which will complicate access to genetic material for further breeding. B.Scholte confirms the situation and informs that the vote in the EP has been postponed due to differences of opinion between France and Germany regarding the seat of the related Court. He also informs that recently a resolution was put forward in the EP calling on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the EU will continue to apply a comprehensive breeders exemption in its patent law for plant and animal breeding. It is noted that ESA members have been called upon to address the issue with the authorities in their respective countries and to lobby for the introduction of a limited breeders’ exemption. Mrs Maplestone informs that BSPB has contacted the UK authorities following the request of ESA. The Chairman thanks C.Tabel for having raised the issue and informs that the ESA Board has discussed the European patent in their spring meeting and has agreed on the actions by ESA as discussed. VI. Issues related to Oil crops

a. Biofuels and iLUC

continued discussion and cooperation with COPA BI(12)1576:1 The Chairman introduces the topic and recalls the participants of the presentation on the EU study on indirect Land use change (iLUC) in October given by Dr Bockey. In this presentation the impact of iLuc on the competitiveness of the production of oilseed rape in Europe was raised. In reaction to this, a group consisting of COPA, Fediol (oil crushers), COCERAL (grain trade) and others is trying to develop a joined lobbying strategy in order to maintain the competitiveness of


Page 7 of 12

EU oilseed production and has decided to set up a separate lobbying platform (the European Oilseed Association – EOA). The ESA Board has addressed the possible membership of ESA to EOA in its meeting on March 23 and has acknowledged the importance of the subject. It was decided to verify the conditions for joining this group before taking a final decision. The Chairman finalises his intervention by informing that in May a first meeting of EOA will take place regarding the set-up and membership. SOF will be kept informed on the outcome of this meeting and further developments.

b. Oilseed Rape

Implementation foot note on Glucosinolate (GLS) levels in the Common Catalogue

- implementation and practical experience (tour de table) This item was placed on the agenda on request of Mrs. Nilsson. As indicated in the annotated agenda the Commission has taken over the ESA proposal to re-define the definition of 00-OSR varieties and has introduced additional footnotes in the Common Catalogue for different the Glucosinolate levels. Mrs. Nilsson informs that the Commission has revised the classification of OSR varieties in the Common Catalogue on the basis of information provided by the authorities of the different Member States. In order to verify the consistency of the information on GLS she asks the participants of inform on the implementation of this new classification in their respective countries. Mrs Nilsson informs that in Sweden the authorities have simply asked the breeders to provide information on the GLS level of their varieties without further verification and it is uncertain whether the authorities intend to include such analysis as part of future VCU testing or to rely upon information from the applicants. The Chairman thanks Mrs Nilsson for the introduction and asks the participants to inform on the situation in their countries:

- Hungary: Mr Matrai informs that GLS is tested by the authorities using the Palladium test. Varieties are classified on the basis of these results

- Czech Republic: Mr Pavelek states that he will take this question back to CMSSA for further details.

- Germany: D.Ruecker informs that GLS is tested by the authorities using NIRS which is calibrated using HPLC.

- France: Mr Tabel informs that GLS is tested by the French authorities and that there are no complaints regarding the classification of their varieties.

B.Scholte states that the approaches in different countries are still quite different. He proposes to carry out a survey on the implementation on National level on the basis of a previous survey. The participants discuss the situation and agree with the proposal. The Secretariat is charged to prepare such a survey and to present the results in the October meeting.

position Fediol In referring to the annotated agenda B.Scholte informs that a limited number of OSR varieties are indicated with footnote 39, which means that in some countries the GLS level of the respective variety is higher than 18 micromoles and in others lower than 18 micromoles. Following a request to Fediol regarding their opinion they have notified that Fediol will not prepare a formal position on this issue as the number of varieties is relative small. However Fediol will take a pragmatic approach towards the use of such varieties.


Page 8 of 12

The participants discuss the issue and agree that almost all varieties listed nowadays are having a GLS level far below 18 micromoles and that therefore there is no need for further actions.

Harmonization of testing protocol for glucosinolates content by registration offices in EU

This issue has been placed on the agenda on request of Philippe Lesigne. He re-calls that SOF has adopted last year a proposal for a harmonised testing method for GLS based on HPLC and asks for an up-date of the situation. B.Scholte informs that indeed the proposal was sent to the Commission and that it has been discussed by the Standing Committee on Seeds and that France agreed to co-ordinate a ring-test. However he will contact the Commission again on the status of the proposal and the further planning.

Clearfield Oilseed Rape: Freedom to Operate concern in some EU countries

The Chairman welcomes Mr. Thierry Menou (BASF) and invites him to inform on Clearfield in Oilseed rape. Mr. Menou first introduces himself and thanks the Chairman for the opportunity to participate in the SOF meeting. In his presentation (*) he informs on the Clearfield production system which is a non-GMO herbicide tolerance and on the advantages for the grower as well as on the benefits for the agriculture industry. He then provides an up-date of the registration schedule of the Clearfield OSR herbicides and the status of Clearfield OSR hybrids in the registration process in different countries. In the second part of his presentation Mr. Menou informs on questions in relation to the freedom to operate and the need for a close cooperation between the seed industry and BASF. The Chairman thanks Mr. Menou for his presentation and opens the floor for discussion. P.Lesigne is of the opinion that the technology is a real opportunity to the seed industry and confirms that close cooperation between seed companies and BASF is needed. In particular in Germany but also in other countries a more pro-active approach is needed. D.Segonds is of the opinion that a country-by-country approach is needed. He is not as optimistic regarding the situation in France as it is no longer a crop problem but a rotation problem. He also notes the activities of organisations opposing the technology (GMO cache / hidden GMO) - and the destruction of fields of sunflower last year. T.Matrai informs that in Hungary there were some misunderstandings in relation to the registration protocol. This protocol has been amended which will facilitate the Clearfield registration process. D. Brauer informs on the situation in Germany and agrees with Mr. Segonds that a country-by-country approach is needed. In Germany most of the official authorities in the different regions are unwilling to accept the technology. K.Schluender confirms this and states that too many stakeholders are involved. B.Scholte states that most of the issues are specific for different countries and that in his opinion the role of ESA is limited to being the platform to exchange information. . The Chairman summarizes the discussion and concludes that a country-by-country approach is needed, which should be driven by companies and national seed associations. No further questions being raised the Chairman thanks Mr. Menou again for his presentation and closes the topic. (*) The Power Point presentation as presented by T.Menou is available in the folder of the respective SOF section meeting on the Members Area of the ESA Website under esa_12.0283.

DUS testing of components and hybrids of Oilseed rape ESA_11.0602.3


Page 9 of 12

The DUS Working Group discussed the issue in a Conference Call on April 10 and revised the flow chart to bring it in line with the so-called one key-several-doors concept. The item will be addressed on April 25 during the visit to the DUS testing fields at NIAB in Cambridge. (*) (*) Note from the Secretariat: The issue was briefly addressed during the visit to NIAB the following day. The WG has revised the flow chart to streamline the approach for National Listing and Plant Breeders Rights. It was agreed that information on the pedigree and the related parental lines could be used to handle the reference collection and to organise the number of comparison varieties in the field. However the decision on DUS of a hybrid should still be based on the hybrid itself. Some participants questioned this approach and it was agreed to allow for written comments and to place the item again on the agenda in the future.

Application procedure for National Listing and Plant Breeders Rights This item has been place on the agenda on request of Mrs Nilsson (Lantmannen) who introduces the topic. Mrs Nilsson informs on the administrative burden in relation to applications for Listing of hybrids of Oilseed rape. In relation to hybrids application forms and technical questionnaires have to be provided for both the hybrid and the related parental lines. The main problem is that different countries use different forms (although based on the same UPOV Technical Protocol), in different languages and often ask for additional specific information which especially is burdensome in Winter Oilseed rape for which the time between harvest and application is very short. She notes that certain countries do not accept CPVO TQ forms for National procedures nor a copy of the UPOV variety description in case DUS has already been carried out. Mrs Nilsson wonders if the different procedures could not be harmonised to facilitate the application process. The Chairman thanks Mrs Nilsson for raising the issue and opens the floor for questions. Several participants confirm the problem. B.Scholte states that the use of national forms and in particular the obligation to make use of the language in a specific country regarding an application for National PBR or Listing is touching on the sovereign rights of a Member State and will be difficult to change. Nevertheless the Secretariat will investigate into the possibilities to address the issue. No further questions being raised the Chairman closes the subject.

Purity level in spring oilseed rape In October 2011 the SOF decided to maintain our proposal to the Commission to lower the minimum purity level for hybrids of Spring Oilseed rape from 90 to 85%. To substantiate our request it was decided to carry out an experiment to collect information on the possible effect of different purity levels on the GLS content in the harvested crop. Yves Devisme informs that 5 companies have joined the experiment and that trials on 7 locations are sown, including 27 seed lots. The experiment is well under way. The results are expected in the end of the year very likely only after the October meeting of SOF. The Chairman thanks Y.Devisme for the up-date and concludes that hopefully the results of the experiment will help convincing the Commission to agree with ESA proposal for lowering the maximum purity level for hybrids of SOR.

c. Sunflower

market update Mrs Iona Tudor (Syngenta) has been invited to give an update on developments in sunflower. The Chairman informs that unfortunately Mrs Tudor is unable to participate in todays’ meeting. Therefore it is decided that to postpone the subject to the October meeting.


Page 10 of 12

DUS testing of converted varieties esa_12.0236 B.Scholte introduces the topic in referring to the annotated agenda. The CPVO DUS experts on agricultural crops have addressed the issue of DUS testing of converted varieties in Sunflower (e.g. resistance to imazamox). Apparently Examination Offices have different procedures regarding a “short track” procedure for converted varieties which need further analysis also in the framework of the one-key-several-doors approach. SOF members active in Sunflower are invited to express their opinion on the issue and decide on the ESA position. The Chairman thanks B.Scholte for the introduction and opens the floor for discussion. Several participants confirm the situation. B.Scholte proposes to set up a small working group to address the issue. The participants support the proposal. The Working Group will consist of experts from HAS, KWS, RAGT and Syngenta and is expected to prepare a proposal for discussion and approval by the SOF VII. Issue related to Fibre crops

a. Cotton – Market update Charles Grange (Bayercropscience) is unable to participate in the meeting in Ickleton. The slides on developments in cotton prepared for this meeting will be circulated together with the minutes.

b. Flax The Chairman welcomes Mr Pavelek, representing the Czech Seed Association, and invites him to inform on the situation in the Czech Republic. In his presentation (*) Mr Pavelek informs on the market situation of linseed on global level and on national level in his country. In the second part of his presentation Mr. Pavelek informs on the breeding goals in fibre flax and linseed and the production area and yields in the different regions in the Czech Republic. He also presents his breeding company AGRITEC Research and the special attention paid to breeding for low linoleic acid and high fat yield. In the last part of his presentation Mr.Pavelek informs on the situation regarding hemp and oilseed rape in the Czech Republic. On behalf of the Chairman and the group B.Scholte thanks Mr. Pavelek for his interesting and comprehensive presentation. B.Scholte then informs on fibre flax in quoting information received from Limagrain. The harvest of fibre flax in 2011 was rather difficult and seed quantities for 2012 were limited. Due to the difficult harvest circumstances the seed quality was rather low and derogations were granted for significant seed quantities with a lower germination in Belgium and Germany. Sowing this year was finished in March/April. Due to the rainfall afterwards the establishment of the crop started good. No further questions being raised the Chairman closes the topic and moves over to the next item on the agenda. (*) The Power Point presentation as presented by M.Pavelek is available in the folder of the respective SOF section meeting on the Members Area of the ESA Website under esa_12.0286.

c. Hemp The Chairman welcomes again Mr Matrai and invites him to inform on the latest developments in Hemp. In his presentation (*) Mr .Matrai informs on the situation in relation to Hemp and Hemp seed on global level. In Europe the area has decrease to approximately 15-20.000 ha. Recently


Page 11 of 12

an increased interest in Hemp is shown in relation to bio-energy. In his opinion the use of hemp for industrial purposes is hampered by unfavourable policy decisions. He finalises his presentation by informing on different uses of Hemp fibre as alternatives to plastics. The Chairman thanks Mr Matrai for his interesting presentation. No further questions being raised he closes the subject. (*) The Power Point presentation as presented by T.Matrai is available in the folder of the respective SOF section meeting on the Members Area of the ESA Website under esa_12.0287. VIII. Miscellaneous

a. European Bio-economy Initiative: a role for breeding companies The Chairman informs that it was planned to have a presentation by Jean-Paul Judson of the ESA Secretariat regarding the European Bio-economy Initiative and the possible role for breeding companies. Due to time constraints this is not possible and it is decided to circulate the respective Power Point Presentation by e-mail and to ask SOF companies to contact the Secretariat in case they would like to join the program. IX. Closure and confirmation of next meeting

The next face-to-face meeting of the SOF section is scheduled to take place on October 15/16 in Brussels organised in the framework of the ESA Annual Meeting 2012. Then Mrs Nilsson takes the floor and invites SOF to have the meeting in spring 2013 at the premises of Lantmännen SW Seed in Svalöv (SE). The Chairman thanks Mrs Nilsson for the invitation and suggests having the meeting on April 16/17 which is a week later then this year. Before closing the meeting he again thanks D.Segonds and the RAGT team for hosting the meeting and all their efforts regarding the organisation of the event. The participants express their appreciation with a warm hand of applause. The meeting is closed at 17.55.


Page 12 of 12

Action list resulting from the meeting of the SOF Board on 24.04.2012

Nr PoA Ref Subject Who When

1

V d

CPVO Revision cost structure Express opinion on proposed options

All

Two weeks after circulation of draft minutes

2

VI b

Classification WOSR hybrids on GLS Prepare survey on implementation classification in different countries

Secretariat

Asap

3

VI b

Proposal for a harmonized testing method for GLS. Re-contact Commission regarding status of the proposal

Secretariat

Asap

4

VI b

DUS testing of components and hybrids of OSR Express opinion on the revised flow chart and place on the agenda of the next meeting

All /

Secretariat

Next meeting

5

VI b

National Application procedures WOSR Check possibilities to harmonise national application procedures

Secretariat

asap

6

VI c

Sunflower – update Place on agenda October meeting

Secretariat

Next meeting

7

VI c

DUS testing converted varieties in sunflower Prepare ESA position

Ad-hoc WG DUS /

Secretariat

Asap

8

VII b

Cotton Circulate slides together with minutes

Secretariat

Together with the minutes

9

VIII a

EU Bio-economy initiative Circulate presentation

Secretariat

Asap


Page 1 of 8

ESA Section Oil & Fiber Plants - SOF

Monday, 15h October 2012 16.30h – 18.30h

Sheraton Brussels Hotel

Minutes

Attendance: 58 participants (*) from 13 countries: Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland and UK.

(*) The List of participants has been uploaded on the internal part of the ESA website in the respective SOF folder under ESA_12.0765


Mr. Dietmar Brauer, SOF Chairman, welcomes all participants and opens the meeting. He in particular welcomes the invited guests from the Commission, CPVO, ISF, ISTA, OECD and UPOV. The agenda is approved as circulated.

II. Anti-Trust Guidelines ESA_11.0246.1

The participants take note of the ESA anti-trust guidelines and agree to act accordingly.

III. Minutes

a. Minutes of the meeting of the SOF Section of 17-10-2011 ESA_11.0893.2

There were no comments on the draft minutes of the SOF meeting on October 17 which therefore are considered as final and approved.

b. Minutes of the meeting of the SOF Board of 24.04.2012 ESA_12.0281.4

The Chairman thanks again RAGT for having the spring meeting at the premises of RAGT UK. Comments were received on the draft from Mrs Nilsson, Matrai, Rousseau, Segonds and UFS, which have been taken up. The items on the action list have been taken up or come back on today’s agenda except:

5

VI b


Secretariat

asap

B.Scholte informs that it was the intention to address the issue during the meeting of CPVO DUS experts for Agricultural crops but that this has been overlooked. The issue will be kept on the action list and addressed in the next meeting with CPVO.

IV. Seed Treatment

a. Recent developments in France (Mrs Contamine) esa_12.0766


Page 2 of 8

The Chairman introduces Mrs Contamine (UFS) and invites her to report on developments regarding seed treatment in France this summer. In her presentation (*) Mrs Contamine informs on the general situation regarding seed treatment authorisations in France. This summer EFSA and ANSES delivered opinions on the use of certain insecticides calling for additional experiments. This has led to the removal of the authorisation of cruiser in June and one month later to the ban on the sowing in France of Oilseed rape seed treated with Cruiser. The company concerned has started legal action towards the French government. It is noted that it is still possible in France to treat seed with Cruiser for export purposes. Mrs Contamine finalises her presentation by informing on the implementation of ESTA in France and the national seed treatments assurance plan “PQP” (Plan Qualité Poussière) which is in compliance with ESTA. It is noted that the vast majority of seed plants in France is already accredited according to the PQP scheme. The Chairman thanks Mrs Contamine for her presentation. No further questions being raised he closes the topic and moves over to the next item on the agenda.

(*) The Power Point presentation as presented by Mrs Contamine is available in the folder of the respective SOF section meeting on the members’ area of the ESA website under ESA_12.0766.

b. Socio-economic impact of modern seed treatment on sustainable farming

The Chairman then introduces Professor Harald von Witzke of the Humbold University in Berlin to inform on the study regarding the economic impact of modern seed treatment on sustainable farming. In his presentation (*) Prof. von Witzke first informs on the end of the agricultural treadmill which lasted from 1870-2000 during which period agricultural produced more food for more people at ever declining costs. In 2000 this mega-trend ended and food prices are rising because growth in demand is outpacing growth in supply. In the next decade’s further demand growth is foreseen while cropping acreage is limited and the annual productivity growth has declined in the EU to only 0.6%. Commodity prices are expected to increase further in the coming years. According to the study volatility of commodity prices are mainly caused by income growth and exchange rate. The effect of bioenergy production is only 0.1 %. World food security will become a major global political issue and increased expansion of production will contribute more to global warming. It is noted that productivity growth is the key in the fight against hunger and global warming. In the next part of his presentation Prof. von Witzke informs on the methodological framework of the study. Mr von Witzke finalises his presentation by stating that the EU is a bad example for what happens when productivity growth is being neglected as the EU together with China are the world’s leading agricultural net importers. In this respect he notes that the use of professional seed treatment is an important part of sustainable agricultural production. Overall the EU has become a virtual net land importer of an area of 35 million ha, which is as large as the territory of a country as Germany. The Chairman thanks Professor von Witzke for his informative presentation and opens the floor for questions. In answering a question of C. Amberger regarding the effect of the production for bioenergy on the agricultural production for Food and Feed Prof von Witzke informs that statistics have proven that the role of bioenergy is insignificant and neglects the key reason for the lack of growth in agricultural production which is the lack of investment in R&D. He reminds the participants of the proposals of the Commission in the revised CAP for having 7% set aside which is a tool from the past but nowadays counterproductive. In answering a further question of Mr Amberger regarding the possible effect of the expected


Page 3 of 8

policy changes in bioenergy on Oilseed rape it is noted that already now bioethanol plants in the USA are closing. Commodity prices for OSR are expected to drop which in the end will have a significant negative effect on the area of production.

(*) The Power Point presentation as presented by Prof. von Witzke is available in the folder of the respective SOF section meeting on the members’ area of the ESA website under esa_12.0767.

c. ESA View and actions

The Chairman invites G.von Essen to inform on the ESA view and actions in relation to the developments in France this summer. G. von Essen informs that in reaction to the decision of the French authorities ESA has provided data to the Commission in co-operation with ECPA to show the possible consequence of an extension of the ban on Cruiser to EU level. The data covered information on the application of Neonicotinoids in specific crops, the (none) availability of alternatives and potential crop losses. With the help of these data ESA was successful in preventing a quick decision of the Commission regarding a possible EU ban. G. von Essen finalises his intervention in stating that it is important to continue working on ESTA to defend the use of seed treatment as an important technology in the framework of sustainable agricultural production. The Chairman thanks Mr von Essen for his contribution and no further questions being raised closes the topic.

V. Evaluation of the EU legal frame work on:

a. Seed Marketing ESA_12.0627

ESA_12.0627 is a background document regarding the Better Regulation initiative. Earlier today Christoph Herrlinger Chairman of the ESA Working Group Better Regulation has given a general presentation on the state of affairs of the Better regulation process during the meeting of the SCP section. The power point presentations on horizontal topics can be downloaded from the ESA website by using the following link: http://www.euroseeds.org/members/generalassembly/2012/presentations-during-esa-am-2012-on-horizontal-items/

b. Plant Health i. General up-date ESA_12.0628

Document ESA_12.0628 gives an up-date of the evaluation process of the EU legislation on Plant Health. A general presentation on the state of affairs will be given by Gerard Meijerink, Chairman of the ESA WG Plant Health, during the Section Vegetables and Ornamentals (SVO) on Tuesday, October 16. SOF members wishing to obtain further information are invited to attend the SVO section meeting.

ii. Possible re-classification of plant pathogens

In referring to the annotated agenda B.Scholte informs that the proposals regarding the possible re-classification of plant pathogens were finalised last year. Since then the ESA Working Group Plant Health (WGPH) has further elaborated on these proposals. In addition this summer the Commission has published a non-paper on the regulation on Plant Health

http://www.euroseeds.org/members/generalassembly/2012/presentations-during-esa-am-2012-on-horizontal-items/

http://www.euroseeds.org/members/generalassembly/2012/presentations-during-esa-am-2012-on-horizontal-items/


Page 4 of 8

in which pathogens are classified as Quarantine organisms or Quality organisms and the notion of Regulated Non-Quarantine Pests (RNQPs) has disappeared. The WG Plant Health is in the process of verifying the consistency of the ESA proposals with the views of the Commission which could result in some additional changes regarding the classification of some plant pathogens. The recommendations of the WGPH regarding the possible re-classification of plant pathogens will be forwarded to the Section for adoption later this year.

c. Community Plant Variety Rights ESA_12.0630

ESA_12.0630 gives an up-date on the state of affairs regarding the evaluation process of the Community Plant Variety Rights system. Mrs Szonja Csörgõ has provided further information on the subject in the meeting of the SCP section earlier today. The power point presentation presented by Mrs. Csörgõ can be downloaded from the members part of the ESA website as indicated under PoA V a.

d. GMO, New Breeding Techniques and Novel Food ESA_12.0629

Document ESA_12.0629 provides information regarding the latest developments in relation to GMO, New Breeding techniques and Novel Food. A more general presentation on New Breeding Techniques titled: “Does Europe need (new) regulatory approaches for New Breeding Techniques?” has been given during the meeting of the SFG section earlier today. Macy Merriman, Chairman of the Working Group Biotech, has provided further information on GMOs during the SMA section meeting which also took place earlier today. Both presentations can be obtained from the members’ part of the ESA website as indicated under PoA V a.

VI. Issues related to Oil crops

a. Indirect Land Use Change (iLUC) (Mr Dusser – EOA)

The Chairman welcomes Mr Dusser representing the European Oilseed Alliance (EOA) and invites him to give an update on indirect Land Use Change (iLUC) and on the possible impact of iLUC for the seed industry. In his presentation (*) Mr Dusser first informs on the organisation and goals of EOA which is set up as central discussion platform and to coordinate lobbying activities. In the second part of his presentation Mr Dusser informs on different aspects of iLUC which could be a time bomb under the EU Energy Regulation. The current EU Directive on renewable energy is aimed on a reduction of the fuel carbon intensity by 6% in 2020 and on 20% of renewable energy in 2020. Following criticism on the use of agricultural products for bioenergy the iLUC concept was put into place. On the basis of certain criteria iLUC factors have been calculated for different crops as reporting requirement for Member States. The 55g CO2/mJ iLUC factor in FQD would have a detrimental effect on the demand for biodiesel. In addition the proposal for 5% sub quota in Renewable Energy would mean already a downscale form the current level of 7% reached by countries as France and Germany. Both measures would cause a huge decline of rapeseed production in Europe as 65% of rapeseed production is linked to biodiesel. Mr Dusser finalises his presentation by stating that the Commission proposal is unacceptable as it misses its goals and will not reduce land use change. The proposal also does not protect current investments nor boosts investment in second generation biofuels. Therefore further lobbying is needed in order to get a reasonable proposal. The Chairman thanks Mr Dusser for his presentation on this important topic and opens the floor for questions. Mr Rousseau is of the opinion that iLUC does not concern only Oilseed


Page 5 of 8

rape but that also other crops are affected. To his opinion the reduction of the area of Oilseed rape would have a negative impact on the bee population which could be an additional argument in the discussion. In answering a question from P.Lesigne regarding the involvement of ESA in this discussion it is noted that ESA is one of the parties in the European Oilseed Association and therefore supporting the lobbying activities of EOA. No further questions being raised the Chairman closes the subject in urging all participants to continue their lobbying activities both on European as on national level.

(*) The Power Point presentation as presented by Mr Dusser is available in the folder of the respective SOF section meeting on the members’ area of the ESA website under ESA_12.0768.

b. Oilseed Rape

i. Hybridity level spring oilseed rape

Due to time constraints the up-date on the experiment regarding the hybridity level in spring Oilseed rape linked to the possible effect on the level of Glucosinolate is postponed until spring 2013.

ii. Glucosinolate standard for oilseed rape

- Implementation in the Common Catalogue

Due to time constraints the presentation regarding the implementation of the classification of OSR varieties regarding the Glucosinolate content is also postponed to the meeting in spring 2013.

- update on the ESA proposal for a harmonised testing method

In referring to the annotated agenda B.Scholte informs that in the end of 2010 ESA SOF has contacted the Commission regarding a proposal for a harmonised testing method for the level of Glucosinolate in Oilseed rape which should be based on HPLC and ISO 9167 – 1. The proposal was discussed by the Standing Committee on Seeds (SCS) in November 2011. It was decided to carry out a ring test for which France would take the lead. Following a recent request of the Secretariat the Commission will re-address the project in the next meeting of the SCS.

c. Poppy – standards for morphine content ESA_12.0651

B.Scholte than informs on the proposed standards for morphine content in poppy seed, a crop which so far was not considered by SOF. For this purpose a survey was sent before the summer break regarding best agricultural practices to ensure the lowest possible levels of opium alkaloids in poppy seed and on a pragmatic (realistic) maximum morphine content in poppy seed. Answers were received from breeders and seed companies in Austria and Hungary. The background document contains a summary of the answers received including a proposal for a maximum level of morphine of 30 mg/kg. Subject to approval by SOF the proposal will be taken forward to the Commission. Without further the discussion the proposal for a maximum morphine content in poppy seed of 30 mg/kg is adopted as presented. The Secretariat is charged to contact the Commission accordingly.


Page 6 of 8

VII. Issues related to fibre crops

The Chairman introduces the next item on the agenda which covers issues related to fibre crops. It is noted that due to the relative heavy agenda it was decided in consultation with Mr Charles Grange to postpone his annual up-date on cotton to spring 2013.

a. Flax (Mrs Vermaas - van de Bilt)

The Chairman introduces Mrs Vermaas - van de Bilt (van de Bilt Seeds BV) and invites her to give an up-date on the flax commodity and seed market. In her presentation (*) Mrs Vermaas – van de Bilt first informs on the differences between fibre flax and linseed in relation to varietal characteristics, production and market conditions and the different uses of flax fibres and linseed and linseed oil. In the second part of her presentation Mrs Vermaas – van de Bilt informs on the present difficult situation of the crop due to the fact that subsidies for farmers, processors and seed producers have been stopped. The proposals in the revised CAP regime in combination with high commodity prices have resulted in a significant decrease of the multiplication area of fibre flax in Europe in the past years. Mrs Vermaas – van de Bilt informs on the special situation in fibre flax regarding FSS which explicitly is not allowed for EU protected flax varieties and on difficulties in DUS testing and the lack of harmonisation in seed certification in different EU member States. Mrs Vermaas – van de Bilt finalises her presentation by informing on the long time to develop a new variety and new challenges in breeding flax varieties. The Chairman thanks Mrs Vermaas – van de Bilt for her presentation and opens the floor for questions. B. Scholte also thanks for the interesting presentation and urges companies active in flax to inform the Secretariat on problems in relation DUS testing and seed certification to be able to address these issues on EU level. No further questions being raised the Chairman closes the topic. (*) The Power Point presentation as presented by Mrs Vermaas van de Bilt is available in the folder of the respective SOF section meeting on the members’ area of the ESA website under ESA_12.0761.

VIII. SOF Chairman – Election

B. Scholte informs that the term of the Chairmen of the ESA crop sections comes to an end in 2012. According to the ESA Statutes the Chairmen of ESA crop sections are elected by the respective crop sections on proposal by the ESA Board to be approved by the General Assembly. In its meeting on September 6 the ESA Board has discussed the issue and proposes to the SOF Section to elect Mr Dietmar Brauer as Chairman of the ESA SOF section. Following election by the Section and confirmation by the General Assembly the Chairman becomes Member of the ESA Board. B. Scholte then invites the participants to express their opinion on the proposal of the ESA Board. The participants elect Mr Dietmar Brauer with a warm hand of applause. Mr Brauer thanks the participants for their confidence and re-confirms his interest and willingness to serve the Section as Chairman for another term of three years.

IX. Priority topics to be addressed during the coming year ESA_12.0619 - SOF


Page 7 of 8

The Chairman informs that the background document ESA_12.0619 – SOF contains the general ESA priorities as defined by the ESA Board for the coming year as well as the specific SOF priorities for the coming year. Without further discussion the participants adopt the priorities as presented.

X. Any Other Business

a. Meeting schedule 2013

In referring to the annotated agenda the Chairman informs the participants regarding the meeting schedule in 2013.

The Chairman thanks Mrs Malin Nilsson for the invitation to have the meeting in spring 2013 in Sweden. It is noted that the October meeting will be organised in the framework of the ESA Annual Meeting 2013 which is confirmed to take place in Warsaw (PL). The participants take note of the proposed meeting dates.

XI. Closure

The Chairman thanks all participants for their active contributions and closes the meeting at 18.29.

SOF Date Venue

Board April 16/17 Sweden

Section October 14/15 Warsaw


Page 8 of 8

Action list resulting from the meeting of the SOF Board on 24.04.2012


2

VI b

Classification WOSR hybrids on GLS Prepare survey on implementation classification in different countries

Secretariat

Asap

5

VI b


Secretariat

asap

6

VI c

Sunflower – update Place on agenda October meeting

Secretariat

Next meeting

Action list resulting from the meeting of the SOF Section on 15.10.2012


1

VI a

ESA_12.0651

Poppy – standards for morphine content Contact Commission regarding SOF Position

Secretariat

Asap

2

VII

Flax Contact Secretariat regarding problems in relation to seed certification

SOF members

active in Flax

asap

3

X a

Meeting schedule Inform on details spring meeting

Secretariat

Before end of the year

Discussion Paper Ensuring complete and thorough scientific assessment

and subsequent proportionate regulation of neonicotinoid products

Background

Following the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) review of the risk to bees from the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, the European Commissioner for Health, Tonio Borg, told the EU Agriculture Council on January 28th that the time had come for “swift and decisive action” while at the same time promising that legislative action based on the precautionary principle would be balanced by the need for proportionality.

Still, the Commission now tables a proposal restricting all uses of neonicotinoid pesticides on all crops considered as ‘bee attractive’. We consider this proposal extreme, disproportionate and misguided. This results from an incomplete assessment by EFSA.

EFSA did identify some highly theoretical risks to bees from neonicotinoid seed treatment products and soil granules. These theoretical risks have been effectively managed through monitoring, stewardship and risk mitigation measures. At the same time, EFSA itself acknowledged a high level of uncertainty in the evaluation which produced this conclusion. Partly, this is due to extensive data sets that were not or not fully considered by EFSA. This data which has been reviewed and approved by the Member States, prove that these pesticides can be used safely, if applied according to the label instructions. Still, also the Commission fails to take long standing practical experience with the use of the products, well documented field monitoring data from numerous Member States as well as the continuous improvements in risk management practices by the industries and users into account. This failure poses a massive threat to the interests of crop protection, seed and soil (treatment) and farming sector as well as the wider economy, as shown by the Humboldt Forum Study (2013). At the same time, the proposal also fails to properly address the issue of bee health.

It is therefore justified to develop an alternative proposal that addresses all relevant factors and issues in a consistent and holistic manner.

This proposal would need to be supported by a qualified majority of Member States to avoid the Commission exercising its right of decision in the absence of such a majority.

Scope of the discussion paper The discussion paper respects the need for EU-wide harmonized action. It addresses all exposure routes which EFSA identified as posing theoretical high risks to bees, (e.g. via dust drift, residues in nectar and/or pollen and guttation fluid). For foliar uses (which EFSA did not evaluate at all) all practical risks associated with this form of applications are well documented to be manageable based on the existing respective EU legislation. Elements of the discussion paper

1) Continuation of evaluation by EFSA 2) Assembling practical risk management information from MS 3) Bee health monitoring 4) Implementation of quality assurance schemes and specific risk mitigation measures

All elements shall be finalised by xx.xx.2015 and be included in the final risk assessment by EFSA and subsequent decision on possible risk management measures by the Commission and Member States. In the meantime, all products remain authorised as they are today.

1) Continuation of evaluation by EFSA The evaluation period for the three neonicotinoids is prolonged until xx.xx.2015. The mandate for EFSA is enlarged to take all relevant information, including practical risk management and monitoring data appropriately into account, as well as allowing technical scientific exchanges with notifiers.

2) Assembling practical management information from MS Detailed risk management information is already available based in detailed field monitoring of practical farming conditions in a number of Member States. This information suggests that where the products are used in line with their authorisation and where best practices are applied, there are no practical risks to bee health. To provide further evidence that the use of neonicotinoid products under practical use conditions and if applied according to the label instructions does not pose an unacceptable risk to bee colonies, particularly not via residues in pollen and/or nectar, an independent monitoring verifying the real exposure of honey bees to the three neonicotinoids should be set up (as already requested by Commission Directive 2010/21)

3) Bee health monitoring

To determine the exact causes of bee mortalities, which are thought to be multifactorial, a comprehensive programme, following the guidelines for surveillance projects by the EU Reference Laboratory for honey bee health shall be established. The Industry is committed to supporting this monitoring to prove that the use of neonicotinoid products under practical use conditions does not pose an unacceptable risk to bee colonies. In this effort, specific account shall be taken of the data to be assembled during the further evaluation period until xx.xx.2015 in order to include the most recent and most relevant information based on practical use data across crops and countries. For details, v. Annex A

4) Implementation of quality assurance schemes and specific risk mitigation measures

Until xx.xx.2015, Member States ensure: o that the deployment of risk mitigation measures is mandatory and significant stewardship

improvements are implemented (for details see ‘Annex B’) By xx.xx., 2015 the three neonicotinoid seed treatments and soil granules would be reviewed again by EFSA against the finalized new Guidance Document for Bee Testing and Risk Assessment as well as the seed treatment guidance documents (both still in the stage of peer review not yet finalized). During the next review, all existing and new studies along and field monitoring data which are relevant (and which have not been considered by EFSA in their recently completed review) along with significant stewardship improvements, must be considered. In addition, Member States must be given practical opportunity to comment on the EFSA draft reports.

Annex A Independent monitoring to verify the real exposure of honey bees to the three neonicotinoids Evidence concerning the safety of pesticides that comes from monitoring approaches is particularly important since potential effects of the products are surveyed under realistic field conditions and normal agronomic practice. Furthermore, monitoring has recently been recommended as an appropriate tool to determine the realistic exposure of bees to neonicotinoid seed treatment products. Member States are required under directive 2010/21/EC to “ensure that monitoring programmes are initiated to verify the real exposure of honey bees to the thiamethoxam, clothianidin, imidacloprid and fipronil in areas extensively used by bees for foraging or by beekeepers, where and as appropriate.” However only a few monitoring systems had been setup accordingly so far. By further enforcing the Commission Directive 2010/21/EU more monitoring activities addressing realistic use conditions would be implemented. Comprehensive bee health monitoring Following the EFSA publication “Bee Mortality and Bee Surveillance in Europe” in 2009, the EU Reference Laboratory published their guidance document for surveillance projects on bee colony losses1. Seventeen EU countries2 have started surveillance study programs in the scope of this approach accordingly (supported and co-financed by the European Commission with EUR 3.2 mEUR) for the period 2012-2013, but analyses for detection of chemicals (crop protection and veterinary products) are not intended in the program so far. This monitoring work of the EU reference laboratories on bee health, supported by national bee institutes, should be reinforced and extended to provide comprehensive data over a two year period across European Member States commencing from 1st of July 2013, as the current scope ends by xx.xx. 2013. How the currently not participating Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ireland, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Romania, and Slovenia) should be included has to be discussed. Within this new scope the detection of chemicals from crop protection and veterinary products should be included. To address the immediate concerns related to dust the current monitoring activities would be intensified during the upcoming sowing seasons for maize, sunflower, spring cereals and oilseed rape in spring as well as for winter cereals and winter oilseed rape in autumn. In addition apiaries would be intensively inspected during flowering season of neighbouring crops to investigate potential risks posed by residues on pollen and nectar. This should be done by following the protocols as described by the EU Reference Laboratory for honeybee health in their “Guidelines for a pilot surveillance project on honeybee colony losses”. Furthermore bee hive matrices would be collected and analysed for residues of all relevant pesticides, including neonicotinoids. The colonies in the apiaries as being selected in the current country surveillance programs would be monitored at least until xx.xx. 2015 in order to allow conclusions also for overwintering losses.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/docs/annex_i_pilot_project_en.pdf 2 Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and UK

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/docs/annex_i_pilot_project_en.pdf

Annex B

Assurance of high quality seed and soil treatment and treated seed, professional use and user information

1. Seed treatment: The seed treatment can only be performed in professional seed treatment facilities (Directive 2010/21/EC).

a. Those facilities need to apply state of the art techniques in order to ensure that the release of dust during coating, storage, and transport can be minimized.

b. Those facilities need to be registered in a ‘quality assurance’ program that is independently audited, to assure compliance with legal requirements and industry guidelines. Only these facilities are considered “professional facilities”.

c. The quality assurance program shall include professional training and procedures to continuously assure best practice.

d. An EU guidance document on Seed Treatment should be developed.

2. Use of treated seeds:

a. Seed drilling equipment: Adequate seed drilling equipment has to be used to ensure incorporation in soil, minimization of spillage and of dust emission. • New seed drilling equipment has to incorporate features to minimize dust emissions. It

needs to be registered in a positive list of adequate equipment. • Existing seed drilling equipment has to be fitted with appropriate devices to minimize

dust emissions into the air (e.g. deflectors). • The Commission should introduce new standards to machinery manufacturing

legislation (Machinery Directive). b. Requiring use by professional users, only professionals with applicator certificate should be

allowed to buy and plant the treated seeds (to be enforced through the Directive 128/2009 on Sustainable Use of Pesticides).

c. On farm record keeping: Farmers must have full records of what, where, when and how many treated seeds have been applied to a given field.

d. Training: Mitigations measures shall be included within the current professional training system developed at Member State level within Directive 128/2009.

e. Enforcement: Use of current voluntary schemes and/or existing EU/MS legislation to enforce the correct implementation of the mitigation measures within the national action plans developed by Member States as part of Directive 128/2009 on Sustainable Use of Pesticides, including the recognition of existing certification schemes to allow correct implementation of these mitigation measures.

f. Better exchange of information between farmers and beekeepers: The information on the sowing area with treated seeds would also allow beekeepers to put in place appropriate measures related to bee hives. For example, the farm manager may exchange information related to the area designated for the sowing of the treated seeds with local authorities/beekeepers prior to sowing. Loading of seed drilling equipment shall not be done within proximity of bee hives.

3. Soil granules

a. The granules must only be applied by gravity equipment and not by pnenumatic granule applicators

b. The granules must only be applied in furrow at planting and properly recovered by soil

c. Inspections on farming practice and equipment (to be enforced through the Directive 128/2009 on Sustainable Use of Pesticides)

4. Labelling: The label of the treated seeds needs to include the indication that the seeds were treated with the specific active ingredient and shall set out the appropriate risk mitigation measures, a.o.:

a. Treated seeds have to be sown by using adequate seed drilling equipment able to incorporate treated seeds in the soil and with their dust reducing equipment functioning.

ESA_13.0263 ESA Info: update on state of affairs of discussion on neonicotinoids Dear members, Please be informed about the following developments as regards the neonic dossier:

I. Commission position DG SANCO maintains its hardliner attitude and still resists any pressure to review its proposal and come up with a more measured approach. Partly, this must be seen as tactics as it has become clear that any step towards one country at the same time often means loosing he support of another. In fact, SANCO seems pretty stuck between three almost equally strong groups (v. below) and it is unlikely that a new proposal would win the desired qualified proposal. At the same time, a further Commission internal discussion has been agreed for 09. April 2013, mainly due to opposition and pressure from other DGs. ESA together with our partners from ECPA and COPA is trying to promote our alternative proposal (maintain authorisations; implement monitoring across MS, full scale scientific review after harvest 2014) and win support for this from DG AGRI and others. Unfortunately, so DG AGRI is not seeing this issue as a priority which seems to be due to a complete failure to realise the possible impact for farmers and the overall position of the Commissioner in favour of organic farming etc..

II. Member States’ positions We currently see the following three camps as regards their position on seed treatment: - hardliner pro COM proposal: NL, FR, SWE, SLO, LUX, MT, CY - pro COM proposal but possibly willing to move: LAT, IT - neutral to the current proposal: ES, PL, BG, DK, EST, BEL,FI - against COM proposal: UK, DE, HU, AUT, IRE, CZ, RO, SLK, GR, PT, LIT This shows how difficult it will be to win a qualified majority either way.

III. Net steps in the decision making process

The COM has invited Member States for a meeting of the Appeal Committee for 26.4. or 02.05.2013; MS are asked to indicate their preference by 08.04.2013. For legal reasons, the document put for discussion there will be exactly the one that was discussed in the Standing Committee; however, during the meeting, the COM is free to propose any changes to the text it sees as useful to achieve a qualified majority. In case still no qualified majority can be found, the COM may adopt the text as it stands. n.b.: this adoption takes place at a meeting of the College of Commissioners which will be at the earliest a week after the Appeals Committee but could be postponed further in case further interservice consultations are held. In case the College does adopt the text, it needs to be translated in all languages and then published in the OJ which generally takes a good two weeks minimum. The entry into force of the new provisions can only be expected for mid May at the very earliest!

IV. Consequences for the ban of the neonic products and for the use of treated seed The COM proposal aimed for a ban of the marketing of the products as of 01.05.2013 and for a ban of the use of seed treated with the products as of 01.07.2013. Clearly, this timetable can no longer be achieved. Still, it is unclear how far back the COM will be willing to push the implementation, i.e. whether or not OSR could still be treated with neonics and sown this summer. It is clear that both Commission and Member States are aware of this point and that they also are aware that enforcement will be problematic in any case.

V. Related developments Fipronil: EFSA is expected to publish its report on the risk assessment of Fipronil around mid of May. We must expect that the report will come to similar conclusions (lack of data, dust etc.) as for the three neonics currently under consideration for the ban. This will further fuel the discussion UK study and position: The UK published a study based on real field data this week which suggests that there are no practical effects of neonic use for bee health.

The Agriculture Minister has urged the COM to take this new data into account and to review its proposal. At the same time, a number of activist groups are trying to discredit this new report as being unscientific and initiated by industry and the farming lobby. EFSA bee guidance: EFSA has announced that it will publish its final guidance on bees and pesticides also mid of May. This guidance will quite likely trigger further debate on the need for additional data for numerous pesticides, including the neonicotinoids. Field monitoring data: ESA has asked EFSA how it can be assured that practical field monitoring data is taken properly into account in a future review of PPPs, including neonics. EFSA confirmed that there is no agreed standard or guidance on EU level how such monitoring data should be assembled. It also stated that to establish such a guidance, a timeline of 1 ½ to 2 years must be envisaged.

VI. Next steps ESA and ESA Members

ESA will continue to meet with representatives of different services of the the COM to argue our case, based on three main points of criticism: - incomplete scientific assessment by EFSA due to an incomplete mandate from the COM - based on this incomplete assessment which is mainly based on theoretical constructions rather than practical reality, the COM’s proposal is disproportionate and not in line with professional risk management practice - the process for decision making is unnecessarily being rushed and Member States are pushed around by the COM; this is contrary to good governance and cannot be justified by the precautionary principle in view of the lack of hard scientific evidence (practical evidence suggest that EFSA’s theoretical approach is questionable)

ESA will support the Bayer/Syngenta proposal for an action plan on bee health communicated earlier today to decision makers, the media and the public. A respective press statement will be made early next week to build upon the momentum of the original message form the company CEOs.

We ask our national associations and their membership to continue to address their respective governments at highest possible levels to assure that the established opposition to the COM proposal stays strong and united.

We specifically ask the associations in Spain, Poland, Denmark, Belgium and Finland to try to shift the opinion in their countries to follow the group led by Germany and the UK. This would still not be a qualified majority against the COM – but it would be a majority which sends an even stronger political signal and would hopefully make a single handed decision by SANCO subject to more opposition from other DGs on principal grounds.

Acknowledging the difficult political situation in France, Netherlands, Sweden and Italy, breaking just one country out of this alliance would make a huge difference; in what ways this could still be tried is surely best judged by the respective national association.

To facilitate your efforts, we will assemble the key messages once again in a short paper that we will send to all members by the end of next week.

We will keep you updated on any further developments. Kind regards,

Garlich v. Essen

Secretary General

23, Rue du Luxembourg

1000 Brussels, Belgium

Phone : +32 2 743 28 60

Contact ESA also on:

http://www.euroseeds.org/

https://www.facebook.com/euroseeds

https://twitter.com/ESA_euroseeds

http://www.linkedin.com/company/2630192

European Seed Association 15.02.2013 ESA_13.0132

Page 1 of 1

Background Document on Plant Reproductive Material

General Introduction

Following several years of evaluation, analysis and consultation with stakeholders, such as

ESA, the European Commission (COM) will be presenting a full legislative package

comprising 5 Regulations on: marketing and production of plant reproductive material, plant

health, animal health, official controls for food, feed and seed, and a financial regulation.

Even if the most important pieces of legislation for the seed industry are the ones on plant

reproductive material and plant health, it is important to keep in mind that the revision of the

seed marketing directives is part of a broader political objective to simplify and harmonise

legislation along the food & feed chain.

Content of the Draft Regulation on Plant Reproductive Material

Overall, the COM has taken a conservative approach to seed marketing, building on the

basis of 60 years of seed marketing legislation in the EU rather than a complete overhaul. It

is important to stress that it is a single regulation that applies to all species and therefore

mainly outlines major principles; for technical details and crop-specific issues, the legislation

foresees a number of secondary acts (or implementing acts).

The main principles of seed marketing are maintained:

- Obligatory listing for all varieties on the basis of an “Official Description” that follows

DUS and (when applicable) VCU requirements;

- Obligatory seed certification, as pre-basic, basic, certified or standard material.

The main innovations of the text are:

- All operators will need to be registered under the plant health register;

- Delegation of tasks under official supervision for seed certification will be a rule rather

than the exception;

- Marketing standard seed, which means certification under an “Operators’ Label”, will

be possible for certain species;

- Possibility for delegation of tasks under official supervision for the technical

examination of a variety;

- Possibility to apply for listing directly to the Union catalogue;

- Obligatory listing for conservation varieties on the basis of an “Officially Recognised

Description” that follows a set of basic requirements (but no DUS).

Procedure & Timing

Last year, the COM finalised the interservice consultation on the full legislative package,

which is the last internal procedure before officially publishing the full proposals. However,

there were a number of issues raised by other Directorates in the COM that led DG SANCO

to respond and revise certain parts of the package. There were some principle comments on

the coordination of the whole package, on the regulation on finances, on the inclusion of

forest reproductive material in the Plant Reproductive Material Regulation and, more spe

cifically regarding the seed sector, concerns over the overly restrictive approach on the

possibilities for marketing conservation varieties.

It is expected the Commission will officially adopt and publish its proposal for the full

legislative package at the end of March. The text will then be sent to the Member States

(Council) and the European Parliament for co-decision.


Page 1 of 4

Report meeting OECD Standing Working Group

The OECD Standing Working Group met on January 29-30 in Paris to prepare the OECD Annual meeting later this year. The meeting was chaired by Pier-Giacomo Bianchi (IT) and attended by more than 50 participants representing 25 countries and observers. ESA was represented by P.Lesigne and B.Scholte. The OECD Standing Working Group discussed among other issues the following items: General Information The budget for 2013-2014 and program of work was approved by the OECD Presidency at 0% growth. Following the 3 year tender for a co-ordinating centre the NIAB (UK) has been selected to continue its activities as co-ordinating centre for the coming 3 years ad 4: Bureau meeting Following the complaint of ESA and other parties regarding the implementation of the OECD Seed Schemes in certain countries it was decided to prepare a document to be discussed in the Annual Meeting this summer how to resolve such issues. A first draft will be circulated in March/April. ad 6: Complex Multiplication abroad H. Freudenstein (DE), Chairman of the ad-hoc Working Group, reported on the main conclusions of the discussion of the day before. In the discussion ESA underlined the fact that the title should be re-considered as registration and multiplication of components and the related hybrid in different countries indeed is complex but is getting more and more part of the daily life of seed companies. An alternative could be multi-country multiplication. The Group underlined the major importance of good communication. However a shift of responsibility is proposed to the respective seed company and NDA in country of multiplication. ESA stressed also the importance of consistency between the general OECD rules and the annexes. ESA supported a proposal of Chile to harmonise information requirements but emphasised not to overload these requirements in particular in relation to information on the respective production plan to prevent unnecessary administrative burden for seed companies. The OECD Standing Working Group discussed the conclusions and agreed that the ad-hoc WG should continue its work. The working document paper should be revised prior to Annual Meeting 2013 and additional items should be addressed including the template. The revised document will be discussed during the OECD AM in June 2013. ad 7: Role of Chemical and molecular techniques in describing / identifying varieties. Gerry Hall (UK), Chairman of the ad-hoc WG, reported on the conclusions of the discussion the day before. It was agreed that the working document should be further improved to complete the number of techniques presently used. The WG underlined the need for guidance how chemical and


Page 2 of 4

molecular techniques should be used, in particular in relation to non-validated tests and techniques not being used when describing the variety. It was agreed that in such cases these techniques should be used for varietal identity only. The WG also discussed the possible use of chemical and molecular techniques to verify varietal purity. It was noted that results of these techniques sometimes are more restrictive compared to field tests and that it would be difficult how to define how apply standards (reject values). France underlined that these techniques should only be used in consultation with the NDA involved in the certification of the previous generation and the respective breeder. The Commission informed that there is no legal base in the EU to make use of these techniques in seed certification but that a technique at least should be recognized / validates in one country. Canada informed that currently chemical and molecular techniques were more used in addition to post-control tests then in the framework of field inspection. The OECD Standing Working Group agreed that the ad-hoc WG should continue its work and should elaborate two scenarios: one for validated methods (mainstream) and one for not validated methods. It was confirmed that the WG should consider these techniques both for verification of varietal identity as purity. As this might have significant consequences for maintenance, production and certification the issue will be placed on the agenda of the different ESA crop sections ad 8: Acceptance of varieties Canada, France , New Zealand and South Africa presented the present procedure in their respective countries in relation to variety registration, the involvement of breeders in the registration process and seed certification. Canada raised the issue again of the current rules on VCU in relation to eligibility for OECD and advocated strongly to delete the VCU requirement. The OECD Standing Working Group agreed that the discussion paper should be revised for further discussion in the up-coming OECD Annual Meeting. ad 9: OECD Variety list and data on amount of seed OECD certified The Co-ordinating Centre presented the 2012 OECD List containing information from 58 countries. The list contains information of more than 53000 varieties (+5% compared to 2011), representing 200 species. In relation to variety denominations it was noted that it is importance to align with UPOV and CPVO. ad 10: Extending the seed lot size for herbage seed The OECD Annual Meeting in 2012 decided to extend the experiment regarding increased seed lot sizes for herbage seed to 2015. ISTA decided in 2012 to concert the experiment into a permanent regime as from July 2013. This approach was taken over by EU. As a result from July 2013 onwards there will be different schemes in place which could jeopardize international trade. The OECD Standing Working Group discussed the following 4 options to solve the issue:

- Option A: The OECD Seed Schemes delete the requirement for maximum seed lot sizes from their Rules and Regulations.


Page 3 of 4

- Option B: The OECD Seed Schemes introduce a permanent regime for larger herbage

seed lot sizes.

- Option C: The OECD Seed Schemes introduce a new temporary OECD Experiment, based on the permanent ISTA regime that will come into force on 1 July 2013.

- Option D: The OECD Seed Schemes extend the present OECD Experiment until June 2015, based on the present ISTA Protocol.

Following an in depth discussion is was clear that there was no support for option C and D. Most countries supported option B to introduce a permanent regime for larger seed lots. However certain elements of option A should be taken into account. In relation to option A an interesting discussion developed including the question of liability. It was noted that Australia, the single country being against a permanent regime last year, is not present today. The revised proposal will be circulated by the end of February to be commented upon until March 20. On the basis of the input received the proposal will be finalised to be addressed in the OECD AM in the first week of June. Subject to adoption by the OECD AM the document will be sent by end Augustus to the OECD Agricultural Working Group and the OECD Council to enter into force by the end of September. The ESA crop sections will be asked to express themselves regarding option A to delete the requirement for a maximum seed lot size altogether especially in relation to possible liability issues. ad 12: Mixtures in Maize and Sorghum South Africa drafted a proposal to revise the standards to better reflect the needs for certification of seed mixtures of Maize and Sorghum to be used in refuge areas. As ESA we have confirmed the importance of addressing this issue. However it would be better not to single out one specific breeding technique as GMO and to re-draft the proposal in a more general way. The participants agreed with this approach and also agreed not to mention any specific colouring of seeds as this could complicate already existing colouring practices by different seed companies. South Africa was charged to revise the working document as discussed to be submitted for the next meeting of the OECD Standing Working group. ad 13. Identification of seed not yet listed Piero Sismundo, Chairman of the ad-hoc Working Group, reported the conclusions of the meeting the day before underlining the importance of finding a solution in future. Following criticism of several participants the draft document was withdrawn from the agenda as the OECD could be challenged in particular regarding the identification of breeding material without any official status. If needed in future the Terms of reference of the ad-hoc WG should be re-confirmed by the OECD Annual Meeting. As ESA I have underlined the problem of importation of breeding material for testing or production purposes into certain countries. However I have also indicated that it might


Page 4 of 4

be better to try to find solutions on a case-by-case basis involving custom authorities instead of using the OECD scheme. ad 14: Certification requirements for hybrid varieties of triticale Stephen Flack, NIAB – OECD Co-ordination Centre, introduced the proposal to adjust the OECD seed schemes to allow for OECD certification of hybrid varieties of Triticale. The proposal is based on experience gained in Germany. It was noted that the conclusions are provisional and that more work is needed. South Africa was of the opinion that more stringent isolation distances and standards are needed based o experience in that country. Several countries criticised different elements of the proposal. As ESA I have underlined the importance of finding a solution in order not to block the production and certification process of hybrids of triticale and to enable the small number of breeders active in this crop to continue their activities. Finally the Standing Working Group agreed that the paper as it is now is not ready for recommendation and that more experience is needed. For safety reasons as temporary solution the standards for rye will be proposed also for hybrids of triticale until evidence is provided to alter those standards. The proposal will be revised in this sprit and send for adoption to the OECD Annual Meeting. The OECD Annual Meeting will take place from June 3-7 in Paris (FR).


EU implementation of the Nagoya Protocol

Background

The Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing was adopted in October 2010. It will enter into force

once 50 countries ratified it which is expected to take place by mid-2014. The EU wishes to ratify the

protocol soon which is the reason why in October 2012 a proposal for a regulation implementing the

protocol was adopted by the European Commission:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/international/abs/pdf/PROPOSAL_FOR_A_REGULATION_E

N.pdf

Content & ESA Key points

The proposed EU regulation is setting out rules on compliance, i.e. obligations for users of genetic

resources on how to document and prove that they accessed genetic resources used in their R&D in

compliance with applicable access laws. Users in the EU will have to make sure that they have all

information in respect of genetic resources used in R&D regarding the fact that the genetic resource was

accessed legally and that PIC (prior informed consent) and MAT (mutually agreed terms) were obtained

from the provider country.

Main issues for ESA are to make sure that:

the flow of genetic resources which is necessary in breeding is not blocked by these obligations.

In particular, to make sure that in case commercially available material is used it is presumed to

be compliant and that the free use for breeding under the breeder’s exemption is not jeopardized

by ABS obligations;

if access was done in good faith in case it turns out not to be in line with the applicable laws, the

use of the material can still be continued;

checks on compliance and sanctions are harmonized throughout the EU in order to avoid

competitively unfair situations in the different Member States;

the system used under the International Treaty, i.e. access with a standard material transfer

agreement, is recognized as sufficient proof of PIC and MAT and as a sectoral best practice.

Procedure & Timing

In the European Parliament the Environment Committee has been given the lead on this proposal but

also the committee on agriculture and the one on development affairs will give an opinion. A draft report

on the proposal is expected by the end of April with a deadline for amendments by the end of May. A vote

in the committee on the draft report is scheduled for June/July and a vote in Plenary for the beginning of

2014. Adoption of the EU regulation is expected in mid-2014.

Within ESA the WG Biodiversity is working on the text and on the preparation of amendments for the

lobby activities.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/international/abs/pdf/PROPOSAL_FOR_A_REGULATION_EN.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/international/abs/pdf/PROPOSAL_FOR_A_REGULATION_EN.pdf


Implementation of the ESA IP position

Background

In the end of 2011 ESA adopted its new position on IP protection for plant-related inventions. The position

focuses on several issues such as the limitation of patentability by defining what should not be

patentable; the introduction of a limited breeder’s exemption in patent laws and the improvement of

transparency regarding the patent status of commercially available plant varieties.

ESA Key activities

Tomato case: The Tomato case continues with a new referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the

EPO with essentially the question whether the product resulting from an essentially biological process can

still enjoy patent protection or should be excluded as a logical consequence of the exclusion of the

process itself. ESA has filed an amicus curiae letter in the case in line with its position.

Unitary patent: During last year ESA successfully lobbied for the inclusion of a limited breeder’s

exemption in the new EU instrument, the unitary patent. As a result such an exemption allowing for the

free use of biological material for further breeding has been inserted in Article 14(h) of the International

Agreement setting up the Unified Patent Court which is going to be signed by 22 Member States on

February 19.

ESA patent database: Committed to improve transparency ESA decided to set up a public database

providing information whether a variety is covered by a patent. The database will provide the link between

variety and patent by indicating the number and title of the patent involved and linking to the patent file in

public patent registers. The information however on the link between variety and patent is only known by

the patent holder or licensee. Therefore the success of the database highly depends on the commitment

of ESA member companies and their willingness to improve transparency for their mutual benefit.

Directive 98/44: In autumn 2012 the Commission decided to start working on a report on the state of the

Biopatenting Directive. In order to help its work on the report DG Internal Market decided to set up an

expert group consisting of 15 experts. ESA has applied for a seat in this expert group.

Procedure & Timing

Tomato case: A decision from the Enlarged Board of Appeal may come in the end of this year.

ESA patent database: Following a first demonstration to the ESA CIPR in February and to the ESA Board

in March a pilot phase of one month to test the database will be launched by mid-April. In the end of May

a demonstration of the database is planned during the ISF congress followed by the public launch on July

1, 2013.

Directive 98/44: No timeline has been specified by the Commission so far.

UNION ZUR FÖRDERUNG VON OEL- UND PROTEINPFLANZEN E.V.

www.ufop.de

Rapeseed – Opportunity or risk for the future!?

UFOP Rapeseed – Opportunity or risk for the future!?2

From the beginning to the end of May, the blooming rape-seed forms the German landscape. It is the element which forms the cultural landscape in many regions. A new harvest grows, which started with the sowing at the end of August in the previous year. The harvest begins in July so that the cultivation cycle ends after 11 months.

But the blooming rapeseed also has an emotional effect on a large part of the population. There is no other explanation for the fact that the blooming "oil fields" draw in tourists and holiday-makers in many regions of northern Germany and hence the rapeseed also supports this industry as an impor-tant and successful advertising medium. Several thousand bee colonies are particularly "pleased" every year to be able to bring nectar and pollen into their hives. Then it buzzes in the truest sense of the word; the colony grows quickly and the beekeeper awaits a large honey harvest.

With regard to its utilisation, no other type of crop can beat rapeseed – it is the "do-it-all" of agriculture. It serves as the natural resource for producing cooking oil, margarine, mayonnaise etc. The solar energy in rapeseed oil is stored in a concentration similar to that of diesel fuel. Its fatty acid composition also makes it of interest to the lubricant industry and chemical industry. Around 60 percent of the yield accumulates in the form of rapeseed meal after it has been pressed – a high-quality protein animal feed, which reduces the import of soya from overseas. Rapeseed is by far the most important GM-free protein source. This feature is gaining in importance for milk producers with respect to the requirement of dairies to offer milk labelled "GM-free", for example.

Rapeseed under criticism – should it be used both for fuel and food?With these diverse features, one would think that rapeseed is a "top-runner" among field crops. However, the success also has a downside, since rapeseed cultivation for the production of biofuels is heavily criticised. Rapeseed must also prove itself here with regard to its ecological efficiency and advantages. When over 6 million hectares in the Euro-pean Union had to be set aside in the 90s, rapeseed was the "problem solver". It forced new markets to be opened up outside of its use for foodstuffs. The extent of the rape-seed cultivation area and hence also the processing has developed positively since then and has remained at a steady level between 1.3 and 1.5 million hectares or 4.5 to 5.5 million tonnes of harvest yield. This cultivated land complies with the limit through crop rotation, since the rapeseed cannot be cultivated repeatedly on the same land – this spans over three years in normal practice. Large-scale monocrops are therefore excluded for agronomical reasons. Experts estimate the cultivated land potential for Germany at a maximum of 1.8 million hectares.

The set-aside obligation has since been sensibly abolished. Since then, farmers have been cultivating rapeseed without

knowing what to use it for. This is because it could only be decided if rapeseed oil would eventually be processed for biofuel using the further trade and processing steps. Rapeseed production must hold its ground economically in an international competition since the European Union has gradually liberalised the European agricultural markets with their decisions on the reforms of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and has thereby opened up market access, particularly for developing countries. The drawback of this policy, however, is the fact that the agricultural prices on the international markets and stock exchanges can fluctuate substantially without the EU Commission being able to sell excess corn, for example, as they did in the past with a price-dampening effect on the global market. In the 80s and 90s, the European Union was accused of keeping the prices on the world markets low with this export policy to the detri-ment of developing countries. Today, the market and hence the price are the deciding factor as for what purpose the rapeseed oil will eventually be used.

In 2008, the agricultural commodity prices increased consid-erably. The biofuel policy and production was made jointly responsible for this price development. It was claimed that less food would be supplied, especially for the poorest coun-tries, but it would remain just as expensive. Food safety is a very sensitive subject amongst the general public. The ques-tion of "Fuel or food" was hence asked in a way which was well-covered by the media: Is it ethically justifiable to culti-vate rapeseed for biodiesel production or generally renew-able commodities in Germany if this causes the supply of food to run short, agricultural prices to increase and hence, in the worst case, starvation elsewhere?

However, it is currently estimated that 3 to 5 percent of the globally produced and traded agricultural commodi-ties are used for the production of biofuels. Many experts generally agree that biofuels are not jointly responsible for world hunger, but a number of causes must be considered which determine the local food supply in quantity and price. This is why food is cultivated in many developing countries (manioc, cassava) which is not traded on the international markets. Furthermore, the issue of property and availa-bility of water is not solved in many countries or there are governments in power that neglect the needs, in particular of the rural areas. Unfortunately, in many poor regions of the world, it is the case that the rural population is currently threatened by poverty and starvation. The issue of security of supply is an important political issue and should therefore also be reflected in a responsible commitment of the indus-trial countries in the development aid based on this. "Poverty migrations" are increasing globally. However, politics is also powerless if hunger crises are the result of military conflicts.

Yet biofuels may currently be impulse generators for initi-ating new prospects in rural areas, as well as being a contri-bution to the local energy supply. With new crop types or those further developed by breeding, which are adapted

UFOP Rapeseed – Opportunity or risk for the future!? 3

to the regional site conditions, land not used previously for arable crops could also be developed in these countries. Whilst the search for new fossil resources with immense investment costs is being pressed ahead with, the research for agriculture looks very meek, even though it should be clear to everyone that the fossil age is coming to an end, and that with new resources, time is merely being "bought".

It remains to be said that the discussion of biofuels and their significance regarding the influence on the international commodity supply and price development must be given special consideration, with a view to the required acceptance for politics and population. However, in terms of politics, the question arises as to which approaches have to take priority. Since the global market exhibits considerable surplus stocks despite biofuel production, the vegetable oil stocks are growing constantly, whilst the prices for commodities and foods are sinking. Additionally, British scientists have deter-mined that around 2 billion tonnes of food is wasted glob-ally; that is approximately 30 to 50 percent of global food. The causes are, among others, inefficient harvest methods, incorrect and bad storage and transport conditions, but also the purchasing and consumer behaviour. Shouldn't we focus on this first instead of putting biodiesel made of rapeseed or biofuels under general suspicion of being triggers for increasing or substantially fluctuating agricultural commodity prices and ultimately food prices. This political intervention would be concrete, contemporary and could create a better market supply at the same time. The industrial countries could render immediately effective support here. In short, with appropriate financially equipped support, a lot could be achieved straight away.

Biofuels are an important element for sustainable mobility Under the German presidency, the European Union had decided in 2007 on the binding target for all member states that, from the year 2020, the volume of renewable ener-gies in the transport sector must be at least 10 percent. This objective is now part of the so-called "energy revolution" in Germany and in the European Union. Politics thereby underlined its commitment to developing biofuels as a long-lasting and important pillar for achieving the climate protection targets and for fuel supply in the European Union. As a result, investments were made in the required biofuel production plants or in oil mills, and new jobs were created.

However, in Brussels, no target quantities in tonnes were arranged, but each member state must calculate what quan-tity of energy in the year 2020 corresponds to the consumed fossil fuel quantity (diesel, petrol) in the transport sector. So, at least 10 percent of these must come from renewable sources.

Around 210 million tonnes of diesel fuel are consumed in the EU. So how can the stated target be achieved? The member states must submit so-called plans of action to the Euro-pean Commission, which show the national strategy and the biofuel quantities required for achieving the target. For diesel consumption, the table shows the biodiesel amount required for this according to the information of the respec-tive member states.

In Germany and in the EU, around 5 or 21 million tonnes of production capacity was provided for the production of biodiesel. This capacity is therefore sufficient for reaching the energy target in 2020.


This objective in turn resulted in the member states, particu-larly the mineral oil industry, being obligated to add certain minimum quantities of biofuels to traditional fossil fuels. However, the maximum quantity that may be added is not only a political, but also an engine-related matter that is agreed upon in so-called standardisation bodies at European level. Representatives of the vehicle, mineral oil and biofuel industry sit at a table. The result of these deliberations can now be seen on the filling pumps at petrol stations: E5, E10 and B7. According to the European diesel fuel standard - EN590 - diesel fuel may contain a maximum volume of 7 percent biodiesel and is approved by the vehicle manufac-turers for old and new diesel vehicles.

But where does biodiesel come from? – only from the European Union? Due to the liberalisation policy as the result of agricultural reforms for oil seeds (rapeseed, soya, sunflowers) and vegetable oils (palm oil, among others), the EU has not been an inaccessible market for a long time. This observation also includes biodiesel as a fuel. Investors who have erected production plants in the European Union must also take this fact into account. Commodity or biofuel production and marketing are in an international compe-tition. However, the incentive effect is great, especially in terms of supplying the European market with commodities or biofuels. The obligatory stated target signalises a safe minimum level to the economic operators, so to speak. As expected, the policy questioned whether this triggers the expansion of commodity cultivation in Asia (palm oil) as well as in South and North America (soya oil) at the expense of regions required for nature and climate protection, such as the rainforest.

In this respect, that's why the European parliament and the council of ministers had agreed with the directive proposed by the Commission "For proposing the use of energy from renewable sources (2009/28/EC) - in short: Renewable Ener-gies Directive" in June 2009 and the new "laws of the game" embedded within it to which all players - and that is the special feature - must keep even in third countries outside of the EU. An influence on the agricultural raw material production of soya, sugar cane and palm oil plantations of this type in Asia as well as South and North America, which is trend-setting and practically legally consolidated over night, is the first of its kind.

Agricultural production and sustainability – biofuels are leading the wayThe special feature of these "laws of the game" is the fact that they must be implemented with immediate effect as a prerequisite for market access into the EU.

These laws of the game include requirements for a sustain-ably oriented agricultural commodity production. The focus is on the following question: From what land do the commod-ities originate? For this verification, the EU Commission has approved so-called certification systems, which include

certain indicators for checking compliance with the sustain-ability requirements on site in the commodity countries. This particularly includes the verification that the biomass commodities, such as soya, palm oil or even rapeseed, may not originate from land that was created through deforest-ation and used for planting soya or palm oil plantations, for example, after 1st January 2008. Using this date, the policy wanted to ensure that only services used before this date were used for cultivating commodities and producing fuels. In doing this, the Commission had correctly taken into account that the land used up to now is detected using modern satellite technology and hence is practically taking stock. This type of "monitoring" has already been state-of- the-art for European agriculture for years.

Furthermore, starting with commodity cultivation up to it its final use, it must be verified that the greenhouse gas reduc-tion accompanying the use of biofuel is currently at least 35 percent and from 2017 at least 50 percent compared to fossil fuel. These requirements are certified so that eventually the origins and the greenhouse gas reduction, for example, are recorded for biofuels that are consumed in Germany and attributable to the obligation for introducing admixtures through the responsible German Bundesbehörde der Bunde-sanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (BLE). The BLE writes an annual report as a result of the evaluation regarding the origins of the biofuel quantities to be entered into their database by the biofuel producers and traders. Therefore, a transparent documentation system was created which will hopefully also be introduced or taken up in other member states with respect to its documentation quality. The individual elements (see fig. on the right) of the certification chain inter-twine, beginning with the commodity cultivation up to the processing in the oil mill and production of the biodiesel. At the end of the verification chain, a document – a sustainability verification – is created which enables the marketer to sell this fuel amount to the mineral oil industry, so that this can in turn be attributable to this quantity of the obligation for introducing admixtures on the basis of a certified biofuel With this envi-ronmental objective, the EU Commission has since approved 13 certification systems.

The EU has therefore established international requirement criteria and certification systems for the first time which eventually have to be further developed in terms of a learning experience. This is because these certifications also provide requirements for social standards. The objective specified by the Renewable Energy Directive for the transport sector therefore creates a production incentive, but one which subjects the market access into the European Union to the reservation that minimum standards are to be ensured in the form of testing criteria and "checklists" for the market partic-ipants, including the biomass commodity producers and traders. Naturally, there is great fear that a new enormous bureaucratic burden will accompany this and fraud cases will not be excluded. This is why particularly the certification systems must quickly eradicate any possible weaknesses


and qualify the certification bodies correspondingly. Experi-ences with the practical implementation already confirm that not only environmental organisations critically follow the implementation, particularly in third countries (Asia, South America), but also the market players themselves critically evaluate the certification systems with respect to the docu-mentation request and implementation quality, especially if a competitive disadvantage has to be feared. This critically associated "observation process" is desired and necessary for improving the test criteria and the "on-site inspection" within the framework of the practical implementation of the certification.

Indirect land use changes and greenhouse gas balance – what contribution does rapeseed make? Naturally, the question arises that if rapeseed is cultivated in Germany for biodiesel production, the corresponding rape-seed oil quantity in the global market is lacking for use in food or market supply. The conclusion is clear that for the balance of requirements, additional land would have to be cultivated or cleared in Asia in the worst case. On this newly created land, e.g. palm oil plantations, the vegetable oil quantity could be produced in order to balance out the lacking rapeseed oil amount that was used as a result of the EU biofuel policy for the production of biodiesel. However, additional greenhouse gas emissions are formed on this new cultivated land, which then have to be attributed to the biodiesel made from rapeseed as "causer" for the deforestation, for example. These can even

be very high if the forest areas are cleared. Large quantities of greenhouse gas are particularly set free over years through humus depletion when using peat land. This effect is known as "Indirect Land Use Change" (iLUC). The EU Commission instructed various scientific institutes in order to verify the connection between what extent land would additionally have to be cultivated and what quantity of greenhouse gases will be emitted from these areas if the EU target value of 10 percent of renewable energies in the transport sector was achieved. A cause-effect relationship could not be verified. The reason for this is very complex connections to the international agricultural markets and the low amount of commodities for biofuel production of approx. 3 to 5 percent. This is why the EU Commission had initially suggested having this "iLUC phenomenon" further investigated by scientists. This matter is and remains the subject of the environmental debate. Here it is overlooked that biodiesel may no longer be attributed to reaching the target in the EU in the case of sanctioning biodiesel by way of introducing an extra premium system as an additional greenhouse gas surcharge (iLUC factor = 55 gCO

2/

MJ), and the European biodiesel production is at the brink of failure, but this sanctioning of the European oil seed producers and the biodiesel industry is ineffective. The fact is that in Asia and South America, the deforestation is continuing unimpaired because, unfortunately, there are also countries in the world that are not practically interested in a sustainability certifica-tion, but would like to import vegetable oil at as cheap a price as possible. The introduction of a sustainability certificate,


which is also binding in third countries, provides the option of influencing the framework condition for the cultivation of commodities and the social standards for the farm worker immediately. Furthermore, the European Union must also be active short-term in solving these environmental matters by way of bilateral negotiations.

Yet questions which will determine the current trading fields of future resource and energy supply related orientation are linked with the rapeseed cultivation in Germany or in the EU for the production of biofuels. In this field of discussion, the rapeseed must of course also prove for its energetic use that a noticeable contribution can eventually be made to environmental protection with the cultivation, processing and use – in other words that the ecological or CO

2-balance is as

positive as possible.

The rapeseed must therefore also play off its ecological advantages in conjunction with its economic advantages. Rapeseed has a high "preceding crop effect" since it:- extends the crop rotation in corn rotations as a so-called leaf crop,- enriches the humus content in the soil with its residues after the harvest- its tap root takes nutrients from deeper ground layers than cereals,

- prevents soil erosion – covers the soil after sowing in August up to the harvest in July of the following year,- leaves behind a good soil condition and thereby reduces the effort for the soil cultivation for the subsequent crop.

Extensive scientific examinations confirm that the preceding crop effect of rapeseed is proven in the rotation yields for winter wheat. If winter wheat is cultivated after rapeseed instead of winter wheat after winter wheat, the wheat yield after rapeseed is on average 10 percent higher, whilst the fertiliser application for the wheat is lower at the same time. For a cultivated land of 1 million hectares of rapeseed for biodiesel production, this corresponds to an additional wheat yield of around 0.7 million tonnes contingent on a preceding crop effect. The rapeseed is therefore not required for breaking up the crop rotation for ecological reasons, but causes an additional wheat yield anyway. The preceding crop effect also contributes to lowering the aforementioned "iLUC effect". A question not only discussed intensively in expert groups, but also in the policy, is: how good is the greenhouse gas balance of rapeseed for biodiesel production and which factors have to be discussed in the calculation?

The legal regulation for the recognition of biofuels within the framework of sustainability certification requires, as described above, that biofuels must prove to have a green-

Indirekt land use change (iLUC)


house gas advantage over fossil fuel of currently at least 35 percent and at least 50 percent from the year 2017: Can the rapeseed even meet this requirement in 2017, or is the greenhouse gas saving even higher?

An attempt to answer this basic question was also made using the European Directive for promoting renewable energies for biofuels. This also requires the method for calculating the greenhouse gas value of the respective biofuel types (bioeth-anol, biodiesel…) on the basis of the respective biomass commodities (rapeseed, soya, sunflowers, wheat, sugar cane etc.). The problem is that the crop types are compared with each other, but preceding crop effects and hence the higher yield for the crop after rapeseed are not considered. Crop type specific advantages, such as preceding crop effects (see above), therefore remain unconsidered.

Particularly criticised or discussed is the matter of the consid-eration of the rapeseed meal accumulating in rapeseed processing. The quantity balance for Germany is currently as follows:

1 million hectares of rapeseed cultivation for biodiesel production

Yield: approx. 3.8 million tonnes of rapeseed

approx. 1.5 million tonnes of biodieselapprox. 2.28 million tonnes of rapeseed meal

Through extensive feeding trials, it could be proven that rapeseed extraction meal can fully replace soya meal for the feeding of cows, oxen and fattening bulls. Rapeseed extraction meal as a protein supplier can also be added to the mixed feed as a component in pig feed (fattening pigs, sows and piglets). The cultivation of 1 million hectares of rapeseed and the accompanying production of 2.28 million tonnes of rapeseed extraction meal corresponds in turn to a cultivated land of around 1 million hectares of soya cultivation in order to produce an equivalent amount of soya meal.

Commodity foodstuffs could be cultivated on this land instead. This ancillary effect also applies to commodities such as corn and sugar beets. For rapeseed, it is therefore clear that the openly discussed argument of fuel or food can be solved. The formula must therefore be: "Fuel and food" is possible. the Institute for Energy and Environment (ifeu), Heidelberg, had already calculated the greenhouse gas reduction potential from rapeseed in biodiesel in 2003. This study considered such things as the preceding crop effect.

Result: For every litre of biodiesel, 2.2 kg of CO2 are saved.

1 litre of biodiesel corresponds to a release of 2.65 kg of

CO2. Consequently, there is a saving potential with biodiesel

of around 80 percent in consideration of all direct and indirect effects (preceding crop effect, rapeseed meal use in animal nutrition, release of cultivated areas for soya). At this stage, it must also be noted that high-quality glycerine is produced for the pharmaceutical industry when producing biodiesel. That is around 10 percent of biodiesel production: Approx. 250,000 tonnes in Germany in 2012.

Conclusion: Rapeseed is the ideal crop type for extending crop rotations in Germany and in the European Union. Rapeseed opens up a range of utilisation opportunities and final uses as a commodity source in the food and feed industry, but also for energetic and material use. Rapeseed makes a substantial contribution to climate and resource protection.

Domestic biofuels avoid having to import soya to GermanyWithout by-products from domestic production, Germany would have to import almost 50% more soya feed material.

Import

4.2 mill. t 0.9 mill. t

5.1 mill. t

2.0 mill. t

2.3 mill. t

South America Rest of world

Soya feed

of biofuels

Feed from by-products of domestic

biofuel production

Domestic cultivation

Domestic acreage for biofuels made

from rapeseed, corn, sugar beet (1.2 ha)

As of May 2012, Sources: FNR, BMELV, Grunert and our own calculations www.unendlich-viel-energie.de

Bio- fuels

Feed FeedSoyaSoyaSoyaSoyaSoya

Publisher:

UNION ZUR FÖRDERUNG VON

OEL- UND PROTEINPFLANZEN E.V. (UFOP)

Claire-Waldoff-Straße 7 · 10117 Berlin

[email protected] · www.ufop.de

Edited by Dieter Bockey

March 2013

1

March 27, 2013

EOA

ILUC Directive News

Ad Hoc working group – March 26th

The Irish Presidency proposed 2 options for the Member States to discuss.

Option A: restrict the capping or 5% to the oilseeds and expand the list of “low

impact” biofuels eligible to multiple counting toward the advanced biofuels target

Option B: raise the ceiling of 5% for conventional Biofuels

Compared to the two options (differentiation between sectors) and B (raising the capping of incorporation), 11 Member States would support the option B: Poland, Slovakia, Austria, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, France, Portugal, Hungary, Romania, Spain and Lithuania. On the other side, Great Britain, Slovenia, Sweden, Cyprus and Malta would be rather favorable to the option A.

Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland would agree with any of the two options. These countries are against measures that could weaken the Commission's proposal - there is therefore also a blocking minority against the option of increasing the capping of 5%.

On the other hand, Germany reiterated its position expressed during the Environment Council of the week last (for the 5% capping proposed by the Commission to encourage the production of advanced biofuels, need to protect investments and to pay attention to the potentially negative effects of multiple counting).

With regard to the European Commission, its position was not entirely clear, but it would be against the two options. However, it raised the possibility to adapt the capping by Member State, without however providing more details at this stage. Indeed, the Irish Presidency is open to explore other options.

Portugal has called into question the validity of the ILUC factors and proposed a cap of 8% for first generation biofuels. Austria suggested a capping of 6% and the Poland supported the Portuguese proposal for 8%. Spain is also in favor of an increase in the capping without proposing specific figure. Czech Republic and Slovakia requested the removal of any capping.

Italy discussed the possibility of replacing the capping for the first generation by a target of 3% for advanced biofuels. They are, however, in favor of multiple counting and could potentially support option B.

Discussions will continue on 16 April at the next meeting of the ad - hoc ILUC working group.


Page 1 of 3

SOF WG DUS

Monday, 11 February 2013

Conference Call – starting at 16.00h

Draft minutes

Participants: Despeghel, Gertsson, Jackson Absent: Devisme, Frauen ESA: Scholte (Chair)

I. Opening B.Scholte, chairing the Conference Call, welcomes all participants and opens the Call. It is noted that although Devisme and Frauen registered for the Call they are not present and that therefore the opinion of German breeders is missing. The agenda is approved as circulated in adding:

- DUS hybrids Oilseed rape, as proposed by JP Despeghel, to be discussed under PoA VII AOB.

II. Anti-Trust guidelines ESA_11.0246.1

The participants take note of the ESA Anti-trust guidelines and agree to act accordingly. III. Testing of A lines (MSL hybrids) in DUS testing ESA_12.0959

The Chairman introduces the topic in referring to the background document (ESA_12.0959). As indicated the mandatory testing of grandmother lines in relation to an application for listing or protection of a hybrid was questioned by the UK authorities. The discussion will continue in the October meeting of the DUS experts and therefore an ESA position is needed before that time. JP Despeghel is of the opinion that this issue was already agreed upon in Cambridge two years ago. As company representative he has no objection in relation to this principle. B. Gertsson questions the need of testing the grandmother/father lines and also the fact to single out a specific breeding system as is done now. To his opinion DUS testing of the hybrid should not go beyond the components of the (single one) generation immediate before the hybrid. It is agreed that the opinion of the German breeders is needed in this discussion. B.Gertsson volunteers to draft a short discussion paper on this issue which will be discussed in another Conference Call prior to the April meeting of the SOF Board.

IV. One-key-several doors – practical consequences for Hybrid testing MEO/12/07-3

The Chairman introduces the topic by informing that in the last meeting of the CPVO DUS experts for agricultural crops the CPVO had stated that the DUS of hybrids should not be based on a patchwork of DUS descriptions of the components of these hybrids drafted in different countries or different years. Preferably the DUS of a hybrid should be conducted in the same year as its components and by the same Examination office. The CPVO also informed that this was agreed


Page 2 of 3

in the Cambridge meeting. As the Chairman did not participate in the Cambridge meeting himself the participants having attended that meeting are asked to inform on their conclusions in this respect. Both JP Despeghel and R.Jackson confirm that they could not remember such a discussion or conclusion. JP Despeghel volunteered to check his files regarding the minutes of the Cambridge meeting. The participants discussed the situation and agreed that:

- The ESA position on DUS testing of hybrids is still valid in this respect. Irrespective of the year and country of testing, it should be possible to make use of finalised descriptions of components in relation to the DUS of the respective hybrid.

V. Preparation SOF Board meeting

The SOF Board meeting will take place on April 16/17 in Malmo (SE). The Chairman will report on the outcome of the discussion. Bo Gertsson indicates to plan to participate in this meeting too and to be willing to contribute to the discussion if needed. VI. Preparation CPVO Expert meeting

The next meeting of the CPVO DUS experts for agricultural crops is scheduled for on October 7/8 2013 in Angers. When the issue of DUS testing of hybrids will be on the agenda the members of the SOF WG DUS will be informed. In case of need they could join the Secretariat in this meeting. VII. Any Other Business JP Despeghel informs that breeders face increasing problems to find Distinction of hybrids especially as the DUS description of the candidate is compared to the hybrids already listed or protected. Personally he would prefer that the DUS of the hybrid should be based on the pedigree and the description of the parental lines. The Chairman informs that following a discussion in the Committee on Intellectual property Rights the original SOF position paper was revised on this point as the subject of application is the hybrid. The participants discuss the situation and agree to place it on the agenda of the next Conference Call. VIII. Closure

It is confirmed that another Conference Call will be organised in the beginning of April in advance of the next SOF Board meeting. Finally the Chairman thanks all participants for their contribution and closes the Call at 16.35.


Page 3 of 3

Action list resulting from the Conference Call of the SOF WG DUS of 11.02.2013


1

III

Testing of grandparent lines in the framework of DUS testing of an OSR hybrid. Draft discussion paper why this is not needed.

Gertsson

asap

2

IV

Minutes Cambridge meeting Forward minutes to Secretariat for further circulation

Despeghel

Asap

3

VI b

Organise Conference Call Secretariat

Prior to SOF Board April meeting


Page 1 of 1

Proposal for a CPVO Research project in Winter Oilseed rape.

From: CORBEL Anne Lise [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 11:57 AM

To: Bert Scholte Cc: GUIARD Joël

Subject: Proposal for a R&D project on WOSR to CPVO

Dear M.Scholte, By this mail, I wanted to inform ESA of our wish to apply for a CPVO project on WOSR. Indeed GEVES, with the collaboration of other Eos granted by CPVO on WOSR, wants to send a proposal to CPVO on the management of WOSR reference collections. As the breeding of this species and its production increase, the number of varieties of common knowledge is also increasing steeply. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the new genetic structure which is applied: there are more and more hybrid varieties applied which triggers a quick increasing of the reference collection due to their parental lines. That’s why the collections management has to be improved. Therefore this project aim is to improve WOSR collections management by using SNPs markers. This project would be divided into 3 phases:

- Phase 1: Study and selection and test of a set of SNP markers and a set of varieties - Phase 2: Compilation of morphological and molecular data - Phase 3: Analysis and validation for the reference collection management

Would ESA consider to participate to the project by the way of your experts? Thank you in advance for your answer. Best regards, Anne-Lise Corbel Anne-Lise Corbel Rapeseed, linseed and hemp DUS GEVES-SEV Domaine de l'Anjouère 49370 LA POUEZE

Position

03/2013

Brussels, Belgium

ESA_13.0151.2

ESA is the voice of the

European seed industry,

representing those active in

research, breeding, production

and marketing of seeds of

agricultural and ornamental

plant species. It represents

more than 30 national seed

associations and more than 60

direct company members.

ESA’s mission is to work for

fair and proportionate

regulation of the European

seed industry, freedom of

choice for customers in

supplying seeds as a result of

innovative, diverse

technologies and production

methods and for effective

protection of intellectual

property rights relating to

plants and seed.

European Seed Association

Rue du Luxembourg 23/15

B 1000 Brussels

Tel. 0032-2-7432860

Email

Breeding for the bioeconomy

Making the bioeconomy happen The bioeconomy is a key response to fulfilling the goal of sustainable development in Europe, and requires a multidisciplinary and partnership approach of which plant breeding is the basis. ESA is committed to making the bioeconomy happen and to position plant breeding as the key technology that will make it succeed.

Key messages 1. ESA calls for European and national decision-makers to fully take into

account the role and contribution of plant breeding in the bioeconomy. Plant breeding is the underpinning science and technology for ensuring the sustainable supply of biomass, which is the basis for the bioeconomy.

2. ESA calls for the establishment of a policy framework that supports innovation in agriculture and encourages the uptake of agricultural technologies on the farm. Innovation at the very start of biobased value chains will generate innovations and added value for all biobased products and processes.

3. As plant breeding is a lengthy process, ESA calls for long-term funding of public plant breeding research to match the long-term development of innovative crop varieties that ensure the sustainable supply of biomass.

Rising to the challenge of the bioeconomy Plant breeding innovations, supported by the highest levels of research and development in plant science, are the key response to increase levels of crop production for food, feed, fibre, industrial products and energy use, while ensuring the sustainable development of agriculture and providing the biobased economy with improved qualities and quantities of feedstocks.

Challenge 1: Food security & health The bioeconomy should enable a sustainable increase in primary production as global population growth by 2050 is estimated to lead to a 70% increase in food demand.1 Plant breeding is crucial to ensure the constant improvement of plant varieties that sustainably produce higher yields and deliver better qualities. Challenge 2: Sustainable agricultural production under changing climatic

and environmental conditions The bioeconomy will need to produce more while using less resources, as the availability and sustainable supply of biomass face several constraints, including changing climatic and environmental conditions,.

Plant breeding is crucial to develop diverse and improved varieties well suited to specific regional contexts, and varieties that can adapt to adverse conditions (dry land, water- and nitrogen use efficiency, disease resistance, mitigating and adapting to climate change).

1http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

Position

03/2013

Brussels, Belgium

ESA_13.0151.2

Challenge 3: Renewable raw materials for biobased products and energy production

Making the transition towards a low carbon society requires producing quality biomass at a competitive price. Strong research & innovation partnerships between all the industries involved across the bioeconomy value chain will be necessary in order to develop the technologies, processes and markets that will support the bioeconomy and guarantee the deployment of biobased products and energy.

Plant breeding is the first and fundamental element of the bioeconomy value chain. The European plant breeding industry is constantly adapting to new demands from the rest of the value chain and carries out research into plant varieties destined for specific end-uses that will enhance biobased products. This may include plants with specific traits that make them easier to be transformed (e.g. potato varieties with specific starch qualities) or the cascading use of crops (e.g. improving the composition of the stem of the plant that would otherwise be thrown away).

Plant breeding research: fostering competitiveness and innovation in the bioeconomy

Plants are the main pillar of the bioeconomy and provide creative solutions for the future. The European plant breeding and seed production industry is at the forefront of R&D and innovation and is committed to pursue its high rates of investments of up to 20% of its annual turnover on further R&D. In order to support these investments, ESA calls for long-term public funding of plant breeding research, including public-private partnerships, with a focus on: i. Topics of relevance to the bioeconomy:

Increasing yields in a sustainable way to obtain large volumes of food, feed and biomass at competitive prices, while reducing and optimising the environmental impact of agriculture;

Enhancing resistance to biotic stresses (diseases and pests) and abiotic stresses (salt, drought, flood, pollution, cold and heat);

Improving plants for nutrient and water use efficiency, bioremediation and soil improvement;

Developing varieties for highly targeted biobased applications and to deliver specific ingredients;

Exploring the cascading use of plants, including the characteristics of residues;

Identification of new crops for the bioeconomy.

ii. Creating infrastructures and technological instruments to support the realisation of breeding goals:

Next generation genotyping and sequencing technologies

New breeding concepts

Phenomics, bioinformatics and statistical tools

• Experimentation trial / Materials and Methods

It has been agreed to run a trial of 36 entries/Seed lots with different lots / different qualities (GLS and Purity) from different companies.

Set up of the experimental trial:

36 entries with 3 repetitions / location - large yield plots.

7 locations to be sown with the goal to have 4 or 5 useable locations after harvest.

NPZ to coordinate / prepare the trials, in cooperation with colleagues of participating companies.

After review of potential participants, 5 companies agreed to participate to this experimentation trial:

NPZ, DSV, Lantmännen SW Seeds, KWS and BCS AG BioScience.

Quality analysis by NIRS / NPZ officially acknowledged by WCC/RRC Canadian authority:

Sowing: Each seed lot used measured x2, x 36 entries = 72 samples

Harvest: In total 2 measures x 3 reps x 36 entries x 7 locations = 1.512 analysis

ESA SOF - Spring OSR – Purity and GLS

Gemeinsame RAPOOL Winterrapszuchtbesprechung 2012

ESA SOF Purity & GLS Trial Network 2012 7 locations 7 Drilled 7 Harvested 7 Useable for Analyze = 100%

RESULTS 2012 on 7 locations Main conclusions regarding GSL contents: There is no significant influence of the purity level on GSL content between sown seed & in harvested seeds. In the portfolio, there are hybrids with low purity and low GSL as well as hybrids with very high purity and higher GSL levels


8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

10.50

11.00

11.50

12.00

12.50

70.00 75.00 80.00 85.00 90.00 95.00 100.00

GSL

co

nte

nt

har

vest

ed

se

ed

(µ

mo

l/g)

Purity (%)

GSL content harvested seed vs purity sown seed

<<18µm

RESULTS 2012 on 7 locations Main conclusions regarding GSL contents: There is no significant influence of GSL content in sown seed on the GSL level in harvested seeds. The level in the harvested seeds is max about 12µm and in general below that threshold. In the sown seeds the variation is significantly higher due to very diverse environments during seed production


8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

6.00 11.00 16.00

GSL

co

nte

nt

har

vest

ed

se

ed

(µ

mo

l/g)

GSL content sown seed (µmol/g)

GSL content sown seed vs GSL content harvested seed BCS var1

BCS var 2

LSW var 1

LSW var 2

KWS var 1

KWS var 2

KWS var 3

NPZ var 1

NPZ var 2

NPZ var 3

NPZ var 4

<<18µm

RESULTS 2012 on 7 locations Main conclusions regarding GSL contents and purity: Even in case of high GSL in the seed which is caused environmentally, the level in the harvested seed is much more uniform. This shows that under identical environmental conditions like in these 7 locations the genetics of the variety determines the GSL contents, not the GSL level of the sown seed. Very different levels of purity do not lead to a bias in the GSL contents of the harvested seed. Here the same applies: the genetics of the variety determine the GSL level in the harvested seed, not the differences in purity.


RESULTS 2012 on 7 locations Main conclusions regarding GSL contents and purity: Even in case of high GSL in the seed which is caused environmentally the level in the harvested seed is much more uniform. This shows that under identical environmental conditions like in this series of 7 locations the genetics of the variety determines the GSL contents, not the GSL level of the sown seed Very different levels of purity do not lead to a bias in the GSL contents of the harvested seed. Here the same applies: the genetic s of the variety determine the GSL level in the harvested seed, not the differences in purity.


Landscape LM-Lantbruk

Draft position paper on DUS

testing of hybrid components in

oilseed rape

ESA Malmö April 16, 2013

Bo Gertsson


Aim:

2

To establish a principle for DUS testing of parental lines in oilseed

rape (OSR) which is neutral with regard to hybrid system, transparent

and proportional in cost.


Background: ESA_12.0959

Testing of A-line in the MSL system in the framework of DUS testing of a OSR hybrid.

The CPVO DUS experts for agricultural crops discussed the issue of DUS testing of A-

lines (grandmother lines) in the framework of DUS testing of the hybrid.

3

There is a risk of confusion in the discussion, due to the varying use of denomination for

hybrid components and lack of transparency for different hybrid systems used. The cost

should be proportionate and independent of system.


X X

F1 hybrid

A-line

B-line

A-line R-line

CMS-system e.g. Polima, INRA Ogura

rf rf

S

rf rf

N

rf rf

S

Rf Rf

S or N

Rf rf

S


X X

F1 hybrid

A-line

B-line

C-line R-line

GMS-system e.g. MSL, Safe Cross

Rf Rf

rf rf

rf rf rf rf

N

Rf rf

rf rf

x x

Rf Rf

x x Rf rf

N

N N

N


X X

F1 hybrid

A-line

B-line

C-line R-line

GMS-system - Herbicide tolerance e.g. InVigor

rf rf

HT

Rf rf Non-HT

N

rf rf

HT Rf Rf

Rf rf

N

N N

N

Herbicide spray


X

F1 hybrid

R-line C-line R-line

Gametocide

Rf Rf

N

Rf Rf Rf Rf

Rf Rf

N N

N

Gametocide


Recommendation

8

The DUS testing of hybrid components is important for the protection

of the components as well as for the hybrid variety based on such

components. To be transparent, have proportional cost for the industry

and be neutral across hybrid systems it is suggested that only the

IMMEDIATE parent components used for a given OSR hybrid should

be tested, but not earlier generations.

Hybrid seed production of QinYou #1

1991

Cotton Seeds Market Europe ESA SOF Board meeting 16/04/13

Charles Grange,

Agenda/

Content

Cotton planted area 2006 - 2013

Cotton seed quantities 2006 - 2013

Cotton supply and distribution

Cotton prices history

Headlights 2013

Page 2 • Presentation Title • October 2011

Cotton planted area 2006 - 2013


After a decrease of 16% in 2012 vs 2011, the area devoted to cotton should decrease again in 2013

(estimated at 13%) in the 3 countries.

X 1,000 ha

Cotton seeds quantities 2006 - 2013


The seed quantity has decreased by 13 % in 2012 vs 2011 in the 3 countries and should decrease again in

2013 (10 to 13%).

MT

Cotton Supply and distribution (x 1000 MT)


EU – 27 increased significantly its production in 2011, mainly in Greece. In 2012, production in EU – 27 is

expected stable and Turkey should increase its imports to satisfy some recovery in domestic use.

GREECE SPAIN

- 5 0 0

- 4 0 0

- 3 0 0

- 2 0 0

- 10 0

0

10 0

2 0 0

3 0 0

4 0 0

5 0 0

2007 2008 2009

Ending Stocks

Exports

Loss

Use

Imports

Production

Beg. Stocks

TURKEY EU - 27

EU – 27: Cotton supply and distribution


EU – 27 imports cotton lint mainly from Turkey (33% in 2010/2011)

EU – 27: Cotton supply and distribution


EU – 27 exports cotton lint mainly to Turkey (45% in 2010/2011)

Cotton prices history


After having reach a peak at 240 USD cents per pound, cotton prices are back to 80 – 90 USD cents per pound

Headlights 2013


Decrease forecast of planted areas, used seed volume and fiber production in 2013 (Greece and Turkey) mainly linked to the competition of other crops with more competitive price and lower “Cost od Goods”(Maize, wheat) in spite of better cotton lint prices in February / March (which could limit the 2013 decrease)

None Risk of seed availability shortage for planting 2012 - Seed price should be stable. Planting is going to start in the next days…

CNI treatment: about 90% IR seed treated in 2012 in Greece; probably decrease in 2013 in order to reduce potential inventory on June 30th…

The very serious economical and finance crisis in Greece is impacting agriculture, including cotton crop (mainly via the financing process of the farms and retailers)

Serious boll worm attack and damages in Europe (example in Greece) on the last 3 years which could justify to open the GM discussion for Insect control

GM AP remain an issue for the cotton seed exchange and use in the 3 countries (Greece, Spain and Turkey).

• Presentation Title • October 2011

Forward-Looking Statements


This presentation may contain forward-looking statements based on current

assumptions and forecasts made by Bayer Group or subgroup management.

Various known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors could lead to

material differences between the actual future results, financial situation,

development or performance of the company and the estimates given here.

These factors include those discussed in Bayer’s public reports which are

available on the Bayer website at www.bayer.com.

The company assumes no liability whatsoever to update these forward-looking

statements or to conform them to future events or developments.

ESA

European Seed Association SOF

“Technical Zero” for Seeds Ph Lesigne April 16th 2013

Follow ESA

“Technical Solution”

for seeds

• “Technical Solution” (TS) is the wording used for Food and Feed to address a

similar issue.

• For seeds, the Industry refers to “Technical Zero” (TZ).

• What it is about ?

1. LLP (= Low Level Presence for GM events authorized for cultivation in one country

in the world, with a functioning regulatory system, but not authorized in EU).

2. A definition of the analytical zero for LLP of such event.

3. Harmonization and standardization of seed sampling procedures.

4. Harmonization and standardization of seed testing protocols.

• What it is not about ? – AP threshold (event authorized for cultivation in EU in a co-existence environment)

“Technical Solution” for LLP:

Policy & Regulation

state of the Art in EU

• TS in place for Feed: EU 619/2011 of June 24th 2011.

• TS for Food and Seeds: communication by DG Sanco at

the last EU Seed Advisory Council (March 8th 2012):

– TS for Food will be in place before summer 2012

– TS for Seeds will be in place Q4 2012.

• No TS for food, nor for seeds, in April 2013

(communication at the SAC March the 8th…)

• DG Sanco have asked ESA in October 2012 to prepare

a seed industry position on TS for seeds. Document now

finalized ready to be communicated to EU COM.

“Technical Zero” for seeds:

ESA gathering information &

evidences

• ESA_12.0632: overview of rules and practices in Member States

through a survey done by National Associations.

• ESA_12.0633: theoretical example case highlighting the barriers

within the Union for movement of seeds.

• ESA_12.0634: practical example cases reported in some Member

States.

• ‘ESA_12.0903- 2: document about “A sampling and testing

methodology for the official control of GM material in seeds”)

Those four documents are now ready to be communicated officially

to DG Sanco as the industry position on TZ for Seeds.

Questions / Comments

Thank you for your attention.

ESA

Plant Reproductive Material

SOF - April 16th 2013

Follow ESA

SOF PRM revision status

• Package of 3 sectoral + 2 horizontal acts

• Inter-service consultation still ongoing:

– Meetings DG Sanco & DG Agri

• Conservation & Amateur varieties

• “One key several doors”

• Financing

• College of Commissioners to adopt the package April 24th

• Scenario1: goes through current EU Council + EP

– New legislation in place 2014

– Delegating & Implementing Acts developed until 2019

• Scenario 2: postpone to the next EP leading to delay by 2

years.

SOF PRM revision watch outs

• No real changes since October as no new drafts are

available

• Watch outs with clear industry (ESA) position:

– Close loop: ESA secretariat has been providing data and re-

confirmed industry position.

– One key several doors

– Marketing in advance of listing

• Watch out requiring a deeper industry (ESA) analysis:

– Amateurs and Conservation varieties


SOF – Malmö, April 16th

1

Sunflower commodity price: Consistently above 500 USD/t three campaigns in a row since harvest 2010

2013 will remain a profitable year for Sunflower growers

Source: Tallage March 2013

2

Sunflower production volume: 2012 production drop consequence of a severe drought in CIS and East EU27

Production recovery expected in 2013 with acreage increase in key countries

Source Tallage March 2013

3

2012 acreage (in 1’000 ha) Stability at 18 mio ha in Continental EU with significant variations at country level

West Europe:

• Climatic reasons (drought) explain the decrease in Spain.

East Europe:

• Acreage decrease in Russia to 6.5 mio ha

• Ukraine increase at 5.3 mio ha

2007 2008 2009 2010 Δ10/09 2011 Δ11/10 2012 Δ12/11

EU-15 1’352 1’561 1’803 1’569 -13% 1’781 +14% 1’647 -8%

EU-27 3’193 3’738 3’882 3’588 -8% 3’915 +9% 4’074 +4%

Continental

Europe (incl CIS+TR)

13’835 15’305 15’434 16’355 +6% 18’115 +11% 17’883 -1%

Source: Coceral for EU 27, Oilworld estimates for UA, RU, TR

4

RU

-10%

UA

+15% FR

-7%

RO

+10%

HU +2% IT

-12%

BG

+3%

SK+5%

ES

-14%

TR

+3%

Acreage evolution for major sunflower countries 2012 vs. 2011

Source: Coceral for EU 27, Oilworld estimates for UA, RU, TR

Acreage almost stable at -1 % in 2012 vs 2011

5

Evolution of key traits: High Oleic

● Stability of HO production at around

5% of the market in 2012

● France, Hungary & Spain are the 3

main EU suppliers : 600 khas

representing 66% of EAME HO acreage

● Crushers looking for alternative

sourcing in e.g. Argentina and also in

HOLLI Canola from Canada.

HO as %

of total ha 5% 5% 6%

Source: Syngenta estimates

6

Evolution of key traits: Herbicide Tolerance


HTC as %

of total ha 19% 29% 26%

● Penetration of herbicide tolerant

crop (HTC) has increased :

- Yield drag of converted hybrids

have significantly decreased

- Control of difficult weeds (such

as Broomrape or Ambrosia)

have contributed to the adoption

of the HTC technologies

● Rapid growth in RU & UA with

increasing numbers of registered

varieties

● HO + HTC, have been successfully

launched in 2011 in FR & HU

7

Seeds production – Continued increase in certified seeds production streching the existing network

● 2012 and 2013 European production surface has increased vs. 2011

● All acreage that have been contracted have saturated the existing

capacities of production & processing in Europe and USA

- Spain, Hungary : full capacities

- Turkey, France, Romania, Serbia, California : at almost full capacities

● Average yields in 2012: drought in South East Europe affecting yields

but compensated by good results in Spain and USA

● Industry production capacity getting saturated


8

Summary – April 2013 view

● 2012: acreage stable, production decrease affected by severe drought in

CIS and East EU27: low STU maintains high prices for the third season

● 2013 market outlook: commodity prices together with corn seed shortage

and late spring sustain 2013 acreage in major sunflower countries

● Production volume expected to regrow to reach 40 million T : commodity

prices exposed to decline after harvesting (palm oil heavy stock pressure,

wheat and corn influence)

● High Oleic still marginal & concentrated in EU: FR, HU & SP

● Herbicide tolerance penetration confirmed, all over EU

Bundesverband Deutscher

Pflanzenzüchter e.V.

Meeting of the ESA Section Oil and Fibre Plants

on 16th April 2013 in Malmö

Dieter Rücker

Agenda Point IV. c. Procedure for the

registration of seed treatment products

Registration of plant protection products (p.p.p.) for

seed treatment of oil and fibre plants in Germany

Based on the definition of maximum amounts of p.p.p.

per kg of seed

● problem: large spread of thousand kernel weights (example:

oilseed rape winter type 4 – 12 g)

● plant protection authority in Germany, Julius Kühn-Institut

(JKI), wants to define maximum amount of p.p.p.

per thousand kernels

● like for maize, sugar beet

EU Regulation on Plant Protection (EC 1107/2009)

● Application for plant protection products (p.p.p.) are

assessed by the “Rapporteur Member State” (RMS)

● For all member states for which registration is asked for

● Report of the RMS goes to all member states concerned

● Member states have 120 days to check the report and grant

national registration of the p.p.p.

● Registration can only be denied on the basis of sound

scientific reasons

Member state:acreage

harvest 2012

[ha]

min. average max. min. max. per kg or per 1000 kernels

Oilseed rape

- winter type

- spring type

Sunflower

Turnipe rape

Linseed

- oil production

- fibre production

Total: 0

seed rate

[kg or number of seeds - please indicate!]

thousand kernel weight

[g]

Definition of maximum amounts

of plant protection products for

seed treatment (please x)

ESA survey on the production of oil and fibre seed in the European Union

ESA


Classification Glycosinolate in Oilseed rape

Bert Scholte

Classification 00 OSR varieties in the Common Catalogue

Since end of 2011:

• ( 30 ) GLS 18 - 25 μmol/g;

• ( 38 ) Maximum GLS 18 μmol/g

• ( 39 ) GLS 18 – 25 and 25 μmol/g in some MS and

Maximum GLS 18 μmol/g in other MS


Questions on implementation and classification of 00 OSR

varieties

1. Basis of classification: Official data / Private data

2. Testing method used

3. Agreement with classification of listed varieties


Outcome:

- 10 answers received ( 6 associations / 4 companies)

- 8 Countries : Austria, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland,

Sweden, UK

1.


Outcome:

1. Basis of classification: Official data / Private data

- Official data: most countries

- Private data: Sweden (Austria)


Outcome:

2. Testing methods used

- HPLC

- NIRS

- Palladium test

- ISO 9167-1


Outcome:

3. Agreement with classification of listed varieties

- YES: Associations in Austria, Denmark, Germany, Poland and UK

- NO: 4 companies + 1 Association


Outcome:

2. Complaints regarding classification of listed varieties


Member State Comment

Various MS Classification not correct

SE Footnote (30) only due to National Legislation

Some MS Delays in notification

Some MS No testing on GLS content

Conclusions

– Footnotes in Common catalogue in place

– Basis for classification (testing methods) not harmonised

– (National) problems regarding classification


What to do ?

– Proposal for a harmonised testing method - filed in 2010.

– Address national problems together with National Seed Associations




Bert Scholte

Technical Director

ESA


CPVO – On-line application

Bert Scholte

SOF, Malmo – April 16, 2013

Follow ESA

CPVO – Use of on-line application system

Applications On-line paper

Total since 03-2010 51% 41%

Total since 01-2013 63% 29%

CPVO – Use of on-line application system

ESA SOF

Seed Treatment

a) latest developments

b) Status Neonics

What is achieved till now by

Data collection 2013: relevance

• Maize; companies that provided data represent 90% of the

European maize seed market;

• OSR: companies that provided data represent nearly 100% of

the European market.

WS JKI 15.03.2013/KS 2

What is achieved till now by

Maize: more than 19.000 analysis

Oilseed Rape: more than 5.300 analysis.

WS JKI 15.03.2013/KS 3

results in Maize

WS JKI 15.03.2013/KS 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

perc

enta

ge

of sa

mp

les

classes, dust in g/100,000 seeds

Dust levels maize 2009-2012production data

numbers of test results: 2009: 2159, '10: 5273, '11: 6375, '12: 5318

2009

2010

2011

2012

industry reference value:0.75 g/100,000 seeds

• Average dust levels are below 0.3 g/100,000 seeds (40 % of the industry

reference value of 0.75 g)

• 95% of the treated seed lots have dust levels below 0.7 g/100,000 seeds,

with no significant difference between the EU Member States.

results in Oilseed Rape

WS JKI 15.03.2013/KS 5

• Average dust levels stabilized around 0.06 g/700TK (less than 15 % of

the industry reference value of 0.5 g)

• 95% of the treated seed lots have dust levels below 0.25 g/700,000

seeds.

Outlook on

• ESTA is a general EU-wide quality

assurance scheme for seed

treatment and treated seed

• for all species

• for all seed treatments

• next crops for which

reference values to be set:

cereals, vegetables

WS JKI 15.03.2013/KS 6

Outlook on

• By using ESTA

• the EU seed industry stands for

• Quality, Reliability and

Sustainability

• Risk Mitigation

• Tangible Commitment

• Continual Improvement

WS JKI 15.03.2013/KS 7

Status quo Neonics (I)

• Proposal SANCO • No more distribution of 3 a.i. (Clothianidin, Thiamethoxam

and Imidacloprid) from 30.04.2013 onwards

• No more sowing of neonic-treated seeds from 01.07.2013

onwards

• No more use of the 3 a.i. for foliar application

• Exemptions , sugar beet, winter cereals, potatoes

• Seeds for seed production covered again

WS JKI 15.03.2013/KS 8

Status quo Neonics (I)

• EU Standing Committee meeting 15.03.2013

• No qualified majority (55% of MS and 65% of votes) for or

against proposal

• Proposal to be discussed again at Appeal Committee

• COM must use original proposal as starting point

• Amendments/changes possible in the discussion

• Date tbc for 26.04. or 02.05. 2013

• Final decision by COM if there is no qualified majority

AGAINST its proposal

WS JKI 15.03.2013/KS 9

Position ESA

• ESA continues to lobby COM and MS

together with ECPA and COPA:

• EFSA opinion is incomplete (risk assessment)

• COM proposal is disproportionate (risk management)

• MS must implement monitoring measures

• Full EFSA review on that base in 2 years

• Mainatin existing authorisations until then

• Try to reach a period of grace till 01.10.2013 so that

winter crops can still be sown (WOSR)

WS JKI 15.03.2013/KS 10

ESA


SOF meeting April 16 2013

Malmo Implementation Nagoya Protocol in the

EU

Setting the scene

The Nagoya Protocol was approved in 2010 • Waiting for the ratification of at least 50 Parties

before the Protocol enter into force • Decide on implementation steps • Discussion on Global Multilateral Benefits Sharing

Mechanism; new round of negotiations?

Parties of CBD are in transition phase with regard to ABS

• Regulation is based on two pillars:

• Access (and benefit sharing) pillar • To develop measures for own access rules as long

as they are fair and non-arbitrary; left to individual Member States

• User-compliance pillar should fulfil the following:

• To monitor the compliance of users within their jurisdiction

• To designate one or more checkpoints • To take appropriate, effective and proportionate

measures in case of non-compliance

EU is preparing ratification of the Nagoya Protocol

• Scope; what genetic resources are covered in the regulation

• All genetic resources accessed after the entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol

• Exclusion of genetic resources multilateral system IT PGRFA

• Status of commodities/varieties needs to be clarified

Elements in new EU regulation affecting the breeding sector (1)

• Obligation of a due diligence system for users • To ascertain that genetic resources used where accessed

in accordance with ABS laws of provider country

• Keep information on genetic resources entering and leaving the company for at least 20 years

• Having done sufficient study about legality of access and use

• Monitoring and checks on user compliance • Checkpoint for public research funding

• Checkpoint on marketing approval

• Checkpoint with national competent authorities

• Competent authorities have to check user compliance


• Penalties • Member states have to develop effective,

proportionate and dissuasive penalties

• Best practices • Any sector may submit an application for a best

practice.

• Using a best practice mechanism will be recognised in monitoring user compliance


• Union trusted collections • Collections under jurisdiction of Member States

that demonstrate due diligence

• Users accessing genetic resources from Union Trusted collections are automatically considered to have exercised due diligence

• Entry into force on 20th day after entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol

• One more year of time to establish:

• Due diligence system

• Monitoring and checking system


• Text proposal of EU finalized and shared with Council and Parliament

• Draft report Parliament end of April

• Deadline amendments in May

• Vote plenary beginning of 2014

• Adoption of EU regulation mid 2014

Timeline for development legislation

• Lobby • Commercial varieties should be excluded from due

diligence obligations

• Handling in good faith should lead to use, also after different understanding of the legislation later

• Checks on compliance and sanctions should be harmonized throughout the EU

• Recognition of the multilateral system of the IT PGRFA and the SMTA

• Genetic resources from member states that have not implemented ABS rules should be accessible for use

Actions of Working Group on Biodiversity ESA

• Best Practices • Baseline inventory

• Realistic and workable system for access to genetic resources

• Documentation of genetic resources throughout breeding company

• Transfer of genetic resources to third parties

• Monitoring procedure

• Incoming genetic resources

• Commercialization

• Working Group on Best Practices

Actions of Working Group on Biodiversity ESA

ESA


ESA Patent Database

Szonja Csörgő

Director Intellectual Property and Legal Affairs

Spring Section Meetings

Follow ESA

The background

ESA IP position:

"Patent information

When starting their breeding programs breeders should know whether the biological material

they intend to use fall eventually under the scope of a patent application or a granted patent.

Since currently there is no transparency on the patented status of biological material

breeders might be discouraged to make use of one or the other material which, in the end,

may slow down innovation in breeding significantly and constitutes a practical limitation of the

breeder’s exemption.

In order to improve transparency of patent information ESA proposes the setting up of a web-

based database allowing breeders better information and thus a more informed decision

regarding the material they use. Therefore, ESA calls upon patent holders to put information

on the patented status of their varieties in a public database available on their own company

websites at the moment when the relevant patent application is published. Furthermore, ESA

proposes and will actively support the creation of a portal containing links to all relevant

company websites for facilitating access to information to breeders."

The results

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

lantmännen lantbruk boplatsgatan 8 213 76 malmö - …amsem.ro/esa/reuniuni/20130419 16.04.2013...

Documents