REVIEW PAPER
Analysis of the Alternative Agriculture’s Seeds MarketSector: History and Development
Pietro Barbieri1 • Stefano Bocchi1
Accepted: 15 July 2015 / Published online: 22 July 2015
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Alternative agricultural systems, like organic and local agriculture, are
becoming increasingly important in Europe to the detriment of conventional
methods. As a matter of fact, sustainable agriculture, which started as a niche sector,
has been able to conquer a significant share of the European agro-food market.
Institutional promotion along with increasing consumer demand has allowed for the
development of different agricultural models, from the farm to the fork, with an
increasing focus on the ethical issues associated with the agro-food production
system. For instance, the organic agriculture agro-food chain is based on four
principles, namely health, ecology, fairness and care (IFOAM 2004) with the goal of
competing in the global agro-food market while respecting the environment, live-
stock, producers, and consumers. Within these themes, the seed market represents
an extremely complex part of the whole picture. The present paper analyses the
historical evolution of the seed sector by identifying the main issues related to
sustainable agricultural systems and protection of biodiversity. It follows the
identification of different seed markets based on different farm types. The two
aspects are then discussed and matched in order to identify the main issues char-
acterizing the sector. A review of possible solutions to those problems, taking into
account their ethics, is also provided.
Keywords Organic seed � Seed legislation � Semi commons � Seed markets � Plantbreeding
& Pietro Barbieri
Stefano Bocchi
1 DiSAA – Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali - Produzione, Territorio, Agroenergia,
Universita degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
123
J Agric Environ Ethics (2015) 28:789–801
DOI 10.1007/s10806-015-9563-x
Introduction
Sustainable agriculture and, in particular, organic agriculture have become
increasingly important in the European agro-food market since 1991, when, in
the context of EU farm policy reform, the European Council of Agricultural
Ministers adopted the first organic farming regulation (EEC No 2092/91).
Increasing consumer demand and institutional promotion supported the adoption
of various production models that are respectful of the environment, livestock,
producers, and consumers while simultaneously enabling them to compete in the
global agro-food market. The seed market is an intrinsic part of this picture and
needs to be analyzed in detail with regards to how it relates to sustainable
production systems, based on ethical and holistic approaches to agricultural
production. Therefore, all the different aspects of the seed sector have to be
analyzed in order to provide an in-depth analysis. This requires investigating the
historical evolution of the seed industry and relevant legislation from the beginning
of modern plant breeding. Such an investigation is essential since both moral and
ideological issues are fundamental to seed production systems. Relevant issues that
need analysis are the definition of the rights to use, protect, and exchange genetic
information and its improvements, both as an abstract or as a physical seed property.
Hence, in order to progress in this field, a synthesis of the status of the art is
required. Interdisciplinary approaches and research methods in cooperation between
farmers, scientists, and policy makers have to be found in order to solve the
problems identified (Barlow et al. 2011; Pautasso et al. 2013). Therefore, this paper
aims to (1) describe the structure of the seed sector based on the historical evolution
of genetic resource management, (2) describe the current state of the global seed
markets, (3) discuss, compare, and contrast, how identifying current laws impacts
sustainable agricultural systems and potential development prospects for the sector.
The Seed Branch Historical Evolution
Seeds are part of a larger picture involving genetic resources while being one of the
most important agricultural inputs. At the same time, seeds’ intrinsic genetic
information is the starting point for any breeding process. Plant selection has been
characterized by a multi-step evolution that often overlap or compete with each
other. The process started with gathering plant material, which lasted for millions of
years. This material (i.e. seeds) was unconsciously collected from the best plants,
leading to a first kind of selection. Then, after the birth of agriculture, plant genetic
resources were domesticated and diversified into different varieties by small-scale
traditional agriculture over 10,000 years. Modern genetic science led to the
development of so-called improved varieties (BEDE 2011) and the application of
property rights to plant genetics. Therefore, it is essential to understand the
interactions between such property rights and plant genetic resource management.
The analyses carried out by Enrico Bertacchini (2007) shows the historical
evolution of such aspects.
790 P. Barbieri, S. Bocchi
123
First, we have to mention that the ability to modify and manipulate genetic
information, after Mendel’s experiments, created the bases for the birth of a highly
specialized plant breeding private industry (Morris et al. 2006). In earlier times,
plant selection was simply carried out by farmers without a commercial interest.
Second, we have to consider the arrival of the ‘‘green revolution’’, defined as a
series of research, development, and technology transfer initiatives occurring
between the 1940s and the late 1960s, which increased agricultural production
worldwide, particularly in the developing world, leading to industrial agriculture.
This agricultural model, still applied today, is based on much more uniform plant
varieties than in the past. The process of genetic erosion, consisting in loss of
genetic variation (Van Treuren 1991) and which has been under discussion for the
last decades, has been partially linked to this form of agriculture (Lotti 2010;
Pautasso et al. 2013). On the other side, the genetic erosion, summed up with the
introduction of other techniques, like genetic engineering, increased the value of
plant genetic resources. Seed and genetic resources regulations have already been
recognized to be part of the biodiversity threatening factors (Pautasso et al. 2013).
This introduction of ‘elite varieties’ went through the production of stable and
homogeneous cultivars, and through the transformation of the information stored in
the DNA by the modern biotechnological methods. Eventually, in the last decades,
synthetic biology and the nanotechnologies were applied (BEDE 2011), increasing
the value of genetic resources.
The increase in genetic resource value is from applying the patent system to plant
genetic material. The idea was to improve resource allocation by signing an
international agreement known as TRIPs (agreement on Trade Relates Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights) promoted by the WTO (World Trade Organization). In
addition to such property rights, a second agreement, known as CBD (Convention
on the Biological Diversity) was signed in 1992, creating the legal bases for the
birth of the sovereign rights on plant resources. These agreements regulated the
genetic resources exchanges by introducing a bilateral mechanism. Hence,
according to Bertacchini (2007) and other authors (Herdt 1999; Gulati 2001;
Helfer 2005), the genetic resources can be considered as a global common, which is
slowly disappearing. As with all changes, this ongoing process involves positive and
negative aspects. On one hand, privatization promotes innovation while, on the
other hand, access to vital information in a cumulative process such as plant
breeding is slowly denied. A solution to this dualism may be to consider genetic
resources as semi-commons goods (Bertacchini 2007). This is because seeds can be
considered either in physical terms as the phenotype, which can be used as a private
good in the breeding activity, or in genetic terms as the genotype, which should be
maintained as a freely accessible common good.
In the past, farmers simply saved a portion of their harvested seeds, from their
best plants, to plant the following year. This system was highly decentralized and
characterized by a huge number of varieties and information was freely exchanged
among farmers in order to develop new varieties. Therefore, genetic information for
each crop was captured by using phenotypic traits. In such a system, the genetic
resource value is low, due to how seeds are to be replicated and exchanged. As
previously mentioned, modern breeding was born following the discovery of the
Analysis of the Alternative Agriculture’s Seeds Market… 791
123
Mendel’s laws. The increased selection ability and further development of modern
agriculture led to the development of modern varieties and consequently, genetic
erosion. The increased cost of production caused the solution of this public goods
dilemma by public funding of ex situ conservation centres. Gene banks became
crucial for preventing the process of genetic erosion, and due to the fact that the
modern world agriculture was based on non-autochthonous varieties. In 1971, under
the supervision of the CGIAR (the Consultative Group for International Agricultural
Research), new international gene banks and non-governmental research centres
were created. Nowadays, at an international level, the research centres (e.g. NARCs,
IARCs and CGIAR) freely exchange genetic resources for research purposes. This
globalization led to a further increase in the value of genetic information, especially
for those countries that rely on non-indigenous crops.
Nevertheless, other genetic resources’ management methods developed in the
private sector. The technological changes simultaneously led to the emergence of
property rights and plant breeders’ rights. Created in the 1960s, they were initially
different from the patent system (BEDE 2011). They protected the material from
multiplication without payment, not the innovations themselves. At the beginning,
no information about the plant’s progenitor was provided, but the market value of
the seed was protected. ‘‘This means that any breeder could prove that their varieties
had been used in a breeding plan where a competitor now had an intellectual
protection’’ (BEDE 2011, p. 32), and it was impossible to prevent farmers from re-
sowing. Those characteristics were obviously a limitation to the level of protection
of private breeders. This problem of information distribution on one side and access
Table 1 UPOV evolution (Modified from: GRAIN 2007)
UPOV 1961/1978 UPOV 1991 Possible next UPOV
revision
Considered
species
Optional All species All species
Protected
material
Reproductive material All material. Optional for the
derived products
All material. Optional for
the derived products
Protection
lifetime
15–18 years 20–25 years 25–20 years
Use for the
selection
Always authorized Always authorized, but
absence of new protection
on derived varieties
Non-usable for 10 years.
Then usable only after
payment of royalties to
the owner
Possibility of
seed
conservation
The signatory states can
authorize, restrict or
prohibit the
conservation
The signatory states can
authorize the conservation
only after a royalty payment
or prohibit it
It depends on the breeder
authorization
Double
protection
thanks to the
patent system
Missing Only in Europe on genes but
not on varieties
Present
792 P. Barbieri, S. Bocchi
123
to information on the other side is even more notable in a system where innovation
is a cumulative and collective process (Barbieri 2012).
With the development of these new breeding techniques, the role of the states
progressively decreased, opening the path to the private industry. Additionally,
production costs increased and led to new property rules allowing for further
valorisation of plant genetic resources with the introduction of the patent system.
This expansion of the property rights reached a worldwide level by the previously
mentioned agreements known as ‘‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights’’ (TRIPs), managed by the WTO. Furthermore, the CBD created in 1992 led
to the birth of the Sovereign Right on Plant Resources. This was required by the
private breeders in order to protect their investments, as well as by the states with
high biodiversity in order to regulate the access to their resources. The reformation
in 1991 of the 1961 and 1978 UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plant) (Table 1) caused what Bertacchini (2007) calls ‘‘the Semicom-
mons systems enclosure’’ (Fig. 1). A system based on the interaction between the
private (private use of the phenotype obtained from the breeding activity) and the
public use (free access to the genetic information) was about to run out. This model
had huge repercussions on the current seed system and is a clear expression of a
mentality based on the agriculture industrial revolution.
The Seeds Markets
According to Wolfe et al. (2008), there are three main types of farms characterized
by three different market requests (Table 2):
• The global commodity producers or the large-scale farmers, who require highly
standardized and productive varieties.
Fig. 1 Scheme of the genetic resources structure. The figure on the left represents the situation before thesigning of the CBD. The exchange relationships among the stakeholders were free (solid lines) orregulated by market exchange rules (broken lines). The free exchange within the stakeholders waspossible. The figure on the right represents the systems after the emerging of the property rights. The freeexchange was substituted by access property rules (broken lines). The exchange within singlestakeholders is under regulation (modified from: Bertacchini 2007)
Analysis of the Alternative Agriculture’s Seeds Market… 793
123
• The regional producers, who provide highly variable products, interested in both
modern and old regional varieties.
• The small local farmers, who are more likely to use locally adapted varieties in
no input systems.
Considering the two primary situations, attention has to be focused on both
global and local markets.
Two main points characterize local markets and farmers (The international
commission on the future of food and agriculture 2006): first, they are essential for
the sustainability and the maintenance of diversity as a security source against
possible future natural disasters (e.g. the spread of plant diseases). Diversity is the
key aspect of any holistic approach in terms of varietal, microbial, and animal
(including human) genetic diversity. Seed diversity in such a system is the basis of
that system’s diversity (Barbieri 2012). The biodiversity conservation level also
depends on the farmers’ ability to earn sufficient revenue. Therefore, the
establishment of local direct production-consumption chains for the protection of
local agriculture is strictly linked to the safeguard of local farming, as conciliation
between tradition and innovation. Secondly, local markets are characterized as
freedom systems or systems where seed is a common property resource. The
intellectual property principles are violating this freedom when they exclude the
possibility of any other different action. In particular, free access to genetic
resources has to be guaranteed, and the farmers’ role in the collective and
cumulative breeding process recognized.
The global market needs more standardized varieties. An increase in seed
production depends on an increase in farmer demand. Nevertheless, this virtuous
process can only be achieved if the seed companies are able to provide the market
with suitable varieties and have access to information regarding the farmers’
requests. Therefore, a market investigation on farmers’ needs consisting of request
data crosschecked with the varieties released is essential. Another crucial problem is
Table 2 Different farming systems
Farming
system
Breeding
orientation
Genetic resources Selection methods Naturalness
component in
focus
Large-
scale
farmers
BFCA*,
BFOA**,
OPB***
Advanced breeding lines
and varieties
Centralized, wide
adaptation
Non chemical
approach
Regional
farmers
BFOA, OPB Advanced breeding lines
and regional varieties
Decentralizes, both wide
and local adaptation
Agroecological
approach
Local
farmers
OPB Locally adapted varieties PPB, decentralized Integrity of life
approach
* BFCA: Breeding for Conventional Agriculture; ** BFOA: Breeding for Organic Agriculture (in con-
ventional organizations); *** OPB: Organic Plant Breeding (in organic organizations); PPB: Participa-
tory Plant Breeding. (Source: Wolfe et al. 2008)
794 P. Barbieri, S. Bocchi
123
the registration process for the new varieties. The main problems in the present
legislation can be ascribed to the DUS (Distinctiveness, Uniformity and Stability)
parameters and VCU (Values of Cultivation and Use) tests, which had been
designed for industrial agriculture. Those tests have to be overcome for the
registration of any varieties to the official catalogue, which is required to get the
legal status of any plant. This registration was initiated in order to create a
transparent market (Chable et al. 2012). According to Chable et al. (2012), if the
early varietal description parameters were based on agronomic factors, DUS
parameters were grounded on yardsticks that have no agronomic value. In addition,
all the varieties have to overcome VCU testing, which are performed under high
input conditions, returning erroneous performance results for the varieties selected
for low input agriculture. If a change in the registration tests would be beneficial, a
similar thought should be applied to the breeding system. The decentralization level
of breeding is indeed lower than for the local market. Nevertheless improvements
have to be achieved in order to match the farmers needs to the breeders research.
Global seed legislation currently does not recognize or support the coexistence of
both local and global agro-production systems, which leads to the presence of a
formal and informal seed markets. (Table 3).
The formal seed supply chain is characterized by (1) the development,
evaluation, registration and release of a variety, (2) seed production and processing,
(3) seed marketing and distribution and (4) seed quality tests (Bishaw and Van
Gastel 2009). On the contrary, the informal system depends mainly on the farmers’
knowledge and on the local seed management and distribution (Bocci et al. 2009)
(Fig. 2). Lipper et al. (2010) recognized the coexistence of such systems in the same
county. According to the FAO (2009), ‘‘many country reports indicated that
informal seed systems remain a key element in the maintenance of crop diversity on
farm and can account for up to 90 % of seed movement’’. The continue presence of
Table 3 Formal and informal markets and possible exchange systems (modified from: Lipper et al.
2010)
Seed system
Formal Informal
Seed Market
Formal Certified, improved and purified seed,
sold by authorized sellers
Sales of seed conserved by farmers, where the
selling of informal seed is allowed or where
the legislation is not respected and the public
authorities recognize the presence of such an
informal market.
Informal Sales of certified seed outside the
formal markets
Sales of non-certified seed that is not explicitly
recognized as a product. The distinction
between seed and grain may not be explicit.
Non-
regulated
exchanges
Theoretically, this does not take place,
since certified seed is produced only
for selling
Purchasing of seeds towards external market
sources, like the use of own conserved seed.
Analysis of the Alternative Agriculture’s Seeds Market… 795
123
these two systems suggests that all of the policies created to develop an efficient
private sector ended up creating some market failures (BEDE 2011). Furthermore, it
is possible to identify cases in which the informal system takes on a particular
importance. For instance, this happens when (1) farmers need varieties with specific
qualities such as being specifically adapted to certain local conditions, (2) formal
systems are inefficient or expensive (BEDE 2011), (3) informal production can
assure an acceptable seed quality (Louwaars 2007) or (4) access to improved seed is
difficult (Lipper et al. 2010). The recognition and promotion of informal supply
systems are nowadays considered important for a sustainable use of plant genetic
resources. The special rapporteur on the right to food of the United Nations stressed
in a report published in 2009 the importance of farmers’ seed systems and claimed
reforming seed regulations is one of the measures that states could adopt in order to
ensure that traditional knowledge is kept alive (De Schutter 2009).
Discussion
The current legislation ruling the seed markets appears to be unable to guarantee the
use of genetic resources by both the public and private sectors. Therefore, the
reestablishment of a semicommon system, defined as a mix of common and private
rights having equal significance and being able to interact (Smith 2000), is
necessary. Specifically, this interaction consists in free access to genetic information
contained in seeds, while allowing a private appropriation of benefits derived from
the use of germplasm devoted to crop improvements. This may result in opening
new possibilities for the future of seed and agriculture by simplifying access to the
germplasm for all the stakeholders, including both public and private research. This
is one of the main aims of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) promoted by FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization). This treaty recognizes the value of genetic resources and creates an
international regime for germplasm transfer and development. The system
introduced is based not on a remuneration for the farmers’ genetic material
Fig. 2 Formal (above) andinformal (below) seed systemsand their relationship (modifiedfrom: (BEDE 2011)
796 P. Barbieri, S. Bocchi
123
utilization, but rather on a conservative approach, guaranteeing the farmers rights to
preserve agro-biodiversity (Bertacchini 2007) (Fig. 3) as the fundamental basis for
the genetic resources system sustainability. In the 1992 Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) farmers’ rights had already been introduced in order to recognize
farmers’ role in creating and domesticating varieties, and building sources of
genetic diversity. Nevertheless, until now, there has not been any clear legal
expression of such rights (Das 2011). Therefore, the FAO ITPGRFA takes on
additional importance in protecting the farmers’ rights. This treaty should be taken
into account in the new regulation proposed by the European Council. As suggested
by ‘Rete Semi Rurali’ (2013), the new procedure should promote a sustainable use
of agricultural biodiversity and protect farmers’ rights. Additionally, it should
guarantee an eased access to genetic resources for research purposes (Articles 5, 6
and 9 of the FAO Treaty).
The expected extension of the patents system and the UPOV’s Plant Variety
Rights regime risks undermining the small local scale production systems both in
Europe and in developing countries (Das 2011). Regarding this aspect, the
‘conservation varieties’ directive (98/95/CE), approved in 1998, represents an
important step forward in the protection of small scale agriculture by establishing a
partial exception to the DUS parameters and to the formal certification tests, as well
as decreasing the certification costs. The directive was revised and reapproved in
2008, and, according to Bocci (2009) and Rete Semi Rurali (2013), can be
considered as the start of a new path to link seed production to the local level,
opening towards decentralized agricultural models. It has four main aims: (1)
conserve the plant genetic resources, (2) allow the reproduction of such varieties in
their place of diversification or origin, (3) establish a traceability system to prevent
Fig. 3 Scheme of the reopening of the semicommons system by the FAO ITPGRFA, where the exchangerelationships among the stakeholders are free (full lines) or regulated by market exchange (shaded lines)or by liability rules (dotted line). The free exchange within the states and the ‘traditional’ agriculture isalso possible (Modified from: Bertacchini 2007)
Analysis of the Alternative Agriculture’s Seeds Market… 797
123
abuses, (4) establish exceptions on the DUS criteria. Additionally, such a directive
should also guarantee the certification of varieties produced by PPB (Participatory
Plant Breeding) methods that are not consistent with the DUS parameters, varieties
that are used as source of genetic material, and varieties that are not bound with any
specific geographical area (Bocci 2009). Regarding the VCU tests, the evaluation of
uniformity for registration should be adapted to the type of variety. Additionally, the
VCU tests should be voluntary and used as a way to inform farmers about which
kind of variety they are buying (Rete Semi Rurali 2013). Furthermore, future
legislation should take into consideration the ethical principles of so-called
biodiversity elaborated from the CGIAR principles. In particular, the following
should be taken into account: (1) strengthen the link between people and
biodiversity and ensure continuous access to biodiversity resources; (2) recognize
farmers’ rights and traditional resource rights of local communities; (3) practice fair
exchanges and safe movements of germplasm; (4) encourage active participation of
partners in research and conservation; (5) give due recognition to all the actors
(Engels et al. 2011).
The third problem is the recognition of the presence of the local and the global
markets, with their different needs and prospective. In particular, no actions have
been undertaken to allow alternative certification methods such as the Participatory
Guarantee Systems (PGS). Such a certification, defined by IFOAM as a system
focused on assuring quality by certifying the producers towards a methods based on
the stakeholders active participation, would be able to support the local sector
(IFOAM 2008). Furthermore, it is built on reliance, on the social network, and on
knowledge sharing. This system could be applicable to Salvatore Basile’s idea of
bio-districts or, more in general, to agricultural districts. Bio-districts are geographic
areas where farmers, citizens, the tourism industry, associations and public
administrations sign an agreement for a sustainable resources management. These
agreements should start from the organic agricultural model and a short food chain
(Basile 2011). In this way, it could be possible to control the informal seed market.
This is particularly important for the spread of local adapted varieties in case of: (1)
an expensive formal system, (2) high quality informal seed production (Lounwaars
2007) or (3) difficult access to formal markets (Lipper et al. 2010). The use of such
models in addition to participatory breeding methods (PPB—participatory plant
breeding, PVS—participative variety selection) and the use of cross composite
populations (CCP) developed by Salvatore Ceccarelli, could allow developing local
seed enterprises to fulfill the needs of the local system. Such systems are not suitable
for the global market. PPB is in reality a very flexible tool because it refers to a set
of methodologies characterized by different interaction levels between farmers and
researchers. It shifts between the complete participative methods (PPB) and the
participatory varietal selection (PVS), where farmers interact only in the final
evaluation stage (Morris and Bellon 2004). A good model for global seed
production could be efficient participatory breeding, where farmers and researchers
collaborate with germplasm source selection and in the final evaluation (Morris and
Bellon 2004).
Regarding the previously mentioned certification problems, DUS and VCU
parameter should be modified for local agricultural seed production to allow the
798 P. Barbieri, S. Bocchi
123
continuation of research in low input environments and consider important
parameters. For instance, in the organic revision report (Micheloni et al. 2007),
specific parameters for organic agriculture had been identified, and some countries
(Holland, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, and Latvia) had already introduced
specific VCU tests at experimental level (Belicja and Bleidere 2005). Similar advice
is offered in the final policy recommendations document edited at the end of the
SOLIBAM (Strategies for Organic and Low-input integrated Breeding and
Management), a European collaborative project run from 2010 to 2014. As
reported by SOLIBAM, the VCU parameters are nowadays an obstacle for
alternative agriculture. Therefore, the VCU tests should be an optional choice for
companies and, as suggested before, organic VCU test should be in place
(SOLIBAM 2014). Additionally, all the previously mentioned issues were not
recognized by the last European seed legislation proposed by the European
Commission. This proposal was rejected on March the 11th, 2014 by the European
Parliament, pursuant to strong opposition from the public, as the Agriculture
Committee chair Paolo De Castro confirmed by declaring that ‘‘it is clear that the
draft new rules must be redesigned to better respect different situations in different
member states and bring about real improvements for all producers, consumers and
the environment’’ (Euro-parliament website). With the new legislation period, the
EU seed regulation will be renegotiated. Therefore, it is essential that the issues
discussed above be taken into account. Possibly, a new path was set up in the last
meeting with the new agricultural commissioner on January the 30th 2015. Two
scenarios are possible: the reform of the seed legislation will be abandoned or, a
completely new proposal will be prepared, based on a new investigative study on
the sector.
Conclusion
It is still difficult to assess the full implications of declaring genetic resources as not
a global public good, due to the little time that has passed. Nevertheless, according
to the outlined problems, genetic resource use has to be reviewed by starting an
innovation process and reinstituting a semi-commons system. Additionally,
governments and decision-making bodies should consider all the ethical issues
related to the collection and use of agro-biodiversity, and should make them an
integral component of new legislative decisions (Engels 2011).
In Europe, the legislation for the conservation varieties may be a starting point.
New DUS and VCU tests have to be established for sustainable agriculture, for both
the local and industrial farming systems. In this process, all the different
stakeholders, researchers, breeders, retailers and farmers, have to be legally
recognized. Furthermore, future specific research projects based on holistic and
systemic research models have to be developed. All those stakeholders have to be
included in innovation research platforms. The research, collection, and use of
biodiversity and seed should be legislated by addressing ethical considerations, even
if this complicates the legal access to genetic resources. Governments and
legislators should be likely to consider whether certain ethical principles should
Analysis of the Alternative Agriculture’s Seeds Market… 799
123
represent a precondition of agreements regarding access to and exchange of
germplasm, although bureaucracy should be kept at a minimum to promote
efficiency.
References
Barbieri, P. (2012). Analisi di settore relativa alle sementi biologiche. Universita degli Studi di Milano –
Unpublished Bachelor Thesis.
Barlow, J., Ewers, R. M., Anderson, L., Aragao, L. E. O., Baker, T. R., Boyd, E., et al. (2011). Using
learning networks to understand complex systems a case study of biological, geophysical and social
research in the Amazon. Biological Reviews, 86, 457–474.
Basile, S. (2011). Linee guida ai Bio-Distretti. Bioagricoltura, 130, 10–11.
BEDE (2011). Seed’s and farmers rights. (Ed.), By Robert Ali Brac de la Perriere and Guy Kastler.
Belicka, I., Bleidere, M. (2005). Variety testing for organic farming: Current status and problems in
Europe. Environmental friendly food production: Requirements for plant breeding and seed
production - compendium May 31–June 3 2005. Talsi: Organic Eprints.
Bertacchini, E. (2007). Biotechnologies, seeds and semicommons. http://ssrn.com/abstract=960747.
Accessed March 23, 2014.
Bishaw, Z., & Van Gastel J. G. (2009). Variety release and policy options. In S. Ceccarelli,
E. P. Guimaraes & E. Weltzien (Eds.), Plant Breeding and Farmers participation (pp. 565–588).
Rome: FAO.
Bocci, R. (2009). Seed legislation and agrobiodiversity: Conservation varieties. Journal of agriculture
and environment for international development, 103(1/2), 31–49.
Bocci, R., Chables, V., Kastler, G., Louwaars, N. (2009). Set of recommendations on farm conservation
strategy, the role of innovative market mechanisms, legislative framework for landraces,
conservation varieties and amateur varieties in Europe. Farm seed opportunities. http://www.
farmseed.net. Accessed June 3, 2014.
Chable, V., Louwaars, N., Hubbard, K., Baker, B., & Bocci, R. (2012). Plant breeding, variety release,
and seed commercialization: laws and policies applied to the organic sector. In E. T. L. van Bueren
& J. R. Myers (Eds.), Organic crop breeding (pp. 139–159). Hoboken, NY, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Das, S. (2011). Seeds and trees: An insight into agriculture, biotechnology and intellectual property
rights. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(3), 205–211.
Directive 2008/62/CE
Directive 2009/145/CE
Engels, J. M., Dempewolf, H., & Henson-Apollonio, V. (2011). Ethical considerations in agro-
biodiversity research, collecting, and use. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(2),
107–126.
GRAIN (2007). The end of farm-saved seed? Industry’s wish list for the next revision of UPOV. GRAIN
publication. http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=202. Accessed November 11, 2014.
Gulati, C. (2001). Tragedy of the Commons in Plant Genetic Resources: The Need for a New
International Regime Centered around an International Biotechnology Patent Office. The Yale
Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 4, 63.
Helfer, L. R. (2005). ‘Using Intellectual Property Rights to Preserve the Global Genetic Commons: The
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. In Jerome H. Reichman
& Keith Maskus (Eds.), International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized
Intellectual Property Regime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herdt, R.W. (1999). Enclosing the global plant genetic commons. In Conference Paper, 99-105.
IFOAM (2004). Challenges and opportunities from the organic agriculture and seed industry. First world
conference on organic seed—Report. FAO, Rome.
IFOAM (2008). Policy brief: How governments can support participatory guarantee system (PGS). http://
www.ifoam.org/sites/default/files/page/files/policybrief-howgovernmentscansupportpgs_0.pdf.
Accessed on November 12, 2014.
Lipper, L., Anderson, C. L., & Dalton, T. J. (2010). Seed trade in rural markets: Implications for crop
diversity and agricultural development. New York: Earthscan.
800 P. Barbieri, S. Bocchi
123
Lotti, A. (2010). The commoditization of products and taste: Slow food and the conservation of
agrobiodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values, 27(1), 71–83.
Louwaars, N. (2007). Seed of confusion: The impact of policies on seed systems. Wageningen, The
Netherlands. http://www.wageningenur.nl/nl/Publicatie-details.htm?publicationId=publication-way-
333538333139. Accessed November 12, 2014.
Micheloni, C., Plakolm, G., Deleuran, L.C., Rovignoni, R., Cannavacciulo, A., Lammerts van Bueren, E.,
Fromm, E. (2007). Research to support the revision of the EU Regulation on organic agriculture;
deliverable 5.2: Report on quality characteristics of varieties to be used in organic farming. Organic
Revision Report. http://orgprints.org/11032/1/11032. Accessed November 11, 2014.
Morris, M. L., & Bellon, M. R. (2004). Participatory plant breeding research: Opportunities and
challenges for the international crop improvements system. Euphytica, 36, 21–35.
Morris, M. L., Edmeades, G., & Pehu, E. (2006). The global need for plant breeding capacity: What roles
for the public and private sectors? Hort Science, 41(1), 30–39.
Oliver De Schutter (2009). Seed policies and the right to food: Enhancing agrobiodiversity and
encouraging innovation. Report presented to the UN General Assembly (64th session) (UN doc.
A/64/170). http://www.srfood.org/en/official-reports. Accessed on January 13, 2015.
Pautasso, M., Aistara, G., Barnaud, A., Caillon, S., Clouvel, P., Coomes, O. T., et al. (2013). Seed
exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 33, 151–175.
Rete Semi Rurali (2013). The Rete Semi Rurali’s (Rural Seed Network) stance on the new regulations
proposed by the European Commission on the marketing of plant propagation material, plant health
standards and control management. www.semirurali.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=233.
Accessed November 11, 2014.
Smith, H. E. (2000). Semicommon Property Rights and Scattering in the Open Fields. Journal of Legal
Studies, 29(1), 131–169.
SOLIBAM, (2014). D8.7. Policy recommendations for legal aspects of seed certification and protection
PBR and FR. http://www.solibam.eu/modules/wfdownloads/viewcat.php?cid=14. Accessed on
February 06, 2015.
The international commission on the future of food and agriculture. (2006). Manifesto on the future of
seeds. Sesto Fiorentino (FI): Press Service Srl.
Van Treuren, R., Bijlsma, R., Van Delden, W., & Ouborgi, N. J. (1991). The significance of genetic
erosion in the process of extinction. I. Genetic differentiation in Salvia pratensis and Scabiosa
columbaria in relation to population size. Heredity, 66, 189–191.
Wolfe, M. S., Barasel, J. P., Desclaux, D., Goldringer, I., Hoad, S., Kovacs, G., et al. (2008).
Developments in breeding cereals for organic agriculture. Euphytica, 163, 323–346.
Analysis of the Alternative Agriculture’s Seeds Market… 801
123