! The Sustainable Use of Agrobiodiversity in Italy
Report on case studies on article 6 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Riccardo Bocci and Tiberio Chiari (eds.)
Istituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare www.iao.florence.it The Istituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare (IAO) is a branch of the Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MAE). Applied research, training, technical assistance and consulting take place in the framework of its specific mandate. Since 1998, the IAO’s operating strategy has been to support interconnected themes: information on land cover change, conservation of biodiversity, food security in the wider context of ! sustainable development and the struggle against poverty. In these areas, the Institute has fostered studies and research and has developed methodologies, interpreting its role in accordance with the international agreements signed by Italy, and thus in harmony with the UN Convention on Biodiversity and Desertification, the Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Agriculture and Food and the Declaration on the Millennium Development Goals. The IAO is a centre of excellence for training and geo‐information technologies; it provides support and consultation services to the MAE, technical assistance to developing countries and countries in transition towards sustainable development, capacity development, poverty reduction, food security and natural resource management. It also undertakes development‐oriented research. Table of Contents
Contributors 3 Introduction 4 Between sustainable use and Farmers’ Rights 5 Italy and the Treaty 6 L’Italia agricola 8 Agrobiodiversity in Italy 9 Bibliography 10 The National Plan for Agrobiodiversity 11 Introduction 11 The state of the art 11 The National Plan 12 Conclusions 15 Bibliography 15
Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties 17 Introduction 17 Objectives and tools of the regional laws 17 Synergies with Article 6 of the FAO Treaty 20 Unresolved issues and future development 21 Bibliography 25
The implementation of the directive on conservation varieties 27 Introduction 27 The implementation in Italy 29 Synergies with the Treaty 31 Conclusions 32 Bibliography 33
Research and innovation initiatives in support of the seed plan 35 Introduction 35 PRIS2 – agricultural biodiversity 36 PRIS2 and the sustainable use of agricultural genetic resources 37 Conclusions 38 Bibliography 39 Incentives for agrobiodiversity: the implementation of Rural Development Plans 40 Introduction 40 The RDPs in Italy 40 RDPs in relation to Article 6 of the Treaty 45 Conclusions 46 Bibliography 46
White Sperlonga Celery – a new local variety 48
1 Introduction 48 How the variety developed 48 Seed production 49 Between Conservation and Valorization 50 Conclusions 52 Bibliography 53
Marano Vicentino a corn variety in Veneto: the importance of being famous! 54 Introduction 54 This history of Marano 55 The protection consortium 57 The battle for the name ‐ nomina nuda tenemus 58 Conclusions 60 Bibliography 61
The “Quarantina white” in Liguria: a potato as a key to rural development 62 Introduction 62 Rediscovering the Quarantina potato 63 Revitalisation of a local system 64 The Quarantina as an example of sustainable use of plant genetic resources 67 Conclusions 67 Bibliography 68 Synergies between Natural Parks and agrobiodiversity: the example of the Abruzzo 69 Introduction 69 The evolution followed by ARSSA 70 Agricultural biodiversity and natural reserves 71 Conclusions 73 Bibliography 73
Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Toscana 75 Introduction 75 The collective forms of direct sale in Italy 76 The situation in the Tuscany Region 77 The exploratory survey of a number of interesting cases 79 Direct selling as a means of promoting the sustainable use of plant genetic resources pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty 83 Institutional criticality and support to direct sale 83 Bibliography 84
Annex 87 Regional Draft Bill Proposal 88 List of varieties included in the RDPs of Italian Regions 92 List of local races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions 98
2 Contributors Riccardo Bocci (editor) [email protected] MSc in Agriculture, University of Florence. He is AIAB’S co‐ordinator for the VIFP project “Farm Seed Opportunities”, and an advisor at the Istituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare for issues related to the ITPGRFA, and for the promotion of on‐farm biodiversity conservation in southern countries. He is also the co‐ordinator of the Italian farmers’ seed network “Rete Semi Rurali” and he has been a consultant of the Italian Ministry of Agriculture and the NGO Fondazione dei Diritti Genetici on the impact of GMOs in agriculture. Tiberio Chiari (editor) chiari@iao.florence.it MSc in Tropical Agriculture. Since 1985 he is employed at Istituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare. Present main area of activity is the management of development cooperation projects in the agriculture sector, and particularly for the improvement of capacity of national agricultural research systems (NARS) on plant breeding of field crops, improvement of seed production, and conservation of agrobiodiversity. In partnership with FAO, he has been coordinator of several post‐graduate short term training course for African participants, dealing with food security issues and the exploitation of plant genetic resources for improved yield. His abroad experience comprises several African and South American countries. Enrico Bertacchini [email protected] Ph.D, he is a researcher at the Department of Economics “Cognetti de Martiis” at the University of Torino and a fellow of the EBLA Center and NEXA Center for Internet and Society. His main research interests refer to particular legal and economic issues concerning intellectual property rights and knowledge sharing, with a particular focus to agriculture, biotechnologies, traditional knowledge and genetic resources. He has recently published in Ecological Economics an article deepening the analogy between farmers’ seeds systems and open source innovation. Lorenzo Melozzi [email protected] M.Sc. in Tropical and subtropical Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florence. He has more than eight years of experience in International Cooperation, he has worked in some projects with African and South‐American countries related to agricultural development, and biodiversity conservation, he has collaborated with some institutions such Australia Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and International NGOs. At present he collaborates with Istituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare on the project “Conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources of species of agrofood and industrial interest ‐ Biodiversity Program Brazil‐Italy”. Diego Naziri [email protected] M.Sc. in Agricultural Sciences, Ph.D. in Sustainable Development and International Cooperation. Six years of research experience on Tropical and Sub‐Tropical agrifood systems in Latin America, Africa and Asia working for relevant institutions such as University of Turin, Interuniversity Research Centre on Sustainable Development, Istituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement. He has conducted applied socio‐ economic research in the agri‐food and rural development sectors, including market research, adoption and impact studies and value chain analysis for a variety of agro‐food products (wheat, cocoa, vegetables and fisheries). Maria Francesca Nonne [email protected] M.Sc. in Forestry Sciences, Postgraduate Specialization in Integrated planning for rural development and environmental management. Ten years of experience on food sovereignty, agricultural development, food chain, conservation and management of natural and agrobiodiversity in Italy, Europe, Mexico and Brazil. She has collaborated with some relevant institution such as University of Florence, Istituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare, FAO, Sardinian Region, and NGOs such as Centro Internazionale Crocevia, Global Exchange and Action Aid. She is working for the association “Rete Semi Rurali”.
3 Introduction
Introduction and maintenance of diverse farming One of the major key components of the systems that enhance the sustainable use International Treaty on Plant Genetic of agricultural biological diversity and other Resources for Food and Agriculture natural resources; (ITPGRFA) is the sustainable use of these (b) Strengthening research which resources as specified in Art. 6. This article enhances and conserves biological diversity is different from other Treaty components. by maximizing intra‐ and inter‐specific It applies to all the resources and it is not variation for the benefit of farmers, limited to those explicitly listed in the especially those who generate and use Annex I. All the Contracting Parties (CP) their own varieties and apply ecological must implement it, without the limits principles in maintaining soil fertility and in imposed by national laws, as it is stated in combating diseases, weeds and pests; the case of article 9 (Farmers’ Rights) or in (c) Promoting, as appropriate, plant the “Conservation”, where the article 5.1 breeding efforts which, with the says explicitly “subject to national participation of farmers, particularly in legislation”. developing countries, strengthen the Article 6 rules over key areas described in capacity to develop varieties particularly the “Global Plan of Action” (GPA) for the adapted to social, economic and ecological Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant conditions, including in marginal areas; Genetic Resources for Food And (d) Broadening the genetic base of crops Agriculture (PGFRA) adopted during the and increasing the range of genetic International Technical Conference on diversity available to farmers; Plant Genetic Resources in Leipzig 1996. (e) Promoting, as appropriate, the In particular, article 6.1 mandates the expanded use of local and locally adapted implementation steps followed by the crops, varieties and underutilized species; accepting parties: (f) Supporting, as appropriate, the wider “The Contracting Parties shall use of diversity of varieties and species in develop and maintain appropriate on‐farm management, conservation and policy and legal measures that sustainable use of crops and creating promote sustainable use of plant strong links to plant breeding and genetic resources for food and agricultural development in order to agriculture”. reduce crop vulnerability and genetic The remaining provisions expressed by the erosion, and promote increased world food article point out few of the possible production compatible with sustainable measures each countries can undertake in development; and order to promote the sustainable use of (g) Reviewing, and, as appropriate, the PGFRA. Nevertheless the measures adjusting breeding strategies and considered are only for illustrative purpose regulations concerning variety release and and shall not limit the countries to take seed distribution. other measures for the implementation of The importance of Article 6 within the this article, following the requirements Treaty has been stressed in 2007 during the detailed in the broader GPA. The second meeting of the Governing Body framework described in the Treaty (GB) in Rome. After the review of the comprises the following actions: documents brought forward for discussion, (a) Pursuing fair agricultural policies that a statement has been made: “article 6 promote, as appropriate, the development should continue to be a component of its
4 Introduction
Programme Work and a standing item on (g) supporting agricultural systems its agenda”. In particular the point 72 of maintaining genetic resources in a the Report of the Second Session of the GB sustainable way and promoting laws in points out the importance of having in the favour of plant breeding. third meeting a general picture of the In our analysis, the possibility of promoting implementation of this article and to this diversified agricultural systems (art 6.2a) is purpose: “[…] invited submissions from bound also to a seeds system that is Contracting Parties, other governments different from that currently in place. In and relevant institutions and particular, farmers’ role should be organizations”. broadened and the exchange, reuse and In this framework the Istituto Agronomico sell of the seed material in the farm should dell'Oltremare (IAO ‐ www.iao.florence.it), be permitted. Moreover, the seeds technical branch of the Italian Ministry of exchange, reuse and sell from the farmers Foreign Affairs, has started a study of the can play an important role in the Italian situation, making use of the best experimentation of new varieties outside and most interesting cases in sustainable from the commercial seed system. In doing use of the PGRFA. This report is the result so, this is fully consistent with the aim of of the research collecting the several cases. reviewing and adapting the norms on the variety release and breeding strategies. Between sustainable use and Farmers’ Article 9.2(a) concerning the protection Rights and sharing of traditional knowledge can The case studies presented in the Report be related to article 6.2 (e) promoting the show different way to implement the use of local varieties and underutilised sustainable use of the PGRFA. Throughout species. In the case study presented by the analysis, we have seen how little is the Enrico Bertacchini in the next pages, the boundary separating article 6 from article 9 regional Italian experiences on the of the Treaty and the whole idea of the preservation of local species expressly sustainable use from that of Farmers' make use of the recovery and preservation rights (FRs). For instance, many actions of traditional knowledge in addition to taken within article 6 have effects similar to their protection. As pointed out by Regine the ones defined in the article 9. Andersen (2008) the major problem in the This fact is not irrelevant. FRs have usually most industrialized countries lies not in the been a hot topic during negotiations both “misappropriation” of traditional at national level and international, while knowledge but in its recovery and sustainable use has not these limitations, valorisation. so it is supposed to be easier to be Article 9.2 (b) concerning benefit sharing implemented by the CP. measures is quite broad and its potential In order to better understand the possible implementation depends on the definition connections between these two articles we of benefit sharing. If the main driving logic tried to analyse them within the Italian case is the pursue of economic benefits the risk studies. becomes to introduce a subsidising Article 9.3 is one of the most controversial, mechanism to local varieties conservation, where the farmers’ rights to exchange use as it emerged in the European experience. and sell the propagation material are At the contrary, introducing as non‐ subject to national legislation. This article economic benefit, the sustainable use of has close links with the articles 6.2 (a) and agricultural biodiversity ‐ and all the
5 Introduction
measures to be adopted to implement it ‐ sharing) and maintaining a general becomes in itself a mean of benefit sharing. understanding of its aims during the In particular, the promotion of implementation. In fact a proper Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) implementation of the Treaty requires a strategies to help farmers to fulfil their complex and integrated system involving needs, facilitating them in accessing the several actors and requiring a balanced genetic resources and broadening the workload amongst all the components. range of available species all they are actions aiming to bring compensation in Italy and the Treaty farmers' favour. For this reason article 9.2 In Italy, the implementation of the Treaty is (b) can be considered close to articles 6,2 demanded to four different institutions: (b) (d) concerned about research Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of promotion, Participatory Plant Breeding Agricultural, Food and Forest Policies and farmers’ access to the genetic (MiPAAF), Environment Ministry and resources. Regional authorities. The latter authorities, according to the law 101 (2004), have the The report shows another important duty to implement the Treaty articles 5, 6, aspect during the development of instruments geared toward a sustainable 9, 11 and 12. The role of the MiPAAF is to use of the PGRFA: the relationships with report at an international level about the Treaty implementation status and to the market and the strategies for the monitor the regional offices actions. valorisation of the produce. Indeed, all the illustrated cases link conservation, use and During the three years 2004‐2006, the valorization with a particular attention to Government has provided the MiPAAF with the linkages between varieties and culture 1.172 MiEur to conduct national actions and to the creation of new kind of market across all over the country giving priority to more suitable to this specific produce. The ex situ conservation. The project “Risorse reference in this case is directly to the Genetiche Vegetali/FAO” (RGV/FAO) has Global Plan of Action and to his section “14. received funds and this has produced Developing new markets for local varieties works in the ex situ conservation, and diversity rich products”, within the cataloguing and characterization of the priority activity “Utilization of Plant Genetic Italian agricultural biodiversity (not limited Resources” (see next box). to the species listed in the Annex 1) through collaboration with research This action is not explicitly listed in the centres belongings to the MiPAAF and the article 6 of the Treaty, but is the cornerstone to the sustainable use of the Ministry of Universities and Research (MiUR). During the period 2007‐2009, the PGRFA. In fact, besides acknowledging the MiPAAF has extended the original project market potential for local varieties or agricultural biodiversity products, it points scope to include activities of the so‐called out the important role of the public informal sector and to start dissemination to the whole society. Doing so, the opinion, including schools, about how they association “Rete Semi Rurali” has been perceive the agricultural biodiversity. involved into the RGV/FAO project in order In this spirit the Report has to be read, to provide information, dissemination and without separation between the different training about the Treaty objectives and Treaty components (Conservation, consolidate the informal conservation Sustainable use, Farmers' rights, system adopted by farmers and Multilateral access system and Benefit associations across different territories in
6 Introduction
BOX 1 Global Plan of Action Priority activities Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources 14. Developing new markets for local varieties and “diversity‐ rich” products 208. Assessment: Increasingly, diversity is being replaced by uniformity in the agricultural market place. Changes in traditional cultures and in consumer preferences are one explanation. Concentration on productivity, the effects of advertising and the rise of global consumer markets leading to stringent requirements being imposed on farmers and the inadvertent disincentives arising from legislation, policies, programmes and other institutional activities offer additional explanations. Farmers worldwide are losing once strong incentives to provide an array of varieties. Both in developed and developing countries, economic and social incentives could be offered to encourage farmers who continue to grow distinct, local varieties and produce “diversity‐rich” agricultural products. 209. A programme to assist in the creation of specialized niche markets for biodiverse food crops could act as a positive stimulus to farmers to grow landraces/farmers’ varieties, obsolete varieties, and other under‐utilized food crops. Such a program should include the identification and removal of systemic institutional barriers and disincentives to biodiversity conservation and production/marketing 210. Long‐term objectives: Stimulate stronger demand and more reliable market mechanisms for landraces/farmers’ varieties and related agricultural products. 211. Intermediate objectives: To encourage farm suppliers, food processors, food distributors, and retail outlets to support the creation of niche markets for diverse foods, varieties and products. 212. Policy/strategy: Governments should consider, and as appropriate, adopt policies in extension, training, pricing, input distribution, infrastructure development, credit and taxation which serve as incentives for crop diversification and the creation of markets for biodiverse food crops, including standards for labeling of foods which allow the highlighting of use of non‐standard crop varieties. Consideration should be given to developing appropriate niche variety registration systems to permit and promote the perpetuation, trial, evaluation and commercial distribution of local, obsolete varieties and to monitoring regulations enacted for other purposes to ensure that they do not inadvertently lead to the extinction of varieties. 213. As feasible and appropriate, institutions should be encouraged to purchase “diversity‐ rich” foods for internal use. 214. Capacity: Processes and activities which have or are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity should be identified and their effects on crop diversification monitored. 215. Appropriate bodies, including NGOs, should promote public awareness in various media and through appropriate mechanisms, such as street fairs, initiatives in schools, etc. 216. Coordination/administration: National and local level coordination and administration should be most effective. 217. This activity is closely linked with: ■ Supporting on‐farm management and improvement of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture ■ Promoting public awareness of the value of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
7 Introduction
the country. At present about 30,000 The landscape of the country is showing accessions have been recorder across the sign of a scattered system that during the different public gene banks and it is years has not had the opportunity or the planned to make them available through willing to modernise itself like other the multilateral Treaty system soon. countries did with the aid from the Italy is one of the main contributors to the European grants provided by the Common Treaty having provided founds at 1,048,000 Agricultural Policy. €/year since 2005: this sum is about the 65% Analysing the economical dimension of the of the overall founds provided from all the Italian agriculture, the sector presents two industrialised nations. strong poles. On one hand, there are farms technically described as “enterprises” and 1 L’Italia agricola in the other hand there is still the presence Analysing the statistical data about Italian of companies not defined, as in European farming system, one has the impression terms, as “enterprise”. From the 2000 data the country holds a position in between emerges that 82.8% of the farms has an tradition and modernity where the farming economical dimension smaller than 8 activity, despite having a marginal residual European Dimension Unites (UDE) and the importance, still conserves its importance 55% is smaller than 2 UDE. Farms larger for a wide portion of the population. than 16 UDE, threshold above which the Despite in the last few years the number of farms are “enterprises” market oriented, farming workers have fallen below one represent only the 9.5% of the total million units, Italy still holds firmly the third (Nomisma, 2008). place in Europe after Romania and Poland. An interesting fact to better understand The head count of employees in the farms Italian farming system is the workers’ working in the whole food sector, still give average age: according to the 2005 Italy a firm third place after Romania and Eurostat data, in Italy only the 3.5% of the Poland. It is interesting to stress that Italian workers is younger than 35 years against agriculture is dominated by mainly small an European average of 6.9% and the firms: small farms with less than 10 number of farmers older than 64 years is hectares represent the 85% of the total. 41.4%. The generational turnover index for Farms with more than 50 hectares Italy is the lowest across all the European represent only the 2.2% of the total in countries except Portugal (Nomisma, numerical terms and sum up to only 5.6% of 2008). After an in deep analysis of the the overall Utilized Arable Land (UAA). In generations groups in relation to the farms fact, the average size for a farm is sensibly sizes, it emerges the largest group of older smaller than the ones in the EU area and in people work for the smaller farms wit less line with the newly incorporated eastern than 8 UDE. countries. This means in Italy the average From data analysis carried over the high size f is 7.4 hectares, in France that is seven quality productions and over the folds (48.6 hectares) and in United geographical indications (PDO, PGI and Kingdom nearly eight times largest (55.6 STG) the landscape changes dramatically. hectares) (Nomisma, 2008). Italy has become a powerhouse in Europe with 175 certified productions in 2008
1 L’Italia Agricola [Italy and its agricultural sector] was the title of one the most important agricultural weekly newspaper during the ’50.
8 Introduction
representing the 21% of the European total Resources for Food and Agriculture. followed by France with 160 and Spain with Furthermore, it presents them as possible 121. The market for these products is ways of implementing this article in a growing fast and in the last three years has northern and industrialized country. recorded expansion in both production and turnover (Rosati and Verrini, 2009). Geographical indications are a strong link “In Italy, the high percentage of land between the underlying territory, the under cultivation is striking … [For this culture and agriculture and their presence reason,] knowledge of Italy and its Island in Italy is a demonstration to the is of fundamental importance to any importance of this link as driving factor in under standing of Mediterranean culture the economical agricultural development [and agriculture]. A considerable portion still in these days. of [Italy’s] mountainous areas are In summary, the general situation is one of covered with plantations tress planted in an agricultural sector balanced between straight rows for fruit, nut or timber production whose trunks are entine by tradition and modernization where in every grapevines, and those interspaces day life farmers are trying to find new between rows are seeded with wheat, solutions in order to operate in the sector. fava beans, barley or other It is also important to stress, as some case crops.” (Vavilov, 1997) studies will point out, that the largest portion of the agro biodiversity and the traditional knowledge associated is usually The different case studies point out the preserved by the group of farms not listed unique role that agrobiodiversity has as “enterprises” (<8UdE) and managed by played and still plays in shaping farming people older than 65 years. For this reason, systems, agricultural landscape and food it is of paramount importance to adopt habits in the Italian peninsula. It is policies to tackle these structural worthwhile to point out that, even if Italy weaknesses by avoiding loss of know‐how has changed since Vavilov’s time, and seeds due to generation gaps and to agrobiodiversity is still cultivated and has a promote economical, social and cultural growing role in the national and regional conditions where these farms can continue policies on rural development. to operate. In fact, the global market is not The first part of the report deals with the within the reach for these farmers that, different policies and plans, set up by without the much‐needed protections, are institutional bodies within the conservation doomed to disappear with their particular and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity. knowledge and seeds. “Living the fate of Italy has been the first European country soil and people to the market would be having a specific law on conservation tantamount to annihilating them” (Polanyi, varieties; in this report particularly 1957). attention is paid to describe the negotiation process and how this law Agrobiodiversity in Italy relates with the European directive on This report focuses on sustainable use of conservation varieties (62/2008/CE). This plant genetic resources in Italy. It aims at law has been conceived as a national analysing a number of case studies, ranging harmonization of the existing regional laws from the institutions to the civil society, on promotion and conservation of local falling within the framework of article 6 of varieties and breeds. For instance, six the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
9 Introduction
regions have already established specific areas mixing past and present, re‐using rules on agrobiodiversity that can be agrobiodiversity for new challenges and considered one of the most interesting needs. examples of providing a legal framework for the conservation of local genetic Bibliography resources in Northern countries. The links Nabhan G.P., 2008. Where Our Food Comes of these regional laws with the Rural From: Retracing Nikolay Vavilov's development plans of the European Union Quest to End Famine, Shearwater are examined in order to show their Nomisma, 2009. XI Rapporto Nomisma synergies. suill'Agricoltura Italiana, Il Sole 24 Two more institutional case studies analyse Ore Edagricole, Milano. other peculiarities of Italy. The first is the Polanyi K., 1957. The Great Transformation: National plan on agrobiodiversity approved the Political and Economic Origins of in 2008 by the Ministry of Agriculture, and Our Time, Beacon Press. the second is the Seed interregional Rosati M., Verrini L., 2009. Atlante qualivita programme whose results have been 2009. I prodotti agroalimentari presented last year. In both cases the italiani DOP, IGP, STG, Edizioni del report underlines the huge role that public Gusto. policies play for the sustainable use of Vavilov I., 1997. Five Continents, IPGRI. agrobiodiversity, and the need of Van Der Ploeg J.D., 2008. The New strengthening the coordination among Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy different stakeholders, e.g. public bodies, and Sustainability in an Era of Empire agricultural research centres, farmers’ and Globalization, Earthscan Ltd. associations, seed savers. The second part of the report deals with experiences undertaken by different actors of civil society: single farmers, farmers’ associations and consumers. These case studies emphasize the importance of agrobiodiversity in maintaining agroecosystems from both ecological and economical point of view.
“For the 551 species of cultivated plants that have been recorded in nothern and central Italy, Italian farmers informally use no less than 10,672 vernacular names to refer to them” (Nabhan, 2008)
As said by Nabhan, farmers’ knowledge still exists in Italy, mainly in those marginal areas not yet overwhelmed by agricultural modernization. Searching for these examples throughout Italy, the report shows how innovation is produced in rural
10 The National Plan for Agrobiodiversity
The National Plan for Agrobiodiversity Regions. This launched a phase of Maria Francesca Nonne, Riccardo Bocci negotiation between Regional and national governments which ended in 2008 with the approval of the National Plan for “CBD Article 6 refers to National Agricultural Biodiversity (PNBA) within the Biodiversity Strategies and Action State‐Region Conference. Moreover, this Plans (NBSAPs), [...] which are Plan can be considered one of the results intended to promote inter‐ of the “Innovation and Research Initiatives sectoral cooperation, towards the in support of the Seed Plan” project, which goal of sustainable use. For purpose of applying the NBSAPs explicitly calls for national coordination and concept within the Treaty, those planning involving all subjects active in the terms are seen often as fields of conservation and agricultural sequential: Strategies, set out biodiversity (see Bocci and Nonne in this specific recommendations or issue). This provided a national framework steps for national action, Plans, for the initiatives that private and public explain how a strategy’s specific subjects had carried out at local, regional recommendations will be and interregional levels entitling them to achieved, and Programmes inclusion within the European and implement strategies and plans” international legislative context. (Moore and Tymowski, 2005) The state of the art Introduction The Plan was useful for conducting a Italy ratified the Convention of Biological preliminary survey of all activities so as to Diversity (CBD) in 1994, but drafting the devise a general modus operandi and a way required National Plan for Biodiversity was of protecting agrobiodiversity which could lengthy and difficult because of the lack of be disseminated in the private and public coordination among the Ministries sectors and in the sphere of research in involved. Indeed, two draft Plans were order to share initiatives and make results prepared in the late ’90s, one on comparable. agricultural biodiversity (for the Ministry of There are many subjects working in Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies – research: organisations belonging to the MiPAAF) and one for natural biodiversity Council for Research and Experimentation (for the Ministry of the Environment), but in Agriculture (CRA) under the MiPAAF, no single national plan was arrived at. those belonging to the National Research Biodiversity is a transversal issue involving Centre (CNR) and to universities under the a series of institutional players both Ministry of Education, Universities and nationally and internationally and requires Research (MiUR) and, lastly, the other delicate coordination among different public bodies under Regional or Provincial institutions. Biodiversity “is the link administration. Each of these can or has between critical areas of world politics: launched initiatives to research, intellectual property, environmental characterise, enhance and ex situ conserve protection, agriculture and local breeds and varieties. In the sphere of trade” (Raustalia and Victor, 2004). In 2004 legislation and agricultural policies, the Italy also ratified the Treaty on Plant main players are the Regions, the Special Genetic Resources, Food and Agriculture Statute Provinces, the National Park (ITPGRFA) with an ad hoc law that Administrations and the Ministries of devolved the power to implement it to the Agriculture and of the Environment
11 The National Plan for Agrobiodiversity
mentioned above. Then there are the Italy must conform to as signatory to the several civil or agricultural associations that CBD and the Treaty. Indeed the PMBA are resorting to agricultural biodiversity at states that the objective is also … “to local level as a strategy for diversifying coordinate the combination of initiatives farm production. As can be seen, this is a and relationships with national and international organisms involved in highly varied assortment of very non‐ agricultural biodiversity. It is also to homogeneous subjects. provide the Regions and Special Status The Plan registered some 150 initiatives Provinces called upon to implement the that had been launched with a plethora of FAO treaty from Law 101/2004 with diverse subjects with funding coming from concrete answers to the problems that highly diversified sources but all with a have emerged in introducing a nation‐wide common objective, namely to recover, system of agricultural biodiversity characterise and enhance agricultural protection able to restore most of the biodiversity no longer present or at risk of biodiversity. Cases in point are the extinction, to the benefit of environmental Interregional Programmes for the protection, sustainable agriculture and protection and enhancement of rural development. In so doing, the system autochthonous vegetable germplasm, the will also be able to contribute to several projects for recovering performing Italy’s obligations in characterising and enhancing local and/or international treaties” (PNBA, 2008). ancient varieties of cereal (“Solina Bread” Flow‐chart 1 illustrates the actors active in in Abruzzo, enhancement of the upland Italy and identifies the institutional bread production chain in Emilia Romagna relations among them according to the and the initiatives for protecting and Plan. The Ministry is responsible for enhancing ancient cereal varieties in Veneto etc.), the projects for recovering !"#$%&'() ,(-&#('-+$('.) and characterising ancient fruit varieties in *(+$( /$0+&1 order to conduct a census of the varieties extant, the projects launched by the National Parks (“We Cultivate Diversity” 2+(+1-#3)$4))56#+7".-"#&8)9$$0)'(0)9$#&1-#3 and the “Cerere” Project in Abruzzo or the "Cultivated Biodiversity from Cataloguing to Conservation" Leader Project in the Belluno Dolomite National Park), the :"/.+7)17+&(-+;7) Scrigno project (Developing and +(1-+-"-+$(1 characterising native genetic resources in fruit and vegetable growing), the Plant Genetic Resource project funded by <&6+$(1 MiPAAF and the project for enhancing Italian vegetable germplasm. =-&>'#0) =&&0)/'(@1 The National Plan 4'#? The main objective of the Plan is to meet the need to set the archipelago of the initiatives identified within a standardising :"/.+7)17+&(-+;7)+(1-+-"-+$(1 national framework. It is to be stressed that there is total coherence between the Plan and the international obligations that Flow chart 1: The relations among institutions in the Plan
12 The National Plan for Agrobiodiversity
international relations, collecting nation‐ Identification of “adequate wide data, providing support to national‐ quantitative restrictions” as provided interest agricultural research, providing by the new regulations on varieties to support to the various implementing be conserved; subjects and making funding available for implementing the Plan. The scientific Valuation of present methods of ex subjects involved, whether in directly with situ conservation of local varieties, and the Ministries or as support bodies to definition of shared national conservation activities at local level, have guidelines; the responsibility of guiding methodology, defining common parameters, Identification, assessment and guaranteeing ex situ conservation at experimentation of in situ/on farm national level and providing scientific systems of conserving local varieties support to the Regions and Special Status (with the involvement of local farmer Provinces. Lastly, they have the networks) and the definition of shared responsibility of drafting the progress national guidelines; reports of agricultural biodiversity in Italy. Local government (Regions and Provinces) Definition of a common methodology is responsible for identifying, for identifying and characterising characterising, conserving and enhancing autochthonous agricultural genetic local breeds and varieties. It is also resources in order to obtain responsible for implementing the comparable data and results and to Community Agricultural Policy’s (CAP) standardise the various terminologies Rural Development Plans (RDPs) and for used at local level as well as the tools funding “local” agricultural research. used; Lastly, the Plan considers farmers as conservators of agricultural biodiversity on Publication on‐line of the an equal footing with ex situ banks run at characterisation results of local local level. varieties (regional or national repertoires/registers), to make the The PNBA identified the need to implement data public and easily accessible; a series of priority initiatives in an effort to coordinate and organise all the activities For the protection of autochthonous already running and to be launched. The animal genetic resources, nationwide priority initiatives or support initiatives are public selection of at least 2 reference as follows: centres specialised in collecting, preparing and conserving seed and Initiatives provided for by the PNBA oocytes or embryos obtained by producers for populations at risk of Establishment of an interactive genetic erosion; database of the various current initiatives at national level in order to Identification of the main descriptors ease access to information and to for characterising local varieties which optimise the resources used in can render the descriptions of biodiversity; different areas comparable;
Definition of the risk of extinction or Publication online of the fact sheets of erosion of genetic resources and the local varieties correctly identified identification of common indicators; and conserved (regional or national repertoires/registers);
13 The National Plan for Agrobiodiversity
2. Stimulating active public participation Definition of general shared guidelines in safeguarding biodiversity jointly with for enhancing local varieties and public and private institutions active in wherever possible the reintroduction the territory. into the territory in particular of varieties at risk of extinction; There are some significant passages in the section of the PNBA dedicated to the role Continuation and strengthening of of farmers and breeders. The first concerns research and experimentation into their active participation in research conservation, characterisation, characterisation, study and investigation in enhancement and documentation of the territories, and conservation of plant biodiversity by means that also include and animal agricultural biodiversity. The interregional initiatives; second stresses that the role of research and of those in charge of seed banks will Communication initiatives to promote be “to experiment and activate methods awareness of genetic resources and to for continual monitoring and observation activate synergies among the of activity within the various farmers’ territories involved networks” and to “make their knowledge and laboratories available to local bodies The area of these initiatives is the whole f o r t h e g e n e t i c o r m o l e c u l a r gamut of agricultural genetic resources. characterisation of local varieties”. This in They seek to broaden the list of practice is a decentralised research method cultivations annexed to the Treaty to with a new relational approach by which include microbe and forestry diversity, local bodies act as intermediaries between taking a systemic view of agricultural researchers and farmers and is the outline biodiversity as indicated during the 11th that the PNBA gives to the premises for meeting of the FAO Commission for pro‐active future co‐operation between Genetic Resources in Food and Agriculture researchers, local bodies, farmers, (CGRFA) held in Rome in 2007 (CGRFA, breeders and other structures such as seed 2007) . banks, all of which are fundamental within The plan allows for recourse to direct and a virtuous system of conservation and indirect economic incentives to ensure an sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity income for farmers and breeders who (Swaminathan, 2002), fully in line with the conserve genetic resources by making use objectives stated in Article 6 of the Treaty. inter alia of the provisions allowed for in In operational terms, the PNBA established the CAP by means of the RDPs (Melozzi, the “Permanent Committee for Genetic 2009). Resources”, composed of a representative The initiatives for protection include from the MiPAAF with co‐ordinating economic enhancement of agricultural functions, one from the Ministry of biodiversity and of the products deriving Universities and Research (MiUR), another from it. These include addressing the from the Ministry of the Environment and problems encountered in marketing Territorial and Maritime Protection and six them. Communication focuses on representatives from the Regions and highlighting the methods of conservation, Special Statute Provinces. Experts in other protection and enhancement within an areas who are not on the Committee may approach of respect for the specificity of be co‐opted from time to time according to the territory and its cultural identifying requirements so as to establish a flexible, heritage with the objective of: intersectoral structure able to dialogue with institutional and private actors. Its 1. Promoting public awareness of the brief is to implement the Plan and define importance of protecting and the priorities of the single initiatives enhancing agrobiodiversity;
14 The National Plan for Agrobiodiversity
programmed. The objectives to which the intents and purposes have been kept out Committee decided to give priority for of the negotiating process and relegated to 2009 are as follows: the role of mere “custodians” of 1. Identify the descriptors for the various agrobiodiversity. Furthermore, the work of species; research and conservation conducted by civil society is also absent from the Plan 2. Define the investigative and despite it having reached a perceptible characterisation methodologies for critical mass. local breeds and varieties; 3. Define the guidelines for proper Bibliography conservation in situ/on farm and ex Bertacchini E., 2009. Regional legislation in situ; Italy for the protection of local varieties, Journal of Agriculture and 4. Define the risk of genetic erosion by Environment for International means of specific indicators. Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2. In this way, the Committee intends on the CGRFA, 2007. Eleventh Regular Session of one hand to co‐ordinate among the the Commission on Genetic Resources Regions who already have specific for Food and Agriculture, Rome, biodiversity protection legislation in place Italy, 11 – 15 June 2007, Food and (Bertacchini, 2009) and on the other to Agriculture Organization of the provide technical‐scientific support to United Nations. those Regions who still have none. Falcinelli M., 2008. Azioni di innovazione e Conclusions ricerca a supporto del piano The Plan is the synthesis of a significant nazionale sementieri ‐ Azioni a move towards co‐ordination among the carattere regionale . R e t e various areas of public administration Interregionale per la Ricerca Agraria, which as well as taking the inter‐ Forestale, acquacoltura e pesca. disciplinary nature of agricultural Marino D., 2001. Le politiche e le strategie a biodiversity into account also considers the livello internazionale e nazionale per need to combine local and global la salvaguardia e la valorizzazione dimensions and to establish dialogue della biodiversità, Tipografia Arti between different actors. It also indicates Grafiche. the growing interest in Italy for agrobiodiversity not only as a museum Melozzi L., 2009. I n c e n t i v e s fo r curiosity or as a means of providing agrobiodiversity within the European variability for genetic improvement, but Union: the role of Rural Development also as an intangible asset to safeguard, Plans, Journal of Agriculture and bound in with our crops and traditions. Environment for International Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2. One last reflection concerns involvement of the general public and of farmers in the Moore G. and Tymowski W., 2005. PNBA and its implementation. It must be Explanatory Guide to the said that a certain amount of difficulty has International Treaty on Plant Genetic been encountered in opening up decision‐ Resources for Food and Agriculture, making processes and in conferring a more IUCN Environmental Policy and Law active role to these subjects. Despite the Paper No. 57. Plan explicitly stating that “it is therefore Piano Nazionale sulla Biodiversità di necessary that the network of farmers at Interesse Agricolo, 2009. Ministero local level be identified as the fulcrum for delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e the conservation of genetic Forestali. resources” (PNBA, 2008), farmers, to all
15 The National Plan for Agrobiodiversity
Raustiala K., Victor D. G., 2004. The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources, International Organization, Vol. 58, n. 2. Swaminathan M.S., 2002. The Past, Present and Future Contributions of Farmers to the Conservation and Development of Genetic Diversity, in Engels, Ramanatha, Brown, Jackson (eds.), Managing Plant Genetic Diversity, CABI Publishing.
16 Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties
Regional legislation in Italy for the incentives towards sustainable use of protection of local varieties1 autochthonous genetic resources. Enrico Bertacchini In the Italian context, the regional laws also act as a useful local test bench since Introduction the Italian constitution states2 that Regions Italian regional legislation is one of the few are empowered to legislate on matters of operational examples at European level for agriculture. Furthermore, the Italian law protecting and enhancing the genetic transposing ITPGRFA3 expressly states that resources for food and agriculture. In many the Regions are the principal subjects with ways it can be considered a forerunner of whom responsibility lies for implementing regulations at national and European levels the treaty. The experience with the in line with the aims of the FAO treaty on Regional laws, therefore, highlights the plant genetic resources for food and importance of the local context in agriculture (ITPGRFA). addressing the question of the sustainable The origins of this experience are to be use of genetic resources. In particular, found in the Tuscan Regional Law 50/97 on combining territorial development with “The protection of autochthonous genetic agricultural biodiversity appears to be an resources” which was later followed by appropriate strategy for harmonising local similar initiatives on the part of the Regions incentives and global objectives in pursuit of Lazio, Umbria, Friuli Venezia Giulia, of the common good deriving from the Marche and Emilia Romagna (see table). sustainable use of genetic resources for Underlying these initiatives is the food and agriculture (Helfer,2005). awareness that there are only a few remaining local or old varieties being Objectives and tools of the regional laws grown in Italy today (FAO, 1998). The The objective of the regional laws is to interest of individual farmers in maintaining safeguard and enhance the heritage of autochthonous breeds and varieties is autochthonous genetic resources, declining since there is no economic gain in especially those at risk of erosion. In some preserving and exploiting agricultural cases, only animal and plant varieties of diversity. This means that the heritage of agricultural interest are considered (Lazio, species and variety of interest to Umbria and Marche), whereas in others, agriculture and husbandry present in the protection and enhancement is extended territory is at risk of genetic erosion and to forestry resources (Toscana and Friuli). hence requires measures that will Although the purpose of the majority of encourage conservation and provide laws is to protect autochthonous genetic
1 This article has been published on the Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, vol. 102. N. 1‐2. 2 Constitutional Law Nr. 3 of 18 October 2001 “Amendments to Title V Part II of the Constitution” amends the legislative area of responsibility between State and Region defining which matters are the exclusive responsibility of the State and which are subject to joint State/Region legislation. Not being expressly earmarked for either State or joint legislation, agriculture is one of the residual matters of Regional responsibility. For more details see Germanò (2003). 3 Law Nr. 101 of 6 April 2004 "Ratifies and implements the international Treaty of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture including the Appendices thereto as adopted by the thirty‐first meeting of the FAO conference in Rome on 3 November 2001.
17 Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties
Tab 1: Regional laws and Public Institutions Responsible of their implementation.
Region Law Public body Contacts Emilia L.R. n.1/2008, Tutela del Regione Emilia Romagna Servizio Sviluppo del Sistema Romagna patrimonio di razze e Assessorato all’Agricoltura Agroalimentare varietà locali di interesse Cargioli Giancarlo agrario del territorio Francesco Perri emiliano‐romagnolo Tel. 051284657 [email protected]‐ Romagna.it Friuli L.R. n.11/2002, Tutela delle ERSA (Agenzia regionale per lo Sviluppo Francesco del Zan (ERSA) Venezia risorse genetiche autoctone Rurale) Tel. 043186712 Giulia di interesse agrario e BaGAV (Banca del germoplasma [email protected] forestale autoctono vegetale regionale ‐ Fabiano Miceli (BaGAV) Università degli studi di Udine). Tel. 0432558619 [email protected] Lazio L.R. n. 15/2000, Tutela delle ARSIAL (Agenzia Regionale per lo Mariateresa Costanza risorse genetiche autoctone Sviluppo e l’Innovazione in Agricoltura Tel. 0686273450/457/451 di interesse agrario Lazio) Area Studi e Progetti Fax 0686273270 [email protected] Marche L.R. n.12/2003, Tutela delle ASSAM (Agenzia per i servizi nel Settore Enzo Polidori risorse genetiche animali e Agroalimentare Marche) Emilio Romagnoli vegetali del territorio Tel. 071808216 marchigiano [email protected] e.it Toscana L.R. n° 64/2004, Tutela e ARSIA (Agenzia Regionale per lo Rita Turchi valorizzazione del Sviluppo e l’Innovazione in Agricoltura) tel. 055‐2755273 patrimonio di razze e Area Produzioni‐Razze e Varietà Locali fax. 055‐2755234 varietà locali di interesse [email protected] agrario, zootecnico e forestale Umbria L.R. n. 25/2001, Tutela delle Regione Umbria n.d risorse genetiche di interesse agrario
resources, more recent versions (Toscana encompass the concepts of “territory” and and Emilia‐Romagna) graduated towards “variety”. expressly considering local breeds and The definition of autochthonous breeds varieties while acknowledging a juridical and varieties include: correspondence between the two 1. Those which are originally from the concepts. This semantic shift seems to regional territory; have the objective of moving towards a 2. Those which although not originally more organic perspective of genetic from the regional territory have lived resources in which the prevalently within it for a long time – indicatively economic worth of the term “resource” is more than 50 years4; combined with ecological, agricultural, cultural and historic factors which
4 Not all the laws specify the duration but in most cases it is set as 50 years.
18 Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties
3. Those originally from the regional the most effective and innovative means territory and no longer present on it, for pursuing the objectives of protecting but conserved elsewhere. and enhancing local varieties. From this definition, and the second The regional register is crucial firstly for criterion in particular, the concept of identifying the varieties that are present in autochthony clearly emerges as being the region and secondly for giving them a broad and especially dynamic5. It is by precise, indisputable identity – both basic contemplating varieties that have become factors for exactly evaluating the point of integrated over time that the idea of the genetic erosion reached and thus the most heritage of autochthonous genetic solid measures of protection needed resources does not become rigid but stays (Dutfield, 2004). For example, the regional adaptable and “elastic” to shifts in local register of Toscana presently counts 564 farming methods. arboreal and fruit species and 58 The regions take on the responsibility of herbaceous ones of which 400 and 50 safeguarding and enhancing this heritage respectively had been considered at risk of by means of a series of tools which are extinction. 100 species have been essentially based on the following points: registered in Lazio so far, 29 of which are 1. establishment of a voluntary, free‐of‐ herbaceous. charge regional register for species, By the same token, the network of breeds, varieties, populations, cultivars, conservation and protection performs the landraces and clones; functions of conserving, multiplying and 2. establishment of technical‐scientific disseminating the genetic material committees to assess the fact‐sheets of registered in full conformity with present the subjects listed on the regional legislation. The network, with its register; mechanism of selection and enrolment of applicants, can be seen as a first attempt to 3. establishment of a network composed create an integrated institutionalised of farmers, associations, public and system at grass‐roots level for ex situ and private bodies, research bodies, on farm conservation. It puts a variety of universities, gene banks to conserve actors in touch with each other who are and safeguard the varieties registered; interested in the protection and 4. pursuant to Article 8j of the Rio sustainable use of autochthonous genetic Convention on biodiversity, recognition material. of local communities as the stewards of In the first instance, ex situ conservation is the resources (e.g. Lazio and Umbria), undertaken by the region’s public and or the Region itself (e.g. Toscana6 , private research institutes; in some cases Emilia Romagna), as guarantor and the law provides for the ad hoc manager of this heritage. establishment of a regional seed bank Of these tools, the voluntary regional (Toscana, Marche and Friuli Venezia Giulia). register, and the conservation network are In the second instance, on farm
5 This is a very similar definition to the one introduced by Decree of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (MiPAAF) of 18 April 2008 “Measures applicable to the commerce of conservation varieties”. Article 1 states that the definition of ‘conservation varieties’ encompasses non‐autochthonous varieties which have never been registered in the National Seed Register, provided they have been integrated within the local agricultural eco‐systems. 6 Art. 1(2) Tuscany Regional Law 64/2004.
19 Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties
conservation is entrusted to “steward” being particularly significant for analysis. farmers who perform the task of The way that seed distribution is maintaining and multiplying the local institutionalised in Europe, Italy included, varieties that have been assigned to them. provides no incentive towards the use or The laws normally allow farmers within the commercialisation of autochthonous network to save and to locally exchange a varieties. The system of plant variety rights modicum of seed, in quantities agreed for and the system of registration in the each single subject when they enrol in the Catalogue of Plant Varieties have very strict regional register. requirements of distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS), as well as how the seed Synergies with Article 6 of the FAO Treaty is to be marketed (Almekinders, 2000; The regional laws examined are a clear Louwaars, 2000). example of juridical measures and These institutional constraints makes it less institutional frames for promoting the inviting to use local, autochthonous sustainable use of plant genetic material varieties which now only tend to be for food and agriculture in conformity with cultivated in limited, marginal areas with a Article 6.1 of the FAO Treaty. Furthermore, consequent loss of the heritage of the the tools provided for in these laws are agricultural biodiversity of the territory. fully in harmony with the measures This heritage is only the first link in an descried in points a) and g) of Article 6.2 of agricultural and food chain that reflects the the Treaty, according to which the cultural roots of the territory and which, if contractual parties shall launch policies enhanced, can favour high returns both that favour local farming practices and economically and in terms of local where necessary, modify the regulations development. on the trade of varieties of seed and their While autochthonous varieties today distribution. occupy a niche within the seed system Europe and Italy are both witnessing a which is often marginalised and negatively rapid decline of both plant and animal affected by institutional constraints, Italy, agricultural bio‐diversity, due mainly to a through its regional legislation, has created series of economic and institutional factors new juridical openings that favour this which, instead, have encouraged the niche. This new legal space does not run spread of varieties that maximise counter to the framework of existing productive efficiency on vast farming areas. incentives, which are tailored towards a These varieties ensure high profit margins model of varietal innovation for the seed for the large seed companies who promote market. The objectives aim rather more their produce instead of the towards completing the existing system by autochthonous varieties which historically giving a clearer, better defined juridical are more suited to the local contexts but status to autochthonous varieties and have a low commercial value except for producing a new series of measures and use in restricted settings and which are incentives to conserve and enhance them. hard to insert into a production chain of a In the first place, these laws tend to view more agro‐industrial nature (Swanson et autochthonous varieties and breeds as a al., 1994). Institutional factors emerge as collective heritage of local communities. As
20 Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties
already mentioned, the idea of a collective A second tool for promoting the heritage emerges clearly from the texts of conservation and enhancement of the laws which refer back to Article 8 (j) of autochthonous varieties is the right of the Convention on Biological Diversity7, or “steward” farmers and members of the provides that the Region itself be network to locally exchange seed without recognised as party responsible for the any form of monetary compensation. This autochthonous genetic resources. At the institutional innovation recognises the same time, the regional laws do not importance of farmers’ practices which, in contemplate the institution of any form of the past, have brought about varietal individual exclusive rights over the variety. innovation and the continual adaptation of The individual or juridical person who varieties to the territory exactly as the suggests a variety be registered enjoys no premise to ITPGRFA recognises. This right exclusive right to the variety involved, just can be especially important in coping with as no third party may lay claim to it and the risk of extinction of local varieties by request a plant variety right. Rather, putting them to use in agriculture. Further, enrolment in the register and access to the it is also a way of safeguarding and resource accrues first and foremost enhancing the cultural heritage and collective benefits for the community as a traditional knowledge which are tied in whole in terms of conservation and with autochthonous crops. In this sense, enhancement of the heritage of saving and exchanging seed inevitably autochthonous genetic resources. allows farmers to exchange information, Furthermore, some laws (Toscana and which leads to a strengthening of Emilia Romagna), also regulate the use of traditional knowledge within the autochthonous genetic resources to create community. One of the obligations that new varieties. Members of the Article 9.2(b) of the Tuscan Regional law conservation network who intend applying provides for steward farmers is to spread for a plant variety right, or a patent on a knowledge and cultivation of the genetic variety essentially derived from one resources that they are custodian of within enrolled in the register, must request prior the principles of this law. In the same way, authorisation to do so or give timely notice Article 13 of the Emilia Romagna Regional that they intend doing so to the Region or law recognises the protection offered by to the body responsible. the regional body to the knowledge, These characteristic elements in regional techniques and customs of the local laws have many analogies with the communities linked to the agricultural institutional framework created by Articles biodiversity of the territory. 12.3 (d) and 13.2 (d)(ii) of ITPGRFA, which Unresolved issues and future development respectively forbids any form of monopoly on the genetic resources registered in the The experience gained in applying the multilateral facilitated exchange system regional laws presented in this study is undoubtedly an important source of and regulates of the compensatory regime normative reference for the conservation for the new varieties that used genetic material from the multilateral system. and enhancement of autochthonous genetic resources. One of the main lessons
7 Article 5 of the law of the Lazio Region is more explicit on this point: "Without prejudice to the right of ownership of every plant or animal in the register pursuant to Article 2, the heritage of the genetic resources embodied in these plant varieties or animal breeds belongs to the local native community […]".
21 Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties
to be learned from it is how institutions can enhancement of genetic resources go be innovative in promoting measures for beyond the purely local context, there the sustainable use of agricultural cannot but be problems of co‐ordination biodiversity. among the different institutional levels. However, as for all institutional processes, Links among the Regions therefore need to some issues still remain unresolved as to be reinforced in order to co‐ordinate the implementation of these laws and efforts to safeguard autochthonous future developments on the Italian and genetic resources. international normative scenario. Furthermore, although the texts of While the objectives of the regional laws regional laws share many similarities more can be universally shared, and the caution is needed in assessing the the innovative tools they provide appreciated, operative aspect of the laws (e.g. the implementation of the norms and how measuring its effectiveness). For example, they work depend on many factors inter the data contained in the regional registers alia technical, bureaucratic and political. must be uniform if there is to be any With this complexity in mind, there are thought of integrating the repertoires differences in how the various Regions are within a nation‐wide dimension in some implementing the laws that they have future time. The material catalogued in the approved. The laws are already operative in various registers, however, is still Lazio, Marche, Toscana and Emilia heterogeneous and does not always refer Romagna, partially operative in Friuli and to the same type of descriptors for varietal 8 non‐operative in Umbria. In the areas characterisation . where the laws are operative a census has In the same way, the regional activity can already been carried out on the be at a disadvantage by being limited to a autochthonous genetic resources and the local setting, if, for example there is a lack regional register and technical scientific of technical skills for managing the system committees are functioning. The Toscana of conserving the autochthonous genetic Region has also begun to select and resources properly. register steward farmers as the basis for Lastly, relevance must be given to how the the future network for conservation and tools of present regional legislation will fit security. in with the new EU directive on the so‐ In addition to the differences in called “conservation varieties”9, which implementing the laws, there are also must be implemented by EU Member important unresolved issues in how the States. The points of greatest interest and local genetic heritage is best managed. clarification are as regards 1) the definition Considering that legislative tools are of the concept of genetic erosion, 2) the regional while conservation and economic incentives deployed in marketing
8 The criteria for selecting the variety characterisation descriptors for autochthonous varieties is also of great importance. The descriptors given in the UPOV guidelines tend to privilege the uniformity and stability of the variety while those suggested by IPGRI are more suited for describing the diversity and the degree of variability in populations of autochthonous varieties. It is clear, therefore, how nation‐wide selection and co‐ordination of this seemingly technical aspect can affect the juridical definition and cataloguing of the heritage of autochthonous varieties. 9 European Directive 2008/62/CE “providing for certain derogations for acceptance of agricultural landraces and varieties which are naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and threatened by genetic erosion and for marketing of seed and seed potatoes of those landraces and varieties”. For a treatise on this subject see the article by Bocci, 2009.
22 Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties
conservation varieties and 3) the issue of In many instances, the risk of erosion or of the circulation of seed, also considering disappearance is mainly due to the scarcity farmers’ exchange. of farmers cultivating the crop. The 1) Definition of the concept of genetic definition of risk, therefore, must also take erosion into account this human factor which is The question of genetic erosion and the only indirectly linked to the ecological and need to conserve varieties at risk is dealt agricultural properties of the variety. with both in the EU Directive mentioned This sensibility in defining the risk of above concerning conservation varieties erosion gives highlights the role of the and in the Regional laws studied here. farmers and their capacity to use According to the EU Directive, autochthonous varieties and safeguard conservation varieties are those which are their genetic heritage of interest to naturally adapted to the local agricultural agriculture. systems and threatened by genetic erosion. Similarly, the most innovative 2) Economic incentives and marketing tools provided by regional laws – such as, conservation varieties. for example, the network of steward The aim of enhancing conservation farmers – were expressly created to varieties is pursued trough the derogation conserve the varieties that are considered from the present seed system by enabling at risk of genetic erosion. the variety to be registered in the Common It is therefore fundamental to understand Catalogue and with a proper procedure to how the risk of erosion is to be determined be followed in selling the seed. This second since the compliance or non‐compliance of aspect of marketing of conservation a variety to this criterion can have juridical varieties, which is one of the lynchpins of implications. In this regard, the EU the new European legislation, is practically Directive is rather vague defining genetic absent from Regional laws. erosion as “ […] loss of genetic diversity In this sense, registering varieties, entered between and within populations or previously in the Regional Register as varieties of the same species over time, or conservation varieties, may be regarded as reduction of the genetic basis of a species a supplementary tool for enhancing these due to human intervention or resources. 10 environmental change” . Being able to market the seed varieties At the regional level, Emilia Romagna has registered in the Common Catalogue – emerged with a detailed proposal for even considering the constraints on defining the basic criteria for considering a quantity specified by law – could be an variety at risk of genetic erosion. In fact, important step forward towards a the implementating regulation of the law revitalised production of autochthonous identifies minimum levels of cultivated land varieties. In this way, the economic return which vary in accordance with the species, from the sale of seed becomes an incentive and contemplates not only the ecological by which farmers can recover the costs of and agricultural properties of the varieties conservation as the holders of plant but also, indirectly, natural factors and the breeders’ rights can recover their production capacity of the farms on the investments in varietal innovation by territory.
10 Art. 2(b) EU Commission Directive 2008/62/CE.
23 Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties
marketing the seed of commercial underlined earlier have always lain at the varieties. base of the continual innovation and One particularly interesting idea for adaptation of varieties to the ecological enhancing the benefits of marketing local conditions of the environment (Andersen, varieties is already comprised in the 2005; Girsberger, 1999). In recognition of Toscana Regional law which has the enormous contribution of farmers in transposed the new European regulation conserving, improving and making on conservation varieties into law earlier. available plant genetic resources, the In addition to the commercialisation of Article 9.3 of ITPGRFA establishes that seed, a regional mark has been devised nothing shall be interpreted to limit any which may voluntarily be set on the rights that farmers have to save, use, products constituted that contain or are exchange and sell farm‐saved seed/ derived from material in the register11. This propagating material, subject to national creates a distinguishable brand to favour law and as appropriate. the broadest possible consumer awareness This weak affirmation of Farmers’ Rights in and knowledge on food products obtained the question of the exchange of seed from local varieties and breeds at risk of seems to create more doubt than extinction, and consequently enhance certainties. In Italy and Europe, the root of demand for the product itself. the problem is that present regulations of It is to be noted that being able to market the seed system focus mainly on the issue the seed is the most significant economic of commercialization of seed and neglect incentive but not the only one available for or fail to identify directly seed exchange encouraging the re‐adoption of varieties at between farmers as a non‐profit risk of erosion. The Regional laws also transaction. provide for expense reimbursements to In this sense, even the European Action steward farmers for their work in Plan in favour of Agricultural Biodiversity is conserving the assigned varieties. Lastly, oriented towards the idea of marketing, the Rural Development Plans can envisage recognising that “ […] conservation and other forms of allowance for enhancing the in situ ad on farm improvement of and conserving autochthonous varieties, plant genetic resources also depend on the thus tracing a more complex frame of real possibility of using these resources in economic incentives both market and the long‐term, and thus legislation that public based. enables the commercialisation of 3) Question of the circulation of seed and diversified genetic material”12. In the same exchange among farmers. way, the aim of the EU Directive for One issue which is not clarified by the EU conservation varieties is mainly to confer Directive on conservation varieties juridical legitimacy to these varieties concerns the distribution of seed by the allowing them to be marketed on the seed traditional practice of farmers exchanging market. it amongst themselves. It is therefore important to establish These practices are an integral part of so‐ whether the traditional practice of non‐ called “Farmers’ Rights” and as has been profit exchange of seed among farmers
11 Art. 11 Tuscany Regional Law 64/2004. 12 Communication of the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 22 May 2006 – Action Plan in favour of Biodiversity in Agriculture.
24 Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties
falls within the concept of marketing or not doubt surrounding the legitimacy of the in order to implement appropriate non‐profit exchange of seed. strategies of in situ and on‐farm The Regional laws have sought to respond conservation for local varieties. to these drawbacks and to the fact that The varieties not registered in the Common even the free exchange of seed risks to be Catalogue, including the local and interpreted as an act that falls within seed autochthonous ones, are particularly regulations and therefore subject to its vulnerable to this problem because rules. The conservation and safeguard marketing them is expressly prohibited. At network has been set up precisely with the the same time, these varieties, lacking aim of being a legal tool that allows the commercial interests, fall in a legislative exchange of seed between interested and juridical vacuum that legitimises their parties who are registered as belonging to exchange and circulation out of the formal the network. However, we still have to channels of seed distribution. understand the extent to which this tool is Absent a juridical legitimacy, the informal in harmony with regulations regarding exchange of seed of varieties that do not seed both as regards autochthonous appear in official registers can be formally varieties which will be inserted into the against the law but be practised because of Catalogue as conservation varieties, as well the lack of enforcement of the regulations. as for the autochthonous varieties not at In other cases, to get round the problem, risk of erosion which will, instead, not be exchange takes place within groups of included. farmers who have formed associations Bibliography (Almekinders and Jongerden, 2002). Almekinders C., 2000. The Importance of This is why it is important to understand Informal Seed Sector and its Relation how the concepts of selling and marketing with the Legislative Framework. are defined in seed legislation. For example Paper presented at GTZ‐ Eschborn. Louwaars (2005) points out how seed legislation in South Africa and Malawi Almekinders C. e Jongerden J., 2002. On expressly states that the definition of seed visions and new approaches. Case studies of organizational forms in sale also includes exchange and barter of organic plant breeding and seed seed, which makes this practice illegal when the varieties exchanged are not in p r o d u c t i o n . Working Paper Technology and Agrarian the official register. Development, Wageningen With this perspective, EU Directive 98/95/ University, Netherlands. CE and Legislative Decree 212/2001 state Andersen R., 2005. The History of Farmers’ that “marketing" shall mean the sale, Rights. The Farmers’ Rights Project holding with a view to sale, offer for sale and any disposal, supply or transfer aimed Background Study 1 at commercial exploitation of seed to third Bocci R., 2009. Seed legislation and parties, whether or not for agrobiodiversity: conservation consideration”13. As can be seen, by varieties, Journal of Agriculture and including commercial exploitation with or Environment for International without consideration this definition leaves Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2.
13 Art. 4(2) Directive 98/95/CE and Article 2(2) Legislative Decree 212/2001.
25 Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties
FAO, 1998. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Roma, Italia: FAO. Germanò A., 2003. I l G o v e r n o dell’Agricoltura nel Nuovo Titolo V° della Costituzione. Atti dell’incontro di studio. IDAIC, Firenze. Girsberger M.A., 1999. Biodiversity and the Concept of Farmers' Rights in International Law. Factual Background and Legal Analysis, Peter Lang, Berne. Dutfield G., 2004. Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge. Earthscan, London. 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 Reichman J.R e Maskus K. (eds). International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime . C ambr id ge University Press. Louwaars N.P., 2000. Seed Regulations and Local Seed Systems. Biotechnology and Development Monitor , 42, 12– 14. Louwaars N.P., 2005. Biases and bottlenecks. Time to reform the South’s inherited seed laws? Grain, Seedling July 2005. Swanson,T.,Pearce,D.,Cervigni,R.,1994. The appropriation of the benefits of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: an economic analysis of the alternative mechanisms for biodiversity conservation. CPGRFA Background Study Paper, 1.
26 The implementation of the directive on conservation varieties
The implementation of the directive on conservation, by use in situ, of conservation varieties1 varieties threatened with genetic Riccardo Bocci erosion”. “FCEC believes that the two To all intents, opening the Catalogue to different systems of the large conservation varieties and thus to commercial breeding companies marketing them is seen as a means of and the smaller market or reducing their genetic erosion. The priority regional breeders and producers now is to conserve a varietal heritage that could run side by side because is disappearing from the fields, and for the they are targeting completely first time a conservation initiative becomes different markets” part of seed regulations. Up to now, European legislation had only viewed (FCEC, 2008) conservation of agricultural genetic Introduction resources from a scientific standpoint, Directive 98/95/CE of 14 December 1998 essentially supporting scientific bodies, introduced ‘conservation variety’ a new networking amongst researchers and ex 2 type of agricultural variety that could be situ . “Officially” the seed sector was not marketed within Europe. But why did the affected by this problem and in this sense European Union (EU) broaden the range of the directive is an important step forward varieties that could be registered in the because it implicitly acknowledges that common Catalogue of varieties (from now seed regulations since the 1960s have on called ‘Catalogue’) and thus market contributed to the genetic erosion of them? Why is the term ‘conservation’ now agricultural diversity and so must be 3 appearing in regulations on seed? The 17th amended somehow . preamble of the directive gives a partial Since 1998, however, the road followed by reply. conservation varieties has been long and “Whereas it is essential to tortuous and the directive still lacks ensure that plant genetic application by Member States. Indeed, resources are conserved; despite the 2001 European Commission whereas a legal basis to that end Action Plan for biodiversity in agriculture, should be introduced to permit, again stressing how on‐farm conservation within the framework of also depended on seed legislation that legislation on the seed trade, the allowed genetically diversified material to
1 This article is an excerpt from Bocci R., Seed legislation and agrobiodiversity: conservation varieties, Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, vol. 102. N. 1‐2. Thanks to Massimo Angelini, Oriana Porfiri, Piergiacomo Bianchi and Romana Bravi for their useful remarks that gave me the inspiration to write the article. Indeed, a lively debate took place in Italy on the subject, reflecting the interest this measure has aroused. 2 See on this CE regulation Nr. 870/2004 that repealed the earlier 1467/94. 3 A similar conclusion can be reached by reading the motivations for the European Union to launch the process of evaluation of seed legislation. Here, too, the new objectives to be pursued in seed policies include conservation of agricultural diversity (http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/ evaluation/index_en.htm).
27 The implementation of the directive on conservation varieties
be marketed, as of June 2008 no progress 3. appropriate quantity restrictions. had been made at EU level to draw up the Indeed, clarifying what was actually meant rules of implementation for conservation by the short text of directive 98/95 on varieties in directive 98/954. In any case, conservation varieties (Art. 6 (17) and Art. 8 there was still not one single conservation (37)) was not easy, and depending on variety being legally marketed in Europe in interpretation either made the norm February 2009. It is to be noted that useless because of its strict constraints or directive 62/2008 of 20 June 2008 only set made the concept of conservation variety the guidelines for agricultural species; the too generous thus running the risk of texts on vegetables, plant propagation creating a system parallel to the standard species and fodder plant mixtures are still one which would enable users to being negotiated at the Permanent Seed circumvent the rules, checks and red‐tape Committee in Brussels. of the classic seed system. The text passed In the ten years spent in hatching the new in 2008, therefore, is to be seen as a directive no fewer than 14 text revisions c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o were discussed before it was passed by the extremes5, and its effectiveness will be only Permanent Seed Committee, which shows be able to be seen in the coming years by the difficulty that parties with such verifying if varieties not permitted today divergent interests have in reaching an are on the market and if the rules agreement. On the one hand, some saw a established for implementing it are danger that it would “undermine the main effective and efficient in the various EU commercial system of introducing new countries. varieties onto the market” (FCEC, 2008); The preambles are very clear in conveying while others sought to open marketing the frame of directive 62/2008: possibilities to varieties that were then 1. The objective is the conservation of “illegal” but in any case of interest to non‐ plant genetic resources (PGR) and the industrial models of agriculture such as marketing of their seed; organic farming or biodynamics. The main 2. To conserve these varieties, it is obstacle was deciding whether or not to fundamental that the seed be maintain, and if so to what extent, the reproduced in the place of three fundamental principles of Directive diversification/origin of the variety; 98/95: 3. Quantity restrictions and an adequate 1. the link between a variety and its area system of traceability must be of origin; established to prevent this 2. the danger of erosion; simplification being abused to get
4 The specification is needed because directive 98/95 is also about entering transgenic varieties in the National catalogues. 5 The various points of view on the concept of conservation varieties are clearly reported in the final report of the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium published in 2008 and available at http:// ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/index_en.htm.
28 The implementation of the directive on conservation varieties
round seed regulations and market national level, compromising with the varieties not to be conserved; Regions that had already passed their own 4. Member States may establish laws protecting agricultural biodiversity – derogations on distinctness, uniformity local government had thought that the and stability (DUS), problem of how to market the varieties 5. 3 years after it comes into force its entered in regional registers but barred effectiveness will be subject to from being sold by seed regulations would evaluation. be solved by introducing conservation varieties. This is why the definition of Note first and foremost that the objective conservation variety draws heavily from of conservation is achieved by the tool of the wording of regional laws and is derogation from the present‐day seed dissimilar to that of European norms7. For system on the one hand to allow these Italian legislation, varieties, populations, varieties to be registered in the Catalogue6, landraces, clones and cultivars of and on the other to establish a minimum of agricultural interest worthy of procedures for the sale of the seeds. The conservation are for species of plant that intention, therefore, is for these varieties are: to fall into the category of seed marketability creating an area of legitimacy 1. Autochthonous and non‐ for varieties that could only be exchanged autochthonous which have never been between farmers. The aim, therefore is to registered in the Catalogue provided create a specific market with rules that are they have been integrated into local more appropriate to the needs of the users agrosystems for at least fifty years; of these varieties. 2. No longer registered in the Catalogue but still at risk of genetic erosion; The implementation in Italy 3. No longer grown in Italy but conserved Italy is the only country in Europe to have in botanical gardens, experimental implemented directive 98/95 before institutes, public and private germ‐ Directive 62/2008 by ad hoc national‐level plasma banks, universities or research regulations. Transformation of EU centres of other regions or countries legislation on conservation varieties in Italy for which there is interest of an began in 2007 with Law Nr. 46, Article 2 (b) economic, scientific, cultural, or of which established the national catalogue landscape nature that would favour its and delegated the obligation of drafting reintroduction. the decree of implementation to the By contrast with Community thought, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry risk of genetic erosion and the (MiPAAF). This decree was signed by the identification of the area of origin are no Minister and published in the Official longer obligatory properties for Gazette Nr. 122. The purpose was to conservation varieties. It is sufficient for attempt to harmonise the situation at
6 “Setting up a ‘register’, ‘repertoire’ or ‘catalogue’ is the first aspect to highlight. Without it, without knowing what is still extant, where it is and what its properties are, no safeguarding measures are of any use. This is the first thing of interest to us, then we can talk of enhancement, commercial use, types, which interweave with acts aimed safeguarding, sometimes getting in the way” (O. Porfiri, pers.com.). 7 For the story of how the approval of this decree was arrived at see L. Paoloni (2005) and the site www.semirurali.net.
29 The implementation of the directive on conservation varieties
the varieties included in point a) to be procedure by which Regions establish autochthonous while only those entered in regional Repertoires based on their specific the Register (b) must be at risk of genetic agricultural biodiversity laws and then erosion. Hence, varieties which are notify the Ministry of the varieties to be properly described as landraces (point a) registered in the catalogue as conservation do not have to prove being at risk of varieties8. The aim is to achieve integration erosion to be registered in the Catalogue among the various levels of regulation in a while varieties no longer in the common decentralised system (Bertacchini, 2009). Catalogue (point b) still do because there is Registration is free of charge “save the no special link with an area of origin. costs for ascertaining the uniqueness of Furthermore, differently from 2008 the variety”. This issue of uniqueness raises directive, the Italian version is applicable to another problem. A given variety is often all species of agricultural interest – found in different geographical areas with vegetables, fodder, plant propagation different names and so it should be species and agricultural species. registered in the Section just once. This, Let us analyse this text in closer detail in though, would determine a curtailment of order to highlight the compatibility with cultural diversity and would also run directive 62/2008 and the reasoning behind counter to the directive prescriptions it. which allows for a single variety to have Art. 1 expressly mentions Article 9 of the more than one name. ITPGRFA which specifies that “the benefits As to derogation from the prescriptions of deriving from the reproduction, diffusion seed legislation, the decree provides and use [of conservation varieties], greater freedom than directive 62/2008. inalienably and indefeasibly belong to the Indeed the varieties have to be identifiable local communities who ensured their by means of a minimum number of conservation”. Art. 2 establishes the characters without specifying how many Section for conservation varieties in the can derogate from the prescriptions in Catalogue specifying that registration of Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability each variety is to be notified to the Ministry (DUS). Art 3 also highlights the major through the appropriate Region ad/or difference vis‐à‐vis the EU text. Here, Province who must give their approval. farmers are explicitly given the right to sell This means that the system is highly conservation varieties (Art 3 (2)). It seems decentralised and delegates evaluation of as though the Italian legislator took pains the prescriptions required for registration to allow farmers to do this rather than limit to local bodies in accordance with the
8 “We should favour a two‐fold procedure but do things so that what has been registered in the regional repertoires so far is channelled into the national repertoire – it cannot happen differently. The Regions will obviously have to toe the same line in this registration procedure. In actual fact, my experience tells me that in the little that has been done here are no differences in procedures among the Regions because by and large the regional laws are all the same” (O. Porfiri, pers. com.).
30 The implementation of the directive on conservation varieties
sales to the subjects provided for in the the same name and the use of public seed regulations9. funding (see e.g. geographical indications, On the other hand, the prescriptions on Rural Development Plan interventions). quantity limitations are more restrictive. This is a highly significant innovation Clause 2 limits the total quantity that each because it introduces a criterion of farmer can transfer as seed as “the amount protection of the local name (but even necessary to establish a crop of 1,000 more the right to use the local name) square metres for vegetables and 1 hectare which comes from outside the system of for the other agricultural species”. For the geographical indications, which up to cereals this means that the farmer can sell now have been the only one accepted. no more than 200‐300 kg of cereal seed per In conclusion, the Italian regulations are year. There being no explicit mention of also the outcome of compromise between the single varieties in the text (which is those who see conservation varieties as a instead given in directive 62/2008 way to legitimise many kinds of variety indicating the total by species and single which are not presently marketable and variety) it is clear that these figures are to therefore lean towards a slim, be taken as the totals for each person decentralised system and those who see selling and not, therefore, for each single them as a dangerous derogation from the conservation variety produced10. In this seed system and seek to curtail its case, a marked discrepancy arises with the potential as much as possible – the strict general objective of European legislation quantity limitations are the result of the on conservation varieties. Indeed, the affirmation of the latter. whole concept of conservation variations hinges on creating a market for them with Synergies with the Treaty its own set of rules. But how can one even The concept of conservation varieties is think of seed marketing with the quantity irrevocably connected to Article 6 of the limit set by the Italian decree? Who would Treaty and the sustainable use of genetic ever find it worthwhile to invest in such a plant resources. Indeed, every EU limited market? The eventuality of the document makes it clear that the directive cereal sector being interested is indeed on conservation varieties is the legislator’s remote. response to the seed sector as a move to The text of the Italian decree qualifies the stem the loss of agrobiodiversity. In point of fact, directive 62/2008 states that with local area (the region of origin in the text regard to the seed sector, in order to give of the directive) as “the traditional area of cultivation of the variety […] where the due weight to the aims of the Treaty, certain specific conditions have to be variety developed its properties”. This is established in the rules to govern the the only area in which selling is allowed, but there are no restriction on growing it marketing of seed. outside its area of origin except the use of If it is correctly implemented by Member States, the regulations on conservation
9 Provided for in Italy by Law 1096/1971 and amendments. 10 Note that the draft decree prepared by the Rural Seed Network and submitted to MiPAAF for approval linked the modest quantity to the “needs for a family‐scale farm” while extending the quantity limits. This idea had the advantage of not beginning right away with very low limits, leaving the definition to possible future instances of dispute to be judged on a case‐by‐case basis, each in accordance with its specificities.
31 The implementation of the directive on conservation varieties
varieties can be a valid tool towards They should, instead, be read as the changing the rules that discipline the beginning of a new pathway that links seed release of varieties and the distribution of production at local level and channels the seed as hoped for in Art 6 (g) of the Treaty. seed towards different agricultural models, The references to the zones of origin of the giving farmers a new role to play. In varieties and the tradition of cultivation can general, directive 62/2008 has to be read as be interpreted as an incentive to re‐localise a first timid step towards opening the seed seed production which takes account of market up to certain varieties as partial the varieties’ adaptation to different derogation from the prescriptions of DUS, surroundings and agricultural models and and also as procedures for marketing thus encourages the use of local and/or them. locally adapted varieties (Art.6 (e)). By It is to be stressed, however, that accepting for marketing varieties presently conservation varieties will be limited to a barred makes this norm also seem a means specific kind of variety for which a link with for increasing the range of varieties a certain territory will be historically available to farmers (Art.6 (d)). demonstrable. This, therefore, is not a Furthermore, directive 62/2008 opens a category for lumping together all the whole new interesting area in which civil varieties which at the moment cannot be society can become involved in the whole marketed, and for which it will be process of identification of conservation necessary to explore different legislative varieties by indicating that Member States openings. In particular we refer to the will be obliged to notify their appropriate following categories: organisations at national level on plant 1. the varieties produced by participative genetic resources (Arts. 5, 8, 11 and 21). The genetic improvement and are not in participation of farmers in the decision‐ conformity with DUS prescriptions; making process of agricultural biodiversity 2. The old varieties no longer registered in is one of the aims of the Treaty and is a the Catalogue (there factors that can precondition for implementing the make registering these varieties programmes of participatory plant problematical: excessive registration breeding, which is considered one of the costs, difficulty in proving the Value of means for putting the sustainable use of Cultivation and USE – VCU ‐, only plant genetic resources into practice. limited marginal areas interested in growing them) and which do not have Conclusions a precise geographical area of origin; The Italian legislation is going to be reviewed and amended in order to 3. Local varieties used as genetic implement the new directive 62/2008 in the resources in reintroduction next few months. Up to now no programmes, to cultivation in different information is available to say if Italy will areas from their area of origin; maintain and integrate its specific rules on 4. Variety – Populations that have no conservation varieties in the law of historical link with a given territory and implementation of the directive. which cannot be registered in the Depending of it, the regulations described official catalogue having no are in danger of getting bogged down if correspondence with the DUS criteria. they are interpreted and applied too There is another consideration to be made; narrowly. while the legislator intended to confer juridical legitimacy to these varieties by
32 The implementation of the directive on conservation varieties
integrating them into the seed market, it varieties, Journal of Agriculture and does not follow that by exchanging them in Environment for International a way that is not in conformity with the Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2. new directive makes the exchange Camacho Villa, T.C., Maxted, N., M. illegitimate. A reasonable assumption is Scholten, Ford‐Lloyd, B., 2006. that by lacking commercial exploitation the Defining and identifying crop act of exchange cannot be considered landraces. Plant Genetic Resources: marketing. Characterization and Utilization, 3: This directive could undoubtedly ease 373–384. relations between farmers and agricultural Chable V., Lammerts van Bueren E., 2009. red‐tape even if the use of just a few Report on the definitions of varieties varieties, presently not marketable were to in Europe, of local adaptation and of become ‘legalised’. This would solve a lot varieties threatened by genetic of problems of red tape that farmers who erosion, Farm seed opportunities, cultivate them encounter today when Specific Targeted Research Project, applying for public funding or organic VI Framework programme. certification. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC), In conclusion, the Directive is at great risk 2008. Evaluation of the Community of being unapplied despite the over ten acquis on the marketing of seed and years needed for it to see the light of day. plant propagating material (S&PM), The problem is not the quantity limitations Final Report, European Commission or geography but in the too few Directorate General for Health and derogations from the certification Consumers. procedure and the excessive red tape Masini S. 2008. “Varietà in purezza” e throughout the whole system. There “varietà da conservazione”: dalla seems to be a drive to apply the rules of esclusiva di sfruttamento brevettuale classic seed marketing to the much more alla libertà di accesso, Diritto e variegated market of conservation giurisprudenza agraria, alimentare e varieties. dell’alimentare, pp. 79‐90. This concern is also apparent in the final Menci V. 2007, Varieta’ locali e prodotti report of the evaluation of European seed tipici, Graduation Thesis. Department legislation prepared by the Food Chain of plant biology and agro‐ Evaluation Consortium (FCEC): “FCEC environmental biotechnology and concerns is that the new Directive may well animal husbandry, University of be restrictive if implemented in a wrong Perugia. way and FCEC is not certain that Member Lorenzetti S., Falcinelli M., 2006. Varietà e States will understand how to implement it dintorni, dal Seme, n.3. with flexibility, freedom and adaptability Lorenzetti F., Negri V., 2009. The European that the Commission intended” (FCEC, seed legislation on conservation 2008). varieties, In: Negri V., Vetelainen M. Bibliography and N. Maxted eds., “European Istat 2007, http://www.istat.it/agricoltura/ landrace conservation”, Bioversity datiagri/mezzipro/elesem.html International publ., Rome, Italy. Bertacchini E., 2009. Regional legislation in Negri V., 2005. Agro‐biodiversity Italy for the protection of local conservation in Europe: ethical issues.
33 The implementation of the directive on conservation varieties
Journal of Agricultural and Environment Ethics 18: 3‐25. Paoloni L., 2005. Diritti degli agricoltori e tutela della biodiversità, Giappichelli Editore, Torino. Porfiri, O., Costanza M.T. and Negri, V., 2009. Landrace Inventoring in Italy: the Lazio Regional Law Case Study, In: (Negri V., Vetelainen, M. and N. Maxted eds.) ‘European landrace conservation’, Bioversity International publ., Rome, Italy. Visser B. 2002. An Agrobiodiversity Perspective on Seed Policies, in Louwaars N. ed., Seed Policy, Legislation and Law: Widening a Narrow Focus, The Haworth Press. Zeven A.C., 1998. Landraces: a review of definitions and classifications, Euphytica 104: 127‐139.
34 Research and innovation initiatives in support of the seed plan
Research and innovation initiatives in 2005 ‐ 2007) was composed of the support of the seed plan following four theme areas: Riccardo Bocci, Maria Francesca Nonne 1. Development of guidelines for the production of non‐GMO seed products and for determining areas for “Landrace is a genetically variable multiplication; population, not improved by formal breeding, spread in the same area 2. Development of regulations for the where it originated through repeated production of non‐GMO seed products cultivation by farmers and that local for maize, soy, tomato, potato and community considers as its sugar beet heirloom” 3. Fine tuning of guidelines for identifying (Falcinelli, Lorenzetti, 2008) trace elements for the enhancement of the seed system; Introduction 4. Definition of guidelines for issuing seed The project entitled “Research and licences. innovation initiatives in support of the seed The second Programme of Research and plan” in the form of an inter‐Regional Experimentation (PRIS2, 2005 ‐ 2008) was project has been adopted by a number of divided over the following issues. : Regions pursuant to Law N° 578 of 1996 1. Development of supply chains for which provides for systematic initiatives to producing non GMO seed products; be launched in support of the Italian 2. Identification of production agriculture and food system. In this case, technologies for seed products for the project was launched in order to organic agriculture; improve the Italian seed system, considering that an agricultural policy 3. Assessment of suitability of varieties whose objective is quality must also accept suited to organic production; the uncompromising premise of 4. Assessment of autochthonous genetic guaranteed quality in seeds. The project resources of agricultural herbaceous committee, composed of representatives interest. from 16 Regions (Basilicata, Calabria, The raison d’etre of both PRISs lies in the Campania, Emilia Romagna, Friuli Venezia need for any domestic seed sector to be Giulia, Lazio, Liguria, Lombardia, Marche, sufficiently equipped to deal with the Molise, Piemonte, Sardegna, Sicilia, changes that occur in the world of Toscana and Veneto) led by the Region of agriculture; for example, the spotlight on Umbria launched two subprojects – one the one hand being focussed on the GMO nationwide entrusted to the Ente issue and the availability of GMO‐free seeds Nazionale Sementi Elette (National Elected and on the other hand on organic farming – Seed Authority) – the public body that an area in which Italy is one of the leading deals with seed certification and control, countries in Europe – and the need to have and the other Regional in scope, entrusted a seed distribution system that can to a Consortium of 16 research bodies produce seeds for organic farming. A third coordinated by the Department of Applied area of interest for PRIS is agricultural Biology of Perugia University. biodiversity and the so‐called local varieties The former, the First Programme for because as Falcinelli wrote (2008) “Today Research and Experimentation (PRIS1, the seed market is required to come to the defence of biodiversity”.
35 Research and innovation initiatives in support of the seed plan
This contribution will analyse this latter it is a synonym for landrace or local variety aspect of the inter‐regional project. (Falcinelli and Lorenzetti, 2008; Jucci 1950) to emphasis the contribution made by PRIS2 – agricultural biodiversity farmers which is not conveyed by the word The main objective of the three year ecotype in selecting varieties. The project was to map out of all the current definition that PRIS2 is based on three initiatives at national, regional and local basic premises: level in collecting, characterising, 1. The absence of formal genetic conserving and enhancing agricultural improvement; biodiversity 2. The structure of the variety being This research which was conducted by genetically variable; questionnaires to the main actors; 3. A link with the territory and the bibliographic investigations and focussed agricultural community that selected it. interviews highlighted the need for coordination among all those involved. The information was collected so as to set Indeed the great many subjects who are up a database that could be consulted on somehow involved in one way or another l i n e a t http:// in collecting studying and conserving local www.catalogovarietalocali.pris2.parco3a.o germplasm find themselves in a situation in rg/consultazione.aspx. It contains the data which there is a considerable amount of of the 2,126 varieties listed and is information but no shared work subdivided by category (graph 1) and by methodology. This makes it hard to category and region (graph 2). The compare the individual experiences and catalogue makes no claims to be data collected (Concezzi et al., 2008). This, exhaustive but is in any case a good then, is the situation in which a National starting point for learning about the Italian Plan of Agricultural Biodiversity was plant heritage which, in turn, is established in 2008 one of the results fundamental to any initiative for achieved by PRIS2 (see Nonne and Bocci on conserving and enhancing. For example, this Report on the The National Plan for access to incentives provided by the Rural Agrobiodiversity), and which provided a Development Plan for agricultural framework of national coordination. biodiversity conservation depends on Another issue that PRIS2 addressed was being included in a register or repertory of how to define landrace – a term used local varieties that qualify for funding within the international framework – at (Melozzi, 2009). The varieties accepted for national level. This is an important issue registration were catalogued on the basis since E.U Law increasingly refers to what in of a 16‐field data set which in addition to English are called “landraces”, a term the purely scientific also lists the local which often generates confusion in Italy. In name of the variety, the type of Community Directive 62/2008 on conservation it has been subjected to and conservation varieties, for instance, the availability of seed for exchange and landraces is translated as ecotypes (Bocci, research (Tab. 1). 2009), but PRIS2 concluded that the proper The varieties in the catalogue were translation is varietà locale because subdivided into 5 categories the largest ecotypes are a natural population being the cereals with 1,020 entries especially in an ecosystem. Moreover, followed by grain legumes with 518 and there is a older term – agroecotype – that vegetables with 363. The most cited may be used. Coined in 1950 by Carlo Jucci species is maize with 487 different varieties
36 Research and innovation initiatives in support of the seed plan
1Popular name 9Descriptors used 2Scientific name 10Inscription in a regional register 3Local name of the accession 11Public body who maintain the variety 4Accession PRIS2 Code 12Description of the institution 5Accesion maintener code 13Conservation (ex situ, in situ, on farm)
6Seed Availability (exchange, research) 14Region of origin
7Type of research undertaken 15References 8List of descriptors 16Link (where there are published informations on the variety)
Tab. 1: The data set for the catalogue. followed by beans with 302 varieties, usage. All these properties, together with medicinal herbs (110 varieties) and taste and smell, give it excellent prospects tomatoes (58 varieties). for being grown in low‐input farming contexts (Vecchio et al., 2008). This project, Grap 1 ‐ Varieties in the national catalogue realised in the Tuscany Region by Florence University involved several farmers in reproducing the collections housed in the 1% University seed bank and in the growing 17% trials of the varieties selected.
10% 48% PRIS2 and the sustainable use of agricultural genetic resources One of the first steps towards sustainable 24% use of plant genetic resources is to devise adequate strategies for orienting initiatives at national level. PRIS2 responds to Cereals Leguminous precisely this need, outlining Fodder leguminous Vegetables recommendations, future activities and Others pointing out key points for fitting At regional level the richest in local agricultural biodiversity conservation into varieties is Umbria (307), followed by the the Italian agricultural system in particular Abruzzi and the Marche (231), Sicilia (195) into the areas of organic farming and and Toscana (178), as can be seen in the typical local produce. following table. The work carried out by PRIS2 in PRIS2 has also made efforts to recover and researching and organising the data is the revalue old varieties of wheat to assess if starting point for increasing the use of local and how they may be adapted to organic and locally adapted varieties as provided by farm cultivation. The varieties concerned Article 6.2 (e) of the International Treaty on were not local but from the first half of the Plant Genetic Resources for Food and 20th Century, produced by plant breeding Agriculture (ITPGRFA). Indeed, the legal and endowed with a marked capability of tools that discipline the marketing of the adaptation, robustness, resistance to varieties always call for knowledge about disease and greater efficiency in nitrogen and characterisation of the genetic material. This is found, for example, in the
37 Research and innovation initiatives in support of the seed plan
Tab. 1 ‐ Varieties in the National Catalogue listed by Regions and categories 400
300
200
100
0 Lazio Sicilia Puglia Molise Liguria Veneto Valle d'Aosta Umbria Calabria Marche Abruzzo Toscana Trentino Alto Adige Basilicata Campania Sardegna Piemonte Lombardia EmiliaRomagna Friuli Venezia Giulia
Cereals Leguminous Fodder leguminous Vegetables Others
Italian regional laws as well as in the importance of getting farmers’ active European norms on conservation varieties participation, not only in agricultural where identifying the variety is biodiversity conservation but also in indispensable. As stated by Falcinelli and research and experimentation such as took Lorenzetti (2008), all local varieties can be place in the specific wheat project in listed in the registers or catalogues of Toscana, the PRIS2 paves the way for conservation varieties, therefore the affirming a participative research model as inventory of the local varieties prepared by indicated in Art 6 (c). PRIS2 is an important step forward towards actually proceeding to conserve Conclusions them. Here, though, the problem arises: The accomplishments of PRIS2 on which descriptors are to be used to agricultural biodiversity are an important describe the local variety? “What was step forward towards full application of achieved within the PRIS2 programme the Treaty in Italy. In addition to the leads us to think that even using UPOV or concept embodied in Article 6 they are the Community Plant Variety Office descriptors, basis on which to build the future sharing their actual number should fall dramatically of plant genetic resources within the resorting only to those by which local multilateral system. The proposed national varieties can be distinguished from each catalogue is very interesting in this sense another making use of the farmers’ since not only has it identified the ex situ knowledge. They, indeed, should be the collections of the research institutes but closest advisors regarding the species they also the many varieties held for whatever are familiar with” (Falcinelli and Lorenzetti, reasons by the actors of the varied world 2008). In this respect, PRIS2 can be linked of agrobiodiversity conservation. to Art 6 of the ITPGRFA, as it encourages Furthermore the information that the the creation of a more flexible legislative database will provide on how the resource system for registering varieties. is conserved (ex situ, in situ, on farm) and Furthermore, and wishing to highlight the the extent to which the seed is available is centralised information all part of the
38 Research and innovation initiatives in support of the seed plan
facilitated access to the material. Updating supporto del piano nazionale the catalogue and making it fully sementiero ‐ PRIS2, Promovideo. operational is now the responsibility of the Rete Interregionale per la Ricerca Agraria, National Plan on Agricultural Biodiversity Forestale, Acquacoltura e Pesca, which is also responsible for tackling 2008. Azioni di innovazione e ricerca a practical issues of accessing it. supporto del piano nazionale At national level PRIS2 acknowledges the sementiero ‐ Pris2, Promovideo. need to implement existing legislation on Jucci C., 1950. Ricerche citogenetiche e conservation varieties so as to set the fisiogenetiche, Genetica Iberica, 2, marketing of these seeds within a clearer 267‐276. legal framework. Here, the responsibility Vecchio V., Manzelli M., Ghiselli L., falls on the MiPAAF who will have to align Benedettelli S., 2008. Recupero e national legislation by the end of 2009 valorizzazione di germoplasma di (Law 46 of 2007 establishing the catalogue p a t a t a e f r u m e n t o , i n R e t e of conservation varieties and the relative Interregionale per la Ricerca Agraria, ministerial decree of June 2008 defining Forestale, acquacoltura e pesca, terms and procedures) with the recent Azioni di innovazione e ricerca a community directive (62/2008). supporto del piano nazionale Note also the importance of the link that sementiero ‐ PRIS2, Promovideo. PRIS2 establishes between local varieties and organic farming not only in as regards conservation but also as a way of getting them to be a regular part of farming
Bibliography Bocci R., 2009. Seed legislation and agrobiodiversity: conservation varieties, Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2. Concezzi L., Gramaccia M., Mauceri S., 2008. Realizzazione di un Catalogo Nazionale delle VArietà Locali, in Rete Interregionale per la Ricerca Agraria, Forestale, acquacoltura e pesca, Azioni di innovazione e ricerca a supporto del piano nazionale sementiero ‐ PRIS2, Promovideo. Falcinelli M., Lorenzetti S., 2008. Le varietà locali presenti in Italia e la loro salvaguardia per la difesa della biodiversità nazionale, in Rete Interregionale per la Ricerca Agraria, Forestale, acquacoltura e pesca, Azioni di innovazione e ricerca a
39 Incentives for agricultural biodiversity: the role of Rural Development Plans
Incentives for agrobiodiversity: the development is the so‐called Rural implementation of Rural Development Development Plan (RDP)2, one of the two Plans1 pillars on which the Common Agricultural 3 Lorenzo Melozzi Policy (CAP) rests. RDPs are the tools by which the EU puts its policies into practice and seeks to orient the operators involved "Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia y si by means of economic incentives. no la salvo a ella no me salvo yo". RDPs provide two kinds of incentive for José Ortega y Gasset, conservation of agricultural biodiversity, Meditaciones del ‘Quijote’, I: 322. namely direct and indirect. The former Introduction takes the shape of payments made to Biological diversity is one of the most farmers for growing or raising a specific important and weighty values and breed or variety at risk of genetic erosion resources within the concept of (measure 214 in the Axis 2). The latter are sustainable development, a cornerstone indemnities to encourage a farming implemented by the European Union in all approach that is more respectful of the policies. The EU was one of the main environment and less intensive and which, players in negotiations on the International generally speaking, makes use of Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food agricultural biodiversity. and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), often bridging The RDPs in Italy the gap between other OECD Responsibility for planning and running (Organisation for Economic Cooperation RDPs in Italy lies with the Regions while in and Development) countries and other European countries it is national or developing nations. Furthermore, in hybrid – shared between State and Region. signing the Treaty in March 2004, the EU For this reason, RDPs were presented by 21 became a contractual party to it and has local governments with responsibility for the same responsibilities as Member States agricultural policies at local level. This for implementing it. decentralisation, which in certain cases The main tool by which Member States extends to sub‐regional level with the implement their policies for agricultural
1 This article is an excerpt from Melozzi L., Incentives for agrobiodiversity within the European Union: the role of Rural Development Plans, Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, vol. 102. N. 1‐2. 2 Rural Development Plans are the means by which Community policies for rural development are put into practice at local level. The tool of the RDP was introduced by Regulation CE 1257/99, and is a planning document drawn up by the Regional governments. The Plans are organised along axes of prioritised intervention; on finalisation they are sent to the Commission and promulgated by means of a Decision. Rural development is the development of rural areas defined by the OECD as having a population density not exceeding 150 inhabitants per Km². 3 The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is one of the competences shared between the EU and its Member States. Set up by article 33 of the EU constituting treaty, its scope is to ensure European consumers reasonable prices, a fair remuneration to farmers, above all by a common organisation of agricultural markets and conformity with the principles enshrined by the 1958 Conference of Stresa concerning uniformity of prices, financial solidarity and EU preference. At present, all Member States contribute a percentage of their GDP to the annual EU budget as part of the so‐called own resources. Approximately half of this figures goes to finance the CAP.
40 Incentives for agricultural biodiversity: the role of Rural Development Plans
Provinces preparing the local Development better organised agriculture, invested Plans, has allowed each region, in theory at more in axis 2 (Italian average 42%), while least, to tailor the RDPs to better fit their the Regions of Italy where agriculture is own territorial specificities. Decentralising more marginal but rich in agri‐biodiversity agricultural policies plays a very important order to use their resources for axis 1. role in safeguarding agricultural An analysis of the expenditure of Axis 2, biodiversity as we shall see. Furthermore, shows that in most Regions (11 out of 16), an analysis of this expenditure is highly significant because % Axis 2 of the % Measure % Measure 214 responsibility for implementing the total RDP 214 of axis 2 of the total RDP Treaty in Italy lies with the Regions. Public 42 52 22 Consequently, if their investment in expenditure the RDP is different, the extent to Tab. 1: The number of agri‐environmental which they achieve the objectives of the measures in Italy (Source: Fugaro, 2008). Treaty will be (Bertacchini, 2009). RDPs can therefore be seen as additional financial tools provided by the CAP to facilitate the resources are concentrated in measure implementation of the Treaty. 214 on the total public expenditure. The overall resources that the Regions Expenditure allocated to agri‐environment have freed up for the whole 2007‐13 period issues range from 32% of the Autonomous amount to 16,726 million euros which come Province of Bolzano to 7% in Liguria (Graph from the European Fund for Regional 2). Note that most of these resources were Development (EFRD) and national and incentives to organic farming and so can be regional co‐funding. Graph 1 compares the considered as an indirect incentive to difference in the amounts allocated in the conserving agricultural biodiversity. Regions for each single axis expressed as More in detail, aid earmarked for percentages. Those from the north, with safeguarding agrobiodiversity contemplate two specific aspects: 1.Raising breeds of local importance at risk of genetic erosion; 2.Cultivation and multiplication of local varieties at risk of genetic erosion. As can also be seen from table 4, 19 Regions/Autonomous Provinces (excluding Abruzzo and Molise) embarked on at least one of the two initiatives which reflects the degree of interest shown by the single regions for these forms of Graph 1 – Overall public expenditure per axis. support. No fewer than 17 Source: data processed by this author based on the “Rural Regions tendered bids for Development Plans 2007‐2013” of the Regions r a i s i n g b r e e d s o f autochthonous livestock
41 Incentives for agricultural biodiversity: the role of Rural Development Plans
while only 13 included specific initiatives for and update of regional Repertoires (for growing plant genetic resources. Only 11 the regions who possess them). Regions contemplated initiatives for both. Initiatives can include managing, Aid was given to the following subjects: putting into practice and monitoring 1. Individual or associated breeders and the regional seed bank and the list of farmers who commit themselves to in steward farmers; providing training, situ raising the pure bred animals for technical assistance ad teaching which aid is given, or maintain, or services, supervising the conservation increase the consistency of the local and security network and verification breeds registered. The amount of aid of its state of functionality; carrying out ranges from a minimum of 80 to a local conservation and enhancement maximum of 500 €/LU (Livestock projects and re‐introduction of varieties Unit)4, depending on species and of local origin back into the territory; breed. teaching, dissemination and training initiatives on the web. Here, the 2. Individual or associated farmers who amount of aid is 100% of expenditure. commit themselves for a period of not less than 5 years to grow, conserve, Obviously, the variety or breed eligible for reproduce or increase the consistency aid must be listed in the regional registers. of plant genetic resources (specified in This is where the work by the regions, the RDP or for varieties listed in the which have specific laws for protecting appropriate registers, or in voluntary autochthonous genetic resources, regional registers, see Annex) which encounters the Regional Development are at risk of genetic erosion in the area Plans. The regional repertoires, prepared of origin. pursuant to regional laws, are the lists of the varieties and breeds on which there is 3. Public research bodies and botanic the right to a premium (Bertacchini, 2009). gardens for the upkeep, management The result is perfect harmony between a tool for regional planning and a European Union fi n a n c i a l o n e . S h o u l d t h e s e r e p e r t o i r e s b e unavailable, the regions resort to w h a t p u b l i c research centres have produced on t h e i s s u e
Graph 2 – Overall regional expenditure for measure 214 on the total public expenditure Source: Mipaaf data processed by this author based on the “Rural Development Plans 2007‐2013”.
4 Livestock Unit (LU): Bulls, cows and other bovines older than 2 years (1 LU), adult bovine aged between 6 months and 2 years ( 0.6 LU), sheep (0.15 LU), goats (0.15 LU).
42 Incentives for agricultural biodiversity: the role of Rural Development Plans
concerned. All RDPs contain a list of the farmers “combining” local breeds and species for animal resources which may varieties into forms of sustainable apply for premiums. 17 breeds of horse, 26 agriculture such as organic farming using of bovines, 42 of sheep, 27 of goats, 6 pig the factor of quality as a tool for enhancing and 6 asinine (Fugaro, 2008). It is more local crops. complicated to develop a combined Furthermore, some regions appointed two scenario of plant genetic resources specific figures to benefit from initiatives, because of the great many varieties listed namely the steward farmer (Sicilia, Veneto) in the regional registers (see Annex). and the steward breeder (Veneto). These Note that certain regions (Basilicata, Emilia are farmers and breeders who carry out Romagna, Liguria, Puglia, Umbria, and farming within the regional territory and Veneto) have broadened the area of simple act as custodians of biodiversity by using direct aid for conserving agricultural and conserving local genetic resources. biodiversity by including “supplemented Not to be forgotten is the Leader axis, by territorial plans” among projects for funding. Emilia Romagna was the first region to begin moving in this direction seeking a higher profile in the dynamics of rural development, a strengthening of the identity of rural territories, an enhancement of their endogenous resources, and the creation of a more direct link between public bodies and the subject who attends to resource conservation. More in detail, these plans provide for specific initiatives for in situ and ex situ conservation, typifying, collecting and making use of autochthonous genetic resources of interest to agriculture, but also, and especially, agreed‐on supplementary initiatives from promoting the culture of rural communities to providing information and dissemination about everything related to Tab. 2 – Measures in support of plant varieties agrobiodiversity. Those carrying it out can and/or animal breeds also be organisations of civil society. The Source: data processed by this author based on aim of the projects is to encourage formal the Mipaaf data: “Rural Development Plans and informal institutions to become 2007‐2013” of the Regions www.politicheagricole.it involved in conserving biodiversity so that the conditions will arise for the heritage to virtue, also, of the positive reaction become a real resource. This can take forthcoming from the previous plans place, for example, by creating new 2000‐2006. The purpose of the Leader was markets or revitalising local circuits, setting to strengthen the links between up local cooperative ventures or other agricultural policies and social and forms of associationism as a support for economic interests through a process of local producers, training teachers and local governance, and by encouraging
43 Incentives for agricultural biodiversity: the role of Rural Development Plans
synergies between divergent areas and a with 127 applications and 500 thousand network of relationships able to promote euros expenditure and was the Region in new opportunities for farmers, the public, Italy that invested most in conserving local craftsmen and the territory. The autochthonous genetic resources. Even results have contributed directly, but Spelt from Garfagnana and the Zolfino especially indirectly, to developing bean which were initially included in initiatives for safeguarding animal and regional lists because of their risk of plant biodiversity. Indeed, by enhancing erosion were subsequently removed typical local produce through involvement because the danger no longer exists. It of the whole community, there has been an must be said, however, that the merit of overall, integrated improvement of local this success did not lie in the CAP alone or resources which included the plant and/or in the direct aid but was also due to the animal biological diversity being protected rebirth of a niche market for them (Marino, and enhanced. In Italy, the Leader project 2001). The fact that today almost every has been widely used to ascertain local Region tenders bids for aid for activities of varieties and breeds still being kept up by this kind shows a renewal of interest and farmers. The surveys were carried out by points to the role that these resource can local authorities in close cooperation with play in rural development. public research centres. These proved The effectiveness of these measures is also essential for mapping the agricultural striking. As stated above and confirmed by diversity in the field. Just how important several analyses on the ground, the the Leader axis is in revitalising rural areas instances of direct aid being a real driving can be seen in the case of the Cerere force in conserving agricultural genetic project in the Gran Sasso and Monti della resources were when they were part of a Laga national park in the Abruzzo region broader context that included many local (see Bocci in this issue). Despite the RDP actors. This is borne out by the study not providing specific initiatives in measure conducted by Prof. Riccardo Fortina of the 214 for the protection of agricultural Department of Animal Husbandry of the biodiversity, the Cerere project which was University of Turin on the “Mora also funded by Leader, enabled a local Romagnola” (a breed of pig from survey to be carried out and a network of Romagna) and the “Sempione” (a goat steward farmers to be set up together with from Piemonte), genetically the accompanying incentives (Agro autochthonous breeds which were in Biodiversità, 2008). danger of extinction, and which were both On examining the 2007‐13 plan saved through initiatives funded by the implemented by the regions, the first Emilia Romagna and Piemonte Regions thought that comes to mind is that local respectively (within the support measures government is always interested in provided for by the RDPs). While the incentives of this kind. Agri‐environment “Mora Romagnola” population has grown payments under regulation 2078 of 1992 from the 10 heads in 1997 to today’s 600 including specific measures for those thanks to a joint effort on the part of wishing to cultivate ancient plant varieties institutions (Region, university, research or breeds of animal only began in 1997 and centre), breeders, transformers and only in 4 Regions, namely Friuli, Toscana, agritourism, the outcome of the Sempione the Province of Bolzano and Umbria. In goat project has been less successful. The actual fact, Toscana had the lion’s share population of 30 has not changed over the
44 Incentives for agricultural biodiversity: the role of Rural Development Plans
last 25 years and the main causes include a the conservation of single genetic lack of synergy between the institutions resources but views the agricultural system and breeders, the latter being unaware of from a holistic, eco‐systemic approach that or not knowing how to apply the proper also includes natural diversity. This, then, means of safeguarding the breed. places the other initiatives provided by Especially, though, differently from the measure 214 into their proper perspective; Mora Romagnola, there lacked a focused despite no longer being specifically in aim of safeguarding the breed which in support of an agricultural model that addition to conserving the germplasm saw makes more use of agricultural this breed playing an economic or biodiversity, they still promote land use by environmental part present or future or grass cover, conversion of arable land to having an historic or cultural worth5. grassland and environmental improvement and landscape conservation. RDPs in relation to Article 6 of the Treaty The initiatives of measure 214 specifically The CAP and RDPs in particular are the for protecting local varieties and breeds at most important tools by which the risk of genetic erosion appear as another of European Union pursues the objectives the measures indicated in Article 6. Here, within agriculture’s new role in society. The the relevant clauses are (2) (e) on sustainable use of genetic resources is one promoting the use of local varieties and of the new priorities as stated also in the varieties adapted to local conditions and European Action Plan for Agricultural (2) (f) on the in‐farm management and Biodiversity.The recent Intermediate conservation of genetic resources. Indeed, Evaluation of Implementation of the the Italian system shows how the list of Community Action Plan on Biodiversity is varieties and breeds accepted for explicit; in the chapter on biodiversity in contributions within RDPs include a series the countryside it suggests making other of local genetic resources which are the funding available for rural development for result of localised adaptation to different safeguarding biodiversity by shifting surroundings and cultures. Providing resources from the first to the second pillar incentives for the conservation of these of the CAP (European Commission, 2008). varieties is the primary objectives that In point of fact, measure 214 of the RDP is Regions have set themselves. perfectly in line with Article 6 (2) (a) of the This link between specific measures of the Treaty where the measures favouring the RDPs and the Treaty is confirmed by the sustainable use of genetic resources work of research and enhancement begun include proper agricultural policies that by the Regions which is also funded by the promote the development and same measures. Indeed, in a wider maintenance of diversified farming perspective, in pursuing the objective of systems. Contributions to encourage sustainability in agricultural biodiversity, conversion to integrated agriculture, and the Treaty recognises the importance of even more to organic agriculture are also the contractual parties activating clearly moving in this direction. Note that programmes of conservation, research, this clause of the Treaty goes well beyond development and enhancement. That
5 Thanks to Dr. F. Perri of the Development service of the agriculture and food system of the Department of Agriculture of the Emilia Romagna Region and also to Prof. R. Fortina of the Department of Animal Husbandry of the University of Turin – RARE, Association of Autochthonous Breeds at Risk of Extinction for giving useful comments and information.
45 Incentives for agricultural biodiversity: the role of Rural Development Plans
every Region in Italy has envisaged funding traditional foodstuffs rediscovered and for these initiatives for research centres enhanced. and botanical gardens, or that some have As we have pointed out, in a country like included “integrated territorial projects” in Italy, enhancement of biodiversity their initiatives to be financed is a clear sign underpins many rural development policies of the role that rural development policies in which agricultural production maintains can play in implementing the Treaty, and its link with the territory and its culture of become increasingly important territorial origin, giving them worth (Negri and as opposed to sectorial tools. Veronesi, 2000).
Conclusions Bibliography These last ten years have seen a Agro Biodiversità, 2008. La rete degli heightened awareness both in Europe and agricoltori custodi del Parco in Italy of rural development issues. Within Nazionale del Gran Sasso de Monti this process the farmer has taken on a new della Laga, Gruppo Tipografico role in society, not merely a producer of Editoriali. L’Aquila. food products but also of services, and Bertacchini E., 2009. Regional Legislation in especially of the conservation and Italy for the protection of local sustainable use of biodiversity. varieties, Journal of Agriculture and In many cases, however, agricultural Environment for International biodiversity is still seen as a side issue of Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2. agricultural and production policies in Brouwer F., 2005. Sustaining Agriculture which agriculture should firstly be brought and the Rural Environment, up to date and then some thought be Governance, Policy and turned to environmental issues. This Multifunctionality, Edited by Floor interpretation of direct forms of aid for Brouwer, LEI, The Netherlands. conservation carries the risk of the Cannata G., Marino D., 2000. La biodiversità effectiveness being closely linked to the quale risorsa per lo sviluppo rurale duration of the inventive received. To endogeno, in Bevilacqua p., Corona achieve the desired results, by contrast, the G. (eds.), Ambiente e risorse nel aid = conservation of biodiversity equation Mezzogiorno contemporaneo, needs to be included in well‐defined local Donzelli Editore, Rome. strategies and policies which take other Cleveland D.A., Soleri D., Smith E.S., 1994, factors into consideration. Do folk crop varieties have a role in It is assuredly not easy to identify the best sustainable agriculture?, BioScience, means for safeguarding and enhancing Vol. 44, No. 11. biodiversity, but identifying it as a resource C. Ohl C., Drechsler M., Johst K., Wätzold F., is assuredly a major step at institutional 2008. Compensation payments for level (Cannata and Marino, 2000). Local h a b i t a t h e t e r o g e n e i t y : varieties and breeds should be seen as a Existence,efficiency, and fairness resource for farmers to make direct use of considerations . E c o l o g i c a l (Cleveland, 1994), providing incentives for Economics N°67. their cultivation and use more than for conservation and linking their produce to Dalla Ragione I., Porfiri O., Silveri D., the territory. This in turn highlights the Torricelli R., Veronesi F., 2007. Le relationship between local culture and local risorse genetiche autoctone della varieties and breeds synthesised in
46 Incentives for agricultural biodiversity: the role of Rural Development Plans
regione Abruzzo: un patrimonio da Institute for European Environmental valorizzare, ARSSA. Policy European Commission, 2001. Biodiversity http://www.ieep.eu/index.php action plan for agriculture, March Ministry for the Environment and the 2001. Protection of the Territory and the Sea Fugaro A., 2008. La nuova politica di http://www.minambiente.it/ sviluppo rurale 2007‐2013 ‐ Una Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry politica per l'agricoltura, una politica http://www.politicheagricole.it/ per il territorio, Roma. default.html Kettunen M., 2008. The EU budget and biodiversity, Institute for European Environmental Policy. Marino D., 2001. Le politiche e le strategie a livello internazionale e nazionale per la salvaguardia e la valorizzazione della biodiversità , c o l l a n a “Biodiversità” Università degli Studi del Molise. Negri V., Veronesi F., 2000. Gli agricoltori creatori e conservatori della biodiversità: rapporti tra colture e culture locali. Rete Rurale Nazionale 2007‐2013: Programmazione di sviluppo rurale 2007‐2013 Ricognizione: Conservazione delle risorse genetiche nella misura 214 pagamenti agroambientali, luglio 2008 Roma. Sotte F., Ripanti R., 2008. I Psr 2007‐2013 delle Regioni italiane Una lettura quali‐quantitativa, working paper n °6, Roma. Sites of reference Rural Agriculture and Development ‐ EUROPA h t t p ://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ index_it.htm Bioversity International http://www.bioversityinternational.org/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao.org/
47 White Sperlonga Celery – a new local variety
White Sperlonga Celery – a new local between geographical indication and variety1 protection of agriobiodiversity within the Riccardo Bocci perspective of sustainable use of genetic resources over time. Moreover, ARSIAL “Tradition is the expression of studies on the phenotypic characterisation continuity in time not the of the celery and on the seed system which conservation of the past – its lie at the basis of its cultivation, enable us meaning is the opportunity of to understand how the informal seed innovation in continuity” system works in an industrialised country (Angelini, 2008) and the importance it can have. We use the Introduction term “informal” because the White Celery White Sperlonga Celery is a local variety is not registered in the Catalogue of grown in the Province of Latina in the Varieties of Vegetable Species and so, Region of Lazio, one of the areas of Italy according to seed regulations, its seed with a vocation for vegetable growing. Its should not be marketed. story, and the recent research that the How the variety developed Regional Body for Development and White Sperlonga Celery (Apium graveolens Innovation (ARSIAL) carried out on this L.) has white or whitish stalks which are its variety are important for understanding qualifying characteristic. It is of average the connection between a variety and the size and compact shape with 10‐15 light area it is grown in and how this relationship green leaves. Its flavour is sweet and only is not unchangeable but evolves over time. slightly aromatic which makes it highly Indeed this celery today is an authentic suitable to be eaten fresh (Paoletti et al., local variety2, despite being completely 2005). absent from farmers’ fields in the late ’50s. It was introduced to the area in the early Conservation and selection of Sperlonga ’60s by a farmer who transplanted some Celery by farmers began with the market white celery in his field that he had bought interest that the variety had and continues in the market in Rome, the seed of which to have thanks to its special taste and smell reproduced itself year after year. In the properties. In 2003, producers who grew it plain of Sperlonga and Fondi, not far from launched, with the help of ARSIAL, the the sea, the variety found earth markedly procedure for recognising it at European typical of an almost surface‐level and highly level as an PGI product (Protected saline water table – the so‐called "Pantani" Geographic Indication), while – a condition that gives it its present contemporarily the celery was included in properties of smell and taste. However, the the regional register of the local varieties variety was beset by the problem of the of Lazio. All this makes it an excellent case early emission of the flowering stem. In the study to verify the correspondence mid ’60s that same farmer imported some
1 My thanks to the staff of ARSIAL who gave me access to thei archives and gave me of their time for in‐depth talks on the topic, in particular Miria Catta, Pierfrancesco Nardi and Imma Barbagiovanni. 2 Three factors enable the White Celery to be so defined – selection on the part of the farmers, the broad genetic variability and being known and kept up by a local community (Falcinelli and Lorenzetti, 2008).
48 White Sperlonga Celery – a new local variety
seeds of the Dorato d’Asti variety that had more resistance to this problem, and began to grow it alongside the variety introduced some years earlier3. The introgression of this new property into the white celery population spread it much more widely throughout the area. Historic documents from 1914 mention several farmers in the plain of the river Tanaro in Piemonte growing golden celery indicating that the Asti golden celery had been grown successfully since the early 20th Century. Today, the Dorato d’Asti variety is registered in the National Catalogue of Vegetables. The selection made by farmers since the The White Sperlonga Celery. ’60s has created a local variety – the White Sperlonga Celery – grown today on some nursery and distributes the celery seedlings 40‐50 hectares in the plain compared to to the other farmers of the area for the 90‐100 hectares given over to transplanting. There are an estimated sixty commercial varieties like Golden Boy. There farmers involved in this seed supply are some sixty farmers involved in two mechanism (fig. 1). Note that the first cooperatives (La Flacca4 and San Leo) experiments carried out comparing the 5 through whom the product is marketed in populations with certain commercial Italy and also abroad in Belgium and varieties indicated a vast genetic variability Germany. The farms are small to medium – both between populations and within between 1 to 3 hectares – and by and large single populations. Indeed, this agrees with the celery is grown protected and farming the White Celery seed system with in‐farm is intensive. Sowing the White Celery is seed reproduction being entrusted to a staggered from end November till end group of local farmers and is one of the January so as to be harvested between end reasons why this variety can be defined as April and end July. local. The experimental work carried out jointly Seed production by ARSIAL and ENSE was aimed at firstly Preliminary research on the ground carried identifying the variants to define their out by ARSIAL with the support of the properties, to describe the variability National Elected Seed Body (ENSE) present and arrive at identify appropriate identified five populations belonging to the descriptors. White Celery type which are maintained Reproducing the White Celery seed is not and reproduced each year by the same easy and is done with great care by a number of farmers. One farmer has a
3 The study of the variety’s history was carried out by ARSIAL through interviews with farmers and by analysing the farms’ taxation documents. 4 Today, 30 years after its establishment, the Flacca cooperative counts 70 farms of the Sperlonga Fondi plain who till approximately 100 hectares under glass with an average yearly marketed production of some 110 thousand quintals and a production capacity of 150 thousand quintals.
49 White Sperlonga Celery – a new local variety
population 1 production population 2
farmer population 3 phenotypic selection population 4
50-60 popoluation 5 farmer nursery farmers
Fig. 1 ‐ The Seed supply system of the White Celery limited number of farmers. Interviews with sent in 2005 to the E.U. and in 2008 The them revealed that not only do they carry Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry out the phenotypic selection of the seed‐ (MiPAAF) granted nation‐wide transitory bearing plant (i.e. obtain seed from the protection for the denomination of “White best plants), planted in specially protected Sperlonga Celery” pending European PGI hidden places, isolated to prevent registration. The choice of PGI as a means contamination from nearby celery plants, of protection instead of PDO (Protected but they also follow traditional practices, Designation of Origin) stems from the such as, for example sowing at high tide. Agency’s view that PDO is more suited to The farmers conserve the seeds jealously processed products as opposed to fresh and distribute them in following certain vegetable produce. customary rules and practices. Indeed the I n f a c t t h e researcher who was conducting the study regulations devised had to overcome the initial mistrust of the for the White Celery farmers to understand how the seeds were r e q u i r e s a l l circulated and left to carry out the production phases experimental trials with only 30‐40 seeds to be completed given to him by a farmer only after he had within the territory gained his trust. hence it could easily h a v e b e e n Between Conservation and Valorization considered a PDO In 2003, the White Celery was included in to all intents and the Regional Voluntary Register (RVR) of The logo of the PGI. purposes5. the autochthonous genetic resources at Inclusion in the risk of erosion as provided by Regional Law RVR, and PGi recognition are presently N° 15 (Bertacchini, 2009), and that same underway at the same time and were year the procedure was begun to obtain implemented by two separate recognition of the status of Protected departments of ARSIAL, and it is Geographical Indication (PGI) from the interesting to note the points of European Union. The documentation was convergence and criticality. Indeed, while
5 The idea of PDO is to protect a unique product which is non‐reproducible elsewhere whereas PGI is based on the reputation of the product and does not imply that the raw materials necessarily come from the specific area that the PGI refers to. For a discussion on the implications of PDO and PGI see Bérard and Marchenay (2004).
50 White Sperlonga Celery – a new local variety
RVR inclusion – the former – has the geographical indications and has never objective of conserving a genetic resource, been more topical than it is today. The the latter has a more commercial following points deserve particular significance and aims to protect the attention: the strict identification and product on the market by safeguarding its description of varietal types, their diversity name; applying a geographical indication and local growing methods, the link does not always lead directly to the between the preservation of varietal conservation of a genetic resource. diversity and the selection and These two objectives are assessed on the maintenance of varieties, and the basis of the regulations that discipline any multiplication and production of link between conserving the genetic seeds” (Bérard and Marchenay, 2008). The resource and its commercial exploitation requirement for inclusion of the seed in the (Bérard and Marchenay, 2008). A delicate RVR has been noted by the E.U. who has equilibrium is being maintained for White asked for information and explanations on Celery between the need to adequately what this register actually is. As we have describe and typify the variety for it to be noted, White Celery is not in the vegetable registered as PGI against the importance of catalogue and as far as the European Union maintaining the genetic variability of the is concerned there are no other registers or various populations. The danger lies in an catalogues for seeds, hence the request for excessive standardisation of the variety clarification. It is, however, true that with a description which would unify all the maintaining a certain genetic variability is diversities under a single type. This is why incompatible with the present norms that ARSIAL is moving towards using the regulate seeds. As we shall see under, one numbered intervals of the parameters used possibility might be opening up with to identify White Celery from the other conservation varieties. v a r i e t i e s a n d t h e r e s u l t s o f One of the results that emerged from this experimentation with ENSE, so as to case is a painstaking intervention in the encompass the broadest possible territory to identify what is to be regulated. variability of the population. A further The earliest studies carried out towards central aspect of the regulation of PGI recognising PGI had resulted in writings on production is the origin and production of the proposal to regulate that all farms the seed. Indeed it states that the seeds should reproduce the seeds in farm. It was used by the single local farms involved in only later investigation, carried out to production must be those included in the characterise the variety in order for it to be Voluntary Regional Register. This is the included in the RVR that brought to light direct link between the norms for the nursery and the complexity of the conservation of agricultural biodiversity system illustrated in fig. 1. Failing to and the enhancement of the name of the understand how the seed is produced, who variety on the market. Without a detailed produces it and how it circulates among indication on this, any attempt at farmers contributes to erasing all the regulation risks protecting only the diversity constructed locally which is in fact geographical indication and losing sight of the basis of the product. Aware of this the the genetic resource that it is based on. As people in ARSIAL amended the regulations Bérard and Marchenay remark “the in accordance with the actual situation. question of plant varieties and seeds is Another interesting aspect of IGP is the pivotal to vegetable production in collective dynamics that come into play in
51 White Sperlonga Celery – a new local variety
the territory (Fournier, 2008). Indeed in certain hypotheses in accordance with order to prepare the documentation, the recent developments in seed legislation. two cooperatives set up the Association of One possibility is to register White Celery in Sperlonga White Celery Producers which the official vegetable catalogue in order to appears as the party responsible for the legalise the sale of the seed and create a variety in the Voluntary Regional Register. subject responsible for the conservative Moreover the Association, or the selection of the variety. This however Consortium it may develop into, must also would cause strong indirect impact on the monitor production control and variability of the variety. The norms for observance of the regulations provided by registration (distinctness, uniformity and the system of geographical indication. stability) would exclude all but one varietal Lastly, it should be remembered that White type from among the various populations, Celery has been registered on the list of which in turn would further reduce the varieties at risk of genetic erosion which diversity still cultivated by the farmers public funding can be applied for, for on today. This alternative would certainly farm conservation. This is measure 214 of make it easier for the product to be the Lazio Region Rural Development Plan certified as PGI and it would also simplify (Melozzi, 2009), the objective of which is the system of control but in the end it to strengthen the link between would cause a genetic erosion of the conservation, production and variety... enhancement of agricultural genetic The alternative could be to register the resources, providing direct incentives for variety in the Italian Catalogue of farmers to grow a particular variety. The conservation varieties (Bocci, 2009), given risk of genetic erosion of the Celery has that the Celery has all the properties been estimated as being medium the risk entitling it to do so: seed cultivation and factors being the small number of farmers production in a well‐defined area, link who grow it (between 30 and 100) and between the territory and the variety and because the variety is not in the national risk of genetic erosion. Note that while EU catalogue (ARSIAL, 2008). Directive 62/2008. on conservation varieties was only for agricultural plants, Conclusions Italy established a national catalogue in As we have pointed out, the sustainable 2008 for varieties of all cultivated species use of White Celery depends on the two to be conserved. Being in this catalogue, factors of conservation and promotion furthermore, would not clash with being in initiated by the farmers supported by the that of the RVRs as was the case with the public body. But what are the prospects for previous alternative – quite the contrary it the future? What initiatives are possible in a would be necessary in order to obtain the seed context like this? We can conjecture
conservation marketing of variety seeds White celery marketing of PGI the produce
Fig. 2 ‐ The link between PGI and seed legislation.
52 White Sperlonga Celery – a new local variety
former. In this way there would be an ad Bocci R., 2009. Seed legislation and hoc tool for protecting biodiversity – the agrobiodiversity: conservation regional register – with adequate seed varieties, Journal of Agriculture and regulation that would allow the sale of Environment for International reproductive material. The protection Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2. afforded by PGI would guarantee achieving Disciplinare di produzione Indicazione the final aim of the whole system Geografica Protetta “Sedano Bianco combining conservation and development. di Sperlonga”, 2008. In the light of this, sustainable use of the Falcinelli M., Lorenzetti S., 2008. Le varietà White Sperlonga Celery – continuation of locali presenti in Italia e la loro its diversity – depends on whether certain salvaguardia per la difesa della policies and legislation adapt to the biodiversità nazionale, in Rete situation, the aim being to foster local Interregionale per la Ricerca Agraria, initiatives implemented by farmers and the Forestale, acquacoltura e pesca, construction of rural development based Azioni di innovazione e ricerca a on the enhancement of a particular genetic supporto del piano nazionale resource. The public body has an important sementiero ‐ PRIS2, Promovideo. part to play especially at local level to ease Fournier S., 2008. Les indications the whole procedure, whether carrying out géographiques: une voie de the studies needed to understand and pérennisation des processus d’action characterise the variety, or launching collective au sein des Systèmes promotional initiatives or highlighting the agroalimentaires localisés?, Cahiers needs and specificity of the territory in Agricultures, vol. 17, n.6. order to liaise at local level with the global Melozzi L., 2009. I n c e n t i v e s fo r framework in particular as regards Italian agrobiodiversity within the European or European norms and legislation. Union: the role of Rural Development Bibliography Plans, Journal of Agriculture and Angelini M., 2008. Le patate della tradizione Environment for International rurale sull'Appennino ligure, Grafica Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2. Piemme. Paoletti F., Raffo A., Brancaleone M., Nardo ARSIAL, 2008. Relazione sul grado di N., Sinesio F., Moneta E., Peparaio erosione genetica delle varietà locali. M . , 2 0 0 5 . C a r a t t e r i z z a z i o n e organolettica del Sedano Bianco di Bérard L., Marchenay P., 2004. Les produits Sperlonga, Colture protette, n. 10. de terroir entre cultures et règlements, CNRS editions. Bérard L., Marchenay P., 2008, From localized products to geographical indications ‐ awareness and action, Ressources des terroirs, www.ethno‐ terroirs.cnrs.fr Bertacchini E., 2009. Regional legislation in Italy for the protection of local varieties, Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2.
53 Marano Vicentino a corn variety in Veneto: the importance of being famous!
Marano Vicentino a corn variety in Spring corn from Central‐South Italy Veneto: the importance of being generally short‐cycle varieties and short in famous!1 height. Riccardo Bocci However, it would be misleading to think "Steeped in maize flour cooked in that this diversification came about by a the cauldron. The maize from the process of haphazard selection on the part countryside by Marano Vicentino of the farmers of the time. Quite the [...], a town north east of Vicenza opposite, as Gazzi wrote the natural is of premium quality. It is milled tendency of the plant towards into an excellent flour […] the hybridization was also helped by the polenta made from it is delicious". “explicit wish of the farmer to cross‐breed to obtain maize with properties that were (Candiago, 1962) deemed excellent from a subjective Introduction standpoint rooted in country Maize is not native to Italy, yet it has knowledge” (Gazzi, 2003). This tendency known extensive diversification since its towards “confusion” as a scientific analysis introduction here in the far off 16th of this system might have defined it, was Century, resulting in many local varieties reflected in the names given to the being grown in the countryside in the early varieties. “The sub‐varieties that developed 20th Century. One of the Regions of Italy were given now the name of one and now where this diversification has been most of the other which made them fairly marked is Veneto. Indeed when the first generic” (Gazzi, 2003). The broad range of systematic survey was conducted there in local varieties derived from the variety of 1946, there were some 94 varieties grown uses of the corn (for human and animal of which only ten or so were hybrids, (Pino consumption, with a further diversification and Bertolini, 2003), catalogued on the for farmyard animals); the same farm basis of their precocity (Zapparoli, 1937). would grown late and early varieties This meant that first harvest maize could together also depending on how they be distinguished from that of second could fit with the other crops. harvest, then further subdivided into The story of the Marano variety is typical of Maggenghi, the most late and developed to this process. Produced by a farmer in the be sown by May; Agostani, that should late 1800s it spread rapidly thanks to the ripen by August, not so tall as Maggenghi, quality of the polenta it made which is why and earlier, with ears with fewer rows; it is still grown today despite the Agostanelli, an earlier type of Agostani that subsequent emergence of hybrid varieties. the Marano Vicentino belongs to; Marano maize, in particular, lives up to the Cinquantini, a first harvest variety; importance of its name, its history and the Bragantini considered second harvest notoriety of a variety. It is no coincidence despite being used for late sowing, a group that in the period between the First and between Spring and Summer corn; the Second World Wars, so the story goes, Cinquantini and Quarantini, hard to the classic answer that people of Marano separate and normally called cinquantini in got was “You’re from Marano? The corn Veneto and quarantini in Lombardia; and place?” All this still has a marketing
1 My thanks to Drs. Silvio Pino and Giandomenico Cortiana for giving of their precious time and for the valuable information on the history of Marano.
54 Marano Vicentino a corn variety in Veneto: the importance of being famous!
relevance today as witness the attempts of xanthophylls, and yield normally varies third parties described under to get a hold between 2 and 4 tons per hectare. of the name. The agricultural and social landscape of Veneto of today has changed a lot. Monocropping hybrid maize dominates the plain with some 310,000 hectares planted which, in 2007, produced approximately 2.76 million tons with an average yield of about 8 tons per hectare. However, the open pollinated variety are still a small productive niche of 80‐90 hectares concentrated in the foothills. Indeed it the “rediscovery” of varieties like Marano or Biancoperla2 that has led to new models of agricultural development that seek to combine tradition and modernity, enabling farmers in marginal areas to continue to live from their land. Its history was begun around 1890 in the town of the same name by a local farmer, Antonio Fioretti, who took an initiative that was described thus by Prof Zapparoli in 1939: Towards 1890 a farmer of Marano Vicentino, Antonio Fioretti crossed the local Nostrano (early maize, low height, mediocre production capacity, the cob short, conical, and not highly coloured, with a low grain yield – in short an early harvest cinquantino) with a Pignoletto d'oro from Rettorgole di Caldogno, the typical area for this variety, a higher plant, later, much more coloured than the former, indeed almost red, This history of Marano vitreous. The pollinator was the Marano is a variety of early maize, Nostrano. The product of the cross comparable to a FAO 300 hybrid. It is not appeared the following year and was tall and in general the one plant produces sowed on the Fioretti farm and so on more than one ear. The seed is vitreous, in successive years with no further small and rich in carotene and crossing [...]. Since the product of the cross was immediately seen to be of
2 The Associazione Conservatori Mais Biancoperla was established to promote the Biancoperla variety. Its objectives are to enhance and promote Biancoperla maize and organize an efficient chain that guarantees product origin and authenticity.
55 Marano Vicentino a corn variety in Veneto: the importance of being famous!
an undoubtedly superior quality to When Antonio Fioretti died, the Marano the Nostrano variety but had only variety was looked after by his sons up to raised the somewhat low 1934 when the experimental station of productivity of both maizes united in maize cultivation of Bergamo stepped in the new variety, Fioretti began a jointly with the provincial inspectorate of systematic mass selection the first agriculture of Vicenza to manage the mass year which he scrupulously continued selection and monitor production in a in successive ones with the main aim typical area. The oldest inhabitants recall of fixing if possible the properties and that in the whole north eastern part of quality of the product and augment Marano near the Fioretti house were only its fertility and productivity. […] In so allowed to sow Marano corn and no other doing, Fioretti achieved an almost to prevent pollination and hybridization by constant property of at least two other varieties. The Fioretti house was the complete ears on every plant while centre of the seed selection which also on the old local variety, the basis for involved eliminating the end parts – top the cross with the Pignoletto, the and tail – of the cob. The marketable part plants with two cobs are a very low was entrusted to the Cooperative percentage. In many cases, it is not Agricultural Consortium of Vicenza. infrequent for plants to have three, In 1940 Marano corn was given the four or even more ears. The early government State stamp and cultivated in ripening (first 10 days of September) large parts of northern Italy and became and the thinness of the cob one of the most adopted varieties. By 1950 considerably reduce the percentage it covered 40,000 hectares, 16.3% of the of waste and improves conservation total area given over to maize in Veneto and maturation of the cobs in and Friuli Venezia Giulia. In 1970 Marano storage. Originally, the cobs from corn flour was priced higher on the Vicenza Marano in a normal year were small, commodity market. elongated longish narrow at the base Its progressive disappearance from the almost cylindrical. countryside is not a direct consequence of
The leafllet with the history of Marano.
56 Marano Vicentino a corn variety in Veneto: the importance of being famous!
the onset of hybrids with which quality‐ and restaurant owners. The drive to create wise, there is no comparison but to a protection consortium emerged when a changes in diet and the gradual fall in maize with similar characteristics of polenta consumption. Growing corn for Marano was registered in the varietal animal consumption alone made Marano catalogue a few years earlier under the no longer competitive – its taste and smell name Orgiano. In order therefore to were no longer important (flour with a protect the name “Marano” and the higher protein and fat content, bright variety it was decided to establish an ad yellow colour with typical flecks of hoc association to identify the production chestnut brown, and the unmistakable, areas between the Val Leogra and the extremely pleasant flavour). Hybrid stretch of foothills of the province of penetration in Veneto was slow – farmers Vicenza. Shortly after a hybrid variety were reluctant to accept them because of named Maranello3 was registered. their low quality for making polenta. The first hybrids distributed in Italy were extremely dent and unpopular as food for humans which, in the years after World War I, was what more than 50% of the corn harvest was used for. Indeed hybrid varieties only began to become affirmed The logo of the Consortium. when corn usage changed with its industrial specialisation. And so this variety, now called “Marano It was precisely in order to maintain the Vicentino”, was given a new lease of life. positive properties of Marano Vicentino, The task of recovering the variety was that there was great effort put into generic conducted by IGSA beginning with material improvement to create hybrids starting conserved in its seed bank and comparing from vitreous Italian material. In 1949, that with the varieties still being grown by Insubria 2201 became the first hybrid that farmers. Indeed, Marano had not took its properties from Nostrano, Isola, altogether disappeared from the fields nor Marano and Scagliolo with the properties from the memory of the people, And these taken from Nostrano acting as seed‐ farmers who were mostly elderly had kept carrier.. Some of the lines used to create the tradition of the Marano going without these hybrids are still in use in programmes a break. Growing the old variety of corn of genetic improvement for the production had never been abandoned in small multi‐ of early cycle vitreous hybrids. crop farms where the ritual of polenta was still observed. In many cases, the The protection consortium continuation of these niches of production The Consortium for the Protection of had been made possible by a network of Marano Maize (http://www.maismarano.it) traditional millers who were willing to mill was set up in 1999 in Schio on an initiative even small quantities of grain into flour. launched by the “Nazareno Strampelli” (Gazzi, 2003). Institute of Agrarian Genetics and Today, the Consortium farmers number 25 Experimentation of Lonigo (IGSA) also with of whom 5 practise organic farming. Maize the involvement of farmers, technicians
3 Note that in the country “marano”, “maranello” and “maranino” were all used for the same varietal typology.
57 Marano Vicentino a corn variety in Veneto: the importance of being famous!
grain is milled at a large mill in Isola corn grown in the vicinity. Managing the Vicentina which attends to drying, milling seed production collectively means and storing taking care to prevent maintaining it through time and keeping mycotoxins contamination. The flour is the know‐how associated with it local. marketed directly by some farms who have The Consortium’s website states "maize is direct sales facilities and also at the one of the countless characteristic Valleogra Cantina Sociale (Winemakers’ products of Italy and, as members of the Cooperative) in Malo, where there is a consortium, we are fully aware of the collective outlet point and a farmers’ importance of safeguarding this variety market every Saturday. The flour is sold in both for the taste and smell properties and 1‐kg boxes or bags with both types of the flavour of the flour produced as well as packaging bearing the unmistakeable logo for our steadfast conviction that of Marano Vicentino corn. biodiversity is a value of fundamental importance. All this can provide interesting opportunities for local agriculture."
The battle for the name ‐ nomina nuda tenemus The history of Marano corn is characterised by a diversity of criss‐cross legislation: seed legislation, trade protection and copyright, EU agricultural policies and their rural development plans and, lastly, the protection afforded by geographical The boxes of flour for the market. indication. As we shall see there were many interests that came into play with the The Consortium is particularly attentive rediscovery and economic revaluation of when it comes to seed production. Marano maize. Selection, which has the objective of First and foremost, it should be said that conserving the purity of the variety, is done the flour of Marano Vicentino is registered in upland areas and reproduction for as a traditional agricultural food product multiplication takes place in a farm of the (pursuant to Art. 8 of Legislative decree N° Province, again in an upland area. This 173 of 30 April 1998) and so the flour approach reduces the risk of genetic marketed may boast this title. contamination which could very simply occur by crossing with other varieties of The seed issues are rather more complex. The variety is registered in the official
58 Marano Vicentino a corn variety in Veneto: the importance of being famous!
catalogue of 2001 with the name of Marano to request that the name Marano 0501 be Vicentino, and the party responsible for the rejected but in the light of Regulation CE, conservative selection is the Consortium 930/2000 that disciplines the admissibility itself. The seed may only be given to of varietal denominations the Ministry consortium members and is not traded turned the Consortium’s request down publicly. As mentioned above, the decision since the four digits after the name make to register in the catalogue was because in the name legitimate for registration any 1996 the Morando Bolognini Foundation4 remove any confusion. This goes to show had registered a hybrid variety of maize how the interest that links the name of soon after named Maranello, which it local or ancient varieties with the ensuing applied for confirmation of in 2007, and in commercial exploitation has been 1998 was registered an open pollineted particularly significant in the instance of variety named Orgiano but very close to Marano corn. Marano. In order to protect the name, the Consortium applied for registration in the
IBRIDO IN CORSO catalogue instead of opting to be a MARANO 0501 112 giorni NOVITA’ D’ISCRIZIONE • Pianta compatta con stocco sano. • Spighe uniformi regolari ben fecondate • Granella vitrea a seme piccolo (tipo Marano). 5 • Seme ben colorato ad elevato peso specifico. conservation variety because Marano • Ottimo vigore vegetativo iniziale. • Eccellente sanità della pianta sino alla raccolta. • Tollerante agli stress ambientali. Vicentino is sufficiently uniform and stable • Granella nelle diverse epoche di semina. INVESTIMENTO CONSIGLIATO IRRIGUO NON IRRIGUO and, above all to enjoy greater protection GRANELLA 7,5 piante/mq 6,5 piante/mq VITREA in trading the seed6.
The importance of the name “Marano” and MAIS SPECIALI the interest it still arouses today in both Disponibile anche farmers and consumers is confirmed by a SISRED 110 giorni seme Biologico certificato • Taglia media. • Stocco sano e robusto. • Spiga con granella vitrea (tipo Marano) a seme piccolo ed intensamente colorato di rosso. recent application for registration by a new • Eccellente tenuta della pianta sino alla raccolta • Tollerante agli stress ambientali • Granella nelle diverse epoche di semina hybrid variety of maize called Marano 0501, INVESTIMENTO CONSIGLIATO IRRIGUO NON IRRIGUO GRANELLA marketed by Società Italiana Sementi (SIS). VITREA 7,5 piante/mq 6,5 piante/mq Neither Maranello nor this new Marano 0501 has anything in common with the – 26 – original Marano, not even genetically. There are only a few physiological The leaflet of the new Marano 0501, marketed by properties shared, but the economic power SIS. of the name is still a major factor and some The same issue of appropriation of the seed companies are drawn towards name on the seed market is also true for exploiting it for their new varieties. In the product, namely corn flour to make 2008, the Consortium wrote to the Ministry polenta. Indeed the mill that mills for the of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (MiPAAF)
4 The Foundation distributes the varieties of the Experimental Institute for Cereal Crops in a relationship with the seed industry both in Italy and abroad and maintains the purity of the varieties of soft wheat, barley, oats and maize and handles the production of basic seeds in its home farm. It also markets the seeds through its dealings with the seed industry for the multiplication of the varieties of the Experimental Institute for Cereal Crops, it sets up exclusivity agreements and receives royalty payments on the seeds multiplied. 5 On paper at least Italy’s catalogue of conservation varieties has been active since 2007 after Law 46/2007 came into force (Bocci, 2009). 6 Note that IGSA has prepared the request for other local varieties of maize like Biancoperla and Sponcio to be registered as varieties for conservation.
59 Marano Vicentino a corn variety in Veneto: the importance of being famous!
Consortium has registered the brand name communities can grow around agricultural of “maranello”, and sells flour under that biodiversity. For Marano, the Consortium name. Obviously this flour is not milled of producers has taken on the job of from Marano Vicentino, but as the label conserving the variety, but the legacy of says “a vitreous maize exclusive to the Antonio Fioretti to the farmers of today Vicenza area”. emerges through an intermediary – the As a measure for protecting the name of IGSA – which conserved the seed and “Marano” on the market, the Consortium fostered the process to recovery. A new is considering applying for Protected Origin local community has grown up around Denomination (PDO) for the maize flour in Marano corn of neither historic nor social order to strengthen the link between the determination but other associative bases name and a territory and to a specific that respond to the needs of farmers variety. today. (Berson et al., 2008). Moreover, as away of showing its interest All this has allowed autonomy and control in enhancing Marano maize, the Veneto to be maintained at local level through the Region has registered it on the list of approach to seed management which can varieties at risk of erosion for the Region, also guarantee quality by means of control for which funding can be obtained for in production. cultivation pursuant to measure 214 of the Independently from these community/ Rural Development Plan (Melozzi, 2009). collective contexts, it is plain how Here, though, the Region has indicated the enhancing a name and a local reputation is whole of the Region as the production area not just a question of the interests of the which is contradictory to the stance taken area of origin or the genetic “raw by the Consortium. material”. The series of commercial varieties registered with a name similar to Conclusions Marano and the copyright on the flour The situation described here is still in flux obtained by the mill on the flour are ample but some preliminary consideration may be testimony. made as regards the following questions: In conclusion, the sustainability of use of What is meant by sustainable use of genetic resources can depend directly on Marano Vicentino maize? What strategy the extent to which local actors, public and can be adopted? And above all, how can private are involved and the collective commercial exploitation of the name be dynamics that occur. reconciled with the use of genetic Yet again, the confines of our agriculture resources to be “conserved”? are determined by culture and tradition The first question, obviously regards with an importance which economically is historic and varietal continuity and thus by substantial in western society. means of a territorial survey to reconstruct Understanding how to foster and support the system of uses, social relations and these processes, blending conservation farming methods that made the variety with development in a single, non‐ important. Rediscovering the original speculative perspective is the challenge variety and enhancing its use is the starting that our public policies must face in the point for a process of local development . near future with the objective of There is another particularly determining sustainable use of agricultural genetic factor, namely the collective side of the resources. phenomenon, and how new local
60 Marano Vicentino a corn variety in Veneto: the importance of being famous!
Bibliography Berson A., Bocci R., Bouhélier P., Brac de la Perrière R.A., Kiss C., Mathieu J.J., Ramos N., 2008. Promoting Peasant Farming and an Ecological, Solidarity‐ Based Agriculture in Europe, BEDE. Bocci R., 2009. Seed legislation and agrobiodiversity: conservation varieties, Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2. Bressan M., Magliaretta L., Pino S., 2003. Cereali del Veneto. Le varietà di frumento tenero e mais della tradizione veneta, Regione Veneto, Provincia di Vicenza. Candiago E., 1962. Itinerari gastronomici vicentini,. Gazzi A., 2003. Un caso studio: le varietà ad impollinazione libera della Provincia di Belluno, in Bressan, Magliaretta, Pino. Melozzi L., 2009. I n c e n t i v e s fo r agrobiodiversity within the European Union: the role of Rural Development Plans, Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, vol. 103, N. 1‐2. Pino S., Bertolini M., 2003. Mais, in Bressan, Magliaretta, Pino. Zapparoli T.V., Il granoturco, REDA, 1937. Zapparoli T.V., n° 3. Il Granoturco Marano. L'Italia Agricola, 1939.
61 The “Quarantina white” in Liguria: a potato as a key to rural development
The “Quarantina white” in Liguria: a farming census of 2000 indicated a drop in potato as a key to rural development the number of farms between 1990 and Maria Francesca Nonne 2000 (‐39.7%) and an even sharper fall in total farmed land (‐46.1%). There was a loss “The land is kept alive by the of some 30,000 hectares, corresponding to fruitful work of those who live on 32.3% of the total of useful agricultural it much more than a raft of surface (UAS). Average farm surfaces saw territorial recovery programmes some slight changes, from 1.32 to 1.46 will ever do.... Produce is not hectares of UAS and from 4.58 to 4.09 made alive by the land – quite the hectares of total surface. As regards farm opposite – because where management, it emerged that almost all the farmers don’t work the land there is only abandonment and farms – 95.7% ‐ are family‐run. The biggest dereliction as well as loss of drop in the 1990‐2000 period was in mixed‐ diversity!” (Angelini, 2008) labour farms (family and extra‐family), minus 61.1%, and those run along strictly Introduction economy‐oriented lines that make use of The process of recovery and revaluation of wage labour or resort exclusively to outside 1 the Quarantina potato, a variety that is contractors, less 73.4%. This general trend local to the Ligurian Apennines near Genoa has been constant over recent years but by is significant for a number of reasons. It is a contrast the Regional Statistics Yearbook means for understanding the role that a reports almost 50% fewer farms between variety can play in keeping local farming 2000 and 2005 (from just over 43,000 to methods alive; it is a means for declining approximately 23,000) and farmed surface, the concept of sustainable use of plant still falling from some 62,000 hectares in genetic resources for food and agriculture 2000 to little over 49,000 in 2005). Farmed (PGRFA) as part of the unstable equilibrium land is giving way to forestry in a territory between conservation and enhancement, characterised by small or very small and a means for analysing the concept of postage‐stamp plots of land worked by an tradition and how it can be renewed within increasingly elderly population of the context of the present day. smallholders. Indeed, in 2000, only 5.3% of Furthermore, it has become a classic farmers in Liguria were under 35 years of example in Italy of how, notwithstanding age while the over‐55 age group was 67.2%. its focus on the Quarantina white, it has Moreover, in terms of added value, Ligurian pointed the way to the conservation of farmers have suffered all the consequences many other varieties in the territory which of modernisation (Van der Ploeg, 2008), were are risk of extinction. with absolute production remaining In order to understand the importance of constant but with a substantial increase in this case, a brief description of the intermediate costs (+20% between agriculture it became part of is in order. 2002‐2007). Liguria is a prevalently mountainous Region The story of the Quarantina, therefore, of Italy that stretches along the seacoast. Its began in a social context where farming agricultural landscape is typified by the was economically marginal compared to Cinque Terre with terracing reminiscent of other areas of production, and was carried rice cultivation in south east Asia. The latest out by elderly people on small plots of
1 The adjective “quarantina” is used for vegetables and cereals that have a short cycle suitable for growing in hilly areas.
62 The “Quarantina white” in Liguria: a potato as a key to rural development
land. The disappearance of farmers and other Dutch varieties that are now filling with them the knowledge and varieties the market (Angelini, 2001). that they grew until yesterday is typical of Angelini continued his research over 1985‐6 Ligurian agriculture. in the Stura, Graveglia and Aveto valleys to ascertain what had become of that variety Rediscovering the Quarantina potato and discovered that the potato commonly The Quarantina white potato2 is a known as “Quarantina”, had been the traditional variety local to the Ligurian most widespread up to the 1950s when it Apennines and is attested in historical was supplanted by more productive sources of the 19th Century. The area in French, Canadian and Dutch varieties. By which it is recorded as being most popular 1985 there were only some 40 producers coincides perfectly with that in which with a few kilos of Quarantina for personal Genoese dialect is spoken, inland towards consumption. Eleven years later, the Piedmont. In addition to language, this number of producers still planting this area also shares culinary and folklore variety had been halved and they were all traditions. As early as 1880, the Quarantina very elderly. white was widespread in the Genoa This situation, in turn, led Angelini to hinterland and neighbouring valleys (valle resume his research which in 1998‐9 Fontanabuona, val d'Aveto, upper valle focused exclusively on the local varieties of Scrivia, valle Stura, Marcarolo plateau, Cannelina Nera, Prugnona and Quarantina upper val Trebbia, upper val Borbera and white. the areas of Sélvola and Santa Maria del Taro); between 1930 and 1970 it was the “I walked around for a couple of winters best known variety in the area of Genoa with three potatoes in my pocket: a black (Angelini, 2008). Genetically, the Cannelina, a Prugnona and a Quarantina Quarantina white is a mutation of the white [...]. I went to see farmers who had Quarantina Prugnona (a local plum‐ been through the last war asking about coloured variety of potato which is less local varieties of potato [...]. Once the genetically stable than the Quarantina introductions had been got through and white), and its properties are similar to the initial mistrust and ritual courtesies those of the Breton Institut de Beauvais, were behind us, the names of the varieties and the Bufet Blanco of Catalonia. slowly began to emerge, what they looked like, how they were planted and harvested Territorial research was begun in 1985 by […]. I asked them to show me how they the rural historian Massimo Angelini and his cut the tubers before planting, then I investigation into the rural population showed them how I would cut them and when he heard of a potato that was bonn‐a that physical gesture helped to get the ball da matti [buona da matti – absolutely rolling. Then, at the end, like a conjuring wonderful] which was widespread mostly trick I pulled out my three potatoes [...] in the Ligurian Apennines prior to the and if they recognised them I asked them arrival of the Tonda di Berlino (Böhms early what they were called” (Angelini, 2001). yellow), the Bintje and the Majestic and the
2 The potato has an irregular tuber round or round‐oval, a smooth, light cream coloured skin and has a non‐ floury, fine granule flesh which is typically soft white in colour; its eyes are of average depth with light pink highlights which are more marked in young tubers. The sprout ranges from pink to light violet at the base with a white flower. Maturation is average and it keeps averagely well in storage. It belongs to the B culinary category (average consistency suitable for all uses) and is unsuitable for growth in heavy soil.
63 The “Quarantina white” in Liguria: a potato as a key to rural development
Information about the Quarantina white della Quarantina Bianca genovese e delle that came from interviewing groups or patate tradizionali della Montagna individuals, or from historic documents, Genovese [Consortium for the Protection regional dictionaries or agricultural journals of the Genoa Quarantina white and the from the early twentieth Century were traditional potatoes of the Genoa collected systematically to identify its Uplands]” with 20 farmers as active properties. From there, the local names members. began to emerge, the traditional growing The Consortium set itself some special methods including the choice of soil, the rules. In addition to the usual classical ones planting time, planting itself, husbandry, for production, specific rules regulate the harvesting methods and conservation production from the seeds onwards and selection of the three local varieties of through the marketing strategies and the potato. price applied every year. Furthermore, in Other names for the Quarantina white in order to foster internal democracy, a common use in the Apennines special “conciliation regulator” was Quarantina [Quantin‐a], Bianca di Torriglia appointed – a person outwith the [Gianca di Turrigia], Bianca dagli occhi organisation but acceptable to all the rossi [Gianca cui oegi rusci], Bianca producers, with responsibility for solving [Gianca]. conflicts and disputes among consortium partners. At the same time a scrupulous Revitalisation of a local system programme for production quality control Recovery of the Quarantina began by was launched by consortium members in harvesting and selecting the few tubers still order to maintain the high quality grown with the involvement of the farmers standards shared by all. As of 2009, these who wanted to grow it and foster its common rules lay down: spread. The tubers underwent valuation by 1. The obligation to give notification of old farmers who were asked to pick out the planting and harvesting, specifying the one that was closest to the pre‐war total quantity of potatoes divided by Quarantina white from all the others variety and typology; discovered in the territory. Once the choice of tubers was whittled down to “the one”, 2. Making an extremely rigorous selection and its origin identified, the job of of the typology of potato to be multiplying the potato began. classified as grade A which must have no alterations of shape, and have no Interest in the Quarantina white began to cuts, holes or disease. Grade B grow and 1999 saw the set up of the potatoes may have slight shape Committee for the Recovery and alterations as well as cut and hole Enhancement of the Varietal Heritage of marks; the Potato of the Genoa Uplands (Co.Re.Pa), which by 2000 had grown to 3. The obligation to market grade A 100 members made up of bodies, potatoes in 2 kg packs in consortium associations,, producers and restaurants. bags with Consortium labels; One of the aims of the Co.Re.Pa. was to 4. The obligation for the label, to be filled establish an ad hoc Consortium for the in and signed by the producer, to Protection of the Genoa Quarantina white indicate the method of production. This and the black Tigullio Cannellina (Angelini, can be either organic or biodynamic 2008). The consortium was established in when certified by the controlling body, 2000 with the name of “Consorzio di tutela self‐certified if under the auspices of
64 The “Quarantina white” in Liguria: a potato as a key to rural development
the Consortium itself (with the 1:10, and per hectare production is now obligation to notify the consortium of between 100 and 150 quintals. the fertilizers, manure and plant The Consortium also promotes the culture husbandry products used), or and traditions of the Genoa area alongside, uncertified in all other cases. and as part of selling produce, by carefully Another important part of the studying marketing channels. Special care is Consortium’s brief is to reproduce the addressed to ensuring participation by local potatoes for sowing so as to improve their restaurants and to the communication yield and eliminate plant health problems. strategies adopted for the product by direct While, as Angelini noted (2001), farmers in sales from the farmers or small retailers. the past took no care in selecting the seed Consortium produce is in fact distributed at potato tubers or tuber pieces for reseeding local level where the direct relationship the technical and scientific support between producer, distributor and consumer provided today by the consortium has serves to enrich the cultural value of the made production of seed potatoes product. As written by Marsden et. al (2004) fundamental and very different from that “exchanging or marketing a variety at local of potatoes for consumption. The level is not merely an economic transaction Consortium has always been aided by an but also a moment of awareness and cultural agronomist in its production of tubers for reproduction [...]. Producers and consumers improvement aiming towards a progressive see themselves in that variety which is a revitalisation of the variety. Presently, the vehicle of identification of the territory in seed tubers are grown above 800 metres which it is produced”. whereas those for consumption are grown It should be noted that the Consortium has between 400 and 800 metres. chosen to maintain an autonomous Furthermore, technical checks and update approach to development by not meetings with farmers enable the registering the Quarantina potato as a Consortium to continue fostering the ‘denomination origin’ product nor adhering adoption of good practices for growing, to other forms of certification and control discouraging the use of toxic or harmful that are not strictly of the Consortium substances (Angelini, 2008). In 2008 the itself. In point of fact, the Quarantina only Consortium experimented with producing appears in the regional register of the seed potatoes in Scotland with the traditional agricultural food products Scottish Agricultural Science Agency in an pursuant to Article 8 of Legislative Decree effort to eliminate the viruses that could be N° 173 of 30 April 1998. passed on by the tuber, thus improving production. The preliminary results of this initiative, which took place in late 2008, were positive in production terms (+20%) but also brought about a slight change in the look of this potato: “some Quarantina The logo of the Consortium. whites turned out so elongated that they looked just like... Cannelline!” (Consortium Over the years, the Consortium has kept its newsletter N° 16, 2008). In general, from eye on the territory and has identified when the Consortium was set up, average several more varieties of legumes and yield has risen from 1:4 to 1:8, with peaks of vegetables as well as the producers who have kept them going. Already in 2001, in
65 The “Quarantina white” in Liguria: a potato as a key to rural development
addition to the potato, some Consortium 2000 2004 2008 producers were growing other products Producers 20 54 56 local to the Genoa area including beets, Average age of 38 38 n.d onions, beans, shallots, squash and producers courgettes. Moreover, considering the Affiliates (restaurants 10 52 60 potato in more general terms despite the and sales points) famous Quarantina white being Total Production 15 q. 60 q. n.d emblazoned in the Consortium’s logo, Sell‐out price €/kg 1 €/kg 2,5 €/kg 2,5 recovery initiatives are now also extended to other local varieties such as the Tab 1: The Consortium in numbers (Source: Cabannese, Cannellina nera, Giana rionda, data processed by Angelini, 2008) Morella and Prugnona. The Consortium took on association form The special attentiveness that the on 29 October 2006 (“Consortium for the Consortium has dedicated to technical agronomical factors, production quality, Quarantina. Association for land and rural culture”) opening up to a new associative internal and external communication and membership and new sales methods such to marketing strategies has determined the success of the entire initiative as seen in as solidarity‐based purchasing groups the rise in the number of producers from (GAS), which are becoming places for the enhancement of local produce, and 2000 to 2004 (see table 1). The average age stimulation towards diversified farming. of the farmers – 38 – is also striking by being considerably lower than that of most Allowing consumers and their family members to belong to the association is a farmers in the Region. Furthermore, 52 way of recognising the active choice‐ and restaurants and small retailers became affiliates of the Consortium in 2004 and decision‐making role played by consumers within the association and it also highlights have its logo on show in their public the need to allow more discussion, spaces. dialogue and alliances between producers In 2003, the Consortium for protection and consumers. Today, the association has changed denomination and became a total of 316 members of which 56 are “Consortium of the Quarantina”. This producers and 60 affiliates. change is part of the Consortium’s new orientation to promoting family‐run The territory is no longer confined to central Liguria but is opening up to the farming and the rural restoration of the outside with a maturity of approach that Genoa uplands which also encompasses autochthonous breeds and is always in line increasingly focuses on the problems and points of view of family‐run agriculture with the concept of never separating without excluding other realities and conservation from economic goals. The proper equilibrium between conservation experiences while remaining steadfast to and gain has enabled production to be the objective of “protecting traditional breeds and varieties”, as said in the new increased and produce deriving from these Articles of Association. A case in point is varieties and breeds to be disseminated. The Quarantina has thus become the the International Potato Exhibition organised in Torriglia in the province of symbol of a collective initiative that Genoa in October 2008 for International involves an entire territory. Potato Year declared by the FAO. It featured no fewer than 672 varieties from
66 The “Quarantina white” in Liguria: a potato as a key to rural development
17 countries and was attended by some without some kind of economic 2,000 visitors. framework. This is based on complementariness of use and The Quarantina as an example of conservation on the one hand and on the sustainable use of plant genetic resources other that local traditional varieties are also The promotion, development and a cultural product that cannot exist in the continuation of diversified farming absence of a local gastronomic culture that methods is closely tied in with local makes use of them (Carrosio, 2005). To varieties and their sustainable use. The exist, these varieties have to evoke some Ligurian Apennines are characteristically kind of belonging and must contribute to harsh mountain terrain and bringing reproducing a collective and individual farmers back to them and keeping them identity (Douglas, 1996; Degli Esposti, 2004). In this context, sustainability is not only to be seen in relation to agricultural biodiversity – rediscovered, cultivated and enhanced – but should become a concept that encompasses an entire local farming system which, in continual evolution, comes up against today’s world in its quest for a new modernity built on the foundations of tradition.
Conclusions The Mandillo da groppo seed fair (2008). Notwithstanding its containment within a Photo by M.F. Nonne. limited area, the experience of the Quarantina potato has had an extremely there is a guaranteed way of land upkeep marked socio‐cultural, economic and and of improving the management of environmental impact. The experience natural resources like land and water. In gained with one local variety or a few of environmental terms, therefore, this them has led to the discovery, recovery exercise has led to the recovery of local and enhancement of a wealth of genetic resources and farming methods agricultural and cultural values, and if and to improving them, and no less to the tradition and innovation are supplemented sustainable use of natural resources as with attentive marketing strategies, they specified in Article 6.2 of the International can lead to the recovery of a cultural Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food identity and, in the final analysis, of and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). The recovery of agricultural biodiversity. several local varieties, their dissemination among farmers, who witnessed an increase The work carried out by the Consortium in their technical know‐how and which they has shown that in rural territories deemed replanted, grew and sold, increased the limited and marginal or backward, diversity of the agricultural eco‐systems generally abandoned and depopulated, and also diversity in food. young farmers can make a living in agriculture, enhance their knowledge and The desire to construct an economy based establish new local partnerships in which on traditional varieties stems from the institutions only provide support and awareness that varieties cannot exist cooperation in the initiatives. In short, it is
67 The “Quarantina white” in Liguria: a potato as a key to rural development
possible to reconstruct “tradition” giving Douglas M., 1996. Thought Styles, Sage, the word its full meaning, namely London. continuity in time and a direct passage of Marsden T, Banks J., Briston G., 2004. Food knowledge from generation to generation. Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring Over time, the Quarantina Consortium has their Role in Rural Development, in been the driving force for development Sociologia Rurale, Vol. 40, Numero 4. and promotion while also (and still) being a Turner R., 1999. Environmental and powerful means of communicating the ecological economics perpective, in technical, practical and political factors of J.C.J.M. van den Bergh, ed. Handbook agricultural biodiversity and local of environmental and resources development. economics, Edward Elgar. If local development means enhancing Van Der Ploeg J.M., 2008. The new local environmental, cultural and human Peasantries ‐ struggles for autonomy etc., resources and shying away from and sustainability in an era of empire interventions from on high, the case of the and globalisation, Earthscan. white Quarantina is an example to follow. Website of reference Crucial to this example of bottom‐up www.quarantina.it development was the union and interaction of a variety of skills – local traditional, technical‐scientific and sociological‐historic – which enabled the creation of a local network of producers, sellers and public/consumers which, today, is held to be one of the best organisational structures for guaranteeing long‐term rural development.
Bibliography Angelini M., 2001. La Quarantina Bianca genovese, Consorzio di tutela della Quarantina. Angelini M., 2004. Recupero e valorizzazione di una varietà locale, Ottopagina, n. 1‐2. Angelini M., 2008. Le patate della tradizione rurale sull'Appennino ligure, Grafica Piemme. Carrosio G., 2005. Traditional Local Varieties Between Traditions and Sustainable agriculture, XXI Congress European Society for Rural Sociology, Keszthely, Ungheria. Degli Esposti P., 2004. Il cibo dalla modernità alla postmodernità, Franco Angeli, Milano.
68 Synergies between Natural Parks and agrobiodiversity: the example of the Abruzzo
Synergies between Natural Parks and by people who cannot be called agrobiodiversity: the example of the “agricultural entrepreneurs” in the sense Abruzzo of the term used in European norms since Riccardo Bocci their primary source of income is not agriculture but industry or services. As the “The challenge in this project lies in author Ignazio Silone wrote, “they have a bringing back old varieties which tenacious loyalty to their own economic have been conserved thanks to the and social tenets that goes beyond and tenacity and stubbornness of a few practical usefulness” (Silone, 1963). The to become the new heritage of all” talks held with technical staff who worked Dalla Ragione et al. (2004) on the various projects of agricultural Introduction biodiversity conservation showed the That sentence sums up the work presented importance that the people who are still in this case study very well – the recovery involved in localised farming still have. and revaluation of local varieties, Indeed, in their case, modernisation has transforming them into a tool for the caused a shift in their family‐based development of a territory considered approach to agriculture making it more economically marginal and residual, and so marginal in terms of the income it yields restore them to the rural communities that but not in terms of the commitment of had selected, produced and conserved time or social investment. This has given them. The Regional Body for Services to rise to the “factory‐working‐sharecropper” Agricultural Development (ARSSA) and the – factory worker during the week and Authorities of the two parks involved both farmer on Saturdays and Sundays thanks to played a major part in this process showing the help and labour contributed by the that it is important to get the institutions older members of the family who can look involved to ease the procedure at local after the country full‐time. level and mend the break between This is the situation in which ARSSA and the generations that had emerged in “Let’s Cultivate Diversity” and “Cerere” agriculture with modernisation. projects of the Majella and Gran Sasso The Abruzzo is a region rich in agricultural Parks was based, in which the links both biodiversity, the result on the one hand of real and symbolic with agricultural tradition the heterogeneous conformation of its have been kept alive but which risk landscape, harsh and mountainous that disappearing as the population gets older, creates a certain degree of isolation and on taking with it seeds and associated the other of the solidity of agricultural uses knowledge. The example given by Marco di and traditions that has contributed to Santo – agronomist of the Park of Majella – diversifying the varieties grown. It’s is a good one. Some years ago, during a territory is mostly hills and mountains with territorial survey, a variety of durum wheat 82% of the whole population living in rural was discovered in Montenerodomo in the areas. A 2003 census listed 78,687 farms province of Chieti which grew at high with an average size of 5.20 hectares, altitudes of some 1,200 metres. The wheat smaller than the national average of 6.70. was called “marzuolo”, a short‐cycle strain At 432,000 hectares, the useable T surface sown in Spring which in the local economy is 40% of the regional total. Farming, served as a reserve in case the winter, soft therefore, is still central to the regional grain wheat failed. There’s no one left economy of the Abruzzo and it is worked grow it any more because that particular
69 Synergies between Natural Parks and agrobiodiversity: the example of the Abruzzo
small‐holder died and the variety can only with the primary actors with an eye to be found in the ARSSA seed bank. achieving sustainable use of the territory.1 The Abruzzo has the highest percentage of protected territory in Europe – more than 30% ‐ between the three national parks (National Parks of the Abruzzo, the Majella and Gran Sasso and Monti della Laga), the regional parks and nature reserves and the WWF oases. The intervention of man in these areas has been important as to how in time he has shaped space to suit agricultural practices and the needs of animal husbandry. This has created a landscape which has reached us as the outcome of The agrarian landscape of Abruzzo. specific needs, the combination of social Photo by R. Bocci. requirements, crop practices local varieties and uses. Open fields or closed The evolution followed by ARSSA ones, arboreal seeding, marcite, (olive ARSSA began approaching this world of groves, apple orchards, almond trees and culture, crops and traditions in 1996 rows of capitozzati trees are among the launching an in‐depth study of what was many forms that constitute the backbone still being grown. This brought the of the territory of the Abruzzo and which “Collection, conservation and study of are unequivocally evocative of its history. germplasm of species of autochthonous With the changes that agriculture has agricultural interest in the Abruzzo Region” undergone since the end of World War II, project into existence in 1996. It was everything had to change and gave truth to funded by the European Union jointly with Silone’s prophecy “the well‐ordered fields the Faculty of Agriculture of the University of saffron, legumes and cereals were as of Perugia. The scope of the project was to pretty as a garden and showed the love for become acquainted the local varietal the land that moves just as every love heritage by an initial investigation, after which we fear will die out” (Silone, 1963). which to characterise and conserve the The scope of this article is to understand varieties identified. The initial conservation what role can be played by agricultural strategy was only envisaged ex situ with a biodiversity in the future development of number of in situ catalogue fields for fruit these areas. It also aspires to be the trees. Twelve species were examined: soft starting point for a reflection on how wheat, durum wheat, spelt, lentils, nature reserves, set up to safeguard and chickpeas, beans, black‐eye beans, peppers conserve natural resources, can interact tomato and apple, pear and almond tree.
1 Note that Art 1 of the frame law on nature reserves states that the institutional aims of protected areas includes the protection of the agricultural ecosystems” […] to implement management methods and environmental restoration in order that man and his natural environment blend together by initiatives that include safeguarding values of an anthropological, archaeological, historical and architectural nature, and by agricultural, sylvan pastoral and traditional activity".
70 Synergies between Natural Parks and agrobiodiversity: the example of the Abruzzo
Note especially that this project enabled a this new phase, the range of subjects was methodology of work to be tested with broadened in order to emphasise increased farmers and a kind of varietal fact sheet to closeness to the territory to include the be used in the field for describing the Park of Majella, the Province of L’Aquila, varieties discovered. the Regional Botanic Garden and the In addition to the varieties, the territorial Peligna Upland Community. The idea of study also revealed certain ancient using agricultural biodiversity as a key for agricultural practices such as the rural development began to take shape “mesticone”, consisting in the cross creating a relationship among the various planting a cereal (oats or barley) and a economic actors that go to make it up: leguminous (vetch or cicerchiola) to obtain farmers, schools, restaurants and tourism an excellent animal feed, or sowing maize facilities. and beans together to provide support for Agricultural biodiversity and natural the latter and to keep the former green as reserves long as possible. Furthermore, the first The National Park of Majella has a interviews with farmers induced the dedicated surface of little over 7% in which researchers to broaden the range of the agriculture is carried out traditionally. It is species involved since others were being this very nature of marginality and isolation discovered in the fields in addition to those that has enabled the survival of cultivated programmed in the study which were varieties and typical traditions of country worth studying and conserving. That added culture which had disappeared from other rye, barley and grass pea to the list.. areas. ARSSA’s great surprise was having The “Let’s Cultivate Diversity” project for collected a great many listed items – some the recovery, conservation and revaluation 300 including spontaneous species and of autochthonous agricultural genetic some fodder plants2, which faced it with resources of the Park began in 2003 jointly the need to figure out how to proceed “We with the Regional Authority for Services of immediately realised that although this Agricultural Development (ARSSA) and co‐ initiative was for the protection of genetic funded by the Nature Conservancy material, it would have been ineffective for Direction of the Ministry of the safeguarding all the anthropological, social Environment and Territorial Protection. and cultural aspects which are normally linked to local ecotypes and, more The task of surveying was part of this important still it would have done project too which made use of the absolutely nothing to stem the loss of old methodology that had been fine tuned by varieties which, at best would have been ARSSA in the previous project; The novelty transformed into a memory” (Silveri, 2002). here was the presence of specific incentives that were provided for on‐farm The move from ex situ to on farm conservation, of the biodiversity in a conservation, therefore, was natural and coordinated action with initiatives was applied in the second phase of the launched all over the territory In fact as project, this time funded by the Ministry of encouragement to those who were still Agriculture, Food and Forestry (MiPAAF) cultivating the local varieties and provide within the National Biodiversity Project. In incentives to other farmers to use the Park
2 In detail, 55 fruit were catalogued, 52 grain legumes, 36 cereals, 33 leguminous fodder and 19 vegetable.
71 Synergies between Natural Parks and agrobiodiversity: the example of the Abruzzo
there were a series of specific measures in sheet to identify the varieties that were the form of aid both direct and indirect to once best known. The little ones got benefit the various economic actors involved in the topic by means of a fairy (farmers, transformers, restaurant owners, tale. Schools are a way of heightening school caterers...). The economic awareness in the families and public incentives range from grants for cultivating opinion more in general on the importance certain varieties, to technical support and of safeguarding agricultural biodiversity. making available reproduced informative As regards relating the project to material for training and public awareness‐ restaurants, it was decided to work on two heightening material aimed at fostering a levels, collective and school catering on the market for the produce made by custodian one hand and the diversified on the other farmers. Furthermore, to orient agricultural in which specific menus would be created production towards environmentally using agricultural produce from the sustainable models, the Park covers the custodian farmers’ chain. costs that farms have to bear for organic One of the first results of the project was certification in so doing helping above all the creation of a catalogue containing the the smaller farms to get into the system. autochthonous agricultural varieties of the Farmers and transformers, however, were National Park of Majella, a first necessary not the only recipients of aid. The project step towards awareness of what the was also addressed to schools and territory holds and establishing suitable restaurants in the area. The schools will policies for its conservation. As regards the
67886
!32,,/(3%+"##+! #.%/0%"1,+(,)("2#( !"#$%&'()%&*#&!( *%"#&1%/! +#"$,&- &#!"%0&%+"! %4&,",0&1!*! !0&.#5( 1+3#+"1.#!
9%"0&%/(:%&-!
Fig. 1: The Abruzzo conservation system. take part in education and awareness‐ arboreal species two showcase fields were heightening initiatives with the aim of created (in the botanical gardens in Lama getting families acquainted with the issues dei Peligni and S. Eufemia a Majella), where that the project is promoting. A series of the ancient varieties contained in the educational itineraries has been devised for catalogue can be seen (Di Santo and Silveri, pre‐school and primary school children 2006). (“With Rossella on a quest to find the Parallel to the descriptions of the varieties forgotten plants” and "A Pair of Pears"). a network was set up to deal with their The older children interviewed their conservation. As of now it counts thirty grandparents and the older folk of the farms and five transformers with four new town by way of a questionnaire and a fact orchards planted and two in preparation.
72 Synergies between Natural Parks and agrobiodiversity: the example of the Abruzzo
As can be seen, the system is fairly complex biodiversity would no longer make sense with many actors where conservation of and simply disappear. agrobiodiversity is only one of the parts or, The role of the various public bodies was if you will the base on which the system is essential for creating the entire process built (figure 1). and for easing the passing on of Note that one of the main tasks of the Park generational knowledge which otherwise has been to win over the trust of the would have come to an abrupt halt. farmers and thus become a party with Varieties and the relating knowledge were whom to dialogue. This was only possible rediscovered in the fields worked by elderly by painstaking work at grassroots level and farmers who often had no adequate new a great many collective meetings organised generation within the family. On the other to present and discuss the project. “the hand, young people approaching hard job was setting up a relationship of agriculture are often not from farming trust with people. To begin with they families and therefore without an adequate would say in dialect “I’ve nothing more degree of knowledge and above all here, nothing grows here any more” but without the lore of seeds classically passed then as they began to trust you they would on from family to family or through open up their cupboards with all the matrimony. In this case the body played seeds , each one with its proper name and the role of cultural and social mediator, origin often associated to a family member. putting these two subjects in touch with [...] There’s a wealth in these small each other and fostering the passing on of villages” (Di Santo, pers. comm.). seeds and knowledge from one generation A similar initiative to the one which up to to the next. now has been described as objectives and All this was made possible by establishing tools used was realised by the Park of the the conditions of trust described above Gran Sasso, under the name of the project which lie at the base of the workings of the “Cerere”. Here, too, taking agricultural informal seed system. Indeed the many diversity as the starting point was the key studies on how these systems work in the for re‐inventing the development of a world’s southern countries highlight the territory. importance of concepts like trust, reciprocity and social ties in the dynamics Conclusions of exchange and circulation of seed (Brush, Experience such as that gained in the 2007). Discovering that these dynamics are Abruzzo proves that sustainable use of still important today in industrialised agricultural biodiversity can develop into countries (Louwaars, 2008) can play an the premise on which to base a more important part for the future of agriculture general programme that includes the moral in Italy is the important point that emerges development of an entire territory, Indeed, from this experience. the final result of the activities described show that it was not only keeping certain Bibliography local varieties in cultivation (as stated in ARSSA, 2006. P a n e n e i P a r c h i Article 6.2 (c) of the FAO Treaty) or dell’Appennino Centrale ‐ L’itinerario supporting on‐farm conservation (Art 6.2 f) del pane nei Parchi, CARSA. of the Treaty) but creating the conditions Brush S., 2004. Farmers' Bounty: Locating for continuing to farm and therefore Crop Diversity in the Contemporary maintain the complex system of values and World, Yale University Press relations without which agricultural
73 Synergies between Natural Parks and agrobiodiversity: the example of the Abruzzo
Curcetti E., Davini G., 2008. Agrobiodiversità ‐ la rete degli agricoltori custodi del Parco Nazionale del Gran sasso e Monti della Laga, Gruppo Tipografico Editoriale. Dalla Ragione I., Porfiri O., Silveri D.D., Torricelli R., Veronesi F., 2004. Le risorse genetiche autoctone della regione Abruzzo: un patrimonio da valorizzare, ARSSA. Di Santo M., Silveri D.D., 2004. Le varietà autoctone del Parco Nazionale della Majella, POMAN. Louwaars N., 2007. Seeds of Confusion; The impact of policies on seed systems, PhD dissertation, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Silveri D.D., 2002, Il Recupero delle varietà autoctone abruzzesi: il progetto dell’ARSSA, in Taucci T. Silone I., 1963. La terra e la gente, in Chierici U., Cianfarani V., Gentile P., Silone I., Titta Rosa G., Abruzzo, BNL. Tavano G., Silveri D.D., 2006, 4 Prodotti tipici di Abruzzo ‐ ricerche analisi sviluppi, CARSA. Taucci Tiziana, 2002. Enogastronomia abruzzese, Edizioni Amaltea.
74 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region
Can consumer choice foster more processes which aim to establish the worth diversified farming systems? The of produce at its place of origin and experience of direct sale in Toscana1 heighten the profile of farmers. These are Diego Naziri almost always organised along “short” lines, rooted in the territory and therefore “I turn to several and completely linked to its natural, cultivation‐related and different distribution channels: social resources, and are based on a direct selling, local markets and different set of values, principles, meanings cooperatives of organic products. and objectives such as the environment, All this leads me to a growing culture and ethics, different from purely diversification.” economic objectives (Brunori et al., 2006a). Jean François Berthellot, Direct sale is a form of trading in farm farmer (France) produce that puts producers in direct contact with consumers, short‐circuiting all Introduction the middle links of the chain, hence its The itinerary that the agri‐food distribution definition of “short supply chain”. system has taken in last decades has led to Considering the socio‐economic conditions the development of long supply chains in of the present day, direct sale is a highly which the distance between producer and significant option for a number of reasons. consumer has increasingly widened, a It is a viable alternative to the conventional process aggravated by the multiplication of food production system essentially based intermediaries. The establishment of this on intensive methods and highly type of chain is often dominated by large‐ specialised farming systems tailored to scale transnational enterprises in which meet the demands of the wholesale standardisation and flexibility in supply are market which specifically penalises the first paramount, and which has led to a ring of the chain, namely the farms who flattening of tastes and consumption find themselves squeezed between rising (Brunori et al., 2007). costs of production factors and the low The consequences of this have been price paid for their produce, the so‐called significant. On the one hand small‐scale “squeeze on agriculture” (Cicatiello and producers have tended to become Franco, 2008). This mechanism imperils the excluded from the market because of their very existence of a multitude of small and lack of competitiveness and incapacity to mid‐sized farms that are vital for the guarantee the production standards maintenance and development of the demanded of them and, on the other, social, economic and cultural fabric of rural consumer awareness has been obscured as areas (Van der Ploeg, 2006). to the pathway followed by their There is quite an extensive bibliography purchases, thus preventing any kind of real describing subjects who make use of the monitoring on quality and means of short supply chain, both producers and production. consumers, the function and modus By contrast, recent years have witnessed a operandi for establishing these social sharp growth in initiatives countering these networks, the relationship between local
1 This article is an excerpt from Naziri D., Direct sale as a means for promoting the sustainable use of plant genetic resources: the case of the Tuscany Region, Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, vol. 102. N. 1‐2.
75 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region foodstuffs and rural development, and and growing interest in direct sale, it is very lastly on the valorization of local difficult to arrive at a accurate idea of the production as a tool for territorial size of the phenomenon and in any case marketing. There is instead a lack of studies such an idea would be outwith the scope of that confirm the rather widely held belief this study. that short supply chains, and direct sale in Direct sale has been boosted in recent particular, can be effective in limiting the years by the so‐called “law of erosion of biological diversity by orientation” (Legislative Decree 228/2001) encouraging more diversified farming that for the first time gave farmers the systems and contributing to recovering right to deal not only in their own produce traditional varieties. Indeed these latter (which, in any case, must still be prevalent have been gradually abandoned by farmers by percentage) but also in produce bought since on the one hand traditional varieties from third parties. This is a departure from do not possess the characteristics the ordinary legislation on trading necessary to be included in the (Legislative Decree 114/1998). The previous conventional distribution chains (especially law (59 of 1963) limited sale to marketing in terms of uniformity, look, suitability for only one’s own produce. industrial transformation and resistance to The launch of certain direct sale initiatives handling and transportation) and, on the was backed by producers in an attempt to other, they have so far found it hard to find meet the consumer demand for fresh local adequate alternative trading outlets. produce. The service offered by the This study does not set out to provide an producers was simple, such as setting up exhaustive answer to this issue but rather sales points for direct selling within the to report cases of positive correlation farm or in outside premises, whether between direct sale and biodiversity in individually or together with other farmers Tuscan agriculture. It also seeks to such as in the so‐called farmers’ markets establish whether by promoting the and in collective outlets. sustainable use of genetic resources Legislation has also contemplated this through supporting short supply chains approach. Article 1 (subparagraph 1,065) of makes any real contribution to the 2007 Budget Law (Law 296/06) implementing the FAO International Treaty explicitly promotes the development of on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and farmers’ markets and this was further Agriculture (ITPGRFA) to which the Italian enshrined in the Ministry of Agriculture, government is committed by having Food and Forestry (MiPAAF) decree of 20 ratified it and what shape this support has November 2007 which delegated the taken so far. establishment of such initiatives to local government, in particular to The collective forms of direct sale in Italy municipalities2. The direct sale of food products to consumers is a practice which has never The 2007 Budget Law also provided further completely died out in Italy. Despite the incentives to launching direct, collective‐ widespread consensus about the strong type direct sale initiatives and these, in the
2 This decree is “of a non‐regulatory nature” since Article 117 of the Italian Constitution confers the exclusive responsibility for legislating on trading and agriculture to the Regions. This means that Regional legislation has the status of legally binding law and so this decree is for guidance only and is not binding.
76 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region meantime, have emerged in many different groups who have come together as guises, from more spontaneous and associations to conduct their business in sometimes occasional cooperation among full conformity of tax laws on an equal producers to more organised ventures of footing with non‐commercial bodies. collectively managing direct sales (Rossi et This study will focus exclusively on al., 2008). Indeed Article 1 (subparagraph collective forms of direct sale, namely 1,094) strongly encourages farmers to set farmers’ markets, collective outlets and up companies with objectives that may GAS as bodies for which support by include collective direct sale. institutions could be more easily provided. Other direct sale initiatives came about, not through the efforts of producers but of The situation in the Tuscany Region consumers. Over the years there has been Tuscany is an excellent viewpoint for a heightening of consumer awareness of analysing the development of the short the need to reclaim the power to choose supply chain. By its nature, it has proved also at the moment of purchase. In fertile for the foundation and rapid spread choosing from a variety of products the of a number of initiatives that often involve consumer is deciding which company to many local actors. In fact, Tuscany still has support and thus, indirectly, the a model of agriculture with strong links to corresponding farming model. This has local contexts, with a low incidence of spawned a number of consumer “modernity” and with a structure mainly movements committed to supporting local composed of small to medium‐sized farms produce, small‐size farms and marginalised of which over 80% has less than 5 hectares rural areas, and enhancing the culture of of Utilized Arable Area (UAA) (Rossi et al., critical consumption. These movements are 2008). emerging all over the world, each with The 2007 report of the Observatory for their own modus operandi, level of Direct Sales sponsored by the Coldiretti awareness and objectives stemming from farmers’ federation and Agri2000 noted the territorial context and historical period that Tuscany is the primary region in Italy in which they developed. In Italy, the so‐ for direct sale with no fewer than 9,670 called GAS, acronym of “Gruppi d’Acquisto farms that sell their produce directly (some Solidale” (Solidarity Purchasing Groups) 7% of the number of farms in the region) represent a significant experience. This is representing around 17% of the national presently the most widespread form of total3. self‐organised groups of consumers in Italy The collective approach to direct sale in (Innocenti, 2007a). The GAS were granted Tuscany began in the 1970s with a few recognition in the 2008 Budget Law (Law sporadic initiatives launched directly by 244/07) and defined as “non‐profit‐making small‐scale producers. The year 1984 saw associations established with the objective the first Fierucola in Florence, the first real of purchasing and distributing merchandise farmers’ market organised and run by to those belonging to it without mark‐up, farmers themselves. In the years that pursuing aims of ethicalness, social followed, and especially over the last five solidarity and environmental or six years, there has been a significant sustainability”. This measure enables increase of initiatives of this kind and
3 Note, however, that for many farms in Toscana today, direct selling is just a complementary activity to providing board and lodging as agritourisms (of which there are some 3,500 in the Region) selling their produce to customers with no involvement in other more structured collective initiatives.
77 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region these, in turn, have been supplemented by impact on the development of direct sale. other projects involving producers It set a tender earmarking substantial together with local government funding to support specific direct sale organisations and other bodies both initiatives in the three‐year period between institutional and from the sphere of 2007‐095 including farmers’ markets. As of associationism (such as the Tuscan today, this project has earmarked Committee for Organic Producers‐CTPB contributions, which are 80% non‐ and the Association of Solidarity for the refundable, to enable the initiatives Italian Countryside‐ASCI). In this highly sponsored by local government to take dynamic setting, the characteristics of the off6. At present, sixteen farmers’ markets market vary a lot both in how it relates to have received funding (a number of which the territory and in the objectives the were already up and running). organisers set themselves (Brunori et al., The “Filiera corta” project also provided for 2008). the funding of a specific initiative for the As of now, Tuscany boasts some fifteen set‐up of outlets for local produce, namely farmers’ markets that are set up regularly places where farms can sell their produce (generally once a month) and there are directly within a collectively managed others which, despite their longevity, only structure. Outlets are also perceived as a appear sporadically. further means of achieving the valorization The growing interest in these initiatives on of the territory along the lines of the the part of the institutions led the Tuscany “Strade [routes]” (of wine, oil, flavours Region to introduce measure 5.3.3.2.1 into established by Regional Law 45/2003)7. The the Rural Development Programme regional funding will enable 14 collective 2007‐2013 providing funding for stimulating outlets to be added to the pioneering producers’ markets in rural areas in order initiatives launched autonomously by the to encourage vitality and the provision of farmers themselves (of these 14, two – the services in the more backward areas too. Tuttigiorni [Every day] covered market with So far, however, this measure has not been some 50 local producers in Montevarchi in implemented. the province of Arezzo and the “Dal By contrast, the approval of the “Filiera podere al palato [From the Farm to the corta – Rete regionale per la valorizzazione Palate]” with 10 producers in the province dei prodotti agricoli toscani [Short supply of Siena are already up and running). chain – Regional network for the With regard to GAS groups, they began to valorization of Tuscan agricultural spread in Tuscany in the mid 90s but there produce]” (DGRT4 335/2007) Tuscany was a substantial increase in their numbers Regional project has had an enormous since 2000‐2001. At present there seem to
4 Ruling of the Tuscany Regional Government. 5 This project came a few months before the publication of the MiPAAF decree of 20 November 2007. However, the few differences between the two legislative acts do not make them incompatible. 6 Initiatives funded under the project must in any case be financially self‐sufficient within the following three years. 7 The Strade project is aimed essentially at tourists but in synergy with the outlets it could have a significant impact on the inhabitants of the territory.
78 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region be some 80 groups although, as at national preponderant part of production had to be level, this number could substantially traded through one of the forms of direct underestimate the actual entity of the collective selling under examination phenomenon8. They are most numerous in (farmers’ market, collective outlets or the provinces of Florence and Pisa. GAS); ii) The farm was not only livestock‐ based since the focus of the study was the The exploratory survey of a number of sustainable use of plant genetic resources; interesting cases iii) the farm had been involved in direct In order to better understand the selling for at least 5 years so that it would relationship between direct sale and the have had time to adjust its production sustainable use of agro‐biodiversity, system; perennial plants (e.g. grapes and interviews were conducted with the olives) were excluded from the study proprietors of three Tuscan farms that are because adaptation of production system very much involved in collective direct for them can only take place over the mid‐ selling. The main purpose was to ascertain
Tab. 1 – Main characteristics of the three farms taking part in the study Farm name Bio Colombini Radici Poggio di Camporbiano Location Crespina (PI) Loro Ciuffenna (AR) San Gimignano (SI) Size 18 ha (UAA 18 ha) 40 ha (UAA 5 ha) 265 ha (UAA 115 ha) Vegetables, legumes olives, Vegetables, fruit trees, cereals Fodder, cereals, vegetables, Main crops1 fruit trees legumes, fruit trees Tomato juice and sauce, Vegetables in oil, sauces, Husked cereals, soups, flours, On‐farm processed vegetables in oil creams, chestnut flour, soups, pasta, tomato sauce, creams, produce juices, preserves juices, preserves. cheeses ICEA (organic) ICEA (organic) CODEX s.r.l. (organic) Certification Demeter (biodynamic) First year of direct 2001 1985 1995 selling GAS (19 groups serving Collective outlet (Tuttigiorni in GAS (80 groups serving between 600 and 1300 Montevarchi), farmers’ market between 1500 and 2500 Forms of direct families), farm outlet, local (La Fierucola in Florence), GAS families), farm outlet, local selling2 school (2), farm outlet, catering school, on‐line (for dry foodstuffs only) no Specialty shops Specialty shops, wholesalers Forms of non‐direct (local and non‐local including (for packed cereals only) selling2 overseas) 1 Main crops underlined 2 Main forms of selling underlined if direct selling had led to a progressive to long term. adaptation of agricultural production The following table shows the main data of system and hence had contributed to an the three farms selected. increase in the on‐farm agricultural For some years Bio Colombini has sold biodiversity or, at least, to its valorization exclusively through direct sale, mainly to and thus maintance. GAS groups. The farms selected had to satisfy the Radici has set up a very broad and following criteria: i) a substantial if not diversified sales network. Most of its fresh
8 In this area too, Tuscany is of great interest with almost 20% of the over 400 GAS groups nationwide registered by websites.
79 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region produce is sold through the collective The impact of direct sale has been felt outlet in Montevarchi (estimated yearly more by the Radici farm. Originally, it turnover between 40 and 50,000 Euros) or farmed chestnuts, essentially harvesting through other forms of direct sale. The the nuts from the trees on its property. processed produce, by contrast, is mainly Transformation has always been important sold non‐directly through specialty shops. for the farm for selling the products Lastly, although Poggio di Camporbiano is obtained from chestnuts – dried chestnuts, much bigger than the other two it still and chestnut flour and puree – to specialty manages to sell over 80% of its produce shops. When he began pioneering forms of directly to consumers, principally through direct sale through farmers’ markets in the the 80 GAS groups it deals with. mid ’80s, the owner understood that a In order to verify the impact of direct sale wider assortment of products was on the agricultural bio‐diversity of each necessary if he wanted to satisfy the single farm, three different levels of demand of the market. This induced him to analysis were considered: i) diversity in the introduce fruit trees and vegetables to be farming system; ii) diversity in the number transformed by the farm into his system. of crops and iii) diversity in number of This is now the lion’s share of his varieties. production. It emerged that the effect direct sale has Lastly, the history of the Poggio di had on the diversification in the farming Camporbiano farm is more recent. Since its system of the three farms has not been foundation in 1988 it has always pursued uniform. The first farm under an organic and bio‐dynamic model of 9 consideration, Bio Colombini, sold its agriculture . The farm now boasts a highly produce almost exclusively to large‐scale diversified production that includes animal distribution through wholesalers or more husbandry in line with the organic principle frequently directly to the supermarkets that animals are necessary for what they until the early ’90s. The system used was contribute in terms of organic material and substantially a highly specialised model of for maintaining the farming cycle closed. In intensive industrialised vegetable its early years, the farm sold its produce production adequate to the needs and through wholesalers specialised in organic logistics of large‐scale distribution. Today, products but in so doing it encountered the system is still mainly vegetable‐ two main problems. The first was the oriented but different in that now the excessively low prices the farm was paid by produce is high‐quality, typical, local and the middle‐man and the second was that organic for direct sale. Furthermore, direct the farm owners did not wish to rely on any sale induced the farm to add fruit and olive production factor external to the farm but production to their range but these are still be autonomous, even as regards the seeds of secondary importance. that had to be (and still are) mostly self‐ produced10. This means they have never wanted to grow hybrids which, in turn,
9 Bio‐dynamic agriculture is an approach to sustainable systems of agricultural production that respects the earth’s ecosystem. It is based on the philosophical teachings of the Austrian exponent of esotericism Rudolf Steiner; it includes the idea of organic agriculture in single harmony with the earth and the life that develops on it. 10 Except for the seeds of certain vegetables in which they are not yet self‐sufficient and which are still purchased externally.
80 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region created problems in satisfying the demand suppliers; ii) lengthen the time span of of wholesalers in particular for uniformity. having some kind of product to sell since Thus came the first approach to direct sale the personal relationship between which initially took the form of producer and consumer, a prerogative of participating in farmers’ markets (a policy direct sale, needs a certain degree of later abandoned) and which, as appears, continuity during the course of the year; iii) was to become their most important pursue a more staggered production distribution channel. during the year because direct sale, There is an interesting difference between especially for the GAS groups, requires a this case and the previous two in that its modest but regular supply flow, generally diversification in farming system was not a weekly or fortnightly. Furthermore the result of the new economic opportunities groups are unable to absorb production that emerged from direct sale but rather of concentrated in a short period; iv) a systemic approach to the sphere of introduce or rediscover crops that could agriculture that was pursued from the very not be fully appreciated by being beginning. The progressive diversification distributed through traditional marketing that took place over the years was in fact channels but which sell well when directly attributable to the availability of distributed through direct sale. more money which enabled the farm to The Bio Colombini farm is an excellent case shoulder the heavy costs of investment in point. Since it disengaged from the required to purchase the necessary philosophy of large‐scale distribution, the equipment and structures. Since, number of its crops have grown from 3‐4 to therefore, direct sale was the means of today’s 30. Not only it has introduced distribution most suited to their wide varieties to satisfy clients’ needs and assortment of quality produce, it requests but as a way of rendering its undoubtedly contributed to the selling strategy as rational as possible, it implementation and successive has decided to include certain crops in its maintenance of the eco‐sustainable, basket which the owner has called diversified model of agriculture that the “emergency produce”. These are products farm had pursued from its inception. with low perishability (e.g. carrots, With regard to diversity of cultivated potatoes, squash) which could be used to species, all three farms registered an make up for the temporary lack of other increase in number after resorting to direct produce during the year. In this way there selling. The reasons for this choice were is always something for the mixed substantially in order to: i) broaden the vegetable boxes that the GAS groups assortment of products offered to better generally purchase11. satisfy the diversity of consumer demand, While softening the impact of production and save clients the extra costs and time peaks, staggering production by involved in shopping at a multitude of diversifying the species grown (and the
11 A producer who supplies the GAS groups does not generally have the resources to address the demand of individual group members firstly because it might not have the availability of sufficient merchandise to satisfy the individual needs of many tens or even hundreds of families and secondly because the job of handling orders of this kind would be costly to the point of being a serious hardship for a small to mid‐size farm. The answer which is often adopted to sell fruit and vegetables, therefore, is to make up a standard mixed box containing a variety of produce according to the season, the weather, or because of producer’s requirements.
81 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region varieties as described under) only partly mainly for domestic consumption. Having solves the issue of the time gap between now to supply many GAS groups required a supply and demand. There is a marked radical reorganisation in their system. In tendency within farms involved in direct terms of land earmarked for cultivation the sale for this strategy often to be predomination of few crops over the accompanied by processing of the produce others has been substantially reduced and within the farm itself. In addition to the areas dedicated to individual crops is enabling the farm to market products with now much more homogeneous12. a higher added value, this strategy reduces Finally with regard to the diversity in terms the seasonal limitation of produce, its of varieties grown, in this case too, direct perishability and periods of excessively selling has had the effect of increasing their concentrated workloads during the year. In number, substantially for the same reasons some cases, not only does processing as for the number of crops grown. Bio complement production diversification as a Colombini has seen an increase in the means of tackling organisational issues but number of varieties, especially for cabbage is also, in itself, an ulterior factor towards and kale (ten or so varieties) tomato and biodiversity. eggplant (8 to 10 varieties each). For The progressive broadening of processed “emergency products”, the problem of produce by the Radici farm, for example, reducing the concentration of production prepared according to old recipes or even is obviously less acute and it was therefore in the form of authentic “domestic unnecessary to increase the number of experimentation” has resulted in the need varieties of these crops. for new crops to be introduced into the Despite the effect that transformation has farming system (e.g. lettuce, arugula, and had of lessening also the Radici farm’s red lettuce used in certain soup recipes). need to graduate production, there is again The owner has estimated that the number a considerable number of varieties grown of vegetables produced has risen from (some 100 of which 25 of potatoes alone). about 15 to today’s 30. In addition to research into varieties As stated above, the impact of direct sales characteristics which give a special on the Poggio di Camporbiano farm has organoleptic quality to its processed been decidedly less pronounced. From the produce, according to the proprietor, this very outset, the owners sought to is also a way to reduce the costs of introduce a broad range of crops, growing warehousing and of immobilised capital. various cereals (bread and durum wheat, The head of Camporbiano, too, points out spelt, barley, rye and millet) legumes how direct selling has led to the cultivation (chickpeas, lentils and beans) fruit and of more varieties, stressing on the one especially a wide variety of vegetables. By hand the need to stagger production (e.g. contrast, however, when in those days by growing early, mid‐season and late they were mainly selling through varieties of cabbage and kale, or, for wholesalers, the products that actually apples, summer varieties for immediate found their way to the market were only a consumption, varieties for early few varieties (e.g. squash and garlic) and consumption and lastly varieties which the rest was relatively marginal and used benefit from months of ripening in the
12 There has therefore been an increase in biodiversity as measured by the Shannon index which takes into account the numerousness of species and also the uniformity of their distribution.
82 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region fruit‐house) and, on the other, being able diversification is occurred in all three farms to meet specific and diverse demands of studied. consumers from different part of Tuscany, The subparagraph (e) invites countries to even relatively close to one another. The “promote, as appropriate, the expanded farm also makes use of mixtures of use of local and locally adapted crops, varieties of cereals that have undergone varieties and underutilized species”. In this selection over the years for their special instance, too, the short distribution chain aptitude for transformation and has proved more suitable than other adaptability to the local agro‐ marketing means for distributing and environmental conditions. valorizing this type of production and It comes as no surprise, therefore that all therefore for promoting its cultivation. three farms examined in this study Lastly, subparagraph (f), supports as cultivate local and/or old varieties and in appropriate “the wider use of diversity of certain cases are also directly involved in varieties and species in on‐farm attempts to recover varieties which m a n a g e m e n t , c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d otherwise would no longer be grown as sustainable use of crops […] in order to not distributed through the conventional reduce crop vulnerability and genetic distribution channels (e.g. the owner of the erosion, and promote increased world food Radici farm, who has been a member of the production compatible with sustainable Associazione Agricoltori Custodi development”. The case study results [Association of Guardian Farmers] since reported here clearly show that direct sale 1991). has always promoted diversification of farm production both in species and Direct selling as a means of promoting the varieties. However, it is noteworthy that in sustainable use of plant genetic resources the case of Bio Colombini and Radici, direct pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty sale was a driving force towards The study so far shows a clear, pronounced diversification and led to an increase in correlation between agrobiodiversity and agricultural biodiversity. In the case of the various forms of direct sale. Support Poggio di Camporbiano, a highly diversified for direct sale from the institutions production model was pursued from the whether national or local can therefore be very outset independently of direct sale. seen as a valid means for contributing Direct sale only appeared later as the best towards the sustainable use of agricultural marketing approach for valorizing the biodiversity and, indirectly, to farm’s production. In this case, therefore, it implementing Article 6 of the FAO Treaty can be said that direct sale contributed on plant genetic resources which, being a more to maintaining organic diversity than party to, Italy is bound to be committed to. to increasing it. The main relevance of direct sale to Article 6 is related to subparagraph (a), (e) and (f) Institutional criticality and support to of the paragraph (2). direct sale The subparagraph (a) requires that From the interviews conducted it emerged countries party to the agreement shall that adopting the policy of direct sale is “pursue fair agricultural policies that often fraught with extra costs and promote, as appropriate, the development difficulties, especially of an organisational and maintenance of diverse farming nature. This is, in part, also witnessed by systems […]”. As we have seen, this the low number of producers who have decided to adopt this type of marketing.
83 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region
During the interviews, the main points of contributions were functional especially for criticality encountered were: i) technical those who intended embarking on and organisational difficulties in producing processing their products within the farm and offering a wide assortment of produce in order to then market the produce by that satisfies consumer demand (especially direct sale. those in the GAS groups); ii) the lack of manpower in the countryside; ii) a marked Bibliography increase in staff costs; iii) a lack of Brunori G., Guidi F., Innocenti S., and Rossi continuity in the demand, in particular of A., 2008. Monitoraggio e supporto the GAS groups, because often the groups delle esperienze di filiera corta in themselves have a very short life from birth Toscana. Agenzia Regionale per lo to demise and also because their demand Sviluppo e l’Innovazione nel settore reaches its lowest ebb in Summer which is Agricolo‐forestale, Regione Toscana, the period of maximum production; iv) the Firenze, 61 p. time needed to take part in farmers’ Brunori G., Cerruti R., Guidi F., and Rossi markets or to divide produce into the A., 2007 (eds.). Indagine conoscitiva boxes for the GAS groups and v) the need sui circuiti brevi/locali di produzione‐ for investments specifically addressed to consumo dei prodotti agricoli in direct sale. Toscana. Aspetti emersi dall’indagine. The farmers interviewed appreciate the Dipartimento di Agronomia e efforts being made by the pubic Gestione dell’Agroecosistema institutions in favour of the various forms (DAGA), Università di Pisa, Pisa, 41 p. of collective selling but they feel that Brunori G., Rossi A., and Guidi F., 2006a. Le further support initiatives are needed. In esperienze di filiera corta. Agrisole ‐ Il addition to providing a legislative Sole 24ore, Rapporto Economia e framework that makes direct selling legal, politiche rurali in Toscana, n° 8: so far, essentially, these efforts have taken 44‐50. the shape of contributions by local Brunori G., Cerruti R., Medeot S., and Rossi government to setting up farmers’ markets A., 2006b. Policy Recommendations and collective outlets (in this case, in and Practical Protocols. Italian Montevarchi). As of now, the GAS groups National Report of the project do not appear to have received any form of entitled “Marketing Sustainable support from the institutions. It has Agriculture: An analysis of the emerged that the main request is for potential role of new supply chains in support in the availability of meeting places sustainable rural development” (SUS‐ that can be used to stock produce, the lack CHAIN). Dipartimento di Agronomia of which sets severe constraints on the e Gestione dell’Agroecosistema operability of the groups. (DAGA), Università di Pisa, Pisa, 11 p. Furthermore, despite the Rural Cicatiello C., and Franco S., 2008. La Development Programme of the Tuscany vendita diretta: produttori Region never having funded collective consumatori e produttività . forms of direct selling it has, in past years Associazione Alessandro Bartola, especially, spent considerable sums of Agriregionieuropa, anno 4, n° 14: money to provide partial coverage of the 44‐46. expenses of modernisation and diversification of individual farms. These
84 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region
FAO, 2001. International Treaty on Plant Rossi A., Guidi F., and Innocenti S., 2008 Genetic Resources for Food and (eds.). Guida per l’attivazione di Agriculture. (ITPGRFA). Rome forme collettive di vendita diretta. Gardini C., and Lazzarin C., 2007. La vendita Esperienze, approcci e strumenti. diretta in Italia. Associazione Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo e A l e s s a n d r o B a r t o l a , l’Innovazione nel settore Agricolo‐ Agriregionieuropa, year 3, n° 8: 17‐19. forestale, Tuscany Region, ARSIA Innocenti S., 2007a. Dal cibo alla Handbook, Florence, 123 p. cittadinanza. L’azione dei Severino M.E., 2005. Verso nuove tendenze consumatori nella costruzione di reti di consumo: i Gruppi d’Acquisto sociali. Laboratorio di studi rurali Solidale. Three‐year degree thesis in Sismondi, Working Paper n° 1, Pisa, Economics and Service Industry 14 p. Management, Faculty of Economics, Innocenti S., 2007b. Opportunità University of Verona, Verona, 136 p. commerciale e condivisione di valori: i National ad regional normative framework Gruppi d’Acquisto Solidale in Toscana. of reference Specialist degree thesis in Biological MiPAAF decree of 20 November 2007: and Multifunctional Agriculture, "Implementation of Art (1) (1065) of Law Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nr 296 of 27 December on markets set Pisa, Pisa, 115 p. aside for direct sale by farmers", Official Lazzarin C. and, Gardini C., 2007. La vendita Gazette Nr 301 of 29‐12‐2007 diretta: un business in crescita. Law Nr 296 of 27 December 2006, n. 296: L’Informatore Agrario, n° 1: 26‐29. “Measures for the preparation of year and Marescotti A., 2006. L a multi‐year accounts of the State (budget commercializzazione dei prodotti 2007)”, tipici, in Guida per la valorizzazione Official Gazette Nr 299 of 27‐12‐2006 dei prodotti agroalimentari tipici. Law Nr 244 of 24 December 2007: Concetti, metodi, strumenti. “Measures for the preparation of year and Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo e multi‐year accounts of the State (budget l’Innovazione nel settore Agricolo‐ 2008)”, forestale, Regione Toscana, Official Gazette Nr 10 of 12‐1‐2008 Manuale ARSIA, Firenze, 67‐77. Law Nr 59 of 9 February 1963: “Norms for Moore G., and Tymoski W., 2005. the stable sale of farm produce to the Explanatory Guide to the public by direct farm producers”, Official International Treaty on Plant Gazette Nr 44 of 16‐02‐1963 Genetic Resources for Food and Legislative Decree Nr 114 of 31 March 1998: Agriculture. IUCN Environmental "Reform of the law concerning trade Policy and Law Paper n. 57, Gland, pursuant to Article (4) (4) of Law Nr 59 of Switzerland and Cambridge, 212 p. 15 March 1997”. Official Gazette Nr 95 of Ploeg J.D. van der, 2006. Agricultural 24‐4‐1998 ‐ Suppl. Ordinario Nr 80 production in crisis. In P. Cloke, T. Legislative Decree Nr 228 of 18 May 2001: Marsden, and P. Mooney (eds.), "Orientation and modernisation of London SAGE Publications, agriculture pursuant to Article 7 of Law Nr Handbook of Rural Studies, 258‐278. 57 of 5 March 2001. ", Official Gazette Nr 137 of 15‐6‐2001 ‐ Suppl. Ordinario Nr 149
85 Can consumer choice foster more diversified farming systems? The experience of direct sale in Tuscany Region
Ruling of the Tuscany Regional Government Nr 335 of 14 May 2007: "Regional Project "Filiera Corta‐ Rete regionale per la valorizzazione dei prodotti agricoli toscani", Official Regional Bulletin Nr 22 of 30‐5‐2007 Ruling of the Tuscany Regional Government Nr 843 of 13 November 2006: “Reg. CE 1698/05 – Rural Development Programme of the Tuscany Region for the period 2007‐13”, Official Regional Bulletin Nr 48 of 28‐11‐2007 Tuscany Regional Law Nr 45 of 5 August 2003: “Discipline of the ‘strade del vino, dell’olio extravergine di oliva’ and quality agricultural and food produce”, Official Regional Bulletin Nr 36 del 14‐8‐2003
86 Annex
87 Regional draft bill proposal
Regional Draft Bill Proposal
The objective of this document is to present a draft model that combines and synthesises the regional legislation for protecting and enhancing autochthonous varieties and breeds of interest to agriculture. Protection and enhancement of the heritage of local breeds and plant varieties of interest to agriculture and husbandry Art. 1 – Scope and Purpose 1. The Region provides for the conservation and protection of the heritage of local breeds and varieties, and of autochthonous genetic resources. 2. The Region protects and enhance the cultural heritage of knowledge, techniques and customs relating to agricultural biodiversity as implemented by rural communities throughout history. 3. Local breeds and varieties belong to the natural agricultural and husbandry heritage of the regional territory. 4. The Region promotes and guarantee collective use of the heritage of local breeds and varieties by means of a conservation network. 5. The Region implements direct measures and encourage public and private initiatives in order to conserve, safeguard and enhance local varieties and breeds of agricultural interest with particular attention to those at risk of erosion. Art. 2 – Definitions 1. For the purposes of this law, breeds and local varieties, hereinafter genetic resources, shall be: a) species, breeds, varieties, cultivars, populations, ecotypes and clones that have origin in the territory; b) species, breeds, varieties, cultivars, populations, ecotypes and clones which, despite being of extra‐territorial origin were introduced into the territory sufficiently in the past to now be a fully integrated part of its agricultural system and animal husbandry; c) species, breeds, varieties, cultivars, populations and ecotypes which have been bred from selected strains of those specified in Art 2 (1) (a) and (b) hereof; d) species, breeds, varieties, cultivars, populations and ecotypes originally from the Region but no longer extant there and conserved in botanic gardens, nurseries or research centres in other regions or countries. 2. The Implementing Regulation shall define the criteria for classifying the autochthonous genetic resources at risk of genetic erosion pursuant to Art 2 (1) hereof. Art. 3 – The heritage of genetic resources The Region shall recognise the heritage of knowledge, innovation and practices of local communities which are important for the conservation and enhancement of the biological diversities extant in the territory. Pursuant to Art 8 (j) of the Rio Convention on Biodiversity (1992), and Article 9 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture the Region shall encourage the sharing within the local communities of the benefits arising from the application and usage of the aforementioned heritage. Art. 4 – The responsibility of the Region
88 Regional draft bill proposal
1. The Region shall carry out its tasks of protecting and enhancing genetic resources by: a) favouring public and private initiatives that tend to conserve and reconstitute genetic resources, disseminate knowledge of and respect for them and interest in their use, and enhance produce deriving from them; b) itself launching initiatives with the objective of protecting and enhancing said resources. 2. The Region shall approve ad hoc programmes which specify the activities and initiatives which are deemed necessary to be launched and promoted, and which establish the criteria for gaining access to the benefits, the measure of the incentives and the relative modalities of implementation. Art. 5 – Voluntary Regional register 1. In order to safeguard local breeds and varieties, a voluntary Regional Register will be set up with a section for animals and one for plants. It will record breeds, varieties, populations, ecotypes and clones of regional interest pursuant to Art 2 hereof. 2. The Regional Register will be organised in accordance with criteria and characteristics that foster uniformity and comparability with any other similar tool which may exist at national or international level. 3. The Regional Register will be public and managed by the directory general for agriculture and be consultable on‐line. Art. 6 – Enrolment on the Regional Register 1. Enrolment of genetic resources on the Register will be performed by the directory general for agricultural based on the approval of an ad hoc technical‐scientific committees set up by the Regional government. 2. Application for registration may be made by the Regional government, scientific bodies, local authorities, private and public organisations and members of the public. 3. The ways and means of enrolment on the Regional Register shall be in accordance with the Implementing Regulation. Art. 7 – Tasks of the technical‐scientific committees 1. The task of the committees is to: a) express their opinion on applications for enrolment and cancellation of local varieties on the Regional Register; b) express their opinion on the tasks performed by the Region c) determine the criteria for appointing Steward Farmers. Art. 8 – Conservation ex situ of autochthonous breeds and varieties 1. In order that ex‐situ conservation effectively protect local varieties and breeds, the Region shall identify public and private subjects with proven experience and who have access to facilities with a suitable technical and organisational structure to whom to entrust the protection and ex situ conservation of the genetic resources enrolled in the Regional Register. 2. The ways and means of authorising and maintaining structures for ex situ conservation shall be disciplined by the Implementing Regulation. 3. Subjects appointed to ex situ conservation shall carry out their duties in such a way that the material entrusted them be protected from all forms of contamination, alteration and destruction.
89 Regional draft bill proposal
Art. 9 – Conservation and protection network
1. The Region will set up and coordinate the conservation and protection network for autochthonous varieties. 2. Steward Farmers as specified in Article 10 hereunder and the public and private subjects specified in Article 8, who carry out the ex situ conservation of genetic resources on behalf of the Region, shall be members of the network by right. 3. Other subjects, both public and private, may belong to the network in accordance with the ways and means provided by the Implementing Regulation. 4. The network will keep genetic resources at risk of extinction alive by ex and in situ conservation, and by encouraging their circulation. 5. Members of the network wishing to obtain plant breeders’ right or patent of a variety or of a variety derived essentially from one enrolled in the Register, or from biological material deriving therefrom, must apply first and foremost to the Region for authorisation. Art. 10 – Steward Farmers 1. Steward Farmers are those who conserve in situ the genetic resources at risk of extinction that are enrolled in the indices. 2. The Steward Farmer: a) places single genetic resources in safekeeping, protecting and safeguarding them from all manner of contamination, alteration and destruction; b) disseminates knowledge and promotes widespread cultivation of the genetic resources he is custodian to, in accordance with the spirit of this law; c) renews the seeds of the herbaceous species conserved in situ. 3. The post of Steward Farmer is conferred pursuant to enrolment in the register of Custodian Farmers. 4. Farmers who are members of their local community and are traditionally involved in conserving genetic resources, or who have contributed to rediscovering them are favoured candidates for enrolment as Steward Farmers. 5. Genetic resources are reproduced by Steward Farmers in the area where they were originally cultivated, or in areas recognised as traditional places for their cultivation. 6. The Implementing Regulation governs: a) the ways and means of getting enrolled on the register; b) the objective and subjective requisites for obtaining and holding the post of Custodian Farmer; c) the modality for recovering expenses incurred in performing the tasks of Custodian Farmer. Art. 11 – Circulation of genetic material 1. In order to counter the risk of extinction of genetic resources of local varieties enrolled in the Register and ensure their recovery, maintenance and reproduction and hence long‐ term use, members of the network may exchange a moderate quantity of the genetic material locally on a non‐profit basis. 2. The Implementing Regulation define: a) ‘moderate quantity’ referred to individual species;
90 Regional draft bill proposal
b) the ways and means of circulation of genetic material. Art. 12 – Conservation of historic tradition 1. The Region shall protect and enhance the local heritage of knowledge, techniques and customs regarding agricultural biodiversity that rural communities have practised throughout history. 2. To this end, the Region, independently or jointly with local governments, associations and other bodies, is authorised to launch initiatives with the objective of recovering and conserving the historic tradition of agricultural biodiversity.
91 List of varieties and races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions
List of varieties included in the RDPs of Italian Regions Region/ Varieties (local names) Species
Basilicata Olive tree Carpinella, Fruscillo, Groia, Racioppa, Romanella lunga, Romanella tonda. Apple tree Melo cerrata, Melo cetriolo, Melo futtscidd, Melo staccia, Melo maiatica, Melo olio, Melo puma, Limoncella, Melo di san Francesco, Melo di san Giovanni, Melo ghiaccio, Melo zito o rito, Melo a grappolo, Melo pane, Tipo sergenti, Melo acqua, Melo a ciuccio, Melo antico tenero e profumato. Pear tree Pero agostino, Pero arancio, Pero balcone, Pero caciocavallo, Pero lardaro, Pero scarrafone, Pero melone, Pero moscatello, Pero paccona, Starngoglia estivo‐autunnale, Pero a campanelli. Fig tree Troiano bianco, Troiano nero. W a l n u t Noce a buccia tenera tree Chestnut Castagno da frutto, Marroni. Fennel Finocchio semi selvatico Artichoke Carciofo romanesco HorseradisRaphanus sativo h Parsnip Pastinaca Pumpkin Zucca vernile tonda Chickpea Cece grande Bean San Michele, Fagiolo lardaro, Marrozzo (munachedda o occhio di gatto), Marruchedda, Lattina, Fagiolo uovo di uccello, Fagiolo sangue di porco, Cannellino nero, Quagliandriedd, Panzaredda. Leopoldia Lampagione comosa Pepper Peperone paparella dolci, Peperone paparella piccante. R e d Peperoncino lungo pepper Tomato Pomodoro nostrano, Pomodoro nostrano liscio, Pomodoro rotondo in asciutto (nassecco), Pomodoro cuor di bue, Pomodoro incasso. Aubergine Melanzana africana o di rotonda Potato Patata bianca 2, Patata rossa 1. Cereals Maiorche (grano tenero), Caroselle (grano tenero), Bianchette (grano tenero), Saragolle (grano duro), Cappelli (grano duro), Rossie (grano duro), Francesa (grano duro), Mais novantino.
Campania Apple tree Acquata, Agostinella rossa, Aitaniello, Ambrosio, Ananassa, Arancio, Arito, Austegna, Austina, Bianca di grottolella, Cancavone, Cannamela, Cape 'e ciuccio, Carne, Cerrata, Chianella, Cusanara, Del pozzo, Falsa fungiona, Fierro, Fragola, Latte, Lazzarona, Limoncella, Martina, Melone, Monaca, Morra, Paradiso, Parrocchiana, Prete, Re, S. Francesco, S. Giovanni, S. Nicola, Sergente, Sole, Suricillo, Tenerella, Trumuntana, Tubiona, Vivo, Zampa di cavallo, Zitella.
92 List of varieties and races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions
A p r i c o t Abate, Abatone, Acqua 'e serino, Ananassa, Antonaniello, Aronzo, Baracca, Boccuccia bianca, tree Boccuccia di eboli, Boccuccia grossa, Boccuccia liscia ii, Buttianese, Cafona, Cafona iii, Campana, Cardinale, Carpona, Casino, Cerasiello, Cerasiello ii, Cerasona, Cipolla, Cristiana, Diavola, Don aniello, Don Gaetano, Ebolitana, Fracasso, Falsa diavola, Fronne fresche, Giorgio 'a cotena, Grangicana, Limoncella, Lisandrina, Macona, Madonna, Maggese, Magnalona, Mammana, Montedoro, Monteruscello, Nennella, Nonno, Ottavianese, Palummella, Palummella ii, Panzona, Parolona, Pazza, Pelese correale, Pelese di Giovaniello, Persechella, Piciona, Portuallara, Presidente, Prevetone, Puscia, Puzo, Quattova, Resina, Rosamilia, Russulella, S. Francesco, S. Giorgio, Sant'anna, Sant'antonio, Scassulillo, Scassulillo grande, Scecquagliella ii, Schiavona, Scialo', Secondina, Setacciara, Signora, Silvana, Sonacampana, Sorrentino, Stella, Stradona, Taviello, Tre p, Vicario, Vicienzo 'e maria, Vollese, Zeppa 'e sisco, Zeppona, Zi' Francesco, Zi' luisa, Zi' ramunno. Cherry tree Agostina, Antuono, Aspra, Bertuello, Biancolella, Bologna, Caffe', Campanara, Campanarella, Camponica, Cannamela, Capellina, Carluccia, Casale, Casanova, Astagnata nera, Catena, Cavaliere, Cerasa bianca, Cerasa nera, Cerasa uva, Cerasone, Cervina, Cervone, Chiacchierona, Chiapparella, Ciauzara, Cirio, Corniola, Corona, Culacchia, Cuore, Della calce, Don carmelo, Donna luisa, Don vincenzo, Forgiona, Giulio salice, Ilene, Imperatore, Imperiale nera, Lattacci, Lauretana, Lettere, Limoncella, Maggiaiola, Maggiaiolella, Maiatica di taurasi, Marfatana, Mazzetti di maggio, Melella, Montenero, Moscarella, Mulegnana nera, Mulegnana riccia, Murana, Napoletana, Nera Dura di Mugnano, Nera ii Dura di Mugnano, Paccona, Paesanella, Pagliaccio bianca, Pagliarella, Palazzola, Parrocchiana, Pasqualina, Passaguai, Patanara, Pellicciara, Pigliolla, Pomella, Primitiva nera, Recca nera, Reccuccia, Regina, Regina del mercato, S. Felice, S. Giorgio, Sangue di bue, Sangue di bue ii, Sangue di bufalo, S. Michele, S. Pietro, Sanpruna, Sant'anna, Sant'antonio, Santa teresa, Sbarbato, Silvestre, Sommatola, Spernocchia Spernocchia del Vallo di Lauro, Stoppa, Tamburella, Tenta di serino, Tinta nera, Tosone, Zuccarenella. Peach tree Angelo marzocchella, Antonio riccio, Bellella di melito, Brasilese, Carnefice, Cerullo, Chiazziera, Ciccio 'e petrino, Giallona di siano, Giuglianese, Giugnese, Lampetella, Lampetella bianca, Lampetella precoce, Luscianese, Maggiaiola, Mandara, Marinaci, Martona, Micariello, Pelosella, Percoca della Vendemmia, Percoca di Siano di Settembre, Pesca noce da montagna, Picarella, Picarella spennazzola, Poma, Poma ii, Poma iii, Procidina, Pumma, Reginella, Riccia 'a fuoco, Riccia di somma, Riccia di somma ii, Riccia precoce, Ricciardiello, Ricciona, Rifone, Rossa tardiva di caiazzo, Rosso 'o fuoco, San castrese, Sanguigna, San martino, Pesco, S.Stefano, Schiavona, Settembrina, Terzarola bianca, Torca,Torca maggiaiola, Verdina, Zi' Gaetano, Zingara nera. Plum tree Biancolella di ottaviano, Botta a muro bianca, Botta a muro nera, Cacazzara, Calavrice, Coglie'e astag bianca, Coglie 'e astag nera, Coglie 'e astag rossa, Core, Del carmine, Della Maddalena, Di spagna, Fele, Fegatara, Ferrandona, Fiaschetta, Fiocco bianco, Fiocco di campagna, Fiocco rosa, Fiocco rosso, Genova gialla, Genova giallo‐verde, Lecina gialla, Lecina tonda, Marchigiana, Maria luisa, 'Mbriaca, Melella, Nera tardiva, Ninnella, Occhio di bue, Occhio di bue ii, Pannaranese, Pappacona, Pappacona gialla, Pappacona rossa, Pappacona verde, Pazza di somma, Pezza rossa, Preta 'e zucchero, Prunarinia, Rachele, Riardo, San giovanni, San rafele, Santa maria, Santangiolese, Santa paola, Scarrafona, Scauratella, Sile, Turcona, Ugliese, Uttaiana, Zi' augusto, Zuccarina. Grapevine Casavecchia, Pallagrello bianco/nero, Tronto, Catalanesca, Ripoli, Repella, Fenile, Ginestra, Aglianicone n., Barbera del Sannio n, Lacrima n., Olivella n,Sabato n, Suppezza n, Tintore n, Cacazzara n, Cacamosca b, Cavalla b, Rovello b, Moscatello salernitano b, Moscato di Baselice b, Passolara b, Pignola b, Sanginella b, Santa Sofia b, Arilla b, Don Lunario b, Guarnaccia n, Livella n..
Garlic Schiacciato, Tondo di Torella l.2 Broccoli Broccolo dell'olio, San Pasquale Artichoke Carciofo Montoro Cabbage Torzella riccia Cucumber Cetriolino sarnese Chickpea Campuotolo, Castelcivita, Di Caposele, Di Cicerale, Di Guardia dei Nero di Caposele,Di Sassano Cicerchia Dei campi, Di Calitri, Di Caposele, Di Carife, Di Castelcivita, Di Colliano, Di San Rufo Onion Febbrarese, Marzatica, Ramata, Satolla.
93 List of varieties and races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions
Bean A formella, Bianco, Della Regina, Dente di morto, Di Controne, Occhio nero, Occhio nero alto Sele, Occhio nero di Oliveto Citra, Mustacciello d'Ischia, Mustacciello di Pimonte, Screziato impalato, Tondino bianco di Caposele, Tondino di Villaricca, Tondo bianco di Caposele, Zampognaro d'Ischia, Zolfariello, Della Regina di Gorga. Fava bean A corna Buckwheat Ecotipo alta valle Sele Lettuce Lattuga napoletana Lentil Di Colliano, Di san Gerardo. Maize Mais bianco Acerra, Spiga bianca, Spiga napoletana bianca, Spiga napoletana rossa, Spiga rossa, Spogna bianca. Aubergine A grappolo, Cima di viola, Napoletana, Violetta tonda. Melon Melone di Montecalvo, Melone nocerino sarnese. Pepper Cazzone giallo, Cazzone rosso, Cornetto di Acerra rosso, Corno di capra giallo, Corno di capra rosso, Friariello napoletano, Friariello nocerese, Friariello a sigaretta, Marconi rosso e giallo, Papaccella napoletana liscia, Papaccella liscia rossa, Papaccella napoletana gialla, Papaccella napoletana rossa, Peperone corno rosso, Sassaniello rosso e giallo. Tomato Cannellino flegreo, Cento scocche, Corbarino, Di Sorrento, Guardiolo, Piennolo (Pollena), Piennolo (vesuviano), Piennolo giallo, Piennolo Rosso, Pomodorino di collina, Pomodorino giallo di Montecalvo, Pomodorino giallo di San Bartolomeo, Pomodorino Reginella, Pomodorino rosso selvatico, Pomodoro San Marzano, Principe Borghese, Quarantino grande, Quarantino piccolo, Seccagno, Vesuviano. Pumpkin Zucca napoletana lunga, Zucca napoletana tonda. Zucchini Cimentano, San Pasquale.
Emilia Romagna Grapevine Alionza, Angela, Bervedino, Canina Nera, Centesimino,Lambrusco Oliva,Melara, Negretto, Santa Maria, Sgavetta, Spergola, Uva Tosca, Verdea, Albana Nera, Bertinora o Rossola di Bertinoro, Belzamino, Biondello, Bsolla, Rambella, Fogarina, Termarina, Famoso, Cornacchia, Lanzesa, P350,Lambrusco Benetti, Lambrusco di Fiorano, Malvasia aromatica di Parma, Pelagôs di Bagnacavallo, Ruggine o Ruznintena, Santa Maria (nera), Scarsa Foglia, Trebbiano di Spagna, Uva di Tundé, Vernaccina Riminese, Verucchiese. A p r i c o t Reale tree Chestnut Raggiolana, Pistolere, Marrone di Campora, Biancheria, Carrarese. Cherry tree Duella, Corniola, Fiore, Moretta di Cesena, Mora di Vignola. Apple tree Abbondanza, Della Carraia, Campanino, Cavicchie (gruppo), Durello (gruppo), Lavina, Musone (gruppo), Rosa locale (gruppo), Ruggine (gruppo), Poppina, Zambona. Olive tree Grappuda, Colombina, Orfana. Pear tree Pero dalla coda torta, Gnocco di Parma (gruppo), Mora (gruppo), Principessa, Sanguignola (gruppo), Scipiona, Spadona estiva, Volpina (gruppo), Angelica, San Giovanni (gruppo). Peach tree Bella di Cesena, Buco incavato, Pesca Carota, Sant’Anna Calducci, Bella di Lugo, Sanguigna. Plum tree Agostana di Cesena, Zucchelle (gruppo). Thistle Cardo di Bologna Tomato Parmigiano (gruppo) Cabbage Piacentino Fennel Di Bologna Melon Popone Rospo di Bologna
Friuli Venezia Giulia* Garlic Di Resia Turnip Da brovada a colletto viola Celeriac Gigante, Di Praga.
94 List of varieties and races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions
Peach tree Triestina, Isontina, Iris rosso. * To these have to be added the varieties alredy listed in the regional volunteer register.
Lazio A p r i c o t Di Monteporzio, S. Maria in Gradi ‐ AL1. tree Azerolier Rosso Chestnut Marrone Premutico (Primatico, Primaticcio) Cherry tree Bella di Pistoia, Biancona, Buonora, Core (Durona), Crognolo,Graffione,Maggiolina, Morona, Ravenna a gambo corto, Ravenna a gambo lungo, Ravenna precoce, Ravenna tardiva. Apple tree Ravenna tardiva, Agre di Sezze, Agre di Viterbo, Appia, Capo d’Asino, Cocoine, Dolce di Sezze, Fragola, Francesca, Gaetana, Maiolina, Nana, Paoluccia, Paradisa, Pontella, Prata, Rosetta o Rosone, S.Agostino, Tonnorella, Zuccherina, Cavilla, Cerina, Cipolla, Francesca di Castelliri, Limoncella, M'briachella, Pianella, Rosa, Rosa piatta ciociara, Rosa gentile, S. Giovanni, Spugnaccia, Verdona, Verdonica, Sublacense, Velletrana. PomegranDi Gaeta MG1, Di Gaeta MG2, Di Formia MG3, Di Formia MG4. ate Hazel tree Barrettona, Casamale o nostrale (Comune di Sicilia), Rosa (Nocchia R.). Olive tree Salvia cl. Montelibretti 6, Marina, Sirole cl. Soratte 1, Minutella Casarè, Villanella. Pear tree Bottiglia, Campana, Cannella, Cocozzola (Cucuzzara, Zucchina), Del Principe, Di Posta, Di S. Cristina (Peruzza), Monteleone, Spina (Spinacarpi, Coccia d'Asino, Casentina), Trentonce, Baccelli, Barocca, Angina o Ancina, Biancona, Castrese, Fegatella, Pero‐Melo, Spina di Valle Imperiale, Tunnella. Peach tree Reginella Pesca Uovo (Early Crawford), Reginella II. Plum tree Coscia di monaca di Ponzano Romano, Gallinaro, S. Giovanni, Coscia di monaca. Grapevine Abbuoto n., Aleatico n., Bombino bianco b., Bombino nero n., Cannaiola di Marta n., Capolongo b., Greco b., Greco bianco b., Greco nero n., Lecinaro n., Maturano b. (Motulano), Moscato di Terracina, Nero Buono n., Olivella nera n., Pampanaro b., Passerina b., Pecorino b., Pellegrino, Pizzutello di Tivoli (Dito di Donna), Rosciola r., Verdello b.. Garlic Aglio Rosso di Castelliri, Aglio Rosso di Procedo. Artichoke Campagnano, Castellammare. Chickpea Di Canepina Bean A Pisello, Cannellino di Atina, Cappellette di Vallepietra, Cioncone, Fagiolina Arsolana, Fagiolone di Vallepietra, Pallino di Vallepietra, Regina di Marano Equo, Romanesco di Vallepietra, Di Gradoli o del Purgatorio, Ciavattone piccolo, Giallo, Solfarino, Verdolino. Spelt Dell'Alta Valle del Tronto Fennel Finocchio di Tarquinia Strawberry Fragolina di Nemi Lentil Di Onano Maize Agostinella Pepper Cornetto di Pontecorvo Tomato Scatolone di Bolsena, Spagnoletta del Golfo di Gaeta e Formia (A Patata), da secca di Minturno. Celery Bianco di Sperlonga Zucchini Zucchino di Cerveteri tipo Romanesco
Marche Bean Monachello, Americano, Occhio di Capra. Fava bean di Fratte Rosa Maize Ottofile Barley Nudo Apple tree Gelata, Limoncella, Verdone, Muso di Bue, Rosa, Rosa Gentile, Rosa Fragola.
95 List of varieties and races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions
Pear tree Angelica di Serrungarina Olive tree Capolga, Cornetta, Lea, Nebbia del Menocchia, Nostrale di Rigali, Oliva grossa, Piantone di Falerone, Piantone di Mogliano, Rosciola Colli Esini, Sargano di Fermo, Sargano di S. Benedetto.
P.A. Trento Maize Storo, Spin di Caldonazzo.
Puglia Olive tree Ogliarola Garganica, Nzimbimbolo, Carmelitana, Cima di Bitonto, Cima di Mola, Cerasela, Butirra di Melpignano, Uggiana, Villetta, Donna Francesca, Paesana, Donna Giulietta, Racioppa, Carmelitana, Oliastro, Cima di Fasano, Crogiola o oliva a cornetto, Cornale, Cima di Calabria, Ciddina, Oliva rossa, Gniastra o inchiostra, Leucocarpa, Limona, Lezze. Olive tree Mele, Pasola, Olivina, San Benedetto, Santa Caterina, Peppino Leo. (table olive) Grapevine Moscatello selvatico b., Ottavianello n., Aleatico n., Impigno b., Francavidda b., Notardomenico n., Fiano della Valle d’Itria o minatolo, Marchione, Mareggio, Palombo, Santa Teresa, Uva attina, Uva carrieri, Uva della scala, Cuccimaniello, San Nicola, Somarello nero, Somarello rosso, Baresana rossa, Prunesta, Baresana bianca. Grapevine Baresana rossa, Prunesta, Baresana bianca. (table graoes) A p r i c o t Cibo del Paradiso, Mandorla dolce, Palummina, Picocca, Risomma. tree Cherry tree Capo di serpe (testa di serpe), Colafemmina (duroncina), Durona di Bisceglie (durona, duroncina, di Bisceglie, tosta), Fuciletta primizia (fuciletta precoce,, fuciletta prima, precoce di Molfetta), Zuccherina di Bitonto (zuccaio,, zucchero), Graffione (laffiona), Limone, Montagnola, Molfetta, Montagnole. Pear tree Agostina, A campanello, Favarsa, Ambrosina, Cilardi, Verde, Rosso, Cicc’ e Antonio, Pera a sole, Pera a vetro, Del buon cammino, Tanz, Pera di scorvo, Carmosina, Tacca n’zuso. Apple tree Mela ghiacciata, Mela di Maggio. Almond Don Carlo, Patalina, Tondina, Mollese (fina, grossa, lunga, bianca), Cartuccia, Cicerchia, Padula di tree Ruvo, Padula di Terlizzi, Pasola, Genia, Rachele, Occhioscuro. Plum tree Jannelli, Del monte, Prunedda bianca, Passo di Spagna, San Francesco, Prugna a cuore. Fig tree Verdesca, Ricotta, Ritonna, Mattepinto, Folm, Vito Carlo, Natalegna, Trimone, Zingarello (nero, bianco), Regina, Verde di natale, Fiorone di Oria, Fiorone nero di Sava. O r a n g e Portoghese, Biondo del Gargano, Duretta, Duretta pigmentata, Vaniglia, Maltese. tree Percoco Bianco di Putignano, Di Ottobre, Di Natale. Cabbage Da foglia, a foglia riccia e liscia CauliflowerBarese ‘cima di cola’ Broccoli Cima nera, Mugnoli. Carrot Violetto, gialla Artichoke Verde e violetto, Bianco, Centofoglie. Tomato Mandurese Batata Batata leccese Curly Cicoria all’acqua endive Melon Di Gallipoli e di Marciano di Leuca Lentil Lenticchia di Altamura Grass pea Ecotipi diversi
96 List of varieties and races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions
Fava bean Fava di Zollino, Fava di Carpino. Bean Fagiolo dei Monti Dauni
Sardegna O r a n g e Miele, Ovale corda, Pisu, Tardivo di Cabras, Tardivo di San Vito, Vaniglia rosato. tree L e m o n Dolce, Limone di Santu Ghironi, Pompia. tree A p r i c o t Bianco, Grappolina, Rosato, Pibirinada. tree Cherry tree Addosa, Bianca, Carrufale, Cordada, Corittu, Furistera, Nera. Fig tree Bianca, Bianca longa, Burdasciotta bianca, Burdasciotta nera, Buttada, Cana, Canaera, Carcanzi trota, Craxiou de porcu, De duas vias, Martinica, Mattalò, Mattiniedda, Mendulina, Monteleone, Monteleone verde, Montina, Murena nera, Murra, Perdingiana, Pessighina, Rampelina, Verde, Zocchitta. Almond Arrubia, Basibi, Bianca, Bocchinu, Casu, Ciatta inglese, Ciatta malissa, Corrochina, Cossu, Farci, Folla tree ‘e pressiu, Ghironi, Grappolina, Malissa tunda, Niedda, Nuxedda, Olla, Provvista, Riu loi, Schina de procu, Stampasaccusu, Troito, Chianella, Vargiu. Apple tree Appio, Limoncella, Miali, Rosa, Santu Giuanni, Sonadore, Trempa orrubia. Olive tree Cariasina, Sivigliana da olio, Corsicana da olio. Pear tree Apicadorza, Bianca, Camusina, De Jerru, De su duca, Muscadeddu, Olzale, Sale, San Giovanni, Spadona. Plum tree Core ‘e columbu, Fradis, Limuninca, Ollanu de ou, San Giovanni, sughera. Grapevine Albaranzeuli bianco, Albaranzaeuli nero, Gregu nieddu, Caddiu, Retagliado bianco. Garlic Azzu sardu, Allu sardu. Water Sindria pizziniedda, Sindria niedda. melon Basil Vrabica sarda, Frabica sarda, Afabiasa sarda. Curly Cicoria di Alghero endive Onion Chipudda anaresa, Chipudda otieresa, Cipudda de zeppara, Chibudda e Bunnanaru, Cipudda rosa (di Ales). Facussa Facussa Aubergine Perdinzanu antigu longu, Melinzana tunda. Melon Melone 'e ierru, Muscadeddu. Potato Patata 'e moro Tomato Arraccadas, Lorighittas, Ampipirilloddi, Tamattas tundas a siccu, Tamattas siccadas. Radish Corantinu Pumpkin Zucca tumbariga, Curcurija tumbariga. Zucchini Corcorija boruttesa Bean Asolu biancu, Asolu bottinu, Asolu buddusoinu, Asolu cariasinu, Asolu de isgranare, Asolu nieddu, Avisedda bassa, Avisedda bianca, Avisedda de radriccra, Avisedda grigia (o nisatta), Avisedda pinta (o iscritta), Avisedda rubia, Avisedda sordadina, Basolu pintu, Basolu pintulinu, Basolu sorgonesu, Cara 'e luna, Cara 'e monza biancu, Cara 'e monza ruiu, Faigedda caffellatte, Faigedda murra, Faiscedda bianca de arraiga, Faitta de colore, Faitta sorgonese, Fajolu mascharaddu, Fasgjolu di lungoni (o ruiu), Fasoleddu biancu, Fasolu balla, Fasolu caffellatte, Fasolu de Adoni, Fasolu de metru, Fasolu nieddu, Fasolu rampicanti biancu, Fasolu striau, Fazadu nieddu, Fazadu ruju, Gioghedda di Castelsardo, Granino, Iscrittu, Melinedda, Murra, Murra‐Latte, Pa'u varzu, Pisu balla, Pisu basciu, Pisu biancu, Pisu biancu de arradigu, Pisu biancu de matta nano, Pisu de arraigu, Pisu de caranta/de linna, Pisu de linna, Pisu 'e friscu, Pisu 'e metro, Pisu 'e Miana, Pisu 'e Sorgono, Pisu froriu, Pisu gavoesu, Pisu indiana de linna, Pisu iscanesu, Pisu latte, Pisu olzaesu, Pisu sennora, Santa Teresa, Sordadina o Pintone, Tempiesu, Trighine, Zallinedda. Fava bean Ava corricaprina, Fa' de 7 pappusu.
97 List of varieties and races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions
Grass pea Pisu fae, Piseddu dente di vecchia. Vigna Corru ‘e beccu, Fasolu a brenti niedda.
Sicilia
The list of local germplasm for his inclusion in the RDP will be established by the Agriculture and Forest Department of the Region.
Toscana Local varieties listed in regional register At risk of erosion Fruit trees n° 463 n° 401 Erbaceous n° 68 n° 60 For a complete description of the varieties seehttp://germoplasma.arsia.toscana.it/
Umbria Apple tree Mela del castagno, Mela Muso di Bue, Mela Oleosa, Mela Coccianese, Mela a Sonagli, Mela Rossa, Mela Rosa in Pietra, Mela San Giovanni, Mela Ranettona, Mela Panaia, Mela Spoletina, Mela Lappione, Mela Ciucca, Mela Rosona, Mela Limoncella, Mela Ruzza, Mela Stratalina, Mela Con ventina, Mela Rosa gentile, Mela Rosa romana, Mela Pagliaccia, Mela Casciola, Mela Polsola, Mela Roggia, Mela Coppola, Mela Lardella, Mela Pera. Pear tree Pera di monteleone, Pera Marzaiola, Pera San Pietro, Pera Sementina, Pera Mezza, Pera Ruzza, Pera Cannella, Pera Volpina, Pera Moscatella, Pera Burro, Pera della Trebbiatura, Pera Tonda Roggia, Pera Vernia, Pera Prestareccia, Pera Spadona d’Inverno, Pera Limoncina, Pera Estiva Tonda, Pera Limona, Pera Verde d’Inverno. Olive tree Raggio, fecciaro Peach tree Pesca marscianese, Pesca Invernale, Pesca Sanguinella, Pesca della vigna, Pesca Cotogna Gialla.
Cherry tree Ciliegia limona, Ciliegia di Cantiano, Ciliegia Morella, Ciliegia Corniola, Ciliegia Maggiaiola, Ciliegia Palombina, Ciliegia Lappiona. Almond Mandorlone, mandorla dolce. tree
Veneto Maize Mais Marano, Mais Biancoperla o Bianco Perla di Piave o Perla Piave, Mais Rostrato o Sponcio.
Soft wheat Piave, Canove. Spelt Einkorn Barley Agordino Broccoli Fiolaro di Creazzo (VI) Tomato Nasone Asparagus Montine Broccoli Di Bassano del Grappa Bean Di Posina (VI) o "Scalda","Giàlet". Grapevine Bianchetta trevigiana, Boschera, Cabrusina, Cavrara, Corbine, Dall’occhio, Dindarella, Forcellina, Grapariol, Groppello di breganze, Gruaja, Marzemina, Marzemina nera bastarda, Negrare, Oseleta, Pattaresca, Pedevenda, Perera, Pinella, Prosecco lungo, Recantina, Trevisana nera, Turchetta.
List of local races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions Region/ Races (local names) Species
98 List of varieties and races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions
Calabria Pigs Calabrese Goats Capra dell‟Aspromonte, Nicastrese, Rustica calabrese. Cattle Podolica
Campania Sheep Laticauda, Bagnolese. Goats Cilentana Cattle Agerolese Horses Cavallo napoletano, Cavallo persano, Cavallo salernitano. Pigs Casertano
Emilia Romagna Cattle Reggiana, Bianca Val Padana, Ottonese Varzese. Sheep Appenninica, Cornigliese. Horses Cavallo del Ventasso, Cavallo Bardigiano, Cavallo Agricolo Italiano T.P.R., Cavallo Delta. Pigs Mora Romagnola, Nero di Parma. Donkey Asino Romagnolo
Friuli Venezia Giulia Cattle Grigio Alpina, Pinzgau, Pustertaler, Pezzata Rossa Friulana. Sheep Istriana (Carsolina), Alpagota, Plezzana. Horses Norica, Cavallo Agricolo da Tiro Pesante Rapido (CAITPR)
Lazio Donkey A. Dell’ Amiata, A. Di Martina Franca, A. Dei Monti Lepini, A. Ragusano Cattle Bovino Maremmano Goats Bianca Monticellana, Grigia Ciociara, Capestrina, Fulva. Horses Maremmano,Tiro Pesante Rapido (TPR),Pony di Esperia, del Cicolano, Maremmano Tradizionale, Tolfetano. Chicken Pollo Ancona Sheep Sopravvissana, Quadricorna Pigs Suino Casertana, Nero dei Monti Lepini
Liguria Cattle Cabannina Ottonese‐Varzese Horses Bardigiano Donkey A. Dell’ Amiata Sheep Delle Langhe Marrana Brigasca
Lombardia Cattle Varzese Ottonese, Bianca Di Val Padana (O Modenese) Sheep Di Corteo, Brianzola Goats Di Livo O Lariana, Orobica O Di Valgerola, Frisa Valtellinese O Frontalasca, Bionda Dell'Adamello, Verzaschese
Marche Sheep Appenninica, Sopravvissana, Fabrianese.
99 List of varieties and races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions
Horses Cavallo del Catria
Piemonte Cattle Pezzata Rossa d’Oropa, Varzese o Tortonese, Valdostana Pezzata nera, Barà‐Pustertaler. Sheep Sambucana, Garessina, Frabosana, Saltasassi, Tacola, Delle Langhe, Savoiarda. Goats Sempione, Vallesana, Roccaverano
P.A. Bolzano Cattle Pinzgauer, Pusterer Sprinzen (Pustertaler), Grigio Alpina, Bruno‐alpina originale. Sheep Pecora tipo Lamon (Villnösser Schaf), Pecora Tirolese nero‐bruna (Schwarzbraunes Bergschaf), Tiroler Steinschaf (pecora della roccia), Schnalser Schaf (Pecora della Val Senales). Horses Cavallo Norico
P.A. Trento Horses Norico, Cavallo da tiro pesante rapido Cattle Rendeva, Grigio alpina Goats Bionda dell’adamello, Pezzata Mochena Sheep Tingola Fiemmese
Sardegna Cattle Sarda, Sardo‐bruna, Sardo – modicana. Goats Sarda, Sarda primitiva. Horses Della giara, Del sarcidano. Donkey Sardo, Dell’asinara. Pigs Sardo
Sicilia Cattle Modicana, Cinisara, Siciliana. Sheep Barbaresca Siciliana, Noticiana. Goats Girgentana, Argentata dell'Etna. Pigs Suino nero siciliano Horses Cavallo sanfratellanl, Puro sangue orientale. Donkey Asino ragusano, Asino Dantesco.
Toscana Cattle Garfagnina, Pontremolese, Mucca Pisana, Calvana. Sheep Garfagnina Bianca, Pomarancina. Horses Cavallo Monterufolino, Asino dell'amiata. Pigs Cinta senese
Umbria Sheep Sopravissana Horses Cavallo Agricolo italiano tiro pesante rapido, Cavallo Maremmano, Cavallo Murgese, Asino Sardo, Asino di Martinafranca. Pigs Cinta senese Goats Girgentana
Valle d'Aosta Cattle Valdostana pezzata nera, Valdostana Castana.
100 List of varieties and races included in the RDPs of Italian Regions
Sheep Rosset Goats Valdostana
Veneto Cattle Rendeva, Bruna linea carne (Original Braunvieh), Grigioalpina, Burlina. Horses Norica, CAITPR, Maremmana. Sheep Alpagota, Lamon, Brogna, Vicentina o Foza. Pultry Pollo, Robusta Limonata, Robusta Maculata, Ermellinata di Rovigo, Padovana, Polverara. Faraona, Faraona Camosciata, Anatra, Germanata Veneta, Tacchino, Comune Bronzato, Ermellinato di Rovigo
101