the sustainable use of agrobiodiversity in italyfarmersrights.org/pdf/report_iao.pdf · the...

TheSustainableUseofAgrobiodiversityinItaly

Reportoncasestudiesonarticle6oftheInternationalTreatyonPlantGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgriculture

RiccardoBocciandTiberioChiari(eds.)

IstitutoAgronomicoperl’Oltremarewww.iao.florence.it

!

http://www.iao.florence.it

http://www.iao.florence.it

The IstitutoAgronomico per l’Oltremare (IAO) is a branchof theItalianMinistryforForeignAffairs(MAE).Appliedresearch,training,technicalassistanceandconsulting takeplaceintheframeworkofitsspecificmandate.

Since 1998, the IAO’s operating strategy has been to supportinterconnected themes: information on land cover change,conservationofbiodiversity, foodsecurityinthewider context ofsustainabledevelopmentandthestruggleagainstpoverty.Inthese

areas, the Institute has fostered studies and research and has developedmethodologies, interpreting its role in accordance with the internationalagreements signed by Italy, and thus in harmony with the UN Convention onBiodiversity and Desertification, the Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources forAgricultureandFoodandtheDeclarationontheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals.

TheIAOisacentreofexcellencefortrainingandgeo‐informationtechnologies; itprovides support and consultation services to the MAE, technical assistance todevelopingcountriesandcountriesintransitiontowardssustainabledevelopment,capacity development, poverty reduction, food security and natural resourcemanagement.Italsoundertakesdevelopment‐orientedresearch.

!

TableofContents

Contributors 3

Introduction 4BetweensustainableuseandFarmers’Rights5

ItalyandtheTreaty6

L’Italiaagricola8

AgrobiodiversityinItaly9

Bibliography10

TheNationalPlanforAgrobiodiversity 11Introduction11

Thestateoftheart11

TheNationalPlan12

Conclusions15

Bibliography15

RegionallegislationinItalyfortheprotectionoflocalvarieties 17Introduction17

Objectivesandtoolsoftheregionallaws17

SynergieswithArticle6oftheFAOTreaty20

Unresolvedissuesandfuturedevelopment21

Bibliography25

Theimplementationofthedirectiveonconservationvarieties 27Introduction27

TheimplementationinItaly29

SynergieswiththeTreaty31

Conclusions32

Bibliography33

Researchandinnovationinitiativesinsupportoftheseedplan 35Introduction35

PRIS2–agriculturalbiodiversity36

PRIS2andthesustainableuseofagriculturalgeneticresources37

Conclusions38

Bibliography39

Incentivesforagrobiodiversity:theimplementationofRuralDevelopmentPlans 40Introduction40

TheRDPsinItaly40

RDPsinrelationtoArticle6oftheTreaty45

Conclusions46

Bibliography46

WhiteSperlongaCelery–anewlocalvariety 48

1

Introduction48

Howthevarietydeveloped48

Seedproduction49

BetweenConservationandValorization50

Conclusions52

Bibliography53

MaranoVicentinoacornvarietyinVeneto:theimportanceofbeingfamous! 54Introduction54

ThishistoryofMarano55

Theprotectionconsortium57

Thebattleforthename‐nominanudatenemus58

Conclusions60

Bibliography61

The“Quarantinawhite”inLiguria:apotatoasakeytoruraldevelopment 62Introduction62

RediscoveringtheQuarantinapotato63

Revitalisationofalocalsystem64

TheQuarantinaasanexampleofsustainableuseofplantgeneticresources67

Conclusions67

Bibliography68

SynergiesbetweenNaturalParksandagrobiodiversity:theexampleoftheAbruzzo 69Introduction69

TheevolutionfollowedbyARSSA70

Agriculturalbiodiversityandnaturalreserves71

Conclusions73

Bibliography73

Canconsumerchoicefostermorediversifiedfarmingsystems?TheexperienceofdirectsaleinToscana 75

Introduction75

ThecollectiveformsofdirectsaleinItaly76

ThesituationintheTuscanyRegion77

Theexploratorysurveyofanumberofinterestingcases79

DirectsellingasameansofpromotingthesustainableuseofplantgeneticresourcespursuanttoArticle6oftheTreaty83

Institutionalcriticalityandsupporttodirectsale83

Bibliography84

Annex 87RegionalDraftBillProposal 88

ListofvarietiesincludedintheRDPsofItalianRegions92

ListoflocalracesincludedintheRDPsofItalianRegions98

2

ContributorsRiccardoBocci(editor)[email protected]

MScinAgriculture,UniversityofFlorence.HeisAIAB’Sco‐ordinatorfortheVIFPproject“FarmSeedOpportunities”,andan advisoratthe IstitutoAgronomicoperl’Oltremare forissues relatedtotheITPGRFA, andforthe promotion of on‐farm biodiversity conservation in southern countries.He isalso the co‐ordinator of the Italian farmers’seed network“Rete Semi Rurali” and he has been aconsultantof theItalianMinistryofAgriculture andtheNGOFondazionedei DirittiGeneticion theimpactofGMOsinagriculture.

TiberioChiari(editor)[email protected]

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 theagriculturesector,andparticularlyfortheimprovementofcapacityofnationalagriculturalresearchsystems(NARS)onplantbreedingoffieldcrops,improvementofseedproduction,andconservationofagrobiodiversity.InpartnershipwithFAO,hehasbeencoordinatorofseveralpost‐graduateshortterm trainingcourse forAfricanparticipants,dealingwith foodsecurityissuesandtheexploitationofplantgeneticresourcesforimprovedyield.HisabroadexperiencecomprisesseveralAfricanandSouthAmericancountries.

[email protected],heisaresearcherattheDepartmentof Economics“CognettideMartiis”attheUniversityofTorinoandafellowoftheEBLACenterandNEXACenterforInternetandSociety.Hismainresearchinterests refertoparticular legal andeconomic issues concerning intellectual propertyrights andknowledge sharing,with a particularfocus toagriculture,biotechnologies, traditional knowledgeandgeneticresources.Hehasrecentlypublishedin EcologicalEconomics anarticle deepening theanalogybetweenfarmers’seedssystemsandopensourceinnovation.

[email protected]

M.Sc.in Tropical and subtropical Agricultural Sciences attheUniversityof Florence.Hehasmorethan eightyears of experience in International Cooperation,hehasworkedin someprojectswithAfrican and South‐American countries related to agricultural development, and biodiversityconservation,hehas collaboratedwith some institutions such Australia Commonwealth Scientificand Industrial Research Organisation and International NGOs. At present he collaborates withIstitutoAgronomicoper l’Oltremare on theproject“Conservation andutilization of plant geneticresourcesofspeciesofagrofoodandindustrialinterest‐BiodiversityProgramBrazil‐Italy”.

[email protected]

M.Sc.in AgriculturalSciences,Ph.D.inSustainableDevelopmentandInternational Cooperation.Sixyearsof research experienceonTropical andSub‐Tropical agrifoodsystemsinLatinAmerica,AfricaandAsiaworkingforrelevantinstitutionssuchasUniversityofTurin,InteruniversityResearchCentreon Sustainable Development, Istituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare, Centre de CoopérationInternationaleenRechercheAgronomiquepourleDéveloppement.Hehasconductedappliedsocio‐economic research in the agri‐food and rural development sectors, including market research,adoption and impactstudies andvalue chain analysis for avariety of agro‐foodproducts (wheat,cocoa,vegetablesandfisheries).

[email protected]

M.Sc.inForestrySciences, PostgraduateSpecializationinIntegratedplanningforruraldevelopmentand environmental management. Ten years of experience on food sovereignty, agriculturaldevelopment, food chain, conservation andmanagementof natural andagrobiodiversity in Italy,Europe,MexicoandBrazil. Shehascollaboratedwith somerelevantinstitutionsuchasUniversityofFlorence, Istituto Agronomicoper l’Oltremare,FAO, Sardinian Region,andNGOs such as CentroInternazionaleCrocevia,GlobalExchangeandActionAid.She isworking forthe association “ReteSemiRurali”.

3

mailto:[email protected]












IntroductionOneof themajor key components of theInternational Treaty on Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture(ITPGRFA) is the sustainable use of theseresourcesasspecified inArt.6.ThisarticleisdifferentfromotherTreatycomponents.It appliesto allthe resourcesand it is notlimited to those explicitly listed in theAnnex I. All the Contracting Parties (CP)must implement it, without the limitsimposedbynational laws,asit isstated inthecaseofarticle9(Farmers’Rights)or inthe “Conservation”, where the article 5.1says explicitly “subject to nationallegislation”.

Article6 rulesoverkey areasdescribed inthe“Global Plan of Action” (GPA) for theConservation and SustainableUseofPlantGenet i c Resources for Food AndAgriculture (PGFRA) adopted during theInternational Technical Conference onPlantGeneticResourcesinLeipzig1996.

In particular, article 6.1 mandates theimplementation steps followed by theacceptingparties:

“The Contracting Parties shalldevelop and maintain appropriatepolicy and legal measures thatpromote sustainable use of plantgenetic resources for food andagriculture”.

Theremainingprovisionsexpressedbythearticle point out few of the possiblemeasureseachcountries canundertake inorder to promote the sustainable use ofthe PGFRA. Nevertheless the measuresconsideredareonlyforillustrativepurposeand shall not limit the countries to takeothermeasures for theimplementation ofthis article, following the requirementsdetai led in the broader GPA. Theframework described in the Treatycomprisesthefollowingactions:(a) Pursuing fair agricultural policies thatpromote,asappropriate,thedevelopment

and maintenance of diverse farmingsystems that enhance the sustainableuseofagricultural biological diversityandothernaturalresources;(b) Strengthening research whichenhancesandconservesbiological diversityby maximizing intra‐ and inter‐specificvariation for the benefit of farmers,especially those who generate and usetheir own varieties and apply ecologicalprinciplesinmaintainingsoilfertilityand incombatingdiseases,weedsandpests;

(c) Promoting, as appropriate, plantbreed ing efforts wh ich , w i th theparticipation of farmers, particularly indeveloping countries, strengthen thecapacity to develop varieties particularlyadaptedtosocial,economicandecologicalconditions,includinginmarginalareas;

(d) Broadening the genetic baseof cropsand increasing the range of geneticdiversityavailabletofarmers;

(e) Promoting, as appropriate, theexpanded useof localand locally adaptedcrops,varietiesandunderutilizedspecies;

(f) Supporting, as appropriate, the wideruseof diversity of varietiesandspecies inon‐farm management, conservation andsustainable use of crops and creatingstrong links to plant breeding andagricultural development in order toreduce crop vulnerability and geneticerosion,andpromoteincreasedworldfoodproduction compatible with sustainabledevelopment;and

(g) Reviewing, and, as appropriate,adjust ing breeding strategies andregulationsconcerning variety releaseandseeddistribution.

The importance of Article 6 within theTreatyhasbeenstressedin2007duringthesecond meeting of the Governing Body(GB) in Rome. After the review of thedocumentsbroughtforwardfordiscussion,a statement has been made: “article 6should continue to be a component of its

Introduction

4

ProgrammeWork and a standing item onits agenda”. In particular the point 72 oftheReportoftheSecondSessionoftheGBpointsout theimportanceofhaving inthethird meeting a general picture of theimplementation of this article and to thispurpose: “[…] invited submissions fromContracting Parties, other governmentsa n d r e l e v a n t i n s t i t u t i o n s a n dorganizations”.Inthisframework theIstitutoAgronomicodell'Oltremare (IAO‐www.iao.florence.it),technical branch of the ItalianMinistry ofForeign Affairs, has started a study oftheItalian situation, making use of the bestand most interesting cases in sustainableuseofthePGRFA.Thisreport istheresultoftheresearchcollectingtheseveralcases.

Between sustainable use and Farmers’RightsThecase studies presented in the Reportshow different way to implement thesustainableuseofthePGRFA.Throughouttheanalysis,wehaveseenhow littleistheboundaryseparatingarticle6fromarticle9of the Treaty and the whole idea of thesustainable use from that of Farmers'rights (FRs). For instance, many actionstakenwithinarticle6haveeffectssimilartotheonesdefinedinthearticle9.Thisfact isnot irrelevant.FRshaveusuallybeen a hot topicduringnegotiationsbothat national level and international, whilesustainable use has not these limitations,so it is supposed to be easier to beimplementedbytheCP.Inorder tobetter understand thepossibleconnectionsbetweenthesetwoarticleswetriedtoanalysethemwithintheItaliancasestudies.Article9.3isoneofthemostcontroversial,wherethefarmers’rightstoexchangeuseand sell the propagation material aresubject to national legislation. This articlehascloselinkswiththearticles6.2 (a)and

(g) supporting agricultural systemsmaintaining genetic resources in asustainable way and promoting laws infavourofplantbreeding.Inouranalysis,thepossibilityofpromotingdiversifiedagriculturalsystems(art6.2a)isbound also to a seeds system that isdifferent from that currently in place. Inparticular, farmers’ role should bebroadened and the exchange, reuse andselloftheseedmaterialinthefarmshouldbe permitted. Moreover, the seedsexchange,reuseandsellfromthe farmerscan play an important role in theexperimentation of new varieties outsidefromthecommercialseedsystem.Indoingso, this is fully consistent with the aim ofreviewingand adapting thenorms on thevarietyreleaseandbreedingstrategies.

Article 9.2(a) concerning the protectionand sharing of traditional knowledge canberelated to article6.2 (e)promotingtheuse of local varieties and underutilisedspecies. In the case study presented byEnrico Bertacchini in the next pages, theregional Italian experiences on thepreservation of local species expresslymakeuseoftherecoveryandpreservationof traditional knowledge in addition totheirprotection.Aspointedout byRegineAndersen(2008)themajorproblem inthemostindustrializedcountriesliesnotinthe“misappropr ia t ion” of t rad i t iona lknowledge but in its recovery andvalorisation.

Article 9.2 (b) concerning benefit sharingmeasures is quite broad and its potentialimplementation depends on thedefinitionofbenefit sharing.Ifthemaindrivinglogicisthepursueofeconomicbenefitstheriskbecomes to introduce a subsidisingmechanism to local varieties conservation,as itemerged intheEuropeanexperience.At the contrary, introducing as non‐economic benefit, the sustainable use ofagricultural biodiversity ‐ and all the

Introduction

5

measuresto be adopted to implement it ‐becomesinitselfameanofbenefitsharing.I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e p r omo t i on o fParticipatory Plant Breeding (PPB)strategies to help farmers to fulfil theirneeds, facilitating them in accessing thegenetic resources and broadening therange of available species all they areactions aiming to bring compensation infarmers' favour. For this reasonarticle 9.2(b) can beconsidered close toarticles 6,2(b) (d) concerned about researchpromotion, Participatory Plant Breedingand farmers’ access to the geneticresources.

The report shows another importantaspect during the development ofinstruments geared toward a sustainableuse of the PGRFA: the relationships withthe market and the strategies for thevalorisationoftheproduce.Indeed,alltheillustratedcaseslinkconservation,useandvalorizationwith a particular attention tothelinkagesbetweenvarietiesand cultureand tothecreationofnew kindofmarketmoresuitabletothisspecificproduce.Thereference in this case is directly to theGlobalPlanofActionandtohissection“14.Developingnewmarketsfor localvarietiesand diversity rich products”, within thepriorityactivity“UtilizationofPlantGeneticResources”(seenextbox).

This action is not explicitly listed in thearticle 6 of the Treaty, but is thecornerstone to the sustainable use of thePGRFA.Infact,besidesacknowledgingthemarket potential for local varieties oragriculturalbiodiversity products, itpointsout the important role of the publicopinion,includingschools,abouthowtheyperceivetheagriculturalbiodiversity.In this spirit the Report has to be read,without separation between the differentTreaty components (Conservat ion,Susta inab le use , Farmers ' r ights ,Multilateral access system and Benefit

sharing) and maintaining a generalunderstanding of its aims during theimplementat ion. In fact a properimplementation of the Treaty requires acomplex and integrated system involvingseveral actors and requiring a balancedworkloadamongstallthecomponents.

ItalyandtheTreatyInItaly,theimplementationoftheTreatyisdemanded to four different institutions:Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry ofAgricultural, Food and Forest Policies(MiPAAF), Environment Ministry andRegionalauthorities.Thelatterauthorities,according to the law 101 (2004), havetheduty to implementtheTreaty articles5,6,9, 11 and 12. The role of theMiPAAF is toreport at an international level about theTreaty implementation status and tomonitortheregionalofficesactions.

During the three years 2004‐2006, theGovernmenthasprovidedtheMiPAAFwith1.172 MiEur to conduct national actionsacrossalloverthecountrygivingprioritytoexsitu conservation.The project “RisorseGenetiche Vegetali/FAO” (RGV/FAO) hasreceived funds and this has producedworks in the ex situ conservation,cataloguing and characterization of theItalianagriculturalbiodiversity(not limitedto the species listed in the Annex 1)through collaboration with researchcentresbelongingstotheMiPAAFandtheMinistry of Universities and Research(MiUR).During the period 2007‐2009, theMiPAAF has extended theoriginalprojectscopeto include activities of theso‐calledinformalsector andto start disseminationto the whole society. Doing so, theassociation “Rete Semi Rurali” has beeninvolved intotheRGV/FAOproject inorderto provide information, dissemination andtraining about the Treaty objectives andconsolidate the informal conservations y s t em adop ted by f a rme r s andassociations across different territories in

Introduction

6

Introduction

7

BOX1GlobalPlanofActionPriorityactivitiesUtilizationofPlantGeneticResources14.Developingnewmarketsforlocalvarietiesand“diversity‐rich”products208. Assessment: Increasingly, diversity is being replaced by uniformity in the agriculturalmarket place. Changes in traditional cultures and in consumer preferences are oneexplanation.Concentrationonproductivity,theeffectsofadvertisingandtheriseofglobalconsumermarkets leading to stringent requirements being imposed on farmers and theinadvertent disincentives arising from legislation, policies, programmes and otherinstitutional activities offer additional explanations. Farmers worldwide are losing oncestrong incentives to provide an array of varieties. Both in developed and developingcountries, economic and social incentives could be offered to encourage farmers whocontinuetogrowdistinct,localvarietiesandproduce“diversity‐rich”agriculturalproducts.209.Aprogrammetoassist in thecreationofspecializednichemarketsforbiodiversefoodcrops could act as a positive stimulus to farmers to grow landraces/farmers’ varieties,obsolete varieties, andotherunder‐utilizedfoodcrops.Suchaprogram should include theidentificationandremovalofsystemicinstitutionalbarriersanddisincentives tobiodiversityconservationandproduction/marketing210.Long‐termobjectives:Stimulatestrongerdemandandmorereliablemarketmechanismsforlandraces/farmers’varietiesandrelatedagriculturalproducts.211.Intermediateobjectives:Toencouragefarmsuppliers, foodprocessors, fooddistributors,andretailoutlets to supportthecreationofnichemarkets fordiverse foods,varietiesandproducts.212. Policy/strategy: Governments should consider, and as appropriate, adopt policies inextension, training, pricing, input distribution, infrastructure development, credit andtaxationwhichserve as incentives for cropdiversificationandthe creationofmarkets forbiodiversefoodcrops,includingstandardsforlabelingoffoodswhichallowthehighlightingof use of non‐standard crop varieties. Consideration should be given to developingappropriatenichevarietyregistrationsystemstopermitandpromotetheperpetuation,trial,evaluation and commercial distribution of local, obsolete varieties and to monitoringregulationsenactedforotherpurposestoensurethattheydonotinadvertentlyleadtotheextinctionofvarieties.213.As feasible and appropriate,institutions shouldbe encouragedtopurchase“diversity‐rich”foodsforinternaluse.214. Capacity:Processes andactivities which have or are likely tohave significant adverseimpactsontheconservationandsustainableuseofbiodiversityshouldbeidentifiedandtheireffectsoncropdiversificationmonitored.215.Appropriatebodies,includingNGOs,shouldpromotepublicawarenessinvariousmediaandthroughappropriatemechanisms,suchasstreetfairs,initiativesinschools,etc.216. Coordination/administration:National and local level coordination and administrationshouldbemosteffective.217.Thisactivityiscloselylinkedwith:■Supportingon‐farmmanagementandimprovementofplantgeneticresourcesforfoodandagriculture■ Promoting public awareness of the value of plant genetic resources for food andagriculture.

the country. At present about 30,000accessionshave been recorder across thedifferent public gene banks and it isplanned to make them available throughthemultilateralTreatysystemsoon.

ItalyisoneofthemaincontributorstotheTreatyhavingprovidedfoundsat1,048,000€/yearsince2005:thissumisaboutthe65%oftheoverallfoundsprovided fromall theindustrialisednations.

L’Italiaagricola 1Analysing thestatisticaldata about Italianfarming system, one has the impressionthe country holds a position in betweentraditionandmodernitywherethefarmingactivity, despitehavinga marginalresidualimportance, still conserves its importanceforawideportionofthepopulation.Despiteinthelastfewyearsthenumberoffarming workers have fallen below onemillionunits,ItalystillholdsfirmlythethirdplaceinEuropeafterRomaniaandPoland.Theheadcountofemployees inthefarmsworkinginthewholefoodsector,stillgiveItaly a firm third place after Romania andPoland.ItisinterestingtostressthatItalianagriculture is dominated by mainly smallfirms: small farms with less than 10hectares represent the 85% of the total.Farms with more than 50 hectaresrepresent only the 2.2% of the total innumericaltermsandsumuptoonly5.6%oftheoverallUtilized Arable Land (UAA). Infact,theaveragesizefora farmissensiblysmallerthantheonesintheEUareaandinline with the newly incorporated easterncountries. Thismeans in Italy theaveragesizefis7.4hectares,inFrancethatissevenfolds (48.6 hectares) and in UnitedKingdom nearly eight times largest (55.6hectares)(Nomisma,2008).

The landscape of the country is showingsignofa scattered systemthatduringtheyears has not had theopportunity or thewilling to modernise itself like othercountries did with the aid from theEuropeangrantsprovidedby theCommonAgriculturalPolicy.AnalysingtheeconomicaldimensionoftheItalianagriculture,thesectorpresentstwostrongpoles.Ononehand,therearefarmstechnically described as “enterprises”andintheotherhandthereisstill thepresenceof companiesnot defined,as in Europeanterms,as“enterprise”.Fromthe2000dataemerges that 82.8% of the farms has aneconomical dimension smaller than 8EuropeanDimensionUnites(UDE)andthe55% is smaller than 2 UDE. Farms largerthan 16 UDE, threshold above which thefarms are “enterprises” market oriented,represent only the 9.5% of the total(Nomisma,2008).

An interesting fact to better understandItalian farming system is the workers’average age: according to the 2005Eurostatdata, in Italyonly the3.5%oftheworkers is younger than 35 years againstan European average of 6.9% and thenumberof farmersolder than 64 years is41.4%.Thegenerationalturnover indexforItaly is the lowestacrossall the Europeancountries except Portugal (Nomisma,2008). After an in deep analysis of thegenerationsgroupsinrelationtothefarmssizes,itemergesthelargestgroupofolderpeoplework forthesmallerfarmswit lessthan8UDE.From data analysis carried over the highqual i ty product ions and over thegeographical indications (PDO, PGI andSTG) the landscape changes dramatically.Italy hasbecomea powerhouseinEuropewith 175 certified productions in 2008

Introduction

8

1L’ItaliaAgricola[Italyanditsagriculturalsector]wasthetitleofonethemostimportantagriculturalweeklynewspaperduringthe’50.

representingthe21%oftheEuropeantotalfollowedbyFrancewith160andSpainwith121. The market for these products isgrowingfastandinthelastthreeyearshasrecordedexpansioninbothproductionandturnover (Rosati and Verrini, 2009).Geographical indications are a strong linkbetween the underlying territory, thecultureand agricultureand theirpresencein Italy is a demonstration to theimportanceof this link asdriving factor inthe economical agricultural developmentstillinthesedays.Insummary,thegeneralsituationisoneofan agricultural sector balanced betweentraditionandmodernizationwhereineveryday life farmers are trying to find newsolutionsinordertooperateinthesector.It isalso important to stress,assomecasestudies will point out, that the largestportion of the agro biodiversity and thetraditionalknowledgeassociated isusuallypreservedbythegroupoffarmsnot listedas“enterprises” (<8UdE)andmanagedbypeopleolderthan65years.Forthisreason,it is of paramount importance to adoptpolicies to tackle these structuralweaknessesbyavoiding lossofknow‐howand seedsdue to generationgaps and topromote economical, social and culturalconditionswherethesefarmscancontinuetooperate.Infact,theglobalmarketisnotwithin the reach for these farmers that,withoutthemuch‐neededprotections, aredoomed to disappearwith their particularknowledge and seeds. “Living the fate ofsoil and people to the market would betantamounttoannihilatingthem”(Polanyi,1957).

AgrobiodiversityinItalyThis report focuses on sustainable use ofplant genetic resources in Italy. It aimsatanalysinganumberofcasestudies,rangingfrom the institutions to the civil society,fallingwithintheframeworkofarticle6ofthe International Treaty on Plant Genetic

Resources for Food and Agriculture.Furthermore, itpresents themaspossibleways of implementing this article in anorthernandindustrializedcountry.

The different case studies point out theunique role that agrobiodiversity hasplayed and still plays in shaping farmingsystems, agricultural landscape and foodhabits in the Italian peninsula. It isworthwhileto pointoutthat,even if Italyhas changed s ince Vavi lov’s t ime,agrobiodiversity isstillcultivatedandhasagrowing role in the national and regionalpoliciesonruraldevelopment.Thefirstpartof the reportdealswith thedifferent policies and plans, set up byinstitutionalbodieswithintheconservationand sustainable use of agrobiodiversity.Italy has been the first European countryhaving a specific law on conservationvarieties; in this report particularlyattent ion is paid to descr ibe thenegotiation process and how this lawrelates with the European directive onconservation varieties (62/2008/CE). Thislaw has been conceived as a nationalharmonizationoftheexistingregionallawson promotion and conservation of localvarieties and breeds. For instance, six

Introduction

9

“In Italy, the high percentage of landunder cultivation is striking… [For thisreason,]knowledgeofItalyanditsIslandis of fundamental importance to anyunderstandingofMediterraneanculture[andagriculture].A considerable portionof [Italy’s] mountainous areas arecoveredwithplantations tressplantedinstraight rows for fruit, nut or timberproduction whose trunks are entine bygrapevines, and those interspacesbetween rows are seeded with wheat,f a v a b e a n s , b a r l e y o r o t h e rcrops.”(Vavilov,1997)

regions have already established specificrules on agrobiodiversity that can beconsidered one of the most interestingexamples of providing a legal frameworkfor the conservation of local geneticresources in Northern countries.The linksof these regional laws with the RuraldevelopmentplansoftheEuropeanUnionare examined in order to show theirsynergies.Twomoreinstitutionalcasestudiesanalyseotherpeculiarities of Italy. Thefirst is theNationalplanonagrobiodiversityapprovedin 2008bytheMinistryofAgriculture,andthe second is the Seed interregionalprogramme whose results have beenpresented last year. In both cases thereportunderlinesthehugerolethatpublicpolicies play for the sustainable use ofagrobiodiversity, and the need ofstrengthening the coordination amongdifferent stakeholders, e.g. public bodies,agricultural research centres, farmers’associations,seedsavers.The second part of the report dealswithexperiencesundertakenbydifferentactorsof civil society: single farmers, farmers’associations and consumers. These casestudies emphasize the importance ofa g r o b i o d i v e r s i t y i n m a i n t a i n i n gagroecosystems from both ecologicalandeconomicalpointofview.

AssaidbyNabhan,farmers’knowledgestillexists in Italy, mainly in those marginalareasnotyetoverwhelmedby agriculturalmodernization. Searching for theseexamples throughout Italy, the reportshowshow innovationisproduced inrural

areas mixing past and present, re‐usingagrobiodiversity for new challenges andneeds.

BibliographyNabhanG.P.,2008.WhereOurFoodComes

From: Retracing Nikolay Vavilov'sQuesttoEndFamine,Shearwater

Nomisma, 2009. XI Rapporto Nomismasuill'Agricoltura Italiana, Il Sole 24OreEdagricole,Milano.

PolanyiK.,1957.TheGreatTransformation:thePoliticalandEconomicOrigins ofOurTime,BeaconPress.

RosatiM.,VerriniL.,2009.Atlantequalivita2009. I prodotti agroalimentariitaliani DOP, IGP, STG, Edizioni delGusto.

VavilovI.,1997.FiveContinents,IPGRI.Van Der Ploeg J.D., 2008. The New

Peasantries:Struggles for AutonomyandSustainabilityinanEraofEmpireandGlobalization,EarthscanLtd.

Introduction

10

“For the551 species ofcultivatedplantsthat have been recorded in nothern andcentralItaly,Italianfarmers informallyuseno less than 10,672 vernacular names torefertothem”(Nabhan,2008)

TheNationalPlanforAgrobiodiversityMariaFrancescaNonne,RiccardoBocci

“CBD Article6 refers to NationalBiodiversity StrategiesandActionPlans (NBSAPs), [...] which areintended to promote inter‐sectoralcooperation,towardsthegoal of sustainable use. Forpurpose of applying the NBSAPsconcept within the Treaty, thoset e rm s a r e s e e n o f t e n a ssequential: Strategies, set outspecific recommendations orsteps for national action, Plans,explain how a strategy’s specificr e commenda t i o n s w i l l b eachieved, and Programmesimplementstrategiesandplans”

(MooreandTymowski,2005)

IntroductionItaly ratified the Convention of BiologicalDiversity (CBD) in 1994, but drafting therequiredNational Plan forBiodiversitywaslengthyanddifficultbecauseofthelack ofcoordination among the Ministriesinvolved. Indeed, two draft Plans wereprepared in the late ’90s, one onagriculturalbiodiversity(fortheMinistryofAgricultural, Food and Forestry Policies –MiPAAF) and one for natural biodiversity(fortheMinistry oftheEnvironment), butno single national plan was arrived at.Biodiversity isa transversalissueinvolvinga series of institutional players bothnationally and internationally and requiresdelicate coordination among differentinstitutions. Biodiversity “is the linkbetween critical areas of world politics:intellectual property, environmentalp r o t e c t i o n , a g r i c u l t u r e a n dtrade”(RaustaliaandVictor,2004).In2004Italy also ratified the Treaty on PlantGenetic Resources, Food and Agriculture(ITPGRFA) with an ad hoc law thatdevolvedthepowerto implementittothe

Regions. This launched a phase ofnegotiationbetweenRegionalandnationalgovernmentswhichendedin2008withtheapproval of the National Plan forAgricultural Biodiversity (PNBA)withintheState‐Region Conference. Moreover, thisPlan can be considered oneof the resultsofthe“InnovationandResearchInitiativesinsupportoftheSeedPlan”project,whichexplicitlycallsfornationalcoordinationandplanning involvingall subjectsactiveinthefields of conservation and agriculturalbiodiversity (see Bocci and Nonne in thisissue).Thisprovideda nationalframeworkfor the initiatives that private and publicsubjectshad carried out at local, regionaland interregional levels entitling them toinclusion within the European andinternationallegislativecontext.

ThestateoftheartThe Plan was useful for conducting apreliminary surveyofallactivitiesso as todeviseageneralmodusoperandiandawayofprotecting agrobiodiversitywhichcouldbe disseminated in the private and publicsectors and in the sphere of research inorderto share initiativesandmake resultscomparable.There are many subjects working inresearch: organisations belonging to theCouncil forResearchand Experimentationin Agriculture (CRA) under the MiPAAF,thosebelonging to theNational ResearchCentre(CNR)andtouniversitiesundertheMinistry of Education, Universities andResearch (MiUR) and, lastly, the otherpublic bodies under Regional orProvincialadministration. Each of these can or hasl aunched i n i t i a t i ves to re sea rch ,characterise,enhanceandexsituconservelocalbreedsandvarieties.Inthesphereoflegislation and agricultural policies, themain players are the Regions, the SpecialStatute Provinces, the National ParkAdministrations and the Ministries ofAgriculture and of the Environment

TheNationalPlanforAgrobiodiversity

11

mentioned above. Then there are theseveralcivil oragriculturalassociationsthatare resorting toagriculturalbiodiversityatlocal level as a strategy for diversifyingfarm production.As can be seen, this isahighly varied assortment of very non‐homogeneoussubjects.The Plan registered some 150 initiativesthathadbeenlaunchedwitha plethora ofdiversesubjectswithfundingcomingfromhighly diversified sources but all with acommon objective, namely to recover,characterise and enhance agriculturalbiodiversity. Cases in point are theInterregional Programmes for thep r o t e c t i on a nd enhancemen t o fautochthonous vegetable germplasm, thes e v e r a l p r o j e c t s f o r r e c o v e r i n gcharacterising and enhancing local and/orancient varietiesofcereal(“Solina Bread”in Abruzzo, enhancement of the uplandbreadproduction chaininEmilia Romagnaand the initiatives for protecting andenhancing ancient cereal varieties inVeneto etc.), the projects for recoveringand characterisingancientfruit varieties inorderto conduct a censusofthevarietiesextant, the projects launched by theNational Parks (“We Cultivate Diversity”andthe“Cerere”ProjectinAbruzzoorthe"Cultivated Biodiversity from Cataloguingto Conservation" Leader Project in theBelluno Dolomite National Park), theSc r i gno p ro jec t (Deve lop ing andcharacterising native genetic resources infruit and vegetable growing), the PlantGenetic Resource project funded byMiPAAF and the project for enhancingItalianvegetablegermplasm.

TheNationalPlanThemain objectiveof thePlan isto meetthe need to set the archipelago of theinitiatives identified within a standardisingnational framework. It is to be stressedthat there is totalcoherencebetweenthePlanand theinternationalobligations that

Italymust conform to assignatory to theCBD and the Treaty. Indeed the PMBAstates that the objective is also … “tocoordinate the combination of initiativesand relationships with national andinternational organisms involved inagricultural biodiversity. It is also toprovide the Regions and Special StatusProvinces called upon to implement theFAO treaty from Law 101/2004 withconcrete answers to the problems thathaveemergedinintroducinganation‐widesystem of agricultural biodiversityprotection able to restore most of thebiodiversityno longerpresent oratrisk ofextinction,tothebenefitofenvironmentalprotection, sustainable agriculture andruraldevelopment.Insodoing,thesystemwill also be able to contribute tope r fo rm ing I t a l y ’ s ob l i ga t ions i ninternationaltreaties”(PNBA,2008).

Flow‐chart 1 illustratestheactorsactive inItaly and identifies the institutionalrelations among them according to thePlan. The Ministry is responsible for


12

!"#$%&'()

*(+$(,(-&#('-+$('.)

/$0+&1

2+(+1-#3)$4))56#+7".-"#&8)9$$0)'(0)9$#&1-#3

:"/.+7)17+&(-+;7)

+(1-+-"-+$(1

<&6+$(1

=-&>'#0)

4'#?&#1=&&0)/'(@1

:"/.+7)17+&(-+;7)+(1-+-"-+$(1

Flowchart1:TherelationsamonginstitutionsinthePlan

international relations, collecting nation‐wide data, providing support to national‐interest agricultural research, providingsupport to the various implementingsubjectsandmaking funding available forimplementing the Plan. The scientificsubjectsinvolved,whether in directlywiththe Ministries or as support bodies toconservation activities at local level, havetheresponsibilityofguidingmethodology,d e fi n i n g c o mm o n p a r a m e t e r s ,guaranteeing ex situ conservation atnational level and providing scientificsupportto theRegions and SpecialStatusP rov inces . Las t l y , they have theresponsibility of drafting the progressreportsof agriculturalbiodiversity in Italy.Localgovernment(RegionsandProvinces)i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i d e n t i f y i n g ,characterising, conserving and enhancinglocal breeds and varieties. It is alsorespons ib le for implement ing theCommunity Agricultural Policy’s (CAP)Rural Development Plans (RDPs) and forfunding “local” agricultural research.Lastly, the Plan considers farmers asconservatorsofagriculturalbiodiversityonan equalfootingwithexsitu banksrunatlocallevel.

ThePNBAidentifiedtheneedtoimplementaseriesofpriority initiativesinanefforttocoordinate and organise all the activitiesalready running and to be launched. Thepriority initiativesor supportinitiativesareasfollows:

InitiativesprovidedforbythePNBA

Establishment of an interactivedatabase of the various currentinitiativesatnationallevel inorder toease access to information and tooptimise the resources used inbiodiversity;

Definitionof the risk ofextinction orerosion of genetic resources andidentificationofcommonindicators;

I d e n t i fi c a t i o n o f “ a d e q u a t equantitative restrictions” as providedbythenewregulationsonvarietiestobeconserved;

Valuation of present methods of exsituconservationoflocalvarieties,anddefin i t i on o f sha red na t i ona lguidelines;

Ident ificat ion, assessment andexperimentation of in situ/on farmsystems of conserving local varieties(withthe involvementoflocal farmernetworks)andthedefinitionofsharednationalguidelines;

Definitionof a commonmethodologyfor identifying and characterisingautochthonous agricultural geneticre sources i n o rder to obta incomparable data and results and tostandardise the various terminologiesusedat local levelaswellasthetoolsused;

P u b l i c a t i o n o n ‐ l i n e o f t h echaracterisation results of localvar iet ies (regional or nat ionalrepertoires/registers), to make thedatapublicandeasilyaccessible;

For the protection of autochthonousanimal genetic resources, nationwidepublicselectionofat least2referencecentres specialised in collecting,preparing and conserving seed andoocytes or embryos obtained byproducers for populations at risk ofgeneticerosion;

Identification of the main descriptorsforcharacterisinglocalvarietieswhichcan render the descriptions ofdifferentareascomparable;

Publicationonlineofthefactsheetsofthe local varieties correctly identifiedand conserved (regional or nationalrepertoires/registers);


13

Definitionofgeneralsharedguidelinesfor enhancing local varieties andwherever possible the reintroductioninto the territory in particular ofvarietiesatriskofextinction;

Continuation and strengthening ofresearch and experimentation intoconservat ion, character isat ion,enhancement and documentation ofbiodiversitybymeansthatalsoincludeinterregionalinitiatives;

Communication initiativesto promoteawarenessofgeneticresourcesandtoact ivate synerg ies among theterritoriesinvolved

The area of these initiatives is thewholegamut of agricultural genetic resources.They seek to broaden the l ist ofcultivations annexed to the Treaty toinclude microbe and forestry diversity,taking a systemic view of agriculturalbiodiversity as indicated during the 11thmeeting of the FAO Commission forGeneticResources inFoodandAgriculture(CGRFA) held in Rome in 2007 (CGRFA,2007).

Theplanallowsfor recoursetodirectandindirect economic incentives to ensureanincome for farmers and breeders whoconservegenetic resourcesbymakinguseinter alia of the provisions allowed for inthe CAP by means of theRDPs (Melozzi,2009).

The initiatives for protection includeeconomic enhancement of agriculturalbiodiversity and of the products derivingfrom it. These include addressing theproblems encountered in marketingthem. Communicat ion focuses onhighlighting themethodsof conservation,protection and enhancement within anapproach of respect for the specificity ofthe territory and its cultural identifyingheritagewiththeobjectiveof:

1. Promoting public awareness of theimpor tance o f p rotec t ing andenhancingagrobiodiversity;

2. Stimulating activepublicparticipationinsafeguardingbiodiversityjointlywithpublicandprivate institutionsactive intheterritory.

Therearesomesignificantpassages inthesectionofthePNBAdedicatedto the roleoffarmersandbreeders.Thefirstconcernstheir active participation in researchcharacterisation,studyandinvestigation inthe territories, and conservation of plantand animal agricultural biodiversity. Thesecond stresses that the role of researchand of those in chargeof seed bankswillbe “to experiment and activate methodsfor continual monitoring and observationof activity within the various farmers’networks”and to “maketheir knowledgeand laboratories available to local bodiesf o r t h e g e n e t i c o r m o l e c u l a rcharacterisation of local varieties”. This inpracticeisadecentralisedresearchmethodwith a new relational approach by whichlocalbodiesactasintermediariesbetweenresearchersand farmersand istheoutlinethat the PNBA gives to the premises forpro‐active future co‐operation betweenresearchers, local bodies, farmers,breedersandotherstructuressuchasseedbanks,allofwhicharefundamentalwithina virtuous system of conservation andsustainableuse of agricultural biodiversity(Swaminathan, 2002),fully in linewiththeobjectivesstatedinArticle6oftheTreaty.

Inoperationalterms,thePNBAestablishedthe “Permanent Committee for GeneticResources”,composedofa representativefrom the MiPAAF with co‐ordinatingfunctions, one from the Ministry ofUniversitiesandResearch (MiUR),anotherfromtheMinistryoftheEnvironmentandTerritorial andMaritimeProtectionandsixrepresentatives from the Regions andSpecialStatuteProvinces.Experts inotherareaswho arenotontheCommitteemaybeco‐optedfromtimetotimeaccordingtorequirements so as to establish a flexible,intersectoral structure able to dialoguewith institutional and private actors. Itsbrief is to implement the Plan and definethe priorities of the single initiatives


14

programmed. The objectivesto which theCommittee decided to give priority for2009areasfollows:

1. Identifythedescriptorsforthevariousspecies;

2. D e fi n e t h e i n v e s t i g a t i v e a n dcharacterisation methodologies forlocalbreedsandvarieties;

3. Define the guidelines for properconservation in situ/on farm and exsitu;

4. Define the risk of genetic erosion bymeansofspecificindicators.

In thisway,theCommittee intendsontheone hand to co‐ordinate among theRegions who already have specificbiodiversity protection legislation in place(Bertacchini, 2009) and on the other toprovide technical‐scientific support tothoseRegionswhostillhavenone.

ConclusionsThe Plan is the synthesis of a significantmove towards co‐ordination among thevarious areas of public administrationwhich as well as taking the inter‐d isc ip l inary nature of agr icultura lbiodiversityintoaccountalsoconsiderstheneed to combine local and globaldimensions and to establish dialoguebetween different actors. It also indicatesthe growing interest in I ta ly foragrobiodiversity not only as a museumcuriosity or as a means of providingvariability for genetic improvement, butalso as an intangible asset to safeguard,boundinwithourcropsandtraditions.

One last reflection concerns involvementofthegeneralpublicandoffarmersinthePNBA and its implementation. It must besaid thatacertainamountofdifficulty hasbeen encountered in opening up decision‐makingprocessesandinconferringamoreactive role to these subjects. Despite thePlan explicitly stating that “it is thereforenecessary that thenetwork of farmers atlocal levelbe identifiedas thefulcrum fort h e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f g e n e t i cresources” (PNBA, 2008), farmers, to all

intents and purposes havebeen kept outofthenegotiatingprocessandrelegatedtothe role of mere “custodians” ofagrobiodiversity.Furthermore,theworkofresearch and conservation conducted bycivil society is also absent from the Plandespite it having reached a perceptiblecriticalmass.

BibliographyBertacchini E., 2009.Regional legislation in

Italy for the protection of localvarieties, JournalofAgricultureandEnvironment for InternationalDevelopment,vol.103,N.1‐2.

CGRFA, 2007. Eleventh Regular Session oftheCommissiononGeneticResourcesfor Food and Agriculture, Rome,Italy, 11 – 15 June 2007, Food andAgriculture Organization of theUnitedNations.

Falcinelli M., 2008. Azionidi innovazione er icerca a supporto del p ianonazionale sementieri ‐ Azioni ac a r a t t e r e r e g i o n a l e . R e t eInterregionaleperlaRicercaAgraria,Forestale,acquacolturaepesca.

MarinoD.,2001.Lepolitichee lestrategie alivello internazionale e nazionale perla salvaguardia e la valorizzazionedella biodiversità, Tipografia ArtiGrafiche.

Me lo z z i L . , 2 009 . I n c en t i v e s fo ragrobiodiversitywithinthe EuropeanUnion:theroleofRuralDevelopmentPlans, Journal of Agriculture andEnvironment for InternationalDevelopment,vol.103,N.1‐2.

Moore G. and Tymowski W., 2005.E x p l a n a t o r y G u i d e t o t h eInternationalTreatyonPlantGeneticResources for Food and Agriculture,IUCNEnvironmentalPolicyandLawPaperNo.57.

Piano Nazionale sulla Biodiversità diInteresse Agricolo, 2009. MinisterodellePoliticheAgricole,AlimentarieForestali.


15

RaustialaK.,VictorD.G.,2004.TheRegimeComplexforPlantGeneticResources,International Organization, Vol. 58,n.2.

SwaminathanM.S., 2002.The Past,Presentand Future Contributions ofFarmerst o t h e C o n s e r v a t i o n a n dDevelopment ofGeneticDiversity, inEngels,Ramanatha,Brown,Jackson(eds.), Managing Plant GeneticDiversity,CABIPublishing.


16

Regional legislation in Italy for theprotectionoflocalvarieties1

EnricoBertacchini

IntroductionItalianregionallegislationisoneofthefewoperationalexamplesatEuropeanlevelforprotecting and enhancing the geneticresourcesforfoodandagriculture.Inmanyways itcanbeconsidered a forerunner ofregulationsatnationalandEuropeanlevelsin linewith theaimsoftheFAOtreatyonplant genetic resources for food andagriculture(ITPGRFA).The origins of this experience are to befoundintheTuscanRegionalLaw50/97on“Theprotectionof autochthonousgeneticresources” which was later followed bysimilarinitiativesonthepartoftheRegionsof Lazio, Umbria, Friuli Venezia Giulia,Marche and Emilia Romagna (see table).Underlying these init iatives is theawareness that there are only a fewremaining local or old varieties beinggrown in Italy today (FAO, 1998). Theinterestofindividualfarmersinmaintainingautochthonous breeds and varieties isdecliningsincethereisnoeconomicgaininpreserving and exploiting agriculturaldiversity. Thismeans that the heritage ofspecies and variety of interest toagriculture and husbandry present in theterritory is at risk of genetic erosion andhence requires measures that wil lencourage conservation and provide

incentives towards sustainable use ofautochthonousgeneticresources.

In the Italian context, the regional lawsalso act asa useful local test bench sincetheItalianconstitutionstates2thatRegionsare empowered to legislateonmatters ofagriculture. Furthermore, the Italian lawtransposingITPGRFA3expresslystatesthattheRegionsaretheprincipalsubjectswithwhom responsibility lies for implementingthe treaty. The experience with theRegional laws, therefore, highlights theimportance of the local context inaddressingthequestionofthesustainableuse of genetic resources. In particular,combining territorial development withagricultural biodiversity appears to be anappropriate strategy for harmonisinglocalincentives and globalobjectives in pursuitof the common good deriving from thesustainable use of genetic resources forfoodandagriculture(Helfer,2005).

ObjectivesandtoolsoftheregionallawsThe objective of the regional laws is tosafeguard and enhance the heritage ofautochthonous genet ic resources ,especiallythoseat risk oferosion.Insomecases, only animal and plant varieties ofagricultural interestareconsidered (Lazio,Umbria and Marche), whereas in others,protection and enhancement is extendedtoforestryresources(ToscanaandFriuli).Although the purpose of the majority oflaws is to protect autochthonous genetic

RegionallegislationinItalyfortheprotectionoflocalvarieties

17

1 This article has been publishedon the Journal of Agriculture andEnvironmentfor InternationalDevelopment,vol.102.N.1‐2.2 ConstitutionalLawNr. 3 of 18October2001“AmendmentstoTitleVPart II of theConstitution”amendsthelegislative area of responsibility between State and Region defining which matters are the exclusiveresponsibility of the State and which are subject to joint State/Region legislation. Not being expresslyearmarked for either State or joint legislation, agriculture is one of the residual matters of Regionalresponsibility.FormoredetailsseeGermanò(2003).3LawNr.101of6April2004"RatifiesandimplementstheinternationalTreatyofPlantGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgricultureincludingtheAppendicestheretoasadoptedbythethirty‐firstmeetingoftheFAOconferenceinRomeon3November2001.

resources, more recent versions (Toscanaand Emilia‐Romagna) graduated towardsexpressly considering local breeds andvarieties while acknowledging a juridicalcorrespondence between the twoconcepts. This semantic shift seems tohave the objective of moving towards amore organic perspective of geneticresources in which the prevalentlyeconomicworthoftheterm“resource”iscombined with ecological, agricultural,cultural and historic factors which

encompasstheconceptsof“territory”and“variety”.

The definition of autochthonous breedsandvarietiesinclude:1. Those which are originally from the

regionalterritory;2. Those which although not originally

from the regional territory have livedwithin it for a long time – indicativelymorethan50years4;


18

4Notallthelawsspecifythedurationbutinmostcasesitissetas50years.

Region Law Publicbody ContactsEmilia

RomagnaL.R.n.1/2008,Tuteladelpatrimoniodirazzeevarietàlocalidiinteresseagrariodelterritorioemiliano‐romagnolo

RegioneEmiliaRomagnaAssessoratoall’Agricoltura

ServizioSviluppodelSistemaAgroalimentareCargioliGiancarloFrancescoPerriTel.051284657fperri@Regione.Emilia‐Romagna.it

FriuliVeneziaGiulia

L.R.n.11/2002,Tuteladellerisorsegeneticheautoctonediinteresseagrarioeforestale

ERSA(AgenziaregionaleperloSviluppoRurale)BaGAV(Bancadelgermoplasmaautoctonovegetaleregionale‐UniversitàdeglistudidiUdine).

FrancescodelZan(ERSA)[email protected](BaGAV)[email protected]

Lazio L.R.n.15/2000,Tuteladellerisorsegeneticheautoctonediinteresseagrario

ARSIAL(AgenziaRegionaleperloSviluppoel’InnovazioneinAgricolturaLazio)AreaStudieProgetti

MariateresaCostanzaTel.0686273450/457/[email protected]

Marche L.R.n.12/2003,Tuteladellerisorsegeneticheanimalievegetalidelterritoriomarchigiano

ASSAM(AgenziaperiservizinelSettoreAgroalimentareMarche)

EnzoPolidoriEmilioRomagnoliTel.071808216romagnoli_emilio@asssam.marche.it

Toscana L.R.n°64/2004,Tutelaevalorizzazionedelpatrimoniodirazzeevarietàlocalidiinteresseagrario,zootecnicoeforestale

ARSIA(AgenziaRegionaleperloSviluppoel’InnovazioneinAgricoltura)AreaProduzioni‐RazzeeVarietàLocali

RitaTurchitel.055‐2755273fax.055‐[email protected]

Umbria L.R.n.25/2001,Tuteladellerisorsegenetichediinteresseagrario

RegioneUmbria n.d

Tab1:RegionallawsandPublicInstitutionsResponsibleoftheirimplementation.

3. Those originally from the regionalterritory and no longer present on it,butconservedelsewhere.

From this definition, and the secondcriterion in particular, the concept ofautochthony clearly emerges as beingbroad and especially dynamic5. It is bycontemplating varieties that havebecomeintegrated over time that the idea of theheritage of autochthonous geneticresourcesdoesnotbecomerigidbutstaysadaptable and “elastic” to shifts in localfarmingmethods.The regions take on the responsibility ofsafeguarding and enhancing this heritageby means of a series of tools which areessentiallybasedonthefollowingpoints:1. establishment of a voluntary, free‐of‐

charge regional register for species,breeds,varieties,populations,cultivars,landracesandclones;

2. establishment of technical‐scientificcommitteestoassessthefact‐sheetsofthe subjects listed on the regionalregister;

3. establishmentofa network composedof farmers, associations, public andprivate bodies, research bodies,universities, gene banks to conserveandsafeguardthevarietiesregistered;

4. pursuant to Article 8j of the RioConventiononbiodiversity,recognitionoflocalcommunitiesasthestewardsoftheresources (e.g.LazioandUmbria),or the Region itself (e.g. Toscana6,Emilia Romagna), as guarantor andmanagerofthisheritage.

Of these tools, the voluntary regionalregister,andtheconservationnetwork are

the most effective and innovative meansfor pursuing the objectives of protectingandenhancinglocalvarieties.The regional register is crucial firstly foridentifyingthevarietiesthatarepresent intheregion and secondly forgiving themaprecise, indisputable identity –both basicfactors forexactly evaluating thepoint ofgeneticerosionreachedandthusthemostsolid measures of protection needed(Dutfield,2004).Forexample,theregionalregister of Toscana presently counts 564arboreal and fruit species and 58herbaceous ones of which 400 and 50respectivelyhadbeenconsideredatriskofextinction. 100 species have beenregistered in Lazio so far,29ofwhich areherbaceous.By the same token, the network ofconservation and protection performsthefunctions of conserving, multiplying anddisseminating the genetic materialregistered in full conformity with presentlegis lat ion. The network, with i tsmechanism of selection and enrolment ofapplicants,canbeseenasafirstattempttocreate an integrated institutionalisedsystemat grass‐rootslevel for ex situandon farmconservation.It putsavariety ofactors in touch with each other who arein terested in the protect ion andsustainable use of autochthonous geneticmaterial.Inthefirst instance,exsituconservationisundertaken by the region’s public andprivate research institutes; in some casesthe law prov ides for the ad hocestablishment of a regional seed bank(Toscana,MarcheandFriuliVeneziaGiulia).In the second instance , on fa rm


19

5 This is a very similar definition to theone introducedby Decreeof theMinister of Agriculture, Food andForestry (MiPAAF)of18April2008“Measuresapplicabletothecommerceof conservationvarieties”.Article1states that the definition of ‘conservation varieties’ encompasses non‐autochthonous varieties which havenever been registered in the National Seed Register, provided they havebeen integrated within the localagriculturaleco‐systems.6Art.1(2)TuscanyRegionalLaw64/2004.

conservation is entrusted to “steward”farmers who perform the task ofmaintaining and multiplying the localvarietiesthathavebeenassignedtothem.Thelawsnormallyallowfarmerswithinthenetwork tosaveand tolocally exchangeamodicum of seed, inquantitiesagreed foreachsinglesubjectwhentheyenrol intheregionalregister.

SynergieswithArticle6oftheFAOTreatyThe regional laws examined are a clearexample of juridical measures andinstitutional frames for promoting thesustainable use of plant genetic materialforfoodandagricultureinconformitywithArticle6.1oftheFAOTreaty.Furthermore,the tools provided for in these laws arefully in harmony with the measuresdescriedinpointsa)andg)ofArticle6.2ofthe Treaty, according to which thecontractual parties shall launch policiesthat favour local farming practices andwhere necessary, modify the regulationson thetradeofvarietiesofseed and theirdistribution.Europe and Italy are both witnessing arapid decline of both plant and animalagricultural bio‐diversity, due mainly to aseriesofeconomicandinstitutionalfactorswhich, instead, have encouraged thespread of variet ies that maximiseproductiveefficiencyonvastfarmingareas.Thesevarietiesensurehighprofitmarginsforthelargeseedcompanieswhopromotet h e i r p r o d u c e i n s t e a d o f t h eautochthonous varieties which historicallyaremore suited to the local contexts buthave a low commercial value except foruse in restricted settings and which arehard to insert intoaproduction chain ofamore agro‐industrial nature (Swanson etal., 1994). Institutional factors emerge as

being particularly significant for analysis.The way that seed distr ibution isinstitutionalised in Europe, Italy included,providesno incentive towards the useorcommercialisation of autochthonousvarieties.Thesystemofplantvarietyrightsand the system of registration in theCatalogueofPlantVarietieshaveverystrictrequirements of distinctness, uniformityandstability(DUS),aswellashowtheseedis to be marketed (Almekinders, 2000;Louwaars,2000).

Theseinstitutionalconstraintsmakesitlessinviting to use local, autochthonousvarieties which now only tend to becultivated in limited,marginalareaswithaconsequent loss of the heritage of theagricultural biodiversity of the territory.This heritage is only the first link in anagriculturalandfoodchainthatreflectsthecultural rootsoftheterritoryandwhich,ifenhanced, can favour high returns botheconomically and in terms of localdevelopment.While autochthonous varieties todayoccupy a niche within the seed systemwhichisoftenmarginalisedand negativelyaffected by institutional constraints, Italy,throughitsregionallegislation,hascreatednew juridical openings that favour thisniche. This new legal space does not runcounter to the framework of existingincentives, which are tailored towards amodel of varietal innovation for the seedmarket. The objectives aim rather moretowardscompletingtheexistingsystembygiving a clearer, better defined juridicalstatus to autochthonous varieties andproducing a new series of measures andincentivestoconserveandenhancethem.In thefirstplace, these laws tend to viewautochthonous varieties and breeds as acollectiveheritageoflocalcommunities.As


20

alreadymentioned,theidea ofa collectiveheritageemergesclearly from thetextsofthelawswhichreferback toArticle8(j)oftheConventiononBiologicalDiversity7, orprovides that the Region itself berecognised as party responsible for theautochthonous genetic resources. At thesame time, the regional laws do notcontemplatetheinstitutionofany formofindividualexclusiverightsoverthevariety.The individual or juridical person whosuggestsa varietybe registered enjoysnoexclusiveright tothevariety involved,justas no third party may lay claim to it andrequest a plant variety right. Rather,enrolmentintheregisterandaccesstotheresource accrues first and foremostcollectivebenefits for thecommunityasawhole in terms of conservation andenhancement o f the he r i t age o fautochthonous genet ic resources .Furthermore, some laws (Toscana andEmilia Romagna),also regulatetheuse ofautochthonousgeneticresourcestocreaten ew v a r i e t i e s . Membe r s o f t h econservationnetworkwhointendapplyingfor a plant variety right, or a patent on avariety essentially derived from oneenrolled intheregister,mustrequestpriorauthorisationtodosoorgivetimelynoticethat they intenddoingso to theRegionortothebodyresponsible.

These characteristic elements in regionallaws have many analogies with theinstitutionalframeworkcreatedbyArticles12.3 (d) and 13.2 (d)(ii) of ITPGRFA,whichrespectivelyforbidsanyformofmonopolyon thegenetic resources registered inthemultilateral facilitated exchange systemand regulatesofthecompensatoryregimefor the new varieties that used geneticmaterialfromthemultilateralsystem.

A second tool for promoting theconservation and enhancement ofautochthonous varieties is the right of“steward” farmers and members of thenetwork to locally exchangeseedwithoutany form ofmonetary compensation.Thisinstitutional innovation recognises theimportanceof farmers’practiceswhich, inthe past, have brought about varietalinnovationandthecontinualadaptationofvarieties to the territory exactly as thepremiseto ITPGRFA recognises. This rightcan beespecially importantin copingwiththe risk of extinction of local varietiesbyputtingthemtouseinagriculture.Further,it is also a way of safeguarding andenhancing the cultural heritage andtraditional knowledge which are tied inwith autochthonous crops. In this sense,saving and exchanging seed inevitablyallows farmers to exchange information,which leads to a strengthening oft rad i t iona l knowledge wi th in thecommunity. One of the obligations thatArticle 9.2(b) of the Tuscan Regional lawprovidesfor steward farmers is to spreadknowledge and cultivation of the geneticresourcesthattheyarecustodianofwithintheprinciplesofthislaw.Inthesameway,Article13 ofthe Emilia Romagna Regionallaw recognises the protection offered bythe regional body to the knowledge,techniques and customs of the localcommunities linked to the agriculturalbiodiversityoftheterritory.

UnresolvedissuesandfuturedevelopmentThe experience gained in applying theregional laws presented in this study isundoubtedly an important source ofnormative reference for the conservationand enhancement of autochthonousgeneticresources.Oneofthemainlessons


21

7 Article5 of the lawof theLazioRegion is moreexplicit on this point: "Without prejudice to the right ofownershipofeveryplantoranimal intheregisterpursuanttoArticle2, theheritageofthegenetic resourcesembodiedintheseplantvarietiesoranimalbreedsbelongstothelocalnativecommunity[…]".

tobelearnedfromitishowinstitutionscanbe innovative in promoting measures forthe sustainable use of agriculturalbiodiversity.However,asforall institutionalprocesses,some issues still remain unresolved as tothe implementation of these laws andfuture developments on the Italian andinternationalnormativescenario.

While the objectives of the regional lawscan be universally shared, and theinnovativetools they provideappreciated,theimplementationofthenormsandhowthey work depend on many factors interaliatechnical,bureaucraticandpolitical.

With this complexity in mind, there aredifferencesinhowthevariousRegionsareimplementing the laws that they haveapproved.ThelawsarealreadyoperativeinLazio, Marche, Toscana and EmiliaRomagna, partially operative in Friuli andnon‐operative in Umbria. In the areaswherethelawsareoperativea censushasa l ready been car r ied out on theautochthonous genetic resources and theregional register and technical scientificcommittees are functioning. The ToscanaRegion has also begun to select andregister steward farmers as the basis forthe future network for conservation andsecurity.In add i t ion to the d ifferences inimplementing the laws, there are alsoimportant unresolved issues in how thelocal genetic heritage is best managed.Considering that legislative tools arer eg iona l wh i l e conse rva t i on and

enhancement of genetic resources gobeyond the purely local context, therecannot but be problems of co‐ordinationamong the different institutional levels.LinksamongtheRegionsthereforeneedtobe reinforced in order to co‐ordinateefforts to safeguard autochthonousgeneticresources.Furthermore, although the texts ofregional lawssharemanysimilaritiesmorecaution is needed in assessing the theoperative aspect of the laws (e.g.measuring its effectiveness). For example,thedatacontainedintheregionalregistersmust be uniform if there is to be anythought of integrating the repertoireswithin a nation‐wide dimension in somefuturetime.Thematerial cataloguedinthevarious registers, however, is sti l lheterogeneous anddoesnot always refertothesametypeofdescriptorsforvarietalcharacterisation8.

In thesameway, theregionalactivity canbeata disadvantagebybeinglimited toalocalsetting, if,forexamplethere isa lackoftechnicalskillsformanagingthesystemof conserving the autochthonous geneticresourcesproperly.Lastly,relevancemustbegiventohowthetoolsofpresent regional legislationwillfitin with the new EU directive on the so‐called “conservation varieties”9, whichmust be implemented by EU MemberStates.Thepointsofgreatest interestandclarificationareasregards1) thedefinitionof the concept of genetic erosion, 2) theeconomicincentivesdeployedinmarketing


22

8 Thecriteriaforselectingthevarietycharacterisationdescriptors forautochthonousvarietiesisalsoofgreatimportance.Thedescriptorsgiven intheUPOVguidelinestend toprivilegetheuniformityandstability of thevarietywhilethosesuggestedbyIPGRIaremoresuitedfordescribingthediversityandthedegreeofvariabilityinpopulationsofautochthonousvarieties. Itisclear, therefore, hownation‐wideselectionandco‐ordinationofthis seemingly technical aspect can affect the juridical definition and cataloguing of the heritage ofautochthonousvarieties.9EuropeanDirective2008/62/CE“providingforcertainderogationsforacceptanceofagriculturallandracesandvarietieswhicharenaturallyadaptedtothelocalandregionalconditionsandthreatenedbygeneticerosionandformarketingofseedandseedpotatoesofthoselandracesandvarieties”.ForatreatiseonthissubjectseethearticlebyBocci,2009.

conservation varieties and 3) the issue ofthe circulation of seed, also consideringfarmers’exchange.1) Definition of the concept of geneticerosion

The question of genetic erosion and theneed to conserve varieties at risk is dealtwith both in the EU Directive mentionedabove concerning conservation varietiesandintheRegionallawsstudiedhere.A c c o r d i n g t o t h e EU D i r e c t i v e ,conservation varietiesare thosewhich arenaturally adapted to the local agriculturalsystems and threatened by geneticerosion. Similarly, the most innovativetoolsprovidedby regional laws– such as,for example, the network of stewardfarmers – were expressly created toconservethevarieties thatareconsideredatriskofgeneticerosion.It is therefore fundamentalto understandhowtheriskoferosionistobedeterminedsincethecomplianceornon‐complianceofa variety tothiscriterioncanhavejuridicalimplications. In this regard, the EUDirective is rather vague defining geneticerosion as“ […] loss of genetic diversitybetween and within populations orvarietiesofthesamespeciesover time,orreductionofthegenetic basisofa speciesd u e t o h um a n i n t e r v e n t i o n o renvironmentalchange”10.

At the regional level, Emilia Romagna hasemerged with a detailed proposal fordefiningthebasiccriteriaforconsideringavariety at risk of genetic erosion. In fact,the implementating regulation of the lawidentifiesminimumlevelsofcultivatedlandwhichvaryinaccordancewiththespecies,and contemplates not only the ecologicaland agriculturalpropertiesofthevarietiesbutalso,indirectly,naturalfactorsandtheproduction capacity of the farms on theterritory.

Inmany instances,theriskoferosionorofdisappearanceismainlyduetothescarcityof farmers cultivating the crop. Thedefinitionofrisk,therefore,mustalsotakeinto account this human factor which isonly indirectly linkedto theecologicalandagriculturalpropertiesofthevariety.This sensibility in defining the risk oferosion gives highlights the role of thefarmers and their capacity to useautochthonous varieties and safeguardtheir genetic heritage of interest toagriculture.

2) Economic incentives and marketingconservationvarieties. The aim of enhancing conservationvarietiesispursuedtrough thederogationfromthepresent seedsystem by enablingthevarietytoberegisteredintheCommonCatalogueandwithaproperproceduretobefollowedinsellingtheseed.Thissecondaspect of marketing of conservationvarieties,which is oneof thelynchpins ofthenewEuropean legislation,ispracticallyabsentfromRegionallaws.In thissense, registeringvarieties,enteredpreviously in the Regional Register asconservationvarieties,mayberegardedasa supplementary toolfor enhancing theseresources.Being able to market the seed varietiesregistered in the Common Catalogue –even considering the constraints onquantity specified by law – could be animportant step forward towards arevitalised production of autochthonousvarieties. Inthisway,theeconomic returnfromthesaleofseedbecomesanincentivebywhichfarmerscan recover thecostsofconservation as the holders of plantbreeders’ r ights can recover theirinvestments in varietal innovation by


23

10Art.2(b)EUCommissionDirective2008/62/CE.

marketing the seed of commercialvarieties.

One particularly interesting idea forenhancing the benefits of marketing localvarieties is already comprised in theToscana Reg iona l l aw wh i ch hastransposed the new European regulationon conservation varieties into law earlier.In addition to the commercialisation ofseed, a regional mark has been devisedwhich may voluntarily be set on theproducts constituted that contain or arederivedfrommaterialintheregister11.Thiscreates a distinguishable brand to favourthebroadestpossibleconsumerawarenessandknowledgeonfoodproductsobtainedfrom local varieties and breeds at risk ofextinction, and consequently enhancedemandfortheproductitself.

It istobenotedthatbeingabletomarketthe seed is themost significant economicincentivebutnottheonlyoneavailableforencouragingthere‐adoptionofvarietiesatrisk of erosion. The Regional laws alsoprovide for expense reimbursements tosteward farmers for their work inconserving the assigned varieties. Lastly,theRuralDevelopmentPlanscanenvisageother forms of allowance for enhancingand conserving autochthonous varieties,thus tracing a more complex frame ofeconomic incentives both market andpublicbased.3)Question of thecirculationof seedandexchangeamongfarmers.

Oneissuewhich is not clarifiedby theEUDirective on conservation varietiesconcerns the distribution of seed by thetraditionalpracticeof farmers exchangingitamongstthemselves.Thesepracticesarean integralpartofso‐called “Farmers’ Rights”and as has been

underlined earlier have always lain at thebase of the continual innovation andadaptation of varieties to the ecologicalconditionsof theenvironment (Andersen,2005; Girsberger, 1999). In recognition ofthe enormous contribution of farmers inconserving, improving and makingavailable plant genetic resources, theArticle 9.3 of ITPGRFA establishes thatnothing shall be interpreted to limit anyrights that farmers have to save, use,exchange and sell farm‐saved seed/propagating material, subject to nationallawandasappropriate.ThisweakaffirmationofFarmers’Rightsinthe question of the exchange of seedseems to create more doubt thancertainties.InItalyandEurope,therootoftheproblem isthatpresent regulationsoftheseedsystemfocusmainly on the issueof commercialization of seed and neglector fail to identify directly seed exchangebetween fa rmers as a non ‐profittransaction.In this sense, even the European ActionPlaninfavourofAgriculturalBiodiversityisoriented towards the idea of marketing,recognising that “ […] conservation andthe in situ ad on farm improvement ofplantgeneticresourcesalsodependontherealpossibilityofusing theseresources inthe long‐term, and thus legislation thatenables the commerc ia l i sat ion ofdiversifiedgeneticmaterial”12. Inthesameway, the aim of the EU Directive forconservation varieties is mainly to conferjuridical legitimacy to these varietiesallowingthemtobemarketedontheseedmarket.

It is therefore important to establishwhether the traditional practice of non‐profit exchange of seed among farmers


24

11Art.11TuscanyRegionalLaw64/2004.

12CommunicationoftheCommissiontotheCouncilandtheEuropeanParliamentof22May2006–ActionPlaninfavourofBiodiversityinAgriculture.

fallswithintheconceptofmarketingornotin order to implement appropriatestrategies of in s i tu and on‐farmconservationforlocalvarieties.ThevarietiesnotregisteredintheCommonCatalogue, including the local andautochthonous ones, are particularlyvulnerable to this problem becausemarketingthem isexpresslyprohibited.Atthe same time, these varieties, lackingcommercial interests, fall in a legislativeand juridical vacuum that legitimises theirexchangeandcirculationoutoftheformalchannelsofseeddistribution.Absent a juridical legitimacy, the informalexchange of seed of varietiesthatdonotappear inofficialregisterscanbeformallyagainstthelawbutbepractisedbecauseofthelackofenforcementoftheregulations.In othercases, toget round theproblem,exchange takes place within groups offarmers who have formed associations(AlmekindersandJongerden,2002).This iswhy it is important to understandhow theconceptsofsellingandmarketingaredefinedinseedlegislation.ForexampleLouwaars (2005) points out how seedlegislation in South Africa and Malawiexpresslystatesthat thedefinitionofseedsalealso includesexchange and barter ofseed, which makes this practice illegalwhen the varieties exchanged are not intheofficialregister.With thisperspective, EUDirective 98/95/CE and Legislative Decree 212/2001 statethat “marketing" shall mean the sale,holdingwith a view to sale, offer for saleand any disposal,supply or transferaimedatcommercialexploitationofseedto thirdp a r t i e s , w h e t h e r o r n o t f o rconsideration”13. As can be seen, byincluding commercial exploitation with orwithoutconsiderationthisdefinitionleaves

doubt surrounding the legitimacy of thenon‐profitexchangeofseed.

TheRegionallawshavesoughttorespondto these drawbacks and to the fact thateventhefreeexchangeofseedriskstobeinterpretedasan act thatfallswithinseedregulations and therefore subject to itsrules. The conservation and safeguardnetworkhasbeensetuppreciselywiththeaim of being a legal tool that allows theexchange of seed between interestedpartieswhoareregisteredasbelonging tothe network. However, we still have tounderstandtheextenttowhichthistoolisin harmony with regulations regardingseed both as regards autochthonousvarieties which will be inserted into theCatalogueasconservationvarieties,aswellas for the autochthonous varieties not atrisk oferosionwhichwill, instead,not beincluded.

BibliographyAlmekinders C., 2000. The Importance of

InformalSeed Sector and its Relationwith the Legislative Framework.PaperpresentedatGTZ‐Eschborn.

Almekinders C. e Jongerden J., 2002. Onvisions and new approaches. Casestudies of organizational forms inorganic plant breeding and seedp r o d u c t i o n . Wo r k i n g P a p e rT e c h n o l o g y a n d A g r a r i a nD e v e l o pm e n t , W a g e n i n g e nUniversity,Netherlands.

AndersenR.,2005.TheHistoryof Farmers’Rights. The Farmers’ Rights ProjectBackgroundStudy1

Bocci R., 2009. Seed legislation andagrobiodivers ity : conservat ionvarieties, Journal of Agriculture andEnvironment for InternationalDevelopment,vol.103,N.1‐2.


25

13Art.4(2)Directive98/95/CEandArticle2(2)LegislativeDecree212/2001.

FAO, 1998. The State of the World’s PlantGenetic Resources for Food andAgriculture.Roma,Italia:FAO.

G e r m a n ò A . , 2 0 0 3 . I l G o v e r n odell’Agricoltura nel Nuovo Titolo V°dellaCostituzione.Attidell’incontrodistudio.IDAIC,Firenze.

GirsbergerM.A., 1999.Biodiversity and theConcept of Farmers' Rights inInternationalLaw.FactualBackgroundandLegalAnalysis,PeterLang,Berne.

Dutfield G., 2004. Intellectual Property,Biogenetic Resources and TraditionalKnowledge.Earthscan,London.

HelferL.R.,2005.UsingIntellectualPropertyRights to Preserve theGlobal GeneticCommons:The InternationalTreatyonPlant GeneticResources forFoodandAgriculture, in Reichman J.R eMaskusK. (eds). InternationalPublicGoods and Transfer of Technologyunder a Globalized IntellectualP rope r t y Reg ime . Cambr idgeUniversityPress.

LouwaarsN.P.,2000.SeedRegulations andLocal Seed Systems. Biotechnologyand Development Monitor , 42, 12–14.

Louwaars N .P . , 2005 . B ia se s andbottlenecks. Time to reform theSouth’s inherited seed laws? Grain,SeedlingJuly2005.

Swanson,T.,Pearce,D.,Cervigni,R.,1994. Theappropriationofthebenefits ofplantgenetic resources for food andagriculture: an economic analysis ofthe alternative mechanisms forbiodiversity conservation. CPGRFABackgroundStudyPaper,1.


26

Theimplementationofthedirectiveonconservationvarieties1

RiccardoBocci“FCEC believes that the twodifferent systems of the largecommercial breeding companiesand the smaller market orregional breeders and producerscould run side by side becausethey are targeting completelydifferentmarkets”

(FCEC,2008)

IntroductionDirective 98/95/CE of 14 December 1998introduced ‘conservation variety’ a newtype of agricultural variety that could bemarketed within Europe. But why did theEuropeanUnion(EU)broadentherangeofvarieties that could be registered in thecommonCatalogueofvarieties(fromnowon called ‘Catalogue’) and thus marketthem?Whyistheterm ‘conservation’nowappearinginregulationsonseed?The17thpreamble of the directive gives a partialreply.

“Whereas it is essential toensure that p lant genet icr e sou r ce s a r e conse rved ;whereasa legalbasistothatendshould be introduced to permit,w i t h i n t he f r amework o flegislationontheseedtrade,the

conservation, by use in situ, ofvarietiesthreatenedwithgeneticerosion”.

To all intents, opening the Catalogue toconservation varieties and thus tomarketing them is seen as a means ofreducingtheirgeneticerosion.Theprioritynow isto conserveavarietalheritage thatisdisappearingfromthefields,andforthefirsttimea conservationinitiativebecomespart of seed regulations. Up to now,European legislation had only viewedconservation of agricultural geneticresources from a scientific standpoint,essentially supporting scientific bodies,networking amongst researchers and exsitu2. “Officially” the seed sector wasnotaffected by thisproblem and in thissensethedirective isan important step forwardbecause it implicitly acknowledges thatseed regulations since the 1960s havecontributed to the genetic erosion ofagricultural diversity and so must beamendedsomehow3.Since1998,however,theroadfollowedbyconservation varieties has been long andtortuous and the directive still lacksapplication by Member States. Indeed,despite the 2001 European CommissionAction Plan for biodiversity in agriculture,again stressing how on‐farm conservationalso depended on seed legislation thatallowed genetically diversified material to

Theimplementationofthedirectiveonconservationvarieties

27

1This article isan excerptfromBocciR.,Seed legislationandagrobiodiversity:conservationvarieties,Journal of Agriculture andEnvironmentforInternational Development,vol. 102.N. 1‐2.Thanks toMassimoAngelini,OrianaPorfiri,PiergiacomoBianchiandRomanaBravifortheirusefulremarksthatgavemethe inspiration towritethearticle.Indeed,alivelydebatetookplacein Italyon thesubject,reflectingtheinterestthismeasurehasaroused.2SeeonthisCEregulationNr.870/2004thatrepealedtheearlier1467/94.3Asimilarconclusioncanbe reachedbyreading themotivationsfortheEuropeanUniontolaunchtheprocessof evaluationof seedlegislation.Here,too,thenewobjectives tobepursued in seedpolicies include conservation of agricultural diversity (http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/index_en.htm).

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/index_en.htm




bemarketed,asofJune2008no progresshadbeenmadeatEUleveltodraw uptherules of implementation for conservationvarieties in directive 98/954. In any case,therewasstillnotonesingleconservationvarietybeinglegallymarketedinEuropeinFebruary 2009. It is to be noted thatdirective62/2008of20June2008only settheguidelines foragriculturalspecies; thetexts on vegetables, plant propagationspecies and fodderplantmixturesare stillbeing negotiated at the Permanent SeedCommitteeinBrussels.Inthetenyearsspent inhatchingthenewdirective no fewer than 14 text revisionswerediscussedbeforeitwaspassedbythePermanentSeed Committee,which showsthe difficulty that parties with suchdivergent interests have in reaching anagreement.On theonehand,somesaw adangerthatitwould “underminethemaincommercial system of introducing newvarieties onto the market” (FCEC, 2008);while others sought to open marketingpossibilities to varieties that were then“illegal”but inanycaseofinteresttonon‐industrial models of agriculture such asorganic farming or biodynamics. Themainobstaclewas deciding whether or not tomaintain, and if so to what extent, thethree fundamental principles of Directive98/95:

1. thelink between a variety and itsareaoforigin;

2. thedangeroferosion;

3. appropriatequantityrestrictions.Indeed,clarifyingwhatwasactuallymeantby the short text of directive 98/95 onconservationvarieties(Art.6(17)andArt.8(37)) was not easy, and depending oninterpretation either made the normuselessbecauseof itsstrict constraintsormade the conceptof conservation varietytoo generous thus running the risk ofcreating a systemparallel to thestandardone which would enable users tocircumvent the rules, checks and red‐tapeoftheclassicseedsystem.Thetextpassedin 2008, therefore, is to be seen as acomprom i se be tween t he se twoextremes5,anditseffectivenesswillbeonlybeable tobe seeninthecomingyearsbyverifying if varieties not permitted todayare on the market and if the rulesestablished for implementing it areeffective and efficient in the various EUcountries.

Thepreamblesarevery clear inconveyingtheframeofdirective62/2008:1. The objective is the conservation of

plant genetic resources (PGR) and themarketingoftheirseed;

2. To conserve these varieties, it isfundamental that the seed ber e p r o d u c e d i n t h e p l a c e o fdiversification/originofthevariety;

3. Quantity restrictions and an adequatesystem of traceabil ity must bee s t a b l i s h e d t o p r e v e n t t h i ssimplification being abused to get


28

4Thespecification isneededbecausedirective98/95isalsoaboutenteringtransgenicvarietiesintheNationalcatalogues.5Thevariouspointsofviewontheconceptofconservationvarietiesareclearlyreportedin thefinalreport of the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium published in 2008 and available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/index_en.htm.





round seed regulations and marketvarietiesnottobeconserved;

4. Member S ta tes may e s tab l i shderogationsondistinctness,uniformityandstability(DUS),

5. 3 years after it comes into force itseffectiveness will be subject toevaluation.

Notefirst and foremost that theobjectiveof conservation isachieved by thetool ofderogation from the present‐day seedsystem on the one hand to allow thesevarietiestoberegisteredintheCatalogue6,andontheothertoestablishaminimumofprocedures for the sale of the seeds.Theintention, therefore, is for these varietiesto fal l into the category of seedmarketabilitycreatinganareaoflegitimacyforvarietiesthat could onlybeexchangedbetween farmers. Theaim, therefore is tocreateaspecificmarketwithrulesthataremoreappropriatetotheneedsoftheusersofthesevarieties.

TheimplementationinItalyItaly istheonly country inEurope tohaveimplemented directive 98/95 beforeDirective62/2008 by ad hoc national‐levelregulat ions. Transformation of EUlegislationonconservationvarietiesinItalybeganin2007withLawNr.46,Article2(b)ofwhichestablishedthenationalcatalogueand delegated the obligation of draftingthe decree of implementation to theMinistryofAgriculture, Foodand Forestry(MiPAAF). This decree was signed by theMinister and published in the OfficialGazette Nr. 122. The purpose was toattempt to harmonise the situation at

national level, compromising with theRegionsthathadalreadypassedtheirownlaws protecting agricultural biodiversity –local government had thought that theproblem of how to market the varietiesentered in regional registers but barredfrombeingsoldbyseedregulationswouldbe solved by introducing conservationvarieties. This is why the definition ofconservation variety draws heavily fromthe wording of regional laws and isdissimilar to that of Europeannorms7.ForItalian legislation, varieties, populations,landraces, c lones and cult ivars ofa g r i c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t w o r t h y o fconservation are for species of plant thatare:1. A u t o c h t h o n o u s a n d n o n ‐

autochthonouswhichhaveneverbeenregistered in the Catalogue providedthey have been integrated into localagrosystemsforatleastfiftyyears;

2. No longer registered in the Cataloguebutstillatriskofgeneticerosion;

3. No longergrowninItalybutconservedin botanical gardens, experimentalinstitutes, public and private germ‐plasma banks, universities or researchcentres of other regions or countriesfor which there is interest of aneconomic, scientific, cultural, orlandscapenaturethatwouldfavouritsreintroduction.

By contrastwithCommunity thought, ther i s k o f gene t i c e ro s i on and t heidentification of the area of origin arenol onge r ob l i ga to ry p rope r t i e s fo rconservation varieties. It is sufficient for


29

6“Settingupa‘register’, ‘repertoire’or‘catalogue’isthefirstaspecttohighlight. Withoutit,withoutknowingwhatisstillextant,whereitisandwhatitspropertiesare,nosafeguardingmeasuresareofanyuse.This is thefirstthing of interesttous,thenwecantalkof enhancement,commercial use,types,which interweavewith acts aimedsafeguarding,sometimes getting in theway”(O.Porfiri,pers.com.).7 Forthestoryofhowtheapprovalof thisdecreewas arrivedatseeL.Paoloni (2005)andthesitewww.semirurali.net.

http://www.semirurali.net

http://www.semirurali.net

the varieties included in point a) to beautochthonouswhileonlythoseentered intheRegister(b)must beatrisk ofgeneticerosion. Hence, varieties which areproperly described as landraces (point a)do not have to prove being at risk oferosion to be registered in the Cataloguewhile varieties no longer in the commonCatalogue(pointb)still dobecausethereisno special link with an area of origin.Furthermore, differently from 2008directive,theItalianversionisapplicabletoall species of agricultural interest –vegetables, fodder, plant propagationspeciesandagriculturalspecies.

Let us analyse this text in closer detail inorder to highlight the compatibility withdirective62/2008andthereasoningbehindit.

Art. 1 expressly mentionsArticle 9 of theITPGRFAwhichspecifiesthat“thebenefitsderiving from the reproduction, diffusionand use [of conservation varieties],inalienably and indefeasibly belong to thelocal communities who ensured theirconservation”. Art. 2 establishes theSection for conservation varieties in theCatalogue specifying that registration ofeachvarietyistobenotifiedtotheMinistrythrough the appropriate Region ad/orProvince who must give their approval.This means that the system is highlydecentralised and delegates evaluation ofthe prescriptions required for registrationto local bodies in accordance with the

procedure by which Regions establishregionalRepertoiresbasedontheirspecificagricultural biodiversity laws and thennotify the Ministry of the varieties to beregisteredinthecatalogueasconservationvarieties8.Theaimistoachieveintegrationamongthevarious levelsofregulationinadecentralised system (Bertacchini, 2009).Registration is free of charge “save thecosts for ascertaining the uniqueness ofthevariety”.Thisissueofuniquenessraisesanother problem. A given variety is oftenfound in different geographicalareaswithdifferent names and so it should beregistered in the Section just once. This,though,would determinea curtailment ofcultural diversity and would also runcounter to the directive prescriptionswhich allows for a single variety to havemorethanonename.Astoderogationfromtheprescriptionsofseed legislation, the decree providesgreater freedom than directive 62/2008.Indeedthevarietieshavetobeidentifiableby means of a minimum number ofcharacters without specifying how manycan derogate from the prescriptions inDistinctness, Uniformity and Stability(DUS). Art 3 also highlights the majordifference vis‐à‐vis the EU text. Here,farmersareexplicitlygiventherighttosellconservation varieties(Art3 (2)). Itseemsas though the Italian legislator took painstoallowfarmerstodothisratherthanlimit


30

8 “We shouldfavouratwo‐foldprocedure butdo things so thatwhathasbeen registeredin theregional repertoires sofarischannelledintothenational repertoire– it cannothappen differently.TheRegionswillobviouslyhavetotoethesamelineinthisregistrationprocedure.Inactualfact,myexperiencetellsmethatinthelittlethathasbeendoneherearenodifferencesinproceduresamongtheRegionsbecausebyandlargetheregionallawsareallthesame”(O.Porfiri,pers.com.).

sales to the subjects provided for in theseedregulations9.

On the other hand, the prescriptions onquantity limitations are more restrictive.Clause2limitsthetotalquantitythat eachfarmercantransferasseedas“theamountnecessary to establish a crop of 1,000squaremetresforvegetablesand1hectarefor the other agricultural species”. Forcerealsthismeansthatthefarmercansellnomorethan200‐300kgofcerealseedperyear. There being no explicit mention ofthe single varieties in the text (which isinstead given in directive 62/2008indicating the total by species and singlevariety)itis clear thatthesefiguresaretobe taken as the totals for each personselling and not, therefore, for each singleconservation variety produced10. In thiscase,amarkeddiscrepancyariseswiththegeneral objective of European legislationon conservation varieties. Indeed, thewhole concept of conservation variationshingesoncreatingamarketforthemwithitsownsetofrules.Buthowcanoneeventhink ofseed marketingwith the quantitylimit setby the Italian decree?Whowouldeverfind it worthwhileto invest in suchalimited market? The eventuality of thecereal sector being interested is indeedremote.ThetextoftheItaliandecreequalifiesthelocalarea (the regionoforigin inthe textofthedirective)as“thetraditionalarea ofcultivation of the variety […] where thevariety developed its properties”. This isthe only area in which selling is allowed,but thereareno restriction ongrowing itoutsideitsareaoforiginexcepttheuseof

the same name and the use of publicfunding (seee.g.geographical indications,Rural Development Plan interventions).This is a highly significant innovationbecause it introduces a criterion ofprotection of the local name (but evenmore the right to use the local name)which comes from outside the system ofthe geographical indications, which up tonowhavebeentheonlyoneaccepted.In conclusion, the Italian regulations arealsotheoutcomeofcompromisebetweenthosewho see conservation varietiesasaway to legitimise many kinds of varietywhich are not presently marketable andt h e r e f o r e l e a n t owa r d s a s l i m ,decentralised system and those who seethemasa dangerousderogation fromtheseed system and seek to curtail itspotential asmuch aspossible – the strictquantity limitations are the result of theaffirmationofthelatter.

SynergieswiththeTreatyThe concept of conservation varieties isirrevocably connected to Article 6 of theTreaty and the sustainable use of geneticplant resources. Indeed, every EUdocumentmakes itclearthat thedirectiveonconservationvarietiesis the legislator’sresponseto the seedsectorasamove tostem the lossofagrobiodiversity. In pointof fact, directive62/2008 states thatwithregardto theseedsector,in ordertogivedue weight to the aims of the Treaty,certain specific conditions have to beestablished in the rules to govern themarketingofseed.If it is correctly implemented by MemberStates, the regulations on conservation


31

9ProvidedforinItalybyLaw1096/1971andamendments.10 Note thatthe draftdecree preparedbythe Rural SeedNetwork andsubmittedtoMiPAAF forapproval linked themodest quantity to the “needs fora family‐scale farm” while extending thequantitylimits.Thisideahadtheadvantageofnotbeginningrightawaywithverylowlimits,leavingthedefinition topossible futureinstances of dispute tobe judgedona case‐by‐casebasis,each inaccordancewithitsspecificities.

varieties can be a valid tool towardschanging the rules that discipline thereleaseof varieties and thedistribution ofseedashopedforinArt6(g)oftheTreaty.Thereferencestothezonesoforiginofthevarietiesandthetraditionofcultivationcanbeinterpretedasanincentivetore‐localiseseed production which takes account ofthe varieties’ adaptation to differentsurroundings and agricultural models andthus encourages the use of local and/orlocally adapted varieties (Art.6 (e)). Byacceptingformarketingvarietiespresentlybarredmakesthisnormalsoseemameansfor increasing the range of varietiesavailabletofarmers(Art.6(d)).Furthermore, directive 62/2008 opens awhole new interesting area in which civilsociety can becomeinvolved in thewholeprocess of identification of conservationvarietiesby indicating thatMemberStateswill be obliged to notify their appropriateorganisations at national level on plantgeneticresources(Arts.5,8,11and21).Theparticipation of farmers in the decision‐makingprocessofagricultural biodiversityis one of the aims of the Treaty and is aprecondition for implementing theprogrammes of participatory plantbreeding,which is considered one of themeans for putting the sustainable use ofplantgeneticresourcesintopractice.

ConclusionsThe Italian legislation is going to bereviewed and amended in order toimplementthenewdirective62/2008inthenext few months. Up to now noinformation is available to say if Italy willmaintain and integrateitsspecific rulesonconservation varieties in the law ofimp lementat ion o f the d i rec t i ve .Dependingofit,theregulationsdescribedare in danger of getting bogged down ifthey are interpreted and applied toonarrowly.

They should, instead, be read as thebeginningofanewpathwaythatlinksseedproductionat local level and channelstheseedtowardsdifferentagriculturalmodels,giving farmers a new role to play. Ingeneral,directive62/2008hastobereadasafirsttimidsteptowardsopeningtheseedmarket up to certain varieties as partialderogationfromtheprescriptionsofDUS,and also as procedures for marketingthem.It is to be stressed, however, thatconservation varieties will be limited to aspecifickindofvarietyforwhichalinkwitha certain territory will be historicallydemonstrable. This, therefore, is not acategory for lumping together all thevarietieswhich at themoment cannot bemarketed, and for which it will benecessary to explore different legislativeopenings. In particular we refer to thefollowingcategories:

1. thevarietiesproducedby participativegenetic improvement and are not inconformitywithDUSprescriptions;

2. Theoldvarietiesnolongerregisteredinthe Catalogue (there factors that canmake registering these varietiesproblematical: excessive registrationcosts,difficulty inproving theValueofCultivation and USE – VCU ‐, onlylimited marginal areas interested ingrowingthem)andwhichdo nothaveaprecisegeographicalareaoforigin;

3. Local varieties used as geneticr e s o u r c e s i n r e i n t r o d u c t i o nprogrammes,tocultivation indifferentareasfromtheirareaoforigin;

4. Variety – Populations that have nohistoricallinkwithagiventerritoryandwhich cannot be registered in theoffi c i a l c a t a l o g u e h a v i n g n ocorrespondencewiththeDUScriteria.

Thereisanotherconsiderationtobemade;while the legislator intended to conferjuridical legitimacy to these varieties by


32

integrating them into the seed market, itdoesnotfollowthatbyexchangingthemina way that is not in conformity with thenew directive makes the exchangeillegitimate. A reasonable assumption isthatbylackingcommercialexploitationtheact of exchange cannot be consideredmarketing.This directive could undoubtedly easerelationsbetween farmersandagriculturalred‐tape even if the use of just a fewvarieties,presentlynotmarketableweretobecome ‘legalised’. Thiswould solvea lotofproblemsof red tape that farmerswhocultivate them encounter today whenapplying for public funding or organiccertification.In conclusion, theDirectiveisat great riskof being unapplied despite the over tenyearsneededfor itto seethelightofday.Theproblemisnotthequantitylimitationsor geography but in the too fewderogations from the cert ificationprocedure and the excessive red tapethroughout the whole system. Thereseems to be a drive to apply the rules ofclassic seedmarketing to themuchmorevariegated market of conservationvarieties.

This concern is also apparent in the finalreportof theevaluation ofEuropean seedlegislation prepared by the Food ChainEvaluation Consortium (FCEC): “FCECconcernsisthatthenewDirectivemaywellbe restrictive if implemented in a wrongway and FCEC isnotcertain thatMemberStateswillunderstandhowtoimplementitwith flexibility, freedom and adaptabilitythat the Commission intended” (FCEC,2008).

BibliographyIstat 2007, http://www.istat.it/agricoltura/

datiagri/mezzipro/elesem.html

Bertacchini E., 2009.Regional legislation inItaly for the protection of local

varieties, Journal of Agriculture andEnvironment for InternationalDevelopment,vol.103,N.1‐2.

Camacho Villa, T.C., Maxted, N., M.Scholten, Ford‐Lloyd, B., 2006.Defining and ident i fy ing croplandraces. Plant Genetic Resources:Characterization and Utilization, 3:373–384.

ChableV.,Lammertsvan BuerenE., 2009.Report on the definitions of varietiesin Europe, of localadaptation and ofvarieties threatened by geneticerosion, Farm seed opportunities,Specific Targeted Research Project,VIFrameworkprogramme.

FoodChain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC),2008. Evaluation of the Communityacquis on the marketing of seed andplant propagating material (S&PM),Final Report, European CommissionDirectorate General for Health andConsumers.

Masini S. 2008. “Varietà in purezza” e“varietà da conservazione”: dallaesclusiva di sfruttamento brevettualealla libertà di accesso, Diritto egiurisprudenza agraria, alimentare edell’alimentare,pp.79‐90.

Menci V. 2007, Varieta’ locali e prodottitipici,GraduationThesis.Departmento f p l a n t b i o l o g y a nd a g r o ‐environmental biotechnology andanimal husbandry, University ofPerugia.

Lorenzetti S., Falcinelli M., 2006. Varietà edintorni,dalSeme,n.3.

LorenzettiF.,NegriV.,2009.The Europeanseed legislation on conservationvarieties, In:Negri V., VetelainenM.and N. Maxted eds., “Europeanlandrace conservation”, BioversityInternationalpubl.,Rome,Italy.

Negr i V . , 2005 . Agro ‐b iod i ve r s i t yconservationinEurope:ethical issues.


33

Jou rna l o f Ag r i c u l t u r a l a ndEnvironmentEthics18:3‐25.

Paoloni L., 2005. Diritti degli agricoltori etutela della biodiversità, GiappichelliEditore,Torino.

Porfiri, O., Costanza M.T. and Negri, V.,2009. Landrace Inventoring in Italy:theLazioRegionalLawCaseStudy,In:(Negri V., Vetelainen, M. and N.Maxted eds.) ‘European landracec o n s e r v a t i o n ’ , B i o v e r s i t yInternationalpubl.,Rome,Italy.

Visser B. 2002. An AgrobiodiversityPerspective on Seed Policies, inLouwaars N. ed., Seed Policy,Legislation and Law: Widening aNarrowFocus,TheHaworthPress.

Zeven A.C., 1998. Landraces: a review ofdefinit ions and c lass ificat ions ,Euphytica104:127‐139.


34

Research and innovation initiatives insupportoftheseedplan

RiccardoBocci,MariaFrancescaNonne

“Landrace is a genetically variablepopulation, not improved by formalbreeding, spread in the same areawhereitoriginatedthroughrepeatedcultivationby farmersand that localc ommun i t y c on s i de r s a s i t sheirloom”

(Falcinelli,Lorenzetti,2008)

IntroductionThe project entitled “Research andinnovationinitiativesinsupportoftheseedplan” in the form of an inter‐Regionalproject hasbeen adopted by a number ofRegions pursuant to Law N° 578 of 1996whichprovidesforsystematicinitiativestobe launched in support of the Italianagriculture and food system. In this case,the project was launched in order toimprove the I ta l ian seed system,considering that an agricultural policywhoseobjectiveisqualitymustalsoacceptt he un comprom i s i ng p r em i s e o fguaranteed quality in seeds. The projectcommittee, composed of representativesfrom 16 Regions (Basilicata, Calabria,Campania, Emilia Romagna, Friuli VeneziaGiulia, Lazio, Liguria, Lombardia, Marche,Molise, Piemonte, Sardegna, Sicilia,Toscana andVeneto) led by theRegion ofUmbria launched two subprojects – onenationwide entrusted to the EnteNazionaleSementiElette(NationalElectedSeed Authority) – the public body thatdeals with seed certification and control,andtheotherRegionalinscope,entrustedto a Consortium of 16 research bodiescoordinatedbytheDepartmentofAppliedBiologyofPerugiaUniversity.

The former, the First Programme forResearch and Experimentation (PRIS1,

2005 ‐ 2007) was composed of thefollowingfourthemeareas:

1. Development of guidelines for theproductionofnon‐GMOseedproductsand for determin ing areas formultiplication;

2. Development of regulations for theproductionofnon‐GMOseedproductsfor maize, soy, tomato, potato andsugarbeet

3. Finetuningofguidelinesforidentifyingtraceelementsfortheenhancementoftheseedsystem;

4. Definitionofguidelinesforissuingseedlicences.

The second Programme of Research andExperimentation (PRIS2, 2005 ‐ 2008)wasdividedoverthefollowingissues.:1. Development of supply chains for

producingnonGMOseedproducts;2. I d e n t i fi c a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n

technologies for seed products fororganicagriculture;

3. Assessment of suitability of varietiessuitedtoorganicproduction;

4. Assessment of autochthonous geneticresources of agricultural herbaceousinterest.

Theraison d’etre of both PRISs lies in theneed for any domestic seed sector to besufficiently equipped to deal with thechanges that occur in the world ofagriculture; for example, the spotlight ontheonehandbeing focussed on theGMOissueandtheavailabilityofGMO‐freeseedsandontheotherhandonorganicfarming–anarea inwhichItaly isoneoftheleadingcountriesinEurope–andtheneedtohavea seed distribution system that canproduceseedsfororganicfarming.A thirdarea of interest for PRIS is agriculturalbiodiversityandtheso‐calledlocalvarietiesbecauseas Falcinelli wrote (2008) “Todaytheseedmarketisrequiredtocometothedefenceofbiodiversity”.

Researchandinnovationinitiativesinsupportoftheseedplan

35

This contribution will analyse this latteraspectoftheinter‐regionalproject.

PRIS2–agriculturalbiodiversityThe main objective of the three yearproject was tomap out of all thecurrentinitiatives at national, regional and locallevel in col lect ing, character is ing,conserving and enhancing agriculturalbiodiversityThis research which was conducted byquestionnaires to the main actors;bibliographic investigations and focussedinterviews highlighted the need forcoordination among all those involved.Indeed the great many subjects who aresomehow involved in onewayor anotherin collecting studyingandconservinglocalgermplasmfindthemselvesinasituationinwhich there is a considerable amount ofi n fo rmat ion but no sha red workmethodology. This makes it hard tocompare the individual experiences anddata collected (Concezzi et al.,2008).This,then, is the situation in which a NationalPlan of Agricultural Biodiversity wasestablished in 2008 one of the resultsachievedbyPRIS2(seeNonneandBoccionthis Report on the The National Plan forAgrobiodiversity), and which provided aframework of national coordination.Another issue that PRIS2 addressed washow to define landrace – a term usedwithin the international framework – atnational level. This is an important issuesinceE.ULawincreasinglyreferstowhatinEnglish are called “landraces”, a termwhichoftengeneratesconfusioninItaly.InCommun i ty D i rec t i ve 62 / 2008 onconservation varieties, for instance,landraces istranslated asecotypes(Bocci,2009),butPRIS2concludedthatthepropertranslation is varietà locale becauseecotypes are a natural populationespecially in an ecosystem. Moreover,there is a older term–agroecotype – thatmaybeused.Coinedin1950byCarloJucci

it isa synonymforlandraceorlocalvariety(Falcinelli andLorenzetti,2008;Jucci 1950)to emphasis the contribution made byfarmerswhichisnotconveyedbythewordecotype in selecting varieties. Thedefinition that PRIS2 is based on threebasicpremises:1. The absence of formal genetic

improvement;

2. The structure of the variety beinggeneticallyvariable;

3. A link with the territory and theagriculturalcommunitythatselectedit.

Theinformationwascollectedsoasto setup a database that could beconsultedonl i n e a t h t t p : / /www.catalogovarietalocali.pris2.parco3a.org/consultazione.aspx.It containsthedataof the 2,126 varieties listed and issubdivided by category (graph 1) and bycategory and region (graph 2). Thecatalogue makes no cla ims to beexhaustive but is in any case a goodstartingpointforlearningabouttheItalianp lant her i tage wh ich , in turn , i sfundamenta l to any in i t iat ive forconserving and enhancing. For example,accessto incentivesprovidedby theRuralDevelopment Plan for agr iculturalbiodiversity conservation depends onbeingincludedina registerorrepertoryoflocal varieties that qualify for funding(Melozzi,2009).Thevarietiesacceptedforregistration were catalogued on thebasisof a 16‐field data set which in addition tothe purely scientific also lists the localname of the variety, the type ofconservation ithasbeensubjectedto andthe availability of seed for exchange andresearch(Tab.1).The varieties in the catalogue weresubdivided into 5 categories the largestbeing the cereals with 1,020 entriesfollowed by grain legumes with 518 andvegetables with 363. The most citedspeciesismaizewith487differentvarieties


36

http://www.catalogovarietalocali.pris2.parco3a.org/consultazione.aspx






followed by beans with 302 varieties,medicinal herbs (110 varieties) andtomatoes(58varieties).

At regional level the richest in localvarieties isUmbria (307), followed by theAbruzzi and theMarche (231), Sicilia (195)and Toscana (178), as can be seen in thefollowingtable.

PRIS2hasalsomadeeffortstorecoverandrevalueold varietiesofwheat to assess ifand how theymay beadapted to organicfarm cultivation. The varietiesconcernedwerenotlocalbutfromthefirsthalfofthe20th Century,produced by plant breedingand endowed with a marked capability ofadaptation, robustness, resistance todisease and greater efficiency in nitrogen

usage. All theseproperties, togetherwithtasteandsmell,giveitexcellentprospectsfor being grown in low‐input farmingcontexts(Vecchioetal.,2008).Thisproject,realised intheTuscanyRegionbyFlorenceUniversity involved several farmers inreproducing the collections housed in theUniversity seed bank and in the growingtrialsofthevarietiesselected.

PRIS2 and the sustainable use ofagriculturalgeneticresourcesOneof thefirststepstowardssustainableuseofplant genetic resourcesis to deviseadequatestrategiesfororientinginitiativesat national level. PRIS2 responds top r e c i s e l y t h i s n e e d , o u t l i n i n grecommendations, future activities andpointing out key points for fittingagricultural biodiversity conservation intotheItalian agriculturalsystem inparticularinto the areas of organic farming andtypicallocalproduce.The work carried out by PRIS2 inresearching and organising thedata isthestartingpointforincreasingtheuseoflocalandlocallyadaptedvarietiesasprovidedbyArticle6.2(e)oftheInternationalTreatyonPlant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture (ITPGRFA). Indeed, the legaltools that discipline the marketing of thevarieties always call for knowledge aboutand characterisation of the geneticmaterial.This isfound,forexample, inthe


37

1%17%

10%

24%

48%

Grap1‐Varietiesinthenationalcatalogue

Cereals LeguminousFodderleguminous VegetablesOthers

1Popularname 9Descriptorsused

2Scientificname 10Inscriptioninaregionalregister

3Localnameoftheaccession 11Publicbodywhomaintainthevariety

4AccessionPRIS2Code 12Descriptionoftheinstitution

5Accesionmaintenercode 13Conservation(exsitu,insitu,onfarm)

6SeedAvailability(exchange,research) 14Regionoforigin

7Typeofresearchundertaken 15References

8Listofdescriptors 16Link(wheretherearepublishedinformationsonthevariety)

Tab.1:Thedatasetforthecatalogue.

Italian regional laws as well as in theEuropeannormson conservationvarietieswhe re i den t i f y i ng the va r i e t y i sindispensable. As stated by Falcinelli andLorenzetti (2008), all localvarietiescanbelisted in the registers or catalogues ofconservation varieties, therefore theinventoryofthelocalvarietiespreparedbyPRIS2 is an important step forwardtowards actually proceeding to conservethem. Here, though, the problem arises:which descriptors are to be used todescribe the local variety? “What wasachieved within the PRIS2 programmeleadsusto think that evenusingUPOVorCommunityPlantVarietyOfficedescriptors,theiractualnumbershouldfalldramaticallyresorting only to those by which localvarieties can be distinguished from eachanother making use of the farmers’knowledge. They, indeed, should be theclosestadvisorsregardingthespeciestheyarefamiliarwith”(FalcinelliandLorenzetti,2008). Inthisrespect,PRIS2canbelinkedto Art6 of theITPGRFA,as it encouragesthe creation of a more flexible legislatives y s tem fo r r eg i s te r i ng va r i e t i e s .Furthermore, and wishing to highlight the

importance of getting farmers’ activeparticipation, not only in agriculturalbiodiversity conservation but also inresearchandexperimentationsuchastookplace in the specific wheat project inToscana, the PRIS2 paves the way foraffirminga participativeresearchmodelasindicatedinArt6(c).

ConclusionsThe accomplishments of PRIS2 onagricultural biodiversity are an importantstep forward towards full application ofthe Treaty in Italy. In addition to theconceptembodiedinArticle6 theyarethebasisonwhich tobuild the future sharingof plant genetic resources within themultilateralsystem.Theproposednationalcatalogue is very interesting in this sensesincenot only has it identified theex situcollections of the research institutes butalso themany varietiesheld forwhateverreasonsby theactorsofthe variedworldo f agrob iod ivers i ty conservat ion .Furthermore the information that thedatabasewillprovideonhowtheresourceis conserved (ex situ,in situ, on farm)andtheextent towhichtheseed isavailableiscentralised information all part of the


38

0

100

200

300

400Abruz

zo

Basilicata

Calabria

Campa

nia

EmiliaR

omag

na

FriuliVe

neziaGiulia

Lazio

Ligu

ria

Lomba

rdia

March

e

Molise

Piem

onte

Puglia

Sardeg

na

Sicilia

Toscan

a

Tren

tino

Alto

Adige

Umbria

Valle

d'Aos

ta

Vene

to

Tab.1‐VarietiesintheNationalCataloguelistedbyRegionsandcategories

Cereals Leguminous Fodderleguminous Vegetables Others

facilitatedaccesstothematerial.Updatingthe catalogue and making it ful lyoperationalisnowtheresponsibilityoftheNational Plan on Agricultural Biodiversitywhich is also responsible for tacklingpracticalissuesofaccessingit.At national level PRIS2 acknowledges theneed to implement existing legislation onconservation varieties so as to set themarketingof these seedswithin a clearerlegal framework. Here, the responsibilityfallson theMiPAAFwhowillhavetoalignnational legislation by the end of 2009(Law46of2007establishingthecatalogueof conservation varieties and the relativeministerial decree of June 2008 definingterms and procedures) with the recentcommunitydirective(62/2008).Notealso the importance of the link thatPRIS2 establishes between local varietiesandorganicfarmingnotonlyinasregardsconservation but also asa way of gettingthemtobearegularpartoffarming

BibliographyBocci R., 2009. Seed legislation and

agrobiodivers ity : conservat ionvarieties, Journal of Agriculture andEnvironment for InternationalDevelopment,vol.103,N.1‐2.

Concezzi L., Gramaccia M., Mauceri S.,2008. Realizzazione di un CatalogoNazionaledelleVArietàLocali,inReteInterregionaleper laRicerca Agraria,Forestale, acquacoltura e pesca,Azioni di innovazione e ricerca asupporto del piano nazionalesementiero‐PRIS2,Promovideo.

FalcinelliM.,Lorenzetti S.,2008.Levarietàlocali presenti in Italia e la lorosalvaguardia per la difesa dellabiodiversità nazionale, in ReteInterregionaleper laRicerca Agraria,Forestale, acquacoltura e pesca,Azioni di innovazione e ricerca a

supporto del piano nazionalesementiero‐PRIS2,Promovideo.

Rete Interregionale per la Ricerca Agraria,Forestale, Acquacoltura e Pesca,2008.Azionidiinnovazioneericercaasupporto de l p iano naz iona lesementiero‐Pris2,Promovideo.

Jucci C., 1950. Ricerche citogenetiche efisiogenetiche, Genetica Iberica, 2,267‐276.

Vecchio V., Manzelli M., Ghiselli L.,Benedettelli S., 2008. Recupero evalorizzazione di germoplasma dip a t a t a e f r umen to , i n R e t eInterregionaleper laRicerca Agraria,Forestale, acquacoltura e pesca,Azioni di innovazione e ricerca asupporto del piano nazionalesementiero‐PRIS2,Promovideo.


39

Incentives for agrobiodiversity: theimplementationof Rural DevelopmentPlans1

LorenzoMelozzi

"Yosoy yo ymi circunstancia y sinolasalvoaellanomesalvoyo".J o s é O r t e g a y G a s s e t ,Meditacionesdel‘Quijote’,I:322.

IntroductionBiological diversity is one of the mostimportant and weighty values andresources w i th in the concept o fsustainable development, a cornerstoneimplementedbytheEuropeanUnion inallpolicies. The EU was one of the mainplayersinnegotiationsontheInternationalTreatyonPlantGeneticResourcesforFoodand Agriculture (ITPGRFA), often bridgingt h e g a p b e t w e e n o t h e r O E C D(Organisation for Economic Cooperationand Deve lopment ) count r ies anddeveloping nations. Furthermore, insigning theTreaty inMarch 2004, the EUbecame a contractual party to it and hasthesameresponsibilitiesasMemberStatesforimplementingit.The main tool by which Member Statesimplement their policies for agricultural

development is the so‐called RuralDevelopment Plan (RDP)2,oneof thetwopillars on which the Common AgriculturalPolicy (CAP)3 rests.RDPs are thetoolsbywhichtheEUputs itspoliciesintopracticeand seekstoorient theoperatorsinvolvedbymeansofeconomicincentives.RDPs provide two kinds of incentive forconservation of agricultural biodiversity,namely direct and indirect. The formertakes the shape of payments made tofarmers for growing or raising a specificbreed or variety at risk ofgenetic erosion(measure 214 in theAxis2). The latter areindemnities to encourage a farmingapproach that is more respectful of theenvironmentandlessintensiveandwhich,general ly speaking, makes use ofagriculturalbiodiversity.

TheRDPsinItalyResponsibility for planning and runningRDPsin Italy lieswiththeRegionswhile inother European countries it isnational orhybrid–sharedbetweenStateandRegion.Forthisreason,RDPswerepresentedby21local governments with responsibility foragricultural policies at local level. Thisdecentralisation, which in certain casesextends to sub‐regional level with the

Incentivesforagriculturalbiodiversity:theroleofRuralDevelopmentPlans

40

1Thisarticle isanexcerptfromMelozziL.,IncentivesforagrobiodiversitywithintheEuropeanUnion:the role of Rural Development Plans, Journal of Agriculture and Environment for InternationalDevelopment,vol.102.N.1‐2.2 Rural DevelopmentPlansare themeansbywhichCommunitypoliciesforrural developmentareputintopracticeatlocal level.ThetooloftheRDPwasintroducedbyRegulationCE1257/99,andisaplanning documentdrawn upbytheRegionalgovernments.ThePlansareorganisedalong axesofprioritisedintervention;onfinalisationtheyaresenttotheCommission andpromulgatedbymeansofaDecision.Ruraldevelopmentisthedevelopmentof ruralareasdefinedbytheOECDashavingapopulationdensitynotexceeding150inhabitantsperKm².3 TheCommonAgriculturalPolicy(CAP)isoneofthecompetencessharedbetween theEUanditsMemberStates.Setupbyarticle 33 of theEUconstituting treaty,itsscope is toensureEuropeanconsumersreasonableprices, afairremunerationtofarmers,aboveallbyacommonorganisationofagriculturalmarketsandconformitywiththeprinciplesenshrinedbythe1958Conferenceof Stresaconcerninguniformityofprices,financialsolidarityandEUpreference.Atpresent,allMemberStatescontributeapercentageoftheirGDPtotheannualEUbudgetaspartoftheso‐calledownresources.ApproximatelyhalfofthisfiguresgoestofinancetheCAP.

ProvincespreparingthelocalDevelopmentPlans,hasallowedeachregion,intheoryatleast, to tailor theRDPs to better fit theirown territorial specificities. Decentralisingagriculturalpoliciesplaysa very importantro le i n sa feguard ing ag r i cu l tu ra lbiodiversity aswe shall see. Furthermore,an analysis of this expenditure ish i g h l y s i g n i fi c a n t b e c a u s eresponsibility for implementing theTreaty in Italy lieswith theRegions.Consequently, if their investment inthe RDP is different, the extent towhich they achieve the objectives of theTreatywillbe(Bertacchini,2009).RDPscantherefore be seen as additional financialtools provided by the CAP to facilitateimplementationoftheTreaty.The overall resources that the Regionshavefreedupforthewhole2007‐13periodamountto16,726millioneuroswhichcomefrom the European Fund for RegionalDevelopment (EFRD) and national andregionalco‐funding.Graph1 comparesthedifference in theamountsallocated in theRegions for each single axis expressed aspercentages. Those from the north, with

better organised agriculture, investedmore in axis 2 (Italianaverage42%),whilethe Regions of Italy where agriculture ismoremarginalbut rich in agri‐biodiversityordertousetheirresourcesforaxis1.

An analysis of the expenditure of Axis 2,showsthat inmostRegions(11outof16),

theresourcesareconcentrated inmeasure214 on the total public expenditure.Expenditure allocated to agri‐environmentissuesrangefrom32%oftheAutonomousProvinceofBolzanoto7%inLiguria (Graph2).Notethatmostoftheseresourceswereincentivestoorganicfarmingandsocanbeconsidered as an indirect incentive toconservingagriculturalbiodiversity.

More in detail , aid earmarked forsafeguardingagrobiodiversitycontemplate

twospecificaspects:

1.Rais ing breeds of localimportance at risk of geneticerosion;

2.Cultivationandmultiplicationof local varieties at risk ofgeneticerosion.Ascanalsobeseenfromtable4, 19 Regions/AutonomousProvinces (excluding Abruzzoand Molise) embarked on atleastoneofthetwo initiativeswhich reflects the degree ofinterest shown by the singleregions for these forms ofsupport. No fewer than 17Regions tendered bids forr a i s i n g b r e e d s o fautochthonous l ivestock


41

Graph1–Overallpublicexpenditureperaxis.Source: data processed by this author based on the “RuralDevelopmentPlans2007‐2013”oftheRegions

Tab. 1: The number of agri‐environmentalmeasuresinItaly(Source:Fugaro,2008).

%Axis2ofthetotalRDP

%Measure214ofaxis2

%Measure214ofthetotalRDP

Publicexpenditure

42 52 22

whileonly13includedspecificinitiativesforgrowing plant genetic resources. Only 11Regionscontemplatedinitiativesforboth.Aidwasgiventothefollowingsubjects:1. Individual or associated breeders and

farmerswho commit themselvesto insitu raising the pure bred animals forwhich aid is given, or maintain, orincrease the consistency of the localbreeds registered. The amount of aidranges from a minimum of 80 to amaximum of 500 €/LU (LivestockUnit)4, depending on species andbreed.

2. Individual or associated farmers whocommitthemselvesfora periodofnotless than 5 years to grow, conserve,reproduceor increase theconsistencyofplantgeneticresources(specified inthe RDP or for varieties listed in theappropriate registers, or in voluntaryregional registers, see Annex) whichareatriskofgeneticerosionintheareaoforigin.

3. Public research bodies and botanicgardens for the upkeep,management

andupdateofregionalRepertoires(forthe regions who possess them).Initiatives can include managing,putting into practice and monitoringthe regional seed bank and the list ofsteward farmers; providing training,technical assistance ad teachingservices, supervising the conservationand security network and verificationofitsstateoffunctionality;carryingoutlocal conservation and enhancementprojectsandre‐introductionofvarietiesof local origin back into the territory;teaching, dissemination and traininginitiatives on the web. Here, theamountofaidis100%ofexpenditure.

Obviously,thevarietyorbreedeligibleforaidmustbelistedin theregionalregisters.This is where the work by the regions,which have specific laws for protectingautochthonous genet ic resources ,encounters the Regional DevelopmentPlans. The regional repertoires, preparedpursuant to regional laws, are the lists ofthevarietiesand breedsonwhich thereistherighttoapremium(Bertacchini,2009).

Theresultisperfectharmony betweena tool for regionalp lann ing and aEuropean Unionfi n a n c i a l o n e .S h o u l d t h e s er e p e r t o i r e s b eunavai lable, theregions resort tow h a t p u b l i cresearch centreshave produced ont h e i s s u e


42

4 Livestock Unit (LU):Bulls, cows andotherbovinesolderthan 2years (1LU), adultbovine agedbetween6monthsand2years(0.6LU),sheep(0.15LU),goats(0.15LU).

Graph2–Overallregionalexpenditureformeasure214onthetotalpublicexpenditureSource:Mipaafdataprocessedbythisauthorbasedonthe“RuralDevelopmentPlans2007‐2013”.

concerned. All RDPs contain a list of thespecies for animal resources which mayapplyforpremiums.17breedsofhorse,26ofbovines,42ofsheep,27 ofgoats, 6pigand 6 asinine (Fugaro, 2008). It is morecomplicated to develop a combinedscenario of plant genetic resourcesbecauseof thegreatmanyvarieties listedintheregionalregisters(seeAnnex).

Notethatcertainregions(Basilicata,EmiliaRomagna, Liguria, Puglia, Umbria, andVeneto)havebroadenedtheareaofsimpledirect aid for conserving agriculturalbiodiversity by including “supplementedterritorial plans” among projects forfunding. Emilia Romagna was the firstregion to begin moving in this directionseekingahigherprofile inthedynamicsofruraldevelopment, a strengtheningofthei d en t i t y o f r u r a l t e r r i t o r i e s , a nenhancement of their endogenousresources, and the creation of a moredirect link between public bodiesand thesub ject who attends to resourceconservation. More in detail, these plansprovideforspecificinitiativesforinsituandex situ conservation, typifying, collectingandmaking useofautochthonousgeneticresources of interest to agriculture, buta l s o , a n d e s p e c i a l l y , a g r e e d ‐ o nsupplementary initiatives from promotingthe culture of rural communities toproviding information and disseminationa b o u t e v e r y t h i n g r e l a t e d t oagrobiodiversity. Those carrying itoutcanalso be organisations of civil society. Theaimof theprojectsis to encourageformaland informal institutions to becomeinvolved inconserving biodiversity so thattheconditionswill arisefortheheritagetobecome a real resource. This can takeplace, for example, by creating newmarketsorrevitalisinglocalcircuits,settingup local cooperative ventures or otherforms of associationism as a support forlocal producers, training teachers and

farmers “combining” local breeds andvarieties into forms of sustainableagriculturesuchasorganic farming usingthefactorofqualityasatoolforenhancinglocalcrops.

Furthermore,someregionsappointedtwospecificfigures to benefit from initiatives,namelythestewardfarmer(Sicilia,Veneto)and the steward breeder (Veneto). Theseare farmers and breeders who carry outfarming within the regional territory andact as custodians of biodiversity by usingandconservinglocalgeneticresources.Notto be forgotten is theLeader axis,by

virtue, also, of the positive reactionforthcoming from the previous plans2000‐2006.ThepurposeoftheLeaderwasto s t rengthen the l inks betweenagricultural policies and social andeconomic interests through a process oflocal governance, and by encouraging


43

Tab. 2 –Measures in support of plantvarietiesand/oranimalbreedsSource: data processedbythis authorbasedonthe Mipaaf data: “Rural Development Plans2 0 0 7 ‐ 2 0 1 3 ” o f t h e R e g i o n swww.politicheagricole.it

http://www.politicheagricole.it

http://www.politicheagricole.it

synergies between divergent areas and anetwork of relationships able to promotenewopportunitiesfor farmers, thepublic,local craftsmen and the territory. Theresults have contributed directly, butespecially indirectly, to developinginitiatives for safeguarding animal andplant biodiversity. Indeed, by enhancingtypical local producethrough involvementofthewholecommunity,therehasbeenanoverall, integrated improvement of localresourceswhich included theplantand/oranimalbiologicaldiversitybeingprotectedand enhanced. In Italy,theLeaderprojecthas been widely used to ascertain localvarietiesand breedsstill being keptupbyfarmers. The surveyswere carried out bylocalauthorities in closecooperationwithpublic research centres. These provedessential for mapping the agriculturaldiversity in the field. Just how importanttheLeaderaxisis inrevitalising ruralareascan be seen in the case of the Cerereproject in theGranSasso andMonti dellaLaga national park in the Abruzzo region(see Bocci in this issue). Despite the RDPnotprovidingspecificinitiativesinmeasure214 for the protection of agriculturalbiodiversity, theCerere project which wasalso funded by Leader, enabled a localsurvey tobecarried out and a network ofstewardfarmerstobesetuptogetherwiththe accompanying incentives (AgroBiodiversità,2008).On e x am i n i n g t h e 2 0 0 7 ‐ 1 3 p l a nimplemented by the regions, the firstthought that comes to mind is that localgovernment is always interested inincentives of this kind. Agri‐environmentpayments under regulation 2078 of 1992including specific measures for thosewishingto cultivateancient plantvarietiesorbreedsofanimalonlybeganin1997andonly in 4 Regions, namely Friuli, Toscana,the Province of Bolzano and Umbria. Inactual fact, Toscana had the lion’s share

with 127 applications and 500 thousandeurosexpenditureand was the Region inItaly that invested most in conservingautochthonous genetic resources. EvenSpelt from Garfagnana and the Zolfinobean which were initially included inregional lists because of their risk oferosion were subsequently removedbecause the danger no longer exists. Itmust be said, however, that the merit ofthissuccessdidnotlieintheCAPaloneorin the direct aid but was also due to therebirthofanichemarketforthem(Marino,2001). The fact that today almost everyRegiontendersbidsforaidforactivitiesofthis kind shows a renewal of interest andpointsto therolethattheseresourcecanplayinruraldevelopment.Theeffectivenessofthesemeasuresisalsostriking.Asstatedaboveandconfirmedbyseveral analyses on the ground, theinstancesof direct aidbeinga realdrivingforce in conserving agricultural geneticresourceswerewhen they werepartofabroader context that includedmany localactors. This is borne out by the studyconductedbyProf.Riccardo FortinaoftheDepartment of Animal Husbandry of theUniversity of Tur in on the “MoraRomagnola” (a breed of pig fromRomagna) and the “Sempione” (a goatf r o m P i e m o n t e ) , g e n e t i c a l l yautochthonous breeds which were indangerofextinction,andwhichwerebothsaved through initiatives funded by theEmilia Romagna and Piemonte Regionsrespectively (within thesupportmeasuresprovided for by the RDPs). While the“Mora Romagnola” populationhasgrownfrom the 10 heads in 1997 to today’s600thanks to a joint effort on the part ofinstitutions (Region, university, researchcentre), breeders, transformers andagritourism,theoutcomeoftheSempionegoat project hasbeen lesssuccessful.Thepopulationof30hasnotchangedoverthe


44

last25yearsandthemaincausesincludealack of synergy between the institutionsand breeders,the latterbeingunawareofor not knowing how to apply the propermeans of safeguarding the breed.Especially, though, differently from theMora Romagnola, there lacked a focusedaim of safeguarding the breed which inaddition toconservingthegermplasmsawthis breed playing an economic orenvironmental part present or future orhavinganhistoricorculturalworth5.

RDPsinrelationtoArticle6oftheTreatyThe CAP and RDPs in particular are themost important tools by which theEuropean Union pursues the objectiveswithinagriculture’snewroleinsociety.Thesustainableuseofgenetic resourcesisoneof thenew prioritiesasstated also in theEuropean Action Plan for AgriculturalBiodiversity.The recent IntermediateEvaluation of Implementation of theCommunity Action Plan on Biodiversity isexplicit; in the chapter on biodiversity inthe countryside it suggests making otherfundingavailableforruraldevelopmentforsafeguarding biodiversity by shiftingresourcesfromthefirsttothesecondpillaroftheCAP(EuropeanCommission,2008).Inpointof fact,measure214oftheRDP isperfectly inlinewithArticle6(2)(a)oftheTreaty where themeasures favouring thesustainable use of genetic resourcesinclude proper agricultural policies thatp r omo t e t h e d e v e l o pm e n t a n dmaintenance of diversified farmingsystems. Contributions to encourageconversion to integrated agriculture, andevenmore to organic agriculture are alsoclearly moving in this direction. Note thatthisclauseoftheTreatygoeswellbeyond

the conservation of single geneticresourcesbutviewstheagriculturalsystemfromaholistic,eco‐systemicapproachthatalso includes natural diversity. This, then,places the other initiatives provided bymeasure214into theirproperperspective;despite no longer being specifically insupport of an agricultural model thatmake s mo re u s e o f a g r i c u l t u r a lbiodiversity,theystill promotelandusebygrass cover, conversion of arable land tograsslandandenvironmentalimprovementandlandscapeconservation.The initiatives of measure 214 specificallyforprotectinglocalvarietiesandbreedsatriskofgeneticerosionappearasanotherofthemeasures indicated in Article 6.Here,the relevant clauses are (2) (e) onpromoting the use of local varieties andvarieties adapted to local conditions and(2) (f) on the in‐farm management andconservationofgeneticresources. Indeed,the Italian system shows how the list ofvarieties and breeds accepted forcontributionswithinRDPs includea seriesof local genetic resources which are theresult of localised adaptation to differentsurroundings and cultures. Providingincentives for the conservation of thesevarieties is the primary objectives thatRegionshavesetthemselves.ThislinkbetweenspecificmeasuresoftheRDPs and the Treaty is confirmed by thework of researchandenhancementbegunbytheRegionswhichisalsofundedbythesame measures. Indeed, in a widerperspective, in pursuing the objective ofsustainability in agricultural biodiversity,the Treaty recognises the importance ofthe contractual part ies act ivat ingprogrammes of conservation, research,development and enhancement. That


45

5 Thanks toDr. F. Perri of the Development service of the agriculture and foodsystem of theDepartment of Agriculture of the Emilia Romagna Region and also to Prof. R. Fortina of theDepartmentof Animal Husbandryof theUniversityofTurin –RARE,AssociationofAutochthonousBreedsatRiskofExtinctionforgivingusefulcommentsandinformation.

everyRegioninItalyhasenvisagedfundingfor these initiatives for research centresand botanicalgardens,or that somehaveincluded“integratedterritorial projects”intheirinitiativestobefinancedisaclearsignoftherolethat ruraldevelopmentpoliciescan play in implementing the Treaty, andbecome increasingly important territorialasopposedtosectorialtools.

ConclusionsThese last ten years have seen aheightenedawarenessboth inEuropeandin Italyofruraldevelopmentissues.Withinthisprocessthefarmerhastakenonanewrole in society, not merely a producer offood products but also of services, andespecially of the conservation andsustainableuseofbiodiversity.In many cases, however, agriculturalbiodiversity is still seen as a side issue ofagricultural and production policies inwhichagricultureshouldfirstly bebroughtup to date and then some thought beturned to environmental issues. Thisinterpretation of direct forms of aid forconservation carries the risk of theeffectiveness being closely linked to theduration of the inventive received. Toachievethedesiredresults,bycontrast,theaid=conservationofbiodiversityequationneeds to be included inwell‐defined localstrategies and policies which take otherfactorsintoconsideration.

It isassuredlynoteasy toidentify thebestmeans for safeguarding and enhancingbiodiversity,butidentifyingitasaresourceis assuredly a major step at institutionallevel (Cannata and Marino, 2000). Localvarieties and breeds should be seen as aresourceforfarmerstomakedirectuseof(Cleveland, 1994),providing incentives fortheir cultivation and use more than forconservation and linking their produce tothe territory. This in turn highlights therelationshipbetweenlocalcultureandlocalvarieties and breeds synthesised in

traditional foodstuffs rediscovered andenhanced.

Aswehave pointedout, in a country likeItaly, enhancement of biodiversityunderpinsmanyruraldevelopmentpoliciesin which agricultural productionmaintainsits link with theterritory andits cultureoforigin, giving them worth (Negri andVeronesi,2000).

BibliographyAgro Biodiversità, 2008. La rete degli

agr ico l tor i custodi de l ParcoNazionale del Gran Sasso de Montidella Laga, Gruppo TipograficoEditoriali.L’Aquila.

BertacchiniE.,2009.RegionalLegislationinItaly for the protection of localvarieties, JournalofAgricultureandEnvironment for InternationalDevelopment,vol.103,N.1‐2.

Brouwer F., 2005. Sustaining Agricultureand the Ru ra l Env i ronment ,G o v e r n a n c e , P o l i c y a n dMultifunctionality, Edited by FloorBrouwer,LEI,TheNetherlands.

CannataG.,MarinoD.,2000.Labiodiversitàquale risorsa per lo sviluppo ruraleendogeno, in Bevilacqua p., CoronaG. (eds.), Ambiente e risorse nelMezzogiorno contemporaneo,DonzelliEditore,Rome.

Cleveland D.A.,Soleri D.,Smith E.S., 1994,Do folk crop varieties have a role insustainable agriculture?, BioScience,Vol.44,No.11.

C.OhlC.,DrechslerM.,JohstK.,WätzoldF.,2008. Compensation payments forh a b i t a t h e t e r o g e n e i t y :Existence,efficiency, and fairnessc o n s i d e r a t i o n s . E c o l o g i c a lEconomicsN°67.

Dalla Ragione I., Porfiri O., Silveri D.,Torricelli R., Veronesi F., 2007. Lerisorse genetiche autoctone della


46

regione Abruzzo: un patrimonio davalorizzare,ARSSA.

European Commission, 2001. Biodiversityaction plan for agriculture, March2001.

Fugaro A., 2008. La nuova politica disviluppo rurale 2007‐2013 ‐ Unapolitica per l'agricoltura,unapoliticaperilterritorio,Roma.

Kettunen M., 2008. The EU budget andbiodiversity, Institute for EuropeanEnvironmentalPolicy.

MarinoD.,2001.Lepolitichee lestrategie alivello internazionale e nazionale perla salvaguardia e la valorizzazioned e l l a b i o d i v e r s i t à , c o l l a n a“Biodiversità”Universitàdegli StudidelMolise.

Negri V., Veronesi F., 2000. Gli agricoltoric reator i e conservator i de l labiodiversità: rapporti tra colture eculturelocali.

Rete Rura le Naz iona le 2007‐2013 :Programmazione di sviluppo rurale2 0 0 7 ‐ 2 0 1 3 R i c o g n i z i o n e :Conse rvaz ione de l l e r i so r segene t i c he ne l l a m i s u r a 2 1 4pagamenti agroambientali, luglio2008Roma.

Sotte F., Ripanti R., 2008. I Psr 2007‐2013delle Regioni italiane Una letturaquali‐quantitativa, workingpapern°6,Roma.

SitesofreferenceRural Agriculture and Development ‐EUROPAh t t p : / / e c . e u r o p a . e u / a g r i c u l t u r e /index_it.htmBioversityInternational

http://www.bioversityinternational.org/Food and AgricultureOrganization of theUnitedNations

http://www.fao.org/

Institute for European EnvironmentalPolicy

http://www.ieep.eu/index.phpMinistry for the Environment and theProtectionoftheTerritoryandtheSea

http://www.minambiente.it/MinistryofAgriculture,FoodandForestryh t t p : / / www . p o l i t i c h e a g r i c o l e . i t /default.html


47

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_it.htm




http://www.bioversityinternational.org

http://www.bioversityinternational.org

http://www.fao.org

http://www.fao.org

http://www.ieep.eu/index.php

http://www.ieep.eu/index.php

http://www.minambiente.it

http://www.minambiente.it

http://www.politicheagricole.it/default.html




White Sperlonga Celery– a new localvariety1

RiccardoBocci“Tradition is the expression ofcontinuity in time not theconservation of the past – itsmeaning is theopportunity ofinnovationincontinuity”

(Angelini,2008)

IntroductionWhite Sperlonga Celery is a local varietygrown in the Province of Latina in theRegion of Lazio, oneof theareasof Italywitha vocation for vegetablegrowing.Itsstory, and the recent research that theRegional Body for Development andInnovation (ARSIAL) carried out on thisvariety are important for understandingtheconnection betweena variety and theareaitisgrowninandhowthisrelationshipisnotunchangeablebutevolvesovertime.Indeed this celery today is an authenticlocal variety2, despite being completelyabsentfromfarmers’fieldsinthelate’50s.Conservation and selection of SperlongaCelery by farmersbegan with the marketinterestthatthevarietyhadandcontinuestohavethankstoitsspecialtasteandsmellproperties.In2003,producerswhogrew itlaunched, with the help of ARSIAL, theprocedure for recognising it at Europeanlevel as an PGI product (ProtectedG e o g r a p h i c I n d i c a t i o n ) , w h i l econtemporarily the celerywas included inthe regional register of the localvarietiesofLazio.All thismakesitanexcellentcasestudy to verify the correspondence

between geographical indication andprotection of agriobiodiversity within theperspective of sustainable use of geneticresources over time. Moreover, ARSIALstudiesonthephenotypiccharacterisationoftheceleryandontheseedsystemwhichlieatthebasisof itscultivation,enableusto understand how the informal seedsystem works in an industrialised countryandtheimportanceitcanhave.Weusetheterm “informal”becausetheWhiteCeleryis not registered in the Catalogue ofVarieties of Vegetable Species and so,according to seed regulations, its seedshouldnotbemarketed.

HowthevarietydevelopedWhiteSperlonga Celery (Apium graveolensL.)haswhiteorwhitishstalkswhichareitsqualifying characteristic. It is of averagesize and compact shape with 10‐15 lightgreen leaves. Itsflavourissweet and onlyslightly aromatic which makes it highlysuitable to be eaten fresh (Paoletti et al.,2005).It was introduced to thearea in the early’60s by a farmer who transplanted somewhiteceleryinhisfieldthathehadboughtin themarket in Rome, theseed ofwhichreproduced itself year after year. In theplain ofSperlonga and Fondi,not farfromthe sea, the variety foundearthmarkedlytypicalofanalmostsurface‐levelandhighlysalinewatertable–theso‐called"Pantani"– a condition that gives it its presentpropertiesofsmellandtaste.However,thevariety was beset by the problem of theearlyemissionofthefloweringstem.Inthemid ’60sthatsamefarmer importedsome

WhiteSperlongaCelery–anewlocalvariety

48

1MythankstothestaffofARSIALwhogavemeaccesstotheiarchivesandgavemeoftheirtimeforin‐depthtalksonthetopic,inparticularMiriaCatta,PierfrancescoNardiandImmaBarbagiovanni.2 Threefactorsenable theWhiteCelerytobesodefined–selectionon thepartof thefarmers,thebroad genetic variability and being known and kept up by a local community (Falcinelli andLorenzetti,2008).

seedsoftheDoratod’Astivarietythathadmoreresistancetothisproblem,andbegantogrow italongsidethevarietyintroducedsome years earlier3. The introgression ofthis new property into the white celerypopulation spread it much more widelythroughout the area. Historic documentsfrom 1914 mention several farmers in theplain of the river Tanaro in Piemontegrowing golden celery indicating that theAsti golden celery had been grownsuccessfully since the early 20th Century.Today, the Dorato d’Asti variety isregistered in the National Catalogue ofVegetables.

The selection made by farmers since the’60shascreatedalocalvariety–theWhiteSperlongaCelery – grown todayonsome40‐50 hectares in the plain compared tothe 90‐100 hectares given over tocommercialvarietieslikeGoldenBoy.Thereare some sixty farmers involved in twocooperatives (La Flacca4 and San Leo)throughwhomtheproduct ismarketed inItaly and also abroad in Belgium andGermany.Thefarmsaresmalltomedium–between1to3hectares–andbyand largethecelery isgrownprotectedandfarmingis intensive. Sowing the White Celery isstaggered from end November till endJanuarysoastobeharvestedbetweenendAprilandendJuly.

SeedproductionPreliminaryresearchonthegroundcarriedout by ARSIAL with the support of theNational Elected Seed Body (ENSE)identifiedfivepopulationsbelongingtotheWhite Celery type which are maintainedand reproduced each year by the samenumber of farmers. One farmer has a

nurseryanddistributestheceleryseedlingsto the other farmers of the area fortransplanting.Thereareanestimatedsixtyfarmers involved in this seed supplymechanism (fig. 1). Note that the firstexperiments carried out comparing the 5populations with certain commercialvarietiesindicateda vastgeneticvariabilityboth between populations and withinsinglepopulations.Indeed,thisagreeswiththeWhiteCeleryseed systemwith in‐farmseed reproduction being entrusted to agroup of local farmers and is one of thereasonswhy thisvarietycanbedefined aslocal.

Theexperimentalwork carried out jointlyby ARSIAL and ENSE was aimed at firstlyidentifying the variants to define theirproperties, to describe the variabilitypresent and arrive at identify appropriatedescriptors.Reproducing theWhiteCelery seed is noteasy and is done with great care by a


49

3Thestudyofthevariety’shistorywascarriedoutbyARSIALthroughinterviewswithfarmersandbyanalysingthefarms’taxationdocuments.4 Today,30years afterits establishment,theFlacca cooperativecounts70farms of theSperlongaFondi plain who till approximately 100 hectares under glass with an average yearly marketedproductionofsome110thousandquintalsandaproductioncapacityof150thousandquintals.

TheWhiteSperlongaCelery.

limitednumberoffarmers.Interviewswiththemrevealed that notonly do theycarryout the phenotypic selection of the seed‐bearing plant (i.e. obtain seed from thebestplants),plantedinspeciallyprotectedhidden places, isolated to preventcontamination from nearby celery plants,but they also follow traditional practices,suchas,forexamplesowingathightide.

The farmers conserve the seeds jealouslyand distribute them in following certaincustomary rulesand practices. Indeed theresearcherwhowasconducting thestudyhad toovercometheinitial mistrustofthefarmerstounderstandhowtheseedswerecirculated and left to carry out theexperimental trials with only 30‐40 seedsgivento himbya farmeronlyafterhehadgainedhistrust.

BetweenConservationandValorizationIn 2003, theWhite Celery was included inthe Regional Voluntary Register (RVR) ofthe autochthonous genetic resources atriskoferosionasprovidedbyRegional LawN° 15 (Bertacchini, 2009), and that sameyear the procedure was begun to obtainrecognition of the status of ProtectedGeographical Indication (PGI) from theEuropean Union. The documentation was

sent in 2005 to the E.U. and in 2008 TheMinistryofAgriculture, Foodand Forestry(MiPAAF) granted nation‐wide transitoryprotectionforthedenominationof“WhiteSperlonga Celery” pending European PGIregistration.Thechoiceof PGIasameansof protection instead of PDO (ProtectedDesignation of Origin) stems from theAgency’s view thatPDO ismoresuited toprocessed products as opposed to fresh

vegetable produce.I n f a c t t h eregulations devisedfortheWhiteCeleryr e q u i r e s a l lproduction phasesto be completedwithin the territoryhenceitcouldeasilyh a v e b e e nconsidered a PDOto all intents andpurposes5.Inclusion in the

RVR, and PGi recognition are presentlyunderway at the same time and werei m p l e m e n t e d b y t w o s e p a r a t edepartments of ARSIAL, and it isinterest ing to note the points ofconvergence and criticality. Indeed, while


50

5TheideaofPDOistoprotectauniqueproductwhichisnon‐reproducibleelsewherewhereasPGIisbasedonthereputationoftheproductanddoesnotimplythatthe rawmaterialsnecessarilycomefromthespecificareathatthePGIrefersto.ForadiscussionontheimplicationsofPDOandPGIseeBérardandMarchenay(2004).

population 1

farmer

productionpopulation 2

population 3

population 4

popoluation 5 nursery50-60

farmers

farmerphenotypic selection

ThelogoofthePGI.

Fig.1‐TheSeedsupplysystemoftheWhiteCelery

RVR inclusion – the former – has theobjectiveofconservinga geneticresource,the latter has a more commercialsignificance and aims to protect theproductonthemarket bysafeguarding itsname; applying a geographical indicationdoes not always lead directly to theconservationofageneticresource.These two objectivesareassessed on thebasisofthe regulations thatdisciplineanylink between conserving the geneticresource and its commercial exploitation(Bérard andMarchenay, 2008). A delicateequilibrium is beingmaintained forWhiteCelery between the need to adequatelydescribeand typify thevariety for itto beregisteredasPGIagainsttheimportanceofmaintaining the genetic variability of thevariouspopulations. Thedanger lies in anexcessive standardisation of the varietywithadescriptionwhichwouldunifyallthediversitiesunder a single type.This iswhyARSIAL is moving towards using thenumberedintervalsoftheparametersusedto identify White Celery from the otherv a r i e t i e s a n d t h e r e s u l t s o fexperimentation with ENSE, so as toencompass the broadest poss ib levariability of the population. A furthercentral aspect of the regulation of PGIproductionistheoriginandproduction ofthe seed. Indeed it states that the seedsused by the single local farms involved inproductionmust bethose included in theVoluntary Regional Register. This is thedirect link between the norms forconservation of agricultural biodiversityand the enhancement of thenameofthevariety on themarket.Without a detailedindication on this, any attempt atregulation risks protecting only thegeographicalindicationandlosingsight ofthegeneticresourcethatitisbasedon.AsBérard and Marchenay remark “thequestion of plant varieties and seeds ispivotal to vegetable production in

geographical indications and has neverbeen more topical than it is today. Thefollowing points deserve particularattention: the strict identification anddescriptionofvarietaltypes, theirdiversityand local growing methods, the linkbetween the preservation of varietald i v e r s i t y a nd t h e s e l e c t i on a ndmaintenance of varieties, and themu l t ip l i ca t ion and product ion o fseeds”(BérardandMarchenay,2008).TherequirementforinclusionoftheseedintheRVRhasbeen noted by the E.U. whohasaskedfor informationandexplanationsonwhat this register actually is. Aswe havenoted,WhiteCelery isnotinthevegetablecatalogueandasfarastheEuropeanUnionisconcernedtherearenootherregistersorcataloguesforseeds,hencetherequestforclarification. It is, however, true thatmaintaining a certain genetic variability isincompatiblewith the present normsthatregulateseeds.Asweshallseeunder,onepossibility might be opening up withconservationvarieties.

Oneoftheresultsthatemergedfrom thiscase is a painstaking intervention in theterritorytoidentifywhatistoberegulated.The earliest studies carried out towardsrecognisingPGIhadresultedinwritingsonthe proposal to regulate that all farmsshouldreproducetheseedsinfarm.Itwasonly later investigation, carried out tocharacterisethevarietyinorderforittobeincluded in theRVR that brought to lightthe nursery and the complexity of thesystem illustrated in fig. 1. Failing tounderstandhowtheseedisproduced,whoproduces it and how it circulates amongfarmers contributes to erasing all thediversityconstructedlocallywhichisinfactthebasisoftheproduct.AwareofthisthepeopleinARSIALamendedtheregulationsinaccordancewiththeactualsituation.Another interesting aspect of IGP is thecollective dynamicsthatcomeinto play in


51

the territory (Fournier, 2008). Indeed inorder to prepare the documentation, thetwocooperativessetuptheAssociationofSperlonga White Celery Producers whichappears as the party responsible for thevariety in theVoluntaryRegionalRegister.Moreover the Associat ion, or theConsortium itmaydevelop into,mustalsomon i t o r p roduc t i on con t ro l a ndobservanceof the regulationsprovidedbythesystemofgeographicalindication.Lastly,itshouldberememberedthatWhiteCelery has been registered on the list ofvarieties at risk of genetic erosion whichpublic funding can be applied for, for onfarm conservation. This is measure 214 ofthe Lazio Region RuralDevelopment Plan(Melozzi, 2009), the objective ofwhich ist o s t r eng then t he l i n k be tweenc o n s e r v a t i o n , p r o d u c t i o n a n denhancement of agricultural geneticresources, providing direct incentives forfarmers to grow a particular variety. Therisk of genetic erosion of the Celery hasbeen estimated as being medium the riskfactorsbeing thesmallnumberof farmerswho grow it (between 30 and 100) andbecause the variety is not in the nationalcatalogue(ARSIAL,2008).

ConclusionsAs we have pointed out, the sustainableuseof White Celery depends on the twofactors of conservation and promotioninitiated by the farmers supported by thepublicbody.Butwhataretheprospectsforthefuture?Whatinitiativesarepossibleinaseed context like this?Wecan conjecture

certain hypotheses in accordance withrecentdevelopmentsinseedlegislation.

OnepossibilityistoregisterWhiteCeleryintheofficialvegetablecatalogueinordertolegalise the sale of the seed and createasubject responsible for the conservativeselection of the variety. This howeverwouldcausestrong indirect impactonthevariability of the variety. The norms forregistration (distinctness, uniformity andstability)wouldexcludeallbutonevarietaltype from amongthevariouspopulations,which in turn would further reduce thediversity still cultivated by the farmerstoday. This alternative would certainlymake it easier for the product to becertified as PGI and it would also simplifythe system of control but in the end itwould cause a genetic erosion of thevariety...The alternative could be to register thevariety in the Italian Catalogue ofconservation varieties(Bocci, 2009),giventhat the Celery has all the propertiesentitling it to do so: seed cultivation andproduction in a well‐defined area, linkbetween the territory and thevariety andriskofgeneticerosion.NotethatwhileEUDirective 62/2008. on conservationvarieties was only for agricultural plants,Italy established a national catalogue in2008 for varieties of all cultivated speciesto be conserved. Being in this catalogue,furthermore,wouldnotclashwithbeinginthat oftheRVRsaswas thecasewiththepreviousalternative–quite thecontrary itwouldbenecessary inorder toobtainthe


52

conservation variety

PGI

marketing of seeds

marketing of the produce

White celery

Fig.2‐ThelinkbetweenPGIandseedlegislation.

former. In thisway therewould be an adhoc tool for protecting biodiversity – theregional register – with adequate seedregulation that would allow the sale ofreproductive material. The protectionaffordedbyPGIwouldguaranteeachievingthe final aim of the whole systemcombiningconservationanddevelopment.In the lightof this,sustainable useof theWhite Sperlonga Celery – continuation ofitsdiversity–dependsonwhethercertainpolicies and legislation adapt to thesituation, the aim being to foster localinitiativesimplementedby farmersandtheconstruction of rural development basedontheenhancementofaparticulargeneticresource.Thepublicbodyhasanimportantparttoplayespeciallyatlocalleveltoeasethewholeprocedure,whethercarryingoutthe studies needed to understand andcharacterise the variety, or launchingpromotional initiatives or highlighting theneeds and specificity of the territory inordertoliaiseatlocallevelwiththeglobalframework in particular as regards ItalianorEuropeannormsandlegislation.

BibliographyAngeliniM.,2008.Lepatatedellatradizione

rurale sull'Appennino ligure, GraficaPiemme.

ARSIAL, 2008. Relazione sul grado dierosionegeneticadellevarietàlocali.

BérardL.,MarchenayP.,2004.Lesproduitsd e t e r r o i r e n t r e c u l t u r e s e trèglements,CNRSeditions.

Bérard L., Marchenay P., 2008, Fromlocalized products to geographicalindications ‐ awareness and action,Ressourcesdesterroirs,www.ethno‐terroirs.cnrs.fr

Bertacchini E., 2009.Regional legislation inItaly for the protection of localvarieties, Journal of Agriculture andEnvironment for InternationalDevelopment,vol.103,N.1‐2.


Disciplinare di produzione IndicazioneGeografica Protetta “Sedano BiancodiSperlonga”,2008.

FalcinelliM.,Lorenzetti S.,2008.Levarietàlocali presenti in Italia e la lorosalvaguardia per la difesa dellabiodiversità nazionale, in ReteInterregionaleper laRicerca Agraria,Forestale, acquacoltura e pesca,Azioni di innovazione e ricerca asupporto del piano nazionalesementiero‐PRIS2,Promovideo.

Fournier S . , 2008. Les indicat ionsg é o g r a ph i q u e s : u n e v o i e d epérennisation des processus d’actioncollective au sein des Systèmesagroalimentaires localisés?, CahiersAgricultures,vol.17,n.6.

Me lo z z i L . , 2 009 . I n c en t i v e s fo ragrobiodiversitywithin the EuropeanUnion:the role ofRuralDevelopmentPlans, Journal of Agriculture andEnvironment for InternationalDevelopment,vol.103,N.1‐2.

PaolettiF.,RaffoA.,BrancaleoneM.,NardoN., Sinesio F., Moneta E., PeparaioM . , 2 0 0 5 . C a r a t t e r i z z a z i o n eorganolettica del Sedano Bianco diSperlonga,Coltureprotette,n.10.


53

http://www.ethno-terroirs.cnrs.fr




Marano Vicentino a corn variety inVeneto: the importance of beingfamous!1

RiccardoBocci"Steepedinmaizeflourcookedinthecauldron.Themaize from thecountryside by Marano Vicentino[...],a townnortheastofVicenzais of premiumquality. It ismilledinto an excellent flour […] thepolentamadefromitisdelicious".

(Candiago,1962)

IntroductionMaize is not native to Italy, yet it hasknown extensive diversification since itsintroduction here in the far off 16thCentury, resulting in many local varietiesbeinggrowninthecountrysideintheearly20th Century.One of the Regionsof Italywhere this diversification has been mostmarked is Veneto. Indeed when the firstsystematic surveywasconducted there in1946,thereweresome94varietiesgrownofwhichonlytenorsowerehybrids,(Pinoand Bertolini, 2003), catalogued on thebasis of their precocity (Zapparoli, 1937).Thismeant that first harvestmaize couldbe distinguished from that of secondharvest, then further subdivided intoMaggenghi,themostlateanddevelopedtobe sown by May; Agostani, that shouldripenbyAugust,notso tallasMaggenghi,and earlier, with ears with fewer rows;Agostanelli,anearliertypeofAgostani thatthe Marano Vicentino belongs to;Cinquantini , a first harvest variety;Bragantini considered second harvestdespitebeingusedforlatesowing,agroupbetween Spring and Summer corn;Cinquantini and Quarantini, hard toseparateandnormallycalled cinquantini inVeneto and quarantini in Lombardia; and

Spring corn from Central‐South Italygenerallyshort‐cycle varieties and short inheight.However, itwould bemisleading to thinkthat this diversification came about by aprocessofhaphazardselectiononthepartof the farmers of the time. Quite theopposite, as Gazzi wrote the naturalt e n d e n c y o f t h e p l a n t t owa r d shybridization was also helped by the“explicitwishofthefarmertocross‐breedtoobtainmaizewith propertiesthatweredeemed excellent from a subjectives t a n d p o i n t r o o t e d i n c o u n t r yknowledge” (Gazzi, 2003). This tendencytowards“confusion”asascientificanalysisof this system might havedefined it, wasreflected in the names given to thevarieties.“Thesub‐varietiesthatdevelopedweregivennow thenameofoneandnowof the other which made them fairlygeneric”(Gazzi,2003).Thebroad rangeoflocal varietiesderived from the variety ofuses of the corn (for human and animalconsumption,withafurtherdiversificationfor farmyard animals); the same farmwould grown late and early varietiestogether also depending on how theycouldfitwiththeothercrops.

ThestoryoftheMaranovarietyistypicalofthis process. Produced by a farmer in thelate 1800s it spread rapidly thanks to thequalityofthepolentaitmadewhichiswhyit is still grown today despite thesubsequent emergenceofhybrid varieties.Maranomaize,inparticular,livesuptotheimportanceofitsname,itshistoryandthenotoriety of a variety. It isno coincidencethat in the period between the First andtheSecondWorldWars,sothestorygoes,the classic answer that peopleofMaranogot was “You’re from Marano? The cornplace?” All this still has a marketing

MaranoVicentinoacornvarietyinVeneto:theimportanceofbeingfamous!

54

1MythankstoDrs.SilvioPinoandGiandomenicoCortianaforgiving of theirprecious time andforthevaluableinformationonthehistoryofMarano.

relevancetodayaswitnesstheattemptsofthirdpartiesdescribedundertogeta holdofthename.The agricultural and social landscape ofVeneto of today has changed a lot.Monocroppinghybridmaizedominatestheplain with some 310,000 hectares plantedwhich, in 2007, produced approximately2.76 million tonswith an average yield ofabout 8 tons per hectare. However, theopen pollinated variety are still a smallproductive niche of 80‐90 hectaresconcentrated in thefoothills.Indeed itthe“rediscovery” of varieties like Marano orBiancoperla2 thathasledtonewmodelsofagricultural development that seek tocombinetraditionandmodernity,enablingfarmers in marginal areas to continue tolivefromtheirland.

ThishistoryofMaranoMarano is a variety of early maize,comparableto a FAO300hybrid. It is nottalland ingeneraltheoneplantproducesmore than one ear. The seed is vitreous,sma l l a n d r i c h i n c a r o t e n e a nd

xanthophylls, and yield normally variesbetween2and4tonsperhectare.

Its history was begun around 1890 in thetownof the samenamebya local farmer,AntonioFioretti,whotookaninitiativethatwas described thus by Prof Zapparoli in1939:

Towards 1890 a farmer of MaranoVicentino, Antonio Fioretti crossedthe local Nostrano (early maize, lowhe ight , med iocre p roduct ioncapacity, the cob short, conical, andnothighlycoloured,witha lowgrainyield – in short an early harvestcinquantino)with a Pignoletto d'orofrom Rettorgole di Caldogno, thetypical area for this variety,a higherplant, later, much more colouredthan the former, indeed almost red,vitreous. The pollinator was theNostrano. The product of the crossappearedthefollowingyearandwassowedontheFiorettifarmandsoonin successive years with no furthercrossing[...].Sincetheproductofthecrosswas immediately seento beof


55

2 The Associazione Conservatori Mais Biancoperla was established to promote the Biancoperlavariety.ItsobjectivesaretoenhanceandpromoteBiancoperlamaizeandorganizeanefficientchainthatguaranteesproductoriginandauthenticity.

an undoubtedly superior quality tothe Nostrano variety but had onlyr a i s e d t h e s o m e w h a t l o wproductivityofbothmaizesunitedinthe new variety, Fioretti began asystematic mass selection the firstyearwhichhescrupulouslycontinuedin successive oneswiththemainaimoffixingifpossiblethepropertiesandquality of the product and augmentitsfertilityandproductivity.[…]Insodoing, Fioretti achieved an almostconstant property of at least twocomplete ears on every plant whileontheold localvariety, the basis forthe cross with the Pignoletto, theplantswith two cobs are a very lowpercentage. In many cases, it is notinfrequent for plants to have three,four or even more ears. The earlyripening(first10daysofSeptember)and the th inness of the cobconsiderably reduce the percentageofwaste and improves conservationand maturation of the cobs instorage. Originally, the cobs fromMarano ina normalyearwere small,elongatedlongishnarrowat thebasealmostcylindrical.

When Antonio Fioretti died, the Maranovarietywas looked afterbyhissonsup to1934 when the experimental station ofmaize cultivation of Bergamo stepped injointly with the provincial inspectorate ofagricultureofVicenzatomanagethemassselection and monitor production in atypical area. The oldest inhabitants recallthat in the whole north eastern part ofMarano near theFioretti housewere onlyallowedtosowMaranocornandnoothertopreventpollinationandhybridizationbyothervarieties.TheFiorettihousewasthecentre of the seed selection which alsoinvolved eliminating the end parts – topand tail–of thecob. Themarketablepartwas entrusted to the CooperativeAgriculturalConsortiumofVicenza.In 1940 Marano corn was given thegovernment Statestampandcultivated inlarge parts of northern Italy and becameoneofthemostadoptedvarieties.By1950it covered 40,000 hectares, 16.3% of thetotal area given over to maize in Venetoand Friuli Venezia Giulia. In 1970 MaranocornflourwaspricedhigherontheVicenzacommoditymarket.Its progressive disappearance from thecountrysideisnotadirectconsequenceof


56

TheleaflletwiththehistoryofMarano.

the onset of hybrids with which quality‐wise, there is no comparison but tochanges in diet and the gradual fall inpolenta consumption. Growing corn foranimal consumption alone made Maranonolongercompetitive–itstasteandsmellwere no longer important (flour with ahigher protein and fat content, brightyellow colour with typical flecks ofchestnut brown, and the unmistakable,extremely pleasant flavour). Hybridpenetration in Veneto wasslow – farmerswerereluctantto accept thembecauseoftheir low quality for making polenta. Thefirst hybrids distributed in Italy wereextremelydent and unpopularasfood forhumans which, in the years after WorldWarI,waswhatmorethan50%ofthecornharvest was used for. Indeed hybridvarieties only began to become affirmedwhen corn usage changed with itsindustrialspecialisation.

It was precisely in order to maintain thepositive properties of Marano Vicentino,thattherewasgreateffortputintogenericimprovement to create hybrids startingfrom vitreous Italian material. In 1949,Insubria 2201becamethefirst hybrid thattook its properties from Nostrano, Isola,Marano and Scagliolo with the propertiestaken from Nostrano acting as seed‐carrier.. Some of the lines used to createthesehybridsarestillinuseinprogrammesofgeneticimprovementfortheproductionofearlycyclevitreoushybrids.

TheprotectionconsortiumThe Consortium for the Protection ofMaranoMaize(http://www.maismarano.it)wassetup in1999 inSchio onaninitiativelaunched by the “Nazareno Strampelli”Institute of Agrarian Genetics andExperimentationofLonigo(IGSA)alsowiththe involvement of farmers, technicians

andrestaurantowners.Thedrivetocreatea protection consortium emergedwhen amaize with similar characteristics ofMarano was registered in the varietalcatalogue a few years earlier under thename Orgiano. In order therefore toprotect the name “Marano” and thevariety it was decided to establish an adhocassociation to identify the productionareas between the Val Leogra and thestretch of foothills of the province ofVicenza. Shortly after a hybrid varietynamedMaranello3wasregistered.

And so this variety, now called “MaranoVicentino”,wasgivenanewleaseoflife.

The task of recovering the variety wasconductedbyIGSAbeginningwithmaterialconserved in its seedbank and comparingthatwith thevarietiesstill beinggrownbyfarmers. Indeed, Marano had notaltogetherdisappearedfromthefieldsnorfromthememoryofthepeople,Andthesefarmerswhoweremostlyelderly hadkeptthetraditionoftheMarano goingwithouta break. Growing the old variety of cornhad neverbeenabandoned insmallmulti‐cropfarmswheretheritualofpolentawassti l l observed. In many cases, thecontinuationofthesenichesofproductionhad been made possibleby a network oftraditionalmillerswho werewilling tomilleven small quantities of grain into flour.(Gazzi,2003).Today,theConsortium farmersnumber25ofwhom5practiseorganicfarming.Maize


57

3 Note that in the country “marano”, “maranello” and“maranino”were all used for the samevarietaltypology.

ThelogooftheConsortium.

http://www.maismarano.it

http://www.maismarano.it

grain is milled at a large mill in IsolaVicentina which attends to drying,millingand storing taking care to preventmycotoxins contamination. The flour ismarketeddirectlybysomefarmswhohavedirect sales facilities and also at theValleogra Cantina Sociale (Winemakers’Cooperative) in Malo, where there is acollective outlet point and a farmers’market every Saturday.Theflouris sold in1‐kg boxes or bags with both types ofpackagingbearingtheunmistakeablelogoofMaranoVicentinocorn.

The Consortium is particularly attentivewhen it comes to seed production.Selection, which has the objective ofconservingthepurityofthevariety,isdonein upland areas and reproduction formultiplicationtakesplace in a farmoftheProvince, again in an upland area. Thisapproach reduces the risk of geneticcontamination which could very simplyoccur by crossing with other varieties of

corn grown in the vicinity. Managing theseed production collectively meansmaintaining it through time and keepingtheknow‐howassociatedwithitlocal.TheConsortium’swebsite states"maize isone of the countless characteristicproducts of Italy and, asmembers of theconsortium, we are fully aware of theimportance of safeguarding this varietybothforthetasteandsmellpropertiesandtheflavouroftheflourproducedaswell asfor our steadfast convict ion thatbiodiversity is a value of fundamentalimportance.Allthiscanprovideinterestingopportunitiesforlocalagriculture."

The battle for the name ‐ nomina nudatenemusThehistoryofMaranocornischaracterisedbyadiversityofcriss‐crosslegislation:seedlegislation,tradeprotectionandcopyright,EU agricultural policies and their ruraldevelopment plans and, lastly, theprotection afforded by geographicalindication. As we shall see there weremanyintereststhatcameintoplaywiththerediscovery and economic revaluation ofMaranomaize.

First and foremost, it should be said thattheflourofMaranoVicentino isregisteredas a traditional agricultural food product(pursuanttoArt.8ofLegislativedecreeN°173 of 30 April 1998) and so the flourmarketedmayboastthistitle.Theseed issues are rathermorecomplex.The variety is registered in the official


58

Theboxesofflourforthemarket.

catalogueof2001withthenameofMaranoVicentino,andthepartyresponsiblefortheconservative selection is the Consortiumitself. The seed may only be given toconsortium members and is not tradedpublicly.Asmentionedabove,thedecisiontoregisterinthecataloguewasbecausein1996 the Morando Bolognini Foundation4had registered a hybrid variety of maizesoon after named Maranello, which itapplied forconfirmationofin 2007,and in1998 was registered an open pollinetedvariety named Orgiano but very close toMarano.Inorder toprotect thename,theConsortium applied for registration in thecatalogue instead of opting to be aconservation variety5 because MaranoVicentino issufficientlyuniformandstableand, aboveall to enjoy greaterprotectionintradingtheseed6.Theimportanceofthename“Marano”andthe interest it still arouses today in bothfarmersand consumers is confirmed by arecentapplicationforregistrationbyanewhybridvarietyofmaizecalledMarano0501,marketedbySocietàItalianaSementi(SIS).Neither Maranello nor this new Marano0501 has anything in common with theoriginal Marano, not even genetically.There are only a few physiologicalpropertiesshared,buttheeconomicpowerofthenameisstill amajorfactorandsomeseed companies are drawn towardsexploiting it for their new varieties. In2008,theConsortiumwrotetotheMinistryofAgriculture,FoodandForestry(MiPAAF)

to requestthatthenameMarano 0501berejected but in the light ofRegulation CE,930/2000 that disciplines the admissibilityof varietal denominations the Ministryturned the Consortium’s request downsince the four digitsafter thenamemakethe name legitimate for registration anyremoveany confusion. This goesto showhow the interest that links the name oflocalorancient varietieswith theensuingcommercia l exploitat ion has beenparticularly significant in the instance ofMaranocorn.

The same issue of appropriation of thename on theseed market isalso true forthe product, namely corn flour to makepolenta. Indeed themill thatmillsfor the


59

4 The Foundation distributes the varieties of the Experimental Institute for Cereal Crops in arelationshipwiththeseedindustrybothin Italyandabroadandmaintainsthepurityofthevarietiesofsoftwheat,barley,oatsandmaizeandhandlestheproductionofbasicseedsinitshomefarm.Italso markets the seeds through its dealings with the seed industry for themultiplication of thevarieties of the Experimental Institute for Cereal Crops, it sets up exclusivity agreements andreceivesroyaltypaymentsontheseedsmultiplied.5On paperatleastItaly’scatalogue of conservation varietieshas been activesince 2007afterLaw46/2007cameintoforce(Bocci,2009).6 Notethat IGSA has preparedthe requestforotherlocal varieties of maize like BiancoperlaandSponciotoberegisteredasvarietiesforconservation.

MARANO 0501 112 giorni

SISRED 110 giorni Disponibile anche seme Biologico certificato

NOVITA’

INVESTIMENTO CONSIGLIATOIRRIGUO NON IRRIGUO

GRANELLAVITREA 7,5 piante/mq 6,5 piante/mq

INVESTIMENTO CONSIGLIATOIRRIGUO NON IRRIGUO

GRANELLAVITREA 7,5 piante/mq 6,5 piante/mq

• Pianta compatta con stocco sano.• Spighe uniformi regolari ben fecondate• Granella vitrea a seme piccolo (tipo Marano).• Seme ben colorato ad elevato peso specifico.• Ottimo vigore vegetativo iniziale.• Eccellente sanità della pianta sino alla raccolta.• Tollerante agli stress ambientali.• Granella nelle diverse epoche di semina.

• Taglia media.• Stocco sano e robusto.• Spiga con granella vitrea (tipo Marano) a seme

piccolo ed intensamente colorato di rosso.• Eccellente tenuta della pianta sino alla raccolta• Tollerante agli stress ambientali• Granella nelle diverse epoche di semina

MAIS

SPEC

IALI

IBRIDO IN CORSOD’ISCRIZIONE

– 26 –

TheleafletofthenewMarano0501,marketedbySIS.

Consortiumhasregisteredthebrandnameof “maranello”, and sellsflour under thatname. Obviously this flour is not milledfrom Marano Vicentino, but as the labelsays “a vitreous maize exclusive to theVicenzaarea”.As a measure for protecting thenameof“Marano”on themarket, theConsortiumisconsideringapplyingforProtectedOriginDenomination(PDO)forthemaizeflour inorder to strengthen the link between thename and a territory and to a specificvariety.Moreover,asawayof showing its interestin enhancing Marano maize, the VenetoRegion has registered it on the list ofvarietiesatrisk oferosion for theRegion,for which funding can be obtained forcultivationpursuant tomeasure214oftheRural Development Plan (Melozzi, 2009).Here,though,theRegionhasindicatedthewholeoftheRegionastheproductionareawhich iscontradictoryto thestancetakenbytheConsortium.

ConclusionsThesituation described here is still in fluxbutsomepreliminaryconsiderationmaybemade as regards the following questions:What is meant by sustainable use ofMarano Vicentino maize? What strategycan be adopted? And above all, how cancommercial exploitation of the name bereconciled with the use of geneticresourcestobe“conserved”?The first question, obviously regardshistoricandvarietalcontinuityandthusbymeansofa territorialsurveytoreconstructthe system of uses, social relations andfarming methods that made the varietyimportant. Rediscovering the originalvarietyandenhancingitsuseisthestartingpointforaprocessoflocaldevelopment.There is another particularly determiningfactor, namely the collective side of thephenomenon, and how new loca l

communities can grow around agriculturalbiodiversity. For Marano, the Consortiumof producers has taken on the job ofconserving the variety, but the legacy ofAntonio Fioretti to the farmers of todayemerges through an intermediary – theIGSA – which conserved the seed andfostered the process to recovery. A newlocal community has grown up aroundMarano corn ofneither historic nor socialdetermination butother associativebasesthat respond to the needs of farmerstoday.(Bersonetal.,2008).All thishasallowed autonomy andcontroltobemaintainedatlocallevelthroughtheapproach to seedmanagementwhichcanalsoguaranteequalitybymeansofcontrolinproduction.Independently from these community/collective contexts, it is plain howenhancinganameanda localreputationisnot just a questionofthe interestsofthearea of origin or the genetic “rawmaterial”. The series of commercialvarietiesregisteredwith a name similar toMarano and the copyright on the flourobtainedbythemillontheflourareampletestimony.In conclusion, the sustainability of use ofgenetic resources can depend directly ontheextenttowhichlocalactors,publicandprivate are involved and the collectivedynamicsthatoccur.Yet again, the confines of our agricultureare determined by culture and traditionwith an importancewhich economically iss u b s t a n t i a l i n w e s t e r n s o c i e t y .Understanding how to foster and supportthese processes, blending conservationwith development in a single, non‐speculative perspective is the challengethat our public policies must face in thenear future with the objective ofsustainable use of agricultural geneticresources.


60

BibliographyBersonA.,BocciR.,BouhélierP.,Bracdela

Perrière R.A., Kiss C., Mathieu J.J.,RamosN.,2008.PromotingPeasantFarmingandanEcological,Solidarity‐BasedAgricultureinEurope,BEDE.


BressanM., Magliaretta L., Pino S., 2003.Cereali del Veneto. Le varietà difrumento tenero e mais del latradizione veneta, Regione Veneto,ProvinciadiVicenza.

Candiago E., 1962. Itinerari gastronomicivicentini,.

Gazzi A.,2003.Uncasostudio: levarietà adimpollinazione libera della Provinciadi Belluno, in Bressan, Magliaretta,Pino.

Me lo z z i L . , 2 009 . I n c en t i v e s fo ragrobiodiversitywithin the EuropeanUnion:the role ofRuralDevelopmentPlans, Journal of Agriculture andEnvironment for InternationalDevelopment,vol.103,N.1‐2.

PinoS.,BertoliniM.,2003.Mais,inBressan,Magliaretta,Pino.

ZapparoliT.V.,Ilgranoturco,REDA,1937.Zapparoli T.V., n° 3. Il Granoturco Marano.

L'ItaliaAgricola,1939.


61

The “Quarantina white” in Liguria: apotatoasakeytoruraldevelopment

MariaFrancescaNonne

“The land is kept alive by thefruitfulworkofthosewholiveonit much more than a raft ofterritorial recovery programmeswill ever do.... Produce is notmadealivebytheland–quitetheopposite – because wherefarmersdon’tworkthelandtherei s on l y abandonment anddereliction as well as loss ofdiversity!”(Angelini,2008)

IntroductionTheprocessofrecoveryandrevaluationofthe Quarantina1 potato, a variety that islocaltotheLigurianApenninesnearGenoaissignificantforanumberofreasons.Itisameans for understanding the role that avariety can play in keeping local farmingmethods alive; it is a means for decliningthe concept of sustainable use of plantgeneticresourcesfor foodandagriculture(PGRFA)aspartoftheunstableequilibriumbetween conservation and enhancement,and a meansfor analysing theconcept oftraditionandhowitcanberenewedwithinthe context o f the p resent day .Furthermore, it has become a classicexample in Italy of how, notwithstandingits focus on the Quarantina white, it haspointed the way to the conservation ofmany othervarietiesin theterritorywhichwereareriskofextinction.In order to understand the importance ofthis case, a brief description of theagriculture it became part of is in order.Liguria isaprevalentlymountainousRegionofItalythatstretchesalongtheseacoast.Itsagricultural landscape is typified by theCinque Terrewith terracing reminiscent ofricecultivationinsoutheastAsia.Thelatest

farmingcensusof2000 indicateda drop inthe number of farms between 1990 and2000 (‐39.7%) and an even sharper fall intotalfarmed land(‐46.1%).Therewasalossofsome30,000hectares,correspondingto32.3% of the total of useful agriculturalsurface (UAS). Average farm surfacessawsome slight changes, from 1.32 to 1.46hectares of UAS and from 4.58 to 4.09hectares of total surface. As regards farmmanagement,itemergedthatalmostallthefarms– 95.7% ‐are family‐run. Thebiggestdropinthe1990‐2000periodwasinmixed‐labour farms (family and extra‐family),minus 61.1%, and those run along strictlyeconomy‐oriented lines that make use ofwagelabourorresortexclusivelytooutsidecontractors, less 73.4%. This general trendhasbeenconstantoverrecentyearsbutbycontrast the Regional Statistics Yearbookreports almost 50% fewer farms between2000 and 2005 (from just over 43,000 toapproximately 23,000) and farmedsurface,still falling from some 62,000 hectares in2000to littleover49,000in2005).Farmedland isgivingway to forestry ina territorycharacterised by small or very smallpostage‐stamp plotsof landworkedbyanincreas ingly e lder ly populat ion ofsmallholders. Indeed, in 2000,only 5.3% offarmers in Liguria were under 35 years ofagewhiletheover‐55agegroupwas67.2%.Moreover,intermsofaddedvalue,Ligurianfarmershavesufferedalltheconsequencesof modernisation (Van der Ploeg, 2008),with absolute production remainingconstant butwitha substantial increase inintermediate costs (+20% between2002‐2007).

The story of the Quarantina, therefore,began in a social context where farmingwas economically marginal compared tootherareasofproduction,andwascarriedout by elderly people on small plots of

The“Quarantinawhite”inLiguria:apotatoasakeytoruraldevelopment

62

1Theadjective“quarantina”isused forvegetablesandcerealsthathaveashortcyclesuitableforgrowinginhillyareas.

land. The disappearance of farmers andwith them the knowledge and varietiesthat they grew until yesterday istypicalofLigurianagriculture.

RediscoveringtheQuarantinapotatoThe Quarantina white potato2 is atraditional variety local to the LigurianApennines and is attested in historicalsources of the 19th Century. The area inwhichit isrecordedasbeingmostpopularcoincides perfectly with that in whichGenoesedialect isspoken, inland towardsPiedmont. In addition to language, thisarea also shares culinary and folkloretraditions.Asearlyas1880,theQuarantinawhite was widespread in the Genoahinterland and neighbouring valleys (valleFontanabuona, val d'Aveto, upper valleScrivia, valle Stura, Marcarolo plateau,upper val Trebbia, upper val Borbera andthe areas of Sélvola and Santa Maria delTaro); between 1930 and 1970 it was thebest known variety in the area of Genoa(Angel in i , 2008) . Genet ica l ly , theQuarantina white is a mutation of theQuarantina Prugnona (a local plum‐coloured variety of potato which is lessgenetically stable than the Quarantinawhite), and its properties are similar tothose of the Breton Institut de Beauvais,andtheBufetBlancoofCatalonia.Territorial research was begun in 1985 bytheruralhistorianMassimoAngeliniandhisinvestigation into the rural populationwhenheheardofapotatothatwasbonn‐ada matti [buona da matti – absolutelywonderful] which waswidespread mostlyin the Ligurian Apennines prior to thearrivaloftheTondadiBerlino(Böhmsearlyyellow),theBintjeandtheMajesticandthe

other Dutch varieties that are now fillingthemarket(Angelini,2001).

Angelinicontinuedhisresearchover1985‐6intheStura,GravegliaandAvetovalleystoascertainwhathadbecomeof thatvarietyand discoveredthatthepotato commonlyknown as “Quarantina”, had been themostwidespread up to the 1950swhen itwas supplanted by more productiveFrench, Canadian and Dutch varieties. By1985 there wereonly some 40 producerswithafewkilosofQuarantina forpersonalconsumption. Eleven years later, thenumber of producers still planting thisvarietyhadbeenhalvedandtheywereallveryelderly.This situation, in turn, led Angelini toresume his research which in 1998‐9focusedexclusivelyonthelocalvarietiesofCannelina Nera, Prugnona andQuarantinawhite. “I walkedaround fora coupleofwinterswith threepotatoesinmy pocket:a blackCannelina, a Prugnona and a Quarantinawhite[...]. Iwent to seefarmerswhohadbeen through the last war asking aboutlocal varieties of potato [...]. Once theintroductions had been got through andthe initial mistrust and ritual courtesieswerebehindus,thenamesofthevarietiesslowlybegantoemerge,whattheylookedlike,howtheywereplantedandharvested[…]. I asked them to showme how theycut the tubers before planting, then Ishowed them how I would cut them andthatphysicalgesturehelpedtogettheballrolling. Then, at the end, like a conjuringtrick I pulled out my three potatoes [...]and ifthey recognised themI asked themwhattheywerecalled”(Angelini,2001).


63

2 Thepotatohasan irregular tuber roundor round‐oval, a smooth, lightcream coloured skin andhasa non‐floury, finegranulefleshwhich is typically soft whitein colour; its eyesareof averagedepth withlight pinkhighlightswhicharemoremarkedinyoungtubers.Thesproutrangesfrompinktolightvioletatthebasewithawhiteflower.Maturationisaverageanditkeepsaveragelywellinstorage.ItbelongstotheBculinarycategory(averageconsistencysuitableforalluses)andisunsuitableforgrowthinheavysoil.

Information about the Quarantina whitethat came from interviewing groups orindividuals, or from historic documents,regionaldictionariesoragriculturaljournalsfrom the early twentieth Century werecollected systematically to identify itsproperties. From there, the local namesbegan to emerge, the traditional growingmethods including the choice of soil, theplanting time, planting itself, husbandry,the harvesting methods and conservationandselectionofthethreelocalvarietiesofpotato.

OthernamesfortheQuarantinawhiteincommonuseintheApennines

OthernamesfortheQuarantinawhiteincommonuseintheApennines

Quarantina[Quantin‐a],BiancadiTorriglia[GiancadiTurrigia],Biancadagliocchirossi[Giancacuioegirusci],Bianca[Gianca].

RevitalisationofalocalsystemRecovery of the Quarantina began byharvestingandselectingthefewtubersstillgrownwiththeinvolvementofthefarmerswho wanted to grow it and foster itsspread.Thetubersunderwentvaluationbyoldfarmerswhowereaskedtopickouttheone that was closest to the pre‐warQuarantina white from all the othersdiscoveredintheterritory.Oncethechoiceoftuberswaswhittleddownto“theone”,and its origin identified, the job ofmultiplyingthepotatobegan.

Interest in theQuarantina whitebegan togrow and 1999 saw the set up of theCommittee for the Recovery andEnhancement of the Varietal Heritage ofthe Potato of the Genoa Uplands(Co.Re.Pa), which by 2000 had grown to100 members made up of bodies,associations,, producers and restaurants.One of the aimsof the Co.Re.Pa. was toestablish an ad hoc Consortium for theProtection of theGenoaQuarantina whiteand theblackTigullio Cannellina (Angelini,2008). The consortiumwas established in2000withthenameof“Consorziodi tutela

della Quarantina Bianca genovese e dellepatate tradizionali della MontagnaGenovese [Consortium for the Protectionof the Genoa Quarantina white and thetradit ional potatoes of the GenoaUplands]” with 20 farmers as activemembers.The Consortium set itself some specialrules.Inadditiontotheusualclassicalonesfor production, specific rules regulateproduction from the seeds onwardsthrough themarketing strategies and theprice applied every year. Furthermore, inorder to foster internal democracy, aspecial “conciliation regulator” wasappointed – a person outwith theorganisation but acceptable to all theproducers, with responsibility for solvingconflicts and disputes among consortiumpartners. At the same time a scrupulousprogramme for productionquality controlwas launched by consortium members inorder to maintain the high qualitystandards shared by all.Asof2009, thesecommonruleslaydown:

1. The obligation to give notification ofplantingandharvesting,specifyingthetotal quantity of potatoes divided byvarietyandtypology;

2. Makinganextremelyrigorousselectionof the typology of potato to beclassified asgradeAwhichmusthaveno alterations of shape, and have nocuts, holes or disease. Grade Bpotatoes may have slight shapealterations as well as cut and holemarks;

3. The obligation to market grade Apotatoes in 2 kg packs in consortiumbagswithConsortiumlabels;

4. Theobligationforthelabel,tobefilledin and signed by the producer, toindicatethemethodofproduction.Thiscan be either organic or biodynamicwhencertifiedbythecontrollingbody,self‐certified if under the auspices of


64

the Consortium itself (with theobligation to notify the consortiumofthe fertilizers, manure and planthusbandry p roducts used) , o runcertifiedinallothercases.

A n o t h e r i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h eConsortium’s brief is to reproduce thepotatoesforsowingsoasto improvetheiryieldand eliminateplanthealth problems.While,asAngelini noted (2001), farmers inthepasttooknocareinselectingtheseedpotatotubersortuberpiecesforreseedingthe technical and scientific supportprovided today by the consortium hasmade production of seed potatoesfundamental and very different from thatof potatoes for consumption. TheConsortium has always been aided by anagronomist in itsproduction of tubers forimprovementaimingtowardsaprogressiverevitalisation of thevariety. Presently, theseed tubersaregrown above800metreswhereasthoseforconsumptionaregrownb e t w e e n 4 0 0 a n d 8 0 0 m e t r e s .Furthermore, technical checksandupdatemeetings with farmers enable theConsortium to continue fostering theadoption of good practices for growing,discouraging the use of toxic or harmfulsubstances (Angelini, 2008). In 2008 theConsortium experimented with producingthe seed potatoes in Scotland with theScottishAgricultural ScienceAgency in anefforttoeliminatethevirusesthatcouldbepassed on by the tuber, thus improvingproduction.Thepreliminary results of thisinitiative, which took place in late 2008,were positive in production terms (+20%)but also brought about a slight change inthelook of thispotato:“someQuarantinawhites turnedout so elongated that theylooked just like... Cannelline!”(Consortiumnewsletter N° 16, 2008). In general, fromwhentheConsortiumwassetup,averageyieldhasrisenfrom1:4to1:8,withpeaksof

1:10, and per hectare production is nowbetween100and150quintals.

The Consortium also promotes the cultureand traditionsof theGenoaarea alongside,and as part of selling produce,by carefullystudyingmarketingchannels.Specialcareisaddressed toensuringparticipationby localrestaurants and to the communicationstrategiesadoptedfortheproductbydirectsales from the farmers or small retailers.Consortiumproduceis infactdistributedatlocal level where the direct relationshipbetweenproducer,distributorandconsumerserves to enrich the cultural value of theproduct.AswrittenbyMarsdenet.al (2004)“exchanging ormarketinga variety at locallevel isnotmerely aneconomic transactionbutalsoamomentofawarenessandculturalreproduction[...].Producersandconsumerssee themselves in that variety which is avehicle of identification of the territory inwhichitisproduced”.

ItshouldbenotedthattheConsortiumhaschosen to maintain an autonomousapproach to development by notregistering the Quarantina potato as a‘denominationorigin’productnoradheringtoother formsof certification and controlthat are not strictly of the Consortiumitself.Inpointoffact, theQuarantina onlyappears in the regional register oftraditional agricultural food productspursuantto Article8ofLegislativeDecreeN°173of30April1998.

Overtheyears,theConsortiumhaskeptitseye on the territory and has identifiedseveral more varieties of legumes andvegetables as well as the producers whohavekept them going.Already in 2001, in


65

ThelogooftheConsortium.

addition to the potato, some Consortiumproducers were growing other productslocal to the Genoa area including beets,onions, beans, shallots, squash andcourgettes. Moreover, considering thepotato in more generaltermsdespite thef amou s Qua r a n t i n a wh i t e b e i n gemblazoned in the Consortium’s logo,recovery initiativesarenow alsoextendedto other local varieties such as theCabannese, Cannellina nera, Giana rionda,MorellaandPrugnona.

The special attentiveness that theConsortium has dedicated to technicalagronomical factors, production quality,internal and external communication andtomarketingstrategieshasdeterminedthesuccess of the entire initiative as seen inthe rise in thenumber ofproducers from2000to2004(seetable1).Theaverageageof the farmers – 38 – is also striking bybeingconsiderablylowerthanthatofmostfarmers in the Region. Furthermore, 52restaurants and small retailers becameaffiliates of the Consortium in 2004 andhave its logo on show in their publicspaces.In 2003, the Consortium for protectionchanged denomination and became“Consortium of the Quarantina”. Thischange is part of the Consortium’s neworientation to promoting family‐runfarming and the rural restoration of theGenoa uplands which also encompassesautochthonousbreedsand isalwaysin linewith the concept of never separatingconservation from economic goals. Theproper equilibrium between conservationand gain has enabled production to beincreasedandproducederivingfromthesevarieties and breeds to be disseminated.The Quarantina has thus become thesymbol of a collective initiative thatinvolvesanentireterritory.

2000 2004 2008

Producers 20 54 56Averageageofproducers 38 38 n.d

Affiliates(restaurantsandsalespoints) 10 52 60

TotalProduction 15q. 60q. n.d

Sell‐outprice €/kg1 €/kg2,5 €/kg2,5

TheConsortium took on association formon 29 October2006 (“Consortium for theQuarantina.Association for land and ruralculture”) opening up to a new associativemembership and new salesmethodssuchas solidarity‐based purchasing groups(GAS),whicharebecoming placesfor theenhancement of local produce, andstimulation towards diversified farming.Allowing consumers and their familymembers tobelongto theassociation isaway of recognising the active choice‐ anddecision‐making roleplayed by consumerswithintheassociationanditalsohighlightsthe need to allow more discussion,dialogue and alliances betweenproducersand consumers.Today, theassociationhasa total of 316 members of which 56 areproducersand60affiliates.

The territory is no longer confined tocentral Liguria but is opening up to theoutside with a maturity of approach thatincreasingly focuses on the problems andpoints of view of family‐run agriculturewithout excluding other realities andexperiences while remaining steadfast tothe objective of “protecting traditionalbreeds and varieties”, as said in thenewArticles of Association. A case in point isthe International Potato Exhibitionorganised in Torriglia in the province ofGenoa in October 2008 for InternationalPotato Year declared by the FAO. Itfeatured no fewer than 672 varietiesfrom


66

Tab1:TheConsortiuminnumbers(Source:dataprocessedbyAngelini,2008)

17 countries and was attended by some2,000visitors.

The Quarantina as an example ofsustainableuseofplantgeneticresourcesThe promot ion, development andcontinuation of diversified farmingmethods is closely tied in with localvarieties and their sustainable use. TheLigurian Apennines are characteristicallyharsh mountain terrain and bringingfarmers back to them and keeping them

there is a guaranteedwayofland upkeepand of improving the management ofnatural resources like land and water. Inenvironmental terms, therefore, thisexercise has led to the recovery of localgenetic resources and farming methodsand to improvingthem,andno lesstothesustainable use of natural resources asspecified inArticle6.2ofthe InternationalTreatyonPlantGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgriculture(ITPGRFA).Therecoveryofseveral local varieties, their disseminationamongfarmers,whowitnessedanincreaseintheirtechnicalknow‐howandwhichtheyreplanted, grew and sold, increased thediversity of the agricultural eco‐systemsandalsodiversityinfood.Thedesiretoconstructaneconomybasedon traditional varieties stems from theawareness that varieties cannot exist

w i t hou t some k i nd o f e conom i cf r a m e w o r k . T h i s i s b a s e d o nc omp l em e n t a r i n e s s o f u s e a n dconservation on theonehand and on theotherthatlocaltraditionalvarietiesarealsoa culturalproduct that cannot exist intheabsenceofalocalgastronomicculturethatmakes use of them (Carrosio, 2005). Toexist, these varieties have to evoke somekind of belonging and must contribute toreproducing a collective and individualidentity (Douglas, 1996; Degli Esposti,2004).Inthiscontext,sustainability isnotonly tobe seen in relation to agriculturalbiodiversity –rediscovered,cultivated andenhanced–butshouldbecome a conceptthat encompasses an entire local farmingsystem which, in continual evolution,comesupagainsttoday’sworldinitsquestfor a new modernity built on thefoundationsoftradition.

ConclusionsNotwithstanding its containment within alimited area, the experience of theQuarantina potato has had an extremelymarked socio‐cultural, economic andenvironmental impact. The experiencegained with one local variety or a few ofthem has led to the discovery, recoveryand enhancement of a wealth ofagricultural and cultural values, and iftraditionandinnovationaresupplementedwith attentive marketing strategies, theycan lead to the recovery of a culturalidentity and, in the final analysis, ofagriculturalbiodiversity.The work carried out by the Consortiumhasshownthat in ruralterritoriesdeemedlimited and marginal or backward,generally abandoned and depopulated,young farmers can make a living inagriculture, enhance their knowledge andestablish new local partnerships in whichinstitutions only provide support andcooperationintheinitiatives. Inshort,it is


67

TheMandillodagropposeedfair(2008).PhotobyM.F.Nonne.

possible to reconstruct “tradition” givingthe word its full meaning, namelycontinuity in timeanda direct passage ofknowledgefromgenerationtogeneration.Overtime, theQuarantina Consortiumhasbeen the driving force for developmentandpromotionwhilealso(andstill)beingapowerful means of communicating thetechnical, practical and political factors ofagr icultural b iodivers ity and localdevelopment.If local development means enhancinglocal environmental, cultural and humanetc., resources and shying away frominterventionsfromonhigh,thecaseofthewhiteQuarantina is an example to follow.Crucial to this example of bottom‐updeve lopment was the un ion andinteraction of a variety of skills – localtradit ional , technical ‐scientific andsociological‐historic – which enabled thecreation of a local network of producers,sellersandpublic/consumerswhich,today,isheldtobeoneofthebestorganisationalstructuresforguaranteeinglong‐termruraldevelopment.

Bibliography

Angelini M., 2001. La Quarantina Biancagenovese, Consorzio di tutela dellaQuarantina.

AngeliniM.,2004.Recuperoevalorizzazionedi una varietà locale, Ottopagina, n.1‐2.

AngeliniM.,2008.Lepatatedellatradizionerurale sull'Appennino ligure, GraficaPiemme.

CarrosioG.,2005.TraditionalLocalVarietiesBetween Traditions and Sustainableagriculture, XXI Congress EuropeanSoc ie ty fo r Rura l Soc io logy ,Keszthely,Ungheria.

Degli Esposti P., 2004. Il cibo dallamodernitàallapostmodernità,FrancoAngeli,Milano.

Douglas M., 1996. Thought Styles, Sage,London.

MarsdenT,BanksJ.,BristonG.,2004.FoodSupply Chain Approaches: Exploringtheir Role in Rural Development, inSociologiaRurale,Vol.40,Numero4.

Turner R., 1999. Environmental andecological economics perpective, inJ.C.J.M.vandenBergh,ed.Handbookof environmental and resourceseconomics,EdwardElgar.

Van Der Ploeg J.M., 2008. The newPeasantries ‐ struggles for autonomyand sustainability in aneraof empireandglobalisation,Earthscan.

Websiteofreferencewww.quarantina.it


68

http://www.quarantina.it

http://www.quarantina.it

Synergies between Natural Parks andagrobiodiversity: the example of theAbruzzo

RiccardoBocci“Thechallengein thisproject liesinbringing back old varieties whichhavebeen conserved thanks to thetenacity and stubbornnessof a fewtobecomethenewheritageofall”

DallaRagioneetal.(2004)

IntroductionThatsentencesumsuptheworkpresentedin this casestudy verywell –therecoveryand revaluation of local varieties,transforming them into a tool for thedevelopment of a territory consideredeconomicallymarginalandresidual,andsorestorethemtotheruralcommunitiesthathad selected, produced and conservedthem. The Regional Body for Services toAgricultural Development(ARSSA)andtheAuthoritiesofthetwoparksinvolvedbothplayedamajorpartinthisprocessshowingthat it is important to get the institutionsinvolved to ease the procedure at locallevel and mend the break betweengenerat ions that had emerged inagriculturewithmodernisation.TheAbruzzoisa regionrichinagriculturalbiodiversity,theresulton theonehand ofthe heterogeneous conformation of itslandscape, harsh and mountainous thatcreatesacertaindegreeofisolationandontheotherofthesolidityofagriculturalusesand traditions that has contributed todiversifying the varieties grown. It’sterritoryismostlyhillsandmountainswith82%ofthewholepopulation livinginruralareas. A 2003 census listed 78,687 farmswith an average size of 5.20 hectares,smaller than thenational averageof 6.70.At432,000hectares,theuseableTsurfaceis 40% of the regional total. Farming,therefore, is still central to the regionaleconomy of theAbruzzo and it isworked

by people who cannot be ca l led“agricultural entrepreneurs” in the senseof the termused inEuropean normssincetheir primary source of income is notagriculturebut industryorservices.Astheauthor Ignazio Silonewrote, “they haveatenacious loyalty to their own economicand social tenets that goes beyond andpractical usefulness” (Silone, 1963). Thetalksheldwithtechnicalstaffwhoworkedon the various projects of agriculturalbiodiversity conservation showed theimportance that the people who are stillinvolved in localised farming still have.Indeed, in their case, modernisation hascaused a shift in their family‐basedapproach to agriculture making it moremarginal in terms of the income it yieldsbut not in terms of the commitment oftime or social investment. This has givenrisetothe“factory‐working‐sharecropper”– factory worker during the week andfarmeronSaturdaysandSundaysthankstothe help and labour contributed by theoldermembersofthefamilywhocan lookafterthecountryfull‐time.ThisisthesituationinwhichARSSAandthe“Let’s Cultivate Diversity” and “Cerere”projects of the Majella and Gran SassoParkswas based, in which the links bothrealandsymbolicwithagriculturaltraditionhave been kept alive but which riskdisappearingasthepopulation getsolder,taking with it seeds and associatedknowledge.TheexamplegivenbyMarcodiSanto–agronomistoftheParkofMajella–is a good one. Some years ago, during aterritorial survey,avarietyofdurumwheatwasdiscovered inMontenerodomo in theprovince of Chieti which grew at highaltitudesofsome1,200metres.Thewheatwascalled“marzuolo”,a short‐cyclestrainsowninSpringwhichinthelocaleconomyservedasa reserveincasethewinter,softgrain wheat failed. There’s no one leftgrow itanymore becausethatparticular

SynergiesbetweenNaturalParksandagrobiodiversity:theexampleoftheAbruzzo

69

small‐holder died andthe variety can onlybefoundintheARSSAseedbank.

The Abruzzo has the highestpercentageofprotected territory inEurope–morethan30% ‐ betweenthe three national parks (NationalParks of the Abruzzo, the Majellaand Gran Sasso and Monti dellaLaga),theregionalparksandnaturereservesandtheWWFoases.The intervention of man in theseareashasbeen importantastohowin timehehas shaped space to suitagricultural practices and the needsof animal husbandry. This hascreated a landscape which hasreached us as the outcome ofspecificneeds,thecombinationofsocialrequirements, crop practices localvarieties and uses. Open fields or closedones, arboreal seeding, marcite, (olivegroves,appleorchards, almond trees androws of capitozzati trees are among themany forms that constitutethe backboneof theterritory oftheAbruzzoandwhichare unequivocally evocative of its history.With the changes that agriculture hasundergone since theend ofWorldWar II,everythinghadtochangeandgavetruthtoSilone’s prophecy “thewell‐ordered fieldsof saffron, legumes and cereals were asprettyasagardenandshowedtheloveforthe land that moves just as every lovewhichwefearwilldieout”(Silone,1963).Thescope of this article is to understandwhat role can be played by agriculturalbiodiversity in the future development ofthese areas. It also aspires to be thestarting point for a reflection on hownature reserves, set up to safeguard andconserve natural resources, can interact

with the primary actors with an eye toachievingsustainableuseoftheterritory.1

TheevolutionfollowedbyARSSAARSSA began approaching this world ofculture, crops and traditions in 1996launching an in‐depth study of what wasstill being grown. This brought the“Collection, conservation and study ofgermplasm of species of autochthonousagriculturalinterestintheAbruzzoRegion”project into existence in 1996. It wasfundedbytheEuropeanUnionjointlywiththeFacultyofAgricultureoftheUniversityofPerugia.Thescopeoftheprojectwastobecome acquainted the local varietalheritage by an initial investigation, afterwhich to characterise and conserve thevarietiesidentified.Theinitialconservationstrategywasonlyenvisagedex situwithanumberof in situcataloguefields for fruittrees.Twelvespecieswereexamined:softwheat, durum wheat, spelt, lentils,chickpeas,beans,black‐eyebeans,pepperstomato and apple, pear and almond tree.


70

1NotethatArt1of theframelawon nature reservesstates thattheinstitutionalaimsofprotectedareas includes the protection of the agricultural ecosystems” […] to implement managementmethods and environmental restoration in order that man and his natural environment blendtogether by initiatives that include safeguarding values of an anthropological, archaeological,historicalandarchitecturalnature,andbyagricultural,sylvanpastoralandtraditionalactivity".

TheagrarianlandscapeofAbruzzo.PhotobyR.Bocci.

Noteespeciallythatthisprojectenabledamethodology of work to be tested withfarmersandakindofvarietalfactsheettobe used in the field for describing thevarietiesdiscovered.

In addition to the varieties, the territorialstudy also revealed certain ancientagr icultural pract ices such as the“mesticone”, consisting in the crossplanting a cereal (oats or barley) and aleguminous(vetchorcicerchiola) to obtainan excellentanimal feed,or sowingmaizeandbeanstogethertoprovidesupportforthelatterandtokeeptheformergreenaslong as possible. Furthermore, the firstinterviews with farmers induced theresearchers to broaden the range of thespecies involved since otherswere beingdiscoveredinthefieldsinadditiontothoseprogrammed in the study which wereworthstudyingandconserving.Thataddedrye,barleyandgrasspeatothelist..

ARSSA’s great surprise was havingcollectedagreatmany listeditems–some300 including spontaneous species andsome fodder plants2, which faced it withtheneedtofigureouthowtoproceed“Weimmediately realised that although thisinitiativewasfortheprotectionofgeneticmaterial,itwouldhavebeenineffectiveforsafeguardingalltheanthropological,socialand cultural aspects which are normallylinked to local ecotypes and, moreimportant still it would have doneabsolutelynothing tostemthe lossofoldvarietieswhich, at best would have beentransformedintoamemory”(Silveri,2002).The move from ex situ to on farmconservation, therefore, was natural andwas applied in the second phase of theproject,thistimefundedbytheMinistryofAgriculture, Food and Forestry (MiPAAF)within theNationalBiodiversity Project. In

thisnew phase,the rangeofsubjectswasbroadenedinordertoemphasiseincreasedcloseness to the territory to include thePark of Majella, the Province of L’Aquila,the Regional Botanic Garden and thePeligna Upland Community. The idea ofusing agricultural biodiversity as a key forrural development began to take shapecreating a relationship among the variouseconomic actors that go to make it up:farmers, schools, restaurants and tourismfacilities.

Agricultural biodiversity and naturalreservesThe National Park of Majella has adedicatedsurfaceoflittleover7%inwhichagriculture iscarriedouttraditionally. It isthisverynatureofmarginalityandisolationthat hasenabled thesurvivalof cultivatedvarieties and typical traditions of countryculturewhichhaddisappeared fromotherareas.The“Let’s CultivateDiversity” project fortherecovery,conservationandrevaluationof autochthonous agricultural geneticresourcesoftheParkbeganin2003 jointlywiththeRegionalAuthority forServicesofAgricultural Development(ARSSA)and co‐funded by the Nature ConservancyD i rec t ion o f the Min i s t ry o f theEnvironmentandTerritorialProtection.

The task of surveying was part of thisproject too which made use of themethodology thathadbeen finetunedbyARSSAinthepreviousproject;Thenoveltyhere was the presence of specificincentives thatwereprovided for on‐farmconservation, of the biodiversity in acoordinated action with init iativeslaunched all over the territory In fact asencouragement to those who were stillcultivating the local varieties and provideincentivestootherfarmerstousethePark


71

2 In detail, 55 fruitwere catalogued, 52grain legumes, 36 cereals, 33 leguminous fodderand19vegetable.

therewerea seriesofspecificmeasuresintheformofaid bothdirectand indirect tobenefit the various economic actors(farmers,transformers,restaurantowners,school caterers . . . ) . The economicincentivesrangefromgrantsforcultivatingcertain varieties, to technical support andmaking available reproduced informativematerialfortrainingandpublicawareness‐heighteningmaterial aimed at fostering amarketfortheproducemadebycustodianfarmers.Furthermore,toorientagriculturalproduction towards environmentallysustainable models, the Park covers thecosts that farms haveto bear for organiccertification in so doing helping above allthe smaller farms to get into the system.Farmers and transformers,however,werenot theonly recipients of aid.Theprojectwas also addressed to schools andrestaurants in the area. The schools will

take part in education and awareness‐heightening initiatives with the aim ofgettingfamiliesacquaintedwiththeissuesthat theproject ispromoting. A series ofeducationalitinerarieshasbeendevisedforpre‐school and primary school children(“With Rossella on a quest to find theforgotten plants” and "A Pair of Pears").The older children interviewed theirgrandparents and the older folk of thetownbywayofa questionnaireanda fact

sheet to identify the varieties that wereonce best known. The little ones gotinvolved in the topic by means of a fairytale. Schools are a way of heighteningawareness in the families and publicopinionmoreingeneralontheimportanceofsafeguardingagriculturalbiodiversity.As regards relating the project torestaurants,itwasdecidedtoworkontwolevels,collectiveandschoolcateringontheonehandand thediversified on theotherin which specificmenuswouldbecreatedusing agricultural produce from thecustodianfarmers’chain.Oneof thefirstresultsoftheprojectwasthecreationof a cataloguecontainingtheautochthonousagriculturalvarietiesoftheNationalPark ofMajella, a first necessarystep towards awareness of what theterritory holds and establishing suitablepoliciesforitsconservation.Asregardsthe

arborealspeciestwoshowcasefieldswerecreated (in thebotanicalgardens inLamadeiPeligniandS.EufemiaaMajella),wherethe ancient varieties contained in thecataloguecanbeseen(DiSantoandSilveri,2006).Parallel to thedescriptionsof thevarietiesa network was set up to deal with theirconservation. As of now it counts thirtyfarmsandfivetransformerswithfourneworchardsplantedandtwoinpreparation.


72

!"#$%&'()%&*#&!(

+#"$,&-

#.%/0%"1,+(,)("2#(

*%"#&1%/!

!32,,/(3%+"##+!

&#!"%0&%+"!

%4&,",0&1!*!

!0&.#5(

67886

9%"0&%/(:%&-!

1+3#+"1.#!

Fig.1:TheAbruzzoconservationsystem.

Ascanbeseen,thesystemisfairlycomplexwith many actors where conservation ofagrobiodiversityisonlyoneofthepartsor,ifyouwillthebaseonwhich thesystem isbuilt(figure1).

NotethatoneofthemaintasksoftheParkhas been to win over the trust of thefarmers and thus become a party withwhomtodialogue.Thiswasonly possiblebypainstakingworkatgrassrootslevelandagreatmanycollectivemeetingsorganisedto present and discuss the project. “thehard job was setting up a relationship oftrust with people. To begin with theywould say in dialect “I’ve nothing morehere, nothing grows here any more”butthenastheybegantotrustyoutheywouldopen up their cupboards with all theseeds,eachonewithitspropernameandoriginoftenassociatedtoafamilymember.[...] There’s a wealth in these smallvillages”(DiSanto,pers.comm.).

A similar initiative to theonewhichup tonow hasbeendescribed asobjectivesandtoolsusedwasrealisedbytheParkoftheGranSasso,under thenameoftheproject“Cerere”. Here, too, taking agriculturaldiversity as thestarting pointwasthekeyfor re‐inventing the development of aterritory.

ConclusionsExperience such as that gained in theAbruzzo proves that sustainable use ofagricultural biodiversity can develop intothe premise on which to base a moregeneralprogrammethatincludesthemoraldevelopmentofanentireterritory,Indeed,the final result of the activities describedshow that itwas not onlykeepingcertainlocal varieties in cultivation (as stated inArticle 6.2 (c) of the FAO Treaty) orsupportingon‐farmconservation(Art6.2f)of the Treaty) but creating the conditionsfor continuing to farm and thereforemaintainthecomplexsystemofvaluesandrelations without which agricultural

biodiversity would no longer make senseandsimplydisappear.

Therole of the various public bodieswasessential for creating the entire processand for easing the passing on ofgenerational knowledge which otherwisewould have come to an abrupt halt.Varietiesandthe relating knowledgewererediscoveredinthefieldsworkedbyelderlyfarmerswho often had no adequatenewgenerationwithin thefamily.Ontheotherhand , young peop le approach ingagriculture are often not from farmingfamiliesandthereforewithoutanadequatedegree of knowledge and above allwithouttheloreofseedsclassicallypassedon from family to family or throughmatrimony. In this case the body playedthe role of cultural and social mediator,putting these two subjects in touch witheachotherandfosteringthepassingonofseedsandknowledgefromonegenerationtothenext.All thiswasmade possibleby establishingthe conditions of trust described abovewhichlieatthebaseoftheworkingsoftheinformal seed system. Indeed the manystudiesonhow thesesystemswork intheworld’s southern countries highlight theimportance of concepts l ike trust,reciprocity and socialties in thedynamicsofexchangeandcirculationofseed(Brush,2007).Discoveringthatthesedynamicsarestill important today in industrialisedcountries (Louwaars, 2008) can play animportantpartforthefutureofagricultureinItalyistheimportantpointthatemergesfromthisexperience.

Bibliography

A R S S A , 2 0 0 6 . P a n e n e i P a r c h idell’Appennino Centrale ‐ L’itinerariodelpaneneiParchi,CARSA.

Brush S., 2004. Farmers' Bounty: LocatingCrop Diversity in the ContemporaryWorld,YaleUniversityPress


73

C u r c e t t i E . , D a v i n i G . , 2 0 0 8 .Agrobiodiversità ‐ la rete degliagricoltoricustodidelParcoNazionaledel Gran sasso e Monti della Laga,GruppoTipograficoEditoriale.

Dalla Ragione I., Porfiri O., Silveri D.D.,Torricelli R., Veronesi F., 2004. Lerisorse genetiche autoctone dellaregione Abruzzo: un patrimonio davalorizzare,ARSSA.

Di Santo M., Silveri D.D., 2004. Le varietàautoctone del Parco Nazionale dellaMajella,POMAN.

LouwaarsN.,2007.SeedsofConfusion;Theimpact of policies on seed systems,PhD dissertation, Wageningen, TheNetherlands.

Silveri D.D., 2002, Il Recuperodelle varietàautoctone abruzzesi: il progettodell’ARSSA,inTaucciT.

SiloneI.,1963.Laterrae lagente,inChiericiU.,CianfaraniV.,GentileP.,SiloneI.,TittaRosaG.,Abruzzo,BNL.

Tavano G., Silveri D.D., 2006, 4 Prodottitipici di Abruzzo ‐ ricerche analisisviluppi,CARSA.

Taucci Tiziana, 2002. Enogastronomiaabruzzese,EdizioniAmaltea.


74

Can consumer choice foster morediversified farming systems? TheexperienceofdirectsaleinToscana1

DiegoNaziri

“Iturntoseveralandcompletelydifferent distribution channels:direct selling, local markets andcooperativesoforganicproducts.All this leads me to a growingdiversification.”

JeanFrançoisBerthellot,farmer(France)

IntroductionTheitinerarythattheagri‐fooddistributionsystemhastakeninlastdecadeshasledtothe development of long supply chains inwhichthedistancebetweenproducerandconsumer has increasingly widened, aprocessaggravatedbythemultiplicationofintermediaries. The establishment of thistypeofchain isoftendominatedby large‐scale transnational enterprises in whichstandardisationandflexibility insupply areparamount, and which has led to aflattening of tastes and consumption(Brunorietal.,2007).

The consequences of this have beensignificant. On the one hand small‐scaleproducers have tended to becomeexcludedfromthemarketbecauseoftheirlack of competitiveness and incapacity toguarantee the production standardsdemanded of them and, on the other,consumerawarenesshasbeenobscuredasto the pathway fol lowed by theirpurchases,thuspreventinganykindofrealmonitoring on quality and means ofproduction.By contrast,recentyearshavewitnessedasharpgrowthininitiativescounteringthese

processeswhichaimtoestablishtheworthof produce at its place of origin andheighten theprofile of farmers.These arealmost always organised along “short”lines, rooted in theterritoryandthereforelinkedtoitsnatural,cultivation‐relatedandsocial resources, and are based on adifferentsetofvalues,principles,meaningsand objectives such as the environment,culture and ethics, different from purelyeconomicobjectives(Brunorietal.,2006a).Direct sale is a form of trading in farmproduce that puts producers in directcontactwithconsumers,short‐circuitingallthe middle links of the chain, hence itsdefinition of “short supply chain”.Consideringthesocio‐economicconditionsof the present day, direct sale is a highlysignificantoption foranumberofreasons.Itisaviablealternativetotheconventionalfood production system essentially basedon intens ive methods and h igh lyspecialised farming systems tailored tomeet the demands of the wholesalemarketwhichspecificallypenalisesthefirstring of the chain, namely the farms whofind themselves squeezed between risingcosts of production factors and the lowprice paid for their produce, the so‐called“squeeze on agriculture” (Cicatiello andFranco,2008).Thismechanismimperilstheveryexistenceofamultitudeof smallandmid‐sized farms that are vital for themaintenance and development of thesocial,economicandculturalfabricofruralareas(VanderPloeg,2006).There is quite an extensive bibliographydescribing subjects who make use of theshort supply chain, both producers andconsumers, the function and modusoperandi for establishing these socialnetworks, the relationship between local

Canconsumerchoicefostermorediversifiedfarmingsystems?TheexperienceofdirectsaleinTuscanyRegion

75

1ThisarticleisanexcerptfromNaziriD.,Directsaleasameansforpromotingthesustainableuseofplantgenetic resources:thecaseoftheTuscanyRegion,JournalofAgriculture andEnvironmentforInternationalDevelopment,vol.102.N.1‐2.

foodstuffs and rural development, andlastly on the valorization of localproduction as a tool for territorialmarketing.Thereisinsteadalackofstudiesthat confirm the ratherwidely held beliefthat short supply chains,anddirect sale inparticular, can be effective in limiting theeros ion of b io logica l d ivers i ty byencouraging more diversified farmingsystems and contributing to recoveringtraditional varieties. Indeed these latterhavebeengraduallyabandonedbyfarmerssinceon theonehand traditionalvarietiesdo not possess the characteristicsnecessa ry to be i nc luded i n theconventionaldistributionchains(especiallyin termsofuniformity, look,suitability forindustrial transformationandresistancetohandling and transportation) and, on theother,theyhavesofarfoundithardtofindadequatealternativetradingoutlets.Thisstudy doesnot set out to provideanexhaustiveanswer to this issuebut ratherto report cases of positive correlationbetween direct sale and biodiversity inTuscan agriculture. It also seeks toestablish whether by promoting thesustainable use of genetic resourcesthrough supporting short supply chainsmake s a n y r e a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t oimplementingtheFAOInternationalTreatyon Plant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture (ITPGRFA) towhich theItaliangovernment is committed by havingratified itandwhatshapethissupporthastakensofar.

ThecollectiveformsofdirectsaleinItalyThe direct sale of food products toconsumers is a practice which has nevercompletely died out in Italy. Despite thewidespread consensus about the strong

andgrowinginterestindirectsale,itisverydifficult toarrive at a accurateidea ofthesize of the phenomenon and in any casesuchanideawouldbeoutwiththescopeofthisstudy.

Direct sale has been boosted in recenty e a r s b y t h e s o ‐ c a l l e d “ l aw o forientation” (Legislative Decree 228/2001)that for the first time gave farmers therighttodeal notonlyintheirownproduce(which,inanycase,muststillbeprevalentbypercentage)butalsoinproduceboughtfromthirdparties.Thisisadeparturefromthe ordinary legislation on trading(LegislativeDecree114/1998).Thepreviouslaw (59of1963) limited saletomarketingonlyone’sownproduce.Thelaunchofcertain directsale initiativeswasbackedbyproducersinanattempt tomeettheconsumerdemandforfreshlocalproduce. The service offered by theproducerswas simple, such as setting upsales points for direct selling within thefarm or in outside premises, whetherindividuallyor togetherwithotherfarmerssuch as in the so‐called farmers’ marketsandincollectiveoutlets.Legislation has also contemplated thisapproach.Article1(subparagraph1,065)ofthe 2007 Budget Law (Law 296/06)explicitly promotes the development offarmers’ markets and this was furtherenshrined in the Ministry of Agriculture,Food and Forestry (MiPAAF)decreeof 20November 2007 which delegated theestablishment of such initiatives to localg o v e r n m e n t , i n p a r t i c u l a r t omunicipalities2.The2007BudgetLawalsoprovidedfurtherincentives to launching direct, collective‐typedirectsaleinitiativesandthese,inthe


76

2 This decree is“of anon‐regulatorynature”sinceArticle117ofthe ItalianConstitutionconferstheexclusive responsibility for legislating on trading andagriculture tothe Regions.Thismeans thatRegionallegislationhasthestatusof legallybindinglawandsothisdecreeisforguidanceonlyandisnotbinding.

meantime,haveemergedinmanydifferentguises, from more spontaneous andsometimes occasional cooperation amongproducers to moreorganised ventures ofcollectivelymanagingdirect sales(Rossietal., 2008). Indeed Article 1 (subparagraph1,094)strongly encourages farmersto setup companies with objectives that mayincludecollectivedirectsale.

Other direct sale initiatives came about,notthroughtheeffortsofproducersbutofconsumers.Overtheyearstherehasbeena heightening of consumer awareness oftheneed to reclaim thepower to choosealso at the moment of purchase. Inchoosing from a variety of products theconsumer is deciding which company tosupport and thus , ind i rect ly , thecorresponding farming model. This hasspawned a number o f consumermovementscommittedtosupportinglocalproduce,small‐sizefarmsandmarginalisedrural areas, and enhancing the culture ofcriticalconsumption.Thesemovementsareemerging all over the world, each withtheir own modus operandi, level ofawareness and objectives stemming fromtheterritorialcontextandhistoricalperiodin which they developed. In Italy, the so‐calledGAS,acronymof“Gruppid’AcquistoSolidale” (Solidarity Purchasing Groups)represent a significant experience. This ispresently the most widespread form ofself‐organisedgroupsofconsumersinItaly(Innocenti, 2007a). TheGASwere grantedrecognition in the 2008 Budget Law (Law244/07)anddefinedas“non‐profit‐makingassociationsestablishedwiththeobjectiveofpurchasinganddistributingmerchandiseto thosebelonging to itwithoutmark‐up,pursuing aims of ethicalness, socials o l i d a r i t y a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a lsustainability”. This measure enables

groups who have come together asassociations to conduct their business infull conformity of tax laws on an equalfootingwithnon‐commercialbodies.This study will focus exclusively oncollective forms of direct sale, namelyfarmers’ markets, collective outlets andGAS as bodies for which support byinstitutionscouldbemoreeasilyprovided.

ThesituationintheTuscanyRegionTuscany is an excellent viewpoint foranalysing the development of the shortsupply chain. By its nature, it has provedfertileforthefoundationand rapidspreadofanumberofinitiativesthatofteninvolvemany localactors.In fact,Tuscanystillhasamodelofagriculturewithstrong linkstolocal contexts, with a low incidence of“modernity” and with a structure mainlycomposedof smalltomedium‐sizedfarmsofwhichover80%haslessthan5hectaresofUtilizedArableArea (UAA) (Rossietal.,2008).

The 2007 report of the Observatory forDirect Sales sponsored by the Coldirettifarmers’ federation and Agri2000 notedthat Tuscany is theprimary region in Italyfor direct sale with no fewer than 9,670farmsthatselltheirproducedirectly(some7% of the number of farms in the region)representing around 17% of the nationaltotal3.The collective approach to direct sale inTuscany began in the 1970s with a fewsporadic initiatives launched directly bysmall‐scale producers. The year 1984 sawthefirstFierucola inFlorence,thefirstrealfarmers’ market organised and run byfarmers themselves. In the years thatfollowed, and especially over the last fiveor six years, there has been a significantincrease of initiatives of this kind and


77

3Note,however,thatformanyfarmsinToscanatoday,directsellingisjustacomplementaryactivitytoprovidingboardandlodgingasagritourisms(ofwhichtherearesome3,500intheRegion)sellingtheirproducetocustomerswithnoinvolvementinothermorestructuredcollectiveinitiatives.

these,inturn,havebeensupplementedbyother projects involving producerst oge the r w i t h l o ca l gove rnmentorganisations and other bodies bothinstitutional and from the sphere ofassociationism (such as the TuscanCommittee for Organic Producers‐CTPBand the Association of Solidarity for theItalian Countryside‐ASCI). In this highlydynamic setting, thecharacteristicsofthemarket vary a lotboth inhow it relatestothe territory and in the objectives theorganisers set themselves (Brunori et al.,2008).As of now, Tuscany boasts some fifteenfarmers’markets that are set up regularly(generally once a month) and there areotherswhich,despite their longevity, onlyappearsporadically.

Thegrowinginterest intheseinitiativesonthepartoftheinstitutionsledtheTuscanyRegion to introducemeasure5.3.3.2.1 intothe Rural Development Programme2007‐2013providingfundingforstimulatingproducers’markets in ruralareas in orderto encourage vitality and theprovision ofservices in themore backward areas too.Sofar,however,thismeasurehasnotbeenimplemented.

By contrast, the approval of the “Filieracorta–Reteregionaleperlavalorizzazionedei prodotti agricoli toscani [Short supplychain – Regional network for thevalorization of Tuscan agriculturalproduce]” (DGRT4 335/2007) TuscanyRegional project has had an enormous

impactonthedevelopmentofdirect sale.It set a tender earmarking substantialfunding to support specific direct saleinitiativesinthethree‐yearperiodbetween2007‐095 including farmers’markets.Asoftoday, this project has earmarkedcontributions, which are 80% non‐refundable, to enable the initiativessponsored by local government to takeoff6. At present, sixteen farmers’marketshavereceived funding(a numberofwhichwerealreadyupandrunning).

The“Filieracorta”projectalsoprovidedforthe funding of a specific initiative for theset‐upofoutletsfor localproduce,namelyplaceswhere farmscan selltheir producedirectly within a collectively managedstructure. Outlets are also perceived as afurthermeansofachievingthevalorizationof the territory along the lines of the“Strade [routes]” (of wine, oil, flavoursestablishedbyRegionalLaw45/2003)7.Theregional funding will enable 14 collectiveoutlets to be added to the pioneeringinitiatives launched autonomously by thefarmersthemselves(ofthese14,two–theTuttigiorni[Everyday]coveredmarketwithsome50 localproducers inMontevarchi inthe province of Arezzo and the “Dalpodere al palato [From the Farm to thePalate]”with10producers intheprovinceofSienaarealreadyupandrunning).

With regard toGASgroups,theybegan tospreadinTuscany inthemid90sbuttherewasa substantialincreaseintheirnumberssince2000‐2001.At presentthereseem to


78

4RulingoftheTuscanyRegionalGovernment.5ThisprojectcameafewmonthsbeforethepublicationoftheMiPAAFdecreeof20November2007.However,thefewdifferencesbetweenthetwolegislativeactsdonotmakethemincompatible.6 Initiatives funded under the project must in any case be financially self‐sufficient within thefollowingthreeyears.7 TheStradeprojectis aimedessentiallyattourists butin synergywith theoutlets itcouldhaveasignificantimpactontheinhabitantsoftheterritory.

besome80groupsalthough,asatnationallevel, this number could substantiallyunderestimate the actual entity of thephenomenon8.TheyaremostnumerousintheprovincesofFlorenceandPisa.

The exploratory survey of a number ofinterestingcasesIn order to better understand therelationship between direct sale and thesustainable use of agro‐biodiversity,interviews were conducted with theproprietorsof threeTuscan farmsthat arevery much involved in collective directselling.Themainpurposewastoascertain

if direct selling had led to a progressiveadaptation of agricultural productionsystem and hence had contributed to anincrease in the on‐farm agriculturalbiodiversity or, at least, to itsvalorizationandthusmaintance.The farms selected had to satisfy thefollowing criteria: i) a substantial if not

preponderantpartofproductionhadtobetraded through oneoftheformsofdirectcollective selling under examination(farmers’ market, collective outlets orGAS); ii) The farmwasnot only livestock‐basedsincethefocusofthestudywasthesustainableuseofplantgenetic resources;iii) the farm had been involved in directsellingforatleast 5 yearssothat itwouldhave had time to adjust its productionsystem; perennial plants (e.g. grapes andolives) were excluded from the studybecause adaptation of production systemforthemcanonlytakeplaceoverthemid‐

tolongterm.Thefollowingtableshowsthemaindataofthethreefarmsselected.For some years Bio Colombini has soldexclusively through direct sale, mainly toGASgroups.Radici has set up a very broad anddiversifiedsalesnetwork.Mostofitsfresh


79

8Inthisareatoo,Tuscanyisofgreatinterestwithalmost20%oftheover400GASgroupsnationwideregisteredbywebsites.

Farmname BioColombini Radici PoggiodiCamporbianoLocation Crespina(PI) LoroCiuffenna(AR) SanGimignano(SI)

Size 18ha(UAA18ha) 40ha(UAA5ha) 265ha(UAA115ha)

Maincrops1 Vegetables,legumesolives,fruittrees

Vegetables,fruittrees,cereals Fodder,cereals,vegetables,legumes,fruittrees

On‐farmprocessedproduce

Tomatojuiceandsauce,vegetablesinoil

Vegetablesinoil,sauces,creams,chestnutflour,soups,

juices,preserves

Huskedcereals,soups,flours,pasta,tomatosauce,creams,juices,preserves.cheeses

Certification ICEA(organic) ICEA(organic) CODEXs.r.l.(organic)Demeter(biodynamic)

Firstyearofdirectselling

2001 1985 1995

Formsofdirectselling2

GAS(19groupsservingbetween600and1300

families),farmoutlet,localschool

Collectiveoutlet(TuttigiorniinMontevarchi),farmers’market(LaFierucolainFlorence),GAS

(2),farmoutlet,catering

GAS(80groupsservingbetween1500and2500

families),farmoutlet,localschool,on‐line(fordry

foodstuffsonly)

Formsofnon‐directselling2

no Specialtyshops(localandnon‐localincluding

overseas)

Specialtyshops,wholesalers(forpackedcerealsonly)

1Maincropsunderlined1Maincropsunderlined1Maincropsunderlined1Maincropsunderlined2Mainformsofsellingunderlined2Mainformsofsellingunderlined2Mainformsofsellingunderlined2Mainformsofsellingunderlined

Tab.1–Maincharacteristicsofthethreefarmstakingpartinthestudy

produce is sold through the collectiveoutlet in Montevarchi (estimated yearlyturnoverbetween40and50,000Euros)orthrough other forms of direct sale. Theprocessed produce, by contrast, is mainlysoldnon‐directlythroughspecialtyshops.Lastly, although Poggio di Camporbiano ismuch bigger than the other two it stillmanages to sell over 80% of its producedirectly to consumers, principally throughthe80GASgroupsitdealswith.Inorder toverify theimpactofdirect saleon the agricultural bio‐diversity of eachsingle farm, three different levels ofanalysiswereconsidered:i)diversityinthefarming system;ii)diversity inthenumberof crops and iii) diversity in number ofvarieties.It emerged that the effect direct sale hashad on the diversification in the farmingsystem of the three farms has not beenu n i f o r m . T h e fi r s t f a r m u n d e rconsideration, Bio Colombini, sold itsproduce almost exclusively to large‐scaledistribution through wholesalers or morefrequently directly to the supermarketsuntil the early ’90s. The systemused wassubstantially a highly specialised model ofintens ive industr ia l i sed vegetableproduction adequate to the needs andlogistics of large‐scale distribution. Today,the system is still mainly vegetable‐oriented but different in that now theproduce is high‐quality, typical, local andorganicfordirectsale.Furthermore,directsaleinducedthefarmtoaddfruitandoliveproductiontotheirrangebutthesearestillofsecondaryimportance.

The impact of direct sale has been feltmore by the Radici farm. Originally, itfarmed chestnuts, essentially harvestingthe nuts from the trees on its property.Transformationhasalwaysbeenimportantfor the farm for selling the productsobtainedfromchestnuts–driedchestnuts,andchestnutflourandpuree–tospecialtyshops.Whenhebeganpioneeringformsofdirectsalethroughfarmers’marketsinthemid ’80s, the owner understood that awider assortment of products wasnecessary if he wanted to satisfy thedemandofthemarket.Thisinducedhimtointroduce fruit treesandvegetablesto betransformed by the farm into his system.This is now the lion’s share of hisproduction.Lastly, the history of the Poggio diCamporbianofarmismorerecent.Sinceitsfoundation in 1988 it has always pursuedan organic and bio‐dynamic model ofagriculture9.Thefarmnowboastsa highlydiversifiedproduction that includesanimalhusbandryinlinewiththeorganicprinciplethat animals are necessary for what theycontributeintermsoforganicmaterialandformaintainingthefarmingcycleclosed.Inits early years, the farm sold its producethroughwholesalers specialised in organicproducts but in so doing it encounteredtwo main problems. The first was theexcessivelylowpricesthefarmwaspaidbythemiddle‐man and the second was thatthefarmownersdidnotwishtorelyonanyproductionfactorexternalto thefarmbutbeautonomous,evenasregardstheseedsthat had to be (and still are) mostly self‐produced10. This means they have neverwanted to grow hybrids which, in turn,


80

9 Bio‐dynamic agriculture is an approach to sustainable systems of agricultural production thatrespectstheearth’secosystem.Itis basedon thephilosophicalteachingsoftheAustrianexponentofesotericismRudolf Steiner;it includes theideaof organicagriculturein singleharmonywith theearthandthelifethatdevelopsonit.10 Exceptforthe seedsof certain vegetables inwhich theyare notyetself‐sufficientandwhicharestillpurchasedexternally.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner

createdproblemsin satisfyingthedemandofwholesalers in particular foruniformity.Thuscamethefirstapproachtodirectsalewh i ch i n i t i a l l y took the fo rm o fparticipating in farmers’markets (a policylater abandoned) and which, as appears,was to become their most importantdistributionchannel.There isan interestingdifferencebetweenthis case and theprevious two in that itsdiversificationinfarmingsystemwasnotaresult of thenew economic opportunitiesthatemergedfromdirectsalebutratherofa systemic approach to the sphere ofagriculturethatwaspursuedfromtheverybeginning. The progressive diversificationthat took placeover theyearswas in factdirectly attributable to the availability ofmore money which enabled the farm toshoulder the heavy costs of investmentrequired to purchase the necessaryequ ipment and st ructures . S ince ,therefore, direct sale was the means ofdistribution most suited to their wideassortment of qual i ty produce, i tu ndoub ted l y c on t r i bu t ed t o t hei m p l emen t a t i o n a n d s u c c e s s i v emaintenance of the eco‐sustainable,diversified model of agriculture that thefarmhadpursuedfromitsinception.With regard to diversity of cultivatedspecies, all three farms registered anincreaseinnumberafterresortingtodirectselling. The reasons for this choice weresubstantially in order to: i) broaden theassortment of products offered to bettersatisfy thediversity of consumer demand,and save clients the extra costs and timeinvolved in shopping at a multitude of

suppliers; ii) lengthen the time span ofhaving some kind of product to sell sincethe personal relationship betweenproducer and consumer, a prerogative ofdirect sale, needs a certain degree ofcontinuityduringthecourseoftheyear;iii)pursue a more staggered productionduring the year because direct sale,especially for the GAS groups, requires amodest but regular supply flow, generallyweekly or fortnightly. Furthermore thegroups are unable to absorb productionconcentrated in a short period; iv)introduce or rediscover crops that couldnot be fully appreciated by beingdistributed through traditional marketingchannels but which sell well whendistributedthroughdirectsale.TheBioColombinifarmisanexcellentcasein point. Since it disengaged from thephilosophy of large‐scale distribution, thenumberofitscropshavegrownfrom3‐4totoday’s 30. Not only it has introducedvarieties to satisfy clients’ needs andrequests but as a way of rendering itsselling strategy as rational as possible, ithas decided to includecertain crops in itsbasket which the owner has called“emergencyproduce”.Theseareproductswith low perishability (e.g. carrots,potatoes, squash)whichcould beused tomake up for the temporary lack of otherproduceduring theyear. In thisway thereis always something for the mixedvegetable boxes that the GAS groupsgenerallypurchase11.While softening the impact of productionpeaks , s t agger ing p roduc t ion bydiversifying the species grown (and the


81

11 A producerwhosupplies theGASgroupsdoes notgenerallyhave the resources to address thedemandof individual groupmembers firstlybecause itmightnothavetheavailabilityof sufficientmerchandisetosatisfythe individualneedsofmanytensorevenhundredsoffamiliesandsecondlybecause the jobof handling orders of this kindwould be costly to the pointof being a serioushardshipforasmalltomid‐sizefarm.Theanswerwhichisoftenadoptedtosellfruitandvegetables,therefore, is tomake upa standardmixedbox containing avariety of produce according to theseason,theweather,orbecauseofproducer’srequirements.

varieties as described under) only partlysolves the issue of the timegap betweensupply and demand. There is a markedtendency within farms involved in directsale for this strategy often to beaccompaniedbyprocessingoftheproducewithin the farm itself. In addition toenablingthefarmtomarketproductswithahigheraddedvalue,thisstrategyreducesthe seasonal limitation of produce, itsperishability and periods of excessivelyconcentratedworkloadsduringtheyear.Insome cases, not only does processingcomplementproductiondiversificationasameansoftacklingorganisationalissuesbutis also,in itself, an ulteriorfactortowardsbiodiversity.The progressive broadening of processedproduce by the Radici farm, for example,preparedaccording to oldrecipesorevenin the form of authentic “domesticexperimentation”hasresulted in theneedfor new crops to be introduced into thefarming system (e.g. lettuce,arugula, andred lettuce used in certain soup recipes).Theownerhasestimated thatthenumberof vegetables produced has risen fromabout15totoday’s30.Asstatedabove,theimpactofdirectsaleson the Poggio di Camporbiano farm hasbeendecidedly lesspronounced.Fromthevery outset, the owners sought tointroducea broadrangeofcrops,growingvarious cereals (bread and durum wheat,spelt, barley, rye and millet) legumes(chickpeas, lentils and beans) fruit andespeciallyawidevarietyofvegetables.Bycontrast, however, when in those daysthey were mainly se l l ing throughwholesalers, the products that actuallyfoundtheirwaytothemarketwereonlyafew varieties (e.g. squash and garlic) andthe rest was relatively marginal and used

mainly for domestic consumption. HavingnowtosupplymanyGASgroupsrequiredaradical reorganisation in their system. Intermsoflandearmarkedforcultivationthepredomination of few crops over theothershasbeensubstantially reducedandthe areasdedicated to individual crops isnowmuchmorehomogeneous12.Finallywithregardtothediversity intermsof varieties grown, inthiscase too, directsellinghashadtheeffectofincreasingtheirnumber,substantiallyforthesamereasonsas for the number of crops grown. BioColombini has seen an increase in thenumberofvarieties,especially forcabbageand kale (ten or so varieties) tomato andeggplant (8 to 10 varieties each). For“emergency products”, the problem ofreducing the concentration of productionisobviouslylessacuteanditwasthereforeunnecessary to increase the number ofvarietiesofthesecrops.

Despitetheeffect that transformation hashad of lessening also the Radici farm’sneedtograduateproduction,thereisagaina considerable number of varietiesgrown(some100ofwhich 25ofpotatoesalone).In addition to research into varietiescharacteristics which give a specialorganoleptic quality to its processedproduce, according to theproprietor, thisis also a way to reduce the costs ofwarehousingandofimmobilisedcapital.TheheadofCamporbiano,too,pointsouthowdirectsellinghasledtothecultivationof more varieties, stressing on the onehand theneed to staggerproduction (e.g.by growing early, mid‐season and latevarieties of cabbage and kale, or, forapples, summer varieties for immediateconsumpt ion , v a r i e t i e s f o r ea r l yconsumption and lastly varieties whichbenefit from months of ripening in the


82

12 There has therefore been an increase in biodiversityasmeasuredbythe Shannon indexwhichtakesintoaccountthenumerousnessofspeciesandalsotheuniformityoftheirdistribution.

fruit‐house) and, on theother, being ableto meet specific and diverse demands ofconsumersfromdifferent partofTuscany,even relatively close to one another. Thefarm also makes use of mixtures ofvarieties of cereals that have undergoneselection over the years for their specialap t i t ude fo r t r ans fo rmat ion anda d a p t a b i l i t y t o t h e l o c a l a g r o ‐environmentalconditions.It comesasno surprise, therefore that allthree farms examined in this studycultivate local and/or old varieties and incertain cases are also directly involved inattempts to recover varieties whichotherwise would no longer be grown asnot distributed through the conventionaldistributionchannels(e.g.theowneroftheRadicifarm,whohasbeenamemberoftheA s soc i a z i one Ag r i co l to r i Cu s tod i[Association of Guardian Farmers] since1991).

DirectsellingasameansofpromotingthesustainableuseofplantgeneticresourcespursuanttoArticle6oftheTreatyThestudysofarshowsaclear,pronouncedcorrelation between agrobiodiversity andthe various forms of direct sale. Supportfor direct sale from the institutionswhethernationalor localcanthereforebeseen as a valid means for contributingtowardsthesustainableuseofagriculturalb i o d i v e r s i t y a n d , i n d i r e c t l y , t oimplementing Article6 of the FAOTreatyon plant genetic resourceswhich,being apartyto,Italyisboundtobecommittedto.ThemainrelevanceofdirectsaletoArticle6isrelatedtosubparagraph(a),(e)and(f)oftheparagraph(2).The subparagraph (a) requires thatcountries party to the agreement shall“pursue fair agricultural policies thatpromote,asappropriate,thedevelopmentand maintenance of diverse farmingsystems […]”. As we have seen, this

diversificationisoccurred inall threefarmsstudied.

The subparagraph (e) invites countries to“promote, as appropriate, the expandeduse of local and locally adapted crops,varietiesandunderutilizedspecies”.Inthisinstance, too, the short distribution chainhas proved more suitable than othermarketing means for distributing andvalorizing this type of production andthereforeforpromotingitscultivation.Lastly, subparagraph (f), supports asappropriate “thewideruseofdiversity ofva r i e t i e s and spec ies i n on ‐ fa rmma n a g emen t , c o n s e r v a t i o n a n dsustainable use of crops […] in order toreduce crop vulnerability and geneticerosion,andpromoteincreasedworldfoodproduction compatible with sustainabledevelopment”. The case study resultsreportedhereclearlyshow thatdirect salehas always promoted diversification offarm production both in species andvarieties.However, itisnoteworthythat inthecaseofBioColombiniandRadici,directsa le was a dr iv ing force towardsdiversification and led to an increase inagricultural biodiversity. In the case ofPoggiodiCamporbiano,ahighlydiversifiedproduction model was pursued from thevery outset independently of direct sale.Directsaleonlyappearedlaterasthebestmarketing approach for valorizing thefarm’sproduction.Inthiscase,therefore,itcan be said that direct sale contributedmoretomaintainingorganic diversity thantoincreasingit.

Institutional criticality and support todirectsaleFromtheinterviewsconducted itemergedthat adopting the policy of direct sale isoften fraught with extra costs anddifficulties, especially of an organisationalnature. This is, in part, also witnessed bythe low number of producers who havedecidedtoadoptthistypeofmarketing.


83

During the interviews, themain points ofcriticality encountered were: i) technicaland organisationaldifficulties inproducingandofferingawideassortmentofproducethatsatisfiesconsumerdemand(especiallythose in the GAS groups); ii) the lack ofmanpowerin thecountryside; ii) amarkedincrease in staff costs; iii) a lack ofcontinuity in the demand, in particular oftheGASgroups,becauseoftenthegroupsthemselveshaveaveryshortlifefrombirthto demiseand also because theirdemandreachesitslowestebb inSummerwhichistheperiodofmaximumproduction;iv)thetime needed to take part in farmers’markets or to divide produce into theboxesfor theGASgroupsandv) theneedfor investments specifically addressed todirectsale.

The farmers interviewed appreciate theefforts be ing made by the pub icinstitutionsin favour of thevariousformsof collective selling but they feel thatfurther support initiatives are needed. Inaddition to providing a legislativeframework thatmakesdirectselling legal,sofar,essentially,theseeffortshavetakenthe shape of contributions by localgovernmenttosettingupfarmers’marketsand collective outlets (in this case, inMontevarchi).As of now,theGASgroupsdonotappeartohavereceivedanyformofsupport from the institutions. It hasemerged that the main request is forsupportintheavailabilityofmeetingplacesthatcanbeusedtostockproduce,thelackof which sets severe constraints on theoperabilityofthegroups.F u r t h e rmo r e , d e s p i t e t h e R u r a lDevelopment Programme of the TuscanyRegion never having funded collectiveformsofdirectselling it has, inpast yearsespecially, spent considerable sums ofmoney to providepartial coverage of thee xpen s e s o f mode r n i s a t i o n a nddiversification of individual farms. These

contributionswerefunctionalespeciallyforthose who intended embarking onprocessing theirproductswithin the farmin order to then market the produce bydirectsale.

BibliographyBrunoriG.,GuidiF.,InnocentiS.,andRossi

A., 2008. Monitoraggio e supportodelle esperienze di filiera corta inToscana. Agenzia Regionale per loSviluppo e l’Innovazione nel settoreAgricolo‐forestale, RegioneToscana,Firenze,61p.

Brunori G., Cerruti R., Guidi F., and RossiA.,2007 (eds.). Indagine conoscitivasuicircuiti brevi/localidi produzione‐consumo dei prodotti agricoli inToscana.Aspettiemersi dall’indagine.Dipartimento di Agronomia eGestione del l ’Agroecosistema(DAGA),UniversitàdiPisa,Pisa,41p.

BrunoriG.,RossiA.,andGuidiF.,2006a.Leesperienzedifilieracorta.Agrisole‐IlSole 24ore, Rapporto Economia epolitiche rurali in Toscana, n° 8:44‐50.

BrunoriG.,CerrutiR.,MedeotS.,andRossiA., 2006b. Policy Recommendationsand Practical Protocols. ItalianNational Report of the projectentitled “Marketing SustainableAgriculture: An analysis of thepotentialroleofnewsupplychains insustainablerural development”(SUS‐CHAIN). Dipartimento di Agronomiae Gestione dell’Agroecosistema(DAGA),UniversitàdiPisa,Pisa,11p.

Cicatiello C., and Franco S., 2008. Lav e nd i t a d i r e t t a : p r o du t t o r ic on sumato r i e p rodu t t i v i t à .Associazione Alessandro Bartola,Agriregionieuropa, anno 4, n° 14:44‐46.


84

FAO, 2001. International Treaty on PlantGenetic Resources for Food andAgriculture.(ITPGRFA).Rome

GardiniC.,andLazzarinC.,2007.Lavenditadiretta in Italia. AssociazioneA l e s s a n d r o B a r t o l a ,Agriregionieuropa,year3,n°8:17‐19.

Innocenti S. , 2007a. Dal cibo al lac i t t a d i n a n z a . L ’ a z i o n e d e iconsumatorinella costruzione diretisociali. Laboratorio di studi ruraliSismondi, WorkingPaper n° 1, Pisa,14p.

Innocent i S . , 2007b. Opportun itàcommercialeecondivisionedivalori:iGruppid’AcquistoSolidaleinToscana.Specialistdegreethesis inBiologicaland Multifunctional Agriculture,Faculty ofAgriculture,University ofPisa,Pisa,115p.

LazzarinC.and,GardiniC.,2007.Lavenditadiretta: un business in crescita.L’InformatoreAgrario,n°1:26‐29.

M a r e s c o t t i A . , 2 0 0 6 . L acommercializzazione dei prodottitipici, in Guida per la valorizzazionedei prodotti agroalimentari tipici.Concett i , metodi , s t rument i .AgenziaRegionaleperlo Sviluppoel’Innovazione nel settore Agricolo‐fo res ta le , Reg ione Toscana ,ManualeARSIA,Firenze,67‐77.

Moore G., and Tymoski W., 2005.E x p l a n a t o r y G u i d e t o t h eInternational Treaty on PlantGenetic Resources for Food andAgriculture. IUCN EnvironmentalPolicy and Law Paper n. 57, Gland,SwitzerlandandCambridge,212p.

Ploeg J.D. van der, 2006. Agriculturalproduction in crisis. In P. Cloke, T.Marsden, and P. Mooney (eds.),L ondon SAGE Pub l i c a t i o n s ,HandbookofRuralStudies,258‐278.

Rossi A., Guidi F., and Innocenti S., 2008(eds.). Guida per l’attivazione diforme collettive di vendita diretta.Esperienze, approcci e strumenti.AgenziaRegionaleperlo Sviluppoel’Innovazione nel settore Agricolo‐forestale, Tuscany Region, ARSIAHandbook,Florence,123p.

SeverinoM.E.,2005.Versonuovetendenzedi consumo: i Gruppi d’AcquistoSolidale.Three‐yeardegreethesis inEconomics and Service IndustryManagement,FacultyofEconomics,UniversityofVerona,Verona,136p.

NationaladregionalnormativeframeworkofreferenceMiPAAF decree of 20 November 2007:"Implementation of Art (1) (1065) of LawNr 296 of 27 December on markets setaside for direct sale by farmers", OfficialGazetteNr301of29‐12‐2007LawNr296 of27 December2006,n. 296:“Measuresforthepreparationofyearandmulti‐year accounts of the State (budget2007)”,OfficialGazetteNr299of27‐12‐2006Law Nr 244 of 24 December 2007:“Measuresforthepreparationofyearandmulti‐year accounts of the State (budget2008)”,OfficialGazetteNr10of12‐1‐2008LawNr59of9February1963:“Normsforthe stable sale of farm produce to thepublic by direct farm producers”, OfficialGazetteNr44of16‐02‐1963

LegislativeDecreeNr114of31March1998:"Reform of the law concerning tradepursuanttoArticle(4)(4)ofLaw Nr59 of15 March 1997”. OfficialGazetteNr 95 of24‐4‐1998‐Suppl.OrdinarioNr80LegislativeDecreeNr 228 of 18May 2001:"Orientation and modernisation ofagriculturepursuanttoArticle7ofLawNr57 of 5 March 2001. ", OfficialGazette Nr137of15‐6‐2001‐Suppl.OrdinarioNr149


85

Ru l i n g o f t h e Tu s c an y R eg i ona lGovernment Nr 335 of 14 May 2007:"Regional Project "Filiera Corta‐ Reteregionaleperlavalorizzazionedeiprodottiagricoli toscani", Official Regional BulletinNr22of30‐5‐2007Ru l i n g o f t h e Tu s c an y R eg i ona lGovernmentNr843 of 13 November 2006:“Reg. CE 1698/05 – Rural DevelopmentProgrammeoftheTuscanyRegion fortheperiod 2007‐13”, Official Regional BulletinNr48of28‐11‐2007

Tuscany Regional Law Nr 45 of 5 August2003: “Discipline of the ‘strade del vino,dell’olio extravergine di oliva’ and qualityagricultural and food produce”, OfficialRegionalBulletinNr36del14‐8‐2003


86

Annex

87

RegionalDraftBillProposal

Theobjectiveofthisdocument istopresentadraftmodelthatcombinesandsynthesisestheregionallegislationforprotectingandenhancingautochthonousvarietiesandbreedsofinteresttoagriculture.

Protectionandenhancementoftheheritageoflocalbreedsandplantvarietiesofinteresttoagricultureandhusbandry

Art.1–ScopeandPurpose1.TheRegionprovidesfortheconservationandprotectionoftheheritageoflocalbreedsandvarieties,andofautochthonousgeneticresources.2. The Region protectsandenhancethe cultural heritageof knowledge,techniquesandcustoms relating to agricultural biodiversity as implemented by rural communitiesthroughouthistory.3.Localbreedsandvarietiesbelongto thenaturalagriculturalandhusbandryheritageoftheregionalterritory.4.TheRegionpromotesandguaranteecollectiveuseof theheritageof localbreedsandvarietiesbymeansofaconservationnetwork.5. TheRegion implementsdirectmeasuresand encouragepublicandprivate initiatives inordertoconserve,safeguardandenhancelocalvarietiesandbreedsofagriculturalinterestwithparticularattentiontothoseatriskoferosion.Art.2–Definitions1.For thepurposesof this law, breedsand localvarieties,hereinaftergenetic resources,shallbe:

a) species,breeds, varieties, cultivars, populations, ecotypes and clones that haveoriginintheterritory;b) species, breeds, varieties, cultivars, populations, ecotypes and clones which,despitebeingofextra‐territorialoriginwereintroduced intotheterritorysufficientlyin the past to now be a fully integratedpart of itsagricultural system and animalhusbandry;

c) species, breeds, varieties, cultivars, populations and ecotypes which have beenbredfromselectedstrainsofthosespecifiedinArt2(1)(a)and(b)hereof;d)species,breeds,varieties, cultivars,populationsand ecotypesoriginally from theRegionbutno longer extantthereand conserved inbotanicgardens, nurseriesorresearchcentresinotherregionsorcountries.

2.TheImplementingRegulationshalldefinethecriteria forclassifyingtheautochthonousgeneticresourcesatriskofgeneticerosionpursuanttoArt2(1)hereof.

Art.3–TheheritageofgeneticresourcesTheRegion shallrecognise theheritageofknowledge, innovationand practicesof localcommunitieswhichareimportantfortheconservationandenhancementofthebiologicaldiversitiesextantintheterritory.PursuanttoArt8(j)oftheRioConventiononBiodiversity(1992),and Article9oftheInternationalTreaty onPlantGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgriculture the Region shall encourage thesharingwithin the local communities of thebenefitsarisingfromtheapplicationandusageoftheaforementionedheritage.Art.4–TheresponsibilityoftheRegion

Regionaldraftbillproposal

88

1.TheRegionshallcarryoutitstasksofprotectingandenhancinggeneticresourcesby:a) favouring public and private initiatives that tend to conserve and reconstitutegenetic resources,disseminateknowledge of and respect for themand interest intheiruse,andenhanceproducederivingfromthem;b) itself launching initiatives with the objective of protecting and enhancing saidresources.

2.TheRegionshallapproveadhocprogrammeswhichspecifytheactivitiesand initiativeswhicharedeemednecessarytobelaunchedandpromoted,andwhichestablishthecriteriaforgainingaccesstothebenefits,themeasureoftheincentivesandtherelativemodalitiesofimplementation.Art.5–VoluntaryRegionalregister1.Inordertosafeguard localbreedsandvarieties,avoluntaryRegionalRegisterwill besetup with a section for animals and one for plants. It will record breeds, varieties,populations,ecotypesandclonesofregionalinterestpursuanttoArt2hereof.2. TheRegionalRegister will beorganised in accordancewith criteria and characteristicsthat foster uniformity and comparability with any other similar toolwhichmay exist atnationalorinternationallevel.3.TheRegionalRegisterwillbepublicandmanagedbythedirectorygeneralforagricultureandbeconsultableon‐line.

Art.6–EnrolmentontheRegionalRegister1. Enrolment of genetic resources on the Register will be performed by the directorygeneralforagriculturalbasedontheapprovalofanadhoctechnical‐scientificcommitteessetupbytheRegionalgovernment.2.Applicationforregistrationmaybemadeby theRegionalgovernment,scientificbodies,localauthorities,privateandpublicorganisationsandmembersofthepublic.

3.ThewaysandmeansofenrolmentontheRegionalRegistershall beinaccordancewiththeImplementingRegulation.Art.7–Tasksofthetechnical‐scientificcommittees1.Thetaskofthecommitteesisto:

a) express their opinion on applications for enrolment and cancellation of localvarietiesontheRegionalRegister;b)expresstheiropiniononthetasksperformedbytheRegion

c)determinethecriteriaforappointingStewardFarmers.Art.8–Conservationexsituofautochthonousbreedsandvarieties1. In order that ex‐situ conservation effectively protect local varieties and breeds, theRegion shall identify public and private subjectswith proven experience and who haveaccesstofacilitieswithasuitabletechnicalandorganisationalstructuretowhomtoentrusttheprotection andexsitu conservationofthegeneticresourcesenrolledintheRegionalRegister.

2.Thewaysandmeansofauthorisingandmaintaining structuresforexsituconservationshallbedisciplinedbytheImplementingRegulation.3.Subjectsappointedtoexsituconservationshallcarryouttheirdutiesinsuchawaythatthematerial entrustedthembeprotected fromallformsofcontamination,alterationanddestruction.


89

Art.9–Conservationandprotectionnetwork

1. The Region will set up and coordinate the conservation and protection network forautochthonousvarieties.2.StewardFarmersasspecifiedinArticle10hereunderandthepublicandprivatesubjectsspecifiedinArticle8,whocarryouttheexsituconservationofgeneticresourcesonbehalfoftheRegion,shallbemembersofthenetworkbyright.3.Othersubjects,bothpublicandprivate,maybelongtothenetwork inaccordancewiththewaysandmeansprovidedbytheImplementingRegulation.

4. The network will keep genetic resources at risk of extinction aliveby ex and in situconservation,andbyencouragingtheircirculation.5.Membersofthenetworkwishingtoobtainplantbreeders’rightorpatentofavarietyorofavarietyderivedessentiallyfromoneenrolledintheRegister,orfrombiologicalmaterialderivingtherefrom,mustapplyfirstandforemosttotheRegionforauthorisation.Art.10–StewardFarmers

1. Steward Farmers are those who conserve in situ the genetic resources at risk ofextinctionthatareenrolledintheindices.2.TheStewardFarmer:

a)placessinglegenetic resourcesinsafekeeping,protectingandsafeguardingthemfromallmannerofcontamination,alterationanddestruction;b) disseminates knowledge and promotes widespread cultivation of thegeneticresourcesheiscustodianto,inaccordancewiththespiritofthislaw;

c)renewstheseedsoftheherbaceousspeciesconservedinsitu.3. The post of Steward Farmer is conferred pursuant to enrolment in the register ofCustodianFarmers.

4. Farmers who aremembers of their local community and are traditionally involved inconservinggeneticresources,orwhohavecontributedtorediscoveringthemarefavouredcandidatesforenrolmentasStewardFarmers.5. Genetic resources are reproduced by Steward Farmers in the area where they wereoriginallycultivated,orinareasrecognisedastraditionalplacesfortheircultivation.6.TheImplementingRegulationgoverns:

a)thewaysandmeansofgettingenrolledontheregister;

b)theobjectiveandsubjectiverequisitesforobtainingandholdingthepostofCustodianFarmer;c) themodality for recoveringexpenses incurred in performing the tasks ofCustodianFarmer.

Art.11–Circulationofgeneticmaterial1.Inordertocountertheriskofextinctionofgeneticresourcesoflocalvarietiesenrolledinthe Register and ensure their recovery,maintenance and reproduction and hence long‐term use, members of the network may exchange a moderate quantity of the geneticmateriallocallyonanon‐profitbasis.2.TheImplementingRegulationdefine:

a)‘moderatequantity’referredtoindividualspecies;


90

b)thewaysandmeansofcirculationofgeneticmaterial.Art.12–Conservationofhistorictradition

1.TheRegionshallprotectandenhancethe localheritageofknowledge, techniquesandcustoms regarding agricultural biodiversity that rural communities have practisedthroughouthistory.

2.Tothisend,theRegion,independentlyorjointlywithlocalgovernments,associationsandother bodies, is authorised to launch initiatives with the objective of recovering andconservingthehistorictraditionofagriculturalbiodiversity.


91

ListofvarietiesincludedintheRDPsofItalianRegionsR e g i o n /Species

Varieties(localnames)Varieties(localnames)Varieties(localnames)Varieties(localnames)Varieties(localnames)

BasilicataBasilicataBasilicataBasilicataBasilicataBasilicata

Olivetree Carpinella,Fruscillo,Groia,Racioppa,Romanellalunga,Romanellatonda.Carpinella,Fruscillo,Groia,Racioppa,Romanellalunga,Romanellatonda.Carpinella,Fruscillo,Groia,Racioppa,Romanellalunga,Romanellatonda.Carpinella,Fruscillo,Groia,Racioppa,Romanellalunga,Romanellatonda.Carpinella,Fruscillo,Groia,Racioppa,Romanellalunga,Romanellatonda.

Appletree Melo cerrata, Melocetriolo,Melofuttscidd,Melo staccia,Melomaiatica, Meloolio,Melopuma,Limoncella,MelodisanFrancesco,Melo di sanGiovanni,Meloghiaccio,Melozitoorito,Meloagrappolo,Melopane,Tiposergenti,Meloacqua,Meloaciuccio,Meloanticoteneroeprofumato.

Melo cerrata, Melocetriolo,Melofuttscidd,Melo staccia,Melomaiatica, Meloolio,Melopuma,Limoncella,MelodisanFrancesco,Melo di sanGiovanni,Meloghiaccio,Melozitoorito,Meloagrappolo,Melopane,Tiposergenti,Meloacqua,Meloaciuccio,Meloanticoteneroeprofumato.




Peartree Peroagostino, Peroarancio,Perobalcone,Perocaciocavallo,Pero lardaro,Peroscarrafone,Peromelone,Peromoscatello,Peropaccona,Starngogliaestivo‐autunnale,Peroacampanelli.Peroagostino, Peroarancio,Perobalcone,Perocaciocavallo,Pero lardaro,Peroscarrafone,Peromelone,Peromoscatello,Peropaccona,Starngogliaestivo‐autunnale,Peroacampanelli.Peroagostino, Peroarancio,Perobalcone,Perocaciocavallo,Pero lardaro,Peroscarrafone,Peromelone,Peromoscatello,Peropaccona,Starngogliaestivo‐autunnale,Peroacampanelli.Peroagostino, Peroarancio,Perobalcone,Perocaciocavallo,Pero lardaro,Peroscarrafone,Peromelone,Peromoscatello,Peropaccona,Starngogliaestivo‐autunnale,Peroacampanelli.Peroagostino, Peroarancio,Perobalcone,Perocaciocavallo,Pero lardaro,Peroscarrafone,Peromelone,Peromoscatello,Peropaccona,Starngogliaestivo‐autunnale,Peroacampanelli.

Figtree Troianobianco,Troianonero.Troianobianco,Troianonero.Troianobianco,Troianonero.Troianobianco,Troianonero.Troianobianco,Troianonero.

W a l n u ttree

NoceabucciateneraNoceabucciateneraNoceabucciateneraNoceabucciateneraNoceabucciatenera

Chestnut Castagnodafrutto,Marroni.Castagnodafrutto,Marroni.Castagnodafrutto,Marroni.Castagnodafrutto,Marroni.Castagnodafrutto,Marroni.

Fennel FinocchiosemiselvaticoFinocchiosemiselvaticoFinocchiosemiselvaticoFinocchiosemiselvaticoFinocchiosemiselvatico

Artichoke CarcioforomanescoCarcioforomanescoCarcioforomanescoCarcioforomanescoCarcioforomanesco

Horseradish

RaphanussativoRaphanussativoRaphanussativoRaphanussativoRaphanussativo

Parsnip PastinacaPastinacaPastinacaPastinacaPastinaca

Pumpkin ZuccaverniletondaZuccaverniletondaZuccaverniletondaZuccaverniletondaZuccaverniletonda

Chickpea CecegrandeCecegrandeCecegrandeCecegrandeCecegrande

Bean SanMichele, Fagiolo lardaro,Marrozzo (munachedda o occhio di gatto), Marruchedda, Lattina,Fagiolouovodiuccello,Fagiolosanguediporco,Cannellinonero,Quagliandriedd,Panzaredda.SanMichele, Fagiolo lardaro,Marrozzo (munachedda o occhio di gatto), Marruchedda, Lattina,Fagiolouovodiuccello,Fagiolosanguediporco,Cannellinonero,Quagliandriedd,Panzaredda.SanMichele, Fagiolo lardaro,Marrozzo (munachedda o occhio di gatto), Marruchedda, Lattina,Fagiolouovodiuccello,Fagiolosanguediporco,Cannellinonero,Quagliandriedd,Panzaredda.SanMichele, Fagiolo lardaro,Marrozzo (munachedda o occhio di gatto), Marruchedda, Lattina,Fagiolouovodiuccello,Fagiolosanguediporco,Cannellinonero,Quagliandriedd,Panzaredda.SanMichele, Fagiolo lardaro,Marrozzo (munachedda o occhio di gatto), Marruchedda, Lattina,Fagiolouovodiuccello,Fagiolosanguediporco,Cannellinonero,Quagliandriedd,Panzaredda.

Leopoldiacomosa

LampagioneLampagioneLampagioneLampagioneLampagione

Pepper Peperonepaparelladolci,Peperonepaparellapiccante.Peperonepaparelladolci,Peperonepaparellapiccante.Peperonepaparelladolci,Peperonepaparellapiccante.Peperonepaparelladolci,Peperonepaparellapiccante.Peperonepaparelladolci,Peperonepaparellapiccante.

R e dpepper

PeperoncinolungoPeperoncinolungoPeperoncinolungoPeperoncinolungoPeperoncinolungo

Tomato Pomodoro nostrano, Pomodoro nostrano liscio, Pomodoro rotondo in asciutto (nassecco),Pomodorocuordibue,Pomodoroincasso.Pomodoro nostrano, Pomodoro nostrano liscio, Pomodoro rotondo in asciutto (nassecco),Pomodorocuordibue,Pomodoroincasso.Pomodoro nostrano, Pomodoro nostrano liscio, Pomodoro rotondo in asciutto (nassecco),Pomodorocuordibue,Pomodoroincasso.Pomodoro nostrano, Pomodoro nostrano liscio, Pomodoro rotondo in asciutto (nassecco),Pomodorocuordibue,Pomodoroincasso.Pomodoro nostrano, Pomodoro nostrano liscio, Pomodoro rotondo in asciutto (nassecco),Pomodorocuordibue,Pomodoroincasso.

Aubergine MelanzanaafricanaodirotondaMelanzanaafricanaodirotondaMelanzanaafricanaodirotondaMelanzanaafricanaodirotondaMelanzanaafricanaodirotonda

Potato Patatabianca2,Patatarossa1.Patatabianca2,Patatarossa1.Patatabianca2,Patatarossa1.Patatabianca2,Patatarossa1.Patatabianca2,Patatarossa1.

Cereals Maiorche (grano tenero), Caroselle (granotenero), Bianchette (grano tenero), Saragolle(grano duro), Cappelli (grano duro), Rossie (grano duro), Francesa (grano duro), Maisnovantino.

Maiorche (grano tenero), Caroselle (granotenero), Bianchette (grano tenero), Saragolle(grano duro), Cappelli (grano duro), Rossie (grano duro), Francesa (grano duro), Maisnovantino.




CampaniaCampaniaCampaniaCampaniaCampaniaCampania

Appletree Acquata, Agostinella rossa, Aitaniello, Ambrosio, Ananassa, Arancio, Arito, Austegna, Austina,Biancadigrottolella,Cancavone, Cannamela, Cape'eciuccio, Carne, Cerrata, Chianella, Cusanara,Delpozzo,Falsafungiona,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,Zampadicavallo,Zitella.

Acquata, Agostinella rossa, Aitaniello, Ambrosio, Ananassa, Arancio, Arito, Austegna, Austina,Biancadigrottolella,Cancavone, Cannamela, Cape'eciuccio, Carne, Cerrata, Chianella, Cusanara,Delpozzo,Falsafungiona,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,Zampadicavallo,Zitella.




ListofvarietiesandracesincludedintheRDPsofItalianRegions

92

A p r i c o ttree

Abate, Abatone, Acqua 'e serino, Ananassa, Antonaniello, Aronzo, Baracca, Boccuccia bianca,Boccuccia dieboli, Boccuccia grossa, Boccuccia liscia ii,Buttianese,Cafona,Cafona iii, Campana,Cardinale, Carpona, Casino, Cerasiello, Cerasiello ii, Cerasona, Cipolla, Cristiana, Diavola, Donaniello, 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,Trep,Vicario,Vicienzo'emaria,Vollese, Zeppa 'esisco,Zeppona,Zi' Francesco,Zi' luisa,Zi'ramunno.





CherrytreeAgostina, 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, Donvincenzo, Forgiona, Giulio salice, Ilene, Imperatore, Imperialenera, Lattacci, Lauretana, Lettere,Limoncella,Maggiaiola,Maggiaiolella,Maiaticaditaurasi,Marfatana,Mazzettidimaggio,Melella,Montenero, Moscarella, Mulegnana nera, Mulegnana riccia, Murana, Napoletana, Nera Dura diMugnano,Nera iiDura diMugnano, Paccona,Paesanella,Pagliacciobianca,Pagliarella,Palazzola,Parrocchiana, Pasqualina,Passaguai, Patanara,Pellicciara,Pigliolla,Pomella,Primitivanera,Reccanera,Reccuccia,Regina,Reginadelmercato, S.Felice,S.Giorgio,Sanguedibue,Sanguedibueii,Sanguedibufalo,S.Michele,S.Pietro,Sanpruna,Sant'anna,Sant'antonio,Santa teresa,Sbarbato,Silvestre, Sommatola, Spernocchia Spernocchia delVallo diLauro, Stoppa, Tamburella, Tenta diserino,Tintanera,Tosone,Zuccarenella.

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, Donvincenzo, Forgiona, Giulio salice, Ilene, Imperatore, Imperialenera, Lattacci, Lauretana, Lettere,Limoncella,Maggiaiola,Maggiaiolella,Maiaticaditaurasi,Marfatana,Mazzettidimaggio,Melella,Montenero, Moscarella, Mulegnana nera, Mulegnana riccia, Murana, Napoletana, Nera Dura diMugnano,Nera iiDura diMugnano, Paccona,Paesanella,Pagliacciobianca,Pagliarella,Palazzola,Parrocchiana, Pasqualina,Passaguai, Patanara,Pellicciara,Pigliolla,Pomella,Primitivanera,Reccanera,Reccuccia,Regina,Reginadelmercato, S.Felice,S.Giorgio,Sanguedibue,Sanguedibueii,Sanguedibufalo,S.Michele,S.Pietro,Sanpruna,Sant'anna,Sant'antonio,Santa teresa,Sbarbato,Silvestre, Sommatola, Spernocchia Spernocchia delVallo diLauro, Stoppa, Tamburella, Tenta diserino,Tintanera,Tosone,Zuccarenella.




Peachtree 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,Pomaiii,Procidina,Pumma,Reginella,Riccia 'a fuoco,Ricciadi somma, Riccia di somma ii, Riccia precoce, Ricciardiello, Ricciona, Rifone, Rossa tardiva dicaiazzo, Rosso 'o fuoco, San castrese, Sanguigna, San martino, Pesco, S.Stefano, Schiavona,Settembrina,Terzarolabianca,Torca,Torcamaggiaiola,Verdina,Zi'Gaetano,Zingaranera.

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,Pomaiii,Procidina,Pumma,Reginella,Riccia 'a fuoco,Ricciadi somma, Riccia di somma ii, Riccia precoce, Ricciardiello, Ricciona, Rifone, Rossa tardiva dicaiazzo, Rosso 'o fuoco, San castrese, Sanguigna, San martino, Pesco, S.Stefano, Schiavona,Settembrina,Terzarolabianca,Torca,Torcamaggiaiola,Verdina,Zi'Gaetano,Zingaranera.









Plumtree Biancolella di ottaviano,Botta a muro bianca, Botta a muro nera, Cacazzara, Calavrice, Coglie'eastagbianca, Coglie'e astagnera, Coglie'eastag rossa, Core,Del carmine,DellaMaddalena, Dispagna, Fele, Fegatara, Ferrandona,Fiaschetta, Fioccobianco, Fiocco di campagna, Fioccorosa,Fioccorosso, Genova gialla, Genova giallo‐verde, Lecina gialla, Lecina tonda, Marchigiana, Marialuisa, 'Mbriaca, Melella, Nera tardiva, Ninnella, Occhio di bue, Occhio di bue ii, Pannaranese,Pappacona, Pappaconagialla,Pappaconarossa,Pappaconaverde,Pazza di somma,Pezza rossa,Preta 'e zucchero, Prunarinia, Rachele, Riardo, San giovanni, San rafele, Santa maria,Santangiolese, Santapaola, Scarrafona, Scauratella,Sile, Turcona,Ugliese, Uttaiana, Zi' augusto,Zuccarina.

Biancolella di ottaviano,Botta a muro bianca, Botta a muro nera, Cacazzara, Calavrice, Coglie'eastagbianca, Coglie'e astagnera, Coglie'eastag rossa, Core,Del carmine,DellaMaddalena, Dispagna, Fele, Fegatara, Ferrandona,Fiaschetta, Fioccobianco, Fiocco di campagna, Fioccorosa,Fioccorosso, Genova gialla, Genova giallo‐verde, Lecina gialla, Lecina tonda, Marchigiana, Marialuisa, 'Mbriaca, Melella, Nera tardiva, Ninnella, Occhio di bue, Occhio di bue ii, Pannaranese,Pappacona, Pappaconagialla,Pappaconarossa,Pappaconaverde,Pazza di somma,Pezza rossa,Preta 'e zucchero, Prunarinia, Rachele, Riardo, San giovanni, San rafele, Santa maria,Santangiolese, Santapaola, 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,Cacazzaran,Cacamoscab,Cavalla b,Rovellob,Moscatellosalernitanob,MoscatodiBaseliceb,Passolarab,Pignolab,Sanginellab,SantaSofiab,Arillab,DonLunariob,Guarnaccian,Livellan..

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,Cacazzaran,Cacamoscab,Cavalla b,Rovellob,Moscatellosalernitanob,MoscatodiBaseliceb,Passolarab,Pignolab,Sanginellab,SantaSofiab,Arillab,DonLunariob,Guarnaccian,Livellan..









Garlic Schiacciato,TondodiTorellal.2Schiacciato,TondodiTorellal.2Schiacciato,TondodiTorellal.2Schiacciato,TondodiTorellal.2Schiacciato,TondodiTorellal.2

Broccoli Broccolodell'olio,SanPasqualeBroccolodell'olio,SanPasqualeBroccolodell'olio,SanPasqualeBroccolodell'olio,SanPasqualeBroccolodell'olio,SanPasquale

Artichoke CarciofoMontoroCarciofoMontoroCarciofoMontoroCarciofoMontoroCarciofoMontoro

Cabbage TorzellaricciaTorzellaricciaTorzellaricciaTorzellaricciaTorzellariccia

Cucumber CetriolinosarneseCetriolinosarneseCetriolinosarneseCetriolinosarneseCetriolinosarnese

Chickpea Campuotolo,Castelcivita,DiCaposele,DiCicerale,DiGuardiadeiNerodiCaposele,DiSassanoCampuotolo,Castelcivita,DiCaposele,DiCicerale,DiGuardiadeiNerodiCaposele,DiSassanoCampuotolo,Castelcivita,DiCaposele,DiCicerale,DiGuardiadeiNerodiCaposele,DiSassanoCampuotolo,Castelcivita,DiCaposele,DiCicerale,DiGuardiadeiNerodiCaposele,DiSassanoCampuotolo,Castelcivita,DiCaposele,DiCicerale,DiGuardiadeiNerodiCaposele,DiSassano

Cicerchia Deicampi,DiCalitri,DiCaposele,DiCarife,DiCastelcivita,DiColliano,DiSanRufoDeicampi,DiCalitri,DiCaposele,DiCarife,DiCastelcivita,DiColliano,DiSanRufoDeicampi,DiCalitri,DiCaposele,DiCarife,DiCastelcivita,DiColliano,DiSanRufoDeicampi,DiCalitri,DiCaposele,DiCarife,DiCastelcivita,DiColliano,DiSanRufoDeicampi,DiCalitri,DiCaposele,DiCarife,DiCastelcivita,DiColliano,DiSanRufo

Onion Febbrarese,Marzatica,Ramata,Satolla.Febbrarese,Marzatica,Ramata,Satolla.Febbrarese,Marzatica,Ramata,Satolla.Febbrarese,Marzatica,Ramata,Satolla.Febbrarese,Marzatica,Ramata,Satolla.


93

Bean Aformella,Bianco,DellaRegina,Dentedimorto,DiControne,Occhionero,OcchioneroaltoSele,Occhio nero di Oliveto Citra, Mustacciellod'Ischia,Mustacciello di Pimonte, Screziato impalato,TondinobiancodiCaposele,TondinodiVillaricca, TondobiancodiCaposele,Zampognarod'Ischia,Zolfariello,DellaReginadiGorga.

Aformella,Bianco,DellaRegina,Dentedimorto,DiControne,Occhionero,OcchioneroaltoSele,Occhio nero di Oliveto Citra, Mustacciellod'Ischia,Mustacciello di Pimonte, Screziato impalato,TondinobiancodiCaposele,TondinodiVillaricca, TondobiancodiCaposele,Zampognarod'Ischia,Zolfariello,DellaReginadiGorga.




Favabean AcornaAcornaAcornaAcornaAcorna

Buckwheat EcotipoaltavalleSeleEcotipoaltavalleSeleEcotipoaltavalleSeleEcotipoaltavalleSeleEcotipoaltavalleSele

Lettuce LattuganapoletanaLattuganapoletanaLattuganapoletanaLattuganapoletanaLattuganapoletana

Lentil DiColliano,DisanGerardo.DiColliano,DisanGerardo.DiColliano,DisanGerardo.DiColliano,DisanGerardo.DiColliano,DisanGerardo.

Maize MaisbiancoAcerra, Spigabianca,Spiga napoletana bianca, Spiganapoletana rossa, Spiga rossa,Spognabianca.MaisbiancoAcerra, Spigabianca,Spiga napoletana bianca, Spiganapoletana rossa, Spiga rossa,Spognabianca.MaisbiancoAcerra, Spigabianca,Spiga napoletana bianca, Spiganapoletana rossa, Spiga rossa,Spognabianca.MaisbiancoAcerra, Spigabianca,Spiga napoletana bianca, Spiganapoletana rossa, Spiga rossa,Spognabianca.MaisbiancoAcerra, Spigabianca,Spiga napoletana bianca, Spiganapoletana rossa, Spiga rossa,Spognabianca.

Aubergine Agrappolo,Cimadiviola,Napoletana,Violettatonda.Agrappolo,Cimadiviola,Napoletana,Violettatonda.Agrappolo,Cimadiviola,Napoletana,Violettatonda.Agrappolo,Cimadiviola,Napoletana,Violettatonda.Agrappolo,Cimadiviola,Napoletana,Violettatonda.

Melon MelonediMontecalvo,Melonenocerinosarnese.MelonediMontecalvo,Melonenocerinosarnese.MelonediMontecalvo,Melonenocerinosarnese.MelonediMontecalvo,Melonenocerinosarnese.MelonediMontecalvo,Melonenocerinosarnese.

Pepper Cazzonegiallo, Cazzonerosso,Cornetto di Acerra rosso,Cornodicapra giallo,Cornodicaprarosso, Friariello napoletano, Friariello nocerese, Friariello a sigaretta, Marconi rosso e giallo,Papaccella napoletana liscia, Papaccella liscia rossa, Papaccella napoletana gialla, Papaccellanapoletanarossa,Peperonecornorosso,Sassaniellorossoegiallo.

Cazzonegiallo, Cazzonerosso,Cornetto di Acerra rosso,Cornodicapra giallo,Cornodicaprarosso, Friariello napoletano, Friariello nocerese, Friariello a sigaretta, Marconi rosso e giallo,Papaccella napoletana liscia, Papaccella liscia rossa, Papaccella napoletana gialla, Papaccellanapoletanarossa,Peperonecornorosso,Sassaniellorossoegiallo.




Tomato Cannellinoflegreo,Centoscocche,Corbarino,DiSorrento,Guardiolo,Piennolo(Pollena),Piennolo(vesuviano), Piennolo giallo, Piennolo Rosso, Pomodorino di collina, Pomodorino giallo diMontecalvo, Pomodorino giallo di San Bartolomeo, Pomodorino Reginella, Pomodorino rossoselvatico, Pomodoro SanMarzano, Principe Borghese, Quarantino grande, Quarantino piccolo,Seccagno,Vesuviano.

Cannellinoflegreo,Centoscocche,Corbarino,DiSorrento,Guardiolo,Piennolo(Pollena),Piennolo(vesuviano), Piennolo giallo, Piennolo Rosso, Pomodorino di collina, Pomodorino giallo diMontecalvo, Pomodorino giallo di San Bartolomeo, Pomodorino Reginella, Pomodorino rossoselvatico, Pomodoro SanMarzano, Principe Borghese, Quarantino grande, Quarantino piccolo,Seccagno,Vesuviano.




Pumpkin Zuccanapoletanalunga,Zuccanapoletanatonda.Zuccanapoletanalunga,Zuccanapoletanatonda.Zuccanapoletanalunga,Zuccanapoletanatonda.Zuccanapoletanalunga,Zuccanapoletanatonda.Zuccanapoletanalunga,Zuccanapoletanatonda.

Zucchini Cimentano,SanPasquale.Cimentano,SanPasquale.Cimentano,SanPasquale.Cimentano,SanPasquale.Cimentano,SanPasquale.

EmiliaRomagnaEmiliaRomagnaEmiliaRomagnaEmiliaRomagnaEmiliaRomagnaEmiliaRomagna

Grapevine Alionza, Angela, Bervedino, Canina Nera, Centesimino,LambruscoOliva,Melara, Negretto, SantaMaria, 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 diBagnacavallo,RuggineoRuznintena,SantaMaria(nera),ScarsaFoglia,TrebbianodiSpagna,UvadiTundé,VernaccinaRiminese,Verucchiese.

Alionza, Angela, Bervedino, Canina Nera, Centesimino,LambruscoOliva,Melara, Negretto, SantaMaria, 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 diBagnacavallo,RuggineoRuznintena,SantaMaria(nera),ScarsaFoglia,TrebbianodiSpagna,UvadiTundé,VernaccinaRiminese,Verucchiese.




A p r i c o ttree

RealeRealeRealeRealeReale

Chestnut Raggiolana,Pistolere,MarronediCampora,Biancheria,Carrarese.Raggiolana,Pistolere,MarronediCampora,Biancheria,Carrarese.Raggiolana,Pistolere,MarronediCampora,Biancheria,Carrarese.Raggiolana,Pistolere,MarronediCampora,Biancheria,Carrarese.Raggiolana,Pistolere,MarronediCampora,Biancheria,Carrarese.

CherrytreeDuella,Corniola,Fiore,MorettadiCesena,MoradiVignola.Duella,Corniola,Fiore,MorettadiCesena,MoradiVignola.Duella,Corniola,Fiore,MorettadiCesena,MoradiVignola.Duella,Corniola,Fiore,MorettadiCesena,MoradiVignola.Duella,Corniola,Fiore,MorettadiCesena,MoradiVignola.

Appletree Abbondanza, Della Carraia, Campanino, Cavicchie (gruppo), Durello (gruppo), Lavina, Musone(gruppo),Rosalocale(gruppo),Ruggine(gruppo),Poppina,Zambona.Abbondanza, Della Carraia, Campanino, Cavicchie (gruppo), Durello (gruppo), Lavina, Musone(gruppo),Rosalocale(gruppo),Ruggine(gruppo),Poppina,Zambona.Abbondanza, Della Carraia, Campanino, Cavicchie (gruppo), Durello (gruppo), Lavina, Musone(gruppo),Rosalocale(gruppo),Ruggine(gruppo),Poppina,Zambona.Abbondanza, Della Carraia, Campanino, Cavicchie (gruppo), Durello (gruppo), Lavina, Musone(gruppo),Rosalocale(gruppo),Ruggine(gruppo),Poppina,Zambona.Abbondanza, Della Carraia, Campanino, Cavicchie (gruppo), Durello (gruppo), Lavina, Musone(gruppo),Rosalocale(gruppo),Ruggine(gruppo),Poppina,Zambona.

Olivetree Grappuda,Colombina,Orfana.Grappuda,Colombina,Orfana.Grappuda,Colombina,Orfana.Grappuda,Colombina,Orfana.Grappuda,Colombina,Orfana.

Peartree Pero dalla coda torta, Gnocco di Parma (gruppo), Mora (gruppo), Principessa, Sanguignola(gruppo),Scipiona,Spadonaestiva,Volpina(gruppo),Angelica,SanGiovanni(gruppo).Pero dalla coda torta, Gnocco di Parma (gruppo), Mora (gruppo), Principessa, Sanguignola(gruppo),Scipiona,Spadonaestiva,Volpina(gruppo),Angelica,SanGiovanni(gruppo).Pero dalla coda torta, Gnocco di Parma (gruppo), Mora (gruppo), Principessa, Sanguignola(gruppo),Scipiona,Spadonaestiva,Volpina(gruppo),Angelica,SanGiovanni(gruppo).Pero dalla coda torta, Gnocco di Parma (gruppo), Mora (gruppo), Principessa, Sanguignola(gruppo),Scipiona,Spadonaestiva,Volpina(gruppo),Angelica,SanGiovanni(gruppo).Pero dalla coda torta, Gnocco di Parma (gruppo), Mora (gruppo), Principessa, Sanguignola(gruppo),Scipiona,Spadonaestiva,Volpina(gruppo),Angelica,SanGiovanni(gruppo).

Peachtree BelladiCesena,Bucoincavato,PescaCarota,Sant’AnnaCalducci,BelladiLugo,Sanguigna.BelladiCesena,Bucoincavato,PescaCarota,Sant’AnnaCalducci,BelladiLugo,Sanguigna.BelladiCesena,Bucoincavato,PescaCarota,Sant’AnnaCalducci,BelladiLugo,Sanguigna.BelladiCesena,Bucoincavato,PescaCarota,Sant’AnnaCalducci,BelladiLugo,Sanguigna.BelladiCesena,Bucoincavato,PescaCarota,Sant’AnnaCalducci,BelladiLugo,Sanguigna.

Plumtree AgostanadiCesena,Zucchelle(gruppo).AgostanadiCesena,Zucchelle(gruppo).AgostanadiCesena,Zucchelle(gruppo).AgostanadiCesena,Zucchelle(gruppo).AgostanadiCesena,Zucchelle(gruppo).

Thistle CardodiBolognaCardodiBolognaCardodiBolognaCardodiBolognaCardodiBologna

Tomato Parmigiano(gruppo)Parmigiano(gruppo)Parmigiano(gruppo)Parmigiano(gruppo)Parmigiano(gruppo)

Cabbage PiacentinoPiacentinoPiacentinoPiacentinoPiacentino

Fennel DiBolognaDiBolognaDiBolognaDiBolognaDiBologna

Melon PoponeRospodiBolognaPoponeRospodiBolognaPoponeRospodiBolognaPoponeRospodiBolognaPoponeRospodiBologna

FriuliVeneziaGiulia*FriuliVeneziaGiulia*FriuliVeneziaGiulia*FriuliVeneziaGiulia*FriuliVeneziaGiulia*FriuliVeneziaGiulia*

Garlic DiResiaDiResiaDiResiaDiResiaDiResia

Turnip DabrovadaacollettoviolaDabrovadaacollettoviolaDabrovadaacollettoviolaDabrovadaacollettoviolaDabrovadaacollettoviola

Celeriac Gigante,DiPraga.Gigante,DiPraga.Gigante,DiPraga.Gigante,DiPraga.Gigante,DiPraga.


94

Peachtree Triestina,Isontina,Irisrosso.Triestina,Isontina,Irisrosso.Triestina,Isontina,Irisrosso.Triestina,Isontina,Irisrosso.Triestina,Isontina,Irisrosso.

*Tothesehavetobeaddedthevarietiesalredylistedintheregionalvolunteerregister.*Tothesehavetobeaddedthevarietiesalredylistedintheregionalvolunteerregister.*Tothesehavetobeaddedthevarietiesalredylistedintheregionalvolunteerregister.*Tothesehavetobeaddedthevarietiesalredylistedintheregionalvolunteerregister.*Tothesehavetobeaddedthevarietiesalredylistedintheregionalvolunteerregister.*Tothesehavetobeaddedthevarietiesalredylistedintheregionalvolunteerregister.

LazioLazioLazioLazioLazioLazio

A p r i c o ttree

DiMonteporzio,S.MariainGradi‐AL1.DiMonteporzio,S.MariainGradi‐AL1.DiMonteporzio,S.MariainGradi‐AL1.DiMonteporzio,S.MariainGradi‐AL1.DiMonteporzio,S.MariainGradi‐AL1.

Azerolier RossoRossoRossoRossoRosso

Chestnut MarronePremutico(Primatico,Primaticcio)MarronePremutico(Primatico,Primaticcio)MarronePremutico(Primatico,Primaticcio)MarronePremutico(Primatico,Primaticcio)MarronePremutico(Primatico,Primaticcio)

CherrytreeBella di Pistoia, Biancona, Buonora, Core (Durona), Crognolo,Graffione,Maggiolina, Morona,Ravennaagambocorto,Ravennaagambolungo,Ravennaprecoce,Ravennatardiva.Bella di Pistoia, Biancona, Buonora, Core (Durona), Crognolo,Graffione,Maggiolina, Morona,Ravennaagambocorto,Ravennaagambolungo,Ravennaprecoce,Ravennatardiva.Bella di Pistoia, Biancona, Buonora, Core (Durona), Crognolo,Graffione,Maggiolina, Morona,Ravennaagambocorto,Ravennaagambolungo,Ravennaprecoce,Ravennatardiva.Bella di Pistoia, Biancona, Buonora, Core (Durona), Crognolo,Graffione,Maggiolina, Morona,Ravennaagambocorto,Ravennaagambolungo,Ravennaprecoce,Ravennatardiva.Bella di Pistoia, Biancona, Buonora, Core (Durona), Crognolo,Graffione,Maggiolina, Morona,Ravennaagambocorto,Ravennaagambolungo,Ravennaprecoce,Ravennatardiva.

Appletree Ravenna tardiva, Agredi Sezze, AgrediViterbo, Appia, Capo d’Asino, Cocoine, Dolcedi Sezze,Fragola, Francesca, Gaetana, Maiolina, Nana, Paoluccia, Paradisa, Pontella, Prata, Rosetta oRosone, S.Agostino, Tonnorella, Zuccherina, Cavilla, Cerina, Cipolla, Francesca di Castelliri,Limoncella,M'briachella,Pianella,Rosa,Rosapiattaciociara,Rosagentile,S.Giovanni,Spugnaccia,Verdona,Verdonica,Sublacense,Velletrana.

Ravenna tardiva, Agredi Sezze, AgrediViterbo, Appia, Capo d’Asino, Cocoine, Dolcedi Sezze,Fragola, Francesca, Gaetana, Maiolina, Nana, Paoluccia, Paradisa, Pontella, Prata, Rosetta oRosone, S.Agostino, Tonnorella, Zuccherina, Cavilla, Cerina, Cipolla, Francesca di Castelliri,Limoncella,M'briachella,Pianella,Rosa,Rosapiattaciociara,Rosagentile,S.Giovanni,Spugnaccia,Verdona,Verdonica,Sublacense,Velletrana.




Pomegranate

DiGaetaMG1,DiGaetaMG2,DiFormiaMG3,DiFormiaMG4.DiGaetaMG1,DiGaetaMG2,DiFormiaMG3,DiFormiaMG4.DiGaetaMG1,DiGaetaMG2,DiFormiaMG3,DiFormiaMG4.DiGaetaMG1,DiGaetaMG2,DiFormiaMG3,DiFormiaMG4.DiGaetaMG1,DiGaetaMG2,DiFormiaMG3,DiFormiaMG4.

Hazeltree Barrettona,Casamaleonostrale(ComunediSicilia),Rosa(NocchiaR.).Barrettona,Casamaleonostrale(ComunediSicilia),Rosa(NocchiaR.).Barrettona,Casamaleonostrale(ComunediSicilia),Rosa(NocchiaR.).Barrettona,Casamaleonostrale(ComunediSicilia),Rosa(NocchiaR.).Barrettona,Casamaleonostrale(ComunediSicilia),Rosa(NocchiaR.).

Olivetree Salviacl.Montelibretti6,Marina,Sirolecl.Soratte1,MinutellaCasarè,Villanella.Salviacl.Montelibretti6,Marina,Sirolecl.Soratte1,MinutellaCasarè,Villanella.Salviacl.Montelibretti6,Marina,Sirolecl.Soratte1,MinutellaCasarè,Villanella.Salviacl.Montelibretti6,Marina,Sirolecl.Soratte1,MinutellaCasarè,Villanella.Salviacl.Montelibretti6,Marina,Sirolecl.Soratte1,MinutellaCasarè,Villanella.

Peartree Bottiglia,Campana,Cannella,Cocozzola(Cucuzzara,Zucchina),DelPrincipe,DiPosta,DiS.Cristina(Peruzza),Monteleone,Spina(Spinacarpi,Cocciad'Asino,Casentina),Trentonce,Baccelli,Barocca, Angina o Ancina, Biancona, Castrese, Fegatella, Pero‐Melo, Spina di Valle Imperiale,Tunnella.

Bottiglia,Campana,Cannella,Cocozzola(Cucuzzara,Zucchina),DelPrincipe,DiPosta,DiS.Cristina(Peruzza),Monteleone,Spina(Spinacarpi,Cocciad'Asino,Casentina),Trentonce,Baccelli,Barocca, Angina o Ancina, Biancona, Castrese, Fegatella, Pero‐Melo, Spina di Valle Imperiale,Tunnella.




Peachtree ReginellaPescaUovo(EarlyCrawford),ReginellaII.ReginellaPescaUovo(EarlyCrawford),ReginellaII.ReginellaPescaUovo(EarlyCrawford),ReginellaII.ReginellaPescaUovo(EarlyCrawford),ReginellaII.ReginellaPescaUovo(EarlyCrawford),ReginellaII.

Plumtree CosciadimonacadiPonzanoRomano,Gallinaro,S.Giovanni,Cosciadimonaca.CosciadimonacadiPonzanoRomano,Gallinaro,S.Giovanni,Cosciadimonaca.CosciadimonacadiPonzanoRomano,Gallinaro,S.Giovanni,Cosciadimonaca.CosciadimonacadiPonzanoRomano,Gallinaro,S.Giovanni,Cosciadimonaca.CosciadimonacadiPonzanoRomano,Gallinaro,S.Giovanni,Cosciadimonaca.

Grapevine Abbuoton.,Aleaticon.,Bombinobiancob.,Bombinoneron.,CannaioladiMartan.,Capolongob.,Greco b., Greco bianco b., Greco nero n., Lecinaro n., Maturano b. (Motulano), Moscato diTerracina, Nero Buono n., Olivella nera n., Pampanaro b., Passerina b., Pecorino b., Pellegrino,PizzutellodiTivoli(DitodiDonna),Rosciolar.,Verdellob..

Abbuoton.,Aleaticon.,Bombinobiancob.,Bombinoneron.,CannaioladiMartan.,Capolongob.,Greco b., Greco bianco b., Greco nero n., Lecinaro n., Maturano b. (Motulano), Moscato diTerracina, Nero Buono n., Olivella nera n., Pampanaro b., Passerina b., Pecorino b., Pellegrino,PizzutellodiTivoli(DitodiDonna),Rosciolar.,Verdellob..




Garlic AglioRossodiCastelliri,AglioRossodiProcedo.AglioRossodiCastelliri,AglioRossodiProcedo.AglioRossodiCastelliri,AglioRossodiProcedo.AglioRossodiCastelliri,AglioRossodiProcedo.AglioRossodiCastelliri,AglioRossodiProcedo.

Artichoke Campagnano,Castellammare.Campagnano,Castellammare.Campagnano,Castellammare.Campagnano,Castellammare.Campagnano,Castellammare.

Chickpea DiCanepinaDiCanepinaDiCanepinaDiCanepinaDiCanepina

Bean APisello,CannellinodiAtina,CappellettediVallepietra,Cioncone,FagiolinaArsolana, FagiolonediVallepietra, PallinodiVallepietra,ReginadiMarano Equo,Romanescodi Vallepietra,DiGradoliodelPurgatorio,Ciavattonepiccolo,Giallo,Solfarino,Verdolino.

APisello,CannellinodiAtina,CappellettediVallepietra,Cioncone,FagiolinaArsolana, FagiolonediVallepietra, PallinodiVallepietra,ReginadiMarano Equo,Romanescodi Vallepietra,DiGradoliodelPurgatorio,Ciavattonepiccolo,Giallo,Solfarino,Verdolino.




Spelt Dell'AltaValledelTrontoDell'AltaValledelTrontoDell'AltaValledelTrontoDell'AltaValledelTrontoDell'AltaValledelTronto

Fennel FinocchiodiTarquiniaFinocchiodiTarquiniaFinocchiodiTarquiniaFinocchiodiTarquiniaFinocchiodiTarquinia

Strawberry FragolinadiNemiFragolinadiNemiFragolinadiNemiFragolinadiNemiFragolinadiNemi

Lentil DiOnanoDiOnanoDiOnanoDiOnanoDiOnano

Maize AgostinellaAgostinellaAgostinellaAgostinellaAgostinella

Pepper CornettodiPontecorvoCornettodiPontecorvoCornettodiPontecorvoCornettodiPontecorvoCornettodiPontecorvo

Tomato ScatolonediBolsena,SpagnolettadelGolfodiGaetaeFormia(APatata),daseccadiMinturno.ScatolonediBolsena,SpagnolettadelGolfodiGaetaeFormia(APatata),daseccadiMinturno.ScatolonediBolsena,SpagnolettadelGolfodiGaetaeFormia(APatata),daseccadiMinturno.ScatolonediBolsena,SpagnolettadelGolfodiGaetaeFormia(APatata),daseccadiMinturno.ScatolonediBolsena,SpagnolettadelGolfodiGaetaeFormia(APatata),daseccadiMinturno.

Celery BiancodiSperlongaBiancodiSperlongaBiancodiSperlongaBiancodiSperlongaBiancodiSperlonga

Zucchini ZucchinodiCerveteritipoRomanescoZucchinodiCerveteritipoRomanescoZucchinodiCerveteritipoRomanescoZucchinodiCerveteritipoRomanescoZucchinodiCerveteritipoRomanesco

MarcheMarcheMarcheMarcheMarcheMarche

Bean Monachello,Americano,OcchiodiCapra.Monachello,Americano,OcchiodiCapra.Monachello,Americano,OcchiodiCapra.Monachello,Americano,OcchiodiCapra.Monachello,Americano,OcchiodiCapra.

Favabean diFratteRosadiFratteRosadiFratteRosadiFratteRosadiFratteRosa

Maize OttofileOttofileOttofileOttofileOttofile

Barley NudoNudoNudoNudoNudo

Appletree Gelata,Limoncella,Verdone,MusodiBue,Rosa,RosaGentile,RosaFragola.Gelata,Limoncella,Verdone,MusodiBue,Rosa,RosaGentile,RosaFragola.Gelata,Limoncella,Verdone,MusodiBue,Rosa,RosaGentile,RosaFragola.Gelata,Limoncella,Verdone,MusodiBue,Rosa,RosaGentile,RosaFragola.Gelata,Limoncella,Verdone,MusodiBue,Rosa,RosaGentile,RosaFragola.


95

Peartree AngelicadiSerrungarinaAngelicadiSerrungarinaAngelicadiSerrungarinaAngelicadiSerrungarinaAngelicadiSerrungarina

Olivetree Capolga, Cornetta, Lea, Nebbia del Menocchia, Nostrale di Rigali, Oliva grossa, Piantone diFalerone,PiantonediMogliano,RosciolaColliEsini,SarganodiFermo,SarganodiS.Benedetto.Capolga, Cornetta, Lea, Nebbia del Menocchia, Nostrale di Rigali, Oliva grossa, Piantone diFalerone,PiantonediMogliano,RosciolaColliEsini,SarganodiFermo,SarganodiS.Benedetto.Capolga, Cornetta, Lea, Nebbia del Menocchia, Nostrale di Rigali, Oliva grossa, Piantone diFalerone,PiantonediMogliano,RosciolaColliEsini,SarganodiFermo,SarganodiS.Benedetto.Capolga, Cornetta, Lea, Nebbia del Menocchia, Nostrale di Rigali, Oliva grossa, Piantone diFalerone,PiantonediMogliano,RosciolaColliEsini,SarganodiFermo,SarganodiS.Benedetto.Capolga, Cornetta, Lea, Nebbia del Menocchia, Nostrale di Rigali, Oliva grossa, Piantone diFalerone,PiantonediMogliano,RosciolaColliEsini,SarganodiFermo,SarganodiS.Benedetto.

P.A.TrentoP.A.TrentoP.A.TrentoP.A.TrentoP.A.TrentoP.A.Trento

Maize Storo,SpindiCaldonazzo.Storo,SpindiCaldonazzo.Storo,SpindiCaldonazzo.Storo,SpindiCaldonazzo.Storo,SpindiCaldonazzo.

PugliaPugliaPugliaPugliaPugliaPuglia

Olivetree OgliarolaGarganica,Nzimbimbolo,Carmelitana,CimadiBitonto,CimadiMola,Cerasela,ButirradiMelpignano,Uggiana,Villetta,DonnaFrancesca,Paesana,DonnaGiulietta,Racioppa,Carmelitana,Oliastro,CimadiFasano,Crogiolaoolivaacornetto,Cornale,CimadiCalabria,Ciddina,Olivarossa,Gniastraoinchiostra,Leucocarpa,Limona,Lezze.

OgliarolaGarganica,Nzimbimbolo,Carmelitana,CimadiBitonto,CimadiMola,Cerasela,ButirradiMelpignano,Uggiana,Villetta,DonnaFrancesca,Paesana,DonnaGiulietta,Racioppa,Carmelitana,Oliastro,CimadiFasano,Crogiolaoolivaacornetto,Cornale,CimadiCalabria,Ciddina,Olivarossa,Gniastraoinchiostra,Leucocarpa,Limona,Lezze.




Olivetree(tableolive)

Mele,Pasola,Olivina,SanBenedetto,SantaCaterina,PeppinoLeo.Mele,Pasola,Olivina,SanBenedetto,SantaCaterina,PeppinoLeo.Mele,Pasola,Olivina,SanBenedetto,SantaCaterina,PeppinoLeo.Mele,Pasola,Olivina,SanBenedetto,SantaCaterina,PeppinoLeo.Mele,Pasola,Olivina,SanBenedetto,SantaCaterina,PeppinoLeo.

Grapevine Moscatelloselvaticob.,Ottavianellon.,Aleaticon.,Impignob.,Francaviddab.,Notardomenicon.,FianodellaValled’Itria ominatolo,Marchione,Mareggio,Palombo,SantaTeresa,Uvaattina,Uvacarrieri, Uva della scala, Cuccimaniello, San Nicola, Somarello nero, Somarello rosso, Baresanarossa,Prunesta,Baresanabianca.

Moscatelloselvaticob.,Ottavianellon.,Aleaticon.,Impignob.,Francaviddab.,Notardomenicon.,FianodellaValled’Itria ominatolo,Marchione,Mareggio,Palombo,SantaTeresa,Uvaattina,Uvacarrieri, Uva della scala, Cuccimaniello, San Nicola, Somarello nero, Somarello rosso, Baresanarossa,Prunesta,Baresanabianca.




Grapevine(tablegraoes)

Baresanarossa,Prunesta,Baresanabianca.Baresanarossa,Prunesta,Baresanabianca.Baresanarossa,Prunesta,Baresanabianca.Baresanarossa,Prunesta,Baresanabianca.Baresanarossa,Prunesta,Baresanabianca.

A p r i c o ttree

CibodelParadiso,Mandorladolce,Palummina,Picocca,Risomma.CibodelParadiso,Mandorladolce,Palummina,Picocca,Risomma.CibodelParadiso,Mandorladolce,Palummina,Picocca,Risomma.CibodelParadiso,Mandorladolce,Palummina,Picocca,Risomma.CibodelParadiso,Mandorladolce,Palummina,Picocca,Risomma.

CherrytreeCapodiserpe(testa di serpe), Colafemmina (duroncina),Durona diBisceglie(durona,duroncina,diBisceglie, tosta), Fuciletta primizia (fuciletta precoce,, fuciletta prima, precocediMolfetta),Zuccherina di Bitonto (zuccaio,, zucchero), Graffione (laffiona), Limone, Montagnola, Molfetta,Montagnole.

Capodiserpe(testa di serpe), Colafemmina (duroncina),Durona diBisceglie(durona,duroncina,diBisceglie, tosta), Fuciletta primizia (fuciletta precoce,, fuciletta prima, precocediMolfetta),Zuccherina di Bitonto (zuccaio,, zucchero), Graffione (laffiona), Limone, Montagnola, Molfetta,Montagnole.




Peartree Agostina,Acampanello, Favarsa, Ambrosina, Cilardi, Verde, Rosso, Cicc’ eAntonio, Pera a sole,Peraavetro,Delbuoncammino,Tanz,Peradiscorvo,Carmosina,Taccan’zuso.Agostina,Acampanello, Favarsa, Ambrosina, Cilardi, Verde, Rosso, Cicc’ eAntonio, Pera a sole,Peraavetro,Delbuoncammino,Tanz,Peradiscorvo,Carmosina,Taccan’zuso.Agostina,Acampanello, Favarsa, Ambrosina, Cilardi, Verde, Rosso, Cicc’ eAntonio, Pera a sole,Peraavetro,Delbuoncammino,Tanz,Peradiscorvo,Carmosina,Taccan’zuso.Agostina,Acampanello, Favarsa, Ambrosina, Cilardi, Verde, Rosso, Cicc’ eAntonio, Pera a sole,Peraavetro,Delbuoncammino,Tanz,Peradiscorvo,Carmosina,Taccan’zuso.Agostina,Acampanello, Favarsa, Ambrosina, Cilardi, Verde, Rosso, Cicc’ eAntonio, Pera a sole,Peraavetro,Delbuoncammino,Tanz,Peradiscorvo,Carmosina,Taccan’zuso.

Appletree Melaghiacciata,MeladiMaggio.Melaghiacciata,MeladiMaggio.Melaghiacciata,MeladiMaggio.Melaghiacciata,MeladiMaggio.Melaghiacciata,MeladiMaggio.

Almondtree

DonCarlo, Patalina,Tondina,Mollese(fina, grossa, lunga, bianca), Cartuccia,Cicerchia,Padula diRuvo,PaduladiTerlizzi,Pasola,Genia,Rachele,Occhioscuro.DonCarlo, Patalina,Tondina,Mollese(fina, grossa, lunga, bianca), Cartuccia,Cicerchia,Padula diRuvo,PaduladiTerlizzi,Pasola,Genia,Rachele,Occhioscuro.DonCarlo, Patalina,Tondina,Mollese(fina, grossa, lunga, bianca), Cartuccia,Cicerchia,Padula diRuvo,PaduladiTerlizzi,Pasola,Genia,Rachele,Occhioscuro.DonCarlo, Patalina,Tondina,Mollese(fina, grossa, lunga, bianca), Cartuccia,Cicerchia,Padula diRuvo,PaduladiTerlizzi,Pasola,Genia,Rachele,Occhioscuro.DonCarlo, Patalina,Tondina,Mollese(fina, grossa, lunga, bianca), Cartuccia,Cicerchia,Padula diRuvo,PaduladiTerlizzi,Pasola,Genia,Rachele,Occhioscuro.

Plumtree Jannelli,Delmonte,Pruneddabianca,PassodiSpagna,SanFrancesco,Prugnaacuore.Jannelli,Delmonte,Pruneddabianca,PassodiSpagna,SanFrancesco,Prugnaacuore.Jannelli,Delmonte,Pruneddabianca,PassodiSpagna,SanFrancesco,Prugnaacuore.Jannelli,Delmonte,Pruneddabianca,PassodiSpagna,SanFrancesco,Prugnaacuore.Jannelli,Delmonte,Pruneddabianca,PassodiSpagna,SanFrancesco,Prugnaacuore.

Figtree Verdesca, Ricotta, Ritonna, Mattepinto, Folm, Vito Carlo, Natalegna, Trimone, Zingarello (nero,bianco),Regina,Verdedinatale,FioronediOria,FioronenerodiSava.Verdesca, Ricotta, Ritonna, Mattepinto, Folm, Vito Carlo, Natalegna, Trimone, Zingarello (nero,bianco),Regina,Verdedinatale,FioronediOria,FioronenerodiSava.Verdesca, Ricotta, Ritonna, Mattepinto, Folm, Vito Carlo, Natalegna, Trimone, Zingarello (nero,bianco),Regina,Verdedinatale,FioronediOria,FioronenerodiSava.Verdesca, Ricotta, Ritonna, Mattepinto, Folm, Vito Carlo, Natalegna, Trimone, Zingarello (nero,bianco),Regina,Verdedinatale,FioronediOria,FioronenerodiSava.Verdesca, Ricotta, Ritonna, Mattepinto, Folm, Vito Carlo, Natalegna, Trimone, Zingarello (nero,bianco),Regina,Verdedinatale,FioronediOria,FioronenerodiSava.

O r a n g etree

Portoghese,BiondodelGargano,Duretta,Durettapigmentata,Vaniglia,Maltese.Portoghese,BiondodelGargano,Duretta,Durettapigmentata,Vaniglia,Maltese.Portoghese,BiondodelGargano,Duretta,Durettapigmentata,Vaniglia,Maltese.Portoghese,BiondodelGargano,Duretta,Durettapigmentata,Vaniglia,Maltese.Portoghese,BiondodelGargano,Duretta,Durettapigmentata,Vaniglia,Maltese.

Percoco BiancodiPutignano,DiOttobre,DiNatale.BiancodiPutignano,DiOttobre,DiNatale.BiancodiPutignano,DiOttobre,DiNatale.BiancodiPutignano,DiOttobre,DiNatale.BiancodiPutignano,DiOttobre,DiNatale.

Cabbage Dafoglia,afogliaricciaelisciaDafoglia,afogliaricciaelisciaDafoglia,afogliaricciaelisciaDafoglia,afogliaricciaelisciaDafoglia,afogliaricciaeliscia

CauliflowerBarese‘cimadicola’Barese‘cimadicola’Barese‘cimadicola’Barese‘cimadicola’Barese‘cimadicola’

Broccoli Cimanera,Mugnoli.Cimanera,Mugnoli.Cimanera,Mugnoli.Cimanera,Mugnoli.Cimanera,Mugnoli.

Carrot Violetto,giallaVioletto,giallaVioletto,giallaVioletto,giallaVioletto,gialla

Artichoke Verdeevioletto,Bianco,Centofoglie.Verdeevioletto,Bianco,Centofoglie.Verdeevioletto,Bianco,Centofoglie.Verdeevioletto,Bianco,Centofoglie.Verdeevioletto,Bianco,Centofoglie.

Tomato MandureseMandureseMandureseMandureseMandurese

Batata BatatalecceseBatatalecceseBatatalecceseBatatalecceseBatataleccese

Curlyendive

Cicoriaall’acquaCicoriaall’acquaCicoriaall’acquaCicoriaall’acquaCicoriaall’acqua

Melon DiGallipoliediMarcianodiLeucaDiGallipoliediMarcianodiLeucaDiGallipoliediMarcianodiLeucaDiGallipoliediMarcianodiLeucaDiGallipoliediMarcianodiLeuca

Lentil LenticchiadiAltamuraLenticchiadiAltamuraLenticchiadiAltamuraLenticchiadiAltamuraLenticchiadiAltamura

Grasspea EcotipidiversiEcotipidiversiEcotipidiversiEcotipidiversiEcotipidiversi


96

Favabean FavadiZollino,FavadiCarpino.FavadiZollino,FavadiCarpino.FavadiZollino,FavadiCarpino.FavadiZollino,FavadiCarpino.FavadiZollino,FavadiCarpino.

Bean FagiolodeiMontiDauniFagiolodeiMontiDauniFagiolodeiMontiDauniFagiolodeiMontiDauniFagiolodeiMontiDauni

SardegnaSardegnaSardegnaSardegnaSardegnaSardegna

O r a n g etree

Miele,Ovalecorda,Pisu,TardivodiCabras,TardivodiSanVito,Vanigliarosato.Miele,Ovalecorda,Pisu,TardivodiCabras,TardivodiSanVito,Vanigliarosato.Miele,Ovalecorda,Pisu,TardivodiCabras,TardivodiSanVito,Vanigliarosato.Miele,Ovalecorda,Pisu,TardivodiCabras,TardivodiSanVito,Vanigliarosato.Miele,Ovalecorda,Pisu,TardivodiCabras,TardivodiSanVito,Vanigliarosato.

L e m o ntree

Dolce,LimonediSantuGhironi,Pompia.Dolce,LimonediSantuGhironi,Pompia.Dolce,LimonediSantuGhironi,Pompia.Dolce,LimonediSantuGhironi,Pompia.Dolce,LimonediSantuGhironi,Pompia.

A p r i c o ttree

Bianco,Grappolina,Rosato,Pibirinada.Bianco,Grappolina,Rosato,Pibirinada.Bianco,Grappolina,Rosato,Pibirinada.Bianco,Grappolina,Rosato,Pibirinada.Bianco,Grappolina,Rosato,Pibirinada.

CherrytreeAddosa,Bianca,Carrufale,Cordada,Corittu,Furistera,Nera.Addosa,Bianca,Carrufale,Cordada,Corittu,Furistera,Nera.Addosa,Bianca,Carrufale,Cordada,Corittu,Furistera,Nera.Addosa,Bianca,Carrufale,Cordada,Corittu,Furistera,Nera.Addosa,Bianca,Carrufale,Cordada,Corittu,Furistera,Nera.

Figtree Bianca, Bianca longa, Burdasciotta bianca, Burdasciotta nera, Buttada, Cana, Canaera, Carcanzitrota,Craxioudeporcu,Deduasvias,Martinica,Mattalò,Mattiniedda,Mendulina,Monteleone,Monteleone verde, Montina, Murena nera, Murra, Perdingiana, Pessighina, Rampelina, Verde,Zocchitta.

Bianca, Bianca longa, Burdasciotta bianca, Burdasciotta nera, Buttada, Cana, Canaera, Carcanzitrota,Craxioudeporcu,Deduasvias,Martinica,Mattalò,Mattiniedda,Mendulina,Monteleone,Monteleone verde, Montina, Murena nera, Murra, Perdingiana, Pessighina, Rampelina, Verde,Zocchitta.




Almondtree

Arrubia,Basibi,Bianca,Bocchinu,Casu,Ciatta inglese,Ciattamalissa,Corrochina,Cossu,Farci,Folla‘epressiu,Ghironi,Grappolina,Malissatunda,Niedda,Nuxedda,Olla,Provvista,Riuloi,Schinadeprocu,Stampasaccusu,Troito,Chianella,Vargiu.





Appletree Appio,Limoncella,Miali,Rosa,SantuGiuanni,Sonadore,Trempaorrubia.Appio,Limoncella,Miali,Rosa,SantuGiuanni,Sonadore,Trempaorrubia.Appio,Limoncella,Miali,Rosa,SantuGiuanni,Sonadore,Trempaorrubia.Appio,Limoncella,Miali,Rosa,SantuGiuanni,Sonadore,Trempaorrubia.Appio,Limoncella,Miali,Rosa,SantuGiuanni,Sonadore,Trempaorrubia.

Olivetree Cariasina,Siviglianadaolio,Corsicanadaolio.Cariasina,Siviglianadaolio,Corsicanadaolio.Cariasina,Siviglianadaolio,Corsicanadaolio.Cariasina,Siviglianadaolio,Corsicanadaolio.Cariasina,Siviglianadaolio,Corsicanadaolio.

Peartree Apicadorza, Bianca, Camusina, De Jerru, De su duca, Muscadeddu, Olzale, Sale, San Giovanni,Spadona.Apicadorza, Bianca, Camusina, De Jerru, De su duca, Muscadeddu, Olzale, Sale, San Giovanni,Spadona.Apicadorza, Bianca, Camusina, De Jerru, De su duca, Muscadeddu, Olzale, Sale, San Giovanni,Spadona.Apicadorza, Bianca, Camusina, De Jerru, De su duca, Muscadeddu, Olzale, Sale, San Giovanni,Spadona.Apicadorza, Bianca, Camusina, De Jerru, De su duca, Muscadeddu, Olzale, Sale, San Giovanni,Spadona.

Plumtree Core‘ecolumbu,Fradis,Limuninca,Ollanudeou,SanGiovanni,sughera.Core‘ecolumbu,Fradis,Limuninca,Ollanudeou,SanGiovanni,sughera.Core‘ecolumbu,Fradis,Limuninca,Ollanudeou,SanGiovanni,sughera.Core‘ecolumbu,Fradis,Limuninca,Ollanudeou,SanGiovanni,sughera.Core‘ecolumbu,Fradis,Limuninca,Ollanudeou,SanGiovanni,sughera.

Grapevine Albaranzeulibianco,Albaranzaeulinero,Gregunieddu,Caddiu,Retagliadobianco.Albaranzeulibianco,Albaranzaeulinero,Gregunieddu,Caddiu,Retagliadobianco.Albaranzeulibianco,Albaranzaeulinero,Gregunieddu,Caddiu,Retagliadobianco.Albaranzeulibianco,Albaranzaeulinero,Gregunieddu,Caddiu,Retagliadobianco.Albaranzeulibianco,Albaranzaeulinero,Gregunieddu,Caddiu,Retagliadobianco.

Garlic Azzusardu,Allusardu.Azzusardu,Allusardu.Azzusardu,Allusardu.Azzusardu,Allusardu.Azzusardu,Allusardu.

Watermelon

Sindriapizziniedda,Sindrianiedda.Sindriapizziniedda,Sindrianiedda.Sindriapizziniedda,Sindrianiedda.Sindriapizziniedda,Sindrianiedda.Sindriapizziniedda,Sindrianiedda.

Basil Vrabicasarda,Frabicasarda,Afabiasasarda.Vrabicasarda,Frabicasarda,Afabiasasarda.Vrabicasarda,Frabicasarda,Afabiasasarda.Vrabicasarda,Frabicasarda,Afabiasasarda.Vrabicasarda,Frabicasarda,Afabiasasarda.

Curlyendive

CicoriadiAlgheroCicoriadiAlgheroCicoriadiAlgheroCicoriadiAlgheroCicoriadiAlghero

Onion Chipudda anaresa, Chipudda otieresa,Cipudda de zeppara,Chibudda eBunnanaru, Cipuddarosa(diAles).Chipudda anaresa, Chipudda otieresa,Cipudda de zeppara,Chibudda eBunnanaru, Cipuddarosa(diAles).Chipudda anaresa, Chipudda otieresa,Cipudda de zeppara,Chibudda eBunnanaru, Cipuddarosa(diAles).Chipudda anaresa, Chipudda otieresa,Cipudda de zeppara,Chibudda eBunnanaru, Cipuddarosa(diAles).Chipudda anaresa, Chipudda otieresa,Cipudda de zeppara,Chibudda eBunnanaru, Cipuddarosa(diAles).

Facussa FacussaFacussaFacussaFacussaFacussa

Aubergine Perdinzanuantigulongu,Melinzanatunda.Perdinzanuantigulongu,Melinzanatunda.Perdinzanuantigulongu,Melinzanatunda.Perdinzanuantigulongu,Melinzanatunda.Perdinzanuantigulongu,Melinzanatunda.

Melon Melone'eierru,Muscadeddu.Melone'eierru,Muscadeddu.Melone'eierru,Muscadeddu.Melone'eierru,Muscadeddu.Melone'eierru,Muscadeddu.

Potato Patata'emoroPatata'emoroPatata'emoroPatata'emoroPatata'emoro

Tomato Arraccadas,Lorighittas,Ampipirilloddi,Tamattastundasasiccu,Tamattassiccadas.Arraccadas,Lorighittas,Ampipirilloddi,Tamattastundasasiccu,Tamattassiccadas.Arraccadas,Lorighittas,Ampipirilloddi,Tamattastundasasiccu,Tamattassiccadas.Arraccadas,Lorighittas,Ampipirilloddi,Tamattastundasasiccu,Tamattassiccadas.Arraccadas,Lorighittas,Ampipirilloddi,Tamattastundasasiccu,Tamattassiccadas.

Radish CorantinuCorantinuCorantinuCorantinuCorantinu

Pumpkin Zuccatumbariga,Curcurijatumbariga.Zuccatumbariga,Curcurijatumbariga.Zuccatumbariga,Curcurijatumbariga.Zuccatumbariga,Curcurijatumbariga.Zuccatumbariga,Curcurijatumbariga.

Zucchini CorcorijaboruttesaCorcorijaboruttesaCorcorijaboruttesaCorcorijaboruttesaCorcorijaboruttesa

Bean Asolubiancu,Asolubottinu,Asolubuddusoinu,Asolucariasinu,Asoludeisgranare,Asolunieddu,Aviseddabassa,Aviseddabianca,Aviseddaderadriccra,Aviseddagrigia(onisatta),Aviseddapinta(oiscritta),Avisedda rubia,Aviseddasordadina,Basolupintu, Basolupintulinu,Basolusorgonesu,Cara 'e luna, Cara 'emonza biancu, Cara 'emonza ruiu, Faigedda caffellatte, Faigedda murra,Faiscedda bianca de arraiga, Faitta decolore, Faitta sorgonese, Fajolumascharaddu, Fasgjoludilungoni (o ruiu), Fasoleddu biancu, Fasolu balla, Fasolu caffellatte, Fasolu de Adoni, Fasolu demetru, Fasolu nieddu, Fasolu rampicanti biancu, Fasolu striau, Fazadu nieddu, Fazadu ruju,GiogheddadiCastelsardo,Granino,Iscrittu,Melinedda,Murra,Murra‐Latte,Pa'uvarzu,Pisuballa,Pisubasciu,Pisubiancu,Pisubiancudearradigu, Pisubiancudematta nano, Pisudearraigu,Pisudecaranta/delinna,Pisudelinna,Pisu'efriscu,Pisu'emetro,Pisu'e Miana,Pisu'eSorgono,Pisufroriu, Pisugavoesu, Pisu indiana delinna, Pisu iscanesu, Pisu latte, Pisuolzaesu, Pisu sennora,SantaTeresa,SordadinaoPintone,Tempiesu,Trighine,Zallinedda.

Asolubiancu,Asolubottinu,Asolubuddusoinu,Asolucariasinu,Asoludeisgranare,Asolunieddu,Aviseddabassa,Aviseddabianca,Aviseddaderadriccra,Aviseddagrigia(onisatta),Aviseddapinta(oiscritta),Avisedda rubia,Aviseddasordadina,Basolupintu, Basolupintulinu,Basolusorgonesu,Cara 'e luna, Cara 'emonza biancu, Cara 'emonza ruiu, Faigedda caffellatte, Faigedda murra,Faiscedda bianca de arraiga, Faitta decolore, Faitta sorgonese, Fajolumascharaddu, Fasgjoludilungoni (o ruiu), Fasoleddu biancu, Fasolu balla, Fasolu caffellatte, Fasolu de Adoni, Fasolu demetru, Fasolu nieddu, Fasolu rampicanti biancu, Fasolu striau, Fazadu nieddu, Fazadu ruju,GiogheddadiCastelsardo,Granino,Iscrittu,Melinedda,Murra,Murra‐Latte,Pa'uvarzu,Pisuballa,Pisubasciu,Pisubiancu,Pisubiancudearradigu, Pisubiancudematta nano, Pisudearraigu,Pisudecaranta/delinna,Pisudelinna,Pisu'efriscu,Pisu'emetro,Pisu'e Miana,Pisu'eSorgono,Pisufroriu, Pisugavoesu, Pisu indiana delinna, Pisu iscanesu, Pisu latte, Pisuolzaesu, Pisu sennora,SantaTeresa,SordadinaoPintone,Tempiesu,Trighine,Zallinedda.




Favabean Avacorricaprina,Fa'de7pappusu.Avacorricaprina,Fa'de7pappusu.Avacorricaprina,Fa'de7pappusu.Avacorricaprina,Fa'de7pappusu.Avacorricaprina,Fa'de7pappusu.


97

Grasspea Pisufae,Piseddudentedivecchia.Pisufae,Piseddudentedivecchia.Pisufae,Piseddudentedivecchia.Pisufae,Piseddudentedivecchia.Pisufae,Piseddudentedivecchia.

Vigna Corru‘ebeccu,Fasoluabrentiniedda.Corru‘ebeccu,Fasoluabrentiniedda.Corru‘ebeccu,Fasoluabrentiniedda.Corru‘ebeccu,Fasoluabrentiniedda.Corru‘ebeccu,Fasoluabrentiniedda.

Sicilia

Thelistof localgermplasmforhis inclusion intheRDPwill beestablishedby theAgricultureandForestDepartmentoftheRegion.Thelistof localgermplasmforhis inclusion intheRDPwill beestablishedby theAgricultureandForestDepartmentoftheRegion.Thelistof localgermplasmforhis inclusion intheRDPwill beestablishedby theAgricultureandForestDepartmentoftheRegion.Thelistof localgermplasmforhis inclusion intheRDPwill beestablishedby theAgricultureandForestDepartmentoftheRegion.Thelistof localgermplasmforhis inclusion intheRDPwill beestablishedby theAgricultureandForestDepartmentoftheRegion.

ToscanaToscanaToscanaToscanaToscanaToscana

LocalvarietieslistedinregionalregisterLocalvarietieslistedinregionalregisterLocalvarietieslistedinregionalregister Atriskoferosion

FruittreesFruittrees n°463n°463n°463 n°401ErbaceousErbaceous n°68n°68n°68 n°60Foracompletedescriptionofthevarietiesseehttp://germoplasma.arsia.toscana.it/Foracompletedescriptionofthevarietiesseehttp://germoplasma.arsia.toscana.it/Foracompletedescriptionofthevarietiesseehttp://germoplasma.arsia.toscana.it/Foracompletedescriptionofthevarietiesseehttp://germoplasma.arsia.toscana.it/Foracompletedescriptionofthevarietiesseehttp://germoplasma.arsia.toscana.it/Foracompletedescriptionofthevarietiesseehttp://germoplasma.arsia.toscana.it/

UmbriaUmbriaUmbriaUmbriaUmbriaUmbriaAppletree Meladelcastagno,MelaMusodiBue,MelaOleosa,MelaCoccianese,MelaaSonagli,MelaRossa,

Mela Rosa in Pietra, Mela San Giovanni, Mela Ranettona, Mela Panaia, Mela Spoletina, MelaLappione, Mela Ciucca, Mela Rosona, Mela Limoncella, Mela Ruzza, Mela Stratalina, Mela Conventina,MelaRosagentile,MelaRosa romana,Mela Pagliaccia,Mela Casciola,MelaPolsola,MelaRoggia,MelaCoppola,MelaLardella,MelaPera.

Meladelcastagno,MelaMusodiBue,MelaOleosa,MelaCoccianese,MelaaSonagli,MelaRossa,Mela Rosa in Pietra, Mela San Giovanni, Mela Ranettona, Mela Panaia, Mela Spoletina, MelaLappione, Mela Ciucca, Mela Rosona, Mela Limoncella, Mela Ruzza, Mela Stratalina, Mela Conventina,MelaRosagentile,MelaRosa romana,Mela Pagliaccia,Mela Casciola,MelaPolsola,MelaRoggia,MelaCoppola,MelaLardella,MelaPera.




Peartree Pera dimonteleone, PeraMarzaiola, Pera SanPietro,Pera Sementina, Pera Mezza,Pera Ruzza,Pera Cannella, Pera Volpina, Pera Moscatella, Pera Burro, Pera della Trebbiatura, Pera TondaRoggia, Pera Vernia, Pera Prestareccia, Pera Spadona d’Inverno, Pera Limoncina, Pera EstivaTonda,PeraLimona,PeraVerded’Inverno.

Pera dimonteleone, PeraMarzaiola, Pera SanPietro,Pera Sementina, Pera Mezza,Pera Ruzza,Pera Cannella, Pera Volpina, Pera Moscatella, Pera Burro, Pera della Trebbiatura, Pera TondaRoggia, Pera Vernia, Pera Prestareccia, Pera Spadona d’Inverno, Pera Limoncina, Pera EstivaTonda,PeraLimona,PeraVerded’Inverno.




Olivetree Raggio,fecciaroRaggio,fecciaroRaggio,fecciaroRaggio,fecciaroRaggio,fecciaro

Peachtree Pescamarscianese,PescaInvernale,PescaSanguinella,Pescadellavigna,PescaCotognaGialla.Pescamarscianese,PescaInvernale,PescaSanguinella,Pescadellavigna,PescaCotognaGialla.Pescamarscianese,PescaInvernale,PescaSanguinella,Pescadellavigna,PescaCotognaGialla.Pescamarscianese,PescaInvernale,PescaSanguinella,Pescadellavigna,PescaCotognaGialla.Pescamarscianese,PescaInvernale,PescaSanguinella,Pescadellavigna,PescaCotognaGialla.

CherrytreeCiliegia limona, Ciliegia di Cantiano, CiliegiaMorella, Ciliegia Corniola,Ciliegia Maggiaiola, CiliegiaPalombina,CiliegiaLappiona.Ciliegia limona, Ciliegia di Cantiano, CiliegiaMorella, Ciliegia Corniola,Ciliegia Maggiaiola, CiliegiaPalombina,CiliegiaLappiona.Ciliegia limona, Ciliegia di Cantiano, CiliegiaMorella, Ciliegia Corniola,Ciliegia Maggiaiola, CiliegiaPalombina,CiliegiaLappiona.Ciliegia limona, Ciliegia di Cantiano, CiliegiaMorella, Ciliegia Corniola,Ciliegia Maggiaiola, CiliegiaPalombina,CiliegiaLappiona.Ciliegia limona, Ciliegia di Cantiano, CiliegiaMorella, Ciliegia Corniola,Ciliegia Maggiaiola, CiliegiaPalombina,CiliegiaLappiona.

Almondtree

Mandorlone,mandorladolce.Mandorlone,mandorladolce.Mandorlone,mandorladolce.Mandorlone,mandorladolce.Mandorlone,mandorladolce.

VenetoVenetoVenetoVenetoVenetoVeneto

Maize MaisMarano,MaisBiancoperlaoBiancoPerladiPiaveoPerlaPiave,MaisRostratooSponcio.MaisMarano,MaisBiancoperlaoBiancoPerladiPiaveoPerlaPiave,MaisRostratooSponcio.MaisMarano,MaisBiancoperlaoBiancoPerladiPiaveoPerlaPiave,MaisRostratooSponcio.MaisMarano,MaisBiancoperlaoBiancoPerladiPiaveoPerlaPiave,MaisRostratooSponcio.MaisMarano,MaisBiancoperlaoBiancoPerladiPiaveoPerlaPiave,MaisRostratooSponcio.

Softwheat Piave,Canove.Piave,Canove.Piave,Canove.Piave,Canove.Piave,Canove.

Spelt EinkornEinkornEinkornEinkornEinkorn

Barley AgordinoAgordinoAgordinoAgordinoAgordino

Broccoli FiolarodiCreazzo(VI)FiolarodiCreazzo(VI)FiolarodiCreazzo(VI)FiolarodiCreazzo(VI)FiolarodiCreazzo(VI)

Tomato NasoneNasoneNasoneNasoneNasone

Asparagus MontineMontineMontineMontineMontine

Broccoli DiBassanodelGrappaDiBassanodelGrappaDiBassanodelGrappaDiBassanodelGrappaDiBassanodelGrappa

Bean DiPosina(VI)o"Scalda","Giàlet".DiPosina(VI)o"Scalda","Giàlet".DiPosina(VI)o"Scalda","Giàlet".DiPosina(VI)o"Scalda","Giàlet".DiPosina(VI)o"Scalda","Giàlet".

Grapevine Bianchetta trevigiana, Boschera, Cabrusina, Cavrara, Corbine, Dall’occhio, Dindarella, Forcellina,Grapariol,Groppellodibreganze,Gruaja,Marzemina,Marzeminanerabastarda,Negrare,Oseleta,Pattaresca,Pedevenda,Perera,Pinella,Proseccolungo,Recantina,Trevisananera,Turchetta.

Bianchetta trevigiana, Boschera, Cabrusina, Cavrara, Corbine, Dall’occhio, Dindarella, Forcellina,Grapariol,Groppellodibreganze,Gruaja,Marzemina,Marzeminanerabastarda,Negrare,Oseleta,Pattaresca,Pedevenda,Perera,Pinella,Proseccolungo,Recantina,Trevisananera,Turchetta.




ListoflocalracesincludedintheRDPsofItalianRegions

Region/Species

Races(localnames)Races(localnames)


98

CalabriaCalabriaCalabriaPigs CalabreseCalabrese

Goats Capradell‟Aspromonte,Nicastrese,Rusticacalabrese.Capradell‟Aspromonte,Nicastrese,Rusticacalabrese.

Cattle PodolicaPodolica

CampaniaCampaniaCampaniaSheep Laticauda,Bagnolese.Laticauda,Bagnolese.

Goats CilentanaCilentana

Cattle AgeroleseAgerolese

Horses Cavallonapoletano,Cavallopersano,Cavallosalernitano.Cavallonapoletano,Cavallopersano,Cavallosalernitano.

Pigs CasertanoCasertano

EmiliaRomagnaEmiliaRomagnaEmiliaRomagnaCattle Reggiana,BiancaValPadana,OttoneseVarzese.Reggiana,BiancaValPadana,OttoneseVarzese.

Sheep Appenninica,Cornigliese.Appenninica,Cornigliese.

Horses CavallodelVentasso,CavalloBardigiano,CavalloAgricoloItalianoT.P.R.,CavalloDelta.CavallodelVentasso,CavalloBardigiano,CavalloAgricoloItalianoT.P.R.,CavalloDelta.

Pigs MoraRomagnola,NerodiParma.MoraRomagnola,NerodiParma.

Donkey AsinoRomagnoloAsinoRomagnolo

FriuliVeneziaGiuliaFriuliVeneziaGiuliaFriuliVeneziaGiuliaCattle GrigioAlpina,Pinzgau,Pustertaler,PezzataRossaFriulana.GrigioAlpina,Pinzgau,Pustertaler,PezzataRossaFriulana.

Sheep Istriana(Carsolina),Alpagota,Plezzana.Istriana(Carsolina),Alpagota,Plezzana.

Horses Norica,CavalloAgricolodaTiroPesanteRapido(CAITPR)Norica,CavalloAgricolodaTiroPesanteRapido(CAITPR)

LazioLazioLazioDonkey A.Dell’Amiata,A.DiMartinaFranca,A.DeiMontiLepini,A.RagusanoA.Dell’Amiata,A.DiMartinaFranca,A.DeiMontiLepini,A.Ragusano

Cattle BovinoMaremmanoBovinoMaremmano

Goats BiancaMonticellana,GrigiaCiociara,Capestrina,Fulva.BiancaMonticellana,GrigiaCiociara,Capestrina,Fulva.

Horses Maremmano,TiroPesanteRapido(TPR),PonydiEsperia,delCicolano,MaremmanoTradizionale,Tolfetano.Maremmano,TiroPesanteRapido(TPR),PonydiEsperia,delCicolano,MaremmanoTradizionale,Tolfetano.

Chicken PolloAnconaPolloAncona

Sheep Sopravvissana,QuadricornaSopravvissana,Quadricorna

Pigs SuinoCasertana,NerodeiMontiLepiniSuinoCasertana,NerodeiMontiLepini

LiguriaLiguriaLiguriaCattle CabanninaOttonese‐VarzeseCabanninaOttonese‐Varzese

Horses BardigianoBardigiano

Donkey A.Dell’AmiataA.Dell’Amiata

Sheep DelleLangheMarranaBrigascaDelleLangheMarranaBrigasca

LombardiaLombardiaLombardiaCattle VarzeseOttonese,BiancaDiValPadana(OModenese)VarzeseOttonese,BiancaDiValPadana(OModenese)

Sheep DiCorteo,BrianzolaDiCorteo,Brianzola

Goats DiLivoOLariana,OrobicaODiValgerola,FrisaValtellineseOFrontalasca,BiondaDell'Adamello,VerzascheseDiLivoOLariana,OrobicaODiValgerola,FrisaValtellineseOFrontalasca,BiondaDell'Adamello,Verzaschese

MarcheMarcheMarcheSheep Appenninica,Sopravvissana,Fabrianese.Appenninica,Sopravvissana,Fabrianese.


99

Horses CavallodelCatriaCavallodelCatria

PiemontePiemontePiemonteCattle PezzataRossad’Oropa,VarzeseoTortonese,ValdostanaPezzatanera,Barà‐Pustertaler.PezzataRossad’Oropa,VarzeseoTortonese,ValdostanaPezzatanera,Barà‐Pustertaler.

Sheep Sambucana,Garessina,Frabosana,Saltasassi,Tacola,DelleLanghe,Savoiarda.Sambucana,Garessina,Frabosana,Saltasassi,Tacola,DelleLanghe,Savoiarda.

Goats Sempione,Vallesana,RoccaveranoSempione,Vallesana,Roccaverano

P.A.BolzanoP.A.BolzanoP.A.BolzanoCattle Pinzgauer,PustererSprinzen(Pustertaler),GrigioAlpina,Bruno‐alpinaoriginale.Pinzgauer,PustererSprinzen(Pustertaler),GrigioAlpina,Bruno‐alpinaoriginale.

Sheep PecoratipoLamon(VillnösserSchaf),PecoraTirolesenero‐bruna(SchwarzbraunesBergschaf),TirolerSteinschaf(pecoradellaroccia),SchnalserSchaf(PecoradellaValSenales).PecoratipoLamon(VillnösserSchaf),PecoraTirolesenero‐bruna(SchwarzbraunesBergschaf),TirolerSteinschaf(pecoradellaroccia),SchnalserSchaf(PecoradellaValSenales).

Horses CavalloNoricoCavalloNorico

P.A.TrentoP.A.TrentoP.A.TrentoHorses Norico,CavallodatiropesanterapidoNorico,Cavallodatiropesanterapido

Cattle Rendeva,GrigioalpinaRendeva,Grigioalpina

Goats Biondadell’adamello,PezzataMochenaBiondadell’adamello,PezzataMochena

Sheep TingolaFiemmeseTingolaFiemmese

SardegnaSardegnaSardegnaCattle Sarda,Sardo‐bruna,Sardo–modicana.Sarda,Sardo‐bruna,Sardo–modicana.

Goats Sarda,Sardaprimitiva.Sarda,Sardaprimitiva.

Horses Dellagiara,Delsarcidano.Dellagiara,Delsarcidano.

Donkey Sardo,Dell’asinara.Sardo,Dell’asinara.

Pigs SardoSardo

SiciliaSiciliaSiciliaCattle Modicana,Cinisara,Siciliana.Modicana,Cinisara,Siciliana.

Sheep BarbarescaSiciliana,Noticiana.BarbarescaSiciliana,Noticiana.

Goats Girgentana,Argentatadell'Etna.Girgentana,Argentatadell'Etna.

Pigs SuinonerosicilianoSuinonerosiciliano

Horses Cavallosanfratellanl,Purosangueorientale.Cavallosanfratellanl,Purosangueorientale.

Donkey Asinoragusano,AsinoDantesco.Asinoragusano,AsinoDantesco.

ToscanaToscanaToscanaCattle Garfagnina,Pontremolese,MuccaPisana,Calvana.Garfagnina,Pontremolese,MuccaPisana,Calvana.

Sheep GarfagninaBianca,Pomarancina.GarfagninaBianca,Pomarancina.

Horses CavalloMonterufolino,Asinodell'amiata.CavalloMonterufolino,Asinodell'amiata.

Pigs CintaseneseCintasenese

UmbriaUmbriaUmbriaSheep SopravissanaSopravissana

Horses CavalloAgricoloitalianotiropesanterapido,CavalloMaremmano,CavalloMurgese,AsinoSardo,AsinodiMartinafranca.CavalloAgricoloitalianotiropesanterapido,CavalloMaremmano,CavalloMurgese,AsinoSardo,AsinodiMartinafranca.

Pigs CintaseneseCintasenese

Goats GirgentanaGirgentana

Valled'AostaValled'AostaValled'AostaCattle Valdostanapezzatanera,ValdostanaCastana.Valdostanapezzatanera,ValdostanaCastana.


100

Sheep RossetRosset

Goats ValdostanaValdostana

VenetoVenetoVenetoCattle Rendeva,Brunalineacarne(OriginalBraunvieh),Grigioalpina,Burlina.Rendeva,Brunalineacarne(OriginalBraunvieh),Grigioalpina,Burlina.

Horses Norica,CAITPR,Maremmana.Norica,CAITPR,Maremmana.

Sheep Alpagota,Lamon,Brogna,VicentinaoFoza.Alpagota,Lamon,Brogna,VicentinaoFoza.

Pultry Pollo,RobustaLimonata,RobustaMaculata,ErmellinatadiRovigo,Padovana,Polverara.Faraona,FaraonaCamosciata,Anatra,GermanataVeneta,Tacchino,ComuneBronzato,ErmellinatodiRovigo

Pollo,RobustaLimonata,RobustaMaculata,ErmellinatadiRovigo,Padovana,Polverara.Faraona,FaraonaCamosciata,Anatra,GermanataVeneta,Tacchino,ComuneBronzato,ErmellinatodiRovigo


101

the sustainable use of agrobiodiversity in italyfarmersrights.org/pdf/report_iao.pdf · the...

Documents