Introduction

Several international agreements presently bind signatory countries to responsibly provide for a proper conservation of Plant Genetic Resources (PGR, the part of biodiversity that is useful to humankind) for the benefit of the future generations. The following definition of in situ conservation can be found in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992; Definition Article 2: Use of Terms) and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) (FAO 2001; Article 2: Use of Terms): “In-situ conservation means the conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties”. We note that, similarly, the Commission Directives 2008/62/EC 20 June 2008 and 2009/145/EC 26 November 2009 state: “conservation in situ means the conservation of genetic material in its natural surroundings and, in the case of cultivated plant species, in the farmed environment where they have developed their distinctive properties”. Even if both definitions refer to “in situ”, the term “on-farm conservation” came into general use for cultivated taxa.

On-farm then, wild and cultivated populations can be maintained across years and continuously evolve in response to environmental pressures. This is particularly important for PGR like crop wild relatives and landraces. Landraces are crucial PGR, in the words of Esquinas-Alcazar (1993) “They have been a fruitful, sometimes the sole, source of genes for pest and disease resistance, adaptation to difficult environments, and other agricultural traits”. In the literature, the term “landraces” (also known as “farmers’ varieties”, “traditional varieties”, “folk varieties”, “heirloom varieties” or “heritage varieties”) refers to a broad range of definitions that have evolved over time (Camacho Villa et al. 2005; Casañas et al. 2017 and references therein; Maxted et al. 2020; Negri et al. 2009 and references therein). According to FAO (2019), landraces are “genetically and phenotypically heterogeneous, adapted to the environmental conditions of their cultivation areas, suited to the production systems and local culinary preferences and are generally associated with traditional farming systems”. On this definition it should be noted that landraces are: (i) linked to the entire context of knowledge, traditions and practices of the people cultivating them (Negri et al. 2009) (ii) cultivated (and thus adapted) also to “modern” farming systems taking advantage of the chemicals and mechanical equipment available nowadays. In synthesis, landraces are variable populations, the product of breeding or selection carried out continuously, deliberately or otherwise, by farmers and by environment over generations.

Landraces are estimated to be threatened by extinction all over the world (Khoury et al. 2022 and references therein). While very few information on the on-farm maintained landraces in Europe was available till 20 years ago, this information was progressively gained later on and up to the present. Aim of this review is to give a picture of landrace main characteristics and status in the European Union (EU), of the EU policies and the related provisions for landrace conservation in the fields (i.e. on-farm), especially those related to landrace seed commercialization, of their present achievements as well of their constraints, in order to suggest how to continue and intensify the development and implementation of policies in favour of PGR and diverse agro-ecosystems for the benefit of the future generations.

Data acquisition

To shed light on landraces main characteristics, on-farm conservation in the EU and on the effects of seed legislation on type of conserved materials, landraces seed commercialisation and exchange, we started with a review of the available literature by conducting database search using the engine “Scopus” from 2010 to the beginning of 2024. The keywords used in the search included “landraces” and “conservation”. The initial list of results was screened by the authors via title to remove those clearly not related to activities carried out in the EU (please note that United Kingdom was also included in the analysis). The remaining results were screened once more by abstract to remove those not relevant for the EU or related to animal genetic resources that were not considered for further analyses. The remainder, represented by products related to landrace conservation in the EU, were categorised according to: the EU Country, or EU Geographic Region (e.g. the Nordic Region), the author keywords and the main objectives and species target of the investigation. Other bibliographic references were also considered to elucidate specific points when needed.

Besides the cited literature, data used in this review were also obtained from the sources listed below.

  • For “type of on-farm conserved materials”: interviewing (i) the ECPGR On-Farm Working Group members (https://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/working-groups/on-farm-conservation), (ii) the researchers and farmers involved in the EC funded project Strategies for Organic and Low-input Integrated Breeding and Management (Solibam) project (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/245058/it) and (iii) the farmers in over 40 years of landrace collections carried out to create the DSA3_UNIPG genebank (FAO ITA 363) (see https://dsa3.unipg.it/it/terza-missione/).

  • For “numbers, places and reasons behind on-farm landrace conservation in the EU”: consulting the Farmer’s Pride documents “LR population management and access guidelines”, “LR Network Showcases”, “LR hotspots identification”, “Knowledge of in situ resources/sites”, “Annual newsletters for CWR & LR” all available at https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774271/results.

  • For “main actors involved in on-farm conservation”: besides all sources mentioned above, consulting the Farmer’s Pride document “Identify in situ stakeholders” available at https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774271/results.

  • For “EU present provisions for landrace maintenance”: consulting the European Union Plant Variety Portal (EUPVP) ̶ Common Catalogue Information System (https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant-variety-portal/) and cited EU documents.

  • For the list of seed companies commercializing landraces and the number of conservation varieties registered until December 2023 consulting the EUPVP and from the Sistema Informativo Agricolo Nazionale – Registri delle varietà agrarie e ortive https://www.sian.it/mivmPubb/autenticazione.do.

  • For the list of organizations involved in landrace conservation (Table 2) from authors personal knowledge and from a web search using the keywords “landrace/farmer varieties” AND “seed network”, “exhibition”, “show” and “fair”.

Results

The initial search of the Scopus database identified 1,145 bibliographic records of potential interest. This number was reduced to 245 after the initial screening, and to 205 following the second sift; screening mainly excluded records describing landrace conservation activities carried out outside the EU. Records that survived the cleaning procedure describe activities carried out mainly in Italy, Spain, Greece, Czech Republic and Portugal (with more than 10 bibliographic records each) followed by United Kingdom, France, Hungary, Nordic region and other EU countries. The most common author keywords were: “Landrace” (82), “Conservation” (68), “Molecular markers” (57), “Genetic resources” (38), “In situ conservation” (36), “Agrobiodiversity” (35), “Genetic diversity” (32), “Microsatellites” (32), “Germplasm” (19), “Population structure” (15), “Ex situ conservation” (12), “Breeding” (12) and “Phenotyping” (12). Finally, also according to author keywords, Solanum lycopersicum L. (tomato, 10 records), Phaseolus vulgaris L. (common bean, 10), Solanum melongena L. subsp. melongena (aubergine, 5), Hordeum vulgare L. (barley, 5), Prunus avium (L.) L. (cherry, 4), Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. subsp. unguiculata (cowpea, 4), Zea mays L. (maize, 4) and Lathyrus oleraceus Lam. (synonym Pisum sativum L.) (pea, 4) are the most studied species.

Type of on-farm conserved materials

Landraces

Regarding landraces we can distinguish among those landraces that have continuously maintained their link with the original territory where they have developed their distinct characteristics (sensu stricto landraces) and those landraces that have been introduced in an area from a different area of origin to serve the need of local communities since years (Galluzzi et al. 2010a and reference therein), or have been re-introduced in the area of origin (for example using genebank accessions) after a certain period of abandonment. As such, different landraces may show different levels of genetic diversity, adaptation to the environment and links with the cultural system of the societies cultivating them.

From the review of the literature, it is evident that landraces are different each other and are also characterised by within population (i.e. within landrace) genetic diversity (Table 1); this is also true for clonally propagated species, although to a lower extent (which justifies why clonal selection has been needed to set new plantations in grapevines and olives to give highly valued products with standard characteristics).

Table 1 List of studies analysing within population (i.e. within landrace) genetic diversity
Full size table

Cultivation of mixtures of landraces of different species was quite common in the past and in different parts of Europe (Thomas et al. 2011; Podyma et al. 2017). The cultivation of mixtures of different wheat (Triticum spp.) species landraces is still recorded in the Asturias (Spain) (Leigh et al. 2013), of wheat and barley and of Cyprus vetch (Lathyrus ochrus (L.) DC) and pea in Greece (Thanopoulos and Bebeli, unpublished data), of black oats (Avena strigosa Schreb.) and oat (Avena sativa L.) and of rye (Secale cereale L.) and “bere” barley in Hebridean islands (Scotland, UK) (Scholten et al. 2008).

Other variable populations

It should be noted that in Europe, presently, beside landraces, there is a wide range of materials, developed by farmers and breeders, that are presently being used with the aim to enhance the diversity in the field, which will be briefly mentioned below. All of them comply with the FAO (2019) landrace definition as their continued cultivation allow their “maintenance and recovery” in “the areas where they have developed their distinctive properties and the conservation of ecosystems” as the CBD (1992) definition says about in situ (on-farm) conservation. For these reasons, in this review they will be generally referred to as “landraces”.

Evolutionary populations

Genetically heterogeneous populations that are able to change under natural and farmer pressures that can be obtained (i) by mixing the seed of different varieties or landraces (sometimes also of different crops), or (ii) mixing segregating individuals from the crossing of a number of parents (Raggi et al. 2016a, b) and, in some cases, with the participation of farmers (Ceccarelli et al. 2022; Goldringer et al. 2020; van Frank et al. 2020). Evolutionary populations will eventually develop in landraces with their diversity shaped by the conditions where they are cultivated (Raggi et al. 2022a). Such materials serve the purpose to constitute materials able to mimic landraces, which is useful where landraces of a certain crop do not exist anymore due to the industrialization process of agriculture in the decades following the second World War, and to create materials useful to low input or organic agriculture where diverse genotypes in a field can counteract lack of chemical pest control and other external inputs (Raggi et al. 2017).

Selections from landraces

Synthetic populations which have been developed in participatory plant breeding by intercrossing several genotypes (extracted from landraces or mass selected landraces) tested for giving superior performances when crossed in all combinations (Leitão et al. 2019) or lines selected from landraces (Casals et al. 2019; Raggi et al. 2017).

Obsolete cultivars

Represented by those cultivars that were once registered in seed catalogues and commercialised, then cancelled from the lists, that have been anyway maintained in the farms and are sometimes composed of different genotypes.

Different mixtures

This last group includes different types of mixtures, with different characteristics and developed to attain different purposes: “mixtures of registered varieties”, “line mixture varieties” (i.e. mixtures of genetically different lines carefully chosen based on phenotypic uniformity for a number of traits) and “multiline varieties” (i.e. mixture of genetically related lines that have different genes for disease resistance; Lammerts van Bueren 2002).

Numbers, places and reasons behind on-farm landrace conservation in the EU

How many different landraces are conserved?

Despite the tremendous changes brought by the introduction of cultivars and the dramatic reduction of landraces (Bonneuil et al. 2012; Bonnin et al. 2014), certain agricultural species and their landraces are still cultivated and play an important role for local or national economies. A recent review of the European situation showed that there are 19,335 geo-referenced landrace cultivation sites and 141 herbaceous and 48 tree species cultivated as landraces (Raggi et al. 2022b); according to the recorded names, over 4,500 different landraces appear to be still cultivated in Europe. It should be considered that, if these numbers could be overestimated since the same landrace may have different names, on the other hand the inventory is far than complete: information from some countries are missing, landraces of some crops are not adequately recorded in the surveyed countries (i.e. most olive trees and vines) and other landrace localisation data are progressively piling since then (Almeida et al. 2022; Canella et al. 2022; Giupponi et al. 2021a). Finally, many landraces, particularly those of horticultural crops, especially when maintained by individual farmers or gardeners, pose challenges for inventorying due to the inherent difficulty of thoroughly exploring a given territory.

Where landraces are conserved?

Landraces are frequently cultivated in marginal areas and under organic and low input systems contributing to the income of farmers working in conditions in which conventional agriculture cannot be easily carried out (Giupponi et al. 2021a; Raggi et al. 2021). In fact, due to their cultivation for many centuries in various microclimates and under specific cultivation practices, landraces present adaptive traits to various abiotic stresses such as cold conditions, water deficiency, salinity, low chemical availability (Ganança et al. 2015, 2018; Leino et al. 2020; Martin et al. 2013; Montesano et al. 2012; Pinheiro de Carvalho et al. 2003, 2004; Ralli et al. 2020; Sangiorgio et al. 2021; Torricelli and Negri 2015; Raggi et al. 2021 and references therein). Their continual adaptation in different environmental conditions and management practices can be further exploited in organic and low input agriculture and prevail in marginal lands where improved cultivars do not prosper (Bencze et al. 2020; Ceccarelli 1994), thus contributing to the European Green Deal concept (European Commission 2019) and to the Farm to Fork strategy.

Landraces can also be found in convents or monasteries, as residuals of previous monastic cultivations like in the case of the common fig (Ficus carica L.) landrace “Fico degli Zoccolanti” or of the pear (Pyrus communis L.) landrace “Pero di Santa Veronica” (Dalla Ragione and Dalla Ragione 2011). Landraces are sometimes also used to restore historical places. Families and/or gardeners maintain landraces in their fields and gardens in both rural and in urban or sub-urban areas (Deppe 2000; Galluzzi and Negri 2010b; Foti and Timpanaro 2021; Lofthouse 2021; see also https://urbact.eu/networks/agri-urban), generally applying a “traditional” type of management which nonetheless takes advantage of the most advanced chemicals and mechanic tools available (Negri 2003).

Why landraces are conserved?

More than a unique reason is often connected with the on-farm conservation of a landrace. Beside advantages related to specific adaptation (Ceccarelli 1994; Rhoné et al. 2020; Caproni et al. 2023; Woldeyohannes et al. 2022), landraces have been often maintained in cultivation due to their cultural value for farmers and local communities (Calvet-Mir et al. 2012; Fenzi and Couix 2022) and owing to their tastes, shapes, and colours and/or use in particular dishes or occurrences (Conversa et al. 2020; see also paragraph below). When sensu stricto landraces are maintained by small farmers/gardeners, it is because the landraces and their traditional uses are appreciated by the family, in this case their survival depends on the continuation of the family tradition across time which is not often assured (Negri 2003).

Literature reports that even feasts in occasion of recurrences (e.g. Saint Patron, as Saint Donato in Lefkada-Greece (Thomas et al. 2013) or Saint Nicolaus in Monteleone di Spoleto-Italy (Papa 1996, 1999), local fairs and contests for the best landrace product can concur to keep a particular landrace in cultivation in the EU (Biscotti et al. 2022; Castellini 2005; Mendes Moreira et al. 2014; Negri 2012; Ralli 2010), as reported also in other continents (see for example Bellon and Brush 1994; Deepak 2010). Different uses are also reported for the same landrace (Biscotti et al. 2022). In other words, cultural differences among people of the European melting pot also account for the numerous landraces cultivated (Galluzzi et al. 2010a).

In this respect traditional uses and production of high-quality food is certainly among the main factors that allowed the maintenance of landraces in the EU despite the wide diffusion of modern cultivars: many consumers perceive products from landrace as of higher quality than those obtained from modern cultivars and are certainly willing to pay an extra price for high quality food (Gracia et al. 2020). In Italy, for example, where food is a primary element of cultural identity of several places, products from local landraces are highly estimated, well distinguished in markets and proposed in restaurants as typical of the area, they can reach exorbitant prices, some legume landraces cost even more than meat (Negri pers. comm.). Thus, landraces of olive trees, fig trees, grapevines, pulses and other crops, which flourish in Mediterranean countries, contribute to the local economy (Antunes et al. 2021; Negri 2003; Pinheiro de Carvalho et al. 2019; Raggi et al. 2021, 2022a; Thomas et al. 2011, 2013), besides all the other services produced by a “diverse agriculture” (Ficiciyan et al. 2018 and references therein).

Products from landraces are particularly lucrative when the product from landrace is associated with some form of quality mark or labelling. The economic analysis on certain agricultural holdings where Corinthian raisin, wine-making grapevine, olive trees or pulses are cultivated proved that the cultivation of landraces can be sustainable even for small sized farms (Karanikolas et al. 2017). In Madeira Island, Portugal, the sweet potato and apple-tree landraces are cultivated in small farms and its production or products are protected by Demarcated Region (DR), Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) or Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and constitute local brands, i.e. the Madeira cider and sweet potato bread (Antunes et al. 2021; Pinheiro de Carvalho et al. 2019). Santorini “fava” PDO, also cultivated in a small island and produced from a Lathyrus clymenum L. landrace, costs 20 €/kg. The “Farro” from “Monteleone di Spoleto” PDO, an old landrace of emmer wheat (Triticum turgidum subsp. dicoccum (Schrank ex Schübl.) Thell.), cultivated in central Italy in a small area, costs about 10 euros €/kg in town markets (Negri 2003; Torricelli et al. 2009) and contribute an income of an (estimated) half million of euro to the local farmers. (see other examples in the In situ landraces: best practice evidence-based database, available at https://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/in-situ-landraces-best-practice-evidence-based-database).

Many precious wines awarded of Denomination of Controlled Origin (DOC) or Denomination of Controlled Origin Guarantee (DOCG) are produced starting from landraces. In this case products are also destined to wider markets and often produced applying modern crop management (including the up-to-date organic management) and selection procedures to guarantee the consumers with consistent quality characteristics.

Products awarded quality marks or labelling are lucrative because of the added value that the consumers attribute to them, in addition the mark or label award provides a ready and secure market that allows the producer to invest in product development for a longer-term. Market chains of such products have been progressively developing in Europe. An analysis of a collection of 95 case studies, retrieved from the above-mentioned public repository database, and integrated with further data from literature, was recently used to identify the main factors that influence landrace added values and accessibility and, as a consequence, their potential for increasing their adoption by new farmers (Raggi et al. 2021). Results, while confirming the reasons why landraces are cultivated across Europe, showed a relative different weight of factors for garden and open field crops. In garden crops both the income deriving from selling the landrace product on the (local or wider) market or from satisfying the family needs and the presence of promotion actions activities significantly affected the added values and accessibility, as such motivating landrace on-farm conservation. In open field crops only the presence of promotion actions significantly affected the added value. Among the promotion actions “labels related to a specific area/products”, as those awarded by the EU mentioned above, and other commercial labels and brands, as the Slow Food label, are worth to be mentioned. The creation of consortia around specific landraces can enhance added values of their commercial products resulting in a wider market and acquisition of geographical indications or labels. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the EU seed legislation frame offers several possibilities to register landraces as “conservation varieties”, “amateur varieties” (European Commission 2008, 2009) or “populations” (European Commission 2014a) favouring the involvement of private seed companies and other stakeholders in the use of landraces.

Main actors involved in on-farm conservation

A wide range of diverse actors is involved in on-farm conservation (as also the management and uses of landraces maintained on-farm vary greatly across Europe) depending on the diversity richness in the country, type of material, type of crops, actors involved and their experience or preferences, socio-economic and cultural context, as well as the destination of products obtained and the agro-ecosystems where the on-farm management is carried out.

Single farmers and amateur gardeners

They are still the main, although mostly unknown, actors in on-farm conservation and management, especially in the Southern part of Europe (Raggi et al. 2021). Even when productions from landraces are destined to farm/family use and niche markets, small scale agriculture is important not only for its environmental aspect (i.e. for the contribution in reducing carbon footprint from several sides) but also for educational aspects related to the culture linked to landrace cultivation. Farmers certainly select their materials to maintain their own crop ideotype (Lucchin et al. 2003; Torricelli et al. 2013; Ciancaleoni et al. 2014), but also, in some cases, maintain new off-types emerging from casual crosses. It is in these fields and gardens where most of the unknown, unrecorded, untapped, not safely ex situ duplicated landraces exist (Galluzzi et al. 2010b; Calvet-Mir et al. 2011; Korpelainen 2023) and because of their localized nature are high-risk-of-extinction (see the European and National Landraces Conservation Strategies produced in the frame of the EC funded PGR Secure project, http://www.pgrsecure.org).

Farmer consortia of producers

These groups also maintain many sensu stricto landraces on-farm and are mostly established in southern regions of Europe where products from landraces are highly valued by the consumers because of a tight link with local culture including the many culinary traditions. For example, the main Italian farmer organization, named “Coldiretti”, carries out the campaign “Campagna amica” (food from 0 km) where products from local landraces are also sold in local markets, as well as the Union of Santorini Cooperatives-Santo Wines is committed to safeguarding the traditional production of local wines, Santorini Fava “Arakas” (L. clymenum) and “Tomataki” (Solanum lycopersicum L.) while promoting a sustainable agriculture development.

Farmer and gardener networks

In the EU these groups often assume the various form of Non Governative Organisations, commercial companies or associations (Table 2), they help in maintaining on-farm all the wide variety of materials described above and applying different forms of management techniques from the most traditional to the most modern. These networks often lobby to maintain landraces in a wide public availability, promoting the use of landraces also outside of their origin area, and often maintain strong links to national and EU decision makers to influence on seed production and exchange regulations. Most of them have web-based platform explaining their activities and calling for adherents; some of them are also linked in a supra-national network (https://liberatediversity.org/). Communicating via web and organizing events and meetings these networks mutually exchange cultivation, seed propagation, selection and value enhancement knowledge. Some networks collaborate with local genebanks to propagate genebank materials, for the broader public or for their members, and cooperate with various institutional authorities.

Table 2 Main European networks and associations of farmers and gardeners maintaining, or promoting the cultivation of landraces on-farm
Full size table

Some amateur farmer/gardener networks primarily maintain and propagate seeds for use by their members and do not have any commercial interest, but the majority includes members specialized in seed production of the varieties they maintain, which are sold through seed catalogues consultable on their platforms. As such propagation and conservation is mostly linked to commercial production by selling the product directly in the farm or in the markets. Networks like “Réseau Semences Paysanne” in France, “Rete Semi Rurali” in Italy and “Red de Semillas” in Spain not only take care for the materials they maintain, particularly for neglected crops or crops with unique characteristics (e.g. special taste or special cooking characteristics) but even invest in breeding programs for the development of populations suitable for organic agriculture.

This kind of networks is mostly established in the northern and eastern countries; it is significative that in Italy ̶ where the promotion of on-farm conservation activities by public authorities dates back to the ‘90ies (see below) and products from sensu stricto landraces are much valued also in restricted areas because of the cultural identity of the producers and the consumers ̶ there are a few of this network types, while most of conservation activities is still in the hands of farmers and farmer consortia of producers.

Commercial seed companies

Small seed companies sell on the seed market varieties which are or have been selected/bred from landraces included those within the scope of the Commission Directives 2008/62/EC, 2009/145/EC, 2010/60/EU (European Commission 2008, 2009, 2010, see below) (Table S2, Supplementary Materials). They often promote their products on their web sites specifically referring to the safeguard of biodiversity, some of them also offer organic seed of landraces. As mentioned above, some are tightly interacting with groups of farmers or in other cases have a formal commercial partnership with networks of farmers and gardeners. Seed production in the EU requires that the company satisfies specific and tight requirements and procedures, which has partially limited the diffusion of these types of companies up to now, but the situation is rapidly changing because of the EU present provisions in favour of agrobiodiversity and organic agriculture (see below) so that the request of seed of “diverse” materials is increasing.

Local communities and associations

A wide panorama of no-profit local communities, associations and foundations (Table S2, Supplementary Materials) often support the cultivation of typical, strictly linked to a certain territory landrace like the “Almagro” eggplant in Spain (Hurtado et al. 2014); the “Bere” barley in Scotland (Mahon et al. 2016); the “Fagiolina del Lago Trasimeno” in Italy (Polegri and Negri 2010). Niche, highly valued landraces, for example, are often be valued and promoted by the above mentioned collecting historical documents about the landraces and celebrating yearly fests and fairs where prizes are awarded to the best grower of a certain landrace and landrace products is sold to people visiting the fair. Several examples can be retrieved from the ECPGR database https://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/in-situ-landraces-best-practice-evidence-based-database connected to the manuscript from Raggi et al. 2021 including: turnip “Bosco Gurin”, peach “Buco Incavato”, onion “Cebola Garrafal”, common bean “Fagiolo di Cave”, faba bean “Fava Cottora dell’Amerino”, carrot “Küttiger Rüebli”, pear “Pera Cocomerina”, turnip greens “Rapa Catalogna di Roccasecca” and celery “Sedano Nero di Trevi”.

In this panorama urban and peri-urban gardens run by the members of a community play an increasing role in the maintenance of landraces on-farm, while diffusing the associated knowledge (see relative references in Sect. 4.2.2). In addition, educational activities, also aimed at helping disadvantaged people, the development of local food supply systems and of green care activities (community farming and gardening, horticulture therapy, green exercise and other physical activities) are often supported by local communities and associations (Scartazza et al. 2015). Also, in some cases, local communities run community seed bank which provides reproductive materials to community members (see for example https://www.communityseednetwork.org/; https://www.diversifood.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-6-29-CSB-report-workshop.pdf; https://liberatediversity.org/the-network/members/).

Public authorities

National and sub-national authorities, like Regions, Provinces, Municipalities and other entities, often fund activities for the on-farm conservation of landrace and neglected species under the umbrella of national programs which often take advantage of the EU financing and regulations for agriculture and environment. For example: Austria has funded a specific program for the cultivation of old varieties and underutilized species (see www.ages.at/slk); Germany has programmes for biodiversity conservation (see http://bravors.brandenburg.de/br2/sixcms/media.php/76/Amtsblatt%2010_11.pdf; https://fisaonline.de/en/); Italy has Regional laws aimed at protecting local agrobiodiversity, promoting landrace on-farm conservation, developing an economic interest for their products and enhancing information and information exchange (Negri 2012) (see for example: https://www.arsial.it/biodiversita/; http://www.regione.toscana.it/-/tutela-e-valorizzazione-di-razze-e-varieta-locali; https://www.amap.marche.it/progetti/biodiversita-agraria-delle-marche; http://www.agricoltura.regione.campania.it/biodiversita/rg.html); Spain funded the CONECT-e project (https://www.conecte.es/index.php/es/) aimed at documenting, sharing and protecting Spanish landraces and related traditional knowledge, also giving information on where to find their seed (Reyes-García et al. 2021); Sweden has a National Programme for Diversity of Cultivated Plants aimed at reintroducing historic varieties into cultivation (POM, https://www.slu.se/en/Collaborative-Centres-and-Projects/the-programme-for-diversity-of-cultivated-plants/).

In Italy local authorities, even not in response to legislation, also create and make public lists of typical regional products (many from landraces), fund research on landraces, give help to local farmer associations for developing products obtained from landraces, support requests for the above mentioned EU quality marks and fund various other activities, such as supporting local fairs and exhibitions, and landraces seed multiplication and redistribution among farmers (Polegri and Negri 2010; Renna et al. 2018). It should be also mentioned that also Botanic gardens, Parks and Genebanks play a role in on-farm conservation favoring the reintroduction in farmer fields of lost landraces from materials held in their collections.

Related, but non-institutional activities, also include organic farmers sometimes requesting landraces from genebanks for their production systems, farmer associations promoting the commercialization of local products in their locality, national and regional radio and television programmes regularly talking about local products from landraces, Slow Food adherents making “visible” the products obtained from landraces and thus promoting local diversity preservation, gourmet academies maintaining alive certain preparations from landraces products and some community gardens promoting the maintenance of local diversity, including landraces. The ever-increasing demand of consumers for high quality food products coming from a definite area also facilitates the maintenance of landraces. Finally, the local tourism economy also benefits from the coupling of traditional products from landraces (Björk and Kauppinen-Räisänen 2016; Stalmirska 2021 and references therein).

Given the complexity of the system and heterogeneity of involved actors, it is quite complex to obtain “exact” numbers and names of the actors as well as of the landraces they maintain; a possibility is the use of different online available databases. For example, for those varieties of seed propagated species regulated by the European legislation and registered in the Common Catalogue as conservation varieties, the name of the maintainer is available on the EUPVP that also allow to infer some information about the type of maintainer. Due to the provisions of General data protection regulation (GDPR), the sole number of conservation varieties maintainers in the different EU Member States is reported in Table S1 (Supplementary Materials). Thanks to the information collected from the Italian Register of agricultural plant and vegetable varieties, the name, as well as the “type of maintainer”, is available for Italy (https://www.sian.it/mivmPubb/autenticazione.do) (Table S2; Supplementary Materials).

For the other species and varieties not registered as conservation varieties, databases related to the materials used in the organic production (e.g. LIVESEED database (https://www.seeds4organic.eu/rdb, or the Italian “Banca dati sementi biologiche” (https://www.sinab.it/banca-dati-bio) can provide information about the person marketing landrace propagating materials. These databases are compiled by professional operators of organic sector to provide information on organic seed availability. Unfortunately, even in this case, the information is incomplete being the compilation solely based on voluntary efforts; also these databases list materials different from landraces (e.g. improved varieties) and, finally, it is not necessarily the case that the professional operator who markets the seed coincides with the person responsible for maintenance of the variety. Therefore, also the use of such databases cannot provide an overall picture of the real situation about landrace mantainers.

All that considered, it should be noted that lack of propagation materials still hamper a wider diffusion of landraces in Europe, seed and other types of propagation materials being a primary factor in agricultural production.

EU present provisions for landrace maintenance

Although clear and coordinated preservation/conservation/maintenance measures for landraces at the EU level are still lacking, the EU is already committed to preserve agrobiodiversity through different instruments and such commitment was recently renewed with the 2020 European Green Deal and Biodiversity Strategy.

Support to preserve PGR naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion, as well as actions for promoting the in situ and ex situ conservation, the exchange of information for the conservation, characterization, collection and utilization of genetic resources have been promoted in Europe by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (European Commission 2014b). Even though only some countries have considered the opportunity of including the above-mentioned activities within their National Rural Development Programmes (NRDP), it is true that through the EAFRD many activities in favour of landrace conservation have been carried out. In Italy, for example, the last three NRDPs have guarantee the implementation of Regional laws providing fund for ex situ and in situ conservation of landrace, heritage varieties and crop wild relatives through farmer networks which certainly contributed to maintain in cultivation a high number of landraces.

Also, a recent study showed that 19,335 sites exist in Europe where landraces are cultivated and that about 20% of these sites are in Natura 2000 areas (Raggi et al. 2022b) which shows how EU policies, mainly aimed at protecting the wild part of nature, also had a great impact in protecting that part of nature whose evolution was driven by humans. In fact, in protected areas, organic or low input agricultural techniques are encouraged (European Commission 2018) and the best material to carry out these techniques are landraces, due to their intrinsic diversity which counteracts the damages of pests and climatic adverse events. Also to be noted, many Common Agricultural supportive Policies are linked to Natura 2000 farming systems (European Commission 2018).

In addition, as mentioned above, the use of the European unique quality marks like Controlled Designation of Origin (DOC), Controlled Designation of Origin Guaranteed (DOCG) for wines, and Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), Traditional Specialty Guaranteed (TSG) for other products or the “Organic agriculture“ label also facilitated the maintenance of some landraces in agriculture, at least those from which a product was developed (Menapace et al. 2009; Raggi et al. 2021).

Finally, in recent years the European Commission also adopted measures regarding seed legislation, which are aimed to enhance in situ conservation and use of landraces and local varieties by facilitating the access of their seed to the market under specific limitations: Commission Directives 2008/62/EC (European Commission 2008) 2009/145/EC (European Commission 2009), 2010/60/EU (European Commission 2010) and, finally, the Commission Implementing Decision on population (European Commission 2014a) which will be discussed below.

Landraces and the EU seed legislation on seed production and marketing

Conservation varieties

The first concrete signal of a renewed interest in a landrace is the marketing of its propagation material. In the EU the marketing of any plant material must first comply with the phytosanitary requirements according to regulation 2016/2031 (European Parliament 2016) on protective measures against pests of plants.

Focusing our attention specifically on seed propagated species, the legal framework on seed marketing is represented by seven basic Directives (66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 2002/53/EC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/55/EC, 2002/56/EC and 2002/57/EC) and by a high number of amending and implementing acts. It is impossible to summarize here all the elements of this legal framework, but we can mention the main statements about the general requirements. The seed belonging to the species listed in the above-mentioned Directives can be marketed only if their varieties are registered into the Common Catalogue of agricultural plant and vegetable species, which is the sum of each National list of EU Member States, and only if they have been officially certified by the competent authority of each Member State. This means that the variety has been officially verified as Distinct, Uniform and Stable (DUS requirements) and with an agronomic value (the latter only for agricultural species) to be admitted into the Common Catalogue and its seed have been properly certified and labelled according to the legal quality standards (purity, germinability and freedom from pests and diseases).

Recognising the need to preserve biodiversity and PGR, the European Commission published the Directives 2008/62/EC and Directive 2009/145/EC establishing derogations for the acceptance [in the Common Catalogue] and the seed marketing of “landraces and varieties which are naturally adapted to local and regional conditions and are threatened by genetic erosion” “even where they do not comply with the general requirements”. Whether responding the adaptation and threat requisites, landraces and obsolete varieties (i.e. those deleted from the Common Catalogue from two years at least) can be registered as conservation varieties into a special section of the Catalogue.

Although in a sort of “relaxed” way, conservation varieties must respond to the system granting legal access to the registration and seed market: their Distinctness and Stability are defined considering at least the traits listed in the CPVO (Community Plant Varieties office) or UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plant) Technical Questionnaires (TQs), while, when the assessment of Uniformity level is based on off-types, a population standard of 10% and an acceptance probability of at least 90% is applied. Conservation varieties are admitted without any official examination, it is sufficient to provide a varietal description resulting from unofficial tests and information gathered in cultivation or from any plant genetic resource authority recognized by the Member States.

Directive 2008/62/EC and Directive 2009/145/EC foresee other derogations related to the compliance of varietal denomination to the Commission Implementing Regulation (UE) 2021/384 on the suitability of the denominations of varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species. However, the Directives do not specify what derogations can be applied, except where such derogations would violate prior rights of a third party mentioned in the article 3 of Regulation (UE) 2021/384.

The Directives also define the region of origin of the conservation variety as the geographic area where it was or has been traditionally cultivated. Information about the region of origin is declared by the applicant with the request for the registration into National list where the region itself is located. It can include a district or the country or parts of more than one country.

The Directive 2008/62/EC and Directive 2009/145/EC finally set limitations to seed production and marketing of conservation varieties. Firstly, seed production and seed marketing of conservation varieties must occur only in the declared region of origin and within limited quantities of production. In addition, the seed, although not officially verified, must comply with the requirements foreseen by the basic Directives for the category of certified seed in terms of purity and germinability and derive from seed produced according to the practice commonly used for varietal maintenance. Inspections carried out by the Member State Competent Authority for seed certification are anyway addressed to check the varietal identity, the seed quantity and if the localization of the seed crop is within the region of origin. No official label is required on the package, but only the producer label containing the information listed in the pertinent article of the Directive 2008/62/EC and Directive 2009/145/EC.

Post control is carried out by the Member State Competent Authority through random inspections on seed lot put into the market to check varietal identity and purity. Every year, the seed producer must communicate the quantity produced and marketed to the Member State Competent Authority for seed certification which can pose limits to the market if the total amount exceeds the established quantity limits.

Achievements in landraces registration into the EU Common catalogue

Since the implementation of the European Commission Directives 2008/62/EC and 2009/145/EC, after only four years, several countries have registered various landraces as conservation varieties for a total of 159 for agricultural plant species and 25 for vegetable species (Spataro and Negri 2013). Since then, more countries have continued to register other conservation varieties so that the number of varieties of agricultural plant species has increased up to 412 while the varieties of vegetable species up to 193 (Fig. 1). The variation also considered the deletion of several conservation varieties from the Common Catalogue because of the exit of United Kingdom from the EU. The number of conservation varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species registered in the Common Catalogue is reported in the EUPVP.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Total conservation varieties of agricultural (left) and vegetable (right) species registered in the European catalogue of varieties in 2022 as sourced by the EU Plant variety database

Full size image

Considering the registration data per Member State, Italy, Slovenia and Germany contribute to the registration of 50% of varieties of agricultural plant species listed in the Common Catalogue. Most of the conservation varieties of agricultural plant species belongs to the following crops: winter wheat, potato, maize and durum wheat. In the case of conservation varieties of vegetable species, 50% of total registrations are from Spain and Italy, with the best represented crops being beans, tomato and pepper.

Organic heterogeneous materials and organic varieties – other perspective for landrace seed commercialisation?

Due to the attention towards organic and low-impact productions, within the application ground of legislation on seed marketing, the European Commission has organized a temporary experiment providing for certain derogations for the marketing of seed from populations of wheat, barley, oats and maize; the experiment was initially planned to last from 2014 to 2018 (European Commission 2014a). The material to be commercialised under the temporary experiment provisions, referred to as “population”, had to be characterized by a very high level of heterogeneity and, consequently, be able to change generation after generation in response to agroclimatic conditions (i.e. be an evolutionary population). This type of matieral, derived from specific crosses, cannot be considered a variety within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (“[…]‘variety’ shall be taken to mean a plant grouping within a single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, which grouping, irrespective of whether the conditions for the grant of a plant variety right are fully met, can be: — defined by the expression of the characteristics that results from a given genotype or combination of genotypes, — distinguished from any other plant grouping by the expression of at least one of the said characteristics, and — considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated unchanged […]”) because not complying with the last requirement (i.e. the ability of being propagated unchanged).

This temporary experiment laid the foundations for the definition of Organic Heterogeneous Material (OHM), in the Regulation EU 848/2018 of the European Parliament and of the Council on organic production where the concept of “population” is extended to all plant propagating materials.

The same Regulation also defines Organic Varieties (OV). An OV is a variety, as defined in the above cited Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, but i) characterised by a high level of genetic and phenotypical diversity and ii) the result of organic breeding as defined in the same Regulation (848/2018). Consequently, to allow the admission of OV into the Common Catalogue, the Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2022/1647 of 23 September 2022 and the Commission implementing Directive (EU) 2022/1648 of 23 September 2022 have recently established derogations to DUS and Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) tests foreseen by Directive 2003/90/EC and Directive 2003/91/EC. It is noteworthy that not all the agricultural or vegetable species can currently benefit from these derogations, since they concern the assessment of requirements only in OV of maize, barley, rye, wheat, carrot and kohlrabi for their registration into the National lists and, consequently, into the Common Catalogue. The ability of Regulation EU 848/2018 to create new opportunities for landraces and facilitate the commercialization of their seeds remains uncertain. Despite the inherent characteristics of landraces, such as high genetic diversity that confers resistance and tolerance to biotic and abiotic stress, making them suitable for organic and sustainable agriculture, predicting the impact of the regulation is challenging. In fact, while landraces cannot certainly be intended as OHM, in many cases they could be legally definable as “varieties” and meet the requirements for registration as OV, being characterised by a certain level of diversity and often maintained under organic conditions. Additional considerations regarding this point are provided in the Discussion section.

The informal seed exchange

While the use of own seed is generally admitted in the EU (with exceptions principally connected to the grant of plant breeder rights), donations of small quantities of propagation materials from a farmer to another is not regulated by the present legislation on seed marketing, yet such activity turns out to be very frequent in practice among farmers/gardeners who maintain landraces within their own farms.

As described above, this activity can help the on-farm maintenance of those landraces which are not interesting enough for the market and, consequently, not able to cope with the investments necessary to comply with seed legislation requirements, even in the case of derogations established for conservation varieties. The exchange of small quantities of propagation materials from a farmer to another, as well as a proportionated economic return to farmers maintaining those landraces used as genetic resource in breeding activity, are principles clearly stated in the ITPGRFA, which has been implemented by the EU and its Member States. On the other hand, it is not clear how these principles are applied, regulated, and especially integrated with the EU legislation on seed marketing and on phytosanitary measures.

Discussion

Considered our legacy of crop diversity, landraces are of great value for the associated culture and knowledge, the direct use in marginal and more sustainable agro-ecosystems, as well as for increasing the wealth of cultivated diversity and for the selection of new varieties able to better cope with current biotic and abiotic stresses, one of the consequences of climate change. After the advent of the so-called high yielding varieties (the final product of formal, advanced plant breeding) landraces have been rapidly substituted in cultivation in many parts of the world and especially in those country with a more technologically advanced agriculture. However, this was not always the case, with landraces that survived in situ (i.e. on-farm) also in Europe in different contexts and due to different reasons. Being landraces relevant for direct (cultivation) as well as indirect (plant breeding) use, increasing their on-farm conservation, use, and access is still a priority to secure our current and future food production. Even if many landraces are part of ex situ collections, managed at international, national and even local level, on-farm conservation still lags behind being mostly patchy and lacking a proper coordination especially at the regional level. At this regard it is also noteworthy that not all the landraces can be conserved ex situ and that in situ conservation allows for landraces evolution to occur in response to the changing environment.

Data on numbers, places, and reasons behind landrace in situ conservation in the EU have been here summarised that reveal a quite complex scenario. Indeed, the approaches to maintain diversity on-farm are quite diverse because of the different aspects that are of main interest in different socio-ecological contexts: the maintenance of the genetic materials themselves, the adoption of agro-ecological approaches, the promotion of stronger interactions among different actors, a just recognition of farmers’ rights and role as custodians of local varieties as well as the creation of a network of stakeholders involved in in situ conservation. In situ maintained heterogeneous materials are also quite diverse including true landraces, conservation, amateur and obsolete varieties, forage and cereal mixtures and a range of other types of heterogeneous populations that are mainly managed by different stakeholders. Consequently, the range of stakeholder groups and interests is also extremely broad and diverse reflecting the variety of materials, roles, activities and needs of the different subjects.

As reviewed above, in the EU, in situ conservation of landraces has been favoured in different manners, including incentives to farmers, provisions for seed production and marketing, collaboration with institutions and social organizations to increase the value and promote the visibility of landrace products and calling consumer attention. However, despite several initiatives to favour landrace in situ conservation, it should be underlined that many landraces are still under threat and especially those of horticultural crops conserved by small farmers/gardeners. Their survival mostly depends on the continuation of the family tradition across time which appears problematic due to the profound changes in society and loss of specific skills in growing plants and reproducing own seed (a delicate work implying time and proper seed conservation techniques); today most farmers/gardeners prefer to buy plantlets on the market instead of producing them from their own landraces. Indeed, a change in the way food is acquired by, at least, some families would help in increasing landraces in situ conservation: food could be home-produced to a wider extent than presently, and also in urban and peri-urban areas where up to 70% of all food produced globally is destined to, as FAO put in evidence (https://www.fao.org/urban-food-agenda). Locally producing food would contribute to sustainable development, food security and, when obtained using landraces, also to conservation of agrobiodiversity under threat. Of course, this would imply a profound change of mentality and attitudes considered that most people do not know how to reproduce seed or grow plants. However, the present success of media and websites dedicated to horticulture and the increased initiatives for greener cities, empowering common people with appropriate skills and techniques, in a greater cooperation with other stakeholders (private and public bodies and entities such as academia, city networks and international agencies and the EU itself), may indicate a change in perspectives.

On the other hand, specifically considering seed propagation and marketing, the European Commission adopted derogations to favour the registration of landraces and the commercialisation of their seed. Despite the number of registrations of conservation varieties into the Common Catalogue has clearly increased along a ten-year period (2013–2022), the current number appears to be far from the known number of landraces in Europe (see above). In addition, only few Member States have taken the opportunity to register landraces as conservation varieties and, even in this case, for a restricted number of landraces of few species (Fig. 1). Reasons behind these numbers can be related to (i) the failure of certain materials to access the Catalogue, (ii) the registration costs in some countries (iii) the limited commercial interest insufficient to justify the burdens of production according to the provisions of the seed regulations, despite the derogations, (iv) the problems related to the conservation varieties denomination (see on this issue Thanopoulos et al. 2024) and (v) the lacking of the minimum requirements for registration, with reference to the level of homogeneity of characters in UPOV and CPVO TQs. Indeed, CPVO and UPOV TQs could be not adequate to fully describe the diversity existing between landraces, because they consider a very few basic traits respect to the UPOV guidelines and CPVO protocols usually applied for DUS assessment in improved varieties: CPVO and UPOV TQs consist in a basic description provided by the breeder to the Official Examination Offices of Member State and they are used to plan field trials for the registration of conventional varieties. Even Uniformity criteria established in the Directives on conservation varieties may hamper landraces registration due to their genetic diversity which can be higher than the legal limits foreseen for conservation varieties (see above).

Despite the higher variability compared to improved/conventional varieties, landraces can be still considered a variety according to the general definition reported in the legislation on Community plant variety rights as well as on seed marketing shared by the legislation on organic production. In addition, the derogations to DUS criteria make landraces quite near to the definition of OV (Regulation (EU) 848/2018) as such opening the possibility of registering them as OV. However, DUS requirements demanded for OV registration are much more stringent than those demanded for conservation varieties as such representing, at least in some cases and together to the provision foreseen for official certification also concerning OV, an obstacle to landraces registration as OV. This quite alarming considering that, thanks to their genetic diversity, landraces are characterised by local adaptation and tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses and are thus suitable for organic agriculture. It is also to be noted that sensu stricto landraces cannot be considered and regulated as OHM because they do not comply with the definition of OHM given by the Regulation (EU) 848/2018 itself.

Based on what discussed above, it seems logical to expect that landraces will primarily be registered as conservation varieties even after Regulation (EU) 848/2018. However, this could represent a missed opportunity considering that landraces could effectively complement OV in supplying organic seeds, especially starting in 2036 when the exclusive use of organic seed will be mandatory in the organic production chain. Reducing limitations on the amount of marketable seed from conservation varieties could be a possible solution to increase the availability of organic seed from landraces for organic agriculture, addressing the predictable surge of the demand of certified organic seed. Indeed, up to 25% of land is expected to be under organic farming in the EU by 2030.

In order to preserve those landraces maintained on-farm, but not marketed or not intended to be marketed for the above-mentioned reasons, it appears quite urgent the creation of a European Inventory of Agrobiodiversity. Such inventory could be similar to those created by different Italian Regions, and then merged in the National Registry of Agrobiodiversity (“Anagrafe Nazionale della biodiversità di interesse agricolo e alimentare”), in which the genetic resources are identified and linked to the legal or natural persons maintaining them in situ. Identifying both the resources and the subjects maintaining them, such a European inventory would be also relevant for the monitoring and traceability of any informal seed exchange, a knowledge crucial for the implementation of ITPGRFA and the application of phytosanitary measure, especially in case of emergencies connected to pest or disease diffusion.

Conclusions

Involving diverse materials, conservation approaches and actors, on-farm conservation in Europe occurs in an extremely variegated scenario and depicting the main features of the system is rather complex and challenging at the same time. However, understanding and properly maintaining such diversified agricultural systems can help society to better benefit of plant diversity and help in counteracting the main challenges posed by the effects of climate change on agriculture.

In this context, the EU efforts to promote the use of landrace seed are appreciable and its successful model could be useful also in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, the results are not always satisfactory and all the present EU policies in favour of landrace maintenance in the field should be intensified. Considering that the seed is a crucial production factor, although a specific seed legislation for landraces exists in the EU, the number of conservation varieties that entered in the Common Catalogue is exiguous in comparison to the abundance of landraces across the European territory; many other landraces can be relevant especially for organic production. In this sense, the upcoming revision of the regulations on seed production and marketing represents an important opportunity to increase landraces registration, also as organic varieties, commercialisation and use in the complex scenario involving seed marketing, organic production and biodiversity enhancement. This is particularly relevant not only considering the development of the organic seed production over the years but also the need to implement some basic principles of ITPGRFA, of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Although during the last decades, activities to support landraces in situ conservation have been put in place in different EU countries, much remains to be done especially for those materials whose genetic diversity, hardly accessible, is at imminent risk of erosion or even extinction. Recognising that not all the landraces are attractive enough for the seed market, and therefore can hardly enter the marketing circuit by taking advantage of the exemptions provided for conservation varieties, it is necessary to further promote their safety back-up in ex situ repositories as well as their local use. This would help in maintaining traditional and cultural values linked to landraces, ensuring the maintenance and the evolution of agrobiodiversity, enhancing a sustainable consumption and production patterns and making human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable for the future generations.

The European Commission proposal (COM (2023) 414 adopted on 5th July 2023 - procedure 2023/0227/COD) of Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the production and marketing of plant reproductive material in the Union, seems to go towards the hoped direction. The proposed regulation will replace ten Directives on the marketing of Plant Reproductive Material (PRM) of species of agricultural crops, vegetables, fruit plants and vine (except for forest reproductive material and ornamental plants). While retaining the two main pillars of the PRM marketing Directives (i.e. the registration of varieties and the certification of individual PRM lots), the proposal introduces a flexible approach for certain activities, PRM and varieties. In fact, it introduces less stringent rules for conservation varieties, heterogeneous material, PRM sold to final users (like amateur gardeners), PRM marketed to or between gene banks, organizations and networks, and seeds exchanged in kind between farmers. It is now up to the European Parliament and the Council to consider the proposal for its adoption.