In 1942, the Permanent Technical Committee on Seeds (Comité Technique Permanent des Semences), made up of seed industry representatives and government scientists, determined the DUS criteria for defining the varieties listed in the official French seed catalogue: Distinction, Uniformity and Stability. In 1966, the European Community created the Common Catalogue. Any commercialisation, whether free or for payment, is outlawed for the varieties not listed in the national or European catalogues. Moreover, only certified seed producers are allowed to sell seeds.
Nowadays, besides the conventional agriculture, for which the “DUS varieties” were created, we observe the development of other agricultural practices related to the diversification of public demands like organic farming and local products. These agricultural systems are based on varieties which cover a great variability of genetic status, and qualification: “conservation”, “amateur”, local, peasant varieties or landraces, etc., for which uniformity and stability criteria are not required. In 1998, for the first time, the European Directive 98/95/CE mentions the essentialness to ensure the conservation of genetic resources and the necessity to introduce a legal basis to that end to permit, within the framework of legislation on the seed trade, the conservation, by use in situ, of varieties threatened with genetic erosion. Thus, in 1998, to complete the dominant system, associated with the DUS criteria, France has created an annex to its national catalogue, for amateur vegetable varieties (non-commercial use). More recently, in 2005, the EU adopted a directive opening the possibility of a separate list for conservation varieties. Nevertheless, there remain several unclear conditions and definitions to find a consensus to the application of the 98/95 regulation, for example, about the definition of the conservation and amateur varieties, the notion of the region of adaptation and the threat of genetic erosion.
The “conservation” and “amateur”, varieties represent some kinds of unclassified varieties often designated by “landraces” in literature. The first difficulty encountered by the authors working on these landraces is to describe them. Zeven (1998) concluded a review about their definitions and classification, as follows: “As a landrace has a complex and indefinable nature an all-embracing definition cannot be given. However, I suggest the following: an autochthonous landrace is a variety with a high capacity to tolerate biotic and abiotic stress, resulting in high yield stability and an intermediate yield level under a low input agricultural system”. Recently, the same work concluded: “a landrace is a dynamic population(s) of a cultivated plant that has historical origin, distinct identity and lacks formal crop improvement, as well as often being genetically diverse, locally adapted and associated with traditional farming systems" (Villa et al., 2005). The latter authors introduced historical and cultural aspects. Today, these varieties have acquired also an economical dimension, with the increasing market of “qualify-certified” products (Mutersbaugh, 2005). Their introduction on the “market” calls in a great diversity of actors, from small-scale breeders to farmers, gardeners and “amateur” associations. The seed companies have found limited interest to invest in such small scale seed markets. The commercial activities linked to the “landraces” are more often built on the products than on the seeds themselves. The consumers of local or organic products are not looking for the same quality standards as for mass production. So the strict rules linked to the DUS criteria, especially over uniformity and stability, need to be adapted to the seed market of landraces.
Moreover, recently, one has to consider that these varieties are invested of an ethical value for a public considering the threatened biodiversity and the interest towards local development (Negri, 2005). For organic farming, breeding methodologies have also to be compatible to the organic agriculture principles (IFOAM draft standards), which have to respect the living beings’ integrity and to promote biodiversity. Most of the biotechnological improvements of the modern variety do not fit the organic agriculture ethic.
From the scientific point of view, the project will interact with two main scientific areas (i) the genetic resources management and (ii) methodology of plant breeding. Indeed, an effective maintaining programme for plant genetic resources has to integrate three principal ways of germplasm management: ex-situ, in situ and on-farm. The scientific concept for on-farm conservation is relatively new (Hammer et al., 2002). Landraces are now considered to cover an important segment of plant genetic resources and the new EU Directive that is currently under preparation should enhance their valorisation through a specific seed market. During the seventies, genetic resources have been managed ex-situ, that is, in “”gene banks” organized in the main public research centre in each country by the incentive action of IPGRI (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute). In Europe, within the framework of the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR) has implemented a program to safeguard populations grown on farms from 1980 to 1986. On-farm conservation allows preserving the evolutionary processes rather than stopping or altering them as occurs in ex-situ conservation, where the plants cannot express their capacity of adaptation any longer. In ex-situ conservation, the seeds are usually frozen for the maximum number of years that the storage lifespan of the species allows.
The concept of on-farm breeding will add the idea of an innovation capacity to the evolutionary processes. For about 10 years, on farm breeding has taken the form of participatory plant breeding (PPB), mainly found in developing countries, where researchers and farmers work together in areas where the modern cultivars could or could not be cultivated (Almekinders et al., 2001). In Europe, PPB remains an exception, and was experimented for organic farming very recently (Chable et al., 2005). The young European farmers often lack the practical know-how generally used in the past (Negri, 2005) and the collaboration with researchers and farmer networks will allow the renewal of some traditional practices and the acquirement of new methods.
The market is emerging in Europe. The increasing of the interest in these varieties is mainly measurable by the rapid increasing of the number and the representation of associations involved in the preservation of local varieties and peasant seeds. All these associations are members of the consortium and represent most of the implied actors.
In France, the Réseau de Semences Paysannes (RSP) was constituted in 2003 and groups numerous organisations concerned by the seeds (development organisations, farmers, small scale breeders, amateur associations, non governmental organisations). RSP has recently become a link between all the initiatives in France. The number of members has rapidly increased from 15 organisms in 2003 to 28 en 2005. RSP is also the interlocutor with the French authorities to propose improvements of the seed regulation and represents now more than 600 farmers, who initiated PPB since 2000. In Italy, a movement was initiated around 1995 when people started organising at the local level to get a legal and logistical framework in place to recuperate, conserve and promote their genetic heritage. The first regional law dated from 1998. In Spain, Red de Semillas was also very recently created, involving mostly actors of the society and are structured in regional groups. In 1999, four groups have been constituted with professional cooperatives and consumers. In 2005, 12 regions have founded their groups, as the Basque country, Catalonia, Andalusia, Galicia, Castania y Leon, Canarias… They have focused their action on the safeguarding of the vegetal patrimony, mainly on vegetables and cereals.