Safeguarding and Valorising European Vegetable Biodiversity Through the Registration of Amateur Varieties: A Critical Analysis

1. Introduction

For millennia, farmers freely saved, selected, exchanged and sold seeds, practices essential for food security and global biodiversity [1]. The Green Revolution (1940s-1970s) – which marked a period of extraordinary growth in agricultural productivity across the world [2] – introduced uniform, high-yielding hybrid accelerating the replacement of traditional landraces with standardized crops [3].

Market pressure for varietal uniformity and the export of advanced breeding lines has led to the rapid replacement of traditional and local adapted varieties (i.e. “landraces”) by modern varieties, drastically accelerating genetic erosion. This phenomenon – which began to receive institutional attention in the late 1960s [4] – results not only in the disappearance of a crop, but also the loss of its gene complexes, with serious consequences for the long-term resistance of agroecosystems. As a consequence of the genetic erosion, it is increasingly difficult for breeders to find genes resistant to new emerging diseases: the genetic “barrier”, once provided by older resistant varieties, is no longer present [1,5,6,7]. Landraces often show superior adaptability to environmental stresses, making them crucial for sustainable agriculture [8,9,10,11]: systems that are richer in agrobiodiversity are therefore more resilient and sustainable in the long term [6,12,13,14]. Consequently, worldwide – and in particular in the European Union (EU) – there is a growing effort to better enhance the preservation of landrace and to connect biological conservation with the human communities that sustain it [10,15,16,17].

These communities are guided and supported by the work of farmers who act as custodians of plant genetic resources, recognized by global governance bodies through two key documents: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)[18,19,20]. Both instruments contain key provisions for the protection of agricultural biodiversity — provisions that are of particular significance for the horticultural sector [21,22]. While the CBD provides the general framework for protecting biodiversity and rural culture, the ITPGRFA provides the technical and regulatory detail needed to ensure that local varieties are not just preserved as “relics” but continue to be cultivated, exchanged, and improved by farmers [15]. The framework of this governance is currently undergoing a significant shift towards a future of sustainable horticultural research [23].

However, rural areas and local farmers remain a cornerstone of European identity, and their contribution is essential to achieving the key objectives of the Green Deal, in particular through the implementation of the ‘Farm to Fork’ and biodiversity strategies [24,25,26]. The role of local farmer is most evident in Mediterranean countries such as Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Spain, where a vast array of local adapted varieties is cultivated across numerous but small size sites, reflecting the deep-rooted connection between landraces and local communities [9,10,27,28]. At the same time, these Mediterranean countries stand at the forefront of genetic erosion, experiencing a rapid decline in agrobiodiversity due to the replacement of localized species with industrial cultures [29]. Numerous territories actively fund and promote such initiatives within their jurisdictions [30,31]. For example, in Puglia region (South Italy) the projects “Biodiversity of Apulian vegetable species (BiodiverSO Veg and BiodiverSO Karpos)” had successfully restored about 300 landraces, transforming them into emblems of cultural identity and agricultural resilience [32]. Emphasizing the unique nutritional profiles, distinctive morphological traits, and strong cultural connection of vegetables landraces, these initiatives primarily aim to restore their prominence in the modern market [12,33,34,35,36,37,38].

Nevertheless, landraces and farmer’s varieties are increasingly under threat of extinction; in this regard, numerous authors emphasise that current EU seed legislation does not facilitate the conservation of local agrobiodiversity but, on the contrary, limits the role and dissemination of local plant genetic resources (PGR) [10,16,39,40]. Indeed, the European regulatory framework on seeds imposes specific requirements – tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) – which vegetable varieties must meet in order to be included in national registers and, therefore, in the Common Catalogue (CC). [3]. The legal cornerstone of the CC for vegetable varieties was introduced by the Council Directive of September 29, 1970 (70/458/EEC) [41], which provided the original framework for the marketing of vegetable seeds within the European Community. The implementation of this regulation by the European Community began that same year, incorporating in the CC the varietal lists already established at the national level. This measure was later consolidated into Directive 2002/55/EC [42]. That Directive outlines the specific provisions for the publication of the CC, ensuring that any variety listed may circulate freely within the single market and that only registered varieties could be marketed in the European market [42]. Therefore, the implementation of these regulations presents a dualistic effect: while it has fostered commercial growth and quality assurance through standardization, it has simultaneously generated significant negative externalities, including the previously mentioned genetic erosion and the increasing legal and technical barriers to traditional seed exchange. In fact, due to their natural variability, landraces do not meet the DUS requirements laid down by the regulations; as a result, they cannot be registered in the CC and, therefore, cannot be marketed on the formal European seed markets.

To address the genetic erosion caused by harmonized seed regulations, the EU, with Directive n. 95 of 14 December 1998 [43], introduced two derogation regimes to promote the in situ conservation and marketing of locally adapted varieties: the Conservation Varieties (CVs) and the varieties with no intrinsic value – or Amateur Varieties (AVs) – regimes were introduced to make the CC more flexible and to mitigate the decline of agrobiodiversity, also aiming to expand the seed supply by recognizing the value of plant selection for purposes other than commercial crop production. Both regimes allow the production and sale of no commercial varieties’ seeds (i.e. seeds of landraces or farmer’s varieties) if they meet simplified DUS requirements. Furthermore CVs are officially defined as «landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and threatened by genetic erosion» (Council Directive 98/95/EC, art. 7, co. 37 (a))[43], the main role of CVs is to contribute to the preservation of PGR, responding to the need to maintain dynamic diversity associated with traditional agricultural systems [10,44]. On the other hand, AVs allow the marketing of varieties suitable for non-professional uses; there are defined as «vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions» (Council Directive 98/95/EC, art. 7, co. 37 (b))[43]. In other words, these are varieties that meet particular and/or specific agrotechnical, climatic or soil-related conditions; they are not distinguished by high commercial value – i.e. they do not meet high production standards compared with modern commercial varieties – but they may meet the needs of specific market niches [43]. A complete comparison and explanation of the two derogation regimes is provided in Table A1.

These mechanisms, although limited by bureaucratic constraints, represent a compromise to enhance agricultural biodiversity as an exception to industrial uniformity [45]. Although the CVs regime has existed for over a quarter of a century, it has proved largely ineffective in establishing a dedicated market for landraces [39,40]. To ensure economic benefits for local communities, legal frameworks must be coupled with integrated measures that actively stimulate market demand and supply [46].

While recent studies have analysed the implementation of the CVs regime [10,39,45], there is a significant lack of systematic research specifically focused on AVs. A critical gap remains regarding the socio-economic profiles of the maintainers of these varieties and the actual commercial impact of registration on local value chains.

The primary objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the AVs regime as a regulatory pathway for the registration and marketing of vegetable varieties, while examining how it is implemented across the European seed market. Particular attention is paid to its potential role in supporting the conservation and sustainable use of local plant genetic resources, including landraces and other traditional varieties. The findings are also considered in relation to their implications for breeders, growers, public institutions, and policymakers involved in agrobiodiversity conservation and sustainable vegetable production.

Accordingly, the study addresses the following research questions:

a)

What is the current scale and geographical distribution of AV registrations?

b)

Which actors are involved in the registration and marketing of AVs, and what do their characteristics and institutional profiles reveal about the practical uses of this derogation regime?

c)

To what extent can the AVs regime support the protection, conservation, and marketing of landraces and, more broadly, locally adapted plant genetic resources?

d)

What are the principal strengths and limitations of the AVs regime, and how might these factors inform the future development of seed policies while considering the roles and needs of breeders, growers, public authorities, and other stakeholders involved in the management of vegetable agrobiodiversity?

2. Materials and Methods

The analysis was developed by first analysing the number of AVs currently registered in Europe, evaluating their country of registration and species, to provide a complete picture of the results of this regime. In addition, an in-depth study was conducted on the maintainers registering European AVs, to identify the actual economic and commercial impact of these registrations and the interest of any private entities in marketing them. Finally, a specific analysis was conducted on AVs registered in Italy or by Italian maintainers, to further investigate the role of this regime about the protection and dissemination of Italian landraces.

2.1. Data Extraction from European Common Catalogue

The research was carried out by consulting the European Commission's public database [47], known as the "Commission’s Common Catalogue Information System". This system is continuously updated with data on registered varieties and allows any user, from breeders to ordinary citizens, to access the list of agricultural plant and vegetable species. The list on which the data analysis was conducted was downloaded from the website on September 04, 2025, including only the varieties belonging to horticultural species (subtype “Vegetable” in the CC) and which variety status is reported as “Registered”. The specific information requested from the system for each registered varieties included: country, denomination, UPOV species, variety name, national ID code, maintainers code, registration date, end date, registration under the AVs regime, seed category, variety status and conventional name.

Based on this database, three analytical levels were considered: i) the distribution of AVs registered at European level; ii) the profile of European maintainers who have registered AVs; iii) the Italian case study.

2.2. Analysis of AVs Registered in Europe

The state of the art of AVs in Europe was analysed by examining the available data on number of registered AVs; number of registered AVs per European country; distribution of registered AVs by species; year of registration of AVs; year of registration of AVs by country. It should be noted that the ‘Date of registration’ shown in the Community database refers to the date on which the variety was first entered in the CC. This date does not consider any subsequent changes relating to the variety (e.g. changes involving a change in classification, from a common variety to a protected variety). Indeed, between the date of the initial registration and the present day, a variety may have been transferred from the standard registration to the AVs or CVs regime.

2.3. Analysis of Amateur Varieties Maintainers

In the CC database, maintainers are identified by specific national codes assigned to them when varieties are registered within the CC itself. In addition, the Commission's Common Catalogue Information System provides for the possibility of associating a maintainer with each code for each country. Preliminary analyses have shown that, in some countries, multiple codes that are not directly linked to each other have been associated with the same maintainer. To overcome this problem, the data analysis was carried out not by maintainer name, but by maintainer code (MCD) as reported in the information system. For France and Slovenia – which reported more than one MCD for certain varieties (e.g. the variety Cucurbita pepo L. “Delicata” in France is associated with MCDs S8608, S12377 and S11516) – the data were analysed after assigning the varieties in common to each MCD present in the group of registrants. Based on the MCDs, the following were calculated: total number of MCDs in Europe and per country; number of varieties registered for each MCD. In addition, for each country, the average number of AVs registered per MCD was calculated and then compared to the number of AVs registered per country.

Subsequently, the impact of each MCD on the European and national AV register was analysed by comparing the number of varieties registered for each MCD with the number of AVs registered at European and national level.

Furthermore, the top thirty MCDs in Europe were ranked and characterised based on the following parameters: name, registered office, type of maintainer, and country. Finally, the type of maintainer was analysed by associating each MCD with a group of registrants based on the maintainer's name: public bodies (e.g. universities, research bodies, public institutions, etc.), private bodies (e.g. companies, seed companies, etc.) and third sector (e.g. associations, consortia, etc.).

2.4. Italian Case Study

The Italian case study was analysed considering: the total number of AVs registered; their distribution by species; the number of MCDs registered in Italy; the characteristics (e.g. name, address, type of registrant, etc.) of the maintainers associated with each MCD. In order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Italian situation, this section considers both AVs registered in Italy and AVs registered in other European countries by maintainers based in Italy. Finally, for each AVs registered in Italy or by Italian maintainers in foreign national register, an in-depth analysis was carried out to assess how many of the varieties registered under this regime are of local origin (landraces). For the purposes of this analysis, “landraces” were defined as those varieties for which it was possible to demonstrate a historical link to a clearly defined area of origin. To this end, regional registers were consulted, which are incorporated into the National Register of Agricultural and Food Biodiversity established in Italy by Law no. 194 of 1 December 2015 [48], and the national list of Traditional Agri-Food Products (TAP) established by Ministerial Decree no. 350 of 8 September 1999 [49] . In fact, inclusion in the Register or the TAP list is only possible for varieties that can demonstrate a historical link with the local area dating back at least 50 and 25 years, respectively. Finally, as part of the research, varieties not included in the Register or the list but recognised as traditional by other reliable sources, such as the Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity Onlus, were also identified as landraces [50].

3. Results

3.1. The European AVs Scenario

On 4 September 2025, 1,284 AVs were registered in Europe. Comparing this data with the total for the CC (23,360 varieties), AVs represent 5.50% of the total number of vegetable varieties registered. In terms of registering countries, AVs account for 15 registering countries, compared to a total of 26 countries represented in the CC; the species represented, on the other hand, are 49 for AVs, compared to 65 for the CC.

France is the country with the most AVs registered (about 23.1% of the total), followed by Germany (20.2%) and the Netherlands (13.6%) (Figure 1). The country with the fewest AVs recorded is Romania, with only one variety of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), recorded in 2012 (Figure 1).

Among the 49 species for which AVs have been recorded, six account for approximately 70% of the total recordings. Tomato (S. lycopersicum), pepper and chilli peppers (Capsicum annuum L.), common bean (Phaseoleus vulgaris L.), lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), courgette (Cucurbita pepo L.) and pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima Duch.) recorded 401, 241, 85, 77, 52, and 43 varieties respectively (Figure 2).

The first AV appears to have been included in the CC in 1970. Overall, 21 AVs were identified in the CC prior to 1998, the year marking the introduction of the AV regime into legislation. Furthermore, 200 AVs – representing 15% of the total number of registered AVs – were registered before November 2009, when Directive 2009/145/EC entered into force, establishing the regulatory framework for the registration of European AVs [43,51]. All these registrations were concentrated in only four countries: France (2 AVs registered before 1998 and 179 before 2009), Sweden (15 and 16 AVs, respectively), Hungary (the same 4 AVs registered both before 1998 and 2009), and Germany, with only 1 AV registered before 2009. In recent years (2021–2025) 41% of registrations were recorded, with 524 new AVs; the top year in terms of the number of varieties entered in the AV register is 2025, with 161 AVs registered (12.5% of the total), followed by 2023 and 2021 with 125 and 96 AVs registered respectively (9.7% and 7.5% respectively). Considering the countries of registration, in absolute terms, the largest increases were in Finland (+129 AVs registered between 2024 and 2025), France (+71 AVs registered between 2002 and 2003), Austria (+60 AVs registered between 2009 and 2010) and Italy (+58 AVs between 2022 and 2023). Figure 3 shows the evolution of AVs registered by year and Country from 1998 to 2025.

3.2. European Maintainers Analysis

In Europe, there are 141 MCDs for AVs; the Country with the most MCDs is France, representing almost a third of the total European MCDs. Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands follow with 15.6%, 11.3%, and 10.6% of the MCDs registered in Europe, respectively (Table 1). All the other eleven Countries have less than 10% of MCDs each (Table 1). Comparing the number of MCDs with the number of AVs registered per country, Finland appears to be the Country with the highest number of registered varieties per MCD; however, this is a unique case because all 129 varieties are associated with a single maintainer who has only registered chili pepper (C. annuum) varieties. This maintainer registered all these varieties simultaneously in 2024 (Figure 3). Based on the average data, France, Germany, and Italy show greater fragmentation of registered AVs per MCD (Table 1).

By considering the AVs recorded by individual MCD, it can be seen that the top 30 MCDs in Europe in terms of number of AVs recorded are associated only with five countries: Germany (8 MCDs recorded among the top 30), France (6), the Netherlands (4), Slovenia (4) and Austria (3) (Table 2). Furthermore, approximately 80% of AVs are associated with the top 30 MCDs, while the top ten in this ranking recorded just over half of European AVs (54.21%) (Table 2). The MCD with the most recorded AVs is “6264” from Finland, with 129 associated AVs (approximately 10% of European AVs), followed by the French “S12377” and “S13903”, which recorded 106 and 80 AVs respectively. Between the two French codes, the Austrian code “88” ranks third in the classification with 85 AVs (Table 2).

Considering the type of maintainers, four out of five MCDs are associated with private entities; these private entities register 1,015 varieties, accounting for approximately 80% of European AVs. Public bodies follow, but with fewer AVs registered than the third sector: he latter, although presenting fewer MCDs, has registered 70% more AVs than those registered by public maintainers (Table 3). The complete data relating to the analysis of European MCDs is available in Table S1.

3.3. Italian AVs Case Study

In Italy there are 72 registered AVs, which are associated with 16 MCDs. Additionally, two Italian MCDs that have registered vegetable AVs were identified in other EU countries; specifically, under the code “705”, the company “Consorzio Sativa Società Cooperativa Agricola” has registered twelve AVs in the Slovenian national list. Furthermore, in the Netherlands national register, under the code “1131”, the company “Smarties.Bio s.r.l.” has registered one AVs (Table 4).

Almost all MCDs registered in Italy or by Italian maintainers can be traced back to private bodies (Table 4); only code “1569” is associated with a public body, specifically the “Antonio Zanelli” Higher Education Institute (Reggio Emilia, Italy) (Table 4). The MCD with the most AVs registered in Italy is "1401" – associated with the Israeli company "Nirit Seeds" – with 14 registered AVs (16.5% of the Italian total) (Table 4). Overall, the top five maintainers – three of whom are Italian and two of whom are based outside Italy – accounted for more than half (56.8%, to be precise) of the AVs linked to Italy (Table 4).

S. lycopersicum is the most represented species, accounting for approximately 40% of all registered varieties across Italian and foreign national registers (Table 5), followed by C. annuum which, with 12 registered varieties, is the only other species for which the number of AVs registered represents at least 10% of those registered in Italy or by Italian companies (Table 5). The remaining 16 species account for just under half of the remaining registered AVs (Table 5).

Of the 85 AVs registered in Italy or by Italian seed companies in foreign national registers, most are commercial varieties or F1 hybrids (67 out of 85, approximately 80% of those recognised); only one in five varieties can be traced back to landraces or mass selections made by farmers (Figure 4). Of the 18 maintainers considered, only five – “Consorzio Sativa Società Cooperativa Agricola”, “Arcoiris s.r.l.”, "Antonio Zanelli" Higher Education Institute, “Smarties.bio srl” and “Agrisementi s.r.l.”, in descending order of registered landraces in AVs – have registered landraces as AVs. For most of the MCDs analysed, the distinction between the two groups is clear: almost all Italian maintainers have registered either exclusively landraces or exclusively commercial varieties (Figure 4). Only “Consorzio Sativa Società Cooperativa Agricola” had registered both commercial varieties and landraces in the AVs register (Figure 4).

Considering the traditional area of origin of the 18 Italian landraces registered as AVs, these are not particularly representative of the national territory. In fact, of the twenty Italian regions, AVs have been registered for only seven. More specifically, nine AVs are traditional landraces of the Emilia-Romagna region; this is followed by the Campania region, which has a historical link to three AVs registered by the “Consorzio Sativa Società Cooperativa Agricola” (MCD: “SI705”) (Table 6). The other five Italian regions identified – Lombardy, Sicily, Tuscany, Umbria and Veneto – are historically linked to only one AV each (Table 6). For the ‘Biancaneve’ variety of Zea mays L. subsp. mays, although a historical link with mountainous areas of central-northern Italy was found, it was not possible to identify a single region of origin (Table 6).

Eight of the eighteen AVs recognised as landraces are also inscribed in the Regional Register of Agricultural Genetic Resources – specifically of the Emilia-Romagna region, established with Regional Law No. 1 of 28 January 2008 – or in the National Register of Autochthonous Genetic Resources (Law 194/2015) [48,49]. Moreover, four AVs are recognised as Italian Traditional Agri-food Product (TAP) [49]. Finally, it should be noted that five of the seventeen landraces registered as AVs have been recognised as quality foods at risk of extinction and linked to local culture and traditions by the Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity (Table 6).

4. Discussion

The findings of this study highlight several aspects of the current situation regarding the EU AVs regime. Although it was formally introduced in 1998 alongside the CVs regime, the AVs regime has achieved better results than the other derogation regime. Previous studies have in fact shown that the CVs regime accounts for approximately 1% of the total number of varieties registered in the CC [10,16,39,40]; conversely, the number of AVs eligible for marketing in Europe at the time of analysis is five times higher (approximately 5.5%). Growth in AV registrations has been marked by recent peaks and pronounced geographical disparities (Figure 3), both between northern and southern European countries and among Italian regions.

Regarding the date of first registration, just over 15% of the varieties currently covered by the AVs regime were already present in the CC before the operational mechanisms of the regime were defined by Directive 2009/145/EC. It is plausible that these varieties were originally registered in the CC in full compliance with DUS requirements as commercial selections. Subsequently, following the introduction of commercially more competitive varieties, they may have been reclassified by their maintainers as AVs. For example, the French AV ‘Sanda’ (Brassica oleracea var. gemmifera (L.)) was first included in the CC in 1973; however, in the French national catalogue [52], 2024 is reported as the year of registration as an AV. A similar pattern was observed for other varieties, including ‘Normale’ (Cichorium intybus L. var. foliosum f. etiolatum) (year of first application: 1994; registration as an AV: 2012), ‘De Saint-Sens’ (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata L. f. alba DC.) (1999; 2012), and ‘Delicious Golden’ (Cucurbita maxima Duch.) (1999; 2012). This use of the AVs scheme clashes with a trend observed in recent studies, according to which varieties which have lost their appeal to the market or to seed companies are removed from the CC and, consequently, withdrawn from the market [53]. Their inclusion in the register of AVs, on the other hand, means that these varieties can still be marketed, although in small quantities and for niche markets. In this respect, the use of the AV regime allows these varieties to remain available on the market and, in the case of non-F1 hybrid varieties, enables the multiplication of their seed or their use as a basis for future selection, including by actors other than the registering breeders. .

Almost half of the current AVs have been registered in the last five years (2021–2025), with 2025 marking an all-time high. This marked acceleration was the result of several converging factors, amongst which the COVID-19 pandemic has probably played a part: during and after the pandemic, in fact, the public’s interest in home gardening and communal growing spaces in towns and cities has encouraged the development of numerous urban and peri-urban green spaces (e.g. urban gardens, community gardens, school gardens etc.) [54,55,56,57]. In these renovated green spaces, a paradigm shift emerged: the priority is no longer the maximisation of productivity, but rather the optimisation of social, health and environmental wellbeing. Consequently, priority is given to the use of varieties adapted to systems with low or zero chemical inputs, suitable for cultivation in marginal conditions or in specific soil and climate contexts [58,59,60,61]. From this perspective, the increase in AVs registrations appears consistent with these new requirements, as suggested by the trends observed.

Analysis of AVs and maintainer schemes reveals a highly concentrated and polarised European system: France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and Finland together account for approximately 80% of registered AVs (Figure 1). However, the distribution of AVs is uneven both across countries and among maintainers; in this respect, the results reported in Table 1 and Table 2 offer several points for discussion.

First, no clear relationship emerges between the number of registered AVs and the number of MCDs at the national level. While France and Germany rank first and second in both categories (registered AVs and number of MCDs), other countries display divergent patterns. Italy, for instance, ranks only seventh in terms of registered AVs but third for number of national MCDs, reflecting a fragmented system characterized by numerous operators, each responsible for a limited number of registrations. By contrast, Finland represents an outlier: a single maintainer accounts for 129 registered varieties – entirely chilli peppers (Capsicum annuum L.) registered in 2024 – indicating a case of extreme concentration rather than a broadly distributed system. More generally, the ranking of the top 30 maintainers confirms that the European AV system is strongly concentrated in the hands of a limited number of actors and within a few countries (Table 2). Approximately 80% of all AVs are associated with the top 30 maintainers, and more than half with the top 10 alone (Table 2), suggesting that the formal marketing of AVs rely predominantly on a small group of highly active operators.

The breakdown by type is equally clear: private entities dominate the system, accounting for 115 out of 141 maintainers and around 79% of registered AVs (Table 3). The third sector, despite having fewer maintainers, registers more varieties than public bodies, indicating an important operational role in the protection and circulation of landraces, as demonstrated, for example, by the case of Arche Noah (Austrian MCD 148, registering 46 AVs) [62]. Public bodies are present but less significant in numerical terms; nevertheless, it is worth noting that the University of Göttingen has registered several AVs in Germany (MCD 8847) as part of the OpenSourceSeeds project (www.opensourceseeds.org) [63,64]. The simultaneous presence of maintainers from different sectors (private, public and third sector) highlights the multifaceted and complex nature of the AVs system. On the one hand, as seen above, private operators use this regulatory framework as an opportunity to market low-yield varieties intended for niche markets and/or specific growing conditions. On the other hand, public bodies and third-sector organisations recognise AVs as a useful channel not only for marketing, but also for the conservation of locally adapted seeds, developed within farming communities and as a result of participatory breeding programmes [62,64]. This dual nature of the scheme can be explained by the very broad definition provided for AVs: the first part of the definition («varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial agricultural production») appears to support the interpretation advanced by private entities; the second part of the definition («varieties […] developed for cultivation under specific agrotechnical, climatic, or soil conditions») seems, conversely, to favour the registration of locally adapted varieties. This ambivalence raises doubts about the regime’s actual objectives, which are not clarified either by the legislation or by European or national registration guidelines.

The Italian case study enables to analyse more closely the situation regarding the use of the AVs scheme for the registration and marketing of seeds of no-commercial varieties (i.e. landraces or farmer’s varieties) on the European market. Analysing the data on AVs registered in Italy, the first notable result is the high proportion of varieties registered by foreign maintainers (Table 4). Of the 85 AVs registered in Italy or by Italian maintainers in others European countries registers, 32.9% were registered by foreign companies. This figure is strongly influenced by the contribution of the Israeli company Nirit Seed LTD (MCD 1401), which alone accounts for 16.5% of Italian AVs, and the Spanish company Meridiem Seeds S.L. (MCD 1433), responsible for 8.2% (Table 4).

Based on these results, Italy ranks first in Europe in terms of the proportion of AVs registered by foreign entities relative to the national total, followed by Slovenia (14.8%) and the Netherlands (12.6%) (Table S1). This finding is not entirely unexpected. Italy is among the leading European countries in terms of area devoted to seed multiplication, with approximately 15,000 hectares dedicated to this activity [65,66], and is also characterized by a high level of plant genetic diversity, including numerous landraces and native species [67]. This combination of technical expertise and genetic resources may represent a significant source of attractiveness for multinational seed companies. In line with broader global trends [68], it is plausible that such actors have sought to access these resources either through the acquisition of existing companies or through the establishment of partnerships, potentially contributing to the development and registration of varieties (including AVs) within the Italian context.

Finally, with regard to the protection and promotion of local agrobiodiversity, the notable presence of foreign seed companies among Italian maintainers may also indicate a limited use of this derogation regime for the commercialisation of Italian landrace seeds. This interpretation is supported by the analysis of AVs registered either in Italy or by Italian maintainers, as no correspondence emerges between the AVs registered by foreign companies and Italian landraces. Landraces account for only 21.2% of the total AVs registered in Italy or by Italian maintainers and are managed by just five maintainers, all based within the national territory. Notably, three of these (Arcoiris s.r.l., Higher Education Institute “Antonio Zanelli,” and Consorzio Sativa Società Cooperativa Agricola) are located in a single region, Emilia-Romagna (northern Italy). The remaining two maintainers (Agrisementi s.r.l. and Smarties.bio s.r.l.) are based in Sicily (southern Italy) and Veneto (northern Italy), respectively, and each has registered only one AV. The number of regions involved is lower than that observed for CVs, for which registrations have been reported in a broader set of regions (Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy, Piedmont, Sardinia, Sicily, and Tuscany) [39]. This difference may be largely explained by the limited representation of landraces within the AV system, which appears to be more frequently used for the registration of niche commercial varieties rather than traditional ones.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study outline a diverse and complex European landscape of AV registration and marketing. Although the impact of the AVs regime on the European Union seed market is overall limited, the variety of actors involved highlights its different potential uses. On the one hand, seed companies, both European and non-European, may regard the AVs regime as a channel for marketing varieties that are no longer competitive in terms of yield but remain suitable for specific market niches. On the other hand, public institutions and third-sector organisations may use it to register and market PGR, thereby contributing to the conservation of landraces. In this context, the AVs regime may represent an alternative or complementary instrument to the CVs regime, which is more specifically oriented towards the registration, production and marketing of landraces at high risk of extinction.

The Italian case is illustrative in this respect. Although most registered AVs are low-yielding commercial varieties, some registrations concern traditional landraces. The registration of these resources by national seed companies (e.g. Arcoiris, Agrisementi, and Smarties.bio) indicates not only commercial interest in traditional landraces but also the possible use of the AVs regime to support their conservation and marketing.

Nevertheless, the limited number of varieties registered under the two derogation regimes, the lack of a clear regulatory definition for AVs and the potential to better integrate the two regimes, highlight the need to reconsider their regulatory and commercial aspects to foster the development of value chains dedicated to landraces.

Finally, this study provides a preliminary general analysis of the AVs regime and, to the best of our knowledge, is the first study specifically devoted to this regime. Future studies could examine the situation in individual European countries in greater detail, analysing how European legislation interacts with the organisational structure of their respective national seed systems. Greater attention could also be devoted to informal seed systems and seed-saver networks, which have been involved in the protection and conservation of landraces since before the introduction of the derogation regimes. Studying these initiatives could help clarify their role in maintaining and disseminating landraces.