Let’s Liberate Diversity!
Based on an interview with Gabriele Maneo of Let’s Liberate Diversity!, Jack Kloppenburg of Open Source Seed Initiative. Questions by Julia Dakin (Going to Seed) and Paul Salazar (GTS intern, UC Berkeley). Transcript may contain errors.
Gabriele: Let’s Liberate Diversity (LLD) focuses on three key areas: policy, practice, and community. We are a membership-based international nonprofit registered under Belgian law, with 22 members across Europe, and growing. Our core function is to provide a platform for different organizations within Europe to exchange knowledge on these topics.
On the policy side, we engage at national, European, and international levels. For example, we participate in discussions with the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, contributing to the revision of the Global Plan of Action. We attend FAO meetings as observers and provide input that informs national action plans. We also foster peer-to-peer exchange on national policies, helping members navigate European legislation such as the seed marketing law reform.
Our secretariat is small—just two people—but we leverage the expertise of our members. For instance, Arinoa in Austria specializes in European seed policy, while Prospect in Switzerland follows FAO processes, and RSR in Italy focuses on international treaties. We ensure that knowledge is shared across organizations rather than siloed. This collaborative model strengthens our advocacy and outreach efforts.
Our role is mainly to connect people who hold knowledge with others who need it. It’s about co-creating and sharing knowledge. Many of our member organizations are umbrella groups themselves. For example, RSR in Italy has around 39 members, including community seed banks and farmer networks. Similarly, the seed network in France connects many grassroots organizations. We encourage these networks to involve their members in our activities, ensuring that knowledge exchange reaches the grassroots level.
Julia: How does EU policy adoption work in different countries, and how do your members navigate that process?
Gabriele: The EU uses different legislative instruments. Directives require countries to develop their own national laws in alignment, while recommendations are more flexible. Some grassroots organizations, like community seed banks in Portugal, may not be fully aware of these processes. We help by explaining the differences and providing guidance.
For example, in Georgia, our members sought good practices in on-farm biodiversity management to advocate for stronger government policies. We also help members engage with their national representatives and ministries to influence EU policy. We provide templates for letters and facilitate connections, reducing the burden on grassroots organizations to stay updated and participate effectively.
Julia: Does the Strengthening International Seed Network initiative connect with this work?
Gabriele: Yes, it’s closely related. While policy work is about regulations, this initiative focuses on best practices in seed banking, phytosanitary measures, and seed storage. It also aims to build a global network of organizations working on similar issues.
Initially, we envisioned a broad international coalition of seed networks, but we started by mapping stakeholders across different continents to understand their work. This approach helps us explore whether European knowledge-sharing models can be adapted internationally. For example, FAO’s Global Plan of Action has regional consultations before final approval. If we had stronger connections with organizations in other regions, we could coordinate joint inputs, strengthening civil society’s voice in global policymaking.
A practical example is Switzerland, where the government developed a National Action Plan following the Global Plan of Action. This plan now funds organizations like Prospect to support farmer-led seed initiatives. By making other regions aware of such opportunities, we can help lower their barriers to participation in similar processes.
Jack: The policy landscape in North America differs significantly from Europe. The U.S. and Canada have little seed regulation—there’s no common catalog or registration system, and anyone can breed and share seeds freely. This lack of regulation has led to a highly decentralized seed sector with many small companies and independent breeders. However, it also means there’s minimal political advocacy around seed policy.
At the recent Organic Seed Growers Conference, we discussed how North American organizations could better coordinate. Most people at the conference—around 450 attendees—were unfamiliar with international treaties like the FAO, UPOV, or CBD. Unlike in Europe, where organizations actively engage in policy, North American seed groups tend to focus on market-driven solutions and local initiatives rather than political action.
That said, concentration in the seed industry and the expansion of intellectual property rights remain growing concerns. There’s increasing recognition of these issues, but no coordinated policy movement. In contrast, the U.S. and Canada have a strong network of small seed companies and grassroots breeders, which has expanded over the past 15 years.
I believe that establishing stronger connections between North American and European organizations could be valuable. Let’s Liberate Diversity offers an interesting model for coordination. By building a North American network, we could begin introducing global policy discussions to interested organizations here. Our focus now is on connecting existing groups and defining common goals. Over time, this could evolve into a more organized civil society voice in international seed policy.
Jack: I really appreciate the three-legged approach of policy, action, and education—especially peer-to-peer learning. We’re still in the early stages, but I believe many of the organizations we’re engaging with can help move this forward. One challenge we face is bringing younger people into the movement.
While Trump has been deeply destructive, the issue isn’t just him—it’s the broader political and business structures that support him. That said, in times of crisis, people become more aware. One thing widely recognized now is the good food movement—farm-to-table restaurants, cooperatives, and farmers markets. But many of these consumers have only a surface-level understanding of food systems, often reduced to “Monsanto is bad.” Our challenge is to educate them beyond that.
The pandemic showed us that crises create opportunities—small seed companies saw a boom in sales. I believe a similar market will emerge for locally adapted seeds and produce as political and economic tensions grow. This is a chance for us to organize and strengthen a movement, not just protect our own organizations.
Jack: What LLD (Let’s Liberate Diversity) does well is fostering community education. Their regional forums create strong peer-to-peer learning spaces. In the U.S. and Canada, there’s a strong “do it yourself” mentality, which is both a strength and a weakness—it’s harder to organize, but people are deeply committed when they find a cause.
That DIY spirit is definitely a defining characteristic in North America. If we can channel it effectively, it can be a strength rather than a limitation. Peer-to-peer education and action will be our starting point, but we need to use that momentum to build a broader movement.
One way to strengthen this effort is by fostering cross-continental collaboration. For example, sending representatives from our organizations to LLD and the EU could expand our perspectives and inform our strategies. We could also model some of our approaches on LLD’s structure, perhaps even creating a North American branch of Let’s Liberate Diversity. The name alone captures so much—diversity in all forms: racial, ethnic, genetic, agronomic, social, political, and economic.
Another key point is the growing role of Indigenous and racial justice movements in seed work. Many Indigenous and Black communities are using seeds to reclaim identity and autonomy, which adds another layer to the conversation. I don’t know if there’s a direct equivalent in the EU, but in North America, the history of seed migration is often tied to oppression—slavery, colonization, and dispossession. Unlike in Europe, where seed migration might be seen as an exchange, here it’s often associated with loss and theft. Understanding that distinction is crucial to how we approach solidarity and movement-building.
Gabriele: That’s really interesting. I was taking a lot of notes because there are so many points to explore further. One that stood out is the distinction between coalition-building and solidarity. In some contexts, solidarity can sound radical or alternative, but it’s really about trust and connection—the foundation for anything stronger.
When ACL (the organization I work with) tried to take a stronger advocacy stance, internal divisions almost tore it apart. That’s why we focus on creating platforms for peer-to-peer learning rather than pushing a singular position. Our role is to educate and facilitate exchanges rather than dictate policy stances.
Jack: That’s an important lesson. We need to be mindful of divisions within our movement and find ways to hold both unity and difference. The concept of solidarity is crucial, especially when navigating diverse voices that may sometimes be in conflict.
Gabriele: Exactly. LLD forums are a great example of how in-person connections help build solidarity. Before it was an organization, Let’s Liberate Diversity was simply a yearly gathering. That’s still its core—bringing people together for workshops, discussions, concerts, and shared meals. The next one is in Luxembourg, and we’re giving equal weight to social elements and technical workshops. We even organize a jam session because so many members play instruments—it’s about creating a community as much as discussing policies.
Julia: That sounds like a great approach. Is there an online component to LLD forums as well?
Gabriele: Yes, but in-person gatherings are the heart of the organization. We tried online-only events during COVID, but everyone was eager to return to face-to-face interactions. We do host webinars and are working on more exchanges—like sending members to spend time with different organizations in other countries. Our funding mostly comes from EU programs that support travel and collaboration. It’s logistically difficult, but we prioritize it because those experiences are invaluable.
We’ve also done thematic exchanges, like one connecting seed diversity and migration. We published a booklet exploring the parallels between human migration and seed movement, from linguistic perspectives to personal histories. One story from Turkey, for example, described how the word for “seedling” is also used for people in exile. That kind of cross-cultural reflection is something we’d love to explore further—perhaps looking at how diversity in all forms, including racial and sexual identity, intersects with agriculture and seeds.
Jack: That’s fascinating. The differences between the EU and North America are striking. In Europe, seed migration is often seen as a positive, but in the U.S., many communities see it through the lens of coercion and loss. African crops arrived via slavery, Indigenous seeds were stolen, and many communities see their heritage crops as victims of biopiracy. This history complicates efforts to build trust and solidarity.
If we want to create real solidarity, we need to acknowledge these histories while also finding common ground. Maybe one step forward is bringing representatives from Let’s Liberate Diversity to the U.S. and vice versa. Bridging these perspectives could strengthen both movements.
Julia: That’s a great idea. There are deep fault lines in both regions, but there’s also so much potential for exchange and learning. Finding ways to navigate these complexities while staying connected through solidarity and diversity is key to building a stronger movement.
Julia: Many workshops and organizations I’ve spoken with mention a need for consumer-facing education and marketing materials to promote the use of local and regional seeds and biodiversity. Have you heard this need among your members?
Gabriele: Yes, it’s an interesting question with different perspectives. Some take a pragmatic, market-driven approach, believing an educated consumer base can drive demand. Others reject the term “consumer” and prefer to think of people as active citizens, engaged in the entire process—not just as buyers supporting a good cause, but as individuals aware of structural issues and their broader impacts.
We explored this in a Theory of Change workshop with RSR in Italy. RSR and a coalition, including Aranoa, are developing a brand for organic, heterogeneous material, aligning with the EU’s legal framework. This branding allows for marketing seeds and products that don’t conform to strict uniformity standards. Some members prioritize this kind of branding, but I can check with Ricardo and others to find more involved members.
In this case, the legal window for marketing aligns with diversity principles, but there’s a lot we can learn from it. I’m unaware of specific market research on promoting heterogeneous seed products, but some members likely have experience. I can reach out to them.
Julia: Our intent is not just diverse produce but also regionalized food systems and movement-building.
Gabriele: That aligns with our work. We’re experimenting with system-thinking approaches to solidarity-building. In a previous project, we used power mapping, stakeholder mapping, and participatory system mapping with pastoralist communities in Kenya and Tanzania. They needed to counter top-down conservation models in national parks.
We’re adapting this methodology in Europe, identifying spaces of power—where organizations can build internal power, community power, and exert influence. This workshop model helped us define key resistance spaces and stakeholders. It’s still in development within ACL, but we’re eager to explore how participatory system mapping and power analysis can strengthen solidarity and coalitions.
Julia: Consider us interested as this evolves.
Jack: One idea from our discussions at OSGC is simply knowing who is active in this space, what they’re doing, and where they fit within the ecosystem. We’re working toward a clearinghouse. Julia, you sent me a paper—could you share where that came from and its current status?
Julia: That’s something Gabriele and others put together.
Gabriele: Yes, it was a joint effort. After our workshop in Antibes on strengthening international seed networks, we drafted an approach paper. The workshop included organizations from Europe, the Pacific, the Organic Seed Alliance, and Benin. It was an open-ended discussion to understand who’s doing what and how we can connect.
Following that, some wanted to continue working on an international seed network, so we drafted a document outlining the scope—who should be included, what kind of information to collect, and how to make it useful. There are still open questions, and right now, it’s run by volunteers. To scale this effort, we’ll need funding.
Jack: I really like this approach. It may not fit the North American context exactly, but it’s a strong model. I appreciate the work put into this and see it as a useful framework moving forward.
If possible, it would be great to have someone stay engaged on our side so we remain connected and contribute as we can.