Alnarp Proceedings Final

EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES PROGRAMMES Report of an International Workshop 24-26 April 2003, Alnarp, Sweden

EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES PROGRAMMES ii

The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is an independent international scientific organization that seeks to advance the conservation and use of plant genetic diversity for the well-being of present and future generations. It is one of 15 Future Harvest Centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an association of public and private members who support efforts to mobilize cutting-edge science to reduce hunger and poverty, improve human nutrition and health, and protect the environment. IPGRI has its headquarters in Maccarese, near Rome, Italy, with offices in more than 20 other countries worldwide. The Institute operates through three programmes: (1) the Plant Genetic Resources Programme, (2) the CGIAR Genetic Resources Support Programme and (3) the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP). The international status of IPGRI is conferred under an Establishment Agreement which, by January 2003, had been signed by the Governments of Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovakia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine. Financial support for IPGRI’s research is provided by more than 150 donors, including governments, private foundations and international organizations. For details of donors and research activities please see IPGRI’s Annual Reports, which are available in printed form on request from [email protected] or from IPGRI’s Web site (www.ipgri.cgiar.org). The geographical designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IPGRI or the CGIAR concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Similarly, the views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. Mention of a proprietary name does not constitute endorsement of the product and is given only for information. Citation: IPGRI. 2005. European Workshop on National Plant Genetic Resources Programmes. Report of an International Workshop, 24-26 April 2003, Alnarp, Sweden. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. ISBN-13: 978-92-9043-699-7 ISBN-10: 92-9043-699-9 IPGRI Via dei Tre Denari 472/a 00057 Maccarese Rome, Italy © International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 2005

CONTENTS iii

CONTENTS

CONTENTS III

PART I. SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP 1 Introduction 1 Welcoming statements 2 Keynote presentations 2 Open Space sessions 3 Concluding remarks 4

PART II. PRESENTED KEYNOTE PAPERS 7 The National Programme of Plant Genetic Resources–development and priorities in

Sweden 8 Roland von Bothmer

Plant Genetic Resources for Sustainable Agriculture: how far have we come? 12 N. Murthi Anishetty and Kakoli Ghosh

The Brazilian National Programme of Conservation and Use of Genetic Resources 17 Clara O. Goedert and José Francisco M. Valls

Evolution of the Canadian Plant Germplasm System 23 Ken W. Richards

Networking: the French Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources Management 30 Martine Mitteau, Grégoire Thomas, Eric Teissier du Cros, Annick Le Blanc, Agnès Ricart, Andrée

Sontot, Gautier Pereira and Dominique Planchenault Conflicting interests in plant genetic resources 38

Jaap J. Hardon

PART III. STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION OF PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN EUROPE 43

Th. Hazekamp, J. Watts, N.M. Anishetty and J. Turok

PART IV. NATIONAL PROGRAMMES 67 Armenia 68

Main activities for founding a National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources in the Republic of Armenia

Samvel Avetisyan and Alvina Avagyan Austria 70

Status of the Austrian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme Paul Freudenthaler

Azerbaijan 72 The National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources in Azerbaijan

Zeynal Akparov Belgium 74

Toward a Belgian National Programme for a safe and dynamic conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources

Marc Lateur

EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES PROGRAMMES iv

Bulgaria 77 Developing a partnership policy for the protection, sustainable use and management of plant genetic resources in Bulgaria

Rada Koeva and Syika Angelova Croatia 81

The Croatian Bank of Plant Genes Toni Safner

Czech Republic 82 The Czech National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization

Ladislav Dotlačil, Zdeněk Stehno and Iva Faberová Denmark 84

Status of the National Danish Plant Genetic Resources Programme Lars Landbo

Estonia 85 National Programme “Collection and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture”

Vahur Kukk and Külli Annamaa Finland 88

National Plant Genetic Resources Programme for Agriculture and Forestry Mia Sahramaa

France 91 The French National Plant Genetic Resources Programme

Martine Mitteau Georgia 93

The National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources in Georgia Gogotur Agladze, Guram Alexidze and Tamriko Jinjikhadze

Germany 95 National Programme for Genetic Resources of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops

Siegfried Harrer, Harald Bajorat, Frank Begemann and Jons Eisele Hungary 97

The Hungarian Crop Genetic Resources Programme Bertalan Székely, László Holly, István Már and Gábor M. Csizmadia

Israel 99 The Israeli Gene Bank National Plan (2002–2004)

Arieh Levy, Elie Putievsky and Miriam Waldman Italy 101

Ex situ plant genetic resources conservation in Italy F. Grassi, M.G. Piazza and P. Engel

Latvia 106 Status of plant genetic resources conservation activities in Latvia

Isaak Rashal, Edite Kaufmane and Gints Lanka Lithuania 108

The Lithuanian National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources Juozas Labokas and Aušra Gineitaitė

Macedonia (FYR) 110 Status report on PGR conservation in Macedonia (FYR)

Sonja Ivanovska and Gordana Popsimonova Republic of Moldova 113

Current status of agrobiodiversity conservation and perspectives for the development of a National Plant Genetic Resources Programme in Moldova

Anatol Ganea and Gheorghe Savin

CONTENTS v

The Netherlands 115 The National Genetic Resources Programme of the Netherlands

Loek J.M. van Soest and Bert Visser Norway 118

The Norwegian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme Even Bratberg

Poland 120 The National Crop Genetic Resources Conservation Programme in Poland

Wieslaw Podyma Portugal 123

Programme for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Agrarian Genetic Resources Eliseu Bettencourt and Sónia Dias

Russian Federation 125 Development of the National Programme on Agrobiodiversity in the Russian Federation

Sergey M. Alexanian Serbia and Montenegro 127

Current status of plant genetic resources activities in Serbia and Montenegro Ivana Dulić-Marković

Slovak Republic 130 The Slovak National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Daniela Benediková and Maria Žaková Slovenia 133

The Slovenian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme Mihaela Černe, Jelka Šuštar-Vozlič, Borut Bohanec, Zlata Luthar, Janko Rode and Andreja Čerenak

Spain 136 National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization

Luis Ayerbe Sweden 137

National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources Eva Jansson and Jens Weibull

Switzerland 140 The Swiss National Programme for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Beate Schierscher Ukraine 141

The Ukrainian National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources Victor K. Ryabchoun and Roman L. Boguslavskyi

APPENDICES 145 Appendix I. Open Space Sessions 146 Appendix II. Alnarp Statement calling for Sustainable Conservation and Use of

European Genetic Resources 151 Appendix III. Acronyms and Abbreviations 152 Appendix IV. Agenda 156 Appendix V. List of participants 157

INDEX OF AUTHORS 166

SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP 1

PART I. SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP Introduction Jozef Turok Regional Office for Europe, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) In April 2003, a hundred participants from 39 countries came together in a European Workshop to discuss issues of their common interest in National Programmes on plant genetic resources. The Workshop, convened by a group of inspired people from various institutions across Europe at the campus of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Alnarp, Sweden, was a very timely initiative. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) had been adopted but not yet ratified. The strong support for the Treaty, expressed by many during this Workshop, resulted in its ratification by most European countries within a short period of time. It was also time to review the progress made in implementing the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of PGRFA (GPA), through which countries actually committed themselves to building ‘National Plant Genetic Resources Programmes’. Besides these overall policy frameworks, three processes received significant attention during the Workshop and resonate throughout this Report. Firstly, a spirit of collaboration has traditionally marked the plant genetic resources community in Europe, represented mainly by public genebanks, research institutes and academia. In fact, the majority of the Workshop participants are part of this community. The role of the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR) was highlighted as a common platform for facilitating such collaboration. The second topic relates to the ECP/GR vision of creating an integrated genebank system for PGRFA, which would enable managing these resources existing in Europe in the most rational way, leading to their safe conservation, availability and easy accessibility for users. Again, substantial progress has been made in developing this vision after the Workshop. Thirdly, coordination activities for specific crops, or groups of crops, have typically been established because of the need to link conservation with the user community of these crops. Beyond the limited scope of agricultural crop plants, however, the plant genetic resources community has often taken lead in the broader, multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral National Programmes on genetic resources or even biological diversity in its widest sense, which have been developed as a result of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Workshop certainly succeeded in supporting these processes by stimulating discussion and increasing mutual understanding of approaches, limitations, needs, improvements, interests and initiatives taken at the national level. Presented case studies from countries with different types of organization of their National Programmes enriched the discussion by showing different experiences. Some of the National Programmes were presented in the form of a poster session during the Workshop. Because of the large number of participating countries, it was decided to invite all countries to provide a very brief description of their National Programmes. These contributions were collected after the Workshop and are published in this Report. They offer a comprehensive and fairly accurate overview of the status of building National Programmes for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in Europe at a particular point in time. Elinor Lipman compiled and edited all contributions and Olga Spellman proofread and finalized this Report. Elinor’s and Olga’s dedicated efforts and contributions towards making the Report published are gratefully acknowledged.

EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES PROGRAMMES 2

Welcoming statements Eva Jansson and Jens Weibull of the Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM) opened the workshop with the following address: Dear friends from all over Europe, Dear colleagues from overseas, The reason for all of us being here today goes back to a sunny day in September 2000. My colleague Eva Jansson and myself were being visited by our friends Sónia Dias and Eliseu Bettencourt of the Portuguese genebank. We spent a couple of hours or so discussing our respective National Programmes, their developments and, not least, their common problems. These were of many different kinds: the scope of the programme, involvement of stakeholders, long-term financial support, the need for legislative action, and so on. Gradually it became clear to us that our discussion deserved to be lifted to a higher level where many more would be able to participate. The idea of a European meeting evolved and when it was presented to the Steering Committee of the ECP/GR, we received unconditional support. We would never have been able to realize this meeting without the full and unrestricted support by the IPGRI Regional Office for Europe, i.e. Jozef Turok and his staff, from both a moral and an administrative point of view. Furthermore, both IPGRI and FAO have provided economical support to this meeting. Other donors include the Nordic Council of Ministers (NMR), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS), the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA), the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Finally, the Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) and our own institute – the Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM) – have both provided invaluable assistance. To all of these we wish to express our deepest gratitude. We gather at a time when spring has arrived and the Alnarp park and campus is beginning to bloom. Let this bring inspiration to our discussions about the future well-being of Europe's plant genetic resources. Once again: welcome! With these words we give the floor to Roland von Bothmer, Vice Rector of the Alnarp campus. Roland von Bothmer (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), welcomed the participants. He emphasized the need for collaboration to achieve success and wished the workshop good luck, looking forward to its outcomes. He also presented the National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources in Sweden (full paper pages 8-11). Keynote presentations A series of five invited keynote presentations followed. - N. Murthi Anishetty (FAO): Plant genetic resources for sustainable agriculture: how far

have we come? (full paper pages 12-16); - Jozef Turok (IPGRI Regional Office for Europe): Status of the implementation of the

Global Plan of Action for the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in Europe (Presented as Part III of this report pages 43-66);

- Clara O. Goedert (EMBRAPA/CENARGEN, Brazil): The Brazilian National Programme of Conservation and Use of Genetic Resources (full paper pages 17-22);

- Ken W. Richards (Plant Gene Resources of Canada): Evolution of the Canadian Plant Germplasm System (full paper pages 23-29);


- Martine Mitteau (Bureau des Ressources Génétiques, France): Networking: the French Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources Management (full paper pages 30-37);

- Jaap J. Hardon (former Director, CGN, the Netherlands): Conflicting Interests in Plant Genetic Resources (full paper on pages 38-42).1

Open Space sessions The Open Space methodology The workshop then proceeded following an ”Open Space” arrangement. Eva Broms (Framtidsverkstäder AB), acting as facilitator, presented the concept and methodology of the ”Open Space” sessions, which had already been introduced to the participants in the workshop programme distributed in advance of the meeting.2 During the first, plenary session, all participants were invited to suggest a topic for discussion. These topics were posted on a board and the participants were invited to form discussion groups by subscribing to the groups of their own particular interest. Open Space sessions were then held during the three days of the workshop, each session lasting ca. 75 minutes. Each group was requested to write down the highlights of their discussion, summarizing ideas, conclusions and proposals made. These reports were distributed to all participants so that they all share the same volume of information.3 The Open Space sessions were completed by informal meetings where all participants could discuss the methodology and progress made. At the final evaluation and rounding-off session held on the last day of the workshop, the ”Open Space experience”, which was new to most participants, was generally acknowledged as very fruitful. Issues discussed The discussions focused on 29 topics, covering the following thematic issues: - Building and implementing a National plant genetic resources (PGR) Programme; - Technical aspects of PGR collection management (on-farm, in situ and ex situ); - PGR conservation and use; - Strategies for improving public awareness, training and education on PGR; - Definition of research priorities for PGR; - Perspectives in international cooperation. The detailed list of issues and list of participants attending each session are given in Appendix I.

1 This paper was not presented at the workshop, but was prepared as an additional paper

specifically for these proceedings. 2 "In preparing for the workshop, participants are requested to consider and reflect upon issues of particular

interest relating to the overall theme: “How can we, together, by utilizing our experiences, knowledge, innovations and visions, strengthen and develop the work with national plant genetic resources programmes?” These can have any perspective (local, national, regional or international) and consider a range of subjects (strategies, policies, and applications, to mention only a few)". (http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/regions/europe/Introduction/Programme.htm).

Additional information about Open Space technology can be found at www.openspaceworld.org and www.openspacetechnology.com/osmeeting.html

3 The discussion reports were made available on the Internet shortly after the meeting (http://www.pom.info/open_space/alnarp_workshop.html#issues).


The “Alnarp statement” An additional output of these discussions was the “Alnarp statement” calling for sustainable conservation and use of European genetic resources. This document, elaborated on the last day of the workshop by one of the discussion groups, was further circulated to all participants for their comments and approval and was endorsed in its final version given in Appendix II. Concluding remarks Personal notes on the discussions Jaap Hardon (former Director, CGN, the Netherlands), shared the following reflections with the participants: In Open Space discussions, a wide range of issues surrounding the conservation of plant genetic resources in Europe were discussed. The main issues discussed included development of National Programmes, cooperation within Europe, funding, identification of gaps in knowledge and research needed, opportunities for in situ conservation, how to promote sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), how to stimulate public awareness and consumer interest, the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), how to cope with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in genebanks and the economic value of PGRFA. The following are some personal observations. National programmes, cooperation within Europe and funding Both the FAO International Treaty on PGRFA and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have significantly increased awareness among governments that plant genetic resources are important and need to be conserved in view of serious genetic erosion taking place in agriculture and in nature. While the Treaty emphasized a need for international cooperation, the CBD stressed the need for comprehensive National Programmes. The main use of PGRFA is in plant breeding. Since breeders generally require access to total genepools to select the most appropriate genetic material for their programmes of improvement, the CBD emphasis on national collections, in situ conservation and national control raises some serious problems. It may complicate access to total genepools and it introduces considerable bureaucracy into gaining access, which serves the interests of neither crop improvement nor of farmers and consumers in general. The PGRFA in Europe covers crop and genetic diversity which, in general, transgresses national borders and shares common crop genepools. This implies a shared interest and a need for cooperation. The need for cooperation is also evident from an economic and cost perspective. National genebanks may be able to collect and conserve national available PGRFA. However, such collections will often have a limited user-value, which is essential for sustained funding. Furthermore, it appears that existing PGRFA in the form of local landraces of crops (and breeds of animals) are found in the economically less developed and poorer nations of southern and eastern Europe. Putting this together would seem to suggest a need for an Integrated European Programme for the Conservation of PGRFA. It is suggested that ECP/GR take the lead in promoting such a programme, requiring the following steps: - Develop a vision of a Common integrated European Programme; - Promote this vision among European nations; - Gain support for it from the European Union;


- Develop a blueprint for such a programme in consultation with member countries of ECP/GR;

- Develop a long-term action plan to realize such a programme; - Identify sources of funding. Following are some of my personal ideas on what such a programme could look like. I limit myself to plant genetic resources because of personal experience, but it might equally apply to domesticated farm animals. The core of the programme would consist of national institutes (genebanks, research institutes, NGOs). Lists should be prepared of all the crops relevant to the programme. Institutes should be identified to take the lead in individual crops or groups of crops. These institutes should identify partner institutes with a shared interest in particular crops and establish networks of cooperation. The Lead Institute should prepare inventories of existing collections of participating countries in a Crop Database such as already exists for barley, Beta and others. The Lead Institute should offer facilities to store Base Collections supported by either central or decentralized Working Collections. The Lead Institute should coordinate collecting activities to fill gaps, promote characterization and evaluation and in collaboration with other members identify research requirements and ways to promote utilization of the material. In situ conservation, sustainable use, public awareness, consumer interests It would seem that all these issues are inter-related and would have to be primarily addressed at the national level. During the Workshop many ideas were expressed. It was generally agreed that conservation for the sake of conservation was hardly sustainable. PGRFA in situ is maintained for as long as the material has a function in agriculture, as is often seen in low-input agriculture depending on local adaptation to particular environmental stresses or household/cultural requirements. In more economically advanced situations, broadening the use of PGRFA would seem to largely depend on raising consumer interest, raising the interest of hobby vegetable growers, developing niche markets, responding to historical interest and so on. Genebanks should get involved in such activities through rendering services such as identifying suitable collection material, making samples of seed available for further multiplication and helping to establish, possibly through NGOs, seed production and distribution. By playing a public role, genebanks will benefit by public awareness of their function. Genebanks and GMOs GMOs pose a serious problem to genebanks. Central to the problem is the application of industrial patents. The primary function of a patent is that it excludes the use (and related acts) of the product or the process by anyone other than the right holder. This is in direct conflict with the general principle of genebanks to make available and promote material for use. A second problem is that the holder of a patent cannot prevent transfer of the protected product to other planting material through natural crossing (introgression) in farmers' fields. Hence, when collections are made in areas where GMOs are introduced, genebanks can never guarantee the material to be free of patent-protected characters. This highlights the inappropriateness of patents applied to biological materials and may give rise to absurd legal claims. All genebanks can do is state in Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) that they cannot give any guarantees that the material is free of patent-protected characters introduced through biotechnology. A disadvantage of such statements is, however, that consumers rejecting GMOs will distrust material from genebanks in general and this will harm their image and public role. In short, the PGRFA community should get actively involved in opposing patent protection of biological material. Use of plant genetic resources in its widest


sense should remain in the public domain and not become subjected to exclusive corporate and shareholders' interests. Economic value of PGRFA Many attempts have been made to estimate the genetic value of PGRFA. The problem is similar to how to estimate the value of clean water or clean air. It all depends on what factors are included in the economic models and so far none have given a satisfactory estimate. In a way, the total value of agricultural produce depends on PGRFA, as it depends on soil, water and air. The value of PGRFA is essentially what it costs to maintain it in a chicken-and-egg situation. In my view, trying to attach an estimated monetary value to plant genetic resources is nonsensical. Closing of the workshop The workshop was formally closed with short concluding remarks from Eva Thörn (former Director, NGB) and Ladislav Dotlačil (Director, RICP-Prague).

PRESENTED KEYNOTE PAPERS 7

PART II. PRESENTED KEYNOTE PAPERS The National Programme of Plant Genetic Resources–development and priorities in

Sweden Error! Bookmark not defined. Roland von Bothmer

Plant Genetic Resources for Sustainable Agriculture: how far have we come? Error!

Bookmark not defined. N. Murthi Anishetty and Kakoli Ghosh

The Brazilian National Programme of Conservation and Use of Genetic Resources

Error! Bookmark not defined. Clara O. Goedert and José Francisco M. Valls

Evolution of the Canadian Plant Germplasm System Error! Bookmark not defined.

Ken W. Richards Networking: the French Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources Management Error!

Bookmark not defined. Martine Mitteau, Grégoire Thomas, Eric Teissier du Cros, Annick Le Blanc, Agnès Ricart, Andrée

Sontot, Gautier Pereira and Dominique Planchenault Conflicting interests in plant genetic resources Error! Bookmark not defined.

Jaap J. Hardon


The National Programme of Plant Genetic Resources–development and priorities in Sweden Roland von Bothmer The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden During the final phase for completion of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) it became obvious that the most controversial issues concerning conservation are connected to the genetic resources of plants and animals. Major problems including economic, ethical, social and political questions have, over the last 10 years, almost overshadowed the progress in conservation and utilization. Recently, an International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has been agreed upon. It is, however, a very modest agreement in its present shape. Several countries have not yet signed the Treaty and the content is very restricted, being confined to a few of the major food crops and their closest allies. It is clear that national responsibility and international cooperation are the key factors for further development in this important field. When developing the International Treaty, several meetings and negotiations took place. One important process was the completion of State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources and the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA) based on national surveys of the status of PGR in each country. The Leipzig conference in 1996 - resulting in the Leipzig declaration -became an important milestone for an interesting international development. Already at the GPA preparatory meeting in Nitra, Slovakia in 1995, the developments and trends in plant genetic resources in the European Region were discussed. One of the major issues was national involvement. The concept of ”National Programmes” was proposed and it was concluded in the final document of the Nitra meeting that ” A National Programme is the platform for international collaboration…”. The little word ”the” instead of ”a” makes all the difference. The focus was immediately put on an activity or organization that did not really exist in any country at that time. The size, content and organization of a National Programme have never been internationally agreed upon. Most countries are still in the process of establishing their own programme–of which this meeting in Alnarp offers good examples. What is a National Programme and who should be partners? It is evident that no single national organization entirely fulfils the criteria for covering all aspects of the programme. During the development of the Swedish Programme it was vital to try to identify all the various aspects and make a proposal to the authorities for organizing these activities, namely: - conservation; - evaluation; - utilization; - information; - education; - research. A National Programme in its ideal set-up is a formal organization with a granted, basic funding. It is of utmost importance that an intense collaboration between the formal and non-governmental sectors is established. In Sweden the Board of Agriculture, through a decision taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, became the principal for the programme. For


a broad coverage of various aspects as many partners as possible were engaged in the practical work (e.g. ministries, other authorities, genebanks, commercial companies, NGOs, etc.). It has taken several years to establish the various parts and the present organization. A genebank is certainly a central element for a programme but many other aspects are needed. Similarly, a university institution can probably cover parts of education and research, but usually not practical breeding and conservation. Full governmental financial support can never be obtained for an ambitious, well-documented and motivated programme, but other funding sources (e.g. research grants, private investment) - and not least voluntary work - are also important. Priorities for work in a National Programme Priorities among various groups of cultivated plants It is vital to decide careful and sound priorities because it is not feasible to work on all aspects of a programme simultaneously, neither for economic nor for practical reasons. Obviously, for conservation and utilization there has been an emphasis on food security including basic food crops and their genetic resources. Thus, the initial phases of the programme have concentrated on major food crops, such as cereals, major oil crops and legumes. In later years, in Europe as well as elsewhere, minor crops, vegetables, herbs, and medicinal plants have received increased attention. Recently the work has also started to include ornamentals: practically all countries have a great heritage in this area, biological as well as cultural and historical, of plants used in gardens, parks and indoors. Many of those plants have a history spanning many centuries and, like food crops, they have been selected and bred for adaptation to certain regions or for specific purposes. An active National Programme should not neglect any of the cultivated plant species, and needs to maintain an active dialogue between all those involved. In the past, the importance of our domesticated organisms as a cultural heritage has been overlooked. For instance, genebank operators have concentrated on conserving the biological diversity whereas decision-makers and curators of historical museums have given priority for conservation to historical artefacts. Until now there has not been much contact between the two sides. One advantage of a well-developed National Programme is that the two sides come together and increase the awareness of the arguments (and perhaps financial support) for conservation for biological as well as for cultural reasons. Conservation vs. utilization Lengthy discussions over recent decades have concerned the need for continuous collecting and conservation, almost in contrast to utilization of the material. However, the one activity is intimately linked to the other. Conservation without the aim of beneficial development of the material for food, livestock feeding, pleasure, health and for aesthetic values will only have a historical purpose and cannot be the objective of a vital National Programme. The time, effort and grants invested in developing genebank material for future use increase the value of the conserved material. The two sides are thus certainly not in opposition, but complementary to each other. For an active National Programme it is important that genebank authorities and practical plant breeders as well as organizations dealing with pre-breeding (often universities) work together. Evaluation One particularly important field for facilitating the utilization of various gene sources is an effective evaluation. The more that is known about various characters or the genetic makeup of a material, the more valuable it will be. There is, however, a severe drawback for extended evaluation, namely the economic realities, which demand strong prioritization. A


very obvious example of this relates to the cereal material in the Nordic Gene Bank. There is certainly not much more to find in the Nordic countries of older landraces. This material is either preserved already (very few examples, in fact) or was lost long ago. When the Nordic Gene Bank was opened in 1979, various “basic characters”, such as disease resistance, lodging resistance, simple yield parameters, etc., were screened. After 25 years of data collection, information about most of these basic traits is available. To continue with further evaluation will increase the knowledge of the material and hence its potential value, but on the other hand the characters now wanted are much more sophisticated, more difficult and time-consuming to study and hence more laborious and more costly. These traits might include enzyme activities important for the malting process in barley or traits linked to baking quality in wheat. Thus, here again choices must be made, since evaluation “at all costs” is neither sound nor feasible. Research areas Research connected to plant genetic resources is a large area with many different directions. In the Swedish National Programme we have identified the following research areas, which, for our conditions, have been judged to be of prime importance: Taxonomy Taxonomy and aspects related to the nomenclature of cultivated plants earlier had a fairly low priority. In later years it has become evident that an effective and correct nomenclature, from the cultivar to the species or even generic level, is an area of prime importance. Failure to develop a workable and effective taxonomic system creates chaos and inefficiency and there are still many plant groups that are in urgent need of systematic botanical reviews. Genepools and relationships Gene transfer by modern gene technology is still in its infancy for individual traits. Conventional breeding techniques to improve quantitative traits, such as yield and horizontal resistance will prevail for many years to come. For this reason utilization of various gene sources from genebanks or from the wild will continuously be demanded. An effective gene transfer with conventional techniques demands a very good knowledge concerning relationships between “gene donors” and “gene recipients”, especially when closely or more distantly related wild species are used. Research on species relationships, ultimately to characterize the genepool of a certain species or species groups must be given a high priority. Genetic diversity Efficiency in conservation demands an increased knowledge of the material. The better the background knowledge of a material the more effective the conservation will be. For example, to avoid duplication and redundancies and to identify gaps in existing collections makes studies of diversity a very important tool. Over recent decades a number of key studies of genetic diversity have been performed, but the area currently does not have a high priority by grant-giving organizations. Nevertheless, studies of genetic diversity with modern or more conventional techniques need more attention for the purposes of conservation. The genetic variation patterns are incompletely known for most groups of cultivated plants. Conservation aspects A prerequisite for effective conservation is a good knowledge of the physiological mechanisms of seeds or other parts which are used for storage. What happens in a seed during senescence and are there effective methods to test viability and longevity? From the


diagnostic stage it is also vital to develop technology to rescue embryos, other organs, a few cells or even a single viable cell of older material. Efficiency in breeding To utilize biological material better it is important that the whole chain of activities is smoothly integrated: - collecting and conservation of plant genetic resources; - evaluation of agronomic and other characters; - pre-breeding, i.e. preparation of the material to a stage convenient for further utilization; - conventional breeding. For both a cost-effective and time-saving procedure it is vital that the various parts work well together. Although this statement is self-evident, and has been for a long time, the real situation is far from ideal. Research on better integration of the various parts is needed; early prediction of breeding results, marker assisted breeding (e.g. where exotic gene sources are used) and more effective pre-breeding are some of the urgent research areas. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), which is a part of the Swedish National Programme now called POM (Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants), is a decentralized organization with four main campuses in the country. The strong regional presence in different ecological zones from the south to the north is beneficial for research, education and development under various horticultural and agricultural conditions. SLU has by tradition a strong basis of research and development on various aspects of conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources. Hence, for example, the Swedish Biodiversity Centre (to which the role of coordinating POM has been given) is an important partner in research and education. The localization of the Nordic Gene Bank to the Alnarp campus makes southern Sweden an important centre for work with the country’s plant genetic resources. Conclusions To achieve all the desirable aims of a National Programme of Plant Genetic Resources is certainly not easy. Economic reality, access to willing and devoted persons and effective coordination of many partners may influence optimal development. This makes the need for prioritizing the different activities even more important. National collaboration is hopefully granted through the programme, and international cooperation will contribute to its successful development. What we need are not more meetings, but more collaborative and international projects. Let the National Programmes continue to be the platform for this development!


Plant Genetic Resources for Sustainable Agriculture: how far have we come? N. Murthi Anishetty and Kakoli Ghosh Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy Introduction Plant genetic resources are one of the most important contributors to economic prosperity and global food security. While plant genetic resources are the raw material for agricultural activity, the role of the farmers from all over the world, in developing a vast portfolio of genetic diversity within crops and other plant species, is equally critical. Since crops and improved cultivars have been shared between Regions for centuries, all countries are now interdependent, in that they rely for agriculture and food security on crops that are cultivated elsewhere. Therefore, there is a continuous need to ensure that plant genetic resources are always readily available to meet local and global food demands and to contribute to agricultural sustainability. The increase in global food production in the past few decades has been influenced largely by the continuous development of local germplasm by farmers in the traditional manner, major breakthroughs in agricultural research in the formal sector, free exchange of information and unrestricted access to a wide variety of germplasm for plant breeding throughout the world. However, with changing times, a number of issues related to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), including restriction of access to germplasm of PGRFA, assertion of national sovereignty over biodiversity, decline in the notion of open or free exchange of developed plant varieties for agricultural purposes, restriction of their use by legal clauses or patents, lack of any adequate recognition for farmers who have traditionally been the custodians of PGRFA, etc., have come to dominate policy formulation at the domestic and international level. This paper will briefly trace the origins of international developments in the major issues as they relate to PGRFA. It will also highlight the critical shifts that have take place over the years on the various and related themes and concepts. The road we have travelled The first time PGRFA appeared on the international agenda was in 1972. The continued emphasis of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on the urgent need to collect and conserve major crop genetic resources was reflected in the recommendations of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in 1972. FAO was assigned the responsibility to assist in the establishment of an international genetic resources programme along with other organizations. The activities related to PGRFA conservation including tracing the origins of crops and the need for global mechanisms for managing plant genetic resources were first recognized by FAO as early as in 1961. FAO organized the first international technical meeting on plant exploration and introduction. One of the recommendations of this meeting was to constitute a Panel of Experts to assist and advise the Director-General of FAO on new lines of action to deal with the problem and to expand the exchange of information on plant material between countries and scientific institutions. Two further international technical conferences on crop genetic resources in 1967 and 1973 paved the way for establishing a global network of crop genetic resources centres. A Working Party of leading scientists was established to prepare an action programme for the collection, evaluation and conservation of genetic resources for future use, in advancing


the global network of genetic resources centres. This Working Party met at Beltsville, Maryland, USA, under the Chairmanship of Otto Frankel in March 1972 and proposed the creation, over a period of five years, of a network of genetic resources centres. It comprised nine regional genetic resources centres, each to have a genebank and each to be in charge of a regional network of collaborating national centres, which would be concerned chiefly with exploration, short-term conservation and the regeneration of the genetic stocks stored in the regional centre; and a coordinating committee, with a central staff as its executive arm, to provide overall guidance and coordination of the work. This led to the establishment of a series of crop-specific centres, consisting for the most part of the International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs) sponsored by CGIAR, such as IRRI for rice, ICRISAT for millet and sorghum, CIMMYT for wheat and maize, and CIP for potatoes. Meanwhile the organizational issues for overall supervision of the genetic resources were resolved by establishing the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) in 1974 at FAO headquarters in Italy. FAO provided the staff and CGIAR provided operational funds to IBPGR and for 12 years, FAO and IBPGR worked as a single programme and supported numerous germplasm collecting missions as well as the establishment of several national, regional and international genetic resources programmes. During this period the IBPGR activities had grown several-fold and there were discussions about autonomy which led to the separation of IBPGR from FAO in 1988 to become the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI). The birth of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 1983 was an important event in the history of efforts to raise the profile of PGRFA. With the establishment of the Commission, there was the development of the FAO Global System on Plant Genetic Resources. The Global System comprised international agreements, networks and a variety of codes of conduct, scientific standards, technical mechanisms and global instruments for PGRFA. It included the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU), the Global Plan of Action (GPA) and the report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources. Through these instruments, the goal has been to ensure safe conservation and promote the availability and sustainable use of plant genetic resources by providing a flexible framework for sharing the benefits and burdens. In 1995, the Commission was expanded to the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) to deal with policy and related issues as relevant to all genetic resources for food and agriculture. It established two Intergovernmental Technical Working Groups on animal and plant genetic resources respectively, which monitor and coordinate the activities in these two critical sectors. As the issues associated with conservation and utilization of PGRFA gained international recognition, a need was felt for an international instrument to address them. Discussions in FAO led to the development of the International Undertaking as a non-binding agreement, based on the principle of the heritage of mankind over plant genetic resource. The International Undertaking was adopted by the FAO members in 1983 as a framework for international cooperation in the area of plant genetic resources conservation and use. Subsequently Farmers' Rights were defined and adopted by the FAO members and Plant Breeder's Rights, as provided for by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), and were considered not inconsistent with the Undertaking. The aim was to achieve a balance between the products, such as commercial varieties and breeders' lines and the farmers' varieties as well as between the interests of developed and developing countries, by balancing the rights of breeders, who are also known as formal innovators, and the farmers often working as informal innovators. These initiatives for plant protection were necessitated by international agreements related to Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) at the Uruguay Round Understandings, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and the subsequent establishment of the


World Trade Organization (WTO). The trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) in WTO created minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property rights over commercially developed seed and plant varieties. Although TRIPS seems less directly related to genetic resources than the International Undertaking, it has had a direct impact on the access to and exchange of PGRFA. A number of important developments were taking place during the 1990s which have influenced and shaped the outcome of the critical issues surrounding access, use and conservation of plant genetic resources and biodiversity in general. It started with the Earth Summit in 1992 held at Rio de Janeiro. This United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) paid great attention to plant genetic resources and supported the central role of a Global System for Plant Genetic Resources and the development of its components. Chapter 14 of Agenda 21 provided a genuine action plan for the twenty-first century, negotiated and approved with the consensus of all countries, which included a programme area on the ”conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources for food and sustainable agriculture”. Recent developments and directions The Earth Summit, through the Nairobi Final Act, also established the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at the same time. Around 154 countries signed the legally binding Convention with the aim of conservation and use of biological diversity and equitable sharing of benefits from its use. The Convention provides a framework for its members' national sovereignty and the responsibility for the conservation and sharing of their own genetic resources, as well as the right to determine conditions of access and arrangements for benefit sharing on mutually agreed terms and recognizes the role of indigenous peoples in managing genetic resources. The world community also adopted the Global Plan of Action (GPA) in 1996 at the Leipzig International Technical Conference. The Leipzig Declaration was signed by 150 countries to provide an agreed framework for the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. The GPA was endorsed by the FAO Conference and the Conference of the Parties to the CBD. It has 20 priority activities in the fields of in situ conservation and development, ex situ conservation, use of PGRFA and institution and capacity building. These have become the touchstone and basis for planning and priority setting for developing national action plans and programmes. Since its inception, it has been operating largely as a country-driven process through a multi-stakeholder approach. FAO has been continuously assisting countries in facilitating its implementation. In the light of the adoption of the CBD and the national sovereignty over biodiversity, it was decided by the CGRFA to revise the International Undertaking (IU) in harmony with the new Convention. The negotiations for the revision of the IU started in 1995 and took over seven difficult years to complete. Finally, the International Treaty on PGRFA was adopted by the FAO Conference in 2001. The main objectives of the International Treaty are the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use for sustainable agriculture and food security. This legally binding international agreement, which came into force on 29 June 2004, provides a framework to ensure access to plant genetic resources and to related knowledge, technologies and internationally agreed funding. The Treaty provides a Multilateral system for access and benefit sharing of PGRFA. It includes the Global Plan of Action and also recognizes Farmer's Rights to be established in accordance with the needs and priorities of each country as appropriate and subject to its national legislation. The Treaty provides the agricultural sector with a multilateral tool to promote cooperation and synergy with other sectors, particularly with trade and the environment. The adoption of the Treaty completed one of the tasks set by the Earth Summit


in 1992. The Treaty also contributes to meeting the goals of the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the World Food Summit Plan of Action as declared in 1994. Global partnerships for agrobiodiversity The evolution in the status of PGRFA from a stand-alone component to an integral part of agrobiodiversity as a whole has been a fundamental shift in recent years. It has been followed by the recognition of a PGRFA contribution to sustainable agriculture, development and livelihood support. From conservation of PGRFA for the sake of conservation, the approach that has been adopted now is to establish linkages between conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. The strategies adopted for conservation are broad-based, ranging from ex situ to on-farm, recognizing the merit in combining the individual approaches. This inclusive and holistic style is also to be seen in utilization strategies. More importantly, the international community has been able to create processes that are leading to the universal recognition of the values, traditions and knowledge associated with farmers and traditional communities. Although it has been a long process, these changes are vital and are now being taken up at many levels. Since the establishment of the CBD, it has been working closely with FAO on a number of critical agrobiodiversity issues including access, benefit sharing and use. The Conference of Parties of the Convention recognizes the leading role of FAO and has increasingly requested the organization to contribute, coordinate and complement the implementation of the decisions of the Convention in this area. At its Fifth meeting, the Conference of the Parties, through Decision V/5, adopted a programme of work on agricultural biodiversity. In implementing the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity, the main thrust is on the application of an ecosystem approach, based on a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Activities on agricultural biodiversity include assessments, adaptive management, capacity building and mainstreaming. The application of the ecosystem approach focuses on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems through the use of adaptive management practices, through decentralization to the lowest level while ensuring an intersectoral cooperation. The Global Plan of Action received fresh impetus from the ”World Food Summit: Five Years Later“ held in 2002. This renewed investment in the implementation of the Global Plan of Action was extremely timely and FAO has been committed to facilitating its effective implementation and visibility. An integrative approach has been proposed for further implementation of the Plan through the establishment of a Facilitating Mechanism to enable all stakeholders to better coordinate and encourage donor support for implementation of activities and create partnerships in areas of mutual interest, to facilitate establishment of country and regional priority needs. The Facilitating Mechanism would operate within the policy framework of the Treaty and be reviewed by the CGRFA at its regular sessions. It is envisaged that it would contribute to the implementation of the Funding Strategy established under the Treaty. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment co-sponsored by FAO, United Nations Environment Network (UNEP), World Bank (WB) and World Resources Institute (WRI) is an effort aimed at providing policy-makers with the ”state of the art“ scientific information on conditions, future scenarios and response options related to the goods and services provided by the world's ecosystems - mainly agriculture, grasslands, forests, freshwater and coastal ecosystems. It would help in building capacity at all levels in each of the above-mentioned sectors to undertake an integrated ecosystem assessment in future and in taking appropriate actions based on the findings. Another development has been the establishment of the Global Crop Diversity Trust. It is an international fund that has been established by the FAO and IPGRI, acting on behalf of


the Future Harvest Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), to help ensure the long-term conservation and availability of PGRFA, with a view to achieving global food security and sustainable agriculture. Its goal is to support the conservation of crop diversity over the long term and provide a permanent source of support for crop diversity collections around the world. The Trust is also an element of the funding strategy to be implemented under the International Treaty. The establishment of the Trust has been possible through partnerships of FAO and the 16 Future Harvest Centres of CGIAR. The initial goal of the Trust is to raise US$260 million as an endowment fund, as well as funds that can be used directly to support the upgrading of crop diversity collections and building the capacity of the genebanks that house them. Future role for FAO and ECP/GR The international decisions and their implementation through a variety of agencies are influencing the development of a holistic and sustainable approach of conservation and use of PGRFA. FAO is currently overseeing and providing a mechanism for the global community to foster linkages and create new opportunities for better management and utilization of plant genetic resources, adopting an ecosystem approach for safeguarding agrobiodiversity and enhancing the recognition and application of local peoples’ knowledge about food security and sustainable use of biodiversity. However, there is a wide range of complexities related to plant genetic resources and the success of the efforts will depend on the infrastructure of National Programmes and capabilities of countries and the relevant stakeholders involved in the process. ECP/GR as the Regional networking mechanism in Europe has a substantial role in taking this forward, not only within Europe but also as a model for other networks to emulate. One major area of focus must be capacity building, especially at the institutional level for countries with economies in transition and in a manner that is integrated with national agricultural development activities. A greater leverage can be achieved by working with a series of partners and by identifying and implementing a coherent approach to all activities. With the changing scenarios on regulatory frameworks on access to PGRFA, there is also a need for integration of PGRFA-related measures implemented within the context of a comprehensive programme that will make it possible to link all the involved parties. There will be a need to involve state organizations, the private sector, NGOs, as well as individual farmers, agricultural communities and research institutions. FAO is actively addressing policy questions on biological diversity and, in particular, agricultural genetic resources through its intergovernmental forum, the CGRFA. A better understanding of the functions of agricultural ecosystems, management of agricultural production systems and effective policy implementation will be at the heart of future plant genetic resources management and development.


The Brazilian National Programme of Conservation and Use of Genetic Resources Clara O. Goedert and José Francisco M. Valls EMBRAPA/CENARGEN, Brasilia, Brazil History Linked to the Ministry of Agriculture, the Brazilian Agriculture Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) was created in 1973. In the following year the National Center for Genetic Resources (CENARGEN) was created to organize and execute introduction and collecting activities of exotic and native plant genetic resources and to establish a system of long-term seed germplasm conservation. In 1979, animal and microorganism genetic resources activities were added to CENARGEN's mandate. In 1980, EMBRAPA created the National Research Programme of Genetic Resources indicating CENARGEN as the national coordinating unit for that area. In the same year, the Biotechnology research area was incorporated into the Center's mandate and in 1984 a specific programme was established, with migration of projects previously included in the Genetic Resources Programme. Since 1980, the National Genetic Resources Programme has been increasing its activities, incorporating new partners and new genebanks and activities such as molecular characterization of genetic resources. Presently, the Brazilian Genetic Resources system is consolidated as a network (RENARGEN), integrating research units of EMBRAPA, universities and research institutes. General objective The general purpose of the genetic resources network is to re-establish and modernize the genetic resources work management to enable EMBRAPA to better meet the national germplasm demands. Emphasis is given to the enrichment, conservation, characterization and availability of plant, animal and microorganism germplasm, native and exotic, bearing in mind Brazilian food security and the need to increment the technical and negotiating capacities towards an efficient international exchange, in agreement with the National Biodiversity Policy and other legal developments. Additionally, emphasis is given to the integration of genetic resources over the country’s regions, to the modernization of germplasm characterization methods and to the availability and sharing of information. A significant portion of the activities is focused on products of major impact to agribusiness and family agriculture, as well as to the development of research work that can bring advanced opportunities for training and capacity building of the scientific staff, technicians, farmers' communities and other partners involved. Specific objectives 1. To confer on Brazil maximal independence for genetic resources of interest for

agricultural research work, in view of the increasing restrictions to access and exchange of germplasm, while assuring the country’s control of native genetic resources and their conservation and sustainable use.

2. To promote the enrichment of and accessibility to scientific and technological research of cultivated grasses with wide genetic variability and that of cereals and related species. These must be characterized and well organized to be used efficiently, aiming to meet the demands of a sustainable agriculture and better competitiveness in the internal and external markets.


3. To introduce, collect, characterize, conserve, document and propagate germplasm accessions of legumes and oil and fibre plants in the active genebanks of soybean, beans, groundnut and wild species of Arachis, sesame, sunflower, cotton, sisal, ramie (Boehmeria nivea), castor bean and curauá (Ananas erectifolius), emphasizing genetic breeding use, gene prospecting and strategic availability for Brazil.

4. To increase the genetic variability of cultivated fruit trees of high economic value as well as the native fruit trees to be used in breeders' programmes through collection enrichment and efficient maintenance.

5. To amplify the genetic base of native and exotic forage plants adapted to the distinct national ecosystems; conserve and characterize the existing active genebank accessions; document data and study the development of the reproductive characteristics of accessions, with emphasis on the study of apomixis.

6. To contribute to the knowledge and conservation of the germplasm of vegetables, root tubers and spice plants for their sustainable use in Brazilian agribusiness.

7. To establish new populations and increase the existing genetic populations of forest trees of social and economic importance conserved in active genebanks as sources of seeds for current and future use. This objective is linked to a wider objective of ensuring the availability of genetic material to restore the forest cover both for protection of natural ecosystems and for developing new agroforestry systems for the production of raw material from forest and palm trees.

8. To introduce, collect, characterize, conserve, document and make available the germplasm of industrial species: sugarcane, guaraná (Paullinia cupana) (a source of a soft drink), rubber tree, neem (Azadirachta indica), medicinal, aromatic and ornamental species.

9. To enrich the microorganism genebanks, amplifying their potential use for biotechnological processes to be applied in the agroindustry and isolation of new genes to be used in the production of transgenic organisms; improving accessibility to information networks and services and seeking the integration of individual collections; developing basic studies in taxonomy and characterizing microorganisms, emphasizing training.

10. To develop actions for conservation, enrichment and maintenance of genetic variability and genetic characterization of domestic animal races or groups adapted to specific ecological niches, which are at risk of extinction.

11. To promote and achieve the long-term genetic resource conservation of species of current and potential social and economic importance for Brazilian agribusiness supported by technologically advanced research work.

12. To develop all the above initiatives in an integrated network structure, assigning special emphasis to the nationwide coverage of the genetic resources work and to stress any new partnerships with potential national and international counterparts, towards the same goals.

General strategy The Brazilian genetic resources network (RENARGEN) develops its actions with a focus on the four main activities consolidated over the years:


1. Enrichment Intensive germplasm collection, introduction and exchange

2. Conservation Integrating both in situ (either in nature or on-farm) and ex situ (seeds in cold storage, explants in vitro) plant germplasm conservation, but also including alternatives for microorganism cultures and the cryopreservation of animal semen and ovules

3. Characterization In the field and in the laboratory, to cover the distinctiveness of accessions from morphological to physiological, reproductive and genetic attributes, with a view to their incorporation in breeding programmes and/or direct sustainable use.

4. Information Providing full documentation, to avoid duplication and to support the best possible efficiency in germplasm management, strengthening the Curatorial System.

RENARGEN – Component Projects and Action Plans RENARGEN is composed of 12 projects, each developed through several plans of action executed all over the country by EMBRAPA Research Centers, as follows: Network Component Project 0 – Network management, involving the structure for the general coordination and for the coordination of five network component projects at EMBRAPA/CENARGEN, plus the coordination of six other network component projects at six other EMBRAPA units. Network Component Project 1 – Enrichment of genetic variability, documentation and training, exchange and quarantine of plant germplasm and optimization of methods for the detection, identification and control of quarantine pests.

Action Plans a. Development and implementation of systems for administration of sequential

procedures for germplasm exchange and quarantine and diffusion of information on quarantine pests;

b. Rescue of plant germplasm from areas with high landrace diversity or in areas facing environmental stresses;

c. Development and adaptation of methods and processes for genetic, cytogenetic and reproductive plant germplasm characterization;

d. Capacity building in molecular germplasm characterization; e. Computerized documentation and information of germplasm data.

Network Component Project 2 - Conservation, characterization and use of cereal genetic resources.

Action Plans - Genebanks a. Exotic germplasm only (sorghum, triticale and rye, pseudocereals and tef (Eragrostis

tef)); b. Exotic germplasm plus adventive species (oats); c. Exotic germplasm with Brazilian landraces (wheat); d. Exotic germplasm plus native wild relatives (barley, rice, pearl millet); e. Regional germplasm plus landraces and related species (maize, plus native Tripsacum

species).


Network Component Project 3 - Collection, characterization and ex situ germplasm conservation of pulses, oil crops and fibre plants.

Action Plans - Genebanks a. Exotic germplasm only (soybean, castor bean, sesame, sunflower, sisal, ramie); b. Exotic germplasm plus native wild species (cowpea); c. Regional germplasm including landraces and related wild species (beans, groundnut,

cotton); d. Native germplasm only (curauá - Ananas erectifolius).

Network Component Project 4 - Collection, characterization and ex situ conservation of fruit tree germplasm.

Action Plans - Genebanks a. Exotic germplasm only (citrus, banana, grapes, acerola (Malpighia glabra)); b. Exotic germplasm with old Brazilian populations (coconut); c. Exotic germplasm plus native wild relatives (prunoids); d. Regional germplasm plus landraces and related wild species (papaya); e. Native germplasm including wild relatives (cashew, cupuaçu (Theobroma

grandiflorum), pineapple, passion fruit plus native fruits from all Brazilian biomes. Network Component Project 5 - Collection, characterization and conservation ex situ of forage plant germplasm.

Action Plans - Genebanks a. Exotic germplasm plus adventive congeneric species (alfalfa); b. Exotic germplasm plus native wild species (Brachiaria, Guinea grass (Panicum

maximum), napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum), Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris); c. Regional and native forage crops and related species (Stylosanthes, Paspalum plus

native forage plants from all areas of natural grasslands used for cattle-raising activities);

d. Characterization of the apomixis mechanism in forage grasses. Network Component Project 6 - Collection, characterization and ex situ germplasm conservation of vegetable crops, roots and tubers, and spices.

Action Plans - Genebanks a. Exotic germplasm only (arracacha (Arracacia xanthorrhiza), black pepper, garlic,

onion, carrot, tomato); b. Exotic germplasm with Brazilian landraces (cucurbits); c. Exotic germplasm plus native wild relatives (potato, sweet potato); d. Regional and native crops including landraces and related species (cassava,

Capsicum). Network Component Project 7 - Collection, characterization and conservation of forest and palm species germplasm.

Action Plans - Genebanks a. Exotic germplasm only (conifer species); b. Exotic germplasm plus native wild relatives (oil palm); c. Regional germplasm plus landraces and related species (Amazon palms, Amazonian

forest species, tropical extra-Amazonian broad-leaved trees, subtropical broad-leaved trees);

d. Native germplasm only (Paraná pine, Araucaria angustifolia).


Network Component Project 8 - Collection, characterization and ex situ conservation of industrial, medicinal, aromatic and ornamental plant germplasm.

Action Plans - Genebanks a. Exotic germplasm only (sugarcane, neem); b. Regional germplasm plus landraces and related species (rubber tree, mate (Ilex

paraguarensis), Amazonian medicinal plants, West Central medicinal plants); c. Native germplasm only (guaraná, Amazonian ornamentals, medicinal plants from

several regions of Brazil). Network Component Project 9 - Collection, characterization and ex situ conservation of microorganism germplasm.

Action Plans - Genebanks a. Diazotrophic bacteria; b. Bacillus spp. ; c. Entomopathogenic fungi and viruses; d. Weed and pest controlling microorganisms; e. Microorganisms of veterinary interest; f. Microorganisms of industrial interest; g. Base collection of fungi for human consumption; h. Agrobacterium vectors for plant transformation.

Network Component Project 10 - Conservation, characterization and use of domestic animal germplasm.

Action Plans - Genebanks a. Exotic germplasm only (cattle, water buffalo, horses, sheep, goats, swine, poultry); b. Molecular characterization of naturalized animal breeds.

Network Component Project 11 - Curator’s system and long-term in situ and ex situ germplasm conservation (seeds, tissues, embryos, semen).

Action Plans a. In situ conservation of variability of target species in areas under permanent

protection; b. Ethnobiology and conservation of genetic resources in Indian villages and traditional

communities; c. Seed base collection; d. In vitro base collection; e. Cryopreservation of plant germplasm; f. EMBRAPA Cultivar Genebank; g. Germplasm Curator’s System; h. Semen and ovule conservation.

RENARGEN's activities are in the care of the EMBRAPA Research Centers and other partner institutions. Their scientific teams gather experts in genetic resources and breeding and have fairly good facilities for research. At present, RENARGEN has 173 genebanks, including 136 for plants, 20 for domestic animals and 17 for microorganisms. The Seed Base Collection contains over 85 000 accessions of 745 species, stored at –20°C and 5% seed water content. Most accessions stored in the base collection are of commodity species (soybean, corn, wheat, rice, beans and barley).


The genetic resources network's major contribution is in maintaining agrobiodiversity, minimizing genetic erosion and ensuring current and future human food security, particularly for the Brazilian population. Additionally, the knowledge generated by RENARGEN should influence the sustainability of agricultural systems by the use of well-adapted cultivars, livestock breeds and microorganisms that will contribute to greater production stability, productivity and technological quality, conferring on them desirable agronomic, nutritional and market characters. Expertise and training opportunities are made available to support other related national, regional and international programmes as needed.


Evolution of the Canadian Plant Germplasm System Ken W. Richards Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre,

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Introduction Canada's national plant seed genebank, Plant Gene Resources of Canada (PGRC), came into existence in 1970 and plays a major role in the long-term ex situ conservation and preservation of plant germplasm in Canada and internationally. Formal plant germplasm conservation in Canada began as a result of a technical conference, ”Exploration, Utilization and Conservation of Plant Gene Resources”, sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome in 1967. A meeting was convened during 1968 in Ottawa by the Research Branch of Agriculture Canada to develop a national policy for the permanent preservation of desirable germplasm in a seed bank. This resulted in the appointment of Dr Roland Loiselle as the first germplasm officer in Canada in 1970 and the creation of PGRC in Ottawa, Ontario. The Clonal genebank (CGB) came into existence in Trenton, Ontario in 1980 as the principal site for the preservation of clonally propagated fruit crops. PGRC's and CGB's mandate is similar to most other genebanks in the world and is to protect, preserve, and enhance the genetic diversity of Canadian crop plants and their wild relatives by acquiring, evaluating, researching and documenting plant genetic resources to provide fundamental genetic building blocks for crop variety development, bio-based product development and plant genetic studies, nationally and internationally. This mandate is well represented in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) Biodiversity Action Plan created in response to the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy as Canada's response to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). By signing and ratifying the CBD, Canada has committed itself to ensuring the survival and sustainable use of genetic resources (Anonymous 1995; Harvey and Fraleigh 1995; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1997; Greenfield and Richer 1997). Over the past 32 years, PGRC and the national plant genetic resource system have undergone a number of significant transformations related to structure, facilities, staff, location, initiatives and funding. A number of these changes are the result of recommendations from a number of external and internal reviews (1987, 1988, 1991/1992, 1999) of programmes. Two events are significant: the establishment in 1992 of the federal government's Green Plan and the 1995 announcement to relocate PGRC from Ottawa to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and the Clonal genebank from Trenton to Harrow, Ontario in new facilities. Green Plan The Canadian distributed repository system for plant germplasm came into existence in 1992 under the federal government’s Green Plan which was responding to recommendations regarding enhancement of germplasm conservation in Canada. The targeted funding ($5m over 5 years) linked regeneration, characterization and evaluation of germplasm with locations in Canada where plant breeding programmes existed. This action was consistent with FAO recommendations that the expertise of plant breeders be used to characterize, regenerate and document the diversity in collections. Initially five nodes were established: (1) potato: Fredericton, New Brunswick; (2) cereal: Winnipeg, Manitoba; (3) forage: Lethbridge, Alberta; (4) crucifers: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; and (5) hardy ornamentals, new and specialty crops: Morden, Manitoba. The nodes were responsible for regeneration,


characterization and evaluation of their germplasm, but not distribution, viability testing or documentation, which were done centrally at PGRC. The Green Plan had a number of successes as considerable germplasm was regenerated and thus saved and secured, some new characterization and evaluation data were acquired, together with new accessions and the Green Plan gave Canada a National Programme with relevant expertise. However, there were some problems. After five years of targeted funding, no firm commitments for continuity at designated sites existed even though that was the initial intent. One node ceased to exist, another significantly reduced its efforts and another moved to a new location. Node staff and resources were under the control of local managers and not centrally managed, so the dedicated funds did not always remain as proposed and targeted. Different nodes operated differently in spite of attempts at coordination and thus had different levels of success. Relocation and change The federal government in its 1995 budget announced PGRC and CGB would move to new improved and secure facilities. PGRC moved from Ottawa to Saskatoon and CGB moved from Trenton to Harrow. For PGRC the dedicated facility in Ottawa conserved the germplasm at international standards, but the building itself had little environmental control. The moves allowed the collections to be closer to more users, facilitating greater utilization and collaboration. The CGB moved into newly constructed and state-of-the-art greenhouses and screenhouses with increased emphasis on plant health and maintenance. The overall mandate for the national system was revised prior to the relocations to encourage improved operations to better meet client expectations. Prior to 1998 the focus of the Canadian genetic resource programme was service-oriented and little publishable in-depth research was conducted. Since then research scientists have been hired and the analysis of genetic variation within the seed collection has been significantly increased. Several research papers have been published in internationally recognized journals. As an example, molecular analysis of genepools in flax, genetic erosion/drift in breeding programmes (oat) and native grass evaluations have been completed. Detailed characterization and evaluation of flax, oat and pulse crops will lead to a number of publications. Plant pathology research is focusing on screening collections for resistance to various pathogens in pulse crops, crucifers and sunflower. Some basic pollination ecology research is also taking place with emphasis on the genus Lotus. Another major change involved the adoption of the USDA GRIN database management system. Credibility of PGRC and the national plant germplasm system increased when the GRIN-CA database went live on the Internet in 2001. Other significant changes involved rationalization of the collection for relevancy, increasing linkages with the USDA and a number of foreign countries through Memoranda of Understanding and the acquisition of germplasm of national significance, including material unique (rare, threatened, or endangered) in Canada's biodiversity. Prior to moving the seed collection across Canada, a distance of more than 3500 km, detailed consideration was given to timing, method and security. In the end, PGRC and AAFC involved the Canadian Department of National Defence and obtained the services of a dedicated Hercules transport aircraft. The collection was divided; one part was transported by plane while the other part remained in Ottawa until the first was safe and secure in Saskatoon, and then the second was moved. The event was also managed as a communication event capturing significant national press coverage for PGRC as it moved Canada's future food supply in a safe and secure manner.


Documentation In the early years, 3 × 5 index cards and paper files were kept as electronic files and databases did not exist. These initial files were followed by a TAXIR software program, but this system quickly became obsolete. During the late 1980s and early 1990s the Canadian Agriculture Plant Genetic Resources System (CAPGRIS) based on System 1032 was being developed. This system along with a personal computer version of CAPGRIS never became fully operational. It had many individual files which did not link taxonomy or inventory with the accessions. In 1995 Canada adopted the USDA-GRIN system and modified it (GRIN-CA) to meet Canadian needs. GRIN-CA is currently fully functional and operational on the Internet (http://www.agr.gc.ca/pgrc-rpc). A significant element of GRIN-CA is its ability to support a distributed repository system like the Canadian one, with sites at PGRC, CGB and the nodes. This system allows the sites to manage their own data while the detailed programming is done centrally at PGRC. Using GRIN in Canada puts all of North America on a common database management system, thus facilitating the sharing of genetic resource information between Canada and the USA and the fulfilment of sophisticated programming needs. GRIN-CA contains information on accessions (passport), plant taxonomy and characterization and evaluation data, all of which can be searched. Inventory, viability, health status and distribution records are also recorded within the database to help manage the collections. The Web site also provides news about genetic resources activities in Canada and provides linkages to a number of international genebanks. Collection - acquisition In the early years the PGRC seed genebank focused acquisition of germplasm on a few genera with particular emphasis on germplasm of Canadian origin: barley, tomato, oat, wheat and alfalfa. Some international material was acquired from Botanic Gardens and selected European genebanks and institutes. During the mid-years (1980-1995) the collection significantly increased in size by acquiring germplasm from within Canada and internationally. A large collection of wheat and other cereals was obtained from the Regina Research Centre prior to its closing. Internationally, a number of significant collections were obtained through site collections, including wild oat and barley of Mediterranean origin, the world base collection of barley and oat, duplicate world base collections of pearl millet and crucifers and most of the USDA barley and oat collections. During this same period an attempt was made to improve the management of the collection using lists of criteria describing what should enter the collection for several crop species. These lists were developed through consultation with stakeholders (breeders, pathologists) and included such items as Canadian developed cultivars, elite breeding material, germplasm with specific traits, international cultivars and wild species in potentially useful genepools. The problem with this approach was that the criteria were generally too broad and failed to leave anything out. Some criteria were very restrictive and limited the growth of the collection. These criteria lists are no longer in use. Since 1995 selection of new acquisitions has been targeted specifically to fill in gaps in the collection: geographic or desired traits. Emphasis has been given to Canadian developed cultivars, some elite germplasm and germplasm with highly desired traits to solve current production problems. It is significant that PGRC is slowly acquiring selected native Canadian plant species, including rare or endangered material. The latter forms part of PGRC/AAFC's commitment to the departments’ Action Plan, the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, the CBD and more recently the Agriculture Policy Framework (APF).


Funding Funding of the Canadian plant germplasm system comes from a number of sources, the main one being the federal government through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Funds are also obtained through competitive research grants, contracts and agreements with grower associations, provincial governments, private industry and non-governmental organizations. Particularly unique in Canada and AAFC is the Matching Investment Initiative (MII) programme whereby worthy projects from industry, grower associations or NGOs may be matched with federal dollars. PGRC has been able to take advantage of these options in funding to enhance its research programme for specific projects and is constantly seeking new partnerships and agreements to help fulfil its mandate. Linkages PGRC has developed a number of formal and informal linkages over the years. When PGRC accepted formal responsibility to manage the international world base collections (barley, oat, pearl millet and crucifers), a number of letters of agreement were signed with IPGRI, ICARDA and FAO. These agreements still remain in effect. Recently PGRC has increased international linkages through a number of bilateral agreements with a number of countries, institutes and NGOs including China, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Ukraine, Seeds of Diversity, Canada, USDA/ARS National Centre for Genetic Resources Preservation, VIR (N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation) and VNIIL (All Russian Flax Research Institute, Torzhok, Russian Federation). In the future PGRC and the Canadian national system intend to continue interactions with our regional partner, the USDA/ARS, internationally with specific institutes and scientists on specific research projects and nationally with a number of partners receiving some external funding. Regeneration, characterization and evaluation Regeneration of seeds in storage and characterization and evaluation are important parts of the work of any genebank and PGRC is no exception. Most crop species are regenerated and characterized at Saskatoon in either the field or greenhouse. However, it is recognized that additional sites across Canada and internationally are required as the growing season at Saskatoon is short, with low cumulative heat units. There is a high risk of winter kill for some perennial species. The distributed repository system helps to solve this problem. Clonal germplasm (tree and small fruits) is conserved at Harrow and potato germplasm at Fredericton. Numerous other sites across Canada are used for regeneration and some characterization/evaluation as follows: soybean: Harrow; winter wheat: Lethbridge, Alberta; winter barley: Delhi, Ontario, low-bush blueberry: Kentville, Nova Scotia. The Crucifer and Forage nodes, located at Saskatoon, regenerate, characterize and evaluate related crop species while the Cereal node at Winnipeg, Manitoba characterizes and evaluates cereal crops. Specific crop descriptor lists for Canada have been generated for several crop species. Several informative sources including the USDA-GRIN, the extensive publications from IPGRI and those of other genebanks have been used to develop the lists. After the lists are generated they are subjected to an extensive consultation process involving Canadian plant breeders, pathologists, quality specialists and others where relevant. The consultation process targets Canadian clients and through the process hopefully facilitates buy-in and use of the germplasm, database and information. Almost all agrobotanic data is obtained during the regeneration cycles while more specific evaluations such as pathology and quality require collaboration with specialist researchers. All data is entered into GRIN-CA.


Reviews (external and internal) The Canadian plant germplasm systems, PGRC and CGB, have undergone at least four external and internal reviews by qualified experts over the past 17 years. Strengths and weaknesses were identified and recommendations made for change. This has resulted in significant improvements in management and operation of the system and generally improved the status of the conservation of germplasm in Canada. The first external review was in 1987 by IBPGR and concerned Canada's ability to manage base collections. The review found unacceptable storage conditions, an outdated software system (TAXIR), problems with filing international agreements, regeneration attempts failing due to AAFC's inability to accept financial support from IBPGR, a lack of qualified personnel, equipment, storage space, viability testing, drying and packaging. A summary stated this was a classic case of erosion of PGR in a genebank (RAFI Communique 1987). An internal AAFC review of the Clonal repository in 1990-1991 revealed that the repository was operating satisfactorily with the programme focusing on priorities dating from a 1988 national Clonal Workshop on genetic resources. However, deficiencies were also noted, including a lack of linkage and integration with PGRC, lack of a national database, no evidence of a national network with breeders; virus testing status was of concern and a national advisory committee was recommended. At about the same time (1990-1991) an internal review of PGRC took place. The PGRC review revealed progress had been made in seed processing and storage, but concerns were expressed that the Ottawa facility may already be operating at capacity. Many deficiencies were noted, including: lack of leadership, coordination and linkages throughout Canada; lack of a national database, characterization, evaluation and management data not entered electronically and not available for use by clients; regeneration operations needed a major overhaul; viability testing was of concern; the inclusion of some germplasm in the collection was questioned; and international linkages needed to be strengthened. Recommendations from these two reviews resulted in the federal government and AAFC establishing the Green Plan as presented above and the establishment of the distributed repository system in Canada. Several other recommendations were acted upon, including Canada joining the FAO Commission on PGRFA, but not signing the International Undertaking; better defining the role of the Canadian Expert Committee on Plant and Microbial Genetic Resources; and PGRC storing the voucher specimens for the Plant Breeders Rights Office of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In 1999 PGRC underwent an external review after the relocation to Saskatoon and the new research programme had been operating for a short time. This review was very positive and reinforced the new mandate and research direction for PGRC. However, recommendations for improvement were made. These included PGRC continuing to increase its national credibility by demonstrating its national presence through a functional database reflecting input from the CGB and the Nodes. This was done as GRIN-CA database became operational soon after the review. PGRC needed to establish a safe and secure back-up for its collection. This was done through a memorandum of understanding with the USDA-ARS and the National Centre for Genetic Resource Preservation, Ft. Collins, Colorado, U.S.A. A recommendation was made to expand the collection with emphasis on gaps, such as in the crucifers, and to do this through foreign collecting expeditions as additional funds became available. This has been done as foreign collecting missions have been undertaken and each year collecting within Canada takes place. There is a continual need to review the staff requirements especially for research and maintaining the database. This is an ongoing exercise and a new plant pathologist was hired in 2002. Improved storage conditions for certain species, such as forage crops and crucifers, was recommended and acted upon through activation of the new cryopreservation facility available within PGRC. A research emphasis was recommended in the area of core collections with refinements at the molecular


level. This recommendation endorsed current research on flax and oats, which is now nearing completion. Now and the future Over the past two to three years AAFC has been undergoing another major reorganization. This effort has included a restructuring of all research studies within AAFC including plant and microbial genetic resource collections. PGRC, the CGB, the nodes and the microbial collection all report as part of the Environment Team and within the Biodiversity Theme. For the first time all plant and microbial genetic resource activities in Canada are under one national team and theme, leadership and management. All activities and resources are under one national study with an objective to enhance the capacity to conserve genetic resources and generate benefits from them through the development of strains, cultivars and bio-based products and in support of regulatory requirements. Specifically this involves the acquisition, maintenance and distribution of genetic resources consistent with our commitments to the FAO Treaty, regeneration of acquisitions, documentation through GRIN-CA, characterization, evaluation and analysis, and the development of domesticated diversity indicators. Canada has an extensive plant germplasm system which has been strengthened and expanded mainly by acting on recommendations from internal and external reviews. There are still areas which need strengthening through more resources for professional staff to conduct more detailed research. For example, it would be desirable to (1) have more detailed diversity analysis of the collection; (2) be able to explain genetic variation better through integration of GIS and molecular technologies; (3) carry out more evaluation of quality and value-added traits through collaboration with specialists; (4) acquire a better understanding of Canada's native plant biodiversity; and (5) continue to expand links with institutes and scientists nationally and internationally. Other comments Canada is not unique in the world in its increased awareness of the importance of biodiversity and germplasm conservation. Through commitments made by the federal government and the AAFC Biodiversity Theme there are opportunities to enhance our capacity to conserve germplasm and generate benefits from them. Canada does not have national legislation to meet these opportunities and does not need legislation as the federal government and AAFC department already believe conserving plant genetic resources is the responsibility of the state. It is recognized that private industry will not become actively involved in germplasm conservation. However, it is important for one federal government department or site to be responsible for national coordination of plant genetic resource programmes and conservation efforts. It has been PGRC's experience that understanding and future support from policy and decision-makers comes mainly through the delivery of a worthy, relevant and proven track record of accomplishments where goals are consistently met and exceeded. Only then may additional resources be forthcoming. Reliable additional funding, either from the government or elsewhere, is always needed for genetic resource systems and genebanks. Reliable and sufficient funding forms a major continuing problem for many national genetic resource programmes. Extensive and continual lobbying of policy and decision makers as the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) has done for the USDA National Plant Germplasm System is an effective means to increase budgets and other resources. The ASTA's efforts have doubled the USDA budget over the past five years at a time when other parts of the budget were being reduced. This could not have been possible without a proven track record of achievement. Over the years the Canadian plant germplasm system has undergone a number of external and internal reviews of its


programme. Although reviews may provoke anxiety, if managed well by inviting national stakeholders and decision-makers (industry, academic, government and NGOs) to contribute ideas, the outcomes have resulted in a better managed national genetic resource programme and have facilitated commitments by those involved. Reviews can be used to one's advantage! References Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1997. Biodiversity Initiatives. Agriculture and Agri-Food

Canada. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. 33pp. Anonymous. 1995. Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, Canada’s Response to the Convention on

Biological Diversity. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. 80pp. Greenfield, J. and N. Richer. 1997. Biodiversity Initiatives. Canadian Agricultural Producers.

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. 66pp. Harvey, B.L. and B. Fraleigh. 1995. Impacts on Canadian agriculture of the Convention on

Biological and Biological Diversity. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75:17-21. RAFI Communique. 1987. A report on the security of the world’s major gene banks. 9pp.


Networking: the French Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources Management Martine Mitteau1, Grégoire Thomas2, Eric Teissier du Cros3, Annick Le Blanc4, Agnès Ricart1, Andrée Sontot1, Gautier Pereira1 and Dominique Planchenault1 1 Bureau des ressources génétiques (BRG), Paris, France 2 Ecole nationale supérieure agronomique de Rennes - Institut national de la recherche agronomique

(ENSAR-INRA), Rennes, France 3 INRA, Avignon, France 4 Groupe d'étude et de contrôle des variétés et des semences (GEVES), Le Magneraud, France A long tradition in France Sampling, collection, acclimatization, domestication, selection and genetic improvement of plants with botanical, agricultural, horticultural, landscape, forestry and/or industrial value are well-established practices in France. For more than two centuries these activities have involved many stakeholders. They take place on the mainland and in the overseas territories, most of which are found in tropical regions. This led in the 1960s to the establishment of numerous ex situ plant collections, such as breeders' working collections, species collections in botanical gardens, amateurs' private collections, etc. But at the same time, a major risk of genetic erosion arose, linked with intensified farming characterized by the use of high-performance varieties and a significant reduction in the genetic diversity in use. The 1960s were also the time of extensive development of natural protected areas for in situ flora preservation through national parks and national nature reserves. The first nature reserve was created in the Camargue in 1928. But meanwhile, the risk of human influence has grown significantly, with increased urbanization and human activity impacting on the natural environment and on wild native species. In 1983: a political will 1983 saw the expression of willingness, at the political level, to coordinate and structure the pre-existing initiatives on animal, plant and microbial genetic diversity and to elaborate a national strategy for genetic resources. Rather than basing it on an existing body, the public authorities chose to create a new governmental institution, called Bureau des Ressources Génétiques (BRG), under the regulatory authority of the ministry in charge of research. Currently, BRG is an inter-ministerial body made up of 13 members as a ”scientific group“, with the aim of working together on genetic resources:

Six Ministries, in charge of Research, Industry, Agriculture, Environment, Overseas Territories and International Cooperation; and

Seven public scientific organizations: 1. INRA (Institut national de la recherche agronomique - National Institute for

Agronomic Research); 2. MNHN (Muséum national d'histoire naturelle - National Museum for Natural

History); 3. CNRS (Centre national de la recherche scientifique - National Centre for Scientific

Research); 4. IRD (Institut de recherche pour le développement - Research Institute for

Development);


5. CIRAD (Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement - Centre for International Cooperation in Agronomic Research for Development);

6. IFREMER (Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer - French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea); and

7. GEVES (Groupe d’étude et de contrôle des variétés et des semences - Group for the Study and Monitoring of Varieties and Seeds).

BRG is composed of: - An Inter-ministerial Committee and a ”Group Council”, to decide on political and

strategic issues and lay down the broad outlines of BRG activity; - A Scientific Commission which is consulted by the Group Council on the implementation

of proposed policies and is responsible for the scientific supervision of issues under the BRG mandate;

- Three specialized Commissions for animals, plants and micro-organisms to foster dialogue and coordination;

- A ”Core Team”, with a President and eight to nine permanent staff to run it. All members are represented within the Group Council (Fig. 1), the Inter-ministerial Committee only by the representative of each ministry.

Fig. 1. Structure of BRG.

The mandate of BRG and its implementation In 1993, with the new status of ”scientific group”, a four-section mandate was entrusted to BRG. It is a wide mandate as it covers all activities related to genetic resources, from management to national and international expertise, through research and information: 1. The first section is to promote reflection and consultation and to harmonize actions at the

national level by: - drawing up and implementing the National Charter for the Management of Genetic

Resources in France; - operating networks to streamline conservation on national initiatives and to

harmonize them with international obligations and action plans;


- fostering dialogue through specialized commissions as an input/output exchange, to inform, explain and in return, to identify the major issues with the stakeholders;

- conducting studies on major unresolved issues (legal status of genetic resources, cost of their management, quality assurance, etc.);

- participating in the elaboration of national regulations of genetic resources. 2. The second mission is to promote scientific research and transfer of knowledge by:

- supporting research through national calls for proposals (about 1 million euros over two years);

- organizing scientific colloquia (for example, at the end of each call for proposals) and workshops bringing together researchers and managers; BRG fosters dialogue between researchers and managers of genetic resources as we know that they are mutually dependent;

- publishing proceedings and reports; - contributing to academic training.

3. The third mission deals with information communication and public awareness by:

- administering a Web server (www.brg.prd.fr) constituting the ”genetic resources” part of the French Clearing House Mechanisms on biodiversity;

- publishing a newsletter ”La Lettre du BRG”; - steering an editorial policy (books, papers, guidelines, booklets, posters, videos, etc.); - issuing press releases and press conferences to provide information about the main

aspects of BRG activity and major events; - taking part in exhibitions and conferences.

4. The fourth and last mission is to provide French expertise and representation in

European and International forums: - in European and global structures and programmes such as IPGRI, FAO, ECP/GR; - within the framework of international forums: Conference of the Parties to the

Convention on Biological Diversity, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, OECD, WIPO, etc..

A National Charter for the Management of Genetic Resources When French ministries entrusted BRG with organizing the management of genetic resources at the national level, mobilization of all participants involved in drawing up the broad lines of a national strategy in this field was rather easy. The resulting strategy is described in the ”National Charter for the Management of Genetic Resources in France” (BRG 1998) (Fig. 2), which is intended to be consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, in 1992) and the FAO Global Plan of Action (GPA, in 1996). The National Charter defines, for animal, plant and microbial genetic resources, the national policy, as elaborated and implemented by stakeholders and policy-makers and as adopted, in the end, by parent organizations. For plant genetic resources, the National Programme relies on networks of participants who commit themselves to collectively maintain National Collections of genetic resources on a species basis.


Fig. 2. The National Charter.

A decentralized management system As large national genebanks are expensive and far from end-users, i.e. those who are in the best position to evaluate and develop them, France has chosen a decentralized system of genetic resources management. Its major aims are to: - involve the users of genetic resources in their management, thereby ensuring their

utilization and development; - take into account all aspects of plant genetic diversity as part of the natural heritage as

well as strategic and economic input; - gather all the known expertise into each network, in order to facilitate management and

documentation of all accessions; - involve private stakeholders, including NGOs, as well as public ones; - share the cost of management activities between the French state and industry. Each

partner in a network has to participate by taking charge of some of the work of conservation, evaluation, regeneration, etc.

This system aims to involve the various participants in the constitution and long-term monitoring of a genetic reservoir, distributing tasks and sharing costs, while ensuring coordination within a common management and policy framework. It enables both in situ (forest trees, wild relatives) and ex situ management and conservation (small grain cereals, forage crops, endangered or scattered forest trees, etc.), involving dynamic, on-farm management as well as static cold house or deep-freeze conservation. A network for a National Collection Ensuring the conservation and availability of a National Collection is the core activity of each network. Following the recommendations of the National Charter for the Management of Genetic Resources, a National Collection has to: - gather genetically diverse material in significant but manageable amounts and to make

available relevant accessions; - gather in situ or ex situ representative material sampled on French territory with a view to

preserving genetic heritage. For admission to a National Collection, an accession must match one of the criteria listed below: - French cultivars removed from the French or European catalogues of varieties; - landraces and local varieties from France;


- French or foreign genitors, in particular those which have given in their lineage varieties registered in the French or European catalogues;

- material which has been collected in French territories; - material known for the presence of identified genes, such as genotypes used as controls

in certain nurseries or trials; - material which is little known, but which is recognized as a genetic resource, and whose

supply or collection remains difficult. The accessions of each National Collection have to be documented for multicrop passport data and for some primary characters. They are available under facilitated access according to the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (2001). The objectives of each network are to ensure long-term conservation and sustainable use of National Collections and to share responsibilities and conservation tasks. The building of a network The inventory of existing collections, for a crop or a group of related crops is the starting point for a new network. BRG suggests linking the interested stakeholders, so-called curators, collection by collection. Curators (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6) form the network. They participate, along with others, in the conservation, characterization, evaluation and regeneration of material. The coordinator and the members of the coordination group are curators designated by their peers. They organize and monitor the running of the network; they provide to third parties accessions from the National Collection of the network. The steering committee is needed to guarantee the scientific and technical quality of network activities and to ensure consistency with the regulations and national commitments. It is composed of some curators of the network and the coordinator of representatives of public authorities and of economic actors of the commodity chain. The committee is chaired by BRG. The structure of a network is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Structure of a network.


Networks, organized by species or a group of species, link partners with extremely diverse motivations—private (seed firms, NGOs) and public organizations (research, development)—and contribute to the dynamics of management and conservation of genetic resources. They can also include partners at both national and regional levels, in an efficient and representative coverage of both heritage and germplasm fields. Participants of each network have committed themselves by signing specific charters describing the organization, goals and members of the network, rights and obligations of the members and working methods in agreement with principles listed in the above-mentioned National Charter. Individual charters also provide technical guidance on internal rules of procedure compliant with international standards. Like all other countries involved in this policy area, France has a conservation responsibility towards the international community, in accordance with the idea of global resource management task-sharing. From this point of view, the French networks contribute actively to the ECP/GR and EUFORGEN programmes, coordinated by IPGRI. Content and documentation of a network If we consider the whole material held by individual curators, the network collection is composed of a selection of accessions that the curators decide to manage together, to streamline their conservation efforts and to ensure their long-term management. Each accession is fully described; the Network Database is a compilation of the whole documentation of the network collection. Accessions enter the National Collection from the network collection if curators agree that they meet one of the criteria for admission listed above and they do not create redundancy between accessions within the National Collection. The network lists all the accessions of the National Collection with their passport data and some primary characters. The National Inventory consists in the compilation of all the data from the network (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Links between Network Collection and National Collection.


In a network, tasks are shared between the curators on the collectively defined National Collection to ensure: - conservation within three banks: a long-term bank for maintenance, a safety-duplicate

bank and an active bank for distribution; - regeneration of accessions when necessary, checked by germination and sanitary

controls; - characterization and evaluation (passport data, primary characterization, evaluation

network); computerization and database management; - availability of accessions for distribution. Each task needed for the management of the genetic resources is fully described in the rules of procedure. Networks currently functioning Twenty-nine networks with charters and rules of procedure duly drawn up have been created in France. They are listed in Table 1. Table 1. The French Networks Crop group (no. of networks) Networks

Field crop species (8)

Beets Fodder and lawn species Large-seeded Leguminoseae Maize Potatoes Rape Small grain cereals Sunflower

Fruit species (6)

Figs and mulberries Grapevine Nuts Olives Pome fruits Prunus

Ornamentals and industrial species (4)

Hydrangea Lavenders Pelargonium Roses

Vegetables (9)

Allium Artichokes and cardoons Carrots Chicories Lentils Market Solanaceae Muskmelons Strawberries Vegetable Cruciferae

Dynamic in situ management (2) Forest trees Wild relatives

For tropical and Mediterranean species, the national organization is slightly different as the genetic resources of tropical species are subject to a more complex legal context. A ”platform” brings together IRD, INRA and CIRAD in Montpellier to put together their skills and knowledge in the areas of conservation and use of this material, its phytosanitary indexation, with related expertise and training.


International context The involvement of partners in the network, particularly users, provides the necessary guarantee for long-term viable conservation and facilitated access. It enables germplasm evaluation in compliance with individual requirements as well as gradual evolution aimed at greater utilization. Their continuous involvement also allows and facilitates the awareness and the consultation required for international forums and negotiations. - French networks participate directly in the European programmes ECP/GR and

EUFORGEN, with BRG acting as national coordinator; - French networks are also coordinators or participants in projects under EU programmes

(GENRES), BRG acting as the French representative in the committees elaborating and managing the programmes;

- French networks contribute to the implementation of the Global Plan of Action of the FAO, under the auspices of BRG.


Conflicting interests in plant genetic resources Jaap J. Hardon Former Director, CGN the Netherlands, Wageningen, the Netherlands Introduction Plant genetic resources are an essential component of agriculture worldwide. For thousands of years, since the dawn of agriculture, biological diversity and genetic resources of crops were considered a gift of nature, a common heritage to be shared by all people. As plants were domesticated and evolved into crops, farmers realized their mutual interdependence for genetic diversity as crops spread from their original centres of diversity and were introduced into new environments and adapted to an ever-widening range of different environmental conditions. Crop improvement takes place as an evolutionary process, each generation of farmers making use of the efforts of past generations in a slow process of change, providing food and other products for domestic security. The benefits to human society did not arise from individuals claiming ownership of their contributions to improvement, but from sharing and especially using those improvements. Considering genetic diversity as a common asset is basic to farming communities worldwide. Good neighbourliness is an essential survival strategy of farming communities and has provided us with this incredible richness of crops and their diversity. It is a sobering thought that through modern science we have not added any really new crops, in spite of enormous investments in plant breeding and agricultural research and lately biotechnology. We are still totally dependent on what we inherited from the past efforts of farmers. Starting from the Industrial Revolution, and ever gaining momentum in the twentieth century, the common good principle attached to plant genetic resources has been eroded. In the process, farmers have become increasingly pushed to the sideline, their role reduced from communal owners of their crops to producers of agricultural commodities chained to ever-increasing dependency on industrial rules and regulations limiting their control over their planting material. From an agricultural philosophy of shared benefits and mutual interdependence, farming has become integrated into industrial processes governed by an “industrial philosophy” aimed at market control, greed and individual profits. Not the common good, but gaining control is what increasingly guides modern developments surrounding plant genetic resources. I am not bemoaning the loss of a better past, because clearly the past was not better, at least in economic terms. What I want to discuss is how plant genetic resources as a concept changed, notably over the last 50 years, and how it affects our efforts to conserve it. We are increasingly subject to often conflicting developments in which plant genetic resources are merely a pawn, subject to wider national, political and linked industrial interests, rather than a common good basic to food security and the livelihood of rural people. I will try to do that by analyzing various, and often conflicting, international developments in the context of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). These include the FAO International Treaty on PGRFA, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), intellectual ownership issues as reflected in Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) and UPOV and patent protection as embedded in WIPO and WTO-TRIPS. I will touch on how plant breeding is affected by biotechnology and how that affects the whole structure of plant breeding and access to PGRFA. Finally I will try to analyze what all this means for the role of PGRFA in plant breeding and our efforts to conserve these resources.


Like farmers we, as conservers, are in danger of becoming marginalized in the overall debate. People interested in PGRFA conservation generally do not choose this profession to gain scientific recognition or for its financial rewards. They tend rather to be motivated by the beauty of biological diversity and a sense of shared responsibility that a natural heritage should not be squandered in a world ruled by economy and personal gain. In short we are, collectively I may add, too nice and naïve. We need to have our voices heard and argue our case more aggressively than we do. We should not leave developments to bureaucrats and policy-makers, to lawyers and corporate interests, but speak up and insist on being heard in the international debate. There follows a modest attempt to do so. FAO International Treaty on PGRFA Debate on the Treaty started around 1983. Initially it responded to concerns since the 1930s that important sources of genetic diversity contained in a multitude of locally adapted landraces were being lost. This loss was a natural outcome of the introduction of modern agriculture. In traditional agriculture, crops and cropping systems were adapted to local environments and responding to natural balances in pests and diseases. This required genetic diversity in time and space in the planting material subject to continuous natural and human selection in an evolutionary process. The main objective was yield security rather than maximizing production. With the introduction of external inputs, such as fertilizers, chemical protection agents, mechanization and increasing irrigation in the past century, a dramatic change occurred, reversing the process. Now the environment was increasingly adapted to the requirements of individual crops, reducing the need for local adaptation and aimed at maximum yield. A natural outcome of this development was crop varieties, primarily selected for yield. To cope with the problem of genetic erosion caused by modern agriculture, the need for ex situ conservation became apparent and led to the establishment of genebanks. To gain a logically based acceptance of this need took some time and gradually led to an increasing number of genebanks, gaining momentum with the establishment of the CGIAR in the 1970s. An important stimulus for the FAO Treaty followed from increasing concerns in developing countries that PGRFA concentrated in the tropics and subtropics was considered a free resource while the products of this diversity in modern varieties were increasingly subject to intellectual ownership as embodied in the specialized PBR legislation. However, after some heated and at times acrimonious debate, spurred on notably by some vocal NGOs, it was realized that PBR legislation was carefully drafted to maintain free access to protected varieties as a genetic resource for further breeding. A major outcome was the recognition of PGRFA as a ”Heritage of Humankind” and the need to maintain open access in the interests of agriculture. This came about because some national representatives in the FAO Commission on PGRFA were plant breeders and argued their case convincingly. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Independently from the Treaty, negotiations on a global Convention on Biological Diversity started in the late 1980s, culminating in its adoption in the massive UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The text of the CBD was dominated by nature conservationists who viewed concern for conservation as a national issue requiring international support. The dominating concept was to recognize National Sovereignty and national responsibility over the biological diversity within national borders. As such, anything within national borders is of course the responsibility of the government. A second problem was created by the priority attached to in situ over ex situ conservation, which seemed logical for natural biological diversity.


Both concepts were in the CBD also applied to plant genetic resources, and clearly are in conflict with the FAO principle of PGRFA as an international ”Heritage of Humankind” including the special nature of PGRFA requiring ex situ conservation. Since in the hierarchy of international agreements a Convention has a higher status than what was then termed the FAO Undertaking, the predecessor of the Treaty, it meant that the FAO debate was back to square one. It became necessary to adapt the text of the FAO Treaty to be compatible with the CBD. Considering the fundamental differences between both international agreements, this led to a confused and long process of compromising between conflicting formulations in the Treaty. These negotiations were dominated by legal experts seeking compromise wordings. While lawyers tend to revel in such problems, it seems to have been forgotten that the laws of nature and requirements of plant breeding do not lend themselves to re-interpretation. Either they make sense or they don’t. A lawyer's solution is to lard the texts with ”if possible” and ”when appropriate”, avoiding any binding solutions or real commitments in the agreements when problems occur. To limit the damage to open access, a separate multilateral arrangement was proposed by IPGRI through the FAO to agree on the principle of open access for selected crops to which countries could sign up separately. The irony of this is obvious. Through this multilateral agreement, the PGRFA community attempted to revert to a pre-CBD situation of open access and limit the damage done to PGRFA as a common asset. Farmers' Rights Both the CBD and the FAO Treaty include the concept of Farmers' Rights, recognizing the important role farmers, past and present, play in harnessing and conserving PGRFA through use. Farmers' Rights were conceived to give farmers credit for their contributions to crop improvement by analogy with Plant Breeders' Rights in the commercial plant breeding sector. However, in farmer seed systems landraces are considered a common asset and individual ownership is not recognized. It is also often not possible to identify the original farmer breeder since landraces evolve in evolutionary processes of selection, involving many farmers and leading to complexes of genetically diverse planting material grown by different farmers and often even different communities. Thus it is impossible to interpret Farmers' Rights in terms of individual financial rewards. Hence, as a concept, it only gives expression to the important role that farmers play in harnessing and developing genetic diversity into useful planting material. It also highlighted the importance of in situ plant genetic resources maintained in farmers' fields. However, it also led to an artificial conflict between ex situ conservation in genebanks and in situ conservation in nature (wild relatives of crops) and in farmers' fields. Clearly both systems of conservation are complementary. In ex situ conservation, specific populations and varieties are conserved at a moment in time. In in situ conservation, pools of genetic diversity are maintained over time, in processes of dynamic change caused by natural and human selection and exchange between farmers. Hence in farmer seed systems replacement of specific varieties may result in loss of specific landraces, but overall genetic diversity is conserved through use. This may be clear to biologists and plant breeders but it caused considerable misunderstanding among policy-makers, legal experts and representatives of NGOs involved in the international negotiations. Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) While the negotiations surrounding the FAO Treaty and the CBD went on, biotechnology entered the scene around the 1980s. Biotechnologists, supported by private industry interests, successfully insisted on terming their contributions, made by isolating genes and transferring them across natural species barriers, as innovations covered by IPR (patents).


The primary function of a patent is that it excludes the use of the product or processes by anyone other than the rights' holder. This is clearly in conflict with PBR and in fact with the whole concept of plant breeding based on evolutionary processes and free use of past achievements for further crop improvement. Multinational pharmaceutical and chemical corporations, dominating biotechnological research, saw in this development an opportunity to enter the seed industry. This led to a bewildering restructuring of the seed industry leaving a small number of transnational corporations in control of the seed trade. Hence, plant breeding, hitherto in the agricultural sector and guided by a modest agricultural philosophy and the interests of farmers, became a tool in the hands of an aggressive industrial complex ruled by profit and market control. PBR was viewed by this industry as totally inadequate to protect their interests and ambitions. The industry wanted and expected biotechnology to serve their global interests. This was at the expense of the investments of traditional plant breeding and the importance attached to crop genetic resources. These developments are a direct threat to the role of genebanks as an important component of crop improvement and therefore concern us all. When we take stock of what biotechnology has contributed to the improvement of crops and what has actually materialized of all that biotechnology promised in this area, the results are sobering. In more than 20 years of enormous investment in plant biotechnology, what do we see in farmers' fields? In 2002 genetically modified crops (GMOs) covered around 58 million hectares. GMOs are mainly restricted to four crops: soya (58%), corn (23%), cotton (12%) and canola (7%). Considering the actual new characteristics introduced, the results in seeds sold are even more modest. They are so far restricted to herbicide tolerance (69%), Bt insect resistance (21%), a combination of both (7%) and virus resistance (3%). Finally, these results have been achieved by Monsanto (80%), and the rest by such companies as Syngenta and Bayer Bioscience and others. This is not meant as criticism of biotechnology as a new development in agricultural science. As a geneticist, I am fascinated by its potential and what we have learned from it. However, plant biotechnology fell into the wrong hands - of an industry not guided by knowledge of agriculture or by the needs of farmers or by consumer interests. Biotechnology became primarily supply-oriented, serving the financial interests of corporations and shareholders. This industry misjudged the ability to manipulate nature and consumers where it concerns their food. In the process they harmed the reputation of biotechnology and of science as a whole. WTO/TRIPS The importance that major industrial countries, lobbied by transnational corporations, attached to IPR protection of biological materials, is evident from the separate TRIPS Agreement as part of the WTO negotiations. Member countries are obliged to enact IPR legislation, although the exact nature of such protection is left open, allowing different forms of so-called sui generis legislation [Articles 27(1) and 27(3)(b)]. While the debate on this issue is still in full swing, one thing is clear. The obligation to adopt IPR legislation as a condition to WTO membership provides industrial interests with an international platform to exert their influence. UPOV and WIPO, representing such interests, are particularly active. Relations between various international institutions The involvement of different international agreements and institutions in regulating plant genetic resources, notably in situ in farmer seed systems, but also as a consequence in ex situ, causes considerable confusion. Seen as a problem of the protection of IPR in international trade, the regulation of plant genetic resources falls within the competence of WTO and WIPO. If seen as a problem of food and agriculture, plant genetic resources fall within the


competence of FAO. As a natural resource, the CBD applies. All these international agreements must be interpreted within their own sphere of competence by states. However, since the area of plant genetic resources transgresses these various agreements, different interpretations cause considerable confusion. Conclusion The question is: how did we as scientists and conservationists let all this happen? First, the growing global political belief in the “blessings” of private industry and competition, which gained momentum in the 1980s, reduced funding for independent research in the public sector. To finance their research, research institutes and agricultural scientists increasingly depended on contractual research funded by private industry. This motivated biotechnological researchers in particular to promise spectacular results; crop varieties that would withstand drought and salinity, would be resistant to pests and diseases and in the process would lead to significant increases in productivity, all to secure funding. The industry believed these promises and saw opportunities for great financial rewards. Well-informed scientists did not generally share this optimism, but decided not to rock the boat and kept quiet. You don't argue with money. In the process plant breeding and use of crop genetic diversity took second place. The pressure on public-funded research removed independent and critical analyses. The industry is now faced with suspicious consumers, questioning the safety of genetically modified foods and their potential impact on biodiversity and questioning the control of their food by an industry with a poor track record in considering their concerns. Biotechnology suffered from attempting to introduce products to the market without proper independent research to analyze the consequences. We, as scientists are part of the problem. Most of us did not speak out. We retreated in our scientific interests and let all this happen. I call on all of you to raise your voice and get involved in the public debate. The time is right. Most corporations that entered plant biotechnology are losing money. It is time to put plant biotechnology back where it belongs, as publicly-funded research with the support of private industry till we really know what we are doing and what can be achieved. Private industry should translate research into practical applications, rather than controlling where research in biotechnology is going.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GPA IN EUROPE 43

PART III. STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION OF PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN EUROPE

Th. Hazekamp1, J. Watts2, N.M. Anishetty3 and J. Turok2 1 Consultant for International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, Italy 2 International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, Italy 3 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy Contents

INTRODUCTION 45

FINDINGS 46 National Programmes in Europe 47

National Programmes, plans and priorities 47 Stakeholder involvement and coordination 49 Policy and legislation 49 Education and training 50 Public awareness of the value of PGRFA conservation and use 51 PGRFA project status 51

Promoting networks for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture 52 In situ conservation 53

Surveying and inventorying 53 Activities to support on-farm and in situ conservation 54

Ex situ conservation 55 Sustaining existing ex situ collections 55 Regenerating threatened ex situ accessions 56 Supporting planned and targeted collecting of PGRFA 56 Expanding ex situ conservation activities 57

Characterization and evaluation 57 Setting priorities 57 Progress made with characterization and evaluation work 57 Cooperation with users 59 Electronic availability of characterization and evaluation data 59

Documentation 60 Setting priorities 60 Information systems for PGRFA 60

Utilization of plant genetic resources 61 Increasing genetic enhancement and base-broadening efforts 61 Promoting sustainable agriculture through diversification of crop production and broader diversity in crops 62 Promoting development and commercialization of underutilized crops and species 62 Supporting seed production and distribution 63 Developing new markets for local varieties and “diversity-rich” products 63


Responding to disasters and threats 63 Assisting farmers in disaster situations to restore agricultural systems 63 Developing monitoring and early warning systems for loss of PGRFA 63

OUTLOOK 64 Increasing the involvement of users in PGRFA programmes 64 Low level of public awareness activity 64 Addressing training needs 64 Increasing project support to PGRFA activities 65 Setting priorities for biodiversity surveys 65 Balance between on-farm management of PGRFA and in situ conservation of wild

relatives 65 Acquiring appropriate information systems and training 65 Data integration at the national level 65


Introduction This paper has been prepared jointly by IPGRI and FAO as an update on the status of National PGRFA Programmes in Europe. It provides an information resource for setting priorities within the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR) and at the IPGRI Regional Office for Europe. The paper also aims to report back to responding countries the overall results of the GPA monitoring process carried out by FAO in 2000, to enable countries to relate their own National Programme status to that of other European countries. The Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA) was adopted at the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources (Leipzig, Germany, 1996). It became the framework for the development and implementation of plant genetic resources activities worldwide. Since that time FAO has been monitoring the implementation of the GPA. Early monitoring efforts were based upon narrative reports by countries, but recently efforts have been undertaken to develop and use standardized questionnaires. In the future, FAO will continue to periodically monitor progress made by each country towards implementing the GPA, as it has been charged to do by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. A more comprehensive monitoring system was developed in 2002 by FAO in collaboration with IPGRI and other key stakeholders. The system includes the following improvements:

- use of a standardized approach and establishment of a database; - linking of questions to indicators; - building capacity of countries to manage and share information related to PGR; - increasing the role of stakeholders in information management in each country; - linkage between GPA monitoring and other reporting requirements.

The new system will be pilot-tested in several countries around the world, refined as a result of this process and then extended to all countries. This paper provides an example of how data collected through the GPA monitoring efforts can be used for analysis and decision-making. The analysis presented in this report is primarily based upon the responses from European countries to a questionnaire sent by FAO in 2000 (FAO 2000). The questionnaire was sent to 39 National PGR Focal Points in Europe. Thirty-one countries replied, which is an overall response rate of 79%, although not all countries responded to each question. The high response rate indicates the importance given to GPA implementation and monitoring by European countries. In some cases, the 2000 data were supplemented by data from countries responding to a survey in 1995, as documented in the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IPGRI/FAO 1995) and a survey carried out in 1998 by IPGRI (Gass and Thormann 1999) in the proceedings of the Symposium on the Implementation of the GPA in Europe held June 1998 in Braunschweig, Germany (survey referred to in text as IPGRI 1998). Regarding the 2000 survey, the following two points should be noted:

1. The questionnaire posed 83 questions organized around the 20 activity areas of the GPA. Thus, each activity area was addressed very broadly by the questionnaire, with between 2 and 12 questions for each activity area. Therefore, the survey provides indications about GPA status rather than a fine level of detail.

2. The questionnaires were sent to the National Focal Points nominated by FAO member governments for completion. FAO did not require countries to involve national stakeholders in completing the questionnaire and FAO did not cross-validate


the data provided. However, FAO reported to the Commission that greater coordination was generally needed among stakeholders within countries. Therefore, it may be assumed that the data is indicative of National Programme status, not an absolute representation of it because it may not incorporate information from all relevant stakeholders.

The responding countries were divided into three groups based on the United Nations Assessment Rates for 1999 (Table 1). The Assessment Rates are based on a country's share of world income and represent a country’s ”capacity to pay” towards the running cost of the United Nations. In addition to a trend analysis for the entire group of respondent countries, the subdivision by UN Assessment Rates provides an opportunity to analyze potential differences between countries that have been grouped using economic criteria. Table 1. Criteria for grouping of respondent countries UN Assessment Rate Group Criterion Low below 0.05% UN assessment rate Medium between 0.05% and 0.5% UN Rate High over 0.5% UN Rate Table 2 and Fig. 1 show how responding countries were grouped for the analysis. Table 2. Grouping of respondent countries Low UN Rate Medium UN Rate High UN Rate Albania Belarus Austria Armenia Czech Republic Finland Azerbaijan Greece Germany Bulgaria4 Hungary Italy Cyprus Ireland The Netherlands Estonia Poland Russian Federation Iceland Portugal Spain Latvia Romania Sweden Lithuania Slovenia Switzerland Macedonia (FYR) Turkey Slovakia Ukraine Yugoslavia5

Fig. 1. Responding countries by UN Assessment Rate Group.

Findings This section presents an overview of the findings as they relate to each of the 20 activity areas of the GPA. The information has been organized into the following sections that highlight European priority issues:

- National Programmes; - Ex situ conservation; - In situ conservation; - Characterization and evaluation; - Documentation; - Utilization of PGRFA; - Responding to disasters and threats.

4 Bulgaria only provided data about its programmes/projects without completing the entire

questionnaire. 5 Country name changed to Serbia and Montenegro on 4 February 2003.


Responding to disasters and threats was not identified as a high priority, but the information is presented here in an abbreviated form, without an in-depth analysis, in order to provide a complete record of the situation for GPA implementation in Europe. The other analysis for the other areas is more in-depth and draws upon additional data from 1995 and 1998. National Programmes in Europe National Programmes, plans and priorities The National Programme for PGRFA is the organization responsible for the implementation of a programme for the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA at the national level. Usually it abides by the principles and priorities laid out in a national plan for the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. Eighty-seven percent of responding countries in 2000 established an institutional entity, such as a national committee, responsible for managing the PGRFA programme at the national level. Two high UN Rate countries (Germany and the Netherlands) and two low UN Rate countries (Cyprus and Latvia) reported that they had no institutional entity for managing the PGRFA programme at the national level. In 1995, only 45% reported that a formal programme existed. Fifty percent of countries reported that they had no National Programme in place or that the National Programme was under development. Of those, seven countries were high UN Rate countries, five were medium UN Rate and nine were low UN Rate countries, so lack of a developed National Programme in 1995 was fairly well spread across countries regardless of the economic status. Eighty-three percent of respondents have a national plan for the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in place. Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia and Poland reported no national plan. Forty-four percent had these plans in place prior to 1996, the year in which the Global Plan of Action was developed and adopted (Fig. 2).

0

1

2

3

4

5

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Fig. 2. Year of establishment of national plans for conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA (Source: FAO 2000).


All countries reported that their national plans incorporate the GPA priority activity areas. Countries were asked to indicate their priorities in 1998 and 2000 (Fig. 3).

123456789

1011121314151617181920

GPA

Act

ivity

Are

a

Priority in 1998 Priority in 2000

HIGH LOW PRIORITY

Fig. 3. Priority setting by GPA activity area (Source: FAO 2000). The most important and least important areas for the year 2000 are shown in Table 3. The top priorities are to maintain ex situ collections, facilitating their use and building strong National Programmes. The facilitation of use of PGRFA seemed to be especially important for the medium and high UN Rate countries. In 1998 Surveying and Inventorying Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was rated among the top 5 priorities, but was replaced by Constructing Comprehensive Information Systems for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2000. This was mainly the result of a change in priority by the low UN Rate countries and to a lesser extent by the medium UN Rate countries. Table 3. GPA priorities in Europe (not ranked) (Source: FAO 2000) Top GPA priorities as set by countries Activity Area 5. Sustaining Existing Ex Situ Collections Activity Area 6. Regenerating Threatened Ex Situ Accessions Activity Area 9. Expanding the Characterization, Evaluation and Number of Core Collections to Facilitate Use Activity Area 15. Building Strong National Programmes Activity Area 17. Constructing Comprehensive Information Systems for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Lowest GPA priorities as set by countries Activity Area 3. Assisting Farmers in Disaster Situations to Restore Agricultural Systems Activity Area 12. Promoting Development and Commercialization of Under-utilized Crops and Species Activity Area 13. Supporting Seed Production and Distribution Activity Area 14. Developing New Markets for Local Varieties and “Diversity-Rich” Products Activity Area 18. Developing Monitoring and Early Warning Systems for Loss of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture”


The lowest priority areas relate to recovery from disaster situations and broadening the diversity of food crops by promoting and introducing underutilized crops. Disaster recovery was a somewhat higher priority for the medium UN Rate group countries than for the other two groups. The low UN Rate group countries rated Supporting Seed Production and Distribution somewhat higher than the others. In 1998 Supporting On-farm Management and Improvement of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was one of the five lowest priorities, mainly due to the very low priorities set by the high UN Rate group countries, but was replaced by Developing Monitoring and Early Warning Systems for Loss of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2000. Stakeholder involvement and coordination Plant breeding institutions (85%) and universities (78%) are most often involved with the national PGRFA committee. In spite of the recognition of the importance of their participation, farmer organizations, the private sector and NGOs are less involved (33%) (Table 4). Table 4. Stakeholder involvement in PGRFA National Committee (% of respondents per group) (Source: FAO 2000)

Stakeholder group Low UN Rate (%)

Medium UN Rate (%)

High UN Rate (%)

Average (%)

Plant breeders 78 90 88 85 Universities 78 70 88 78 Private sector 22 20 63 33 Farmers 22 20 63 33 NGOs 22 20 63 33 In most countries some level of coordination exists amongst crop, forest and animal genetic resources programmes. All of the medium UN Rate group countries have this type of coordination, while 70% of the high UN Rate group and 50% of the low UN Rate group report coordination among crop, forest and animal programmes. Policy and legislation Various types of PGRFA-related legislation have been adopted by European countries (Table 5). New legislation adopted in European countries since 1998 is mostly related to seed and plant protection and plant variety protection. Legislation related to patents, access, sharing of benefits and conservation is much less common, while no adoption of legislation related to farmers' rights was reported. Table 5. Types of legislation adopted nationally since 1998 (% of respondents per group) (Source: FAO 2000)

Type of legislation Low UN Rate (%)

Med. UN Rate (%)

High UN Rate (%)

Average (%)

Seed 80 88 50 75 Plant protection (quarantine) 80 63 50 67 Plant variety protection 70 75 17 58 In situ conservation 30 13 17 21 Patents 10 25 33 21 Access 10 25 17 17 Ex situ conservation 20 25 0 17 Sharing of benefits 0 13 17 8 Farmers' rights 0 0 0 0


In 1995 countries were asked about the status of their legislation and policy related to seed quality, quarantine and plant breeders' rights: 82% of European countries reported having seed quality legislation, 73% as having quarantine policies and 57% as having policies governing plant breeders’ rights. No significant changes are seen on average when comparing these figures to the 2000 data. However, eight countries from the former Soviet Union have become members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) since 1995. In 1995 many of these same countries had legislation on plant breeders' rights, but it was through mechanisms other than UPOV. Participation in the international dialogue on PGRFA has been identified as an important dimension of National Programme development. When the State of the World report was prepared in 1995, 13 of 44 countries were not members of the FAO Commission on PGRFA. By 2005, 42 European countries were members of the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. As of 2005, 22 European countries and the European Community had ratified the International Treaty on PGRFA. Education and training Only four low UN Rate countries and four medium UN Rate countries have established educational and training strategies in line with the GPA areas. Four of these strategies were established after 1996, when the GPA came into force. No such training strategies were reported by the high UN Rate countries. Table 6 describes the degree to which training in PGRFA is adequate to meet the needs of European countries and how this has changed over time. A small percentage reduction is seen between 1995 and 2000 in countries reporting that training is not sufficient; otherwise little change is seen between 1995 and 2000 in terms of training adequacy. Overall, 25% of countries feel that training is sufficient and 75% find that training needs are only partially met or not met at all. Table 6. Adequacy of PGRFA related training (Sources: IPGRI 1998; FAO 2000) Adequacy of training 1995 1998 2000 Sufficient 20% 30% 25% Partially sufficient 55% 57% 58% Not sufficient 25% 13% 17% In 2000, questions about training adequacy were broken down by type of training offered, but the responses do not vary greatly from the overall average response shown above. Most countries reported some level of availability of advanced university or short course training on priority topics related to PGRFA conservation and use, although only 24% found these to be fully adequate. Twenty-seven percent of countries reported that PGRFA aspects are sufficiently covered in existing courses and educational programmes in the Region, 53% responded that attempts have been made to include such aspects, but these were not sufficient. Twenty percent reported that PGRFA aspects are not included in existing courses. Two countries, Azerbaijan and Lithuania, reported that neither academic nor short course training is available and that PGRFA topics are not included as part of existing courses or educational programmes. Table 7 shows the percentage of countries reporting training for some of the GPA activity areas. The training effort appears to be fairly evenly spread over the various activities, except for two cases: on-farm management aspects receive less than average attention and sustaining ex situ collections receives more than average attention.


Table 7. Percentage of countries reporting training since 1998 (Source: FAO 2000)

Activity area All countries (%)

Low UN Rate (%)

Medium UN Rate (%)

High UN Rate (%)

Survey and inventory 50 No significant differences between sub-groups On farm management 20 10 20 40 Sustaining ex situ collections 68 50 70 90 Regenerating threatened collections 43 No significant differences between sub-groups Targeted collecting 46 40 64 25 Development of underutilized crops 45 No significant differences between sub-groups Seed production 55 50 70 40 Documentation 43 27 55 44 Public awareness of the value of PGRFA conservation and use Most countries reported having some level of public awareness activities in their country in 2000 (Table 8). However, 20% of low UN Rate and 11% of high UN Rate countries reported no public awareness related activities, and the majority reported a limited number of activities undertaken to promote public awareness. Only Germany reported having a strong public awareness programme with many activities undertaken. This can be compared to the circumstances in 1995, when public awareness was reported to be lacking in virtually all countries reporting. There has been progress reported in medium and high UN Rate countries between 1998 and 2000, with some countries reporting increases from no activities to limited activities. Table 8. Status of public awareness activities in countries (% of group respondents) (Source: FAO 2000)

Low UN Rate Medium UN Rate High UN Rate Status of PA activities 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000

No PA activities undertaken 20 20 20 0 25 11 Limited PA activities undertaken 80 80 80 100 75 78 Strong development of PA programme 0 0 0 0 0 11 In two-thirds of countries these activities are coordinated by the National Programme or committee. The public awareness efforts deal primarily with the importance of PGRFA (87%) as part of biodiversity and ex situ conservation (81%) followed by national policy (49%) and in situ conservation (49%). The farmers' role (29%) is least often highlighted in public awareness efforts. PGRFA project status In addition to questions directly related to the 20 activity areas of the GPA, National Focal Points were asked in 2000 to report PGRFA-related programmes and projects being carried out to address GPA activity areas. Focal Points were queried as to the geographical focus of the project or programme, the implementing institution, budget, funding source and the GPA activity areas addressed. A total of 260 projects were reported by 26 countries. Eighty-four percent of countries completing the questionnaire (31) reported having PGRFA related projects. Fifty-seven percent of total projects were reported by high UN Rate group countries, 30% by medium UN Rate group countries and only 13% by lower UN Rate group countries, as shown in Table 9.


Table 9. PGRFA projects by UN Rate group (Source: FAO 2000) UN Rate Group No. of projects % of total projects reported Low 33 13 Medium 79 30 High 148 57 All countries 260 100 Approximately two-thirds of the projects had a national scope, followed by Regional projects. Approximately 13% did not report the project's geographic scope (Table 10). Table 10. Geographical scope of PGRFA projects (Source: FAO 2000) Geographic scope No. of projects % of projects reported National 175 67 Regional (European) 41 16 International 10 4 None reported 34 13 Most of the programmes and projects reported (69%) were funded by national governments. The European Union was the second most frequent funding source after national governments, with 23 projects reported as being funded by EU. An additional three projects were funded by a combination of national support and EU. The Nordic Council funded 9 of the reported projects. The category of funding source could not be determined for 38 of the projects reported. Projects were fairly well spread across the four GPA groups, with the majority of projects addressing ex situ conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources, as shown in Table 11. Approximately 53% of the projects responded to two or more of the GPA groups. Approximately 64% of the projects addressed activity area 5 related to sustaining ex situ collections. Table 11. Projects per GPA group (Source: FAO 2000) GPA Group No. of projects % of total projects In situ Conservation and Development 83 32 Ex situ Conservation 166 64 Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources 151 58 Institutions and Capacity Building 75 29 Promoting networks for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture In 2000, 25 out of 26 responding countries (96%) reported that their country is an active member of at least one PGRFA network. On average, a country participates in four networks. However, 8 out of 31 countries (26%), including six from the low UN Rate group, indicated that their government did not provide financial support to network activities between 1998 and 2000. In 1995, 24 countries reported being actively involved in a subregional PGR network. In the spring of 2002, 35 European countries were reported to be members of ECP/GR, the Regional network for Europe. Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine were not members, but were identified as associated countries which had identified focal points for collaboration with ECP/GR.


In situ conservation The State of the World's PGRFA in 1996 reported that in situ conservation was traditionally used mainly for forests and reserves (wildlife or ecosystems). Since then, there has been a strong trend to raise the profile of in situ conservation as a complementary approach to ex situ in the conservation of PGRFA, because it provides a more dynamic management regime for genetic resources in which a continuous adaptation of germplasm to local circumstances occurs. As such it is seen as an important approach to enhance utilization of PGRFA at the local level by farmers. Surveying and inventorying In situ management requires a good insight into the status of local plant genetic diversity. Usually this assessment is based on surveys. The 1998 report on the implementation of the GPA in Europe indicated that on–farm conservation of traditional varieties had largely been abandoned in Europe with the advancing industrialization of agriculture in the 1960s, but regained an interest in the early 1990s as a result of the Convention on Biological Diversity and an increased interest in dynamic and adaptive conservation. Table 12 shows that during the period 1995-1998 an increasing number of countries (from 60% to 72%) surveyed traditional cultivars to establish their short-term security. Gains were made across all UN Rate groups in terms of completed surveys of traditional cultivars. Table 12. Short-term security of traditional varieties studied and known (Source: IPGRI 1998)

1995 1998 UN Rate Group No Part Yes No Part Yes

Low 5 4 2 3 4 3 Medium 4 3 3 3 2 5 High 3 5 1 2 5 2

All countries 12 (40%)

12 (40%)

6 (20%)

8 (28%)

11 (38%)

10 (34%)

Table 13 shows that the amount of surveying of crop wild relatives is reaching that of traditional cultivars (from 47% to 70%), although here the gains were made predominantly in the group of countries having partially completed their surveys. Undoubtedly the surveying of crop wild relatives is more extensive than that of traditional varieties. The progress made in the medium UN Rate group appears more substantial than the other groups. Table 13. Short-term security crop wild relatives known (Source: IPGRI 1998)

1995 1998 UN Rate Group No Part Yes No Part Yes Low 6 3 1 5 4 1 Medium 7 1 3 2 5 4 High 3 4 2 2 5 2


8 (27%)

6 (20%)

9 (30%)

14 (47%)

7 (23%)

Between 1998 and 2000, most countries (86%) responding to the surveys were actively involved in carrying out biodiversity surveys or inventories. Some 2800 threatened species/populations have been identified since 1998. National priority areas for surveying have been established in at least half of the medium and high UN Rate countries (50% and 60% respectively), while for the low UN Rate countries this percentage is significantly lower (20%).


Three-quarters of the countries indicated that these surveys and inventories are linked to a National Biodiversity Plan or a similar higher level framework. Fifty percent of the countries reported having provided staff training in surveying of PGRFA since 1998. Activities to support on-farm and in situ conservation Table 14 shows that the percentage of countries that are developing activities to support on-farm conservation increased from 47% to 59%. These gains were made in the low and medium UN Rate countries. Table 14. On-farm conservation activities initiated (Source: IPGRI 1998)



9 (31%)

4 (16%)

12 (41%)

12 (41%)

5 (18%)

Data from 2000 indicate that initiatives to support on-farm management and improvement of PGRFA were undertaken by 13 out of 31 countries (40%) responding. Activities were significantly more frequent in the medium and high UN Rate countries (50% and 70% respectively) than in the low UN Rate countries (20%). In 11 out of 13 cases these initiatives were linked to direct or indirect financial incentives for local farmers or communities. Especially with respect to the low UN Rate group there appeared to be quite a negative trend as 50% of these reported some level of activities in 1998. Training data from 2000 indicates that overall only 20% of countries reported having provided training to staff in areas related to on-farm management of PGRFA, but there are marked differences between the UN Rate groups. The low UN Rate (10%) and medium UN Rate (20%) groups provide significantly less training than the high UN Rate group (40%). Table 15 shows an increase in activities to support in situ conservation of crop wild relatives, although these activities seem to be at a much lower level than on-farm conservation. In 1998, only 37% of countries report some level of activities for in situ conservation while on-farm conservation is actively supported in 59% of the countries. Table 15. In situ conservation activities initiated (Source: IPGRI 1998)



5 (17%)

1 (3%)

19 (63%)

7 (23%)

4 (14%)

Table 16 shows a significant increase in planning and activities related to in situ conservation of crop wild relatives and wild plants across the European Region in the period between 1998 and 2000, although only two medium UN Rate countries reported an advanced level of activity in 2000 and 25% of all countries reported that no planning had begun in this area.


Table 16. Status of planning and implementation of in situ conservation of crop wild relatives and wild plants (Source: FAO 2000)

1998 2000 UN Rate Group No Part Advanced No Part Advanced Low 5 3 0 3 7 0 Medium 5 3 2 2 7 2 High 3 3 0 2 5 0


9 (38%)

2 (8%)

7 (25%)

19 (68%)

2 (7%)

Although the emphasis that countries place on in situ conservation has increased since 1998, National Programmes continue to consider ex situ conservation an important and complementary component of their conservation strategy. Eighty percent of the respondents indicate that arrangements have been made to place threatened diversity of wild crop relatives into ex situ collections. Ex situ conservation Sustaining existing ex situ collections The 28 countries responding reported that they are currently conserving an estimated 1.3 million accessions. The overall number of accessions conserved increased between 1998 and 2000 as shown in Table 17, although one low UN Rate country reported a reduction in the number of accessions conserved and four countries reported no change. Table 17. Changes in genebank holdings (number of countries and % of total) (Source: FAO 2000)

No. of species accessions in storage UN Rate Group Reduced Unchanged Increased Low 1 1 7 Medium 0 0 11 High 0 3 5 All countries 1 (4%) 4 (14%) 23 (82%) The overall responses show a somewhat variable situation in terms of the annual budgets for ex situ conservation, as shown in Table 18. Whereas most countries in all UN Rate groups reported their budgets to be unchanged between 1998 and 2000, 26% reported a reduction in budget and 32% reported an increase. More low and medium UN Rate countries reported both budget increases and reductions as compared to high UN Rate countries, which reported less change. Table 18. Changes in budgets for ex situ conservation (number of countries and % of total) (Source: FAO 2000)

Budget UN Rate Group Reduced Unchanged Increased Low 3 4 4 Medium 3 4 4 High 2 5 2 All countries 8 (26%) 13 (42%) 10 (32%)


Staffing was much less variable as most countries in all UN Rate groups reported no change in staff for ex situ conservation between 1998 and 2000 as shown in Table 19. However, 24% of all countries reported staffing reductions. Table 19. Changes in staffing for ex situ conservation (number of countries and percent of total) (Source: FAO 2000)

Staff UN Rate Group Reduced Unchanged Increased

Low 2 7 1 Medium 3 7 1 High 2 5 1 All countries 7 (24%) 19 (66%) 3 (10%) Eighty percent of countries reported that regular viability monitoring takes place at their genebanks. The majority of countries monitor the genetic diversity of their collections regularly, although only 50% of the low UN Rate countries reported regular monitoring. Most countries also have cooperative arrangements with Regional or crop networks or international organizations for ex situ conservation, but there is a marked difference between the groups. While 80% of the low UN Rate group and 100% of the high UN Rate group countries reported cooperation in germplasm conservation, only 55% of the medium UN Rate group countries have entered into cooperative arrangements for germplasm conservation. Regenerating threatened ex situ accessions Countries reported quite a variable situation in terms of the change in the number of accessions requiring urgent regeneration between 1998 and 2000. While a small majority of all countries reported a reduction in urgent need for regeneration, 33% reported an increase in the number of accessions requiring urgent regeneration (Table 20). Table 20. Changes in regeneration priorities (number of countries and % of total) (Source: FAO 2000)

Number of accessions requiring urgent regeneration UN Rate Group Reduced Unchanged Increased

Low 4 4 1 Medium 5 0 5 High 3 2 3 All countries 12 (44%) 6 (22%) 9 (33%) Overall, germplasm regeneration practices seem to be quite well established throughout the Region. Seventy percent of the low UN Rate group countries set priorities for accession regeneration, 90% of the medium UN Rate group and 100% of the high UN Rate group. A similar pattern is seen in the development of multi-year plans to regenerate priority accessions. While most of the high UN Rate group countries (80%) organize regeneration tasks in close collaboration with networks and/or other countries, only 50% of countries in the other two groups did. Likewise, the high UN Rate group countries place significantly more emphasis than the other groups on the rationalization of their collections, e.g. reducing unnecessary duplication, possibly in an effort to reduce maintenance costs and to facilitate an efficient use of the collections. Supporting planned and targeted collecting of PGRFA Twenty-six of the 31 countries have been involved in germplasm collecting missions since 1998. At least 90% of respondents in medium and high UN Rate countries reported having


secured long-term conservation of collected materials. Only 60% of the low UN Rate group countries reported that long-term conservation had been secured. Expanding ex situ conservation activities Nine countries reported that botanical gardens, arboreta or field genebanks have been established since 1998 while 18 responded that none of these were established during that period. Only 27% of the low UN Rate group reported the development of innovative management strategies or improved methodologies for ex situ conservation as compared to 55% in the medium UN Rate group and 67% in the high UN Rate group. The low UN Rate group countries reported that no new publications on innovative ex situ management strategies or improved methodologies had been made available in their countries since 1998. This is in contrast with the medium and high UN Rate countries, among which 70% reported that new publications on the subject had been made available in their countries. Characterization and evaluation The lack of sufficient characterization and evaluation data has often been cited as a severe restriction to enhancing the use and management of genetic resources collections. The Regional Synthesis Report on the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources in Europe (IPGRI/FAO 1996) stated that characterization was perceived as insufficient by countries and required input of more resources. The State of the World report specified that 53% of countries in Eastern Europe and 24% in Western Europe viewed the lack of characterization and evaluation data a major constraint to utilization of germplasm collections. The GPA highlighted this concern by the inclusion of activity area 9 that specifically deals with the expansion of germplasm characterization, evaluation and the number of core collections to facilitate use. Setting priorities The responses of 24 countries in 2000 identified Expanding Characterization, Evaluation and Number of Core Collections to Facilitate Use as one of the top five GPA priority activity areas. More specifically 67% of countries assigned a high priority to activity area 9, while 29% classified it as a medium priority (Table 21). It appears that the low UN Rate group trailed the other groups somewhat in targeting this area for priority attention. There was virtually no change in the priority status of activity area 9 between 1998 and 2000 (Table 21). Table 21. Priority setting for GPA activity area 9 (Expanding characterization and evaluation data) (Source: FAO 2000)

1998 2000 UN Rate Group Low Med High Low Med High

Low 1 2 4 1 3 3 Medium 0 4 6 0 2 7 High 0 1 6 0 2 6


7 (29%)

16 (67%)

1 (4%)

7 (29%)

16 (67%)

Progress made with characterization and evaluation work In 1995, almost every country identified the need for a greater effort to evaluate germplasm collections, although in many countries activities were ongoing usually on selected crops or specific types of collections such as core collections. However, precise information on the state of the evaluation of collections was very rare. Data from 1998 suggested that:


- in the period 1995-1998 two National Programmes (Armenia and Macedonia (FYR)) in the low UN Rate group initiated characterization and evaluation activities, while in seven countries the activities were ongoing;

- in the medium UN Rate group, Ireland reported modest progress while eight other countries reported ongoing activities. One of these, Poland, restarted these activities after a pause during 1992-1995, while Turkey started 20 new projects. Three reported extra funding received from the National Programme or European Union6 dedicated to these activities;

- in the high UN Rate group all eight countries reported ongoing activities. The estimated percentage of accessions with characterization data in 2000 is on average 39%. The estimates for individual countries are listed in Table 22. Table 22. Estimated percentage of collection accessions with characterization and evaluation data in 2000 (Source: FAO 2000)

Low UN Rate Medium UN Rate High UN Rate Country % Country % Country % Albania 100 Belarus Austria 35 Armenia 40 Czech Republic 29 Finland Azerbaijan Greece 10 Germany Cyprus 5 Hungary 70 Italy 45 Estonia 40 Ireland 10 the Netherlands 90 Iceland Poland 70 Russian

Federation 70

Latvia 50 Portugal 30 Spain 10 Lithuania 50 Romania 10 Sweden 20 Macedonia (FYR) Slovenia 10 Switzerland 44 Slovak Republic 30 Turkey 20 Yugoslavia 10 Ukraine 80 Average 41 34 35 Standard deviation 18.1 28.6 25.5 The variation is such that no differences between UN Rate groups could be distinguished. No relationship between the size of the collections and the percentage of accessions with characterization data could be established. The use of molecular techniques by genebanks appears to have increased substantially (Table23). Asked about important changes regarding characterization in the period 1995-1998, only four out of 26 countries (15%) mentioned the use of molecular methods. In 2000, countries were specifically asked about the use of molecular methods for characterization and evaluation and 16 out of 30 (53%) reported their use. Table 23. Use of molecular techniques by genebanks (Sources: IPGRI 1998; FAO 2000) UN Rate Group 1995 – 1998 2000 Low 1 (11%) 3 (30%) Medium 1 (11%) 7 (64%) High 2 (25%) 6 (66%)

6 Within the framework of Regulation 1467/94 on the conservation, characterization, collection and

utilization of genetic resources in agriculture.


Cooperation with users In the 1998 survey, a number of countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Turkey) mentioned collaborative efforts between genebanks and users such as public and private sector breeders and/or other genebanks. Table 24 shows that almost all countries have established some level of cooperation with users and, in principle, could share tasks associated with characterization and evaluation among different partners. Table 24. Cooperation mechanisms established between genebanks and users (Source: IPGRI 1998)

1995 1998 UN Rate Group None Partial Yes None Partial Yes Low 2 5 3 0 7 2 Medium 1 6 4 0 5 6 High 1 4 4 1 6 2


15 (50%)

11 (37%)

1 (3%)

18 (62%)

10 (35%)

Only 35% of National Programmes reported well-established cooperation mechanisms with users. This is borne out by responses to questions about collaboration in National Programmes for the 2000 survey (Table 3). Whereas breeders and universities have a strong involvement with the National Programme, other user groups such as the private sector, farmers and NGOs show much lower levels of involvement. Electronic availability of characterization and evaluation data The number of collections having computerized characterization and evaluation data increased in the low and medium UN Rate group during the period 1995-1998 (Table 25). The high UN Rate group appears to have more of its characterization data computerized than the other two groups. Table 25. Computerization of characterization and evaluation data (Source: IPGRI 1998)

1995 1998 UN Rate Group None Partial Full None Partial Full

Low 6 2 2 3 5 1 Medium 3 6 2 1 7 3 High 0 6 3 0 3 6


14 (47%)

7 (23%)

4 (14%)

15 (52%)

10 (33%)

Overall it appears that the degree of computerization of characterization and evaluation data has increased in the period 1995-1998 although much of the work still needs to be completed. Nevertheless an improved electronic availability of characterization and evaluation data would not only improve the access of a wider audience of users to this information (quantitative aspect of use), but also facilitate an analytical use of the data (qualitative aspect of use).


Documentation In 1996 FAO reported that much of the world's ex situ plant genetic resources were poorly documented, although the status of documentation in Europe was considered better than other Regions in terms of completeness and computerization. In Europe most documentation systems are computerized or in the process of becoming computerized. In some countries centralized systems exist, while in other cases, especially in Western Europe, individual institutions manage their own databases. Setting priorities The construction of comprehensive information systems for PGRFA (GPA activity area 17) is one of the top five GPA priority areas identified by European countries in 2000. There has been a remarkable shift towards a higher priority for this area in the period after 1998 (Table 26). Especially in the low and medium UN Rate countries the importance of creating comprehensive documentation systems has increased. This is possibly the result of various pan-European documentation and information initiatives such as the establishment of the Documentation and Information Network within ECP/GR and the implementation of the European Plant Genetic Resources Information Infra-Structure (EPGRIS) project. Table 26. Priority setting by National Programmes for GPA activity area 17 (constructing comprehensive IS for PGRFA) (Source: FAO 2000)

1998 2000 UN Rate Group Low Medium High Low Medium High Low 2 3 2 0 2 5 Medium 1 2 6 0 1 9 High 0 1 5 0 1 6


6 (27%)

13 (59%)

0 (0%)

4 (17%)

20 (83%)

Information systems for PGRFA In most European countries the germplasm documentation activities seem fairly well established. Information from 1998 on the implementation of the GPA in Europe indicates that most countries based their work on IPGRI and UPOV descriptors. Between 1995 and 1998, the number of computerized national germplasm inventories increased (Table 27). Many countries that had no computerized germplasm inventory in 1995 had at least part of their inventory converted to an electronic format by 1998. At the same time the proportion of countries having a complete national inventory in electronic format doubled from 27% to 54%. Table 27. Existence of computerized national germplasm inventories (Source: IPGRI 1998)

1995 1998 UN Rate Group None Partial Complete None Partial Complete Low 6 3 0 2 5 2 Medium 4 3 5 2 3 7 High 2 4 3 0 2 7


10 (33%)

8 (27%)

4 (13%)

10 (33%)

16 (54%)

Perhaps not surprisingly, the number of national documentation systems for PGRFA in existence follows a similar trend (Table 28). The proportion of countries without national documentation systems decreased from 45% to 17%, although so far the implementation of a national documentation system was only partially completed for a large proportion of countries (52%).


Table 28. Existence of national documentation systems (Source: IPGRI 1998) 1995 1998 UN Rate Group None Partial Complete None Partial Complete

Low 5 3 1 2 5 2 Medium 4 3 4 1 5 5 High 4 5 0 2 5 2


11 (38%)

5 (17%)

5 (17%)

15 (52%)

9 (31%)

The medium UN Rate countries had a relatively high proportion of established national documentation systems. The low and high UN Rate groups had established fewer national documentation systems, but apparently for different reasons. In the low UN Rate group, the actual availability to information systems for PGRFA and seed stock data management might have been a limiting factor (Fig. 4).

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Lowincome

Mediumincome

Highincome

% Use of a PGRFAinformation system% Commonsystems in use

Fig. 4. Information systems in National PGRFA Programmes in 2000 (Source: FAO 2000).

In 2000, countries reported significantly less use of these systems than the other groups (50% compared to >80%). Also the amount of staff training provided since 1998 in the area of documentation was much lower in this group (27%) than in the medium (55%) and high (44%) UN Rate groups. In the high UN Rate group, there was no particular shortage of information systems (90%), but systems seemed to coexist and were not (yet) integrated into a common national documentation system. Twenty-six countries (87%) reported that they had access to international databases such as the World Information and Early Warning System (WIEWS) on PGRFA or the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) of the CGIAR, with no significant differences between the UN Rate groups. However, the available data did not permit an evaluation of the quality of access in terms of speed and reliability. Utilization of plant genetic resources Increasing genetic enhancement and base-broadening efforts Overall there has been a tendency between 1998 and 2000 towards more implementation of activities related to increasing genetic enhancement and base-broadening (Table 29). The implementation has been strongest in the medium and high UN Rate countries. Among the


low UN Rate group implementation has been strong in some countries, but this is offset by a relatively large number of countries with no activities at all. Table 29. Increasing Genetic Enhancement and Base Broadening Efforts (Source: FAO 2000)

1998 2000 UN Rate Group

No activities Efforts started

Activities underway No activities Efforts

started Activities underway

Low 4 2 3 4 2 4 Medium 4 2 2 1 6 3 High 2 3 2 2 2 4 Promoting sustainable agriculture through diversification of crop production and broader diversity in crops In 2000, approximately 75% of countries reported that measures were being taken to encourage the diversification of crops. Since 1998, assessments of the genetic uniformity and vulnerability of crop production were made in four countries and partially completed in 12 countries. Promoting development and commercialization of underutilized crops and species In 2000, 25 of the responding countries (90%) reported some level of activities related to the identification of underutilized species (Table 30), but only five countries reported the existence of well-advanced programmes. Related activities such as the development of sustainable management practices and crop improvement, development of post harvest methods and marketing methods seemed to be less well established, although activities were initiated in all these areas. Table 30. Implementation activities underutilized crops (number of countries) (Source: FAO 2000) 1998 2000 UN Rate Group None Some Advanced None Some Advanced Identification of underutilized species Low 3 5 0 1 8 0 Medium 2 5 1 1 8 2 High 2 4 2 1 4 3 Crop improvement and management Low 3 5 0 2 7 0 Medium 2 5 1 0 10 1 High 2 6 0 2 7 0 Postharvest Low 4 4 0 2 6 0 Medium 3 3 2 2 5 2 High 1 5 0 2 5 0 Marketing methods Low 4 4 0 3 4 0 Medium 6 2 0 4 7 0 High 1 4 0 2 5 0 The role of women in the management of these crops is emphasized by 50% of the low UN Rate group countries and 30% of the medium UN Rate group countries. However, none of the high UN Rate group countries emphasize the role of women in this area. In general the respondents noted only a modest progress in the implementation of underutilized crop programmes during the period 1998 and 2000.


Supporting seed production and distribution Financial incentives directed at seed companies and farmer organizations to support the small farming sector, gender programmes or marginalized groups are reported by 20% of the low UN Rate group and 40% of the medium UN Rate group countries but by none of the high UN Rate group countries. Developing new markets for local varieties and “diversity-rich” products Only seven out of 31 countries (23%) reported that the range of local crop varieties available at local markets has increased since 1998. Twenty-one (68%) reported no significant changes, while three (9%) indicate that no information is available to make an estimate. Only five countries (18%) reported well-established markets for diverse food crops. These included Albania, Belarus, the Netherlands, Spain and Yugoslavia. Fifteen countries (54%) indicated that initial efforts to establish such markets were underway. Eight countries (28%) reported the absence of such markets and no activities underway to promote them. Responding to disasters and threats Assisting farmers in disaster situations to restore agricultural systems Data from the 2000 survey indicates that respondents feel that the threat to agricultural systems in Europe from disasters is fairly low. Only three out of 31 respondent countries reported the existence of operational plans to assist farmers in recovering or restoring germplasm following disaster situations. Six out of 31 reported the existence of an information system that could help to identify germplasm for re-introduction following disaster situations. Developing monitoring and early warning systems for loss of PGRFA By 2000, 70% of countries in the medium UN Rate group had appointed national focal points responsible for collecting information on genetic erosion. Only 40% of low and high UN Rate groups had a national focal point for this topic. In general the monitoring of genetic erosion for ex situ collections is somewhat better established than the monitoring of in situ collections (Table 31). The countries in the low UN Rate group had fewer monitoring systems in place than the other groups. Table 31. Monitoring systems for genetic erosion of PGRFA (% of group respondents) (Source: FAO 2000)

In situ Ex situ

UN Rate Group No monitoring mechanism

Partial monitoring

Threats monitored

No monitoring mechanism

Partial monitoring

Threats monitored

Low 50 50 0 33 66 0 Medium 27 55 18 9 36 55 High 25 50 25 13 13 74 Ninety-two percent of respondents consider WIEWS to be an appropriate system for monitoring the loss of PGRFA. Most respondents (85%) would provide relevant information on genetic erosion of PGRFA to WIEWS.


Outlook Significant progress has been made in Europe in implementing the GPA and addressing its activity areas. Progress is notable in National Programme development, networking participation, in situ conservation activities and number of accessions conserved ex situ among others. However, the following issues arose from this analysis as areas of possible future focus and development. Increasing the involvement of users in PGRFA programmes The linkages of the National Programmes with traditional user communities such as breeders and universities seem fairly well developed across the European Region. However, there are additional groups such as the private sector, farmers and NGOs whose involvement with the National Programmes could be strengthened. Although genebanks might not always have a direct interaction with these groups, their involvement and understanding of what a National PGRFA Programme is trying to achieve can transform these groups into a valuable support base. Engagement of users helps to ensure that the National Programme is focused on responding to the needs of users, which in turn is expected to generate support for PGRFA activities as it increases the relevance of PGRFA conservation to the user community. It also helps to increase the likelihood of significant benefits to society resulting from germplasm conservation activities, in terms of food security, biodiversity conservation and UN Rate enhancement. Low level of public awareness activity Although significant progress was seen between 1995 and 2000, most countries reported limited public awareness efforts. Limited public awareness threatens the viability of National Programmes, assuming that awareness of the importance of PGRFA conservation and use would result in political support and financial support for PGRFA activities. It would appear from the results to inquiries about budgets and staffing for ex situ conservation that they are static or facing reductions. Sixty-eight percent of countries responding reported static or reduced budgets between 1998 and 2000, and 90% of respondents reported static or reduced staffing. At the same time, the majority of countries reported that the number of accessions conserved had increased. Fifty-five percent of respondents reported that the number of accessions requiring urgent regeneration had increased or remained unchanged since 1998. This would imply a certain decline in the strength of National Programmes because fewer human and financial resources are available to manage a larger programme (at least in terms of ex situ conservation). Increased public awareness efforts, perhaps supported at the Regional level or by IPGRI, could reverse this situation. Addressing training needs Seventy-five percent of countries reported that their training needs were only partially met or not met at all. Furthermore, this situation has apparently not changed a great deal since it was first reported in 1995, as the percentage of countries reporting inadequate training in PGRFA has not changed much in that time. Only eight countries reported having training strategies to address GPA priority areas. No training strategies were reported by high UN Rate countries. Training would appear to be an area where attention could be paid by National Programmes, networks and IPGRI.


Increasing project support to PGRFA activities Only 13% of projects reported were located in low UN Rate countries and 30% in medium UN Rate countries. Most projects are national in scope, with only 16% being Regional. Sixty-nine percent of projects are funded by national governments. This would imply that there are not enough projects to supplement government efforts and that only a limited number of projects are supported by external donors. Most projects do not take advantage of the potential benefits to be gained by a Regional approach. Characterization and evaluation is an example of an area where PGRFA projects could complement National Programmes. Most genebanks have regular ongoing characterization and evaluation programmes, but several indicated that they secured additional external funding to bolster these activities. However, most if not all GPA activity areas could benefit from supplemental project funding. Setting priorities for biodiversity surveys Biodiversity surveys are usually quite resource intensive. Priority setting is necessary to make the most effective use of existing resources. All national priority areas for surveying had been assigned by approximately 40% of countries in 2000. There are clear differences between the UN Rate groups whereby 50% of the medium UN Rate and 60% of high UN Rate countries have developed priorities for biodiversity surveys as compared to only 20% of the low UN Rate countries. Activities are in progress and percentages will undoubtedly increase. But in view of the large differences between UN Rate groups in the progress made with priority setting process, possibly some attention should be given to priority setting at a Regional level. Balance between on-farm management of PGRFA and in situ conservation of

wild relatives Since 1998 there seems to have been increased emphasis on the development of in situ conservation activities across the entire European Region. However, only the high UN Rate countries seem to have increased their activities related to on-farm conservation while in other groups, notably the low UN Rate group, on-farm conservation efforts seem to have decreased. Acquiring appropriate information systems and training Germplasm documentation programmes are generally well established in the Region. Almost all countries reported ongoing activities related to documentation systems in 1998. However, data from 2000 suggests that some of the lower UN Rate countries are having problems acquiring suitable information systems and providing adequate staff training in how to use such systems. The data are increasingly made available on-line, which encourages much wider use. An assessment could be made whether on-line access needs to be complemented with off-line access to ensure a broad access to the data. Although Internet access is commonly available throughout Europe, the quality of the connections may vary and might restrict access for some users. Data integration at the national level Based on pre-2000 data, there seems to be some scope to better integrate data at the national level. Better integration at this level would facilitate a more effective coordination nationwide and would also help countries to fulfil some of their international obligations in the context of the CBD and the Clearing House Mechanism. One of these obligations is to produce an inventory of national plant genetic resources. Projects such as the European Plant Genetic Resources Information Infra-Structure (EPGRIS), which ended in


December 2003, clearly provide a basic information layer that supports further integration of data, including characterization and evaluation data, at the national level. References IPGRI/FAO. 1996. Regional Synthesis on the Status of Plant Genetic Resources in Europe.

Pp. 1-38 in International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources: Preparatory process for Europe. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute/Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.

Gass, T and I. Thormann. 1999. Implementation in Europe of the Global Plan of Action for Food and Agriculture. Pp. 22-34 in Implementation of the Global Plan of Action in Europe – Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Proceedings of the European Symposium, 30 June-3 July 1998, Braunschweig, Germany (T. Gass, L. Frese, F. Begemann and E. Lipman, compilers). International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.

NATIONAL PROGRAMMES 67

PART IV. NATIONAL PROGRAMMES Armenia 68 Austria 70 Azerbaijan 72 Belgium 74 Bulgaria 77 Croatia 81 Czech Republic 82 Denmark 84 Estonia 85 Finland 88 France 91 Georgia 93 Germany 95 Hungary 97 Israel 99 Italy 101 Latvia 106 Lithuania 108 Macedonia (FYR) 110 Republic of Moldova 113 The Netherlands 115 Norway 118 Poland 120 Portugal 123 Russian Federation 125 Serbia and Montenegro 127 Slovak Republic 130 Slovenia 133 Spain 136 Sweden 137 Switzerland 140 Ukraine 141


Armenia Main activities for founding a National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources

in the Republic of Armenia Samvel Avetisyan1 and Alvina Avagyan2 1 Ministry of Agriculture, Yerevan, Armenia 2 Agricultural Support Republican Center, Yerevan, Armenia In 1993 the Republic of Armenia ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, proclaimed the sovereign rights to its own genetic resources and developed strategic principles of plant genetic resources conservation. A number of primary issues and possible ways for their solution are reflected in the ”First and Second National Reports on Biodiversity of Armenia” and the ”Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan” (BSAP, 1999). In accordance with these documents, several programmes on plant genepool conservation, sustainable use of agrobiodiversity, definition of a legal basis for the conservation and utilization and accessibility of national plant wealth have to be developed, adopted and implemented in the country. There is no National Programme on plant genetic resources conservation and sustainable utilization in Armenia. However, ongoing activities relevant to conservation of plant resources can serve as a reliable basis for the development and approval of a National Programme. Background for the development of a National Programme Legislation improvement A number of regulations have been developed and adopted by the National Assembly over recent years. These include the Law on Protected Areas (1991), the Forest Code (1994), the Law on Expertise to Assess the Impact on Environment (1995), the Law on Payments for Bioresources Use (1998), the Law on Flora (1999), the Law on Breeding Achievements Protection (1999), and On Plants Protection and Quarantine. The improved legal framework contributes to biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and free access. At present, Armenia has not developed any special legislation regulating access to genetic resources and the fair sharing of benefits resulting from their use. The issue of access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing is of great importance at the current stage of global development, as it is directly connected both to conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources and to improving national and global food security. Intellectual property rights are closely bound up with the problem of access to genetic resources and affect benefit-sharing. In this connection, it is extremely necessary for Armenia to prepare a law on intellectual property protection. Development of national strategies Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (1999); Strategy on developing specially protected areas and National Action Plan, adopted by the

government of Armenia in January 2003; Strategy on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing, within the framework of the

project Assessment of biodiversity priority capacity building needs and establishment of Clearing House Mechanism in Armenia;

Strategy on taxonomic investigations and development of biodiversity monitoring, also within the framework of the above-mentioned project.


Institutional structure The different institutions and departments involved in plant biodiversity conservation at the national level are closely interconnected. The organization and monitoring of protected areas, collecting, conservation and providing access to genetic resources are also implemented through consultations with researchers, taxonomists, breeders, geologists/botanists, etc., taking into account the results of laboratory experiments and field explorations carried out in the country. The Ministry of Nature Protection has responsibility for a number of protected areas and also oversees and supervises activities of other governmental agencies related to biological resource use. The Ministry also issues licenses for the collecting of medicinal plants and there are plans to extend the licensing system for other forms of natural resource use, involving further regulations relating to dates, appropriate collection methods and fees. The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the management of state agricultural lands and for supporting farmers of privatized land. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture oversees the management of agrobiodiversity and manages six of the State Reserves in Armenia. This is implemented through a number of structures within the Ministry. Activities on ex situ conservation are mainly implemented by the Institute of Botany and Botanical Gardens under the National Academy of Sciences. There is no national genebank in Armenia. Seed collections are located in different scientific institutions. The basic seed collections in the country are concentrated in the scientific centres under the Ministry of Agriculture. In this area is it necessary to develop a programme for the establishment of a national genebank. Crop varietal protection, approval, testing and propagation are assigned to the Centre of Breeding Achievements Testing and Protection and Seed Quality, under the Ministry of Agriculture. Besides governmental organizations, a great number of NGOs are actively involved in plant conservation activities, including the Armenian Botanical Society, Greens Society, ”Armenian Forest” Association, Union on Landscapes and Biodiversity Conservation and others. Thus, although there is close communication between the various operating ministries and departments, the activities related to nature protection in Armenia are not coordinated by a single body or technical council. The establishment of a coordinating body will promote purposeful planning of actions and avoidance of duplication of functions and implemented measures. Active collaboration with international research centres, agencies and genebanks and membership in regional networks makes a valuable contribution to National Programme development. The implementation of international and regional projects contributes to the development of information systems and the national inventory on plant genetic resources. There are substantial problems related to conservation, protection and regeneration of plant genetic resources in Armenia. It is urgent to develop an appropriate policy, work out mechanisms of coordinated planning of activities and implementation of projects on plant biodiversity conservation and mechanisms of access to and benefit-sharing of national genetic resources. The current problems should determine the basic directions of forthcoming activity in the field of plant genetic resources conservation and sustainable utilization.


Austria Status of the Austrian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme Paul Freudenthaler Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Linz, Austria Sampling and conservation of plant genetic resources were started in the 1920s, with renewed activity in the late 1960s. With increasing awareness about environmental protection and conservation of genetic resources, several laws for nature conservation came into force. In parallel with these developments, Austria ratified many international agreements. The National Environmental Plan, published by the Austrian Federal Government in 1995 takes a long-range view and serves as a binding framework that also encompasses strategies to preserve biodiversity in Austria. After the adoption of the Global Plan of Action, a departmental working group was established at the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management. Its task is to develop a National Programme to preserve genetic resources that encompasses both flora and fauna. Ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources The collections contain a total of about 8000 samples of grain, vegetables, medicinal plants and herbs, fruit trees as well as non-food plants. Beyond this, seeds are also stored in agricultural technical colleges, federal educational and research institutes, provincial laboratories, universities and by NGOs and the private sector. As a result of the forest dieback issue, in 1986 the Forestry Research Centre developed the ”Conservation of Genetic Diversity” project, a cooperative effort bringing together a number of different disciplines. Since then, a series of coordinated in situ and ex situ conservation measures have been implemented within this framework. In situ conservation In situ conservation is mainly conducted in nature protected areas. The nature protection laws of the provinces contain regulations governing nature protection and conservation as well as special utilization or non-utilization of certain habitats. Approximately 100 areas have been nominated for the network ”Natura 2000” in order to implement the conservation-related frameworks of the European Union. Most of these areas, however, include protection areas already in existence. NGOs support these measures through public awareness. On-farm conservation The environmental programme ÖPUL7 supports measures to preserve biodiversity in the agricultural sector. The cultivation of old varieties is one example of this programme. An ecological evaluation by ÖPUL, which considers biodiversity to be a decisive item, is carried out in parallel with the programme. NGOs also play an important role in on-farm conservation. They offer varieties to individual members and publish an annual catalogue. These are therefore available for trading and continued regeneration.

7 ÖPUL = Österreichisches Programm zur Förderung einer umweltgerechten, extensiven und den

natürlichen Lebensraum schützenden Landwirtschaft.


Future measures for the conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources are to complete the databases, enforce the characterization and evaluation and make this information available (e.g. about resistance against diseases). Information about cultivation and utilization can be exchanged through collaboration between all sectors at national and international levels.


Azerbaijan The National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources in Azerbaijan Zeynal Akparov Institute of Genetic Resources, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan Management of the National Programme The State Commission on Plant Genetic Resources of Azerbaijan was established after achievement of independence in 1990. The National Programme (NP) was created by the State Commission which also develops strategy, policy and action plans on plant genetic resources (PGR) for the implementation of the NP. Activities are coordinated by the National Council on Plant Genetic Resources. The basic purposes of the NP are collecting, research, rational use of varieties, provision, documentation and organization of PGR protection and conservation in the country. Structure of the National Programme Eight working groups cover the following areas: grain cereals; legumes; vegetable and horticultural crops; fruit and berry species; subtropical crops and grapes; technical, aromatic and medicinal plants; pasture and fodder crops; and forest species. The National Council coordinates activities through working groups of research institutes dealing with their respective crops. The groups are supervised by the chairman of the Commission. In situ conservation Among the 4500 species of higher plants represented in Azerbaijan, 10 % are considered rare and threatened. These species are protected in 14 national parks. Azerbaijan is one of the centres of origin of grain cereals, legumes, some vegetable and horticultural crops, fruits and berries and grapes. Unfortunately the wild relatives of these species are not protected, their habitats are shrinking and they are not used in breeding work. Collecting activities Collecting missions resulted in 662 samples of grain, legume, vegetable, forage crops and sugar beet belonging to 18 species and 90 species of their wild relatives, over 3000 accessions of wild berries belonging to 22 species and over 100 samples of wild grapes. On-farm and in situ conservation In Azerbaijan the local population (farmers and the private sector) have grown native landraces of grain cereals, legumes, berries and watermelons since ancient times. Their conservation is linked to their use. Ex situ conservation The national germplasm collection consists of 35 000 samples, including grain crops (13 218), legumes (3824), vegetable and horticultural crops (5800), fruits and berries (6192), grapes (612), etc. The Botanical Garden maintains 2500 accessions of woody and grass plants. The Institute of Botany possesses 600 000 herbarium specimens belonging to 3800 species. There is no specialized genebank in Azerbaijan but the genetic resource collections are concentrated and stored in specialized institutes. The Genetic Resources Institute was created in November 2002 from the former Institute of Genetics and Selection of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS). It is responsible for the coordination of


the specialized institutes in the area of PGR. The creation of a genebank for medium- and long-term conservation is planned. Database According to the NP a National Information Network was created and a National Inventory database is under development. The inventory and identification of the national germplasm do not require much effort. Characterization Specialized institutes study and evaluate available genetic resources. Evaluation is carried out for agronomic and biological characters, resistance to biotic and abiotic factors, biochemical and technical properties. International descriptors are not used for characterization and evaluation. Utilization of genetic resources Breeding is conducted on 55 crops in nine areas of the country. Materials held in collections are used in breeding work and over 170 varieties have been created and multiplied. Available resources are used rationally to ensure food security at national level. Professional training In the framework of the NP staff qualification is ensured in various institutes of the country and through attendance at workshops organized by international CGIAR centres (IPGRI, CIMMYT, ICARDA and ICRISAT). International cooperation Azerbaijan has established cooperation with international institutes (IPGRI, CIMMYT, ICARDA, ICRISAT) and other genebanks. Funding The State budget partially finances the NP. The funds allocated are rather limited and additional help is required. Support is needed for the creation of the genebank. Financial support is required from the State and from international organizations for the purchase of the necessary equipment and products. Problems For various reasons the natural vegetative cover is decreasing and valuable wild plants are disappearing. Salinization of arable zones, erosion, overuse of natural pastures, irrational population resettlement and urbanization result in dramatic genetic erosion. Some material is lost from collections owing to the lack of good maintenance conditions. There is a need for highly trained staff. Future prospects Collection of valuable indigenous genetic resources, restoration, reliable protection and rational use remain major issues. The development of international cooperation and material exchange is essential for the creation of the genebank for medium-term and long-term conservation.


Belgium Toward a Belgian National Programme for a safe and dynamic conservation

and utilization of plant genetic resources Marc Lateur Department of Biological Control and Plant Genetic Resources, Agricultural Research Centre,

Gembloux, Belgium International context Since the ratification by Belgium, in November 1996, of the legally binding Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and moreover since adoption in June 1996 of the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA), under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), many national PGR related matters have changed. Each country has more than ever a moral obligation to set up a National Programme and to provide ad hoc financial support for planning and coordinating the conservation and utilization of its plant genetic resources–also called ‘agricultural biological diversity’–which are a part of biodiversity as a whole. Specifically on agricultural matters, the CBD asked each member of the Working Party to implement the GPA by setting up and/or making progress towards, the following actions: - implementing a national strategy, programmes and plans which ensure the development

and successful implementation of policies and actions that lead to sustainable use of agrobiodiversity components;

- identifying and assessing relevant ongoing activities and existing instruments at the national level;

- establishing or enhancing mechanisms for increasing public awareness and understanding the importance of the sustainable use of agrobiodiversity components;

- using any methods and indicators to monitor the impacts of agricultural development projects, including the intensification and extensification of production systems, on biological diversity;

- promoting contact with farming communities for the development, maintenance and use of their knowledge and practices in the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity;

- helping to implement the Global Plan of Action (GPA); - collaborating with other Contracting Parties to identify and promote sustainable

agricultural practices and integrated landscape management; - reviewing agricultural biological diversity: implementing the National Programme of

work of phase I and adoption of a multi-year work programme; - promoting regional and thematic cooperation within this framework of the programme

of work on agricultural biological diversity; - providing financial support for implementation of the programme of work on

agricultural biological diversity; - supporting actions to raise public awareness in support of sustainable farming and food

production systems that maintain agricultural biological diversity; - coordinating its position in both the Convention on Biological Diversity and the

International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.


The Global Plan of Action goes into more detail and strengthens the implementation of National Programmes for the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (Cooper et al. 1998). Current situation in Belgium Belgium has a long history of collecting and raising a wide range of plants, which are used in horticulture and agriculture. It is estimated that at least 17 000 plant accessions are held in different Belgian collections. The most advanced works are devoted to Rhododendron spp. (5000, Agricultural Research Centre, Department of Plant Genetics and Breeding (CLO-DVP) Gent); fruit tree species (3130, Agricultural Research Centre (CRA), Gembloux and NGOs); Phaseolinae spp. (1400, National Botanical Garden, Meise); and Musa spp. (1100, INIBAP collection at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL), Leuven). At the Federal level there was only one research institution with the objective of managing Plant Genetic Resources (Department of Biological Control and Plant Genetic Resources - Agricultural Research Centre of Gembloux, CRA). Since 1 January 2002 most of the agricultural activities are dealt with by the regional authorities. The former Federal Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for coordinating the regions and represents them on the international scene. For the moment, there is no centralized coordination structure for the management of Belgian PGR. Activities are run on a voluntary basis, information is collected from colleagues and from formal data but there is no centralized database. Precise information is still kept by the curators, so at this stage we cannot really speak of an official national inventory. Links with the main important collections and with general data are to be found in a national inventory ”Biodiversity Resources in Belgium” federal Web site (http://www.br.fgov.be/BIODIV) which is linked with the Belgian Clearing House Mechanism of the CBD. Inside this mechanism there is very good federal collaboration managed by the Focal Point, which is supported by the Belgian Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs (BFOSTCA). However, there have been new plans which are being discussed by the BFOSTCA for the setting up of a federal structure focused on Genetic Resources management with the principal aims: - coordinate the individual efforts inside the country; - increase awareness within the political and research sector of the great importance of the

future of GR, so as to ensure an appropriate coordination structure and adequate budgets;

- establish cooperation and coordination between the partners; - develop the concept of ‘National Collections’ based on specific criteria and to develop a

real national policy on the matter. At CRA, Gembloux, we have planned to start an initiative, using our own resources, to combine in a central database the PGR crop databases held in different departments of our research centre and in the Faculty of Agronomy of Gembloux. This initiative will be further extended to all Belgian data existing in various institutes. There are indeed many work databases developed by researchers for their own research programmes and by public institutions such as botanical gardens which contain passport, characterization and evaluation data, but such data are not yet freely available. Concept of ‘national and European collections’ Due to the wide diversity of PGR and the shortage of financial support at the different regional, federal and European levels we need to develop a coordinated strategy for the safe conservation of our resources. One of the proposals gathering support within the ECP/GR Working Groups is the concept of sharing the responsibility between regional, national and European collections


through the establishment of decentralized collections of accessions, to ensure long-term conservation and easy access to a wide range of biodiversity for the sake of European horticulture, agriculture, forestry, cultural heritage or science. The different steps are as follows: 1. Defining which criteria will be used for selecting the accessions to the decentralized

‘National collection’. The decision is taken in collaboration with all collection curators and following some priority criteria. Examples of criteria could be Belgian origin or strong sociocultural and historical relation to Belgium and good adaptation to our soil and climatic conditions, extraordinary traits representing the diversity of crop cultivars that have a potential value for our country;

2. Sorting out the original material from all collections by collecting passport data and minimum evaluation and characterization data;

3. Comparing data from different collections and identifying unique and original material to avoid duplication;

4. Establishing the ‘National collection’ list; 5. Establishing protocols for the network structure and sharing responsibility for the safe

conservation strategy for this priority collection. Such procedures have to be followed both at the regional level, at the national level and finally at the European level where the ‘European Collection’ is considered as the sum of the different national collections. The global management of the network will be coordinated by ECP/GR, in collaboration with the respective European Central Crop Database managers. References Cooper, D., C. Spillane, I. Kermali and M. Anishetty. 1998. Harnessing Plant Genetic

Resources for sustainable agriculture. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 114:1-8.


Bulgaria Developing a partnership policy for the protection, sustainable use and

management of plant genetic resources in Bulgaria Rada Koeva and Syika Angelova Institute for Plant Genetic Resources (IPGR), Sadovo, Bulgaria Introduction The new International Treaty assigned a strategic place for the state policy of each country concerning the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources, as well as calling for the equitable sharing of rights and responsibilities among all partners who create, possess or use available plant genetic resources. Aims The main objective of the present work is to describe the policy of partnership and its expected outcome by increasing the opportunities for optimizing the conditions and prerequisites for conservation and management of plant genetic diversity at all levels of its formation and use. This objective was accompanied by measures for activating the international exchange of materials and information, with reduced barriers to communication and access to the available genetic diversity, good control of its use and the provision of conditions for regenerating plant material over a long time span. Methods and approaches To achieve the general aims and the scope of activities within the coordinated programme, some major schemes and methodological approaches had to be used: - listing and identification of the PGRFA collections and partners/stockholders, owners,

description of their main purposes and motives in maintaining collections and programmes for research and management of valuable plant genetic resources;

- specifying the modern standards for collection, evaluation and conservation defined by the European programme for the aforementioned lines and particularly those valid for all levels of the partners’ structure;

- creating a database and partner network to improve the security of national collections and to define the types of collection and the work to be undertaken on these (size of the collections, structural analyses by origin, material type and storage methods, evaluation of the available diversity in the collections).

Results and discussion The policy for partnership and coordination of genetic resources related activities outlined a number of actions of which the following were achieved: - two inventories were conducted (in 2000 and 2002) to determine the list of partners and

available PGR collections in the country in terms of species diversity, volume of material maintained, storage conditions and status of accessions, databases, access to and degree of usability of the genetic diversity (questionnaire sent to 23 partners);

- the inventory revealed some important gaps: incorrect classification of collections; heterogeneous evaluation systems; lack of databases (passport and evaluation data); low level of long-term conservation; lack of access to collections and information;


- negative results arising from an inadequate coordination between partners in the field of genetic resources due to individual peculiarities, differences or vagueness of interests and motivation and distrust among partners regarding the use of genetic resources;

- the unsolved partnership problems and their negative effects were defined: lack of clarity regarding the level and status of PGR collections; duplication of accessions in the collections; uneven distribution of rights and responsibilities for PGR activities;

- the lost benefits and consequences of the negative results were summarized as: loss of unstored germplasm; ineffective participation in the projects; loss of funds; inadequate use of plant genetic resources;

- the ecogeographical distribution of genetic diversity and the partners in the centres and collections investigated were recorded to construct a map of the National PGR Programme (Fig. 1);

Fig 1. Distribution of the partners involved in PGRFA conservation and sustainable use in Bulgaria. - the activities promoting the implementation of the policy for partnership were classified

into three main groups of potential partners: (i) direct participants and executors in the field of plant genetic resources; (ii) PGR-associated partners; (ii) the authorities and the National PGR Programme;

- progress in the field of conservation and management of plant genetic resources was summarized in four workshop papers. The different partners in Bulgaria, involved both in short- and medium-term projects reported the main problems related to the standardization of evaluation methods and to the work organization in this field;

PARTNERS 1- IPGR - Sadovo 2- ABI - Kostinbrod 3- DAI - Dobrich 4- IFC - Pleven 5- IVK - Plovdiv 6- ICDW - Chirpan 7- IA - Karnobat 8- IM - Kneja 9- IAS - Russe 10- IPP - Kostinbrod 11- IMFPA - Troyan 12- IVV - Pleven 13- IFL - Plovdiv 14- IA - Kjustendil 15- IA - Shumen 16- RCES - Haskovo 17- RCES - Kardjali 18- IREMC - Kazanlik 19- IG - Sofia 20- IASAS - Sofia 21- BG - Sofia

BULGARIAPartnership: National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources


- special emphasis was placed upon the general problems of assessment of the status and type of the collections, as well as the accessions stored in a genebank and/or in working collections; standardization of evaluation methods and storage conditions;

- determination of the specific threats to genetic diversity; - A scheme for improving the effectiveness of partners' relations through the creation of a

PGR Partnership Council (Consulting) was suggested. Conclusions Signs of increased coordination between partners after the initiation of the policy for partnership included an increase in the amount of germplasm conserved and especially local genetic resources; participation in projects; organization of workshops; and discussions on fundamental problems: - the sustainable development of the National PGR Programme relies on the coordination

of objectives, research programmes, storage of local resources and general measures against the threats to PGR;

- establishment of a national Partnership or Consulting Council and expert group with a large institutional representation (Figs. 2 and 3);

57

13 9 112 3 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Part

(%)

1Partners / Motivation

Partnership for PGRFA conservation and sustainable use

Curators

Maintenance

Creators

Enrichment

Beneficients

Utilization

Ass. Departments

Priorities

Managers

Benefits

State departm.

Strategy

NGOs

Biodiversity

Fig. 2. Partners and their motivation.

Partners: Motivation: PGRFA Part: activities (%) Curators Maintenance 57 Creators Enrichment 13 End-users/beneficiaries Utilization 9 Ass. Departments Priorities 11 Managers Benefits 2 State Departments Strategy 3 NGOs Biodiversity conservation 5


Scale of effects Unsatisfactory 20 Satisfactory 40 Good 60 Very good 80 Excellent 100

Fig. 3. Partners assessment: Effect on contributions for PGRFA conservation and sustainable use.

- compilation of database information for the National PGR Programme and for the

establishment of the National PGR Network (available and evaluated resources, dynamics of resources maintained under short- and long-term storage);

- rationalizing and promoting the effectiveness of distribution of the rights and responsibilities for protection and sustainable development of local plant genetic resources, regulated by the State and its duty to fund the main necessary activities;

- measures of utmost importance to prevent and overcome the threats to genetic diversity were outlined: quality of reproduction and seed samples; level and quality of short-term storage conditions; omissions and lack of information and databases for the maintained collections; regulation of germplasm transfer.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Scal

e of

effe

ct

Partners / Effect of their contributions

Curators optimal

Creators unsatisfactory Explorers satisfactory End users good Managers unsatisfactory Ass.departm. satisfactory State departm.good NGOs very good


Croatia The Croatian Bank of Plant Genes Toni Safner Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia The Croatian Bank of Plant Genes is a national scientific project financed by the Ministry of Science and Technology since 1990. It is situated at the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb. Plant genetic resources (PGR) in Croatia are largely unknown and uncollected. Our most valuable PGR are local varieties as well as wild relatives of a number of crop species such as cereals (wheat, barley, rye, oats), legumes (pea, lentil, chickpea, faba bean), grape, olive, apple, medicinal and aromatic plants. Those resources are endangered by genetic erosion, caused primarily by gradual introduction of modern high-yielding cultivars replacing traditional varieties (landraces) and high-level urbanization that often causes habitat destruction. The general goal of the Croatian Bank of Plant Genes is ex situ conservation of PGR, including the following activities. Germplasm exploration and collecting - Creating a list of traditional varieties grown in Croatia and the traditional uses of plants

through comprehensive ethnobotanical studies (literature survey and survey of indigenous knowledge);

- Current collecting priorities are on traditional varieties of cereal and legume crops, and medicinal and aromatic plants;

- A collecting mission to the Istra peninsula was successfully organized in 2002 and another mission to the Kvarner Islands is planned.

Germplasm maintenance and regeneration - Classical ex situ maintenance facilities consist of 75 m3 cold chamber space; - On-farm conservation of traditional varieties is conducted in collaboration with the

Croatian NGO “Rustica”. Germplasm characterization and evaluation - The collected germplasm is being characterized using IPGRI standard descriptor lists; - The development of suitable descriptor lists for medicinal and aromatic plants is

underway; - The genetic structure of natural populations of medicinal and aromatic plants is being

studied using molecular markers within the national scientific project ”Genetic variability of medicinal and aromatic plants”.

Germplasm documentation An important goal of this project is the development of a germplasm documentation system that would contain all the relevant information on the accessions. The collected germplasm is freely available for use in scientific research programmes. The whole project is carried out in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21.


Czech Republic The Czech National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and

Utilization Ladislav Dotlačil, Zdeněk Stehno and Iva Faberová Research Institute of Crop Production (RICP), Prague–Ruzyne, Czech Republic The Czech National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization was launched by the Czech Ministry of Agriculture in 1994. The project deals with gathering (including collecting missions), documentation, characterization, evaluation and conservation of plant genetic resources and provides services to users. Presently, 11 institutions in the Czech Republic participate in the project, including two state research institutes, one agricultural university and eight private companies. The National Programme is coordinated by the Research Institute of Crop Production in Prague (RICP), which runs the Czech Gene Bank; the Czech Board for Plant Genetic Resources is an advisory body and provides expertise and consultations for the National Programme. The institutions holding collections are responsible for the maintenance, regeneration and increase of collections (for seed-propagated species in cooperation with the genebank) and for characterization, documentation and evaluation of genetic resources. For vegetatively propagated species, the institutes holding collections are responsible for long-term conservation of plant genetic resources. The Gene Bank at RICP Prague provides long-term storage of seed samples of all seed-propagated collections in the Czech Republic as well as services of the National Information System on Plant Genetic Resources (EVIGEZ) for all cooperating institutions. The genebank, together with all institutions holding collections, provide services to both local and foreign users of genetic resources. The total number of accessions in Czech collections is now 52 000; genetic resources of local origin are considered an essential part of the collections. Besides this, another 4500 accessions (mainly collected materials or genetic lines) are multiplied and studied in working collections. Seed-propagated collections represent 82% and vegetatively propagated species 18% of the whole amount. Increasing collections and collecting missions The aim of increasing plant genetic resources collections is to secure existing biodiversity and provide broad genetic diversity for the needs of present and future users. Primary attention is paid to materials of local origin which include domestically bred cultivars, old local cultivars, landraces and wild relatives. The annual increase in all Czech collections reached 1800-2500 samples in recent years. Most important sources of new materials are collecting missions and exchange of materials with partner genebanks and other institutes abroad. Collecting missions are an important tool to provide collections with new original diversity and save resources which are or could be endangered in nature or in agricultural practice. However, not all the collected material is included in the collections. Documentation of plant genetic resources The National Information System on Plant Genetic Resources (EVIGEZ) is used by all institutes cooperating within the National Programme. It consists of three parts: passport, characterization/evaluation, and storage documentation. The passport database (common for all species) has been completed. Evaluation data are available for 20 500 accessions, i.e.


39.5% of all accessions. There has been a significant increase in the last three years. National descriptor lists were developed for 34 crops and cover all important crops grown in the Czech Republic. The documentation system is available on the Internet (http://genbank.vurv.cz/genetic/resources/). Characterization and evaluation of genetic resources Recently, more attention has been paid to increasing the effective utilization of genetic resources through their characterization and evaluation. The evaluation is based on two to three years’ field experiments in which accessions are rated according to the national descriptor lists (or simple sets of descriptors); the data are completed with results of laboratory tests. Annually, 3500-4500 accessions are involved in some kind of evaluation. The data are processed and included in the documentation system EVIGEZ. The data are often utilized by cooperating breeders and researchers who can also participate in the evaluation. Genetic resources conservation The collection holders are responsible for the maintenance of genetic resources in a living state. In the case of vegetatively propagated crops, genetic resources are maintained in field collections (fruit tree or hop gardens, vineyards), or in tissue culture (potatoes). All seed-propagated collections are multiplied and regenerated by institutes (companies) holding such collections; long-term maintenance of seed samples is provided by the Czech Gene Bank in the active collection (at -5°C or -18°C respectively, according to the species) and base collection (-18°C). Hence about 8500 accessions still need regeneration in the near future. Conservation efforts remain a priority of the National Programme. The share of seed samples in the genebank has increased to 77% of all seed-propagated accessions in collections. The main crops in the genebank are cereals and legumes. Genetic resources of local origin are maintained in both the active and base collections and safety-duplication is being developed in cooperation with the Slovak Gene Bank in the Research Institute for Plant Production (RIPP) in Piešťany. Presently, in situ and on-farm conservation projects are not yet utilized for crop genetic resources conservation in the Czech Republic. However, research and preparatory activities are carried out and we expect them to be implemented on a limited scale in the near future. Methods of cryopreservation are being developed in selected vegetatively propagated species (potatoes, fruit trees, garlic, and hop) and preparations are made for routine work in the cryobank. Research and improvement of long-term seed storage techniques is also carried out. Utilization of genetic resources and services to users Annually, 3000 to 4000 samples of genetic resources are distributed to the users; the share of samples provided to local and foreign users is roughly similar, or slightly in favour of the local users. In a number of cases, genetic resources supplied to breeders have been used in the development of new cultivars or breeding materials. Acknowledged co-authorship of collection curators for released cultivars indicates close and successful cooperation between breeders and researchers.


Denmark Status of the National Danish Plant Genetic Resources Programme Lars Landbo Danish Plant Directorate, Lyngby, Denmark The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries is currently in the process of establishing a formal National Programme on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. A draft strategy has been formulated which will be followed by an action plan. A national plant genetic resources board was established in 1999. The board gives advice on issues relating to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and is composed of representatives from various stakeholders: private and public institutions and organizations (e.g. Farmers’ Union, the Agricultural Advisory Board etc.). Many of the Danish activities on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are conducted in cooperation with the other Nordic countries through the Nordic Gene Bank (NGB). These activities encompass both practical work on genetic resources as such and coordination and policy discussions. Contact persons on the Danish National Programme on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Anders Christiansen (Email: [email protected]) Dorrit Krabbe (Email: [email protected]) Danish Plant Directorate Lars Landbo (Email: [email protected]) Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Ole Callesen (Email: [email protected]) Kell Kristiansen (Email: [email protected])


Estonia National Programme “Collection and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources

for Food and Agriculture” Vahur Kukk and Külli Annamaa Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute (PBI), Jõgeva, Estonia The Estonian National Programme ”Collection and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture” (PGRFA) has been formally approved and finances allocated by the Government of Estonia in 2002. The programme is coordinated by the Council of PGRFA organized by the Estonian Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of Environment coordinates the preparation of the law on genetic resources preservation. Objectives of the programme - Sustainable conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources (PGR) of Estonian

origin to ensure implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); - Development of the national PGR network; - Exploration and utilization of collections. Responsibility sharing Genebank of the Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute The genebank was granted the status of national genebank for ex situ preservation by the Minister of Agriculture in 2002. Its functions are: - Long-term ex situ conservation of cereals, grasses, legumes and vegetables; - 670 ex situ accessions of 37 species, 96 varieties of Estonian origin; - 160 potato accessions in field collections; - 3500 accessions in breeders’ field collections; - Collecting missions to the natural habitats of forage legumes and grasses; - Preservation of safety-duplicates of the most valuable genotypes of Estonian origin at the

Nordic Gene Bank. Contacts Vahur Kukk (National Coordinator for ECP/GR) - Email: [email protected] Külli Annamaa - Email: [email protected] 48309 Jõgeva, Estonia Plant Biotechnological Research Centre EVIKA of the Estonian Agricultural University - In vitro conservation of agricultural and horticultural crops; - 1300 accessions of 34 species; - 800 meristem clones of 420 potato varieties, breeding material and landraces; - Disease eradication and multiplication. Contact Katrin Kotkas - Email: [email protected] Teaduse 6a, 75501 Saku, Harjumaa, Estonia


Polli Horticultural Institute (Estonian Agricultural University) - Breeding and research centre of fruit crops; - Conservation of fruit trees and berry plants; - 900 accessions of 14 species; - 93 varieties of Estonian origin. Contact Kalju Kask - Email: [email protected] 69104 Karksi-Nuia, Viljandimaa, Estonia Institute of Experimental Biology (Estonian Agricultural University) - Preservation of wild relatives of wheat and disease-resistant hybrid wheat lines; - Monosomic aneuploid analysis and molecular genetics techniques for characterization of

conserved disease-resistant wheat genotypes. Contact Oskar Priilinn - Email: [email protected] 76902 Harku, Estonia Botanical Garden (Tartu University) - Conservation of natural habitats of grasses; - Conservation of decorative species and varieties; - Coordination of activities of private collectors. Contact Ain Vellak - Email: [email protected] Lai 38/40, 51005 Tartu, Estonia Department of Pharmacy (Tartu University) - Preservation of medicinal and aromatic plants in ex situ field collections; - 390 species and varieties. Contact Ulve Pihlik - Email: [email protected] Jakobi 2, 51014 Tartu, Estonia Finances All activities are financed from the budget of the National Programme ”Collection and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2002-2006” (Table 1). Table 1. Funding of activities in the Estonian National PGR Programme

Budget/year (in thousand EEK) Activities 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Inventory of collections 160 185 345 Creation and management of electronic database 280 260 100 100 740 Preservation and rejuvenation of collections 630 1240 1345 1435 1470 6120 Evaluation and characterization of accessions; methodological investigations 430 455 475 500 1860

Equipment for genebank management 80 215 225 260 260 1040 Participation in the Nordic-Baltic PGR project 65 125 125 155 155 625 Participation in the PGR projects coordinated by FAO and IPGRI 65 210 220 245 245 985

Total 1000 2685 2630 2670 2730 11715


Documentation system Accessions of Estonian origin are evaluated and characterized. The basic structure of the documentation system for the national inventory has been developed. Further development of the electronic database will be continued within the EPGRIS project. The database will be regularly updated and searchable on-line. International activities - Full member of the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources

Networks (ECP/GR); - Participation in the EPGRIS project ”European Plant Genetic Resources Information

Infrastructure”; - Participation in the joint Nordic-Baltic project supported by the Nordic Council of

Ministers; - Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation for PGR conservation with the

N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR), St. Petersburg.


Finland National Plant Genetic Resources Programme for Agriculture and Forestry Mia Sahramaa MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Plant Production Research, Jokioinen, Finland Finnish agriculture and forestry, as well as food production and forest industries that are dependent on them, are based on the sustainable use of renewable natural resources. The conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources for agriculture, horticulture and forestry are covered by international agreements (Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Global Plan of Action (GPA)). In Finland, the body responsible for the conservation and sustainable use of these resources is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry appointed a working group for the preparation of a Finnish National Plant Genetic Resources Programme related to the implementation of the CBD and the GPA. The working group was appointed for the period 1 March 1998 – 31 December 2000. The group continued the work of the first Committee for Plant Genetic Resources appointed in 1995. The Finnish Advisory Board to the Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) was included in the working group as a sub-division. The National Plant Genetic Resources Programme for Agriculture and Forestry outlines the main principles, objectives and proposals for measures for the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources for agriculture, horticulture and forestry. The Programme does not cover herbs, medicinal, ornamental or landscape plants as they are not included within the mandate of the Nordic Gene Bank. These categories of plants can be most appropriately managed by the Advisory Board for Plant Genetic Resources, the appointment of which is proposed in the present programme, as they are adopted into the mandate of the NGB. It is the contention of the working group that the Nordic Gene Bank should be utilized more efficiently than at present for the coordination, planning and implementation of work for the conservation of national plant genetic resources. The working group recommends that responsibility for the implementation of the Finnish National Plant Genetic Resources Programme for Agriculture and Forestry be assigned to MTT Agrifood Research Finland. The corresponding organization responsible for forest genetic resources is the Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla). Measures proposed in the National Plant Genetic Resources Programme will be primarily carried out by the competent authorities of the various administrative sectors. Indeed, the successful implementation of the programme calls for close cooperation between several administrative sectors. Main objectives of the programme - A national board for genetic resources will be established to coordinate activities and to

prepare national approaches to policy issues; - Agricultural plant genetic resources will be stored primarily in the Nordic Gene Bank; - Conservation of vegetatively propagated agricultural and horticultural crops will be

arranged nationally, particularly at MTT; - Gene resource collections of forest trees will be complemented; - Development of the programme will be in harmony with international development in

this sector;


- The programme will also participate in the development of indicators for measuring sustainable use of PGR at the national and international levels;

- Research on PGR and activities of associations and organizations promoting PGR will be supported through existing resources.

Specific measures Legislation and international agreements on genetic resources - Participation in national preparation of international agreements to ensure the

conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. These agreements include notably the CBD and the International Treaty agreement;

- Implementation of the Nordic strategy for genetic resources; - Participation in the preparation of international and national legislation on the

ownership of plant genetic resources; - Within available resources, research into the effects of legislation on the conservation and

sustainable use of genetic resources will be supported. Conservation of plant genetic resources - The responsibility of MTT Agrifood Research Finland will be increased for the

conservation of nationally valuable genetic resources for agriculture; - The storage of the plant genetic resources for agriculture will be centralized in the Nordic

Gene Bank. Operations of the NGB will be developed through active participation of Finland in the Board of the NGB.

- Work by various associations and other organizations for the promotion of the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for agriculture will be supported within the limits of available resources;

- Measures promoting the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for agriculture will be maintained and developed through the system of agri-environmental support;

- New gene reserve forests and new collections of hardwood trees will be established. In addition to these, collections for the conservation of genetic material of aspen, black alder, Siberian larch and juniper will be established. The management and maintenance of gene reserve forests and the collections will be ensured.

- The Advisory Board for Plant Genetic Resources to be established will study opportunities for extending the mandate of the NGB to cover also herbal, medicinal, ornamental and landscape plants, as well as the national measures for the organization of the protection, maintenance and sustainable use of these plant categories.

Sustainable use of plant genetic resources - Breeding of varieties adapted to Finnish conditions will be maintained and, when

necessary (with funds from the National Emergency Supply Fund), breeding of commercially non-profitable field crops that are nevertheless necessary to secure a national seed supply will be supported;

- The maintenance and cultivation of landraces, varieties and old cultivars will be promoted as part of the system of agri-environmental support;

- The development of indicators for measuring the sustainable use of genetic resources will be participated in, both nationally and internationally;

- Within available resources, research into the diverse utilization of plant genetic resources for agriculture will be promoted, as will the transfer of research results into practice;


- Long-term programmes for forest tree breeding and seed supply, as well as legislation regulating the production of genetically improved reforestation material, will be kept up to date.

Research, information, education and training, and advisory services regarding PGR - Efforts will be made to enhance the efficiency of research, education and advisory

services for the protection, conservation and sustainable use of PGR in Finland; - Efforts will be made to ensure that research on PGR for agriculture, forestry and

horticulture is sufficiently covered in current and future research programmes on genetic resources;

- The expertise of NGB will be utilized in research and education on the conservation of genetic resources (for example, through participation in Nordic researcher workshops).

- Within available resources, research will be supported on the conservation and sustainable utilization, as well as diversity, of plant genetic resources;

- Links will be established on the MTT Agrifood Research Finland Web site to the Web sites of major organizations in the field of conservation and sustainable use of the genetic resources for agriculture and forestry;

- Associations and other organizations will, within their resources, provide practical advisory services for issues involving the utilization of plant genetic resources.

Contacts Leena Hömmö Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Malminkatu 16 FIN-00023 Government Finland Email: [email protected] Mia Sahramaa MTT Agrifood Research Finland Plant Production Research FIN-31600 Jokioinen Finland Email: [email protected] Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla) Unioninkatu 40 A FIN-00170 Helsinki Finland Email: [email protected]


France The French National Plant Genetic Resources Programme Martine Mitteau Bureau des Ressources Génétiques (BRG), Paris, France Establishment of the Programme France has a long history of plant collecting and breeding, especially since the 1850s. Since then, numerous collections, for research or exhibition purposes, have been built up, many of which still existed in the 1980s. Besides these, in 1926 the first national nature reserve was created as a first step towards in situ conservation. Since the 1960s, many initiatives geared to conserving the genetic resources of plant species have been undertaken. In 1983, the need to organize and better coordinate these initiatives and to elaborate a national strategy led to the creation of the Bureau des Ressources Génétiques (BRG) by the State authorities. In 1993, BRG was strengthened into an interministerial organization. In 1998, a National Charter for the Management of Genetic Resources in France, elaborated by BRG coordinating a very large consultation process, was adopted by the State authorities. Objectives and coverage The French National Plant Genetic Resources Programme covers all the related activities—management, research, training, public awareness and policy—in France, including overseas territories. Similar programmes are in place, with the same policy and the same coordination, on animals and microbial genetic resources. France has chosen a decentralized system of genetic resources management, considering the system of large central genebanks to be too remote from users. The system adopted aims to involve, by means of networks, the various participants, from curators to users, in long-term maintenance of a ”National Collection”, sharing between them the burden and cost of conservation activities, while coordinating them in a common management and policy framework, under the auspices of BRG. Structure and coordination BRG organizes and coordinates the long-term preservation of plant genetic diversity, as heritage material, for present and future generations and as strategic input for breeding and economic development. Established in 1993 as a Scientific Group with nine co-sponsors, it currently involves 13 members: the Ministries in charge respectively of Research, Industry, Agriculture, Environment, Overseas Territories and Cooperation, and seven public scientific institutions. Its mandate covers the field of plant, animal and microbial genetic resources: - To organize the management of genetic resources at the national level and to mobilize

the whole range of stakeholders involved; - To promote research and to enhance the transfer of knowledge; - To inform and to communicate; - To provide French expertise and representation in European and international

organizations and fora. The special function of BRG is to deal simultaneously with the coordination and federation of national activities on genetic resources, accompanying these activities by


promoting specific research programmes and inserting them, as appropriate, into global and regional programmes, while participating in the national and international regulations on genetic resources. Stakeholder involvement All stakeholders involved in plant genetic resources, both from the public and the private sectors, take part in the implementation of the national policy. They take part in the networks; they are regularly consulted to improve the national strategy and to prepare French international commitments. These stakeholders may be public or private bodies for plant breeding, research, training, collection or the management of nature reserves. They may also be associations, regional genebanks, territorial authorities, etc. Legal and policy framework Under the French environmental legislation, genetic diversity is part of the national heritage, but the legal status of individual genetic resources is dealt with under the intellectual property rights law, where relevant. With regard to the conservation and management of genetic resources, the policy framework is more advanced than the legal one. The National Charter was adopted in 1998; since then it has determined the national policy under which national and regional activities are undertaken. Its implementation is through BRG. Overview of activities The National Programme deals with cultivated crops (temperate and tropical) and with specific wild species (forests, wild relatives of crops, meadow species). It focuses on the sustainable management of ”National Collections”, gathering genetically diverse and representative material throughout French territory, and facilitating access to it according to the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and to the FAO Global Plan of Action on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (1996). The ”National Collections” include resources preserved ex situ, in situ and on-farm within networks of partners coming from public, private and associative sectors. A platform for tropical and Mediterranean species, specialized in conservation methods, ensures germplasm healthy transit, expertise and staff training. Several long-term experimental programmes are being carried out to ensure a dynamic management of genetic diversity, sometimes with a pre-breeding objective. Funding The coordination of national activities on genetic resources through BRG is funded by Ministries and public research institutions. Research on genetic resources is funded in the same way. Management activities are funded by a combination of public and private resources. Contact BRG – Bureau des Ressources Génétiques 16 rue Claude Bernard F–75231 Paris cedex 05 France Tel.: +33 (0) 144 08 72 61 Fax: +33 (0) 144 08 72 63 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.brg.prd.fr


Georgia The National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources in Georgia Gogotur Agladze, Guram Alexidze and Tamriko Jinjikhadze Academy of Agricultural Sciences (AAS), Tbilisi, Georgia Introduction In spite of its small area (approximately 70 000 km2), Georgia has a rich biological diversity owing to its very varied climatic, geological, topographical and hydrological conditions. Endemic plant species of Georgia constitute about 9% of the total flora, a high proportion compared with other, larger countries in Europe and Asia. This small country is the centre of origin of many crops, particularly of wheat. In the 1930s 12 species of wheat were recorded, including 5 endemic species, 144 varieties and about 100 landraces. Many grapevine, fruit and forest species originate in Georgia; perennial and annual food crops, vegetables and horticultural crops also display a great diversity. Structure of the National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources in Georgia The Steering Committee for Plant Genetic Resources (was established in 1998 at the Academy of Agricultural Sciences (AAS). The Academy is organized in the following working groups: cereals; forest species; fodder grasses; fruit and grapes; aromatic and ornamental wild plants; food legumes and medicinal plants; vegetables; and orchards. The main PGR-related activities are collecting (collecting missions and seed exchange between institutes), evaluation and conservation. Most institutes carry out ex situ conservation. The Academy of Agricultural Sciences collaborates with the following research institutes: Scientific Research Institute of Farming; Agrarian State University; Institute of Botany; Botanical Garden; Institute of Viticulture, Horticulture and Winemaking; Institute of Forestry; and also with NGOs (“Elkana”, Agrobiodiversity Protection Society of Georgia (DIKA), etc.) The computerized national inventory currently records a total of 663 accessions (Table 1). Table 1. Ex situ collections in Georgian institutes Institute No. of accessions Institute of Farming 225 Institute of Botany 211 Institute of Viticulture, Horticulture and Winemaking 10 Mtskheta Breeding Station 6 Agrobiodiversity Protection Society ”DIKA” 211 Total 663 Recent achievements and current projects April 2000: establishment of the Georgian PGR Centre The Centre, located at the Institute of Farming (Mtskheta, Tserovani), is financed by the government budget with additional support from IPGRI and the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). Its responsibilities are to: - Undertake an inventory of germplasm holdings in Georgia;


- Document these holdings in a suitable database system; - Assemble representative samples of these accessions in one location under conditions

suitable for long-term storage; - Characterize these accessions according to international genebank standards. The following collaborative projects have been undertaken: - Participation in the EPGRIS project (European Plant Genetic Resources Information

Infrastructure) - National inventory of ex situ collections in Georgia; - Participation in the project entitled “Undertaking an inventory of the genetic resources

holdings in Georgia of plant genetic resources of cereal crops, food legumes, fodder and pasture species”. The project is based on an agreement between ICARDA, AAS and the Institute of Farming;

- International scientific collecting mission in Georgia (2001): The goal of the mission was to collect endemic indigenous and wild species of cereals, grain legumes, fodder and pasture crops. This project was carried out by ICARDA and the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). Scientists from various countries and institutes (VIR, St. Petersburg; ICARDA; AWWC (Australian Winter Wheat Collection); IPK-Gatersleben, Germany; and the Georgian PGR centre) took part in the mission. A total of 152 accessions were collected.

- Participation in the project entitled “Conservation and sustainable use of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) genetic resources in the Caucasus and the Northern Black Sea region” (IPGRI and Research Institute of Viticulture, Horticulture and Winemaking);

- Creation of the CAC (Central Asia and Caucasus) Web site: This project was carried out by ACIAR and can be found at http://www.cac-biodiversity.org/geo/index.htm.

Future activities Policy issues - Official establishment of the National PGR Programme and discussion of biodiversity

issues at national level; - Organization of the second national meeting and discussion of results achieved so far. Computerization and documentation systems - Of the nine Georgian institutes involved in PGR work, only five have computer facilities.

The other four institutes (Botanical Institute; Institute of Horticulture, Viticulture and Winemaking; Institute of Tea and subtropical crops; and Institute of Botany) should be provided with computer facilities and a local computer network should be established with the PGR Centre located at the Institute of Farming;

- Establishment of the National Documentation Unit and linkages between the documentation unit and documentation specialists based in institutes holding PGR collections;

- Organization of database training for staff of the institutes. Germplasm collections - Increasing the number of accessions in the collections; - Organization of short missions to collect endemic species and local landraces; - Characterization of the material; - Preparation of storage facilities and establishment of a Caucasus regional genebank for

three countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia).


Germany National Programme for Genetic Resources of Agricultural and Horticultural

Crops Siegfried Harrer1, Harald Bajorat2, Frank Begemann1 and Jons Eisele3

1 German Centre for Documentation and Information in Agriculture (ZADI), Information Centre for Biological Diversity (IBV), Bonn, Germany

2 Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMVEL), Bonn, Germany 3 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Northrhine-

Westfalia, Düsseldorf, Germany Establishment of the National Programme The National Programme for Genetic Resources of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops in Germany was formally established in March 2002. It was developed under the leadership of the German Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture together with other participants, in particular representatives of the Federal and Länder governments, research institutions, breeding organizations and non-governmental organizations. It is based upon the structure of the Global Plan of Action (GPA) and its four main areas are: (1) in situ conservation and development; (2) ex situ conservation; (3) utilization; and (4) capacity building. Organization Due to the distributed responsibilities for conservation and use of plant genetic resources in Germany, an Advisory and Coordinating Committee for PGRFA (BeKo/PGR) has been established. The BEKO/PGR consists of 18 representatives of the Federal and Länder governments, as well as of research institutions, breeding organizations and non-governmental organizations. The work of the BeKO/PGR is supported by thematic working groups (WG) that will support and advise the actors involved in implementing and carrying out the programme. At present two working groups have been established, one for in situ and on-farm aspects and one for the national support of the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR). Objectives - To maintain the diversity of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA)

and their wild relatives (in situ and ex situ) for the long term in a cost-efficient and scientifically sound way;

- To promote the use of PGRFA e.g. through better characterization, evaluation, documentation and pre-breeding;

- To sustainably use a wider range of agricultural and horticultural (including ornamental) crops in market-oriented production;

- To promote the conservation and rehabilitation of agricultural and horticultural ecosystems;

- To promote greater transparency in the shared responsibilities of the competent authorities at the Federal and Länder levels and among all stakeholders involved;

- To exploit synergies from closer cooperation at national and international levels.


To fulfil these main objectives, 96 activities are listed in the programme. These activities relate to the following areas: - In situ conservation, monitoring and development; - Collection and ex situ conservation (with crop-specific measures); - Utilization; - Education, research and development; - Information, documentation, extension and public relations work. Selected priority activities (as of 2003) - Transfer of the collection of the Federal Centre for Breeding Research on Cultivated

Plants (BAZ, Braunschweig) to the genebank of the Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK, Gatersleben);

- Transfer of the responsibility for the fruit genebank of IPK to BAZ; - Establishment/update of an inventory of PGRFA in situ and on farm in Germany; - Collaboration in ECP/GR, e.g. support for the establishment of a conservation system for

PGRFA by sharing of responsibilities in Europe; - Establishment of a national inventory for ornamental crops; - Establishment of a public/private partnership for the evaluation of PGRFA in Germany; - Integration of the distributed relevant data in the National Inventory on PGRFA in

Germany (PGRDEU, http://www.genres.de/pgrdeu/). Implementation Different participants comprising Federal and Länder governments, research institutions, breeding organizations and non-governmental organizations contribute to the programme according to their expertise and capacities. Contacts Dr Wílbert Himmighofen Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMVEL) Rochusstraße 1 D-53123 Bonn Germany Email: [email protected] Secretariat German Centre for Documentation and Information in Agriculture (ZADI) Information Centre for Biological Diversity (IBV) Villichgasse 17 D-53177 Bonn Germany Email: [email protected]


Hungary The Hungarian Crop Genetic Resources Programme Bertalan Székely1, László Holly2, István Már2 and Gábor M. Csizmadia2 1 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Budapest, Hungary 2 Institute for Agrobotany, Tápiószele, Hungary The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Hungary is responsible for the coordination of the national genetic resources programme. The Ministry provides funding and technical supervision of the Hungarian National Programme for Crop Genetic Resources with the involvement of the National Gene Bank Council. In accordance with Ministry Decree No. 92/1997 (XI. 28.) FM, the Crop Gene Bank Council also acts as an advisory body to develop recommendations for the scope of activities and priorities. In order to support the activities of the Council, working groups have been organized with participation of experts according to the main crop groups grown in Hungary, including field crops, vegetables, fruits, grapes, medicinal plants, ornamentals, forest trees and shrubs, and microorganisms. The activities of the working groups include the monitoring of ex situ collections, identification of gaps in collections, preparation of proposals for necessary actions, implementation of recommendations developed by the Crop Gene Bank Council. Financial support is provided to 62 institutions holding PGRFA collections registered in the National Data Base. Registration is subject to the condition that only unique accessions duplicated in the National Base Collection (so far only for seed-propagated species) are eligible for inclusion. Further development of the National Programme for PGRFA conservation and sustainable use is under way considering the scientific achievements and experiences to fulfil the requirements of the National Programmes for Agro-Environment and Rural Development. National legislation is being modified in order to harmonize with EU regulations and the FAO International Treaty on PGRFA. More support will be provided to in situ and on-farm activities and the completion of the national inventory of native genetic resources. The Institute for Agrobotany, Tápiószele, acts as a coordination centre for all crop genetic resources activities in Hungary excluding forestry species and microorganisms. Its main responsibilities include:

- maintenance of the national collections of field and vegetable crops; - monitoring and supervising the technical conditions in specialized collections

maintained by other institutions; - coordination of activities associated with international collaboration; - development of the National Base Collection for seed-propagated crops; - establishment of a National Data Base for all Hungarian ex situ collections; - assessment of the National Inventory for PGRFA; - secretariat support for the National Gene Bank Council.

In order to improve the efficiency of the National PGRFA Programme special attention is paid to the extension of collaboration with local organizations including non-profit institutions and foundations, gardens’ friends groups, eco-villages and farms, nature reserves and national parks. It is also intended to strengthen the collaboration with other national and regional programmes working under similar ecological conditions. Utilization


of PGRFA and more detailed evaluation of existing collections will also receive more attention in the future. The Hungarian PGRFA programme collaborates actively with FAO and IPGRI and participates in ECP/GR, EUFORGEN, EPGRIS and PGR Forum.


Israel The Israeli Gene Bank National Plan (2002–2004) Arieh Levy1, Elie Putievsky1 and Miriam Waldman2 1.Agricultural Research Organization (ARO), Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel 2 Ministry of Science, Jerusalem, Israel Introduction Israel is located at the meeting point of three phytogeographical regions: Mediterranean, Irano-Turanian and Saharo-Arabian. As such it represents all three regions and its flora harbours a profuse richness of plant species and varieties. Moreover, Israel is part of the Fertile Crescent where domestication of old crops began. Therefore, several of its native species are wild-growing relatives, feral derivatives or even direct ancestors of cultivated plants. In addition, other local species may have untapped economic potential. The rapid increase in population, and with it increase in urbanization, result in the destruction of many natural habitats and the reduction of the genetic basis of these species. Besides the wild species, the remnants of the genetically broad-based landraces and primitive crop varieties, whose agrosystems have almost vanished from our area, are in urgent need of conservation. The Israeli Gene Bank (IGB) is responsible for collecting, conserving and evaluating plant species indigenous to Israel, including landraces and primitive cultivars. It is a decentralized network with its headquarters at the Volcani Center of the Agricultural Research Organization (ARO) and includes the central seed storage facilities holding some 20 000 accessions and the Information and Documentation Centre (IDC) on genetic resources collections kept in various institutes in Israel. Additional activities of the IGB include national and international exchange of plant material; promotion of national and international cooperation and coordination; organization of and participation in national and international workshops, conferences and training activities; and support and guidance for research on genetic resources. The IGB is affiliated to the ministries of Agriculture and Science and is governed by a Scientific Board of six members from universities and seed companies; its role is to plan/direct all genebank activities, define national policies and set priorities. The Israeli Gene Bank National Plan (2002–2004) In the following plan, we present the activities of the IGB in the area of conservation, evaluation and use of plant genetic resources (PGR). The IGB acts to prevent the disappearance of important PGR in the future. The steps taken for promoting the preservation of PGR are: - identifying target species to be conserved, e.g. those which constitute a crop’s genepool

or which have a hitherto untapped potential; source material for forage and forest plants; wild relatives of ornamental plants; rare endemic species; target species listed by international organizations;

- identifying immediate and future threats to the genepool of these target species; - identifying sites for in situ conservation of target species related to cultivated crops (such

as wheat in Amiad); - preserving target species also through ex situ conservation of seeds, management of

living and vegetatively propagated collections and in situ conservation of wild relatives of agricultural crops;


- the building of a new facility for the IGB is in progress and will enable the expansion of the PGR conservation;

- evaluation of the various accessions both at the phenotypic and genotypic levels using molecular tools and building a Web site and an up-to-date database for the PGR of the IGB;

- assisting all the interested people and institutions (scientists, breeders, farmers and others) in obtaining samples and information related to the activities of the IGB and genetic resources from foreign sources;

- support and encouragement of research related to PGR and especially for their collection, conservation, evaluation and use;

- promote regional and international cooperation on PGR activities and enhance exchange of ideas, data, plant material and experts from different countries.

This plan of action will be conducted through the collaboration of governmental and NGOs such as Rotem, the Nature Reserve Authority and the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel. The limiting steps for its implementation are limited funds and low awareness of the importance of PGR by policy-makers.


Italy Ex situ plant genetic resources conservation in Italy F. Grassi, M.G. Piazza and P. Engel Istituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura (ISF), Rome, Italy The Italian public system for the conservation of plant genetic resources is highly fragmented among several central and regional administrations, which limits the efficiency of the common management of the collections and of access to the relative data (Table 1). The only public institution exclusively devoted to plant genetic resources conservation is the Istituto del Germoplasma belonging to the National Research Council (CNR). The mission of this Institute, established in 1970, is the acquisition, evaluation, conservation and exploitation of plant genetic resources, mainly of the Mediterranean Region. It is one of the four centres in the world storing a duplicate of the world wheat collection and it is also responsible for some other crop collections such as Pisum, Vicia, etc. (Table 2). Table 1. Italian administrations funding plant genetic resources activities Administration Acronym Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policies MiPAF. Ministry of Education, University and Research MIUR National Research Council CNR Regional Administrations Local Administrations Table 2. Ex situ germplasm collections held at the Istituto del Germoplasma, Bari (Source: P. Perrino)

Crop Genus No. of species

No. of samples Crop Genus No. of

species No. of

samples Triticum 27 32464 Brassica 14 800 Hordeum 4 1997 Lycopersicon 10 608 Aegilops 31 1599 Allium 8 264 Zea 2 1356 Cucurbita 4 186 Secale 12 398 Beta 2 148 Avena 2 289 Cucumis 4 193 Oryza 4 42 Capsicum 5 198

Cereals

Total 82 38145 Lactuca 3 104 Pisum 1 4429 Raphanus 2 116 Vicia faba 1 2000 Cichorium 2 94 Phaseolus 15 1409 Citrullus 2 83 Phaseolus 50 952 Others 42 498 Cicer 1 357

Vegetables

Total 98 3292 Lens 5 337 Sorghum 4 352 Lathyrus 15 222 Lolium 6 316 Lupinus 5 112 Dactylis 1 224

Legumes

Total 93 9818 Phalaris 8 158 Vicia 65 2422 Others 56 890 Medicago 23 1161

Forage grasses

Total 75 1940 Trifolium 28 488 Sesamum 1 116 Hedysarum 4 149 Helianthus 4 94 Trigonella 3 88 Manihot 1 83 Others 28 368 Hibiscus 3 66

Forage legumes

TOTAL 151 4676 Amaranthus 4 46 Others Total 25300

Medicinal

Abelmoschus 1 51 GRAND TOTAL = 83960

Only recently, decree no. 143 of 4 June 1997 assigns the responsibility for the conservation of genetic resources to the Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (MiPAF).


In this regard, since 1999, MiPAF has been funding on an annual basis a specific project named ”Plant Genetic Resources” promoted by the Istituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura (ISF), in order to assess the plant genetic material present in the ex situ collections. The project has two lines of action: the first involves the Agricultural Research Institutes (IRSA) belonging to the MiPAF, while the second is a more specific action on fruit tree germplasm present in most of the Italian research institutions and regional research agencies. Action 1 This part of the project involves 15 of the 23 IRSA. The IRSA are public research institutes controlled by MiPAF that carry out research activities at the national level on the basis of annual programmes approved and financed by the Ministry. They also coordinate the National Research Programmes of MiPAF from which they receive additional funding. From the organizational point of view, these institutes are made up of headquarters and of a variable number of external field stations (including laboratories), an arrangement that assures a wide distribution over the national territory. The majority of the institutes are generally working on single crops (olives, grapes, tobacco, etc.) or on groups of crops (cereals, forages, industrial crops, fruit trees, ornamental plants, etc.) while others carry out activities in scientific disciplines (agronomy, plant protection, plant nutrition, soil protection, etc.). The IRSA generally maintain active collections mainly for research and breeding purposes. Nevertheless, the institutes are slowly but steadily increasing the activity directly connected to the conservation of PGR, as a result of both the influence of the project and of the international conventions linked to this issue. The IRSA involved in the project and the corresponding composition and size of the collections are listed in Table 3. Table 3. Agricultural Research Institutes (IRSA) involved in the project

Istituto Sperimentale Genus Species Total no. of accessions

No. of Italian accessions

Agronomico 1 1 202 159 per l’Agrumicoltura 12 66 310 157 per l’Assestamento Forestale e l’Alpicoltura 4 4 30 28 per la Cerealicoltura 5 43 8759 2366 per le Colture Foraggere 2 3 1770 1770 per le Colture Industriali 4 5 826 206 per l’Elaiotecnica 1 1 109 82 per la Floricoltura 13 60 379 165 per la Frutticoltura 15 80 4546 1883 per l’Olivicoltura 1 1 296 256 per l’Orticoltura 3 8 45 34 per la Selvicoltura 6 12 705 568 per il Tabacco 1 68 1711 329 per la Viticoltura 1 8 2106 1681 per la Zoologia Agraria 1 6 49 19 The figures reported in Table 3 are variable among the IRSA reflecting both the richness of the different crops’ diversity and the priority given to the conservation activity within the general programme of the institute. At present, the inventory includes a total number of 21 843 accessions, 44.4% of which are of Italian origin. The accessions of only two IRSA (Istituto Sperimentale per la Cerealicoltura and Istituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura) account for 60.9%.


In the 15 participating institutes 366 species are conserved ex situ (Table 4); cereals and forage crops, horticultural and industrial crops are generally conserved as seeds; fruit trees, medicinal, aromatic and ornamental plants and forest trees are usually conserved in vivo. Table 4. List of the main species conserved by the IRSA Istituto Sperimentale Main species Agronomico Prunus amygdalus per l’Agrumicoltura Citrus spp., Poncirus trifoliatum, Microcitrus spp., Fortunella spp. per l’Assestamento Forestale e l’Alpicoltura Chamomilla recutita, Gentiana lutea, Salvia officinalis, Iris pallida

per la Cerealicoltura Avena sativa, Hordeum vulgare, Triticum aestivum, Triticum durum, Triticum dicoccum, Triticum monococcum, Triticum spelta, x triticosecale, Zea mays

per le Colture Foraggere Medicago sativa, Trifolium repens, Trifolium subterraneum.

per le Colture Industriali Beta vulgaris, Cannabis sativa, Linum usitatissimum, Solanum tuberosum, Solanum lycopersicum

per l’Elaiotecnica Olea europea sativa

per la Floricoltura Alstroemeria spp., Asparagus spp., Fabiana imbricata, Gypsophyla spp., Hebe spp., Viburnum spp., Pyrachanta spp., Limonium spp, Lilium spp., Osteospermum spp.

per la Frutticoltura

Actinidia arguta , Actinidia chinensis , Actinidia deliciosa, Corylus avellana, Diospyros kaki, Feijoa sellowiana, Ficus carica, Fragaria vesca x ananassa, Juglans regia, Malus domestica, Pyrus communis, Pyrus serotinia, Prunus amygdalus, Prunus armeniaca, Prunus avium, Prunus cerasus, Prunus domestica, Prunus salicina, Prunus persica, Eriobotrya japonica, Ribes spp., Rubus spp., Vaccinium spp.

per l’Olivicoltura Olea europea sativa per l’Orticoltura Capsicum annum, Lycopersicon esculentum, Solanum tuberosum

per la Selvicoltura

Abies alba, Abies bornmulleriana, Abies nordmanniana, Abies equitrojani, Abies nebrodensis, Castanea sativa, Juglans regia, Pinus halepensis, Pinus brutia, Pinus eldarica, Prunus avium, Pseudotsuga menziesii

per il Tabacco Nicotiana spp. per la Viticoltura Vitis spp. per la Zoologia Agraria Morus spp. Most of the material collected is made up of cultivars (51%). The breeding selections represent 18% and wild material 15%. “Other” material (natural populations of forage crops, mutants, provenances and clones of forest trees) amounts to 12%, while landraces represent 4% of the total accessions. In order to harmonize the collation of data, a general minimum descriptor list, suitable for all the species conserved, was defined in collaboration with the PGR managers of the different IRSA according to the passport descriptors used by UPOV and IPGRI. All the IRSA joining the project were asked to supply the list of the accessions conserved in their collections and their descriptions using the minimum descriptor list. All the descriptions were entered in MS Excel and then imported into Access. At present, the only missing data in order to complete the database according to the minimum descriptor list are for the ”Country of origin” (13%) and ”Genetic status” (6%). All the data collected on the accessions conserved will be available on-line at the beginning of 2004; a volume containing only the accessions of Italian origin will be also be published. At present, the passport descriptors are being updated according to the EURISCO descriptors.


Action 2 This part of the project is exclusively devoted to fruit tree genetic resources and involves not only scientific institutions (universities and the National Research Council) but also regional research agencies. Some local institutions, NGOs, nurseries, schools, etc., not formally participating in the project, have also provided information about the local germplasm that they conserve. Table 5 shows the total number of accessions and those of Italian origin maintained by the different holders: scientific institutes including 14 universities (Ancona, Bari, Bologna, Firenze, Milano, Napoli, Padova, Palermo, Piacenza, Pisa, Reggio Calabria, Torino, Udine and Viterbo) and 3 research institutes (ISF, CNR Sassari and Firenze); regional (8) and local (3) agencies and schools (2); and 6 private entities: NGOs (2), farms (2) and nurseries (2). Table 5. Fruit species accessions conserved by scientific, public and private entities Institutions/ Entities Total no. of accessions No. of Italian accessions Scientific Institutions 11197 4546 Regional and local institutions 2182 1743 Private entities 552 552 Total 13931 6841 A total of 13 931 accessions belonging to 80 different species of fruit trees are conserved ex situ in the field collections of the 36 institutes. Peach, apple, pear, apricot, cherry, plum are, in this order, the species with the highest number of accessions. Of all the accessions, 6841 (about 49%) are of Italian origin. Considering the different species, in general, the local accessions are more numerous in pome fruit than in stone fruit. Most of the material collected consists of cultivars (41.4%) and non-cultivated varieties (36.4%). ”Other” material (generally breeders’ selections and of unknown origin) amounts to 14.7%, while landraces account for 7.5% of the accessions. The total number of different varieties is 68.3% of the accessions present in the institutes. Considering the percentage of duplication, the survey has shown that about 68% of the accessions are present in only one collection; a similar percentage is also found for the varieties of Italian origin. Having completed the general survey, a minimum descriptor list (passport data) and a species-specific descriptor list (characterization data) were elaborated within the project. A bibliographic study was first conducted in order to find as much information as possible to complete the description of each variety, after which curators were asked to check, correct and update the data requested for each descriptor. At present, 80% of the 16 general descriptors are documented, while for the species-specific descriptors the missing data vary from 20% to 10%. All the data collated will be entered in an Access database, currently being developed at ISF, and will be easily accessible via Internet. Conclusions Although there is a strong desire for coordination among the researchers and other players involved in PGR, a national information system has yet to be established, mainly due to a lack of political will and awareness of this issue and to the scattered nature of competence among the different administrations. The absence of a recognized common central focal point with clear guidelines contributes to generating misunderstandings among the different responsible administrations and institutions and, as a direct consequence, gaps in PGR management remain unfilled. The project ”Plant Genetic Resources” is the first attempt to centralize the information related to conservation, characterization, evaluation and utilization of PGR, and could be considered a first step towards the establishment of a national central database. In fact, the


elaboration of general and species-specific descriptors, the number of which is still low compared to the accessions’ potential richness in diversity and characteristics to be investigated, and the adoption of a common electronic format are playing an important role in the harmonization among the different entities dealing with PGR and in increasing their awareness of the need to be part of a national network. The aim of the project at present is to also include the Istituto di Genetica Vegetale (ex-Istituto del Germoplasma) in the project funded by Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali. This will provide a sufficiently complete picture of the ex situ conservation activity and will lead to the establishment of a comprehensive national information system.


Latvia Status of plant genetic resources conservation activities in Latvia Isaak Rashal1, Edite Kaufmane2 and Gints Lanka3

1 Institute of Biology, University of Latvia, Salaspils, Latvia 2 Dobele Horticultural Plant Breeding Experimental Station, Dobele, Latvia 3 Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia, Riga, Latvia There is no separate National Programme for plant genetic resources (PGR) in Latvia at the moment. Nevertheless, PGR activities are conducted in the framework of the National Programme of implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which includes a section on agricultural biodiversity, both of animal and crop genetic resources. The Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia is responsible for activities mentioned in this section. The Ministry of Agriculture elaborated a scheme for the national PGR activities that has started to be implemented. According to this scheme the Latvian Plant Genetic Resources Council would be the responsible body for taking main decisions related to national PGR activities and the practical PGR work should be carried out by the Latvian Plant Genetic Resources Centre and connected institutions. The Latvian PGR Centre, located at the Institute of Biology, University of Latvia, runs the Latvian Gene Bank of Cultivated Plants and is responsible for the Latvian PGR inventory and maintenance of the corresponding database. The Centre also coordinates collecting missions and organizes the repatriation of accessions of Latvian origin. Molecular characterization of some species has been started here. The mandate of the Latvian Gene Bank of Cultivated Plants is the long-term storage of seed samples of accessions of cultivated plants of Latvian origin, including medicinal and aromatic plants and excluding ornamentals, and also seed samples of wild relatives of cultivated plants collected in Latvia. At the moment all available seed accessions of Latvian origin are maintained there. Multiplication of the seed material, as well as characterization and evaluation of accessions, is carried out by experts from corresponding plant breeding stations (Table 1). Table 1. Partners of the Latvian Gene Bank of Cultivated Plants for the multiplication, evaluation and observation of seed-propagated crops Institution Crops Priekuļi Plant Breeding Station cereals, peas Stende Plant Breeding Station cereals Latvia University of Agriculture cereals Research Centre “Skrīveri” forage crops Pūre Horticultural Research Station vegetables Mežotne Plant Breeding Station sugar beet Latgale Centre of Agricultural Science flax The safety-duplication collection of Latvian PGR is kept in the Nordic Gene Bank. Latvian genetic resources of vegetatively propagated plants are maintained in field collections in corresponding breeding institutions (Table 2), where evaluation and observation of those crops are carried out. The potato collection is also kept in in vitro conditions.


Table 2. Field collections of the Latvian genetic resources of vegetatively propagated cultivated plants Institution Crops Priekuļi Plant Breeding Station potato Dobele Horticultural Plant Breeding Experimental Station horticultural crops Pūre Horticultural Research Station horticultural crops and vegetables Latvia University of Agriculture medicinal and aromatic plants Latvian PGR activities are financed both nationally and internationally. In the early stages, support received from the Nordic-Baltic Project on PGR was very important. It included technical aid and no less significantly, knowledge and experience transfer, mainly from the Nordic Gene Bank. It is encouraging to note that the national contribution to the PGR activities has increased in recent years. Different aspects of PGR-related activities are covered both by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia and by the Latvian Council of Sciences. Since 1993 Latvian participants have taken part in several ECP/GR activities as observers. In July 2003 the Ministry of Agriculture signed the Letter of Agreement with IPGRI and Latvia is joining the ECP/GR Programme as a full member.


Lithuania The Lithuanian National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources Juozas Labokas1 and Aušra Gineitaitė2

1 Institute of Botany, Vilnius, Lithuania 2 Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture (LIA), Kėdainiai dist., Lithuania Establishment of the National Programme In Lithuania the initiative of coordinated plant genetic resources activities began at the Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture over 15 years ago. Dr Alma Būdvytytė put a lot of effort in before the first results appeared and the National PGR Coordinating Centre was established at the Institute in 1993. The network of institutions sharing responsibilities in plant genetic resources conservation was created mid-1994. Then State financial support was allocated through the State Science and Studies Foundation. Simultaneously, the Nordic-Baltic PGR cooperation commenced. The year 1994 is considered as the beginning of the first phase of the Lithuanian National Programme on PGR. Initially seven institutions joined the network and a total of nine working groups were established. In 1998 the Ministry of Education and Science approved a 5-year national scientific programme on genetic resources. This date is considered to be the beginning of the second phase of the Lithuanian National Programme on PGR. It involved activities on plant, livestock, poultry and honey-bee genetic resources. A total of 17 research projects were launched on plant genetic resources at nine institutions (universities, research institutes, botanical gardens and breeding centres). The work was shared among 12 informal working groups, which covered the range from the smallest aromatic plant species to timber tree species, including ornamentals and landscape gardening species. The Law on National Plant Genetic Resources was prepared during this phase and approved by Parliament (Lithuanian Seimas) in 2001. Article 6 of the Law begins with the statement that "scientific research, collecting, implementation of measures for conservation and restoration of national PGR are being financed by the funds of the state budget”. Objectives, coverage and functioning Currently in phase III, as a follow-up to the Law on National PGR, the Lithuanian National PGR Programme focuses on the investigations of plant genetic resources of all groups which are to be considered national PGR sensu stricto. The main criteria employed are the socioeconomic value of species, their traditional use as well as indigenous/local origin of the genetic resources. From the very beginning in 1994, the main actors in PGR conservation and utilization were scientific research and education institutions, holding and investigating ex situ collections of PGR, as well as conducting research on in situ conservation. Funding is provided by the Ministry of Education and Science. According to the experience, traditions and resources available at those institutions, five crop-specific PGR coordinating centres were established in 2002 following the Law on National PGR (Table 1).


Table 1. The ten institutions and ten research projects within the Lithuanian National PGR Programme in 2003 Leading institution / Coordinating centre

Research project on (institution involved) Partner institution

1. Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture/ Field crops

Cereals and grain legumes (1,6) Forage and lawn grasses (1,6) Technical crops (1)

6. Lithuanian University of Agriculture

2. Lithuanian Institute of Horticulture/ Garden plants

Vegetables (2) Fruit and berries (2)

3. Institute of Botany/ Medicinal and aromatic plants

Wild small fruit/non-traditional horticultural plants (3,4,7) Medicinal and aromatic plants (3,6,7)

7. Kaunas Botanical Garden of Vytautas Magnus University

4. Vilnius University/ Ornamental plants

Ornamental plants (3,4,7,8,9) Natural and induced mutants (4)

8. Outdoor Floriculture Experimental Station

5. Lithuanian Forest Research Institute/ Forest trees and shrubs

Forest trees and shrubs (5,9,10)

9. Lithuanian Forest Tree Breeding Centre

10. Vilnius Pedagogical University

The long-term seed storage established at the Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture with the direct financial support of NGB in 1997 currently stores 1681 accessions of 85 plant species of most crop groups (Table 2). Table 2. Seeds stored in the long-term seed storage Plant group No. of accessions Cereals 202 Grain legumes 65 Forage grasses 681 Forage legumes 202 Technical crops 50 Vegetables 57 Medicinal and aromatic plants 121 Trees 303 Total 1681 The Standing Commission on National PGR, established by the Ministry of Environment in 2002 and consisting of the leading representatives of scientific/educational institutions and the Ministries of Environment, Education and Science and Agriculture acts as an advisory body to the Ministry of Environment within the field of PGR. Overall management of the National PGR Programme in its current phase is performed by the Programme Committee. The most recent step towards full implementation of the Law on National PGR is the government decision on the establishment of the plant genebank, which starts operating as a budget institution on 1 January 2004. The future functioning of the national PGR activities is foreseen under the status of the “State Order for Research”, the general scheme of which is now under development at the Ministry of Education and Science.


Macedonia (FYR) Status report on PGR conservation in Macedonia (FYR) Sonja Ivanovska1 and Gordana Popsimonova2 1 Faculty of Agriculture, Skopje, Macedonia (FYR) 2 Institute of Agriculture, Skopje, Macedonia (FYR) The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is at the top of the list of states considered as ”European hotspots” based on the analysis of the richness of biodiversity within the European continent. The great biodiversity found in Macedonia is a result of its long historical development. The differentiation of indigenous species, as well as the invasion of migrants from other areas, played a significant role in its genesis. The largest percentage of vascular plants belongs to the Angiosperms, characterized by a very high diversity. This group is represented by 120 families, 720 genera and 3200 species (approximately 5000 taxa). The highest degree of polymorphism in the Dicotyledon families is found in the Compositae (around 470 species), Leguminosae (457), Caryophyllaceae (345), Cruciferae (264), Labiatae (262), etc., whereas in the Monocotyledons the Gramineae are represented with approximately 280 species and Liliaceae with 130. In 1999 the agricultural area covered 49.9% of the whole country (25 713 km2). In 1960 it covered 15 400 km2. This loss of agricultural area in as little as four decades indicates that the situation for Macedonian agriculture is one of serious decline. Fields and gardens, followed by orchards and vineyards, are potentially the most intensive systems of use. With regard to sown surfaces, grain crops occupy the largest share (over 60%), followed by kitchen garden crops (17%) among which the most represented are tomato, pepper, melons and beans. Most orchards are planted with apples, plums, cherries and apricots. Industrial crops, however, show an increase in area of 9-12%, with sunflower as the most cultivated crop. Among forage crops, alfalfa occupies a stable fraction of approximately 10%. Historically, the percentage of different crops in the overall production varies from season to season. Some crops such as poppy, cotton, sesame, cannabis and flax that used to be economically important in the past are not cultivated any more. In the meantime no landraces and old cultivars were conserved. With a similar pattern, many other crops are facing extinction. For example, due to the successful wheat breeding programme in Macedonia (FYR), almost all old cultivars have been replaced with the newly created varieties, even in the areas with extensive agriculture. The transitional period resulted in extensive agricultural practices with reduced usage of commercial varieties and hybrids, especially in rural mountain areas. Consequently, long-forgotten local varieties returned to home farms as a significant source of genes. Traditionally, large-scale production is carried out with commercial varieties, mainly of foreign origin, since there are few breeding programmes currently underway in Macedonia (FYR). Only a few of the varieties are domestic ones, mostly cereals, created at the Institute of Agriculture in Skopje. Nevertheless, many small farmers still grow landraces and old cultivars, mostly oats, rye, beans, vegetables, fruits and forages. Many efforts have been made in the past to prepare a National Programme for organized and planned agrobiodiversity conservation, but none came to fruition. Finally, a project for developing a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was prepared under the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, assisted by a consultant from the World Bank. The Project was approved by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and financed by the World Bank. It comprised several goals to be achieved: preparation of the National


Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; needs assessment and establishment of a Clearing House Mechanism. Different working groups (WG) were created for the preparation of the national documents: WG on biodiversity assessment; WG on bio-resources assessment and use; WG on socioeconomic analyses; WG on institutions, legislation and existing conservation programmes; and WG on country context and problem analysis, and finalizing the strategy and the action plan. The Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan include four key components or phases: National Study, Biodiversity Strategy, Biodiversity Action Plan and Implementation Mechanisms. All documents will be completed by the end of 2003. The status and use of agricultural biodiversity is included in the programme which is a significant starting point for further conservation. It also represents a legal framework to work on different themes of PGR conservation. However, a more detailed programme is urgently needed that will consider conservation of agrobiodiversity along with all related procedures under the Ministry of Agriculture. Through several individual projects with variable sources of funding, collections of numerous crops have been established. They are maintained by the Institute of Agriculture in Skopje, the Institute for Southern Crops in Strumica and the Institute for Tobacco in Prilep. These institutes deal only with ex situ conservation of commercial varieties and breeders’ lines. No missions were undertaken to collect landraces and wild relatives. The collections comprise a total of 43 different crops with around 1740 accessions. The accessions are kept only as seeds in cold chambers at 4oC. Very few (mainly cereals) are characterized according to IPGRI descriptors. The records are partially computerized and are not included in the European databases, so interest in the collections is very limited and requests for material are based mostly on personal contacts. Local breeders are the only regular users. Access to the collection is not legally regulated; it is free for exchange or use upon simple request. During the period 1968-71 landraces of many crops were collected and characterized as part of an international project with the USA. The accessions are still maintained at the National Seed Storage Laboratory in Fort Collins. They are free for repatriation when reliable conditions for their maintenance become available. It would be interesting to compare them with those still to be found today in the same areas. Wild relatives and wild crops Many of the crops cultivated in the Republic of Macedonia have wild relatives which are frequently found in the vicinity of cultivated fields (Avena sp., Triticum sp., Hordeum sp., Papaver sp., Cannabis ruderalis, etc.). Wild forms or material that was formerly partially cultivated are mostly present in fruit species. They are used as a grafting base or for direct food consumption. They are very often found in small orchards and are actively maintained by the local people for fresh consumption or processing. The diversity of forage crops, both in ploughed fields and natural grasslands, is also very high. Most of the forage crops in Macedonia are wild or spontaneously selected from the wild forms. Some of them were cultivated long ago, and some are included in the current breeding programmes. Use of wild plants The following groups of wild plants have the highest economic importance: Mushrooms They have an enormous economic significance for the local people and are collected throughout the country. Nevertheless, there are no exact records of the number of collectors nor of the fresh quantities collected. The most important species that are marketed are Boletus pinicola, Boletus edulus, Boletus aereus, Canthaurela cibarius, Marasmius oreades, Amanita caesarea, Lactarius deliciosus, Morchella conica, Agaricus campestris, Tricholoma lucis, Perdium sp.


and others. They are important export products (328 693 kg/year with an income of US$2 million), but there is no evidence on the local productivity to enable sustainable use to be organized. Teas In Macedonia (FYR) there is no production of cultivated teas and spices and therefore many companies and individuals collect these plants for additional income or personal use. In 2001, 1 127 825 kg of teas were exported, representing an income of US$1.5 million Bearing in mind that in some years, US$4-5 million have been earned from these products it is obvious that steps need to be taken to control this valuable national resource. Wild fruits This category comprises fruits that can be found on the high mountains. The most important fruits are blueberries (Vaccinium myrtillus) found above 1300 m altitude, collected mostly for export. According to the market value they are ranked as follows: cornal (dogwood), blackberry, raspberry, rose-hip and blackthorn; all of these are used by the local people for processing. Lately the collecting of wild apples, pears and cherries is increasing due to their use for fruit teas. It is also important to note that there is a very intensive chestnut population (Castanea vesca): around 250 000 kg per year, mainly for the national market. Needs for sustainable use of wild forms Considering the importance of the biological resources and their overuse, there is a real threat of extinction for many wild plants. A legal framework is essential to determine the natural productivity and yearly quantities which should be collected. The establishment of registered places for trading in many localities is an urgent measure to be taken, as well as training of the collectors. Bearing in mind that Macedonia (FYR) is not a polluted region it is essential to introduce a system of organic certification of the collected species. Thus the product could be priced on its real value, which will contribute to the improvement of the farmers’ livelihoods in the rural areas.


Republic of Moldova Current status of agrobiodiversity conservation and perspectives for the

development of a National Plant Genetic Resources Programme in Moldova Anatol Ganea1 and Gheorghe Savin2 1 Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of Moldova, Republic of Moldova 2 National Institute for Viticulture and Oenology, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova Due to its geographic situation, small area and fairly large population, the Republic of Moldova is subject to several environmental problems. An important element of the country’s sustainable development is ensuring food security, based among other things on the possibility of biodiversity conservation and its effective use. After the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources (Leipzig, 1996), which passed the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA) and other international agreements, an awakening of activity in this field was observed in Moldova. The enactment of the Law of the fund of natural protected areas (1998) is of great importance. The natural areas and the particular nature protection units are identified in the Law. Their total area is now 66 467 ha, i.e. 1.96% of the territory of Moldova. The main function of the protected areas is the conservation of endangered plant and animal species. A number of wild crop relatives (fruits, berries, vegetables, herbs, aromatic plants) most of which are passively protected, grow in five scientific reserves. Until now this plant group has not been monitored. The genetic structure of populations and the degree of their genetic erosion are unknown. The fact that the populations of many species grow beyond the protected areas, where they are subjected to strong anthropogenic pressure, including direct destruction of specimens (collecting, felling, etc.) or populations (in the case of environmental stresses or natural disasters, such as drought, flood, landslides, etc.) is of special concern. On-farm conservation of local crop varieties (cultivars, populations) is also significant and is considered to be an important component of food security worldwide. The total inventory of local crop varieties has yet to be carried out. A positive aspect of agrobiodiversity conservation activity was the foundation in 1998, by a special Governmental Resolution, of the Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of Moldova (Centre for PGR) as a research, coordinating and informational institution of the country. One of the Centre’s tasks is the creation and maintenance of the national crop collection. Priority is given to local varieties, wild crop relatives, main cultivated species, new non-traditional crops and genetically identified material. Also, ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources is carried out in nine scientific institutions. The material maintained by the applied research institutes is kept as working collections, the content and structure of which can be changed according to the scientific, industrial or other interests of these institutions. Except for the Research Institute of Maize and Sorghum, the above-mentioned institutions do not have special conditions for seed storage and the varieties collected are maintained in active collections. In the Centre for PGR, besides the above-mentioned method, conservation is carried out at +2°C/+4oC on special premises. So far there is no close interaction between the institutions for specimen conservation and their joint use. There is as yet no system for the creation and conservation of duplicate collections. These questions could be solved if additional financial resources were available.


There is no existing National Programme on genetic resources in Moldova, but the legal basis for its initiation has been developed. In April 2001 the Biological Diversity Conservation National Strategy and Action Plan was adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova. The main goal of the strategy is the conservation, restoration, reconstruction and rational use of biological and landscape diversity. Its basic goals are defined as follows:

- in situ conservation of biodiversity; - inventory and socioeconomic assessment of biological resources and their sustainable

use; - ex situ conservation of biodiversity; - restoration and conservation of germplasm, maintenance of biological safety of the

country. Depending on the components, the term of implementation of the strategy can be:

- short, less than five years (for protection of species, germplasm conservation and ex situ conservation methods);

- medium, from five to ten years (at ecosystem level); - long, over ten years.

The total financial resources needed for the implementation of the plan of action are estimated at US$18.7 million. Among the activities on ex situ conservation stipulated in the Action Plan, the following can be emphasized:

- elaboration of a law on ex situ protection and conservation of biological diversity; - elaboration of the National Programme on ex situ protection of biological diversity; - elaboration of a consolidation programme for the Centre for Plant Genetic Resources

of Moldova; - monitoring ex situ biodiversity.

At present the Centre for PGR has an active dialogue with the governmental structures in order to accelerate the passing of the corresponding documents, on the basis of which the National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources in Moldova will be elaborated. Some positive improvements in this field are taking shape.


The Netherlands The National Genetic Resources Programme of the Netherlands Loek J.M. van Soest and Bert Visser Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN), Foundation DLO, Wageningen,

The Netherlands Establishment of the National Programme The Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) is responsible for statutory research tasks in the Netherlands that relate to the biodiversity of importance to agriculture and forestry. One of these tasks is the implementation of the governmental programme aimed to conserve and promote utilization of genetic resources, including crops, forest trees and farm animal species. As such it is responsible for a major part of the National Programme. This programme also foresees the establishment of a high-level Genetic Resources Platform that will advise the government in the development of its National Programme and the establishment of a National Focal Point on Genetic Resources, a task with which CGN has been charged as well. The plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) part of the programme was established in 1985, whereas the genetic resources activities on farm animals and forestry were more recently incorporated into CGN. The genetic resources programme of CGN is organized in three clusters:

- Cluster Plant Genetic Resources (PGRFA); - Cluster Animal Genetic Resources (AGR); - Cluster Forest Genetic Resources (FGR).

In 2001, additional non-PGR tasks (e.g. plant variety research and development of variety lists) were added to its mandate. CGN is part of Wageningen University and Research Centre. The PGFRA cluster of CGN is housed in the buildings of Plant Research International (PRI) and also uses the facilities of this institute. This short report will particularly deal with PGRFA. Objectives The overall objective is to deliver the Netherlands’ contribution to the conservation and utilization of genetic resources, as part of agrobiodiversity. In practice, CGN is responsible for the optimal conservation of collections by conducting the following activities: - collecting and preserving germplasm of crops important to national and international

agriculture; - promoting utilization of the germplasm maintained in its collections; - increasing and documenting knowledge of its collections through research; - supporting on-farm conservation and development of genetic diversity; - further contributing to international efforts to prevent genetic erosion. Coverage CGN-PGR maintains collections of more than 20 agricultural and horticultural crops. In general the collections include landraces, old and more recent cultivars and wild relatives (Table 1). The activities of the PGR programme are particularly focused on a number of vegetable crops (lettuce, cabbage, onion, pepper and cucumber), potato, flax and some forages, without geographic restrictions regarding the germplasm origin. For the other crop


collections emphasis is placed primarily on genetic resources of Dutch origin and material previously included in working collections of both governmental and private breeders from the Netherlands. CGN stores its collections under optimal storage conditions. At present it maintains nearly 23 000 accessions (Table 1). The number of samples distributed by CGN exceeds over 5000 samples annually. Table 1. Number of accessions per crop/crop-group maintained by CGN (Remark: only material with CGN accession numbers is taken into account) Crop/Crop-group No. of accessions Onion (Allium spp.) 331 Apple (Malus spp.) 105 Barley (Hordeum spp.) 3455 Clover (Trifolium spp.)) 243 Cocksfoot (Dactylus glomerata) 32 Cruciferae (several species) 1710 Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) 869 Eggplant (fruit-bearing Solanum spp.) 328 Faba beans (Vicia faba) 726 Fescue (Festuca spp.) 32 Flax (Linum spp.) 890 Lettuce (Lactuca spp.) 2506 Ryegrass (Lolium spp.) 333 Lupine (Lupinus spp.) 69 Maize (Zea mays) 488 Meadow grass (Poa pratensis) 74 Oats (Avena spp.) 536 Peas (Pisum spp.) 986 Pepper (Capsicum spp.) 839 Potato (tuber-bearing Solanum spp.) 1171 Spinach (Spinacia spp.) 385 Timothy (Phleum spp.) 105 Tomato (Lycopersicon spp.) 1159 Wheat (Triticum spp.) 5494 Total 22 866 CGN also implements a project on options for in situ conservation of grassland species in the Netherlands. In addition to its activities in collection management, CGN has given major priority to the further development of documentation and information approaches and collection management strategies, to research into the use of molecular markers and to supporting government policy. By emphasizing these activities, CGN aims to make a contribution with innovations to the genetic resources community. From next year onwards, a project in support of the genetic resources NGO sector in the Netherlands will be implemented. Stakeholder involvement in PGR At the national level, close links exist with the private plant breeding industry and departments of Wageningen University and Research Centre. These institutions participate in the regeneration, characterization and evaluation of its collections. Five crop-orientated committees operate with representatives of different stakeholders such as private breeders, researchers and plant variety specialists, advising CGN on its operations. CGN is a partner in ECP/GR and in the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation programmes. The latter programme focuses on the support of farming communities, which maintain genetic diversity in situ, as complementary to ex situ genebank conservation. The new project, aiming at support for the Dutch NGO sector will further add to stakeholder involvement.


Legal and policy framework The legal basis is formed by the ratification by the Dutch government of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1994 and the implementation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IT PGFRA). The basic principles of these international agreements for dealing with genetic resources are outlined in the policy document of the Dutch government "Sources of existence: conservation and the sustainable use of genetic diversity". An English version of this policy document can be found on the Internet (http://www.absfocalpoint.nl). An executive summary of this policy document is also included. CGN does not claim ownership over its collections. It utilizes a Material Transfer Agreement to regulate use. Overview of activities CGN-PGR has organized its activities in a limited number of core projects: - policy support and international cooperation; - collection management; - documentation and information; - collection management strategies, including use of molecular markers; - seed storage management and distribution; - promoting utilization; - on-farm conservation. Funding The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature management and Fisheries (LNV) funds the three genetic resources clusters. Contact Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) PO Box 16 6700 AA Wageningen The Netherlands Tel: + 31 317 47 70 45 Fax: + 31 317 41 80 94 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.genebank.nl Sources of information Internet site CBD Focal Point on access and benefit sharing related to genetic resources, the Netherlands

http://www.absfocalpoint.nl with Sources of existence: conservation and sustainable use of genetic diversity. A policy document of the Government of the Netherlands

Internet site CGN http://www.cgn.wageningen-ur.nl Internet site CBDC http://www.cbdcprogram.org


Norway The Norwegian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme Even Bratberg Norwegian University of Life Sciences(UMB), Ås, Norway The Programme was established on 1 July 2001 based on the Action Plan for Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Agriculture and Food production developed in 2000. The programme was initiated and funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and managed by the Norwegian Crop Research Institute. Funds for the programme in 2003 are NOK3.0 million. The main objective of the programme is to ensure and facilitate conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources in accordance with the CBD and GPA. The Norwegian programme is closely coordinated with the work of the Nordic Gene Bank, and cooperation to other plant genetic resources programmes in the Nordic countries is established. Main tasks of the Programme Document plant genetic resources in Norway, including considering the need for

conservation measures; Conserve genetic material of vegetatively propagated species in clonal archives/field

genebanks; Develop an information system for storage and distribution of data about PGR in

Norway; Contribute to increased knowledge and public awareness about PGR in general and to

increased research activity in the field. An Advisory Board of Plant Genetic Resources in Domestic Plants is established to run the programme. The Board consists of representatives from the university sector, research institutes, breeding companies, governmental bodies dealing with agriculture and the environment and private associations in agriculture and horticulture. Activities in the programme are projects initiated by the Advisory Board and projects conducted by the partners within research, breeding, education and publicity and private associations within agriculture, botany and social history. Regarding registration and documentation of PGR, priority is given to meadow and pasture species and perennial garden plants. Several projects in this field are being carried out in 2003. The programme is also establishing a network of host institutions for conserving breeds and genetic varieties of plant species that cannot be conserved by seeds in the NGB—fruits, berries, vegetables, roses, perennials, etc. Host institutions are mainly botanical gardens, arboretums, field research institutes and museums within agriculture and rural history.


Contacts Leader of the Advisory board Mr Even Bratberg Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)8 Department of Horticulture and Crop Sciences PO Box 5003 N-1432 Ås Tel: (47-64) 965654 Fax: (47-64) 947802 Email: [email protected]

Secretariat Mr Åsmund Asdal Norwegian Crop Research Institute Division Landvik N-4886 Grimstad Tel.: +47 37257700 Fax: +47 37257710 Email: [email protected]

8 Formerly the Agricultural University of Norway - NLH


Poland The National Crop Genetic Resources Conservation Programme in Poland Wieslaw Podyma National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (PBAI),

Radzików, Blonie, Poland

Conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture in Poland Collecting and conservation of plant genetic resources were initiated in Poland by Prof. Kaznowski at the Research Institute of Agronomy (PINGW) in Pulawy in 1922 and the Agricultural Academy in Dublany. Since the foundation of the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (PBAI) in 1951, crop collections were established with particular focus on Polish local cultivars and ecotypes. The National Crop Genetic Resources Conservation Programme established in 1979 constitutes the continuation of earlier investigations in this field. Its main goal is to preserve genetic material of major crop plants and their wild and weedy relatives for breeding and research. The objectives of the programme are implemented through: - collecting of genotypes threatened with extinction; - evaluation of collected materials; - preservation of collected materials in viable form and its provision for breeders; and - documentation of collected materials. The National Crop Genetic Resources Conservation Programme has long experience in ex situ conservation of crops, possesses genebank facilities and has developed standards for storage, documentation and evaluation. The National Crop Genetic Resources Conservation Programme in Poland is based on multi-institutional input: three universities, nine branch institutes, seven experimental stations and the Botanical Garden of the Polish Academy of Science are responsible for crop collections. The programme is financed by the Ministry of Agriculture. About 70 000 accessions have been collected, representing all economically important plant groups: cereals, fodder plants, root crops, vegetables, fruit crops, herbage and industrial plants. Seed samples collected under the auspices of the National Crop Genetic Resources Conservation Programme are stored, since 1981, in the central long-term storage located at the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (Fig. 1). A total of 62 000 accessions are currently kept in long-term storage. The seeds are kept in temperature-controlled chambers at -15°C and 0°C. Hop, garlic, asparagus and fruit plants are maintained as field collections. At the Division of PBAI in Bonin the potato strains are stored in vitro. The samples gathered in the collections are recognized as a part of the national heritage. The structure of collections is oriented towards breeders who prefer to work with advanced materials and breeding lines. However, collecting expeditions provide important amounts of unique material.


Fig. 1. Preservation of seed samples in long-term storage.

Collecting missions Systematic collecting and conservation of indigenous plant genetic resources in Poland started in 1971. Expeditions are carried out almost every year. The collecting missions have several aims: - collecting of old cultivars and local landraces of agricultural and horticultural crops and

their weedy and wild relatives; - collecting of ecotypes of grasses; - collecting of plant material for research - special purpose collection; and - monitoring the progress of genetic erosion. Priorities of the missions have changed over time. In the period 1976-1979, expeditions mainly focused on the collecting of old cultivars and landraces of field crops in their main regions of occurrence. New tasks, made necessary by the erosion of recorded genetic resources in other cultivated plant groups, have been added to the collecting activities. Systematic collecting of vegetables began in the early 1990s, while the registration of old fruit tree gardens and collecting of medicinal and ornamental plants found in house gardens are tasks recently assigned to the expeditions. The expeditions are organized jointly by the National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of the PBAI for agricultural crops and other species, the Botanical Garden of the PBAI for grasses and the Department of Germplasm Collection of the Institute of Vegetable Crops for vegetables. Poland is a unique example among central European countries where the old local forms of crop plants survived owing to the fragmented structure of farming. Since 1976, several trips have been conducted to northeastern, eastern and southeastern Poland to collect cultivated, wild and weedy germplasm. These regions have been traditionally regarded as agriculturally least advanced and, therefore, most likely to provide old varieties and landraces of crop plants. Most of the indigenous germplasm was collected in the mountainous regions of Southeast Poland (Fig. 2).


Fig. 2. Distribution map of landraces in Poland.

The modernization of Polish agriculture, exclusion of marginal areas from cultivation and wide access to seeds of new varieties are threatening the local populations of all crops. The accessions collected during missions in the period 1976-1979 are the ”core” of the maintained landraces of field crops of Polish origin. At present, the local crop cultivars are available mainly as the materials stored in the genebank. According to our evaluations in the last decade, the local populations of crops have disappeared almost completely. However, there are regions where traditional vegetable varieties are still grown. Sample exchange Ten percent of the total number of accessions stored are provided annually to other collections or breeders. The samples are requested mainly by plant breeding stations and institutes. About 30% of the samples are sent abroad. Additional information about our activities is available from our home page (www.ihar.edu.pl/gene_bank).


Portugal Programme for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Agrarian

Genetic Resources Eliseu Bettencourt and Sónia Dias Estação Agronómica Nacional INIAP, Oeiras, Portugal Although the establishment of germplasm collections, mainly fruit trees and cereals, started in Portugal in the 1930s, the germplasm collecting missions only adopted a more systematic and coordinated approach in 1977. In 1977, with the technical and financial support of FAO/IBPGR, regular and systematic collecting missions were launched, mainly to collect cultivated cereals (maize, rye and wheat), targeting, in the following year, Phaseolus and other food legumes. In the 1980s, in a collaborative effort, several collecting missions were organized and carried out in collaboration with Spain, covering part of the national continental territories of both countries, aiming at cultivated crops and wild relatives, the latter mostly of the genera Aegilops and Lupinus. As a direct consequence of the active and continuing collecting activities translated in a growing public and political awareness, the Portuguese Plant Genebank (BPGV) was inaugurated in 1992. Later, in 1996, it moved to a new and modern infrastructure built to accommodate the Genebank and its germplasm collections. Portugal has been a member of the European Cooperative Programme for Conservation and Exchange of Crop Genetic Resources (ECP/GR) (now the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks) since its inception in 1981. When the European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN) was established in 1993, Portugal joined the new initiative given the obvious benefits and the success of the international cooperation within the framework of ECP/GR. Efforts started in 1994 in order to establish a formalized National Coordination Structure for the genetic resources sector in the country. However, it was only in November 1998 that the Commission on Agrarian Genetic Resources was formally established within the framework of the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INIA). The Commission includes representatives from all six National Research Stations of INIA with the mandate for the coordination of the agricultural genetic resources activities (plant, animal, microbial and forest genetic resources) within INIA. Efforts continued to be made in order to extend the scope of the coordinating structure to the national ambit. As a result, in April 1999, by decision of the Minister for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries (MADRP), published in the Official Journal, the Technical Council of the MADRP for Agrarian, Fisheries and Aquaculture Genetic Resources was created. The Council’s main objective is to facilitate and coordinate the activities on agricultural genetic resources at the national level within the MADRP structure and it is composed of all relevant Directorates-General of the Ministry dealing with plant, animal, microbial, fisheries, forestry and aquaculture genetic resources.


In 2002, the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INIA) and the Institute for Fisheries and Sea Research (IPIMAR) were merged to form the National Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (INIAP). The merging determined the need for a revision of the composition of the Commission on Agrarian Genetic Resources to include the new field of fisheries genetic resources. Accordingly, the INIA Programme for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Agrarian Genetic Resources was re-evaluated and a revised Workplan, to be carried out within INIAP, was prepared.


Russian Federation Development of the National Programme on Agrobiodiversity in the Russian

Federation Sergey M. Alexanian N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation Efforts to date include the creation of a broad, multidisciplinary National Programme on biological diversity, as part of the implementation mechanism of the CBD. This includes a specific agrobiodiversity component under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture. Adoption of the National Programme will serve as recognition of the importance of agrobiodiversity for plant breeding, food security and for the integration of Russia into the international processes of establishing the global ex situ collections network. The main objective of this national sub-programme on agrobiodiversity is to provide a coordinating framework and to propose solutions to support food security, the development of Russian agriculture and the conservation of varieties through collecting and conservation measures. The framework should include the following organizations as curators of different aspects: the N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (crop plant diversity), the National Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (and their genetic diversity), the Main Botanical Gardens (wild relatives of cultivated plants) and the National Institute of Animal Genetics and Breeding (animal genetic resources) (Fig. 1).

Ministry of Agriculture

National Coordinating Committee on agrobiodiversity

PGR coordinator (VIR) Medicinal and aromatic PGR coordinator

Animal GR coordinator

Sperm genebank

RCG

DB

Wor

kgro

up

On-

farm

col

lect

ions

W

orkg

roup

Ex situ collection

holder

RCG

DB

Wor

kgro

up

Col

lect

ion

Wor

kgro

up

Ex situ collection

holder

RCG

DB

Wor

kgro

up

In si

tu W

orkg

roup

Cro

p W

orkg

roup

National genebank

Main Botanical Gardens

Fig. 1. Proposed National Agrobiodiversity Network of the Russian Federation (RCG = Research Consultative Group; DB = Database).


From 2004 to 2010, participating institutions will be involved in: - the development of theoretical/practical aspects of in situ/on-farm conservation; - the conservation of ex situ genetic resources; - undertaking an inventory of national ex situ collections; - creating a research network to ensure effective management of ex situ collections; - strengthening of coordination between the broad spectrum of organizations working

in the sphere of agro-bioresources mobilization; - strengthening of international cooperation in the field of collecting, conservation and

use of varieties; - public awareness activities.

A National Coordinating Committee on agrobiodiversity will be established, composed of representatives of all the above-mentioned curator institutes directly involved in the implementation of the programme. The Committee will coordinate strategic planning and activities, identify national policy and strategy in the area of agrobiodiversity, develop proposals for the Russian Federation Government on legislation, and coordinate relevant international collaboration.


Serbia and Montenegro Current status of plant genetic resources activities in Serbia and Montenegro Ivana Dulić-Marković Federal Department for Plant and Animal Genetic Resources, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro Although there is no formal National Programme for plant genetic resources (PGR) in Serbia and Montenegro, the level of organization of PGR conservation and sustainable utilization is significant, both at institutional and organizational levels. Table 1 summarizes the history of genetic resources collection and conservation activities. Human and financial resources allocated to PGR are as follows:

a. Serbian Government: the Department of Genetic Resources and Genetically Modified Organisms (as part of the Ministry of Agriculture) has three or four staff members including the Head of the Department, who are engaged in PGR activities;

b. Montenegrin Government: it is still unclear which ministry and/or department has formally taken over responsibility for PGR conservation since the transfer of these activities from the federal level;

c. State-owned research institutes / Seed companies: in general, institutes which maintain their active collections fall into two main categories: those that have a separate genebank department with full-time genebank staff and those that have genebanks as an assembly of breeders' collections with breeders in charge. With many breeders acting as collection curators it is not simple to identify the total number of people involved in PGR conservation activities;

d. NGO sector: it is difficult to assess the human resources dedicated to PGR conservation and sustainable use in this sector as there is very little coordination between the activities of the NGO sector and the first two aforementioned groups. This lack of coordination and cooperation could be explained either by a low level of NGO activity in this field and/or a lack of a mechanism for effective coordination of work.

Table 1. Historical summary of PGR-related activities in Serbia and Montenegro Period Background Activities Achievements Constraints Up to 1988

- Collection, evaluation and protection of GR concentrated in scientific institutes and used for breeding.

- Development of breeding programmes; - Participation in ECP/GR (1979).

- Local varieties collected; - Germplasm exchanged; - Breeding collection increased (around

32 000 accessions); - Training through ECP/GR.

- No coordination between institutes; - No governmental awareness of the

necessity to create a National GR Programme.

1988-1992

- Budget allocated by the Federal government for the implementation of a National programme for PGR (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia);

- Activities financed through the Federal Ministry of Science and Development.

- Project “Establishment of a genebank in Yugoslavia” with FAO support for a regional role of the genebank;

- Project “Establishment of National PGR collection for the national plant genebank”;

- Accompanying database for National Collection established in NGB’s Nobis software;

- National PGR seed collection stored under medium-term storage conditions (+4°C, RH 45-50%);

- National fruit and Vitis PGR collection ex situ “in vivo”, i.e. field collections established at several locations.

- 1988: National Programme for PGR established but not formally approved;

- National collection formed (around 5000 accessions);

- Initiation of activities on evaluation, characterization and documentation.

- Too ambitious and too expensive; - Sustainable use of PGR not included; - Economic crisis and break-up of the

six-republic Socialist Yugoslavia.

1992-1996

- Financial difficulties; - Splitting of Yugoslavia; - UN economic sanctions.

- Continuation of the participation in the ECP/GR;

- Slowing down of the projects for the establishment of a central genebank in Yugoslavia and the National PGR Collection at a standstill.

- Maintenance of the National Collection by means of annual contracts with holding institutes across the country.

- The construction of genebank practically stopped;

- Lack of money; - Hyperinflation.

1996-2000

- Federal Department for Genetic Resources formed under the Yugoslav Ministry of Agriculture with the mandate of managing Yugoslavia’s genetic resources.

- Continuation of the participation in ECP/GR;

- Parallel (and to a significant degree uncoordinated) work on PGR conservation by two federal institutions;

- Creation of duplicate seed National Collection.

- Maintenance of the National Collection by means of annual contracts with holding institutes across the country.

- Conflict of interest between the Federal Ministries of Science and Agriculture;

- Lack of a National Programme; - Duplicate National Collection severely

damaged by flooding.

2000-2002

- Ownership over National Plant Genebank, National PGR collection and related documentation transferred from the Federal Ministry of Science to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (Department for Genetic Resources).

- Project based approach for funding PGR collection and conservation;

- Continuation of the participation in ECP/GR;

- Documentation for National Collection transferred into Microsoft Access format and adapted for Internet access;

- Viability and health monitoring of main and duplicate seed National Collection.

- Maintenance of the National Collection; - Further work on collecting and

characterization of PGR.

- Low level of cooperation between stakeholders;

- Lack of a National Programme; - Lack of public awareness; - Duplicate seed collection in very bad

condition.

128 EU

RO

PE

AN

WO

RK

SH

OP

ON

NA

TION

AL P

LAN

T GE

NE

TIC R

ES

OU

RC

ES

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES

Period Background Activities Achievements Constraints 2003 - Transformation of Yugoslavia

into Serbia & Montenegro and transfer of PGR responsibilities from federal level to the two republics. Serbia’s Ministry of Agriculture incorporates the Federal Department for Genetic Resources.

- Project based approach for funding PGR collection and conservation;

- Continuation of the participation in ECP/GR.

- Maintenance of the National Collection; - Further work on collecting and

characterization of PGR.

- Still unidentified stakeholder base; - Lack of a National Programme; - Lack of public awareness and

information channels; - Seed National Collection still stored

under medium-term conditions (15 years) and no long-term storage available;

- Small National ex-situ collection (around 5000 accessions);

- No safety-duplicate collection; - National fruit and Vitis PGR collection

ex situ “in vivo” ex situ field collections? in poor condition’

- Low level of communication and coordination’

- Limited collection, characterization, evaluation activities as well as very restricted efforts on sustainable use’

- Policy and legal framework inadequate or non-existent’

- Lack of qualified/trained personnel and experts in public administration, higher education and research’

- Lack of suitable equipment’ - Insufficient research support’ - Partly unclear status of National

Collection vs. Active Collections (mostly fruit and Vitis collections).

NA

TION

AL P

RO

GR

AM

ME

S 129

Table 1 (cont.). Historical summary of PGR-related activities in Serbia and Montenegro

EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES PROGRAMMES

130

Slovak Republic The Slovak National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and

Agriculture Daniela Benediková and Maria Žaková Gene Bank, Research Institute of Plant Production (RIPP), Piešťany, Slovak Republic Structure of the National Programme The Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA) is implemented in Slovakia by the National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. All basic activities on plant genetic resources (PGR)—collecting, documentation, evaluation and conservation—are carried out in the framework of the National Programme, formally established in 1991. The conservation of cultivated plant germplasm is funded and supported by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Gene Bank at the Research Institute of Plant Production Piešťany (RIPP) has national responsibilities for PGR. The institute was granted the mandate for coordination by a new law No. 215/2001 ”Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture”. The implementation of this law, approved in May 2001 and ratified in July 2001, was an important issue. In Slovakia 19 partners participate in PGR activities, including the Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra which takes part as a non-governmental organization representative in the programme ”Conservation of endangered plant genepool in Slovakia” (Table 1). Table 1. Institutions involved in germplasm conservation in the Slovak Republic Institution Collection 1 HERBATON Ltd., Klčov Fruits 2 ISTROPOL, Solary Industrial crops 3 Research Institute for Viticulture and Oenology, Bratislava Vineyards 4 MIPROS Ltd., Potvorice Flowers 5 Research Institute of Agroecology, Michalovce Collecting missions, medicinal plants 6 SELEKT, Bučany Root crops 7 LESTRA & CO Ltd., Nesvady Vegetable, root crops 8 Slovak Agricultural University, Botanical garden, Nitra Collecting missions, medicinal plants 9 Breeding station, Levočske Lúky Grasses 10 Breeding station, Horná Streda Grain legumes 11 Breeding station, Veselé Fruits 12 Research and Breeding Institute of Potatoes, Veľká Lomnica Potatoes 13 Research Institute of Fruit and Decorative Trees, Bojnice Fruits 14 Research Institute of Plant Production, Piešťany Cereals, grain legumes, fodder crops,

oilseed crops, collecting missions 15 Breeding station, Malý Šariš Oilseed crops 16 Breeding station, Vigľaš-Pstruša Cereals 17 Research Institute of Grasslands and Mountain Agriculture,

Banská Bystrica Grasses, in situ collection

18 Research and Breeding Institute of Vegetables and Special Crops, Nové Zámky

Vegetable, medicinal plants

19 SEMPOL Holding, Trnava Maize, oilseed crops Activities in the field of PGR require intensive international contacts. The Department of Plant Genetic Resources and the Gene Bank cooperate with FAO and IPGRI. The Department of PGR entered international cooperation through its participation in the


ECP/GR Working Groups. Passport data for 21 genera were included in the ECP/GR Central Crop Databases. International cooperation, especially with Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Russian Federation, etc. is considered important. Activities of the Gene Bank since 1997 The Slovak Gene Bank (GB) in Piešťany started operating in 1996. It is responsible for medium- and long-term genetic resources conservation. The capacity of the GB was planned for 50 000 accessions. The GB holds a basic seed collection for long-term conservation (-18°C) as well as an active collection (5°C) used for distribution, regeneration and evaluation. Each sample from the basic collection is safety-duplicated, packed separately and stored in the Gene Bank of the Research Institute of Crop Production in Prague (RICP), Czech Republic. Reciprocally, RIPP keeps safety-duplicates for RICP. Each collection (basic or active) has two chambers. If the received material is interesting for inclusion in the Gene Bank, it is first recorded with a temporary receipt number. Seeds are accepted only if accompanied by sending protocol and passport data. After checking these data, samples are stored in paper bags in a drying room, at 20°C and 15% relative humidity. Before storage, the average moisture content of one of the transmitted species is determined and germinability tests conducted for each sample (2 x 100 seeds). After drying, the samples with the required germination rate are packed into glass containers. The seeds are left in the drying room until they reach a moisture content of 5-6%. Germination tests are carried out for each sample (two replicates, 100 seeds per replicate). Samples are stored in twist-cap glass containers. Evaluation and utilization of the collection In 2002 the activities of the GB concentrated on conservation and documentation of samples. Studies carried out in this period include: Collecting and conservation of the world collection: species, lines, breeding material,

wild forms. The aim of the study of genetic resources is to collect the world diversity of varieties, lines and wild species and evaluate them for morphological, biological and economic characters and disease resistance. Priority is given to the collecting of indigenous landraces and to the varieties entered in the list of Released Varieties in the Slovak Republic.

Evaluation according to standard descriptor lists: morphological, biological and economic characters of crops are evaluated according to the morphological descriptor list developed on the basis of IPGRI, ÚKSÚP (Slovak Control and Testing Institute in Agriculture) and EVIGEZ (Czech National Information System on Plant Genetic Resources) descriptor lists. With the increasing size of genetic resources collections, methods for the analysis and classification of their genetic variability are increasingly required. Agromorphological descriptors, mainly those recommended by IPGRI, are generally used to characterize the collections in genebanks. This type of characterization provides very useful information to breeders.

Analysis of the biological material (evaluation of wheat types for flour milling and bakery characteristics, etc.). This includes genotype identification by application of modern biomolecular techniques (study of differences in storage proteins and in nucleic acid composition). Research undertaken in 2002 in the Department of PGR and the GB include the creation of biochemical databases for strategic crops, image documentation and searching for duplicates and gaps in the collections conserved in the genebank. Besides the passport, spike and morphological databases, the biochemical databases are also being documented.


132

Provision of information and research results to breeders and other research workers, and implementation of research results. In the last three years over 1500 genotypes were provided for breeding purposes; over 2300 accessions were provided to research programmes and over 400 accessions were sent abroad.

Computerization of data (FoxPro). The National PGR inventory database is developed in RIPP Piešťany. The total number of records (over 25 000) includes the working, active and base collections. The number of ex situ accessions, representing 190 plant species, is estimated at over 17 000. By the end of 2002 the active collection contained over 10 000 accessions and the base collection about 2500 accessions. The largest collections are those of cereals (24.1%), followed by fruits (19.9%), legumes (18.6%), grapes (7.8%) and grasses (6.9%). Other crops represent less than 6% of the collections (Table 2). All data are in electronic format. Email and Internet connection are available.

Finding duplicates in the collections. The first step to finding duplicates is based on a comparison of plant morphology. Multivariate statistical analysis is used for the analysis of morphological and biochemical data. Morphological diversity was investigated within cultivated triticale, lentil, grass pea, white clover, chickpea, lupine, safflower, alfalfa, bean landraces, barley and maize. Between 11 and 32 agromorphological descriptors were evaluated, mostly those recommended by IPGRI. The next step is the application of genetic markers to PGR collections. Cluster analyses are made with SPSS software.

Table 2. Collections held at RIPP Piešťany as of 31.12. 2002 Crop groups No. of accessions % Cereals 6245 24.1 Fruits 5176 19.9 Grain legumes 4822 18.6 Vineyards 2023 7.8 Grasses 1802 6.9 Maize 1520 5.9 Root crops 1058 4.1 Fodder crops 1069 4.1 Flowers 242 0.9 Industrial crops 847 3.3 Vegetables and medicinal plants 774 3.0 Oilseed crops 376 1.4 Total 25954 100 Contacts Daniela Benediková and Mária Žaková Genebank, Research Institute of Plant Production (RIPP) Bratislavská 122 921 68 Piešťany Slovak Republic Emails: [email protected] / [email protected]


Slovenia The Slovenian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme Mihaela Černe1, Jelka Šuštar-Vozlič2, Borut Bohanec3, Zlata Luthar3, Janko Rode4 and Andreja Čerenak4 1 Španova pot 5, Slovenia 2 Agricultural Institute of Slovenia, Hacquetova 17, Ljubljana, Slovenia 3 University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Agronomy Department, Jamnikarjeva 101, Ljubljana,

Slovenia 4 Institute of Hop Research and Brewing of Slovenia, Žalskega tabora 2, Žalec, Slovenia With a land area of only 20 251 km2, Slovenia has three main climatic areas: Mediterranean, Alpine and Pannonian and eight soil/climatic regions: Submediterranean, Subpannonian, Pannonian, Subalpine lowland, Subalpine highland, Alpine, Alpine highland and Karst highland. The biological diversity of Slovenian agricultural plants is the result of natural conditions and also the efforts of our ancestors in breeding and maintaining crops from the Mediterranean and Euro-Siberian gene centre and, some centuries ago, of introducing crops such as potato, maize and beans from America. Slovenian landraces were important in the past as a source material for the breeding of new cultivars. From the first collection of Slovenian landraces and ecotypes made for breeding purposes after World War II, only seeds of maize and perennial plants in ex situ collections were preserved. The collecting of annual crops for the genebank started in 1989 and has been continued until now with the cooperation of the Czech and Croatian genebanks. In 1988 Prof. Dr Jože Spanring studied the establishment of the former Yugoslav genebank. Slovenian curators were nominated for potato, fodder plants, hop, lettuce, small fruits and grapes. After the independence of Slovenia, in 1991, three-year projects financed by the Ministry of Science and Technology were carried out at the Biotechnical Faculty of the University of Ljubljana and at the Agricultural Institute of Slovenia together with the Institute for Hop Research and Brewing in Žalec. Data on Slovenian collections were published in the Directory of European Institutions Holding Crop Genetic Resources Collections (1995). The main objective of the Slovenian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme is to collect, characterize, evaluate, regenerate and conserve landraces, ecotypes and cultivars of Slovenian origin. The Slovenian PGR Programme, which started in 1995 after the nomination of the Commission by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, is decentralized and conducted at three institutions with the following crop responsibilities: - The Agricultural Institute of Slovenia maintains about 1000 bean, 34 faba bean,

170 lettuce, 100 onion, 12 cabbage, 28 potato, 750 grass and forage legume accessions, 189 clones and 49 old grape cultivars, five wild types of raspberries of Slovenian origin, and one old wheat cultivar;

- The Agronomy Department of the Biotechnical Faculty holds 474 buckwheat, 202 wheat, 519 maize, 98 other cereals, 122 apple, 44 pear, 13 walnut, 146 forage legume and grasses and 350 medicinal and aromatic plant accessions;

- The Institute for Hop Research and Brewing maintains 325 hop and 332 medicinal and aromatic plant accessions.


134

In 1994, two storage rooms of 44 m3 in total were built at the Agricultural Institute of Slovenia, applying internationally recommended standards. Refrigerators for medium-term seed storage are available at the Agronomy Department of the Biotechnical Faculty and at the Institute for Hop Research and Brewing. The Agronomy Department also has one deep-freezer with a temperature capacity of -17°C. All the Slovenian potato tubers are also stored under in vitro conditions as plantlets and microtubers. Part of the hop, apple and grapevine collections has been reproduced and maintained in vitro. Field collections in Slovenia are maintained for perennial, medicinal and aromatic plants at two different locations; apple, pear and raspberries at one location, and grapes in five locations. Chemical analyses were performed on some collections, e.g. cabbage, raspberries, maize and some medicinal and aromatic plants. Buckwheat and part of the bean, maize, apple, grape and oregano collections were analyzed using molecular markers. Out of 27 accessions of Phaseolus vulgaris, 14 accessions were significantly different from 240 Andean genotypes using the RAPD assay and represent the unique set of germplasm which should be included in the Phaseolus germplasm collections. Accessions were documented and evaluated according to multicrop passport descriptors and species-specific descriptors developed by IPGRI. For grapevine, OIV and UPOV descriptors were also used. With the need for a uniform and centralized documentation and information system, four separate databases (three on agricultural crops and one on forest species) were merged, which will enable uploading to the EURISCO database. Slovenia was invited by ECP/GR in 1993 to a EUCARPIA meeting in France. In March 1996, the Country Report was sent to FAO and IPGRI for the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources held in Leipzig (Černe et al. 1995). In 1998, the Slovenian Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Food signed the agreement for the inclusion of Slovenia in ECP/GR. From this year on Slovenian curators have all the benefits and responsibilities of belonging to various Working Groups and Networks. The Slovenian curator for medicinal and aromatic plants took active part in the establishment of the new ECP/GR Working Group on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. The first meeting of this Working Group was held on 12-14 September 2002 in Gozd Martuljek, Slovenia. From 1996 onwards, when the National Programme started, the Commission proposed a yearly financial budget to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. The National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources, together with the National Programme for Animal Genetic Resources, has been included in the Slovenian Law on Agriculture issued on 16 June 2000. Since then the financing has been permanent as the Genebank was made a public service. Article 93 of the Law defines the tasks of the genebank: collecting, evaluation, characterization, maintenance, regeneration and exchange of collected material; these do not include activities dealing with on-farm conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. The Slovenian Agricultural Environmental Programme issued in May 2001 supported on-farm conservation and management of Slovenian traditional and indigenous cultivars and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in organic farming. The project "Revitalization of Sloveniaʹs Agricultural Biodiversity Heritage", financed by the EU in 2002-2003 and carried out at the Union of the Slovenian Organic Farmers’ Association, promotes seed production of Slovenian landraces and cultivars in organic farming. The importance of Slovenian landraces and cultivars is illustrated by the fact that 200 landraces were obtained from 140 participants during training. Three agricultural schools are interested in growing Slovenian cultivars and landraces on part of their land.


References Černe, M., M. Pečnik, J. Ileršič, M. Rednak, J. Spanring, H. Kraigher, G. Božič, R. Brus,

A. Golob, M. Pavle and Ž. Veselič. 1996. The Republic of Slovenia. Country report. International Conference and Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ICPPGR).


136

Spain National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization Luis Ayerbe Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos CRF-INIA, Alcalá de Henares, Spain The main objectives of the Programme are to avoid the loss of genetic diversity of autochthonous plant species and varieties and to characterize and document those materials, so that they can be used for research and breeding purposes. The above objectives are met by multi-year Action Plans, each Plan proposing specific working fields and priorities for the term. Public and private institutions may participate in the programme with the aim of collecting, conserving, characterizing and documenting plant genetic resources. Participating institutions receive financial support from the Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria, INIA (National Institute for Food and Agriculture Research and Technology), and constitute the Programme Collections Network. Calls for proposals to develop projects are made yearly, each project having a three-year duration. Action Plans also establish financial aid for conservation activities of plant genetic resources of partner genebanks of the network, independently from their participation in the programme projects. The Centre for Plant Genetic Resources (CRF) of the INIA is responsible for the long-term conservation of duplicates of all the Spanish seed collections, development of a National Inventory and management of its own active collections. A National Commission for Plant Genetic Resources, composed of chair, vice-chair, secretary and ten members is responsible for the management of the Programme. The Commission is chaired by the Director General of INIA. Contacts Subdirección General de Prospectiva, Coordinación y Programas INIA Carretera de La Coruña km 7.5 28040-Madrid Spain Tel.: +34 91 347 40 00 Fax: +34 91 347 39 31 Email: [email protected] Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos (CRF-INIA) Autovía NII, km 36 Apdo. 1045 28800-Alcalá de Henares Spain Tel.: +34 91 881 92 86/61 Fax: +34 91 881 92 87 Email: [email protected]


Sweden National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources Eva Jansson and Jens Weibull Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Alnarp, Sweden In order to conserve and make sustainable use of its resources of cultivated plants, Sweden adopted a National Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants (POM) in December 2000. Through this programme, work on cultivated plants is to be better coordinated and developed. The background to the programme is that Sweden, together with 187 other countries, has pledged to conserve biodiversity by signing the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Sweden has also signed the FAO Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources. Main components of the Programme The Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants, or POM, covers five major fields of work: - conservation of cultivated plants by collecting, describing and various other methods; - utilization of cultivated plants by growing and plant breeding; - research and development work on such factors as the relationships between species and

their genetic variation; - education and information for dissemination of knowledge and raising of public

awareness; and - cooperation in various international bodies. Swedish plant genetic resources? Although Sweden is not particularly rich in genetic resources, crop cultivation has a long history in our country. This has helped to give us numerous species and varieties that are adapted to our conditions. The climate and growing conditions in Sweden make special demands on the cultivated plants grown in the country. The plants must be sufficiently hardy to survive our long, cold winters and short and often cool summers. The Swedish tradition of plant breeding has also contributed to this diversity. POM is to be a vital instrument for the conservation and utilization of Sweden’s plant resources in a sensible and sustainable manner. In our roles as research workers, plant breeders, growers or consumers, we all have a responsibility for conserving these resources and maintaining Sweden’s inheritance of cultivated plants. Governance and coordination As a consequence of Agenda 21 and the international commitment regarding sustainable development, Sweden adopted in 1999 a series of different so-called environmental quality objectives (http://miljomal.nu/english/english.php). One of these objectives refers to the agricultural sector and reads ”A varied agricultural landscape”. One measure among several to accomplish this involves the formation and development of a national plant genetic resources programme. POM therefore has strong political support, which is an asset for the overall management of the programme. While the Swedish Board of Agriculture, as the responsible sector agency, is supervising the programme, the Swedish Biodiversity Centre has been granted the role of coordinator.


138

What is the Swedish Biodiversity Centre? The Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM) (http://www.cbm.slu.se/eng/cbmengelsk.htm) is a national coordinating body with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Uppsala University as its parent bodies. The task of the CBM is to coordinate and stimulate research on the biodiversity of both wild and cultivated species and to work on education and information. The CBM was founded in 1994 in order to meet environmental targets and to live up to the demands made in the Convention on Biological Diversity. Conserving biodiversity is considered to be one of our most important issues for the future. Inventory to be made of cultivated plants A priority issue for POM includes a national inventory to be made of our cultivated plants and their relatives. A ten-year strategy has therefore been developed that lays down the priorities and technical details of how the inventory will be carried out. In 2000, small-scale inventories were made on a trial basis of three groups of our very popular and well-known cultivated plants with the aim of evaluating inventory techniques. For instance, inventories were made in limited areas of older varieties, unimproved varieties and varieties that were introduced early of daffodils and white narcissi (Narcissus), roses (Rosa) and turnips (Brassica rapa ssp. rapa). Recently more comprehensive inventories of other cultivated plants or plant groups have been initiated throughout Sweden. These include seed of vegetable crops that have not been collected as yet, cultivars of certain berry crops (e.g. gooseberries) that are presumed lost and perennial ornamentals. Plant groups to be dealt with later on involve fruit trees, forage crops, ornamental trees and bushes, pot plants and landscape plants. For the broadest possible impact, the general public will also be invited to contribute knowledge and plant material. Partners in POM - The Swedish Species Information Centre; - The Swedish botanical gardens; - The Swedish Biodiversity Centre; - The Swedish open-air museums; - The Swedish National Organization of Leisure Gardening Societies; - Sesam (an NGO for seed cultivation and protection of cultivated plants in Sweden); - The Swedish Board of Agriculture; - The Federation of Swedish Farmers; - The National Environment Protection Agency; - The Nordic Gene Bank; - The National Heritage Board; - The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency; - The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial

Planning (Formas); - The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; - The National Gardening Federation; - The Swedish plant breeding companies; - The Swedish Pomological Society. ‘Rings on the water’ Conservation of plant genetic resources can never be fully realized without the acceptance and participation of people. We depend upon their knowledge and skills when it comes to maintaining plant material. Their love for the ”green cultural heritage” is a cornerstone in our work. Thus we expect a range of positive social effects as a result of the Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants:


- conservation of biodiversity; - conservation of handicraft traditions; - conservation of cultivated land; - dynamic cultural environments; - enhanced environmental knowledge; - better environment; - better food; - increased interest in gardening; - better health; - increased cultural and horticultural tourism; - beneficial effects for sparsely populated areas. More information There is information about the Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants on the Internet, although as yet only in Swedish (www.pom.info). In the future we plan to include searchable databases giving more information about projects, people and institutions involved, possibilities of financing projects, new publications and contact people. Contacts Coordinators for the Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants are: The CBM regional office at Alnarp, Sweden:

Eva Jansson - Email: [email protected] Jens Weibull - Email: [email protected]

The Swedish Board of Agriculture in Jönköping, Sweden:

Agneta Börjesson - Email: [email protected] Correspondence: CBM, PO Box 54, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden


140

Switzerland The Swiss National Programme for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of

Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Beate Schierscher Swiss Commission for the Conservation of Cultivated Plants, Domaine de Changins, Nyon,

Switzerland Establishment of the Swiss National Programme for Conservation and Use of Genetic Resources Conservation of plant genetic resources in Switzerland is carried out by both public and private organizations. Some of the public organizations such as the Federal Research Stations have been working actively on this topic for more than 40 years. Private organizations initiated their activities 20 years ago. This decentralized approach requires a coordinating body to oversee the activities. In 1991, supported by the Federal Office of Agriculture (FOAG), the Swiss Commission for the Conservation of Cultivated Plants (CPC) was created with representatives of private and public organizations. The CPC promotes the conservation of genetic diversity of cultivated plants. The main tasks are the coordination and information of the activities in crop genetic resources conservation at the national level and the maintenance of an inventory of the different groups of long-term conserved plant species including berries, vine, cereals/corn and industrial plants, vegetables, fodder plants, aromatic and medicinal plants, potatoes and fruit trees. The genebank of the Federal Research Station for Plant Production of Changins holds national responsibility for most of these PGR, but private organizations are also involved in long-term storage. Since the adoption of the Global Plan of Action (GPA), Switzerland has established its National Plan of Action (NPA). In order to implement the NPA the Federal Office of Agriculture created a budget four years ago for financing projects dealing with plant genetic resources. During the first four years, from 1999 to 2003, priority was given to making field inventories of the different groups of plant species, especially berries, fruit trees and corn. In the meantime, concepts, including strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources, have been developed for all groups of plant species. For the second phase (2003-2006) priority is given to the implementation of the concepts for the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources and for the National PGR documentation system. The National PGR documentation system will contain a database with passport data, characterization data, evaluation data and genebank management data. Further priorities for this phase are in vitro conservation and public awareness. Documentation The networks are encouraged to use the FAO/IPGRI Multi-crop passport descriptors. Some National collections are ready to upload their data to EURISCO. One of the first tasks of the CPC was to undertake an inventory of all organizations and institutes involved in describing species and the number of accessions conserved. The genebank of the Federal Research Station for Plant Production of Changins has national responsibilities for PGR. The National Inventory (NI) is documented using MS Access software. Since April 2003 the NI has also been available on the Internet (www.cpc-skek.ch). The CPC coordinates the procedures for implementing the Swiss NI. All curators of collections are contacted to prepare the procedures for implementing the NI.


Ukraine The Ukrainian National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources Victor K. Ryabchoun and Roman L. Boguslavskyi National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of the Ukraine (NCPGRU), V.Ya. Yurjev Institute of

Plant Production, Kharkiv, Ukraine The territory of the Ukraine stretches from the forest zone ”Polissya” to the subtropical southern coast of the Crimea and includes steppes with highly fertile black soils (chernozem) and ancient forests and meadows in the Carpathian Mountains. On the whole, conditions for agriculture are favourable and it has been practised there for more than 7000 years. Many important trade routes also went through the Ukraine and had a great influence on the diversity of cultivated crops. Intensive development of the plant industry and agricultural science in the Ukraine in the 19th-20th centuries, in particular plant breeding and genetics, has created a rich genepool. Cultivars and hybrids adapted to the natural and climatic conditions of growing regions and to intensive growing technologies, highly productive, pest and disease resistant, tolerant of low temperatures, drought and other stresses are bred. The Ukraine is also rich in wild relatives of cultivated crops. Among 4500 species of vascular plants growing in the Ukraine, there are wild relatives of wheat (incl. T. boeoticum, species of Aegilops, Dasypyrum, Elytrigia, Elymus, etc.), barley, oat, pea, lentil, beet, flax, hemp, a series of vegetables, officinal, essential oil-bearing plants, apple, pear, plum and others. The genepool of these and other useful wild plants is being conserved in situ, in state-protected reserves. In some areas, in particular in the Carpathians, it is possible to find traditional varieties grown on small private farms. The National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources started in 1992, when the Ukraine became independent, based on a decision of the Ukrainian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. The main tasks of the National Programme are: - to provide plant breeding, research, educational, production, ecological and other

programmes with initial material; - to increase the diversity of cultivated plant species and varieties; - to conserve plant genetic resources for present and future generations. The National Plant Genebank (NPG) was established to implement these tasks. Maintenance and management of the NPG are implemented by the plant genetic resources (PGR) System which includes 34 institutions specialized in the breeding of specific crops. The coordinating centre is the National Centre for PGR of the Ukraine (NCPGRU), hosted at the V.Ya. Yurjev Institute of Plant Production in Kharkiv. The implementation of the National Programme for PGR is regulated by national Laws (on vegetables, on plant cultivars, on plant quarantine), the Custom Code of the Ukraine and others. The draft of the Law on PGR is currently being elaborated. The NPG collection holds 123 000 accessions of 310 cultivated plants and over 500 wild relatives of crops grown in the Ukraine or of significance for its national economy. The NPG contains 10 400 accessions (8.5%) of advanced Ukrainian cultivars; 29.9% advanced cultivars of other world countries; 16.3% landraces (including 4.5% of Ukrainian origin); 23.8% breeding lines; 2.3% genetic lines; 5.7% wild relatives; and from 1.3% to 6.1% synthetic populations, clones, hybrids and others.


142

Cereals are best represented in the NPG, with 33 900 accessions. A large number of accessions is also available for pulses (14 100), groat crops (10 000), fruit, nut and berry crops (20 100). Collections of maize, oil-bearing, industrial, medicinal, volatile oil, forage, vegetable and melon crops, potato, grape, ornamental and forest plants also have a significant genetic potential. In 1999, the Ukrainian Government declared the NPG as a ”Scientific Establishment of National Possession”, in recognition of its significance for the country. The Ukraine takes part in the implementation of the Global Plan of Action (GPA). In this respect, the National Programme for PGR is carried out according to the following directions. Introduction of new genepool accessions from the Ukraine and other countries Every year, 7000 to 8000 accessions of different plant species are being investigated with the aim of forming the NPG collections. Among them, about 3000 samples are collected in the Ukraine; more than 5000 samples of foreign origin are received in general on the basis of joint research programmes and other forms of collaboration with CIMMYT, ICARDA, VIR, NGB, genebanks, breeding and seed-producing institutions and private firms, botanical gardens from European countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Republic of Moldova, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, UK) but also from the Middle-East (Egypt, Israel, Syria, Turkey), North America (Canada, USA), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Peru), Asia (China, India, Philippines), Australia, etc. Fourteen collecting missions have been carried out since 1992 and over 3000 samples of landraces and wild crop relatives were collected. Nine of the missions were carried out with colleagues from Moldova, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovakia and the USA. This was made possible thanks to financial and material support from the national genebanks of Poland and the USA. One of the most important topics is to collect and maintain indigenous landraces of different crops. For this purpose, contacts are being established with farmers. Comprehensive investigation of the genepool diversity This is being carried out in order to evaluate the genepool for economically valuable traits such as productivity, optimal length of the growing period, resistance to diseases and pests, hardiness, quality of production, etc. Over 40 000 samples of various crops are being studied yearly. Studies are carried out in the field or in the laboratory. Based on the results, trait and genetic collections are formed and base collections are optimized. The accessions selected as sources and donors of valuable traits are sent to breeding and research institutions and used as initial material in breeding, research, educational and other programmes and agricultural farming. The institutions of the NCPGRU System transfer more than 10 000 samples each year to users, mostly in the Ukraine (about 8000) but also to other countries (over 2000). Long-term conservation of plant genetic diversity in the National Depository, field collections and natural reserves About 93 000 accessions of the NPG are seed-propagated. The National Depository was established for the storage of its seed, with the assistance of IPGRI. Seed samples are air-dried and hermetically sealed in glass, plastic and foil containers. Seed is stored in three blocks according to the conditions:

- non-regulated temperature (22 000 samples); - cool chamber at +4°C (3000 samples of species not suited for long-term conservation); - storage in deep-freeze chests at -18°C (1000 samples).


The samples stored belong to 197 plant species in 42 families. More than 17 000 seed samples are maintained in duplication storage situated in Ustymivs’ka Experimental Station. Research on cryopreservation was carried out with the seeds of a number of crops belonging to different families. The current economic situation does not allow building a modern depository, but it is being designed. The national genepool of vegetatively propagated crops—potato, fruit, berry, nut, grape, hop, ornamental shrubs, a number of forage, essential oil-bearing, officinal plants and others, are maintained in field collections. The total number of samples is over 32 000. A series of indigenous and exotic varieties are maintained on-farm in private farms on the initiative of amateurs. Creation and management of the information system for plant genetic resources The PGR information system ”Plant Genepool” allows coordinating and promoting the activities of the PGR System institutions regarding: - effective management of Ukrainian National Plant Genebank collections; - germplasm introduction; - drawing up an inventory and registration of the plant genepool; - participation in the creation of the European PGR Catalogue EURISCO; - genepool investigation leading to the formation of core, trait, genetic and special

collections; - organization and implementation of genepool conservation and its use; - exchange of genetic material and related information with other institutions and

countries. The ”Plant Genepool” information system currently includes databases on: - passport data for 67 000 accessions of 323 crops; - genealogies of genepool accessions (6000 records); - new accessions (over 25 000); - the seed pool of the National Depository (over 26 000); - requests for genepool accessions; - transfer of genepool accessions; - a reference system including directories of crops and crop groups, countries and regions,

institutions and firms involved in plant breeding and genetics, and descriptors. The establishment of the information system was made possible thanks to the assistance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing and CGN, the Netherlands. Registration of valuable germplasm samples and genepool collections created by breeding programmes and research experiments Registration is carried out on behalf of the Ukrainian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. This is one of the important activities of NCPGRU. Special certificates proving scientific copyright are provided to authors and originators of registered valuable samples and collections created both in the Ukraine and in other countries. The registration is carried out on the basis of expertise for novelty, according to the regulations. Information on different aspects of PGR-related work is published in scientific publications. In 2003, NCPGRU started publishing the journal ”Plant Genetic Resources” which accepts contributions both from the Ukraine and from other countries.


144

APPENDICES 145

APPENDICES Appendix I. Open Space Sessions 146

Appendix II. Alnarp Statement calling for Sustainable Conservation and Use of

European Genetic Resources 151

Appendix III. Acronyms and Abbreviations 152 Appendix IV. Agenda 156

Appendix V. List of participants 157


146

Appendix I. Open Space Sessions Building and implementing a National PGR Programme 1. What are the driving forces of a strong National Programme (NP)? Issue: Strong National Programme, Driving forces Convener: Ladislav Dotlačil Participants: Ladislav Dotlačil, Lorenzo Maggioni, Rob van Raalte, Ladislav Rosenberg and Loek J.M. Van Soest 2. How to make a NP successful and what are the prerequisites for a NP? Issue: 1. How do you make a National Programme successful? 2. Which are the preconditions for having a National Programme? Convener: Mia Sahramaa, Ivana Dulić-Marković Participants: Külli Annamaa, Gogotur Agladze, Guram Alexidze, Taiul Berishvili, Sergey Alexanian, Ivana Dulić-Marković, Drazen Jelovac, Vladimir Pekič and Goran Zivkov 3. What are the three great obstacles in building a NP and how to overcome them? Issue: What are the three greatest obstacles in building your National Programme and how do you intend to overcome them? Convener: Vladimir Pekič Participants: Luis Ayerbe, Drazen Jelovac, Katrin Kotkas, Lars Landbo, Sonja Maznevska, Gordana Popsimonova, Loek Van Soest 4. Common requirements and approaches to NPs Issue: Common requirements and approaches to National Programmes Convener: Alvina Avagyan Participants: Gogotur Agladze, Guram Alexidze, Sergey Alexanin, Külli Annamaa, Alvina Avagyan, Samvel Avetisyan, Taiul Bereshvili, Ivana Dulić-Marković, Drazen Jelovac, Vladimir Pekič, Mia Sahramaa, Goran Zivkov 5. How comprehensive should a NP be? Should it be sectorial or include all living organisms (plants - including forest species, animals, microorganisms)? Issue: How comprehensive should a National Programme be? Should it be sectorial or include all fields (plants, animals, micro-organisms, forestry)? Convener: Sónia Dias Participants: Sónia Dias, Grethe Evjen, Ken Richards, and Jozef Turok 6. How to promote sustainable use of PGRFA within a NP? Issue: Promote sustainable use of PGRFA within National Programmes Convener: Eliseu Bettencourt Participant: Siyka Angelova, Roman Boguslavskiy Anatol Ganea, Aušra Gineitaitė, Fabrizio Grassi, Siegfried Harrer, László Holly, Andrei Kadyrov, Rada Koeva, Martine Mitteau, Gheorghe Savin, Silvia Strajeru, and Eva Thörn 7. How are NGOs involved in NPs? What can an NGO contribute in a NP? Issue: How are NGOs involved in NP? What can NGOs contribute in a NP? Convener: Béla Bartha Participants: Siyka Angelova, Daniela Benediková, Agneta Börjeson, Aušra Gineitaitė, János Lazányi, Rob van Raalte, Beate Schierscher and Jozef Turok

OPEN SPACE SESSIONS 147

8. How do we continue after the programme has ended? Issue: How do we continue after the programme has ended? Convener: Katrin Kotkas Participants: Külli Annamaa, Katrin Kotkas, Juozas Labokas and Wieslaw Podyma Technical aspects of PGR collection management (on-farm, in situ and ex situ) 9. Criteria for choosing varieties for on-farm cultivation Issue: Criteria of the choice of varieties for on-farm cultivation Convener: Jons Eisele Participants: Åsmund Asdal, Luis Ayerbe, Harald Bajorat, Daniela Benediková Agneta Börjesson, Clara Goedert, Jaap Hardon, Elinor Lipman, Nigel Maxted, Beate Scheirscher, Maria Žaková 10. Criteria and methods for choosing varieties/cultivars of vegetatively propagated plants for National Collections Issue: Criteria and methods for choosing varieties/cultivars of vegetatively propagated plants for National Collections Convener: Åsmund Asdal Participants: Katarina Wedelsbäck Bladh, Roman Boguslavskiy, Even Bratberg, Anatol Ganea, Eva Jansson, Katrin Kotkas, Aarne Kurppa, Mia Sahramaa and Gheorghe Savin 11. Molecular markers in germplasm evaluation Issue: Molecular markers in germplasm evaluation Convener: Toni Safner Participants: Leena Hömmö, Kadri Järve, Aarne Kurppa, Isaak Rashal 12. How to deal with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in genebank collections and NPs? Issue: How to deal with GMOs in genebank collections /NPs? Convener: Leena Hömmö Participants: Gogotur Agladze, Yagut Akbarova, Zeynal Akparov, Sergey Alexanian, Guram Alexidze, Eliseu Bettencourt, Daniela Benediková, Taiul Berishvili, Katarina Wedelsbäck Bladh, Roman Boguslavskiy, Árni Bragason, Michaela Černe, Ladislav Dotlačil, Grethe Evjen, Paul Freudenthaler, Clara Oliveira Goedert, Jaap Hardon, Siegfried Harrer, Leena Hömmö, László Holly, Kadri Järve, Juozas Labokas, Elinor Lipman, Lorenzo Maggioni, Nigel Maxted, Eli Putievsky, Radha Ranganathan, Ken Richards, Victor Ryabchoun, Toni Safner, Silvia Strajeru, Eva Thörn, Merja Veteläinen, Maria Žaková and Goran Zivkov 13. Do our knowledge and tools facilitate collection of the most valuable PGR in the genebanks? Issue: Do our knowledge and tools facilitate collection of the most valuable plant gene resources into the gene banks? Convener: Aarne Kurppa Participants: Arni Bragason, Paul Freudenthaler, Aarne Kurppa, Göran Svanfeldt 14. Genetic erosion in genebanks Issue: Genetic erosion in genebanks Convener: Sónia Dias Participants: Inger Hjalmarsson and Katrin Kotkas


148

15. Relations between genebanks and NGOs Issue: Relations among genebanks and NGOs Convener: Wieslaw Podyma and Lars-Åke Gustavsson Participants: N. Murthi Anishetty, Béla Bartha, Mihaela Černe, Jons Eisele, Paul Freudenthaler, Elinor Lipman, Vladimir Pekič, Eli Putievsky, Beate Schierscher and Silvia Strajeru PGR conservation and use 16. How to bring old varieties into use, if they are still of interest? Issue: How to bring old varieties into use, if they still are of interest? Convener: Göran Svanfeldt Participants: Katarina Wedelsbäck Bladh, Even Bratberg, Marc Lateur and Elzbieta Lenarczyk-Priwiezienc 17. How can we combine conservation of plant varieties with the care of historical (cultural) sites in our countries? Relationship between in situ conservation and nature protection Issue: 1) How can we combine conservation of plant varieties with the care of historical (cultural) sites in our counties? 2) Relationship between in situ conservation and nature protection. Convener: Lars-Åke Gustavsson Participants: Åsmund Asdal, Harald Bajorat, Arieh Levy, Gert Poulsen, Beate Schierscher, Gjoshe Stefkov and Miriam Waldman 18. Is it possible to increase and promote the sustainable use of PGR by setting up an international labelling system under the auspices of IPGRI? Issue: Is it possible to increase and to promote the sustainable use of PGR by setting up an international label system under the auspices of IPGRI? Convener: Marc Lateur Participants: Béla Bartha, Jons Eisele, Arieh Levy and Miriam Waldman 19. Implementation of the NP in agricultural practice Issue: Implementation of the NP in agricultural practice Convener: Elzbieta Lenarczyk-Priwiezienc Participants: Alvina Avagyan, Samvel Avetisyan, Katrin Kotkas and Wieslaw Podyma 20. In situ genetic reserve methodologies Issue: In situ genetic reserve methodologies Convener: Nigel Maxted Participants: Siyka Angelova, Daniela Benediková, Sónia Dias, Paul Freudenthaler, Lars-Åke Gustavsson, Siegfried Harrer, Peter Herthelius, László Holly, Edite Kaufmane, Rada Koeva, Juozas Labokas, Janos Lazanyi, Martine Mitteau, Wieslaw Podyma, Gordana Popsimonova, Beate Schierscher, Gjoshe Stefkov, Miriam Waldman and Maria Žaková

OPEN SPACE SESSIONS 149

Strategies for improving public awareness, training and education on PGR 21. How to improve public awareness in PGR conservation? Issue: How to improve public awareness in PGR conservation? Convener: Juozas Labokas Participants: Åsmund Asdal, Luis Ayerbe, Agneta Börjesson, Siegfried Harrer, Lars-Åke Gustavsson, Juozas Labokas, Lars Landbo, Elinor Lipman, Martine Mitteau and Beate Schierscher 22. What can be done to improve training and education on PGRFA? Issue: What can be done to improve training and education on PGRFA? Convener: Jozef Turok Participants: Zeynal Akparov, N. Murthi Anishetty, Alvina Avagyan, Eliseu Bettencourt, Mihaela Černe, Ivana Dulić-Marković, Anatol Ganea, Aušra Gineitaitė, Elzbieta Lenarczyk-Priwieziencew, Sonia Maznevska, Gordana Popsimonova, Gheorghe Savin, Rob van Raalte, Silvia Strajeru and Goran Zivkov 23. The need to quantify the value of PGR for the national economy to secure permanent funding Issue: The need to quantify the value of PGR to the economy of the state for permanent funding Convener: Miriam Waldman Participants: Paul Freudenthaler, Arieh Levy, Wieslaw Podyma, Gordana Popsimonova and Gjoshe Stefkov 24 How can we make our ministries understand that PGR is a cross-cutting issue? Issue: How can we make our ministries understand that PGR is a cross cutting issue? Convener: Jens Weibull Participants: Agneta Börjesson, Alvina Avagyan, Samuel Avetisyan, Luis Ayerbe, Béla Bartha, Aušra Gineitaitė, Jons Eisele, Clara Olivia Goedert, Leena Hömmö, Kadri Järve, Drazen Jelovac, Foto Kashta, Lars Landbo, Gints Lanka, Arieh Levy, Vladimir Pekič, Wieslaw Podyma, Elzbieta Lenarczyk-Priwieziencew, Ranga Ranganathan, Xhevat Shima, Miriam Waldman and Jens Weibull Definition of research priorities for PGR 25. Research priorities for plant genetic resources Issue: Research priorities for plant genetic resources Convener: Nigel Maxted Participants: About 30-35 participants but unfortunately the names were not recoded. 26. Lobbying and resources for European PGR Issue: Lobbying and resources for European PGR Conveners: Nigel Maxted (Group 1) and Eliseu Bettencourt (Group 2) Participants: Sergey Alexanian, Külli Annamaa, Åsmund Asdal, Alvina Avagyan, Luis Ayerbe, Eliseu Bettencourt, Even Bratberg, Sónia Dias, Ladislav Dotlačil, Ivana Dulić-Marković, Fabrizio Grassi, Jaap Hardon, Peter Herthelius, László Holly, Leena Hömmö, Kadri Järve, Drazen Jelovac, Juozas Labokas, Lars Landbo, Janos Lazanyi, Marc Lateur, Arieh Levy, Martine Mitteau, Wieslaw Podyma, Eli Putievsky, Isaak Rashal, Ken Richards, Eva Thörn, Goran Zivkov, plus others whose names were not recorded


150

Perspectives in international cooperation 27. Cooperation in Europe Issue: NP – Cooperation in Europe Convener: Siegfried Harrer Participants: Harald Bajorat, Katarina Wendelsbäck Bladh, Peter Herthelius, Andrei Kadyrov, Katrin Kotkas, Lorenzo Maggioni and Mia Sahramaa 28. A common European genebank Issue: A common European Gene Bank Convener: Eva Thörn Participants: N. Murthi Anishetty, Külli Annamaa, Harald Bajorat, Eliseu Bettencourt, Mihaela Černe, Jaap Hardon, László Holly, Marc Lateur, Lorenzo Maggioni, Sonja Maznevska and Eva Thörn, 29. Are Biological Resource Centres (BRCs) the future of genetic resources? Issue: Are Biological Resources Centres (BRC) the future of Genetic Resources? Convener: Martine Mitteau Participants: Johan Bäckman, Ladislav Dotlačil, Fabrizio Grassi, Andrei Kadyrov, Toni Safner, Silvia Strajeru and Victor Ryabchoun

ALNARP STATEMENT 151

Appendix II. Alnarp Statement calling for Sustainable Conservation and Use of European Genetic Resources 9 The diversity of European plant genetic resources species, those species of direct socioeconomic value and necessary for the well-being of humankind, forms a vital component of Europe’s natural and cultural heritage and is a major resource. The European Community Biodiversity Strategy acknowledges, as do the Convention on Biological Diversity, the FAO Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the European Plant Conservation Strategy, that plant genetic resources are an essential but finite resource, and that there is a need to improve conservation efficiency if we are to retain their potential for utilization by future generations. The plants of socioeconomic importance, those upon which Europe’s agriculture and horticulture are based and upon which sustainable rural development is predicated, are in equal decline to their host ecosystems. Although the current threat facing agrobiodiversity is widely acknowledged, there is currently little concerted effort, except for the activities under the aegis of the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR), to ensure that these critical resources are collected, maintained and evaluated for potential use. Furthermore, in the face of this growing threat to European plant genetic resources conservation, efforts are being hindered by a serious lack of scientific knowledge, trained personnel and resources. For example, little knowledge is available about the patterns of this socioeconomically important genetic diversity, whether it is effectively conserved, or even which appropriate strategies and techniques to apply to ensure that this vital diversity is retained for future generations. The economic and social factors responsible for declining agrobiodiversity are also poorly understood. If we are to achieve the ambitious goal of halting the erosion of plant genetic resources by 2010 as stated in the European Union’s Sixth Action Programme and the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, then there is a need for a step-shift in efficiency of collaborative activities, a new emphasis on fundamental research to underpin the required conservation actions, as well as security for existing germplasm collections. It is not merely a matter of improving a single, existing technique or implementing a conservation methodology, but it will involve acquiring a better knowledge of socioeconomically important agrobiodiversity, along with the formulation and implementation of new conservation models. As a step toward achieving this goal, experts from 39 countries met at the European Workshop on National Plant Genetic Resources Programmes in Alnarp, Sweden, to debate these issues and emphasized the need for a Europe-wide approach to resolving the fundamental issues facing the assessment, conservation and sustainable use of European plant genetic resources species. The participants identified the European Commission and other agencies as the best positioned to assist the formal sector and NGOs together in achieving, on a regional level the objectives established by the EU’s Sixth Framework Programme and thus facilitating the meeting of commitments made in the European Plant Conservation Strategy and by ratifying the Convention on Biological Diversity. Furthermore the participants believed that these fundamental issues could only be efficiently addressed through closer collaboration of the different communities dealing with genetic resources of socioeconomic importance for European agriculture, horticulture and forestry, including plant species and their wild relatives, domesticated animals, forest trees and microorganisms.

9 The Alnarp Statement was endorsed by the participants of the European Workshop on National

Plant Genetic Resources Programmes, held in Alnarp, Sweden, 24-26 April 2003.


152

Appendix III. Acronyms and Abbreviations AAFC Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottowa, Ontario, Canada AAS Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Tbilisi, Georgia ACIAR Australian Center for International Agricultural Research ANAS Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences APF Agriculture Policy Framework ARO Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel ASTA American Seed Trade Association AWWC Australian Winter Wheat Collection BAZ Bundesanstalt für Züchtungsforschung an Kulturpflanzen (Federal Centre

for Breeding Research on Cultivated Plants), Braunschweig, Germany BeKo/PGR Beratungs- und Koordinierungsausschusses für genetische Ressourcen

landwirtschaftlicher und gartenbaulicher Kulturpflanzen (Advisory and Coordinating Committee for PGRFA), Germany

BFOSTCA Belgian Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs BMVEL Bundesministerium für Ernährung Landwirtschaft und

Verbraucherschutz (Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection), Bonn, Germany

BPGV Portuguese Plant Genebank, Braga, Portugal BRCs Biological Resource Centres BRG Bureau des Ressources Génétiques, Paris, France BSAP 1999 Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Republic of Armenia CAC Central Asia and Caucasus CAPGRIS Canadian Agriculture Plant Genetic Resources System CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBDC Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme CBM Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Uppsala, Sweden CENARGEN National Center for Genetic Resources, Brazil CGB Canadian Clonal genebank, Harrow, Canada CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGN Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen, the Netherlands CGRFA Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO) CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (International

Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) CIP International Potato Center, Peru CIRAD Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le

développement (Centre for International Cooperation in Agronomic Research for Development), France

CLO-DvP Centrum voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek – Departement voor Plantengenetica en –veredeling (Agricultural Research Centre, Department of Plant Genetics and Breeding), Ghent, Belgium

CNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (National Research Council), Italy CNRS Centre national de la recherche scientifique (National Centre for Scientific

Research), France

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 153

CPC Swiss Commission for the Conservation of Cultivated Plants, Nyon, Switzerland

CPGRFA Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO) CRA Centre de Recherches Agronomiques (Agricultural Research Centre),

Gembloux, Belgium CRF-INIA Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos, (Centre for Plant Genetic Resources),

Alcalá de Henares, Spain DIKA Agrobiodiversity Protection Society of Georgia ECP/GR European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks EMBRAPA Brazilian Agriculture Research Corporation ENSAR Ecole nationale supérieure agronomique de Rennes, France EPGRIS European Plant Genetic Resources Information Infrastructure EU European Union EUCARPIA European Association for Plant Breeding Research EUFORGEN European Forest Genetic Resources Programme EURISCO European search catalogue of ex situ collections maintained in Europe EVIGEZ National Information System on Plant Genetic Resources, Czech Republic FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FOAG Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture, Bern, Switzerland FORMAS Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and

Spatial Planning GATT The Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GEF Global Environment Facility GEVES Groupe d’étude et de contrôle des variétés et des semences (Group for the

Study and Monitoring of Varieties and Seeds), France GMO genetically modified organism GPA Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of

Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture GRIN Germplasm Resources Information Network, USA GRIN-CA Germplasm Resources Information Network – Canadian version IARCs International Agricultural Research Centres IBV Informationszentrum Biologische Vielfalt (Information Centre for

Biological Diversity), Bonn, Germany ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Syria IDC Information And Documentation Centre, Israel IFREMER Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (French

Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea), France IGB Israeli Gene Bank, Bet Dagan, Israel INIA Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária (National Institute for

Agricultural Research), Lisbon, Portugal INIA Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria

(National Institute for Food and Agriculture Research and Technology), Madrid, Spain


154

INIAP Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e das Pescas (National Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research), Lisbon, Portugal

INIBAP International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain, Montpellier, France

INRA Institut national de la recherche agronomique (National Agronomic Research Institute), France

IPGR Institute for Plant Genetic Resources, Sadovo, Bulgaria IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute IPIMAR Instituto de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar (Institute for Fisheries and

Sea Research), Portugal IPK Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben

(Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research), Gatersleben, Germany

IPR intellectual property rights IRD Institut de recherche pour le développement (Research Institute for

Development), France IRRI International Rice Research Institute, Phillippines IRSA Istituti di ricerca e sperimentazione agraria (Agricultural Research

Institutes), Italy ISF Istituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura, Rome, Italy ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture IU International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources KUL Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Catholic University of Leuven), Belgium KSLA Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry LIA Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture, Këdainiai dist., Lithuania LNV Ministry of Agriculture, Nature management and Fisheries, the Hague,

the Netherlands MADRP Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas

(Ministry for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries), Portugal Metla Finnish Forest Research Institute, Finland MII Matching Investment Initiative, Canada MiPAF Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (Ministry for Agriculture and

Forest Policies), Rome, Italy MNHN Muséum national d' histoire naturelle (National Museum for Natural

History), France MTA Material Transfer Agreement NCPGRU National Centre for PGR of the Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine NGB Nordic Gene Bank, Alnarp, Sweden NGO non-governmental organization NI National Inventory NMR Nordic Council of Ministers NP National Programme NPA Swiss National Plan of Action NPG National Plant Genebank, Ukraine OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 155

OIV Organisation internationale de la vigne et du vin (International Organisation of Vine and Wine), Paris, France

ÖPUL Österreichisches Programm zur Förderung einer umweltgerechten, extensiven und den natürlichen Lebensraum schützenden Landwirtschaft (Austria)

PBAI Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, Radzików, Blonie, Poland PBR plant breeders' rights PGR plant genetic resources PGRC Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Saskatoon, Canada PGRDEU National Inventory on PGRFA in Germany PGRFA Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture PGR Forum European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation

Forum PINGW Research Institute of Agronomy, Pulawy, Poland POM Programmet för Odlad Mångfald (Swedish National Programme for the

Diversity of Cultivated Plants) RENARGEN Brazilian Genetic Resources Network RICP Research Institute of Crop Production, Prague, Czech Republic RIPP Research Institute of Plant Production, Piešťany, Slovak Republic Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SINGER System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (CGIAR) SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ÚKSÚP Ústredný Kontrolný a Skúšobný Ústav Pol’nohospodársky (Slovak

Control and Testing Institute in Agriculture), Bratislava, Slovak Republic UMB Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNEP United Nations Environment Network UPOV Union internationale pour la protection des obtentions végétales

(International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), Geneva, Switzerland

USDA United States Department of Agriculture, USA USDA/ARS USDA, Agricultural Research Service, USA VIR N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry, St Petersburg, Russian Federation VNIIL All Russian Flax Research Institute, Torzhok, Russia WB World Bank WG working group WIEWS World Information and Early Warning System on PGRFA WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization WRI World Resources Institute WTO World Trade Organization ZADI Zentralstelle für Agrardokumentation und –information (German Centre

for Documentation and Information in Agriculture), Bonn, Germany


156

Appendix IV. Agenda European Workshop on National Plant Genetic Resources Programmes 24-26 April 2003, Alnarp, Sweden 24 April 2003 08:30 - 10:00 Registration / Poster arrangements

10:00 - 10:20 Welcoming statements (Eva Jansson and Jens Weibull, Swedish Biodiversity Centre; Roland von Bothmer, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

10:20 - 10:50 Plant genetic resources for sustainable agriculture: how far have we come? (N. Murthi Anishetty, FAO)

10:50 - 11:15 Coffee break

11:15 - 11:45 Status of European National Programmes in implementing the Global Plan of Action (Jozef Turok, IPGRI)

11:45 - 12:30 Case study: Brazil (Clara Oliveira Goedert, CENARGEN–EMBRAPA)

12:30 - 13:30 Lunch

13:30 - 14:15 Case study: Canada (Ken Richards, Plant Gene Resources of Canada)

14:15 - 15:00 Case study: France (Martine Mitteau, Bureau des Ressources Génétiques)

15:00 - 15:30 Coffee break

15:30 - 16:30 Introduction to Open Space (Eva Broms, Framtidsverkstäder AB)

16:30 - 18:00 Open Space (facilitation E. Broms)

18:30 - 20:00 Reception (’A World Food Party’) and Poster session

25 April 2003


12:00 - 13:00 Lunch

13:00 - 17:00 Excursions Tour 1: Alnarp – Visits to the Department of Crop Science and the spectacular park area of the Alnarp campus Tour 2: Alnarp – Visits to the Nordic Gene Bank and the recently established Alnarp Garden for Rehabilitation Tour 3: Fredriksdal Open-Air Museum

26 April 2003


12:30 - 13:30 Lunch

13:30 - 14:30 Evaluation and rounding off (facilitation E. Broms)

14:30 - 15:15 ‘Personal reflections: What did we do and where do we go from here?’(Jaap Hardon, formerly Wageningen Agricultural University)

15:15 - 15:30 Closing of the workshop (Eva Thörn, NGB and Ladislav Dotlačil, RICP)

18:00 - 21:00 Conference dinner (Restaurant ‘Slagthuset’ in Malmö)

PARTICIPANTS 157

Appendix V. List of participants European Workshop on National Plant Genetic Resources Programmes 24-26 April 2003, Alnarp, Sweden Foto Kashta Research Institute of Agriculture and Crops Fushe-Kruje Albania Tel: +355 0682036399 Email: [email protected] Xhevat Shima Research Institute of Vegetable and Potatoes Rr. Skener Kosturi Tirana Albania Tel: +355-4 228422 Fax: +355-4 228422 Email: [email protected] Alvina Avagyan Agricultural Support Republican Center Mamikonyantz Str. 39-A 375051 Yerevan Armenia Tel.: +374 1 23 03 80 Fax: +374 1 23 24 41 Email: [email protected] Samvel Avetisyan Ministry of Agriculture Nalbandyan Street 48 375010 Yerevan Armenia Tel: +374 1 52 48 34 Fax: +374 1 52 37 93 Email: [email protected] Paul Freudenthaler Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety Divisional Office Linz Wieningerstr. 8 4020 Linz Austria Tel: +43 732 381 261 260 Fax: +43 732 385 482 Email: [email protected]

Yagut Y. Akbarova Institute of Botany Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences Patamdar shosse 40 370073 Baku Azerbaijan Tel: +994 12 97 50 45 Fax: +994 12 97 50 45 Email: [email protected] Zeynal Akparov Institute of Genetic Resources Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences Azadlig Avenue 155 1106 Baku Azerbaijan Tel: +994 12 49 91 29 / mobile +994 55 775 39 05 Fax: +994 12 49 92 20 Email: [email protected] Andrei Kadyrov Belarus Scientific Research Institute of Arable Farming and Fodders 1, Timiryazev Str. 222160 Zhodino, Minsk region Belarus Tel: +375 1775 3 38 42 Fax: +375 1775 3 70 66 Email: [email protected] Marc Lateur Dept. Biological Control & PGR Chemin de Liroux 4 5030 Gembloux Belgium Tel: +32 81 620 314 Fax: +32 81 620 349 Email: [email protected] Clara Oliveira Goedert CENARGEN–EMBRAPA Caixa Postal 02372, Asa Norte 70770-900 Brasilia DF Brazil Tel: +55 61 2730100 Fax: +55 61 2743212 Email: [email protected]


158

Siyka Angelova Institute for Plant Genetic Resources "K. Malkov" (IPGR) Druzba 1 4122 Sadovo Bulgaria Tel: +359 32 629 026 Fax: +359 32 629 026 Email: [email protected] Rada Koeva Institute for Plant Genetic Resources "K. Malkov" (IPGR) Druzba 1 4122 Sadovo Bulgaria Tel: +359 32 629 026 Fax: +359 32 629 026 Email: [email protected] Ken Richards Plant Gene Resources of Canada Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada 107 Science Place Saskatoon (SK) S7N 0X2 Canada Tel: +1 306 956 7641 Fax: +1 306 956 7246 Email: [email protected] Toni Safner Faculty of Agriculture University of Zagreb Svetosimunska 25 10000 Zagreb Croatia Tel: +385 1 239 3869 Fax: +385 1 239 3631 Email: [email protected] Ladislav Dotlačil Research Institute of Crop Production (RICP) Drnovska 507 161 06 Praha-Ruzyne Czech Republic Tel: +420 2 330 223 74 Fax: +420 2 330 222 06 Email: [email protected]

Ladislav Rosenberg Selgen A.S. Stupice 250 84 Sibrina Czech Republic Tel: +420 602 200 958 Fax: +420 2 8197 1732 Email: [email protected] Lars Landbo Danish Plant Directorate Skovbrynet 20 2800 Lyngby Denmark Tel: +45 45 26 36 00 Fax: +45 45 26 36 10 Email: [email protected] Külli Annamaa Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute (PBI) 48309 Jõgeva Estonia Tel: +372 77 66901 Fax: +372 77 66902 Email: [email protected] Kadri Järve Institute of Experimental Biology Estonian Agricultural University Retke 22-37 13415 Tallinn Estonia Tel: +372 6560609 Fax: +372 6506091 Email: [email protected] Katrin Kotkas Plant Biotechnological Research Centre (EVIKA) Teaduse 6a 75501 Saku, Harju Estonia Tel: +372 60 41484 Fax: +372 60 41136 Email: [email protected]

PARTICIPANTS 159

Leena Hömmö Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Department of Agriculture; Research and Extension Unit Malminkatu 16 PO Box 30 -Government 00023 Helsinki Helsinki Finland Tel: +358 9 160 52919 Fax: +358 8 160 52203 Email: [email protected] Aarne Kurppa MTT Agrifood Research Finland/ Plant Production Research 31600 Jokioinen Finland Tel: +358 3 4188 2541 Fax: +358 3 4188 2584 Email: [email protected] Mia Sahramaa MTT Agrifood Research Finland/ Plant Production Research Crops and Biotechnology 31600 Jokioinen Finland Tel: +358 3 4188 2452 Fax: +358 3 4188 2437 Email: [email protected] Mirja Suurnäkki Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Department of Agriculture PO Box 30 Government 00023 Helsinki Finland Tel: +358 9 160 2420 Fax: +358 9 1608 8663 Email: [email protected] Martine Mitteau Bureau des ressources génétiques (BRG) 16 rue Claude Bernard 75231 Paris cedex 05 France Tel: +33 (0) 144 08 72 69 Fax: +33 (0) 144 08 72 63 Email: [email protected]

Gogotur Agladze Academy of Agricultural Science Marjanishvili Street 18 380031 Tbilisi Georgia Tel: +995 32 52 09 20 Fax: +995 32 00 13 68 Email: [email protected] Guram Alexidze Academy of Agricultural Science 82 Chavchavadze Avenue 380062 Tbilisi Georgia Tel: +995 32 52 83 65 Fax: +995 32 00 13 86 Email: [email protected] Taiul Berishvili Agrobiodiversity Protection Society "Dika" III Delisi Str., Nakveti 16 380077 Tbilisi Georgia Tel: +995 32 32 83 21 Fax: +995 32 53 64 84 Email: [email protected] Harald Bajorat Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture Rochusstrasse 1 53123 Bonn Germany Tel: +49 228 529 4378 Fax: +49 228 529 3425 Email: [email protected] Jons Eisele Ministry of Environment, Conservation, Agriculture & Consumer Protection - Northrhine-Westfalia Schwannstrasse 3 40476 Düsseldorf Germany Tel: +49 211 456 6792 Fax: +49 211 456 6456 Email: [email protected]


160

Siegfried Harrer German Centre for Documentation and Information in Agriculture (ZADI) Information Centre for Biological Diversity (IBV) Villichgasse 17 53177 Bonn Germany Tel: +49 228 954 8205 Fax: +49 228 954 8220 Email: [email protected] László Holly Institute for Agrobotany Külsömezö 15 2766 Tápiószele Hungary Tel: +36 53 380 070 Fax: +36 53 380 072 Email: [email protected] János Lazányi Eco-Select Foundation Komlossy ut. 26 4032 Debrecen Hungary Tel: +36 30 853 5354 Fax: +36 52 321 981 Email: [email protected] Bertalan Székely Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development Kossuth Lajos ter 11 1055 Budapest Hungary Tel: +36 1 301 4111 Fax: +36 1 301 4668 Email: [email protected] Árni Bragason Environment and Food Agency of Iceland Sudurlandsbraut 24 108 Reykjavík Iceland Tel: +354 591 2000 Fax: +354 591 2010 Email: [email protected]

Arieh Levy Dept. of Genetics, Field Crop Institute Volcani Center 50-250 Bet-Dagan Israel Tel: +972 3 968 3476 Fax: +972 3 966 9642 Email: [email protected] Eli Putievsky Agricultural Research Organisation (ARO) PO Box 6 50-250 Bet Dagan Israel Tel: +972 3 9683226/7 Fax: +972 3 9665327 Email: [email protected] Miriam Waldman Ministry of Science and Technology PO Box 49100 91490 Jerusalem Israel Tel: +972 2 5411132/1 Fax: +972 2 5810883 Email: [email protected] Fabrizio Grassi10 Istituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura (ISF) Via Fioranello 52 00134 Roma Italy Tel: +39 06 79348194 Fax: +39 06 79348194 Email: [email protected] Edite Kaufmane Dobele Horticultural Plant Breeding Experimental Station 1 Graudu Street 3701 Dobele Latvia Tel: +371 37 22294 Fax: +371 37 81718 Email: [email protected] Gints Lanka Ministry of Agriculture 2, Republic Square 1981 Riga Latvia Tel: +371 7027258 Fax: +371 7027514 Email: [email protected]

10 † 2003

PARTICIPANTS 161

Isaak Rashal Institute of Biology University of Latvia 3 Miera Street 2169 Salaspils Latvia Tel: +371 7945435 Fax: +371 7944986 Email: [email protected] Aušra Gineitaitė Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture (LIA) Instituto Aleja 1, Dotnuva-Akademija 5051 Kedainiai distr. Lithuania Tel: +370 3 4737289 Fax: +370 3 4737096 Email: [email protected] Juozas Labokas Institute of Botany Zaliuju Ezeru 49 2021 Vilnius Lithuania Tel: +370 2 729930 Fax: +370 2 729950 Email: [email protected] Sonja Ivanovska Faculty of Agriculture Blvd. Aleksandar Makedonski bb 1000 Skopje Macedonia (FYR) Tel: +389 2 3115 277 ext. 133 Fax: +389 2 3134 310 Email: [email protected] Gordana Popsimonova Institute of Agriculture Ss. Cyril and Methodius University Blvd. Aleksandar Makedonski bb 1000 Skopje Macedonia (FYR) Tel: +389 2 230 910 Fax: +389 2 114 283 Email: [email protected] Gjoshe Stefkov Faculty of Pharmacy Vodnjanska 17 1000 Skopje Macedonia (FYR) Tel: +389 212 6024 / 126032 Fax: +389 212 3054 Email: [email protected]

Anatol Ganea Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of Moldova PO Box 302 2001 Chisinau Moldova, Republic of Tel: +373 2 550 249 Fax: +373 2 550 249 Email: [email protected] Gheorghe Savin National Institute for Viticulture and Oenology Str. Grenoble, 128 2019 Chisinau Moldova, Republic of Tel: +373-2 76 16 22/+ 373 2 58 88 39 Fax: +373 2 56 32 67 Email: [email protected] Jaap Hardon (former Director, CGN, the Netherlands) Agromisa Hartenseweg 18 6705 BJ Wageningen The Netherlands Email: [email protected] Rob van Raalte LNV PO Box 20401 Den Haag The Netherlands Tel: +31 70 37 84 471 Fax: +31 70 37 86 105 Email: [email protected] Loek J. M. Van Soest Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) Droevendaalsesteeg 1 PO Box 16 6700 AA Wageningen The Netherlands Tel: +31 31 747 70 11 Fax: +31 31 741 80 94 Email: [email protected] Åsmund Asdal Norwegian Crop Research Institute Reddalsveien 215 4886 Grimstad Norway Tel: +47 37 25 77 00 Fax: +47 37 25 77 10 Email: [email protected]


162

Even Bratberg Agricultural University of Norway PO Box 5022 1432 Aas Norway Tel: +47 64 94 78 04 Fax: +47 64 94 78 92 Email: [email protected] Grethe Helene Evjen Agricultural Ministry of Norway PO Box 8007 0030 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 222 49311 Fax: +47 22 24 95 59 Email: [email protected] Elzbieta Lenarczyk-Priwieziencew The Social Ecological Institute 17, Czeladnicza Street 04-743 Warsaw Poland Tel: +48 22 812 53 13 Fax: +48 22 812 53 13 Email: [email protected] Wieslaw Podyma National Centre for PGR Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (IHAR) 05-870 Blonie Poland Tel: +48 22 725 3611 Fax: +48 22 725 4714 Email: [email protected] Eliseu Bettencourt INIAP / Estação Agronómica Nacional Quinta do Marquês 2784-505 Oeiras Portugal Tel: +35 12 14403688 Fax: +35 12 14416011 Email: [email protected] Sónia Dias INIAP / Estação Agronómica Nacional Quinta do Marquês 2784-505 Oeiras Portugal Tel: +35 12 14403688 Fax: +35 12 14416011 Email: [email protected]

Silvia Strajeru Suceava Genebank Bulevardul 1 Decembrie 1918 no. 17 5800 Suceava Romania Tel: +40 230 521016 Fax: +40 230 521016 Email: [email protected] Sergey Alexanian N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) 42, Bolshaya Morskaya Street 190000 St. Petersburg Russian Federation Tel: +7 812 314 4848 Fax: +7 812 311 8762 Email: [email protected] Ivana Dulić-Marković Federal Dept. for Plant and Animal Genetic Resources Omladinskih Brigada 1 11070 Belgrade Serbia and Montenegro Tel: +381 63 367 381 Fax: +381 11 311 7591 Email: [email protected] Drazen Jelovac Maize Research Institute "Zemun Polje" Slobodana Bajica 1 11080 Belgrade-Zemun Serbia and Montenegro Tel: +381 11 3756704 Fax: +381 11 3756707 Email: [email protected] Vladimir Pekič Maize Research Institute "Zemun Polje" Slobodana Bajica 1 11080 Belgrade-Zemun Serbia and Montenegro Tel: +381 11 3756 704 Fax: +381 11 3756 707 Email: [email protected] Goran Zivkov FAO Zeljka Marinovica 2 11000 Belgrade Serbia and Montenegro Tel: +381 11 661 713 Fax: +381 11 660 886 Email: [email protected]

PARTICIPANTS 163

Daniela Benediková Research Institute of Plant Production (RIPP) Bratislavska 122 921 68 Piesťany Slovak Republic Tel: +421 33 77 22 311 Fax: +421 33 77 26 306 Email: [email protected] Maria Žaková Research Institute of Plant Production (RIPP) Bratislavska 122 921 68 Piesťany Slovak Republic Tel: +421 33 77 22 312 Fax: +421 33 77 26 306 Email: [email protected] Mihaela Černe Spanova pot 5 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia Tel: +386 1 256 3433 Email: [email protected] Luis Ayerbe CRF-INIA Apdo. 1045 28800 Alcalá de Henares Spain Tel: +34 91 881 92 86/61 Fax: +34 91 881 92 87 Email: [email protected] Maria Berlekom Swedish Biodiversity Centre PO Box 7007 750 07 Uppsala Sweden Tel: +46 18 67 27 68 Fax: +46 18 67 02 46 Email: [email protected] Roland von Bothmer Dept. of Crop Science Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) PO Box 44 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Tel: +46 40 41 50 01 Fax: +46 40 41 55 19 Email: [email protected]

Agneta Börjeson Swedish Board of Agriculture Vallgatan 8 551 82 Jönköping Sweden Tel: +46 36 15 51 64 Fax: +46 36 71 05 17 Email: [email protected] Urban Emanuelsson Swedish Biodiversity Centre PO Box 7007 750 07 Uppsala Sweden Tel: +46 18 67 27 30 Fax: +46 18 67 35 37 Email: [email protected] Lars-Åke Gustavsson Fredriksdals friluftsmuseum PO Box 7123 250 07 Helsingborg Sweden Tel: +46 42 10 45 29 Fax: +46 42 10 45 10 Email: [email protected] Inger Hjalmarsson Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) PO Box 41 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Tel: +46 40 53 66 45 Fax: +46 40 53 66 50 Email: [email protected] Eva Jansson Swedish Biodiversity Centre PO Box 54 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Tel: +46 40 41 52 15 Fax: +46 40 46 08 45 Email: [email protected] Lena Nygårds POM – Sesam Hornsgatan 75 118 49 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46 8 668 82 82 Email: [email protected]


164

Gert Poulsen Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) PO Box 41 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Tel: +46 40 53 66 46 Fax: +46 40 53 66 50 Email: [email protected] Göran Svanfeldt The Swedish Amateur Gardening Federation (FOR) Åsögatan 149 116 32 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46 8 556 930 86 Fax: +46 8 640 38 98 Email: [email protected] Eva Thörn (former Director, NGB) Swedish Biodiversity Centre Swedish Uni. of Agricultural Sciences P.O. Box 54 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Tel: +46-40 415587 Fax: +46-40 460845 [email protected] Katarina Wedelsbäck Bladh Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) PO Box 41 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Tel: +46 40 53 66 59 Fax: +46 40 53 66 50 Email: [email protected] Jens Weibull Swedish Biodiversity Centre PO Box 54 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Tel: +46 40 41 55 31 Fax: +46 40 41 55 19 Email: [email protected] Merja Veteläinen Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) PO Box 41 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Tel: +46 40 53 66 44 Fax: +46 40 53 66 50 Email: [email protected]

Béla Bartha Pro Specie Rara Pfrundweg 14 5000 Aarau Switzerland Tel: +41 62 823 50 26 Fax: +41 62 823 50 25 Email: [email protected] Radha Ranganathan International Seed Federation 7 Chemin du Reposoir 1260 Nyon Switzerland Tel: +41 22 365 4420 Fax: +41 22 365 4421 Email: [email protected] Beate Schierscher Swiss Commission for the Conservation of Cultivated Plants Domaine de Changins CP 254 1260 Nyon 1 Switzerland Tel: +41 22 363 47 01 Fax: +41 22 363 46 90 Email: [email protected] Roman Boguslavskiy Institute of Plant Production Moskovskyi pr., 142 61060 Kharkiv Ukraine Tel/Fax: +380 357 779 77 63 Email: [email protected] Victor Ryabchoun Institute of Plant Production Moskovskyi pr., 142 61060 Kharkiv Ukraine Tel/Fax: +380 357 779 77 63 Email: [email protected] Nigel Maxted School of Biosciences University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT United Kingdom Tel: +44 121 414 5571 Fax: +44 121 414 5463 Email: [email protected]

PARTICIPANTS 165

FAO N. Murthi Anishetty FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome Italy Tel: +39 06 5705 46 52 Fax: +39 06 57 05 63 47 Email: [email protected] IPGRI Elinor Lipman IPGRI Regional Office for Europe c/o INIBAP Parc Scientifique Agropolis II 34397 Montpellier cedex 5 France Tel: +33 (0) 467 61 13 02 (office) / (0) 467 04 13 03 (home) Fax: +33 (0) 467 61 03 34 Email: [email protected] Lorenzo Maggioni IPGRI Regional Office for Europe Via dei Tre Denari 472/a 00057 Maccarese, Rome Italy Tel: +39 06 61 18 231 Fax: +39 06 61 979 661 Email: [email protected] Jozef Turok IPGRI Regional Office for Europe Via dei Tre Denari 472/a 00057 Maccarese, Rome Italy Tel: +39 06 61 18 250 Fax: +39 06 61 979 661 Email: [email protected] Open Space Secretariat (SLU) Agnese Kolodinska-Brantestam Dept. of Crop Science Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) PO Box 44 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Tel: +46 40 41 55 25 Fax: +46 40 41 55 19 Email: [email protected]

Anna-Maria Larsson Dept. of Landscape Architecture Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Sundsvägen 4 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Email: [email protected] Linnea Oskarsson Dept. of Crop Science Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) PO Box 44 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Ulrika Åkerlund Dept. of Landscape Architecture Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Sundsvägen 4 230 53 Alnarp Sweden Email: [email protected]


166

INDEX OF AUTHORS Agladze, G. ..................................................93 Akparov, Z. .................................................72 Alexanian, S.A...........................................125 Alexidze, G. .................................................93 Angelova, S..................................................77 Anishetty, N.M. ....................................12, 43 Annamaa, K.................................................85 Avagyan, A..................................................68 Avetisyan, S.................................................68 Ayerbe, L. ..................................................136 Bajorat, H. ....................................................95 Begemann, F. ...............................................95 Benediková, D. ..........................................130 Bettencourt, E. ...........................................123 Boguslavskyi, R.L. ....................................141 Bohanec, B. ................................................133 Bothmer, R. von ............................................8 Bratberg, E. ................................................118 Čerenak, A. ................................................133 Černe, M.....................................................133 Csizmadia, G.M. .........................................97 Dias, S.........................................................123 Dotlačil, L.....................................................82 Dulić-Marković, I......................................127 Eisele, J. ........................................................95 Engel, P. .....................................................101 Faberová, I. ..................................................82 Freudenthaler, P. ........................................70 Ganea, A. ...................................................113 Ghosh, K. .....................................................12 Gineitaitė, A. .............................................108 Goedert, C.O................................................17 Grassi, F. ....................................................101 Hardon, J.H. ................................................38 Harrer, S.......................................................95 Hazekamp, Th.............................................43 Holly, L. .......................................................97 Ivanovska, S...............................................110 Jansson, E. ..................................................137 Jinjikhadze, T...............................................93 Kaufmane, E. .............................................106

Koeva, R. ..................................................... 77 Kukk, V........................................................ 85 Labokas, J. ................................................. 108 Landbo, L. ................................................... 84 Lanka, G. ................................................... 106 Lateur, M..................................................... 74 Le Blanc, A. ................................................. 30 Levy, A. ....................................................... 99 Luthar, Z. .................................................. 133 Már, I. .......................................................... 97 Mitteau, M............................................. 30, 91 Pereira, G..................................................... 30 Piazza, M.G............................................... 101 Planchenault, D. ......................................... 30 Podyma, W. .............................................. 120 Popsimonova, G....................................... 110 Putievsky, E. ............................................... 99 Rashal, I. .................................................... 106 Ricart, A....................................................... 30 Richards, K.W............................................. 23 Rode, J........................................................ 133 Ryabchoun, V.K. ...................................... 141 Safner, T. ..................................................... 81 Sahramaa, M............................................... 88 Savin, G. .................................................... 113 Schierscher, B............................................ 140 Soest, L.J.M. van....................................... 115 Sontot, A...................................................... 30 Stehno, Z. .................................................... 82 Šuštar-Vozlič, J. ........................................ 133 Székely, B. ................................................... 97 Teissier du Cros, E. .................................... 30 Thomas, G. .................................................. 30 Turok, J. ....................................................... 43 Valls, J.F.M. ................................................. 17 Visser, B..................................................... 115 Waldman, M. .............................................. 99 Watts, J......................................................... 43 Weibull, J. .................................................. 137 Žaková, M. ................................................ 130

Documents

Alnarp Proceedings Final