Appendix II - Nordgen · Appendix II 2 Contents ... Ahmed Jahoor, Petter Marum, Emanuela Galeazzi, Michaela Arndorfer ... Valeria Negri, Ludmila Papouskova ,

Appendix II

1

Online questionnaire report

Appendix II

2

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4

Questionnaire results .................................................................................................................. 6

1. Genebanks .......................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 State and capacity ......................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Cooperation and active joint research projects ............................................................ 8

1.3 Access to PGR and information systems ................................................................... 10

1.4 Policy framework ....................................................................................................... 14

1.5 Major trends and constraints ...................................................................................... 18

1.6 SWOT analyses .......................................................................................................... 23

2. Public research organizations ........................................................................................... 29

2.1 State and capacity ....................................................................................................... 29

2.2 Cooperation and active joint research projects .......................................................... 31


2.4 Policy Framework ...................................................................................................... 38


2.6 SWOT analyses .......................................................................................................... 40

3. Breeders ............................................................................................................................ 46






3.6 SWOT analyses .......................................................................................................... 57

4. Agro-NGOs ...................................................................................................................... 61






4.6 SWOT analyses .......................................................................................................... 70

5. Government ...................................................................................................................... 74

5.1 State and Capacity ...................................................................................................... 74

5.2 Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 75


5.4 SWOT analyses .......................................................................................................... 80

Survey questions ...................................................................................................................... 85

Appendix II

3

Main authors: Lothar Frese1, Chris Kik2, Anna Palmé3, and Gisela Neuhaus1

who take full responsibility for any errors and inconsistencies that may occur in the text.

1JKI, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI), Institute for Breeding Research on Agricultural Crops, Erwin-Baur-Str. 27, D-06484 Quedlinburg, Germany; 2CGN, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands, 3Nordic Genetic Resource Center, Box 41, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden

Contributors to specific parts of the text (chairs and reporters who have commented on each section after the text was circulated)

Elisabeth Koren, Jens Weibull, Ulrike Lohwasser, Ladislav Dotlacil, Conxita Royo, Danela Murariu, Ahmed Jahoor, Petter Marum, Emanuela Galeazzi, Michaela Arndorfer

People participating in the Workshop and who, within the context of the discussions, had the opportunity to comment on the text

Rene Aavola, Külli Annamaa, Kristiina Antonius, Michaela Arndorfer, Åsmund Asdal, Riccardo Bocci, Sven Bode, Obe Bootsma, Danuta Boros, Árni Bragason, Creola Brezeanu, Zofia Bulinska-Radomska, Maria Calin, Dana Constantinovici, Pascal Coquin, Filippo D'Antuono, Patrick de Kochko, Sónia Dias, Audrey Didier, Ladislav Dotlacil, Ehsan Dulloo, Jan Engels, Juan Fajardo, Marta Fernandez,Christini Fournaraki, Paul Freudenthaler, Laura Cristina Gafton, Emanuela Galeazzi, Bronislovas Gelvonauskis, Emmanuel Geoffriau, Wilhelm Graiss, Jan Leendert Harrewijn, Maarit Heinonen, Ahmed Jahoor, Andreas Katsiotis, Shelagh Kell, Vilma Kemešytė, Adamantia Kokkinaki, Mateja Koler, Elisabeth Koren, Teresa Kotlińska, Kostas Koutis, Juozas Labokas, Gints Lanka, Liga Lepse, Ulrike Lohwasser, Frank Marthe, Isaura Martin, Petter Marum, Sakis Mavromatis, Nigel Maxted, Vladimir Meglic, Thomas Meier, Annika Michelson, Frédéric Moquet, Danela Murariu, Valeria Negri, Ludmila Papouskova , Tuula Pehu, Domenigo Pignone, Conxita Royo, Dainis Rungis, Jaap Satter, Sarah Sensen, Milko Skofic, Silvia Strajeru, Jelka Šuštar-Vozlič, Lila Towle, Nikolaya Velcheva, Bert Visser, Jan Vítek, Rudolf Vögel, Reinhard von Broock, Ben Vosman, Jens Weibull, Henryk Wos, Małgorzata Woźniak, Vlastimil Zedek, Matthias Ziegler

Appendix II

4

Introduction A defined set of stakeholder-specific questions together with a set of more general questions, hereafter called the questionnaire, was developed based on the information and results obtained from semi-structured interviews carried out in 2011 and 2012 (see Appendix I).

The questionnaire was designed as an online survey and was sent to a group of 1160 stakeholders comprising the five stakeholder groups, namely (1) genebanks, (2) public research institutes, (3) breeding companies, (4) agro-NGOs and (5) governmental policy makers. Address lists provided by country consultants were compiled and enlarged using different kinds of address sources such as FAO WIEWS, and published participant lists of workshops and conferences dealing with conservation and use of plant genetic resources in Europe. Of the 1160 persons, 226 responded to the questionnaire reaching a response rate of 19.5% (Table 1). Of these 226 respondents, 131 persons (11% out of 1160) completed the survey, while the other ones partially answered the questionnaire. Both full and partial answers were integrated into the analysis. The totals of respondents can therefore vary between the answers. About 70 persons responded to the second part of the survey and gave their contact addresses which will allow for the development of a web-based map of European PGR stakeholders. The survey was conducted by employing the SurveyMonkey online tool.

Table 1. The number and percentage of responses per stakeholder group to the online questionnaire.

type N %

public research organizations 84 37.2

genebanks 32 14.2

breeding companies 59 26.1

agro-NGOs 21 9.3

governments 30 13.3

total 226 19.5

The results of the online questionnaire are presented separately for each stakeholder group and structured according to the categories which were used already in the semi-structured interviews, namely state and capacity, cooperation, access and information, policy framework, constraints and trends. These categories are chosen as they describe to a large extent the main groups of responses obtained.

We have chosen to analyse the data using a SWOT analysis. At the heart of this analysis is the identification of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for a company, organisation or similar unit. The SWOT analysis is very useful when trying to understand complex systems by identifying both internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external (opportunities and threats) factors affecting the system. The main aim is to use the increased knowledge and understanding of the system to develop strategies for its improvement.

A formal SWOT was conducted in three separate steps for each stakeholder group. First (1), a target state was identified. Here we ask ourselves: what kind of system do we aim for? This step is not always explicitly done in SWOT analyses, but the state that is considered as the goal or ideal state does affect what is considered strength or weakness, opportunity or threat. Therefore, to explicitly describe the target state makes the process more transparent. The second step (2) is to identify the internal and external factors that affect the system and

Appendix II

5

categorise them as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities or threats. The third (3), and last, step of the analysis is to develop strategies on how to improve the system. Here we used the information from step two to identify four different types of strategies: strength and opportunity strategy (SO), strength and threat strategy (ST), weakness and opportunity strategy (WO) and weakness and threat strategy (WT), see Table 2. The general approach is to take advantage of the strengths and opportunities of the system, while minimising the weaknesses and threats.

The results of the SWOT analysis were presented in a working paper of this report. The conclusions and proposals presented in the working paper were discussed by representatives of the stakeholder groups at the workshop “On the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources in Europe: a stakeholder analysis", which was held in Wageningen in November 2013 with 90 participants from 21 countries. The participants suggested changes and improvements. They were requested to select the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats they considered most important. Their priorities are printed in bold letters in this text. The suggestions of the participants were considered when producing a revised version, which was then circulated among the reporters and chairs for additional commenting to produce a final version.

Table 2. Descriptions of the different types of strategies that can be developed within a SWOT analysis to improve the analysed system.

Strategy Abbreviation Explanation

Strength and opportunity

strategy

SO Use strengths to take advantage of opportunities

Strength and threat

strategy

ST Use strengths to reduce the likelihood and impact of threats

Weakness and opportunity

strategy

WO Make use of opportunities to overcome weaknesses

Weakness and threat

strategy

WT Minimise weaknesses and threats

1. Genebanks

A number of 32 genebank representatives from 17 European countries responded to the online questionnaire. Not all respondents answered to every question, so the totals of respondents can therefore vary between the answers.

1.1 State and capacity

As finances are an essential prerequisite for a sustainable genebank management, respondents were asked for the annual budget of the genebank. Around 54% (N = 13) of the respondents stated to have an annual budget of moravailable (less than100 k€; Figure

Figure 1. Annual budget of European genebanks

Regarding expert programs, 80% of the respondents indicated exists in their country. Concerning the effects of a national program on the utilization of PGR, nearly 30% of the participating genebanks assessed a moderate to a very high impact of a national expert program on the use and

6

Questionnaire results

A number of 32 genebank representatives from 17 European countries responded to the online questionnaire. Not all respondents answered to every question, so the totals of respondents

the answers.

As finances are an essential prerequisite for a sustainable genebank management, respondents were asked for the annual budget of the genebank. Around 54% (N = 13) of the respondents stated to have an annual budget of more than 100 k€, whereas 46% have smaller funds

Figure 1).

Annual budget of European genebanks

Regarding expert programs, 80% of the respondents indicated that a national expert program exists in their country. Concerning the effects of a national program on the utilization of PGR, nearly 30% of the participating genebanks assessed a moderate to a very high impact of a national expert program on the use and work on LR (28%) or CWR (29%).

Appendix II

A number of 32 genebank representatives from 17 European countries responded to the online questionnaire. Not all respondents answered to every question, so the totals of respondents

As finances are an essential prerequisite for a sustainable genebank management, respondents were asked for the annual budget of the genebank. Around 54% (N = 13) of the respondents

€, whereas 46% have smaller funds

that a national expert program exists in their country. Concerning the effects of a national program on the utilization of PGR, nearly 30% of the participating genebanks assessed a moderate to a very high impact of a

work on LR (28%) or CWR (29%).

Crop groups involved in genebankingGenebank respondents were asked about the crop groups being present in their collections with a collection size larger than 100 accessions. The grouping and assessment concerning the crop groups of collections was performed according to the Rutgers’ list c23 different subgroups according to their morphology traits as well as to utilization aspects (view Rutgers list, http://ir4.rutgers.edu/other/CropGroup.htm

The most frequently (top 5) mentioned crop groups by genebank respondents are: “cereals and pseudocereals” (N=21), “grain legumes” (N=16), “grass group (forages, fodder, hay, lawn)” (N=12), “oilseed group and fibre crops” as well as “(N=12), and “legume vegetables (succulent or dried)” (N=13).

The majority of the European genebanks responding to this survey (N=17) manage between 6-10 different crop groups, while 11 genebanks seem to act more cropup to five different crop groups. The larger genebanks (N=7) in terms of crop groups maintain more than 10 different crops.

Collecting activities Most collecting missions carried out by European genebanks take place domestically, and if a collecting mission takes place abroad, thisfrequency of domestic collecting missions is in between 2for missions abroad this is 0 times (

7

Crop groups involved in genebanking Genebank respondents were asked about the crop groups being present in their collections with a collection size larger than 100 accessions. The grouping and assessment concerning the crop groups of collections was performed according to the Rutgers’ list clustering crops into 23 different subgroups according to their morphology traits as well as to utilization aspects

http://ir4.rutgers.edu/other/CropGroup.htm).

(top 5) mentioned crop groups by genebank respondents are: “cereals and pseudocereals” (N=21), “grain legumes” (N=16), “grass group (forages, fodder, hay, lawn)” (N=12), “oilseed group and fibre crops” as well as “Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables”

and “legume vegetables (succulent or dried)” (N=13).

The majority of the European genebanks responding to this survey (N=17) manage between 10 different crop groups, while 11 genebanks seem to act more crop-specific and manage

groups. The larger genebanks (N=7) in terms of crop groups maintain

Most collecting missions carried out by European genebanks take place domestically, and if a collecting mission takes place abroad, this is mostly within Europe (Figure frequency of domestic collecting missions is in between 2-5 times in the last five years

missions abroad this is 0 times (Figure 2 b).

Appendix II

Genebank respondents were asked about the crop groups being present in their collections with a collection size larger than 100 accessions. The grouping and assessment concerning the

lustering crops into 23 different subgroups according to their morphology traits as well as to utilization aspects

(top 5) mentioned crop groups by genebank respondents are: “cereals and pseudocereals” (N=21), “grain legumes” (N=16), “grass group (forages, fodder, hay,

(cole) leafy vegetables”

The majority of the European genebanks responding to this survey (N=17) manage between specific and manage

groups. The larger genebanks (N=7) in terms of crop groups maintain

Most collecting missions carried out by European genebanks take place domestically, and if a Figure 2 a). The highest

5 times in the last five years while

Figure 2. (a) The region(s) where collecting did take place since the number of times collecting has taken place in the last 5 years within and outside the country where the genebank was located.

1.2 Cooperation and active joint research projects

Genebanks are very well affiliated wigroups. In general, around 80% of the answering genebanks share contact with one of the main stakeholder groups. Between 1 and public breeders, agro-NGO, private research or the government (

8

(a) The region(s) where collecting did take place since the establishment of the genebank and (b) The number of times collecting has taken place in the last 5 years within and outside the country where the genebank


Genebanks are very well affiliated with both their own group and with all other stakeholder groups. In general, around 80% of the answering genebanks share contact with one of the

n stakeholder groups. Between 1 and 5 genebanks have no contact either with private or GO, private research or the government (Figure 3 a).

Appendix II

establishment of the genebank and (b) The number of times collecting has taken place in the last 5 years within and outside the country where the genebank

th both their own group and with all other stakeholder groups. In general, around 80% of the answering genebanks share contact with one of the

5 genebanks have no contact either with private or a).

9

Appendix II

Figure 3. (a) Joint cooperation activities among genebanks and wiCooperation activities among the stakeholders as shared active joint research projects involved with genebanks and their assessed impact on the use of plant genetic resources (PGR).

Active joint research projects are shcooperations (86%, N=21, category 4cooperation (47%, N=11, category 4

1.3 Access to PGR and information systems

Visibility of collections and access to PGRThe visibility of PGR collections is an essential prefacilitating the user-friendliness were studied, either referring to the kind and quality of data, or to its access via different means of access possibilities. With respect to the question on how visible the collection is to users from outside theresponded. Seventy-four percent (N=20) of the responding genebank representatives affirmed that their collection can be approached via the genebank´s webpage. The same proportion claimed that their collections are repercent (N=6) send upon request via regular post or email a document with an overview of their collections. One genebank stated that it could be exclusively approached in person.

The question how users can order accessions from the genebank was answered by 27 respondents. Five answer possibilities were offered being considered to support access. Twenty-two (82%) respondents stated that accessions are disposed via ewhereas 22% (N=6) stated that accessions could be obtained via phone calls or orally. Eleven stakeholders (41%) enable ordering of accessions by using a shopping cart (

10

(a) Joint cooperation activities among genebanks and with other stakeholder groups and (b) Cooperation activities among the stakeholders as shared active joint research projects involved with genebanks and their assessed impact on the use of plant genetic resources (PGR).

Active joint research projects are shared with all stakeholder groups. Most impact display cooperations (86%, N=21, category 4-6) with public research organizations. Leastcooperation (47%, N=11, category 4-6) is taking place with agro-NGOs (Figure


Visibility of collections and access to PGR The visibility of PGR collections is an essential pre-requisite for its potential use.

friendliness were studied, either referring to the kind and quality of data, or to its access via different means of access possibilities. With respect to the question on how visible the collection is to users from outside their country, 27 genebank representatives

four percent (N=20) of the responding genebank representatives affirmed that their collection can be approached via the genebank´s webpage. The same proportion claimed that their collections are regularly uploaded to international databases. Twentypercent (N=6) send upon request via regular post or email a document with an overview of their collections. One genebank stated that it could be exclusively approached in person.

s can order accessions from the genebank was answered by 27 respondents. Five answer possibilities were offered being considered to support access.

two (82%) respondents stated that accessions are disposed via e-mail or letter, ted that accessions could be obtained via phone calls or orally. Eleven

stakeholders (41%) enable ordering of accessions by using a shopping cart (

Appendix II

th other stakeholder groups and (b) Cooperation activities among the stakeholders as shared active joint research projects involved with genebanks

ared with all stakeholder groups. Most impact display 6) with public research organizations. Least-impacted

Figure 3 b).

requisite for its potential use. Aspects friendliness were studied, either referring to the kind and quality of data,

or to its access via different means of access possibilities. With respect to the question on how ir country, 27 genebank representatives

four percent (N=20) of the responding genebank representatives affirmed that their collection can be approached via the genebank´s webpage. The same proportion

gularly uploaded to international databases. Twenty-two percent (N=6) send upon request via regular post or email a document with an overview of their collections. One genebank stated that it could be exclusively approached in person.

s can order accessions from the genebank was answered by 27 respondents. Five answer possibilities were offered being considered to support access.

mail or letter, ted that accessions could be obtained via phone calls or orally. Eleven

stakeholders (41%) enable ordering of accessions by using a shopping cart (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Ordering of accessions from genebanks.

Being asked, how genebanks facilitate users to select the appropriate accessions, all genebanks (N=28) responding to this question claimed to provide the location of origin,(N=12) any further habitat information, 74% (N=17) characterization data (e.g. morphological traits) and 47% (N=9) evaluation data (e.g. disease and pest biogenebanks indicated to provide molecular data information on their a

11

Ordering of accessions from genebanks.

Being asked, how genebanks facilitate users to select the appropriate accessions, all genebanks (N=28) responding to this question claimed to provide the location of origin,(N=12) any further habitat information, 74% (N=17) characterization data (e.g. morphological traits) and 47% (N=9) evaluation data (e.g. disease and pest bio-assay data). None of the genebanks indicated to provide molecular data information on their accessions (

Appendix II

Being asked, how genebanks facilitate users to select the appropriate accessions, all genebanks (N=28) responding to this question claimed to provide the location of origin, 57% (N=12) any further habitat information, 74% (N=17) characterization data (e.g. morphological

assay data). None of the ccessions (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Ways to facilitate users of genebank collections to select appropriate accessions.

On the question whether any characterization and evaluation (C&E) data held by the genebank are available online, five of the 27 responding genebanks (19%) answered that they provide C&E data online, 11 genebanks (41%) partially have C&E data online whereas another 11 genebanks (41%) do not have information on C&E data online (

12

Ways to facilitate users of genebank collections to select appropriate accessions.

question whether any characterization and evaluation (C&E) data held by the genebank are available online, five of the 27 responding genebanks (19%) answered that they provide C&E data online, 11 genebanks (41%) partially have C&E data online whereas

er 11 genebanks (41%) do not have information on C&E data online (

Appendix II

Ways to facilitate users of genebank collections to select appropriate accessions.

question whether any characterization and evaluation (C&E) data held by the genebank are available online, five of the 27 responding genebanks (19%) answered that they provide C&E data online, 11 genebanks (41%) partially have C&E data online whereas

er 11 genebanks (41%) do not have information on C&E data online (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The online presence of C&

Sixteen of the 26 responding genebanks (62%) are convinced that European inventories for situ or on farm management are a necessary instrument for improved access to PGR. Fifteen genebank respondents (58%) think that imprshould be carried out. Furthermore four genebanks (15%) favour the idea of employment of freely available toolkits to develop further applications in terms of appropriate information systems.

Genebank performance Thirteen of the 32 genebank representatives (41%) responded to the question on which genebank that according to them functioned most efficiently by mentioning the name of the genebank concerned. As the most effectively working genebanks, the CeResources, the Netherlands (CGN, Wageningen), the Genebank Department of the “Leibniz Institute für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung” (IPK, Germany), the National Plant Germplasm System (USDA, USA) and the Nordic Genetic ResourcSweden) were mentioned. Ten respondents listed a combination of genebanks (

13

The online presence of C&E data provided by a genebank.

Sixteen of the 26 responding genebanks (62%) are convinced that European inventories for or on farm management are a necessary instrument for improved access to PGR. Fifteen

genebank respondents (58%) think that improvement on the level of IT systems for C&E data should be carried out. Furthermore four genebanks (15%) favour the idea of employment of freely available toolkits to develop further applications in terms of appropriate information

Thirteen of the 32 genebank representatives (41%) responded to the question on which genebank that according to them functioned most efficiently by mentioning the name of the genebank concerned. As the most effectively working genebanks, the Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN, Wageningen), the Genebank Department of the “Leibniz Institute für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung” (IPK, Germany), the National Plant Germplasm System (USDA, USA) and the Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NordGen, Sweden) were mentioned. Ten respondents listed a combination of genebanks (

Appendix II

Sixteen of the 26 responding genebanks (62%) are convinced that European inventories for in

or on farm management are a necessary instrument for improved access to PGR. Fifteen ovement on the level of IT systems for C&E data

should be carried out. Furthermore four genebanks (15%) favour the idea of employment of freely available toolkits to develop further applications in terms of appropriate information

Thirteen of the 32 genebank representatives (41%) responded to the question on which genebank that according to them functioned most efficiently by mentioning the name of the

ntre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN, Wageningen), the Genebank Department of the “Leibniz Institute für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung” (IPK, Germany), the National

e Center (NordGen, Sweden) were mentioned. Ten respondents listed a combination of genebanks (Figure 7).

Appendix II

14

Figure 7. The most effectively working genebanks worldwide. On the Y-axis the numbers of respondents are indicated.

1.4 Policy framework

Administrative framework The respondents had the possibility to select between seven options concerning the existing and legally binding regulatory framework of CBD (Convention of Biological Diversity, http://www.cbd.int/) and IT-PGRFA (The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; FAO, 2004) to facilitate the use on PGR. Twenty-one (88%) of them stated that it is better having international exchange arrangements than having none. Six genebanks (25%) think ABS is arranged and the same number of respondents thinks that the rights of donor countries have been recognized. One stakeholder stated that the presence of CBD and IT-PGRFA is better than having nothing, but that these international arrangements are also blocking important activities (Figure 8).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

CGN IPK USDA NordGen

Figure 8. The perceived influence of the international arrangements on the protection of biodiversity worldwide according to genebanks.

In order to assure open and easy access to PGR, a transparent process for exchange of PGR is necessary. In this context the effective functioning of the national focal point (NFP) and the competent national authority on access and benefit sharing (CNAasked about the situation in their own country with respect to the numberanswered this question. Ten (45%) stated that one single person acts as the NFP in their country, six (27%) indicated that several persons acting as focal points, whereas another six stated not to know about this issue. Fiftytheir CNA-ABS, whereas 30% (N=7) are unsure. Four genebank representatives don´t know who their CNA-ABS is.

Activities in the context of the international PGR arrangementsCollecting missions are an important way to evariation. According to the IT-needs to take place “in a fair and equitable way, the benefits arising from the utilization of these resources, on a complementand 12 describe in more detail the coverage of the multilateral system and facilitated access to PGRFA. In this context, genebank respondents were asked if administrative arrangements and benefit sharing has taken place when accessions were collected abroad. One half of the respondents stated that a Memorandum of Understanding allowing access to PGR had been arranged (Figure 9 a). Four respondents (33%) stated that benefit sharing was undertaken outside their country and three respondents (23%) undertook benefit sharing inside their

15

The perceived influence of the international arrangements on the protection of biodiversity worldwide

In order to assure open and easy access to PGR, a transparent process for exchange of PGR is cessary. In this context the effective functioning of the national focal point (NFP) and the

competent national authority on access and benefit sharing (CNA-ABS) are important. Being asked about the situation in their own country with respect to the number of NFPs, 22 persons answered this question. Ten (45%) stated that one single person acts as the NFP in their country, six (27%) indicated that several persons acting as focal points, whereas another six stated not to know about this issue. Fifty-two percent of the genebank experts (N=12) know

ABS, whereas 30% (N=7) are unsure. Four genebank representatives don´t know

Activities in the context of the international PGR arrangementsCollecting missions are an important way to enrich genebank collections with genetic

-PGRFA (“Treaty”) article 10.2, access and benefitneeds to take place “in a fair and equitable way, the benefits arising from the utilization of these resources, on a complementary and mutually reinforcing basis“. Furthermore, articles 11 and 12 describe in more detail the coverage of the multilateral system and facilitated access to PGRFA. In this context, genebank respondents were asked if administrative arrangements and

t sharing has taken place when accessions were collected abroad. One half of the respondents stated that a Memorandum of Understanding allowing access to PGR had been arranged (Figure 9 a). Four respondents (33%) stated that benefit sharing was undertaken outside their country and three respondents (23%) undertook benefit sharing inside their

Appendix II

The perceived influence of the international arrangements on the protection of biodiversity worldwide

In order to assure open and easy access to PGR, a transparent process for exchange of PGR is cessary. In this context the effective functioning of the national focal point (NFP) and the

ABS) are important. Being of NFPs, 22 persons

answered this question. Ten (45%) stated that one single person acts as the NFP in their country, six (27%) indicated that several persons acting as focal points, whereas another six

nt of the genebank experts (N=12) know ABS, whereas 30% (N=7) are unsure. Four genebank representatives don´t know

Activities in the context of the international PGR arrangements nrich genebank collections with genetic

PGRFA (“Treaty”) article 10.2, access and benefit-sharing needs to take place “in a fair and equitable way, the benefits arising from the utilization of

ary and mutually reinforcing basis“. Furthermore, articles 11 and 12 describe in more detail the coverage of the multilateral system and facilitated access to PGRFA. In this context, genebank respondents were asked if administrative arrangements and

t sharing has taken place when accessions were collected abroad. One half of the respondents stated that a Memorandum of Understanding allowing access to PGR had been arranged (Figure 9 a). Four respondents (33%) stated that benefit sharing was undertaken outside their country and three respondents (23%) undertook benefit sharing inside their

country1. Around 20% of the respondents claimed that no mutual arrangement was signed for collecting missions performed domestically or abroad (

1 Access and Benefit Sharing rules are less developed countries inter alia through transfer of knowledge and technology from the country receiving genetic resources to the country providing the resources. ABS is not restricted to benefit sharing betweecountries. ABS arrangements can be made between national agencies such a research institute (user of genetic resources) and a nature conservation agency responsible for the management of a Natura 2000 site (provider of genetic resources). In such cases ABS can concern the feedback of information on genetic diversity with a population managed by the nature conservation agency.

16

. Around 20% of the respondents claimed that no mutual arrangement was signed for collecting missions performed domestically or abroad (Figure 9 b).

Access and Benefit Sharing rules are mainly being developed to overcome the divide between developed and

less developed countries inter alia through transfer of knowledge and technology from the country receiving genetic resources to the country providing the resources. ABS is not restricted to benefit sharing betweecountries. ABS arrangements can be made between national agencies such a research institute (user of genetic resources) and a nature conservation agency responsible for the management of a Natura 2000 site (provider of

BS can concern the feedback of information on genetic diversity with a population managed by the nature conservation agency.

Appendix II

. Around 20% of the respondents claimed that no mutual arrangement was signed for

the divide between developed and less developed countries inter alia through transfer of knowledge and technology from the country receiving genetic resources to the country providing the resources. ABS is not restricted to benefit sharing between countries. ABS arrangements can be made between national agencies such a research institute (user of genetic resources) and a nature conservation agency responsible for the management of a Natura 2000 site (provider of

BS can concern the feedback of information on genetic diversity with a

Figure 9. Administrative arrangements in case of collecting missions abroad. (a) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and (b) Access and

Sixteen genebanks (59%) could make use of their collected material abroad without any restrictions in the sense that the collected accessions could be freely used for the development of cultivars. Eleven genebanks (41%) indicated that the PGR collected could not be freely used for further development of commercial cultivars (

17

Administrative arrangements in case of collecting missions abroad. (a) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and (b) Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS).

Sixteen genebanks (59%) could make use of their collected material abroad without any nse that the collected accessions could be freely used for the development

of cultivars. Eleven genebanks (41%) indicated that the PGR collected could not be freely used for further development of commercial cultivars (Figure 10).

Appendix II

Administrative arrangements in case of collecting missions abroad. (a) Memorandum of

Sixteen genebanks (59%) could make use of their collected material abroad without any nse that the collected accessions could be freely used for the development

of cultivars. Eleven genebanks (41%) indicated that the PGR collected could not be freely

Figure 10. Restrictions to the use of PGR from collecting missions.

Only a few respondents answered the question with respect to what kind of benefitook place. Four respondents answered that in case of a mutual agreement, the collector regenerated the material and shared it afterwards. One respondent paid a certain sum of money for the material collected. Nobody used any of the other optionsreturn any lectures, to provide knowledge on PGR or genebanking or to finance any research activities.

1.5 Major trends and constraints

Around eighty percent of the respondents (N=20) considered a shift from permanent to temporary project funding and the instability in funding as a major constraint. As a second reason insufficient public understanding on the significance of PGRFA for food human welfare was listed (67%, N=16) whereas insufficient support at all governmental levels was mentioned as a third reason (54%, N=13;

18

Restrictions to the use of PGR from collecting missions.

Only a few respondents answered the question with respect to what kind of benefitook place. Four respondents answered that in case of a mutual agreement, the collector regenerated the material and shared it afterwards. One respondent paid a certain sum of money for the material collected. Nobody used any of the other options, namely to give in return any lectures, to provide knowledge on PGR or genebanking or to finance any research


Around eighty percent of the respondents (N=20) considered a shift from permanent to temporary project funding and the instability in funding as a major constraint. As a second reason insufficient public understanding on the significance of PGRFA for food human welfare was listed (67%, N=16) whereas insufficient support at all governmental levels was mentioned as a third reason (54%, N=13; Figure 11).

Appendix II

Only a few respondents answered the question with respect to what kind of benefit sharing took place. Four respondents answered that in case of a mutual agreement, the collector regenerated the material and shared it afterwards. One respondent paid a certain sum of

, namely to give in return any lectures, to provide knowledge on PGR or genebanking or to finance any research

Around eighty percent of the respondents (N=20) considered a shift from permanent to temporary project funding and the instability in funding as a major constraint. As a second reason insufficient public understanding on the significance of PGRFA for food security and human welfare was listed (67%, N=16) whereas insufficient support at all governmental

Figure 11. Major constraints in genebanking.

When genebank respondents were asked about the kind of work urgently needed for landraces, most of the genebank representatives preferred to intensify and perform characterization and evaluation (C&E) projects (80%; N=20; category 4seventeen genebanks (74%) think that the utilization of genebank accessions through prebreeding projects by genebanks is most important (category 4representatives (54%) think that concrete (category 4-6; Figure 12 a). Concerning CWR, the majority of the respondents think that C&E projects are urgently needed (84%, N=21, category 4utilization of PGR through pre(N=17, category 4-6) think that concrete However, when asked if they would prefer to spend financial means either for situ or on-farm conservation, only 33.3% would invest into 17.9% into on-farm conservation activities (Q97, graph not shown).

19

Major constraints in genebanking.

When genebank respondents were asked about the kind of work urgently needed for landraces, most of the genebank representatives preferred to intensify and perform characterization and evaluation (C&E) projects (80%; N=20; category 4-6). Another

enebanks (74%) think that the utilization of genebank accessions through prebreeding projects by genebanks is most important (category 4-6), whereas thirteen genebank representatives (54%) think that concrete in situ management projects are urgently neede

a). Concerning CWR, the majority of the respondents think that C&E projects are urgently needed (84%, N=21, category 4-6). Nineteen respondents (83%) favour utilization of PGR through pre-breeding projects by genebanks and 71% of the respondents

6) think that concrete in situ projects are necessary (Figure However, when asked if they would prefer to spend financial means either for

farm conservation, only 33.3% would invest into in situ conservation of CWR and farm conservation activities (Q97, graph not shown).

Appendix II

When genebank respondents were asked about the kind of work urgently needed for landraces, most of the genebank representatives preferred to intensify and perform

6). Another enebanks (74%) think that the utilization of genebank accessions through pre-

6), whereas thirteen genebank management projects are urgently needed

a). Concerning CWR, the majority of the respondents think that C&E Nineteen respondents (83%) favour

breeding projects by genebanks and 71% of the respondents Figure 12 b).

However, when asked if they would prefer to spend financial means either for ex situ, or in

conservation of CWR and

Figure 12. Type of work most needed concerning (a) landraces (LR) and (b) crop wild relatives (CWR) according to genebank employees.

20

Type of work most needed concerning (a) landraces (LR) and (b) crop wild relatives (CWR)

Appendix II

Type of work most needed concerning (a) landraces (LR) and (b) crop wild relatives (CWR)

Irrespective of the on-going establishment of private genebanks, public genebanks are considered necessary by all genebank respondents (N=24), except one that had no opinion. Supporting this argument, most respondents stated that PGR are a public good and need to be under governmental control (88%; N=21). Furthermore ‘companies focus on economically important crops’ (75%, N=18) and ‘genebanks have better possibilities to collect PGR’ (67%, N=16) were indicated as supporting the presence of public genebanks.

New innovative techniques like genomics provide new chances and possibilities in breeding and breeding research. The majority of the genebank representatives (17 out of 25; 68%) react in a positive way towards these kind of techniques, 28% (N=7) do not have an opinion on this issue and one respondent (4%) thinks it will negatively influence their preWith respect to the question whether genomics would be seen as a tool to support and promote their pre-breeding work, 44% (N=11) think that it will not influence preresearch as they don´t have any budget for it. Thirtybelieve that genomics will positively affect their work as they can cooperate with other (inter)national institutes and share tasks (

Figure 13. The perceived influence of genomics on pre

The majority of genebank representatives (65%; N=15) think that patenting wuse of LRs and CWR in breeding programs, 22% of the respondents (N=5) don´t see any impact of patenting on the application and use of PGR in breeding approaches, whereas three genebanks expressed to have no opinion on this issue.

As the major trends in genebanking in the coming decade, 83% of the respondents (N=19; category 4-6) see a trend focussing on research and development (R&D) in genebank management to improve the work quality. Seventeen respondents (77%; category 4that strengthening of the collaboration between the species conservation sector (e.g. nature

21

establishment of private genebanks, public genebanks are considered necessary by all genebank respondents (N=24), except one that had no opinion. Supporting this argument, most respondents stated that PGR are a public good and need to be

l control (88%; N=21). Furthermore ‘companies focus on economically important crops’ (75%, N=18) and ‘genebanks have better possibilities to collect PGR’ (67%, N=16) were indicated as supporting the presence of public genebanks.

ike genomics provide new chances and possibilities in breeding and breeding research. The majority of the genebank representatives (17 out of 25; 68%) react in a positive way towards these kind of techniques, 28% (N=7) do not have an opinion on this

and one respondent (4%) thinks it will negatively influence their pre-breeding work. With respect to the question whether genomics would be seen as a tool to support and

breeding work, 44% (N=11) think that it will not influence preresearch as they don´t have any budget for it. Thirty-six percent of the representatives (N=9) believe that genomics will positively affect their work as they can cooperate with other (inter)national institutes and share tasks (Figure 13).

The perceived influence of genomics on pre-breeding according to genebanks.

The majority of genebank representatives (65%; N=15) think that patenting wuse of LRs and CWR in breeding programs, 22% of the respondents (N=5) don´t see any impact of patenting on the application and use of PGR in breeding approaches, whereas three genebanks expressed to have no opinion on this issue.

ajor trends in genebanking in the coming decade, 83% of the respondents (N=19; 6) see a trend focussing on research and development (R&D) in genebank

management to improve the work quality. Seventeen respondents (77%; category 4rengthening of the collaboration between the species conservation sector (e.g. nature

Appendix II

establishment of private genebanks, public genebanks are considered necessary by all genebank respondents (N=24), except one that had no opinion. Supporting this argument, most respondents stated that PGR are a public good and need to be

l control (88%; N=21). Furthermore ‘companies focus on economically important crops’ (75%, N=18) and ‘genebanks have better possibilities to collect PGR’ (67%,

ike genomics provide new chances and possibilities in breeding and breeding research. The majority of the genebank representatives (17 out of 25; 68%) react in a positive way towards these kind of techniques, 28% (N=7) do not have an opinion on this

breeding work. With respect to the question whether genomics would be seen as a tool to support and

breeding work, 44% (N=11) think that it will not influence pre-breeding six percent of the representatives (N=9)

believe that genomics will positively affect their work as they can cooperate with other

breeding according to genebanks.

The majority of genebank representatives (65%; N=15) think that patenting will influence the use of LRs and CWR in breeding programs, 22% of the respondents (N=5) don´t see any impact of patenting on the application and use of PGR in breeding approaches, whereas three

ajor trends in genebanking in the coming decade, 83% of the respondents (N=19; 6) see a trend focussing on research and development (R&D) in genebank

management to improve the work quality. Seventeen respondents (77%; category 4-6) think rengthening of the collaboration between the species conservation sector (e.g. nature

reserve agencies) and genebanks is a trend for the future. Nearly 70% of the respondents (N=16) think of high throughput phenotyping and genotyping as an important trend,68% (N=15) think that an increased interest in old varieties and LR from the public and farmers in the context of food diversity or ecological farming will become an important trend (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Major trends envisaged in genebanking in the coming decade. Full text of possible answers: Collecting to close geographic gaps in collectionscommon strategy for in situ, on-farm, collaboration between the species conservation sector (e.g. nature reserve agencies) and gene banks within the domain of the agricultural sector; Developing collaboration between botanic gardens and gene banks within the domain of the agricultural sector; Focus of research and development (R&D) capacities on gene bank management aspects to raise the work qualitybank with commonly held management procedures for maintaining crops (e.g. AEGIS project)implementation of genomics into gene banking, resulting in a restructuring of collections on the genomic composition of collections and not anymore on basis of phenotypic compositionphenotyping and genotyping; Increased interest in old varieties and landraces from the public and farmers (for example due to an increased interest in food diversity or ecological farming)

Being in the position to manage an EU budget for PGR conservation and use (Q61, graph not shown), an equal number of genebank respondents would improve the national PGR program or extend the ECPGR programme (44intend to establish a new centralized coordinated EU genebank system. A vast majority of genebank representatives therefore do not support the establishment of a central European genebank, although 52% see a trend towards a European centralised system (Figure 14).half of genebank interviewees (50%; N=12) would invest into ex situ management activities while 20.8% (N=5) and 29.2% (N=7) would inverst into in situ respectively on farm management (Q62, graph not shown).

22

reserve agencies) and genebanks is a trend for the future. Nearly 70% of the respondents (N=16) think of high throughput phenotyping and genotyping as an important trend,68% (N=15) think that an increased interest in old varieties and LR from the public and farmers in the context of food diversity or ecological farming will become an important trend

. Major trends envisaged in genebanking in the coming decade. Full text of possible answers: Collecting to close geographic gaps in collections; Collecting to control genetic erosion; Operationalisation of a

farm, ex situ conservation at the national level; Strengthening of the collaboration between the species conservation sector (e.g. nature reserve agencies) and gene banks within the

Developing collaboration between botanic gardens and gene banks within the Focus of research and development (R&D) capacities on gene bank

management aspects to raise the work quality; Integration of national EU gene banks into one virtual EU gene bank with commonly held management procedures for maintaining crops (e.g. AEGIS project)implementation of genomics into gene banking, resulting in a restructuring of collections on the genomic composition of collections and not anymore on basis of phenotypic composition;

Increased interest in old varieties and landraces from the public and farmers (for est in food diversity or ecological farming)

Being in the position to manage an EU budget for PGR conservation and use (Q61, graph not shown), an equal number of genebank respondents would improve the national PGR program or extend the ECPGR programme (44%; N=11). Only three genebank representatives (12%) intend to establish a new centralized coordinated EU genebank system. A vast majority of genebank representatives therefore do not support the establishment of a central European

e a trend towards a European centralised system (Figure 14).half of genebank interviewees (50%; N=12) would invest into ex situ management activities while 20.8% (N=5) and 29.2% (N=7) would inverst into in situ respectively on farm

aph not shown).

Appendix II

reserve agencies) and genebanks is a trend for the future. Nearly 70% of the respondents (N=16) think of high throughput phenotyping and genotyping as an important trend, while 68% (N=15) think that an increased interest in old varieties and LR from the public and farmers in the context of food diversity or ecological farming will become an important trend

. Major trends envisaged in genebanking in the coming decade. Full text of possible answers: Operationalisation of a

Strengthening of the collaboration between the species conservation sector (e.g. nature reserve agencies) and gene banks within the

Developing collaboration between botanic gardens and gene banks within the Focus of research and development (R&D) capacities on gene bank

ntegration of national EU gene banks into one virtual EU gene bank with commonly held management procedures for maintaining crops (e.g. AEGIS project); Strong implementation of genomics into gene banking, resulting in a restructuring of collections on the basis of

; High throughput Increased interest in old varieties and landraces from the public and farmers (for

Being in the position to manage an EU budget for PGR conservation and use (Q61, graph not shown), an equal number of genebank respondents would improve the national PGR program

%; N=11). Only three genebank representatives (12%) intend to establish a new centralized coordinated EU genebank system. A vast majority of genebank representatives therefore do not support the establishment of a central European

e a trend towards a European centralised system (Figure 14). The half of genebank interviewees (50%; N=12) would invest into ex situ management activities while 20.8% (N=5) and 29.2% (N=7) would inverst into in situ respectively on farm

Appendix II

23

1.6 SWOT analyses

A formalised cooperation between the genebanks interviewed in the 17 countries does not exist. However, for the SWOT, we have chosen to do the analysis on the EU-level and therefore treat the national plant germplasm systems (PGSs) as components of an EU Plant Germplasm System (EU-PGS).

Target State As the first step of the SWOT analysis we defined a target state of the system. The target state in this case is the ideal EU Plant Germplasm System2. Based on the results of the SWOT analysis, strategies are then suggested with the aim to achieve the predefined target state. We define the target state of the EU-PGS as follows:

1. European countries interacting with the EU-PGS do so on the basis of a national biodiversity/agro-biodiversity strategy and a national PGR programme.

2. The national PGSs develop and implement a comprehensive conservation strategy for plant genetic resources, including stable funding, which combines the advantages of the ex situ, in situ and on-farm management techniques.

3. The national PGS units are either juridically independent or have earmarked budget within the host institution and are adequately funded by their governments.

4. National PGSs’ operations meet a mutually agreed minimal set of quality management system criteria. Genebanks meeting the quality criteria are allowed to join a EU-PGS. The minimum criteria are: a. A National Inventory of genebank accessions exists, is regularly updated and

uploaded to EURISCO b. A National Inventory of landraces exists, is regularly updated and uploaded to

EURISCO c. A National Inventory of CWR exists, is regularly updated and uploaded to

EURISCO d. Gene bank accessions are conserved according to a jointly agreed guideline such

as the AEGIS Quality System (AQUAS) (Engels and Maggioni, 2009) e. Characterisation and evaluation data are recorded following the single observation

concept (raw data) which allows the re-use of the data in research f. National PGSs respect germplasm access and exchange rules detailed in an EU-

ABS guideline (see: EC, 2012) g. Germplasm collecting is based on gap analysis and guided by an European-wide

review system for collecting mission proposals 5. The EU approves a regulation required to provide long-term co-funding for the

establishment, improvement and operation of EU-PGS infrastructures

2 In the past the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) has been the only organisation and network in the European region promoting the conservation and use of plant genetic resources. The ECPGR became operational in 1980. The Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture was adopted by the European Union (EU) and since then the interest of the EU in genetic resources policy issues is increasing. The launch of the regulation can be taken as the start of a genetic resources programme within the EU. In the context of our study we envisage an EU-PGS organised by the EU member states closely cooperating with countries in the European region.

Appendix II

24

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats Strengths

• In general, the crop group composition of ex situ holdings managed within the 17

interviewed countries agrees with the interests and needs of the user community

(public research, plant breeders, farmers and agro-NGOs).

• All of the interviewed genebanks have established computerised genebank

information systems. Some of them operate web-based information systems allowing

users to search for passport, characterisation and evaluation data and to order

accessions.

• All countries provide some funds for conservation activities through national

agrobiodiversity and other environmental protection strategies. • The majority of national genebanks dispose of adequate facilities for germplasm

preservation based on FAO standards. • Genebanks in the whole of Europe maintain a considerable quantity of PGR in ex situ

holdings. According to the second Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 1,725,315 accessions kept in European genebanks. Approximately 1.1 million accessions were reported to EURISCO by 43 national focal points representing 327 holding institute (FAO, 2010, EUISCO catalogue, 2014). Several of the largest and/or well-managed holdings are located within the EU. There is increasing work on in situ and on farm conservation and the knowledge created have resulted in the stronger recognition of these conservation strategies.

• Multi-crop genebanks and more specialised genebanks exist. This is strength if a multi-crop genebank would assume the role of a central seed stock and distribution unit while specialised genebanks will focus on the comprehensive management of genetic diversity of a single crop and regional genetic diversity.

• In general, genebanks have of a pool of crop specific experts at their disposal. The experts are available in the countries, but not always in the genebank. The collaboration between genebanks within the ECPGR exists but is not always well developed.

• Some countries run long-term PPP-programs dealing with the conservation and use of PGR.

• Characterisation and evaluation of gene bank material takes place in some countries, often in cooperation with other stakeholders and networks.

Weaknesses

• Gene banks are seldom leading the development of national in situ management and

on- farm management strategies. Funding for in situ/on-farm programs is often not

constantly available; many different governmental authorities are responsible and

often a national strategy for in situ/on-farm management is missing.

• Most gene banks are not independent with respect to their program, funds or staff.

Crop experts are thus forced to prioritise research work at the expense of

conservation work.

• Ex situ management of PGR of many EU genebanks is not based on defined, written

quality management standards such as AQUAS. Limited funding exists for

maintaining and regenerating PGR and consequently many accessions lack viability

data. Insufficient funding impedes the identification of duplicates within and

between the collections and the rationalization of genebank holdings.

Appendix II

25

• Little new genetic variation is added into gene banks via collecting missions. Especially in their own countries, the data analysis/gap analysis required for the planning of collecting missions are not available for neglected and minor crops. Therefore these crops are not sampled.

• Genebank representatives consider in situ and on farm conservation actions as an important task but, if funds are limited, they would rather invest into ex situ conservation actions. Many accessions still lack viability data. Funding of conservation work does not always precede the funding of evaluation and characterisation work.

• The visibility of collections in the World Wide Web is limited for users, thus limiting access to information and the physical accession.

• Many accessions lack characterisation and evaluation data making purposeful selection of accession difficult. Biochemical and molecular trait data are often lacking.

• Permanent positions are increasingly replaced by temporary project staff. The process causes fluctuation and hampers capacity building.

• Lack of understanding of CBD and IT-PGRFA issues hampers the utilisation of accessions in research and through pre-breeding.

• Very few national genebank representatives would support the establishment of an centralised coordinated EU-PGS.

Opportunities

• PGR conservation activities are backed up by the policy through national

agrobiodiversity and other nature protection strategies in most countries and in

some countries conservation measures are further detailed in national PGR expert

programs.

• EU programs can support national ex situ, in situ and on-farm conservation

activities. The Framework Research Program (Horizon 2020) supports scientific

progress and provides methods, data, information and knowledge which can be used

to improve germplasm conservation actions. The agri-environmental measures of the

Rural Development policy can facilitate the transfer of scientific innovation into the

agricultural practice. • EURISCO could potentially act as the information backbone of an EU-PGS and the

goal should be one integrated European information system. ECCDBs exist and

demonstrate how C&E-data can be recorded according to the single observation

concept and made available online. • The public interest in issues such as sustainable agriculture production systems, regional

products, the relation between health and food diversity is increasing. • Plant breeders in some countries support PGR conservation activities through

participation in national PGR programs and ECPGR working groups. These types of activities could potentially be expanded to other countries/partners in the future.

• New techniques and method, such as all –omics technologies, have the potential to increase the knowledge and usefulness of genebank accessions.

• CBD and IT-PGRFA recommendations are being implemented at the EU-level. The EU currently works on the establishment of an EU-wide harmonised ABS system.

• The report of the EU Commission “Agricultural Genetic Resources – from conservation to sustainable use” (SWD (2013) 486 final) calls for the strengthening of the PGR conservation sector (EC, 2013).

• The ECPGR provides a possible platform for concerted genebank actions at the EU-level. • Breeding research institutes characterise and evaluate genebank accessions and make the

data public.

Appendix II

26

• Plant breeders stress the need for public genebanks. • Agro-NGOs and local authorities’ activities contribute to public awareness building on

agrobiodiversity matters and promote regional products based on crops or varieties affiliated with the European regions in close cooperation with genebanks.

Threats

• Insufficient support of germplasm conservation activities at all governmental levels. • The ECPGR program is currently renovated, however, without a substantial

increase of the budget. If the program continues to rely on input in kind by the

stakeholder community, it may no longer be sustained by the community. This would

result in the loss of the only body in Europe experienced in the coordination of PGR

activities.

• The native plant species and habitat conservation sector and the agricultural PGR

conservation sector do not cooperate in the field of in situ conservation in a

structured way.

• Breeding research institutes loose characterisation and evaluation data over time because there is no formalised data exchange mechanism between the research sector and genebanks.

• Decisions on the continuation of the GENRES program are pending. The past programs had very limited budgets.

• EURISCO is not sufficiently supported financially by the ECPGR member states. • The genebank community is currently not able to promote/use efficiently the increasing

number of datasets from –omics technology. • Material and data from breeding companies is treated as a business secret. Breeding

companies build up own genebanks and genebank information systems.

Strategies Below we list the target states and then suggest a specific strategy (see Table 2) on how this target state can be reached:

Target state 1: European countries interacting with the EU-PGS do so on the basis of a

national biodiversity/agro-biodiversity strategy and a national PGR programme.

SO strategy: Use existing strategies and PGR national work programmes as blue prints for further development of national biodiversity/agro-biodiversity strategies and expert programmes as well as a matching EU-strategy and national work programmes. Use arguments provided by EU policy documents such as “Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020” of the Council of the European Countries (Commission document SEC(2011) 540 final) to underpin the need for a well-organised EU-PGS. Take advantage of the growing public interest in PGR issues linked with the development of sustainable agricultural production systems.

Target state 2: The national PGSs develop and implement a comprehensive conservation

strategy for plant genetic resources, including stable funding, which combines the advantages

of the ex situ, in situ and on-farm management techniques. WO strategy: Although genebanks in Europe dispose of large pool of experts in germplasm conservation, they are not a driving force with respect to the development of complementary PGR conservation actions called for by the CBD and the IT-PGRFA. Take advantage of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation policies and of the growing interest in the in situ conservation of crop wild relatives and other useful plants and use the expertise to

Appendix II

27

develop in situ conservation concepts, strategies and work plans. Take advantage of the knowledge available from farmers, agro-NGOs, local authorities, and other relevant stakeholders in the field of on-farm management of PGRs, to develop on-farm conservation concepts, strategies and work plans at the European-level. Use the ECPGR as communication platform to negotiate and approve a European-wide comprehensive PGR conservation strategy.

Target state 3: The national PGS units are juridically independent or have earmarked

funding within the host institution and are adequately funded by their governments. WO strategy: The insufficient promotion of germplasm conservation and use activities at all governmental levels prevents adequate funding of most of the national components of a EU-PGS. In some countries the funding of PGS activities is even decreasing. Programmes of national PGS contribute to the international co-operation aimed at ex situ and in situ conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. This contribution consists of policy support and includes legal obligations (ABS, MLS/sMTA) ensuing from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Statutory tasks are characterised by legal obligations and their implementation requires stable funding. National PGS can strive for the assignment of statutory tasks by the respective national Ministry and deal with the Ministry on a juridically independent status, budget and programme.

Target state 4a-c: A National Inventory (NI) of genebank accessions, CWR and landraces

exists, is regularly updated and uploaded to EURISCO. ST strategy: All national PGS in Europe operate computerised genebank information systems and upload NI data to EURISCO. EURISCO supports the establishment of a virtual European gene bank through the AEGIS process. The financial support, which can be provided by the ECPGR programme, to host, operate and further develop EURISCO is limited. Inadequate funding of a core component of a EU-PGS jeopardises its development towards a fully functioning system. The existence of EURISCO supported by NIs in 43 European countries is a strength and good basis to negotiate with the EU on the provision of additional funds required to create and operate a comprehensive European plant germplasm information infrastructure.

Target state 4d: Gene bank accessions are conserved according to a jointly agreed guideline

such as the AEGIS Quality System (AQUAS) (Engels and Maggioni, 2009)

WO strategy: This goal is hampered on two levels. Limited funding within national gene banks hampers implementations of improvement of conservation strategies within each gene bank. In addition, limited support of the ECPGR limits the possibilities to coordinate and assist in this process. To address the latter, the ECPGR platform and AEGIS Quality System (AQUAS) is given targeted funds for this work. To address the former, current interest in sustainable agriculture and future food diversity and security could be used to argue for increased genebank budgets within individual countries as well as on the EU level.

Target state 4e: Characterisation and evaluation data are recorded, preferably following the

single observation concept (raw data), which allows the re-use of the data in research

WO strategy: The paucity of characterisation and evaluation data in web-based genebank information system is often criticised by researchers and breeders and it is also a serious weakness of PGSs existing in Europe, which is in turn limiting access to data and material by the global genebank user community. Genebanks in Europe and the EU have a large pool of database experts at their disposal; some genebanks run sophisticated information systems

Appendix II

28

and/or host European Central Crop Databases (ECCDBs) offering online access to characterisation and evaluation data. A way forward would be to use the ECPGR as communication and planning platform to further a European plant germplasm information infrastructure on the basis of EURISCO and successfully operating ECCDBs.

Target state 4f: National PGSs respect germplasm access and exchange rules detailed in an

EU-ABS guideline

WO strategy: Lack of understanding of CBD and IT-PGRFA issues currently hampers the utilisation of PGS materials in variety breeding. The EU has addressed this issue and will propose a harmonised ABS system including an advisory unit to decrease the legal uncertainty concerning allowed access to and uses of PGR in research, variety breeding and related intellectual property rights issues.

Target state 4g: Germplasm collection is based on gap analysis and guided by a European-

wide review system for collecting mission proposals

WO strategy: The PGSs currently organise fewer collecting activities than in the past and therefore genebanks may no longer sufficiently function as authorities controlling genetic erosion. Use the ECPGR as platform for assessing genetic erosion in CWR, landrace and former breeders’ varieties and as an expert panel charged with the review, revision and support of collecting mission proposals.

Target state 5: The EU approves a regulation required to provide long-term co-funding for

the establishment, improvement and operation of EU-PGS infrastructures

ST strategy: The EU-28 states form a strong fraction of the ECPGR community and can use this strength to negotiate with the EU on a regulation which allows long-term provision of funds for an EU-PGS. If funding of PGR activities remain at the current level (national and EU-wide) there is the risk of loss of interest and input in kind into the ECPGR programme by the genebank and users community, which in turn can result in the disintegration of the ECPGR community and programme.

2. Public research organizations

Seventy-three respondents participated in the survey comprising public and private reinstitutes. Of this stakeholder group, ten respondents chose not to take part in the questionnaire after having answered the initial


As can be seen from Figure 15combinations with other types of research are in the majority (N=50), followed by institutes carrying out fundamental or a comand strategic or combination with strategic and other types of research (N=17).

Figure 15. The responding number of institutes per research type.

Forty-one research institutes report to have an annual budget over 100ktheir work with an annual budget of less than 100kindicate that they are fully financed by the government, (54%) indicate that next to funding coming from the government also funding is obtained via

29

2. Public research organizations

three respondents participated in the survey comprising public and private reinstitutes. Of this stakeholder group, ten respondents chose not to take part in the questionnaire after having answered the initial stakeholder-grouping question.

15, institutes carrying out only applied research or in combinations with other types of research are in the majority (N=50), followed by institutes carrying out fundamental or a combination of fundamental and other types of research (N=24) and strategic or combination with strategic and other types of research (N=17).

The responding number of institutes per research type.

itutes report to have an annual budget over 100k€, whereas 28 perform their work with an annual budget of less than 100k€. Thirty research organizations (43%) indicate that they are fully financed by the government, 38 public research organizations

ndicate that next to funding coming from the government also funding is obtained via

Appendix II

three respondents participated in the survey comprising public and private research institutes. Of this stakeholder group, ten respondents chose not to take part in the

grouping question.

, institutes carrying out only applied research or in combinations with other types of research are in the majority (N=50), followed by institutes

bination of fundamental and other types of research (N=24) and strategic or combination with strategic and other types of research (N=17).

€, whereas 28 perform €. Thirty research organizations (43%)

38 public research organizations ndicate that next to funding coming from the government also funding is obtained via

Appendix II

30

other sources like private funds and EU framework programmes and two organizations (3%) say that they are 100% privately funded.

Forty-three respondents (78%) indicated that a national expert program exists in their country. With respect to the effects of a national programme on the utilization of LR and CWR, 53% (N=21) of the respondents in case of LR and 51% (N=20) in case of CWR, assessed a moderate to a very high impact (category 4-6) of the programme.

Crop groups involved in public research The top seven utilized crop groups according to the public researchers are “cereals and pseudocereals” (46%; N=30 institutes), “Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables” and the “grass group” (31%; N=20), “pome fruits”(26%; N=17) and “grain legumes” (26%; N=17), “potato” (25%; N=16) and “oil and fibre crop group” (23%; N=15). The crop groups where the least research was carried out were tree nuts, sugar crops (industrial), edible fungi, ornamental trees and citrus fruits.

Forty-seven (85%) of the respondents perform C&E work on accessions while eight respondents (15%) don´t gather any C&E data. If characterization or/and evaluation data are produced, 36 respondents (82%) indicate that they assure open access to third parties.

Presence of own genebank The majority of the respondents (N=39, 71%) have not built up a genebank on their own premises. Sixteen respondents (29%) stated that they did. The reasons for building up their own genebank they give are mainly concerns about the free access to PGR of interest. More than 90% (N=10) of the respondents indicate that open access of PGR is a problem and a further seven respondents (64%) mention that the quantity of seeds provided by genebanks is often too small.

Thirteen of respondents (81%) store seeds for long-term purposes and three respondents (19%) for shorter periods than 25 years (Q 25, not shown here). Six respondents to Q 26 store their seeds for long term purposes at - 20˚C, 6 properly dry seeds, and 5 store the seeds in vacuum Aluminium bags. Seven monitor the seed germination at specific time interval (Figure 16).

Figure 16. Measures taken by public resear


Of the total 73 respondents, 21 did not answer the cooperation with the own group or with other stakeholder groups.

Genebanks, breeding companies and institutes as well as research institutions (public/private) are well connected with the public research sector and eight inscooperation with all stakeholder groups. National cooperation with other stakeholders takes place more often than international cooperation and international cooperation with agroNGOs and foreign governments takes place least frequent

31

Measures taken by public research organisations to ensure long-term storage of seeds.


Of the total 73 respondents, 21 did not answer the question whether they share any cooperation with the own group or with other stakeholder groups.

Genebanks, breeding companies and institutes as well as research institutions (public/private) are well connected with the public research sector and eight institutions even share cooperation with all stakeholder groups. National cooperation with other stakeholders takes place more often than international cooperation and international cooperation with agroNGOs and foreign governments takes place least frequently (Figure 17 a).

Appendix II

term storage of seeds.

question whether they share any

Genebanks, breeding companies and institutes as well as research institutions (public/private) titutions even share

cooperation with all stakeholder groups. National cooperation with other stakeholders takes place more often than international cooperation and international cooperation with agro-

Figure 17. (a) Joint cooperation activities of public research organisations with other stakeholder national and international and (b) Cooperation via shared active joint research projects of public research organisations with other stakeholders and their assessed impact on the use of PGR.

Cooperation in the sense of active joint research prresearch institutes (81% of the respondents, N=38frequently with agro-NGOs (25%, N=5


Sourcing and ordering of PGR Public researchers think that genebank collections represent enough genetic diversity for research purposes as 72% (N=41) of the respondentFifteen respondents indicated that there was not enough genetic variation in genebanks: nine of them (60%) mentioned that LR are lacking, four mentioned that CWR are lacking and another three think that former br

Sourcing of PGR takes place predominantly via publications, own genebank and the European variety list (indicated by 58international PGR databases. If international PGR databases are visited, EURISCO (42%, category 4-6) and GRIN (37%, category 4

32

(a) Joint cooperation activities of public research organisations with other stakeholder national and international and (b) Cooperation via shared active joint research projects of public research organisations with other stakeholders and their assessed impact on the use of PGR.

Cooperation in the sense of active joint research projects takes place most with other public es (81% of the respondents, N=38, category 4-6), and takes place least

NGOs (25%, N=5, category 4-6; Figure 17 b).


Sourcing and ordering of PGR Public researchers think that genebank collections represent enough genetic diversity for research purposes as 72% (N=41) of the respondents gave an affirmative answer on this issue. Fifteen respondents indicated that there was not enough genetic variation in genebanks: nine of them (60%) mentioned that LR are lacking, four mentioned that CWR are lacking and another three think that former breeders´ varieties are lacking in genebank collections.

Sourcing of PGR takes place predominantly via publications, own genebank and the European variety list (indicated by 58-61% of the respondents in categories 4

. If international PGR databases are visited, EURISCO (42%, 6) and GRIN (37%, category 4-6) are more frequently visited (Figur

Appendix II

(a) Joint cooperation activities of public research organisations with other stakeholder groups, both national and international and (b) Cooperation via shared active joint research projects of public research

ojects takes place most with other public 6), and takes place least

Public researchers think that genebank collections represent enough genetic diversity for s gave an affirmative answer on this issue.

Fifteen respondents indicated that there was not enough genetic variation in genebanks: nine of them (60%) mentioned that LR are lacking, four mentioned that CWR are lacking and

eeders´ varieties are lacking in genebank collections.

Sourcing of PGR takes place predominantly via publications, own genebank and the 61% of the respondents in categories 4-6) and not via

. If international PGR databases are visited, EURISCO (42%, Figure 18).

Figure 18. Information sources used by public research organisations before ordering of PGR takes place.

The majority of the responding research institutions (44 of 63; 70%) indicate that the ordering of PGR takes place by all persons via the head of the department, whereas six institutes (10%) request PGR via the head of the institute.

In most research institutes the material transfer agreement (MTA) is signed by the hedepartment (N=24; 41%). Twenty institute representatives (34%) stated that the MTA was signed by the head of the institute, and in 18 institutes (31%) all staff is allowed to sign MTAs.

Fifty-five respondents (81%) indicated that they ordered PGR from gfive years (Figure 19 a). Ordering from botanical gardens within the last five years is done by only 24% respondents (N=16;

33

Information sources used by public research organisations before ordering of PGR takes place.

The majority of the responding research institutions (44 of 63; 70%) indicate that the ordering of PGR takes place by all persons of the institute. Seventeen research institutes (27%) order via the head of the department, whereas six institutes (10%) request PGR via the head of the

In most research institutes the material transfer agreement (MTA) is signed by the he%). Twenty institute representatives (34%) stated that the MTA was

signed by the head of the institute, and in 18 institutes (31%) all staff is allowed to sign

five respondents (81%) indicated that they ordered PGR from genebanks within the last a). Ordering from botanical gardens within the last five years is done by

only 24% respondents (N=16; Figure 19 b).

Appendix II

Information sources used by public research organisations before ordering of PGR takes place.

The majority of the responding research institutions (44 of 63; 70%) indicate that the ordering of the institute. Seventeen research institutes (27%) order

via the head of the department, whereas six institutes (10%) request PGR via the head of the

In most research institutes the material transfer agreement (MTA) is signed by the head of the %). Twenty institute representatives (34%) stated that the MTA was

signed by the head of the institute, and in 18 institutes (31%) all staff is allowed to sign

enebanks within the last a). Ordering from botanical gardens within the last five years is done by

Figure 19. Ordering of PGR by public research organisations at genebanks and botanical gardens.

34

Ordering of PGR by public research organisations at genebanks and botanical gardens.

Appendix II

Ordering of PGR by public research organisations at genebanks and botanical gardens.

Public researchers predominantly request PGR from their own and other European countries and much less from other parts of the world (

Figure 20. Origin of PGR requested by public research organisations from genebanks.

The frequency of ordering LR, CWR and former breeders’ varieties at genebanksdiffer from each other and this is also the case with respect to the ordering of LR and CWR at botanical gardens. The median frequency for ordering LR and CWR at both genebanks and botanical gardens on a category scale from 0 (=none) to 6 (=abunda

The experiences with obtaining PGR from genebanks and botanical gardens were very positive with respect to genebanks as over 98% of the respondents (N=51PGR was easy - moderate easy to obtain. With respect to botanical gless positive as around 67% of the respondents (N=10moderately easy to obtain.

Thirty respondents (63%) indicated that the most problematic issue when ordering PGR is the limited access to C&E (category

35

researchers predominantly request PGR from their own and other European countries and much less from other parts of the world (Figure 20).

Origin of PGR requested by public research organisations from genebanks.

The frequency of ordering LR, CWR and former breeders’ varieties at genebanksdiffer from each other and this is also the case with respect to the ordering of LR and CWR at botanical gardens. The median frequency for ordering LR and CWR at both genebanks and botanical gardens on a category scale from 0 (=none) to 6 (=abundant) was 2 (=low).

The experiences with obtaining PGR from genebanks and botanical gardens were very respect to genebanks as over 98% of the respondents (N=51) mentioned that

moderate easy to obtain. With respect to botanical gardens the picturless positive as around 67% of the respondents (N=10) indicate that PGR was easy

Thirty respondents (63%) indicated that the most problematic issue when ordering PGR is the limited access to C&E (category 4-6; Figure 21).

Appendix II

researchers predominantly request PGR from their own and other European countries

The frequency of ordering LR, CWR and former breeders’ varieties at genebanks did not differ from each other and this is also the case with respect to the ordering of LR and CWR at botanical gardens. The median frequency for ordering LR and CWR at both genebanks and

nt) was 2 (=low).

The experiences with obtaining PGR from genebanks and botanical gardens were very ) mentioned that

ardens the picture was ) indicate that PGR was easy –

Thirty respondents (63%) indicated that the most problematic issue when ordering PGR is the

Figure 21. Most problematic issues in ordering PGR from genebanks according to public research organisati

The second most problematic issue was the limited or noncollections on the internet (38%regulations (32%; N=13, category 4N=10, category 4-6) were mentioned. The response to PGR requests by genebank curators was considered to be only a problem by 18% of the respondents (N=8

Use of PGR Sixty-four percent (N=34) indicated that LR shave played an activities during the last five years (activities was underlined by 56

36

Most problematic issues in ordering PGR from genebanks according to public research organisati

The second most problematic issue was the limited or non-existent visibility of PGR collections on the internet (38%; N=17, category 4-6). Furthermore indistinctness of ABS

N=13, category 4-6) and the limited ABS knowledge of providers (26%;6) were mentioned. The response to PGR requests by genebank curators

was considered to be only a problem by 18% of the respondents (N=8; category 4

four percent (N=34) indicated that LR shave played an important role in their research activities during the last five years (Figure 22a). The importance of CWRs in research activities was underlined by 56% of the respondents (N=29) (Figure 22b).

Appendix II

Most problematic issues in ordering PGR from genebanks according to public research organisations.

existent visibility of PGR nctness of ABS providers (26%;

6) were mentioned. The response to PGR requests by genebank curators category 4-6).

important role in their research ). The importance of CWRs in research

Figure 22. Role of landraces (LR; a) and crop wild relatives (CWR; b) in public research projects within the last five years.

37

Role of landraces (LR; a) and crop wild relatives (CWR; b) in public research projects within the last

Appendix II

Role of landraces (LR; a) and crop wild relatives (CWR; b) in public research projects within the last

2.4 Policy Framework

Activities in the context of the In order to assure open and easy access to PGR, a transparent process for exchange of PGR is needed and national focal points (NFP) and competent national authorities on access and benefit sharing (CNA-ABS) play an important idea about the number of NFPs present in their own country. Asking who the CNAwithin their own country, 33% (N=16) of the respondents indicate they know the name of this person, another 33% is unsure and


As the most problematic issues in the use of PGR, public research organisations indicated the limited amount of C&E data (60% of the respondents occur in category 4budget received from the government (49%; category 4information on germplasm in genebanks (36%;

Figure 23. Factors restricting the use of landraces (LR) and crop wild relatives (CWR) in public research.

Other issues are considered less important constraints for PGR use, such as access to germplasm in case of collecting missions due germplasm in genebanks, inadequate/no advice by curators on crop issues, underrepresentation of species in genebank holdings due to unsystematic collecting.

An overriding majority of the researchers indicated that thinfluences their work was the research strategy of the government (93% of the respondents). If a national expert programme for PGRFA exists (Q34, graph not shown), approximately

38

Activities in the context of the international PGR arrangementsIn order to assure open and easy access to PGR, a transparent process for exchange of PGR is needed and national focal points (NFP) and competent national authorities on access and

ABS) play an important role. Thirty-eight respondents (79%) had no idea about the number of NFPs present in their own country. Asking who the CNAwithin their own country, 33% (N=16) of the respondents indicate they know the name of this person, another 33% is unsure and the last 33% does not know.


As the most problematic issues in the use of PGR, public research organisations indicated the limited amount of C&E data (60% of the respondents occur in category 4-6), the declining

ved from the government (49%; category 4-6) and difficulties to access on germplasm in genebanks (36%; category 4-6; Figure 23).

Factors restricting the use of landraces (LR) and crop wild relatives (CWR) in public research.

Other issues are considered less important constraints for PGR use, such as access to germplasm in case of collecting missions due to current ABS systems and no access to germplasm in genebanks, inadequate/no advice by curators on crop issues, underrepresentation of species in genebank holdings due to unsystematic collecting.

An overriding majority of the researchers indicated that the most important factor which influences their work was the research strategy of the government (93% of the respondents). If a national expert programme for PGRFA exists (Q34, graph not shown), approximately

Appendix II

international PGR arrangements In order to assure open and easy access to PGR, a transparent process for exchange of PGR is needed and national focal points (NFP) and competent national authorities on access and

eight respondents (79%) had no idea about the number of NFPs present in their own country. Asking who the CNA-ABS is within their own country, 33% (N=16) of the respondents indicate they know the name of this

As the most problematic issues in the use of PGR, public research organisations indicated the 6), the declining

6) and difficulties to access

Factors restricting the use of landraces (LR) and crop wild relatives (CWR) in public research.

Other issues are considered less important constraints for PGR use, such as access to to current ABS systems and no access to

germplasm in genebanks, inadequate/no advice by curators on crop issues, underrepresentation of species in genebank holdings due to unsystematic collecting.

e most important factor which influences their work was the research strategy of the government (93% of the respondents). If a national expert programme for PGRFA exists (Q34, graph not shown), approximately

52% of the respondends think that the programme Next to that the interests of breeders (48%) and the declining budget received from the government (46%) are mentioned as important factors (

Of minor importance are requests of farmers associations (35%), external scientific advisory committees evaluating the institute (24%) and public opinions voiced by consumer groups (20%) are mentioned (Figure 24

Figure 24. Factors influencing the work at public research organisations.

Forty-three percent of the respondents (N=23public breeding research institutes to private breeding companies (Q37, graph not shown). Around forty percent of the respondents (41%development, another 32% (N=7) have a more neutral opinion towards this development and 27% (N=6) think this is an unwelcome development (Q38, graph not shown).

New innovative techniques likeresearch in general. The majority of the research representatives tendway towards the possibilities of these type of new techniques. With respect to the question whether genomics would be seen as a tool to support and promote the pre52% (N=25) think that it will provide positive effects as more genetic knowledge will facilitate the pre-breeding work. Twentypositively affect their work as they can cooperate with other (inter)nationalshare tasks. Ten respondents (21%) and another 7 respondents (15%) indicate that genomics will not influence their pre-breeding research as they don´t have any budget for this type of research or will focus on field performance respectively

39

52% of the respondends think that the programme promotes work on CWR and landraces. Next to that the interests of breeders (48%) and the declining budget received from the government (46%) are mentioned as important factors (Figure 24).

requests of farmers associations (35%), external scientific advisory committees evaluating the institute (24%) and public opinions voiced by consumer groups

24).

Factors influencing the work at public research organisations.

the respondents (N=23) observe a shift of pre-breeding research from public breeding research institutes to private breeding companies (Q37, graph not shown). Around forty percent of the respondents (41%; N=9) consider this change as a positive

, another 32% (N=7) have a more neutral opinion towards this development and 27% (N=6) think this is an unwelcome development (Q38, graph not shown).

like genomics provide new chances and possibilities in breeding eral. The majority of the research representatives tends to react in a positive

way towards the possibilities of these type of new techniques. With respect to the question whether genomics would be seen as a tool to support and promote the pre-breeding wor52% (N=25) think that it will provide positive effects as more genetic knowledge will

breeding work. Twenty-three (48%) respondents believe that genomics will positively affect their work as they can cooperate with other (inter)nationalshare tasks. Ten respondents (21%) and another 7 respondents (15%) indicate that genomics

breeding research as they don´t have any budget for this type of research or will focus on field performance respectively. One respondent thinks that genomics

Appendix II

promotes work on CWR and landraces. Next to that the interests of breeders (48%) and the declining budget received from the

requests of farmers associations (35%), external scientific advisory committees evaluating the institute (24%) and public opinions voiced by consumer groups

breeding research from public breeding research institutes to private breeding companies (Q37, graph not shown).

N=9) consider this change as a positive , another 32% (N=7) have a more neutral opinion towards this development and

27% (N=6) think this is an unwelcome development (Q38, graph not shown).

genomics provide new chances and possibilities in breeding to react in a positive

way towards the possibilities of these type of new techniques. With respect to the question breeding work,

52% (N=25) think that it will provide positive effects as more genetic knowledge will three (48%) respondents believe that genomics will

positively affect their work as they can cooperate with other (inter)national institutes and share tasks. Ten respondents (21%) and another 7 respondents (15%) indicate that genomics

breeding research as they don´t have any budget for this type of . One respondent thinks that genomics

will negatively influence the precompete pre-breeding groups (

Figure 25. Perceived influence of genomics on pre

Thirty-nine percent of the respondents (N=20) think that patenting will influence their breeding research, 24% (N=12) think that this will not be the case and another 37% (N=19) has no opinion about this subject.

Being in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use, 22 respondents (43%) would improve or extend the ECPGR program whereas 35% (N=18) the national PGR programs. Eleven respondents (22%) think that a new centralized coordinated EU genebank system needs to be established. Being in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use, the majority of the addressed resewould fund ex situ conservation activities, another thirteen respondents (28%) would support in situ conservation activities, whereas seven respondents (15%) preferred to strengthen the on-farm conservation activities.

2.6 SWOT analyses

Public breeding research institutes conduct fundamental research (such as plant genome organisation), applied research (such as on the development of methods and the implementation of pre-breeding) and strategic research (such as on understanding the losses and gains of genetic variation in variety breeding over decthe scientific basis of PGRFA conservation programs and services the variety breeding sector through provision of knowledge and specific pre

40

will negatively influence the pre-breeding research, as genomics working groups will out(Figure 25).

Perceived influence of genomics on pre-breeding research at public research organisations.

nine percent of the respondents (N=20) think that patenting will influence their (N=12) think that this will not be the case and another 37% (N=19)

has no opinion about this subject.

Being in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use, 22 respondents (43%) would improve or extend the ECPGR program whereas 35% (N=18) the national PGR programs. Eleven respondents (22%) think that a new centralized coordinated EU genebank system needs to be established. Being in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use, the majority of the addressed research experts (N=27)

conservation activities, another thirteen respondents (28%) would support conservation activities, whereas seven respondents (15%) preferred to strengthen the

farm conservation activities.

Public breeding research institutes conduct fundamental research (such as on plant genome organisation), applied research (such as on the development of methods and the

breeding) and strategic research (such as on understanding the losses and gains of genetic variation in variety breeding over decades). Research thereby provides the scientific basis of PGRFA conservation programs and services the variety breeding sector through provision of knowledge and specific pre-breed germplasm. Research also provides

Appendix II

ing groups will out-

breeding research at public research organisations.

nine percent of the respondents (N=20) think that patenting will influence their (N=12) think that this will not be the case and another 37% (N=19)

Being in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use, 22 respondents (43%) would improve or extend the ECPGR program whereas 35% (N=18) would improve the national PGR programs. Eleven respondents (22%) think that a new centralized coordinated EU genebank system needs to be established. Being in the position to manage a

arch experts (N=27) conservation activities, another thirteen respondents (28%) would support

conservation activities, whereas seven respondents (15%) preferred to strengthen the

on knowledge of plant genome organisation), applied research (such as on the development of methods and the

breeding) and strategic research (such as on understanding the losses ades). Research thereby provides

the scientific basis of PGRFA conservation programs and services the variety breeding sector breed germplasm. Research also provides

Appendix II

41

policy makers with knowledge on the impacts of plant breeding on productivity, stability and resilience of crop production.

Target state Research supports an EU-PGS in manifold ways by improving the scientific basis of PGRFA conservation and through specific statutory contributions to the conservation and use of germplasm. Research targets have been described already by EASAC (2011) and we use the same in our analysis:

1. A better understanding of the amount of variation present in the primary, secondary and tertiary gene pool of a crop and the ecogeographic patterns of genetic diversity of species belonging to these gene pools is required to organise effective and efficient conservation programs and to facilitate the use of genetic resources in plant breeding. The development of comprehensive, complementary conservation strategies have been on the CBD and IT-PGRFA agendas for a long time. However, the call for the deployment of complementary conservation strategies has not resulted in systematic scientific investigations of the issue. Research into the integration of the ex situ, in situ and on-farm conservation techniques and the ways in which they are best combined and applied for gene pools of specific crops is planned and implemented.

2. The effects and efficiency of complementary (in situ, on farm, ex situ) conservation strategies is assessed to allow for adjustments. Indicators for monitoring of diversity at the habitat level, the interspecific level and intraspecific level are improved or developed, tested and applied. Research develops indicators and their metrics allowing the monitoring of genetic diversity within the native European gene pools of crops to prevent genetic erosion (Bonneuil et al., 2012) and to ensure complementary conservation of crops and wild relatives.

3. Data are made publicly available in web-based information systems, accessible through a single entry point. Development and further improvement of plant genetic resources information systems at the European and national level requires the active participation of research institutes, allowing the recording of conservation, characterisation and evaluation data following the single observation concept. Research institutes, as holders and one of the main users of germplasm, accept co-responsibility for the establishment of a comprehensive EU information infrastructure for plant genetic resources.

4. Public research institutes maintain genetic diversity in pre-breeding programs especially in heterotic gene pools of outbreeding species and composite crosses of inbreeding species. Like landraces these breeding pools maintain genetic diversity and adapt to environmental changes over time. They are therefore an important component of a crop specific complementary conservation program. Framework conditions facilitate exploitation of a wide range of PGR, including CWR and landraces, in breeding programs. Public research institutes maintain genetic diversity in pre-breeding programs. Breeding research institutes maintain, enhance and promote the use of breeding pools of a diversity of crops, including neglected and underutilized species as well as those of potential value for the adaptation of the European agriculture to the climate change. To ensure this target is achieved, the use of genetic diversity in public breeding programs is monitored.

Appendix II

42

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Strengths

• The EU plant genetic research community holds altogether a wide range of crop

specific expertise and methodological expertise such as trait specific evaluation

methods, genomics, biodiversity informatics.

• PGR collections are linked with public research institutes that publish significant

characterisation and evaluation data.

• Research institutes cooperate at the national and European level with all stakeholder

groups on a varying scale.

• There is a large network of research centres/Universities with complementary expertise and research.

• European public research institutes hold large collections of important crops which are potentially accessible for users.

• The majority of institutes carry out basic and applied research. Some include pre-breeding research on a wide range of crops.

• In some countries research institutes develop varieties for minor and neglected crops and crops that are not improved by the private sector for economic reasons.

Weaknesses

• Financial means for research are increasingly restricted, short-term funding prevails

and financial resources are unevenly distributed between the EU member states

leading to a loss of expertise and long-term breeding research programmes.

• Instability of research institute policies concerning PGR and pre-breeding research

programs.

• Several institutes operate their own collections. This may unnecessarily hinder

accessibility of germplasm.

• Few institutes conduct strategic long-term research such as monitoring and assessment of PGR, which foresees innovation and aims to inform policy makers. Few institutes also conduct translational research or activities that facilitate the practical use of scientific advances.

• Lack of knowledge of national focal points, insufficient impact of their work already done.

• The research sector has no clear positions concerning the need for pre-breeding programs owned and operated by public institutes.

• Contacts between researchers and consumer associations are rather limited, hence the need for, and the role of, breeding research is not well understood by the public.

• Contrary to plant protection research, which is based on laws, breeding research related to the conservation and use of genetic resources has an unstable funding basis, although breeding is essential for the adaptability of crops and contributes much more to the increase in crop productivity. This legal aspect is overseen by the breeding research sector and hence not addressed in the public discussions.

Opportunities

• The majority of research institutes base their work on national PGRFA expert

programs.

• Significant amounts of genetic diversity for pre-breeding research programs is

available at genebanks. The interest in improving the conservation and utilization of

crop wild relatives and landraces is increasing world-wide.

Appendix II

43

• Increasing availability of efficient new genotyping and phenotyping tools open up for

potentially cheaper and more efficient identification and in depth evaluation of

genetic resources.

• European PGR research institutes and researchers know the ECPGR program, which provides a platform for effective collaboration. A remarkable fraction of European research institutes is engaged in ECPGR activities (such as GENRES projects).

• Public funds for research allow the breeding research sector to cooperate with plant breeders, genebanks and agro-NGOs.

• Availability of approaches such as FIGS that has the potential to facilitate identification of genetic diversity of interest.

• Governments are aware of problems concerning the inadequate functioning of ABS that hamper access to PGR.

Threats

• Short-term project funding for breeding research and instabilities of policies (i.e.

target crops / products) in reaction to the development of global markets.

• Insufficient visibility of PGR collections (passport, characterisation and evaluation

data) on internet is a problem for selecting the appropriate accessions, which limits

the use severely.

• Lack of PGR conservation and use policies implementation in Europe are limiting

access and potential use to PGR resources. As a consequence, crop wild relatives are

not well represented in genebanks and landraces conservation is not systematically

performed.

• The current uncertainty with regards to the ABS regime is seen as a factor blocking the acquisition of PGR.

• Pre-breeding research is reduced in the public sector for cost reasons (i.e. a policy decision), increased by some (larger) breeding companies and their results will not be in the public domain.

• Research assessment evaluation based on impact factors discourages researchers to cooperate with PGR collection holders and to work on projects targeted on the evaluation and utilization of PGR.

Strategies Below we list the target states and then suggest a specific strategy (see Table 2) for how this target state can be reached:

Target state 1: Public research provides the basic knowledge needed for an efficient,

scientifically based conservation strategy that integrate in situ, ex situ and on farm

management and include the primary, secondary and tertiary gene pool of crops. To reach

this goal a better understanding of the amount of variation present in the primary, secondary

and tertiary gene pool of crops and the ecogeographic patterns of genetic diversity of the

species belonging to these gene pool is required. The development of comprehensive,

complementary conservation strategies have been on the CBD and IT-PGRFA agendas for a

long time. However, the call for the deployment of complementary conservation strategies has

not resulted in systematic scientific investigations of the issue. Research into the integration

of the ex situ, in situ and on-farm conservation techniques and the ways in which they are best

combined and applied for gene pools of specific crops is planned and implemented.

WO strategy: The majority of research institutes base their work on either ex situ, in situ or on-farm conservation knowledge of the national PGRFA work programs, seldom taking an integrated view. Further, these activities rarely involve breeders, conservationists, agro-NGOs

Appendix II

44

and farmers together. European and national policy should be developed to influence and steer research into complementary conservation and use of PGR. The ECPGR program provides a platform for the planning of crop gene pool specific strategic research and for the acquisition of project funds through national PGRFA expert programs and the EU research programs / council regulations. By developing/expanding funding and cooperation possibilities through these channels, the research needed for scientifically based conservation strategies can be acquired.

Target state 2: The effects and efficiency of complementary (in situ, on farm, ex situ)

conservation strategies is assessed to allow for adjustments. Indicators for monitoring of

diversity at the habitat level, the interspecific level and intraspecific level are improved or

developed, tested and applied. Research develops indicators and their metrics allowing the

monitoring of genetic diversity within the native European gene pools of crops to prevent

genetic erosion (Bonneuil et al., 2012) and to ensure complementary conservation of crops

and wild relatives.

SO strategy: European and national policy should be developed to influence and steer research on the establishment and testing of indicators for monitoring genetic erosion within the native European gene pools of crops and for monitoring the deployment of genetic diversity. This work should be greatly facilitated by the existing expertise in Europe. The EU plant genetic research community holds altogether a wide range of crop specific expertise (horizontal level) and methodological expertise (vertical level) such as trait specific evaluation methods, genomics, and biodiversity informatics. The majority of research institutes receive short term public funds for the implementation of projects that could be steered in this direction.

Target state 3: Data are made publicly available in web-based information systems,

accessible through a single entry point. Development and further improvement of plant

genetic resources information systems at the European and national level requires the active

participation of research institutes, allowing the recording of conservation, characterisation

and evaluation data following the single observation concept. Research institutes, as holders

and one of the main users of germplasm, accept co-responsibility for the establishment of a

comprehensive EU information infrastructure for plant genetic resources.

WT strategy: There is a significant amount of data available on PRG in different formats and dispersed information systems. The insufficient visibility of PGR collections on the internet and insufficient availability of passport, characterisation and evaluation data on accessions is a problem which limits the use of PGR severely. A first step to overcome this weakness would be the adoption of minimum data standards and development of a single entry point to access diverse data at the European level. This action should be harmonized with ongoing actions in this area from ECPGR Target state 4: Framework conditions (policy, funding, infrastructure) facilitate exploitation

of a wide range of PGR, including CWR and landraces, in breeding programs. Public

research institutes maintain genetic diversity in pre-breeding programs. Breeding research

institute maintain, enhance and promote the use of breeding pools of a diversity of crops,

including neglected and underutilized species as well as those of potential value for the

adaptation of the European agriculture to the climate change. WO strategy: Plant breeding institute rarely inform the general public in a comprehensible manner why genetic diversity is important for crop improvement, how plant breeding functions and why pre-breeding is required and services the society on the long-term.

Appendix II

45

Increasing the visibility of public research institutes as managers and providers of genetic diversity, will improve the image of plant breeding research and increase the willingness of policy makers to invest more into this research domain and training. An example for improved communication on the role of plant breeding research was published by Neumann (2013). There is growing interest in, and funding opportunities for, pre-breeding (such as in Horizon 2020 research calls). Good show cases from research can help creating a basis for long-term and adequately funded pre-breeding programmes.

Appendix II

46

3. Breeders

Fifty-nine breeders from the twenty EU countries participate in the online survey. Of them, eight representatives did not answer the questionnaire after having responded to the first stakeholder-specific grouping question. Within this group, European private as well as public plant breeders, the latter mainly based in Eastern Europe, are participating.


Around two-third of the companies achieve an annual turnover of less than 50 million €. Nearly 16% of the enterprises deal with an annual turnover of 50-250 million € and about 18% achieve at least an annual turnover of 250 million €.

Crop groups involved in breeding More than half of the company representatives (51%; N=26) focus their breeding activities on “cereals and pseudocereals”. This group is followed by “grasses, forage, fodder, hay and lawn” (37%; N=19), “oilseed and fibre crops” (33%; N=17), “potato”(31%, N=16), “Brassica (cole)”(26%, N=13).The most frequent crop group combination used by breeders consists of (1) the “cereals and pseudocereals”, (2) “grasses, fodder, forage, hay and lawn-group” and (3) the “oilseed and fibre crop group”. Marginal crop groups in current breeding programmes according to this survey are ornamental trees, stone fruits and medicinal and aromatic plants. No breeding is performed on edible fungi, citrus fruits, pome fruit and tree nuts.

Private genebank Thirty-one percent (N=13) of the respondents (about a fourth of the stakeholder group, N=51) state that their company has built up an own genebank (Figure 26 a). Reasons for having their own genebank are concerns about the free access of PGR as nearly 70% (N=9) of the stakeholders think that open access to other collections might be a problem, 54% (N=7) intend to ensure germination of the seeds over a longer period by this activity. Four respondents think that the quantity of seeds provided by genebanks is often too small, whereas one stakeholder mentioned the long ordering time as a constraint and reason for building up their own company´s genebank (Figure 26 b).

Figure 26. (a) Establishment of genebanks at breeding companies and (b) the rationale behind the establishment.

47

(a) Establishment of genebanks at breeding companies and (b) the rationale behind the establishment.

Appendix II

(a) Establishment of genebanks at breeding companies and (b) the rationale behind the establishment.

The majority of the stakeholders (77%, N=10) responding to this question intend to store the material for long-term purposes, whereas 23% do not aim for storage longer than 25 years. Of those who plan long-term storage for more than 25 yearsmonitor the seed germination at specific time intervals, 50 % store dried seeds that have around 6% humidity, whereas 30% use vacuum


Cooperation of breeders with other stakeholders, except agroon both the national and international lthe framework of joint research projects with other stakeholders takes place mospublic research organisations (70%, N=21, category 4category 4-6). Active cooperation with genebanks, public breeders and private research was carried out on an intermediate scale and cooperation with agrocategory 1-3; Figure 27 b).

48

The majority of the stakeholders (77%, N=10) responding to this question intend to store the purposes, whereas 23% do not aim for storage longer than 25 years. Of

term storage for more than 25 years, 80% store the seed at monitor the seed germination at specific time intervals, 50 % store dried seeds that have

6% humidity, whereas 30% use vacuum-sealed three layered aluminium bags.


Cooperation of breeders with other stakeholders, except agro-NGOs, takes place extensively on both the national and international level (Figure 27 a). Active cooperation of breeders in the framework of joint research projects with other stakeholders takes place mos

ations (70%, N=21, category 4-6) and private breeders (79%, N=26, 6). Active cooperation with genebanks, public breeders and private research was

carried out on an intermediate scale and cooperation with agro-NGOs is limited (only

Appendix II

The majority of the stakeholders (77%, N=10) responding to this question intend to store the purposes, whereas 23% do not aim for storage longer than 25 years. Of

80% store the seed at -20°C, 60% monitor the seed germination at specific time intervals, 50 % store dried seeds that have

sealed three layered aluminium bags.

NGOs, takes place extensively a). Active cooperation of breeders in

the framework of joint research projects with other stakeholders takes place mostly with 6) and private breeders (79%, N=26,

6). Active cooperation with genebanks, public breeders and private research was NGOs is limited (only

Figure 27. Joint cooperation activities of breeding companies with other stakeholder groups both national and international and (b) Cooperation via shared active joint research projects of breeding companies with other stakeholders and their assessed impact on the u Four breeders indicate that they cooperate with each of the eleven breeders indicate to have cooperation with four stakeholder groups, and ten breeders indicate to have cooperation with three stakeholder groups. “Breeder” and “Research” have been subdivided into private and public. system became evident with the research sector, as 33 of 38 breeders are in contact with this stakeholder. This implies a good relationshenvironment for innovation.


Ordering PGR Employees that order PGR from genebanks are mostly breeders and preN=44). Only in a few cases, PGR of a material transfer agreement (MTA) is generally done by the head of the group (39%; N=19) or the managing director (37%, N=18). In one company, all the employees are allowed to sign a material transfer agreemTwo genebank specialists are allowed to sign MTAs.

Ordering PGR from genebanks within the last five years was done by 87% of the respondents (N=45; Figure 28 a). The frequency of ordering accessions at genebanks is in general low. Only 8% of the respondents (N=4) ordered PGR from botanical gardens (frequency of ordering PGR from botanical gardens was very low.

49

Joint cooperation activities of breeding companies with other stakeholder groups both national and international and (b) Cooperation via shared active joint research projects of breeding companies with other stakeholders and their assessed impact on the use of PGR.

Four breeders indicate that they cooperate with each of the four (six) stakeholder groups, eleven breeders indicate to have cooperation with four stakeholder groups, and ten breeders indicate to have cooperation with three stakeholder groups. In Q95 the stakeholder groups “Breeder” and “Research” have been subdivided into private and public. A good networking system became evident with the research sector, as 33 of 38 breeders are in contact with this stakeholder. This implies a good relationship with the public research sector and an


from genebanks are mostly breeders and pre-breeders PGR are ordered by the genebank specialists (6%; N=3). Signing

of a material transfer agreement (MTA) is generally done by the head of the group (39%; N=19) or the managing director (37%, N=18). In one company, all the employees are allowed to sign a material transfer agreement (MTA). Nobody stated a pre-breeder signing the MTA. Two genebank specialists are allowed to sign MTAs.

Ordering PGR from genebanks within the last five years was done by 87% of the respondents a). The frequency of ordering accessions at genebanks is in general low.

Only 8% of the respondents (N=4) ordered PGR from botanical gardens (Figure frequency of ordering PGR from botanical gardens was very low.

Appendix II

Joint cooperation activities of breeding companies with other stakeholder groups both national and international and (b) Cooperation via shared active joint research projects of breeding companies with other

stakeholder groups, eleven breeders indicate to have cooperation with four stakeholder groups, and ten breeders

In Q95 the stakeholder groups A good networking

system became evident with the research sector, as 33 of 38 breeders are in contact with this ip with the public research sector and an

breeders (85%; the genebank specialists (6%; N=3). Signing

of a material transfer agreement (MTA) is generally done by the head of the group (39%; N=19) or the managing director (37%, N=18). In one company, all the employees are allowed

breeder signing the MTA.

Ordering PGR from genebanks within the last five years was done by 87% of the respondents a). The frequency of ordering accessions at genebanks is in general low.

Figure 28 b) and the

Figure 28. Ordering of PGR by breeders at genebanks and botanical gardens.

50

Ordering of PGR by breeders at genebanks and botanical gardens.

Appendix II

When ordering PGR the majority of the breeders (88%; N=38) stated, that it is easy to moderately easy to obtain material from the genebanks. Only five respondents indicate that it is difficult to obtain PGR.

Being asked about the most problematic issues when ordering Pindistinctness on ABS in the international arrangements (43% of the respondents; N=15, category 4-6) as well as the limited knowledge of PGR providers concerning ABS procedures (35%; N=12, category 4-6) were most critical in the PGR, as well the very limited access to C&E data on accessions (31%, N=13; category 4Figure 29).

Figure 29. Problematic issues according to breeders in ordering PGR at genebanks.

When sourcing (=looking) for PGR, GRIN is the genebank information system being most frequently used by breeders (39%; category 4GENESYS (0.1%; category 4-ECCDB (16%; category 4-6) take in this context an intermediate position (more frequently utilized, in terms of sourcing for information on PGR, are publications (65%, category 4-6), European variety lists (50%, category 4and congress meetings (40%, category 4for PGR (17%, category 4-6; Figure

51

PGR the majority of the breeders (88%; N=38) stated, that it is easy to moderately easy to obtain material from the genebanks. Only five respondents indicate that it

Being asked about the most problematic issues when ordering PGR, it turned out that the indistinctness on ABS in the international arrangements (43% of the respondents; N=15,

6) as well as the limited knowledge of PGR providers concerning ABS procedures 6) were most critical in the process of ordering and exchange of

PGR, as well the very limited access to C&E data on accessions (31%, N=13; category 4

Problematic issues according to breeders in ordering PGR at genebanks.

When sourcing (=looking) for PGR, GRIN is the genebank information system being most frequently used by breeders (39%; category 4-6), whereas SINGER (4%, catego

-6) are seldom used. EURISCO (18 %, category 46) take in this context an intermediate position (

more frequently utilized, in terms of sourcing for information on PGR, are publications (65%, 6), European variety lists (50%, category 4-6), own genebank (48%, category 4

and congress meetings (40%, category 4-6). Farmers’ knowledge is less used when looking Figure 30).

Appendix II

PGR the majority of the breeders (88%; N=38) stated, that it is easy to moderately easy to obtain material from the genebanks. Only five respondents indicate that it

GR, it turned out that the indistinctness on ABS in the international arrangements (43% of the respondents; N=15,

6) as well as the limited knowledge of PGR providers concerning ABS procedures process of ordering and exchange of

PGR, as well the very limited access to C&E data on accessions (31%, N=13; category 4-6;

When sourcing (=looking) for PGR, GRIN is the genebank information system being most 6), whereas SINGER (4%, category 4-6) and

6) are seldom used. EURISCO (18 %, category 4-6) and 6) take in this context an intermediate position (Figure 30). A lot

more frequently utilized, in terms of sourcing for information on PGR, are publications (65%, 6), own genebank (48%, category 4-6)

6). Farmers’ knowledge is less used when looking

Figure 30. Information sources used by breeders before ordering of PGR takes place.

Use of PGR Being asked whether, within the last five years, LRs have played an important role in breeding programmes, 36% of the respondents gave an affirmative answer. (41%) was found with regards to the utilization of CWR for the breeding of new varieties(Q88 and 89, not shown here).

The majority of respondents (71%; N=32) think that collections in genebanks represent enough genetic diversity for their breeding pur

Figure 31

Figure 31. Presumed presence of genetic diversity in genebanks needed for breeding of new breeders.

Furthermore, the European breeders request PGR least from Africa (17%, category 4Figure 32).

52

Information sources used by breeders before ordering of PGR takes place.

Being asked whether, within the last five years, LRs have played an important role in breeding programmes, 36% of the respondents gave an affirmative answer.

found with regards to the utilization of CWR for the breeding of new varieties.

The majority of respondents (71%; N=32) think that collections in genebanks represent enough genetic diversity for their breeding purposes (Figure 31).

Presumed presence of genetic diversity in genebanks needed for breeding of new

the European breeders request PGR originating from all over the world, but Africa (17%, category 4-6) and Australia and the Pacific (13%; category 4

Appendix II

Being asked whether, within the last five years, LRs have played an important role in breeding programmes, 36% of the respondents gave an affirmative answer. A similar result

found with regards to the utilization of CWR for the breeding of new varieties

The majority of respondents (71%; N=32) think that collections in genebanks represent

Presumed presence of genetic diversity in genebanks needed for breeding of new varieties by

all over the world, but %; category 4-6;

Figure 32. Origin of PGR requested by breeders from genebanks.

Genebank performance Thirty-eight breeders responded to the question on which genebank(s) provide an working model for making their PGR available. Half of them had no opinion and the other half indicated that CGN, IPK, USDA and NordGen provided the best working model (33).

53

Origin of PGR requested by breeders from genebanks.

eight breeders responded to the question on which genebank(s) provide an working model for making their PGR available. Half of them had no opinion and the other half indicated that CGN, IPK, USDA and NordGen provided the best working model (

Appendix II

eight breeders responded to the question on which genebank(s) provide an effectively working model for making their PGR available. Half of them had no opinion and the other half indicated that CGN, IPK, USDA and NordGen provided the best working model (Figure

Appendix II

54

Figure 33. Most effectively working genebanks worldwide. On the Y-axis the number of respondents is indicated.


In order to assure open and easy access to PGR, a transparent process for exchange is needed. Being asked about the situation in their own country with respect to the number of National Focal Points (NFP), 70% (N=28) had no idea what the number of NFP was. About a fourth (23%, N= 9) think that one single person acts as focal point for PGR in their country, whereas 7% (N=3) believe that several persons act as focal points. Twenty-five percent (N=10) of the breeders know their competent national authority on access and benefit sharing (CNA-ABS), whereas 38% (N=15) are unsure who it is (Q103 and 104, graphs not shown).


As a major improvement in terms of genebanking, nearly 80% (N=31) of the breeders favour the improvement of passport and characterization data (e.g. morphological traits) and evaluation (e.g. disease resistances) data of accessions (Figure 34). A further 67% (N=26) of the breeders prefer to develop a central website for all PGR worldwide, whereas 46% (N=18) wish to reduce the duplication within and between genebanks. Forty-four percent (N=17) of the respondents think that a major improvement would be to merge EU genebanks into one virtual EU genebank in which different tasks (like collecting, regeneration, storage, documentation, etc.) are spread over the various countries.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Figure 34. Major improvements in genebanking worldwide according to breeders. Full text of the answer: Development of a central website for all PGR worldwide; Improvement of the passport, characterization (e.g. morphological traits) and evaluation (e.g disease & pest resistances, abiotic stress tolerance) data of accessions; Reduction of the duplication within and betvirtual EU gene bank in which different tasks (collecting, regeneration, documentation) are spreadvarious countries.

Whether public genebanks would be necessary in the future considerinthe establishment of private genebanks, the overriding majority of the breeders stated that genebanks are essential for the conservation of PGR now and in the future. Seventypercent of the breeders (N=30) stated also that genethey are (seen as) public organizations protecting biodiversity (

55

Major improvements in genebanking worldwide according to breeders. Full text of the answer: of a central website for all PGR worldwide; Improvement of the passport, characterization (e.g.

morphological traits) and evaluation (e.g disease & pest resistances, abiotic stress tolerance) data of accessions; Reduction of the duplication within and between gene bank collections; Merger of EU gene banks into one virtual EU gene bank in which different tasks (collecting, regeneration, documentation) are spread

Whether public genebanks would be necessary in the future considering the onthe establishment of private genebanks, the overriding majority of the breeders stated that genebanks are essential for the conservation of PGR now and in the future. Seventypercent of the breeders (N=30) stated also that genebanks have better possibilities to collect as they are (seen as) public organizations protecting biodiversity (Figure 35).

Appendix II

Major improvements in genebanking worldwide according to breeders. Full text of the answer: of a central website for all PGR worldwide; Improvement of the passport, characterization (e.g.

morphological traits) and evaluation (e.g disease & pest resistances, abiotic stress tolerance) data of accessions; ween gene bank collections; Merger of EU gene banks into one

virtual EU gene bank in which different tasks (collecting, regeneration, documentation) are spread over the

g the on-going trend of the establishment of private genebanks, the overriding majority of the breeders stated that genebanks are essential for the conservation of PGR now and in the future. Seventy-five

banks have better possibilities to collect as

Figure 35. The perceived necessity in future of the presence of genebanks according to breeders. Full text of answers: Yes, gene banks have better possibilities to collect as they are seen as organisations protecting PGR; Yes, PGR are a public good and undeconomically important crops whereas gene banks focus on conservation of all PGR to controlYes, companies focus on short-term storage whereas a gene bank focuses on longcompanies increasingly have similar storage facilities as genebanks; No, breeding companies have enough PGR at their disposal for breeding new cultivars.

Furthermore most breeders (68%, N=27) supported the argument that PGR are a publand under governmental control. Twentystatement that companies focus more on a few but economically important crops whereas genebanks focus on conservation of all PGR to control genetic erosion. Last but 45% (N=18) of the respondents stated that companies focus on shortgenebanks focus on long-term storage

The majority of breeders (65%; N=26) think that patenting will influence the use of LRs and CWR in breeding programs. Five breeders (13%) don´t see any impact of patenting on the application and use of PGR in breeding approaches, whereas nine breeders (23%; N= 9) expressed no decisive opinion towards this issue.

New innovative techniques likebreeding. With respect to the question whether genomics would be seen as a tool to support and promote the pre-breeding workmore genetic knowledge will facilitate the preof the breeders believe that genomics will positively affect their work as they canwith other (inter)national institutes and share tasks. think that genomics will not influence prethis type of research, while 13% (N=5) will focus on

56

The perceived necessity in future of the presence of genebanks according to breeders. Full text of Yes, gene banks have better possibilities to collect as they are seen as organisations protecting PGR;

Yes, PGR are a public good and under governmental control; Yes, companies focus on currently few economically important crops whereas gene banks focus on conservation of all PGR to control

term storage whereas a gene bank focuses on long-term storage; No, breeding companies increasingly have similar storage facilities as genebanks; No, breeding companies have enough PGR at their disposal for breeding new cultivars.

Furthermore most breeders (68%, N=27) supported the argument that PGR are a publand under governmental control. Twenty-three respondents (58%) supported also the statement that companies focus more on a few but economically important crops whereas genebanks focus on conservation of all PGR to control genetic erosion. Last but 45% (N=18) of the respondents stated that companies focus on short-term storage whereas

term storage (Figure 35).

The majority of breeders (65%; N=26) think that patenting will influence the use of LRs and breeding programs. Five breeders (13%) don´t see any impact of patenting on the

application and use of PGR in breeding approaches, whereas nine breeders (23%; N= 9) expressed no decisive opinion towards this issue.

like genomics might provide new chances and possibilities in breeding. With respect to the question whether genomics would be seen as a tool to support

breeding work, 78% (N=31) think that it will provide positive effects as l facilitate the pre-breeding work (Figure 36). Thirty

of the breeders believe that genomics will positively affect their work as they canwith other (inter)national institutes and share tasks. Eighteen percent of the respondents (N=7) think that genomics will not influence pre-breeding research as they don´t have any budget for this type of research, while 13% (N=5) will focus on field performance (Figure 36)

Appendix II

The perceived necessity in future of the presence of genebanks according to breeders. Full text of Yes, gene banks have better possibilities to collect as they are seen as organisations protecting PGR;

er governmental control; Yes, companies focus on currently few economically important crops whereas gene banks focus on conservation of all PGR to control genetic erosion;

storage; No, breeding companies increasingly have similar storage facilities as genebanks; No, breeding companies have enough PGR

Furthermore most breeders (68%, N=27) supported the argument that PGR are a public good three respondents (58%) supported also the

statement that companies focus more on a few but economically important crops whereas genebanks focus on conservation of all PGR to control genetic erosion. Last but not least,

term storage whereas

The majority of breeders (65%; N=26) think that patenting will influence the use of LRs and breeding programs. Five breeders (13%) don´t see any impact of patenting on the

application and use of PGR in breeding approaches, whereas nine breeders (23%; N= 9)

ight provide new chances and possibilities in breeding. With respect to the question whether genomics would be seen as a tool to support

78% (N=31) think that it will provide positive effects as ). Thirty-five percent

of the breeders believe that genomics will positively affect their work as they can cooperate een percent of the respondents (N=7)

breeding research as they don´t have any budget for (Figure 36).

Figure 36. The perceived influence of genomics on preanswers: It will not influence our prenot influence our pre-breeding works as we focus on field performance; It will negatively influence our prebreeding works as others, those who do have budgets, will outcompete us; It will positively affect us as we can cooperate with other (inter)national institutes and share tasks; It will positively affect us as we can invest in genomics giving us the opportunity to carry out more in depth genetic studies.

Being in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use, abbreeders (N=15) would improve or extend the ECPGR program, whereas 34% (N=12) of them intend to establish a new centralized coordin(23%) prefer to improve the national PGR programme. At the EU level, taddressed breeders (49%; N=19) would fund (33%) would support in situ conservation activities, while another seven breeders (18%)preferred to strengthen the on-

3.6 SWOT analyses

Plant breeding contributed about 50% to the productivity gain during the past decadesAltogether improved fertilisation, agricultural techniques and plant protection together account for the remaining 50% (von Witzke and Noleppa, 2013). system is characterised by ecological simplification and the replacement of natural processes by intensive cultivation and increasing energy and chemical inputs (EASAC, 2011). Plant breeding clearly plays a key role in the organisatiintensification, which produces food of sufficient quantity and quality for a growing human population at reduced environmental damage rates. The organisation of optimised soil use systems is a way forward towards a highlyuse system can be optimised by selecting the crop species and varieties of these crop species

57

The perceived influence of genomics on pre-breeding activities of breeding companies. Full text of It will not influence our pre-breeding works as we do not have budget for this type of research; It will

breeding works as we focus on field performance; It will negatively influence our prebreeding works as others, those who do have budgets, will outcompete us; It will positively affect us as we can

with other (inter)national institutes and share tasks; It will positively affect us as we can invest in genomics giving us the opportunity to carry out more in depth genetic studies.

Being in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use, abbreeders (N=15) would improve or extend the ECPGR program, whereas 34% (N=12) of them intend to establish a new centralized coordinated EU genebank system. E(23%) prefer to improve the national PGR programme. At the EU level, the majority of the addressed breeders (49%; N=19) would fund ex situ conservation activities, 13 breeders

conservation activities, while another seven breeders (18%)-farm conservation activities.

Plant breeding contributed about 50% to the productivity gain during the past decadesimproved fertilisation, agricultural techniques and plant protection together

50% (von Witzke and Noleppa, 2013). Our current production system is characterised by ecological simplification and the replacement of natural processes by intensive cultivation and increasing energy and chemical inputs (EASAC, 2011). Plant breeding clearly plays a key role in the organisation of sustainable crop production intensification, which produces food of sufficient quantity and quality for a growing human population at reduced environmental damage rates. The organisation of optimised soil use systems is a way forward towards a highly productive and sustainable agriculture. The soil use system can be optimised by selecting the crop species and varieties of these crop species

Appendix II

breeding activities of breeding companies. Full text of type of research; It will

breeding works as we focus on field performance; It will negatively influence our pre-breeding works as others, those who do have budgets, will outcompete us; It will positively affect us as we can

with other (inter)national institutes and share tasks; It will positively affect us as we can invest in

Being in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use, about 43% of the breeders (N=15) would improve or extend the ECPGR program, whereas 34% (N=12) of

ated EU genebank system. Eight breeders he majority of the

conservation activities, 13 breeders conservation activities, while another seven breeders (18%)

Plant breeding contributed about 50% to the productivity gain during the past decades. improved fertilisation, agricultural techniques and plant protection together

Our current production system is characterised by ecological simplification and the replacement of natural processes by intensive cultivation and increasing energy and chemical inputs (EASAC, 2011). Plant

on of sustainable crop production intensification, which produces food of sufficient quantity and quality for a growing human population at reduced environmental damage rates. The organisation of optimised soil use

productive and sustainable agriculture. The soil use system can be optimised by selecting the crop species and varieties of these crop species

Appendix II

58

with high genetic yield potential, which are well adapted to the production site. By allocating crops and varieties to crop rotations (the temporal scale of a soil use system), and to farm areas in the landscape (the spatial scale of a soil use system) farmers can optimise the system performance by making best use of the given natural production factors (soil, climate) (Baeumer, 1997). Target state Plant breeders work at the interface between farmers and public breeding research institutes. The role of plant breeders consists in adapting crops and varieties to sustainable production systems and in supplying farmers with seeds and planting materials. The target state of the EU variety breeding sector meeting the needs of an EU agriculture outlined above may be defined as follows:

1. Plant breeders continue interacting with an EU-PGS not only on the basis of market requirements but also on national and EU-wide agro-biodiversity strategies and PGRFA action plans.

2. Together with the public breeding research, plant breeders maintain genetic diversity in breeding pools of a range of crops and produce varieties allowing farmers to optimise cultivation systems. There is good access to information on the state of released varieties.

3. Plant breeding activities of smaller companies are strengthened through PPP programmes. PPP projects develop new tools for breeding and enhance crop species diversity as well as diversity within crops.

4. Easy access to germplasm and information is possible via a European plant genetic resources information infrastructure and harmonised ABS regulations, i.e. sMTA for all crops.


Strengths

• Altogether breeders develop many varieties for a wide range of crop species and

agro-environments.

• Knowledge and professional experiences available with breeders allows forecasting of

future needs in plant breeding.

• Breeders cooperate in pre-competitive research projects with other stakeholders,

creating increased opportunities for innovation and increased efficiency.

• In some countries plant breeders influence agro-biodiversity policy through established contacts with governments at national and international level.

• Several breeding companies operate own germplasm holdings. • Plant breeders´ rights encourage breeders to develop new varieties

Weaknesses

• Smaller companies have limited capacities for scientific cooperation and for

conducting their own pre-breeding programs or developing breeding tools.

• Limiting breeding in some fruit trees groups, edible fungi, grain legumes or neglected

crops and crops for marginal areas in the Europe.

• Limited knowledge on international ABS arrangements at smaller companies.

Appendix II

59

Opportunities

• Public funds for research allow plant breeders to cooperate with the breeding

research sector

• Breeding research is a highly innovative sector (genomics, phenomics, bioinformatics,

new tools and procedures to facilitate selection) which transfers knowledge and pre-

bred material to the plant breeding sector.

• Plant breeders have access to public genebanks.

• The plant breeding sector is well integrated in the ECPGR program.

Threats

• International ABS and MLS arrangements should facilitate the exchange of PGR, but

it is not working yet and therefore limits the exchange; • Lack of characterization and evaluation data in (inter)national databases limits

targeted choice of accessions from genebank holdings

• Limited public funds for breeding research and maintenance of genebanks is causing

considerable problems.

• Lack of user friendly access of some genebanks in internet limits the use of collections. A central entry point to all genebanks for users of PGR worldwide is lacking.

• Unclear phytosanitary status of accessions received from genebanks. • Limited interest of the young generation in plant breeding and limited education in this

field in some regions, results in problems with recruiting the next generation of plant breeders.

• Farm saved seed is a problem to (private) plant breeders, when breeders royalty is not paid (by large farm enterprises). This limits financial possibilities for breeding activities.

• Plant breeders have rarely contact with agro-NGOs


Target state1: Plant breeders continue interacting with an EU-PGS, not only on the basis of

market requirements but also on national and EU-wide agro-biodiversity strategies and

PGRFA action plans.

SO strategy: The plant breeding sector possesses knowledge and professional experiences allowing forecasting of future germplasm development and research needs. The plant breeding sector should be encouraged to share this knowledge with an EU-PGS and to assist in the development of agro-biodiversity strategies and PGRFA action plans in line with the accepted targets of the whole of society. The rolling negotiations on public funding of EU breeding research and innovation programs provide an opportunity to stimulate the development of an EU agro-biodiversity strategy and a PGRFA action plan which support the optimisation of cultivation systems. Target state 2: Together with the public breeding research, plant breeders maintain genetic

diversity in breeding pools of a range of crops and produce varieties allowing farmers to

optimise cultivation systems and grow them under changing climatic conditions. There is

good access to information on released varieties.

SO strategy: The plant breeding sector is strong, maintains and enhances breeding pools of a large range of crop species, partly operates own gene pools and cooperates with the public

Appendix II

60

breeding research institutes and genebank sectors at the national and European level, e.g. on regeneration, evaluation and pre-breeding. Plant breeding is a dynamic process supported by a still very innovate research sector (both private and public). Breeders strongly support that the public funding stays on a competitive level. Market and other circumstances may cause the withdrawal of a variety from the market or the closure of whole crop specific breeding programs. Procedures ruled out in PGRFA action plans should guarantee that valuable germplasm is either continued in other breeding programs or preserved within an EU-PGS. This will facilitate the use of this germplasm in future breeding programs or research. For example: reference samples in Germany go from the Bundessortenamt to the gene bank after withdrawal from the variety catalogue. Existing cooperative platforms such as the ECPGR program, can be used for an inventory of existing breeding programs and released varieties to visualise at the EU-level all breeding activities (i.e. current / future production options for farmers) and to indicate the state of these breeding programs.

Target state 3. Plant breeding activities of smaller companies are strengthened through PPP

programs. PPP projects develop new tools for breeding and enhance crop species diversity

via pre-breeding as well as diversity within crops. WO strategy: Smaller companies have limited capacities for scientific cooperation and for their own pre-breeding programs. Some of these companies deal with niche crops or breed varieties for the ecological farming sector. Likely, these breeders contribute a unique fraction of genetic diversity to the maintenance of crop species diversity and variety diversity within the EU, as they service smaller and specialised markets. PPP programs and/or projects funded through programmes such as the EC Council Regulation 1467/1994 and 870/2004 have already supported niche crops (such as the Saffron project, AGRI GEN RES 018). Future programmes can preferentially fund PPP actions on niche and/or neglected crops as well as crops for marginal habitats (a current example is the Nordic PPP that focus on the north) to increase diversity in agricultural production system.

Target state 4: Easy access to germplasm and information is made possible via a European

plant genetic resources information infrastructure and harmonised ABS regulations, i.e.

sMTA for all crops.

ST strategy: The plant breeding sector as a whole is an economically important factor. The sector has influence on agricultural and biodiversity policy through established contacts with governments at national and international level, which can be used to address threats to breeding progress and to call for solutions facilitating the broader use of genetic resources in crop genetic enhancement programs in the near future. Problems concern the poor presence of most genebanks on internet, which limits the access to, and use of collections. In addition, the paucity of passport, characterization and evaluation data in (inter)national databases impedes the targeted choice of accessions from genebank holdings by users and impedes breeding progress. PPP-programs can play an important role in facilitating characterisation, evaluation and sustainable use of PGR. The difficulties to select PGR because of a lack of data are even more aggravated by user’s uncertainty concerning ABS rules and the unclear legal and economic consequences for plant breeders ordering and using accessions. To stimulate the sustainable use of PGR, clear rules should be developed based on an extended Annex I of the International Treaty.

Appendix II

61

4. Agro-NGOs

Twenty-one agro-NGO representatives from thirteen EU countries responded to the online questionnaire.


Five of the agro-NGOs indicate that they have an annual budget of more than 10 k€, and another five dispose of an annual budget of less than10 k€.

Five respondents (56%) answered affirmative concerning the presence of a national expert program in their country. The impact of the national program on the utilization of LR and CWR was not clear as only five respondents gave an answer to this question.

Crop groups used by agro-NGOs The agro-NGO respondents stated that the six most widely used crop groups are “cereals and pseudocereals” (71%; N=12 respondents), “leafy vegetables” and “legumes vegetables” (59%; N=10), “Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables” (53%; N=9), “fruiting vegetables (except cucurbits)” (47%; N=8) and “cucurbit vegetables” (47%; N=8).

Eighty-two percent of the stakeholders (N=9) characterize and evaluate their crops. Only two stakeholders do not perform any characterization or evaluation. If characterization and evaluation data are generated, the majority of the respondents (88%; N=7) make them available to third parties.

Presence of own genebank Only five respondents (46%) stated that they have built up their own associations´ genebank. Four respondents of this group intend to store the material long-term and ensure germination of the seeds over a period longer than 25 years. Two respondents mentioned that the reason for the establishment of their own genebank is the problems with open access to other collections, one respondent wants to ensure germination of the seeds over a longer period and another respondent indicated that the quantity of seeds provided by genebanks is too small for immediate use. Only three respondents answered the question on measures taken for long-term storage. In this context two respondents mention that they store the dried seeds at -20°C, monitor the seed germination at specific time intervals, and store the seed in airtight containers. One respondent stated to store the material in vacuum-sealed three layered Aluminium bags.


Of the 21 agro-NGOs responding, eleven stakeholders did not answer this question. All the agro-NGOs that did answer cooperate with at least one of the other stakeholder groups. Cooperation with other national stakeholders takes place to a large extent, however international cooperation is much rarer (Figure 37 a). Active joint research projects are more often carried out with other agro-NGOs than with other stakeholders (Figure 37 b).

Figure 37. (a) Agro-NGO stakeholder cooperation with other stakeholder groups on the national and international level; (b): Cooperation via shared active joint projects by agrothe use of PGR.

62

NGO stakeholder cooperation with other stakeholder groups on the national and international level; (b): Cooperation via shared active joint projects by agro-NGOs and their assessed impact on

Appendix II

NGO stakeholder cooperation with other stakeholder groups on the national and their assessed impact on


Ordering PGR The ordering of PGR and signing of MTAs takes place by all staff members (100%, N=7). Thirteen respondents (77%) have ordered PGR from genebanks within the lasone respondent (7%) has ordered PGR from botanical gardens during the last five years. The frequency of requesting accessions from genebanks is rather low. None of the respondents ordered any CWR within the last five years. Eight respondenrarely, whereas six respondents ordered former breeders´ varieties, one of them in a moderate frequency. For the majority of respondents (64%, N=7) it was easy to obtain material when ordering PGR, whereas for 27% (N=3) oOne respondent found it difficult to obtain material.

Sourcing of PGR takes primarily place via publications, via inspecting their own genebank, via conferences, European variety lists and farmer knowledge aninternational databases (Figure genebank is the most common method to source for PGR. If sourcing takes place at the international level, the USDA GRIN database is mthe material requested is mostly from the b).

63


The ordering of PGR and signing of MTAs takes place by all staff members (100%, N=7). Thirteen respondents (77%) have ordered PGR from genebanks within the las

%) has ordered PGR from botanical gardens during the last five years. The frequency of requesting accessions from genebanks is rather low. None of the respondents ordered any CWR within the last five years. Eight respondents stated that they order LRs very rarely, whereas six respondents ordered former breeders´ varieties, one of them in a moderate frequency. For the majority of respondents (64%, N=7) it was easy to obtain material when ordering PGR, whereas for 27% (N=3) ordering has been moderately easy to obtain PGR. One respondent found it difficult to obtain material.

Sourcing of PGR takes primarily place via publications, via inspecting their own genebank, via conferences, European variety lists and farmer knowledge and much less via checking

Figure 38a). Sourcing via publications and via inspecting their own genebank is the most common method to source for PGR. If sourcing takes place at the international level, the USDA GRIN database is most used. The natural geographic origin of

requested is mostly from the own country or other European countries (

Appendix II

The ordering of PGR and signing of MTAs takes place by all staff members (100%, N=7). Thirteen respondents (77%) have ordered PGR from genebanks within the last five years and

%) has ordered PGR from botanical gardens during the last five years. The frequency of requesting accessions from genebanks is rather low. None of the respondents

ts stated that they order LRs very rarely, whereas six respondents ordered former breeders´ varieties, one of them in a moderate frequency. For the majority of respondents (64%, N=7) it was easy to obtain material when

rdering has been moderately easy to obtain PGR.

Sourcing of PGR takes primarily place via publications, via inspecting their own genebank, d much less via checking

Sourcing via publications and via inspecting their own genebank is the most common method to source for PGR. If sourcing takes place at the

ost used. The natural geographic origin of own country or other European countries (Figure 38

Figure 38. (a) Information sources consulted before ordering PGR and (b) origin of PGR requested by agroNGOs

As most problematic issue when ordering PGR, the limited access to characterization and evaluation data was considered as a representatives (Figure 39).

64

(a) Information sources consulted before ordering PGR and (b) origin of PGR requested by agro

As most problematic issue when ordering PGR, the limited access to characterization and evaluation data was considered as a constraint by 56% (N=5, category 4-6) of the agro

Appendix II

(a) Information sources consulted before ordering PGR and (b) origin of PGR requested by agro-

As most problematic issue when ordering PGR, the limited access to characterization and 6) of the agro-NGO

Figure 39. Most problematic issues conc

Being asked whether genebank collections represent enough genetic diversity for research purposes, the six agro-NGOs (50%) responding to this question gave an All Agro-NGOs that think that there is not enough genetic variation present in genindicate that more LRs should be added to the present gene pool.

Use of PGR Nine respondents (90%) mentioned that LRs played an important role in their activities in the last five years. For conventional varieties only five respondents (56%) mentioned that these types played an important role in their activities in the last five years.

Genebank performance The most efficiently working genebanks according to seven agro“Leibniz Institute für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung” (IPK, Germany), the Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) and Nordic Genetic Resource Center (Nordgen) in Sweden. Another four respondents listed a combination of genebanks (

65

Most problematic issues concerning the ordering of PGR according to agro-NGOs.

Being asked whether genebank collections represent enough genetic diversity for research NGOs (50%) responding to this question gave an affirmative answer.

hat there is not enough genetic variation present in genthat more LRs should be added to the present gene pool.

Nine respondents (90%) mentioned that LRs played an important role in their activities in the conventional varieties only five respondents (56%) mentioned that these

types played an important role in their activities in the last five years.

The most efficiently working genebanks according to seven agro-NGO respondents are the Leibniz Institute für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung” (IPK, Germany), the

Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) and Nordic Genetic Resource Center (Nordgen) in Sweden. Another four respondents listed a combination of genebanks (

Appendix II

NGOs.

Being asked whether genebank collections represent enough genetic diversity for research affirmative answer.

hat there is not enough genetic variation present in genebanks

Nine respondents (90%) mentioned that LRs played an important role in their activities in the conventional varieties only five respondents (56%) mentioned that these

NGO respondents are the Leibniz Institute für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung” (IPK, Germany), the

Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) and Nordic Genetic Resource Center (Nordgen) in Sweden. Another four respondents listed a combination of genebanks (

Appendix II

66

Figure 40).

Figure 40. Most effectively working genebanks according to 6 agro-NGOs responding to the Q120. Multiple choices were allowed.


Activities in the context of the international PGR arrangements

Seventy percent of the respondents (N=7) indicated that they do not know how many NFPs are present in their own country. Concerning the question who the CNA person dealing with ABS at the government in their country is, 40% of the respondents (N=4) indicated that they did not know and 20% percent (N=2) mentioned that they were unsure.


As the factors which negatively influence their work, agro-NGOs indicate that lack of financial means restricts their work to the largest degree (89%; N=8, category 4-6), followed

5

3

2

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

IPK CGN NordGen various EU

genebanks

5

3

2

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

IPK CGN NordGen various EU

genebanks

by the too restricted regulations a). All factors suggested in the questionnaire to potentially promote the work of agrowere considered to have an impact, but cooperation with nurseries, garden centressupermarkets, and private plant breeders

67

by the too restricted regulations for conservation varieties (70%; N=7, catega). All factors suggested in the questionnaire to potentially promote the work of agrowere considered to have an impact, but cooperation with nurseries, garden centres

and private plant breeders were considered least important (Figure

Appendix II

N=7, category 4-6; Figure 41

a). All factors suggested in the questionnaire to potentially promote the work of agro-NGOs were considered to have an impact, but cooperation with nurseries, garden centres,

Figure 41b).

Figure 41. (a) Factors promoting the work on landraces at agroagro-NGO.

The impact of public awareness activities on the use of LRs in commercial agriculture aassessed in a divergent way by the agroimpact can be valued as high, whereas 60% (N=6) of the respondents assess the impact as low. The impact of collaboration between agroin agriculture during the past ten years, is considered by 60 % of the respondents (N=6) to be moderate – very high and by 40% (N=4) very low that insufficient knowledge on business development hinders sector.

Eight respondents (73%) believe that patenting will influence the use of LRs and CWR in their breeding programs, two respondents (18%) think that patenting will have no influence, and one stakeholder has no opinion (

When respondents from the agroPGR conservation and use they would give preference to, around 90% of them indicated that they would prefer to substantiate on farm management, when given a choin situ and on-farm management. one respondent (Figure 42 a).

68

(a) Factors promoting the work on landraces at agro-NGOs, and (b) factors promoting the work at an

The impact of public awareness activities on the use of LRs in commercial agriculture aassessed in a divergent way by the agro-NGO respondents: 40% of them (N=4) think that the impact can be valued as high, whereas 60% (N=6) of the respondents assess the impact as low. The impact of collaboration between agro-NGOs and farmers on the deploin agriculture during the past ten years, is considered by 60 % of the respondents (N=6) to be

very high and by 40% (N=4) very low – moderate. Five respondents (56%) think that insufficient knowledge on business development hinders the development of the organic

Eight respondents (73%) believe that patenting will influence the use of LRs and CWR in their breeding programs, two respondents (18%) think that patenting will have no influence, and one stakeholder has no opinion (9%).

When respondents from the agro-NGO sector were asked about which activities in the area of PGR conservation and use they would give preference to, around 90% of them indicated that they would prefer to substantiate on farm management, when given a choice between

farm management. In situ management was not mentioned and a).

Appendix II

NGOs, and (b) factors promoting the work at an

The impact of public awareness activities on the use of LRs in commercial agriculture are NGO respondents: 40% of them (N=4) think that the

impact can be valued as high, whereas 60% (N=6) of the respondents assess the impact as NGOs and farmers on the deployment of LRs

in agriculture during the past ten years, is considered by 60 % of the respondents (N=6) to be moderate. Five respondents (56%) think

the development of the organic

Eight respondents (73%) believe that patenting will influence the use of LRs and CWR in their breeding programs, two respondents (18%) think that patenting will have no influence,

NGO sector were asked about which activities in the area of PGR conservation and use they would give preference to, around 90% of them indicated that

ice between ex situ, management was not mentioned and ex situ only by

Figure 42. Preferred funding by agro(b) national PGR programme, ECPGR programme and establishment of centralized

69

Preferred funding by agro-NGOs when given a choice between: (a) ex situ, in situ

(b) national PGR programme, ECPGR programme and establishment of centralized an EU genebanking

Appendix II

in situ and on farm and n EU genebanking system.

Appendix II

70

When the same group was asked to make a choice between the better funding of the national PGR programme, the better funding of the ECPGR programme or to stimulate the establishment of a centralized EU genebanking system, all respondents indicated that they preferred to stimulate the national programme (Figure 42b).

In this context six respondents (60%) think that public trusts in Europe would be willing to strengthen their organization if it becomes an infrastructure element of a European agro-NGO network.

4.6 SWOT analyses

This stakeholder group has the most complex composition of all the stakeholder groups if activities across the EU member states are viewed together. A corresponding diversity of objectives and target groups also exists. The interests range from members of seed saver organisations wishing to contribute to the conservation of landrace as a hobby gardener, to extension services like organisations aiming at the promotion of products based on landraces and varieties traditionally grown in a specific region. Independently of the individual interest and expertise of NGO members, these associations and organisations have an important role to play with regards to the establishment of complementary PGRFA conservation programs. They are the actors on-the-spot.

Target state Across the EU, agro-NGOs are the weakest component of an EU-PGS. The following targets need to be achieved to improve the contributions of the NGO sector:

1. On-farm conservation actions are established, operating and complemented by ex situ conservation actions. It is a pre-condition that the interests of agro-NGOs are considered in national expert programs and a representative proposed by agro-NGOs is appointed as member of the board supervising the implementation and revision of the programme.

2. Landraces or any other type of traditionally grown varieties of crops can best be conserved on-farm if the produced goods meet market demands3 and the costs for the on-farm management of landraces can be covered from sales revenues. The promotion of existing markets for local or regional traditional food or goods and the development of new food systems including appropriate markets for diversity, such as for landraces and traditional crops, is therefore an important target.

3. The consumers’ interest in products produced from landraces and traditional crops will change over time. These changes can also cause the loss of farmer’s knowledge. Ex situ back-up samples of on-farm conserved germplasm must be taken and stored in genebanks along with the farmer’s knowledge in the genebank’s information system. The establishment of a systematic back-up system is required to guarantee the complementarity of ex situ and on-farm conservation actions for a longer period, i.e. at least 30 years. The complementarity and cooperation between the governmental and non-governmental sector in the field of conservation of PGR is secured.

3 Some traditionally grown cultivars are maintained in house gardens for solely for private consumption. Market oriented approach cannot be applied to such closed systems. The challenge rather is to protect the peoples culture related to the use of these cultivars.

Appendix II

71

4. Seed supply systems based on on-farm management actions are sustained, promoted and strengthened at the national and European level. Both sectors interact on the basis of reciprocal respect. The informal sector and the formal exchange seeds and information on the basis of a regulated, transparent germplasm exchange system.


Strengths

• On-farm conservation of landraces promotes the adaptability of a crop species and

the local adaptation of a landrace to differing environmental conditions. This is a

unique selling point of the on-farm conservation technique.

• Strong links with societal group such as farmers, gardeners, consumers and the

educational sector. Agro-NGOs conserve and develop know-how on cultivation,

processing and utilisation of PGR. They integrate a broad range of activities

including seed production, breeding, inventorying, transfer of know-how & training.

• Remarkable influence on biodiversity policy issues through public awareness raising

at the societal level. This strength builds on local, regional and national level bottom-

up approaches.

• NGOs set focus on national activities. • A growing number of successful seed saver associations with sound experiences in on-

farm conservation exist in the EU. This will help strengthening farmers’ autonomy. • Altruistic behaviour and community-oriented goals. Weaknesses

• Lack of or insufficient national landrace inventories in some countries

• Limited involvement in the national PGR circuit with other stakeholders.

• Limited (employed) staff and annual budgets of agro-NGOs

• Often low, but varying levels of organization at the national level and in particular at the EU-level.

Opportunities

• The need for on-farm conservation actions is addressed by the provisions of the

International Treaty signed by all EU member states and addressed in EU council

regulations such as the 870/2004.

• The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 advocates the need to promote the use of

traditional agricultural varieties specific to certain regions

• On-farm conservation can benefit from societal trends such as ecological farming and

regional food consumption attitudes and preferences.

• EU rural development programs and the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) can facilitate on-farm conservation actions.

• EU directives on conservation varieties exist and may help promoting on-farm conservation actions.

• In some countries public trusts exist that are willing to fund agro-NGO work.

Threats

• Proposed EU seed directive may limit the livelihood of agro-NGOs.

Appendix II

72

• Strengthening of intellectual property rights (UPOV 91, patents, copyrights) may

cause conflicts of interest between the governmental and non-governmental sector.

• Insufficient information systems operated by the governmental sector do not allow

recording, documentation and dissemination of farmer’s knowledge.

• Insufficient visibility of PGR collections on internet is a problem which limits the use of landraces and varieties of traditionally grown crops severely.

• In some countries insufficient availability of passport, characterisation and evaluation data on genebank accessions is a problem for selecting the appropriate accessions for on-farm activities.

• Not all EU member states have developed national PGRFA expert programs addressing the need for and benefit of on-farm conservation actions.

• Insufficient public funds for NGO activities. • Landraces grown in home gardens for non-commercial reasons contributed to the

conservation of plant genetic resources. The concept of in garden conservation is not sufficiently discussed and acknowledged by the PGR community.

• There is a lack of systematic storage in the national genebank of back up samples from on-farm conservation actions.


Target state 1. It is a pre-condition that the interests of agro-NGOs are considered in national

expert programs and a representative appointed as member of the board supervising the

implementation and revision of the programme. Ex situ conservation actions complementing

on-farm conservation actions are established and operating. SO strategy: On-farm conservation of landraces promotes the adaptability of a crop species and the local adaptation of a landrace to differing environmental conditions. This is a unique selling point of the on-farm conservation technique advocated and implemented by the NGO sector within the limits of its capabilities and capacities. The on-farm conservation concept is scientifically acknowledged, investigated and extended by participatory plant breeding approaches. The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 also advocates the need to promote the use of traditional agricultural varieties specific to certain regions. EU directives on conservation varieties promote on-farm conservation actions. There is therefore good reason for governments to involve NGO representatives as board members supervising national PGRFA work programs to facilitate the planning of actions. A smooth cooperation between the governmental and the NGO sector is pre-condition for the development and operation of on-farm conservation measures at the national level and therefore an important target. Target state 2: Landraces and other types of traditionally grown varieties of crops are

conserved on-farm and sold to consumers. The conservation cost is largely supplemented by

sales revenues. The promotion of existing markets for local or regional traditional food or

goods and the development of new food systems including appropriate markets for diversity is

therefore an important target.

WO strategy: In some countries NGOs show low level of organization at the national level. NGOs are not yet well organised at the EU-level. Improved organisational structures would facilitate exchange of knowledge in particular with respect to the development of markets for landraces and product marketing. Business economy knowledge is available within the NGO sector and, depending on the country, successfully used. In some countries scant business economy knowledge is a cause for the limited annual budgets of NGO associations which in

Appendix II

73

turn results in inadequate genetic management of landraces. However, strengths of agro-NGOs such as local networks and ability to create public involvement and awareness raising, can be used to increase the interest for landraces at local and regional markets. In addition, agro-NGOs can use their connection to their local farmer community and experience of know-how transfer, to facilitate local cultivation of landraces. The dependency between human health, consumption of regional products and production of landraces and traditional crops is addressed by opinion makers (for example Wiener, 2013) representing and addressing consumer groups (Kleinhückelkotten et al., 2006) with some basic knowledge and interest in crop diversity issues. These opinion makers present good show cases for the development of niche markets and how niche products can help to generate sale revenues. In addition, Public Trusts interested in biodiversity issues exist which may be prepared to fund business skill enhancement programs specifically designed for NGOs.

Target state 3: The consumers’ interest in products produced from landraces and traditional

crops will change over time. These changes can also cause the loss of farmer’s knowledge. Ex

situ back-up samples of on-farm conserved germplasm must be taken and stored in genebanks

along with the farmer’s knowledge in the genebank’s information system. The establishment

of a systematic back-up system is required to guarantee the complementarity of ex situ and

on-farm conservation actions for a longer period, i.e. at least 30 years. The complementarity

and cooperation between the governmental and non-governmental sector in the field of

conservation of PGR is secured.

WT strategy: The often low level of organization of NGO groups at the national and EU level and the limited involvement of NGOs groups in the national and EU PGR circuit is a weakness. Another problem is the limited involvement of genebanks in on-farm conservation. Information systems operated by the governmental sector, which cannot record, document and disseminate farmer’s knowledge, are external factors further impeding effective co-operation between the ex situ and on-farm conservation sector. Both genebanks and NGOs should actively work to increase cooperation on this issue on the national, regional and European level, to ensure back up of seeds and knowledge. Target state 4: Informal seed supply systems based on on-farm management actions are

sustained, promoted and strengthened at the national and European level. The informal

sector and the formal sector exchange seeds and information on the basis of a regulated,

transparent germplasm exchange system. Both sectors interact on the basis of reciprocal

respect. New EU regulations ensure protection of the livelihoods of agro-initiatives and

farmers’ rights.

SO strategy: Agro-NGOs are community oriented with strengths in public involvement and awareness raising, advocacy and political representation of farmers/ consumers/ local societies, education and transfer of know-how, collection and conservation of PGR. The need for on-farm conservation actions is addressed by the provisions of the international Treaty signed by all EU member states and in EU council regulations such as the 870/2004. The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 advocates the need to promote the use of traditional agricultural varieties specific to certain regions. EU rural development programmes and the European Innovation Partnership can support on-farm conservation. Technically seen, the inventories of landraces, like the ones done within PGR Secure, will support the agro-NGO landrace inventory work. The PGR-COMNET, PGR Secure´s web-based map of stakeholders, may help to better integrate agro-NGOs into the EU PGR community.

5. Government

Thirty people from the government responded to the online questionnaire. Althorespondents is a fair number, many respondents did only partly answer the questions from the online questionnaire which will make the conclusions drawn from the questions concerned less reliable.

5.1 State and Capacity

Five respondents indicated that a national programme was present in their country which had an earmarked budget for PGR activities and another five respondents indicated that this was not the case (Figure 43a). For the countries where there was a national programme, four of the five respondents indicated that the budget for essential PGR activities was not enough (43b).

74

Thirty people from the government responded to the online questionnaire. Althorespondents is a fair number, many respondents did only partly answer the questions from the online questionnaire which will make the conclusions drawn from the questions concerned

indicated that a national programme was present in their country which had an earmarked budget for PGR activities and another five respondents indicated that this was

a). For the countries where there was a national programme, four of the five respondents indicated that the budget for essential PGR activities was not enough (

Appendix II

Thirty people from the government responded to the online questionnaire. Although thirty respondents is a fair number, many respondents did only partly answer the questions from the online questionnaire which will make the conclusions drawn from the questions concerned

indicated that a national programme was present in their country which had an earmarked budget for PGR activities and another five respondents indicated that this was

a). For the countries where there was a national programme, four of the five respondents indicated that the budget for essential PGR activities was not enough (Figure

Figure 43. National PGR programme: (a) is there an earmarked budget and (b) is there an adequate budget to maintain essential PGR activities.

5.2 Cooperation

Six NFPs and CNAs responded to the question if they mandated others to issues permits for germplasm collecting. Half of these NFPs and/or CNAs indicated that they did mandate others (e.g. genebank managers). Discussions on ABS matters between the government another stakeholders do take place, however not very often and the frequency does not really differ between stakeholders (Figure

75

National PGR programme: (a) is there an earmarked budget and (b) is there an adequate budget to

NFPs and CNAs responded to the question if they mandated others to issues permits for germplasm collecting. Half of these NFPs and/or CNAs indicated that they did mandate others (e.g. genebank managers). Discussions on ABS matters between the government another stakeholders do take place, however not very often and the frequency does not really

Figure 44).

Appendix II

National PGR programme: (a) is there an earmarked budget and (b) is there an adequate budget to

NFPs and CNAs responded to the question if they mandated others to issues permits for germplasm collecting. Half of these NFPs and/or CNAs indicated that they did mandate others (e.g. genebank managers). Discussions on ABS matters between the government and other stakeholders do take place, however not very often and the frequency does not really

Figure 44. Interaction between the government and other stakeholders concerning access and benefit sharing (ABS) issues.


In most countries the activities concerning the CBD are with the Ministry of Environment and the activities concerning the ITreflected by the number of respondents of the online questionnaire as ten respondents indicated that they were employed by the Ministry of Environment and fifteen by the Ministry of Agriculture. Most of the respondents had a position as CNA or NFP (

76

Interaction between the government and other stakeholders concerning access and benefit sharing

In most countries the activities concerning the CBD are with the Ministry of Environment and ities concerning the IT-PGRFA with the Ministry of Agriculture. This is also

reflected by the number of respondents of the online questionnaire as ten respondents indicated that they were employed by the Ministry of Environment and fifteen by the Ministry of Agriculture. Most of the respondents had a position as CNA or NFP (Figure

Appendix II

Interaction between the government and other stakeholders concerning access and benefit sharing

In most countries the activities concerning the CBD are with the Ministry of Environment and PGRFA with the Ministry of Agriculture. This is also

reflected by the number of respondents of the online questionnaire as ten respondents indicated that they were employed by the Ministry of Environment and fifteen by the Ministry

Figure 45).

Figure 45. Function(s) of respondents from

Eight respondents replied on questions on issues concerning access and benefit sharing (ABS) and from their answers it became clear that only in a few cases national focal points (NFPs) and competent national authorities (CNAs) on ABS exchange in the last five years. Only one respondent answered the question what type of benefit sharing took place.

The extent to which national legislation and regulations apply to domestic exchanges varies between EU countries from very little to a lot (common policy.

77

Function(s) of respondents from the government.

respondents replied on questions on issues concerning access and benefit sharing (ABS) and from their answers it became clear that only in a few cases national focal points (NFPs) and competent national authorities (CNAs) on ABS were approached concerning germplasm exchange in the last five years. Only one respondent answered the question what type of

The extent to which national legislation and regulations apply to domestic exchanges varies ntries from very little to a lot (Figure 46), which indicates absence of a

Appendix II

respondents replied on questions on issues concerning access and benefit sharing (ABS) and from their answers it became clear that only in a few cases national focal points (NFPs)

approached concerning germplasm exchange in the last five years. Only one respondent answered the question what type of

The extent to which national legislation and regulations apply to domestic exchanges varies , which indicates absence of a

Figure 46. Application of national legislation and regulations to domestic exchanges.

Furthermore respondents indicate that for nonmake a distinction between domestic and international exchange, whereas this is the case for Annex I crops (Figure 47a). Also half of the respondents indicate that the process of exchanging PGR differs between commercial and nonpercent of them indicate that a distinction is being made between different types of uses of PGR (Figure 47c).

78

legislation and regulations to domestic exchanges.

Furthermore respondents indicate that for non-annex I crops the national legislation does not make a distinction between domestic and international exchange, whereas this is the case for

a). Also half of the respondents indicate that the process of exchanging PGR differs between commercial and non-commercial use (Figure percent of them indicate that a distinction is being made between different types of uses of

Appendix II

annex I crops the national legislation does not make a distinction between domestic and international exchange, whereas this is the case for

a). Also half of the respondents indicate that the process of Figure 47b) and sixty

percent of them indicate that a distinction is being made between different types of uses of

79

Appendix II

Figure 47. Does national legislation make a difference between (a) domestic and international exchange, (b) commercial and non-commercial use and (c) dif

5.4 SWOT analyses

The conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA is part of the governmental public service mission. The EU member states as well as the EU are contracting parties to the CBD and the IT-PGRFA and governmental in the context of these two important international agreements. Despite these facts the support of PGRFA activities is decreasing within the member states (as indicated by five respondents which think that funds are not enough to maintain essential PGR activities in their country) and is also limited at the EU Commission DG AGRI (The Directorateand Rural Development). The investments of the EU agricultural sector into thof its own most important resources, the interpools, is small as compared to investments of the DG Research into plant genetics and plant breeding research. The limited scope of action of tat national governmental level is likely due to the lack of a specific regulation for PGRFA conservation similar to EC (2009) establishment of an EU infrastructure required to steer and control habitat (first level of biodiversity) and species (second level of biodiversity) conservation measures.of a specific regulation aiming at the conservation of genetic diversity (third level of biodiversity) is probably due to the fact that genetic diversity was more difficult to measure in the past and is still difficult to assess. Since the launch of

80

Does national legislation make a difference between (a) domestic and international exchange, (b) commercial use and (c) different types of uses.

The conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA is part of the governmental public service mission. The EU member states as well as the EU are contracting parties to the CBD and the

PGRFA and governmental departments and experts are involved in followin the context of these two important international agreements. Despite these facts the support of PGRFA activities is decreasing within the member states (as indicated by five respondents

h think that funds are not enough to maintain essential PGR activities in their country) and is also limited at the EU Commission DG AGRI (The Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development). The investments of the EU agricultural sector into thof its own most important resources, the inter- and intraspecific diversity in agricultural gene pools, is small as compared to investments of the DG Research into plant genetics and plant

The limited scope of action of the EU Commission DG AGRI and corresponding departments at national governmental level is likely due to the lack of a specific regulation for PGRFA

EC (2009) Regulation (EC) No 401/2009, which allowed the structure required to steer and control habitat (first level of

biodiversity) and species (second level of biodiversity) conservation measures.of a specific regulation aiming at the conservation of genetic diversity (third level of

y) is probably due to the fact that genetic diversity was more difficult to measure in the past and is still difficult to assess. Since the launch of EC (2009) Regulation (EC) No

Appendix II

Does national legislation make a difference between (a) domestic and international exchange, (b)

The conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA is part of the governmental public service mission. The EU member states as well as the EU are contracting parties to the CBD and the

departments and experts are involved in follow-up negotiations in the context of these two important international agreements. Despite these facts the support of PGRFA activities is decreasing within the member states (as indicated by five respondents

h think that funds are not enough to maintain essential PGR activities in their country) General for Agriculture

and Rural Development). The investments of the EU agricultural sector into the safeguarding and intraspecific diversity in agricultural gene

pools, is small as compared to investments of the DG Research into plant genetics and plant

he EU Commission DG AGRI and corresponding departments at national governmental level is likely due to the lack of a specific regulation for PGRFA

Regulation (EC) No 401/2009, which allowed the structure required to steer and control habitat (first level of

biodiversity) and species (second level of biodiversity) conservation measures. The absence of a specific regulation aiming at the conservation of genetic diversity (third level of

y) is probably due to the fact that genetic diversity was more difficult to measure in Regulation (EC) No

Appendix II

81

401/2009 in 1990, great progress was achieved in the field of plant genetics and genetic diversity can be measured today at low costs. Target state The political processes (CBD, IT-PGRFA and follow-up negotiation processes; national biodiversity strategies, EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020) and a changed, improved scientific knowledge basis are favourable conditions allowing the discussion of the following governmental targets with regards to an EU-PGS.

1. The coordination of policies on PGRFA conservation and use, to be implemented in harmony with international commitments and frameworks, both at national and European level, is improved and effective.

2. In consultation with the EU Commission, a European PGRFA strategy and corresponding action plan for ex situ and in situ and on farm conservation and use, in harmony with FAO 2nd GPA is established.

3. Existing infrastructures of ECPGR and its members, incl. AEGIS and EURISCO, are strengthened to arrive at a sufficiently funded organisational and technical European infrastructure for PGRFA ex situ, in situ and on-farm conservation, as well as use. This infrastructure connects all relevant stakeholder groups, integrates existing national components and assists in the enhancement of these national components.


Strengths

• Member state (MS) governments have accepted legal obligations for PGRFA

conservation and support policy processes and measures at the national, international

and European levels such as the International Treaty, the national biodiversity, the

CBD / agro-biodiversity and the EU Biodiversity strategies to 2020.

• Governments coordinate biodiversity PGRFA programs by establishing NFPs and

CNAs and fund national conservation and use activities on PGRFA.

• Some MS provide long-term funding to maintain PGR conservation

• Integrated systems and standards (e.g., AEGIS) are established

Weaknesses

• In some countries PGRFA issues have low priority within the Ministry(ies)

responsible and the complexities of GR issues are not well perceived by people in a

position of responsibility at the national or European level

• If Ministries share responsibilities they do not always cooperate in a systematic and

structured manner on PGRFA issues, which is a strong disadvantage in particular in

the case of in situ conservation approaches.

• Lack of coordinated activities between environmental (conservation) and the agricultural (production) sectors. This is particularly an issue for CWR and minor crops.

• The cooperation with other national PGR stakeholders is in general limited. • NFPs and CNAs are sometimes poorly recognized by national PGR stakeholders. • Unlike plant protection measures, or habitat / species conservation actions, PGRFA

conservation has no adequate (statutory) legal basis. Opportunities

Appendix II

82

• In the past, stakeholders involved in GR issues expressed deviating views on the value

of PGRFA and the risks arising from genetic erosion. Today, the community supports

the need for conservation measures.

• On-going European and national programmes on biofuels, ecosystem services etc.

already promote agro-biodiversity and genetic resources.

• The EU Preparatory Action will feed the process on GR conservation and sustainable

use.

• In addition, progress in plant genetics steadily improves the scientific basis of PGRFA conservation, characterization and evaluation which promotes the organisation of rational i.e. specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound, evaluated and re-evaluated (SMARTER) conservation action and use of PGRFA.

• There is a growing public interest in the issue of how a sustainable agriculture is to be developed. In this context PGRFA has a key role and this is well understood by the opinion makers which influence policy.

Threats

• The PGR community and the commercial plant breeding sector] in Europe as a whole

has so far failed to link the issue of biodiversity/PGRFA protection to the aspect of

climate change mitigation.

• The food processing sector is the greatest industrial branch in the EU. Despite this the

economic importance and the number of enterprises and employees in the

agricultural sector is declining in many European countries. In addition, a critical

view of the public on agricultural policies and its consequences for the tax payer,

consumers and the environment will not create a favourable condition for a strong

support of agro-biodiversity issues. Taken together this could lead to an insufficient

budget for agricultural research, including breeding research and PGRFA

conservation measures.

• Fear of increased administrative burdens and distrust of existing legal frame result in

industries/breeders establishing private gene-banks that might undermine public

funding of existing gene-banks.

• Existing intellectual property rights, including patents can be detrimental to GR conservation and use.

• Government increasing reliance on market mechanisms resulting in (breeding) activities on a few major crops only

• Discussion on GR issues take place by sector, with limited coordination as well as under-perception of common goals

• “Conflicts” between agricultural and environmental sectors with respect to the scope of the CBD (CWR, Nagoya Protocol) and the International Treaty.


Target state 1: Improved coordination of policies on PGRFA conservation and use, incl. their

implementation, in harmony with international commitments and frameworks to be

implemented both at national and European level.

SO strategy: Member state (MS) governments have accepted legal obligations for PGRFA conservation and support policy processes and measures at the national, international and European level such as national biodiversity, the International Treaty and the CBD / agro-

Appendix II

83

biodiversity strategies and the EU Biodiversity strategy to 2020. Governments coordinate biodiversity PGRFA programs by establishing NFPs and CNAs and fund national conservation and use activities on PGRFA. The EU Preparatory Action "EU plant and animal genetic resources in agriculture", by a Focus Group established in the context of the European Innovation Partnership "Agricultural productivity and sustainability", and the Committee on Genetic Resources that has been established by Regulation (EC) 870/2004, will mobilise expertise and feed policy processes leading to an improved coordination of agricultural genetic resources (not only plant genetic resources) conservation and sustainable use. Target state 2: In consultation with the EU Commission, a European PGRFA strategy and

corresponding action plan for ex situ and in situ and on farm conservation and use, within the

framework of ECPGR, and in harmony with FAO 2nd

GPA is established.

SO strategy: Governments coordinate biodiversity PGRFA programs by establishing NFPs and CNAs and fund national conservation and use activities on PGRFA. Member state governments have accepted the legal obligations for PGRFA conservation and support policy processes and measures at the national, international and European level such as national biodiversity/agro-biodiversity strategies and the EU Biodiversity strategy to 2020. There is also a growing public interest in the issue of how a sustainable agriculture is to be developed. In this context PGRFA (conservation and sustainable use) have a key role to play: this is well understood by the opinion makers which consequently may have a positive influence on policies. In addition, progress in plant genetics steadily improves the scientific basis of PGRFA conservation, characterization and evaluation which promotes the organisation of rational i.e. specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound, evaluated and re-evaluated (SMARTER) conservation actions and use of PGRFA. There is also an existing framework and standards already existing at the European level (ECPGR, AEGIS standards) on which this work can be based. Target state 3: Existing infrastructures of ECPGR and its members are strengthened, incl.

AEGIS and EURISCO, to arrive at a sufficiently funded organisational and technical

European infrastructure for PGRFA ex situ, in situ and on-farm conservation as well as use

that connect all relevant stakeholder groups, integrates existing national components and

assists in the enhancement of these national components.

WO strategy: Weaknesses in the policy sector prevent the improvement of existing infrastructures. In some countries PGRFA issues have low priority within the Ministry(ies) responsible. This may explain why policy makers do not develop specific legal regulations for plant genetic resources conservation. Unlike plant protection measures, or habitat / species conservation actions, PGRFA conservation has no adequate (statutory) legal basis. If Ministries share responsibilities they do not always cooperate in a systematic and structured manner on PGRFA issues, which is a strong disadvantage in particular in the case of in situ conservation approaches. The cooperation with other national PGR stakeholders is also often limited.] National agencies and institutes already provide services to existing infrastructures such as the ECPGR program. A fully functioning EU-PGS would require that the responsible Ministries mandate their national institutions to provide specific services to an EU-PGS. Such a mandate must logically come along with adequate operating funds. A policy target should be to initiated, based on an EU strategy, a process leading to the establishment of a sufficiently funded organisational and technical European infrastructure for PGRFA conservation that integrates existing national components and assists in the enhancement and long-term operability of these national components. The opportunities that can be taken advantage of in this context are the ongoing European and national programmes and cooperation, the existing funds for PGRFA conservation and use and an agreed, common

Appendix II

84

position of the seed companies and agro-NGOs on legal and technical access conditions to germplasm and information. The increasing public and professional demand for effectively and efficiently working technical infrastructures for ex situ conservation and in situ / on-farm management of PGRFA provides a good basis for strengthening and reinforcing national and European elements of a European Plant Germplasm System. Bonneuil, Ch., Goffaux, R., Bonnin, I., Montalent, P., Hamon, C., Balfourier, F., Goldringer, I., 2012. A new integrative indicator to assess crop genetic diversity. Ecological Indicators 23, 280-289. EASAC, 2011. Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: roles and priorities in the European Union. EASAC policy report 17. EC, 2012. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union. COM(2012) 576 final.

EC, 2013. Agricultural Genetic Resources – from conservation to sustainable use. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. SWD (2013) 4886 final.

EEA, 2007. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: Proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. EEA Technical report, No. 11.

Engels, J. and Maggioni, L., 2009. Quality system for AEGIS. http://aegis.cgiar.org/-aquas.html (accessed on 28 August, 2013).

EURISCO Catalogue, http://eurisco.ecpgr.org. Accessed on 03 March, 2014.

FAO, 2004. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Ressources for Food and Agriculture. Rome.

FAO, 2010. The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome.

Kleinhückelkotten, S., Wippermann, C., Behrendt, D. Fiedrich, G., Schürzer de Magalhaes, I. Klär, K., Wippermann, K. 2006: Kommunikation zur Agro-Biodiversität. Voraussetzungen für und Anforderungen an eine integrierte Kommunikationsstrategie zu biologischer Vielfalt und genetischen Ressourcen in der Land-, Forst-, Fischerei- und Ernährungswirtschaft (einschließlich Gartenbau). ECOLOG-Institut/Sinus Sociovision, Hannover/ Heidelberg.

Neumann, C., 2013. Die Bedeutung der Züchtungsforschung an Kulturpflanzen [Significance of Plant Breeding Research]. Journal für Kulturpflanzen 65 (7), 253-261. Wiener, S., 2013. Zukunftsmenü. Warum wir die Welt nur mit Genuss retten. Riemann Verlag, München. Witzke, von H., Noleppa, S., 2013. Studie zur gesellschaftlichen Bedeutung der Pflanzenzüchtung in Deutschland. Agrar-Europe, 25, 17. Juni 2013, 1-26.

Appendix II

85

Survey questions

Page 1

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure

Dear Colleague, We have prepared a set of similar questions per each of the five stakeholder groups. Please start the survey by selecting the stakeholder group you feel most familiar with. The survey is composed of two separate sections. The first section is used for the SWOT; in the second part we would like to collect basic information on European institutions working in the field of PGR conservation and use. This is section one. At the end of section one you can decide to continue or to close the survey. We wish to assure you that your answers to the section one of the survey will be treated anonymously and only be used for the purpose described in the invitation email. Please note, the survey will be closed on 31 October, 2012. Thank you! The PGR Secure WP5 team „Engaging the user community“

Page 2


1. In what kind of institution / organization are you currently working?

*

Public Research

nmlkj

Gene Bank

nmlkj

Breeding Company

nmlkj

AgroNGO

nmlkj

Government/State

nmlkj

Page 3


2. For which unit do you wish to answer this questionnaire?

3. Is the annual budget of your unit ...?

4. Would you characterize your research unit as carrying out…

5. How is your research unit funded?

Staff member

nmlkj

Department

nmlkj

Institute

nmlkj

Organization

nmlkj

< 100 thousand €

nmlkj

> 100 thousand €

nmlkj

Applied research

gfedc

Fundmental research

gfedc

Strategic research

gfedc

100% publicly funded

nmlkj

100% private money

nmlkj

in between

nmlkj

Page 4

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure6. Please, indicate the crop groups your institute is actively involved in research for the last five years. This list of crop categories is based on http://ir4.rutgers.edu/other/CropGroup.htm.

Root and tuber vegetables

gfedc

Potato

gfedc

Bulb vegetables

gfedc

Leafy vegetables (except Brassica vegetables)

gfedc

Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables

gfedc

Legume vegetables (succulent or dried)

gfedc

Fruiting vegetables (except cucurbits)

gfedc

Cucurbit vegetables

gfedc

Edible fungi

gfedc

Medicinal and aromatic plants

gfedc

Citrus fruits

gfedc

Pome fruits

gfedc

Stone fruits

gfedc

Berry and small fruits

gfedc

Tree nuts

gfedc

Ornamentals

gfedc

Ornamental trees

gfedc

Cereals and pseudocereals

gfedc

Oilseed and fibre crops group

gfedc

Sugar crops (industrial)

gfedc

Grain legumes

gfedc

Grass group (forage, fodder, hay, lawn)

gfedc

Nongrass animal feeds (forage, fodder, straw, hay)

gfedc

Others, please specify:

55

66

Page 5


7. Who initiates the ordering of plant genetic resources (PGR) in your unit?

8. Who signs the MTA?

9. Have you ordered PGR from gene banks in the last five years?

*

All of us

gfedc

The head of the department

gfedc

The head of the institute

gfedc


55

66

All of us

gfedc

The head of the department

gfedc

The head of the institute

gfedc


55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 6


10. If yes, please indicate the frequency of requests (more than 10 accessions / request) on a scale from 0 = none, 1 = seldom to 6 = frequently.

11. If yes, what are your experiences? It was ...

12. Have you ordered PGR from botanic gardens in the last five years?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Landraces: nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

CWR: nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Former breeders' varieties: nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

*

easy to obtain material.

nmlkj

moderately easy to obtain material.

nmlkj

difficult to obtain material.

nmlkj

very difficult to obtain material.

nmlkj

because ... (Please, describe your experience.)

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 7


13. If yes, please indicate the frequency of requests (more than 10 accessions / request) on a scale from 0 = none,1 = seldom to 6 = frequently.


0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Landraces nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

CWR nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

impossible.

nmlkj

because ... (Please describe your experience.)

55

66

Page 8


15. What do you consider as the most problematic issue(s) concerning the ordering of plant genetic resources? Please rank on a scale from 1 = least to 6 = most problematic.

16. If you are looking for plant genetic resources, which of the following information sources do you mostly use before ordering material? Please assess on a scale from 1 = seldom to 6 = frequently.

1 2 3 4 5 6

No/very limited visibility of PGR collections on internet.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

No/very limited access to characterization and evaluation data on accessions.


No/very limited response from gene bank curators.


Unclearity on ABS in the international arrangements (CBD, IT) is blocking the exchange.


Limited knowledge of PGR providers concerning ABS procedures.


1 2 3 4 5 6

EURISCO nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

ECCDB nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

GRIN nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

SINGER nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

GENESYS nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Publications nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Congresses nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Our own institute's gene bank


European variety lists nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Farmer's knowledge nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj


55

66


Page 9

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure17. Do you think that collections in gene banks represent enough genetic diversity

for your research purposes? *

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 10


18. If no, please indicate which crop genepool is lacking CWR, landraces and/or former breeders' varieties. Please provide the crop name below and select which germplasm category is lacking.

CWR

nmlkj

Landraces

nmlkj

Former breeders' varieties

nmlkj

Please indicate ONE crop genepool, only.

55

66

Page 11


19. Of which natural geographic origin is the material you request from gene banks? Please rank the significance of the region for your work on a scale from 0 = none, 1 = low to 6 = high.

20. Which gene banks nationally, in Europe and worldwide provided an effectively working model for making their PGR available? Please provide their names.

21. Have landraces played an important role in your research program in the last five years?

22. Have CWR played an important role in your research program in the last five years?

23. Did you build up an internal institute's gene bank (so not a working collection)?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Own country nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Other European countries nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

North America nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

South America nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Africa nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Asia nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Australia and the Pacific nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

*


My suggestion is shown in the text field below.

nmlkj

No opinion

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

If yes, please specify in which crops:

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 12


24. If yes, please describe the rationale of your decision.

25. Do you intend to store the material in your institute's gene bank also for longterm (longer than 25 years) purposes?

*

The quantity of seeds provided by genebanks is too small.

gfedc

Ordering intervals are too long.

gfedc

Open access to other collections might be a problem.

gfedc

We intend to ensure germination of the seeds over a longer period.

gfedc

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 13


26. If yes, what type of measures did you take for longterm storage?

27. Do you characterize (e.g. morphological traits) and/or evaluate (e.g. disease and pest resistance, quality traits) your crops?

*

Store the seeds at 20 °C

gfedc

Store dried seeds which have around 6% seed humidity

gfedc

Store in air tight containers

gfedc

Store in vacuumsealed three layered Aluminium bags

gfedc

Monitor the seed germination at specific time intervals

gfedc

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 14


28. If you produce characterization (e.g. morphological traits) and evaluation (e.g. disease resistance) data, do you make them available to third parties?

29. Are you cooperating with other stakeholder groups?

30. With which stakeholders (national and international) did you share joint research projects in the last five years? Please assess the impact of these projects on the use of PGR on a scale from 1 = very little to 6 = very high impact.

31. If you were in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use at the EU level would you prefer to fund the ...

1 = National cooperation 2 = International cooperation

Gene bank gfedc gfedc

Breeder (private) gfedc gfedc

Breeder (public) gfedc gfedc

AgroNGO gfedc gfedc

Public research gfedc gfedc

Private research gfedc gfedc

Government gfedc gfedc

1 2 3 4 5 6

Gene bank nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Breeder (private) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Breeder (public) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

AgroNGO nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Public research nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Private research nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

improvement of national PGR programs

nmlkj

improvement and extension of the ECPGR program

nmlkj

establishment of a new centralised coordinated EU gene bank system?

nmlkj


55

66

Page 15


32. If you were in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use at the EU level would you prefer to fund ...

33. Does a national expert program for PGR exist in your country?

*

Ex situ conservation activities

nmlkj

In situ conservation activities

nmlkj

On farm conservation activities?

nmlkj


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 16


34. If so, please assess the possible impact of a national expert program on the use of landraces and CWR in your research work on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.

35. Which of the following factors influence your research work?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Landraces nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Crop wild relatives nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Research strategy of the Ministry of Science, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment

gfedc

The external scientific advisory committee evaluating your institute

gfedc

Cropspecific interest groups of private plant breeders

gfedc

Requests of farmer associations

gfedc

Low costs of chemical plant protection products

gfedc

Information on interesting material provided by the NGO sector

gfedc

Public opinions voiced by consumer groups

gfedc

Declining budget received from the government

gfedc

Page 17


36. Which of the following factors do you think restrict the use of landraces and CWR in your research work? Please assess the relevance on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high relevance.

37. Is a shift taking place in your country of prebreeding research carried out at public research institutes to private breeding companies?

1 2 3 4 5 6

No access to germplasm in case of collecting missions, due to current ABS system.


No access to germplasm in gene banks.


Limited amount of characterization and evaluation data.


Difficult access to information on germplasm in gene banks.


Genebanks cannot advice as cropspecific collection curators do not exist.


The species has not been systematically collected and is hence underrepresented in the gene bank holding.


Declining budget received from the government


*

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

If yes, please describe why.

55

66

Page 18


38. What do you think of this development? Please assess on a scale from 1 = not a good development to 6 = very good development.

39. Do you think genomics will promote your prebreeding work? It will ...

40. Do you know your ABS Competent National Authority?

41. How many NFP exist in your country?

42. Do you think that patenting will influence the use of landraces and crop wild relatives in your breeding research programs?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Shift of prebreeding research to private breeding institutions


*

not influence our prebreeding research as we do not have budget for this type of research.

gfedc

not influence our prebreeding research as we focus on field performance.

gfedc

negatively influence our prebreeding research as genomics working groups will outcompete us.

gfedc

positively affect us as we can cooperate with other (inter)national institutes and share tasks.

gfedc

provide positive effects as more genetic knowledge will facilitate our prebreeding work.

gfedc

No opinion.

gfedc


55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Unsure

nmlkj

One

nmlkj

Several

nmlkj

Don't know.

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

No opinion.

nmlkj

Page 19


43. Please indicate the crop groups that are present in your gene bank. Only indicate groups with a collection size larger than 100 accessions. This list of crop categories is based on http://ir4.rutgers.edu/other/CropGroup.htm.

44. How visible is your collection to users from outside your country?


gfedc

Potato

gfedc

Bulb vegetables

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Cucurbit vegetables

gfedc

Edible fungi

gfedc


gfedc

Citrus fruits

gfedc

Pome fruits

gfedc

Stone fruits

gfedc


gfedc

Tree nuts

gfedc

Ornamentals

gfedc

Ornamental trees

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Grain legumes

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


55

66

A user can approach our collections via the gene bank´s webpage.

gfedc

Our collection data are regularly uploaded in international databases like EURISCO or ECCDBs.

gfedc

We send upon request via regular post or email a document with an overview of our collections.

gfedc

Our collection is only visible by visiting our gene bank.

gfedc

Otherwise, please specify:

55

66

Page 20

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure45. How can users order accessions from your gene bank?

46. How do you facilitate users to select plant genetic resources (PGR) from your gene bank? We provide for most of our accessions in addition to taxonomic data the following information:

47. Are characterization and evaluation data held by your gene bank available online?

48. What kind of IT work do you think is most needed to improve the access to information on landraces and CWR existing in situ and ex situ?

Yes No

Location of origin nmlkj nmlkj

Habitat information nmlkj nmlkj

Characterization data (e.g. morphological traits)

nmlkj nmlkj

Evaluation data (e.g. disease & pest screening data)

nmlkj nmlkj

Molecular data nmlkj nmlkj

Written, via email or a letter

gfedc

Orally, via telephone

gfedc

You have to come personally to our gene bank.

gfedc

Using the internet via shopping cart

gfedc

You can’ t order accessions from our gene bank due to national regulations.

gfedc

Otherwise, please specify:

55

66


55

66

Yes

nmlkj

Partially

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Building European inventories for in situ / on farm management of PGR

gfedc

Building / improvement of IT systems for characterization, evaluation and molecular data on ex situ accessions

gfedc

Employment of common, freely available toolkits to develop application software to avoid duplication work

gfedc


55

66

Page 21


49. In which region have you mainly collected material since the establishment of your gene bank?

50. How many times in the last five years did your gene bank collect plant genetic resources within or outside your country. Please count only missions that yielded more than 20 accessions.

51. In case of collecting abroad, which administrative measures did you take to make it compliant with international arrangements?

52. Was PGR collected outside your country free of use restrictions in the sense that it could be freely used for the development of cultivars?

0 1 2 to 5 > 5

within your country nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

outside your country nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

*

Own country (or countries under your responsibility)

gfedc

Other European countries

gfedc

North America

gfedc

South America

gfedc

Africa

gfedc

Asia

gfedc

Australia and the Pacific

gfedc

No, I didn' t make any administrative arrangements.

gfedc

Yes, I made a MoU which allows access to PGR.

gfedc

Yes, I made a MoU which allows access to PGR and benefit sharing.

gfedc

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 22


53. If PGR was collected by your gene bank outside your country, did benefit sharing take place...

54. If benefit sharing took place, please select the implementation style. The collector needed ...

No benefit sharing took place. Yes, benefit sharing was undertaken. Not needed.

inside your country? nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

outside your country? nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

to regenerate the material and share it afterwards.

gfedc

to pay a certain sum of money for the material collected.

gfedc

to give lectures and / or provide knowledge on PGR /genebanking.

gfedc

to pay joint research activities.

gfedc

Other possibilities, please specify:

55

66

Page 23


55. Do you think that the international agreements on PGR (CBD and ITPGRFA) are a positive development concerning the protection of biodiversity worldwide?


57. What kind of work on landraces do you think is urgently needed? Please, indicate your priority on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.

*

1 2 3 4 5 6

Concrete in situ management projects


Characterization and evaluation projects


Utilization of gene bank accessions through prebreeding projects by gene banks


Yes, having international exchange arrangements is better than having no arrangements.

gfedc

Yes, access and benefit sharing is arranged.

gfedc

Yes, the rights of donor countries have been recognized.

gfedc

No, as the arrangements are rather blocking than stimulating the protection of PGR.

gfedc

No, as knowledge on ABS on the governmental level in the donor country is often lacking.

gfedc

No, legal uncertainty by gene banks and breeding companies blocks collecting missions and use of PGR.

gfedc

No opinion.

gfedc


55

66

My suggestion is shown in the text field below.

nmlkj

No opinion

nmlkj

Please, provide the name(s) of the gene bank(s):

55

66


55

66

Page 24

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure58. What kind of work on CWR do you think is urgently needed? Please, indicate your priority on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.


60. With which stakeholders (national and international) did you share active joint research projects in the last five years? Please assess their impact on the use of PGR on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.


1 2 3 4 5 6

Concrete in situ management projects


Characterization and evaluation projects


Utilization of gene bank accessions through prebreeding projects by gene banks


Yes No




AgroNGO gfedc gfedc




1 2 3 4 5 6








55

66

improvement of national PGR programs.

nmlkj

improvement and extension of the ECPGR program.

nmlkj

establishment of a new centralised coordinated EU gene bank system.

nmlkj


55

66

Page 25

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure62. If you were in the position to manage a budget for PGR conservation and use at the EU level would you prefer to fund ...


nmlkj


nmlkj

On farm conservation activities

nmlkj


Page 26



*

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 27


64. If so, please assess the possible impact of a national expert program on the use of landraces and CWR in your research work. Please assess on a scale from 1= very low to 6 = very high impact.

65. What do you think are the major constraints in genebanking?


67. Is the annual budget of your gene bank...?

1 2 3 4 5 6



Insufficient public understanding on the significance of PGRFA for food security and human welfare

gfedc

Insufficient acknowledgement of the role of users

gfedc

Insufficient support at all governmental levels

gfedc

Lack of a national program for PGR

gfedc

Shift from permanent funding to temporary project funding, instability of funding

gfedc

Insufficient knowledge on how to assess genetic diversity

gfedc


55

66


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

No opinion.

gfedc


55

66

< 100 thousand €

nmlkj

> 100 thousand €

nmlkj

Page 28

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure68. Do you think that public gene banks will be necessary in future given the development in private gene banking?

Yes, gene banks have better possibilities to collect as they are seen as organizations protecting PGR.

gfedc

Yes, PGR are a public good and under governmental control.

gfedc

Yes, companies focus on currently few economically important crops whereas gene banks focus on conservation of all PGR to control

genetic erosion.

gfedc

Yes, companies focus on shortterm storage whereas a gene bank focus on longterm storage.

gfedc

No, breeding companies increasingly have similar storage facilities as gene banks.

gfedc

No, breeding companies have enough PGR at their disposal for breeding new cultivars.

gfedc

No opinion.

gfedc


55

66

Page 29


69. What do you envisage as the major trends in gene banking in the coming decade? Please indicate your priority on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Collecting to close geographic gaps in collections


Collecting to control genetic erosion


Operationalization of a common strategy for in situ, on farm, ex situ conservation at the national level


Strengthening of the collaboration between the species conservation sector (e.g. nature reserve agencies) and gene banks within the domain of the agricultural sector


Developing collaboration between botanic gardens and gene banks within the domain of the agricultural sector


Focus of research and development (R&D) capacities on gene bank management aspects to raise the work quality


Integration of national EU gene banks into one virtual EU gene bank with commonly held management procedures for maintaining crops (e.g. AEGIS project)


Strong implementation of genomics into gene banking, resulting in a restructuring of collections on the basis of genomic composition of collections and not anymore on basis of phenotypic composition


High throughput phenotyping and genotyping


Increased interest in old varieties and landraces from the public and


Page 30


70. Do you know your ABS Competent National Authority?

71. How many NFP exist in your country?

72. Do you think that patenting will influence the use of landraces and crop wild relatives in breeding research programs?

farmers (for example due to an increased interest in food diversity or ecological farming)

*

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Unsure

nmlkj

One

nmlkj

Several

nmlkj

Don't know

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

No opinion.

nmlkj

Page 31


73. Please indicate the crop groups your company is actively carrying out breeding for the last five years. This list of crop categories is based on http://ir4.rutgers.edu/other/CropGroup.htm.

74. Who initiates the ordering of PGR in your company?



gfedc

Potato

gfedc

Bulb vegetables

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Cucurbit vegetables

gfedc

Edible fungi

gfedc


gfedc

Citrus fruits

gfedc

Pome fruits

gfedc

Stone fruits

gfedc


gfedc

Tree nuts

gfedc

Ornamentals

gfedc

Ornamental trees

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Grain legumes

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


55

66

All of us

gfedc Prebreeder

gfedc Breeder

gfedc Gene bank specialist

gfedc


55

66

All of us

gfedc

Prebreeder

gfedc

Breeder

gfedc

Gene bank specialist

gfedc

The head of the department / group

gfedc

The managing director / CEO

gfedc


55

66

Page 32

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure76. Have you ordered PGR from gene banks in the last five years? *

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 33


77. If yes, please indicate the frequency of requests (more than 10 accessions / request) on a scale from 0 = none, 1 = seldom to 6 = frequently


0 1 2 3 4 5 6



Former breeders' varieties: nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


55

66

Page 34



*

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 35


80. If yes, please indicate the frequency of requests (more than 10 accessions / request) on a scale from 0 = none, 1 = seldom to 6 = frequently.


82. What do you consider as the most problematic issue(s) concerning the ordering of plant genetic resources? Please rank on a scale from 1= least to 6 = most problematic.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6



1 2 3 4 5 6












nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

impossible.

nmlkj


55

66


55

66

Page 36

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure83. If you are looking for plant genetic resources which of the following information sources do you mostly use before ordering material? Please assess on a scale from 1 = seldom to 6 = frequently.

84. Do you think that collections in gene banks represent enough genetic diversity for your breeding purpose?

1 2 3 4 5 6












*


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 37



CWR

nmlkj

Landraces

nmlkj

Former breeders´ varieties

nmlkj


55

66

Page 38


86. Of which natural geographic origin is the material you request from gene banks? Please rank the significance of the region for your work on a scale from 0 = none, 1= low to 6 = high.


88. Have landraces played an important role in your breeding program in the last five years?

89. Have CWR played an important role in your breeding program in the last five years?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6









My opinion is shown in the text field below.

nmlkj

No opinion

nmlkj


55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


55

66

Page 39

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure90. Did you build up a company's gene bank (so not a working collection)?*

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 40



92. Do you intend to store the material in your company's gene bank also for longterm (longer than 25 years) purposes?

The quantity of seeds provided by gene banks is too small.

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 41



Store the seeds at –20 °C

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Store in vacuumsealed three layered aluminium bags

gfedc


gfedc

Page 42



95. With which stakeholders (national and international) did you share active joint research projects in the last five years? Please assess the impact of projects on the use of PGR on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.



1 = National cooperation 2 = International cooperation




AgroNGO gfedc gfedc




1 2 3 4 5 6








nmlkj


nmlkj

establishment of a new centralised coordinated EU gene bank system

nmlkj


55

66


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


Page 43



99. Are the annual revenues (turnover) of the company ... ?

100. Who in your company carries out the first crosses with unadapted germplasm?

101. Do you think that public gene banks will be necessary in future given the development in private gene banking?


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

No opinion.

gfedc


55

66

< 2 million €

nmlkj

10 50 million €

nmlkj

50 250 million €

nmlkj

250 500 million €

nmlkj

> 500 million €

nmlkj

Breeders

gfedc

Prebreeders

gfedc


55

66

Yes, gene banks have better possibilities to collect as they are seen as organizations protecting PGR.

gfedc

Yes, PGR are a public good and under governmental control.

gfedc

Yes, companies focus on currently few economically important crops whereas gene banks focus on conservation of all PGR to control

genetic erosion.

gfedc

Yes, companies focus on shortterm storage whereas gene banks focus on longterm storage.

gfedc

No, breeding companies increasingly have similar storage facilities as genebanks.

gfedc

No, breeding companies have enough PGR at their disposal for breeding new cultivars.

gfedc

No opinion.

gfedc

Page 44

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure102. What do you think could be major improvements in gene banking worldwide?

103. Do you know your Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Competent National Authority?

104. How many National Focal Points exist in your country?

105. Do you think that patenting will influence the use of landraces and crop wild relatives in your breeding programs? *

Development of a central website for all PGR worldwide.

gfedc

Improvement of the passport, characterization (e.g. morphological traits) and evaluation (e.g. disease resistances) data of accessions.

gfedc

Reduction of the duplication within and between gene bank collections.

gfedc

Merger of EU gene banks into one virtual EU gene bank in which different tasks (collecting, regeneration, documentation) are spread

over the various countries.

gfedc


55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Unsure

nmlkj

One

nmlkj

Several

nmlkj

Don't know.

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

No opinion

nmlkj

Page 45


106. Please indicate the crop groups your NGO is actively cultivating the last five years. This list of crop categories is based on http://ir4.rutgers.edu/other/CropGroup.htm.

107. Who initiates the ordering of plant genetic resources (PGR) in your organization?


109. Have you ordered PGR from gene banks in the last five years?

*


gfedc

Potato

gfedc

Bulb vegetables

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Cucurbit vegetables

gfedc

Edible fungi

gfedc


gfedc

Citrus fruits

gfedc

Pome fruits

gfedc

Stone fruits

gfedc


gfedc

Tree nuts

gfedc

Ornamentals

gfedc

Ornamental trees

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Grain legumes

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


55

66

All of us

gfedc


55

66

All of us

gfedc


55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 46


110. If yes, please indicate the frequency of requests (more than 10 accessions / request) on a scale from 0 = none, 1 = seldom to 6 = frequent.



0 1 2 3 4 5 6



Former breeders´ varieties: nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

*


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 47


113. If yes, please indicate the frequency of requests (more than 10 accessions / request) on a scale from 0 = none,1 = seldom to 6 = frequently.


0 1 2 3 4 5 6




nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

impossible.

nmlkj

because ... (Please describe your experience.)

55

66

Page 48


115. What do you consider as the most problematic issue(s) concerning the ordering of plant genetic resources? Please rank on a scale from 1= least to 6 = most problematic.

116. If you are looking for plant genetic resources which of the following information sources do you mostly use before ordering material? Please assess on a scale from 1 = seldom to 6 = frequently.

1 2 3 4 5 6











1 2 3 4 5 6













55

66


Page 49

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure117. Do you think that collections in gene banks represent enough genetic diversity

for your research purposes? *

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 50



119. Of which natural geographic origin is the material you request from gene banks? Please rank the significance of the region for your work on a scale from 0 = none, 1 = low to 6 = high.


121. Have landraces played an important role in your PGR maintenance program in the last five years?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6








CWR

nmlkj

Landraces

nmlkj

Former breeders' varieties

nmlkj



My opinion is shown in the text field below.

nmlkj

No opinion

nmlkj


55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


55

66

Page 51

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure122. Do you use conventional varieties?

Yes, we do.

nmlkj

No. We don’t use it at all.

nmlkj


55

66

Page 52


123. Did you build up an own gene bank (so not a working collection)?

*

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 53



125. Do you intend to store the material in your community gene bank also for longterm (longer than 25 years) purposes?

*

The quantity of seeds provided by genebanks is too small.

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 54



127. Do you characterise (e.g. morphological traits) and / or evaluate (e.g. disease and pest resistance, quality traits) your crops?

*

Store the seeds at – 20 °C

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Store in vacuumsealed three layered aluminium bags

gfedc


gfedc

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 55


128. If you produce characterization (e.g. morphological traits) and evaluation (e.g. disease and pest resistance, quality traits) data do you make them available to third parties?

129. Please assess the impact of your public awareness activities on the use of landraces in commercial agriculture in your country on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.

130. Please assess the impact of collaboration between your organization and farmers on the deployment of landraces in agricultural production during the past ten years. Please assess on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.


132. With which stakeholders (national and international) did you share joint research projects in the last five years? Please assess the impact of the projects on the use of PGR on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.

1 2 3 4 5 6

impact scale nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

1 2 3 4 5 6

impact scale nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

1 = national cooperation 2 = international cooperation




AgroNGO gfedc gfedc




1 2 3 4 5 6







Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 56

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure133. Do you think that public trusts in Europe would be willing to strengthen your organization if it becomes an infrastructure element of an EU NGO network?

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 57


134. Which of the following factors restrict your work on landraces in your country? Please assess on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.

135. Which of the following factors promotes your NGO work? Please assess on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.

136. Please assess the willingness of consumers in your country to pay significantly more (i.e. 10% more compared competing products) for products derived from (national) landraces. Please assess on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Lack of a national landrace inventory


Too restricted regulations for conservation varieties


Lack of understanding of agricultural techniques and processes in the society


Funding nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Credibility towards state authorities


Increasing market for convenience food


Lack of public interest nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

1 2 3 4 5 6

National program for PGR nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Rural development programs of the EU


Cooperation with private plant breeders


Cooperation with farmer associations


Cooperation with nurceries, gardencenters, supermarkets


Public opinions voiced by consumer groups


Public discussions on GMO crops


1 2 3 4 5 6

Willingness to pay more nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Page 58

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure137. Do you think that insufficient knowledge on business development hinders the development of the organic sector in your country?

138. Please assess the impact of your NGO work on the conservation and use of landrace in your country and the EU. Please assess on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Own country nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

EU nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Please, provide arguments:

55

66

Please, describe the kind of impact:

55

66

Page 59


139. Which of the following groups inquire information on PGR issues and how frequently? Please assess on a scale from 1 = seldom to 6 = frequently.


1 2 3 4 5 6

Members of the public nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Farmers nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Researchers in public institutions


Gene banks nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Commercial breeders nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Governmental organizations



55

66


nmlkj


nmlkj

establishment of a new centralised coordinated EU gene bank system

nmlkj


55

66

Page 60




143. If so, please assess the impact of a national expert program on the use of landraces and CWR in your work. Please assess on a scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high.

1 2 3 4 5 6




nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 61


144. Is the annual budget of your organization ... ?

145. Do you know your Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Competent National Authority?

146. How many National Focal Points (NFP) exist in your country?

147. Do you think that patenting will influence the use of landraces and crop wild relatives in your work?

*

< 10 thousand €

gfedc

> 10 thousand €

gfedc

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Unsure

nmlkj

One

nmlkj

Several

nmlkj

Don't know.

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

No opinion.

nmlkj

Page 62


148. In which policy area are you working?

149. Which ministry / ministries regulate(s) in your country plant genetic resources affairs?

150. Are you in one or more of the following functions?

*55

66

Ministry of Agriculture

gfedc

Ministry of Environment

gfedc


55

66

Competent National Authority (CNA)

gfedc

National Focal Point (NFP / CBD)

gfedc

National Focal Point (NFP / International Treaty)

gfedc

Clearing House Mechanism (CHM)

gfedc

Not applicable

gfedc


55

66

Page 63


151. How many people in your organisation are involved in negotiations on PGR issues as regards the CBD and the "Treaty"? Please provide the number of people.

152. To what extent does national legislation and regulations apply to domestic exchanges (i.e. between parties within countries)? Please assess the extent on a scale from 1 = very little to 6 = very much.

153. To what extent do national legislation and regulations apply to international exchange? Please assess the extent on a scale from 1 = very small to 6 = very large.

154. Does the national legislation make a distinction between domestic and international exchange of native CWR germplasm concerning nonAnnex I and Annex I species?

155. Does the national legislation make a distinction between domestic and international exchange of native cultivated germplasm concerning nonAnnex I and Annex I species?

*

nonAnnex I Annex I

Yes gfedc gfedc

No gfedc gfedc

nonAnnex I Annex I

Yes gfedc gfedc

No gfedc gfedc

1

nmlkj 2

nmlkj 3

nmlkj 4

nmlkj 5

nmlkj 6

nmlkj

1

nmlkj 2

nmlkj 3

nmlkj 4

nmlkj 5

nmlkj 6

nmlkj

If so, what are these distinctions?

55

66


55

66

Page 64

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure156. Is a distinction being made between different types of uses of the genetic resources (plant breeding, biotechnology, pharmaceutical use, cosmetics, basic research, etc.)?

157. Does the process of exchanging plant genetic material differ between a commercial and a noncommercial use?

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


55

66

Page 65


158. How many requests to assist germplasm exchange did the National Focal Point (NFP) respond to over the last five years? Please provide the number of requests.

159. How many requests on access and benefit sharing (ABS) have been submitted to the competent national authority (CNA) in the last five years? Please provide the number of requests.

160. How many permits has the CNA on ABS issued in the last five years? Please provide the number of permits.

161. How many times in the last five years benefit sharing was an explicit part of a permit? Please provide the number:

162. What kind of benefit sharing took place? Please select the way benefit sharing was undertaken. The collector needed ...

163. Have curators / managers of collections within the scope of your responsibility been mandated by the CNA to distribute plant genetic resources and provide the permits?

to regenerate the material collected and share it afterwards.

gfedc

to pay a certain sum of money for the material collected.

gfedc

to give lectures and/or provide knowledge on PGR /genebanking.

gfedc

to pay joint research activities.

gfedc

Other possibilities, please specify:

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


55

66

Page 66

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure164. Did you discuss ABS matters with the national PGR community? Please assess the frequency of discussions with the stakeholder groups per year in the last five years on a scale from 1 = seldom to 6 = frequent.

1 2 3 4 5 6


Botanic garden nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Public research institute nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Breeding company nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj


Page 67


165. Does a national program with an earmarked budget for funding of activities (research, development, infrastructure) on PGR exist in your country?

*

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 68


166. If there is a national program on PGR, do you think that it has an adequate budget to maintain essential activities?

167. If there is a national program on PGR, which activities are being funded by this program?

168. Please assess to which extent the national program promotes the above mentioned four activities. Please use the scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high. 0 = No opinion.

169. Do you have opportunities for funding of PGR activities not connected to any national program?

170. If there is such funding for PGR activities, which activities are being funded?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Research nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Genebanking nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

On farm nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Joint projects nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Research at public research organizations

gfedc

Genebanking

gfedc

On farm/in garden work carried out by rural, periurban communities

gfedc

Stimulating joint projects between stakeholders

gfedc


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Research at public research organizations

gfedc

Genebanking

gfedc

On farm / in garden work carried out by rural, periurban communities

gfedc

Stimulating joint projects between stakeholders

gfedc


55

66

Page 69

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure171. Please assess to which extent these other funding programs promote the four above mentioned activities. Please use the scale from 1 = very low to 6 = very high. 0 = No opinion.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Research nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Genebanking nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

On farm nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Joint projects nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Page 70


Dear Interviewee(s), Many thanks for your kind interest and contribution to the first part of the online questionnaire! The results of this survey will be presented and discussed with all stakeholder groups of the PGR community during a European conference in Hungary scheduled for spring 2014. You will receive information on this conference in the near future. We would like to ask you to complete the survey by answering four additional questions. With this part of the survey we wish to collect information on your work profile. With your permission, we would like to publish your organisation’s profile on a webbased map to facilitate the establishment of contacts between institutions in Europe interested in similar subjects. The map of „Who’ s Who in the PGR Network“ will stimulate and facilitate cooperation in the field of PGR conservation and use within Europe. By clicking the „Yes“ button, you will allow us to keep data collected on the next pages in a database which will be used to generate respective map. Your personal data (name, address, phone number) will not be published or passed on to third parties. All data are acquired, processed and stored by the Julius KühnInstitute in due regard of the terms and conditions set by the German Federal Data Protection Act (BGBI of 14 August, 2009). Selecting „No“, guides you immediately to the end of this online questionnaire. We would like to thank you for your kind interest and for supporting this project. With kind regards, C. Kik, L. Frese, A. Palmé, G. Neuhaus The PGR Secure WP5 team „Engaging the user community“

172. Do you wish to provide the contact details of your organization, institution or association?

*

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Page 71


175. Type of organization

173. Please note, that descriptors marked with #) will not be displayed on the webbased map.Name of your organization

Title#

Family name#

First name#

Organization/Department#

Street#

Number#

Post code#

Location name#

Country#

Phone number#

URL of your organization

174. Localization of your organization Open a second browser window, start http://maps.google.com/, enter your address (city, street, number), click with the right mouse button on your institution´s location on the map, chose option "What is here?" and you will get your decimal geographic coordinates. Latitude: Minutes (decimal) N/S; such as 51.775169 N

Longitude: Minutes (decimal) E/W; such as 11.145154 E

Governmental organization

nmlkj

Research institute (public corporation)

nmlkj

Gene bank (public corporation)

nmlkj

Breeder (public corporation)

nmlkj

Breeder (private company)

nmlkj

AgroNGO (seed saver organization and cooperating growers)

nmlkj

Other, please specify:

Page 72

Engaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecureEngaging the user community-pgrsecure176. Please select from the list up to five crop groups your organization is mainly working with. This list of crop categories is based on http://ir4.rutgers.edu/other/CropGroup.htm.

None

gfedc


gfedc

Potato

gfedc

Bulb vegetable

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Cucurbit vegetables

gfedc

Edible fungi

gfedc


gfedc

Citrus fruits

gfedc

Pome fruits

gfedc

Stone fruits

gfedc


gfedc

Tree nuts

gfedc

Ornamentals

gfedc

Ornamental trees

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Grain legumes

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc


55

66

Page 73


Documents

Appendix II - Nordgen · Appendix II 2 Contents ... Ahmed Jahoor, Petter Marum, Emanuela Galeazzi, Michaela Arndorfer ... Valeria Negri, Ludmila Papouskova ,