Country/Region Reports Based on Stakeholder Interviews

Appendix I

Country/region reports based on stakeholder interviews

Appendix I

Contents Country/region reports ...... 3 Austria ...... 3 The Baltic Countries ...... 11 Bulgaria ...... 22 Czech Republic ...... 31 France ...... 37 Germany ...... 47 Greece ...... 62 Italy ...... 67 The Netherlands ...... 73 The Nordic Countries ...... 77 Poland ...... 92 Romania ...... 103 Slovenia...... 110 Spain ...... 116 United Kingdom...... 122 Definitions...... 143 Method applied and interview questions ...... 144

Appendix I

Country/region reports

Austria

Lothar Frese1, Gisela Neuhaus1 and Paul Freudenthaler2

1JKI, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI), Institute for Breeding Research on Agricultural Crops, Erwin-Baur-Str. 27, D-06484 Quedlinburg, Germany; 2Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Institute for Potato Plant Material & Plant Genetic Resources, Wieningerstraße 8, A-4020 LINZ, Austria

1. Introduction Despite its small area covering 83.858 km2, Austria maintains an extraordinary high biodiversity including a plenty of autochthonous plant species. Geographically, Austria is divided into three different landscape areas (1) the Alps with the Central Alps of Tirol, the Higher and Lower Tauern, the Northern/ Southern Chalk Alps and the Vienna Woods, (2) the Bohemian Mountain Massive and (3) the adjacent lowlands of the foothills of the Alps and the Vienna Basin. The climatic conditions of the country are determined by the alpine as well as by the continental and the pannonian climate. More than 60 % of the country is taken over by the alpine area, 49 % are covered with woodlands. These geographic and climatic circumstances influencing the microclimatic conditions deliver the basis for the development of a small-scale structured, agricultural landscape in Austria.

Altogether seven stakeholders from gene banks, public research organizations, NGOs and commercial breeding companies were interviewed using the guideline-based interview technique. P. Freudenthaler agreed to be the country key person for Austria. He prepared a list of organizations which were visited from August 02–04, 2011. The persons interviewed were: gene bank - P. Freudenthaler, Linz; Dr. M. Gantar, Klosterneuburg; research organization - Dr. F. Regner, Klosterneuburg; Dr. B. Krautzer, Irdning; Dr. W. Graiss, Irdning; agro-NGO - Dr. B. Kajtna (on 06 September, phone interview), Schiltern; breeding company - R. Frech-Emmelmann, St. Leonhard. Interviews lasted around 1-2 hours per meeting. On the basis of the conducted interviews this report was written which also includes a preliminary SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity and threat) analysis and action points concerning the conservation and use of PGR in Austria.

2. Stakeholder interviews

2.1 Gene Bank The Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES) operates a gene bank of agricultural crops including medicinal and aromatic plants. AGES co-operates with the nature conservation agency of “Oberöstereich” in the field of conservation of endangered wild plant species. It supports the production of rarely grown crops as well as the use of seeds certified for organic agriculture by operating information portals. AGES also manages the National

Appendix I

Inventory and by doing so acts as a single point of contact for users of the Austrian genetic resources conservation network. The network consists of several specialized, small-scale gene banks within the domain of (a) the Tyrolean Government, (b) the Agricultural Experimental Center, Steiermark and (c) Haidegg, respectively, (d) the Agricultural College Warth, (e) the Chamber of Agriculture, Kärnten, (f) the Higher Federal College and Federal Office and Research Centre for Viticulture and Pomiculture, Klosterneuburg, and (f) the Horticulture Research and Education Centre, Schönbrunn. The Agricultural and Education Center Raumberg-Gumpenstein (e) focuses on the management of inter- and intraspecific diversity of fodder crops / grassland species in the natural habitat. A comprehensive collection of vegetable crops is managed by the agro-NGO Arche Noah. The associations “Hortus” as well as “ARGE Streuobst” maintain fruit genetic resources collections.

Altogether Austrian gene banks manage 11616 accessions. Austria contributes to the conservation of unique landraces, former breeder’s varieties and populations of autochthonous grasses, legumes and herbs as well as fruits and grapevine.

Stakeholder of three gene banks in Austria were interviewed, namely the AGES in Linz, and experts of the Department of Viticulture and the Department of Fruit Genetic Resources of the Federal Office and Research Centre for Viticulture and Pomiculture.

Capacity and current stat AGES manages the gene bank with a total of 6 persons. AGES operates the Austrian genetic resources information system and it represents Austria at the European level (ECPGR program, expert meetings at the European Commission). At Klosterneuburg 1.8 and at Irdning 0.75 person years are available for gene bank work. The collection management is strongly supported by the respective research groups. The gene bank at AGES has good storage conditions. The entire interviewed gene bank managers organize the systematic characterisation of their collections. Characterisation is an ongoing work and not completed.

Access and information The accessions are freely available. In the case of fruit genetic resources only disease free material can be sent to users. Users can search for passport data in the National Inventory for specific material either via EURISCO or the AGES homepage and order accessions via email. There is no special tool on the AGES web page for ordering accessions on-line. Characterisation and evaluation data are recorded in databases and are partially available in the information system managed by AGES. The improvement of the information systems was seen as an important task.

Cooperation The gene banks operated by the governmental sector are integrated in research organisations facilitating the cooperation between the collection managers and researchers. The gene banks also cooperate with breeding companies and agro-NGOs at the national level. The intensity of cooperation depends on the crop group (lesser in fruit and grapevine, more in agricultural crops and vegetables). There is also a significant cooperation between the gene banks with counterparts at the European level. The intensity of cooperation at the European level in the field of conservation of crop wild relatives depends on the crop group and takes place in the fruit genetic resources domain.

Policy and constraints

Appendix I

A national strategy paper dealing with conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources exists. The agricultural policy addresses the need to conserve landraces and CWR but the implementation of in situ and on farm conservation actions still meets difficulties in practice. The effect of the EC GENRES program on the conservation and use of PGR at the national level was considered minimal.

Trends The molecular characterization of genetic resources will gain importance as it will inform on the allelic diversity held in gene banks. Crop productions systems with higher inter- and intra-specific variation are considered an important means to adapt agriculture to the global changes. Gene bank as provider of species and within species genetic diversity will play a significant role in this context. Despite of this, the work of gene banks is not acknowledged by the public and hence not sufficiently supported and funded by the policy. There is a strong need for improved public relation work. The governmental PGR sector should better help the general public to understand that gene banks follow long-term strategic objectives while researchers in the public and private breeding sector exploit PGR and work at the short- to mid-term operative level. Both activities are equally indispensable and important.

The interest in the identification of duplicates (at the European level) will raise in fruit crops genetic resources management as it will allow national priority setting and a more rational collection management. The lack of (funds) was seen as an obstacle towards a better coordinated fruit genetic resources program.

2.2 Public Research The number of public plant breeding research groups is limited in Austria. Research and education is mainly performed at the University of Natural Resources and Life Science, Department of Crop Sciences in Vienna and Tulln. The Institute of Botany of the Veterinarian University, Vienna, is engaged in breeding research and conservation of medicinal plant species.

The visited Higher Federal Teaching and Science Agency of the Austrian Life Ministry, Institute for Plant Production and Cultural Landscape in Raumberg-Gumpenstein focuses on applied research. Projects on the manufacturing of seed mixtures adapted to the climatic conditions of high altitude Alpine regions are of particular interest with regard to the conservation and use of crop wild relatives. The genetic resources used in mixtures are collected in the region, tested, reproduced by farmers, by combining components improved mixtures are created and used in the area of origin for the establishment of grassland. The institute aims at the maintenance and promotion of the typical regional genetic diversity of grassland plant species. The research work is partly performed within the framework of European research projects.

The Higher Federal Teaching Agency and Federal Office for Viticulture, Klosterneuburg, focuses on applied research and on grapevine as the single crop species.

Capacity and state The number of persons (including temporary project staff) dealing with breeding research is approximately 3 persons at Raumberg-Gumpenstein, 1 person at Klosterneuburg.

Appendix I

The Austrian PGR related research and development program covers a wide range of activities: maintenance breeding, management of genetic resources in situ, on-farm and ex situ, characterisation and evaluation of crop wild relatives, official duties conferred by law such as the maintenance of landraces, as well as variety breeding. A central theme of all research activities consists in the development and promotion of regional products based on regional genetic resources. In grassland research, the number species used ranges from 70 to 80. Within each species several regional provenances are deployed in grassland production. The use of autochthonous germplasm in Austrian grassland projects is therefore exceptionally high. Grapevine research is focussed on the development of new varieties and the utilization of genetic resources in this context. The search for autochthonous genotypes is an ongoing process and the identification and verification of provenances as well as resistance breeding research an important task. The grapevine germplasm is systematically characterised and evaluated on the basis of internationally agreed standard descriptor lists and the data are documented in a database. Grapevine landraces and crop wild relatives are used in –omics research projects.

Access and information Access to accessions of grassland species and grapevine accessions is possible and is often organised on a bilateral basis. Passport data on grassland genetic resources are documented in a database and are partly available via the National Inventory and EURISCO, respectively. Characterisation and evaluation data are not recorded in a database as the trait expression very much depends on the site and the data are therefore not comparable. In addition it is not clear how information systems will develop in future. Germplasm for grassland research and development projects is sporadically searched in EURISCO, the National Inventory or in GBIS of the IPK gene bank. Grapevine data, though not accessible online, are in principle public. Information on grapevine genetic resources are searched for by Austrian breeding researchers in all available online data bases such as the “German Grapevine Genebank” or at the EU level via the information systems created within the framework of the EC GENRES program.

Cooperation The grassland research is integrated in European projects. The institute is involved in teaching and cooperates intensively with farmers at the regional level as training and education in cultivation and harvesting techniques is an indispensible component of the innovative grassland genetic resources management approach. The successful deployment of improved material in semi-natural grassland on regional climatic conditions requires the establishment of new infrastructures. These include authorities, farmers and companies as cooperating partners. The grapevine research work is integral part of national and international networks.

Policy and constraints Currently there is no expert program specifically promoting the investigation of crop wild relatives and landraces, a strategy paper exists though. The possibility for financial support of research is implicit in national and EC research programs. The EC GENRES program had no effect on grassland research. In contrast, this same program strongly promoted the conservation of grapevine genetic resources.

Trends

Appendix I

The research activities changed from classical breeding of varieties for commercial grassland farmers to selection and use of autochthonous grassland seed sources. As the regional seed sources have no variety protection companies are not engaged in this kind of innovative approach to the conservation and utilisation of plant genetic resources. With respect to the high altitude alpine regions this trend will continue as the support scheme will direct the agricultural production towards conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in future.

In grapevine research the themes did not very much change over the past 20 years while the methodologies and techniques available to researchers have strongly changed. The main obstacles towards a broader use of landraces and crop wild relatives in grapevine breeding are the legal and regulatory framework conditions. Increasing the genetic diversity in viticulture is not an explicit breeding aim. Breeding for quality remains an important objective. A trend towards the use of classical, old varieties and the establishment of regional niche products can be clearly recognised.

2.3 Non-governmental organisations Arche Noah is the most important agro-NGO in Austria with a branch in Germany. It has approximately 7000 members. Arche Noah is split into the association Arche Noah and the Arche Noah Schaugarten GmbH (= limited liability company). A number of smaller agro- initiatives exist in Austria such as two associations promoting the production and marketing of the “Wachauer Marille” and the “Steierische Kürbiskernöl”, respectively.

Capacity and state Arche Noah employs 19 persons on a permanent basis as well as 10 persons on part-time temporary positions and is supported on average by 15 practisers every year. The organisation operates a well characterized gene bank collection of mainly vegetable crops and fruit species. Arche Noah was established 21 years ago. During the first 10-years-phase the members collected crops and cultivars grown since 20-30 years. Priority was given to the integration of the collected material into the Arche Noah gene bank during the second phase. The members collect germplasm as well as describe the material according to standard descriptor lists. Arche Noah is also very active in public relation work, capacity building in the field of seed production knowledge and skills as well as in agrobiodiversity policy with a focus on seed legislation. An agro-NGO umbrella organisation does not exist for vegetable but only for fruit genetic resources in Austria. Arche Noah is member of this ARGE Streuobst (= work community orchards) organisation.

Access and information

Arche Noah developed a cultivar catalogue which can be used to purchase seeds online. The passport, characterisation and evaluation data are documented in an internal database. A part of the data can be accessed online either via the online seed catalogue and/or via the National Inventory.

Cooperation The association maintains working relationships with governmental gene banks, public research institutes, commercial plant breeders and agro-NGOs at the national and international level. In addition it cooperates with farmers and the food retailing.

Policy and constraints

Appendix I

There is no national expert program promoting the in situ and on farm conservation in Austria. Governmental agencies do not financially support the work of agro-NGOs. The EC GENRES program benefited the work of Arche Noah. The dynamic adaptation of cultivars is impaired by long reproduction intervals of accessions kept in the Arche Noah gene bank and by genetic bottlenecks due to small population sizes. Arche Noah tries to operate with sufficiently large population sizes but the available capacities are sometimes a limiting factor.

Trends The demand for regional products based on landraces and growing interest in biodiversity and sustainability aspects is a significant trend which will back landraces’ maintenance measures.

2.4 Commercial Breeding In Austria two main categories of breeding companies exist: (i) companies that are actually marketing companies selling seeds of foreign companies and (ii) companies which run breeding programs partly based on local varieties. The ReinSaat company was visited which belongs to the latter category.

Capacity and state ReinSaat employs 18 persons of which 1.5 persons work as breeders. The company is part of an open network with partners in Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The company is too small and therefore cannot finance pre-breeding activities in the sense of wide crosses. The company is mainly engaged in breeding of vegetables, e.g. Capsicum, Brassica, and Daucus, and uses landraces as source populations but no crop wild relatives. Landrace have been acquired from gene banks but are not used and marketed as improved landraces. They rather serve as donors of individuals that fit into the elite breeding pool. Landrace are often distinguished by colours or shapes and can be used to demonstrate cultivar diversity. The breeding program aims at the increase of crop genetic diversity in production systems. The use of genetic diversity in the breeding program is restricted by the cash flow as all expenditures have to remain within the financial limits. On the other hand the company profited from the use of landraces.

Access and information The company orders genetic resources from governmental and agro-NGO gene banks, and also uses material recommended by clients or farmers. Clients can order and purchase seed produced by ReinSaat via a webpage.

Cooperation The company cooperates with gene banks, research institutes, breeders associations, as well as clients at the national and European level. The company is embedded in an informal network with good relationships with e.g. with German and Swiss institutions and with companies in Slovenia, Hungary or the Czech Republic. The ECPGR program was known.

Policy and constraints The cooperation between research institutes and the company is very limited. The EC GENRES program was experienced as very complicated with regard to project proposal submission and administration. EC research programs were considered of no direct value to the company. The usage of landraces conserved in gene banks is limited by a lack of genetic integrity of the samples and a lack of descriptive data.

Appendix I

Trends There is an increasing demand for diversity and quality, i.e. better taste. Taste must also be combined with an acceptable yield. This is a clear trend. There is increasing interest in the public research sector with regard to breeding for better taste, higher stress tolerance and higher regional crop diversity. The number of crop species managed by the company has increased over the past 10 years.

3. SWOT analysis and the actions needed concerning PGR management in Austria

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses  Country with considerable diversity  There is no official governmental expert autochthonous landraces and crop wild program on PGR conservation and use relatives  No or limited online access to  Task-sharing within a network of characterisation and evaluation data decentralised PGR holding is organised  Limited capacities in plant breeding and supported by a central information research and for pre-breeding approaches, system respectively  NGOs are active as seed savers and  Limited number of regional plant breeding sellers, are esteemed by the public and programs (and breeding pools) are strong in the creation of political  Limited capacities for public awareness awareness about the value of PGR raising on the ecological and economical  People and policy support the rational of PGR activities in the production of regional products governmental sector  Good communication and cooperation between all stakeholder groups including nature conservation agencies

Opportunities Threats  Research programs and projects at the  Dominant, international seed companies EU level  Limited and decreasing budget available  EC regulations promoting plant genetic for regional PGR conservation and diversity utilisation programs  National agricultural policy promoting regional production systems and products

3.2 Recommended actions

Genebanks

Appendix I

The PGR management system is well organized, functioning, integrates all stakeholder groups and partly deploys a complementary conservation strategy. The PGR system would benefit from a national expert program for PGRFA detailing action needs, task-sharing and cooperation between stakeholders, the task timing and the costs frame related to specific actions. The national gene bank system can be strengthend through the further development of the National Inventory towards a system allowing the documentation and public online access to all characterisation and evaluation data linked with accessions.

Public research Public breeding research covers a wide range of topics although the number of persons active in breeding research is small as compared to the larger EU countries. There are several research and development activities which are focussed on the regional agricultural production systems and specific regional products. This is a unique selling point of Austrian public breeding research. A significant fraction of consumers and policy makers are in favor of organic farming and regional products which is a chance for the genetic enhancement and use of local landrace. As the staff capacities are limited there is no systematic evaluation programm respectively systematic documentation of evaluation data in the National Inventory. As Austrian plant breeding research is already integrated in European collaborative projects joining of systematic evaluation programms in partner countries can be a means of generating more information on the use value of Austrian genetic resources holdings.

NGOs Arche Noah is integral part of the Austrian genebank system although the association is funded by its members mainly in Austria and Germany. This is a unique paradigm within the EU showing how governmental and non-governmental organisations can cooperate for the benefit of all national partners. It also shows that strengths and weaknesses can be two sides of a coin. There is a risk that with the demographic change the public interest in crop and cultivar diversity will cease and reduce the financial means of Arche Noah. The activities of Arche Noah are focused on the utilization of underutilized species, landraces and former breeder’s varieties and by doing so Arche Noah completes the governmental PGR conservation and use system. The participation of agro-NGOs such as Arche Noah in national and internationally funded research and development programs should therefore be facilitated by the governmental sector.

Breeding companies Only a few commercial seed companies exist in Austria. Most of them sell seeds for foreign companies and only few run breeding programs focussed on the regional needs. The use of landraces and CWR by the private Austrian plant breeding sector is therefore rather limited. The use of Austrian landraces and CWR in commercial breeding program may be promoted through improved (crop specific) communication between all stakeholder groups in Austria. The agricultural policy in Austria as well at the EU level can backup regional breeding programs by further promoting the production of regional products based on traditionally grown crops and landraces.

4. References Austria (2010): Fourth National Report, Convention on Biological Diversity, Austria

Appendix I

The Baltic Countries

Anna Palmé1, Külli Annamaa2, Bronislovas Gelvonauskis3, Gert Poulsen1, 4 and Dainis Rungis5

1 Nordic Genetic Resource Centre, Box 41, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden; 2 Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute, J. Aamisepa 1, EE-48309 Jõgeva, Estonia; 3 Plant Gene Bank, Akademija, LT-58343, Lithuania; 4 Frøsamlerne, Drøwten 9, Tjele, DK-8830; 5 Genetic Resource Centre, LSFRI “Silava”, Rigas 111, Salaspils LV-2169, Latvia

1. Introduction The Baltic countries, situated at the south-eastern part of the Baltic Sea, have large areas devoted to agriculture but also large areas of unexploited habitats with a varied flora and fauna. Naturally, species that are threatened by human induced changes in other regions can still thrive here, for example in natural forests and wetlands. Wooded-meadows, alvars, coastal grasslands and flooded meadows constitute the plant communities that hold the majority of the plant species richness, provided that they are properly managed. These areas are therefore a great potential for conservation of crop wild relatives (CWR) that are dependent on these particular habitats. Livestock farming is important in all the three Baltic countries and therefore a large part of the agricultural area is used for pasture and consequently forages are important crops. In addition to forages, wheat, barley and oil seeds are important in all the three countries, while potatoes and pulses are most important in the southern part of the region1.

To gain a better understanding of PGR conservation and use in the Baltic countries, ten stakeholders were interviewed. Of these four represented gene banks, two public research, three breeding institutes and one agro-NGO (Table 1).

Table 1. Stakeholders interviewed in the Baltic countries. Stakeholder Country Stakeholder category Gene banks Estonia Gene Bank at Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute, Jõgeva Latvia Genetic Resources Centre, Latvian State Forestry Research Institute 'Silava', Salaspils Pure Horticultural Research Centre, Pure* Lithuania The Plant Gene Bank, Kedainiai distr. Public Estonia Institute of Gene Technology, Tallinn University Research of Technology, Tallinn Lithuania The Plant Breeding Centre, Institute of Agriculture, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry Agro-NGO Estonia MTÜ Maadjas Breeding Estonia Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute, Jõgeva institutes Latvia State Stende Cereal Breeding Institute, Dizstende State Priekuli Plant Breeding Institute, Priekuli * Pure Horticultural Research Centre is a private breeding institute (formally a public breeding institute). As they are conserving vegetatively propagated crops they are interviewed as a gene bank in this study.

Appendix I

2. Stakeholder interviews 2.1 Gene banks

Capacity and current status In the Baltic region (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), there is one seed gene bank in each country: the Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute in Estonia, the Genetic Resources Centre in Latvia and the Plant Gene Bank in Lithuania. In addition to the seed gene banks there are also other field gene banks and institutions working with in vitro conservation, for example the Pure Horticultural Research Centre in Latvia. There are between 3,5 and 7 full time positions in each seed gene bank and a budget between 40 000 EUR (Estonia and Latvia) and about 160 000 EUR (Lithuania). If the whole national PGR programs are considered, the budgets are larger: 210 000 EUR for Estonia, 113 000 EUR for Latvia and 218 000 for Lithuania.

The most important crops in terms of collection size vary among the gene banks. In Estonia turnip rape (438 accessions), wheat (300) and peas (184) are the most important. In Latvia there are most accessions of barley (800), forages (500) and flax (108) in the seed gene bank, while potato onions (60), garlic (60) and rhubarb (30) are the most common vegetatively propagated crops at the Pure Horticultural Research Centre. In Lithuania Festuca (373), Trifolium (222) and Dactylis (206) are the genera with most accessions.

The important crops are being systematically characterised in all the Baltic countries. This is generally done by breeders or researchers not working at the gene bank but often funded by the gene bank for certain activities, and the information is then delivered to the gene bank. Also landrace and CWR are being characterised and evaluated in this way.

Access and information Information on the collections from all the interviewed gene banks is made available in public home pages and data bases. Both the data base SESTO, which is hosted by NordGen, and EURISCO is used for this purpose. Accessions from the collections can be ordered via e- mail from all the gene banks and in some cases also via phone calls and visits to the gene bank.

Characterisation and evaluation data is generally systematically stored in data bases at the gene banks. However, these are not publically available online. Development of the characterisation and evaluation data base is stated as an important task for the future by some of the gene banks. The development of specific data bases for landraces and CWR was also mentioned as a way to improve information dissemination.

There is an interest from different kinds of stakeholders to order accessions from the Baltic gene banks. The most important crops generally get 1-10 requests per year depending on crop and gene bank and up to 50 accessions per year are distributed for the most requested crops. However, only a small percentage of requested accessions are landraces or CWR. For CWR mainly forages that are in demand.

Cooperation The Baltic gene banks cooperate with PGR stakeholders in their own country, especially with breeders and researchers but also with the other stakeholder groups. The gene banks take part in cooperation projects including landraces and CWR, but only a small part of their time is spent on this kind of work: around 1 person month per year in each gene bank.

Appendix I

Policy and constraints Estonia has a national programme that specifically mentions landraces and an agrobiodiversity policy that supports on-farm management of varieties of local origin. However, during the last period of the Rural Development Programme (2007-2013), only cultivation of the winter rye variety ‘Sangaste’ was subsidized. Latvia and Lithuania does not have national programmes that mentions either landraces or CWR or national agrobiodiversity policies that support on-farm management. There are no research programmes in either of the Baltic countries from which funds can be obtained for work concerning on-farm management of landraces or in situ conservation of CWR. In Lithuania however ten plots were established according to the regulation for plant genetic plots, approved by minister of environment. The genetic plots are designed for preservation of medicinal and aromatic plants in situ. This activity was carried out in cooperation with Institute of Botany and was supported by gene bank.

A major constraint for the work in the Baltic gene banks, mentioned both by the Estonian and Latvian gene banks, is the lack of sufficient funding. For example in the Genetic Resources Centre in Latvia they restrict their work to the most basic conservation tasks. Regeneration, characterisation and evaluation can at the moment only be done in cooperation with other partners that carry the majority of the costs. In Estonia the level of funding has not changed over the last ten years, while the responsibility of the gene bank has increased substantially over the same period, for example concerning international commitments, in situ conservation and characterization.

Other constrains in gene banking that was mentioned by at least one of the interviewees were: lack of active political support, lack of appropriate PGR legislation, insufficient genetic data on many accessions, lack of staff with appropriate technical knowledge and that ex situ conservation is dominating PGR conservation thinking.

To improve conservation and use of landraces and CWR, several approaches were suggested by the interviewees. It would be beneficial to conduct expeditions to inventory the occurrence of CWR, collect seeds for ex situ conservation and at the next stage characterise and evaluate these accessions.

It would also be very valuable to work on in situ conservation of CWR but this would need active support and funding from the authorities, which is lacking in Latvia and Lithuania. Another issue is seed conservation. Much is known about the seed conservation of the common crops but seeds of different species behave differently and little is often known about the CWR. In this area more research is needed.

Trends Some of the interviewees feel that their work in the gene bank will be more focused on use in the future and that more time will be spent on public relations and information to the public. Others believe that there will be more emphasis on characterisation and evaluation in the gene bank in the future and that molecular markers will be an increasingly important tool in this work. Also pre-breeding is something that will increase in importance. It is believed that there will be an increased interest in old varieties, both from the public and the farmers and also in ecological farming. Climate change is also thought to result in an increased demand for plant genetic resources resulting in the collection of more wild accessions representing different phenotypes and geographic locations.

Appendix I

2.2 Public research

Capacity and current status Representatives from two institutes were interviewed: from Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia and from the Plant Breeding Centre, Lithuania.

In the Tallinn University of Technology there are 9 people working on genetics/pre-breeding and their main focus is basic research, education and student supervision. Their research interests are focused on wheat and potatoes and both landraces and CWR are used in the research on wheat but not in potatoes. They systematically search for landrace and CWR accessions in gene banks.

In the Plant Breeding Centre in Lithuania there are 12 scientists, 5 PhD students and more than 10 technicians working within breeding / genetics. The breeding centre is divided into three departments: the Laboratory of Genetics and Physiology, Grasses and Legumes Breeding Department and Cereal Breeding Department. The research in the Grasses and Legumes Breeding Department is focused on the development of new cultivars and on genetic resources in species such as Lolium perenne, Lolium multiflorum, Phleum pratense, Festuca pratense, Trifoliums (Trifolium pratense, Trifolium repens, Trifolium hybridum ), Dactylis glomerata and Poa pratensis. In the Laboratory of Genetics and Physiology they work with genotyping, molecular markers for breeding (MAS), genetic resources and double haploid lines. In the Cereal Breeding Department they focus on winter wheat, spring barley, oats, winter rye and peas. Landraces are not used in the research but CWR are used to quite a large extent in some species. For example in the research on Poa pratensis, 80% of the work is done on CWR, in Festuca breeding for turf 95% CWR are used and in the research on Festuca arundinacea for bioenergy in 50% CWR are used. Also in the Laboratory of Genetics and Physiology CWR are used: association mapping in Lolium perenne (50% CWR) and Sorghum for biofuel (80% CWR). The CWR used in the research does not originate in gene banks but the researchers collect these genetic resources themselves.

Both in the Tallinn University of Technology and the Plant Breeding Centre in Lithuania genetics/pre-breeding is regarded as an important topic. In the former, the most important research on this topic is (1) resistance (powdery mildew in wheat, Phytophtora in potato), (2) genotyping and (3) chromosomal structure of wheat. In the latter, the most important research topics are (1) feed for cattle, (2) food, (3) bioenergy and (4) turf grasses.

The researchers in both institutions systematically characterise and evaluate their collections of landraces and CWR and the information is documented in a data base. Landraces and CWR are also included in –omics research.

Access and information In the Tallinn University of Technology they have ordered landraces and CWR from the Vavilov Institute (Russia) and from Canada as well as other types of accessions from other gene banks. They find that there are difficulties to obtain accessions from the Vavilov Institute, but that NordGen is fast and reliable. The researchers use scientific publications and gene bank databases to search for information on landrace and CWR accessions.

Appendix I

The characterisation data produced by the researchers in the two institutes is published in scientific journals and presented in conference proceedings and oral presentations. In this way it is made available to the public.

Cooperation There is some cooperation between the research institutes and other stakeholders. In the Tallinn University of Technology they have a tight cooperation with a public breeding company, Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute, and cooperation occurs on a wide range of common projects both in wheat and potatoes. These common projects are financed by the government.

In the Plant Breeding Centre in Lithuania they cooperate with gene banks but not with the other stakeholders. They send samples from the CWR that they collect to the gene bank.

Policy and constraints Estonia has a national expert programme that promotes research on wheat landraces and the Ministry of Agriculture in general has a positive attitude towards research on landraces and CWR. Lithuania lacks such a programme. However, in both countries the government provides research programmes from which researchers can attract funds for research on landraces and CWR.

The interviewee in Estonia felt that EU GENRES programmes most likely promoted research on landraces and CWR in Estonia and certainly promoted cooperation with colleagues from other countries. However, EU programmes had not promoted the research of her group. The Lithuanian interviewees did not feel that these EU GENRES programmes had promoted work on landraces and CWR in Lithuania but that other EU programmes have promoted their research. The Plant Breeding Centre has received funding to improve their infrastructure (new greenhouse, climatic chambers, field machinery and lab equipment).

One important constraint when working with CWR is that it takes a long time to introduce traits from the CWR into a cultivar. To do this long term funding is needed.

Trends The focus of the Plant Breeding Centre in Lithuania has changed during the last ten years. They have for example focused more on biofuel during this period than before. There were several trends for the future suggested by the interviewees. New genetic tools will increase in use and these tools can facilitate the identification of useful genes in landraces and also their introduction into cultivars. The interest in Bioenergy, green manure and in soil erosion research is expected to increase in the future, while research into food and feed will remain important.

2.3 Non-governmental organisations

Capacity and current status One agro-NGO was interviewed, MTÜ Maadjas, Estonia. This is a small Agro-NGO that was recently founded and their interest includes native breeds of both plants and animals. There are also several other NGOs in Estonia that are interested in native breeds / landraces, for example the Estonian Fund for Nature (http://www.elfond.ee/), the Estonian Agricultural

Appendix I

Museum (http://epm.ee/) and the Väike-Maarja Farmers Organisation (https://sites.google.com/site/vaeikemaarjapollumeesteselts/).

MTÜ Maadjas is run on a strictly voluntary basis with no employees at the moment. At the time of the interview (2011) there were about 10 people contributing to the organisation. The focus of their work depends on the interest of their members and can therefore vary but includes both plants and animals. Examples of crops of interest are barley, wheat, oats, rye, peas, broad beans and flax.

The aim of the organisation is to collect landraces, multiply and then distribute them, with the overall goal to ensure continued cultivation and conservation. However, the work of MTÜ Maadjas has so far not included systematic collections of landraces but has concentrated on the collection of information, both from written sources and from travelling around in the country and discussing with farmers and older people. In the latter way information on where landraces are maintained are obtained. Characterisation and evaluation are not part of their current goals. There is no umbrella organisation for NGOs in Estonia

Access and information MTÜ Maadjas has a public homepage (https://sites.google.com/site/maadjasmtu/) where they present information about themselves and their activities. The aim is to build up a large information data base with photos on the home page. This work has started by collecting information from literature and presenting it online, for example on rye, oats, wheat, barley, peas and beans.

Cooperation MTÜ Maadjas is open for non-commercial cooperation with other stakeholders with the goal to conserve and promote the use of landraces. For example, they cooperate with the Estonian Research Institute of Agriculture and Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute in Estonia and also with HAMK University of Applied Sciences (http://www.hamk.fi) and Maatiainen ry (http://www.maatiainen.fi) in Finland. They do not work with the commercial sector.

Policy and constraints The interviewee is not aware of any governmental programme that allows NGOs to attract funds. The EU GENRES programme has not had any impact on their work. The major constraints for the work in MTÜ Maadjas are lack of financial support and lack of volunteers to take part in the work at the NGO.

Trends Identified trends are increased interest in environmental issues, increased interest in potatoes and more open access. In the future it will be possible to find and collect valuable landraces that have not been described in Estonia.

2.4 Breeding institutes

Capacity and current status Representatives from three Baltic breeding institutes have been interviewed: from Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute in Estonia, State Stende Cereal Breeding Institute in Latvia and

Appendix I

State Priekuli Plant Breeding Institute also in Latvia. All the three breeding institutes are rather large public national institutes with about 100 people working at the Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute and about 50 in the other two (including seasonal workers).

In Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute the most important crops in the forages group are Trifolium pratense, Medicago varia / media, Lolium perenne, Festuca rubra, Poa pratensis and other important crops at the institute include spring barley, spring wheat, winter wheat, oats, rapeseed and potatoes. They focus on these particular crops since they have the biggest acreage in Estonia and the goal is to provide material that is well adapted to the local conditions. For forages they focus on traits such as yield, quality (hay, grazing, silage), persistence, seed yield and disease resistance.

At the State Stende Cereal Breeding Institute they focus on wheat (winter and spring), spring barley and oats. They have 70% of the domestic market in oats, 20% in wheat and 20-30% in barley. They breed these crops since they are the main crops in the country and the goal is to produce varieties for the local market that are adapted to local conditions and different cultivation systems. Yield is important in all crops. In wheat they focus on winter hardiness, baking quality and ethanol production; in barley resistance to lodging, resistance to mildew, net blotch, covered and naked barley; in oats food quality for humans (fat, beta glucans) and naked oats.

The most important crops in the State Priekuli Plant Breeding Institute are spring barley, potatoes, rye, pea and triticale. On the domestic seed market their share is 10-20% in potato, 5% in barley, 50% in rye and up to 100% in some forage species. Their goal is to produce locally adapted varieties including varieties for organic farming. The aim is to breed for food, feed and bioethanol. The traits that they focus on are yield, quality, disease resistance, winter hardiness and suitability for organic farming.

Both CWR and landraces are used in breeding programmes in the Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute and State Priekuli Plant Breeding Institute, while only old varieties are used in State Stende Cereal Breeding Institute. CWR, landraces and old varieties are often used because they possess a specific trait of interest, for example resistance to diseases, drought tolerance, winter hardiness, quality, taste and yield stability.

The use of CWR and landraces is generally low. For species such as wheat, barley, oats, rye, potatoes and peas the interviewees state that they use between 0-5% of CWR and landrace material in their breeding. The reasons for not including CWR and landrace material in these crops are problems with low productivity and lodging resistance. In forage species however, there is a higher usage of this type of material and at the Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute they use 10% in Trifolium pratense and Medicago and as much as 90% in Festuca rubra but a lower amount (2%) in Lolium perenne. In breeding of Poa pratensis for turf they use only CWR. The reason for not including more CWR material in forage and turf plants is low seed yield and limited seed amounts delivered by gene banks, the latter caused by limited regeneration capacity. In all three breeding institutes the decision to include CWR and landraces are made by the individual breeder.

Two of the interviewees think that they in general have enough genetic variation to develop new varieties, while at State Stende Cereal Breeding Institute they do not think so since they are currently developing a collection and ordering material from gene banks. In general, in most species, landraces and CWR play a limited role in broadening the genetic base of crops.

Appendix I

There are however exceptions such as turf grasses where it is very important. However two of the interviewees state that their institutes have benefited economically from the use of CWR in their breeding programmes.

Access and information The Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute gain access to CWRs by collecting it themselves, in State Stende Cereal Breeding Institute they have a working collection that they maintain at the institute and new material is generally ordered from gene banks. In State Priekuli Plant Breeding Institute they both conduct collection missions and order material from gene banks (Latvian gene bank and VIR).

Cooperation All the interviewed breeding institutes cooperate with gene banks, other breeders, public research organisations and NGOs and this cooperation is generally non-commercial. The cooperation includes a large number of the species they work on and involves for example variety testing, exchange of data and material, commercialisation of forage varieties and different types of national and international cooperation projects.

Policy and constraints The Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute takes an active part in the Nordic PPP (private-public partnership) project on Lolium, which is one of the three Nordic PPP projects started in 2012. The other two institutes do not take an active role in PPP projects but contribute with material to Baltic-Nordic and European cooperation projects.

Two of the interviewees know about the ECPGR working groups that are relevant for their work, while the third had not heard about them. None of the interviewees know about the GENRES programme or feel that EU research programmes have benefitted their work.

There are several constraints regarding CWR and landraces in breeding. Landraces and CWR are generally insufficiently studied which makes the selection of appropriate breeding material difficult. The inclusion of landraces and CWR in a breeding programme increase the time to market, which results in commercial companies being reluctant to undertake this kind of work. The small amount of seeds received from gene banks add to this problem since it adds time for multiplication to the project. Combined this means that including CWR and landraces into a breeding programme costs additional time and money. None of the breeding institutes employ pre-breeders. Instead any pre-breeding work is done by the breeders.

The interviewees suggest several approaches to get around these problems and to be able to use these important genetic resources. Public financing specific for pre-breeding is important to encourage the use of CWR and landraces, which can also be facilitated by cooperation among stakeholders at the international level. Also the improvement of breeding methods, such as for example the use of molecular markers, could decrease the breeding time and make it easier to include CWR and landraces. Efforts should also be made to increase the characterisation and evaluation of landraces and CWR of interest and to make this data easily available, for example by encouraging such studies and including students in such projects. If the seed situation (quality and quantity) in gene bank collections needs improvement, this should be focused on, rather than at procurement of new accessions. At least for a period until all the standards are met.

Trends

Appendix I

In all the breeding institutes both the number of crops and the focus of their work has changed during the last 25 years. Increased emphasis has been given to crops such as Lupinus polyphyllus, Phalaris arundinacea, Lotus corniculatus, naked cereals, spelt, organic varieties and triticale. The interest for industrial uses of crops has increased, for example for use as bioenergy. For forage species, more emphasis is put on for example feeding value, regrowth and green manure for organic agriculture. A new focus is climate change affecting both the choice of species and breeding for the future. In general there is also an increased interest in organic farming and breeding for nutritional values, while yield and resistance remain important.

There are several future trends envisaged by the interviewees. In the future there will be more focus on broadening the genetic base, for example by using CWR. There will also be a focus on new species such as ornamental and technical grasses and minor crops. It is also thought that the breeding methods will improve in the future and that the use of molecular markers will increase. There will also be more focus on disease resistance and nutritional values.

3. SWOT analysis and the actions needed concerning PGR management in the Baltic countries

3.1 SWOT analysis On the basis of the interviews, a SWOT analysis was carried out to identify the crucial issues related to the PGR management in the Baltic countries

Strengths Weaknesses  Region with considerable PGR diversity.  LR and CWR material is used in breeding, but  There is cooperation among all the not to a large extent except in some grass stakeholder groups. species.  Information on the collections in the gene  There is no online database for banks is available in public data bases. characterisation and evaluation information on gene bank accessions.  Gene bank accessions are systematically characterised by breeders and researchers  There is a need for increased efforts on both in situ and ex situ conservation of CWR.  Landrace and CWR are used in research  Lack of sufficient funding for gene banking projects activities leads to difficulties, for example  CWRs and landraces are included in –omics regarding regeneration (in some countries), projects characterization and expansion of the  There are agro-NGOs with the aim to collections. collect, distribute and document landraces  Funding to introduce modern breeding as well as inform the public. methods is lacking and also knowledge on how to use modern technologies.  Landraces and CWR accessions are insufficiently evaluated for agriculturally important traits and if this kind of data is available, it is not easy to access.  Small seed amounts delivered by gene banks substantially adds time to breeding and some research projects.

Opportunities Threats

Appendix I

 Cooperation within PPP programmes,  Difficulty to attract funding for working with splitting the tasks and responsibilities CWR and landraces in pre-breeding projects among competent partners. and also for research on in situ conservation of  Increased interest from the public and CWR and on farm management of landraces. farmers in growing old varieties and in  There is a national expert programme that ecological farming. mentions landrace and CWR in Estonia but not  Climate change will result in an increased in Latvia or in Lithuania demand for PGR  The national agrobiodiversity policy does not  It is possible to attract governmental give strong support for the on farm funding for work on landraces and CWR management of landraces in the Baltic  Increased efficiency and use of molecular countries tools can facilitate introduction traits from  There is a lack of knowledge on how to best CWR into cultivated plants. conserve CWR seeds.  There are many traits of interest in CWR  Risk of losing a part of the gene bank and landraces: Longevity (forages), abiotic collections due to insufficient regeneration in stress (such as drought, cold, flooding), compliance with accepted standards. disease resistance, quality (nutritional value,  Lack of active political support of PGR issues taste) and yield stability that could all in some countries. benefit breeding efforts.  Introducing traits from CWR into advanced  Increased interest in bioenergy, green breeding material is costly and time- manure and soil erosion consuming. Improved, faster breeding methods  The use of CWR can financially benefit are therefore needed. breeding companies.  The opportunities for NGOs to attract governmental funds are very limited.

3.2 Recommended actions The following recommended actions are based on information from the interviews described above, but suggested and formulated by the authors of this report. The recommendations are aimed to improve the conservation and use of plant genetic resources in the Baltic states.

 Development of national funding programmes for research on plant genetic resources including landraces and CWR in Latvia and Lithuania. This would increase the knowledge and understanding of PGR material and therefore facilitate its use. Such programs should especially encourage evaluation of agronomically important traits to facilitate selection of material for breeding programs but also research on seed conservation in CWR to facilitate ex situ conservation and development of methods or technologies to speed up breeding with landrace and CWR material.  Facilitate long term cooperative projects on pre-breeding, which can serve as a basis for successful breeding in the national breeding institutes. It is important that these projects are long term as successful pre-breeding takes a long time. Cooperation among stakeholders, both on the international and national level, should make this work more efficient.  The position of in situ conservation should be strengthened. This is an important issue since in situ conservation is a central part of the conservation of both landraces (on farm management) as well as CWR (for example national reserves).  Increased funding for basic gene bank tasks to secure long term conservation. The Baltic gene banks efficiently conserve a wide variety of crops in their gene banks. However, both the gene banks in Estonia and Latvia state that they lack sufficient funding. One

Appendix I

interviewee mentions that there is no funding for regeneration, which is necessary for long term conservation.  Improve the use of plant genetic resources in gene banks. This could be done by the following approaches:  Development of online data bases for evaluation and characterisation data.  Increase evaluation and characterisation of the gene banks accessions.  Be able to provide larger amount of seeds for breeding projects, and in this way reduce the time for multiplication in pre-breeding projects.  Encourage education of gene bank staff in order to attain modern technical knowledge.  Inventories and collection of strategically selected CWR and landraces  Facilitate possibilities for NGOs to get funding for their work. This could for example be done by informing NGOs about existing funding opportunities (not targeted at NGOs), by targeting governmental funding to NGOs or encourage their participation in larger projects.

4. References 1Nilsson A and von Bothmer R. 2010. Collaboration between Baltic and Nordic Plant Breeding

Appendix I

Bulgaria

Lothar Frese1, Liliya Ivanova Krasteva2, and Gisela Neuhaus1

1 JKI, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI), Institute for Breeding Research on Agricultural Crops, Erwin-Baur-Str. 27, D-06484 Quedlinburg, Germany, Tel: (49) 03946 47 705, Fax: (49) 03946 47 255, E-mail: [email protected]; 2Institute for Plant Genetic Resources, "K. Malkov" (IPGR),2 Drujba Blvd.,4122 Sadovo, Plovdiv district, Bulgaria, Tel: (359-32) 629026, Fax: (359-32) 629026, E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction Bulgaria covers an area of 111.910 km2. Geographically, Bulgaria is subdivided into two different large-scale areas: on the one hand, the northern part determined by the Danube delta and adjacent lowlands and on the other hand the south area of the country covered by mountain massifs and large plateaus. In the East, Bulgaria borders the Black Sea coast. Bulgaria has a continental climate with a cold winter and a hot warm summer. The ecogeographic diversity is thus high as is the number of plant species occurring in the country.

The former state owned land was re-privatized in the early 1990s resulting in a highly fragmented agriculture and a high number of small-scale farms. In the northern part, however, wheat, corn and sugar beet are mainly produced on large farms. Vegetable, fruit and grapevine production is located in the Danube delta and in central Bulgaria where also roses and lavender are produced (Iliev et al., 1995; Ermann and Ilieva, 2006).

Altogether six stakeholders from gene banks, public research organizations, NGOs as well as commercial breeders were interviewed using the guideline-based interview technique. Prof. L.I. Krasteva agreed to be the country key person and consultant for Bulgaria. She prepared a list of organizations which were visited from September 20–23, 2011. The persons interviewed were: gene bank – Prof. L.I. Krasteva, Sadovao; Prof. V. Petkova, Plovdiv; research organization – Dr. Ts. Mikovsky, Troyan; agro-NGO – Mr. I. Sulinadjiev, Plovdiv; breeding company – Prof. A. Katova, Pleven, Prof. G. Georgiev, Pavlikeni; Prof. V. Petkova, Plovdiv. Interviews lasted around 1-2 hours per meeting. On the basis of the conducted interviews this report was written which also includes a preliminary SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity and threat) analysis and action points concerning the conservation and use of PGR in Bulgaria.

2. Stakeholder interviews

2.1 Gene Bank The Institute of Plant Genetic Resources „Konstantin Malkov“ (IPGR), Sadovo, is operating the national gene bank which holds about 1,400 plant species of Bulgarian and foreign origin. The institute is responsible for the long-term storage and documentation, collection, characterization and evaluation of genetic resources of agricultural and horticultural crops and their wild relatives, with a priority on genetic resources of Bulgarian origin. The gene bank maintains a highly diverse germplasm holding. It comprises a total number of the 57684 accessions maintained under medium- and long-term controlled storage conditions. In

Appendix I addition living collections of landraces and CWR are kept in the botanical garden. The gene bank cooperates closely with the „Maritsa“ Vegetable Crops Research Institute (MVCRI) which also belongs to the Bulgarian Agricultural Academy. Each breeder maintains, expands and enriches working collections of genetic resources of the vegetable crops he/she is responsible for. There is very close cooperation and exchange of genetic material between MVCRI and IPGR. Working collections of the breeders in MVCRI include mainly samples from the gene bank, as well as materials collected personally in different areas of the country, or provided by fellow breeders from other countries and foreign genebanks.

Capacity and state A total number of 48 persons including eigtheen scientists work at the IPGR. The research and development work at the MVCRI is performed by 125 persons including eleven plant breeding scientists. MVCRI has eight different research laboratories working in close cooperation with the plant breeding scientists in the field of variety breeding. IPGR is responsible for the program on conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. This program covers two main areas: (i) Regulation for in situ conservation including monitoring are not yet available except for those CWR species that fall within the responsibility of nature reserves or the Natura 2000 protected area network. (ii) Regulations for ex situ management are available as well as approaches for the management of local vegetables, spices, and fruit crops on-farm. Collecting of landraces and CWR still continues with the aims of identifying additional diversity useful for agriculture and to conserve it before it is lost. Although the larger fraction of the diversity of many crops has probably been collected, some important “small” crops have been neglected. The major crop groups conserved at IPGR are: cereal, grain legumes, vegetables, fodder legumes as well as grasses. In terms of working collection size the top five crops held at MVCRI are tomato, pepper, cucumber, onion, potato and cabbage. CWR are well represented in the Bulgarian gene bank and on an exceptional level (25 %) as compared to other European countries. This fact is mainly due to the high proportion of forages as well as ornamental and medicinal species in the gene bank. Depending on the crop group the collections have been characterised more or less intensively. Characterisation is a continuing work performed routinely while the evaluation is more specific and depends on the availability of additional project funds. In particular old vegetable landraces are well characterised and assessed. Altogether both institutes invest about nine person months into national and international cooperation in the field of landraces and CWR. If more capacities would be available the IPGR will increase characterisation and genetic investigations; if capacities would be reduced IPGR will reduce work on foreign accession but will not reduce regeneration of germplasm. Under improved financial conditions MVCRI would intensify cooperation with local farmers and producers, increase the assessment of foreign varieties, increase characterisation activities including the application of modern technologies and organise collecting expeditions. If the conditions were less favourable, work on specific vegetable crops would be stopped.

Access and information

Users can search online for accession kept by the national gene bank via EURISCO. Both institutes provide the contact details of staff members on a webpage allowing users to contact crop experts personally. The national gene bank is accessed and used by all stakeholder groups, even by farmers. There is an intensive exchange of material between the gene bank and public research institutes as well as public breeding institutes. Foreign public breeding research institutes and genebanks also order and receive material. With regard to the top five crops the percentage of accessions per crop holding sent by IPGR to users ranged between 10

Appendix I to 30 % in 2010. The proportion of CWR and landraces ranged between 2 to 10%. Concerning the top five vegetable crops kept by MVCRI the percentage ranged between 1 to 20% for landraces in 2011 while the requests for CWR was very limited (1,1%, tomato).

The characterisation and evaluation data are systematically recorded by the collection curators or the crop specific breeding scientist in individual databases. A central information system combining all passport, characterisation and evaluation data does not yet exist.

Cooperation Both institutes closely cooperate with breeders in Bulgaria. The national gene bank also cooperates with agro-NGOs.

Policy and constraints The national agrobiodiversity policy supports the on-farm management of landraces to some extent. Financial means for PGR projects can be raised through funds of a national action plan. An expert program that specifically mentions the value of landraces and CWR as a source for breeding does not exist, though. If a national expert program for PGR would exist, IPGR and MVCRI will strengthen the cooperation at the national level, introduce modern methods for germplasm evaluation, make a national inventory of CWR and landraces and create a comprehensive Bulgarian PGR information and quality management system. Increased capacities for vegetable seed production would benefit farmers who demand more seeds than MVCRI can currently produce. Both interview partners knew the GENRES program and would like to join project groups. The major constraints to genebanking are limited availability of funds, even for the technical infrastructure, but also for precise phenotyping of the germplasm.

Trend The increased regeneration and distribution of accessions, the improvement of the interaction between the ex situ, in situ and on-farm conservation sector, improved legislative framework for CWR and landrace conservation, an even more active use of CWR and landraces in breeding, and the development of a central PGR information system better meeting the needs of breeding research and variety breeding will be the major trends in genebanking from the Bulgarian perspective.

2.2 Public Research Genetic resources of grasses and fodder crops play a prominent role in the Bulgarian breeding research. The task is shared between the Research Institute of Mountain Stockbreeding and Agriculture (RIMSA), Troyan, which also combines research activities with training of students, the Institute of Forage Crops (IFC), Pleven, conducting variety breeding of fodder plants like alfalfa, forage pea and forage grasses and the Soybean Experimental Station (SES), Pavlikeni. There seems to be a continuous intersection between public breeding research and public breeding. IFC and SES are therefore described in chapter 2.4. The main task of all entities is on the development of new varieties.

Capacity and state Five of the ten persons working at RIMSA are engaged in plant genetic resources activities. RIMSA performs applied research and contributes to the development of new varieties of legumes and grasses adapted to mountainous production conditions. The institute also maintains a germplasm collection of old fruit trees. At present, Trifolium species sampled at

Appendix I

64 locations in Bulgaria are being investigated. Breeding for productivity, quality and abiotic stress tolerance are the main research themes. Landraces and CWR are systematically characterised and evaluated, and within the framework of a bilateral research project the material is also genotyped. The characterisation and evaluation data are kept in excel files.

Access and information For forage crops research a working collection was built up using accessions maintained in the national gene bank. Additional material was ordered from the Vavilov-Institute. Characterisation and evaluation data are published in journals.

Cooperation The institute does not cooperate with agro-NGOs, farmers and breeding companies (in the sense of private companies). It cooperates, however, with gene banks.

Policy and constraints The government provides a national strategy allowing fund raising for work on CWR and landraces. The EC GENRES program was not known. The participation of the institute in EC research projects was seen as a chance for the development of plant genetic resources use systems better meeting the sustainability criteria. The most crucial constraints are the limited availability of funds, limited expert capacities, insufficient technical infrastructure and limited stock of evaluation data. More genetic information on the source material is needed as it would facilitate the variety improvement.

Trend During the past 10 years the research focus remained steady with one exception: there is a stronger engagement in drought resistance research. Bulgaria is rich of CWR of forage crops, legumes, and grasses specifically adapted to very different ecological conditions of the country. The locations of the occurrences in the country are well known. In future more information of the value of genotypes will become available. Due to the high ecogeographic diversity Bulgaria is a good place for the assessment of CWR with respect to their usage for agriculture in the Balkan region.

2.3 Non-governmental organizations The Secretary of the Agricultural Chamber (Plovdiv) was interviewed as a representative of agro-NGOs. This association is one of the 14 NGOs integrated in the Council of the Bulgarian Agricultural Organizations, Sofia. Most agro-NGOs in Bulgaria are active in the field of extensive farming and in the promotion of the use of a broad spectrum of crops (tomato, pepper, green bean, peas, and cabbage) and their local varieties. The Agricultural Chamber mainly works on honorary basis and functions as an umbrella organization supporting farmers in the establishment of local markets. This agro-NGO is also acting as a consultant in the field of organic farming, as well as in conservation and sustainable use of local populations of crops. The work covers a wide variety of topics dealing with education and training in agricultural cultivation techniques, harvesting methods or plant protection application techniques. The Chamber mediates between farmers and the administrative agencies of the state. The work is solely financed and supported by the members of the association.

Capacity and state

Appendix I

Fifteen persons work for the Chamber of which one person is employed while the remaining persons collaborate on a voluntary basis. The agro-NGO works with grapevine, green beans, rice, potato, tomato and pepper and collects germplasm sporadically. The members multiply and exchange the material and sell the products on the market. The information on traits and the usage of the collected material is not recorded in a database but kept as farmer’s knowledge and spread among the members.

Information The information on the material is disseminated during agricultural fairs.

Cooperation The agro-NGO deliberate on various matters with other NGOs in the country and cooperates non-commercially with all other stakeholder groups in the country in particular with the gene bank.

Policy There is no national expert program which specifically mentions the value of landraces and CWR. The GENRES program was known but up to now a participation in a project was not possible. The major constraint in the agro-NGO’s work is the limited availability of funds and that members are mostly volunteers. Projects have been initiated to improve the attractiveness of the organisation.

Trend The need to expand the Chamber by including more organisations was expressed. There is a need to attract and involve younger and/or larger farmers in the association.

2.4 Breeding Sector Due to historical reasons, the variety breeding sector in Bulgaria is often integrated in public research institutes. Variety breeding is performed by the „Maritsa“ Vegetable Crops Research Institute, Plovdiv (MVCRI), the Institute of Forage Crops (IFC), Pleven and the Soybean Experimental Station (SES), Pavlikeni.

Capacity and state The staff capacity of MVCRI was already described in chapter 2.1. The commercial breeding activities concentrate on tomato, pepper, cucumber, onion, potato and cabbage which are the vegetables of great economic importance for the domestic market. Tolerance and resistance to biotic and abiotic stress factor, nutritional quality, yield and suitability of varieties for organic production systems are the main breeding targets. The IFC has 80 staff members of which four persons are permanently employed as forage breeders. They are supported by two PhD students. Three persons out of the 24 staff members of the SES are charged with variety breeding. IFC and SES are public research institutes and part of the Agricultural Academy.

Landrace and CWR are both included in the breeding programs of vegetable, and forage crops. In vegetable breeding they are the main basic sources because they possess properties esteemed by the domestic markets. Therefore the percentage of accessions distributed by the gene bank is identical with the percentage of accessions used in the variety breeding. In the breeding of grasses, alfalfa and vetch CWR and landraces are very important. The use of CWR in grass breeding was higher than 90%, the use of landraces in alfalfa approximately 15% (landraces), and vetch 100% (landraces). In soybean breeding the creation of novel

Appendix I genetic variation through interspecific crosses proved difficult and the attempt to use related species was ceased. The amount of genetic variation available to the breeding programs of the top five vegetable crops, and forage crops was considered enough as the Bulgarian agriculture is still rich in local varieties and populations. The insufficient genetic variation within the breeding material was considered a limiting factor in soybean breeding. The use of CWR in the variety breeding has though not financially benefited the breeding program of MVCRI, IFC and SEC during the past ten years.

Access MVCRI acquires material from breeders working in other national and international institutes and gene banks. IFC and SES get access to landrace and CWR accessions via the national gene bank as the main source, through exchange between colleagues and collecting expeditions in the country and abroad.

Cooperation The cooperation between MVCRI, IFC and SES breeders with the gene bank and researchers is very tight for the reasons already mentioned. There is no cooperation between VCRI, IFC and SES and agro-NGOs. ECPGR working groups were known to all three breeders who had no contacts with the groups to date.

Policy and constraints MVCRI invests three person months per year in public-private-partnership programs such as SeedNet. The GENRES program was not known as was the EC research framework program to MVCRI while IFC and SES knew GENRES and even participated in EC-funded projects. The potential of EC research programs for breeding of grasses, red clover and vetch was pointed out. As the major constraints in genebanking insufficient gene bank storage capacities and funding for the technical research infrastructure were identified. The still insufficient participation of the Bulgarian PGR community in European networks and EC- funded projects was seen as a constraint to breeders in the country.

Trend MVCRI, IFC and SES did not employ pre-breeders during the past 25 years and the breeding program with regard to the crop assets was only insignificantly changed or adjusted to streamline the breeding process. Agropyron breeding was started at IFC as a new program in 1995. The breeding aims changed in reaction to the appearance of new diseases and to the growing markets for vegetables grown in organic agriculture. The set of breeding aims remained stable in the case of forage crops. The increasing use of modern technologies and approaches in plant breeding, a more intensive cooperation with the research sector and NGOs, i.e. more networking, and the creation of a common information system for PGR as a rich source of information for breeders was seen as the three major trends in future. The conservation of biodiversity will receive more public and political attention.

3. SWOT analysis and actions needed concerning PGR management in Bulgaria

3.1 SWOT analysis

Appendix I

Strengths Weaknesses  Country with considerable diversity of  A comprehensive national program on the crop varieties, landraces and CWR conservation and sustainable use of PGR adapted to a high diversity of regional does not exist climatic conditions  Status of working collections is unclear  Central national gene bank with a clear  A central genebank information system mandate maintains systematically combining passport, characterisation and characterized collections evaluation data does not exist  Close cooperation between the gene  The use of landraces and CWR has not bank, research institute and variety financially benefited the variety breeders breeders  Insufficient cooperation between the  Breeders use domestic landraces and research and variety breeding sector and CWR on a large scale the agro-NGOs  Sufficient genetic variation available to most of the crop specific breeding programs  Agro-NGOs act as extension service and promote the use of domestic varieties and landraces in the agriculture production

Opportunities Threats  More demand for seeds of domestic  Limited availability of funds, even for the varieties and landraces than can be needed renewal / modernisation of the satified by the breeders technical research infrastructure  The cooperation between the public  Shortage of younger people in agricultural research / breeding sector with agro- research organisations due to less NGOs and farmers can be strengthened attractive salaries  Use of the EC council regulation for conservation varieties will support the establishment of markets for domestic landrace and traditionally grown varieties  Bulgaria with its high ecogeographic diversity and extreme production conditions is a valuable EU partner in climate change mitigation research projects  Forage crops and legume breeding programs address the needs of agricultural productions systems better meeting the sustainability criteria

3.2 Recommended actions

Genebanks

Appendix I

The national Bulgarian gene bank has a clear mandate and functions as central research infrastructure within the network of research institutes of the Agricultural Academy. The development and adoption of a national expert program for conservation and sustainable use of PGR would strengthen the position of the gene bank within the Bulgarian research sector and streamline task-sharing and sharing of responsibilities, in particular in the field of long- term ex situ conservation of germplasm. A rich diversity of CWR, landraces and varieties bred for the domestic markets exists in situ and on-farm. Landraces are still grown and a diversity of useful CWR exists in their natural habitats. Bulgaria has therefore excellent conditions which can be used to organise and establish ex situ, in situ and on-farm conservation actions complementing each other. The establishment of a comprehensive information system offering online access to passport, characterisation and evaluation data on the resources kept ex and in situ and managed on-farm would improve the visibility of the gene bank at the European and international level and increase the chance for fund raising.

Public research The public breeding research links the gene bank with the variety breeders facilitating the exchange of ideas and material between stakeholder groups. The public research institutes can intensify the contact to agro-NGOs and farmers in the country. The participation of the public research sector in the EC research projects would strengthen the ongoing work in the field of PGR evaluation, genetic investigation and utilization. Bulgaria is a rather new EU member state and researchers only started to built up experiences in EC project fund rising. The flow of information from the EC to the individual researcher can be improved by the establishment of a national, agricultural EC advisory agency.

NGOs Agro-NGOs maintain contacts with farmers and organize farmers’ networks in the entire country. In Bulgaria, agro-NGOs function like agricultural extension services which can campaign for a more diverse diet based on domestic varieties / landraces and by doing so raise the consumers’ interest in a higher diversity of vegetable products. Agro-NGOs can also promote the maintenance or development of regional agricultural production systems better meeting the sustainability criteria. This in turn would trigger a diversified production and promote the use of domestic landraces and CWR in breeding. To achieve this aim the communication between the agro-NGOs, the gene bank and researchers should be facilitated by the establishment of a communication platform such as an advisory board for a national PGR expert program.

Breeding Several institutes use landraces and CWR for breeding of improved varieties. Strikingly, the institutes do not generate financial benefit from the use of landrace and CWR. This observation requires an investigation by national authorities. An improved reintermediation of profits generated by variety licences and the production and marketing of commercial seeds to the institutes may help resolving frequently addressed problems such as limited funds for the maintenance and improvement of the technical research infrastructure, the shortage of experts and the limited willingness of professionals, in particular younger people, to work in public agricultural research institutes.

4. References Ermann, U. and Ilieva, M. (2006): Bulgarien – Aktuelle Entwicklungen und Probleme, Daten, Fakten, Literatur zur Geographie Europas, Heft 9, S. 65 – 69. Selbstverlag Leibniz- Institut für Länderkunde e.V., Leipzig.

Appendix I

Iliev, I., M. Ilieva und C. Opp (1995): Zustand, Nutzung und Schutz des Ackerlandes in Bulgarien. In: Grimm, F.-D. (Hrsg.): Der Wandel des ländlichen Raums in Südosteuropa. Ergebnisse der Fachtagung der Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Institut für Länderkunde Leipzig vom 27. bis 29. Juni 1994 in Leipzig. Südosteuropa Aktuell 19. München, S. 185-203.

Appendix I

Czech Republic

Gisela Neuhaus1 and Ladislav Dotlacil2

1JKI, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI), Institute for Breeding Research on Agricultural Crops, Erwin-Baur-Str. 27, 06484 Quedlinburg, Germany, Tel: (49) 03946 47705, Fax: (49) 03946 47255, E-mail: [email protected]; 2Genebank Department, Crop Research Institute (CRI), Drnovská 507, 161 06 Praha 6 - Ruzyne 507, Czech Republic, Tel: (420) 233022374, Fax: (420) 233022286, E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction The Czech Republic covers an area of 78.866 km2. The country is bordered by the Bohemian Mountain Massif with the Sudetes, the Erzgebirge and the Giant Mountain (Riesengebirge). Another mountainous region is located in North-East Moravia (Jeseniky and Javorniky). The adjacent central lowlands are characterized by a fertile soil. The production conditions of the country are determined by a more temperate continental climate with cold and snowy winters and warm dry summers. The actual weather can deviate significantly from the long-term average depending on the strength of the trough of Icelandic low pressure / anti-cyclone over the Azores. These geographic and climatic conditions have contributed to the development of a highly diverse set of plant species. The large ecogeographic diversity also shaped the agricultural production in the Czech Republic. Cereal is the main crop group grown in the Czech Republic. In addition, canola, potato, forages, but also fruit plants, grapevine and hop play an important role in the domestic agricultural production.

Six interviews were performed with stakeholders of plant genetic resources (PGR) using a guideline-based interview technique with a fixed set of questions to be asked. Dr. L. Dotlačil agreed to be the country key person and the consultant in the Czech Republic. He prepared a list of organisations which were visited during August 08-11, 2011. Persons interviewed were: gene bank – Ing. Z. Stehno, Dr. K. Dusek, Dr. I. Dolezalova, Dr. P. Kopecku, Prague- Ruzynĕ; Ing. R. Kolek, Karlštejn; public research organizations – Dr. M. Hybl, Dr. M. Pavelek, Šumperk; agro-NGOs – Ing. J. Pavelkova; and private breeding company - Dr. P. Horčička, Stupice. On basis of the conducted interviews, a short report including a SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity and threat) analysis was performed and action points formulated concerning the conservation and use of PGR in the Czech Republic.

2. Stakeholders

2.1 Gene Bank The national seed gene bank of the Czech Republic was established at the Research Institute of Crop Production (RICP), now called Crop Research Institute (CRI) and is located in Prague-Ruzyně. CRI Prague-Ruzynĕ is (beside the seed gene bank unit) responsible for wheat, winter barley, triticale, maize, beet and minor crops collections. CRI-workplaces Olomouc (Centre for Applied Research of Vegetables and Special Crops) and Karlštejn (Viticulture Research Station Karlštejn) maintain comprehensive ex situ and field gene bank collections of vegetables, medicinal plants and grape vine respectively. In addition to CRI a wide range of crop species and related species are maintained in germplasm collections held by 11 further public or private institutions, amongst them the Agricultural Research Institute

Appendix I in Kroměříž, which holds a collection of spring barley, oat and rye. Further collections of similar extent are maintained in AGRITEC Šumperk, Research Institute for Fodder Crops, Troubsko, Grassland Research Station Zubri, Research and breeding Institute of Pomology, Holovousy, Research Instutute for Potatoes Havlíčkův Brod, Hop Institut Žatec, Research Institute for Oilseed Crops in Opava, Mendels´ University Brno, Faculty of Horticulture in Lednice and two other institutes dealing with ornamental plants.

The Czech gene bank functions very well as the coordinating institution of the national PGR program, although no special expert program for conservation and use of PGR exists. The workflow of the gene bank is organized very well, and the technical facilities of the gene bank functions excellently. Users can order accessions via the homepage EVIGEZ (http://genbank.vurv.cz/genetic/resources) providing all passport data. The system is one of few in Europe allowing combined online search for passport and descriptive data as well and is thus a unique selling point of the Czech gene bank. Collections have been sufficiently evaluated. All passport data are accessible via the web-based portal EURISCO. The main crop groups conserved at the national gene bank are large and good characterized cereal collections comprising e.g. wheat (10.700 accessions), winter and spring barley (2044 and 3030 accessions, respectively) and buckwheat (145 accessions). These stocks include a rather high proportion of landraces. The gene bank at Prague-Ruzynĕ maintains very important accessions of landraces as well as old, obsolete cultivars. The national gene bank in Ruzynĕ/Prague has good seed storage conditions; the cryo-conservation technique is established and applied to potatoes, hop, Vitis, Allium and selected fruit crops.

A branch of the gene bank with a strong focus on vegetables (9.268 accessions, e.g. Lactuca, Allium and Brassica), and aromatic and medicinal plants (884 accessions) is based at Olomouc. The collections are partly characterized. CWR of lettuce such as Lactuca serriola, L. saligna, L. virosa are organized in working stocks for breeding on resistance to Bremia lactucae.

The CRI Research Station of Viticulture in Karlštejn (274 accessions) maintains one of the three field gene bank locations of grapevine including wild types and rootstocks. All over the country, three field stations of grapevine located in different climatic conditions covering the maximum range of variation from a north location with a cooler climate to a location in the Moravian area determined by the Pannonian climate.

Personal and institutional contacts between the gene bank and breeders evolved since the 50ies and these relations still benefits collaboration today. There is a close cooperation with organic farmers in such crops as buckwheat, spelt, emmer and einkorn, which are commercially produced. New evaluation data is shared between partners. The good working relations between the gene bank, public research and the private breeding sector facilitate the organisation of public-private-partnership projects in the field of PGR conservation, characterization and use.

2.2 Public Research The plant breeding departments located at CRI Prague-Ruzynĕ, eight private research institutes or at the universities in the Czech Republic perform research in tight conjunction with education (e.g. Mendel University in Brno) or in close cooperation with other institutions focusing on applied research (e.g. AGRITEC). Applied breeding research aims at the genetic enhancement of crops.

Appendix I

Researchers access plant genetic resources via EVIGEZ or via the portal EURISCO. Breeders and researchers in the public and private sectors use landraces of Triticum sp., Linum usitatissimum, Brassica napus, Carum carvi, fodder crops and some fruit crops to create improved forms. CWR are mostly used as research subject and for the introgression of disease and pest resistance traits into the breeding pool (e.g. in cereals and fodder plants). Many accessions of fruit crops are of national origin and because of their adaptation to growing conditions in the country they are of special interest to breeders.

Public researchers maintain regular contacts with the commercial plant breeding sector, with NGOs, and with farmers as well. A remarkable good cooperation of the public research sector with all stakeholder groups can therefore be stated. The interview partners expressed strong interest to intensify the national and international cooperation.

2.3 Non-governmental organizations As far as known, eight groups are active in PGR in the Czech Republic. Six of them are engaged in the deployment of PGR in the agricultural production and two initiatives aim at the conservation and sustainable use of wild flora. The agro-NGO PRO-BIO is an association of organic farmers. It has eleven regional consultancy units. PRO-BIO has established a well developed communication network and maintains contacts with farmers all over the country. The work includes training and education in the field of agricultural techniques. PRO-BIO supports farmers in the submission of applications for agricultural subsidies to state authorities. Their work is sole financed and supported by the members of the association. Communication with other Czech stakeholders, gene banks and farmers is present to a remarkable extent. The crop spectrum dealt with strongly depends on the members´ activities.

The cooperation with the gene bank on the one hand and on the other hand a close contact with farmers forms an excellent basis for the promotion of the use of landraces and neglected crops in organic farming. In this context, fruit crops of national origin are of special interest. EC PGR programs would ensure the maintenance of landraces by the Czech farmers, especially fruit genetic resources and crops developed for low-input systems. Furthermore, the improvement of marketing structures in vegetable production can promote the use of vegetables landraces and CWR (through plant breeding) in the Czech Republic.

2.4 Commercial breeding Today about 27 breeding companies and private breeders exist in the Czech Republic (see attached list). They hold a significant share on the domestic seed market. Most of these companies also sell seed of foreign cultivars, as do also international seed companies. Therefore, the share of locally bred and well-adapted cultivars traditionally grown in the country is decreasing. National companies use locally adapted varieties in specific breeding programs. Today, several commercial breeding companies, if they have evolved from former state institutions, perform pre-breeding within private-public-partnership programs. Joint projects oriented on the identification of convenient donors and their utilization in breeding programs are the most effective way of maintaining such form of collaboration.

The interviewed enterprise AGRITEC, Research, Breeding & Services, based at Šumperk, is active in breeding and genetics research with a strong focus on oil crops and legumes This company has also been partner in EU research projects.

The enterprise Selgen focuses its breeding program mainly on cereals, beans and crops with a smaller production area such as oat, canola or clover. Pre-breeding has been widely practiced

Appendix I in wheat and barley. In its breeding programs, the company successfully used landraces to breed the new winter wheat variety ´Vlasta´ showing enhanced mildew resistance. Although the use of landraces for base broadening of the breeding pool and for introgression of certain traits is considered to be costly these approaches are followed. Contact and cooperation with the gene bank and other breeding companies is on a good level and accessions as well as data are shared. Cooperation with research institutes and universities is mostly based on research projects and is working very well. The relationships with NGOs can be improved. The participation in EC programs – up to now - is limited as the launched topics often do not meet the need of the interviewed stakeholders.

3. SWOT analysis and actions needed concerning PGR management in the Czech Republic

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses  Country with considerable diversity of  Insufficient access to modern technologies CWR adapted to a wide range of (-omics techniques) impairs scientific different habitats progress  The National Program for PGRFA  Limited funds for pre-breeding integrates 12 institutes and closely links  Instable funding for the National conservation activities with applied Programme research and domestic breeding  Too few contacts with NGOs programs  Missing funds for “on farm” projects  Long tradition in PGR evaluation and  Weak links between agricultural research cooperation with breeders, extending and environment programs international collaboration  A central gene bank manages a network of decentralized, specialized PGR holdings which are systematically characterized  A user-friendly online gene bank information system allows combined searches for passport, characterisation and evaluation data  Breeders use landraces safeguarded in the gene bank in crop genetic enhancement programs  A good communication and cooperation between all stakeholder groups exists

Appendix I

Opportunities Threats  Private-public-partnerships supported by  Amendment of the national legislation (inter-) national funding can promote the on PGR is needed but pending use of PGR in breeding and agriculture  Public research sector lacks sufficient  Broader implementation of molecular and steady funding. This results in a genetics can increase value of number of threats such as: collections for users and improve their  Decrease of staff capacities and loss of management expertise  Joint projects of breeders and  Delays in the renewal of the technical researchers can stimulate effective use infrastructure of PGRFA  Insufficient investments in new  Intensification of characterization and technologies evaluation work on LR/CWR through  Hazards to field gene banks which participation in EC programs accessions should be duplicated in  Increasing demand for resistance and vitro and/or cryo-conserved quality traits in breeding for low-input  Change of generations (low- systems underpin the importance of pre- competitive salaries in research breeding institutes)  Study and search of materials for breeding on adaptation to climate change  Intensification of international cooperation within ECPGR and with NGOs

3.2 Recommended actions

Genebanks The National Program on Conservation and Utilization of Plant, Animal and Microbial Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture regulates PGRFA activities. The gene bank at Prague acts as the national coordinator of all activities in the context of PGR carried out within a network of 12 institutes. The Czech gene bank system is highly valued by partners within and outside the country. The good and long-lasting cooperation with all stakeholder groups in the country can be used for the development of a more formalised public-private- partnership program and opportunity for intensified crop-specific evaluation and characterization work and joint research and breeding projects. Sustainable conservation and use of plant genetic resources requires the establishment of complementary conservation actions. The improvement of the working relationship between the nature / species conservation sector and the PGRFA conservation and use community would facilitate the establishment of a fully integrated national program on PGRFA in situ, on-farm and ex situ conservation and sustainable PGRFA use.

Public research The public plant breeding research sector developed a communication platform allowing all stakeholders to exchange ideas and material. Public breeding research institutes play a key role in the maintenance and continuous improvement of domestic crop gene pools. Participation of public research institutes in EC research programs and national research 35

Appendix I programs is on a high level but can be intensified. The amendment of the national legislation on PGR is needed but pending. To what extend insecurities with regard to the framework conditions set by the national policy result in insufficient or even decreasing budgets for employments and renewal or modernisation of the technical research infrastructure should be investigated. The increasing demands for resistance and quality traits in breeding (not exclusively) for low-input and organic agricultural production systems are an opportunity to evidence the importance of PGRFA conservation and breeding research and to stress the need for more investments into this sector.

NGOs Some NGOs appear as PGR users (e.g. as growers of neglected crops or landraces), few of them are involved in joint projects. The interviewed NGO is an association promoting organic farming in the country. As yet, the NGO does not cooperate directly with the gene bank / public research sector and therefore the great potential of this NGO in the field of public awareness raising on PGRFA cannot be tapped with the objective of promoting the improvement and use of domestic landraces in the country.

Breeding companies Several enterprises in Czech Republic use landraces in their breeding programs. Breeding companies welcome cooperation with the public sector mainly in the field of resistance breeding and should be encouraged to promote the establishment of formalised public- private-partnerships programs for characterisation and evaluation of PGRFA.

4. References Czech Republic (2004): Country Report on the State of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Czech Republic. Final Report on the Pilot Testing of the National Information Sharing Mechanism on GPA Implementation in the Czech Republic. Ladislav Dotlačil, Iva Faberová, Zdeněk Stehno (eds.), Research Institute of Crop Production, Prague-Ruzyně, April 2004. Plant Genetic Resources in the Czech Republic, Ladislav Dotlačil, Iva Faberová, Zdeněk Stehno, Crop Research Institute, Prague-Ruzyně, Czech Republic.

Appendix I

France

Chris Kik1 and Emmanuel Geoffriau2

1CGN, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]) and, 2AGROCAMPUS OUEST, Centre d'Angers, Institut de Recherche en Horticulture et Semences IRHS (INRA- AGROCAMPUS OUEST-UA), rue André Le Nôtre 2, 49045 Angers Cedex 01, France (e- mail: [email protected])

1. Introduction In February 2012, E Geoffriau PhD agreed to function as a key person for France. Stakeholder lists were obtained from V Chable (INRA-Rennes; agro-NGOs), MC Daunay (INRA-Avignon; genebanks and government), whereas Geoffriau and Kik prepared lists of public research organizations and breeding companies respectively.

As in France crop collections are linked to research, it is not possible to separate genebanks from public research organizations. In total 31 public research organizations / genebanks were identified. Furthermore 10 agro-NGOs, 43 breeding companies and 1 contact at the government were identified. On the basis of these lists the following stakeholders were selected for interviewing: as agro-NGOs: Réseau semences paysannes (Aiguillon; G Kastler), as research organizations: INRA-Avignon (genetics & breeding; M Causse), INRA-Clermont (genebank; F Balfourier and A Didier), INRA-Angers (genetics & breeding; F Laurens), INRA-Rennes (participatory breeding; V Chable), Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité FRB (Paris; I Bonnin and R Goffaux), as breeding and seed companies: Limagrain (Chappes; A Murigneux and C Duchenne), HM Clause (La Bohalle; R Levieil), Gautier Semences (Eyragues; F Moquet), Germinance (Baugé, F Delmond), and as government: Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries (Paris; J Perchet), and Fédération des Conservatoires botaniques (Paris; F Hendoux). From May 28 – June 2 2012 these organizations were interviewed by Geoffriau and Kik.

2. Stakeholder interviews

2.1 PGR collections and networks Compared to other countries, there is no centralized genebank in France. The structure of the French PGR collections is organized in crop networks, including both public and private stakeholders, and mostly coordinated by a public partner (i.e. INRA, Geves, Agrocampus Ouest). Around 66,000 accessions are held in France (Table 2). Most of the accessions are managed by the public research organizations like INRA.

Table 2. Overview of the number of accessions present in the French PGR networks in 2011 (with permission of E Geoffriau, ACO-IRHS, Angers). (Data not included for rose, bulb ornamentals, lavender, fig, olive, citrus, sunflower and tropical species) cultivated wild Agriculture 33834 606 cereals 29000 500 forage 1255

Appendix I

legume 2529 106 oilseed 1050

Horticulture 32154 3462 fruit trees 11351 525 ornamentals 1075 215 vegetables 19728 2722

Grand total 65988 4068

The number of accessions held involving agricultural species equals more or less the number of accessions held involving horticultural species. Cereals, fruit trees and vegetables are the crop groups which have most accessions present. The locations of the ex situ PGR collections in France can be seen in Error! Reference source not found..

Three types of collections are recognized, namely a. private collections (companies, or scientific material of research institutes), b. network collections managed by PGR networks (public-private collections; open to network members), and c. national collections managed by PGR networks (mainly patrimonial accessions, open to everybody). The national collections managed by INRA can be visited via http://urgi.versailles.inra.fr/siregal/siregal/welcome.do. Access to these three types of collections differs: a. accessions present in the national collections are freely distributed and are intended to be included in the multilateral system, , b. access to accessions present in the network collections is only possible for network members (French public research organizations and private companies who are based or have an affiliate in France) and the list of the corresponding accessions is usually not available outside these partners and c. no common policy is present concerning the access to accessions present in private collections (like INRA) as its depends mostly on research unit policy regarding genebanking activities: in some collections there is easy access to the collections (cereals; INRA-Clermont Ferrand), whereas for fruit vegetables (INRA-Avignon) the access seems to be more restricted.

There are no formal genebanks in France as most PGR collections are linked to research programmes. This results in differences in the management of collections and and unclearity about their future. For example as a research programme is stopped the collection attached to such a programme will not be supported by the corresponding organization (such as INRA) or by the government, or at best only limited until some other organization take over the charge.

The organization of PGR in networks including private and public expertise on a given crop is seen by many interviewed organizations as positive. However, the lack of coordination of the French PGR networks since the end of BRG is seen as a major problem and many interviewed organizations would like to see that the French Ministry of Agriculture would take action to improve this situation by creating an independent body (like the former BRG) which would take responsibility for PGR in France and the management of these networks. This action should be accompanied by the assignment of a clear juridical status to the PGR collections, which would give the national authorities full ownership of these collections.

Appendix I

The practical management of the collections differs considerably between collections depending on local resources dedicated to gene banking activities. Some collections are managed in such a way that the long term storage is guaranteed via adequate storage procedures, whereas other collections are maintained in much less favorable conditions which will inevitably result in the long run in the loss of PGR. Therefore it would be of great importance to update a common set of procedures (developed under the BRG) among the PGR network collection holders to adequately manage their collections, and have a follow-up on their implementation. Also the need to distribute PGR is an issue of discussion: some collection holders think this is an important activity, whereas others see it as a financial burden affecting their research activities. The unclear juridical status of collections represent also a limitation for distribution. Also in this case it would be of importance to develop a common set of rules and a national policy.

● Versailles Arabidopsis t. ● Rennes ● Milly Potato*, artichoke*, Lavanda, aromatics brassica*, shallot, garlic ● Angers ● Dijon Malus*, pyrus* Grain legumes* Rose*, hydrangea*, pelargonium Carrot*, chicory* ● Lusignan Forage crops*

● Clermont-Ferrand Small grain cereals*

● Bordeaux Tomato*, melon*, Prunus*, Eggplant*, pepper* chesnut, wallnut Artichoke*, lettuce Apricot, almond Toulouse ● Montpellier ● ● Avignon Sunflower Medicago t. Maize*, Olive, vine Rice, peanut, Sorghum

* Running PGR network San Giuliano ● Citrus

Figure 1. Overview of the locations of the French collections and networks (involved institutes : Inra, Cirad, Geves, Agrocampus Ouest).

However, there are many research programmes studying genetic diversity or based on the use of genetic diversity, which is encouraging for the maintenance of PGR and important for obtaining phenotypic and genotypic data.

Appendix I

2.2 Public research organizations The public research in France is organized in joint research units including research institutes (such as INRA, CIRAD), universities (Ministry of Education), and higher education institutes for agriculture (Ministry of agriculture): AgroParisTech, Montpellier SupAgro, Agrocampus Ouest…). Several joint research units deal with genetic diversity, genetics and breeding (Angers, Rennes, Clermont-Ferrand, Montpellier, Avignon, Dijon).

Since about 15 years, the public research institutes, in the field of genetics and breeding like INRA, do not develop anymore cultivars, except for long-term breeding programmes, such as apple for which the cultivar development is done in close cooperation with private nurseries. The conducted research is mainly upstream (biological mechanisms, trait genetic control) with applied and fundamental objectives, but realized in many cases with private stakeholders through national or European collaborative projects.

Research is done on PGR knowledge and management through genetic diversity and structure studies: population size effect, definition of pools, definition of core-collections, species evolution genetics, long-term conservation of seeds or plant parts. On several species, regular evaluation of PGR for disease resistance or quality traits is conducted. However, the results are not always made available on databases.

There is a renewed interest in PGR due to the development of methodologies such as association mapping and because of enhanced genotyping capabilities. A group of researchers dealing with participatory research has emerged, helping farmers to develop varieties (participatory breeding), conducting genetic studies and developing methodologies, especially on forage, durum wheat, wheat and other crops, e.g. faba beans, broccoli, tomato.

The research units are involved in projects at the European level, whether for genetic resources (several GenRes projects), genetic diversity and genetics (Eu-Sol, Fruit Breedomics) or participatory breeding (Solibam). Several researchers are involved in ECPGR (as WG members or chairs), and act at the national level as coordinators of crop PGR networks.

The access to PGR for research is not a problem: own collections, research contacts, databases. Characterization and phenotyping capacities is a major limitation. Landraces and wild relatives are less used than cultivars, except for participatory breeding in which the use of LR in their programmes is large as basis of their research. As genetic and breeding programs have stopped in the past on several species, the corresponding collections are at stake and “orphan” (no PGR network). Another concern is the reduced public funding.

2.3 Non-governmental organizations There are two important complementary agro-NGOs dealing with seeds for organic farming in France, namely Réseau Semences Paysannes (RSP; www.semencespaysannes.org/) and Kokopelli (www. kokopelli-semences.fr). Kokopelli is more focused on buying and selling genetic resources (=GR), whereas RSP is more focused on conservation, breeding, dynamic management and use of local GR on farms and gardens. Both agro-NGOs consist of networks of individuals, local farmers, local associations. RSP is a larger network including also chain networks (from wheat to bread) and small organic breeding companies or local agro-NGOs involved in organic farming and breeding. Several NGOs are involved in PGR management,

Appendix I and in some cases hold rich collections such as for apple or rose. As an interview took place with G Kastler (RSP), the views of RSP will be presented as being typical for the French agro-NGOs.

Several thousand people in France are involved in RSP and seven are paid by RSP. Fifteen persons are on a voluntary basis involved in training farmers. RSP is a flat organization, so no management layers involved. The annual financial budget in 2009 was around 390,000 € (foundations 32%, research projects 13%, sales/donations 12%, others (local governments, associations, etc).

RSP works on many crops, but wheat is most important. The material they started with are French LR. RSP does not have back-up collections of their varieties. Currently they are thinking with INRA participatory breeding researchers how to develop community genebanks. Per year around 100-300 varieties are regenerated by RSP. New varieties are developed by first letting the material evolve without selection during 4-5 years depending on the species. After this period, selection and crossing can take place to develop new material (= evolutionary plant breeding). Characterization of the material has not been systematically done.

RSP tries to facilitate, amongst other actions, the development of an operating space for farmers to cultivate local varieties (= conservation varieties) which have genetically enough potential to adapt to changing environmental/management conditions. These types of varieties include often landraces but also newly bred varieties by small breeders / farmers. These varieties are cultivated in an organic context. The philosophy behind the cultivation of these varieties differs from the mainstream conventionally cultivated varieties as the latter ones are selected for DUS (distinctness, uniformity, stability) and thus often harbor less genetic variation compared to their non-conventional counterparts. The EU has issued three directives (for vegetables, agricultural crops and fodder crops) to regulate the marketing of the seed of these varieties. The regulations are from the point of view of RSP too strict and will not promote the sustainable cultivation of these resources.

Kastler mentioned that only three percent of the surface of France is used for organic farming. This three percent is cultivated by ca. 22,000 organic farmers. Around 10-15% of the 3% organically managed land in France is annually cultivated with farmers’ seed, which is different from farm-saved seed (from certified varieties). For example:  wheat: 5 million ha is cultivated in France annually: ca. 50% is cultivated with certified seed, ca. 50% is cultivated with farm-saved previously certified seed and less than 1% (<50,000 ha) is cultivated by farmers varieties.  corn: 1.6 million ha is cultivated in France (grain corn); only certified seed are used as the varieties are all F1 hybrids. Less than 1 % (< 16,000 ha) is cultivated with farmer varieties.

The cultivation of conservation varieties in France is not really supported by the government as there are no national programmes focusing on this issue. Most of the budget goes to O- mics projects. Regional programmes have now and then budget for research on LR. If there is budget from the government it comes mostly from the Ministry of Ecology and not from Agriculture or Science. Relationships are developed with INRA researchers engaged on issues around the cultivation of conservation varieties / organic farming for a number of crops involving forage, durum wheat, wheat and others, e.g. faba beans, broccoli, tomato.

Appendix I

2.4 Breeding companies The French breeding companies interviewed were diverse in breeding strategy and financial means. Germinance was interviewed as this is an example of a small organic breeding company, Gautier was selected because it is a small conventional breeding company and Limagrain was selected as an example of a large multinational active in conventional breeding with large financial means allowing them to incorporate modern biotechnological insights into their breeding programmes.

Small organic breeding company At Germinance five people are permanently employed and during the season also two part- time people (total 5 fte). The annual turn-over is around k€ 400. Germinance sells around half their vegetable seeds to hobby gardeners and the other half to professional vegetable growers. The activity is based on (negative) mass selection and the development of new varieties is done via mass selection in existing French LR and carried out under organic farming conditions.

Delmond, Germinance manager, participated in the SOLIBAM and FSO EU projects (coordinated by V Chable INRA) and valued these projects for his work. Delmond holds the opinion that the EU directive on vegetable conservation varieties (2009/145/EC) is very restricted, as according to him, conservation varieties do not necessarily have to be developed in a single region. Furthermore he has problems with the costs for registration of conservation varieties as they are too high. He would be in favour of a proposal stipulating that below a certain threshold (say € 500) of annual net seed sales per vegetable variety, such a variety can be freely marketed, whereas above € 500 a fee would be applicable.

For the sourcing of new material for his breeding programme, the access to PGR is not a limitation. The main limitation is the lack of time to explore potential sources of material. However, the French PGR databases on vegetables on internet are not available and the structure of the French PGR network on vegetables is not open for him. More than a list of accessions, trials would be needed to promote PGR in collections.

Small conventional breeding company Gautier is a small breeding company and has been established sixty years ago. It is a family- owned company with no affiliates in other countries. Seventy-nine people, amongst which eight breeders, are currently working at Gautier Semences. The company’s seed market is France and surrounding countries. Conventional and organic breeding is taking place at the company. Tomato, lettuce and melon/squash are the most important crops in which breeding is carried out. However they also breed in cauliflower, pepper/eggplant, radish, onion/leek and carrot. Mainly F1 hybrids are being developed. Biotic stresses, yield, quality and, for the future, drought tolerance are important breeding targets. The use of LR in breeding is very low (< 1% of crosses), as LR were integrated in the breeding material previously. They use for their breeding programmes mostly cultivars which are on the market.

Obtaining PGR from INRA and CGN is easy, however obtaining material from S-America and India is impossible. Receiving material from UC Davis collection is currently more difficult due to sanitary issues, however it is not blocked. Some material was obtained from VIR in the past. Gautier is member of PGR networks in France, which according to them facilitates the access to material and knowledge. Worries in this context are about the closing down of breeding programmes at INRA and the consequences for maintaining the crop

Appendix I collections. What further worries them is the possible impact patents can have on the accessibility of PGR and, particularly as a small company, the costs of high tech research on their breeding operation.

Multinational breeding company Limagrain is an agricultural cooperative company with international activities, which has its headquarters in France. Worldwide, around 7200 people (ca. 1400 researchers, most of them in the breeding/genetics programs) are employed amongst which 72% in Europe (ca. 1000 researchers). The annual turn-over worldwide is around 1,555 M€ and seventy percent of the annual turn-over is realized in foreign countries. The research budget is around 157 M€ per year (14% turn over). Limagrain is active in four areas namely agro-productions, field seeds, vegetable seed & garden products and cereal products. The big Limagrain crops are corn, wheat and rape. Next to that breeding takes place in vegetable crops in Limagrain by Vilmorin, HM Clause, Hazera – Nickerson Zwaan and Mikado Kyowa. Two interviews were carried out: one with the research management for field crops and one with a vegetable breeder.

Important breeding goals are stability of yield, drought tolerance and nitrogen use efficiency, next to selection for disease and pest resistance. As a breeding strategy they choose for a combined approach, so breed in general for broad adaptation, but also take care of specific adaptation for pedoclimatic or market reasons.

It is already some sixty years ago that Limagrain held its last collecting mission. However individual breeders at the company, who saw the threat of genetic erosion, did collect seeds before the nineties of the previous century. Generally it is felt that within the company enough PGR is present for the development of new cultivars in many crops. Nevertheless Limagrain encourages genebanks to collect PGR as the quest for PGR shall always remain.

The current use of LR in breeding programmes is limited, however in the past more use of this material has been made to develop new varieties. The use of CWR has always been limited as many generations are needed to introgress the genes of interest into elite lines and one is mostly confronted with linkage drag. Public support in these upstream programs is important for the use of LR and CWR. Also an important drawback of using LR and CWR is the paucity of information on the material. A major challenge for the use of PGR is the screening and phenotyping capabilities.

The Nagoya protocol helps a bit to get access to PGR, but it is only a little step on a long road, and various limitations can exist at the national level. Concerning the sMTA of IT- PGRFA it was mentioned that on the positive side one could say that there is a text which you cannot change, it facilitates exchange of PGR and recognizes the breeder’s exemption, but on the negative side that the text is rather vague and therefore multi-interpretable (for example application depending on the breeding generation). Private companies such as Limagrain participate in providing PGR to the multilateral system via national crop networks.

Access to PGR in certain countries is a problem for example PR China and India. Concerning the national French collections and also the French network collections it was mentioned that these collections are accessible and contain valuable information. However it was also said that it is of crucial importance that public collection holders remain to pay significant attention to enrich their accessions with characterization & evaluation (C&E) data, next to passport data in order to provide the users efficient selection possibilities. Also it was said

Appendix I there are well-structured networks for managing PGR on the national level, however there is no (effective) coordination concerning these networks. Therefore there is a need for a national policy on this issue. No big money is necessary, but more stable money than ‘one shot’ projects. Until six years ago, the BRG was acting as a coordinating body for French ex situ held PGR, and this functioned very well. Since then not much has happened and that’s a pity.

Working together with others is seen as an important issue. Especially EU programmes are important to build up and maintain networks. Cooperating with agro-NGOs was not really taking place due to the differences of insight concerning developments in the seed market.

As major constraints in their breeding activities a. paucity of C&E data and information on genebank accessions, b. access to PGR, c. clarity of what has been signed (MTA issues), d. agronomic value and phenotyping capacities, and e. intellectual property protection and patenting were mentioned.

2.5 Government Before 2007 there were two organizations in France involved in the sustainable management of biodiversity in France, namely the Bureau des Ressources Genetiques (BRG) and the Institut Français de la Biodiversité (IFB). The BRG focused on developing and conducting national policies and research on genetic resources of plant, animal and microbial species of agronomic interest, and to function as a platform for expertise exchange between the various stakeholders. The IFB consisted of a number of organizations involved in research on natural biodiversity. In 2007 the Sarkozy administration initiated a so-called ‘Grenelle de l’environnement’ to bring together all the stakeholders in France in the area of biodiversity with the aim to set up a new policy and structure in France for the knowledge, use and protection of biodiversity. Among other measures, this resulted in the establishment of the Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité (FRB) in 2008, which was meant as the successor of the BRG and the IFB. From the interviews held, even if FRB presents other advantages, the general opinion expressed is that the FRB did not really facilitate the PGR community organization compared to the BRG. Especially the lack of coordination of the French PGR networks and collections by the FRB was felt as a serious shortcoming. FRB’s actions are at another level: FRB supports research on biodiversity, has developed links between research, society and various stakeholders about biodiversity, and is helping to consider PGR in biodiversity thinking (also cultivated biodiversity and not only the “natural” biodiversity).

The non-functioning of the NFP (national focal point) and the CNA (competent national authority) was also a major concern which was expressed by the French PGR community as this non-functioning affects the international PGR activities of France, like the delayed payments to the ECPGR and the non-uploading of French accessions into the EURISCO database. Recognizing the importance of PGR for the future of French agriculture, the Ministry of Agriculture has recently taken a few actions. An important action was the adoption by the French parliament of article 660 of Code Rural which specifically addresses PGR issues and recognizes the conservation of PGR in France with the definition of PGR, patrimonial PGR and the national collection. Other positive developments were observed concerning the knowledge and protection of wild flora and habitats by the eleven Conservatoires botaniques via in situ management or ex situ collections of endangered flora species.

Appendix I

3. SWOT analysis and recommended actions

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses  France is an important agricultural  NFP and CNA are not adequately country and manages unique PGR functioning  A PGR network structure is in place  No laws adequately protecting French ex which spreads the management of crop situ PGR specific PGR over institutes  No specific policy on on-farm  PGR are managed in public-private management of PGR networks with crop expertise  No adequate coordination of the French  Some collections are linked to strong PGR network research programmes  Loss of visibility and support of  A good functioning agro-research cultivated PGR compared to system is present “ecological” biodiversity  Active agro-NGOs are present, at the  Insufficient utilization of PGR by users local and national level due to relatively invisible collections and  A high interest in PGR by a large often inadequate service levels number of stakeholders is present  Insufficient means for characterization and evaluation of PGR  Documentation of characterization and evaluation data of French ex situ PGR is poor making selection by users difficult,

Opportunities Threats  Assign a clear juridical status to the  Absence of policy or management for collections several crop collections  Establishment of a central ex situ PGR  No clear public funding dedicated to coordination PGR management  Establishment of clear ex situ genebank  Ongoing trend toward a government procedures adopted by all French spending less budget to the public cause institutes involved in the management of and focusing on ‘omics’ research leading PGR to inadequate funding of ex situ PGR  Development of on farm regulations on collections the governmental level leading to a  Adverse effects of patents on the better operating space for conservation development of cultivars varieties  Ongoing concentration of breeding  Cooperation of research organizations, companies, leading to a few companies small breeding companies to develop active in France, which may lead to the locally adapted cultivars (in an organic cultivation of less adapted varieties farming context)

Appendix I

3.2 Recommended actions  Although there is a well-designed structure in France to manage ex situ PGR, it is urgently needed to establish an independent coordinating body to manage this network of ex situ PGR collections adequately. Furthermore a clear juridical status needs to be assigned to these collections to better protect these unique resources. A clear policy needs to be implemented for “orphan” collections.  It is urgently needed that the government establishes an adequately functioning NFP and CNA for PGR issues as at the moment these institutions are not functioning properly.  There is a clear need to harmonize the genebanking procedures among the various ex situ collections held in France as currently every collection holder has its own procedures leading in a number of cases to inadequate management threatening the future of these collections.  The visibility of the French ex situ PGR should be improved as currently only a fraction of the 66,000 ex situ held accessions can be approached via internet.  The documentation of the characterization and evaluation data in databases should be improved leading to a better use of ex situ PGR.

It is urgently needed on the governmental level that an on-farm management policy is developed, adopted and implemented, in order to facilitate the use of conservation varieties by farmers.

Appendix I

Germany

Lothar Frese

Julius Kühn-Institut, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI), Institute for Breeding Research on Agricultural Crops, Quedlinburg, Germany (e-mail: [email protected])

1. Introduction

This introduction is based on the Second National Report on the state of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in Germany published by BLE-IBV in 2008 and focuses on aspects that are of importance to the PGR Secure project.

The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) is located in middle Europe and covers an area of 357092 km2. According to Meynen and Schmithüsen the landscape can be divided into 89 ecogeographic units ranging from low land coastal areas to high mountains in Alp regions. About 4200 crop and CWR species occur in German (Kell et al., 2008); of 3500 plant species distribution records and species descriptions are kept in the information system FloraWeb (http://www.floraweb.de/index.html).

In 2010 16,704,000 ha were managed by 299.000 farm enterprises of which 5.5% belong to the ecological farming sector. While the number of farm enterprises is steadily decreasing the average farm size is increasing. In 2010 71.5% of the farmers owned up to 50 ha, 24.9% between 50 and 200 ha and 3.6% between 200 and more than 1000 ha. The major crop group are cereals (6.6 Mill. ha), row crops (0.62 Mill. ha), industrial crops (1.5 Mill. ha) and crops harvest green (2.6 Mill. ha; forage / bio energy) (https://www.destatis.de/DE/Startseite.html).

Breeders create a larger number of varieties of which the most successful ones dominate the production. In winter barley and winter wheat the five most successful varieties covered approximately 50% of winter barley and winter wheat production area between 1995 and 2006. Although vegetable, fruit crops, spices and pharmaceutical plants are grown on less than 1% of the agricultural land they contribute in terms of numbers with a total of 170 species the most to interspecific diversity in crop production. The (global and national) agricultural policy determines the species diversity in crop production as was shown by Piorr und Lehmann (2004).

The Federal Government published the National Strategy on Biological Diversity in 2007. The German Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) published the sectional Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery in the same year. The second expert program for plant genetic resources was published in June 2012 and is based on this BMELV strategy. The expert program can be considered as a rolling process. It identifies needs, actions and actors responsible for the implementation of measures required to improve the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources, including landrace and CWR, in Germany. In addition, the Federal Government, and the Länder encourage the farmers to protect plant genetic resources by means of special agri-environmental measures.

Wild plant species are protected through nature conservation laws and are managed in protected areas such as the Natura 2000 network. These areas fall into the responsibility of

Appendix I the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). Actions have been undertaken by the BMELV to specifically improve the in situ conservation of CWR and landrace conservation on-farm. However, compared to the ex situ conservation programs the development of in situ conservation approaches for landraces and CWR are still at an early stage.

On this background the present survey focussed predominantly on the maintenance and use of landraces (LR) and crop wild relatives (CWR) in an ex situ context. To this end stakeholders of plant genetic resources (PGR) were interviewed using the guideline-based interview technique with a fixed set of questions to be asked. For each stakeholder group a separate set of questions was selected from a much larger set and allocated to the categories: C – capacity, S – state, A - access, Info – information, Coop – cooperation, Pol – policy and T – Trends.

Stakeholders interviewed were genebanks – Dr. U. Lohwasser, IPK on 02 February 2012, Dr. E.Maul, JKI, on 27 January 2012; public research organizations –Dr. F. Marthe, JKI, on 16 February 2012, Dr. B. Horneburg, University of Göttingen, on 17 February 2012; NGOs – Mr. C. Blank, VERN, on 17 February 2012, Dipl.-Biol. U. Reinhard, Dr. S. Gura, VEN, on 17 February 2012, and breeding companies – Dr. R. von Broock, KWS Lochow GmbH, on 30 January 2012, Dr. E. Esch, Hild Samen GmbH, on 14 February 2012. Interviews lasted around 1-2 hours per interview. On the basis of the interviews a short report including a SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity and threat) analysis was carried out and action points formulated concerning the use of crop wild relatives and landraces in Germany.

2. Stakeholder interviews

2.1 Genebanks

Capacity and state The federal ex-situ collection of agricultural and horticultural plants is managed by the Department Genebank of the Institute for Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK). The department manages a large multi-crop collection. The work is performed by 65 persons and in addition seasonal workers. The genebank deploys about 50% of the staff capacity for routine genebank work and another 50% into research with seed physiology as a major research field. The genebank has an annual budget of about 11 Mill. € (including personal costs). The Vitis genebank managed by the Julius Kühn-Institut, Institute of Grapevine Breeding Geilweilerhof is a component of the German Vitis Genebank Network and the network coordinating unit as well. This grapevine breeding institute deploys 6-7 persons for genebank work which accounts for most of the annual genebank budget of 0.34 Mill. €. Additional genebanks for specific crops or plant groups such as hop, fruit crop, ornamental plants as well as wild plants for food and agriculture exist. These genebanks form national networks with a set of decentralized holdings and central coordination units.

If the capacity would increase the IPK genebank will intensify screening and pre-breeding. The collection of landraces and CWR was also seen as a necessary task. IPK would in particular collect CWRs if additional funds will allow an increase of storage capacities. The Vitis genebank would increase collection related research. With decreasing funding IPK would concentrate on the collection maintenance since this has absolute priority while the

Appendix I

Vitis genebank would reduce the intensity of work in general (as field stands of a durable crop are not under immediate risk of getting lost).

The top five crops of the IPK genebank in terms of number of accessions are wheat (28111), barley (23245), Phaseolus beans (9146), cultivated and wild forms of potato (6124) and peas (5295). Most of the wheat and barley collection is well characterised while there is still work to be done for the remaining species. Other crops are systematically characterized whenever they are reproduced in the field. The JKI Vitis collection amounts to 3789 accessions including landraces, wild species and crosses between the cultivated grapevine and wild species and is very well characterized. The characterization work is based on standard descriptor list and is performed systematically. The collection will never be completely evaluated as new aspects always accrue. Evaluation is a rolling process and the extent of evaluation largely depends on the amount of funding for this often costly work. The Institute of Grapevine breeding has always been quite successful in acquiring funds for characterization and evaluation. Both genebanks cooperate intensively within the framework of national and internationally funded projects. About one person months of permanent staff is invested by the IPK Genebank into national PGRFA board meetings and ECPGR meetings. The Institute for Grapevine Breeding invests about 80% of a technical staff member and 20% of a scientist in national and international cooperation, in particular in the development and operation of information systems with a European and international scope. In this respect the institute has a unique selling point which facilitates cooperation and acquisition of projects. The institute’s contribution to the international cooperation benefits the user community and pays off for the institute as well.

Access and information Users can search for germplasm held by the IPK genebank via the online Genebank Information System (GBIS) but can also start searching in EURISCO or many ECPGR crop specific databases. The passport data of the IPK genebank are offered in German and English language as well. The passport and characterization data of the JKI Vitis genebank can be searched online either via the European Vitis Data Base or EURISCO. The Vitis International Variety Catalogue (VIVC) is also an important information source. Evaluation data are offline but can be made available by the institute on request. In the latter case, the limiting factor is the work capacity available for compiling user specific sets of evaluation data. The samples can be ordered online via GBIS (click-wrap procedure for the sMTA) or via letter / email. Then the sMTA is also sent via letter or email. The sMTA is also used by the Vitis genebank although Vitis is not on the Annex I of the International Treaty. Request can be send by letter or email. The Vitis genebank requests private, non-commercial users to sign a simplified MTA. The IPK genebank dispatched 33378 accessions of the top five crops in the period of July 2010 to June 2011. The information system was able to calculate for the top five crops the percentage of CWR and landrace accessions sent to users which ranged between 69% (top 1) to 17% (top 5). On average 125 Vitis accessions are distributed to users each year of which about 20% fall into the category of landraces and CWR.

GBIS became operational in 2006/2007. The genebank works continuously on the improvement of the information system. It concerns the addition of components and the improvement of application software. This work can be performed by the in-house staff as part of their routine work. The digitisation of existing data was mentioned as a more important task for the time being. The characterisation and evaluation (C&E) data are either recorded in an information system developed by the EVA II group (barley, wheat) and hosted and operated by the JKI. Data on

Appendix I potato are kept in an Access database which is not online but freely accessible on request. C&E data generated by the IPK on other species will be integrated in the information system step-wise. This is a long-lasting process. The Institute for Grapevine Breeding of the JKI records C&E data systematically in an information system. The information systems are further improved using the agile software development strategy. Obsolete modules of the information system are modernized step-wise with the help of the central information technology group of the JKI. Currently the establishment of high throughput phenotpying technologies is planned to facilitate the observation of traits in the grapevine genebank field stand. All passport data of accession belonging to the national inventory are uploaded to EURISCO.

Cooperation The IPK genebank is embedded into a strong external and internal research environment which facilitates cooperation with various kinds of partners. CWR are used in research work on a limited scale, mainly in screening project. Concerning CWR and landraces the activities are rather limited with Hordeum as an outstanding exception. The Institute for Grapevine Breeding holds a genebank and is a variety breeder at the same time. The Vitis genebank cooperates with breeders as well as private persons selecting clones (selection of variants within clone varieties). The use of pest and disease resistant CWR originating from North America and Asian countries is high on top of the institute’s work program. The wild species from Europe is a significant source of quality traits.

Policy and constraints A national expert program for PGRFA, which specifically stresses the need to conserve landraces and CWR is existing and is being implemented. Currently a focus is set on the establishment of a genebank network for CWR and wild species for food and agriculture and on projects to conserve former breeder’s varieties on-farm and wild species in situ. With respect to the ex situ management no basic changes were considered necessary by both interview partners as the work is well organised. Changes to the expert program are not necessary as the aims of the current program have not fully been achieved. Actions needed to conserve landrace and wild species are published on the website of the BLE and measures can be funded through on-farm and in situ management projects such as specific measurements for grapevine landraces on-farm conservation. Such programs and projects are of limited relevance to the IPK which only observes the development and provides material on request. At the EU level the GENRES projects have promoted the description of leafy vegetables, barley, Allium, Solanum, Brassica, Daucus, Vitis and Beta. With regard to CWR the impact of GENRES was appraised as rather limited while in the case of landraces projects may have let to the development of market niches. Concerning the collection maintenance, the GENRES program played almost no role for the IPK genebank. Whereas the impact of GENRES on the national work was assessed as rather limited the high importance of GENRES at the European level was stressed by the interviewed genebanks. The GENRES program contributed to a more efficient and effective European genetic resources conservation and utilization work.

Trends The heterogeneity of landrace and CWR accession make a reliable characterisation of this material difficult. The user is therefore faced with heterogeneous material and data. The intensification of pre-breeding could solve this problem by producing introgression lines. Such approach would also help raising the overall performance of landrace and CWR to the level of modern breeding lines. Such service would promote the use of genebank collections.

Appendix I

The maintenance of the genebank collections was considered the most important task for today and tomorrow. In this context the improvement of the quality management system (the IPK genebank is certified according to ISO9001:2008) was mentioned as a challenge. The research on long-term storage effects on seeds and other storage materials and research on the adaptability of crops in the face of climate change was seen as an important trend. The development and improvement of a European-wide harmonised Vitis collection management was seen as a future challenge. AEGIS will play an important role in this process. The identification of unique accessions and the further development of a highly diverse core collection will be increasingly supported by knowledge and tools produced by genomic research. In the field of on farm management of Vitis landraces wine-growers shall assume a stronger role as the maintenance of genetic resources is not only a task of public institutions. Some wine-growers are actually prepared to assist the growing of landraces is perceived as a unique selling point and chance for the company. In grapevine breeding lack of access to CWR in Asia is the main obstacle towards the use of CWR. China blocks access to Vitis resources completely. This problem can only be solved through negotiations at the CBD level and within the framework of the International Treaty.

2.2 Public research institutes

Capacity and state

The Institute for Breeding Research on Horticultural and Fruit Crops of the JKI sets amongst other tasks a focus on plant genetics of vegetable crops and medicinal and aromatic plants (MAP). The staff capacity (scientist and technical staff) related to this task amounts to 12 persons. The interviewed University institute staff capacity amounts to 20 persons; the interviewee lead a research group of 3 (part time) employees.

The Institute for Breeding Research on Horticultural and Fruit Crops of the JKI evaluates genetic resources, analysis the inheritance of traits relevant to plant breeding, develops selection methods for these traits, procedures for introgression of traits into cultivated germplasm and develops adapted genotypes with valuable genes. The main crop species are Daucus carota, Petroselinum crispum, Melissa officinalis, Apium graveolens, and Brassica oleracea. While breeding research on Daucus has become a unique selling point of the institute in Germany the intensity of Brassica breeding research is decreasing due to legal obligations of the JKI to reduce staff capacities.

The reduction of staff capacity in the public breeding sector is a continuing process that started already before 1989 and affected governmental research institutes as well as plant breeding research institutes of Universities as well.

According to the definition of the term landrace given above former landraces (now kept ex situ) played a significant role in Petrosilenum, Melissa, Daucus, Apium and Brassica. Petroselium ranks first while the use of Brassica landraces is already history. In a few cases CWR of these five crops were used in breeding research. The research work focuses on resistance, quality components, hybrid breeding systems, and characterisation and evaluation as a pre-condition for pre-breeding. The latter work is of particular importance as it allows the attraction of project funding and the employment of younger scientists which in turn is of general importance to the institute with many permanent staff members older than 50 years. Landraces and CWR have been systematically characterized and evaluated in the framework

Appendix I of projects. The interviewee found it impossible to list all the target traits investigated so far. Recently in a few case also the metabolom was investigated. If one considers C&E data recorded in excel tables as a kind of database then one might argue that C&E data are documented systematically.

The University working group “Site Specific Adaptation and Organic Breeding” focuses on breeding research for organic farming systems, tolerance to biotic and abiotic stress, as well as the genetic principles of site specific adaptation. Tomato, soy bean and leaf chicory are the main research objects. They were chosen partly because these objects facilitate the attraction of project funds. In the tomato project approximately 200 former landraces, in the soy bean project few landrace and in the leaf chicory project a few tens of landrace were used. The landrace material is systematically characterised and evaluated by the University working group but not used in –omics projects. The data are stored in excel tables and after publication of the results in a journal the donor genebank(s) get(s) an extra copy. It was not known to the interview partner how the information is then handled by the genebank(s).

Access and information The JKI institute had difficulties to find research material as most genebanks have no or difficult to use online catalogues. In the case of Melissa officinalis even large genebanks could not provide material simply because this widely spread plant species has never been systematically collected. It was difficult to contact genebanks in Spain, Portugal and in Turkey. In 2010 landrace and CWR accessions were provided by three genebanks.

The University institute searched for information systems in the web and then contacted collection curators directly. This approach allowed tapping of information on specific accessions which is not stored in databases. The assessment of material by a human cannot be replaced by an information system, stressed the interview partner. In 2010 the partner requested and received germplasm from exactly two genebanks.

The JKI publishes results of the characterisation and evaluation work in scientific journals. Data on IPK accessions are sent back to the genebank. It is not known how these data are then managed. The University institute reported the same and added that for the first time following obligations laid down in the sMTA a data set on Brassica evaluation data will be returned to the donor genebank as excel file.

The JKI institute solely used the online information system GBIS of the IPK to search for material. The University institute used GBIS as well as the information system of the Centre for Genetic Resources, The Netherlands.

Cooperation GENRES was appraised as a valuable program as it allowed the characterisation and evaluation of genetic resources of Daucus, Brassica, Allium and several more crop species. The vegetable group of the institute cooperates with breeding companies in Germany, only. There is some cooperation between JKI and growers, very little between JKI and NGOs, and an intensive cooperation with mostly the IPK genebank. The cooperation with breeding companies is restricted to projects co-financed by the commercial partner. Cooperation with growers is of interest as it allows the joint development of a product along the whole production chain. Without a functioning production chain the utilisation of landrace and CWR accession would not be possible. The University institute cooperates within co-funded

Appendix I projects with companies in Germany and abroad, with growers, with NGOs and genebanks as well.

Policy and constraints The national expert program on PGRFA which encourages inter alia the conservation and use of landraces and CWR was known to the interviewees. It was noted that the expert program lists actions and actors but is essentially based on input in kind from the actors. The funding mechanisms for PGR projects provided by the government via BLE were mentioned by both interview partners.

In the case of MAP lack of appropriate germplasm in genebanks restricts the use of CWR in breeding research projects. The access to such germplasm growing in the natural habitat was seen as even less organised and thus more complicated.

The interview partner from the University did not know the GENRES council regulation whereas the EU research framework program was known. The preparation of EU project proposal was considered complicated and time consuming. In addition, research subjects related to real problems of growers are not valued by the EU according to the experience of the interview partner. Everything must be “innovative”. In general, for small research groups EU programs are regarded as rather inaccessible and hard to manage. For that reason EU research programs have had very limited impact on the institutes’ work. The fact that biodiversity research ranks high on the EU research agenda was nevertheless acknowledged. The University interview partner suggested facilitating access to EU funding for small interest groups. It was said that the EU could do both: funding of large consortia as well as small groups with project ideas targeted at solving of problems of growers.

Trends During the past 10 years the research program of the Institute for Breeding Research on Horticultural and Fruit Crops as well as of the University working group remained constant which is considered an important advantage in breeding research. The focus and intensity of the work is increasingly determined by project funding. The demand for more interspecific diversity in crop production systems was considered a trend by both interview partners.

The JKI partner noted that the policy has trends too. In some political periods pre-breeding work is welcomed, in some years researchers have to conceal that they contined pre-breeding work. The adaptation of crops to changing production conditions, e.g. caused by climate warming, is only possible if breeding research is backstopped by a stable policy for breeding research. The provision of such conditions is the duty of policy.

In the domain of vegetable breeding the consumers’ behaviour pans out as a problem. The knowledge on how to prepare fresh vegetables is diminishing with increasing market shares for convenience products. The society behaves like a schizophrenic. While the number of cooking shows in television increases the interests in fresh vegetables decreases. More interest in fresh products and perhaps even interest in the nutritional or taste quality differences between varieties within a crop could also promote the use of landraces in vegetable production and breeding. In a specific consumer sector the interest in product diversity is increasing. We can only hope that this development has an impact on the major part of the society. It would be a chance for underutilised crops or less used crop types. The University interview partner considered legal uncertainty in the field of seed marketing of conservation varieties as an obstacle for landrace use. The costs for registration of

Appendix I conservation varieties was seen as still too high for organisations interested to registered large numbers of conservation varieties. The current revision of the seed marketing legislation was acknowledged; the complete deregulation seen as a means for promoting the use of landraces. A pre-condition for the use of landraces is the existence of production of systems which are suited for landraces. The current economic trend points to the further market concentration, harmonisation of production systems and as a consequence the creation of anonymous markets. The less transparent markets are the more growers focus on the maximizing yield at the disadvantage of diversity. Even organic farming is subjected to this process and the role of organic farming in conserving genetic resources should be critically assessed.

2.3 Non-governmental organizations The NGO in the sense of the definition given above were interviewed: the Verein zur Erhaltung und Rekultivierung von Nutzpflanzen (VERN) (Association for maintenance and recultivation of crops) and the Verein zur Erhaltung der Nutzpflanzenvielfalt (VEN) (Association for the maintenance of crop diversity).

Capacity and state There are several large associations acting at the federal level and additional associations active at the Länder or even local level. Amongst the large associations Arche Noah with many German members plays a role in southern Germany, mainly. The VEN has members in almost all Länder of the FRG while the VERN is mainly active in Brandenburg and Saxony. The staff capacity ranges from one minijob (6 h a week) to 2.6 persons; the annual budget amounts up to 30,000 € mainly generated by membership fees. Tomato, beans, peas, leafy vegetables, potato are the top five crops of the VEN while the VERN ranked crops as follows: tomato, potato, leafy vegetables, rye and wheat. Members of both NGOs did collect landraces but most of the germplasm held in the collections came from the IPK Genebank. Both organizations aim at the reintegration of landraces conserved ex situ into the agricultural / horticultural production. VEN members are encouraged to accept responsibility for foster varieties and these varieties are then described systematically. VEN members publish observations on foster varieties or any other germplasm kept by members in a booklet which can be ordered. The VEN focuses activities more on conservation while the VERN is more interested in the reintegration of adapted accessions into the production process. Therefore, the VERN is testing the adaptation of accessions and their market potential rather than describe the accessions systematically with the help of descriptor list. Both NGOs stimulate the interest of people by publishing historical reports on specific crop types or by informing people during fairs or similar events. The public relation work of both NGOs is very well developed. The NGOs are present in journals and broadcasting or television as well. The VEN is member of a German umbrella organization which in turn represents the interest of the NGO sector at e.g. meetings of the Advisory Board for Plant Genetic Resources of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV).

Access and information Both NGOs record passport and descriptive data either in excel sheets or in a MySQL database. The public can access information on the associations and their collections via attractive websites. Information is also disseminated via printed seed catalogues or crop specific booklets. The catalogues and booklet can be used to order material from the individual germplasm holder.

Appendix I

Cooperation Both NGOs cooperate intensively with similar organisations in Germany and abroad. They maintain active working relationships with public research institutes and breeding companies (mainly from the organic farming sector). Since the controlled experimental release of GMO material by the IPK in the vicinity of the genebank the cooperation between NGOs and the IPK is rather restrained. Due to the different priorities the VERN succeeded to projects funds for research and development projects which resulted in the establishment of market niches for a remarkable number of obsolete varieties. The VEN with a stronger focus on agrobiodiversity policy also cooperates with other organisations of the civil society.

Policy and constraints Both NGOs have been involved in the development of the national expert program for plant genetic resources. Programs that specifically support the reintegration of landraces and obsolete varieties into the agricultural production are known to both, have been used with varying success but were appraised with caution. The funding mechanisms, national as well as EU, focus too much on farmers (in the legal sense) or were seen not durable enough and therefore not suitable to produce long-term impact e.g. able to increase the genetic diversity in the production system. Both NGOs unanimously noted that the GENRES council regulation has not supported their work.

Trends The management of a large number of different crop species and the whole range of distinct types of these crops by members of the NGOs and other people was seen as an integral part of the breeding for ecological farming. By regenerating and using this material it is continuously adapted to changing environmental conditions and can be a starting point for breeding of crops that fit into ecological farming systems. The decreasing number of crop specific genebank collection curators who know their material not only as an accession number was seen as a problem. Human knowledge and experience is steadily replaced by data and information. This knowledge can no longer be handed over from the today’s generation to the next and this was seen as a factor limiting the use of landrace in future.

Another trend is pointing to the opposite direction, though. People are getting more and more interested in crop diversity aspects. It was believed that the high attention agrobiodiversity matters received during the COP9 at Bonn would cease immediately after the end of the conference. Instead, people today wish to experience diversity and wish to contribute to the maintenance of diversity. The legal uncertainty with respect to seed trade legislation, variety protection, CBD and International Treaty, however, weakens this trend. An ordinary citizen just does not understand what he/she is allowed do to and what might be forbidden.

2.4 Breeding companies A company focussing on breeding of agricultural crops (KWS Lochow GmbH and a vegetable breeding company (Hild Samen GmbH) were interviewed.

Capacity and state The staff capacity of KWS Lochow amounts to approximately 400 persons of which 180 persons work in Germany and 220 in the UK, Poland, France and Russia. 250 persons are involved in breeding cereal varieties. The company is part of a larger enterprise breeding and marketing varieties in 14 different countries worldwide.

Appendix I

The staff capacity of Hild Samen amounts to 75 persons of which 20 persons are engaged in research targeting at the development of new varieties. The company is part of an international vegetable breeding enterprise with breeding and marketing activities in many countries in Europe and worldwide. The German daughter company concentrates activities on the German market but also sells varieties in Europe and overseas.

The most important crops (in terms of turn-over) of the KWS Lochow are rye, wheat and barley. In other crops the breeding intensity is less as the return is limited. In a few cases crops are only kept in the business to maintain the breeding pool and the expertise. Highest priority has breeding on agronomic traits and yield, second rank quality and third resistance. As resistance is an important component of yield stability the company selects material with resistance to the all important disease and pests but only to that extend appreciated by the market. KWS Lochow uses landraces and CWR in the breeding program and performs a few crosses between elite lines and exotic germplasm every year. The company invests a remarkable percentage of the annual breeding budget into the selection of lines derived from such crosses. Currently, the breeding progress is still undiminished. There is therefore sufficient genetic variation in the company’s breeding pools. An agreement between competing companies allows them to exchange and use varieties as crossing partners even if these varieties are not yet protected. In addition, the company has started with in-house pre- breeding programs with exotic germplasm. The company considers the introgression of specific traits from exotic germplasm into the elite breeding pool as the key to long-term economic success.

Hild Samen develops varieties for many vegetable crops; the top five crops in decreasing order are parsley, chive, radish, basil, and dill. The breeding activities are intensive in parsley as compared to dill. The company produces (not only) seeds for the organic farming sector of many crop species (21 genera in total) and 18 different herbal species. The improvement of quality, yield and resistance are the main breeding aims of Hild Samen. In particular breeding for resistance to a total of 56 pest and diseases is quite a challenge. Landraces in the sense of the given definition are not used in the breeding program and CWR are not at all used. The genetic variation in the breeding pools is large enough and in addition the introgression of landraces or CWR germplasm would downgrade the performance of the breeding material which is very well adapted to the current production conditions. As the company is breeding many vegetable crops the breeding intensity is lower than in agricultural crops. Therefore vegetable breeders may face problems arising from genetically narrow breeding pool only 100 to 200 years in the future. However, the value of non-adapted germplasm for breeding is clearly understood and therefore the development in the research and development sector is attentively observed.

Access and information KWS Lochow rarely orders material from genebanks but uses lines from pre-breeding projects and so does Hild Samen. For the time being it is more important from the companies’ perspective that cooperating breeding research institutes have easy access to data and material.

Cooperation KWS Lochow cooperates with the IPK as such and not specifically with the genebank department. The company is partner in many joint research projects with a variety of public research institutions as partner. There is no cooperation with NGOs. Hild Samen cooperates with genebanks, public research institutes and NGOs currently even in the framework of an

Appendix I

EU project. There is no systematic cooperation between vegetable breeding companies such for cereals in the EVA II program. A close contact with the IPK Genbank is maintained.

Policy and constraints The GENRES council regulation was only vaguely known to the KWS Lochow interview partner. The GENRES was not known to the vegetable breeder of Hild Samen. The leafy vegetables working group of the European Cooperation Program for Plant Genetic Resources and the oat working group was known to the respective interview partner. Hild Samen has little direct benefit from EU research programs. The company is too small and has no capacity left required for a continuous observation of the EU research policy and research program development. This is rather a task of the GFP which actively informs companies on research programs. The KWS Lochow commented EU research programs in a similar way.

Trends In the past 25 years breeding projects in some crops species started but were closed after a while for economic reasons. Wheat, rye and barley continue to play the major role. The breeding aims have not been changed basically. KWS Lochow will employ pre-breeders in future. The high cost of pre-breeding is the factor limiting the use of landraces and CWR. The –omics research will facilitate the use of genetic resources through pre-breeding. The –omics research will start interest companies when the cost/benefit ratio is getting better. In future breeders will not domesticate species but traits derived from landraces and CWR. Genomic selection will play an increasing role in plant breeding, too.

Hild Samen cannot employ persons exclusively engaged in pre-breeding. The small size of the company explains why this task is integrated in the variety breeding, instead. The breeders assess germplasm collections but so far no crosses between exotic material and breeding lines have been made. The spectrum of species bred by the German branch changed after the fusion with the larger enterprise. The German branch sets focus on the needs of the German market in particular on crops of regional relevance while the larger part of the company services the global market for major vegetable crops such as carrot, Brassica crops, tomato etc. The market demand for higher resistance is a clear trend as chemical plant protection products are step by step withdrawn from the market. Abiotic stress does not yet play a role in vegetable breeding. Vegetables can be grown in the greenhouse or under cover in the field or can be irrigated which mitigates negative weather effects on the crops. In the past CWR did not contribute to a stabilisation or improvement of the company’s market position. The role of CWR as donors of resistance genes will increase in future. In particular in the field of bacterial diseases of vegetables, which cannot control chemically, the significance of resistance breeding will increase. Not until information on such traits is known an accession stored in a genebank gets valuable.

C&E data were recorded in the past and are recorded today but at the end of many projects the data are not available online. This problem is addressed repeatedly since years, recently in the GFP annual report 2011, but there is no attempt to solve this problem systematically. The lack of good information systems for C&E data are a major obstacle towards the use of landraces and CWR in vegetable breeding. In addition, the legal uncertainty caused by the CBD has an equally negative impact on the utilisation of landraces and CWR in variety breeding. As long as companies cannot calculate the costs for using accessions, companies will prefer their own material. In particular access to non-annex-I species is very difficult and if every germplasm acquisition triggers costs for a lawyer, the company will refrain from using such genetic resources.

Appendix I

Today, both companies order germplasm from the IPK Genebank, mainly. In future the international exchange of genetic resources will gain in importance. The companies are not at all against significant contributions to the Multilateral System of the International Treaty and support the Access and Benefit Sharing process. However, the amounts of money which some countries expect the breeding companies to pay in the framework of the MLS or ABS are beyond reality and as long as problems related to the MLS and ABS are not settled the interest in using landraces and CWR will be rather restrained.

By integrating genetic resources into the breeders’ product, the variety, genetic resources are maintained. In particular crops with a small market require more support by public plant breeding research. The current trend regrettably points towards the opposite direction as policy does not understand the correlation between breeding intensity and maintenance of genetic resources in production systems.

With increasing knowledge on genetic resources collections their usefulness improves. Knowledge can also be generated by genetic markers which just show the genetic structures within a crop specific germplasm holding. Based on such information core collections can be created and the often frightening large size of evaluations sets reduced to a manageable (in terms of costs) size. Such development would promote the breeder’s interest in germplasm evaluation and exploitation.

3. SWOT analysis and recommended actions

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses  Country with considerable biodiversity  The expert program is based on voluntary in situ (of CWR) and ex situ contributions of the actors  Clear governmental control on the  Gaps in collections at the national and PGR sector global level  A national PGR expert program exists  The collaboration between all stakeholder as rolling plan groups in the field of documentation and  The national genebank system is well exchange of characterisation and organised evaluation data is not well organised  The access to germplasm is provided  Vegetable breeding research capacity is via the websites of the genebank(s) decreasing  The cooperation between all  Scientist in the public breeding research stakeholder groups is well developed and private breeding sector may be too  The cooperation with the ECPGR focussed on the genetic resources stock program and with EU project partners held within the country is established and benefits the national  EU research programs are perceived as system unattractive  NGOs can only marginally contribute to the reintegration of genetic diversity into production systems due to very limited financial means available to them  Although CWR and landraces are used in research and pre-breeding the great

Appendix I

significance of theses genetic resources is not perceived by the public  IPK experiments with GMO crops close to the IPK genebank disturbs the tradionally good cooperation between NGO (which are opinion makers) and the genebank  Legal uncertainty with respect to seed trade legislation, CBD and the International Treaty

Opportunities Threats  Enforcement of genebank networks at  Decreasing staff capacities in the public the national level and through the PGR research sector AEGIS process at the European level  No or very difficult access to genetic  Encouragement of other crop groups to resources collections outside of Germany join the EVA II program  Displacement of permanently employed  Strengthening of pre-breeding collection curators by geneticists programs  A too strong focus on breeding research,  Intensification of research cooperation pre-breeding and breeding on major crops at the European level  Lack of incentives to use LR and CWR in  Promotion of the cooperation in the long-term base broadening programs of field of information system companies development  Increasing market shares of convenience  Creation of core collections using products and anonymous markets information from genetic molecular marker research  Promotion and strengthening of the public interest in diversity products  Improvement information of the public on legal aspects related to PGR work/ variety breeding  Development of agrobiodiversity friendly farming systems  Raising the cost for synthetic-chemical disease and pest control

3.2 Recommended actions

Government While project funding is an appropriate instrument for short to mid-term breeding research objectives it is inappropriate for long-term objectives such as the management of genebanks and genetic resources information systems, public-private-partnership (PPP) programs as an infrastructure for genetic resources evaluation project, pre-breeding and base broadening programs, in particular if these programs aim at performance of tasks which are considered by the society as important but cannot be taken over by private companies due to economic

Appendix I reasons. The government should therefore consider shifting funds from the project budget lines to budget lines for funding of durable infrastructures.

The lack of legal clarity and certainty concerning access, use and distribution of genetic resources appeared as a major constraint to the use of landraces and CWR in the private variety breeding sector. This limits opportunities for the public genetic and breeding research sector of using these resources in PPP projects. Unfortunately even in the general public the uncertainty is present. Instead of seeing genetic resources as a common heritage of mankind and a fascinating subject, genetic resources are perceived as a legal problem. The government should therefore create legal certainty and in parallel strengthen the already existing good public relation work.

Genebanks Genebanks and other public research institutions engaged in PGR work should develop a joint strategy aiming at the improvement of information systems in close cooperation with partners at the national, EU and ECPGR level with a specific focus on characterisation and evaluation data. Lack of or difficult to access C&E data hampers the use of landraces and CWR significantly. It is a major short-coming of the German PGR program.

Public research organizations The public discussion on agriculture is dominated by reports on plant protection affairs and similar negative issues. Although the private plant breeders state that particular traits found in genetic resources provided the basis of long-term economic success the public does not get such positive messages. The public breeding research sector has and is been using a wide asset of landraces and CWR. Therefore public research institutions should regularly provide the press with success stories on landrace and CWR use which in turn will also strengthen the position of geneticists and breeding researchers in the public sector and help maintaining infrastructure required to screen, evaluate, document, investigate genetic resources.

NGOs This stakeholder group is quite well-organised in Germany and plays an important role in the public awareness building. As opinion makers with close contacts to consumers at the local and Länder level, NGOs can pave the way for products based on landraces and stimulate the public interest in the development of environmental friendly agricultural production systems. The NGO work is still suboptimal as indicated by the very low number of persons employed by German associations as compared to those active in Austria or the Switzerland. As the genebanks in Germany function very well, there is no immediate risk of losing landraces. Hence, NGOs can and should set a work focus on the reintegration of landraces into the agricultural production systems by developing market niches.

Breeding companies The public-private-partnership programs should be strengthened to facilitate the systematic characterization and evaluation of additional crops (not only cereals) and pre-breeding. Companies should use their political influence with the aim of raising the quality and functionality of genetic resources information systems in Germany to the level of the Genetic Resources Information Network operated by the USDA/ARS.

4. References

Appendix I

Meynen, E. and Schmithüsen J., 1960: Handbuch der naturräumlichen Gliederung Deutschlands. Bundesanstalt für Landeskunde, Remagen/Bad Godesberg 1953–1962 (9 Lieferungen in 8 Büchern, aktualisierte Karte 1:1.000.000 mit Haupteinheiten). Piorr, H-P and Lehmann, K., 2004: Vielfalt im Wandel der Zeit - Historischer Überblick und Status Quo. In: Begemann, F. und Schröder, S. (Hrsg.), Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen, Schriftenreihe der Zentralstelle für Agrardokumentation und – information. Informationszentrum Biologische Vielfalt (IBV), BAND 23, Produktvielfalt durch Ressourcenvielfalt, - Potenziale genetischer Ressourcen - Tagungsband eines Symposiums vom 24.-25. September 2003 im Gustav- Stresemann-Institut in Bonn. Warlich Druck Ahrweiler GmbH, Bad Neuenahr- Ahrweiler.

Appendix I

Greece C. Kik1 and A. Katsiotis2

1CGN, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]), 2Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Plant Breeding, Iera Odos 75, 11855 Athens Votanikos, Greece ([email protected])

1. Introduction In March 2011 A. Katsiotis PhD agreed to be the country key person for Greece. He prepared a list of stakeholders including two genebanks, three agro NGOs, three breeding companies and seven research organizations. In August 2011 a selection from this list of stakeholders was prepared in order to visit 1-2 representative organizations per stakeholder group and from September 9–16 these organizations were visited and interviewed by both of them. The organizations interviewed were: genebanks: GGB (Thessaloniki; P Ralli) and Maich (Chania; C Fournaraki, A Kokkinaki); agro-NGOs: Peliti (Mesochori; P Soinotadis) and Aegilops (Volos; K Koutis); research organizations: NAGREF Fodder Crops & Pastures Institute (Larissa; D Vlachostergios), NAGREF Cereal Institute (Thessaloniki; D Bladenopoulos and G Eugenides), University of Thessaly (Volos; A Mavromatis) and University of Athens (Athens; A Katsiotis), and breeding companies: Spirou (Athens; P Terzopoulos).

2. Stakeholder interviews

2.1 Genebanks The two most important genebanks in Greece, namely the Greek genebank (GGB) in Thessaloniki and the MAICh genebank in Chania, were interviewed. Both of them are financed by the Greek government. Furthermore there are a few other genebanks in Greece but these are rather insignificant. The GGB is the national genebank and has in principle a coordinating role concerning the maintenance of PGR in Greece. The MAICh genebank has a more regional role and concentrates predominantly on Crete. During the last five years new facilities for long term storage were built for the GGB at Thermi, Thessaloniki, however these facilities are not yet operational. At the moment no adequate long term storage facilities are present at the GGB as it maintains its PGR under a +4˚C regime (and 30% relative air humidity in vacuum-sealed aluminium bags or in metallic vacuum-sealed cans). Also the genebank has serious backlogs in the regeneration of hunderds of accessions, amongst which many unique LR, collected in Greece in the past 30 years. This is amongst others due to the serious understaffing of the plant part of the genebank. Furthermore the genebank does not really distribute its PGR to users effectively as there is no exchange platform like a website in which the content of the genebank is described and easy access is guaranteed. Currently the way to order PGR is via sending an e-mail or a letter. Germplasm from the GGB can be obtained but only for research purposes, for commercial use a specific arrangement needs to be made. The only web access of the accessions present at the GGB is through EURISCO (Figure 2). In total 6084 accessions are uploaded.

Appendix I

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

Zea

Vitis

Lens

Vicia

Cicer

BETA

Allium

Lolium

Lupinus

Dactylis

Triticum

PRUNUS

Trifolium

Hordeum

Nicotiana

BRASSICA

AEGILOPS

Phaseolus

MEDICAGO HAYNALDIA GOSSYPIUM Figure 2. Accessions from the GGB uploaded to the EURISCO database (http://eurisco.ecpgr.org/). Only the genera with more than 50 accessions have been taken into account, this resulted in 5531 accessions considered instead of 6084.

The functioning of the GGB as a coordinating point for PGR maintenance in Greece is not working, which results amongst others in the serious threatening of collections, still present at the various NAGREF institutes, which are mostly maintained under non-optimal storage conditions. The functioning of the GGB is for a large part due to the inadequate coordination from the Ministry of Rural Development and Food (formerly the Ministry of Agriculture). Furthermore only 15-20% of the GGB collection is duplicated elsewhere (Beta at IPK and Zea in Portugal and CGN).

The MAICh genebank has a rather small collection of predominantly landraces from Crete. This collection was build up during the EU FARVALDI project (2005-2008). The MAICh genebank is much better equipped than the GGB, because it has good storage facilities (- 20˚C long term storage facilities) and a drying room (15˚C and 15 % relative air humidity). The regeneration possibilities at MAICh need to be improved as these are minimal. Also the distribution of seeds in the genebank to users should be improved as at the moment this takes place by personal contacts. The development of a website with a database of material which is available in the genebank would be needed in this respect.

Communication between GGB and MAICh is minimal, as is the case basically among all four PGR stakeholders in Greece. Therefore there is a real need to create an active and functioning PGR platform in Greece in order to safeguard the precious Greek landraces and crop wild relatives.

2.2 Public research organizations The public research institutes of NAGREF (National Agricultural Research Foundation) that were established during the 1930’s had/have the task to develop appropriate cultivars for the Greek farmers (currently NAGREF is among the governmental bodies that will be closed down due to economic cut-backs). The active policy from the 1990’s onwards of non- replacement of staff at the NAGREF research institutes led to a decimation of the staff at the various institutes: a process which is almost finished now as is the case at the institutes visited namely the Cereal Institute in Thessaloniki and the Forage Institute in Larissa. This leads to a situation in which the Greek farmers become dependent upon cultivars developed

Appendix I by the private sector or cultivars developed by foreign companies which not necessarily are adapted to the Greek conditions. Until the recent past the public research institutes developed cultivars which had a genetic basis of well-adapted Greek landraces enriched with other germplasm (sometimes CWR from ICARDA and CYMMIT programmes in case of cereals). Effectively this process has at present come to a halt. Consequently, the use of Greek LR (and CWR) for breeding new cultivars is minimal. Furthermore the collections at the various NAGREF institutes are threatened as they are maintained under non-optimal conditions. An exception is the cereal collection at the Cereal institute.

The plant breeding departments of the Greek agricultural universities are more or less intact. This was certainly the case at the University of Thessaly and the Agricultural University of Athens that were visited. At some universities programmes have been initiated to use Greek landraces in breeding and research programmes. At the moment this has not yet resulted in the introduction of new cultivars on the market, but this will be attempted. Involvement of farmers in early stages of the breeding programme in some universities is carried out which could be seen as encouraging in a sense that the breeding programme is not only an academic exercise. Participation of the universities in EU and national funded research programmes has taken and does take place.

2.3 Non-governmental organizations The two agro-NGOs in Greece which have most impact are ‘Peliti’ in Paranesti and ‘Aegilops’ in Volos. Both of them were visited. In total there are around 25 agro-initiatives active in Greece. The budgets of both NGOs are low and therefore they largely depend upon voluntary support. Peliti has more a focus on vegetables whereas Aegilops concentrates more on cereals. Both of them have a website (www.aegilops.gr and www.peliti.gr) which in case of Aegilops is almost completely in Greek. Both NGOs have formed a network with farmers, who maintain the landraces on farm. In order to enhance the seed distribution Peliti issues annually a seed catalogue from which seeds can be ordered and exchanged for free. Aegilops does not have such a system, oral communication is the main route for the distribution of their seeds. Both NGOs are quite active and even an annual festival (in case of Peliti) is organized to bring the cause of the protection of national biocultural heritage to the attention of the general public. The description of the landraces maintained has been done rarely but initiatives at both NGOs have been taken to do this in the foreseeable future. Communication with other Greek stakeholders is present but to a limited extent. EU measures to support the Greek farmers in the maintenance of LR have failed due to the amount of administration involved and the limited budget per LR maintained.

2.4 Breeding companies In Greece most of the breeding companies are actually marketing companies who sell the seed of foreign companies. One of the few companies that has an active breeding programme, namely ‘Spirou’ in Athens, has been visited. They concentrate their breeding programme on a number of crops (groups) namely cotton, alfalfa, corn, sunflower and vegetables. No specific pre-breeders are active in the company. In their breeding programmes they make use of Greek LR, but not exclusively, also foreign LR are used for the programme. CWR are used to a limited extent. Cooperation with other Greek stakeholders is limited and the participation in EU programmes has been very limited. In both cases Spirou would be very much interested to increase their role in national and international cooperation. For the Greek breeding companies the retreat of the NAGREF institutes concerning the development of cultivars for the Greek market provided a challenge and Spirou breeding company expects to play a far more dominant role in this area then in the past.

Appendix I

2.5 Government

The present text is predominantly based on the Second State of the World - Greece (Stavropoulos et al (2006)), as it proved to be difficult to interview the Greek competent authorities on this issue.

Greece ratified the CBD and the IT in 1994 and 2004 respectively and assimilated into national laws (CBD: law 2204/1994 and IT: 3165/2003). Next to the ratification of these international agreements, the actions on the national level were a. the establishment in 1981 of the Greek national genebank (GGB) in Thessaloniki, which was also financially supported by the FAO; b. the establishment in 1990 of the national system for plant genetic resources (Presidential Decree 80/1990). This system is supervised by the Ministry of Rural Development and Food. The GGB, which is part of the Greek agricultural research organization (NAGREF), acts as a coordinator in this national system. The national system is intended to be supported by all other PGR stakeholders in Greece; and c. the establishment of the Plant Genebank project, which started in 2003 (Measure 6.3/ action B. in the operational programme of rural development reconstruction of the countryside 2000-2006). This project focuses on the establishment of an adequate up-to-date genebanking facility for the Greek national genebank in Thessaloniki and the collecting of all remaining indigenous plant genetic resources.

3. SWOT analysis and recommended actions

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses  Greece ratified the CBD and IT  Limited visibility of genebank collections  Country with considerable biodiversity and unclear ABS rules resulting in very  NGOs are active and have impact limited utilization of PGR  No extensive implementation of CBD and IT in practical biodiversity programmes  Unclear governmental control on PGR sector, resulting in a sub-optimal functioning of the GGB  Lack of communication between all Greek stakeholders  Weak public sector research at NAGREF because of lack of staff

Appendix I

Opportunities Threats  Obtaining (inter)national funding for  Severe lack of governmental funding LR maintenance  Non-replacement of experts at the public  Improvement of communication research sector between stakeholders via development  Genetic erosion in Greek LR is expected to of a national PGR platform be significant, due to rapid replacement by  Universities/breeding companies to modern cultivars. develop new cultivars based on Greek PGR in the context of organic farming

3.2 Recommended actions  The installation of an effective national committee on PGR under the supervision of the Ministry of Rural Development and Food, giving the GGB the technical coordination of the national PGR.  Establishment by the government of a PGR platform in Greece giving the various stakeholders the opportunity to advice the national committee on national PGR issues.  Upgrading the national genebank towards international genebanking standards, as the material stored is currently at risk of going extinct; and the empowerment of the GGB staff.  Agricultural universities and NAGREF institutes should concentrate their research activities in one or two locations, and thus create a centre of excellence. Furthermore they should concentrate on supporting breeding companies and agro-NGOs via the training and the development of adapted varieties or improved cultivation techniques.  Development of locally adapted cultivars by breeding companies, if needed in cooperation with the public sector, as the global seed industry does not specifically develop varieties for Greek conditions.

Appendix I

Italy

C. Kik1 and L.F. D’Antuono2

1CGN, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]), 2University of Bologna, Piazza Goidanich 60, 47521, Cesena (FC), Italy (e-mail: filippo.dantuono @unibo.it)

1. Introduction In March 2011 L.F. D’Antuono PhD agreed to function as a key person for Italy. He developed a stakeholder list for Italy including 2 genebanks, 24 public research institutes, 11 NGOs, 46 breeders/seed producers, 1 central government. On the basis of this list the following stakeholders were selected for interviewing: as genebanks/public collection holders: CNR-IGV (Bari; D. Pignone) and CRA Fruit tree research centre (Rome; C. Fideghelli), as agro-NGO (Rete Semi Rurali, Scandicci; R. Bocci), as research organizations (University of Bologna, Bologna; R. Tuberosa) and CRA vegetables (Monsampolo del Tronto; N. Acciarri), as breeding companies Bejo Italy (Pisignano; A. Tumedei), Cora Seeds (Cesena; P. Pagan), SIS (San Lazzaro di Savena, S. Ravaglia) and SAIS (Cesena, F. Castagnoli), and as government (Network Region of Tuscany, Florence; R. Turchi). Other sources of information were Assosementi (Bologna; M. Nardi & A. Lipparini) and O. Porfiri, Urbisaglia. From November 20-26 2011 these organizations were interviewed by Kik and D’Antuono. Next to these interviews another source of information was the Second State of the World for Italy which was written in 2008 (http://apps3.fao.org/wiews /wiews.jsp).

2. Stakeholder interviews

2.1 Genebanks Italy has not a national genebank, unlike many other countries, but a number of more or less independent collection holders (no central coordination). The two national organizations that manage collections are the Agricultural research council (CRA) and National Research Council (CNR). The CRA and the CNR are the research organizations of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Research respectively. The size of the CRA (Table 3) and the CNR collections are in total around 55.000 and 65.000 accessions respectively.

Collections are not or very limited duplicated at other locations, which influences the long term maintenance of the germplasm conserved.

Table 3. Overview of the collections and their sizes held at 27 CRA institutes. crop groups # of accessions cereals 19901 fruits 14891 vegetables 3463 forage 3259 industrial crops 2127 ornamentals 493 medicinal crops 154

Appendix I

forest species 9554 total 53842

Currently 20.954 accessions of the collections maintained at CRA have been uploaded in the EURISCO database (Figure 3). CRA expects to finish the uploading of their collections by the end of 2012. It is clear by comparing Table 3 with Figure 3 that still a substantial number of accessions needs to be uploaded.

CNR is currently busy to make an inventory of their collections as previously severe administrative problems involving the Bari genebank occurred. In this genebank most of the CNR accessions are maintained. The collection in Bari consists of around 60.000 accessions of cereals, legumes and Brassica’s are conserved. Currently around 30.000 accessions are stored in a database. At another 5-10 CNR institutes another 5-10.000 accessions are held.

Ex situ storage of accessions in the CRA collections is mostly at sub optimal conditions and also the viability and seed depletion of the accessions is not well monitored. However one third of the CRA collections are woody species grown in field genebanks, which makes strict monitoring for this part of the collections less important. Ex situ storage at CNR Bari involves the storage of seeds with a seed moisture content of 6-8% in sealed cans at - 18˚C or involves the vacuum storage in three-layered Aluminium foil bags at 0˚C. Monitoring of the germination percentage is carried out randomly.

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Figure 3. Overview of the collections of several genera held by Italian collection holders. The data are extracted from the EURISCO database (www.eurisco.ecpgr.org).

Access to the CRA and CNR collections depends upon the curator/director of the collection. At CNR no or very limited distribution of accessions takes place annually. At CRA little (< 100 accessions annually) distribution of accessions takes place. CRA uses a simplified MTA for germplasm exchange and for commercial use there is a case-by-case policy.

2.2 Public research organisations Italy had a quite important tradition in wheat breeding in the period between World War 1 and 2, which went on until the seventies of the last century, using Italian material. Since then, the joint ventures of Italian with foreign companies where established, resulting in an increased use of foreign breeding material. With respect to vegetables substantial breeding activities only started in the seventies.

Appendix I

At the academic level, although many universities offer courses in plant genetics and breeding, there is a substantial lack of practically oriented training courses on genetics and breeding.

Some public research institutes work actively together with breeding companies irrespective if they are domestic or foreign. Sourcing of germplasm is based on personal contacts and does not often take place via international databases as they are not really known. Therefore the present Italian collections are primarly based on indigenous germplasm (LR and CWR). Other national collection holders were not frequently asked for PGR as this proved to be often problematic. Therefore most institutes collected their own germplasm or it was often supplied by companies in case of joint research projects between academia and companies. It was mentioned that the functioning of the CNR Bari genebank was problematic until present. Knowledge how to use material germplasm transfer agreements is often lacking. Participating in EU research programmes is taking place by some research institutes and valued as important for building international networks and broadening of the vision. Next to cooperation with breeding companies also cooperation of CRA institutes took place with regional agro-networks to conserve regional landraces. Storage conditions of the accessions conserved were not optimal and also the monitoring of seed viability was inadequate. Distribution of germplasm did sporadically take place as the collections are not visible on internet.

2.3 Non-governmental organisations There are many agro NGOs in Italy however there is no umbrella organisation at this moment. This weakens their influence on the Italian government. Therefore the NGO Rete Semi Rurali (RSR), established in 2007 and located near Florence, tries to develop such an umbrella organization for Italy. Currently around 12 organizations are active in this network. The RSR network focusses on protecting farmers’ rights by helping the government to implement the article 6 of the IT and supporting farmers by writing technical bulletins on various issues (e.g. seed production). Also RSR tries to influence the EU legislation on the protection of farmers’ rights via a dialogue with DG SANCO.

RSR reported that access to Italian collections by individual farmers from the network was difficult. This was not only from a sourcing point of view as most (if not all) collections are ‘invisible’ for outsiders, but also concerning the non-cooperative attitude of some curators concerning the supply of germplasm. Also RSR were concerned with respect to the spending of governmental budget to CRA-FRU in the framework of the implementation of the CBD and IT.

2.4 Breeding companies The total annual seed market in Italy is currently around € 700 million: € 150 million vegetables, 450 million € arable crops (130 corn, 130 cereals, feed 70, potato 50, rice 35, oil seeds 25 and sugar beet 10) and 50 million € other crops.

In Table 4 an overview is given of the breeding companies (domestic and foreign) that are active in breeding vegetable and arable crops. It is clear from Table 4 that overall domestic companies are in the minority with respect to the number of companies active in breeding and their market shares. This is most prominent for the vegetables. For some specific crops Italian-owned companies may have a dominant position (e.g. for alfalfa and clover Italian- owned companies have more than 80% market share). The three Italian-owned companies interviewed have an annual budget in between (3 – 26 million €). Whereas the multinationals

Appendix I have budgets of 250 million € and more, however this budget is not indicative for one country.

Table 4. Number of domestic and foreign breeding companies active in vegetables and arable crops in Italy and the estimated market share of the foreign companies. Italian-owned multi nationals market share multinationals companies (%) vegetables 5-6 10-15 80 arable crops 3-(4) 5-(10) 50

The market for which the domestic companies breed is not necessarily Italy but extends to where market opportunities can be found. Cooperation with domestic research institutes and other breeding companies (testing of material) is reported. The domestic market for certified cereals seeds has been decreasing over the last years as the EU-CAP regulations have changed from a subsidy for farmers only for certified seeds to a subsidy regardless of the certification of seeds. Because of the low financial margins of cereals and the uncertain market prospects, farmers tend to save on expenditure of seeds. This increased the use of non-certified seeds and hence the decrease of the commercial seed market. This resulted in Italy a 50% decrease of the surface area cultivated with certified cereal seeds since 2009. Especially domestic breeding companies focusing on arable crops like cereals may be influenced strongly by this policy change.

Companies indicated that sourcing of germplasm is problematic with Italian collection holders due to all sorts of reasons: invisibility of collections, non-cooperation of the curator/director, problems with benefit sharing, unclarity about the application of international arrangements etc. This resulted in the sourcing of germplasm (in genebanks) worldwide, not only of the multinationals of which you would expect this, but also of the domestic breeding companies. The knowledge of international databases like EURISCO, GRIN and SINGER, is scant at domestic breeding companies. Sourcing mostly took place via personal contacts at conferences or otherwise. Some companies even reported that they collected PGR resources themselves in Italy for the crops for which they were breeding. The use of CWR is not reported by domestic breeding companies, but the use of indigenous LR is. Involvement in European research programmes by domestic companies did not take place.

Breeding companies have serious difficulties in acquiring adequate domestic breeding staff as in Italy few universities are present which offer practically oriented training courses in genetics and breeding.

2.5 Government

Italy ratified the two international arrangements on biodiversity, namely the CBD and the IT, on April 15 1994 and May 18 2004 respectively. After the ratification of the CBD, the National Action Plan on Biodiversity was developed. Since 1997 the CRA-FRU in Rome coordinates a project aiming at the adequate conservation (+ inventory), collecting, documentation and sustainable use of PGR. In 2004 this project was also carried out in the framework of the implementation of the IT. Two national laws have been developed in Italy concerning the IT, namely Law 101/2004 on the monitoring and reporting to the international community on the national actions taken and progress made. This law resulted in a programme coordinated by the CRA-FRU (see above) and focusses on the conservation (including an inventory of the Italian collections conserved), characterization and utilization

Appendix I of Italian ex situ collections. The second law, Law 46/2007, focusses on measures to be taken to ensure the conservation of PGRFA, ABS and promotion of farmers’ rights. This law foresees in a programme on the development of a national register on varieties to be conserved, however this programme has not started yet.

Also the EU directives on agricultural conservation varieties (directive 2008/62/ EC) and vegetable conservation varieties (directive 2009/145/EC) were assimilated into the Italian law by means of legislative decrees. Subsequently it is the responsibility of the twenty regions in Italy to implement these national laws and decrees.

Only in six of the twenty regions in Italy a series of regulations and provisions on the issues of regulating the protection of biodiversity has been issued until present. Tuscany is the region that has progressed most concerning the practical implementation of the national laws on biodiversity protection. In this region a regional law was adopted in 2004 on the protection of biodiversity, namely regional law no. 64/2004. This law provides a set of interrelated regulations on the conservation and sustainable use of regional varieties on the rules of the development of a regional list of varieties and a regional genebank, the construction of a conservation and safety network and the requirements to act as a custodian and to obtain the protected designation of origin for a regional variety. This regional law resulted in a system which consists of different interrelated actions: the development of a list of regional varieties, the establishment of a conservation and safety network (including a network of genebanks), the selection criteria of custodian growers and the rules for obtaining a ‘protected designation of origin’ mark. The network in Tuscany is coordinated by the Agency for the development and updating of Agriculture and Forestry programs (ARSIA).

Storage in the community genebanks is not optimal, but there is a central genebank in Lucca which conserves the germplasm at –18˚C in Aluminium foil bags. In total around 700 regional accessions are maintained of which 600 are at risk of going extinct. In order to see if the maintenance and multiplication of the seeds is done in properly, inspection of the genebanks takes place once a year, and for custodian growers three times a year. Around 120 farmers are actively multiplying local LRs. Farmers are being paid for their activities and so are the universities carrying out the characterizations. Access for research and commercialization to the germplasm conserved is only reserved for the partners involved in the network. Outside the network access is only permitted for research.

3. SWOT analysis and recommended actions

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses  Large amounts of biodiversity in situ  Knowledge on legal provisions as well as ex situ present in Italy (national, IT, CBD) on access and  CBD and IT ratified by the national benefit sharing to PGR is in general government limited at all levels (genebanks,  Practical implementation of CBD and regional governments, breeding IT in some regions functions as companies, research institutes, NGOs) examples  There is no overview of the ex situ and in situ collections maintained in Italy,

Appendix I

resulting in a low utilization of collections  There is no effective coordination of the many independently acting collection holders  The storage conditions and the monitoring of the collections are unclear  Duplication is not taking place regulary  Rules on access and benefit sharing are not applied in a uniform manner  There is no real protection of regional varieties  There is no umbrella organization for agro NGOs weakening their position

Opportunities Threats  Development of national policy  Ongoing trend toward a government regulations on ABS and on-farm spending less budget to the public management cause including PGR conservation and  Increased emphasis on LR and CWR management collecting and conservation  Genetic erosion of landraces and crop  More collaboration between wild relatives in the field, and in some genebanks, research institutions and cases also in genebanks for inadequate NGOs on on-farm management practices.  More collaboration between  Unpredictable effects of climate genebanks, research institutes and change on Italian agricultural sector Italian breeding companies on the development of locally adapted varieties  More international cooperation to be able to react on new developments

3.2 Recommended actions  The establishment of an effective national coordination of ex situ and in situ collection holders.  Securing the Italian collections by imposing the international genebanking rules on the collections managed.  Implementing clear and transparent access and benefit rules, not only for research but also for commercialization.  Stimulating the interaction between local breeders, genebanks and research institutes to develop locally adapted varieties.  Stimulating the development of regional agro networks to conserve and utilize the regional bio-cultural heritage.

Appendix I

The Netherlands

Chris Kik

CGN, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected])

1. Introduction A list of 29 breeding companies, 4 genebanks/botanical gardens, 12 agro-initiatives, 19 research organizations and 1 government was compiled by Chris Kik. Interviews by Chris Kik took place during June/July 2012 with five breeding companies (ENZA Zaden, Enkhuizen: Marco Binnendijk; Bejo - de Groot & Slot, Broek op Langedijk: Ed Langedijk; Nunhems Zaden, Haelen: Tonny vd Boom; Nickerson-Zwaan, Tuitjenhorn: Jan-Leendert Harrewijn; Rijk Zwaan, de Lier: Martijn Eggink). For the other stakeholders a recent paper of van der Wouw & Visser on ABS in the Netherlands and personal experiences were used.

2. Stakeholder interviews

2.1 Genebanks There is only one Dutch national public genebank (Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands, CGN; www.cgn.wur.nl). CGN was established in 1985 and is located in Wageningen. The Dutch genebank has a juridically independent status and a clear mandate defining the tasks. Although CGN holds around 23.000 accessions of both arable and horticultural crops, it focusses on vegetable crops because the Netherlands has a strong vegetable breeding industry and because there are still large gaps in vegetable collections worldwide. CGN stores primarily seed propagated crops. This is done according to genebank standards (dried seeds, vacuum-sealed in Aluminium bags, stored at - 20˚C) and under control of a ISO 9001:2000 certified quality management system (TUV). Ordering seed samples at CGN is done via internet using a shopping cart. The signing (click wrap procedure) of the sMTA belonging to the IT-PGRFA is obligatory for obtaining seed samples. Every year around 5000 seed samples are distributed without costs for the users. The users are primarily breeding companies and research institutes. Since a number of years more seed samples are distributed abroad then domestic. CGN has strong ties with breeding companies as collecting missions, regeneration and evaluation activities are carried out in cooperation with them. Furthermore CGN is actively engaged in the international negotiations concerning the exchange of PGR and advises the Dutch government on this issue. Also CGN is active in capacity building as annual courses on various aspects of PGR management are given to a predominantly international audience. Last but not least research is carried out to substantiate genebank management. The staff of CGN consists of ca. 10 people.

An equally large source of PGR compared to CGN can be found in botanical gardens. The difference in collection composition between CGN and the botanical gardens is that CGN concentrates on economically important crops and on the intraspecific level, whereas botanical gardens focus on many species and on the interspecific level. Access to the PGR in botanical gardens is limited as most accessions can only be used for non-profit purposes. Exchange of PGR is taking place on the same scale as at CGN. The Dutch botanical gardens

Appendix I operate under de CBD and CITES regulations and an MTA is used for exchange of material which is developed by the international network of botanical gardens (IPEN).

2.2 Public research organisations By far the most active research institute in the area of genetics and breeding is the Plant Breeding group of Wageningen UR. The group consists of two entities namely the University and the Agricultural Research Department (DLO). Around 80 persons are working in this group. Fundamental as well as strategic research is carried out. Strong ties are present with breeding companies. Own collections exist on potato and Allium, for other crops CGN is a major source. Awareness of ABS is present, but the implications for practical use needs attention. Obtaining PGR does not seem to be a big issue as most of the material needed is acquired via CGN.

2.3 Non-governmental organisations There are no strong agro-NGOs in the Netherlands. It is better to speak of agro-initiatives as they are not really active on influencing the government concerning PGR policies. Mostly the agro-initiatives are operating individually, sometimes in a network. One important network aiming at the conservation and use of old cultivars which were cultivated in the Netherlands is called de Oerakker (www.deoerakker.nl). This network consists of over 70 agro-initiatives including small organic breeding companies, demonstration gardens at medieval castles, gardeners selling their produce at local markets, etc. They do not acquire much PGR as they obtain this mostly from professional seed sellers. Therefore there is poor knowledge concerning the international PGR arrangements within this group of stakeholders. Another agro-initiative is the pomological association. This association is focused on the conservation of old fruit tree cultivars and issues material to hobby growers. The apple collection of this association is placed in the MLS. Although this has happened scant knowledge is present among the people of this association concerning the implications of this placement.

2.4 Breeding companies Compared to Dutch arable and ornamental breeding companies, vegetable breeding companies in the Netherlands are very active and have a leading role worldwide in developing new cultivars. This active breeding leads to an important demand concerning the acquisition of new PGR of these crops. Therefore these companies have been interviewed. Based only on economic value of the sector one should also include ornamental breeding companies as the sector as a whole is of significant economic importance for the Netherlands. However breeding new cultivars is less important compared to breeding of new vegetables varieties.

Most, if not all, Dutch vegetable companies have developed in the last ten years a company genebank. These genebanks contain in most cases large numbers of accessions obtained from various sources. The number of accessions held exceeds in many cases the number of accessions present in the national genebank CGN. The accessions at private companies are mostly held under genebank conditions, like at CGN. Monitoring of the seed quality was not yet an important item for them. Companies did not give insight in the quality (e.g. composition of collection) of their collections. Distribution of accessions occurred predominantly within the company. Awareness of ABS regulations was in the majority of the cases present and acted upon. The current regime on ABS was in many cases not seen as being helpful to acquire PGR as many suppliers of PGR had different MTAs and did not know how to come to an agreement for the transfer of PGR. Apart from CGN, NordGen, USDA, IPK, and RIVP problems were encountered to obtain PGR, indicating the big

Appendix I problem concerning the utilization of PGR for commercial purposes. All companies were positive concerning the cooperation with CGN which was according to them beneficial for both sides.

2.5 Government The Netherlands ratified the CBD in 1994 and the IT-PGRFA in 2005. Both laws are the basis of the Dutch national PGR programme as there are no further national laws and legislation on this topic. In effect the Dutch policies on this issue follow the policies developed by the EU. The Dutch policy document ‘Sources of existence’ which was adopted by the Dutch parliament in 2002 forms the basis of the Dutch government policies concerning the use and exchange of PGR. In this document the Dutch government expresses the view that it aims to promote the conservation and use of PGR in an international framework and that a fair sharing of the benefits resulting from the use of it should take place. Furthermore the Dutch government stimulates open access to PGR worldwide. No prior informed consent (PIC) is needed for exporting PGR present in the Netherlands. The status of the PGR collections of CGN has been regulated in a document signed by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2006 in which all CGN collections (both annex I and non-annex I) are placed in the multilateral system (MLS) of the IT-PGRFA. The various primary national focal points amongst which the NFP on biological diversity (CBD NFP: de Kock, Min EL&I) and the NFP on the Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing (ICNP ABS NFP: Crisson, Min EL&I) are in place as well as the competent national authority on access and benefit sharing (ABS-CNA: Crisson, Min EL&I). Concerning the exchange of PGR for food and agriculture, the Netherlands makes no distinction between national or international PGR exchange, no distinction between countries having signed the CBD and/or IT and countries who did not sign these agreements, and no distinction between profit and non-profit use. No agreed policy in the Netherlands exists for PGR that is not used for food and agriculture and also not for material used for non-research purposes falling under the CBD. The government has raised awareness concerning the consequences of the CBD and IT to stakeholders.

3. SWOT analysis and recommended actions

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses  The Netherlands has a very strong  There are no regulations for non- vegetable breeding industry. agricultural use for material falling under  Users appreciate the easily accessible the MLS of the Treaty or for non-research collections of CGN use for material falling under the CBD.  Free availability of plant genetic This ignores a large potential of the ex situ resources is the default in Dutch policy collections in the Netherlands (and  The strong cooperation between the elsewhere), as currently these uses are national genebank and breeding effectively blocked. companies in PGR management  International legislation forms the basis of Dutch policy on ABS. The international instruments often leave room for multiple interpretations and is therefore unnecessary vague which interferes with the exchange of PGR

Appendix I

 The Dutch agro-initiatives should organize themselves better to influence Dutch regulations on conservation varieties etc.  The no-PIC and free access policy of Dutch genetic resources has not been formally documented

Opportunities Threats  Access to PGR in case of ornamental  If international negotiations in the field of breeding has not been regulated. Dutch ABS lead to unpractical results with policy makers and other stakeholders unfeasible demands for documentation, the should actively promote at the access to important material could international stage the creation of clear essentially be blocked for the breeding guidelines of an ABS regime for the industry. Especially the smaller players use of PGR for ornamental breeding. will be disadvantaged as they cannot invest  Vegetables form an important element as much effort in accessing important plant of international food security and are genetic resources. now hardly included among the Annex 1 crops under the International Treaty. Therefore an expansion of the list of Annex 1 crops should be promoted.

3.2 Recommended actions  It is essential that at the international level effective implementation of international agreements on the fair distribution of the benefits derived from genetic resources is reached. Dutch government should continue to actively pursue this.  In addition to the Dutch national genebank CGN also the botanic gardens in the Netherlands distribute many samples to users worldwide. Dutch policymakers have been giving most attention in recent years to the position of the national genebank, largely ignoring the collections of the botanic gardens. An integrated policy which covers all major ex situ plant collections in the Netherlands could be a step forward in making full use of all valuable genetic resources held by Dutch collection holders.  Besides use for food and agriculture there are other uses of plant germplasm which could be important but which have not been regulated, such as the use for pharmaceutical purposes and the use as ornamentals. These different uses should be recognized and dealt with in international agreements and national policies.  Dutch agro-initiatives should organize themselves to better protect their interests.  For easier access and transparency uniformity on procedures to distribute and acquire seeds is essential. As the different international treaties allow for different interpretation, Dutch government could assist collection holders by clarifying in which way the government interprets these international treaties. Part of this job is already undertaken by the National Focal Point.

Appendix I

The Nordic Countries

Anna Palmé1, Birna Kristín Baldursdóttir2, Fredrik Ottosson1, Gert Poulsen1, 3 and Svein Øivind Solberg1

1Nordic Genetic Resource Center, Box 41, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden; 2 Agricultural University of Iceland, Hvanneyri, IS-311 Borgarnes; 3 Frøsamlerne, Drøwten 9, Tjele, DK- 8830

1. Introduction The Nordic countries are positioned at the northern edge of Europe, where both wild plants and crops need to be adapted to the extreme day length variation and temperature regimes. In this region there is consequently a wealth of plant genetic resources with adaptation to northern conditions. However, the Nordic region covers a large and varied geographic area, from the comparable mild climate of Denmark to the cold areas of northern Norway, Finland and Sweden, as well as the exceptional climate in Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, each resulting in unique local adaptation.

The Nordic countries have a long history of cooperation in many areas, including the field of plant genetic resources. One example of this is the Nordic Gene Bank, which was formed over 30 years ago and is now part of the Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NordGen). The mandate of NordGen includes conservation and use of both agricultural and horticultural crops, crop wild relatives (CWR), forest trees, and farm animals. NordGen also host networks of national expertise. Another good example of Nordic cooperation is the recently initiated Nordic PPP (Public-Private-Partnership) projects on pre-breeding of perennial ryegrass, apple and barley, where both public and private partners from all Nordic countries take part.

The aim of the present study is to gain a better understanding of the current status of PGR conservation and use in the Nordic countries, to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and finally to develop suggestions for actions that would facilitate the use of PGR. The Nordic study is part of a larger European project with the same aims on the European level (WP5, PGR Secure, http://www.pgrsecure.org/). The actions suggested in this report, and additional reports focused on other parts of Europe, will be discussed at a European stakeholder workshop in November 2013, with the aim to develop an action plan for the improvement of PGR conservation and use.

To investigate PGR conservation and use in the Nordic countries a sample of 14 stakeholders were interviewed. Of these, one represented the gene bank, six public research, six breeding companies and one agro-NGOs (Table 5). A summary of the results is presented below.

Appendix I

Table 5. Stakeholders interviewed in the Nordic countries. Stakeholder Country Stakeholder category Gene banks All Nordic The Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NordGen), Alnarp countries Public Demark Department of Agriculture and Ecology, Faculty of Life Research Sciences, University of Copenhagen. Molecular breeding group, Department of Agriculture and Ecology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen. Agrologica, Mariager Iceland The Agricultural University of Iceland, Borgarnes Norway Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås Finland Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki Agro-NGO Demark Frøsamlerne, Tjele Breeding Demark Nordic Seed A/S, Holeby companies DLF Trifolium, Roskilde Finland Boreal Plant Breeding Ltd. Norway GraminorAS, Bjørke forsøksgård, Ridabu Sweden Lantmännen Lantbruk in Svalöv Lantmännen Lantbruk in Lännäs

2. Stakeholder interviews

2.1 Gene bank

Capacity and current status There is one common gene bank for seed propagated crops for all the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) and this seed gene bank is part of the Nordic Genetic Resource Centre (NordGen). NordGen employ 30 people, have an annual budget of 31 million SEK (about 3,5 million EUR) and is responsible for ex situ seed conservation for the Nordic countries. The most important species in the gene bank collection in terms of the number of accessions are Hordeum vulgare (approx. 14 000 accessions), Pisum sativum (approx. 2 000 accessions), Triticum aestivum (approx. 1 500), Avena sativa (approx. 800 accessions) and Phleum pratense (approx. 800 accessions). Other important crops: are Festuca rubra, Poa pratensis, Trifolium pratense, Secale cereale, Dactylis glomerata, Agrostis capillaris, Trifolium repens, Phalaris arundinacea, Brassica napus ssp. oleifera, Festuca pratensis and Lolium perenne. The conservation mandate of the gene bank includes cultivars, landraces, research/breeding material as well as CWR of agricultural, horticultural and ornamental plants.

Characterisation and evaluation of the collections is done in connection with regeneration for some species. In other cases it is performed within cooperation projects, either within NordGen´s working groups, or in collaboration with, for example, breeding companies or universities. The extent of characterisation and evaluation, both in terms of the number of accessions and the amount/type of traits, is something that has to be improved if the collection is to be used optimally. The seed accessions in the gene bank are kept under good

Appendix I conditions for long term storage (about 5% moisture content, airtight and moisture proof aluminium foil bags, at -18°C). To ensure that the accessions are not threatened by local accidents, the accessions are stored in three separate locations, with the safety collection stored in the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.

Access and information NordGen has a publicly available home page with access to the data base SESTO, which includes passport data for all accessions, an online ordering system and an online confirmation of Material Transfer Agreements. In addition, characterisation and evaluation data is publically accessible from the same data base. However, this part of the data base is in a different format than the rest and would benefit from improved user friendliness. Data from SESTO is also made available through EURISCO and for most crops also through the ECPGR Central Crop Databases.

There is an interest to order accessions from NordGen from a wide range of stakeholders, for example NGOs, breeders, universities, museums, other gene banks and the public. Approximately 4200 seed samples were delivered 2011.

Cooperation The gene bank cooperates with the other stakeholders within the Nordic countries and also internationally. One of NordGen’s central tasks is to facilitate cooperation on PGR (plant genetic resources) issues among the Nordic countries and the gene bank work closely with, for example, the national programmes and experts in the individual Nordic countries. Central to the organisation are NordGen’s working groups. There is one such working group for each crop group and included are experts from all of the Nordic countries. In addition, there is a close cooperation with the Baltic countries, and NordGen, for example, hosts the public data bases of their national gene banks collections. Both CWR and landraces have been included in cooperation projects on forage crops, cereals, legumes and vegetable crops.

Policy and constraints NordGen is jointly owned by the Nordic countries and the Nordic Council of Ministers determines the size of the budget, the overall objectives and general tasks. Both landraces and CWR are part of the basic conservation mandate of the gene bank. In 2002 the Nordic council of ministers decided in the Kalmar Declaration that genetic resources, with the exception of security collections held or administered by the Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NordGen), are to be regarded as a common Nordic resource, which is freely accessible, and which is subject to public administration and control, under the condition that no legal restraints exist. The relevant material administered by NordGen shall be part of the multilateral system for plant genetic resources under IT-PGRFA. Wild genetic resources are under national legislation. It is recommended to harmonize the access and benefit sharing procedures among the Nordic Countries, but this is so far not finalized.

Two major constraints for the work in the gene bank were identified. The first is a lack of political priority resulting in limited funding. Recently, additional funding has been granted to the gene bank, resulting in improved regeneration facilities and additional staff for regeneration and seed handling. There is however, a back-log of material in need of regeneration. In addition, characterisation and evaluation can generally not be funded within the basic budget. The second major constraint is the temporary Nordic employment contracts that prevent staff to be employed at the gene bank more for than eight years. This results in problems with continuity and with maintaining knowledge and competence within the gene

Appendix I bank. The constant change in staff also impedes NordGen’s interactions with national and international PGR stakeholders.

Concerning CWR and landraces it would be beneficial to increase the characterisation and evaluation efforts to facilitate selection of accessions. Both breeders and scientists are generally interested in accessions with specific traits. To make the selection of accessions efficient, this kind of information should ideally be readily available for all accessions, especially for agronomically important traits. However, gene banks in general are far from this goal. For CWR it would also be valuable to conduct collection missions for targeted species from the wild. By first evaluating what species and traits that are of interest to breeders and other users, then targeting collection missions accordingly and finally evaluate the material, the gene bank could better serve the need of the user community.

Trends Climate change is expected to result in increased demand for genetic resources by the breeding companies and other researchers working with breeding. They will likely need an input of new genetic variation to efficiently adapt crops to the new climatic conditions. There are several challenges here, since it is not only a question of increased temperature, but increased temperature in combination with, for example, unchanged day length conditions, increased frequency of extreme weather and the increased and more diverse pest and disease pressures.

The continued development of cheaper and more efficient molecular methods are expected to result in an increased amount of molecular data associated with the accessions in the gene bank. This has the potential to increase the usefulness of the accessions stored in gene banks, as the users could then select accessions based on the presence of a particular marker or DNA sequence, or a specific combination of markers/sequences, or expression profiles. The task to present the molecular data associated with the gene bank accessions in a comprehensive and easily accessible way, will be a future challenge for the gene bank. The amount of data produced with the new methods is rapidly increasing and the type of data is also developing over time.

2.2 Public research

Capacity and current status The number of people that work with breeding/genetics research vary among the six interviewed institutions. The largest is KU Life (Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen) with as many as 50 people. The other breeding/genetics groups are smaller with 2-17 people, including scientific staff, PhD students and PostDocs and sometimes a technician. Most of the institutes have a dual focus on education and on research. Some of the institutes work mostly on fundamental research while other focus on applied research, or on both. Research on breeding/pre-breeding is for example done at the University of Helsinki, The Agricultural University of Iceland and Agrologica, Denmark.

In the three Danish institutes the major focus of the research is on barley and wheat, but also other species are important such as rapeseed, spelt and Arabidopsis. The research group from Norway focus on timothy, perennial ryegrass, meadow fescue, festulolium (a cross between two fescues and ryegrass) and red clover. The Icelandic group works on barley, white and red

Appendix I clover, and forage grasses (timothy, meadow fescue and ryegrass). In the Finnish group they focus on broad bean, lentil and lupin. All the interviewees state that they have used landraces and in most cases also CWR in their research. These genetic resources have been used in a wide range of projects and in many different species, such as wheat, barley, broad bean, lentil, forage grasses, clovers and other species. In some of the countries, landraces and CWR are also included in –omics (genomics, proteomics and/or metabolomics) projects.

Breeding/genetics is regarded as an important research theme by all the interviewees and there is a wide variety of research going on within this theme in the Nordic countries. It ranges from very fundamental research, such as studies on basic physiological, ecological and evolutionary processes, to more applied research on, for example, resistance, quality, winter hardiness, breeding methods and breeding. In addition to the institutes interviewed here, applied agricultural research is also performed at the Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research (Bioforsk, http://www.bioforsk.no/), MTT Agrifood Research Finland (https://portal.mtt.fi/portal/page/portal/mtt) and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU, http://www.slu.se/)

Access and information All of the interviewees have searched gene banks for landrace and CWR germplasm. They are generally interested in a specific trait or several traits and base their choice of accessions on data in the scientific literature, or online gene bank resources, or on information from gene bank curators. The accessions from the gene banks are used in scientific projects, often after an initial round of multiplication, due to the small seed amounts distributed from gene banks. Most of the interviewees have systematically characterised their landrace and CWR collections and this information is made publically available through scientific publication, the donor gene bank, sequence data bases and homepages.

Most of the researchers order accessions only from a limited number of gene banks each year (1-3) and those most often used 2010-2011 were NordGen and IPK. All the interviewees use web based information systems to search for accessions. Mentioned sites were NordGen (SESTO), IPK (GBIS/S), USDA-ARS (GRIN), ECPGR (for example ECWDB), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (GRIN-CA), EURISCO, CGN, VIR and AusPGRIS. Those that were used by most people were NordGen (4 of the interviewees), IPK (3) and GRIN (3). Only two of the interviewees mentioned a preference among the information systems. In one case GRIN was preferred with the motivation that it has the best evaluation data, the other interviewee preferred NordGen (SESTO).

Cooperation All the researchers cooperate with at least some of the other stakeholders (breeding companies, farmers, NGOs, gene banks) and often the cooperation occur within specific projects. The collaboration with breeding companies includes work on pre-breeding, genetic linkage maps, genetic markers or transfer of technology. The cooperation with gene banks often involves evaluation and characterisation of accessions from the gene bank. Farmers are involved in projects on for example ecological farming and evaluation and development of landraces. NGOs are involved in projects on landraces and transfer of technology.

Policy and constraints A national expert programme that specifically promotes research on landraces and CWR exists in Norway (Norsk Genressurssenter), but not in Denmark, Finland, Iceland or Sweden. In the latter countries, there is no governmental funding program that specifically mentions

Appendix I landraces or CWR. However, in some cases researchers can attract funds for such crops/species from general funding programmes. In Finland, MTT has a research programme that started in 2011 on environmentally friendly agriculture and under the theme “Preserving and enhancing the biodiversity of the agricultural environment”, projects on plant genetic resources, landraces and CWR have been funded.

None of the interviewees think that the EU GENRES programmes have promoted the research on landraces and CWR in their country. However, some of the interviewees (4) think that other EU research programmes have promoted their research, at least to a certain extent. Others (2) do not think so, since they have not taken part in such projects.

Funds are naturally always a constraint in research. However, there seems to be a specific problem with funding for projects in the gap between basic research and applied/commercial breeding. Researchers mention, for example, funding for pre-breeding and for multiplication and selection of lines as problematic. A related issue here is the time aspect. The average time framework of most projects is far too short to include the relevant steps for pre-breeding. Specific long-term funding is needed for this. It is also mentioned that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get public funding for breeding in general and that there is a lack of political priority of this field.

Another constraint is that there is less basic knowledge about the minor crops compared to the major ones, for example, there is less knowledge on their genomes and transcriptomes. This slows down the work on these crops and impedes future use of landraces and CWR in the minor crops.

Trends Most of the interviewees (5) think that the focus of their research has changed over the last ten years. These changes include more focus on the understanding the basic biology and on genetic diversity, but also on the development of new technologies that can be used for plant breeding and research, such as molecular mapping and high throughput genotyping of markers and sequences.

The researchers see several future trends. On the one hand they are worried about certain aspects of breeding research, but on the other hand they also see many opportunities. A problem they foresee is that plant breeding will be more and more focused on the major crops and that there will be less effort on minor crops and on crops adapted to special environments. This could potentially lead to decreases in both agricultural and food diversity. In this context, the lack of funding for pre-breeding is an important issue. Governmental funds are therefore needed to support such activities. Hopefully, a future trend will be cooperation and governmental focus on pre-breeding. The recent initiation of the three Nordic Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) activities points in this direction.

It is believed that new methods and technologies will facilitate research and breeding. For example, the continued development of new molecular tools will make it easier and cheaper to apply these methods, and therefore genetics, genomics and transcriptomics will play an increasingly important role in research and breeding. In this context it is also interesting to note that it is believed that the genetic base will become too small in many crops in the future and that the use of these new tools can facilitate the use of CWR as a source of genetic variation. It is also believed that there will be an increase in the use of FIGS and similar approaches to facilitate identification of genetic diversity of interest.

Appendix I

2.3 Non-governmental organisations

Capacity and current status There are two Agro-NGOs that work with breeding in Denmark and a representative from the largest of these, Frøsamlerne, was interviewed. There are 365 people working within the organisation and they have systematically collected landraces since their establishment. This is done via their network of members and in cooperation with farmers and institutes. The collected landraces are also characterised and evaluated by Frøsamlerne in collaboration with universities and NordGen. They do most of their work on peas, beans, carrots and leafy vegetables. There is no umbrella organisation for Argo-NGOs in Denmark.

There are also agro-NGOs in the other Nordic countries but unfortunately it was not possible to include interviews with them in this study. Important are for example Maatiainen ry (http://www.maatiainen.fi/) in Finland, Planteklubben for Grønnsaker, Potet og Urter (http://www.skogoglandskap.no/fagartikler/2007/planteklubb_gronnsak_potet) in Norway and Föreningen Sesam (http://www.foreningensesam.se/) and Allkorn (http://www.allkorn.se/) in Sweden. The following text focuses on Frøsamlerne.

Access and information The characterisation and evaluation data on the landraces is documented in a data base. Frøsamlerne use several approaches to inform the public about landraces such as homepage publications, press releases, courses and market stalls.

Cooperation Frøsamlerne cooperate non-commercially with gene banks, public research organisations, breeders and other NGOs and the cooperation is focused on beans, peas, leaf vegetables and cereals. Currently there is no cooperation with the commercial sector but this might be initiated in the future since they have found potential partners for such cooperation.

Policy and constraints In Denmark there is no national expert program that specifically mentions landraces and the need for on farm management. It is possible for NGOs to get funding from the government, and Frøsamlerne received funding for a project on peas in 2012-2013. The interviewee does not think that the EU GENRES programmes have promoted the activities of Frøsamlerne. The major constraints identified regarding the work at the NGO were limited funding and difficulties to establish credibility in their contacts with authorities.

Trends The major trends identified for the future are increased interest in pre-breeding, increased use of landraces and in addition new PPP projects that can enhance both the pre-breeding and the use of landraces.

2.4 Breeding companies / Institutes

Capacity and current status The organisation of breeding of agricultural crops is diverse among the Nordic countries, and ranges from being conducted only by private breeding companies to being largely public. In Denmark breeding is only done in private companies. The largest is DLF Trifolium, but there are also Sejet, Nordic Seed and LKF-Vandel. Also in Sweden most breeding is done by

Appendix I private companies. Lantmännen Lantbruk (former Svalöf Weibull AB) have plant breeding on a wide variety of crops, while Syngenta Seeds concentrates on sugar beets in Sweden. There is also public breeding of potatoes, fruits and berries at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. In both Norway and Finland the breeding of agricultural crops is done in companies partly owned by the state: Graminor in Norway and Boreal in Finland. Both in Finland and Norway there is also breeding projects on fruits and berries. In Finland this is done at MTT Agrifood Research on public funding1. In Iceland most of the breeding is done at the Agricultural University of Iceland, which has a small breeding program. There is also ORF Genetics, which is a company working with enzyme production in modified barley1.

DLF Trifolium is an international company with about 660 employees. Of these 250 are working in Denmark. In DLF’s breeding program for fodder and turf, there are 65 employees and of these 30 are working in Denmark. The most important crops are fodder ryegrass, turf ryegrass, turf red fescue, turf and forage tall fescue, Italian ryegrass and white clover. In forages the company focuses on traits such as yield, winter hardiness, disease resistance, forage quality and seed yield. In turf grass, important traits are quality (density), seed yield, wear resistance, short cutting, disease resistance and colour. DLF Trifolium has 75% of the domestic market and 20% of the global market.

Nordic Seed is another Danish company with 32 employees, of which 15 are working in the breeding program. They have 40-50% of the domestic market for their crops and also sell on the Nordic and Baltic markets. Their most important crops are winter wheat and spring barley, but they also work with winter barley, winter and spring rape seed, rye, oat, maize, triticale and grasses. Nordic Seed focus on these particular crops since they have a high acreage in Denmark. General traits that they focus on are yield, yield stability under different conditions, disease resistance and quality.

In Finland breeding of agricultural crops is done by Boreal, in which the Finnish state is the majority owner1. Boreal has 62 employees all working in Finland, which is also their main market. On average across species they have 65% of the domestic market. Of the employees, 50 are working in the breeding programme and of these 9 are breeders and the rest are technical staff. The most important crops are spring barley, oats, spring wheat, forages (most important among the forage crop is timothy), and spring turnip rape. Boreal focuses on these crops since they are important on the Finnish, Nordic and Baltic markets. The main focus of the breeding is to increase yield and quality of the crops. As they breed for a northern market, adaptation to northern conditions is central, but also resistance to pathogens and yield stability.

In Norway all breeding is done at Graminor, which is partly owned by the state1 and operates with Norway as the main focus. The company has 30 employees, all working in connection to the breeding programme. Of these there are 9 breeders focused on forages, cereals, potatoes and strawberries and the rest are technical staff. The crops that are most important for Graminor are forages, wheat, barley and oats. Among the forages, timothy, meadow fescue, red clover, festulolium, perennial ryegrass and white clover are dominating. The main goal is to adapt these crops to the Norwegian climate. For forages the focus is on yield, persistence, disease resistance (Sclerotinia), frost tolerance, fodder quality and seed production. The market share of Graminor on the domestic market varies among the species, for example timothy (30%), meadow fescue (84%), red clover (70%), while for Dactylis, Bromus and Phalaris the company have 99-100 % of the domestic market.

Appendix I

Lantmännen is an international agricultural company with activities in 18 countries and 10 500 employees. Lantmännen Lantbruk, which is part of the larger Lantmännen organisation, has 1100-1200 employees, of which 100 work in Sweden and the rest in Germany and the Netherlands. About 120 people are involved in the breeding programmes. There are 18 people working with breeding of forage grasses and legumes in Sweden, 8 in Lännäs in northern Sweden and 10 in Svalöv in southern Sweden. The most important crops bred by the company are winter rapeseed, spring rapeseed, winter wheat, triticale, spring barley, spring wheat and forages. They focus on these crops since they are important on the northern and central European markets. Traits they focus on are, for example, yield, disease resistance, quality and abiotic stress tolerance. In forage crops the focus is on winter hardiness, yield of green mass, yield of seed, disease resistance and fodder quality. The market shares of Lantmännen for some of their important crops are: Winter rape 7 – 8 % of the targeted markets in Europe; winter wheat: 12% in Germany, 30% in Sweden, 15% in Poland; spring rape: 50% in the Nordic and Baltic Countries and triticale 50% in Germany.

All of the interviewees state that they use landraces and/or CWR in their breeding programmes but only to a small extent. This kind of material was used more in the past when the demand was lower for a short “time to market” when developing new varieties. Landraces and CWRs are generally only used when a specific trait is missing from a crop and this trait cannot be found in advanced breeding material. The decision to include landraces and CWR is generally made by the individual breeder, but in one company the head of breeding is consulted first. If CWR and landraces are used at all in the breeding program of a crop, it is generally not in more than 5% of the material. There are exceptions though, and in a breeding program on Poa pratensis as much as 50 % is used. In this case the company has also clearly benefitted financially from the use of CWR. However, most interviewees state that landraces and CWR have not benefitted their company economically.

Some of the interviewees state that they have enough genetic variation in their crops, at least in the short term, since they can produce new improved varieties. Others state that they lack genetic variation at least in some crops. However, most of the interviewees seem to agree that additional genetic variation will be needed in the future. It is pointed out that the process of breeding decreases the level of genetic variation and that it is therefore important to make sure that genetic diversity is conserved over time.

The breeders generally see landraces and CWR as playing only a small role in broadening the genetic base in their crops. However, in rare cases, they can be central for the success of a variety if they have a key property that can be transferred to the crop. In the future, new molecular tools can potentially facilitate the use of landraces and CWR, and in this way decrease the time to market. This could open up for increased use of CWR and landraces.

Most of the interviewees seem to agree on that disease and pest resistance are among the important traits where landraces and CWR can be a valuable source. Also, other traits are mentioned for which landraces and CWR can be important, for example, cold tolerance, quality traits and persistence. CWR and landraces can be important for a wide range of crops, such as forages, cereals, turf species and Brassica crops. If it is a major crop, genetic variation in landraces and CWR can potentially be of economic interest.

Access and information

Appendix I

All the interviewees state that they gain access to landrace and CWR material from gene banks and three of them also state that they have collected such material themselves. An alternative source is from researchers that have collections of specific material.

Cooperation In general, the interviewed breeders cooperate with gene banks, other breeders and public research organisations, but not with NGOs. Only one interviewee from Lantmännen state specifically that they work with NGOs. Cooperation takes place both within countries, with Nordic and Baltic stakeholders and on the European level.

The type of cooperation project most often mentioned is pre-breeding projects and projects where material is characterised and evaluated (for example for morphology, yield, resistance, genetic markers). Half of the interviewees know about the ECPGR working groups while the other half have not heard about them.

Policy and constraints Nearly all of the interviewees take part in PPP programmes and the most commonly mentioned program is the Nordic PPP on Lolium. Other cooperations mentioned are with Rutgers University (USA), iKORN (Danish research project focused on genomic approaches in wheat breeding, http://www.ikorn.life.ku.dk/), Nordforsk projects (NordForsk provide funding for Nordic cooperative projects, http://www.nordforsk.org/en) and Mistra Biotech (Swedish research programme focused on sustainable and competitive agricultural production, http://www.slu.se/mistrabiotech).

Half of the interviewees know about the GENRES programme, while the others do not. None of them think that EU research programmes have played an important role for the promotion of landraces and CWRs in breeding programmes. One interviewee suggested that the impact might increase in the future if molecular markers are used to a larger extent.

There seem to be a general agreement that the major constraint for using landraces and CWR in breeding is that it is time consuming and costly. Since most modern varieties are highly bred it takes a long time to get back to a marketable variety. This means that breeding companies rarely find it to their advantage to do this kind of work, as long as there is variation available in highly bred material. In new crops, or crops that have been less bred, it is more common to use landraces and CWR since the difference between this material and the advanced crop is smaller. It was also commented in one of the interviews that even though CWR and landraces are not frequently used, they are important as a source of genetic variation. A common view is that the use of landraces and CWR benefits from specific pre- breeding projects with long external term funding, for example in PPP projects. Tools that could speed up the breeding process could also facilitate the use, for example gene technology. Some of these tools, like molecular markers, are well accepted in the Nordic countries but others, like GMOs, are not, which makes their use more complicated.

Another issue that makes it more difficult to use landraces and CWR is the limited amount of evaluation data connected to gene bank accessions. Information on agriculturally important traits is often missing, which makes it difficult to select appropriate material for breeding. In addition, if gene banks would conduct collection missions that were targeted on crops and traits of importance, this would also facilitate the easy access of this type of material.

Trends

Appendix I

Lantmännen employ a pre-breeder for rapeseed, while the other companies do not employ any pre-breeders. One of the interviewees point out that the pre-breeding is done by the regular breeders. Most of the interviewees, 5 out of 6, state that the number and type of crops that they work on have changed over the last 25 years. In general, the number of crops has decreased during this period. The exception is at Boreal, where the number of crops has recently increased by activating old breeding programmes on triticale, broad bean, field peas and festulolium. Also in the other companies there are species that have increased in importance or for which breeding has been initiated. For example, among the forages at Graminor, the importance of white clover, Festulolium and perennial ryegrass has increased, and at Lantmännen breeding on Salix has been initiated. Crops for which breeding has stopped in are oilseed rape, lucerne, minor grasses (DLF), rye, peas, linseed, turnip rape and vegetable crops (Lantmännen). In contrast to the crop focus, the trait focus has not changed over the last 25 years according to most of the interviewees (5 of 6).

An important future trend is climate change. This will be a challenge for breeders since it will result in new demands on crop properties, for example new combination of temperatures and day length and new or increased pressure of diseases and pests in the northern regions. The change of climate might also open up for new crop species in northern climates, which could be a future opportunity.

Another future trend mentioned by several interviewees is the increased use of molecular tools, which has the potential to speed up the breeding process. Both molecular tools in general and genome wide selection were mentioned. These tools have the potential to make it easier to use CWR and landraces and thereby facilitate their use. In this context, also patenting of particular genes and GMOs were mentioned, the use of which is thought to increase in the future.

The future is also thought to bring increased use of foreign seed, increased competition in the breeding sector and a trend toward consolidation of breeding companies is envisaged. Somewhat in contrast to this, increased importance of cooperation in PPP is also mentioned. It is also thought that the use of hybrid crops will increase as well as breeding for pan European crops at the same time as niche crops such as functional food is thought to increase in importance.

3. SWOT analysis and the actions needed concerning PGR management in the Nordic countries

3.1 SWOT analysis

On basis of the interviews, a SWOT analysis was carried out to identify the crucial issues related to the PGR management in the Nordic countries.

Appendix I

Strengths Weaknesses  A region with considerable PGR diversity,  In the Nordic region there are few initiatives especially important for adaptation to that promote landrace and CWR research Northern latitudes and cold climates. projects  A single well-organized regional gene bank  Landrace and CWR material has been and is with a publically available data base used in breeding, but it is used to a smaller including passport and characterisation data, extent today. The demand for efficiency and a and an online ordering system. short time to market has increased.  There is cooperation among all the  It is difficult to select appropriate gene bank stakeholder groups. accessions for breeding since information on  Landraces and CWR have been agriculturally important traits/genes are often characterised and evaluated, generally in missing or difficult to access. cooperation projects, by researchers,  Breeding, pre-breeding and research is breeders and the gene bank. increasingly concentrated on a few major crops.  CWR and landraces are included in –omics projects  The breeding traits have not changed but there is an increased demand for quality, organic  There are agro-NGOs that actively collect, varieties, minor alternative crops etc and this describe and document landraces as well as demand is not met by the market.* inform the public in several different ways.

Opportunities Threats  Landraces and CWRs have the potential to  There is a lack of political priority for PGR enhance for example disease and pest issues in most of the countries. This has led to resistance as well as cold tolerance in many difficulties to attract public funding for pre- crops. breeding and breeding as well as for  New Nordic PPP projects on pre-breeding characterisation, evaluation and conservation in ryegrass, apple and barley has attracted work. both public and private funding and brings  Climate change will lead to high demands on together breeding companies, public the breeding companies to continuously supply research organisations and the gene bank new varieties adapted to a changing climate (started 2012). and new pests and diseases.  Increasingly efficient molecular tools have  The temporary Nordic employment contract the potential to increase our knowledge on for gene bank staff (max. 8 years) results in the accessions stored in gene banks and problems with continuity and with retaining thereby increase their usefulness. competence and knowledge in the gene bank.  The expected climate changes can lead to an Furthermore the gene banks interaction with increased demand of PGR to meet the international and national PGR stakeholders is challenges of breeding new varieties impeded by the repeated change of staff. adapted to the changed conditions.  Difficult to recruit new plant breeders with  Use of tools such as FIGS to identify appropriate education as good research genetic diversity of interest. education in this field is lacking1*  Abandoned breeding programmes can be  Interpretation of EU directives on agricultural reinitiated to increase cultivated diversity. landraces can cause problems concerning This requires public funding.* cultivation of original landraces and  New developments in the agricultural sector development of new variety types in some of (e.g. Organic farming) opens for new and the Nordic countries.* old species to be cultivated. Participatory Plant Breeding is one opportunity to develop varieties which will not have “economical fitness” in the traditional breeding system.*

Appendix I

*These SWOT points are not directly based on the interviews but have been added by the authors.

Appendix I

3.2 Recommended actions The following recommended actions are largely based on information from the interviews described above, but suggested by the authors of this report. The actions are aimed at making the conservation and use of plant genetic resources in the Nordic countries more efficient, and in this way have a positive effect on breeding, research and direct use. The most important aim here is to work for a vital breeding sector to ensure food security in the face of climate change and a growing human population.

 Increased efforts for collaborative long-term projects on pre-breeding would strengthen not only breeding in the Nordic countries but also facilitate the use of plant genetic resources. Public funding is essential for this kind of projects. The three new Nordic PPP projects are important steps in the right direction, but these need to be converted into long term projects and diversified to include more crops. Also other types of long-term collaborative efforts would facilitate pre-breeding, for example collaboration with the Baltic states or on the European level.  Strengthen the cooperation between breeding companies and the gene bank. Bilateral projects or other smaller projects between the gene bank and breeding companies would strengthen the user focus of the PGR collections. Such projects could, for example, include evaluation of gene bank material and collection expeditions focused on species and traits of interest to the breeders.  Development of funding programmes that specifically mention plant genetic resources, landraces and CWR would increase the knowledge and thereby facilitate the use of PGR. By setting aside part of the funding for minor crops, the current trend towards fewer crops being bred could be turned around. In addition, the development of molecular tools for breeding should be encouraged.  Prioritisation of evaluation of agronomically important traits and genes in gene bank accessions to facilitate the use of these resources. Even though the gene bank has a well maintained seed collection, a large publically available data base and an easy and efficient ordering system, the evaluation and use of the material should be improved. Both classical evaluation of agronomic traits and evaluation with molecular tools are essential and this type of data should be made easily available in public databases.  The work done at NordGen would improve if a change in organisation would take place to enable the gene bank to hire permanent staff and own land and equipment. Abandonment of the temporary employment of staff at NordGen would strengthen continuity and facilitate interaction within the international and national PGR environments.  Strengthen in situ conservation of plant genetic resources, as this is important for conservation of both landraces (on-farm management) and CWR (for example nature reserves). Examples of actions would be to include CWR status as a conservation criterion, and to prioritise research on on-farm management of landraces, in situ conservation of CWR and genetic diversity in CWR. The latter can be used to facilitate conservation decisions.  Politicians can use public breeding to pursue political goals, such as increased organic farming or farming in Northern regions. When breeding for organic farming or specific environments, landraces and CWR can be an important source of genetic diversity.

4. References 1. Nilsson A and von Bothmer R. 2010. Measures to promote Nordic plant breeding. TemaNord 2010:518. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 90

Appendix I

Poland

Lothar Frese1, Elzbieta Czembor2, Gisela Neuhaus1, and J.H. Czembor2

1 Julius Kühn-Institut, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI), Institute for Breeding Research on Agricultural Crops, Quedlinburg, Germany (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] .de); 2 Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute-NIR, Radzikow IHAR, 05-870 Blonie, Polen (e-mail: [email protected], j.h.czembor@ihar .edu.pl).

1. Introduction This introduction is an excerpt of the Second National Report on the state of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in Poland prepared and published by Zofia Bulinska- Radomska, Boguslaw Lapinski, and Edward Arseniuk in 2008. Many text parts are identical with the Second National Report, which describes a well-organized national program aiming at the conservation and use of plant genetic resources. The introduction focuses on aspects that are of importance to the PGR Secure project. Poland is situated in Central Europe and borders Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The Baltic coast constitutes the northern boundary. More than 50% of the total area of Poland, i.e. 16.2 million hectares, is used for agriculture. Orchards cover 337 thousand hectares, meadows 2.497 thousand hectares and pasture 774 thousand hectares. The agriculture in Poland is characterized by a large fragmentation of farm holdings.

Agricultural production conditions differ in Poland compared to those of other EU countries. A considerable part of farmers apply traditional production technology and allocate agricultural products for family use. In Poland, field crops cover approximately 90% of agricultural land of which five main cereal crops, potato, industrial and oil bearing plants took up approximately 89% of all 11.456 thousand hectares under cultivation in 2007. The production of vegetables and fruits covers a small fraction of total of agricultural land, 1.6% and 2% respectively, yet horticultural plants contribute substantially to inter- and intraspecific genetic diversity in agricultural. The diversity of major groups of crop species grown in Poland is reflected by the total number of species included in the National Register for field, vegetable and fruit crops. In total, 149 species, of which 66 are field, 55 are vegetables and 28 are fruit species, were certified for cultivation in 2008. Over the last 12 years, the number of registered species decreased from approximately 90 to 66 for field crops, increased for vegetable crops and remained approximately the same for fruit crops. In recent years, a growing demand for healthy food has raised the recognition of regional and traditional products that create new value and complement the human diet. This notion has stimulated the reintroduction of traditionally used species of wheat, oil crops, legumes, and other agricultural plants, thereby broadening diversity in the crop sector. This new trend reinforces the cultivation of vegetables, fruits, herbs and medicinal species that are traditionally grown for household use or small-scale trade, thus resulting in a growing niche on the market for such goods.

Poland is an important producer of medicinal and aromatic plant (MAP) raw materials. About 70 species are cultivated on approximately 25.000–30.000 hectares on 20.000 farms. In Poland, the use of wild plant species is subject to nature conservation regulations and is within the competence of the Ministry of Environment. The diversity of naturally occurring

Appendix I and collected medicinal and aromatic plants is estimated at 200 species, of which 80-100 are used for commercial purposes. It is expected that the level of collection of medicinal and aromatic plants from natural sites will decline with time and the cultivation of these plants will become the main source of raw material for the industrial use.

The National Plant Genetic Conservation Program for food and agriculture was established in Poland in the late 1970s. Over the years, it has undergone transformation in terms of its organization, objectives and scope. The program is supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture and is financed from the state budget. Several institutions are entrusted with the task of curating specific ex situ crop collections as well as collecting, characterizing, evaluating, and data documentation. The activities undertaken within the program by the cooperating institutions are coordinated by the National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute. The centre maintains a central database for all genetic resources collection and provides storage facilities within a controlled environment. Ex situ collections maintained within the framework of the National Genetic Resources Program cover crop plants, their wild relatives, and weedy species that are imperative as a food source and/or significant for the agricultural sector of the economy. They are organized into crop collections, which altogether make up the national collection of plant genetic resources. The national collection is composed of 89% of European accessions, of which 45% are of Polish origin. In situ conservation is a domain of nature protection.

On-farm conservation and management is a marginal, yet growing activity in Poland. On this background the present survey focussed predominantly on the maintenance and use of biodiversity of landraces (LR) and crop wild relatives (CWR) in an ex situ context. To this end stakeholders of plant genetic resources (PGR) were interviewed using the guideline- based interview technique with a fixed set of questions to be asked (appendix I). For each stakeholder group a separate set of questions was selected from a much larger set and allocated to the categories: C – capacity, S – state, A - access, Info – information, Coop – cooperation, Pol – policy and T – Trends.

Stakeholders interviewed were representatives of the gene bank – Dr. B. Lapinski, Prof. Z. Bulinska-Radomsaka, IHAR-PIB on 22 August 2011; public research organizations – Prof. J.H. Czembor, IHAR – PIB on 22 August 2011; NGOs – Mr. T. Czubachowski, Association for old varieties and breeds, Mr. M. Babalski, Ekoland, both on 25 August 2011; and breeding companies – Prof. J. Adamczyk, Smolice Breeding Company on 23 August 2011, Dr. A. Pawlak, Potato Breeding Zamarte Ltd. on 24 August 2011. Interviews lasted around 1- 2 hours per interview. On the basis of the interviews a short report including a SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity and threat) analysis was carried out and action points formulated concerning the use of crop wild relatives and landraces in Poland.

2. Stakeholder interviews

2.1 Gene Banks

Capacity and state IHAR (Instytut Hodowli i Aklimatyzacji Roślin) is the national genebank coordinating the work on plant genetic resources collection management at three universities, seven research institutes, four breeding companies, and the Botanical Garden in Bydgoszcz. In total 30 persons work at the genebank.

Appendix I

The most important crops in term of number of accessions (between brackets) are wheat (13.519), rye (2.455), triticale (2.330), barley (6.689), oat (2.477), potato (1.334), oil and other industrial crops (4.103). In addition important collections of apple and pear accessions of native origin and a large group of grasses collected from Polish locations are being managed. The extent of characterization and evaluation depends on the crop. The evaluation work in crops like plum, onion, and oat is more elaborated than in other crops. The characterization and evaluation is an ongoing process. Every year accessions, which are new and need to be multiplied or accessions requiring regeneration, are characterized by the responsible crop collection curators who mainly apply the internationally accepted crop- specific descriptors lists. As far as specific research projects concern approximately two scientists and two technical workers are involved, i.e. about 15-20 % of the staff capacity, in work related to the introgression of genes from wild species. Currently wide crosses with CWR as donors are performed in seven projects (cereals, oat, potato).

Access and information Information on gene bank accessions can be searched via the websites of the institute. Users can order germplasm by email or letter. All stakeholder groups can receive accessions categorized as MLS samples from the national gene bank system. The number of requests is documented and ranges between a few up to approximately 770 requests per year depending on the stakeholder group. Most of the requests come from research institutions and commercial breeders. The number of accessions sent of the top six crops to users summed up to 686 in the year 2010. The percentage of accessions per crop ranged between 5 % and 48 % depending of the crop. In terms of the percentage of landraces and crop wild relative accession the percentage ranged between 0 and 3 % depending on the crop.

In 2008, a central database system was installed at the national genetic resource centre. About 95 % the accessions have passport data. The data are kept in an information system which structure is adjusted to EURISCO. The interview partner suggested to improve EURISCO as this would also improve the access to the Polish gene bank holding.

Cooperation The gene bank closely cooperates with breeders and NGO with regard to evaluation and even marketing. In projects, focused on organic farming the gene bank promotes the participation of individual organic farmers, which are not agro-NGO in the sense of the definition given, but nevertheless important partners. Other areas of cooperation with breeders focus on pre- breeding and the development of special technologies for breeders. Oat breeding was introduced by the partner as an example for cooperative projects. Avena machrostachya, a wild species from Africa, is the source of winter hardiness, because it grows in the Atlas Mountain near the snow zone. The species is adapted to these harsh environmental conditions and can be used to introduce winter hardiness into cultivated spring oat. This species has a range of traits of interest to breeders.

The related wild species of a crop are difficult to utilize. It requires time and work, the success is often uncertain. The risk of losing the investment is high with regard to scientific success and financial resources as well.

Policy and constraints A national expert program, which specifically mentions the value of LR and CWR and the need to conserve them exist. The work on CWR and LR is carried out in the framework of

Appendix I the regular work done with any species or accession maintained by the gene bank. As compared to CWR, projects with LR are seen as the more successful. There are activities within the framework of the Rural Development Program, which promotes and facilitates in situ conservation in the agricultural sector through projects financed from the budget of the latter Ministry. The last edition of this program, covering 2007 to 2013, includes packages with the objective to promote, maintain, and preserve the diversity of valuable agricultural habitats such as extensive meadows and pastures. Other packages lead to preservation of landraces of field, vegetable and fruit crops through the involvement of farmers in the cultivation and production and marketing process.

The EU GENRES program was mentioned by the interview partner and highlighted as a means of underpinning the value of LR and CWR or plant genetic resources in general terms and thereby supporting the conserving of PGRFA as valuable genetic resource for breeding and agriculture. With regard to the use of LR as a donor or the direct use of LR suited to develop market niches the lack of a system controlling and regulating the seed market in Poland was seen as a major problem. Currently the commercial breeders do not receive a fair return for the variety they produced which is a very difficult situation for breeders. In this situation, they are not able to think about more than the day after tomorrow. They are just trying to survive to the next year, and they reject any kind of activity, which has some financial risk. An improved control of the seed market would improve the use of the genetic resources of the CWR and LR because the most popular strategy among breeders who think about next day only is to cross the most related lines. The proper organization of the seed market was seen as a major political challenge.

Policy always determines the capacity available for genetic resources conservation and utilization. If the capacity increases for both, LR and CWR, the evaluation of quality traits, which is very costly and requires specific expertise and equipment, would be intensified. The reintroduction of LR, which do have distinct traits, e.g. component of high nutritional value desired by the market would be intensified.

With regard to CWR increasing funds would lead to more long-term research projects. If the capacity decreases, the work on breeding for resistance to biotic and abiotic stress would be reduced. The main constraint in gene banking, including research and pre-breeding at IHAR is insufficient funding and very rigid administrative rules and procedures which impairs a flexible response of plant genetic conservation program to the new challenges and needs.

Trends In the coming decade firstly a more coherent system for the management of data on genetic properties of genetic stock samples and gene bank accessions will emerge. The molecular genetic marker work was seen as something really important, especially for LR. Secondly, an effective gene bank management system based on high quality standards for gene bank procedures through the AEGIS system will be developed. Thirdly, genetic fingerprints of each sample, to characterize and identify the sample itself and to evaluate the relationships with other samples will become routine procedures in gene banks.

2.2 Public Research

Capacity and state

Appendix I

The interviewed institute disposes of 40 scientists and 60 technical staff members. The work is concentrated on fundamental research and pre-breeding in major field crops in Poland: wheat, maize, barley, triticale, potato, oil industrial crop, sugar beet. Within the various project an impressive number of LR barley, oat, potato, forage grasses and a few oat CWR accessions have been evaluated. The projects target at the improvement of crop resistance as a mean of developing an ecologically sound agricultural production and further on nutritional quality, resistance to abiotic stress, improvement of yield components and yield stability. The use of genetic resource in breeding is considered an important contribution of the institute to the conservation of biodiversity. In particular barley LR have been ordered from gene banks and were systematically characterized for disease resistance. The resulting data are documented in project databases but have not been transferred to a gene bank information system.

Access and information LRs were ordered by the institute from three different gene banks. Any interested person can get access to the characterization and evaluation data, which are published in papers and reports on the projects. The institute uses EURISCO as the main source of information on passport data since this system is the most comprehensive one and easy to use.

Cooperation The institute cooperates with all stakeholder groups in particular in the field of searching for new sources of resistance for major disease. These resources are then used in pre-breeding. The cooperation can be based on financial contracts.

Policy and constraints The institute’s work is backstopped by a national expert program, which specifically promotes research on LR and CWR. The government provides research programs allowing the attraction of project funds for research on LR and CWR. In this context, the EU GENRES guideline was considered a very valuable funding mechanism because LR had been evaluated in these projects for presence important agronomic traits. The EU research programs provide new ideas, funds and possibilities for cooperation on the EU level (EU networks, COST actions, Integrated Projects) and in consequence promote the utilization of LR and CWR.

Trends The focus of the genetics and breeding group is changing towards breeding for quality characters because of the increasing demand of markets and customers. Breeding of resistance to biotic/abiotic stresses will be even more important in future, as resistant varieties will play an increasingly important role in integrated crop production systems. The use of LR and CWR is still a long-term, time-consuming task. Accordingly, costs set limits to the research and pre-breeding work. A major constrain is the presence of the undesirable traits in this kind of material. LR and CWR germplasm is already used in –omics research projects. The use of new, more precise molecular methods in the research and breeding was seen as the major trend in breeding and as a mean of accelerating the exploitation of LR and CWR germplasm in future.

2.3 Non-governmental organization

Capacity and state

Appendix I

Around 15-20 organizations exist in Poland dealing with the on-farm conservation of former breeding varieties and landraces. Ten associations are working with farmers in the sense of on-farm management. About 1000 associations are working with traditional agricultural crops and breeds. Financial turnover is not known. The interviewed agro-NGO has no employees, but plans to create a part- or full-time job in the next future. In 2011 the budgets ranged between 7000 and 40000 € depending on the NGO. One NGO successfully acquired projects funds for organizing travel and communication /exchange of information with counterparts in five countries (Romania, Hungary, Switzerland, Austria and Latvia) and to the task of training the farmers how to breed traditional varieties on-farm, in agricultural techniques and agro-tourism, as well.

The agro-NGOs mainly work with wheat (Emmer, Einkorn), tomatoes (around 20 varieties), beans, potatoes, lettuce, and ornamental plants. As one of the agro-NGO exists since two years, the collecting of LR has only started, recently. Both agro-NGOs collect landraces and maintain collections. Along with the collecting of samples all information linked with the accession is also recorded. The focus is on vegetables and cereals. The collection of various kinds of fruit trees are maintained in gardens and orchards. Other crops are maintained as seeds. Members of the agro-NGOs started to systematically describe features and the performance of LR and one agro-NGO created a web site like the Wiki system, where everybody can add some information as appropriate. Public events and meetings are organized in the village or a city where landraces are displayed, even prepared, offered for degustation and described by the visitors. The use and properties of the old germplasm is described and each year a different crops is demonstrated. Up to now, there is no umbrellar organization of NGOs in Poland. The agro-NGOs wish to establish a network and a cooperation with other organizations such as SAVE.

Information One agro-NGO records descriptions on the collection such as passport data in excel sheets, including literature referring to information on old cultivars. There is no systematic description due to lacking financial means and personal staff. The information is presented to the public on events, via exhibitions where consumers, producers and local people join. Press releases are an important means for information on plant genetic resources.

Cooperation The agro-NGOs cooperate non-commercially with the Polish gene bank with a focus on crops and local varieties from the own country (wheat, oat), but also with gene banks in other countries. There is cooperation with the research sector of IHAR and the Agriculture University mainly on potato, carrots, and tomatoes. The agro-NGOs are also cooperating directly with farmers or small garden initiative in the city but not with breeders as this group is not in the focus of the agro-NGO. With farmers the work on spelt wheat was started as a vehicle to train them, e.g. to use names for varieties in potato cultivation or horticultural production as a way of improving the marketing. The market for LR is still very small and cooperation with the commercial sector on the marketing of LR products therefore is not planned for the time being. Networking on national and international level in all crops mentioned is part of the agro-NGOs’ program.

Policy and constraints A national expert program, which specifically mentions the value of LR and CWR and the need to manage them on-farm/in situ was not known to the interviewed agro-NGO. The government does not provide programs allowing NGOs the attraction of project funds. The

Appendix I governmental programs are only accessible to farmers and their organizations. The EU GENRES program was known to the agro-NGO.

In particular, for farmers with small farms < 10 ha biodiversity related products could be an interesting market. There is a lot of this kind of farmers in Poland and they can produce a great diversity of products. The administrative work load in the context of LR use was seen as the major constraint.

Trends As the major trend in the future, the agro-NGO sees farming system maintaining genetic diversity as the best way of halting the loss of agro-biodiversity.

2.4 Breeding companies

Capacity and state Two breeding companies were interviewed; one company with a focus on maize, small grains and a range of other crops and the second specialized on potato. The personal capacity ranged between 7 and 16 employees in the breeding branch of the companies, which was in both cases a smaller fraction of total number of employees ranging between 60 and 102 persons. The maize breeder is also a farmer with a normal agriculture production. In maize, 1.5 persons are involved in pre-breeding which means crossing early with late flowering types. Both companies are independent and cooperate based on business contracts with companies abroad. The potato breeder cooperates closely on a project basis with IHAR. Potato, maize, winter wheat, durum wheat, spring and winter barley, rye, lupin and pea were mentioned as the most important crop species.

Yield is the most important trait and given highest priority in the selection index. Agronomic traits, resistance to diseases, cold tolerance and depending on the crop type a range of quality traits play an important but secondary role. The selection aims are focus on the demands of the modern production techniques and new markets such as biomass production. The potato breeding in Poland can look back on 65 years history and build up invaluable expertise. In addition to the conventional breeding targets the potato breeder started selection of varieties for the ecological farming sector. Both companies do not at all (maize) or not directly use landraces and CWR in their breeding programs. The potato breeder receives pre-bred material improved by the genetic department of IHAR in Mlochow. This amounts to about 10% of the lines used as parents in the potato breeding program. The use of CWR in the maize breeding programs is of no interest. In maize breeding, the use of landraces was stopped 40 years ago. Today only the best lines are crossed to create new variation. During the last years, little research was devoted to maintain open pollinated varieties or landraces. In case of maize, the earliest hybrids from the Northern States of USA were used as genetic stock for line development in Poland, and this material had a real huge positive impact to maize breeding in Poland. A completely different opinion was expressed by the potato breeders. There is not enough genetic variation needed to improve e.g. the resistances to pathogens and their pathotypes. Breeders are always looking for more genetic diversity so this is the main reason why they increase the genetic diversity, to have sufficient variation required for selection.

Access and information If material is needed the company could search and order it via the USA, the GRIN system which is also known to breeders working in Russia and the Ukraine. Maize germplasm is

Appendix I exchanged between Poland and institutions like Krasnodar in Russia. The potato breeder has no need to access gene banks as only pre-bred material is used. Ordering of CWR and LR material is the task of the genetic department in Mlochow.

The breeding companies know gene bank information systems but do not use it, as there is no need to do so. The companies either use their own genetic resources or pre-bred material developed by the public sector.

Cooperation The company cooperates with the public research sector in the field of improving selection procedures or on predicting heterosis in maize. A close cooperation between public research and potato breeding exists. Legally seen the breeding company is a private company, but by ownership it is of the government and 100 % owner of the IHAR institute is the state. These conditions facilitate the cooperation on a non–commercial basis with the gene bank. IHAR develops e.g. molecular marker assisted selection for resistance to late blight. There is no cooperation with agro-NGOs in the field of potato breeding.

Policy and constraints Both companies did not participate in public-private-partnership programs on utilization of landraces and CWR germplasm. The GENRES program of the DG AGRI and projects funded via GENRES were unkown as were working groups of the ECPGR program. EU research programs are known. They have no direct impact on the companies. The major constraints for using landrace and CWR are the many undesirable traits of wild potato species and the very long time required for selection of good varieties after introgression of desirable traits into the elite material. This is a problem, which is solved via cooperation with other partners such as IHAR.

Trends The Triticale program was stopped to the benefit of the maize program. During the time when maize was mainly grown for silage, Fusarium was not that important; Fusarium resistance is very important for the grain maize. In the past breeders focused on the yield improvement of forage wheat and now all the breeders select for good baking quality. The major trend in the future in the case of maize is the increased use as industrial raw material. The trend is hard to predict. In case of Poland, the use for biogas production will increase because of a national target set by the policy. We have to reach a certain percentage level of energy produced from so called green resources by 2020. There is a risk that this type of use will increase the food price. Alternative to the Roundup ready maize (GMO) is the so called - duo system. A natural gene was found making a plant tolerant to Focus Ultra, a herbicide. If you incorporate that gene by conventional methods in maize, the maize becomes Focus - tolerant. A life of a maize breeder is not long enough to start a breeding program with landraces and open pollinated varieties from scratch. Therefore public-private-partnership program allowing companies to cooperate with the public research sector in the field of population improvement would help on the long run to adapt the material to changing conditions for example with a focus on cold tolerance. Our gene bank has not the possibility to do such research on its own as the continuity for such work is not given. In case of potato breeding, there is not much change in number and type of selection traits. The composition of traits must be balanced, because it is impossible to obtain high resistance with high quality. It is always a compromise. The produced starch potatoes are too expensive and the importance of starch yield is decreasing. Today, the focus is set on the improvement of the processing quality e.g. for French Fries and chips and hence quality and resistance traits are getting more

Appendix I important. Today it is easier to use new methods like micro-propagation. The molecular marker assisted selection for quality and resistance trait was seen as a major trend in the future.

3. A SWOT analysis and the actions needed concerning PGR management in Poland

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses  Country with considerable biodiversity  A national PGR expert program exist  Clear governmental control on the PGR however it has not sufficient means and sector limited scope  The national gene bank system is well  NGOs are active but have a limited impact organised due to insufficient means  The access to germplasm is provided via  Only few projects are focussed on the the gene bank website utilisation of CWR  The cooperation between all stakeholder  The collaboration between all stakeholder groups is well developed groups in the field of exchange and  The cooperation with EU partners is documentation of characterisation and established and benefits the national evaluation data is not well organised system  The seed trade market lacks regulation and control

Opportunities Threats  Increase of the efficacy of the Polish  Decreasing staff capacities in the public genebank system through the AEGIS PGR sector process  Insufficient financial means required to  Development of market niches for improve the flow of characterisation and native species / regional products evaluation data between stakeholders  Improvement of the public interest in  A too strong focus of breeding research, agrobiodiversity issues through the pre-breeding and breeding on major crops support of agro-NGO sector  Lack of incentives to use LR and CWR in  Development of agrobiodiversity long-term base broadening programs of friendly (ecological) farming systems companies

3.2. Recommended actions

Government Development of a national expert program by the responsible Ministry with the support of experts from the stakeholder groups.

Gene Bank

100

Appendix I

Improvement of information system in close cooperation with EU partners; improvement of the gene bank procedures through the establishment of a quality management system and in close conjunction with the AEGIS process.

Public Research IHAR should try to diversify research activities with a stronger focus on the national agrobiodiversity potential. This could result in unique selling points of the Polish agriculture and promote the conservation of native genetic resources through use.

NGOs This stakeholder group is quite new in Poland and needs more support in setting up well- organised holdings, information systems and websites. Agro-NGOs play an important role in public awareness building and have a high potential in promoting the use of landraces in agricultural production.

Breeding Companies The public-private research activities should be strengthened to facilitate the systematic characterization and evaluation of additional crops and to improve the characterization and evaluation data flow between the public research sector, the breeding sector and the gene bank.

4. References Asfaw Z. (2000) The barleys of Ethiopia. In: Brush, S.B (ed.) Genes in the field. IPGRI, Rome/IDRC, Ottawa, Canada / Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA. Pp. 77-107. Brush, S.B. (2000) The issues of in situ conservation of crop genetic resources. In; Brush, S.B (ed.) Genes in the field. IPGRI, Rome/IDRC, Ottawa, Canada/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA. Pp. 3-26. Bulinska-Radomska, Z., Lapinski, B., Arseniuk, E. (2008) Poland: Second country report concerning the state of the world on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in Poland, Second National Report. Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, Radzikow. Camacho Villa, T.C., Maxted, N., Scholten, M., Ford-Lloyd, B. (2005) Defining and identifying crop landraces. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterisation and Evaluation 3, 373-384. CBD (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity. The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/ Louette, D. (2000) Traditional management of seed and genetic diversity: what is a landrace? In: Brush, S.B (ed.) Genes in the field. IPGRI, Rome/IDRC, Ottawa, Canada/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA. Pp. 109-142. Negri, V. (2007) Landrace definition. In: del Greco, A., Negri, V. and Maxted, N. Report on a Task Force on On-farm Conservation and Management, Sec. Meeting, 19-20 June 2006, Steglitz , Germany. Bioversity International Rome, Italy, page 20. In: Del Greco, A., V. Negri and N. Maxted, compilers. Report of a Task Force on On-farm Conservation and Management. Second Meeting, 19-20 June 2006, Stegelitz, Germany. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/Networks/Insitu_onfarm/OnfarmTF_intro.htm. Papa, C (1996) The ´farre de Montelione´: landrace and representation. In: Padulosi, S., Hammer, K. and Heller, J. (eds.) Hulled Wheats. Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops. Proceedings of the First International

101

Appendix I workshop on hulled wheats, 21-22 July (1995), Castelvecchio Pascoli, Italy. IPGRI Publisher, Rome, Italy. Pp. 154-171.

102

Appendix I

Romania

1 2 1 Gisela Neuhaus , Creola Brezeanu and Lothar Frese

1Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI), Institute for Breeding Research on Agricultural Crops, Erwin-Baur-Str. 27, D-06484 Quedlinburg, Germany, Tel: (0049) 03946 47 705, Fax: (49) 03946 47 255, E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: (0049) 03946 47 701, E-mail: [email protected]; 2Vegetable Research and Development Station Bacau, Calea Birladului Street, 220 No, Postal code – 600388 Bacau, ROMANIA, Tel: (0040) 744642567, (0040) 769067350, Fax: 040234517370, E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction Romania maintains a rich biodiversity located in a wide variety of habitat types covering an area of 238391 km2. One third of the country is taken by various mountain areas (1) the Eastern and Southern Carpathians, (2) the Apuseni Mountains and the (3) Banater Mountains. East Romania borders the Ukraine and the 240 km Black Sea coast with one of the largest river deltas of Europe, the Danube delta.

The temperate continental climate is characterized by cold and snowy winters and dry warm summers. The interaction between geographic and climatic factors results in a wide range of ecological conditions and microclimates. Due to the policy of the past, a large-scale agriculture system had been prevailing until the 90ies. Since then state owned land has been restored to farmers. Today, the total number of small-size farms is approximately 4 Million with an average acreage of less than 4 hectares. Large farm with an average of 400 ha per farm enterprise exists but in terms of the total number small-size farms prevail.

Altogether seven stakeholders from gene banks, public research organizations, NGOs and commercial breeding companies were interviewed using the guideline-based interview technique. Dr. S. Strajeru agreed to be the country key person for Romania. She prepared a list of organizations which were visited from September 26–29, 2011. The persons interviewed were: gene bank – Dr. S. Strajeru, Suceava; research organization - Dr. S. Ambarus, Bacau, Dr. S. Radu, Fundulea; agro-NGO – Dr. M. Calin, Bacau; breeding company - D. and P. Barbu, R. Rosu, Bacau; Dr. G. Dicu, Funduela. Interviews lasted around 1-2 hours per meeting. The scripting of these interviews can be found in the appendix. On the basis of the conducted interviews this report was written which also includes a preliminary SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity and threat) analysis and action points concerning the conservation and use of PGR in Romania.

2. Stakeholders

2.1 Gene Bank The Romanian gene bank at Suceava became fully operational in 1988 and is thus quite new and modern. In 1990 the Vegetal Genetic Resources Bank of Suceava has become a self- standing public institution fully financed from the national budget and directly coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development. In 2009, the Suceava Vegetal Genetic Resources Bank has been merged with the Central Laboratory for Quality of Seeds and Seedling Material Bucharest. It is the only institution within the country responsible for collecting and conservation of genetic resources. The Romanian gene bank functions as a coordination unit for conservation and use of PGR in the country although this and the role of

103

Appendix I other stakeholders have not been explicitly laid down in a national program for PGR. The gene bank facilities are well developed and the collection is kept at good storage conditions. The number of accessions of the top five crops sums up to 11500. The proportion of landraces is high.

Capacity and state At present 18 people work at the genebank of which eight persons have a scientific degree. If additional funds would become available the genebank will decide to develop a national strategy for CWR conservation and extend the inventory of landraces.

About 3.5% of the holding consists of CWR. The CWR accessions have not yet been characterized. Of all landrace accessions about 25% have been studied systematically using the definition of traits published in the IPGRI descriptor lists and other trait lists. At present about 25 PM are allocated to national and international cooperation.

Access and information The accessions are freely available and stakeholder groups access the holding, except for plant breeders. They keep their own collections of well adapted germplasm and do not use genebank accessions of CWR and landraces in their variety breeding programs. Many accessions of bean, maize and faba bean are requested by users while the interest in wheat and barley germplasm is less. The proportion of CWR and landrace accessions sent to users ranges between 15-20% for bean, maize and faba bean and for barley and wheat between 0- 1% of the crop specific holding. The user is requested to sign the sMTA.

Recently, a new database has been established providing access to all passport and evaluation data. New data are systematically documented. Users can search for specific material either via the web-based public genebank information system but also via EURISCO. The improvement of CWR and landrace inventories, including the documentation of local knowledge in the database BIOGEN, was considered an important future task.

Cooperation The gene bank cooperates with other genebanks and within Romania with breeding researchers and NGOs. The cooperation with plant breeders in Romania happens only sporadically.

Policy and constraints A formal national expert program for PGR conservation and use still needs to be developed. Such program would allow an effective coordination of the cooperation between all national stakeholders and considerably improve the conservation and use of PGR. At present the national agro-biodiversity policy does neither support the on-farm management of landraces nor provide project funds for research on on-farm and in situ management themes. The effect on the conservation and use of PGR of the EC GENRES program was considered to be very limited at the national level. Limited national funds for gene bank work, lack of experts and lack of young, qualified people was seen as a major constraint in gene banking.

Trends Evaluation of the gene bank collection on biotic and abiotic stress resistance with the objective of identifying useful accessions for crop enhancement projects will gain importance. Characterization and evaluation is considered an ongoing task, which needs to be intensified. For this purpose the establishment of a new molecular lab is planned which will

104

Appendix I allow the molecular characterization of genetic resources including LR and CWR. The use of molecular marker techniques will help gene bank curators to identify duplicates and to rationalise collections.

2.2 Public Research The research performed by the Vegetable Research and Development Station (VRDS) at Bacau and the National Institute for Agriculture Research and Development at Fundulea is mainly focused on the development of new varieties and is often performed in connection with teaching at the universities Bacau, Iasi, and Bucharest.

Breeding research projects aim to improve the performance of local varieties of vegetables (pepper, beans) and aromatic and medical plants. In the VRDS mainly vegetables Capsicum annuum, Phaseolus vulgaris, Phaseolus coccineus, Solanum spec., Allium spec. as well as Cucumis melo are maintained in working collections and are characterized. Intensive contact exists with national breeding companies due to the historically grown common work focus and the established communication between experts. A good cooperation with all stakeholder groups exists. Intensive contact to NGOs as well as to several public research institutions and to the national gene bank at Suceava is maintained.

Capacity and state Altogether up to 80 persons are involved breeding research and variety development at VRDS at Bacau and NIARD at Fundulea. A wide range of crops are investigated. The variety breeding program is successful. Wild populations of medicinal and aromatic plants have been successfully adapted to cultivation. In vegetable as well as alfalfa breeding landraces have been utilised successfully. Plant genetics and plant breeding is evidently an important theme in public plant research. VRDS uses landraces and CWR in –omics projects while NIARD does not. Landrace and CWR collections are systematically characterized using UPOV descriptor lists and the data are documented in a database at VRDS whereas they are not kept in a database at NIARD.

Access and information Both research institutes have not systematically searched for landraces and CWR in genebank collections but rather used landraces and CWR found in the garden of farmers or in the natural habitat of CWR. VRDS made an attempt to order material from genebanks in China, Russia and India, with the help of the genebank at Suceava, in 2010. The administrative procedures were found rather difficult. The own characterisation and evaluation data are made public and accessible via publications. Both research institutes do not use web-based information systems for searching and acquisition of landraces and CWR from genebanks outside Romania.

Cooperation The VRDS maintains good working relationships with all stakeholder groups while NIARD mainly works with farmers.

Policy and constraints There is no national PGR expert program specifically promoting research on CWR and landraces but the government provides research programs allowing the attraction of project funds for research on landraces and CWR. There was only limited knowledge on the EC

105

Appendix I

GENRES program as well as the EC research program. Hence these funding mechanisms had no impact on the institutes’ work.

Trends During the past 10 years the research was re-oriented as the vegetable production changed from protected production to open field production. Cabbage growers increasingly preferred hybrid varieties from the Netherlands which outcompeted the Romanian varieties and consequently VRDS had to stop the own breeding program. The interest also drifted away from legume research to resistance research. The limited availability of funds for research is seen as the major constraint with regard to landraces and CWR use. The Romanian seed production sector faced strong economic difficulties during the recent years and consumers tended to use cheaper products in the past. Today, consumers in Romania start asking for tasty (traditional) products. In addition the government shows strong interest in biodiversity conservation. Both trends may promote the development of Romanian varieties based on our native genetic resources and regional breeding programs.

2.3 Non-governmental organizations In total around 32 agro-initiatives exist in Romania. There is no NGO umbrella organisation. During the visit, a representative of the agro-NGO Biomold was interviewed acting as a seed saver and consultancy in the field of organic farming. Besides the marketing of agricultural products, this agro-NGO is active in education and training in the field of organic and conventional crop production. Despite the limited financial facilities, the work covers a wide variety of topics like the collection and characterization of local landraces of various crops in Romania, training and education in the agricultural field and the characterization of germplasm.

Capacity and state Biomold has 210 members and has nine part time employees. The ongoing work is financed and supported exclusively by the members of the association. The activities are focused on vegetables medicinal and aromatic plants as well as fruit crops. If project funds are available landraces are collected but only the member VRDS evaluated the collected germplasm.

Information The characterisation and evaluation data are documented in a database operated by VRDS.

Cooperation Biomold mainly works project-based in close cooperation with the gene bank at Suceava and with the VRDS at Bacau. It built up networks to preserve local LR and to support farmers in establishing new markets. Biomold cooperates on a non-commercial basis with the gene bank at Suceava and the VRDS and the NGO “Asau Valley Association”. Contacts with the commercial plant breeding sector have not been established so far.

Trends

106

Appendix I

The Romanian landraces are replaced by high-yielding hybrid varieties and landraces are therefore threatened by genetic erosion. Lack of governmental support for organic agriculture was seen as a major constraint to landrace conservation and use. In addition, farmers have easy access to seeds of modern varieties whereas access to landrace seeds is more difficult.

2.4 Commercial Breeding In Romania, some breeding companies mainly sell seeds of foreign companies. During the stay two companies running regional breeding programs were visited. Both companies are independent, national companies. Auspicious works to bring CWR and landraces in use are pursued in the start-up company Farmacia Naturi which breeds varieties for the pharmaceutical sector. The second enterprise operates maize and sunflower breeding programs.

Capacity and state Farmacia Naturi employs 20 persons including three scientists at present. The maize and sunflower breeder SC Procera Agrochemicals has 90 employees. The proportion of landraces and CWR used in the breeding of Melissa, Salvia, Thymus, Basilicum and Ysop is rather high and ranges between 30% (Melissa) to 10% (Ysop). The breeding work focussed on trait complexes such as adaptation to cultivation, yield and quality. The variation within the breeding material was considered sufficiently large enough. The use of CWR in the breeding program has benefited the company financially. SC Procera Agrochemicals works with maize and sunflower. It runs young breeding programs focussing on resistance breeding in sunflower and quality traits in maize. It still lacks genetic variation and acquires therefore germplasm to broaden the genetic basis of the sunflower breeding program. In maize no and in sunflower only few landraces were used to broaden the genetic base of the breeding pools.

Access The pharmaceutical plant species have been collected by the company in the natural habitat in different parts of the country. SC Procera Agrochemicals received a lot of material from the USA, North Dakota.

Cooperation Farmacia Naturi cooperates with all stakeholder groups, mostly on a bilateral project basis. SC Procera Agrochemicals cooperates with breeders and the public breeding research sector on maize and sunflower but not with genebanks or the NGO sector. Working groups of the ECPGR were not known to both companies.

Policy and constraints There is neither a national PGR expert program mentioning the value of landraces nor is there a national program allowing the NGO to attract project funds. The EC GENRES program was not known to both companies. The EU research program was considered an option for raising funds in the future. Public-private-partnership programs on utilisation of landraces and CWR do not exist in Romania. The lack of characterisation data was seen as a major constraint to breeding. The limited availability of funds was seen as a major constraint with regard to a broader use of landraces and CWR of pharmaceutical plants.

Trends Neither Farmacia Naturi nor SC Procera Agrochemicals employed pre-breeders as both companies are rather new on the market. The number of species operated by the Farmacia

107

Appendix I

Naturi increased. Today higher priority is given to selection on high quality and lesser to resistance. Farmacia Naturi sees the expansion of organic agriculture as a major future trend and a possibility of preserving Romania’s natural assets. In maize and sunflower breeding an opposite trend was described by SC Procera Agrochemicals. As the yield is on a high plateau it is very difficult to increase yield by breeding. The focus is set therefore on resistance breeding as a means of stabilising yield. The company SC Procera Agrochemicals will establish contacts with crop specific working group at the European and international level in future.

3. SWOT analysis and actions needed concerning PGR management in Romania

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses  Country with considerable PGR  A formal national expert program on diversity, mainly medicinal and conservation und use of PGR is lacking aromatic plants (CWR) and LR adapted  Public research sector looses experienced to regional climatic conditions staff  Gene bank facilities are rather new and  Agro-NGO sector lacks umbrella are functioning including a web-based organisation gene bank information system  Private-Public-Partnership program does  Characterisation and evaluation of PGR not exist is performed systematically  Insufficient integration of stakeholders into  Breeders integrate CWR and LR in the crop specific networks and research groups initial breeding process of crops at the EU and pan-European level  Public research institutes and breeders  Insufficient knowledge on EU-funding work with a large number of crop programs species

Opportunities Threats  Increasing consumer’s interest in  Replacement of traditionally grown medicinal and aromatic plants produced regional varieties and landraces by foreign in organic farming systems varieties  Increasing interest of consumers in  Increasing adaptation of the agricultural quality products product system to the conventional  Developing political interest in production system established in the old biodiversity conservation, organic EU-countries farming and regional products  Use of experiences of agro-NGOs outside the country

3.2 Recommended actions

Genebanks

108

Appendix I

The national gene bank has a clear mandate, is well organized and functioning. The already assumed coordination role could be strengthened through the establishment of a national expert program for conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources and its approval by the government. Depending on the crop groups the intensity of cooperation between the gene bank and other stakeholder groups varies. The cooperation at the national level can be improved through the establishment of a board for plant genetic resources. Regular meetings of the four stakeholder groups plus representatives from the species conservation sector can facilitate the flow of information on the targets of research and development programmes available at the national, the EU and pan-European level and be used to strengthen the financial basis of PGR conservation. The participation in EU programs – up to now - is limited as the launched topics did not meet the need of the Romanian stakeholders. EU programs can be shaped according to the need of Romanian stakeholders and this task could again be assumed by a PGR board.

Public research The public research institutions support already the breeding of varieties adapted to the regional production conditions and markets. Breeding research on and breeding of medicinal and aromatic plants is an almost unique selling point of Romania with Europe and chance for landrace and CWR conservation and use. The increasing public interest in high quality vegetable products offers further opportunities for regional breeding programs. The cooperation of public research institutes and universities is well established and could be strengthened through attraction of EU-project funds specifically in the field of medicinal and aromatic plants as well as vegetable breeding research. For a country like Romania with a highly divers landscape the promotion of organic farming systems and the production of high quality products for the national and European market not only offers chances for farmers but also for breeding and marketing of regionally adapted varieties and landraces.

NGOs NGOs play a significant role in public awareness raising and in promoting agricultural production systems better meeting sustainability criteria. The close contact between the agro- NGOs with farmers as potential growers of improved landraces is strength of the Romanian system. The influence of agro-NGOs in Romania on agricultural policy can be increased if the existing organisations would found an umbrella organisation facilitating the exchange of knowledge and material. Currently they are too much isolated and therefore cannot join forces and voice developments such as the loss of legume breeding in Romania while at the EU-level legume research gains speed.

Breeding companies Native plant genetic resources can only be maintained on the long run, if regional breeding companies are integrated into a national expert program for PGR conservation and use. The establishment of a formalised public-private-partnership program focused on the characterisation and evaluation of genetic resources and the identification of breeding materials of use to Romanian plant breeders would stimulate and/or enhance the cooperation of private plant breeding companies with the other stakeholder groups.

4. References Romania: Country Report on the State of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Romania, 2010

109

Appendix I

Slovenia

1 2 1 Gisela Neuhaus , Vladimir Meglič and Lothar Frese

1 Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI), Institute for Breeding Research on Agricultural Crops, Erwin-Baur-Str. 27, D-06484 Quedlinburg, Germany. Tel: (0049) 03946 47 705, Fax: (49) 03946 47 255, E-mail: [email protected] 2 Kmetijski Inštitut Slovenije, (KIS), Agricultural Institute of Slovenia, Crop Science Department, SI - Hacquetova 17, 1000 Ljubljana, SLOVENIA, Tel.: (00386) 1 2805180, 2805262, Fax.: (00386) 1 2805255, E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction Although Slovenia covers an area of only 20.000 km2, the ecogeographic diversity is extraordinarily high. Plant species from four different geographic regions, the Alps, the Mediterranean region, the Dinaric and the Pannonian regions converge in Slovenia and consequently the country is distinguished by a high diversity of plant species. After Slovenia became politically independent in the year 1991 the number of farm enterprises rapidly decreased. In 2005, approximately 85% of the 77.000 farmers owned less than 10 ha farmland. This concentration process is still going on. The agricultural sector is thus facing a shakeout which will have impacts on inter- and intraspecific diversity used in or associated with the Slovenian crop production systems. Therefore, actions to investigate and conserve the rich plant diversity need to be undertaken and adequately funded.

Dr. V. Meglič agreed to be the country key person and PGRSecure project consultant for Slovenia. He prepared a list of organizations which were visited from November 22-24, 2011. The following persons representing the Slovenian plant genetic resources (PGR) conservation and use stakeholder groups were interviewed: gene bank - Dr. J. Šuštar-Vozlič, Dr. P. Dolničar, Ljubljana; Dr. A. Čerenak, Žalec; public research - Dr. V. Meglič, Dr. J. Šuštar- Vozlič, Dr. P. Dolničar, Ljubljana; Assoc. Prof. Dr. Z. Luthar, Assist. Prof. Dr. J. Čop, Assist. Prof. Dr. L. Rozman, Ljubljana; Prof. A. Ivancic, Maribor; private breeding company - Dr. P. Hirschegger, P. Titan, Ljubljana and NGOs - M. Zonta, M. Koler; Maribor, Interviews lasted around 1-2 hours per meeting. The scripting of these interviews can be found in the appendix. On the basis of the conducted interviews this report was written which also includes a preliminary SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity and threat) analysis and action points concerning the conservation and use of PGR in Slovenia.

2. Stakeholders

2.1 Gene Bank The national agro-biodiversity policy endorses the plant genetic resources program. A clear mandate for the conservation of plant genetic resources of Slovenian origin allows the gene bank to focus activities. The Slovenian gene bank is organized as a joint program implemented by a network of four institutions which is coordinated by the Crop Science Department of the Agricultural Institute (KIS), Ljubljana. Each researcher involved in the network is also a crop-specific gene bank collection curator. In terms of accession numbers the top five crop groups managed within the gene bank program are common beans, forage crops, lettuce, grape vine and fruit trees. The characterization of beans and lettuce has been partly performed whereas the collections of forage crops and grasses are almost completely characterized. Furthermore, unique collections of hop and medicinal and aromatic plants are

110

Appendix I maintained by the Research Institute for Hops and Brewery, Žalec. Evaluation of accessions is an ongoing task and performed according to the available capacities. The gene bank facilities are functioning well and the work is well organized. The conservation of genetic resources is successful combined with research activities.

The genebank information system, however, is not yet fully developed. Therefore mainly characterisation data are recorded in databases while the systematic documentation of evaluation data is lagging behind. Online access to the national genetic resources holdings is provided via the EURISCO portal. Information on the collections is published in scientific and non-scientific articles as well and is also disseminated during open house presentations. Accessions are distributed to institutions in the frame of research projects. A decreasing demand for accessions can be noticed as regards to requests from NGOs and private breeding companies.

A good collaboration between the gene bank and the public breeding research sector exists due to historically grown work relations. The close cooperation with universities based at Ljubljana and Maribor, the NGO sector and private breeding companies facilitates the work on characterization and utilization of PGR. In addition, it links gene bank work with education and applied research. Within the cooperation a major focus is set on the production and marketing of crops in the region. The utilization of medicinal and aromatic plants for pharmaceutical products is seen as a great chance for Slovene PGR in the future.

2.2 Public Research The public plant research is mainly performed by the universities in Ljubljana and Maribor as well as by KIS. Both universities performed research in tight conjunction with education in applied crop science including plant breeding research. During the past ten years the research work in specific crops shifted from studies on genetic diversity of crop plants with genetic markers to proteomics and metabolomics. In general the research deals with classical themes such as analysis of genetic relationships among different cultivars, interspecific hybridisation, assessment of combining ability, hybrid breeding systems, recurrent selection, and adaptation of crops to biotic and abiotic stress factors. The research work is either project-driven or market-driven.

The Biotechnical Faculty at the University of Ljubljana concentrates on breeding of new cultivars of maize, cabbage and F. esculentum (buckwheat). At the University of Maribor, research projects mainly deal with pumpkin, fruit crops and vegetable species. In the context of the International Network for Edible Aroids (INEA) on C. esculenta (Taro) the research at the university of Maribor aims at the analysis of allelic diversity, crop adaptation to abiotic and biotic stress as well as problems related to interspecific hybridization. KIS concentrates the research capacities on common beans and other grain legumes, potato, cabbage, wheat, forage crops, canola and lettuce. The researchers use the global genebank network to search and order germplasm. Within research projects characterization and evaluation data are systematically recorded in a database and where possible made public via the internet. There is no expert program specifically promoting research on landraces and CWR. However, the national genebank program allows attracting project funds in a flexible way such as for a project dealing with the analysis of genetic diversity, the preservation and utilization of domestic legumes. The GENRES program of the EC DG AGRI was known and assessed as potentially useful but not effective with regard to research on landraces and CWR.

111

Appendix I

The public research institutes shares good contacts with most of the stakeholder groups. The contacts with NGOs are less developed.

2.3 Non-governmental organizations During the visit, representatives of two NGOs were interviewed. Both aim at the collection, conservation, exchange and recultivation of Slovene landraces and traditionally grown cultivars. Currently, most of the financial means used by these seed save associations come from the Slovene government through the EU LEADER+ program or from the “Maribor 2012 – European Capital of Culture” fund. The NGO Urban Furrows is acting as seed saver of old LR and as consultancy in the field of low-input farming. It collaborates mainly project- based with the national gene bank program. Urban Furrows established a network of seed guardians who preserve local landraces. Moreover it supports farmers in establishing new markets. Hence, the work covers a wide range of topics and also includes education and training in agricultural techniques and the characterization of accessions.

The Association for Elementary Schools Agricultural Activities deals with the establishing of school gardens. For this purpose, seeds of landrace (cabbage, beans, maize, potato, medical herbs) are collected, reproduced and planted. The major emphasis is on maintaining former breeder’s varieties and landraces of the Slovene community as agricultural heritage and to promote the use of landraces through informal seed exchange systems. Public relation activities are performed such as exhibitions, newsletter advertisement or agriculture broadcasts providing information on the project work at these schools.

The Center of NGOs in Slovenia is the umbrella organization of the five NGOs associations. Both interviewed NGOs keep record of passport and characterization data, partly in a database. The cooperation between the NGOs and the gene bank program / public research sector is well functioning. Urban Furrows also maintains contacts with a similar origination in the Czech Republic. Solely the contact with commercial variety breeders is of less intensity. The NGOs were not involved in GENRES projects.

2.4 Commercial Breeding Only few companies with breeding programs in horticultural and in agricultural crops exist in the country. Slovenian´s plant breeding sector is in a stage of renovation and the breeding programs are therefore very young. The interviewed company Semenarna Ljubljana has its headquarter in Slovenia. It maintains daughter companies in Croatia, Hungary, Serbia and Kosovo. The breeding program encompasses wheat and vegetable crops (onions, lettuce, pepper, beans). The company reacts predominantly on the specific consumers’ demand of the national and Balkan market. Landraces are thus fully integrated in the companies breeding and marketing strategy. The peoples’ esteem of landraces and former varieties of Slovene origin contributes to the preservation of germplasm adapted to the regional production conditions. This is seen by the company as an import contribution to the mitigation of problems in the Slovene agriculture which may arise from climate warming.

The company considers its breeding genepool of wheat and onion as large enough whereas the breeding genepool of garlic and pepper needs to be completed. Although the use of landraces and CWR to broaden the genetic diversity in the breeding material is considered costly this long-term breeding approach is followed were indicated. The company orders germplasm from various genebank in Europe and America. The interview partner believes

112

Appendix I that breeding for resistance and quality as well as for low-input production systems will be a major trend.

The company cooperates with commercial partners at the international level and at the national level mostly project-based with public research institutions. Contacts with NGOs have been established only recently. The ECPGR program was known to the company while the GENRES program was unknown to the interview partner. Strengthening of the national and international cooperation is of great interest to the breeding company.

3. SWOT analysis and actions needed concerning PGR management in Slovenia

3.1 SWOT analysis On basis of the interviews, a SWOT analysis was carried out to identify the crucial issues related to the PGR management in Slovenia.

Strengths Weaknesses  Country with considerable diversity of  A comprehensive national program on domestic crop varieties, landraces and conservation and use of PGR taking CWR adapted to a high diversity of combining the in situ and on-farm regional climatic conditions conservation strategy with the ex-situ-  The gene bank system is well organized, strategy has not been developed and has a clear mandate and its facilities are approved by the governmental sector well functioning  The genebank information system cannot  Breeding of vegetables supports the provide characterization and evaluation maintenance of landraces data online  Breeding of specific medicinal and  Young breeding sector in the stage of aromatic plants is an almost unique renovation selling point  Funds for cost-intensive pre-breeding are  Good communication and cooperation too limited between the stakeholder groups exists  The human resources available for  NGO sector successfully attracts scientific work are too limited in the public external funding, cooperates with the research institutions governmental sector and performs exemplary public relation work

Opportunities Threats  Demand for seeds of domestic varieties  Plant breeding scientists are charged with and landraces exists the curation of genebank collections (low  The cooperation between the public risk). research / breeding sector with agro-  Decreasing governmental financial support NGOs and farmers can be strengthened for genebanking / public plant research  Research focuses on specific crops and is very advanced

113

Appendix I

3.2 Recommend actions

Gene Bank The Slovene national gene bank is well organized, the facilities well functioning and the tasks base on national legislation. However, a comprehensive national program taking into account the in situ, on-farm and ex situ conservation strategy as well has not been developed and approved by the governmental sector. A national expert program addressing the advantages of a fully complementary PGR conservation strategy should therefore be developed by experts with the help of the policy. In particular in the field of medicinal and aromatic plants Slovene institutions can develop exemplary complementary conservation strategies. The integration of genebank work into a research program has advantages but also a risk. Reduction of governmental funds may negatively affect genebank work first as research work is more recognised. The policy should therefore reconsider the decision to reduce the amount of funding for public plant research since it may decrease genebank activities such as characterisation and evaluation work first which in turn is an important pre-condition for the utilisation of the genebank collections.

Like many national genebanks in Europe the Slovene genebank cannot provide users with online access to characterisation and evaluation data. This problem can be solved in future through improved cooperation of Slovene experts in the field of genebank information system development at the European level. A national online genebank information system would improve the visibility of the gene bank at the European and international level and increase the chance for fund raising.

Public research The public research institutions share good contacts with most of stakeholder groups. Research projects on varieties, landraces and CWR of domestic origin. Funds for cost- intensive pre-breeding work should be increased with the objective of strengthening those crop genetic enhancement programs in Slovenia which are unique at the European level and hence very competitive.

Non-governmental Organisations NGOs have contact with farmers and with schools. The active involvement of children and teenagers in the conservation and use of domestic landraces is a future-oriented exemplary public awareness rising approach. Both NGOs successfully acquired EC and national project funds. Additional national and EC funded projects would support and secure the ongoing work and assist setting up a network. NGOs, not only in Slovenia, should strive for a stronger political influence and by doing so create the political basis required to establish funding mechanisms that can support their work.

Breeding companies The private plant breeding sector is in the stage of renovation and the breeding programs rather young. Breeding is partly focused on domestic varieties and landraces esteemed by the consumers in Slovenia and in the wider Balkan region. A closer cooperation between private plant breeding companies and NGO’s may stimulate farmers to produce goods for the local and regional markets, strengthen this market segment and promoted the conservation of genetic resources through use.

114

Appendix I

4. References Slovenia: Country Report on the State of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Slovenia

115

Appendix I

Spain

C. Kik1 and J. Fajardo2

1CGN, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]), 2Centro Nacional de Recursos Fitogeneticos, INIA, Autovia A-2, Km 36, Finca la Canaleja, Apdo. Correos 1045, Alcala de Henares, Madrid, Spain (e-mail: [email protected]).

1. Introduction In June 2011 J Fajardo MSc agreed to function as a key person for Spain. He developed a stakeholder list with 34 genebanks, 41 research institutes, 24 NGOs, 36 breeders/seed producers, 17 regional governments and 1 central government. On the basis of this list the following stakeholders were selected for interviewing: as genebanks, CRF (Madrid; L Ayerbe, L De la Rosa) and COMAV (Valencia; MJ Diez), as agro-NGOs Llavors d’Aci, (Carcaixent; J Rosello) and RAERM (Murcia; JM Egea), as research organizations Neiker (Vitoria-Gasteiz; JI Ruiz de Galarreta) and IRTA (Lleida; C Royo), as breeding companies Syngenta Seeds (Almeria; P Checa, E Garcia), Semillas Fitó (Barcelona; L Fitó, G Diaz) and Ramiro Arnedo (Calahorra; J Arnedo) and as government the Plant Variety Office of the Ministry of Environment, Rural & Marine Affairs1 (Madrid; L Salaices accompanied by F Latorre, INIA). From November 1–11 2011 these organizations were interviewed by Fajardo and Kik.

2. Stakeholder interviews

2.1 Genebanks The National Programme for the Conservation and Utilization of PGRFA, in place since 1993, aims at the long term conservation, documentation and research on PGRFA. The Programme is managed by INIA (National Agricultural Research Institute, Ministry of Science and Innovation2) and provides funds to national public organizations for the implementation of projects towards the ex situ conservation of PGRFA and related activities including documentation, collecting expeditions, regeneration/ multiplication, safety duplication and characterization/evaluation of collections. The institutions that benefit from the Programme constitute the National Network of ex situ PGRFA collections. Currently there are 34 genebanks in the National Network, which have a great deal of autonomy. Most of these genebanks (30) are under the administration of regional governments, either in regional agricultural research centers (24) or in regional public universities (6). Financing of the genebanks takes place by internal sources (regular budgets of the regional governments or universities), the National Programme, and other sources like EU projects. INIA’s CRF (National Centre for PGR) carries out some coordination of this network. In addition to its own active collection, CRF holds in its facilities near Madrid the base collections of the seed genebanks of the Network, and also maintains the PGRFA database for the whole Network.

1 In the ministerial restructuring of December 2011 this Ministry was renamed to Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment.

2 After the ministerial restructuring of December 2011 the mandate and activities of this Ministry including the PGRFA Programme are under the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. 116

Appendix I

The complete base collections of 67974 accessions of 993 genera have been uploaded in the EURISCO database (Figure 4).

4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

Zea

Vitis

Lens

Vicia

Cicer

Pyrus

Vigna

Pisum

Malus

Avena

Secale

Allium

Prunus

Lactuca

Lupinus

Dactylis

Brassica

Triticum

Cucumis

Lathyrus

Solanum

Trifolium

Hordeum

Capsicum

Cucurbita

Medicago Phaseolus Triticosecale Figure 4. Seventy-five percent of the Spanish PGR collections that are uploaded in the EURISCO database consist of 28 of the 993 genera present in these collections. Each of the 28 genera consists of more than 489 accessions.

Via the website of the national inventory and in some cases also via regional genebank websites, documentation of PGR collections is made public and material can be ordered using the e-mail of the respective curator. CRF is also the central entry point for ABS issues related to PGRFA and in this respect it provides advice to the Ministry of Environment, Rural & Marine Affairs and its Plant Variety Office on these and other PGRFA related issues. The collections in the Spanish genebanks consist predominantly (>80%) of PGR collected in Spain. The participation in the Network requires that duplicates of all seed collections are sent to the CRF’s base collection, and actually around 36.500 accessions are present in the base collections at CRF.

An organized safety duplication system for field and in vitro collections of the Network is absent. The storage of collections at the genebanks visited (CRF and COMAV) follow genebank standards but for other genebanks in the Network this is presumably not the case. An internal survey undertaken by CRF within the collections of the National Network in 2010 on germplasm exchange showed that the mean number of requests for PGR per year at an average genebank is around 20. The number of accessions involved is a few hundred (< 500). Most PGR requests come from Spanish research organizations and farmer’s associations. The PGR was sent to the applicant in 75% of the cases and Material Transfer Agreements are routinely used in only 20% of the cases. Knowledge of the juridical framework concerning access to PGR conserved in public collections is scant at most genebanks, although this knowledge is present at CRF which advices other genebanks when requested. Working together with breeding companies does not take place often due amongst other reasons to limited awareness of breeders concerning the content of genebank collections and the means to have access to the germplasm.

2.2 Public research institutes A good overall insight in the functioning of public research institutes in Spain concerning the use of PGR could not be gained as there are many of these institutes (41 in the preliminary

117

Appendix I list); two were visited namely NEIKER in Vitoria-Gasteiz and IRTA in Lleida. These two institutes focused on the development of knowledge and cultivars. NEIKER focused on potato/maize breeding, whereas IRTA on wheat/barley breeding. Both institutes breed for the Spanish market, although NEIKER also has varieties that are used outside Spain. Cultivars were developed not specifically for Spanish conditions. The use of crop wild relatives (CWR) in breeding programmes was important in potato but little in cereals where the focus was more on landraces (LR). Both institutes have their own collections (500-1000 accessions). Neiker’s potato collection is maintained in vitro under adequate long-term conditions and in IRTA the collections are maintained under short-term (breeder’s collection) conditions. One of the institutes interviewed had its germplasm database with characterization and evaluation (C&E) data on a website. Few requests were received each year from others for material. There was a good knowledge at both institutes of international germplasm databases (i.e. EURISCO, GRIN, SINGER). The number of accessions requested by them from others was in the order of 10-250 per year. These accessions were ordered from foreign organizations. C&E data of material is taking place although not regularly. Working together with other research institutes was done and marketing of cultivars by breeding companies developed by one of the institutes was carried out. Interaction with farmers took place in the form of transfer of cultivars or joint programmes. The effects of European research programmes on their breeding programmes were seen differently by both institutes, as one said that they benefitted from it while the other did not have that impression. Other breeding programmes in Spain on potato or cereals were only few. In case of cereals one of the reasons for this is because the significant use of non-certified seeds by farmers (80% for bread wheat and barley at national level) discourages public and private breeders to develop new varieties. Long term financial support by the national/regional government is seen as a problem by both institutes.

2.3 Non-governmental organizations Spain has a well-developed network of around 25 agro-NGO entitled ‘Red de Semillas’ (=network of seeds; RdS). All these NGO share similar objectives towards the on farm management of traditional landraces (normally under organic cultivation) and their promotion in the market. This RdS network provides a platform for communication/dissemination, negotiations with the government and advice to NGOs on legal or other issues. RdS has around 25 (# of NGOs) x 50-100 (# members/NGO) = 1250-2500 members, which are mostly farmers and field technicians. There are two coordinators and nine board members at RdS and they do not receive any salary for their work for RdS, and in fact the network does not have any hired professional at its disposal. Some projects and activities of the network are supported by external sources like the government or the EU. The political work of RdS is seen from the government and research institutions as not always constructive. The two NGOs visited Llavors d’Aci (= seeds are here) and RAERM (=Agro-Ecology and Eco- development Network of Murcia Region) are both facilitated by people from the public sector: in case of Llavors d’Aci Mr. Rosello works for IVIA (Valencia regional agricultural research institute) and in case of RAERM Dr. Egea is a professor at the University of Murcia. In both cases linkages of collaboration exist between the NGO and the public institution, but they operate separately. Memberships of an NGO can be free or can cost around 25 € annually. Further funds, in the order of 10-50 k€ annually, are obtained from the regional government and/or from competitive grants from the EU (e.g. LEADER programme). Landraces are obtained from the region or area where a specific NGO is located. In case of both NGO interviewed the number of accessions maintained are 250-600. The ex situ storage of these accessions at both NGOs is done under short-term conditions, however the in situ maintenance by farmers (ca. 40-50 in case of RAERM and 140 in case of Llavors d’Aci) is

118

Appendix I perhaps more important for the survival of the landraces managed. Very limited or no use of material transfer agreements took place by both NGOs. Cooperation with other organizations outside RdS, like genebanks or research organizations, is taking place but very limited.

2.4 Breeding companies Next to a large number of multinational breeding companies active in Spain, there are still a small number of 100% Spanish - privately owned breeding companies active within the country. For vegetables these are Semillas Fito (Barcelona; annual turn-over of around 60 million €), Ramiro Arnedo (Calahorra; annual turn-over of around 7 million) and Zeta Seeds (Valencia; estimated annual turn-over of around 8 million €). For arable crops there seems to be no or very few Spanish breeding companies anymore3. The vegetable seed market in Spain is around 280 million € annually and the main vegetable growing areas are in the Almeria – Murcia area with ca. 30.000 ha of greenhouses and 30.000 ha of open field cultivation. The share of Spanish breeding companies in this seed market is around 5%. On the arable seed market Limagrain and Syngenta have the largest shares. Seemingly they have to cope with the reduced percentages of certified seeds on the cereal seed market as these amounts for example 60% for durum wheat, 20% for bread wheat and 15% for barley. LR and CWR are used in vegetable breeding programmes. Requesting and receiving PGR by Spanish companies from Spanish or foreign genebanks is not seen as a problem and MTAs are signed if needed. Knowledge of international germplasm databases is very limited at the Spanish breeding companies. Syngenta, the international seed company interviewed, reported that difficulties were encountered when requesting PGR from Spanish genebanks as they are not really active in dissemination. They were familiar with the GRIN database but not with EURISCO and SINGER. The Spanish vegetable breeding companies worked together with research institutes / genebanks within the country, but in some cases also with foreign institutes. European framework programmes did not really influence their breeding research and about the European genebank networks no knowledge was present. The Spanish companies maintain their working collections stored under short-term conditions.

2.5 Government The administrative structure of Spain in 17 autonomous regions entails that in many cases national legislation must be implemented by the regional governments, and this is the case for a number of aspects related to PGRFA management. The CBD and the ITPGRFA, both ratified by Spain, are directly applicable to national legislation. There are also two laws related to PGRFA namely one general law on protection of biodiversity and natural heritage (law 42/2007) which covers ABS for PGR in general, and the law on seeds, nursery plants and PGRFA (law 30/2006). Law 42/2007 in its art. 68 mandates that, for in situ collection of wild PGR, general PIC terms and conditions must be developed in a national regulation and those MTAs will have to be signed by the regions. Concerning law 30/2006, new regulations for the development of its PGRFA provisions are under preparation and will cover a. ABS in case of PGRFA both covered and not covered by the ITPGRFA, b. national programme on conservation and c. farmers’ rights. No distinction in these laws is being made on national or international exchange of PGR. In situ and ex situ PGR are treated in general terms in the law and needs further attention. No distinctions are yet made by the law on different type of users of PGR, however this will be implemented in future. Current practice is that genebanks

3 For rice, however, there is apparently a group of small-size local companies breeding new varieties for the Valencia and Andalucía production areas, but they could not be included in this study. 119

Appendix I decide case by case. Two national focal points on ABS have been appointed, one for CBD issues and one for IT issues. For in situ collection of PGRFA, around 2-3 requests per year are handled by the NFP for the IT. There are no specific CNAs appointed in Spain as the two NFPs handle these matters. Awareness of the policies on PGR has been raised by INIA on the national network collections’ curators as well as on the ECPGR-Spain level.

3. SWOT analysis and recommended actions

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses  Spain ratified the CBD and the IT-  On the governmental level the PGRFA competence on PGR issues is with a  On governmental level (Ministry of few people. Environment, Rural & Marine  Knowledge on legal provisions Affairs) competence on PGR issues (national, It, CBD) on access to PGR including ABS is available is in general limitied at all levels  Spain has a large amount of (genebanks, regional governments, biodiversity breeding companies)  Genebanks maintain a lot of unique  Too many active genebanks (34) are native landraces present in the national network and  A national genebank network is there is insufficient coordination due present to political structure  Base collection at CRF is maintained  Insufficient utilization by breeding according to standards companies of PGR in genebanks due  A network of agro-NGOs is in place to relatively invisible collections and and functions (Red de Semillas) sometimes inadequate service levels  A good agro-research system is  Documentation of characterization and present evaluation data is poor  Spanish agriculture is strong in  Level of professionalization of NGOs vegetables & fruits is not adequate  There is no specific policy on on-farm management of PGR

Opportunities Threats  Development of national policy  Ongoing trend toward a government documents on ABS and on-farm spending less budget to the public management is ongoing cause including PGR management  Implementation of the International  Ongoing genetic erosion of landraces Treaty can be instrumental and crop wild relatives in the field and specifically to promote for access to also sometimes ex situ collections  Ongoing concentration of breeding  More emphasis on CWR collecting companies, leading to a very few and conservation companies active in Spain, which may  Collaboration between genebanks, lead to the cultivation of sub-optimal research institutes and NGOs on on- adapted varieties farm management (NGOs) should be  Adverse effects of patents on the

120

Appendix I

promoted to strengthen the use of LR development of new local cultivars  Research organizations and  Unpredictable effects of climate genebanks should strengthen their change on Spanish agricultural sector activities in the development of local cultivars in close collaboration with small Spanish breeding companies  More international cooperation to better utilize upcoming opportunities

3.2 Recommended actions  Although the active PGR collections are reasonably conserved and the base collection is well maintained, it would be very important to strengthen the safety duplication system, including duplicating the base collection of CRF somewhere else and establishing a national safety duplication system for field and in vitro collections.  There is a clear need to establish an empowered coordination of the PGR collections Network to monitor genebank practices and service levels to users. The coordination should be within INIA.  Collaboration between genebanks and the private sector should be promoted in order to develop a more sustainable PGR system in Spain  National research organization should be encouraged to collaborate intensively with agro- NGOs and small Spanish breeding companies to develop locally adapted cultivars.  It is urgently needed on the governmental level that an on-farm management policy is developed, adopted and implemented, in order to facilitate the use of Spanish landraces by farmers.

121

Appendix I

United Kingdom

Cara Sheldon and Nigel Maxted

School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]).

1. Introduction This introduction is an excerpt of the Second National Report on the state of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in the United Kingdom prepared and published by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in October 2009. Many text parts are identical with the Second National Report, which describes a decentralized national program aiming at the conservation and use of plant genetic resources. The introduction focuses on aspects that are of importance to the PGR Secure project.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) constitutes the greater part of the British Isles. The largest of the islands is Great Britain which comprises England, Wales and Scotland. With an area of 242 000 km², the UK is just under 1 000 km in length from the south coast of England to the extreme north of Scotland and just under 500 km across in the widest part. It has a population of 61.4 million1. England is predominantly a lowland country although there are uplands in the north (the Pennine Chain, the Cumbrian Mountains and the Yorkshire moorlands) and in the south west in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset. Central southern England has the downs - low chalk hill ranges. Wales is a country of hills and mountains, the highest of which are in Snowdonia in the North West; the tallest peak is Snowdon (1,085 m). More than half of Scotland consists of the sparsely populated highlands and islands of the north. Scotland contains the majority of the UK’s highest mountains - nearly 300 peaks over 913m. Northern Ireland is at its nearest point 21 km from Scotland. At its centre lies Lough Neagh, the UK’s largest freshwater lake (381 km).

The UK’s climate is generally mild and temperate. It is subject to frequent changes but few extremes of temperature. It is rarely above 32ºC or below -10ºC. The average annual rainfall is more than 1 600 mm in the mountainous areas of the west and north but less than 800 mm over central and eastern parts. Rain is fairly well distributed throughout the year. Agriculture occupies 77% of the UK land, and forestry about 10%. The rest is mainly urban land, on which around three quarters of the UK population live. A wide variety of agricultural systems has evolved over the centuries to match local environments. An advanced infrastructure to support the resulting production has also developed. The efficiency of UK agriculture has been increasing over a long period. This has led to greatly increased food production, although in recent years, it has manifested itself as reduced inputs rather than increased output: the 26% increase in efficiency since 1985 comprises a 0.3% increase in output and a 20% reduction in resources used4.

The industry contributed nearly £6.8 billion to the UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 20085. Self-sufficiency in those foodstuffs which can be produced in the UK rose from 60%

4 Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2008, Defra, https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/2008/AUK2008.pdf 5 Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2008, Defra, pp. 88-89, 122

Appendix I in 1970 to around 87% in the late 1980s but has since fallen to around 73%6. The condition of the land remains dependent on the farmers who work it and whose predecessors have shaped it over the centuries. Since the 1950s, agricultural productivity has increased markedly - as evidenced by a three-quarter reduction in the agricultural labour force. Over 0.5 million people remain directly employed in agriculture today, around 1.7% of the total work force, although this has much greater importance in some rural areas. Many other jobs in the supply trade and food manufacturing industries are dependent on agriculture. Moreover, agriculture’s role in providing an attractive and varied countryside makes a significant contribution not only to quality of life, but also to rural economic activity, particularly tourism.

The trends in recent years which have affected or which will affect agricultural production include: the drive for increased food production during and following the Second World War; the level of support under the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which has encouraged a further intensification of production; and CAP reform. CAP reform has involved a change of emphasis towards the market place and environmentally sound farming (1992), the introduction of a rural development policy (1999), the decoupling of the majority of payments from production (2003), and the modernisation, simplification and streamlining of the CAP including removal of some restrictions on farmers (2008)7. For the future, the UK government will encourage, and will work for further CAP reform towards a sustainable model of European agriculture, which is internationally competitive without reliance on subsidy or protection; rewarded by the market for its outputs, and by the taxpayer only for producing societal benefits that the market cannot deliver; environmentally-sensitive, maintaining and enhancing landscape and wildlife and tackling pollution; socially responsive to the needs of rural communities; producing to high levels of animal health and welfare; and non-distorting of international trade and the world economy.

In 2007, there were some 323 900 farm holdings in the UK (excluding minor holdings), with an average size of 53.6 ha8. About two-thirds of all agricultural land is owner-occupied. Within the relatively small area of the UK there is great diversity of farming types (summarised in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not und. below), reflecting a wide variety of climate, geology, soils and local traditions. Each farming type makes its own contribution to biodiversity, and many habitats and species depend upon traditional agricultural practices for their survival.

Table 6. Total area on agricultural holdings9 Percentage of total Land usage 1991 2006 2008 Grassland over 5 years old 30.4% 31.8% 32.3% Crops 28.8% 23.5% 25.3% Sole right rough grazing 27.2% 23.9% 23.3% Grassland under 5 years old 9.1% 6.1% 6.1% All other land including bare fallow 4.1% 8.8% 6.8%

6 Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2008, Defra, p. 68 7 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/healthcheck/index_en.htm; http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capexplained/change/index_en.htm 8 June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture 2009: England Provisional Results 9 Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2008, Defra, p. 17 123

Appendix I

Table 7. Percentage of crops grown Percentage of total Land usage 1991 2006 2008 Wheat 40.0% 41.6% 43.9% Barley 28.1% 20.0% 21.8% Oilseed rape 8.9% 12.9% 12.6% Peas and beans 4.1% 5.2% 3.1% Sugar beet 3.9% 2.9% 2.5% Horticulture 4.0% 3.8% 3.6% Other crops 10.9% 13.7% 12.5%

The policies of successive governments over the past 70 years have increased forest cover from 5% to 14%. The main strands of present policies are aimed at the protection of the very few surviving ancient and semi-natural woodlands, the sustainable management of all existing woodlands and forests, and a steady expansion of tree cover in harmony with the environment.

There is no formal National Plant Genetic Conservation Program for food and agriculture in the UK, but there are a number of organizations that are involved in activities for the conservation and sustainable use of GRFA, including Defra, government agencies, research institutes, NGOs and industry. Defra currently has no strategic policy on GRFA10. Responsibility is split between Research Policy and International Division, for plants and microbes, and a specialist post in Sustainable Agriculture and Livestock Products Directorate, dealing with farm animals. The UK is an active member country within the European Co- operative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources and has two Network Chairs (Mike Ambrose – Grain legumes; Nigel Maxted In Situ and On-farm Conservation). This involvement has resulted in UK stakeholders being actively involved in a range of collaborative EU funded projects. All major commercial crops growing in the UK are of non- native origin. However, the UK holds ex situ collections of crop genetic resources that are internationally important, including potatoes, cereals, vegetables, top fruit, soft fruit, peas, hops, grasses and forages. In situ conservation is a domain of nature protection and there are no on-farm conservation projects.

The UK Plant Genetic Resources Group (UK PGR Group) serves as the technical forum to discuss and implement the conservation and use of plant genetic resources within the UK. The broad membership includes both curators of ex situ plant genetic resource centres, those involved in in situ conservation, and representatives from non-governmental organisation, the commercial plant breeding sector and Universities. Botanic gardens, the Forestry Commission and statutory collections are also represented. The Group provides advice and technical support to Government Departments on technical and policy matters which relate to the UK or the UK's international role in the area of plant genetic resources.

1.1 Primitive forms of cultivated plants and landrace resources Landraces are dynamic populations of crops that have historical origin, distinct identity and generally lack formal crop improvement. In addition, they are often genetically diverse, locally adapted and associated with traditional farming systems. Within the UK, landraces and old cultivars are still maintained by a significant number of growers and amateur

10 Wilding Report on GRFA in the UK (Defra, 2002) 124

Appendix I gardeners throughout the country. Recent inventories indicate that extensive landrace diversity exists for cereals, forage crops, and fruit and vegetables and is also likely to exist for other non-surveyed crop groups (see Scholten et al., 2003; Kell et al., 2009). Landraces are not commonly cultivated by commercial farmers. They tend to be cultivated for niche market or in marginal agricultural conditions (e.g. Bere barley for milling and malting in the Scottish islands). Overall the number of farmers growing them and the area grown continues to decline – the average age of those maintaining landraces is over 65 years.

Although there has been a resurgence of interest in growing traditional varieties, due to increasing interests in organic production and local food, the remaining wealth of UK landrace diversity is highly geographically localized and critically threatened with extinction. The latter in the UK as elsewhere in Europe is due largely to (a) diffusion of modern cultivars into all sectors, (b) rigorous implementation of variety and seed certification legislation, (c) reduction in rural populations, (d) necessary simplification of productive processes due to high manpower costs, (e) increasing age of maintainers and (f) unsuccessful transition and passage of information from one generation to the next (see Vetelainen et al., 2009). Associated with the increasing loss of landrace varieties, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that there is an ongoing decline in the genetic diversity within those landraces and old cultivars that remain. However, landraces are being actively conserved ex situ in gene banks by some UK-based institutions such as Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA), Warwick Horticulture Research International (WHRI), the John Innes Centre (JIC) and privately funded organisations such as National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens (NCCPG) and Garden Organic’s Heritage Seed Library (HSL); ex situ in field gene banks by the National Fruit Collection (NFC), Brogdale and East Malling Research (EMR); and in situ on-farm or in home garden environments by some enthusiastic growers and amateur gardeners. Old cultivars of top fruit such as apples are still widely grown commercially in the UK. The Government supports conservation of top fruit via the Countryside Stewardship Traditional Orchard Scheme, and the National Trust and Natural England are currently undertaking a survey of top fruit holdings and promoting increased recognition and use of these resources. The list of PGR collections in the UK at the end of the UK report contains further details of ex situ collections and their current holdings.

The presence of significant crop landrace material still being grown in the UK was highlighted in a Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) funded study (Scholten et al., 2003) to develop a UK National Inventory of Plant Genetic Resources, which focused on crop wild relatives and landrace assessments particularly in the cereals and fruit sectors. The latter element of the initial study indicated that there remained a significant wealth of landrace diversity in the UK, but that it is often highly geographically localized and critically threatened with extinction. A further project focused on developing a vegetable landrace inventory for England and Wales (Kell et al., 2009) and recognised that the full range of English and Welsh vegetable landrace diversity already conserved in ex situ collections is unrecognised because it is often not identified as such in gene bank information management systems. The study also identified a number of key in situ maintainers of English and Welsh vegetable landrace diversity, including small-scale commercial seed companies, non-governmental organizations, individual farmers, allotment holders and home gardeners. This exercise has provided a useful baseline of information for further research and evaluation.

An exciting new initiative in Scotland is focusing on landraces and traditional varieties of small grain cereals, potatoes, forage grass and Shetland cabbage are being conserved under

125

Appendix I the Scottish Landrace Protection Scheme (SLPS) which was launched by Scottish Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) in August 2006. This scheme provides a safety net for the continued use of landraces by storing seed produced by each grower each year. In the event of a poor harvest, a grower can request some of the seed already deposited and stored at SASA. With the consent of the donor, the remaining seed can be made available for research, breeding and education. For further information of this initiative see Green et al. (2009).

Currently in the UK there is no full inventory of indigenous landrace diversity, though a partial inventory is available via the UK GRFA Portal at http://grfa.org.uk/search/plants/index.html.

1.2 Crop Wild Relative (CWR) resources Crop wild relatives are wild plant species that have indirect use derived from their relatively close genetic relationship to a crop. They are possible crop progenitors, and are also reservoirs of potentially useful traits that could be transferred to crops. Although the majority of UK commercially cultivated plants are derived from non-native species, there are a significant number of UK CWR species. A list of some of the more commonly known UK native CWR of current or potentially important commercial or agricultural benefit that may be found in the wild is provided in Error! Reference source not found..

Table 8. List of Native UK CWR Species. Species Common name Species Common name Allium ampeloprasum var. Wild leek Ribes nigrum Blackcurrant babingtonii Allium sphaerocephalon Round headed leek Ribes rubrum Redcurrant Apium repens Creeping marshwort Ribes uva-crispa Gooseberry Artemisia campestris Field wormwood Rubus caesius Dewberry Asparagus officinalis subsp. Wild asparagus Rubus chamaemorus Cloudberry prostrates Berberis vulgaris Barberry Rubus fruticosus Blackberry Beta maritima Sea Beet Rubus idaeus Raspberry Brassica nigra Black Mustard Rumex rupestris Shore dock Brassica oleracea Wild Cabbage Ruscus aculeatus Butcher’s broom Brassica rapa Wild Turnip Sambucus nigra Elder Bromus interruptus Interrupted brome Trifolium arvense Haresfoot Clover Corylus avellana Hazelnut Trifolium bocconei Twin-flowered Clover Crambe maritima Sea Kale Trifolium campestre Hop Trefoil Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot Trifolium dubium LesserYellow Trefoil Daucus carota Wild Carrot Trifolium fragferum Strawberry Clover Empetrum nigrum Crowberry Trifolium glomeratum Clustered Clover Fragaria vesca Strawberry Trifolium incarnatum Crimson Clover subsp. molinerii Lactuca saligna Least lettuce Trifolium micranthum Slender Trefoil Lactuca serriola Wild lettuce Trifolium occidentale Western Clover

Lactuca virosa Great lettuce Trifolium repens White Clover Lathyrus tuberosus Sea pea Trifolium scabrum Rough Clover Linum perenne subsp. Perennial flax Trifolium squamosum Sea Clover Anglicum Lolium perrene Rye Grass Trifolium striatum Knotted Clover Malus sylvestris Apple (crab) Trifolium strictum Upright Clover Mentha pulegium Pennyroyal Trifolium suffocatum Suffocated Clover Prunus padus Cherry Vaccinium myrtillus Bilberry

126

Appendix I

Prunus spinosa Sloe Vaccinium oxycoccus Cranberry Pyrus cordata Plymouth Pear Vaccinium vitusidaea Cowberry

The UK national CWR inventory contains 413 genera and 1955 species, although not all of these are native taxa (Maxted et al., 2007). Error! Reference source not found. shows the umbers of CWRs associated with various forms of uses and Error! Reference source not found. shows the major genera containing CWR taxa. Approximately 78% of all native taxa are classified as a CWR, and hence there is a wide range of current statuses. Thirteen CWR taxa are considered to be threatened within Great Britain using World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List criteria (See Maxted et al., 2007).

Table 9. Use categories of UK native CWR Species. Rank Use Category Major Families Species Nos. 1 Indirect use All families 490 2 Medicinal and aromatic Asteraceae, Apiaceae, Lamiaceae 258 3 Ornamental Asteraceae, Liliaceae 243 4 Technical Cyperaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae 159 5 General Food See separately under 9,10,11 and 12 133 6 Functional tree / forestry Fabaceae, Pinaceae, Betulaceae 102 7 Fodder / feed / forage Poaceae, Fabaceae 100 8 Reclamation / soil improvement Poaceae, Pinaceae, Fabaceae 72 9 Vegetable Apiaceae, Brassicaceae, Asteraceae 71 10 Fruit Rosaceae, Ericaceae 45 11 Starch / sugar Poaceae, Chenopodiaceae 10 12 Oil Brassicaceae, Linaceae, Chenopodiaceae 7

Table 10. Major UK agricultural crop wild relative families and genera (ornamentals excluded). Family Genera Taxa Genera with numbers of included species Poaceae 15 113 Agrostis (6), Alopecurus (6), Arrhenaterum (1), Avena (3), Bromus (8), Cynodon (1), Dactylis (1), Festuca (13), Festulolium (5), Hordeum (3), Lolium (2), Phalaris (1), Phleum (5), Poa (15), Trisetum (1) Fabaceae 6 59 Trifolium (23), Vicia (13), Onobrychis (1), Medicago (5), Lotus (5), Lupinus (2) Rosaceae 5 29 Fragaria (2), Malus (2), Prunus (7), Pyrus (2), Rubus (7) Brassicaceae 4 28 Brassica (3), Sinapis (2), Rorippa (8), Raphanus (1) Apiaceae 7 22 Apium (4), Anthriscus (3), Petroselinum (2), Carum (2), Foeniculum (1), Daucus (1), Pastinaca (1) Liliaceae 2 12 Allium (9), Asparagus (1) Papaveraceae 1 11 Papaver (6) Solanaceae 1 7 Solanum (5) Grossulariaceae 1 6 Ribes (6) Asteraceae 3 5 Cichorium (1), Lactuca (3), Scorzonera (1) Valerianaceae 1 4 Valerianella (4) Linaceae 1 3 Linum (3) Chenopodiaceae 1 3 Beta (1) Polygonaceae 1 1 Rheum (1 hybrid) Cannabaceae 1 1 Humulus (1) Totals 50 303

Given that most UK native and archaeophyte taxa are classified as CWRs, trends derived from general plant surveillance activities are likely to provide a reasonable proxy for trends in

127

Appendix I

CWRs. The UK’s plant diversity indicators show continuing declines in species richness in woodland, grassland and boundary habitats, although plant species richness on arable land had increased between 1990 and 2007 (Defra, 2009). Data from the Countryside Survey are currently being analysed to obtain specific trends in CWRs. However, it should be noted that trends in richness, distribution and abundance do not necessarily reflect trends in genetic diversity.

Currently there is limited active use of CWRs in crop breeding in the UK, with the exception of Lactuca serriola. However, many current fodder/feed/forage varieties are selections from native Poaceae and Fabaceae, as are some fruit varieties from Rosaceae and Ericaceae species. In additional, many other CWR species possess pest and disease resistance traits which have not yet been characterised and are well adapted to local soil and climate, and thus have potential to be of use in crop breeding. Whilst not all of these plant species are relatives of economically important crops in the UK, some are of importance in other countries (for instance cranberry in the USA).

Agricultural intensification over the last 50 years in the UK has been so effective at controlling arable 'weeds' that of the 30 species that have shown the greatest decline across Britain, 60% are found in arable and other cultivated land. A combination of improved seed cleaning, increased fertiliser use, high yielding crop varieties and the introduction of herbicides has all contributed to their decline. In response to these losses, Plantlife is running the Arable Plants Project in partnership with the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG). The project targets farms which historically have had rich assemblages of arable species, encouraging the owners to choose the appropriate options when entering into new agri-environment schemes. Farmers enter into Entry Level and Higher Level Stewardship agreements with government agencies and help is provided to manage the farmland sustainably to maintain farm income while enhancing biodiversity benefit. As a result, many populations of rarer plant species not recorded from particular fields for decades or even centuries are now flourishing on these farms.

2. Stakeholder Interviews The UK stakeholders for plant genetic resources were interviewed using the guideline-based interview technique with a fixed set of questions to be asked provided by WP5. Stakeholders interviewed were public research organizations (3), gene banks (3), breeding companies (2) and NGOs (1). The interviews were conducted one-on-one in an informal setting. Prior to the commencement of the interview the interviewee was asked for permission for the interview to be recorded for later transcription. During the questioning notes were made to accompany the transcription. Those interviewed are listed in Error! Reference source not found..

Table 11. Stakeholders interviewed. Area of work Participant Company Public research Claire Domoney John Innes Centre Norwich Research Park, Colney Lane, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7UJ Niall Green Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture Roddinglaw Road, Edinburgh, EH12 9FJ Julian Jackson Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Nobel House, 17 Smith square c/o Nobel House, 17 Smith square, London SW1P 3JR Gene Bank Charlotte Allender Genetic Resource Unit, Warwick HRI Wellesbourne

128

Appendix I

Warwick. CV35 9EF Mike Ambrose Genetic Resource Unit, John Innes Centre Norwich Research Park, Colney Lane, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7UJ Matt Ordidge School of Biological Sciences, Harborne Building, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 221, Reading RG6 2AS Breeding Nick Belfield-Smith Floranova Ltd., Norwich Road, Foxley, Dereham Norfolk company NR20 4SS Jo Bowman Limagrain UK Ltd, Station Road, Docking, King's Lynn, Norfolk, PE31 8LS Milika Buurman Limagrain UK Ltd, Station Road, Docking, King's Lynn, Norfolk, PE31 8LS Abi Johnson East Malling Research, East Malling, Kent ME19 6BJ Lydia Smith Innovation Farm, National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0LE Nadine Widdowson Floranova Ltd., Norwich Road, Foxley, Dereham Norfolk NR20 4SS NGO Neil Munro Heritage Seed Library, Garden Organic, Coventry Warwickshire CV8 3LG

2.1 Genebanks There are about fifteen UK gene banks and most have a small staff of 3-4 staff, with the exception of the Millennium Seed Bank which have a staff of 35 scientists. The five top crops covered by the genebank staff interviewed are:

Warwick Crop Centre Carrots Onions Lettuce GRU at JIC Wheat Barley Oats Peas Broad bean University of Reading Apples Pears Cherries Plums Blackcurrants

The other genebanks primarily distribute approximately 60% of seed to the research community, about 10% to breeding community, and the remainder to educational institutes or small scale growers. The curators thought their LR and CWR collection were about 50% fully characterized. Both JIC and the National Fruit Collection see their work as mostly characterization rather than evaluation, believing most users prefer to evaluate their own data as people are less likely to trust evaluation data that has come from gene banks or past breeders. All use the UPOV / FAO / Bioversity characterization morphological standard descriptors. All new characterization and evaluation data is systematically documented in a database and made available via the internet, the University of Warwick genebank data also has images of all accessions and a separate database of genetic information. Older records are in the process of being digitized and JIC historical data is being collected, for example from groups that have previously requested material. A lot of the PGR community has data that is in field notebooks etc. which is being collected and transferred onto electronic databases. The figure below shows how UK genebank managers make their collection visible for stakeholders.

129

Appendix I

Numbergenebanks of 1

0 Not visible Own web-enable EURISCO ECPGR Central UK National None web- database Crop Database Inventory enabled database

Means of visibility to users

Figure 1. Ways in which collection data is made visible for stakeholders.

The genebank managers thought EURISCO was the most used system for general users and the ECPGR central crop database provided more detailed information. Both JIC and NFC also have gene bank data on their own websites and contribute data to the UK National Inventory and other secondary databases, as well as putting links to their own website from other websites such as Monogram.

The genebank managers thought there was a need to improve access to information on LR and CWR. This might be achieved by employing a standardized approach to characterization and evaluation data, but unfortunately a lot of the characterization and evaluation work is done via one-off studies so there is no common structure; standard ontologies for different communities would help. All agreed that LR / CWR use was inhibited by the lack of genetic information in the on-line databases and consolidating of databases making all data is available in one place would help. Between the genebanks about 1% of the collection is distributed annually. Users order accessions from the gene bank via EURISCO, the central crop database or direct email. Standard Material Transfer Agreements are used for all distributions.

Gene bank staff involvement in national and international cooperation in the field of LR and CWR conservation and use varies between institutes, at WCC the time spent is “negligible”, while at JIC about 2 months a year is spent organizing the LR/CWR collection for 1 member of staff. At the National Fruit Collection the LR collection is not distinguished from the rest of the collection so it is difficult to estimate. All respondents work together with other gene banks, breeders or NGOs; University of Warwick is working with Elsoms on Brassica breeding and uses CWR in this joint approach, the University of Reading NFC supplies LR material to many NGOs, but informally, JIC works with stakeholders who are interested in the secondary and tertiary gene pools and do a lot of work with researchers, and less work with breeders but they have an ongoing communication with them. The University of Warwick website and leaflets mentions LR / CWR and they are currently working on the VegIN project based on cauliflower and related species, as does JIC. All felt there was scope to improve to the acquisition, regeneration, evaluation, storage and dissemination of LR and CWR.

130

Appendix I

In the UK it was generally felt that national agro-biodiversity policy does not support on-farm management of LR, though it was recognized that the policy was currently in a “state of flux” and that it was hoped that it would move towards some on-farm management in the future. The government has however provide some very limited research project funds for LR on- farm management and CWR in situ management, but there is pending project that if funded would provide sufficient funding for the inventory and conservation of UK vegetable and fruit LR material. There were mixed views on whether the EU GENRES programs had benefited the conservation of LR and CWR in the UK, the funding had largely been used to promoted the conservation, characterization and evaluation of LR / CWR that would not have happen otherwise, but there was concern of the lack of long-term legacy, it only having a short-lived impact. The annual budget of John Innes Centre is €30m, Gene Bank, University of Reading is ~€475,000 and Warwick Crop Centre is €360,000. Given increased resources for work on LR and CWR the University of Reading suggested that getting better coordination with regards to formally recognizing some of the LR in other collections across the UK would be something that would be initiated if capacity increased, Warwick Crop Centre would like to do some more collecting, particularly of CWR, and have a regular characterization program with IT support, the John Innes Centre would like to do more genotyping and more targeted evaluation done jointly with stakeholders over 4-5 years, especially for legumes. The respondents provided a range of predictions for trends in LR and CWR gene banking, but the perceived major trends in the coming decade are likely to be: regional collections, widespread use of sequencing, increase phenotyping, increase genotyping, improve computerization, improve availability of records, flexibility, maintain relevance, specialization of collections, more molecular work, increase coordination, more useful information and increase characterization details – improved phenotyping and improved availability of records were both mentioned several times. The major constraints in achieving these goals are: lack of time, space, expertise and finance, lack of understanding of the value of LR and CWR diversity, apparent conflict between research and conservation and lack of characterization data – lack of finance was the major limitation.

2.2 Public research There are relatively few people involved in publically funded research and policy in the UK, Defra has 3 people involved in the public research program at DEFRA (English and Welsh government agency) and SASA (Scottish government agency) has no specific program but there is usually 1 person working on potatoes and between 1-3 people working in the lab, usually on PhD projects with around 12 experts on seed and field work. While at JIC (leading UK publically funded institute) there are 7 or 8 people working on genetics research.

Their work varies between overseeing the sponsorship of the three governmentally funded collections (fruit, pea and vegetable), as well as setting national policies and responding to international commitments. At SASA, NIAB and JIC the main focus of the work is on seed quality. The major focus of work at SASA is statutory testing of cultivars; stability and uniformity of cultivars for new species on the national list, as well as SSSC of potatoes, cereals, oils, and fibres. They also focus on maintenance of seed and tuber collections, and are also the official seed testing station for Scotland. Main crop research programmes cover:

DEFRA Fruit Peas Vegetables JIC Peas SASA Potato Cereals Vegetables Suede

131

Appendix I

While DEFRA specifically focuses on fruit, peas, and vegetables but have an oversight of all UK collections of PGRFA, SASA has a wider remit and focuses on the whole range of crops but the most important are potatoes, cereals, vegetables, peas, and suede.

Crop research projects are rarely formulated to work on the conservation or use of LR and CWR, but they may be included in projects looking at looking for variation within genes and sometimes material where variant alleles may be found, such as in exotic lines will subsequently be made available via the genebanks. LR and traditional varieties are used at SASA in research, including in situ LR. This work includes characterization and new reference collections being built to find descriptors. This work includes brassica kale.

Within public institutions in the UK there is limited breeding and the focus would be more on genetic diversity, origin and relationships between populations, for example the relationships between populations of beer barley on different Scottish islands. Defra noted that although in theory genetics/breeding programs are important in reality government policy has only half- integrated genetics/breeding with other biodiversity research themes. The five top topics within UK public institutions are:

DEFRA Development of Development of Integration of Integration of LR Promote systematic LR / LR / CWR priority CWR / CWR niche CWR conservation and conservation conservation into markets for conservation and use indicators into UK environmental UK LR use strategies protected area stewardship management schemes JIC Identify sources Stabilize seed Yield Introducing of genes that will quality novelty improve seed quality SASA Potato collection Beer barley – Shetland Barley collection, – characterization characterization, cabbages characterization, and DNA origins and identification profiling

All interviewees responded that their priorities had changed over the last 10 years and the governmental priorities were now: 1. Development of systematic LR / CWR conservation and use strategies 2. Development of LR / CWR conservation and use indicators 3. Integration of priority CWR conservation into UK protected area management 4. Integration of LR / CWR conservation into environmental stewardship schemes

It was generally agreed that they had to become more engaged with end users and this has been achieved via Genetic Improvement Networks – joint researcher / breeder initiatives. Defra realize that they know that the gene banks do not hold a complete collection of UK priority CWR or LR. The Millennium Seed Bank does have a complete collection but only have one or two samples which are not genetically representative. UK protected areas contain CWR but they would only be passively conserved. Further although Defra funded the two UK LR studies by DEFRA in 2003 and 2008 they realized many UK LR were not represented in genebank or available to users. Another problem has been the general lack of systematic characterization / evaluation by LR / CWR collection holders, in the UK this has only been partially achieved for accessions thought to be of particular interest. Further

132

Appendix I disappointingly even where characterization / evaluation of LR / CWR collection is undertaken the results are not always made web-enabled, but where it is made public through institutional and ECPGR Central Crop Database. Both LR and CWR material has been included in -omics research projects via the Genetic Improvement Networks.

There are no publically funded national experts that specifically promote research on LR and CWR, but it is covered by the members of the UK PGR Group and such a national expert program is being discussed currently. Publically funded research in the UK uses a range of web based information system related to LR and CWR accessions, but primarily EURISCO. There is no national expert program, which specifically focuses on the need for research on LR and CWR. The UK government promoted the attraction of project funds for research on LR and CWR via funding projects itself directly through DEFRA funded research grants, Darwin Initiative, and also by encouraging UK scientists to apply for European funding. All interviewees felt the GENRES programme had in part promoted LR and CWR in the UK. SASA have been involved in potato and carrot work, but there were no current projects. They also reported that increasingly their genetics groups were actively working together with breeding companies (domestic/foreign), farmers, NGOs, or gene banks on LR and CWR conservation and use to pick up on novel traits though primarily on a one-to-one basis but have no formal stakeholder groupings and no financial benefit. They felt such links have not historically worked in a seamless manner. There was broad agreement that EU research programs had actively promoted LR / CWR research, and several projects were mentioned EPGRIS, PGR Forum, AEGRO and PGR Secure, thought the provision of co-financing was a limitation.

For publically funded organizations the major constraints at the breeding/genetics group (landraces and CWR) were: a. Lack of clarity on which LR/CWR would be best to use. b. Breeders are content with existing collections for variation. c. Lack of resources, funding and time. d. Lack of information on accessions. e. Lack of interest in LR/traditional varieties. f. Difficulty with available to breeders of material. g. Lack of adequately characterized of the material.

The major trends in the future are likely to be: a. Greater use in -omics applications. b. More specific breeding for small scale/local organic production. c. More active systematic conservation of CWR and LR in protected area and environmental stewardship schemes. d. Longer term projects (4-5 years). e. Less complexity in project management. f. More sequenced genomes. g. Gene mining for breeding. h. Molecular identification techniques. i. Linking desirable traits with molecular marker information. j. Inputs can't only be on the major commercial crops. k. Potential in the widest sense - not just LR but also historical crops. l. Change in agriculture back towards local produced food. m. Want to know as much as we can about what's out there.

133

Appendix I

2.3 Non-governmental organizations There are relatively few NGOs working in PGR issues within the UK but the leading organisation is Garden Organic, which has its main site at Ryton-on-Dinsmore with several satellite sites around the country. The Heritage seed Library is the section within Garden Organic that is responsible for the conservation and making available of heirloom vegetable varieties. It maintains a collection, mainly of European varieties obtained dropped from popular seed catalogues and largely donated by HSL members. Our collection contains many of these but also some landraces and a large number of family heirloom varieties that have never been in a catalogue. They are not a conservation gene bank as all accessions are part of a working collection and when there is enough seed it is made available to our members, but a partial backup is maintained under a black box agreement with the University of Warwick genebank. There are three staff members and the five top crops are: peas, French beans, tomatoes, broad beans and runner beans.

The HSL collections are maintained by 290 Seed Guardians, who agree to raise seed of a chosen variety or varieties. Guardians process and clean this seed and return it to the HSL so it can be distributed to the members through the catalogue, the seed is available to 8,500 Garden Organic members, 60 seed swaps, and 30 community groups, so the prime users are gardeners with a conservation and or organic philosophy. The HSL collection focuses on LR and obsolete varieties, it has no CWR material. The 800 collections are fully characterized using UPOV / FAO / Bioversity characterization morphological descriptors and about a third had also been characterized using molecular descriptors. New information is held in a database, past paper records from the 1970s are currently being transferred into the database but it is not yet made available via the internet. Though the system that they hope to develop needs to be searchable and user friendly. Around 180 of the 800 varieties are sent out annually from the HSL. Users order accessions from the collection through Garden Organic membership scheme. Standard Material Transfer Agreements are not used when distributing seed. At the HSL about 2% of time is spent on national and international cooperation in the field of LR conservation and use. GO work together with other gene banks and NGOs, but rarely commercial breeders. The annual budget of the Heritage Seed Library within Garden Organic is €240,000. Given additional resources the priority would be to raise awareness of the value of the collections and make the HSL databases available online with characterization and evaluation data for all accessions.

Within the HSL the trend in LR gene banking in the coming decade is likely to be: increase phenotyping, increase genotyping, improve computerization, improve availability of records, maintenance of relevance for Garden Organic members, more useful information and increase characterization details. The major constraints in achieving these goals are: lack of time, space and finance.

2.4 Breeding companies Within the UK breeding companies vary between large international organisations (Limagrain), smaller predominantly UK based companies (Floranova) and governmental institutes (NIAB and EMR). Thus the number of employs varied between 3-10 breeders with technical and support staff, out of a total UK staff varying from 50-243, and most UK breeding is part of wider international activities. The main crop breeding focus is:

Breeder Nick Belfield- Pelargonium Salvia Petunia Patio vegetables Viola Smith

134

Appendix I

(Floranova) Milika Buurman Wheat Barley Oilseed rape Faba beans Peas & Jo Bowman (Limagrain UK) Abi Johnson Strawberries Cherries Raspberries Apple Pear (EMR) rootstocks rootstocks Lydia Smith Pre-breeding Pre- Pre-breeding Niche crops Field bean (NIAB) barley breeding oilseed rape (incl. Artemisia, wheat lithosperms, Rosemarinus, Echium) Nadine Salvia Geraniums Begonia Petunia Ornamental Widdowson cabbages (Floranova)

Not surprisingly the breeding goals varied significantly depending on the types of plants being bred. The horticultural crops bred at Floranova are bred to be: compact, quick to flowering, with a range of colours, and for garden vigour as well as having good basal branching, large flowers, resistant or tolerant to all the main diseases of that crop, and in proportion, aesthetically pleasing to the eye, that all the colours flower at the same time, and seed quality and with germination rates of over 90%. The main reason for selecting these traits and crop by Floranova is for their marketplace value. At Limagrain UK for vining peas the breeding goals are: quality, disease resistance, fresh yield, and standing ability. There is a good UK market for vining peas so they are financially viable for breeding. Their oilseed rape goal is to incorporate traits such as yield, oil yield, disease resistance, height and insect resistant, which is a major problem. The strawberries at EMR are bred for yield, disease resistance, size, and quality including appearance, colour, firmness, flavour, shelf life, and post-harvest quality. The strawberries are bred because the money is there to do the breeding program as they have commercial sponsorship that drives research and variety improvement. At NIAB the breeding goals differ between the different projects, but their goal is largely pre- breeding to meet the breeding requirements of more commercial stakeholders. These include improved disease resistance, root morphology and yield allied to nitrogen use efficiency. Within barley the goals also focus on changing photoperiod and vernalisation responses, as well as carbohydrate metabolism. For the niche crops bred at NIAB the goal is to improve oil quality and agronomic traits as well as yield. Rosemary is also bred for its antioxidant content. The Artemisia is bred for yield and artemisin content. The main focus of the breeding programs a NIAB are to support the staple status of wheat and barley as UK crops and the novelty of the niche crops.

All interviewees felt use LR and CWR could be enhanced in their breeding program. However, their uses of LR/CWR was limited. For example, Limagrain UK feel pea breeding program does not use them directly, but that the parental development program may use them prior to the crops being used by Limagrain UK. The strawberry research at EMR uses different CWR species and LR of strawberry. Floranova use some wild species in their work but not LR as these are not applicable to ornamentals. Whereas at NIAB CWR are fundamental to the production of the new wheat material and for barley around 5-10% of breeding is CWR based. At Floranova even though CWR are used, none of these are in the top 5 crops. Around 5% of breeding for strawberries is based on CWR at EMR. In the vining peas at Limagrain UK the use of CWR/LR is around 1%. The reason Limagrain UK limit

135

Appendix I their use of CWR / LR is because of the difficulty in identifying traits in LR, linkage drag, and most of the traits of which they have access to are adaptive cultivars.

The breeders obtain their LR / CWR from national genebanks. Limagrain UK obtain their material from JIC for their pea breeding program. They have a good relationship with JIC and they may also suggest material that the pea breeders may find useful or interesting. The strawberry CWR breeding at EMR is obtained from the USA. Floranova obtain their CWR material from national plant collections and university seed banks. The wheat wild relative material at NIAB comes from contacts at ECADA or CIMMYT and the barley comes from gene bank collections all over the world e.g. USDA.

The breeder’s response to the question whether they had sufficient genetic variation for breeding new cultivars in their top five crops was crop dependent. Limagrain UK felt they felt they did have enough variability because there was still quite a lot of variation within the pea genome that can still be used, Floranova felt that they would like to have some more genetic variation, and both NIAB and EMR responded by stating they always want more genetic variation for breeding new cultivars. For strawberry breeding there is a need to find new sources of adaptability to environmental stresses such as adaption to water deficits and high temperatures. Floranova felt that LR / CWR play a minor role in broadening genetic variation because although there are opportunities they are limited by the resources and timescale required for extensive CWR / LR use. Introducing wild species is a very long term project unless you are lucky with the crosses. NAIB felt that wheat breeding would not exist without CWR. Even though the barley doesn’t use a lot of CWR is still quite important, and the lithosperms use almost 100% CWR so without them that program would not be able to take place.

All confirmed there was a close relationship between commercially or non-commercially breeders and gene banks, public research organization or NGOs. NIAB have established a spin-off company (NIAB Ventures) to deal with possibly selling the niche crops commercially, but for the main crops they deal directly with commercial companies. The breeding companies have limited exchange of breeding materials: EMR have a small involvement with exchange of strawberries material, as do Limagrain UK for peas and beans, (vining peas, combining peas, spring and winter beans, oilseed rape, spring linseed and spring rape). Few commercial breeding companies (only NIAB) employ pre-breeders. The pre- breeding involves unfinished varieties of barley, wheat, and oilseed rape, and finished varieties in some niche crops – Artemisia, lithosperm, rosemary, Echium. Each confirmed the range of crops bred and traits bred for is dynamic and does change to meet market demands. Three out of five breeders questioned stated that use of CWR in their breeding programs had financially benefited their company during the past 10 years? Only two out of the five breeders cooperate with other partners and the public research sector within the framework of public-private-partnership programs on utilization of LR and CWR germplasm, Limagrain UK prefer the informal relationship they have with JIC. The breeders were unaware of the GENRES programme or other EU DG Agriculture funding for LR / CWR conservation / exploitation. They were largely unaware of ECPGR and were not clearly aware EU research programs. Three interviewees felt that EU research programs did very little to promote the use of LR / CWR. Limagrain UK felt EU research programs were a good means of promoting use of LR / CWR because it sometimes takes a lot of work to get products to a stage where they are commercially viable.

136

Appendix I

The breeders envisaged the major trends in future breeding using LR / CWR diversity as: climate change resilience (16%), yield stability (11%), yield improvement (11%), hybrid vigour (11%), drought (6%), disease resistance (5%), sustainability of resistance (5%), sustainable use of resources (5%), naturally compact (5%), low input (5%), insect resistance (5%), salt tolerance (5%), water use efficiency (5%) and synthetic varieties (5%). They found the major constraints to using LR / CWR diversity: funding, customer demand, value of crop, time scales to commercialization, space, knowledge of diversity within LR, too large an investment for high risk breeding, quality staff and the short-termism of breeding objectives.

The priorities for this group were to maintain ex situ collections, make germplasm accessible, encourage research in plant breeding and improve access to well characterised material in all countries. One stakeholder was concerned that germplasm collections were insecure and under-utilised, and felt collections should be funded by Defra, not BBSRC. There was a need for more information about UK collections, perhaps through a central information point.

3. SWOT analysis and the actions needed concerning PGR management in the United Kingdom

In general the key priority was characterisation and further exploration of collections. Further collecting was not seen as a priority. Some stakeholders felt that government’s role was to concentrate upon PGRFA that industry would not fund, and to focus on areas of wider public interest such as nutrition, long term conservation and crops of potential future industrial use. Government through BBSRC and Defra fund a number of plant collections, however the Government view is this is not strictly within the public sectors remit.

There is a need for greater co-ordination of stakeholders, including between plant, animal and microbe sectors and between Defra and the devolved administrations, between commercial and public bodies. There is a need to identify all ex situ collections in both private and public hands, and to identify important in situ sites, populations of landraces and farmer varieties at risk and protect them. This should include a more accurate methodology for surveying in- garden and delisted plant varieties. Information should be made available via a web-based database. There should be increased international and national collaboration. Identify and prioritise gaps in collections (task for collection managers). Ensure ex situ and in situ collections are truly complementary. Develop a policy for threatened PGRFA. Determine the status of priority CWR populations, identify their presence in protected areas, and manage these populations through protected area authorities. Monitor, characterise and record use of landraces, farmer varieties and conservation varieties at risk, then develop programmes to retain viable populations.

There is a need to promote the use of PGRFA, identify all possible uses for PGRFA, including uses in scientific research, breeding programmes and marketing opportunities. In particular, promote use of PGRFA at risk. Promote PGRFA suitable for sustainable agriculture. A number of stakeholders emphasised the importance of evaluating and using GRFA, not merely conserving. Characterisation and evaluation is needed to increase value of collections. A programmed approach is needed, taking into account needs of breeders and other users. Collections should be linked to evaluation and pre-breeding programmes. There is a need for a common framework for deciding priorities, and common methodology for characterisation. Passport data must be accessible to users. This area should be led by breeders, gene bank managers and research institutes. Coordination and joint funding of work

137

Appendix I on the characterisation of LR and CWR diversity in collaboration with conservation NGOs was requested. One possible current limitation is the lack of a unified national information system that links existing collection databases. It is also vital that PGRFA biodiversity and conservation interests are more directly linked to the wider biodiversity policy, and for greater consideration of agriculture-environment interactions in biodiversity policy. There is also a need to promote public awareness of the value of CWR and LR conservation and sustainable use, and raise awareness with politicians, scientific community, breeders, consumers and the food industry.

3.1 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses

 Country with considerable CWR and LR  A national PGR expert program exist but is biodiversity not sufficient resourced and too focused on  Multiple gene bank system is well short term benefits organised  NGOs are active but have a limited impact  Well established access to germplasm is due to insufficient means provided via the gene bank website  Collaboration between all stakeholder  The cooperation between all stakeholder groups in the field of exchange and groups is well developed, particularly documentation of characterisation and between conservationists and user evaluation data is not well organised  Significant European and global  Lack of clear governmental control on the engagement which benefits the national PGRFA sector system  Lack of LR inventory as basis for  A national PGR expert program exist systematic conservation and use through the UK PGR Group  Lack of EU buy-in to ECPGR activities  Lack of understanding of the value of LR and CWR diversity

Opportunities Threats

 Increasing demand for more CWR / LR  Insufficient financial means required to diversity to meet breeders needs improve the flow of characterisation and  Increase of the efficacy of UK genebank evaluation data between stakeholders system through closer interaction with  Lack of incentives to use LR and CWR in users long-term base broadening programs of  Development of market niches for native companies species / regional products  Lack of links between agrobiodiversity and  Improvement of the public interest in biodiversity conservation and use sectors agrobiodiversity issues through the  Changes in ECPGR structure and support of agro-NGO sector functioning could marginalise UK interests  Development of agrobiodiversity friendly (ecological) farming systems  Promotion of in situ conservation of native CWR / LR diversity

138

Appendix I

3.2 Recommended actions

Government PGRFA policy should focus upon species and varieties that are not adequately covered by policies on biodiversity and forestry. The national expert program should be supported by experts from the diverse stakeholder groups but with governmental over-sight and more strategic resourcing. The evolution of one unified PGRFA system in the UK should be considered.

Gene Bank Improvement of information system should be considered within the UK and in Europe both within and outside of AEGIS process. There is a need for an improved model for aiding breeders and other users select germplasm.

Public Research Government funded research should try to diversify research activities with a stronger focus on the national agro-biodiversity potential, germplasm characterisation (including predictive characterisation) and pre-breeding.

NGOs This stakeholder has significant roots support in the UK but is well-organised, though holdings, information systems and websites could be upgraded. Agro-NGOs play an important role in public awareness building and have a high potential in promoting the use of LR in agricultural production.

List of PGR Collections in the UK (Defra, 2009b). Collection and Curator Number of Contact Address Accessions Forage grasses, forage legumes and 1900 Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, (AFBI), cereals Crossnacreevy Belfast, Northern Ireland BT6 Contact: B G Waters and L Childs 9SH Apples, Pears and Quinces Contact: ~ 600 East Malling Research, East Malling, Kent Contact: F. Fernández ME19 6BJ Cherry, plum and related species ~ 250 as above (Prunus sp.) Contact: F. Fernández Raspberries, blackberries and related ~ 125 as above species Contact: F. Fernández Strawberries (Fragaria sp.) Contact: Dr 257 as above D W Simpson The Vegetable Gene Bank (includes; 13,411 Warwick HRI Wellesbourne Warwick. CV35 Allium sp., Brassica sp., Raphanus sp., 9EF Daucus sp. and Lactuca sp.) Contact: Dr D Astley

139

Appendix I

Near Isogenic Lines of Tomato Contact: ~ 900* as above Dr F.A. Langton Oat Collection (Avena sp.) Contact: I D ~ 4,360 Institute of Biological, Environmental and Thomas Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Wales, SY23 3EB Rhizobium Collection 536 as above Contact: D Allen Grass and Legumes 23,677 as above Contact: I D Thomas BBSRC Small Grain Cereals Collection 36,736 John Innes Centre Norwich Research Park, (wheat, barley, oats) Modern Cultivars, Colney Lane, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7UJ Landraces and Traditional Varieties John Innes Pisum Collection Contact: M 3,553 as above J Ambrose Wheat Precise Genetic Stocks Contact: S 6,099 as above Reader Rye, Wheat and related spp. Contact: S 2,574 as above Reader National Fruit Collection (includes top 3,942 National Fruit Collection Brogdale Farm, fruit, bush fruit and ornamentals) Brogdale Road, Faversham, Kent ME13 8XZ Contact: M Ordidge, University of Reading Fibre Flax and Linseed, Forage and ~ 400 AFBI, Loughgall, Co Armagh BT61 8JB Amenity Grasses Contact: D T Johnston Wild and semi-cultivated species of ~ 40 as above Potato; Solanum sp. Contact: P Watts Armagh Orchard Trust collection of ~ 100 as above Irish apple varieties Contact: S MacAntSaoir Barley Collection (Hordeum sp.) 1,000* Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Contact: Dr W Spoor Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG Fibre Flax and Oil-bearing Linseed 350* Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive Contact: Dr G Marshall Ayr. KA6 5HW Cereal Crops Seed Collection Contact: 3,0* as above Miss C Struthers Raspberries, blackberries and related 507* Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie species (Rubus sp.) (mainly virus Dundee DD2 5DA indexed) Contact: R M Brennan Blackcurrants and related species (Ribes 860* as above sp.) Contact: R M Brennan Commonwealth Potato Collection 1,499 as above (Solanum sp) Dr Gavin Ramsay Faba bean and related species (Vicia sp) 754* as above Dr G Ramsay UK Potato Cultivar Collections 943 Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture - - UK NL/PBR reference collection Roddinglaw Road, Edinburgh, EH12 9FJ - - SASA genetic resource collection [email protected] - - The European Cultivated Potato www.europotato.org Database http://varieties.potato.org.uk - - The British Potato Variety Database Contact: Heather Campbell Potato Pathogen-tested Nuclear Stock 728 as above (microplant) Collection Contact: Sandra Goodfellow Cereal Cultivar Collections: (wheat, 4,514 as above

140

Appendix I

barley,oats) Modern Cultivars, Landraces and Traditional Varieties. Contact: Susan Harper www.agricrops.org - - The Agricultural Crop Variety Database Vegetable Cultivar Collections (except 7,017 as above Pea) - - UK NL/PBR vegetable reference collections - - SASA genetic resource collections Contact: George Campbell Oil and Fodder (except Pea) Cultivar 305 as above Collections Contact: George Campbell - - UK NL/PBR Swede and Turnip Rape collections - - SASA genetic resource collections Pea Cultivar Collections 2,722 as above - - UK NL/PBR field pea and pea reference collections - - UK Pisum Cultivar collection Contact: George Campbell Living Plant Collections (not stored as 39,055* Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, 20a seeds) Contact: J Main Iverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR Living Plant Collections (not stored as 83,000* Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, seeds) (34,000 spp) Surrey TW9 3AB Contact: LCD Curator http://data.kew.org/seedlist/itpgrfalist.html The Millennium Seed Bank (seeds of 50,369 (27,651 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Wakehurst wild species from 131 countries) species) Place, Ardingly, West Sussex RH17 6TN Contact: P Smith Nottingham Arabidopsis Stock Centre ~7,000* School of Biological Sciences, University of Contact: Dr B Mulligane Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD Cocoa Collection 400 Centre for Horticulture and Landscape School Contact: AJ Daymond of Biological Sciences, Harborne Building, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 221, Reading RG6 2AS Seeds of major components of 3,000* Department of Animal Plant Sciences, PO Box ecological groupings in Britain 601, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 Contact: Dr G Hendry 2UG  - Figures from previous 1996 UK Country report.

141

Appendix I

4. References Defra, (2009a). UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2009. Defra, London. Defra, (2009b). Country report on the state of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: United Kingdom, 2009. Defra, London. Green, N., Campbell, G., Tulloch, R. and Scholten, M.A., (2009). Scottish Landrace Protection Scheme. In: European Landraces: On-farm conservation, Management and Use (eds. Vetelainen, Negri and Maxted). Technical Bulletin 15. Pp. 172-181. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy. Kell, S., Maxted, N., Astley, D., Allender, C., Ford-Lloyd B.V. and Contributors, (2009). Vegetable landrace inventory of England and Wales. Defra project code IF0164. University of Birmingham. Maxted, N., Scholten, M., Codd, R. & Ford-Lloyd, B., (2007). Creation and use of a national inventory of crop wild relatives. Biological Conservation 140: 142-159. Scholten, M.A., Maxted, N. and Ford-Lloyd, B.V. (2003). UK National Inventory of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Defra project code GCO134. University of Birmingham. Vetelainen, M., Negri, V. and Maxted, N., (2009). European Landraces: On-farm conservation, Management and Use. Technical Bulletin 15. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy. Wilding, C., (2002). Report on genetic resources for food and agriculture in the UK. Defra, London.

142

Appendix I

Definitions

The following definitions were compiled at the beginning of the PGR Secure project but proved not always applicable to the specific situation in a country.

Landrace Combining several definitions (Negri 2005; Camacho Villa et al. 2006; Asfaw 2000; Louette 2000, Brush 1992; Papa 1996, del Greco et al. 2007 (http://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/- Networks/Insitu_onfarm/OnfarmTF_intro.htm) a landrace of crop can be defined as “a variable population of a seed propagated crop, a clone or a collection of genetically different clones, which are identifiable and usually have a local name. A landrace lacks “formal” crop improvement, is characterized by a specific adaptation to the environmental conditions of the area of cultivation and is associated with the traditional uses, knowledge, habits, dialects, and celebrations of the people who developed and continue to grow it”. This definition emphasizes the aspects of a long standing, unbroken and active management of LRs on farm. In contrast to landraces all material that lost this specific cultural context and is being conserved ex situ is called former landraces and former breeding varieties.

Crop Wild Relatives According to Maxted et al. (2006) “A Crop Wild Relative is a plant taxon that has an indirect use derived from its relatively close genetic relationship to a crop; this relationship is defined in terms of the Crop Wild Relative belonging to gene pools 1 or 2, or taxon groups 1 to 4 of the crop.”

In situ and on farm management According to the CBD (1992) in situ management means the management of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties. The latter is called on farm management.

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) A NGO is a non-profit organisation of the civil society. In the case of PGRFA a NGO is a seed saver association and/or their umbrella organisation.

143

Appendix I

Method applied and interview questions

A semi-structured interview is a method of research used in the social sciences. While a structured interview (see Appendix II) has a rigorous set of questions which does not allow one to divert, a semi-structured interview is open, allowing new ideas to be brought up during the interview as a result of what the interviewee says. The interviewer in a semi-structured interview generally has a framework of themes to be explored.

The specific topic or topics that the WP5 team wanted to explore during the interview was thought about well in advance. The team prepared and used a stakeholder group specific interview guide, which is an informal grouping of topics and questions that the interviewer can ask in different ways for different participants. Interview guides help researchers to focus an interview on the topics at hand without constraining them to a particular format. This freedom can help interviewers to tailor their questions to the interview context/situation, and to the people they are interviewing (adapted from www.wikipedia.org).

The answers were compiled by the interviewer with the help of consultants, analysed and used to compile reports. The structure of the reports and the details provided differ between country reports. The differences are a result of varying interview situation (duration of a stay within a country, number of interviewed partners and authors.

Listed below are the questions used when interviewing representatives from the different PGR stakeholders.

Gene Bank

1. How many people are working at your genebank? 2. Are you the only GB within your country? 3. Which are the most important crops (top 5, in terms of collection size) that are conserved at your genebank and how many accessions per crop are present? 4. Could you give an idea about the number of organizations per stakeholder (NGOs, other genebanks, public research institutes, private breeding companies) that ask for accessions of these top 5 crops. 5. Do you think that the landrace and CWR collection has been sufficiently evaluated? 6. Have you systematically characterized and evaluated accessions of these 5 (top 5) crops? 7. How is this done in the case of characterization respectively evaluation traits? 8. Are characterisation and evaluation data systematically documented in a database? 9. What is the way you make your collection visible for stakeholders: via your own website, via EURISCO, via ....; Do you have a public accessible web based GB information system? 10. Which kind of IT work do you think is most needed to improve the access to information on landraces and CWR? 11. How many accessions per top 5 crop are annually distributed (indicate percentages). 12. What is roughly the number of CWR and LR per top 5 crop that is annually distributed? 13. How can people order accessions at your genebank? 14. Could you indicate how much time of your genebank staff capacity (months per year) is dedicated to national and international cooperation in the field of LR and CWR conservation and use?

144

Appendix I

15. Do you work together with gene banks, breeders or NGOs in your own country? Do you use crop wild relatives in your joint work approach? 16. Do you have a national expert programme which specifically mentions the value of landraces and CWR and the need to conserve them? 17. Which aspects of the expert programme would you change to improve your work related to the acquisition, regeneration, evaluation, storage and dissemination of landraces and CWR? 18. Does the national agrobiodiversity policy support the on farm management of landraces? 19. Does your government provide research programmes allowing attraction of project funds for research on landrace on farm management and CWR in situ management? 20. Do you think that the EU GENRES programmes promoted the conservation of landraces and CWR in your country? Please explain your opinion. 21. What is the annual budget of your institution? 22. Which kind of work on landraces and CWR would you initiate or stop if your capacity increases / decreases? Please describe needs and provide arguments. 23. What do you envisage as the major trends in genebanking in the coming decade? 24. What do you think are the major constraints in genebanking and how do you deal with it? 25. How does the government affect your genebank operation? 26. Could you give me the storage procedures/conditions of your genebank?

Public research

1. How many people are involved in the breeding research/genetics research programme? 2. What is the major focus of their work (e.g. education of students, development of new cultivars, concentration on fundamental research, etc) 3. Which crop/species does your research program focus on and why? 4. Which crop research projects use landraces and CWR? Please estimate the number of landraces and CWR species used in 5 projects you consider most important for your institution. 5. Is genetics/breeding an important theme amongst other research themes? What are the top 5 topics? 6. Did the focus of the genetics and breeding group change the last 10 yrs ? If yes, in which direction and why? 7. Have you systematically searched for landrace and CWR germplasm in genebanks? How is this done ? (to build up a working collection)? 8. Could you give an idea about the number of genebanks from which you ordered LR and CWR germplasm last year? 9. Have you systematically characterized and evaluated your landrace and CWR collection on a specific trait? 10. Are landraces and CWR included in - omics research projects? 11. Are characterisation and evaluation data systematically documented in a database? 12. Please describe how these characterisation and evaluation data are made available to the public. 13. Do you have a national expert programme which specifically promotes research on landraces and CWR? 14. Which web based information system do you use for searching for landrace and CWR accessions? Do you have preferences and if yes, please describe why. 15. Do you have a national expert programme which specifically mentions the need for research on landraces and CWR?

145

Appendix I

16. Does your government provide research programmes allowing attraction of project funds for research on landrace and CWR? 17. Do you think that the EU GENRES programmes promoted the research on landraces and CWR in your country? Please explain your opinion. 18. Does the breeding /genetics group actively work together with breeding companies, farmers, NGOs, or genebanks on LR and CWR? 19. If yes, per stakeholder group: what is the nature of these cooperations in terms of topics you work on and are financial contracts involved? 20. If no, per stakeholder group: why not? 21. Do you think that EU research programmes actively promote your research? 22. If yes, please indicate in what way (could you provide own examples)? 23. If no, please indicate why you think this is not the case? 24. What do you think are the major constraints at the breeding/genetics group (landraces and CWR) and how do you deal with it? 25. What do you envisage as the major trends in the future?

Non-governmental organisations

1. How many NGOs working in agriculture are present in your country and could you rank your NGO amidst the others in terms of financial turn-over? 2. How many people are working in your organization? 3. What is your annual budget (€)? 4. Which crops (indicate top 5) are you mainly working with? 5. Have you systematically collected landraces in your country since the establishment of your organisation? 6. How do you plan and perform this work? 7. Do members of your association systematically describe features and performance of landraces? 8. How do you plan and perform this work? 9. Are descriptions on landraces documented in a database? 10. How do you present the information on landraces to the public? 11. Do you have an umbrellar organisation of NGOs in your country? 12. Do you work non-commercially together with genebanks, public research organizations, breeders and other NGOs in your own country? 13. If yes, please indicate on what crops/topics. 14. If no, why not? 15. Do you cooperate with the commercial sector on the marketing of landrace products? 16. Do you have a national expert programme which specifically mentions the value of landraces and and CWR and the need to manage them on farm / in situ? 17. Does your government provide programmes allowing NGOs the attraction of project funds? 18. If yes, please assess the effectiveness of these programmes with respect to LR and CWR use. 19. Do you think that the EU GENRES programmes promoted your activities in the field of on farm management of landraces and in situ management of CWR in your country? 20. What do you envisage as the major trends in the future? 21. What do you think are the major constraints in your work (with respect to landraces and CWR) and how do you deal with it?

146

Appendix I

Breeding companies / institutes

1. How many people are involved in the breeding research/genetics research program? 2. How many people are working in your company in your country? 3. Is your company part of a larger organization operating in various countries? 4. Which crops (top 5) are being bred in your company? 5. On which traits do you focus on? Why do you breed these crops? What are the breeding goals? 6. Do you use landraces (LR) and crop wild relatives (CWR) in your breeding programme? 7. If yes, could you indicate the % use of LR and CWR per crop in the last years per top 5 crop? 8. If no, could you indicate the reason(s) for this? 9. How do you get access of landraces and CWR? 10. Do you have enough genetic variation for breeding new cultivars in your top 5 crops? 11. If yes, why do you think so? 12. If no, which role play LR and CWR for broadening the genetic variation of our target crops? 13. Do you work commercially or non-commercially together with genebanks, other breeders, public research organization or NGOs? 14. If yes, which crops are involved and what type of work do you share, which type of cooperation? 15. If no, why not? 16. Would you be so kind and comment on the following trends (last 25 yrs) a. did your company employ pre-breeders and for which crops? b. did the number of crops change and the type of crops that are being bred? c. did the trait focus change, so for example less emphasis on yield and more on biotic resistance? 17. Has the use of CWR in your breeding programmes financially benefited your company (at least stabilized seed market shares) during the past 10 years? 18. Do you cooperate with other and the public research sector within the framework of public-private- partnership programmes on utilisation of landrace and CWR germplasm? 19. Do you know the GENRES programme of the DG AGRI and projects funded via GENRES? 20. Do you know working groups of the ECPGR relevant to your work? Please list which ones. 21. Please assess to what extend EU research programmes promote the use of landrace and CWR in breeding programmes of your company. 22. What do you envisage as the major trends in the future? 23. What do you think are the major constraints in your work (with respect to landraces and CWR) and how do you deal with it? 24. Who decides on use of CWR or LR? 25. Which species CWR / LR are most relevant? 26. Which traits in CWR / LR are most relevant? 27. Seed market (how big market share do you have)?

Observe that some variation can occur among individual interviews.

147