sign in sign up
<<
Home , Genetic erosion

SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 Target 13: 2 3 By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and 4 of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable , is 5 maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic 6 erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity. 7 8 9 Preface 10 11 The assessment is mainly focused on the genetic diversity of domesticated animals and 12 plants, with some information provided on genetic diversity of crop wild relatives (CWR). 13 The genetic diversity of wild marine and freshwater species, as well as species used for 14 aquaculture is not considered in this assessment. Marine species in particular are heavily 15 exploited, and changes in genetic diversity have been documented. In contrast, very little 16 information is available on species used for aquaculture. Here, current production practices 17 may quickly lead to depression (Moss et al., 2007, 2008). For more information 18 on marine and freshwater genetic resources, the reader is encouraged to consult the FAO 19 report on the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (FAO 2010), as well as the report on 20 Status and Trends in Aquatic Genetic Resources (FA0 2007). The genetic diversity of micro- 21 organisms, responsible for many functions, for example nutrient cycling, is also 22 not treated. 23 24 . 25 1. Are we on track to achieve the 2020 target? 26 27 1.a. Status and trends 28 29 1.a.i. Animal Genetic Resources (AnGR) 30 31 As of 1st June 2012, a total of 8 262 breeds (mammals and birds, extant and extinct 32 breeds) were recorded in the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System DAD-IS 33 (http://www.fao.org/dad-is), hosted by FAO (DAD-IS 2014). In June 2012, 1 881 (~ 23%) of 34 all breeds were classified as being at risk (critical or endangered), and 653 (~8%) were 35 classified as being extinct. For about a third of the breeds (2 777, 33%), the risk status was 36 unknown, a further 2 976 species (36%) were classified as being not at risk (Table 13.1). 37 38 Table 13.1: Risk status of Mammalian and Avian livestock breeds per region, based on data reported 39 by National Coordinators for the Management of Animal Genetic Resources to DAD-IS by June 2012. 40 Source: FAO 2012. critical / endangered / extinct not at risk Unknown Total critical- endangered- maintained maintained All breeds 693 1188 624 2976 2777 8262

Avian 261 466 64 580 930 2301 Africa 8 12 2 69 132 223 Asia 16 26 5 206 228 481 Europe & Caucusus 197 384 56 164 334 1135 Latin America & Carribean 3 8 0 14 126 151 Near & Middle East 33 6 0 15 33 54

1 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

North America 27 8 1 4 2 43 Southwest Pacific 0 4 0 7 42 53 International Transboundary breeds 10 18 0 101 32 161

Mammalian 432 722 564 2396 1847 5961 Africa 14 30 32 220 388 684 Asia 28 53 42 780 445 1348 Europe & Caucusus 349 535 446 861 383 2574 Latin America & Carribean 14 28 21 93 341 497 Near & Middle East 0 5 5 84 109 203 North America 9 35 11 13 52 120 Southwest Pacific 14 16 6 17 93 146 International Transboundary breeds 4 20 1 328 36 389 1 2 To avoid the potentially misleading consequences of including breeds for which no updates 3 of data have occurred for many years, a 10 year cut-off point, after which breeds 4 revert to the “unknown” risk-status category if population figures were not updated, was 5 introduced and applied on the data reported to FAO as of January 2014. This calculation 6 method leads to a more realistic picture: about 16% of the approximately 8,200 breeds that 7 have been reported to FAO as of January 2014 are classified as being at risk of 8 based on the most recently available population figures – 8% are already extinct. For 9 another 54%, no population data are available and therefore risk status is unknown (FAO, 10 2014, pers. comm.) 11 12 Assessing the geographical distribution of threat to breeds is complicated by uneven data 13 coverage, and differing recording histories. Although existing data show that breeds are 14 particularly threatened in North America, Europe and the Caucasus (FAO 2009, FAO 2012, 15 FAO 2013a), and these regions also have the highest number of extinct breeds (FAO 2012, 16 FAO 2013a), this is very likely a reflection of the long history of breed recording that has 17 taken place. These regions have by far the most number of breeds registered in the data 18 base. Latin America, the Pacific and Africa have the highest proportion of breeds with 19 unknown risk status (FAO 2012, FAO 2013a), making it difficult to assess the real risk and 20 conservation needs for species and breeds in these regions. This if further exacerbated by 21 the environmental changes these regions in particular are experiencing and will experience 22 in future (IPCC 2014). It is also likely that many of the animal breeds in use in these regions 23 are not yet captured in the data base. 24 25 The mammalian species having the highest proportions of breeds at risks are rabbits (114 26 breeds out of 285), followed by, horses (202 of 831) and pigs (164 of 723). Sheep have the 27 highest number of breeds at risk (242 of 1694), followed by cattle (257 of 1392), (FAO 2012). 28 Since documentation started in 1993, 184 cattle, 160 sheep, 111 pig and 89 horse breeds 29 have been reported as extinct (DAD-IS 2014). For many species and breeds, in particular 30 deer, asses and dromedaries, no information on the risk status is available, making it 31 difficult to put in place appropriate conservation measures (FAO 2013a). 32 33 For avian species, chickens have the highest number of breeds at risk (481 breeds out of 1 34 480, corresponding to 36%), while ostrich (7 breeds out of 16), geese (71 of 192), pigeons 35 (26 of 71) and turkeys (38 of 113) have the highest proportion of breeds at risk. For 924 36 avian breeds, the risk status is not known, in particular for partridge, pheasant and guinea 37 fowl. To date, 62 chicken breeds have been reported as being extinct, but only very few

2 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 cases for other species (ducks, geese, guinea fowl and turkey). About a quarter (659) of 2 avian breeds has been classified as being not at risk (DAD-IS 2014). 3 4 Indicator: Genetic diversity of terrestrial domesticated animals 5 Currently, only the proportion of breeds classified as at risk, not at risk and unknown are 6 included in the indicator (Figure 13.1). An increase in the percentage of breeds reported to 7 the FAO categorized as at risk or extinct and a decrease in the percentage categorized as not 8 at risk indicate a decline in livestock diversity. However, in interpreting this, it is important 9 to bear in mind that breed diversity does not fully reflect genetic diversity, because it does 10 not account for within-breed diversity or for how closely breeds are related to each other. 11 Furthermore, as breeds’ are cultural concepts rather than physical entities, and these 12 concepts differ from country to country, making characterization only at the genetic level 13 rather difficult (Boettcher et al., 2010). 14 15 Data updates are insufficiently regular at present to allow for an accurate assessment of 16 trends. However, many individual breeds continue to decline in numbers, and there has 17 been an increase in the percentage of species at risk. The percentage of livestock breeds 18 classified as being “at risk”, i.e. classified as critical or endangered, shows an increasing 19 trend (Fig. 13.2) 20 21 According to a survey conducted by FAO (2009), the three main threats to livestock breeds 22 and eroding AnGR are 1) economic and market drivers, 2) poor livestock sector policies and 23 3) poor conservation strategies for breeds at risk of extinction. Other factors include socio- 24 political instability, lack of functional institutions, disease and disease control and loss of 25 labour force. The importance of these threats, however, differs between regions and breeds 26 (FAO 2009), as well as production system and intensity, and market levels (Hoffmann, 2011). 27 Economic and market forces drivers have also been identified as main threat to breeds at 28 risk from extinction, while poor livestock sector policies and poor conservation strategies 29 were the most likely factors for breed (FAO 2009). Another factor impacting on 30 livestock production (and potentially the persistence of breeds) is the encroachment of 31 , be it (often noxious) weeds and grasses, as for example in the US 32 (DiTomaso, 2000, Duncan et al., 2004) or woody plants in African savannas (e.g. Dalle et al., 33 2006). 34 35 In the coming years, economic and market drivers, and drivers for increased resource 36 efficiency, will remain the main threats to livestock diversity (Hoffmann, 2011). Climate 37 change has little direct influence on animal genetic resources to date, but might become 38 more important in future (FAO 2009). Changes in local conditions, such as changes in 39 temperature and rainfall regime, and increasing frequency of extreme events like droughts 40 or floods, as well as disturbances (Hoffmann 2010) may have negative effects on the 41 animals directly, for example through increased heat stress (e.g. Sherwood and Huber, 42 2010, Hoffmann, 2010), or exposure to parasites (Mas-Coma et al., 2008 ) or diseases 43 (Hoffmann 2010, Thornton et al., 2009), or indirectly, through changes in availability of food 44 resources (Hoffmann 2010, Thornton et al., 2009), water (Thornton et al., 2009), or spread 45 of invasive species (see Chapter 9), which may negatively impact on pastures. These indirect 46 effects might be mitigated by food preservation or migration (FAO2009). 47

3 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 Furthermore, changes in livestock production systems towards intensification of production 2 systems (including the internationalisation of markets, and a shift from subsistence to 3 commercial farming), coupled with increased productivity, have resulted in the livestock 4 sector being dominated by a few high-producing breeds (FAO 2009). As a result, the gene- 5 pool of mammalian and avian species and breeds has narrowed, leading to so-called 6 “genetic erosion”. This trend is however, counteracted by various efforts to maintain rare 7 and usual breeds, be it through a focus on heritage breeds, to adapt breeds to changing 8 ecological or socio-political conditions (e.g. Boutrais, 2007) or through efforts to improve or 9 develop livestock breeds, e.g. cattle breeds that emit less methane (Shafer et al., 2011) 10 11 Findings on threat status of wild bird and mammal species utilised for food and medicine 12 are mixed (Chapter 14, this report). Some species are in decline, while of others 13 are increasing. Overall, however, wild bird and mammals species utilised for food or 14 medicine are, on average, more threatened than species that are not utilised (e.g. 23% vs 15 12% for birds, Fig 14.1). 16 17 1.a.ii Plant genetic resources 18 19 Many factors contribute to the loss of plant genetic diversity in agricultural landscapes, 20 affecting both crops and their wild relatives. One of the main threats to crop genetic 21 diversity is a change in agricultural practices, in particular a shift to commercial 22 (FAO 2010a). Other factors leading to a decrease in crop genetic diversity include the 23 replacement of local varieties, , inappropriate legislation and policy, as well 24 as pests, diseases and weeds (Akhalkatsi 2012, FAO 2010a). Crop wild relatives (CWR), are 25 mainly threatened by land clearing, , environmental degradation and changing 26 agricultural practices (Akhalkatsi 2012, FAO 2010b). 27 28 However, traditional and subsistence farming systems still rely on a variety of diverse foods 29 with a high level of , and this genetic variety is also an important buffer 30 against disease and environmental change (FAO 2010a). Maintaining genetic diversity of 31 crops also contributes to conserving traditional local knowledge, and vice versa, as a loss of 32 traditional knowledge (including language) has been linked to a loss in genetic diversity of 33 indigenous crops (Kai et al., 2014, FAO 2010a). 34 35 A number of studies have been carried out to determine large-scale genetic diversity for 36 important crops and their wild relatives (rice: McNally et al., 2009, Xu et al., 2011, soy bean: 37 Lam et al., 2010, sorghum: Morris et al., 2013, maize: Hufford et al., 2013), determining the 38 breeding history of the crops, as well as the genetic diversity and relationships between and 39 within crop varieties and their wild relatives. Mace et al. (2013) could demonstrate that, 40 compared to genetic diversity in wild lines, very little genetic diversity has been captured in 41 sorghum. 42 43 Reported genetic erosion in traditional crops and their wild relatives is greatest in cereals, 44 followed by vegetables, fruits and nut and food legumes (FAO 2010a). For example, many 45 (indigenous) rice varieties are no longer cultivated in India (Rana et al., 2009); a number of 46 coffee species as well as numerous coffee clones have gone extinct in the last decades 47 (Labouisse et al., 2008); and the genetic variation within and among European maize

4 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 varieties decreased significantly over the last fifty years (Reif et al., 2005). In Madagascar, a 2 number of varieties of traditional rice are disappearing, genetic erosion of coffee has been 3 observed, and a variety of manioc is extinct. In a period of 20 years, 100 out of 256 crop 4 varieties, and 5 crop species, have become extinct (Andriamahazo et al., 2009). 5 6 (Small-scale) farmer’s decisions on which crop varieties use are influenced by a multitude of 7 socio-economic factors, among them yield, pest resistance, market demand and nutritional 8 value (Balemie and Singh, 2012), but also socio-cultural preferences and suitability to local 9 climate (Rana et al., 2009). One of the main factors leading to genetic erosion of traditional 10 varieties and land races is the introduction of modern (often ) crop varieties (Balemie 11 and Singh, 2012), and a shift to commercial agriculture (Rana et al., 2009). Other factors 12 include the loss of knowledge of traditional farming methods (Velásquez-Milla et al., 2011), 13 or the loss of cultural identity (Perales et al., 2005). 14 15 Despite the reports of decreasing crop genetic diversity, other studies conclude that genetic 16 diversity of crops is maintained (e.g. for maize and in peas in France, le Clerc et al., 2006; 17 millet and sorghum in Niger, Bezançon et al., 2008). Two meta-analyses of 27 and 8 crop 18 species, respectively, found that, overall, was maintained, if not increasing 19 (Jarvis et al., 2008a, van de Wouw et al., 2010). There are also genetic shifts in the varieties 20 being used, and adoption of “modern” varieties does not mean that traditional varieties are 21 not maintained, rather, many small-scale farmers continue to plant traditional varieties 22 alongside the modern varieties, thus increasing in-field diversity (FAO 2010a). 23 24 Diversity trends in “commercial” (released) crops are also not consistent. Some studies 25 report increasing genetic diversity in crops, while others report an initial decrease, followed 26 by an increase. Overall, there seems to be no significant reduction in crop genetic diversity, 27 or narrowing of the genetic base of varieties used (FAO 2010a). Nevertheless, there is 28 consensus regarding the occurrence of genetic erosion as result from a shift from traditional 29 to modern production systems (FAO 2010a). No indicators tracking genetic erosion and 30 vulnerability exist yet. However, given the current state of technology, regular assessment 31 of between and within a varieties’ genetic diversity can give an indication how the genetic 32 diversity changes over time (see e.g. Chakanda et al., 2012, Gonzalez Castro et al., 2013 and 33 Hagenblad, 2013). 34 35 All crop species arose, through by humans, from wild species. Crops thus 36 still have many (closely) related species in the wild (Crop Wild Relatives, CWR). Maxsted et 37 al., (2006) propose the following definition for a CWR: “A is a wild plant 38 that has an indirect use derived from its relatively close genetic relationship to a crop; 39 this relationship is defined in terms of the CWR belonging to Gene Pools 1 or 2, or taxon 40 groups 1 to 4 of the crop”. In many cases, CWR have been (and are used) to improve the 41 resistance and resilience and yield of crops (Honnay et al., 2012, Maxsted et al., 2012). 42 Despite their value and importance as a “critical resource to sustain global food security” 43 (Maxsted et al., 2012), their conservation is not a priority, and very little information is 44 available on their conservation and population biology (Honnay et al., 20120). Maxted et al., 45 (2012) estimate that there are about approximately 50,000 CWR species worldwide, 800 of 46 which are of highest conservation concern. This high number of CWR species, coupled with 47 “the fact that the responsibility for their conservation often falls in a void between the food

5 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 and agriculture community (whose focus is primarily on crops and farming systems) and the 2 nature conservation community (whose focus is primarily on and rare species 3 conservation)” (Maxted et al., 2012), makes the conservation and management of the CWR 4 even more difficult. 5 6 CWR are increasingly under threat from and degradation, and 7 changing climatic and environmental conditions, and associated changes in disturbance 8 regimes (e.g. Maxted and Kell, 2009), and they also are subject to genetic erosion (Maxted 9 et al., 2012). Some progress has been made in the conservation of CWR in protected areas, 10 but only relatively few countries actively conserve these species (FAO 2010a), with recent 11 efforts being undertaken in Armenia, Bolivia, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan (Lane, 12 2005). A considerable number of CWR grow outside protected areas, and even as weeds in 13 agricultural areas. These crop relatives are threatened by widening of cropping rows, the 14 removal of hedgerows, overgrazing, and the use of herbicides or other weed control 15 regimes (FAO 2010a). 16 17 A further important threat to CWRs (and to land races) is the from domesticated 18 crops and the resulting of from related domesticated crops into the 19 CWR genepool. This introgression influences genetic diversity and evolutionary processes of 20 CWR species (Ellstrand 2003, Lu 2013). A considerable number of studies have provided 21 evidence of introgression from crops into their CWRs, for example, in Zea Mays (Bitocchi et 22 al., 2009), Sorghum bicolor (Morrell et al., 2005), Coffea arabica (Aerts et al., 2013) and Vitis 23 vinifera (De Andres et al., 2012). 24 25 In a recent assessment of 572 native European CWR of high priority human and animal food 26 crops, more than a quarter were classified as at risk, and nearly a third as data deficient. 27 Although more than half of the species were regarded as being of least concern on 28 European level, a third of those are threatened at national level (Hunter et al., 2012). In 29 Bolivia, the first country to publish red list dedicated to CWR, 45 out of 152 species were 30 classified as threatened (Hunter et al., 2012). 31 32 As the awareness about the risks faced by plant genetic resources has increased together 33 with a growing capacity derived from improved biotechnologies for using the existing 34 diversity, ex-situ conservation efforts have been boosted across the world. This is reflected 35 by the increase in the number of gene banks storing plant genetic samples (+33%), as well 36 as genera (+81%) and distinct/unique accessions (+27%) conserved in gene banks over the 37 period 1995-2009 (FAO 1998, FAO 2010a, FAO 2014). There are now more than 1, 750 38 individual genebanks worldwide, maintaining about 7.4 million accessions. The ex situ crop 39 collections enrichment index, measuring the bio- and geographical diversity contained 40 within ex-situ collections, has been steadily increasing over the last 60 years (Fig. 13.1). 41

6 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 2 Figure 13.2: Ex Situ Crop Collections Enrichment index, measuring the bio- and geographical diversity 3 contained within ex-situ collections. Source: Dataset pooled from EURISCO (European National 4 Inventories), USDA-GRIN, ICRISAT, CIAT and SINGER (excluding ICRISAT and CIAT) data 5 6 To safeguard the genetic diversity of crops for future generations, the Norvegian Ministry 7 for Agriculture and Food, in partnership with the Nordic Genetic Resource Center and the 8 Global Crop Diversity Trust, has established the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. To date, there 9 are 801 752 seeds of 4 583 species are stored in the vault (Nordigen 2014). The Millennium 10 Partnership currently stores nearly 2 billion seeds of 33 491 species, 12 of which 11 are globally extinct (Kew 2014). Other major seed bank initiatives include the seed bank of 12 the Vavilov Research institute, housing more than 60 000 seed varieties (Vavilov 2014), the 13 United States’ National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation, hosting about 8 000 14 varieties (USDA 2014), and Navdanya, the Indian network of seed keepers and producers 15 that connects 111 community seed banks (Navdanya, 2014). 16 17 While these efforts are noteworthy for conserving species of particular importance, be it 18 crops, or species of particular conservation concern, the ex-situ conservation of species has 19 nevertheless drawbacks (Schoen and Brown, 2001). In particular, species conserved in seed 20 banks are not exposed to genetic change, or experience any evolutionary pressures through 21 the environment or biotic interactions. As a result, species are maladapted to any 22 environmental shifts that might have occurred since seed storage should they be brought 23 back in the wild (Schoen and Brown, 2001). Also, seeds of large forest trees and fruit 24 species, especially those of the old world tropics, are recalcitrant, and cannot be conserved 25 in seed vaults. 26 27 For agricultural crop varieties (and their relatives), seed banks of agricultural crop varieties 28 (and their relatives) are a very useful tool, as the provide sources of genetic diversity for 29 crop improvement, and replacement of seeds for local varieties that were lost due to 30 catastrophes (Schoen and Brown, 2001). For wild plant species, however, ex-situ 31 conservation should only be the last resort for species at the brink of extinction. 32 Despite all collection efforts, the genebank CWR collections of the world's major crops are 33 considered incomplete (Crop Wild Relatives and , 2013). Of 1 089 CWR 34 species analysed, only 51 (5%) required no further collection, while 763 (70%) were 35 considered High Priority Species, i.e. should be the focus of collection and storage (Crop 36 Wild Relatives and Climate Change, 2013). Among these species are banana and plantain,

7 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 sorghum and cassava, all important food sources for developing countries, but also apple 2 and sunflower. Regions for priorities for collection include the BRIC countries, Austral-Asia 3 region, as well as part of the Mediterranean and North America (Crop Wild Relatives and 4 Climate Change, 2013). To aid in situ and planning of CWR at global, 5 regional and national level, the Harlan and de Wet CWR inventory 6 (http://www.cwrdiversity.org/checklist/) was established (Vincent et al., 2013). This 7 inventory contains 1 667 priority taxa in 173 crop complexes, covering all regions of the 8 world. 9 10 1.b.iii Forest genetic resources 11 12 Forest genetic resources include the variation within forest tree species, and woody 13 perennial shrubs. This genetic diversity underpins the vast majority of terrestrial 14 and is fundamental to ecosystem services and human livelihoods. The genetic diversity 15 within forest species is vulnerable to the same pressures as CWR’s. Yet the scales of 16 fragmentation and loss of forest habitat continue at alarming rates. Nearly 50% of 17 temperate broadleaf and mixed forest biomes and nearly 25% of tropical rainforest biomes 18 fragmented, degraded or converted (Wade et al 2003). Tropical and Boreal 19 continue at alarming rates (Hansen et al 2010). Reductions in the distribution and 20 abundance of tree species represent the most practical operational indicator of loss of 21 FGR’s. 22 23 The FAO have assumed the responsibility for development of indicators for FGR’s and this 24 recently lead to the publication of the State of the Worlds Forest Genetic Resources 25 (SoWFGR’s). At the Eurpoean Scale there is a considerable effort to both establish 26 operational indicators and detailed databases of FGR’s through networks such as the 27 EUFORGEN1 and EUFORGIS. The dynamic conservation of FGR’s currently includes some 86 28 species, and 1967 units over 33 European countries (Lefeure et al 2012). Over this range 29 Mediterranean and Boreal forest biomes are the least well represented, but only < 2% of 30 conserved population are considered at risk. At the Global scale our knowledge is much 31 poorer, not least due to the orders of magnitude larger numbers of forest tree species. The 32 MAPFORGEN2 network for Latin America currently includes a database of 100 tree species, 33 but lacks information on extent or vulnerability of genetic diversity in these species. Other 34 regional networks such as SAFORGEN for South Africa and APFORGEN3 for Asia Pacific have 35 been useful in generating regional action but have yet to establish clear mechanisms or 36 indicators for status of FGR’s. Monitoring of FGR’s lags significantly behind other groups. 37 38 1.b. Projecting forward to 2020 39 40 1.b.i Animal genetic resources 41 42 The projection for the proportion of livestock breeds classified as being “at risk”, i.e. 43 classified as critical or endangered shows an increase with a slowing rate. (Fig. 13.2) .

1 http://www.euforgen.org/ 2 http://www.mapforgen.org/ 3 http://www.apforgen.org/

8 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 This indicates that the threats identified in section 1.a.i continue to negatively impact on 2 breed persistence in the near future. A growing demand of products of animal origin further 3 shifts production systems toward intensification, using a limited number of (highly) 4 productive breeds. This shift displaces traditional and locally adapted animal breeds. 5 Whether this trend can be stopped or reversed depends on the efficiency and efficacy of 6 strategies put in place to combat threats, and measures promoting traditional livestock 7 breeds. 8 9 However, the slowing of the rate can be interpreted as positive impact of implementing the 10 Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources (FAO, 2007). A report on the status of 11 implementation of the Global Plan (FAO, 2012a) revealed gaps in policies, institutions and 12 capacity building related to genetic diversity of terrestrial domesticated animals and severe 13 problems in funding the implementation of relevant actions in most of the reporting 14 countries. Therefore lack of policies considering animal genetic diversity, lack of institutions, 15 capacity building and funding can be seen as the main hindering factors for achieving Aichi 16 Target 13. 17

18 19 Figure 13.2: Statistical extrapolation of percentage of terrestrial domesticated breeds classified as at 20 risk to 2020. Long dashes represent extrapolation period. Short dashes represent 95% confidence 21 bounds. Horizontal dashed grey line represents model-estimated 2010 value for indicator. 22 Extrapolation assumes underlying processes remain constant. 23 24 1.b.ii Plant genetic resources 25 26 As for animal genetic resources, based on growing demand for food, a continued shift to 27 intensification of agriculture will continue to negatively impact genetic diversity of 28 (traditional) crop species. The loss of knowledge of traditional farming systems further 29 exacerbates the impact.

9 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 2 Crop wild relatives continue to be threatened by habitat loss and degradation (Maxsted et 3 al., 2013, Hunter et al., 2012), agricultural intensification and invasive species, as well as 4 geneflow and intragression of alleles from crops. Climate change is likely to exacerbate the 5 vulnerability of the species to these factors (Crop Wild Relatives and Climate Change 2013). 6 Reduction or shifts in genetic diversity in CWR are the result of human-induced 7 environmental changes (Maxsted et al., 2013, Vincent et al., 2013). Another important 8 threat to plant genetic resources is the lack of awareness of the importance of these CWR 9 species, as well as local (traditional) varieties and of crops (Akhalkatsi et al., 2012). 10 11 1.b.iii Forest genetic resources 12 13 Fragmentation, loss of seed dispersal agents and disruption of plant pollinator interactions, 14 can all compromise FGR’s (Kettle 2012; McConkey et al. 2012). These factors coupled with 15 climate change and reduced species distribution, unsustainable logging, increase in the 16 threat status of some 8000 tree species (Oldfield S et al. 1998) and increasing invasion of 17 alien plant species, all lead to increasing threats to FGR’s. Despite the inclusion of FGR’s in 18 many sustainable forest management plans for example through the ITTO and the Montreal 19 Process (ref), consideration genetic factors or conservation of FGR’s remain poorly 20 implemented or lack clear operational guidelines in forest management (Janolene et al 21 2014). 22 23 1.c. Country Actions and Commitments4 24 25 Slightly more than half of the NBSAPS examined contained targets or similar commitments 26 related to genetic diversity (high). For the most part these targets generally relate to the 27 protection or sustainable use of genetic diversity (medium). A number of countries have set 28 targets which address both extinction risk and genetic diversity. Further a number of 29 countries, such as Belarus and Suriname, have established targets or similar mechanisms 30 which are related to preventing biotechnology or genetically modified organisms from 31 negatively affecting genetic diversity. 32 33 Overall the targets that have been established focus on cultivated plants and on 34 domesticated or farmed animals (low). There is comparatively less emphasis on conserving 35 the genetic diversity of wild relatives and socio-economically or culturally valuable species 36 (medium). Further few countries have set targets related to the development or 37 implementation of strategies to minimize genetic erosion or to safeguard genetic diversity 38 (medium). 39 40

4 This assessment is based on an examination of the national biodiversity strategies and action plans from the following countries: Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, England, The European Union, Finland, France, Ireland, Japan, Malta, Myanmar, Serbia, Suriname, Switzerland, Timor Leste, and Tuvalu. In addition it considers the set of national targets developed by Brazil. This assessment will be further updated and refined to account for additional NBSAPS and as such these initial findings should be considered as preliminary and were relevant a level of confidence has been associated with the main statements. This assessment focuses on the national targets, objectives, priority actions and similar elements included in the NBSAPs in relation to the international commitments made through the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

10 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 2. What needs to be done to reach the Aichi Target? 2 3 2.a. Actions 4 5 Genetic diversity offers options for increasing the resilience of agricultural systems and for 6 adapting to changing conditions (including the escalating impacts of climate change). Ex situ 7 collections of genetic resources continue to improve, particularly for plants, and there are 8 increasing activities to conserve genetic resources in their production environment. The FAO 9 Global Plans of Action for plant and animal genetic resources provide frameworks for the 10 development of national and international strategies and action plans. However existing 11 conservation efforts have important gaps. There is currently limited support to ensure long 12 term conservation of local varieties of crops in the face of changes in agricultural practices 13 and market preferences that are tending, in general, to promote a narrowing genetic pool. 14 The conservation of wild relatives remains largely insecure, with few protected areas or 15 management plans addressing wild relatives. There is limited information on the 16 maintenance of the genetic diversity of socio-economically as well as culturally valuable 17 species. Against this background, possible key actions to accelerate progress towards this 18 target include: 19 20 (a) Promoting public policies and incentives to maintain local varieties of crops and 21 indigenous breeds in production systems (Targets 2, 3, 7), including through 22 increased cooperation with, and recognition of, the role of indigenous and local 23 communities and farmers in maintaining genetic diversity in situ; 24 25 (b) Enhancing the use and maintenance of genetic diversity in plant and animal breeding 26 programmes, and raising awareness of the importance of genetic diversity and its 27 contribution to food security (Targets 1 and 7) 28 29 (c) Integrating the conservation of the wild relatives of domesticated crops and livestock 30 in management plans for protected areas. Conduct surveys of the location of wild 31 relatives, and include this information in plans for the expansion or development of 32 protected area networks (Target 11); and 33 34 (d) Maintaining support for national and international ex situ genebanks of plant and 35 animal genetic resources including in vitro conservation. 36 37 The programme of work on agricultural biodiversity, the Global Strategy for Plan 38 Conservation as well as the International Treaty on Plan Genetic Resources for Food and 39 Agriculture, the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Global Plans of Action for plant 40 genetic resources, animal genetic resources and forest genetic resources and the 41 International Initiative on Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition provide guidance on the types 42 of actions which can be taken to reach this target. 43 44 2.a.i. Animal genetic resources 45 46 To reach the Aichi target, it is necessary to develop appropriate conservation strategies for 47 breeds that are at risk. Options include in-situ and ex-situ in vitro conservation, i.e. the

11 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 conservation of breeds in their production environment (where they can adapt to changing 2 climatic conditions) and in gene banks, where they can be accessed to reconstitute a breed 3 (FAO2009). In-vitro conservation measures are most appropriate to maintain breeds that 4 occur at low population sizes (small number of individuals) (FAO 2009). 5 6 Measures to maintain indigenous breeds, or improve the conservation status of breeds also 7 need to be implemented at governmental level. There is currently a lack of incentives and 8 public policy to maintain indigenous breeds, and appropriate policy tools will need to be 9 developed on national and international levels. Ideally, these conservation policies should 10 be cost-effective to ensure broad implementation (FAO 2009). Furthermore, there is also 11 need for market-based or regulatory tools to protect indigenous breeds (FAO 2009). 12 Providing support and incentives to local communities to maintain traditional farming 13 systems will ensure the persistence of traditional breeds and landraces. 14 15 To combat the erosion of animal genetic diversity, and to promote the sustainable use of 16 animal genetic resources (AnGR), the FAO developed a Global Plan of Action for Animal 17 Genetic Resources (FAO 2007a), which was adopted by the international community in 18 2007. Intended to contribute significantly to achieving Millennium Development Goals 1 and 19 7, the indicators and targets for animal genetic resources developed also support achieving 20 Aichi Targets 4 and 13 (FAO 2013a). The plan includes 23 strategic priorities for action that 21 are grouped in four areas: 1) characterization and monitoring; 2) sustainable use and 22 development; 3) conservation; and 4) policies, institutions and capacity-building (FAO 23 2007a). 24 25 Based on this strategic plan, many countries are either preparing National Action Plans (FAO 26 2013c), or are taking steps to improve the management of AnGR (FAO 2013c). Nevertheless, 27 despite the significant impact of the Global Plan of Action, the task of improving the 28 management of the world’s AnGR remains far from complete. The reason for this lies mainly 29 in a lack of sufficient financial resources (especially in developing countries, FAO 2013a), but 30 also in low levels of collaboration between countries, a lack of established policies and legal 31 frameworks, and a lack of strong institutional and human capacity for planning in the 32 livestock sector (FAO 2013c). 33 34 2.a.ii Plant genetic resources 35 36 The Second Global Plan of Action (GPA) for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and 37 Agriculture (PGRFA) was adopted by FAO council in November 2011 (FAO 2011a). Updating 38 the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic 39 Resources for Food and Agriculture from 1996, it reaffirms the commitment of governments 40 to the promotion of plant genetic resources as an essential component for food security 41 through sustainable agriculture in the context of climate change. It includes 18 priority 42 activities, grouped under four areas: 1) In situ conservation and management; 2) ex situ 43 conservation; 3) sustainable use; and 4) building sustainable institutional and human 44 capacities. Following the adoption of the Second GPA, the Commission adopted three 45 targets for PGRFA (conservation, sustainable use and capacity), which contribute to Aichi 46 Target 13, and a set of indicators for monitoring the implementation of the 18 priorities of 47 the Second GPA (FAO 2013d).

12 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 A number of actions to safeguard PGRFA have been proposed by the Commission on 2 Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. These include (FAO 2010b): 1) the 3 strengthening of plant breeding capacity and expansion of plant breeding programmes to 4 develop varieties with traits that can cope with climate change; 2) raising awareness of 5 importance of PGRFA diversity (plant genetic resources for food and agriculture) and their 6 contribution to local food security (this links also to Target 1); 3) securing the diversity of 7 crop wild relatives and underused species relevant for food and agriculture; and 4) the 8 development and adoption of national programmes, laws and regulations governing PGRFA 9 management (this action also contributes to achieving Target 3). 10 11 On farm level, genetic resources will need to be managed accordingly, e.g. through 12 participatory plant breeding programmes, or “informal” exchanges of seeds (FAO 2010a). In 13 Bangladesh, Ecuador, Morocco, Nepal and Tunisia, for example, national legislation supports 14 the conservation and use of traditional crop varieties (FAO 2010a). Participatory breeding 15 programmes are particularly prevalent in Africa and Latin America and growing in developed 16 countries (e.g. Pautasso et al. 2013). Examples from India (Witcombe et al., 2003, Virk et al., 17 2003), North Africa and the Middle East (Ceccarelli et al., 2001) and Mexico and Honduras 18 (Smith et al., 2001) show that participatory breed programmes contribute to the 19 development of varieties that not only are adapted to local conditions, but also have yields 20 that are higher than those of traditional land races. Farmers also benefited more and earlier 21 from the crop improvement. Empowerment of local communities and farmers to 22 sustainably manage agricultural diversity, as well as using traditional knowledge systems can 23 make a substantial contribution to maintaining crop diversity (FAO 2010a). 24 25 In Sri Lanka, efforts for in-situ conservation of plant genetic resources include the 26 establishment of an atlas of 46 crop species (Muthukuda and Wijerathana, 2007), supported 27 by on-farm conservation programmes and 1.3 million home gardens in different agri- 28 ecological zones. Furthermore, seeds of rice, grain legume, vegetable and oil crop varieties 29 are stored in a number of gene banks. Uzbekistan has established a national ex-situ and in- 30 situ conservation and management programme for crops and CWR (Abdukarimov et al., 31 2004), and is supporting farmers in maintaining traditional crop varieties. 32 33 To safeguard genetic diversity of CWR, the establishment of global network for the 34 conservation of crop wild relatives (CWR) has been recommended (Maxted and Kell, 2009, 35 FAO2010a), that covers both in-situ and ex-situ conservation. In addition, systematic CWR 36 conservation at international, national and local protected level needs to be implemented 37 (Heywood et al., 2007, Maxted et al., 2009, FAO 2010a), and integrated with existing plant 38 genetic resource programmes (Heywood 2007). Prerequisite for this is a consensus on what 39 constitutes a CWR, the development of an inventory of candidate species, as well as a 40 prioritisation of species identified (Heywood et al., 2007). Maxted and Kell (2009) provide 41 such a list of priority CWR for 14 crop species across the globe. The implementation of CWR 42 protection requires collaboration between countries, as well as the agriculture and 43 environment sector across all levels of governance. Some countries, like Australia and South 44 Africa, require permits and licenses to collect plants, and plant genetic resources can only 45 be accessed under agreements. Successful conservation of CWR also requires raising 46 awareness of the importance of CWR and their conservation for agriculture and future food 47 security across sectors (Heywood et al., 2007). It has further been suggested to devise and

13 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 implement an early warning system for genetic erosion for all plant genetic resources (FAO 2 2010a). 3 4 Nevertheless, CWR are not adequately protected in conservation areas (Hunter et al., 2012), 5 as monitoring of and appropriate management practices for CWR are not considered in 6 protected area management plans (Phillips et al., 2014). Very few examples exist of in situ 7 conservation of CWR in the tropics (Hunter et al., 2012) or in non-tropical areas. For 8 example, India established a gene sanctuary for citrus species; in Vietnam, a reserve for the 9 conservation of wild relatives and landraces of rice, litchi, citrus and tea was created; and in 10 Mexico, a Biosphere Reserve for a wild relative of maize was established 11 (http://manantlan.conanp.gob.mx/). More recently, CWR management plants were 12 developed and implemented in Armenia, Bolivia, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan 13 (Hunter et al., 2012), or Cyprus (Phillips et al., 2014). On pan-European level, following on 14 the CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, CWR related targets were included in the 15 European Strategy for Plant Conservation 2008 – 2014 (Maxsted et al., 2013). Despite these 16 national and regional efforts, there is still a need for a global approach to conservation 17 priority and threatened species of CWR (Hunter et al, 2012). 18 19 2.a.iii Forest genetic resources 20 21 Better protection of forest reserves, better intergration of genetic knowledge in to forest 22 management, collection of material for in-situ and ex-situ conservation. Focus on highly 23 vulnerable forest species. 24 25 A lack of understanding within the forest sector of the importance of genetic diversity for 26 natural forest regeneration and seed production, as well as adaptive potential for 27 environmental change is a major barrier in some regions. Especially in many tropical regions 28 there is an urgent need for transfer of scientific understanding about genetic erosion in 29 forest trees. This needs to be converted into relevant and operational guidelines for forest 30 managers to ensure sustainable forest management. Current efforts for conservation of 31 European FGR’s are likely to be powerful and effective. However at the global scale trends 32 look much bleak. One major constraint it that ex-situ conservation in seed banks and are on 33 the whole impractical for large and recalcitrant tropical tree species (Kettle et al. 2011). 34 General flowering and mast fruiting also place limitation of the ability to conserve FGR’s 35 (Kettle et al. 2010) with a need to improve infrastructure to effectively respond when such 36 reproductive event occur. Clear guidelines on the management of FGR’s for restoration and 37 conservation of threatened tree species are needed. This includes ensureing that forest 38 reserves conserve large enough populations of rare species to conserve genetic diversity, or 39 maintain these in agroforestry landscapes. 40 41 2.b. Costs and Cost-benefit analysis 42 43 The decreasing number of crops, as well as the increasing homogenisation crop varieties 44 around the globe is considered as a threat to global food security (Khoury et al., 2014). 45 Maintaining genetic diversity of plant and animal genetic resources in agriculture is thus 46 crucial to maintain food security for coming generations. Traditional and locally adapted 47 breeds and crop varieties contain the genetic material to adapt to changing environmental

14 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 conditions, and to improve existing commercial breeds and crops. Traditional crops also act 2 as a buffer and provide food security when modern crops are failing due to environmental 3 changes (Shava et al., 2009). Bushmeat plays a similar role (Schulte-Herbrüggen et al., 4 2013). In addition, a diversity of foods, including traditional varieties and wild species, 5 provide important nutrients (Grivetti and Ogle, 2000, Ebert 2014, Khoury et al., 2014). 6 7 Traditional crops also provide a significant source of income to rural communities, 8 contributes to their sustainability (Dan-Azumi, 2010), and even pave the access to 9 international markets (Victor, 2007, Johns et al., 2013). 10 11 Local livestock breeds provide various ecosystem services, mostly provisioning services 12 (typical, quality products), supporting/regulating services (habitat) and cultural services. This 13 can be regarded an opportunity to support the conservation and sustainable use of local 14 livestock breeds and associated agro-, through adding value. Products of local 15 breeds can be valorised in food value chains putting emphasis on traditional know-how, 16 specific tastes, or the image and cultural identity of local communities and associated agro- 17 ecosystems. Local breeds can also be the basis for products with a regional identity for 18 which there is increased consumer interest. 19 Other incentives to maintain livestock and crop diversity may include payment of ecosystem 20 services schemes for carbon sequestration, rangeland rehabilitation, or breed conservation. 21 While some incentives may address the public good nature of the ecosystem service in 22 question and will require public funds, there are also opportunities for market driven 23 incentives, for example through ecotourism. 24 25 CWR are important to maintain food security under changing climatic and environmental 26 conditions. They contain the genetic material improve the of crops to new 27 environmental conditions, or to develop new crop varieties. In Nepal, individual farmers 28 were willing to pay US$ 4.18 for in-situ, and US$ 2.20 for ex-situ conservation per year for 29 rice landraces (Poudel and Johnsen 2009). CWR have an estimated economic value of $115 30 billion per year worldwide to improving food production (Pimentel et al. 1997), underlining 31 their importance to the global economy and the need for their effective conservation 32 (Phillips et al., 2005). 33 34 The HLP estimated that US$ 550 – 1 400 million in investments, US$ 15 – 17 million in 35 annual recurrent costs, and between US$ 80 – 190 in annual expenditure are required to 36 achieve the target. Achieving the target will also impact on Aichi Targets 2, 7, and 12. 37 38 39 3. What are the implications for biodiversity in 2020? 40 41 3.i Animal genetic resources 42 43 If economic and market drivers and poor livestock sector policies are not counteracted by 44 appropriate incentives and regulations at national and international levels, the number of 45 breeds at risk will continue to rise, and, more breeds might become extinct. 46

15 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 Hoffmann (2013) found a spatial overlap between breeds locally adapted to extreme 2 climates and scarce and coarse feed resources, and rangeland and mountain ecosystems, 3 most of which are ecologically vulnerable and inhabited by poor, marginalized peoples. 4 Targeting such areas in particular, would address poverty reduction, and at the same time, 5 conserve wild biodiversity and contribute to sustainable use of locally adapted breeds. Local 6 breeds can be an important tool in managing landscapes and (e.g. Fraser et al., 7 2014, Auffret et al., 2012), and, at appropriate grazing levels, they can maintain or even 8 enhance vegetation diversity (e.g. Petersen et al., 2014, Garcia et al., 2013). 9 10 3.ii Plant genetic resources 11 12 Despite the efforts to maintain the genetic diversity of crops, and the importance of 13 traditional crops and their wild relatives for food security, plant genetic diversity is likely to 14 decline, as many efforts to conserve this diversity are insufficient, be it a lack of financial 15 resources, or economic, social and political constraints. 16 17 Maintaining genetic diversity of crops also helps conserve traditional local knowledge (FAO 18 2010a), while maintaining traditional knowledge and indigenous languages will contribute 19 to halting the loss in genetic diversity of indigenous crops (Perales et al., 2005, FAO 20120a). 20 Here, a clear link with Target 18 exists. Appropriate on-farm management of indigenous 21 crops, e.g. through agro-biodiversity reserves, can contribute to the conservation of 22 cultivated diversity and associated agricultural practices and knowledge systems. 23 24 A number of options have been suggested for the conservation of diversity in agricultural 25 systems (FAO 2010a), including adding value to crops by characterising local genetic 26 material (e.g. in the Czech Republic, through financial support to farmers), improving local 27 genetic material through breeding (e.g. in a number of European countries, among them 28 Spain, Italy, Germany and the UK), increasing consumer demand for local varieties through 29 market incentives and public awareness (in a number of developing countries in Africa, Asia 30 and Latin America), and providing improved access to information and materials (through 31 pilot project in a number of countries across the globe). 32 33 In Armenia, as part of the countries network of protected areas, some protected areas were 34 established with the particular aim of protecting CWR (Akhalkatsi et al., 2012). Erebuni State 35 Reserve, for example, was established to protect more than 100 varieties of wild rice, and 36 their habitats. The establishment of protected areas is coupled with specific conservation, 37 management and monitoring measures for these species. In addition, efforts are underway 38 for the in-situ management of CWR outside protected areas in forests, pastures and 39 grasslands (Akhalkatsi et al., 2012). Unfortunately, inventorying and monitoring efforts 40 often fail due to a shortage of resources, absence of proper coordination, non-application of 41 monitoring standards and failure to use proper methodology (Akhalkatsi et al., 2012). 42 Although many of the reserves are managed with local communities, on-farm management 43 activities are limited due to a lack of awareness (Akhalkatsi et al., 2012). 44 45 Ex-situ efforts in Armenia include accessions collections and other initiatives in collaboration 46 with Bioversity International (Akhalkatsi et al., 2012), among the establishment of a national 47 monitoring and information system. Madagascar has equally established programmes for

16 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 the ex-situ conservation of crop varieties, mainly through gene banks (Andriamahazo et al., 2 2009). 3 4 3.iii Forest genetic resources 5 6 Much of the efforts mentioned in 3.ii are applicable to FGR’s. Aichi Target 15 offers huge 7 potential for contributing to the conservation of FGR’s through well planned and 8 coordinated restoration, for example, for tropical forest biomes. FGR’s have important 9 implications for ecosystem function, numerous ecosystem services and directly impact on 10 higher level biodiversity (Davies et al 2014). The erosion of FGR’s is thus expected to have 11 far reaching consequences. Forest degradation and conversion of forest to alternativel land 12 use are expected to continue to over the come decades thus futher threatening FGR’s. 13 14 15 4. What do scenarios suggest for 2050 and what are the implications for biodiversity? 16 17 The main drivers impacting biodiversity in the second half of the century include climate 18 change, human population growth (coupled with increasing food demand), and water 19 scarcity (see chapter 22). Responses to the needs of a growing human population, the 20 increasing food demand, and potential shifts towards a more Western-style diet includes 21 increases in agricultural areas, as well as further industrialisation of agriculture employing 22 high-performing livestock breeds, and highly productive crop varieties. 23 24 A changing climate brings with it changes in species distributions, population changes and 25 selection pressures that have further impacts on genetic diversity and gene flow. Changes in 26 genetic diversity, in turn, may impact on populations, species and communities through, for 27 example, increased inbreeding depression and constrained evolvability (Neaves et al., 28 2013). 29 30 4.i. Animal genetic resources 31 32 According to Hoffmann et al., (2013), a high genetic diversity in livestock populations 33 provides society with the opportunities to meet the challenges set out above. Genetically 34 diverse (livestock) populations allow farmers to select breeds with specific traits or to breed 35 new varieties that are better adapted to a changing environment, like different climatic 36 conditions, emerging or recurrent diseases, changing human dietary requirements, as well 37 as novel socio-economic conditions. 38 39 In the longer-term future, climate change will pose considerable threats to animal 40 husbandry, through direct and indirect effects (Pilling and Hoffmann 2011). Depending on 41 the regions, breeds will have to cope with heat stress, increased disease prevalence and 42 parasite load, as well as changed access to water and food resources. Suitable climatic and 43 environmental conditions for breeds and species are likely to shift, and breeds vary in 44 adaptability to climate change. This leads to mismatches of livestock genetic diversity and 45 the production environment, and the need for breed and species substitution that can cope 46 with the new environmental conditions. However, locally adapted breeds can provide the

17 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 potential traits to selectively breed new varieties that are able to cope with new conditions 2 (Hoffmann et al., 2013). 3 4 4.ii. Plant genetic resources 5 6 Climate change will have major consequences for the geographical distribution of crops, 7 individual varieties, and CWR (FAO 2010a). For example, Jarvis et al., (2008b) estimate that 8 about 16 – 22% of CWR relatives of three important crop genera (Arachis (peanuts), 9 Solanum (potato, tomato, eggplant) and Vigna (beans)) will become extinct (Figure 13.3) by 10 2055. Most of the species considered are predicted to lose over 50% (some even nearly all) 11 of their climatic range. In addition, for many species, suitable areas are predicted to become 12 highly fragmented (Jarvis et al, 2008b). 13

14 15 Figure 13.3. Modelled changes in species richness for peanut (Arachis), bean (Vigna) and potato 16 (solanum) wild relative species under two different migration scenarios. Source: Jarvis et al., 2008b.

18 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 2 Climate change will likely not only have an impact on the ranges of CWR, but will also lead 3 to local extinctions and reduction in genetic variation (Jarvis et al, 2008b, Maxted and Kell, 4 2009). Changes in local and regional climate regimes will also alter environmental conditions 5 under which crops grow (Maxted and Kell, 2009), making it necessary to develop new crop 6 varieties that can are better suited to these changed conditions. The ability to develop these 7 new varieties, however, depends on the breadth of genetic variability available in both CWR 8 and currently used (traditional) crop varieties. 9 10 Climate change will also likely affect the distribution of crops, such as maize and its relatives 11 in Mexico (Ureta et al., 2012), or various cereal crops in Ethiopia (Evangelista et al., 2013). 12 Most species will have considerably reduced ranges; however, there are few species or 13 races that might be able to extend their range (Ureta et al., 2012, Figure 13.4).

14 15 Figure 13.4. Potential distribution of maize and related species in Mexico in 2030 and 2050 under 16 two emission scenarios. A2 and B1 refer to different IPCC SRES greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. 17 A2 is a high emissions scenario and B1 is a low emissions scenario. Teocinte is considered to be the 18 ancestor of modern maize (corn) varieties and Tripsacum is a close wild relative of maize. Source: 19 Ureta et al., 2012. 20 21 Indigenous Arabica Coffee (Coffea arabica) has also been identified as being sensitive to 22 climate change (Davis et al., 2012), and the productivity of the species is closely linked to 23 climate variability, particular temperature. It was predicted that the suitable climate range 24 will considerably retract by 2050 (even more by 2080), and many existing plantations will be 25 negatively impacted (Fig 13.5). 26

19 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 2 Figure 13.5: Areas predicted to have suitable bioclimate for Coffee arabica in 2020, 2050 and 2080. 3 Thresholds (of bioclimatic suitability) applied at 68% (optimal), 95% (intermediate) and 100% 4 (marginal). Black dots show historical and present day localities. Source: Davis et al., 2012. 5 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047981.g005 6 7 Ex-situ conservation of varieties may assist in buffering the effects of changing climate and 8 environmental conditions, but the existing in-situ genetic variation is maybe even more 9 important for plant breeders to adapt to climate change, as new traits / new species may 10 emerge / be selected for from this genetic variation that can cope with the new 11 environment (FAO 2010a). 12 13 Habitat change, mostly the expansion of agriculture and deforestation will remain a threat, 14 in particular for CWR (FAO 2010a), leading to a further decrease in species and genetic 15 variation. Invasive alien species are becoming are more and more important as a threat for 16 CWR, and the replacement of traditional with modern varieties (FAO 2010a) will further 17 reduce diversity of local crops. Conservation strategies for both local crop species, as well as 18 CWR will need to be rethought to counteract these increasing threats. 19 20 4.iii Forest genetic resources 21 22 8000 tree species are already under threat of extinction globally. Multiple factors are likely 23 to contrinue to threatened trees and their genetic diversity over the come 35 years. Climate 24 change offers significant challenges as drought, fire and extreme weather events are 25 predicted to become more frequent (Corlett& Westcott 2013). Climate change is likely to 26 influence plant species phenology and together with forest fragmentation present 27 additional pressure on FGR’s. In summary these factors suggest that increased rates of

20 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 extinction in forest tree species, unless national stratergies to enhance the resilience of 2 Forest landscapes are strengthened considerably. 3 4 5 5. Uncertainties 6 7 Numbers (and percentages) of breeds in a certain risk status are a snapshot in time only. For 8 this report, we used the figures from the latest data base update, dated 1.June 2012. This 9 does not necessarily reflect the actual number, and discrepancies may arise from a number 10 of sources. Data managers may add or adjust data retro-actively, or re-allocate entries to 11 other breeds. The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture requested 12 FAO in its 14th regular Session held in April 2013 to introduce, for the purpose of calculating 13 breed risk status, a cut-off point of ten years, beyond which the risk status of a breed will be 14 considered to be unknown if no updated population data are reported (FAO 2013d). If 15 population data have not been updated in a certain time period, the size of the actual 16 population is unknown. Using this data to calculate risk status will not provide an accurate 17 assessment, and thus the risk status of these populations is recorded as “unknown”. The 18 introduction of this cut-off point increases percentages of the risk classification “unknown”, 19 and reduces the percentages of the other categories accordingly. 20 21 Although there is general agreement that land use and land cover changes and climate 22 change will have implications for genetic diversity, there is, to date, only limited evidence 23 for the mechanisms how the environmental changes affect genetic diversity (Neaves et al., 24 2013). In particular, evidence is lacking on how climate change, via changes in species 25 distribution and population size, influences genetic diversity, and on how evolutionary 26 adaptation might ameliorate climate (and other environmental) change impacts on 27 biodiversity. Climate change is equally a major threat to species that are conserved ex-situ, 28 as these species do not experience any selection pressures, and will thus be maladapted to 29 the “novel” environment when exposed to this. 30 31 The number/proportion of breeds at risk provides a simple effective indicator, although the 32 term ‘breed’ usually refers to a socio-cultural concept, and not a distinct physical or genetic 33 entity (Hoffmann et al., 2013). Despite this, the variation among breeds may be 34 summarized as a (e.g. Rowshan et al., 2011, Pertoldi et al., 2010, Martin- 35 Burriel et al., 2007). The phylogenetic diversity (Faith 1992; see also Weitzman 1992) 36 represented by the subset is then an indicator of the the amount of genetic diversity*5 37 represented by a given subset of breeds. Depending on the degree of similarity of lost 38 breeds, the loss of number of breeds can imply a larger or smaller genetic diversity loss, 39 depending on the degree of similarity of the lost breeds. One implication of phylogeny 40 among breeds is that the rate of loss of genetic diversity (with each loss of an additional 41 breed) is much greater if the number of breeds already lost is large. 42 43 Phylogenetic relationships among breeds also suggests that strategies to address Target 13 44 could prioritise conservation actions based on best-possible gains in conserved phylogenetic

5 It is, however, necessary to understand that there are different levels of genetic diversity, between and within species, between and within races/breeds and between and within populations of a breed or species. Knowledge of each of these can be indicators to determine the best strategy to maintain genetic diversity, and can guide actions taken.

21 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 diversity among breeds (e.g. Simianer 2003). These strategies can also integrate important 2 information about within-breed diversity (Ginja et al 2013; Boettcher et al 2010). 3 4 5 6. Dashboard – Progress towards the target 6 7 The table below provides an assessment of progress made towards each of the Aichi 8 Biodiversity Targets as well as the level of confidence, based on the available evidence, 9 associated with the assessment. It aims to provide summary information on whether or not 10 we are on track to achieve the targets. The assessment uses a five-point scale: 11 12 5 - On track to exceed target, i.e., we are doing even better and expect to achieve the target 13 before 2020; 14 4 – On track to achieve target, i.e., if we continue our efforts we expect to achieve the target 15 by 2020; 16 3 - Progress towards target but at an insufficient rate, i.e., unless we step up our efforts, we 17 will have missed the target in 2020; 18 2 - No significant change, i.e., we are neither moving towards the target nor away from it; 19 1 - Moving away from target, i.e., things are getting worse rather than better. 20 21 The assessment is subject to change as additional information becomes available, including 22 from national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity and additional updated 23 NBSAPs. Aichi Biodiversity Targets 10, 16 and 17 have end dates of 2015. 24 Element Current Status Comments Confidence

The genetic diversity of Ex situ collections of plant genetic high cultivated plants is resources continue to improve, albeit maintained with some gaps. There is limited support to ensure long term conservation of local varieties of crops in the face of changes in agricultural practices and market preferences The genetic diversity of There are increasing activities to (high) farmed and domesticated conserve breeds in their production Depends on animals is maintained environment and in gene banks, quality of data including through in-vitro provided by conservation, but to date, these are countries insufficient The genetic diversity of wild Gradual increase in the conservation medium relatives is maintained of wild relatives of crop plants in ex situ facilities but their conservation in the wild remains largely insecure, with few protected area management plans addressing wild relatives The genetic diversity of Not evaluated Insufficient data to evaluate this socio-economically as well element of the target as culturally valuable species is maintained

22 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

Strategies have been The FAO Global Plans of Action for High developed and plant and animal genetic resources implemented for provide frameworks for the minimizing genetic erosion development of national and and safeguarding genetic international strategies and action diversity plans 1 2 Compiled by Cornelia Krug, with contributions from Chris Kettle, Irene Hoffmann and Daniel 3 Faith 4 Extrapolations: Derek Tittensoor 5 NBSAPs and National Reports: Robert Höft and Kieran Mooney 6 Dashboard: Tim Hirsch 7 8 Version history: 5 January 2014 CBK, 5 February CBK, 21 Feb CBK, 17 May CBK 9 10 11 7. References 12 13 Abdukarimov, A. A., Djataev, S. A., Turdieva, M. ., Mavlyanova, R. F., Abdullaev, F. K., Karpenko, Y. A., & 14 Yakubov, M. D. (2004). Pilot Testing of the National Information Sharing Mechanism on the Global Plan 15 Action Implementation in Uzbekistan: Final Country Report. 16 Aerts, R., Berecha, G., Gijbels, P., Hundera, K., Glabeke, S., Vandepitte, K., … Honnay, O. (2013). Genetic 17 variation and risks of introgression in the wild Coffea arabica in south-western Ethiopian 18 montane rainforests. Evolutionary Applications, 6(2), 243–52. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2012.00285.x 19 Akhalkatsi, M., Ekhvaia, J., and Asanidze, Z. (2012). Diversity and Genetic Erosion of Ancient Crops and Wild 20 Relatives of Agricultural Cultivars for Food: Implications for Nature Conservation in Georgia (Caucasus), 21 Perspectives on Nature Conservation - Patterns, Pressures and Prospects, Prof. John Tiefenbacher (Ed.), 22 ISBN: 978-953-51-0033-1, InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/perspectives-on- 23 nature-conservation-patterns-pressures-and-prospects/diversity-and-genetic-erosion-of-ancient-crops- 24 and-wild-relatives-of-agricultural-cultivars-for-food 25 Andriamahazo, M., Ramamonjisoa, L., Raozivelomanana, Veromanitra Randriamilandy, K., Raobelina 26 Rakotoanosy, V., Ramelison, J., Ravaonoro, S., … Rajaonah, N. (2009). Madagascar: Deuxieme Rapport 27 National sur l’etat des ressources phytogenetiques pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture. Antanarivo, 28 Madagascar. 29 Bezançon, G., Pham, J.-L., Deu, M., Vigouroux, Y., Sagnard, F., Mariac, C., … Chantereau, J. (2008). Changes in 30 the diversity and geographic distribution of cultivated millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) and 31 sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) varieties in Niger between 1976 and 2003. Genetic Resources 32 and Crop , 56(2), 223–236. doi:10.1007/s10722-008-9357-3 33 Bitocchi, E., Nanni, L., Rossi, M., Rau, D., Bellucci, E., Giardini, … Papa, R. (2009). Introgression from modern 34 hybrid varieties into populations of maize (Zea mays ssp. mays L.) in central Italy. Molecular 35 Ecology, 18(4), 603–21. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.04064.x 36 Boettcher P. J., M. Tixier-Boichard, M.A. Toro, H. Simianer, H. Eding, G. Gandini, S. Joost,D. Garcia, L. Colli, P. 37 Ajmone-Marsan and the GLOBALDIV Consortium (2010) Objectives, criteria and methods for using 38 molecular genetic data in priority setting for conservation of animal genetic resources. Animal , 39 41 (Suppl. 1), 64–77 40 Boutrais, J. (2007). The Fulani and Cattle Breeds: Crossbreeding and Heritage Strategies. Africa, 77(1), 18–36. 41 Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Bailey, E., Amri, A., Nassif, F., & Rezgui, S. (2001). Farmer participation in barley 42 breeding in Syria, Morocco and Tunisia. Euphytica, 122, 521–536. 43 Chakanda, R., Treuren, R., Visser, B., & den Berg, R. (2012). Analysis of genetic diversity in farmers’ rice 44 varieties in Sierra Leone using morphological and AFLP® markers. Genetic Resources and Crop 45 Evolution, 60(4), 1237–1250. doi:10.1007/s10722-012-9914-7 46 Corlett RT, Westcott DA (2013) Will plant movements keep up with climate change? Trends in Ecology & 47 Evolution 28, 482-488.

23 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 Crop Wild Relatives and Climate Change 2013. Online resource. Accessed on 05-02-2014 and 19-0-2014. 2 www.cwrdiversity.org 3 DAD-IS 2014. Domestic Animal Diversity Information System DAD-IS (http://www.fao.org/dad-is). Accessed 23 4 April 2014. 5 Dalle, G., Maass, B. L., & Isselstein, J. (2006). Encroachment of woody plants and its impact on pastoral 6 livestock production in the Borana lowlands, southern Oromia, Ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology, 7 44(2), 237–246. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00638.x 8 Dan-Azumi, J. (2010). Agricultural sustainability of fadama farming systems in northern Nigeria: the case 9 of Karshi and Baddeggi. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8(4), 319–330. 10 doi:10.3763/ijas.2010.0517 11 Davis, A. P., Gole, T. W., Baena, S., & Moat, J. (2012). The impact of climate change on indigenous Arabica 12 coffee (Coffea arabica): predicting future trends and identifying priorities. PloS One, 7(11), e47981. 13 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047981 14 De Andrés, M. T., Benito, a, Pérez-Rivera, G., Ocete, R., Lopez, M. a, Gaforio, L., … Arroyo-García, R. (2012). 15 Genetic diversity of wild grapevine populations in Spain and their genetic relationships with cultivated 16 grapevines. Molecular Ecology, 21(4), 800–16. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05395.x 17 DiTomaso, J. M. (2000). Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts, and management. Weed Science, 18 48(2), 255–265. doi:10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0255:IWIRSI]2.0.CO;2 19 Duncan, C. A., Jachetta, J. J., Brown, M. L., Carrithers, V. F., Clark, J. K., Lym, R. G., … Rice, P. M. (2005). 20 Assessing the Economic, Environmental, and Societal Losses from Invasive Plants on Rangeland and 21 Wildlands 1. Weed Technology, 18, 1411–1416. 22 Ebert, A. (2014). Potential of Underutilized Traditional Vegetables and Legume Crops to Contribute to Food 23 and Nutritional Security, Income and More Sustainable Production Systems. Sustainability, 6(1), 319– 24 335. doi:10.3390/su6010319 25 Ellstrand NC 2003. Dangerous liaisons? When cultivated plants mate with their wild relatives. John Hopkins 26 University Press, Baltimore 27 Evangelista, P., Young, N., & Burnett, J. 2013. How will climate change spatially affect agriculture production in 28 Ethiopia? Case studies of important cereal crops. Climatic Change, 119(3-4), 855–873. 29 doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0776-6 30 Faith, D. P. (1992). Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biological Conservation, 61(1), 1–10. 31 doi:10.1016/0006-3207(92)91201-3 32 FAO 1998. The State of the World’s PGRFA. FAO, Rome. 33 FAO 2007. Status and trends in aquatic genetic resources: a basis for international policy. FAO, Rome. 34 FAO 2007a. Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources and the Interlaken Declaration. FAO, Rome. 35 FAO 2009. Threats to animal genetic resources – their relevance, importance and opportunities to decrease 36 their impact. Background Study Paper No.50, FAO, Rome. 37 FAO 2010. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, Rome. 38 FAO 2010a. The second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. 39 Rome. 40 FAO 2010b. The second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. 41 Synthetic Account. Rome. 42 FAO 2011. Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome. 43 FAO 2012. Status and Trends of Animal Genetic Resources – 2012. CGRFA/WG-AnGR-7/12/Inf.4. FAO, Rome. 44 FAO 2012a. Synthesis progress report on the implementation of the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic 45 Resources – 2012. FAO, Rome 46 FAO 2013a. Status and trends of animal genetic resources – 2012. CCRFA-14/13/Inf.16 Rev.1. FAO, Rome. 47 FAO 2013b. Targets and indicators for animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. CGRFA-14/13/4.2. 48 FAO, Rome. 49 FAO 2013c. Synthesis progress report on the implementation of the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic 50 Resources. CGRFA-14/13/Inf/15. FAO, Rome. 51 FAO 2013d. Report on the Fourteenth Regular Session of the Commission o Genetic Resources for Food and 52 Agriculture. FAO, Rome. 53 FAO 2014. World Information and Early Warning System on PGRFA (http://apps3.fao.org/wiews), accessed 19 54 May 2014. 55 Ginja et al. Analysis of conservation priorities of Iberoamerican cattle based on autosomal microsatellite 56 markers.Genetics Selection Evolution 2013, 45:35

24 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 González-Castro, M. E., Palacios Rojas, N., Espinoza Banda, A., & Bedoya Salazar, Claudia, A. (2013). 2 DIVERSIDAD GENÉTICA EN MAÍCES NATIVOS MEXICANOS TROPICALES. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana, 36, 3 329–338. 4 Grivetti, L. E., & Ogle, B. M. (2000). Value of traditional foods in meeting macro- and micronutrient needs: the 5 wild plant connection. Nutrient Research Reviews, 13, 31–46. 6 Hagenblad, J., Boström, E., Nygårds, L., & Leino, M. W. (2013). Genetic diversity in local cultivars of garden pea 7 (Pisum sativum L.) conserved “on farm” and in historical collections. Genetic Resources and Crop 8 Evolution, 61(2), 413–422. doi:10.1007/s10722-013-0046-5 9 Heywood, V., Casas, A., Ford-Lloyd, B., Kell, S., & Maxted, N. 2007. Conservation and sustainable use of crop 10 wild relatives. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121(3), 245–255. 11 doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.014 12 Hoffmann, I. 2010. Climate change and the characterization, breeding and conservation of animal genetic 13 resources. Animal genetics, 41 Suppl 1, 32–46. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02043.x 14 Hoffmann, I. 2011. Livestock biodiversity and sustainability. Livestock Science, 139(1-2), 69–79. 15 doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.016 16 Hoffmann, I. 2013. Adaptation to climate change--exploring the potential of locally adapted breeds. Animal : 17 an international journal of animal bioscience, 7 Suppl 2, 346–62. doi:10.1017/S1751731113000815 18 Honnay, O., Jacquemyn, H., & Aerts, R. (2012). Crop wild relatives: more common ground for breeders and 19 ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(3), 121–121. doi:10.1890/12.WB.007 20 Hufford, M. B., Xu, X., van Heerwaarden, J., Pyhäjärvi, T., Chia, J.-M., Cartwright, R. a, … Ross-Ibarra, J. (2012). 21 Comparative population of maize and improvement. Nature Genetics, 44(7), 22 808–11. doi:10.1038/ng.2309 23 Hunter, D., Maxted, N., Heywood, V., Kell, S., & Borelli, T. 2012. Protected areas and the challenge of 24 conserving crop wild relatives. Parks, 18, 87–97. 25 IPCC 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. IPCC WGII Report, Copenhagen, 26 Denmark. 27 Jarvis, A., Lane, A. & Hijmans, R.J. 2008b. The effect of climate change on crop wild relatives. Agriculture, 28 Ecosystems & Environment 126: 13-23 29 Jarvis, D. I., Brown, A. H., Cuong, P. H., Collado-Panduro, L., Latournerie-Moreno, Luis Gyawali, S., Tanto, T., … 30 Hodgkin, T. (2008a). A global perspecticve of the richness and eveness of traditional crop-diversity 31 maintained by farming communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(23), 5326– 32 5331. 33 Johns, T., Powell, B., Maundu, P., & Eyzaguirre, P. B. (2013). Agricultural biodiversity as a link between 34 traditional food systems and contemporary development, social integrity and ecological health. Journal 35 of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 93(14), 3433–42. doi:10.1002/jsfa.6351 36 Kai, Z., Woan, T. S., Jie, L., Goodale, E., Kitajima, K., Bagchi, R., & Harrison, R. D. 2014. Shifting Baselines on a 37 Tropical Forest Frontier: Extirpations Drive Declines in Local Ecological Knowledge. (C. Sueur, Ed.)PLoS 38 ONE, 9(1), e86598. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086598 39 Kettle CJ (2012) Seeding ecological restoration of tropical forests: Priority setting under REDD+. Biological 40 Conservation 154, 34-41. 41 Kettle CJ, Burslem DFRP, Ghazoul J (2011) An Unorthodox Approach to Forest Restoration. Science 333, 36-36. 42 Kettle CJ, Ghazoul J, Ashton PS, et al. (2010) Mass Fruiting in Borneo: A Missed Opportunity. Science 330, 584- 43 584. 44 Kew 2014. Khoury, C. K., Bjorkman, A. D., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., … Struik, P. 45 C. (2014). Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. 46 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(11), 4001–6. 47 doi:10.1073/pnas.1313490111www.kew.org/science-conservation/save-seed-prosper/millennium- 48 seed-bank/about-the-msb/msb-seed-count/index.htm. Accessed 31/01/2014 49 Lam, H.-M., Xu, X., Liu, X., Chen, W., Yang, G., Wong, F.-L., … Zhang, G. (2010). Resequencing of 31 wild and 50 cultivated soybean identifies patterns of genetic diversity and selection. Nature Genetics, 51 42(12), 1053–9. doi:10.1038/ng.715 52 Le Clerc, V., Cadot, V., Canadas, M., Lallemand, J., Guèrin, D., & Boulineau, F. (2006). Indicators to assess 53 temporal genetic diversity in the French Catalogue: no losses for maize and peas. TAG. Theoretical and 54 Applied Genetics. Theoretische Und Angewandte Genetik, 113(7), 1197–209. doi:10.1007/s00122-006- 55 0368-1

25 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 Mace, E. S., Tai, S., Gilding, E. K., Li, Y., Prentis, P. J., Bian, L., … Wang, J. (2013). Whole- sequencing 2 reveals untapped genetic potential in Africa’s indigenous cereal crop sorghum. Nature Communications, 3 4, 2320. doi:10.1038/ncomms3320 4 Martín-Burriel, I., Rodellar, C., Lenstra, J. a, Sanz, A., Cons, C., Osta, R., … Zaragoza, P. (2007). Genetic diversity 5 and relationships of endangered Spanish cattle breeds. The Journal of , 98(7), 687–91. 6 doi:10.1093/jhered/esm096 7 Mas-Coma, S., Valero, M. a, & Bargues, M. D. 2008. Effects of climate change on animal and zoonotic 8 helminthiases. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 27(2), 443–57. 9 Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18819671 10 Maxted, N. and Kell, S.P., 2009. Establishment of a Global Network for the in-situ conservation of crop wild 11 relatives: status and needs. FAO commission on Genetic and Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome, 12 Italy. 13 Maxted, N., Avagyan, A., Frese, L., Kell, S., Brehm, J. M., & Singer, A. (2013). Preserving diversity: in situ 14 conservation of crop wild relatives in Europe ‒ the background document. Rome, Italy. 15 Maxted, N., Avagyan, A., Frese, L., Kell, S., Brehm, J. M., & Singer, A. 2013. Preserving diversity: in situ 16 conservation of crop wild relatives in Europe ‒ the background document. Rome, Italy. 17 Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B. V., Jury, S., Kell, S., & Scholten, M. (2006). Towards a definition of a crop wild 18 relative. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15(8), 2673–2685. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-5409-6 19 McConkey KR, Prasad S, Corlett RT, et al. (2012) Seed dispersal in changing landscapes. Biological 20 Conservation. 21 McNally, K. L., Childs, K. L., Bohnert, R., Davidson, R. M., Zhao, K., Ulat, V. J., … Leach, J. E. (2009). Genomewide 22 SNP variation reveals relationships among landraces and modern varieties of rice. Proceedings of the 23 National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(30), 12273–8. 24 doi:10.1073/pnas.0900992106 25 Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia. 2008. National Report on the State of Genetic Resources in 26 Armenia. Yerevan, Armenia. 27 Morrell, P. L., Williams-Coplin, T. D., Lattu, a L., Bowers, J. E., Chandler, J. M., & Paterson, a H. (2005). Crop-to- 28 weed introgression has impacted allelic composition of johnsongrass populations with and without 29 recent exposure to cultivated sorghum. Molecular Ecology, 14(7), 2143–54. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 30 294X.2005.02579.x 31 Morris, G. P., Ramu, P., Deshpande, S. P., Hash, C. T., Shah, T., Upadhyaya, H. D., … Kresovich, S. (2013). 32 Population genomic and genome-wide association studies of agroclimatic traits in sorghum. 33 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(2), 453–8. 34 doi:10.1073/pnas.1215985110 35 Moss, D. R., Arce, S. M., Otoshi, C. a, & Moss, S. M. (2008). Inbreeding Effects on Hatchery and Growout 36 Performance of Pacific White Shrimp, Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei. Journal of the World 37 Aquaculture Society, 39(4), 467–476. doi:10.1111/j.1749-7345.2008.00189.x 38 Moss, D. R., Arce, S. M., Otoshi, C. a., Doyle, R. W., & Moss, S. M. (2007). Effects of inbreeding on survival and 39 growth of Pacific white shrimp Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei. Aquaculture, 272, S30–S37. 40 doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.08.014 41 Muthukuda Arachchi, D. H., & Wijerathana, P. M. (2007). The Status of the PDRFA in Sri Lanka. Department of 42 Agriculture, Sri Lanka. 43 Navdanya 2014. http://www.navdanya.org/. Accessed 31 May 2014. 44 Neaves, L. E., Whitlock, R., Piertney, S. B., Burke, T., Butlin, R. K., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (2013). Implications of 45 climate change for genetic diversity and evolvability in the UK. Terrestrial biodiversity climate change 46 impacts report card technical paper. 47 Nordigen 2014. www.nordigen.org/sgsv, accessed 03/02/2014 48 Oldfield S, Lusty C, MacKinven A (1998) The World List of Threatened Trees. WCMC, IUCN, Cambridge. 49 Pautasso M, et al. 2013. Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review. Agronomy for 50 Sustainable Development 33: 151-175. 51 Perales, H. R., Benz, B. F., & Brush, S. B. (2005). Maize diversity and ethnolinguistic diversity in Chiapas, 52 Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(3), 949– 53 54. doi:10.1073/pnas.0408701102 54 Pertoldi, C., Tokarska, M., Wójcik, J. M., Kawałko, A., Randi, E., Kristensen, T. N., … Bendixen, C. (2010). 55 Phylogenetic relationships among the European and American bison and seven cattle breeds 56 reconstructed using the BovineSNP50 Illumina Genotyping BeadChip. Acta Theriologica, 55(2), 97–108. 57 doi:10.4098/j.at.0001-7051.002.2010

26 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 Phillips, J., Kyratzis, A., Christoudoulou, C., Kell, S., & Maxted, N. (2014). Development of a national crop wild 2 relative conservation strategy for Cyprus. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 61(4), 817–827. 3 doi:10.1007/s10722-013-0076-z 4 Pilling, D. & Hoffmann, I. 2011. Climate change and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture: state of 5 knowledge, risks and opportunities. Background Study Paper No. 53. FAO. Rome. 6 Poudel, D., & Johnsen, F. H. (2009). Valuation of crop genetic resources in Kaski, Nepal: Farmers’ willingness to 7 pay for rice landraces conservation. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 483–491. 8 doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.020 9 Rana, J. C., Negi, K. S., Wani, S. a., Saxena, S., Pradheep, K., Kak, A., … Sofi, P. a. (2009). Genetic resources of 10 rice in the Western Himalayan region of India: current status. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 11 56(7), 963–973. doi:10.1007/s10722-009-9415-5 12 Reif, J. C., Hamrit, S., Heckenberger, M., Schipprack, W., Maurer, H. P., Bohn, M., & Melchinger, A. E. (2005). 13 Trends in genetic diversity among European maize cultivars and their parental components during the 14 past 50 years. TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. Theoretische Und Angewandte Genetik, 111(5), 15 838–45. doi:10.1007/s00122-005-0004-5 16 Rowshan, J., Kumagae, M., Nishibori, M., Yasue, H., & Wada, Y. (2011). Japanese Silkie Fowls are widely 17 distributed in the phylogenetic tree derived from mitochondiral complete D-loop sequences. 18 Journal of Poultry Science, 48, 176–180. 19 Schoen, D. J., & Brown, A. H. D. (2001). The Conservation of Wild Plant Species in Seed Banks. BioScience, 20 51(11), 960. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0960:TCOWPS]2.0.CO;2 21 Shafer, S. R., Walthall, C. L., Franzluebbers, A. J., Scholten, M., Meijs, J., Clark, H., … Richard, G. (2011). 22 Emergence of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. Carbon Management, 23 2(3), 209–214. doi:10.4155/cmt.11.26 24 Shava, S., O’Donoghue, R., Krasny, M. E., & Zazu, C. (2009). Traditional food crops as a source of community 25 resilience in Zimbabwe. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies - Multi-, Inter- and 26 Transdisciplinarity, 4(1), 31–48. doi:10.1080/18186870903101982 27 Sherwood, S. C., & Huber, M. 2010. An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress, 1–6. 28 doi:10.1073/pnas.0913352107/-/DCSupplemental.www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0913352107 29 Simianer, H., S. B. Marti, J. Gibson, O. Hanotte, and J. E. O. Rege. 2003. An approach to the optimal allocation 30 of conservation funds to minimize loss of genetic diversity between livestock breeds. Ecological 31 Economics 45:377-392. 32 Smith, M. E., & G, F. C. (2001). Participatory plant breeding with maize in Mexico and Honduras. Euphytica, 33 122, 551–565. 34 Thornton, P. K., van de Steeg, J., Notenbaert, a., & Herrero, M. 2009. The impacts of climate change on 35 livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: A review of what we know and what we need 36 to know. Agricultural Systems, 101(3), 113–127. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2009.05.002 37 Ureta, C., Martínez-Meyer, E., Perales, H. R., & Álvarez-Buylla, E. R. 2012. Projecting the effects of climate 38 change on the distribution of maize races and their wild relatives in Mexico. Global Change Biology, 39 18(3), 1073–1082. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02607.x 40 USDA 2014. http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=54-02-05-00. Accessed 31 May 2014. 41 Van de Wouw, M., van Hintum, T., Kik, C., van Treuren, R., & Visser, B. (2010). Genetic diversity trends in 42 twentieth century crop cultivars: a meta analysis. TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. Theoretische 43 Und Angewandte Genetik, 120(6), 1241–52. doi:10.1007/s00122-009-1252-6 44 Vavilov Research Centre, http://vir.nw.ru/, accessed 19 May 2014. 45 Velásquez-Milla, D., Casas, A., Torres-Guevara, J., & Cruz-Soriano, A. (2011). Ecological and socio-cultural 46 factors influencing in situ conservation of crop diversity by traditional Andean households in Peru. 47 Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 7, 40. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-7-40 48 Victor, A.-S. (2007). The dynamics of horticultural export value chains on the livelihood of small farm 49 households in Southern Ghana. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 2(September), 435– 50 440. 51 Vincent, H., Wiersema, J., Kell, S., Fielder, H., Dobbie, S., Maxted, N., Guarino, L., Eastwood. R. & Leo, B. 2013. 52 A prioritised crop wild relative inventory to help underpin global food security. Biological Conservation, 53 167, 265–275. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.011 54 Virk, D. S., Singh, D. N., Prasad, S. C., Gangwar, J. S., & Witcombe, J. R. (2003). Collaborative and consultative 55 participatory plant breeding of rice for the rainfed uplands of eastern India. Euphytica, 132, 95–108. 56 Weitzman, M. L. (1992) On Diversity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107:363-405.

27 SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Target 13 DO NOT CITE

1 Witcombe, J. R., Joshi, A., & Goyal, S. N. (2003). Participatory plant breeding in maize: A case study from 2 Gujarat, India. Euphytica, 130, 413–422. 3 Xu, X., Liu, X., Ge, S., Jensen, J. D., Hu, F., Li, X., … Wang, W. (2012). Resequencing 50 accessions of cultivated 4 and wild rice yields markers for identifying agronomically important genes. Nature Biotechnology, 5 30(1), 105–11. doi:10.1038/nbt.2050

28