Theme 1 PA4 Genetic Resources

Evaluation of Biodiversity 2020

Annex 4 Evidence Summary: Theme 1- Priority Action 4: Conservation of Agricultural Genetic Resources

Date 12/06/2019

Contents

1 Priority Action 4 of Theme 1 – Conserving agricultural genetic diversity ...... 3 1.1 Evaluation framework ...... 3 1.1.1 Intervention logic ...... 3 1.1.2 Evaluation Questions ...... 1 1.1.1 Method for generating the Evidence Pack ...... 1 2 Evaluation ...... 2 2.1 Q. 1 What actions and activities have been delivered? ...... 2 2.2 Q2. What progress has been made towards ensuring conservation of agricultural genetic resources in England? ...... 4 2.2.1 Evidence ...... 4 2.2.2 Evaluation ...... 8 2.3 Q3. What factors/actions have improved or hindered the management of genetic resources? ...... 8 2.4 Q4. Considering the progress since 2010, what more could be done in future to conserve and enhance agricultural genetic resources? What opportunities are there, and what are the barriers/challenges that need to be addressed?...... 9

1 Priority Action 4 of Theme 1 – Conserving agricultural genetic diversity 1.1 Evaluation framework

1.1.1 Intervention logic Priority action 4 aims to ensure genetic diversity in cultured plants, farmed animals and their wild relatives is conserved and enhanced wherever appropriate. This genetic diversity can make an important contribution to provisioning of food security by offering genes that are important for future crop or livestock breeding. By raising stakeholder awareness of the importance of genetic diversity along with issuing guidance on the conservation of genetic resources, establishing efficient ID and monitoring systems for genetic diversity, and incentivizing farmers to maintain and increase stocks of rare breed farm animals, the Strategy aims to encourage responsible management of genetic resources and to enhance and conserve agricultural genetic resources in situ. Alongside this, funding for fruit, vegetable and seed banks should enable ex situ storage of genetic diversity of cultivated plants and their wild relatives, for future use. These actions should ensure that agricultural genetic resources are conserved and enhanced, increasing resilience and contributing to long-term food security. Figure.1 presents the logic model for Priority Action 4, describing the Outputs, Intermediate (or short term) Outcomes and the long term Outcomes that activities under this Priority Action aim to achieve. It shows how activities such as raising awareness and producing guidance, incentivising sustainable management of genetic resources, monitoring, maintaining and enhancing ex situ collections, should contribute to improved management and conservation, and ultimately to a resilient agricultural genetic resource base, contributing to provisioning of long-term food security. The Long-term Outcomes of this Priority Action, along with those of all other Priority Actions across Themes, eventually feed into the wider Strategy Impacts. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of activities, outputs and outcomes but instead illustrates the general theory of change for Priority Action 4. Achieving Priority Action 4 is expected to contribute to Outcomes 1 and 3 of the Strategy.

Priority Actions Activities Outputs Intermediate Long term Outcomes Impacts Outcomes

Ensure that Maintaining ex-situ Fruit/veg/seed banks Rare species are Stakeholders are ‘agricultural’ collections are able to store added to ex-situ aware of the Biodiversity loss genetic diversity is seeds of rare breed storage importance of is halted conserved and Development of in- fruit, veg, crops and agricultural genetic situ and ex-situ UK enhanced wild relatives ex-situ Agricultural genetic diversity and manage Farm Animal Healthy well- wherever appropriate diversity is efficiently it responsibly Genetic Resources functioning Inventories of genetic monitored conservation ecosystems diversity updated and strategy and efficient identification implementation Stakeholders follow Coherent and monitoring Rare cultivated plants guidance. guidance to manage ecological systems for genetic and farmed animals genetic diversity networks with diversity are are conserved, Updating more and better established increasing resilience inventories of Number of individuals and contributing to places for nature genetic diversity and of ‘native breed at provisioning of food developing easy ID Strategy and guidance risk’ animals are security and monitoring in place to support maintained or Outcome 1a, 1c, 3 systems conservation of increased Benefits for genetic resources wildlife and Introduction of rare people breed supplement Farmers uptake the to AE-schemes rare breed supplement Raising awareness of the importance of genetic resources

Figure.1 Logic model for Priority Action 4 - Agricultural Genetic Diversity

1.1.2 Evaluation Questions The evaluation of Priority Action 4 intends to answer the following questions, looking to evaluate progress across stages in the above process, and to understand the factors influencing progress and the future lessons that can be learnt:

1. What actions/activities have been delivered? 2. What progress has been made towards ensuring conservation of agricultural genetic resources in England?

3. What factors/actions have improved or hindered the management of genetic resources? 4. Considering the progress since 2010, what more could be done in future to conserve and enhance agricultural genetic resources? What opportunities are there, and what are the barriers/challenges that need to be addressed?

1.1.1 Method for generating the Evidence Pack This evidence pack draws together evidence from evaluations and reports of activities undertaken since 2011, to respond to the evaluation questions. Evidence was obtained from Defra and partner organisations and through desk research, up to the 9th July 2019. A questionnaire was sent to members of the Farm Animal Genetic Resources committee (FAnGR) and UK Plant Genetic Resources Group (UKPGR), to gather opinions on progress, the factors that have influenced progress, and the opportunities to improve progress in future along with the challenges that need to be addressed (see Appendix 1). Members of the FAnGR and UKPGR represent government and partner organisations, and NGOS. Ten responses were received to the survey, providing some limited expert opinion. The evidence presented is unlikely to be exhaustive given the time limitations of the Evaluation project.

2 Evaluation 2.1 Q. 1 What actions and activities have been delivered?

The key actions and activities that have been carried out since 2011 under the Strategy to help achieve the aims of Priority Action 4 are summarised in Table 2. This is not an exhaustive list and does not include all voluntary or private-sector initiatives, although it is recognised that the Strategy aimed to influence the agenda of a wider audience of stakeholders and organisations, to achieve delivery of its’ aims. Table 1 Summary of Strategy activities under Theme 1 Priority Action 4

Key reforms described by the Strategy Progress • Raise awareness of existing • Development of coordinated in situ and ex situ UK Farm Animal Genetic genetic diversity and encourage Resources conservation strategy and implementation guidance1 to provide responsible management and stakeholders and policy makers with best-practice guidance. conservation, including by • The FAnGR Committee produced guidelines for breed societies on reflecting this issue in key policies contingency planning for preservation of their genetic resources in case of a and programmes. notifiable disease outbreak2 • Farmers are incentivized through AES payments to maintain and enhance stocks of rare breed farm animals. There has been a slight (0.43%) increase in uptake of agreements including this option in CS compared to ES3. In July 2019, there were 212 live agreements including the Native breeds at risk supplement, covering 13580.38ha4. • Report on UK Farm Animal Genetic Resources (FAnGR) published in April 20135. This report provides an updated appraisal of the status of and trends in domestic FAnGR, including a comprehensive Inventory of all breeds present in the UK, and assessment of UK livestock biodiversity and of the work that is being done to manage these resources. • A review of current and new technologies relevant to FAnGR was published in 2018, providing guidelines to breed societies and conservation organisations on the appropriate choice of technologies and their benefits so that they can be actively applied6 • Since 2015, a FAnGR Biodiversity Indicator is produced as part of the UK and England Biodiversity Indicators, based on the UK Farm Animal Genetic Resources breed inventory. • De facto establishment of first UK genetic reserve for Crop Wild Relative on the Lizard Peninsular in Cornwall by Natural England, National Trust and

1 Hall, 2013. Development of co-ordinated in situ and ex situ UK Farm Animal Genetic Resources conservation strategy and implementation guidance. Defra Research Project GC0146. 2 Farm Animal Genetic Resources Committee, 2017. Breeds at risk - contingency plan guidelines for potential derogation from culling. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/669573/fangr-culling- derogation-guidelines.pdf 3 Fera, 2018. Initial Evaluation of the Implementation of Countryside Stewardship in England: Objective 2: Analysis of scheme uptake. Supplementary Outputs 4 Personal Communication with Natural England, July 2019. 5 Defra, 2013. UK Country Report on Farm Animal Genetic Resources 2012. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191781/p b13938-fangr-country-report-2012.pdf 6 Defra, 2018. Review of current and new technologies relevant to FAnGR. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/farm-animal-genetic-resources-fangr-technology- review/review-of-current-and-new-technologies-relevant-to-fangr-october-2018 2

Key reforms described by the Strategy Progress University of Birmingham, and identification of top sites for potential UK, as well as English, Welsh and Scottish, CWR in situ conservation7. • Attempts to generate funding to produce a UK inventory of crop landraces as a first step to active conservation have been unsuccessful despite the evidence of rapid landrace loss.

• Update the UK's inventory of farm • FAnGR working with JNCC have developed a Biodiversity Indicator for Farm animal genetic resources, Animal Genetic Resources which is now included in the Convention on establishing identification and Biodiversity reports. The UK Farm Animal Genetic Resources (FAnGR) Breed monitoring systems where Inventory was published in 2014 with data supplied by breed societies and possible and maintaining existing collected with the support of recording organisations such as Grassroots collections of genetic resources. and NGO’s such as the Rare Breeds Survival Trust and the British Pig Association. It is an electronic monitoring system which contains data on the status and trends in domestic pig, goat, horse, sheep and cattle farm animal genetic resources to which some 200 breeds have contributed since 2014. An interactive data explorer was also released in 2018 to improve stakeholder engagement 8. • The British Pig Association has launched a comprehensive Conservation Breeding Strategy for 10 native pig breeds covering both in situ and ex situ conservation. The latter is carried out in partnership with the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. The strategy is updated annually. The British Pig Association and the Rare Breeds Survival Trust working in partnership have increased their Pig Genebank from 33 boars and 2000 straws of frozen semen in 2010 to 80 boars and 5500 straws at the end of 2018. A plan is in place to complete the first phase of the Genebank by 2024. • Some at-risk geographically isolated breeds have had additional herds/flocks established in other parts of the UK (e.g. Herdwick sheep and Chillingham cattle). • The National Fruit Collection at Brogdale in Kent is curated and maintained by the University of Reading. It is one of the largest fruit collections in the world with over 3,500 varieties of named apple, pear, plum, cherry, bush fruit, vine and cob nut cultivars. Unlike other genebanks where plant genetic material is stored as seeds, the National Fruit Collection is a live collection of plants open to the public as a visitor attraction9. • The UK Vegetable Genebank is held at the University of Warwick. It manages a collection of around 14,000 samples of vegetable crops, stored as frozen seeds. The genebank supplies materials to plant breeders, researchers and growers, as well as Genetic Improvement Networks (supported by Defra) which facilitate the transfer of genetic variations from collections of plant genetic resources into new varieties10. • The pea collection at the John Innes Centre comprises over 3,500 accessions of wild and semicultivated material. Between 2012 and 2017 there were 56 new accessions11. • Cereal collections maintained in the JIC Germplasm Resources Unit (under BBSRC support)12 • Plant Heritage’s National Plant Collections13 consist of 646 plant collections across a broad range of genera and include both species and cultivar collections. Held by institutions, local authorities, public and private gardens and individuals, these are living collections totalling approx. 96000

7 Fielder, H, Brotherton, P, Hosking, J, Hopkins, JJ, Ford-lloyd, B & Maxted, N 2015, 'Enhancing the conservation of crop wild relatives in England', PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 6 8 More information and the data explorer are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-farm- animal-genetic-resources-fangr-breed-inventory-results 9 http://www.nationalfruitcollection.org.uk/index.php 10 https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/lifesci/wcc/gru/genebank/ 11 Defra, 2017. Evidence project final report: The Maintenance of a Pea Gene Bank. 12 https://www.jic.ac.uk/research-impact/germplasm-resource-unit/ 13 https://www.nccpg.com/National-Collections.aspx 3

Key reforms described by the Strategy Progress taxa. Collections are available for public viewing and as a resource for breeding. • The Millennium Seed Bank (MSB) aims to collect seeds, herbarium specimens and data from species worldwide, including the entire UK seed- baring flora, and to conserve these collections to international standards. These include the rarest, most threatened and most useful species. It currently stores seed collections representing 96% of the UK’s currently known circa 1,300 native, orthodox, seedbearing species (excluding microspecies)14. • There are several genebanks collecting and storing genetic material from rare breeds in the form of semen and embryos, including The UK National Livestock Genebank run by the Rare Breeds Survival Trust15, The Sheep Trust genebank16, The British Pig Association Genebank, and numerous private collections by commercial breeders and others. This is done to safeguard the UK’s rare and native breeds of farm livestock against diminishing numbers and potential threats posed by disease outbreak.

2.2 Q2. What progress has been made towards ensuring conservation of agricultural genetic resources in England?

2.2.1 Evidence The following metrics are available to assess progress towards conserving agricultural genetic resources: • England Biodiversity Indicator 12a measures changes in the average effective population sizes for breeds of goats, pigs, horses, sheep and cattle classified by the UK Farm Animal Genetic Resources Committee as Native Breeds at Risk (NBAR)17. A low effective population increases the risk of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation has set an effective population threshold of 50, below which there would be concern over the risk of loss of genetic diversity. Although the average effective population sizes calculated between 2000 and 2017 for the native breeds at risk of goats, pigs, horses, sheep and cattle were each above 50, in 2017 one breed of goat (Toggenburg), three breeds of horse (Cleveland Bay Horse, Eriskay Pony, and Suffolk Punch), and three breeds of cattle (Dairy Shorthorn (original population), Northern Dairy Shorthorn, and Vaynol), had an effective population size of less than 5017. Figure 2 shows trends in the numbers of breeds with effective populations less than 50, since 2000. This does not include all breeds, as for some there is not enough data to calculate effective population size. This shows that of the breeds assessed, there are a small number of breeds of goats, horses and cattle each year with effective populations below the 50 threshold, although the breeds represented in this figure may differ year to year.

14 https://www.kew.org/wakehurst/whats-at-wakehurst/millennium-seed-bank 15 https://www.rbst.org.uk/gene-bank 16 https://www.york.ac.uk/org/cnap/tst/heritagegenebank.html 17 England Biodiversity Indicators, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/england-biodiversity- indicators. 4

Figure 2 Number of NBAR breeds with an effective population size <50, 2000 to 2017. Note that this is out of the breeds included within Indicator 12a, which does not include assessment of all breeds17.

• The Rare Breeds Survival Trusts18 produces a ‘watch list’ annually which highlights changes in breed population trends and categorises rare breeds as Critical; Endangered; Vulnerable; At Risk; Minority; and Other Native Breeds. Breeds are placed into categories based on species and the total number of registered breeding females in the United Kingdom. Population genetic factors (such as inbreeding and genetic erosion) and current trends in breed density and distribution (geographical concentration in a small area) can mean a breed will be vulnerable to disease outbreaks. These factors are also included in making assessments of status. The assessment for 2019/20 categorises the following number of breeds as Critical, Endangered, Vulnerable or at risk: 18 sheep, 10 cattle, 11 equine, 11 pigs and 1 goat. • England Biodiversity Indicator 12b provides information about the amount of plant genetic diversity held in gene banks, assessed using an enrichment Index developed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation17. It includes food crop genetic resources such as crops, forages, wild and weedy species (including crop wild relatives), medicinal and ornamental plants, but does not include forest genetic resources. Between 2013 and 2018 there was a 15% increase in the Enrichment Index (Figure 3)17; the rapid rise since 2000 is attributed to collection effort by the Millennium Seed Bank.

18 https://www.rbst.org.uk/rbst-watchlist 5

This index is a valuable method for monitoring the ex-situ storage of plant genetic resources, however provides no assessment of in-situ conservation, which is an equally important component of conservation of plant genetic resources. Also, the background information for the indicator cautions that in calculating the indicator, an assumption is made that the number of accessions per taxon is positively related to the level of genetic diversity stored ex situ, but that this relationship may not always exist, particularly for commercial cultivars, since many cultivars are bred for the same market and hence are phenotypically and probably genetically very similar17.

Figure 3 Cumulative Enrichment Index of plant genetic resource collections held in the UK and annual number of accessions, 1960 to 201817.

• UK-level assessment of progress towards Aichi Target 13 “ By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.” The assessment provides evidence for ‘progress towards target but at an insufficient rate’. Evidence for this assessment includes the following: o A 15% increase in the enrichment index of ex-situ plant genetic resources (as outlined above); o Progress to conserve crop wild relatives in situ. The assessment states that ‘A significant proportion of UK crop wild relatives (CWR) are conserved within the protected site network, and in some areas of the UK, for example on the Lizard Peninsula in England, site management has started to explicitly consider the ecological requirements of CWR. CWR are commonly associated with linear habitat features (e.g. hedgerows)19 thus it is anticipated agri-environment measures to conserve these habitats in the UK, will benefit CWR conservation.’ A 2015 study

19 Jarvis, Susan; Fielder, Hannah; Hopkins, John; Maxted, Nigel; Smart, Simon. 2015. Distribution of crop wild relatives of conservation priority in the UK landscape. Biological Conservation (2015), 191. 444-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.039. 6

identified 15 “hotspots” that would conserve 148 CWR species identified as priority in England; from which 77% are well represented in protected sites with the remaining 23% being poorly represented in protected areas in England20. o Progress with the conservation of genetic diversity of native breeds of livestock. The assessment states that ‘No native breeds of UK livestock at risk have been lost in the last two decades, despite recent declines in the effective population size of some native horse and pig breeds.’ o Progress made on the ex-situ conservation of genetic resources. The UK have a number of established genebanks for the preservation of genetic resources of plant species and animals, for example the UK National Livestock Gene Bank and the Millennium Seed Bank. The assessment of ‘progress but at an insufficient rate’ was given due to the declines in the effective population size of some native animal breeds, and due to continued exploration by the UK Government f options for in-situ management of crop wild relatives. • Of the ten respondents to our survey sent to the FAnGR and UKPGR, 4 believe there has been minor progress towards ensuring conservation of agricultural genetic resources in England, 3 believe progress has been moderate and 2 believe progress has been significant (Figure 4). 1 respondent did not answer this question. 4

Low

High

Medium

Substantial

No progress No

Minor progress Minor Moderateprogress Significant progress Significant Figure 4 Opinions of survey respondents on the level of progress since 2011 towards ensuring conservation of agricultural genetic resources in England

In general, respondents suggest there has been progress in terms of maintenance of ex-situ conservation, along with development of the FAnGR breed inventory which signifies progress, along with maintenance of advisory bodies despite budgetary limitations; however there has been a lack of progress in terms of in situ conservation, for example a lack of frameworks for active conservation of Crop Wild Relatives, and for inventory and conservation of landrace, which is due to a lack of resources available.

20 Fielder H, Brotherton P, Hosking J, Hopkins JJ, Ford-Lloyd B, Maxted N (2015) Enhancing the Conservation of Crop Wild Relatives in England. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0130804 7

2.2.2 Evaluation The above metrics show significant progress has been made in terms of ex-situ storage of plant genetic resources, attributed mainly to effort made to acquisition of new accessions by the Millennium Seed Bank. However, it is not clear from the index what level the enrichment index would need to be at to suggest sufficient ex-situ storage to ensure resilience and to future-proof food provisioning. Furthermore, it appears much less progress has been made with in-situ conservation of plant genetic resources, including landrace and Crop Wild Relatives. Although the index of effective population sizes demonstrate that only a small number of farm animal breeds have an effective population size below the 50 threshold, there has been no sustained improvement in this over the last 8 years, with more breeds of cattle and horses below the threshold over more years since 2011, than before. This suggests effective population sizes have been maintained rather than increased, and increased population sizes would be beneficial to those breeds falling below the 50 threshold. Although there is ongoing work to store ex situ genetic material in the form of semen and embryos, including from private breeders, the extent of progress of this work is unknown to the evaluation. It was noted in the UK Country Report to the FAO on Animal Genetic Resources in 201321, that a main weakness was the absence of an improved, automated, cost effective FAnGR database supporting more regular monitoring of UK FAnGR. The introduction of the FAnGR inventory is likely to have improved collation and access to data on stocks of rare breed farm animal, thus improving monitoring, however there is no evidence to assess the impacts or effectiveness of this resource. Furthermore the development of the FAnGR Biodiversity Indicator is likely to have improved monitoring and communication, and helped raise awareness.

2.3 Q3. What factors/actions have improved or hindered the management of genetic resources?

Respondents to our questionnaire have suggested several factors that have improved or hindered progress, as follows: Factors improving progress • Defra and EU funding for ex situ plant genetic resource genebanks has enabled maintenance of the genebanks and improved coverage of plants represented, and for AES supplements has encouraged keeping of ‘native breeds at risk’. • An engagement with longer term commitments to the genebanks by Defra has allowed more rational and efficient approaches to be taken - although the length of commitment is still limited in some cases. • Improved relationships between the NGOs in the sector should improve coordination and progress. • The development and launch of the National Breeds Inventory as an online dataset updated annually and included in official National Statistics, has improved engagement and monitoring.

21 Country report supporting the preparation of The Second Report on the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, including sector-specific data contributing to The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture - 2013 8

• Investments in new technology and computing power have allowed breed societies to develop more sophisticated in situ management and conservation programmes for native breeds. • Work and investment by the private sector have led to reintroduction of breeding lines to some native breeds that had been lost in the live population. Private companies have continued to invest in Research and Development into new technologies such as the mainstreaming of semen sexing in cattle, in-vitro harvesting, fertilisation and maturation of porcine embryos and new ways to cryopreserve and resurrect avian species using germ cells. • Government and industry have been working together in partnership since 2009 to improve market access for UK Farm Animal Genetic Resources allowing increased export sales that underpin conservation and development programmes. Factors hindering progress • A lack of integration of UK Genetic Resources Diversity Conservation with other conservation initiatives including Natural Capital programmes and designated sites, has restricted progress. • Limitations of funding/resources/support have restricted further progress– i.e. lack of official recognition of the Lizard Peninsula genetic reserve. NGO’s and breed societies have faced challenges in fundraising for conservation programmes. There may be opportunities to increase funding through levies; for example horse race betting levies. • A more integrated approach to gene banking could improve progress towards comprehensive coverage. International examples would include The CGN, Netherlands + Nord Gen, Scandinavia + USDA at Fort Collins, Colorado. • Lack of framework for selecting reserves for proven genetic diversity in CWR taxa or for active conservation of CWR has restricted progress. Similarly a lack of landrace inventory has restricted progress to establish a conservation plan. • There exists a skills gap in horticulture - many collection holders are getting older without another generation being there to replace them. This could limit future progress.

2.4 Q4. Considering the progress since 2010, what more could be done in future to conserve and enhance agricultural genetic resources? What opportunities are there, and what are the barriers/challenges that need to be addressed?

Respondents to our questionnaire noted the following opportunities to enhance conservation of agricultural genetic resources in future, along with challenges to address: • Public awareness and support is considered to be important, particularly for some of the NGOs which rely on membership to fund their work. Increasing public awareness around the necessity of conservation of agricultural genetic resources, could therefore improve availability of resources for work in future, and improve markets for native breeds. • There may be opportunities to increase funding or conservation of genetic resources through levies; for example contributions from horse race betting levies and from the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) levy receipts. • There may be opportunities to explore better integration of conservation of genetic diversity with other conservation programmes such as Natural Capital and designated sites; along with improving or developing frameworks to enable site designation for genetic resource value.

• Improvements in sequencing should make the identification of hotspots of genetic diversity in Crop Wild Relatives (CWR) easier. Mechanisms for conservation of taxa in identified hotspots would enable this information to be used to benefit in situ conservation of CWR diversity. • A more comprehensive approach to conserving genetic diversity outside of national collections would compliment the work that collections are doing. An inventory of UK crop landrace diversity would enable conservation plans to be developed to ensure in situ and ex situ conservation of landrace diversity. • There may be opportunities to improve progress through better engagement with breed societies, and through better liason between plant and animal genetic resource communities. • The Agriculture Bill presents an opportunity to actively promote conservation of agricultural genetic diversity, including CWR and landrace as well as protecting native breeds. Recognition of conservation of agricultural genetic resources as a public good, could help raise awareness and support. • Improvements to data collection and analysis methods for some species (e.g. horses, mountain sheed, poultry) would improve monitoring data • Future challenges include the threat of new and emerging exotic diseases, which are increasingly likely as climate change leads to changes in species distributions.

3 Appendix 1 – Questionnaire

The following questionnaire was sent to members of the Farm Animal Genetic Resources committee (FAnGR) and UK Plant Genetic Resources Group (UKPGR).

1. What actions/activities have been delivered? a) By Government and Government organisations? b) By private sector and NGOs

2. What category of progress do you think has been made towards ensuring conservation of agricultural genetic resources in England? No progress Minor progress Moderate progress Significant progress Substantial progress

Please note your level of confidence in your response: High Medium Low

Please explain your reasons for your selected level of progress: