Alnarp Proceedings Final

EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL PLANT GENETIC
RESOURCES PROGRAMMES
Report of an International Workshop

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

CONTENTS iii
CONTENTS
CONTENTS III
PART I. SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP 1
Introduction 1
Welcoming statements 2
Keynote presentations 2
Open Space sessions 3
Concluding remarks 4
PART II. PRESENTED KEYNOTE PAPERS 7

The National Programme of Plant Genetic Resources–development and priorities in
Sweden 8
Roland von Bothmer
Plant Genetic Resources for Sustainable Agriculture: how far have we come? 12
N. Murthi Anishetty and Kakoli Ghosh
The Brazilian National Programme of Conservation and Use of Genetic Resources 17
Clara O. Goedert and José Francisco M. Valls
Evolution of the Canadian Plant Germplasm System 23
Ken W. Richards
Networking: the French Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources Management 30
Martine Mitteau, Grégoire Thomas, Eric Teissier du Cros, Annick Le Blanc, Agnès Ricart, Andrée
Sontot, Gautier Pereira and Dominique Planchenault
Conflicting interests in plant genetic resources 38
Jaap J. Hardon
PART III. STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL PLAN OF

ACTION FOR THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION OF
PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
IN EUROPE 43
Th. Hazekamp, J. Watts, N.M. Anishetty and J. Turok
PART IV. NATIONAL PROGRAMMES 67

Armenia 68
Main activities for founding a National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources in the Republic of
Armenia
Samvel Avetisyan and Alvina Avagyan
Austria 70
Status of the Austrian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme
Paul Freudenthaler
Azerbaijan 72
The National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources in Azerbaijan
Zeynal Akparov
Belgium 74
Toward a Belgian National Programme for a safe and dynamic conservation and utilization of plant
genetic resources
Marc Lateur
iv EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES PROGRAMMES
Bulgaria 77
Developing a partnership policy for the protection, sustainable use and management of plant
genetic resources in Bulgaria
Rada Koeva and Syika Angelova
Croatia 81
The Croatian Bank of Plant Genes
Toni Safner
Czech Republic 82
The Czech National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization
Ladislav Dotlačil, Zdeněk Stehno and Iva Faberová
Denmark 84
Status of the National Danish Plant Genetic Resources Programme
Lars Landbo
Estonia 85
National Programme “Collection and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture”
Vahur Kukk and Külli Annamaa
Finland 88
National Plant Genetic Resources Programme for Agriculture and Forestry
Mia Sahramaa
France 91
The French National Plant Genetic Resources Programme
Martine Mitteau
Georgia 93
The National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources in Georgia
Gogotur Agladze, Guram Alexidze and Tamriko Jinjikhadze
Germany 95
National Programme for Genetic Resources of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops
Siegfried Harrer, Harald Bajorat, Frank Begemann and Jons Eisele
Hungary 97
The Hungarian Crop Genetic Resources Programme
Bertalan Székely, László Holly, István Már and Gábor M. Csizmadia
Israel 99
The Israeli Gene Bank National Plan (2002–2004)
Arieh Levy, Elie Putievsky and Miriam Waldman
Italy 101
Ex situ plant genetic resources conservation in Italy
F. Grassi, M.G. Piazza and P. Engel
Latvia 106
Status of plant genetic resources conservation activities in Latvia
Isaak Rashal, Edite Kaufmane and Gints Lanka
Lithuania 108
The Lithuanian National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources
Juozas Labokas and Aušra Gineitaitė
Macedonia (FYR) 110
Status report on PGR conservation in Macedonia (FYR)
Sonja Ivanovska and Gordana Popsimonova
Republic of Moldova 113
Current status of agrobiodiversity conservation and perspectives for the development of a National
Plant Genetic Resources Programme in Moldova
Anatol Ganea and Gheorghe Savin
CONTENTS v
The Netherlands 115

The National Genetic Resources Programme of the Netherlands
Loek J.M. van Soest and Bert Visser
Norway 118
The Norwegian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme
Even Bratberg
Poland 120
The National Crop Genetic Resources Conservation Programme in Poland
Wieslaw Podyma
Portugal 123
Programme for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Agrarian Genetic Resources
Eliseu Bettencourt and Sónia Dias
Russian Federation 125
Development of the National Programme on Agrobiodiversity in the Russian Federation
Sergey M. Alexanian
Serbia and Montenegro 127
Current status of plant genetic resources activities in Serbia and Montenegro
Ivana Dulić-Marković
Slovak Republic 130
The Slovak National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Daniela Benediková and Maria Žaková
Slovenia 133
The Slovenian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme
Mihaela Černe, Jelka Šuštar-Vozlič, Borut Bohanec, Zlata Luthar, Janko Rode and Andreja Čerenak
Spain 136
National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization
Luis Ayerbe
Sweden 137
National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources
Eva Jansson and Jens Weibull
Switzerland 140
The Swiss National Programme for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture
Beate Schierscher
Ukraine 141
The Ukrainian National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources
Victor K. Ryabchoun and Roman L. Boguslavskyi
APPENDICES 145
Appendix I. Open Space Sessions 146
Appendix II. Alnarp Statement calling for Sustainable Conservation and Use of
European Genetic Resources 151
Appendix III. Acronyms and Abbreviations 152
Appendix IV. Agenda 156
Appendix V. List of participants 157
INDEX OF AUTHORS 166
SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP 1
PART I. SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP
Introduction
Jozef Turok
Regional Office for Europe, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI)
In April 2003, a hundred participants from 39 countries came together in a European

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

Dear colleagues from overseas,
The reason for all of us being here today goes back to a sunny day in September 2000. My
colleague Eva Jansson and myself were being visited by our friends Sónia Dias and Eliseu
Bettencourt of the Portuguese genebank. We spent a couple of hours or so discussing our
respective National Programmes, their developments and, not least, their common problems.
These were of many different kinds: the scope of the programme, involvement of
stakeholders, long-term financial support, the need for legislative action, and so on.
Gradually it became clear to us that our discussion deserved to be lifted to a higher level
where many more would be able to participate. The idea of a European meeting evolved
and when it was presented to the Steering Committee of the ECP/GR, we received
unconditional support.
We would never have been able to realize this meeting without the full and unrestricted
support by the IPGRI Regional Office for Europe, i.e. Jozef Turok and his staff, from both a
moral and an administrative point of view. Furthermore, both IPGRI and FAO have
provided economical support to this meeting. Other donors include the Nordic Council of
Ministers (NMR), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), the
Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning
(FORMAS), the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA), the Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Finally, the Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) and our
own institute – the Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM) – have both provided invaluable
assistance. To all of these we wish to express our deepest gratitude.
We gather at a time when spring has arrived and the Alnarp park and campus is
beginning to bloom. Let this bring inspiration to our discussions about the future well-being
of Europe's plant genetic resources. Once again: welcome!
With these words we give the floor to Roland von Bothmer, Vice Rector of the Alnarp
campus.
Roland von Bothmer (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), welcomed the
participants. He emphasized the need for collaboration to achieve success and wished the
workshop good luck, looking forward to its outcomes. He also presented the National
Programme on Plant Genetic Resources in Sweden (full paper pages 8-11).
Keynote presentations
A series of five invited keynote presentations followed.
- N. Murthi Anishetty (FAO): Plant genetic resources for sustainable agriculture: how far
have we come? (full paper pages 12-16);
- Jozef Turok (IPGRI Regional Office for Europe): Status of the implementation of the
Global Plan of Action for the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture in Europe (Presented as Part III of this report
pages 43-66);
- Clara O. Goedert (EMBRAPA/CENARGEN, Brazil): The Brazilian National Programme
of Conservation and Use of Genetic Resources (full paper pages 17-22);
- Ken W. Richards (Plant Gene Resources of Canada): Evolution of the Canadian Plant
Germplasm System (full paper pages 23-29);
- Martine Mitteau (Bureau des Ressources Génétiques, France): Networking: the French
Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources Management (full paper pages 30-37);
- Jaap J. Hardon (former Director, CGN, the Netherlands): Conflicting Interests in Plant
Genetic Resources (full paper on pages 38-42).1
Open Space sessions
The Open Space methodology

The workshop then proceeded following an ”Open Space” arrangement. Eva Broms
(Framtidsverkstäder AB), acting as facilitator, presented the concept and methodology of the
”Open Space” sessions, which had already been introduced to the participants in the
workshop programme distributed in advance of the meeting.2
During the first, plenary session, all participants were invited to suggest a topic for
discussion. These topics were posted on a board and the participants were invited to form
discussion groups by subscribing to the groups of their own particular interest.
Open Space sessions were then held during the three days of the workshop, each session
lasting ca. 75 minutes. Each group was requested to write down the highlights of their
discussion, summarizing ideas, conclusions and proposals made. These reports were
distributed to all participants so that they all share the same volume of information.3
The Open Space sessions were completed by informal meetings where all participants
could discuss the methodology and progress made. At the final evaluation and rounding-off
session held on the last day of the workshop, the ”Open Space experience”, which was new
to most participants, was generally acknowledged as very fruitful.
Issues discussed
The discussions focused on 29 topics, covering the following thematic issues:
- Building and implementing a National plant genetic resources (PGR) Programme;
- Technical aspects of PGR collection management (on-farm, in situ and ex situ);
- PGR conservation and use;
- Strategies for improving public awareness, training and education on PGR;
- Definition of research priorities for PGR;
- Perspectives in international cooperation.
The detailed list of issues and list of participants attending each session are given in
Appendix I.
1 This paper was not presented at the workshop, but was prepared as an additional paper
specifically for these proceedings.
2 "In preparing for the workshop, participants are requested to consider and reflect upon issues of particular
interest relating to the overall theme: “How can we, together, by utilizing our experiences, knowledge,
innovations and visions, strengthen and develop the work with national plant genetic resources
programmes?” These can have any perspective (local, national, regional or international) and consider a
range of subjects (strategies, policies, and applications, to mention only a few)".
(http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/regions/europe/Introduction/Programme.htm).
Additional information about Open Space technology can be found at www.openspaceworld.org
and www.openspacetechnology.com/osmeeting.html
3 The discussion reports were made available on the Internet shortly after the meeting
(http://www.pom.info/open_space/alnarp_workshop.html#issues).
The “Alnarp statement”

An additional output of these discussions was the “Alnarp statement” calling for sustainable
conservation and use of European genetic resources. This document, elaborated on the last
day of the workshop by one of the discussion groups, was further circulated to all
participants for their comments and approval and was endorsed in its final version given in
Appendix II.
Concluding remarks
Personal notes on the discussions

Jaap Hardon (former Director, CGN, the Netherlands), shared the following reflections with
the participants:
In Open Space discussions, a wide range of issues surrounding the conservation of plant
genetic resources in Europe were discussed.
The main issues discussed included development of National Programmes, cooperation
within Europe, funding, identification of gaps in knowledge and research needed,
opportunities for in situ conservation, how to promote sustainable use of plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), how to stimulate public awareness and
consumer interest, the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), how to cope with
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in genebanks and the economic value of PGRFA.
The following are some personal observations.
National programmes, cooperation within Europe and funding

Both the FAO International Treaty on PGRFA and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) have significantly increased awareness among governments that plant genetic
resources are important and need to be conserved in view of serious genetic erosion taking
place in agriculture and in nature. While the Treaty emphasized a need for international
cooperation, the CBD stressed the need for comprehensive National Programmes.
The main use of PGRFA is in plant breeding. Since breeders generally require access to
total genepools to select the most appropriate genetic material for their programmes of
improvement, the CBD emphasis on national collections, in situ conservation and national
control raises some serious problems. It may complicate access to total genepools and it
introduces considerable bureaucracy into gaining access, which serves the interests of neither
crop improvement nor of farmers and consumers in general.
The PGRFA in Europe covers crop and genetic diversity which, in general, transgresses
national borders and shares common crop genepools. This implies a shared interest and a
need for cooperation. The need for cooperation is also evident from an economic and cost
perspective. National genebanks may be able to collect and conserve national available
PGRFA. However, such collections will often have a limited user-value, which is essential
for sustained funding. Furthermore, it appears that existing PGRFA in the form of local
landraces of crops (and breeds of animals) are found in the economically less developed and
poorer nations of southern and eastern Europe. Putting this together would seem to suggest
a need for an Integrated European Programme for the Conservation of PGRFA.
It is suggested that ECP/GR take the lead in promoting such a programme, requiring the
following steps:
- Develop a vision of a Common integrated European Programme;
- Promote this vision among European nations;
- Gain support for it from the European Union;
- Develop a blueprint for such a programme in consultation with member countries of

ECP/GR;
- Develop a long-term action plan to realize such a programme;
- Identify sources of funding.
Following are some of my personal ideas on what such a programme could look like. I
limit myself to plant genetic resources because of personal experience, but it might equally
apply to domesticated farm animals.
The core of the programme would consist of national institutes (genebanks, research
institutes, NGOs). Lists should be prepared of all the crops relevant to the programme.
Institutes should be identified to take the lead in individual crops or groups of crops. These
institutes should identify partner institutes with a shared interest in particular crops and
establish networks of cooperation. The Lead Institute should prepare inventories of existing
collections of participating countries in a Crop Database such as already exists for barley,
Beta and others. The Lead Institute should offer facilities to store Base Collections supported
by either central or decentralized Working Collections. The Lead Institute should coordinate
collecting activities to fill gaps, promote characterization and evaluation and in collaboration
with other members identify research requirements and ways to promote utilization of the
material.
In situ conservation, sustainable use, public awareness, consumer interests

It would seem that all these issues are inter-related and would have to be primarily
addressed at the national level. During the Workshop many ideas were expressed. It was
generally agreed that conservation for the sake of conservation was hardly sustainable.
PGRFA in situ is maintained for as long as the material has a function in agriculture, as is
often seen in low-input agriculture depending on local adaptation to particular
environmental stresses or household/cultural requirements. In more economically
advanced situations, broadening the use of PGRFA would seem to largely depend on raising
consumer interest, raising the interest of hobby vegetable growers, developing niche
markets, responding to historical interest and so on. Genebanks should get involved in such
activities through rendering services such as identifying suitable collection material, making
samples of seed available for further multiplication and helping to establish, possibly
through NGOs, seed production and distribution. By playing a public role, genebanks will
benefit by public awareness of their function.
Genebanks and GMOs

GMOs pose a serious problem to genebanks. Central to the problem is the application of
industrial patents. The primary function of a patent is that it excludes the use (and related
acts) of the product or the process by anyone other than the right holder. This is in direct
conflict with the general principle of genebanks to make available and promote material for
use. A second problem is that the holder of a patent cannot prevent transfer of the protected
product to other planting material through natural crossing (introgression) in farmers' fields.
Hence, when collections are made in areas where GMOs are introduced, genebanks can
never guarantee the material to be free of patent-protected characters. This highlights the
inappropriateness of patents applied to biological materials and may give rise to absurd legal
claims. All genebanks can do is state in Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) that they
cannot give any guarantees that the material is free of patent-protected characters introduced
through biotechnology. A disadvantage of such statements is, however, that consumers
rejecting GMOs will distrust material from genebanks in general and this will harm their
image and public role. In short, the PGRFA community should get actively involved in
opposing patent protection of biological material. Use of plant genetic resources in its widest
sense should remain in the public domain and not become subjected to exclusive corporate
and shareholders' interests.
Economic value of PGRFA

Many attempts have been made to estimate the genetic value of PGRFA. The problem is
similar to how to estimate the value of clean water or clean air. It all depends on what
factors are included in the economic models and so far none have given a satisfactory
estimate. In a way, the total value of agricultural produce depends on PGRFA, as it depends
on soil, water and air. The value of PGRFA is essentially what it costs to maintain it in a
chicken-and-egg situation. In my view, trying to attach an estimated monetary value to
plant genetic resources is nonsensical.
Closing of the workshop

The workshop was formally closed with short concluding remarks from Eva Thörn (former
Director, NGB) and Ladislav Dotlačil (Director, RICP-Prague).
PRESENTED KEYNOTE PAPERS 7
PART II. PRESENTED KEYNOTE PAPERS
The National Programme of Plant Genetic Resources–development and priorities in

Sweden Error! Bookmark not defined.
Roland von Bothmer
Plant Genetic Resources for Sustainable Agriculture: how far have we come? Error!
Bookmark not defined.
The Brazilian National Programme of Conservation and Use of Genetic Resources

Error! Bookmark not defined.
Evolution of the Canadian Plant Germplasm System Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ken W. Richards
Networking: the French Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources Management Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Martine Mitteau, Grégoire Thomas, Eric Teissier du Cros, Annick Le Blanc, Agnès Ricart, Andrée
Sontot, Gautier Pereira and Dominique Planchenault
Conflicting interests in plant genetic resources Error! Bookmark not defined.

Jaap J. Hardon
The National Programme of Plant Genetic Resources–development

and priorities in Sweden
Roland von Bothmer

The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
During the final phase for completion of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) it
became obvious that the most controversial issues concerning conservation are connected to
the genetic resources of plants and animals. Major problems including economic, ethical,
social and political questions have, over the last 10 years, almost overshadowed the progress
in conservation and utilization. Recently, an International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture has been agreed upon. It is, however, a very modest agreement in
its present shape. Several countries have not yet signed the Treaty and the content is very
restricted, being confined to a few of the major food crops and their closest allies. It is clear
that national responsibility and international cooperation are the key factors for further
development in this important field.
When developing the International Treaty, several meetings and negotiations took place.
One important process was the completion of State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources
and the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA) based on national surveys of the status of
PGR in each country. The Leipzig conference in 1996 - resulting in the Leipzig declaration -
became an important milestone for an interesting international development. Already at the
GPA preparatory meeting in Nitra, Slovakia in 1995, the developments and trends in plant
genetic resources in the European Region were discussed. One of the major issues was
national involvement. The concept of ”National Programmes” was proposed and it was
concluded in the final document of the Nitra meeting that ” A National Programme is the
platform for international collaboration…”. The little word ”the” instead of ”a” makes all the
difference. The focus was immediately put on an activity or organization that did not really
exist in any country at that time.
The size, content and organization of a National Programme have never been
internationally agreed upon. Most countries are still in the process of establishing their own
programme–of which this meeting in Alnarp offers good examples.
What is a National Programme and who should be partners?

It is evident that no single national organization entirely fulfils the criteria for covering all
aspects of the programme. During the development of the Swedish Programme it was vital
to try to identify all the various aspects and make a proposal to the authorities for organizing
these activities, namely:
- conservation;
- evaluation;
- utilization;
- information;
- education;
- research.
A National Programme in its ideal set-up is a formal organization with a granted, basic
funding. It is of utmost importance that an intense collaboration between the formal and
non-governmental sectors is established. In Sweden the Board of Agriculture, through a
decision taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, became the principal for the programme. For
a broad coverage of various aspects as many partners as possible were engaged in the
practical work (e.g. ministries, other authorities, genebanks, commercial companies, NGOs,
etc.). It has taken several years to establish the various parts and the present organization.
A genebank is certainly a central element for a programme but many other aspects are
needed. Similarly, a university institution can probably cover parts of education and
research, but usually not practical breeding and conservation. Full governmental financial
support can never be obtained for an ambitious, well-documented and motivated
programme, but other funding sources (e.g. research grants, private investment) - and not
least voluntary work - are also important.
Priorities for work in a National Programme
Priorities among various groups of cultivated plants

It is vital to decide careful and sound priorities because it is not feasible to work on all
aspects of a programme simultaneously, neither for economic nor for practical reasons.
Obviously, for conservation and utilization there has been an emphasis on food security
including basic food crops and their genetic resources. Thus, the initial phases of the
programme have concentrated on major food crops, such as cereals, major oil crops and
legumes. In later years, in Europe as well as elsewhere, minor crops, vegetables, herbs, and
medicinal plants have received increased attention. Recently the work has also started to
include ornamentals: practically all countries have a great heritage in this area, biological as
well as cultural and historical, of plants used in gardens, parks and indoors. Many of those
plants have a history spanning many centuries and, like food crops, they have been selected
and bred for adaptation to certain regions or for specific purposes.
An active National Programme should not neglect any of the cultivated plant species, and
needs to maintain an active dialogue between all those involved. In the past, the importance
of our domesticated organisms as a cultural heritage has been overlooked. For instance,
genebank operators have concentrated on conserving the biological diversity whereas
decision-makers and curators of historical museums have given priority for conservation to
historical artefacts. Until now there has not been much contact between the two sides. One
advantage of a well-developed National Programme is that the two sides come together and
increase the awareness of the arguments (and perhaps financial support) for conservation for
biological as well as for cultural reasons.
Conservation vs. utilization

Lengthy discussions over recent decades have concerned the need for continuous collecting
and conservation, almost in contrast to utilization of the material. However, the one activity
is intimately linked to the other. Conservation without the aim of beneficial development of
the material for food, livestock feeding, pleasure, health and for aesthetic values will only
have a historical purpose and cannot be the objective of a vital National Programme. The
time, effort and grants invested in developing genebank material for future use increase the
value of the conserved material. The two sides are thus certainly not in opposition, but
complementary to each other. For an active National Programme it is important that
genebank authorities and practical plant breeders as well as organizations dealing with pre-
breeding (often universities) work together.
Evaluation
One particularly important field for facilitating the utilization of various gene sources is an
effective evaluation. The more that is known about various characters or the genetic makeup
of a material, the more valuable it will be. There is, however, a severe drawback for
extended evaluation, namely the economic realities, which demand strong prioritization. A
very obvious example of this relates to the cereal material in the Nordic Gene Bank. There is
certainly not much more to find in the Nordic countries of older landraces. This material is
either preserved already (very few examples, in fact) or was lost long ago. When the Nordic
Gene Bank was opened in 1979, various “basic characters”, such as disease resistance,
lodging resistance, simple yield parameters, etc., were screened. After 25 years of data
collection, information about most of these basic traits is available. To continue with further
evaluation will increase the knowledge of the material and hence its potential value, but on
the other hand the characters now wanted are much more sophisticated, more difficult and
time-consuming to study and hence more laborious and more costly. These traits might
include enzyme activities important for the malting process in barley or traits linked to
baking quality in wheat. Thus, here again choices must be made, since evaluation “at all
costs” is neither sound nor feasible.
Research areas
Research connected to plant genetic resources is a large area with many different directions.
In the Swedish National Programme we have identified the following research areas, which,
for our conditions, have been judged to be of prime importance:
Taxonomy
Taxonomy and aspects related to the nomenclature of cultivated plants earlier had a fairly
low priority. In later years it has become evident that an effective and correct nomenclature,
from the cultivar to the species or even generic level, is an area of prime importance. Failure
to develop a workable and effective taxonomic system creates chaos and inefficiency and
there are still many plant groups that are in urgent need of systematic botanical reviews.
Genepools and relationships

Gene transfer by modern gene technology is still in its infancy for individual traits.
Conventional breeding techniques to improve quantitative traits, such as yield and
horizontal resistance will prevail for many years to come. For this reason utilization of
various gene sources from genebanks or from the wild will continuously be demanded. An
effective gene transfer with conventional techniques demands a very good knowledge
concerning relationships between “gene donors” and “gene recipients”, especially when
closely or more distantly related wild species are used. Research on species relationships,
ultimately to characterize the genepool of a certain species or species groups must be given a
high priority.
Genetic diversity
Efficiency in conservation demands an increased knowledge of the material. The better the
background knowledge of a material the more effective the conservation will be. For
example, to avoid duplication and redundancies and to identify gaps in existing collections
makes studies of diversity a very important tool. Over recent decades a number of key
studies of genetic diversity have been performed, but the area currently does not have a high
priority by grant-giving organizations. Nevertheless, studies of genetic diversity with
modern or more conventional techniques need more attention for the purposes of
conservation. The genetic variation patterns are incompletely known for most groups of
cultivated plants.
Conservation aspects
A prerequisite for effective conservation is a good knowledge of the physiological
mechanisms of seeds or other parts which are used for storage. What happens in a seed
during senescence and are there effective methods to test viability and longevity? From the
diagnostic stage it is also vital to develop technology to rescue embryos, other organs, a few
cells or even a single viable cell of older material.
Efficiency in breeding
To utilize biological material better it is important that the whole chain of activities is
smoothly integrated:
- collecting and conservation of plant genetic resources;
- evaluation of agronomic and other characters;
- pre-breeding, i.e. preparation of the material to a stage convenient for further utilization;
- conventional breeding.
For both a cost-effective and time-saving procedure it is vital that the various parts work
well together. Although this statement is self-evident, and has been for a long time, the real
situation is far from ideal. Research on better integration of the various parts is needed; early
prediction of breeding results, marker assisted breeding (e.g. where exotic gene sources are
used) and more effective pre-breeding are some of the urgent research areas.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), which is a part of the Swedish
National Programme now called POM (Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants), is
a decentralized organization with four main campuses in the country. The strong regional
presence in different ecological zones from the south to the north is beneficial for research,
education and development under various horticultural and agricultural conditions. SLU
has by tradition a strong basis of research and development on various aspects of
conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources. Hence, for example, the Swedish
Biodiversity Centre (to which the role of coordinating POM has been given) is an important
partner in research and education. The localization of the Nordic Gene Bank to the Alnarp
campus makes southern Sweden an important centre for work with the country’s plant
genetic resources.
Conclusions
To achieve all the desirable aims of a National Programme of Plant Genetic Resources is
certainly not easy. Economic reality, access to willing and devoted persons and effective
coordination of many partners may influence optimal development. This makes the need for
prioritizing the different activities even more important. National collaboration is hopefully
granted through the programme, and international cooperation will contribute to its
successful development. What we need are not more meetings, but more collaborative and
international projects. Let the National Programmes continue to be the platform for this
development!
Plant Genetic Resources for Sustainable Agriculture: how far have

we come?

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy
Introduction
Plant genetic resources are one of the most important contributors to economic prosperity
and global food security. While plant genetic resources are the raw material for agricultural
activity, the role of the farmers from all over the world, in developing a vast portfolio of
genetic diversity within crops and other plant species, is equally critical. Since crops and
improved cultivars have been shared between Regions for centuries, all countries are now
interdependent, in that they rely for agriculture and food security on crops that are
cultivated elsewhere. Therefore, there is a continuous need to ensure that plant genetic
resources are always readily available to meet local and global food demands and to
contribute to agricultural sustainability.
The increase in global food production in the past few decades has been influenced
largely by the continuous development of local germplasm by farmers in the traditional
manner, major breakthroughs in agricultural research in the formal sector, free exchange of
information and unrestricted access to a wide variety of germplasm for plant breeding
throughout the world. However, with changing times, a number of issues related to plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), including restriction of access to
germplasm of PGRFA, assertion of national sovereignty over biodiversity, decline in the
notion of open or free exchange of developed plant varieties for agricultural purposes,
restriction of their use by legal clauses or patents, lack of any adequate recognition for
farmers who have traditionally been the custodians of PGRFA, etc., have come to dominate
policy formulation at the domestic and international level.
This paper will briefly trace the origins of international developments in the major issues
as they relate to PGRFA. It will also highlight the critical shifts that have take place over the
years on the various and related themes and concepts.
The road we have travelled

The first time PGRFA appeared on the international agenda was in 1972. The continued
emphasis of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on the urgent need to collect and
conserve major crop genetic resources was reflected in the recommendations of the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in 1972. FAO was
assigned the responsibility to assist in the establishment of an international genetic resources
programme along with other organizations.
The activities related to PGRFA conservation including tracing the origins of crops and
the need for global mechanisms for managing plant genetic resources were first recognized
by FAO as early as in 1961. FAO organized the first international technical meeting on plant
exploration and introduction. One of the recommendations of this meeting was to constitute
a Panel of Experts to assist and advise the Director-General of FAO on new lines of action to
deal with the problem and to expand the exchange of information on plant material between
countries and scientific institutions. Two further international technical conferences on crop
genetic resources in 1967 and 1973 paved the way for establishing a global network of crop
genetic resources centres.
A Working Party of leading scientists was established to prepare an action programme for
the collection, evaluation and conservation of genetic resources for future use, in advancing
the global network of genetic resources centres. This Working Party met at Beltsville,
Maryland, USA, under the Chairmanship of Otto Frankel in March 1972 and proposed the
creation, over a period of five years, of a network of genetic resources centres. It comprised
nine regional genetic resources centres, each to have a genebank and each to be in charge of a
regional network of collaborating national centres, which would be concerned chiefly with
exploration, short-term conservation and the regeneration of the genetic stocks stored in the
regional centre; and a coordinating committee, with a central staff as its executive arm, to
provide overall guidance and coordination of the work. This led to the establishment of a
series of crop-specific centres, consisting for the most part of the International Agricultural
Research Centres (IARCs) sponsored by CGIAR, such as IRRI for rice, ICRISAT for millet and
sorghum, CIMMYT for wheat and maize, and CIP for potatoes.
Meanwhile the organizational issues for overall supervision of the genetic resources were
resolved by establishing the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) in 1974
at FAO headquarters in Italy. FAO provided the staff and CGIAR provided operational
funds to IBPGR and for 12 years, FAO and IBPGR worked as a single programme and
supported numerous germplasm collecting missions as well as the establishment of several
national, regional and international genetic resources programmes. During this period the
IBPGR activities had grown several-fold and there were discussions about autonomy which
led to the separation of IBPGR from FAO in 1988 to become the International Plant Genetic
Resources Institute (IPGRI).
The birth of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in
1983 was an important event in the history of efforts to raise the profile of PGRFA. With the
establishment of the Commission, there was the development of the FAO Global System on
Plant Genetic Resources. The Global System comprised international agreements, networks
and a variety of codes of conduct, scientific standards, technical mechanisms and global
instruments for PGRFA. It included the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic
Resources (IU), the Global Plan of Action (GPA) and the report on the State of the World's
Plant Genetic Resources. Through these instruments, the goal has been to ensure safe
conservation and promote the availability and sustainable use of plant genetic resources by
providing a flexible framework for sharing the benefits and burdens.
In 1995, the Commission was expanded to the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture (CGRFA) to deal with policy and related issues as relevant to all genetic
resources for food and agriculture. It established two Intergovernmental Technical Working
Groups on animal and plant genetic resources respectively, which monitor and coordinate
the activities in these two critical sectors.
As the issues associated with conservation and utilization of PGRFA gained international
recognition, a need was felt for an international instrument to address them. Discussions in
FAO led to the development of the International Undertaking as a non-binding agreement,
based on the principle of the heritage of mankind over plant genetic resource. The
International Undertaking was adopted by the FAO members in 1983 as a framework for
international cooperation in the area of plant genetic resources conservation and use.
Subsequently Farmers' Rights were defined and adopted by the FAO members and Plant
Breeder's Rights, as provided for by the International Union for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants (UPOV), and were considered not inconsistent with the Undertaking. The
aim was to achieve a balance between the products, such as commercial varieties and
breeders' lines and the farmers' varieties as well as between the interests of developed and
developing countries, by balancing the rights of breeders, who are also known as formal
innovators, and the farmers often working as informal innovators. These initiatives for plant
protection were necessitated by international agreements related to Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) at the Uruguay Round Understandings, the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and the subsequent establishment of the
World Trade Organization (WTO). The trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights
(TRIPS) in WTO created minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property rights
over commercially developed seed and plant varieties. Although TRIPS seems less directly
related to genetic resources than the International Undertaking, it has had a direct impact on
the access to and exchange of PGRFA.
A number of important developments were taking place during the 1990s which have
influenced and shaped the outcome of the critical issues surrounding access, use and
conservation of plant genetic resources and biodiversity in general. It started with the Earth
Summit in 1992 held at Rio de Janeiro. This United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) paid great attention to plant genetic resources and supported the
central role of a Global System for Plant Genetic Resources and the development of its
components. Chapter 14 of Agenda 21 provided a genuine action plan for the twenty-first
century, negotiated and approved with the consensus of all countries, which included a
programme area on the ”conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources
for food and sustainable agriculture”.
Recent developments and directions

The Earth Summit, through the Nairobi Final Act, also established the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) at the same time. Around 154 countries signed the legally
binding Convention with the aim of conservation and use of biological diversity and
equitable sharing of benefits from its use. The Convention provides a framework for its
members' national sovereignty and the responsibility for the conservation and sharing of
their own genetic resources, as well as the right to determine conditions of access and
arrangements for benefit sharing on mutually agreed terms and recognizes the role of
indigenous peoples in managing genetic resources.
The world community also adopted the Global Plan of Action (GPA) in 1996 at the
Leipzig International Technical Conference. The Leipzig Declaration was signed by 150
countries to provide an agreed framework for the conservation and sustainable use of
PGRFA. The GPA was endorsed by the FAO Conference and the Conference of the Parties to
the CBD. It has 20 priority activities in the fields of in situ conservation and development, ex
situ conservation, use of PGRFA and institution and capacity building. These have become
the touchstone and basis for planning and priority setting for developing national action
plans and programmes. Since its inception, it has been operating largely as a country-driven
process through a multi-stakeholder approach. FAO has been continuously assisting
countries in facilitating its implementation.
In the light of the adoption of the CBD and the national sovereignty over biodiversity, it
was decided by the CGRFA to revise the International Undertaking (IU) in harmony with the
new Convention. The negotiations for the revision of the IU started in 1995 and took over
seven difficult years to complete. Finally, the International Treaty on PGRFA was adopted
by the FAO Conference in 2001.
The main objectives of the International Treaty are the conservation and sustainable use of
PGRFA and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use for
sustainable agriculture and food security. This legally binding international agreement,
which came into force on 29 June 2004, provides a framework to ensure access to plant
genetic resources and to related knowledge, technologies and internationally agreed funding.
The Treaty provides a Multilateral system for access and benefit sharing of PGRFA. It
includes the Global Plan of Action and also recognizes Farmer's Rights to be established in
accordance with the needs and priorities of each country as appropriate and subject to its
national legislation. The Treaty provides the agricultural sector with a multilateral tool to
promote cooperation and synergy with other sectors, particularly with trade and the
environment. The adoption of the Treaty completed one of the tasks set by the Earth Summit
in 1992. The Treaty also contributes to meeting the goals of the Rome Declaration on World
Food Security and the World Food Summit Plan of Action as declared in 1994.
Global partnerships for agrobiodiversity

The evolution in the status of PGRFA from a stand-alone component to an integral part of
agrobiodiversity as a whole has been a fundamental shift in recent years. It has been
followed by the recognition of a PGRFA contribution to sustainable agriculture, development
and livelihood support. From conservation of PGRFA for the sake of conservation, the
approach that has been adopted now is to establish linkages between conservation and
sustainable use of PGRFA. The strategies adopted for conservation are broad-based, ranging
from ex situ to on-farm, recognizing the merit in combining the individual approaches. This
inclusive and holistic style is also to be seen in utilization strategies. More importantly, the
international community has been able to create processes that are leading to the universal
recognition of the values, traditions and knowledge associated with farmers and traditional
communities. Although it has been a long process, these changes are vital and are now being
taken up at many levels.
Since the establishment of the CBD, it has been working closely with FAO on a number of
critical agrobiodiversity issues including access, benefit sharing and use. The Conference of
Parties of the Convention recognizes the leading role of FAO and has increasingly requested
the organization to contribute, coordinate and complement the implementation of the decisions
of the Convention in this area. At its Fifth meeting, the Conference of the Parties, through
Decision V/5, adopted a programme of work on agricultural biodiversity. In implementing
the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity, the main thrust is on the application of
an ecosystem approach, based on a strategy for the integrated management of land, water
and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.
Activities on agricultural biodiversity include assessments, adaptive management, capacity
building and mainstreaming. The application of the ecosystem approach focuses on the
functional relationships and processes within ecosystems through the use of adaptive
management practices, through decentralization to the lowest level while ensuring an
intersectoral cooperation.
The Global Plan of Action received fresh impetus from the ”World Food Summit: Five
Years Later“ held in 2002. This renewed investment in the implementation of the Global
Plan of Action was extremely timely and FAO has been committed to facilitating its effective
implementation and visibility. An integrative approach has been proposed for further
implementation of the Plan through the establishment of a Facilitating Mechanism to enable
all stakeholders to better coordinate and encourage donor support for implementation of
activities and create partnerships in areas of mutual interest, to facilitate establishment of
country and regional priority needs. The Facilitating Mechanism would operate within the
policy framework of the Treaty and be reviewed by the CGRFA at its regular sessions. It is
envisaged that it would contribute to the implementation of the Funding Strategy established
under the Treaty.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment co-sponsored by FAO, United Nations
Environment Network (UNEP), World Bank (WB) and World Resources Institute (WRI) is an
effort aimed at providing policy-makers with the ”state of the art“ scientific information on
conditions, future scenarios and response options related to the goods and services provided
by the world's ecosystems - mainly agriculture, grasslands, forests, freshwater and coastal
ecosystems. It would help in building capacity at all levels in each of the above-mentioned
sectors to undertake an integrated ecosystem assessment in future and in taking appropriate
actions based on the findings.
Another development has been the establishment of the Global Crop Diversity Trust. It is
an international fund that has been established by the FAO and IPGRI, acting on behalf of
the Future Harvest Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), to help ensure the long-term conservation and availability of PGRFA, with a view
to achieving global food security and sustainable agriculture. Its goal is to support the
conservation of crop diversity over the long term and provide a permanent source of support
for crop diversity collections around the world. The Trust is also an element of the funding
strategy to be implemented under the International Treaty. The establishment of the Trust
has been possible through partnerships of FAO and the 16 Future Harvest Centres of CGIAR.
The initial goal of the Trust is to raise US$260 million as an endowment fund, as well as
funds that can be used directly to support the upgrading of crop diversity collections and
building the capacity of the genebanks that house them.
Future role for FAO and ECP/GR

The international decisions and their implementation through a variety of agencies are
influencing the development of a holistic and sustainable approach of conservation and use
of PGRFA. FAO is currently overseeing and providing a mechanism for the global
community to foster linkages and create new opportunities for better management and
utilization of plant genetic resources, adopting an ecosystem approach for safeguarding
agrobiodiversity and enhancing the recognition and application of local peoples’ knowledge
about food security and sustainable use of biodiversity. However, there is a wide range of
complexities related to plant genetic resources and the success of the efforts will depend on
the infrastructure of National Programmes and capabilities of countries and the relevant
stakeholders involved in the process. ECP/GR as the Regional networking mechanism in
Europe has a substantial role in taking this forward, not only within Europe but also as a
model for other networks to emulate. One major area of focus must be capacity building,
especially at the institutional level for countries with economies in transition and in a manner
that is integrated with national agricultural development activities. A greater leverage can
be achieved by working with a series of partners and by identifying and implementing a
coherent approach to all activities.
With the changing scenarios on regulatory frameworks on access to PGRFA, there is also a
need for integration of PGRFA-related measures implemented within the context of a
comprehensive programme that will make it possible to link all the involved parties. There
will be a need to involve state organizations, the private sector, NGOs, as well as individual
farmers, agricultural communities and research institutions. FAO is actively addressing
policy questions on biological diversity and, in particular, agricultural genetic resources
through its intergovernmental forum, the CGRFA. A better understanding of the functions
of agricultural ecosystems, management of agricultural production systems and effective
policy implementation will be at the heart of future plant genetic resources management and
development.
The Brazilian National Programme of Conservation and Use of

Genetic Resources

EMBRAPA/CENARGEN, Brasilia, Brazil
History
Linked to the Ministry of Agriculture, the Brazilian Agriculture Research Corporation
(EMBRAPA) was created in 1973. In the following year the National Center for Genetic
Resources (CENARGEN) was created to organize and execute introduction and collecting
activities of exotic and native plant genetic resources and to establish a system of long-term
seed germplasm conservation. In 1979, animal and microorganism genetic resources
activities were added to CENARGEN's mandate. In 1980, EMBRAPA created the National
Research Programme of Genetic Resources indicating CENARGEN as the national
coordinating unit for that area. In the same year, the Biotechnology research area was
incorporated into the Center's mandate and in 1984 a specific programme was established,
with migration of projects previously included in the Genetic Resources Programme. Since
1980, the National Genetic Resources Programme has been increasing its activities,
incorporating new partners and new genebanks and activities such as molecular
characterization of genetic resources. Presently, the Brazilian Genetic Resources system is
consolidated as a network (RENARGEN), integrating research units of EMBRAPA,
universities and research institutes.
General objective
The general purpose of the genetic resources network is to re-establish and modernize the
genetic resources work management to enable EMBRAPA to better meet the national
germplasm demands. Emphasis is given to the enrichment, conservation, characterization
and availability of plant, animal and microorganism germplasm, native and exotic, bearing
in mind Brazilian food security and the need to increment the technical and negotiating
capacities towards an efficient international exchange, in agreement with the National
Biodiversity Policy and other legal developments. Additionally, emphasis is given to the
integration of genetic resources over the country’s regions, to the modernization of
germplasm characterization methods and to the availability and sharing of information. A
significant portion of the activities is focused on products of major impact to agribusiness
and family agriculture, as well as to the development of research work that can bring
advanced opportunities for training and capacity building of the scientific staff, technicians,
farmers' communities and other partners involved.
Specific objectives
1. To confer on Brazil maximal independence for genetic resources of interest for
agricultural research work, in view of the increasing restrictions to access and exchange
of germplasm, while assuring the country’s control of native genetic resources and their
conservation and sustainable use.
2. To promote the enrichment of and accessibility to scientific and technological research of
cultivated grasses with wide genetic variability and that of cereals and related species.
These must be characterized and well organized to be used efficiently, aiming to meet the
demands of a sustainable agriculture and better competitiveness in the internal and
external markets.
3. To introduce, collect, characterize, conserve, document and propagate germplasm

accessions of legumes and oil and fibre plants in the active genebanks of soybean, beans,
groundnut and wild species of Arachis, sesame, sunflower, cotton, sisal, ramie (Boehmeria
nivea), castor bean and curauá (Ananas erectifolius), emphasizing genetic breeding use,
gene prospecting and strategic availability for Brazil.
4. To increase the genetic variability of cultivated fruit trees of high economic value as well
as the native fruit trees to be used in breeders' programmes through collection
enrichment and efficient maintenance.
5. To amplify the genetic base of native and exotic forage plants adapted to the distinct
national ecosystems; conserve and characterize the existing active genebank accessions;
document data and study the development of the reproductive characteristics of
accessions, with emphasis on the study of apomixis.
6. To contribute to the knowledge and conservation of the germplasm of vegetables, root
tubers and spice plants for their sustainable use in Brazilian agribusiness.
7. To establish new populations and increase the existing genetic populations of forest trees
of social and economic importance conserved in active genebanks as sources of seeds for
current and future use. This objective is linked to a wider objective of ensuring the
availability of genetic material to restore the forest cover both for protection of natural
ecosystems and for developing new agroforestry systems for the production of raw
material from forest and palm trees.
8. To introduce, collect, characterize, conserve, document and make available the
germplasm of industrial species: sugarcane, guaraná (Paullinia cupana) (a source of a soft
drink), rubber tree, neem (Azadirachta indica), medicinal, aromatic and ornamental
species.
9. To enrich the microorganism genebanks, amplifying their potential use for
biotechnological processes to be applied in the agroindustry and isolation of new genes
to be used in the production of transgenic organisms; improving accessibility to
information networks and services and seeking the integration of individual collections;
developing basic studies in taxonomy and characterizing microorganisms, emphasizing
training.
10. To develop actions for conservation, enrichment and maintenance of genetic variability
and genetic characterization of domestic animal races or groups adapted to specific
ecological niches, which are at risk of extinction.
11. To promote and achieve the long-term genetic resource conservation of species of current
and potential social and economic importance for Brazilian agribusiness supported by
technologically advanced research work.
12. To develop all the above initiatives in an integrated network structure, assigning special
emphasis to the nationwide coverage of the genetic resources work and to stress any
new partnerships with potential national and international counterparts, towards the
same goals.
General strategy
The Brazilian genetic resources network (RENARGEN) develops its actions with a focus on
the four main activities consolidated over the years:
1. Enrichment Intensive germplasm collection, introduction and exchange

2. Conservation Integrating both in situ (either in nature or on-farm) and ex situ
(seeds in cold storage, explants in vitro) plant germplasm
conservation, but also including alternatives for microorganism
cultures and the cryopreservation of animal semen and ovules
3. Characterization In the field and in the laboratory, to cover the distinctiveness of
accessions from morphological to physiological, reproductive and
genetic attributes, with a view to their incorporation in breeding
programmes and/or direct sustainable use.
4. Information Providing full documentation, to avoid duplication and to support
the best possible efficiency in germplasm management,
strengthening the Curatorial System.
RENARGEN – Component Projects and Action Plans

RENARGEN is composed of 12 projects, each developed through several plans of action
executed all over the country by EMBRAPA Research Centers, as follows:
Network Component Project 0 – Network management, involving the structure for the
general coordination and for the coordination of five network component projects at
EMBRAPA/CENARGEN, plus the coordination of six other network component projects
at six other EMBRAPA units.
Network Component Project 1 – Enrichment of genetic variability, documentation and

training, exchange and quarantine of plant germplasm and optimization of methods for
the detection, identification and control of quarantine pests.
Action Plans
a. Development and implementation of systems for administration of sequential
procedures for germplasm exchange and quarantine and diffusion of information on
quarantine pests;
b. Rescue of plant germplasm from areas with high landrace diversity or in areas facing
environmental stresses;
c. Development and adaptation of methods and processes for genetic, cytogenetic and
reproductive plant germplasm characterization;
d. Capacity building in molecular germplasm characterization;
e. Computerized documentation and information of germplasm data.
Network Component Project 2 - Conservation, characterization and use of cereal genetic

resources.
Action Plans - Genebanks
a. Exotic germplasm only (sorghum, triticale and rye, pseudocereals and tef (Eragrostis
tef));
b. Exotic germplasm plus adventive species (oats);
c. Exotic germplasm with Brazilian landraces (wheat);
d. Exotic germplasm plus native wild relatives (barley, rice, pearl millet);
e. Regional germplasm plus landraces and related species (maize, plus native Tripsacum
species).
Network Component Project 3 - Collection, characterization and ex situ germplasm

conservation of pulses, oil crops and fibre plants.
a. Exotic germplasm only (soybean, castor bean, sesame, sunflower, sisal, ramie);
b. Exotic germplasm plus native wild species (cowpea);
c. Regional germplasm including landraces and related wild species (beans, groundnut,
cotton);
d. Native germplasm only (curauá - Ananas erectifolius).
Network Component Project 4 - Collection, characterization and ex situ conservation of

fruit tree germplasm.
a. Exotic germplasm only (citrus, banana, grapes, acerola (Malpighia glabra));
b. Exotic germplasm with old Brazilian populations (coconut);
c. Exotic germplasm plus native wild relatives (prunoids);
d. Regional germplasm plus landraces and related wild species (papaya);
e. Native germplasm including wild relatives (cashew, cupuaçu (Theobroma
grandiflorum), pineapple, passion fruit plus native fruits from all Brazilian biomes.
Network Component Project 5 - Collection, characterization and conservation ex situ of

forage plant germplasm.
a. Exotic germplasm plus adventive congeneric species (alfalfa);
b. Exotic germplasm plus native wild species (Brachiaria, Guinea grass (Panicum
maximum), napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum), Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris);
c. Regional and native forage crops and related species (Stylosanthes, Paspalum plus
native forage plants from all areas of natural grasslands used for cattle-raising
activities);
d. Characterization of the apomixis mechanism in forage grasses.
Network Component Project 6 - Collection, characterization and ex situ germplasm

conservation of vegetable crops, roots and tubers, and spices.
a. Exotic germplasm only (arracacha (Arracacia xanthorrhiza), black pepper, garlic,
onion, carrot, tomato);
b. Exotic germplasm with Brazilian landraces (cucurbits);
c. Exotic germplasm plus native wild relatives (potato, sweet potato);
d. Regional and native crops including landraces and related species (cassava,
Capsicum).
Network Component Project 7 - Collection, characterization and conservation of forest and

palm species germplasm.
a. Exotic germplasm only (conifer species);
b. Exotic germplasm plus native wild relatives (oil palm);
c. Regional germplasm plus landraces and related species (Amazon palms, Amazonian
forest species, tropical extra-Amazonian broad-leaved trees, subtropical broad-leaved
trees);
d. Native germplasm only (Paraná pine, Araucaria angustifolia).

industrial, medicinal, aromatic and ornamental plant germplasm.
a. Exotic germplasm only (sugarcane, neem);
b. Regional germplasm plus landraces and related species (rubber tree, mate (Ilex
paraguarensis), Amazonian medicinal plants, West Central medicinal plants);
c. Native germplasm only (guaraná, Amazonian ornamentals, medicinal plants from
several regions of Brazil).

microorganism germplasm.
a. Diazotrophic bacteria;
b. Bacillus spp. ;
c. Entomopathogenic fungi and viruses;
d. Weed and pest controlling microorganisms;
e. Microorganisms of veterinary interest;
f. Microorganisms of industrial interest;
g. Base collection of fungi for human consumption;
h. Agrobacterium vectors for plant transformation.
Network Component Project 10 - Conservation, characterization and use of domestic

animal germplasm.
a. Exotic germplasm only (cattle, water buffalo, horses, sheep, goats, swine, poultry);
b. Molecular characterization of naturalized animal breeds.
Network Component Project 11 - Curator’s system and long-term in situ and ex situ
germplasm conservation (seeds, tissues, embryos, semen).
Action Plans
a. In situ conservation of variability of target species in areas under permanent
protection;
b. Ethnobiology and conservation of genetic resources in Indian villages and traditional
communities;
c. Seed base collection;
d. In vitro base collection;
e. Cryopreservation of plant germplasm;
f. EMBRAPA Cultivar Genebank;
g. Germplasm Curator’s System;
h. Semen and ovule conservation.
RENARGEN's activities are in the care of the EMBRAPA Research Centers and other
partner institutions. Their scientific teams gather experts in genetic resources and breeding
and have fairly good facilities for research.
At present, RENARGEN has 173 genebanks, including 136 for plants, 20 for domestic
animals and 17 for microorganisms. The Seed Base Collection contains over
85 000 accessions of 745 species, stored at –20°C and 5% seed water content. Most accessions
stored in the base collection are of commodity species (soybean, corn, wheat, rice, beans and
barley).
The genetic resources network's major contribution is in maintaining agrobiodiversity,

minimizing genetic erosion and ensuring current and future human food security,
particularly for the Brazilian population. Additionally, the knowledge generated by
RENARGEN should influence the sustainability of agricultural systems by the use of well-
adapted cultivars, livestock breeds and microorganisms that will contribute to greater
production stability, productivity and technological quality, conferring on them desirable
agronomic, nutritional and market characters.
Expertise and training opportunities are made available to support other related national,
regional and international programmes as needed.
Evolution of the Canadian Plant Germplasm System
Ken W. Richards
Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Introduction
Canada's national plant seed genebank, Plant Gene Resources of Canada (PGRC), came into
existence in 1970 and plays a major role in the long-term ex situ conservation and
preservation of plant germplasm in Canada and internationally. Formal plant germplasm
conservation in Canada began as a result of a technical conference, ”Exploration, Utilization
and Conservation of Plant Gene Resources”, sponsored by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) in Rome in 1967. A meeting was convened during 1968 in Ottawa by
the Research Branch of Agriculture Canada to develop a national policy for the permanent
preservation of desirable germplasm in a seed bank. This resulted in the appointment of
Dr Roland Loiselle as the first germplasm officer in Canada in 1970 and the creation of PGRC
in Ottawa, Ontario.
The Clonal genebank (CGB) came into existence in Trenton, Ontario in 1980 as the
principal site for the preservation of clonally propagated fruit crops. PGRC's and CGB's
mandate is similar to most other genebanks in the world and is to protect, preserve, and
enhance the genetic diversity of Canadian crop plants and their wild relatives by acquiring,
evaluating, researching and documenting plant genetic resources to provide fundamental
genetic building blocks for crop variety development, bio-based product development and
plant genetic studies, nationally and internationally. This mandate is well represented in
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) Biodiversity Action Plan created in response to
the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy as Canada's response to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD). By signing and ratifying the CBD, Canada has committed itself to ensuring
the survival and sustainable use of genetic resources (Anonymous 1995; Harvey and Fraleigh
1995; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1997; Greenfield and Richer 1997).
Over the past 32 years, PGRC and the national plant genetic resource system have
undergone a number of significant transformations related to structure, facilities, staff,
location, initiatives and funding. A number of these changes are the result of
recommendations from a number of external and internal reviews (1987, 1988, 1991/1992,
1999) of programmes. Two events are significant: the establishment in 1992 of the federal
government's Green Plan and the 1995 announcement to relocate PGRC from Ottawa to
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and the Clonal genebank from Trenton to Harrow, Ontario in new
facilities.
Green Plan
The Canadian distributed repository system for plant germplasm came into existence in 1992
under the federal government’s Green Plan which was responding to recommendations
regarding enhancement of germplasm conservation in Canada. The targeted funding
($5m over 5 years) linked regeneration, characterization and evaluation of germplasm with
locations in Canada where plant breeding programmes existed. This action was consistent
with FAO recommendations that the expertise of plant breeders be used to characterize,
regenerate and document the diversity in collections. Initially five nodes were established:
(1) potato: Fredericton, New Brunswick; (2) cereal: Winnipeg, Manitoba; (3) forage:
Lethbridge, Alberta; (4) crucifers: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; and (5) hardy ornamentals, new
and specialty crops: Morden, Manitoba. The nodes were responsible for regeneration,
characterization and evaluation of their germplasm, but not distribution, viability testing or
documentation, which were done centrally at PGRC.
The Green Plan had a number of successes as considerable germplasm was regenerated
and thus saved and secured, some new characterization and evaluation data were acquired,
together with new accessions and the Green Plan gave Canada a National Programme with
relevant expertise. However, there were some problems. After five years of targeted
funding, no firm commitments for continuity at designated sites existed even though that
was the initial intent. One node ceased to exist, another significantly reduced its efforts and
another moved to a new location. Node staff and resources were under the control of local
managers and not centrally managed, so the dedicated funds did not always remain as
proposed and targeted. Different nodes operated differently in spite of attempts at
coordination and thus had different levels of success.
Relocation and change

The federal government in its 1995 budget announced PGRC and CGB would move to new
improved and secure facilities. PGRC moved from Ottawa to Saskatoon and CGB moved
from Trenton to Harrow. For PGRC the dedicated facility in Ottawa conserved the
germplasm at international standards, but the building itself had little environmental control.
The moves allowed the collections to be closer to more users, facilitating greater utilization
and collaboration. The CGB moved into newly constructed and state-of-the-art greenhouses
and screenhouses with increased emphasis on plant health and maintenance.
The overall mandate for the national system was revised prior to the relocations to
encourage improved operations to better meet client expectations. Prior to 1998 the focus of
the Canadian genetic resource programme was service-oriented and little publishable in-
depth research was conducted. Since then research scientists have been hired and the
analysis of genetic variation within the seed collection has been significantly increased.
Several research papers have been published in internationally recognized journals. As an
example, molecular analysis of genepools in flax, genetic erosion/drift in breeding
programmes (oat) and native grass evaluations have been completed. Detailed
characterization and evaluation of flax, oat and pulse crops will lead to a number of
publications. Plant pathology research is focusing on screening collections for resistance to
various pathogens in pulse crops, crucifers and sunflower. Some basic pollination ecology
research is also taking place with emphasis on the genus Lotus.
Another major change involved the adoption of the USDA GRIN database management
system. Credibility of PGRC and the national plant germplasm system increased when the
GRIN-CA database went live on the Internet in 2001. Other significant changes involved
rationalization of the collection for relevancy, increasing linkages with the USDA and a
number of foreign countries through Memoranda of Understanding and the acquisition of
germplasm of national significance, including material unique (rare, threatened, or
endangered) in Canada's biodiversity.
Prior to moving the seed collection across Canada, a distance of more than 3500 km,
detailed consideration was given to timing, method and security. In the end, PGRC and
AAFC involved the Canadian Department of National Defence and obtained the services of a
dedicated Hercules transport aircraft. The collection was divided; one part was transported
by plane while the other part remained in Ottawa until the first was safe and secure in
Saskatoon, and then the second was moved. The event was also managed as a
communication event capturing significant national press coverage for PGRC as it moved
Canada's future food supply in a safe and secure manner.
Documentation
In the early years, 3 × 5 index cards and paper files were kept as electronic files and
databases did not exist. These initial files were followed by a TAXIR software program, but
this system quickly became obsolete. During the late 1980s and early 1990s the Canadian
Agriculture Plant Genetic Resources System (CAPGRIS) based on System 1032 was being
developed. This system along with a personal computer version of CAPGRIS never became
fully operational. It had many individual files which did not link taxonomy or inventory
with the accessions. In 1995 Canada adopted the USDA-GRIN system and modified it
(GRIN-CA) to meet Canadian needs. GRIN-CA is currently fully functional and operational
on the Internet (http://www.agr.gc.ca/pgrc-rpc). A significant element of GRIN-CA is its
ability to support a distributed repository system like the Canadian one, with sites at PGRC,
CGB and the nodes. This system allows the sites to manage their own data while the
detailed programming is done centrally at PGRC. Using GRIN in Canada puts all of North
America on a common database management system, thus facilitating the sharing of genetic
resource information between Canada and the USA and the fulfilment of sophisticated
programming needs. GRIN-CA contains information on accessions (passport), plant
taxonomy and characterization and evaluation data, all of which can be searched. Inventory,
viability, health status and distribution records are also recorded within the database to help
manage the collections. The Web site also provides news about genetic resources activities in
Canada and provides linkages to a number of international genebanks.
Collection - acquisition
In the early years the PGRC seed genebank focused acquisition of germplasm on a few
genera with particular emphasis on germplasm of Canadian origin: barley, tomato, oat,
wheat and alfalfa. Some international material was acquired from Botanic Gardens and
selected European genebanks and institutes. During the mid-years (1980-1995) the collection
significantly increased in size by acquiring germplasm from within Canada and
internationally. A large collection of wheat and other cereals was obtained from the Regina
Research Centre prior to its closing. Internationally, a number of significant collections were
obtained through site collections, including wild oat and barley of Mediterranean origin, the
world base collection of barley and oat, duplicate world base collections of pearl millet and
crucifers and most of the USDA barley and oat collections. During this same period an
attempt was made to improve the management of the collection using lists of criteria
describing what should enter the collection for several crop species. These lists were
developed through consultation with stakeholders (breeders, pathologists) and included
such items as Canadian developed cultivars, elite breeding material, germplasm with specific
traits, international cultivars and wild species in potentially useful genepools. The problem
with this approach was that the criteria were generally too broad and failed to leave anything
out. Some criteria were very restrictive and limited the growth of the collection. These
criteria lists are no longer in use. Since 1995 selection of new acquisitions has been targeted
specifically to fill in gaps in the collection: geographic or desired traits. Emphasis has been
given to Canadian developed cultivars, some elite germplasm and germplasm with highly
desired traits to solve current production problems. It is significant that PGRC is slowly
acquiring selected native Canadian plant species, including rare or endangered material. The
latter forms part of PGRC/AAFC's commitment to the departments’ Action Plan, the
Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, the CBD and more recently the Agriculture Policy
Framework (APF).
Funding
Funding of the Canadian plant germplasm system comes from a number of sources, the main
one being the federal government through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Funds are
also obtained through competitive research grants, contracts and agreements with grower
associations, provincial governments, private industry and non-governmental organizations.
Particularly unique in Canada and AAFC is the Matching Investment Initiative (MII)
programme whereby worthy projects from industry, grower associations or NGOs may be
matched with federal dollars. PGRC has been able to take advantage of these options in
funding to enhance its research programme for specific projects and is constantly seeking
new partnerships and agreements to help fulfil its mandate.
Linkages
PGRC has developed a number of formal and informal linkages over the years. When PGRC
accepted formal responsibility to manage the international world base collections (barley,
oat, pearl millet and crucifers), a number of letters of agreement were signed with IPGRI,
ICARDA and FAO. These agreements still remain in effect. Recently PGRC has increased
international linkages through a number of bilateral agreements with a number of countries,
institutes and NGOs including China, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Ukraine, Seeds of Diversity,
Canada, USDA/ARS National Centre for Genetic Resources Preservation, VIR (N.I. Vavilov
Institute of Plant Industry, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation) and VNIIL (All Russian Flax
Research Institute, Torzhok, Russian Federation). In the future PGRC and the Canadian
national system intend to continue interactions with our regional partner, the USDA/ARS,
internationally with specific institutes and scientists on specific research projects and
nationally with a number of partners receiving some external funding.
Regeneration, characterization and evaluation

Regeneration of seeds in storage and characterization and evaluation are important parts of
the work of any genebank and PGRC is no exception. Most crop species are regenerated and
characterized at Saskatoon in either the field or greenhouse. However, it is recognized that
additional sites across Canada and internationally are required as the growing season at
Saskatoon is short, with low cumulative heat units. There is a high risk of winter kill for
some perennial species. The distributed repository system helps to solve this problem.
Clonal germplasm (tree and small fruits) is conserved at Harrow and potato germplasm at
Fredericton. Numerous other sites across Canada are used for regeneration and some
characterization/evaluation as follows: soybean: Harrow; winter wheat: Lethbridge, Alberta;
winter barley: Delhi, Ontario, low-bush blueberry: Kentville, Nova Scotia. The Crucifer and
Forage nodes, located at Saskatoon, regenerate, characterize and evaluate related crop
species while the Cereal node at Winnipeg, Manitoba characterizes and evaluates cereal
crops.
Specific crop descriptor lists for Canada have been generated for several crop species.
Several informative sources including the USDA-GRIN, the extensive publications from
IPGRI and those of other genebanks have been used to develop the lists. After the lists are
generated they are subjected to an extensive consultation process involving Canadian plant
breeders, pathologists, quality specialists and others where relevant. The consultation
process targets Canadian clients and through the process hopefully facilitates buy-in and use
of the germplasm, database and information. Almost all agrobotanic data is obtained during
the regeneration cycles while more specific evaluations such as pathology and quality
require collaboration with specialist researchers. All data is entered into GRIN-CA.
Reviews (external and internal)

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

Over the past two to three years AAFC has been undergoing another major reorganization.
This effort has included a restructuring of all research studies within AAFC including plant
and microbial genetic resource collections. PGRC, the CGB, the nodes and the microbial
collection all report as part of the Environment Team and within the Biodiversity Theme.
For the first time all plant and microbial genetic resource activities in Canada are under one
national team and theme, leadership and management. All activities and resources are
under one national study with an objective to enhance the capacity to conserve genetic
resources and generate benefits from them through the development of strains, cultivars and
bio-based products and in support of regulatory requirements. Specifically this involves the
acquisition, maintenance and distribution of genetic resources consistent with our
commitments to the FAO Treaty, regeneration of acquisitions, documentation through
GRIN-CA, characterization, evaluation and analysis, and the development of domesticated
diversity indicators.
Canada has an extensive plant germplasm system which has been strengthened and
expanded mainly by acting on recommendations from internal and external reviews. There
are still areas which need strengthening through more resources for professional staff to
conduct more detailed research. For example, it would be desirable to (1) have more detailed
diversity analysis of the collection; (2) be able to explain genetic variation better through
integration of GIS and molecular technologies; (3) carry out more evaluation of quality and
value-added traits through collaboration with specialists; (4) acquire a better understanding
of Canada's native plant biodiversity; and (5) continue to expand links with institutes and
scientists nationally and internationally.
Other comments
Canada is not unique in the world in its increased awareness of the importance of
biodiversity and germplasm conservation. Through commitments made by the federal
government and the AAFC Biodiversity Theme there are opportunities to enhance our
capacity to conserve germplasm and generate benefits from them. Canada does not have
national legislation to meet these opportunities and does not need legislation as the federal
government and AAFC department already believe conserving plant genetic resources is the
responsibility of the state. It is recognized that private industry will not become actively
involved in germplasm conservation. However, it is important for one federal government
department or site to be responsible for national coordination of plant genetic resource
programmes and conservation efforts. It has been PGRC's experience that understanding
and future support from policy and decision-makers comes mainly through the delivery of a
worthy, relevant and proven track record of accomplishments where goals are consistently
met and exceeded. Only then may additional resources be forthcoming. Reliable additional
funding, either from the government or elsewhere, is always needed for genetic resource
systems and genebanks. Reliable and sufficient funding forms a major continuing problem
for many national genetic resource programmes. Extensive and continual lobbying of policy
and decision makers as the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) has done for the USDA
National Plant Germplasm System is an effective means to increase budgets and other
resources. The ASTA's efforts have doubled the USDA budget over the past five years at a
time when other parts of the budget were being reduced. This could not have been possible
without a proven track record of achievement. Over the years the Canadian plant
germplasm system has undergone a number of external and internal reviews of its
programme. Although reviews may provoke anxiety, if managed well by inviting national
stakeholders and decision-makers (industry, academic, government and NGOs) to contribute
ideas, the outcomes have resulted in a better managed national genetic resource programme
and have facilitated commitments by those involved. Reviews can be used to one's
advantage!
References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1997. Biodiversity Initiatives. Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. 33pp.
Anonymous. 1995. Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, Canada’s Response to the Convention on
Biological Diversity. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. 80pp.
Greenfield, J. and N. Richer. 1997. Biodiversity Initiatives. Canadian Agricultural Producers.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. 66pp.
Harvey, B.L. and B. Fraleigh. 1995. Impacts on Canadian agriculture of the Convention on
Biological and Biological Diversity. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75:17-21.
RAFI Communique. 1987. A report on the security of the world’s major gene banks. 9pp.
Networking: the French Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources

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

3 INRA, Avignon, France
4 Groupe d'étude et de contrôle des variétés et des semences (GEVES), Le Magneraud, France
A long tradition in France

Sampling, collection, acclimatization, domestication, selection and genetic improvement of
plants with botanical, agricultural, horticultural, landscape, forestry and/or industrial value
are well-established practices in France. For more than two centuries these activities have
involved many stakeholders. They take place on the mainland and in the overseas
territories, most of which are found in tropical regions.
This led in the 1960s to the establishment of numerous ex situ plant collections, such as
breeders' working collections, species collections in botanical gardens, amateurs' private
collections, etc. But at the same time, a major risk of genetic erosion arose, linked with
intensified farming characterized by the use of high-performance varieties and a significant
reduction in the genetic diversity in use.
The 1960s were also the time of extensive development of natural protected areas for
in situ flora preservation through national parks and national nature reserves. The first
nature reserve was created in the Camargue in 1928. But meanwhile, the risk of human
influence has grown significantly, with increased urbanization and human activity impacting
on the natural environment and on wild native species.
In 1983: a political will

1983 saw the expression of willingness, at the political level, to coordinate and structure the
pre-existing initiatives on animal, plant and microbial genetic diversity and to elaborate a
national strategy for genetic resources. Rather than basing it on an existing body, the public
authorities chose to create a new governmental institution, called Bureau des Ressources
Génétiques (BRG), under the regulatory authority of the ministry in charge of research.
Currently, BRG is an inter-ministerial body made up of 13 members as a ”scientific
group“, with the aim of working together on genetic resources:
Six Ministries, in charge of Research, Industry, Agriculture, Environment, Overseas
Territories and International Cooperation; and
Seven public scientific organizations:
1. INRA (Institut national de la recherche agronomique - National Institute for
Agronomic Research);
2. MNHN (Muséum national d'histoire naturelle - National Museum for Natural
History);
3. CNRS (Centre national de la recherche scientifique - National Centre for Scientific
Research);
4. IRD (Institut de recherche pour le développement - Research Institute for
Development);
5. CIRAD (Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le

développement - Centre for International Cooperation in Agronomic Research for
Development);
6. IFREMER (Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer - French Research
Institute for Exploitation of the Sea); and
7. GEVES (Groupe d’étude et de contrôle des variétés et des semences - Group for the
Study and Monitoring of Varieties and Seeds).
BRG is composed of:

- An Inter-ministerial Committee and a ”Group Council”, to decide on political and
strategic issues and lay down the broad outlines of BRG activity;
- A Scientific Commission which is consulted by the Group Council on the implementation
of proposed policies and is responsible for the scientific supervision of issues under the
BRG mandate;
- Three specialized Commissions for animals, plants and micro-organisms to foster
dialogue and coordination;
- A ”Core Team”, with a President and eight to nine permanent staff to run it.
All members are represented within the Group Council (Fig. 1), the Inter-ministerial
Committee only by the representative of each ministry.
Fig. 1. Structure of BRG.
The mandate of BRG and its implementation

In 1993, with the new status of ”scientific group”, a four-section mandate was entrusted to
BRG. It is a wide mandate as it covers all activities related to genetic resources, from
management to national and international expertise, through research and information:
1. The first section is to promote reflection and consultation and to harmonize actions at the
national level by:
- drawing up and implementing the National Charter for the Management of Genetic
Resources in France;
- operating networks to streamline conservation on national initiatives and to
harmonize them with international obligations and action plans;
- fostering dialogue through specialized commissions as an input/output exchange, to

inform, explain and in return, to identify the major issues with the stakeholders;
- conducting studies on major unresolved issues (legal status of genetic resources, cost
of their management, quality assurance, etc.);
- participating in the elaboration of national regulations of genetic resources.
2. The second mission is to promote scientific research and transfer of knowledge by:
- supporting research through national calls for proposals (about 1 million euros over
two years);
- organizing scientific colloquia (for example, at the end of each call for proposals) and
workshops bringing together researchers and managers; BRG fosters dialogue
between researchers and managers of genetic resources as we know that they are
mutually dependent;
- publishing proceedings and reports;
- contributing to academic training.
3. The third mission deals with information communication and public awareness by:
- administering a Web server (www.brg.prd.fr) constituting the ”genetic resources”
part of the French Clearing House Mechanisms on biodiversity;
- publishing a newsletter ”La Lettre du BRG”;
- steering an editorial policy (books, papers, guidelines, booklets, posters, videos, etc.);
- issuing press releases and press conferences to provide information about the main
aspects of BRG activity and major events;
- taking part in exhibitions and conferences.
4. The fourth and last mission is to provide French expertise and representation in
European and International forums:
- in European and global structures and programmes such as IPGRI, FAO, ECP/GR;
- within the framework of international forums: Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture, OECD, WIPO, etc..
A National Charter for the Management of Genetic Resources

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

As large national genebanks are expensive and far from end-users, i.e. those who are in the best
position to evaluate and develop them, France has chosen a decentralized system of genetic
resources management. Its major aims are to:
- involve the users of genetic resources in their management, thereby ensuring their
utilization and development;
- take into account all aspects of plant genetic diversity as part of the natural heritage as
well as strategic and economic input;
- gather all the known expertise into each network, in order to facilitate management and
documentation of all accessions;
- involve private stakeholders, including NGOs, as well as public ones;
- share the cost of management activities between the French state and industry. Each
partner in a network has to participate by taking charge of some of the work of
conservation, evaluation, regeneration, etc.
This system aims to involve the various participants in the constitution and long-term
monitoring of a genetic reservoir, distributing tasks and sharing costs, while ensuring
coordination within a common management and policy framework. It enables both in situ
(forest trees, wild relatives) and ex situ management and conservation (small grain cereals,
forage crops, endangered or scattered forest trees, etc.), involving dynamic, on-farm
management as well as static cold house or deep-freeze conservation.
A network for a National Collection

Ensuring the conservation and availability of a National Collection is the core activity of each
network. Following the recommendations of the National Charter for the Management of
Genetic Resources, a National Collection has to:
- gather genetically diverse material in significant but manageable amounts and to make
available relevant accessions;
- gather in situ or ex situ representative material sampled on French territory with a view to
preserving genetic heritage.
For admission to a National Collection, an accession must match one of the criteria listed
below:
- French cultivars removed from the French or European catalogues of varieties;
- landraces and local varieties from France;
- French or foreign genitors, in particular those which have given in their lineage varieties
registered in the French or European catalogues;
- material which has been collected in French territories;
- material known for the presence of identified genes, such as genotypes used as controls
in certain nurseries or trials;
- material which is little known, but which is recognized as a genetic resource, and whose
supply or collection remains difficult.
The accessions of each National Collection have to be documented for multicrop passport
data and for some primary characters. They are available under facilitated access according
to the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and to the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (2001).
The objectives of each network are to ensure long-term conservation and sustainable use
of National Collections and to share responsibilities and conservation tasks.
The building of a network

The inventory of existing collections, for a crop or a group of related crops is the starting
point for a new network. BRG suggests linking the interested stakeholders, so-called
curators, collection by collection. Curators (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6) form the network. They
participate, along with others, in the conservation, characterization, evaluation and
regeneration of material.
The coordinator and the members of the coordination group are curators designated by
their peers. They organize and monitor the running of the network; they provide to third
parties accessions from the National Collection of the network.
The steering committee is needed to guarantee the scientific and technical quality of
network activities and to ensure consistency with the regulations and national commitments.
It is composed of some curators of the network and the coordinator of representatives of
public authorities and of economic actors of the commodity chain. The committee is chaired
by BRG.
The structure of a network is shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Structure of a network.

Networks, organized by species or a group of species, link partners with extremely

diverse motivations—private (seed firms, NGOs) and public organizations (research,
development)—and contribute to the dynamics of management and conservation of genetic
resources. They can also include partners at both national and regional levels, in an efficient
and representative coverage of both heritage and germplasm fields.
Participants of each network have committed themselves by signing specific charters
describing the organization, goals and members of the network, rights and obligations of the
members and working methods in agreement with principles listed in the above-mentioned
National Charter. Individual charters also provide technical guidance on internal rules of
procedure compliant with international standards.
Like all other countries involved in this policy area, France has a conservation
responsibility towards the international community, in accordance with the idea of global
resource management task-sharing. From this point of view, the French networks contribute
actively to the ECP/GR and EUFORGEN programmes, coordinated by IPGRI.
Content and documentation of a network

If we consider the whole material held by individual curators, the network collection is
composed of a selection of accessions that the curators decide to manage together, to
streamline their conservation efforts and to ensure their long-term management. Each
accession is fully described; the Network Database is a compilation of the whole
documentation of the network collection.
Accessions enter the National Collection from the network collection if curators agree that
they meet one of the criteria for admission listed above and they do not create redundancy
between accessions within the National Collection. The network lists all the accessions of the
National Collection with their passport data and some primary characters. The National
Inventory consists in the compilation of all the data from the network (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Links between Network Collection and National Collection.

In a network, tasks are shared between the curators on the collectively defined National
Collection to ensure:
- conservation within three banks: a long-term bank for maintenance, a safety-duplicate
bank and an active bank for distribution;
- regeneration of accessions when necessary, checked by germination and sanitary
controls;
- characterization and evaluation (passport data, primary characterization, evaluation
network); computerization and database management;
- availability of accessions for distribution.
Each task needed for the management of the genetic resources is fully described in the
rules of procedure.
Networks currently functioning

Twenty-nine networks with charters and rules of procedure duly drawn up have been
created in France. They are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. The French Networks

Crop group (no. of networks) Networks
Beets
Fodder and lawn species
Large-seeded Leguminoseae
Maize
Field crop species (8)
Potatoes
Rape
Small grain cereals
Sunflower
Figs and mulberries
Grapevine
Nuts
Fruit species (6)
Olives
Pome fruits
Prunus
Hydrangea
Lavenders
Ornamentals and industrial species (4)
Pelargonium
Roses
Allium
Artichokes and cardoons
Carrots
Chicories
Vegetables (9) Lentils
Market Solanaceae
Muskmelons
Strawberries
Vegetable Cruciferae
Forest trees
Dynamic in situ management (2)
Wild relatives
For tropical and Mediterranean species, the national organization is slightly different as
the genetic resources of tropical species are subject to a more complex legal context. A
”platform” brings together IRD, INRA and CIRAD in Montpellier to put together their skills
and knowledge in the areas of conservation and use of this material, its phytosanitary
indexation, with related expertise and training.
International context
The involvement of partners in the network, particularly users, provides the necessary
guarantee for long-term viable conservation and facilitated access. It enables germplasm
evaluation in compliance with individual requirements as well as gradual evolution aimed at
greater utilization. Their continuous involvement also allows and facilitates the awareness
and the consultation required for international forums and negotiations.
- French networks participate directly in the European programmes ECP/GR and
EUFORGEN, with BRG acting as national coordinator;
- French networks are also coordinators or participants in projects under EU programmes
(GENRES), BRG acting as the French representative in the committees elaborating and
managing the programmes;
- French networks contribute to the implementation of the Global Plan of Action of the
FAO, under the auspices of BRG.
Conflicting interests in plant genetic resources
Jaap J. Hardon
Former Director, CGN the Netherlands, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Introduction
Plant genetic resources are an essential component of agriculture worldwide. For thousands
of years, since the dawn of agriculture, biological diversity and genetic resources of crops
were considered a gift of nature, a common heritage to be shared by all people. As plants
were domesticated and evolved into crops, farmers realized their mutual interdependence
for genetic diversity as crops spread from their original centres of diversity and were
introduced into new environments and adapted to an ever-widening range of different
environmental conditions. Crop improvement takes place as an evolutionary process, each
generation of farmers making use of the efforts of past generations in a slow process of
change, providing food and other products for domestic security. The benefits to human
society did not arise from individuals claiming ownership of their contributions to
improvement, but from sharing and especially using those improvements. Considering
genetic diversity as a common asset is basic to farming communities worldwide. Good
neighbourliness is an essential survival strategy of farming communities and has provided
us with this incredible richness of crops and their diversity. It is a sobering thought that
through modern science we have not added any really new crops, in spite of enormous
investments in plant breeding and agricultural research and lately biotechnology. We are
still totally dependent on what we inherited from the past efforts of farmers.
Starting from the Industrial Revolution, and ever gaining momentum in the twentieth
century, the common good principle attached to plant genetic resources has been eroded. In
the process, farmers have become increasingly pushed to the sideline, their role reduced
from communal owners of their crops to producers of agricultural commodities chained to
ever-increasing dependency on industrial rules and regulations limiting their control over
their planting material. From an agricultural philosophy of shared benefits and mutual
interdependence, farming has become integrated into industrial processes governed by an
“industrial philosophy” aimed at market control, greed and individual profits. Not the
common good, but gaining control is what increasingly guides modern developments
surrounding plant genetic resources.
I am not bemoaning the loss of a better past, because clearly the past was not better, at
least in economic terms. What I want to discuss is how plant genetic resources as a concept
changed, notably over the last 50 years, and how it affects our efforts to conserve it. We are
increasingly subject to often conflicting developments in which plant genetic resources are
merely a pawn, subject to wider national, political and linked industrial interests, rather than
a common good basic to food security and the livelihood of rural people.
I will try to do that by analyzing various, and often conflicting, international
developments in the context of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA).
These include the FAO International Treaty on PGRFA, the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), intellectual ownership issues as reflected in Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR)
and UPOV and patent protection as embedded in WIPO and WTO-TRIPS. I will touch on
how plant breeding is affected by biotechnology and how that affects the whole structure of
plant breeding and access to PGRFA. Finally I will try to analyze what all this means for the
role of PGRFA in plant breeding and our efforts to conserve these resources.
Like farmers we, as conservers, are in danger of becoming marginalized in the overall
debate. People interested in PGRFA conservation generally do not choose this profession to
gain scientific recognition or for its financial rewards. They tend rather to be motivated by
the beauty of biological diversity and a sense of shared responsibility that a natural heritage
should not be squandered in a world ruled by economy and personal gain. In short we are,
collectively I may add, too nice and naïve. We need to have our voices heard and argue our
case more aggressively than we do. We should not leave developments to bureaucrats and
policy-makers, to lawyers and corporate interests, but speak up and insist on being heard in
the international debate. There follows a modest attempt to do so.
FAO International Treaty on PGRFA

Debate on the Treaty started around 1983. Initially it responded to concerns since the 1930s
that important sources of genetic diversity contained in a multitude of locally adapted
landraces were being lost. This loss was a natural outcome of the introduction of modern
agriculture.
In traditional agriculture, crops and cropping systems were adapted to local environments
and responding to natural balances in pests and diseases. This required genetic diversity in
time and space in the planting material subject to continuous natural and human selection in
an evolutionary process. The main objective was yield security rather than maximizing
production.
With the introduction of external inputs, such as fertilizers, chemical protection agents,
mechanization and increasing irrigation in the past century, a dramatic change occurred,
reversing the process. Now the environment was increasingly adapted to the requirements
of individual crops, reducing the need for local adaptation and aimed at maximum yield. A
natural outcome of this development was crop varieties, primarily selected for yield.
To cope with the problem of genetic erosion caused by modern agriculture, the need for
ex situ conservation became apparent and led to the establishment of genebanks. To gain a
logically based acceptance of this need took some time and gradually led to an increasing
number of genebanks, gaining momentum with the establishment of the CGIAR in the 1970s.
An important stimulus for the FAO Treaty followed from increasing concerns in
developing countries that PGRFA concentrated in the tropics and subtropics was considered
a free resource while the products of this diversity in modern varieties were increasingly
subject to intellectual ownership as embodied in the specialized PBR legislation. However,
after some heated and at times acrimonious debate, spurred on notably by some vocal
NGOs, it was realized that PBR legislation was carefully drafted to maintain free access to
protected varieties as a genetic resource for further breeding. A major outcome was the
recognition of PGRFA as a ”Heritage of Humankind” and the need to maintain open access
in the interests of agriculture. This came about because some national representatives in the
FAO Commission on PGRFA were plant breeders and argued their case convincingly.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Independently from the Treaty, negotiations on a global Convention on Biological Diversity
started in the late 1980s, culminating in its adoption in the massive UNCED conference in Rio
de Janeiro in 1992. The text of the CBD was dominated by nature conservationists who
viewed concern for conservation as a national issue requiring international support. The
dominating concept was to recognize National Sovereignty and national responsibility over
the biological diversity within national borders. As such, anything within national borders is
of course the responsibility of the government.
A second problem was created by the priority attached to in situ over ex situ conservation,
which seemed logical for natural biological diversity.
Both concepts were in the CBD also applied to plant genetic resources, and clearly are in
conflict with the FAO principle of PGRFA as an international ”Heritage of Humankind”
including the special nature of PGRFA requiring ex situ conservation. Since in the hierarchy
of international agreements a Convention has a higher status than what was then termed the
FAO Undertaking, the predecessor of the Treaty, it meant that the FAO debate was back to
square one. It became necessary to adapt the text of the FAO Treaty to be compatible with
the CBD. Considering the fundamental differences between both international agreements,
this led to a confused and long process of compromising between conflicting formulations in
the Treaty. These negotiations were dominated by legal experts seeking compromise
wordings. While lawyers tend to revel in such problems, it seems to have been forgotten that
the laws of nature and requirements of plant breeding do not lend themselves to re-
interpretation. Either they make sense or they don’t. A lawyer's solution is to lard the texts
with ”if possible” and ”when appropriate”, avoiding any binding solutions or real
commitments in the agreements when problems occur.
To limit the damage to open access, a separate multilateral arrangement was proposed by
IPGRI through the FAO to agree on the principle of open access for selected crops to which
countries could sign up separately. The irony of this is obvious. Through this multilateral
agreement, the PGRFA community attempted to revert to a pre-CBD situation of open access
and limit the damage done to PGRFA as a common asset.
Farmers' Rights
Both the CBD and the FAO Treaty include the concept of Farmers' Rights, recognizing the
important role farmers, past and present, play in harnessing and conserving PGRFA through
use. Farmers' Rights were conceived to give farmers credit for their contributions to crop
improvement by analogy with Plant Breeders' Rights in the commercial plant breeding
sector. However, in farmer seed systems landraces are considered a common asset and
individual ownership is not recognized. It is also often not possible to identify the original
farmer breeder since landraces evolve in evolutionary processes of selection, involving many
farmers and leading to complexes of genetically diverse planting material grown by different
farmers and often even different communities. Thus it is impossible to interpret Farmers'
Rights in terms of individual financial rewards. Hence, as a concept, it only gives expression
to the important role that farmers play in harnessing and developing genetic diversity into
useful planting material. It also highlighted the importance of in situ plant genetic resources
maintained in farmers' fields. However, it also led to an artificial conflict between ex situ
conservation in genebanks and in situ conservation in nature (wild relatives of crops) and in
farmers' fields. Clearly both systems of conservation are complementary. In ex situ
conservation, specific populations and varieties are conserved at a moment in time. In in situ
conservation, pools of genetic diversity are maintained over time, in processes of dynamic
change caused by natural and human selection and exchange between farmers. Hence in
farmer seed systems replacement of specific varieties may result in loss of specific landraces,
but overall genetic diversity is conserved through use.
This may be clear to biologists and plant breeders but it caused considerable
misunderstanding among policy-makers, legal experts and representatives of NGOs
involved in the international negotiations.
Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

While the negotiations surrounding the FAO Treaty and the CBD went on, biotechnology
entered the scene around the 1980s. Biotechnologists, supported by private industry
interests, successfully insisted on terming their contributions, made by isolating genes and
transferring them across natural species barriers, as innovations covered by IPR (patents).
The primary function of a patent is that it excludes the use of the product or processes by
anyone other than the rights' holder. This is clearly in conflict with PBR and in fact with the
whole concept of plant breeding based on evolutionary processes and free use of past
achievements for further crop improvement. Multinational pharmaceutical and chemical
corporations, dominating biotechnological research, saw in this development an opportunity
to enter the seed industry. This led to a bewildering restructuring of the seed industry
leaving a small number of transnational corporations in control of the seed trade. Hence,
plant breeding, hitherto in the agricultural sector and guided by a modest agricultural
philosophy and the interests of farmers, became a tool in the hands of an aggressive
industrial complex ruled by profit and market control. PBR was viewed by this industry as
totally inadequate to protect their interests and ambitions. The industry wanted and
expected biotechnology to serve their global interests. This was at the expense of the
investments of traditional plant breeding and the importance attached to crop genetic
resources. These developments are a direct threat to the role of genebanks as an important
component of crop improvement and therefore concern us all.
When we take stock of what biotechnology has contributed to the improvement of crops
and what has actually materialized of all that biotechnology promised in this area, the results
are sobering. In more than 20 years of enormous investment in plant biotechnology, what do
we see in farmers' fields? In 2002 genetically modified crops (GMOs) covered around 58
million hectares. GMOs are mainly restricted to four crops: soya (58%), corn (23%), cotton
(12%) and canola (7%). Considering the actual new characteristics introduced, the results in
seeds sold are even more modest. They are so far restricted to herbicide tolerance (69%), Bt
insect resistance (21%), a combination of both (7%) and virus resistance (3%). Finally, these
results have been achieved by Monsanto (80%), and the rest by such companies as Syngenta
and Bayer Bioscience and others.
This is not meant as criticism of biotechnology as a new development in agricultural
science. As a geneticist, I am fascinated by its potential and what we have learned from it.
However, plant biotechnology fell into the wrong hands - of an industry not guided by
knowledge of agriculture or by the needs of farmers or by consumer interests. Biotechnology
became primarily supply-oriented, serving the financial interests of corporations and
shareholders. This industry misjudged the ability to manipulate nature and consumers
where it concerns their food. In the process they harmed the reputation of biotechnology
and of science as a whole.
WTO/TRIPS
The importance that major industrial countries, lobbied by transnational corporations,
attached to IPR protection of biological materials, is evident from the separate TRIPS
Agreement as part of the WTO negotiations. Member countries are obliged to enact IPR
legislation, although the exact nature of such protection is left open, allowing different forms
of so-called sui generis legislation [Articles 27(1) and 27(3)(b)]. While the debate on this issue
is still in full swing, one thing is clear. The obligation to adopt IPR legislation as a condition
to WTO membership provides industrial interests with an international platform to exert
their influence. UPOV and WIPO, representing such interests, are particularly active.
Relations between various international institutions

The involvement of different international agreements and institutions in regulating plant
genetic resources, notably in situ in farmer seed systems, but also as a consequence in ex situ,
causes considerable confusion. Seen as a problem of the protection of IPR in international
trade, the regulation of plant genetic resources falls within the competence of WTO and
WIPO. If seen as a problem of food and agriculture, plant genetic resources fall within the
competence of FAO. As a natural resource, the CBD applies. All these international
agreements must be interpreted within their own sphere of competence by states. However,
since the area of plant genetic resources transgresses these various agreements, different
interpretations cause considerable confusion.
Conclusion
The question is: how did we as scientists and conservationists let all this happen? First, the
growing global political belief in the “blessings” of private industry and competition, which
gained momentum in the 1980s, reduced funding for independent research in the public
sector. To finance their research, research institutes and agricultural scientists increasingly
depended on contractual research funded by private industry. This motivated
biotechnological researchers in particular to promise spectacular results; crop varieties that
would withstand drought and salinity, would be resistant to pests and diseases and in the
process would lead to significant increases in productivity, all to secure funding. The
industry believed these promises and saw opportunities for great financial rewards. Well-
informed scientists did not generally share this optimism, but decided not to rock the boat
and kept quiet. You don't argue with money. In the process plant breeding and use of crop
genetic diversity took second place. The pressure on public-funded research removed
independent and critical analyses. The industry is now faced with suspicious consumers,
questioning the safety of genetically modified foods and their potential impact on
biodiversity and questioning the control of their food by an industry with a poor track record
in considering their concerns. Biotechnology suffered from attempting to introduce products
to the market without proper independent research to analyze the consequences. We, as
scientists are part of the problem. Most of us did not speak out. We retreated in our
scientific interests and let all this happen. I call on all of you to raise your voice and get
involved in the public debate. The time is right. Most corporations that entered plant
biotechnology are losing money. It is time to put plant biotechnology back where it belongs,
as publicly-funded research with the support of private industry till we really know what we
are doing and what can be achieved. Private industry should translate research into practical
applications, rather than controlling where research in biotechnology is going.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GPA IN EUROPE 43
PART III. STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

GLOBAL PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE CONSERVATION
AND SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION OF PLANT GENETIC
RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN
EUROPE
Th. Hazekamp1, J. Watts2, N.M. Anishetty3 and J. Turok2
1 Consultant for International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, Italy
2 International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, Italy
3 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy
Contents
INTRODUCTION 45
FINDINGS 46
National Programmes in Europe 47
National Programmes, plans and priorities 47
Stakeholder involvement and coordination 49
Policy and legislation 49
Education and training 50
Public awareness of the value of PGRFA conservation and use 51
PGRFA project status 51
Promoting networks for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture 52
In situ conservation 53
Surveying and inventorying 53
Activities to support on-farm and in situ conservation 54
Ex situ conservation 55
Sustaining existing ex situ collections 55
Regenerating threatened ex situ accessions 56
Supporting planned and targeted collecting of PGRFA 56
Expanding ex situ conservation activities 57
Characterization and evaluation 57
Setting priorities 57
Progress made with characterization and evaluation work 57
Cooperation with users 59
Electronic availability of characterization and evaluation data 59
Documentation 60
Setting priorities 60
Information systems for PGRFA 60
Utilization of plant genetic resources 61
Increasing genetic enhancement and base-broadening efforts 61
Promoting sustainable agriculture through diversification of crop production and broader diversity
in crops 62
Promoting development and commercialization of underutilized crops and species 62
Supporting seed production and distribution 63
Developing new markets for local varieties and “diversity-rich” products 63
Responding to disasters and threats 63

Assisting farmers in disaster situations to restore agricultural systems 63
Developing monitoring and early warning systems for loss of PGRFA 63
OUTLOOK 64
Increasing the involvement of users in PGRFA programmes 64
Low level of public awareness activity 64
Addressing training needs 64
Increasing project support to PGRFA activities 65
Setting priorities for biodiversity surveys 65
Balance between on-farm management of PGRFA and in situ conservation of wild
relatives 65
Acquiring appropriate information systems and training 65
Data integration at the national level 65
Introduction
This paper has been prepared jointly by IPGRI and FAO as an update on the status of
National PGRFA Programmes in Europe. It provides an information resource for setting
priorities within the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources
Networks (ECP/GR) and at the IPGRI Regional Office for Europe. The paper also aims to
report back to responding countries the overall results of the GPA monitoring process
carried out by FAO in 2000, to enable countries to relate their own National Programme
status to that of other European countries.
The Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA) was adopted at the Fourth International
Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources (Leipzig, Germany, 1996). It became the
framework for the development and implementation of plant genetic resources activities
worldwide. Since that time FAO has been monitoring the implementation of the GPA.
Early monitoring efforts were based upon narrative reports by countries, but recently efforts
have been undertaken to develop and use standardized questionnaires.
In the future, FAO will continue to periodically monitor progress made by each country
towards implementing the GPA, as it has been charged to do by the Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture. A more comprehensive monitoring system was
developed in 2002 by FAO in collaboration with IPGRI and other key stakeholders. The
system includes the following improvements:
- use of a standardized approach and establishment of a database;
- linking of questions to indicators;
- building capacity of countries to manage and share information related to PGR;
- increasing the role of stakeholders in information management in each country;
- linkage between GPA monitoring and other reporting requirements.
The new system will be pilot-tested in several countries around the world, refined as a
result of this process and then extended to all countries. This paper provides an example of
how data collected through the GPA monitoring efforts can be used for analysis and
decision-making.
The analysis presented in this report is primarily based upon the responses from
European countries to a questionnaire sent by FAO in 2000 (FAO 2000). The questionnaire
was sent to 39 National PGR Focal Points in Europe. Thirty-one countries replied, which is
an overall response rate of 79%, although not all countries responded to each question. The
high response rate indicates the importance given to GPA implementation and monitoring
by European countries. In some cases, the 2000 data were supplemented by data from
countries responding to a survey in 1995, as documented in the State of the World's Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IPGRI/FAO 1995) and a survey carried out in
1998 by IPGRI (Gass and Thormann 1999) in the proceedings of the Symposium on the
Implementation of the GPA in Europe held June 1998 in Braunschweig, Germany (survey
referred to in text as IPGRI 1998).
Regarding the 2000 survey, the following two points should be noted:
1. The questionnaire posed 83 questions organized around the 20 activity areas of the
GPA. Thus, each activity area was addressed very broadly by the questionnaire, with
between 2 and 12 questions for each activity area. Therefore, the survey provides
indications about GPA status rather than a fine level of detail.
2. The questionnaires were sent to the National Focal Points nominated by FAO
member governments for completion. FAO did not require countries to involve
national stakeholders in completing the questionnaire and FAO did not cross-validate
the data provided. However, FAO reported to the Commission that greater
coordination was generally needed among stakeholders within countries. Therefore,
it may be assumed that the data is indicative of National Programme status, not an
absolute representation of it because it may not incorporate information from all
relevant stakeholders.
The responding countries were divided into three groups based on the United Nations
Assessment Rates for 1999 (Table 1). The Assessment Rates are based on a country's share of
world income and represent a country’s ”capacity to pay” towards the running cost of the
United Nations. In addition to a trend analysis for the entire group of respondent countries,
the subdivision by UN Assessment Rates provides an opportunity to analyze potential
differences between countries that have been grouped using economic criteria.
Table 1. Criteria for grouping of respondent countries

UN Assessment Rate Group Criterion
Low below 0.05% UN assessment rate
Medium between 0.05% and 0.5% UN Rate
High over 0.5% UN Rate
Table 2 and Fig. 1 show how responding countries were grouped for the analysis.
Table 2. Grouping of respondent countries

Low UN Rate Medium UN Rate High UN Rate
Albania Belarus Austria
Armenia Czech Republic Finland
Azerbaijan Greece Germany
Bulgaria4 Hungary Italy
Cyprus Ireland The Netherlands
Estonia Poland Russian Federation
Iceland Portugal Spain
Latvia Romania Sweden
Lithuania Slovenia Switzerland
Macedonia (FYR) Turkey
Slovakia Ukraine
Yugoslavia5
Fig. 1. Responding countries by
UN Assessment Rate Group.
Findings
This section presents an overview of the findings as they relate to each of the 20 activity areas
of the GPA. The information has been organized into the following sections that highlight
European priority issues:
- National Programmes;
- Ex situ conservation;
- In situ conservation;
- Characterization and evaluation;
- Documentation;
- Utilization of PGRFA;
- Responding to disasters and threats.
4 Bulgaria only provided data about its programmes/projects without completing the entire
questionnaire.
5 Country name changed to Serbia and Montenegro on 4 February 2003.
Responding to disasters and threats was not identified as a high priority, but the
information is presented here in an abbreviated form, without an in-depth analysis, in order
to provide a complete record of the situation for GPA implementation in Europe. The other
analysis for the other areas is more in-depth and draws upon additional data from 1995 and
1998.
National Programmes in Europe
National Programmes, plans and priorities

The National Programme for PGRFA is the organization responsible for the implementation
of a programme for the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA at the national level.
Usually it abides by the principles and priorities laid out in a national plan for the
conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA.
Eighty-seven percent of responding countries in 2000 established an institutional entity,
such as a national committee, responsible for managing the PGRFA programme at the
national level. Two high UN Rate countries (Germany and the Netherlands) and two low
UN Rate countries (Cyprus and Latvia) reported that they had no institutional entity for
managing the PGRFA programme at the national level. In 1995, only 45% reported that a
formal programme existed. Fifty percent of countries reported that they had no National
Programme in place or that the National Programme was under development. Of those,
seven countries were high UN Rate countries, five were medium UN Rate and nine were low
UN Rate countries, so lack of a developed National Programme in 1995 was fairly well
spread across countries regardless of the economic status.
Eighty-three percent of respondents have a national plan for the conservation and
sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in place. Finland,
Germany, Iceland, Latvia and Poland reported no national plan. Forty-four percent had
these plans in place prior to 1996, the year in which the Global Plan of Action was developed
and adopted (Fig. 2).
0
75
80
85
90
95
00
19
19
19
19
19
20
Fig. 2. Year of establishment of national plans for conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA
(Source: FAO 2000).
All countries reported that their national plans incorporate the GPA priority activity
areas. Countries were asked to indicate their priorities in 1998 and 2000 (Fig. 3).
LOW PRIORITY HIGH

1
2
3
4
5
6
GPA Activity Area
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Priority in 1998 Priority in 2000
Fig. 3. Priority setting by GPA activity area (Source: FAO 2000).
The most important and least important areas for the year 2000 are shown in Table 3. The
top priorities are to maintain ex situ collections, facilitating their use and building strong
National Programmes. The facilitation of use of PGRFA seemed to be especially important
for the medium and high UN Rate countries. In 1998 Surveying and Inventorying Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture was rated among the top 5 priorities, but was replaced by
Constructing Comprehensive Information Systems for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture in 2000. This was mainly the result of a change in priority by the low UN Rate
countries and to a lesser extent by the medium UN Rate countries.
Table 3. GPA priorities in Europe (not ranked) (Source: FAO 2000)

Top GPA priorities as set by countries
Activity Area 5. Sustaining Existing Ex Situ Collections
Activity Area 6. Regenerating Threatened Ex Situ Accessions
Activity Area 9. Expanding the Characterization, Evaluation and Number of Core Collections to Facilitate Use
Activity Area 15. Building Strong National Programmes
Activity Area 17. Constructing Comprehensive Information Systems for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture
Lowest GPA priorities as set by countries
Activity Area 3. Assisting Farmers in Disaster Situations to Restore Agricultural Systems
Activity Area 12. Promoting Development and Commercialization of Under-utilized Crops and Species
Activity Area 13. Supporting Seed Production and Distribution
Activity Area 14. Developing New Markets for Local Varieties and “Diversity-Rich” Products
Activity Area 18. Developing Monitoring and Early Warning Systems for Loss of Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture”
The lowest priority areas relate to recovery from disaster situations and broadening the
diversity of food crops by promoting and introducing underutilized crops. Disaster recovery
was a somewhat higher priority for the medium UN Rate group countries than for the other
two groups. The low UN Rate group countries rated Supporting Seed Production and
Distribution somewhat higher than the others. In 1998 Supporting On-farm Management and
Improvement of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was one of the five lowest
priorities, mainly due to the very low priorities set by the high UN Rate group countries, but
was replaced by Developing Monitoring and Early Warning Systems for Loss of Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2000.
Stakeholder involvement and coordination

Plant breeding institutions (85%) and universities (78%) are most often involved with the
national PGRFA committee. In spite of the recognition of the importance of their
participation, farmer organizations, the private sector and NGOs are less involved (33%)
(Table 4).
Table 4. Stakeholder involvement in PGRFA National Committee (% of respondents per group)

(Source: FAO 2000)
Low UN Rate Medium UN Rate High UN Rate Average
Stakeholder group
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Plant breeders 78 90 88 85
Universities 78 70 88 78
Private sector 22 20 63 33
Farmers 22 20 63 33
NGOs 22 20 63 33
In most countries some level of coordination exists amongst crop, forest and animal
genetic resources programmes. All of the medium UN Rate group countries have this type
of coordination, while 70% of the high UN Rate group and 50% of the low UN Rate group
report coordination among crop, forest and animal programmes.
Policy and legislation

Various types of PGRFA-related legislation have been adopted by European countries
(Table 5). New legislation adopted in European countries since 1998 is mostly related to seed
and plant protection and plant variety protection. Legislation related to patents, access,
sharing of benefits and conservation is much less common, while no adoption of legislation
related to farmers' rights was reported.
Table 5. Types of legislation adopted nationally since 1998 (% of respondents per group)
(Source: FAO 2000)
Low UN Rate Med. UN Rate High UN Rate Average
Type of legislation
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Seed 80 88 50 75
Plant protection (quarantine) 80 63 50 67
Plant variety protection 70 75 17 58
In situ conservation 30 13 17 21
Patents 10 25 33 21
Access 10 25 17 17
Ex situ conservation 20 25 0 17
Sharing of benefits 0 13 17 8
Farmers' rights 0 0 0 0
In 1995 countries were asked about the status of their legislation and policy related to seed
quality, quarantine and plant breeders' rights: 82% of European countries reported having
seed quality legislation, 73% as having quarantine policies and 57% as having policies
governing plant breeders’ rights. No significant changes are seen on average when
comparing these figures to the 2000 data. However, eight countries from the former Soviet
Union have become members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties
of Plants (UPOV) since 1995. In 1995 many of these same countries had legislation on plant
breeders' rights, but it was through mechanisms other than UPOV.
Participation in the international dialogue on PGRFA has been identified as an important
dimension of National Programme development. When the State of the World report was
prepared in 1995, 13 of 44 countries were not members of the FAO Commission on PGRFA.
By 2005, 42 European countries were members of the FAO Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture.
As of 2005, 22 European countries and the European Community had ratified the
International Treaty on PGRFA.
Education and training

Only four low UN Rate countries and four medium UN Rate countries have established
educational and training strategies in line with the GPA areas. Four of these strategies were
established after 1996, when the GPA came into force. No such training strategies were
reported by the high UN Rate countries.
Table 6 describes the degree to which training in PGRFA is adequate to meet the needs of
European countries and how this has changed over time. A small percentage reduction is
seen between 1995 and 2000 in countries reporting that training is not sufficient; otherwise
little change is seen between 1995 and 2000 in terms of training adequacy. Overall, 25% of
countries feel that training is sufficient and 75% find that training needs are only partially
met or not met at all.
Table 6. Adequacy of PGRFA related training (Sources: IPGRI 1998; FAO 2000)
Adequacy of training 1995 1998 2000
Sufficient 20% 30% 25%
Partially sufficient 55% 57% 58%
Not sufficient 25% 13% 17%
In 2000, questions about training adequacy were broken down by type of training offered,
but the responses do not vary greatly from the overall average response shown above. Most
countries reported some level of availability of advanced university or short course training
on priority topics related to PGRFA conservation and use, although only 24% found these to
be fully adequate. Twenty-seven percent of countries reported that PGRFA aspects are
sufficiently covered in existing courses and educational programmes in the Region, 53%
responded that attempts have been made to include such aspects, but these were not
sufficient. Twenty percent reported that PGRFA aspects are not included in existing courses.
Two countries, Azerbaijan and Lithuania, reported that neither academic nor short course
training is available and that PGRFA topics are not included as part of existing courses or
educational programmes.
Table 7 shows the percentage of countries reporting training for some of the GPA activity
areas. The training effort appears to be fairly evenly spread over the various activities,
except for two cases: on-farm management aspects receive less than average attention and
sustaining ex situ collections receives more than average attention.
Table 7. Percentage of countries reporting training since 1998 (Source: FAO 2000)
All countries Low UN Rate Medium UN High UN Rate
Activity area
(%) (%) Rate (%) (%)
Survey and inventory 50 No significant differences between sub-groups
On farm management 20 10 20 40
Sustaining ex situ collections 68 50 70 90
Regenerating threatened collections 43 No significant differences between sub-groups
Targeted collecting 46 40 64 25
Development of underutilized crops 45 No significant differences between sub-groups
Seed production 55 50 70 40
Documentation 43 27 55 44
Public awareness of the value of PGRFA conservation and use

Most countries reported having some level of public awareness activities in their country in
2000 (Table 8). However, 20% of low UN Rate and 11% of high UN Rate countries reported
no public awareness related activities, and the majority reported a limited number of
activities undertaken to promote public awareness. Only Germany reported having a strong
public awareness programme with many activities undertaken. This can be compared to the
circumstances in 1995, when public awareness was reported to be lacking in virtually all
countries reporting. There has been progress reported in medium and high UN Rate
countries between 1998 and 2000, with some countries reporting increases from no activities
to limited activities.
Table 8. Status of public awareness activities in countries (% of group respondents)

(Source: FAO 2000)
Status of PA activities
1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000
No PA activities undertaken 20 20 20 0 25 11
Limited PA activities undertaken 80 80 80 100 75 78
Strong development of PA programme 0 0 0 0 0 11
In two-thirds of countries these activities are coordinated by the National Programme or

committee. The public awareness efforts deal primarily with the importance of PGRFA
(87%) as part of biodiversity and ex situ conservation (81%) followed by national policy (49%)
and in situ conservation (49%). The farmers' role (29%) is least often highlighted in public
awareness efforts.
PGRFA project status

In addition to questions directly related to the 20 activity areas of the GPA, National Focal
Points were asked in 2000 to report PGRFA-related programmes and projects being carried
out to address GPA activity areas. Focal Points were queried as to the geographical focus of
the project or programme, the implementing institution, budget, funding source and the
GPA activity areas addressed.
A total of 260 projects were reported by 26 countries. Eighty-four percent of countries
completing the questionnaire (31) reported having PGRFA related projects. Fifty-seven
percent of total projects were reported by high UN Rate group countries, 30% by medium
UN Rate group countries and only 13% by lower UN Rate group countries, as shown in
Table 9.
Table 9. PGRFA projects by UN Rate group (Source: FAO 2000)

UN Rate Group No. of projects % of total projects reported
Low 33 13
Medium 79 30
High 148 57
All countries 260 100
Approximately two-thirds of the projects had a national scope, followed by Regional

projects. Approximately 13% did not report the project's geographic scope (Table 10).
Table 10. Geographical scope of PGRFA projects (Source: FAO 2000)

Geographic scope No. of projects % of projects reported
National 175 67
Regional (European) 41 16
International 10 4
None reported 34 13
Most of the programmes and projects reported (69%) were funded by national
governments. The European Union was the second most frequent funding source after
national governments, with 23 projects reported as being funded by EU. An additional three
projects were funded by a combination of national support and EU. The Nordic Council
funded 9 of the reported projects. The category of funding source could not be determined
for 38 of the projects reported.
Projects were fairly well spread across the four GPA groups, with the majority of projects
addressing ex situ conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources, as shown in
Table 11. Approximately 53% of the projects responded to two or more of the GPA groups.
Approximately 64% of the projects addressed activity area 5 related to sustaining ex situ
collections.
Table 11. Projects per GPA group (Source: FAO 2000)

GPA Group No. of projects % of total projects
In situ Conservation and Development 83 32
Ex situ Conservation 166 64
Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources 151 58
Institutions and Capacity Building 75 29
Promoting networks for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
In 2000, 25 out of 26 responding countries (96%) reported that their country is an active
member of at least one PGRFA network. On average, a country participates in four
networks. However, 8 out of 31 countries (26%), including six from the low UN Rate group,
indicated that their government did not provide financial support to network activities
between 1998 and 2000. In 1995, 24 countries reported being actively involved in a
subregional PGR network. In the spring of 2002, 35 European countries were reported to be
members of ECP/GR, the Regional network for Europe. Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia,
Latvia, Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine were not members, but were identified
as associated countries which had identified focal points for collaboration with ECP/GR.
In situ conservation
The State of the World's PGRFA in 1996 reported that in situ conservation was traditionally
used mainly for forests and reserves (wildlife or ecosystems). Since then, there has been a
strong trend to raise the profile of in situ conservation as a complementary approach to
ex situ in the conservation of PGRFA, because it provides a more dynamic management
regime for genetic resources in which a continuous adaptation of germplasm to local
circumstances occurs. As such it is seen as an important approach to enhance utilization of
PGRFA at the local level by farmers.
Surveying and inventorying

In situ management requires a good insight into the status of local plant genetic diversity.
Usually this assessment is based on surveys. The 1998 report on the implementation of the
GPA in Europe indicated that on–farm conservation of traditional varieties had largely been
abandoned in Europe with the advancing industrialization of agriculture in the 1960s, but
regained an interest in the early 1990s as a result of the Convention on Biological Diversity
and an increased interest in dynamic and adaptive conservation.
Table 12 shows that during the period 1995-1998 an increasing number of countries (from
60% to 72%) surveyed traditional cultivars to establish their short-term security. Gains were
made across all UN Rate groups in terms of completed surveys of traditional cultivars.
Table 12. Short-term security of traditional varieties studied and known (Source: IPGRI 1998)
1995 1998
UN Rate Group
No Part Yes No Part Yes
Low 5 4 2 3 4 3
Medium 4 3 3 3 2 5
High 3 5 1 2 5 2
12 12 6 8 11 10
All countries
(40%) (40%) (20%) (28%) (38%) (34%)
Table 13 shows that the amount of surveying of crop wild relatives is reaching that of
traditional cultivars (from 47% to 70%), although here the gains were made predominantly in
the group of countries having partially completed their surveys. Undoubtedly the surveying
of crop wild relatives is more extensive than that of traditional varieties. The progress made
in the medium UN Rate group appears more substantial than the other groups.
Table 13. Short-term security crop wild relatives known (Source: IPGRI 1998)
1995 1998
UN Rate Group
Low 6 3 1 5 4 1
Medium 7 1 3 2 5 4
High 3 4 2 2 5 2
16 8 6 9 14 7
All countries
(53%) (27%) (20%) (30%) (47%) (23%)
Between 1998 and 2000, most countries (86%) responding to the surveys were actively
involved in carrying out biodiversity surveys or inventories. Some 2800 threatened
species/populations have been identified since 1998. National priority areas for surveying
have been established in at least half of the medium and high UN Rate countries (50% and
60% respectively), while for the low UN Rate countries this percentage is significantly lower
(20%).
Three-quarters of the countries indicated that these surveys and inventories are linked to
a National Biodiversity Plan or a similar higher level framework. Fifty percent of the
countries reported having provided staff training in surveying of PGRFA since 1998.
Activities to support on-farm and in situ conservation

Table 14 shows that the percentage of countries that are developing activities to support on-
farm conservation increased from 47% to 59%. These gains were made in the low and
medium UN Rate countries.
Table 14. On-farm conservation activities initiated (Source: IPGRI 1998)

1995 1998
UN Rate Group
Low 7 2 1 5 4 1
Medium 5 4 1 3 5 2
High 4 3 2 4 3 2
16 9 4 12 12 5
All countries
(55%) (31%) (16%) (41%) (41%) (18%)
Data from 2000 indicate that initiatives to support on-farm management and
improvement of PGRFA were undertaken by 13 out of 31 countries (40%) responding.
Activities were significantly more frequent in the medium and high UN Rate countries (50%
and 70% respectively) than in the low UN Rate countries (20%). In 11 out of 13 cases these
initiatives were linked to direct or indirect financial incentives for local farmers or
communities. Especially with respect to the low UN Rate group there appeared to be quite a
negative trend as 50% of these reported some level of activities in 1998.
Training data from 2000 indicates that overall only 20% of countries reported having
provided training to staff in areas related to on-farm management of PGRFA, but there are
marked differences between the UN Rate groups. The low UN Rate (10%) and medium UN
Rate (20%) groups provide significantly less training than the high UN Rate group (40%).
Table 15 shows an increase in activities to support in situ conservation of crop wild
relatives, although these activities seem to be at a much lower level than on-farm
conservation. In 1998, only 37% of countries report some level of activities for in situ
conservation while on-farm conservation is actively supported in 59% of the countries.
Table 15. In situ conservation activities initiated (Source: IPGRI 1998)

1995 1998
UN Rate Group
Low 10 0 0 7 2 1
Medium 9 2 0 7 2 2
High 5 3 1 5 3 1
24 5 1 19 7 4
All countries
(80%) (17%) (3%) (63%) (23%) (14%)
Table 16 shows a significant increase in planning and activities related to in situ

conservation of crop wild relatives and wild plants across the European Region in the period
between 1998 and 2000, although only two medium UN Rate countries reported an advanced
level of activity in 2000 and 25% of all countries reported that no planning had begun in this
area.
Table 16. Status of planning and implementation of in situ conservation of crop wild relatives and wild
plants (Source: FAO 2000)
1998 2000
UN Rate Group
No Part Advanced No Part Advanced
Low 5 3 0 3 7 0
Medium 5 3 2 2 7 2
High 3 3 0 2 5 0
13 9 2 7 19 2
All countries
(54%) (38%) (8%) (25%) (68%) (7%)
Although the emphasis that countries place on in situ conservation has increased since
1998, National Programmes continue to consider ex situ conservation an important and
complementary component of their conservation strategy. Eighty percent of the respondents
indicate that arrangements have been made to place threatened diversity of wild crop
relatives into ex situ collections.
Ex situ conservation
Sustaining existing ex situ collections

The 28 countries responding reported that they are currently conserving an estimated
1.3 million accessions. The overall number of accessions conserved increased between 1998
and 2000 as shown in Table 17, although one low UN Rate country reported a reduction in
the number of accessions conserved and four countries reported no change.
Table 17. Changes in genebank holdings (number of countries and % of total) (Source: FAO 2000)
No. of species accessions in storage
UN Rate Group
Reduced Unchanged Increased
Low 1 1 7
Medium 0 0 11
High 0 3 5
All countries 1 (4%) 4 (14%) 23 (82%)
The overall responses show a somewhat variable situation in terms of the annual budgets
for ex situ conservation, as shown in Table 18. Whereas most countries in all UN Rate groups
reported their budgets to be unchanged between 1998 and 2000, 26% reported a reduction in
budget and 32% reported an increase. More low and medium UN Rate countries reported
both budget increases and reductions as compared to high UN Rate countries, which
reported less change.
Table 18. Changes in budgets for ex situ conservation (number of countries and % of total)
(Source: FAO 2000)
Budget
UN Rate Group
Low 3 4 4
Medium 3 4 4
High 2 5 2
All countries 8 (26%) 13 (42%) 10 (32%)
Staffing was much less variable as most countries in all UN Rate groups reported no
change in staff for ex situ conservation between 1998 and 2000 as shown in Table 19.
However, 24% of all countries reported staffing reductions.
Table 19. Changes in staffing for ex situ conservation (number of countries and percent of total)
(Source: FAO 2000)
Staff
UN Rate Group
Low 2 7 1
Medium 3 7 1
High 2 5 1
All countries 7 (24%) 19 (66%) 3 (10%)
Eighty percent of countries reported that regular viability monitoring takes place at their
genebanks. The majority of countries monitor the genetic diversity of their collections
regularly, although only 50% of the low UN Rate countries reported regular monitoring.
Most countries also have cooperative arrangements with Regional or crop networks or
international organizations for ex situ conservation, but there is a marked difference between
the groups. While 80% of the low UN Rate group and 100% of the high UN Rate group
countries reported cooperation in germplasm conservation, only 55% of the medium UN
Rate group countries have entered into cooperative arrangements for germplasm
conservation.
Regenerating threatened ex situ accessions

Countries reported quite a variable situation in terms of the change in the number of
accessions requiring urgent regeneration between 1998 and 2000. While a small majority of
all countries reported a reduction in urgent need for regeneration, 33% reported an increase
in the number of accessions requiring urgent regeneration (Table 20).
Table 20. Changes in regeneration priorities (number of countries and % of total) (Source: FAO 2000)
Number of accessions requiring urgent regeneration
UN Rate Group
Low 4 4 1
Medium 5 0 5
High 3 2 3
All countries 12 (44%) 6 (22%) 9 (33%)
Overall, germplasm regeneration practices seem to be quite well established throughout

the Region. Seventy percent of the low UN Rate group countries set priorities for accession
regeneration, 90% of the medium UN Rate group and 100% of the high UN Rate group. A
similar pattern is seen in the development of multi-year plans to regenerate priority
accessions. While most of the high UN Rate group countries (80%) organize regeneration
tasks in close collaboration with networks and/or other countries, only 50% of countries in
the other two groups did. Likewise, the high UN Rate group countries place significantly
more emphasis than the other groups on the rationalization of their collections, e.g. reducing
unnecessary duplication, possibly in an effort to reduce maintenance costs and to facilitate an
efficient use of the collections.
Supporting planned and targeted collecting of PGRFA

Twenty-six of the 31 countries have been involved in germplasm collecting missions since
1998. At least 90% of respondents in medium and high UN Rate countries reported having
secured long-term conservation of collected materials. Only 60% of the low UN Rate group
countries reported that long-term conservation had been secured.
Expanding ex situ conservation activities

Nine countries reported that botanical gardens, arboreta or field genebanks have been
established since 1998 while 18 responded that none of these were established during that
period. Only 27% of the low UN Rate group reported the development of innovative
management strategies or improved methodologies for ex situ conservation as compared to
55% in the medium UN Rate group and 67% in the high UN Rate group. The low UN Rate
group countries reported that no new publications on innovative ex situ management
strategies or improved methodologies had been made available in their countries since 1998.
This is in contrast with the medium and high UN Rate countries, among which 70% reported
that new publications on the subject had been made available in their countries.
Characterization and evaluation

The lack of sufficient characterization and evaluation data has often been cited as a severe
restriction to enhancing the use and management of genetic resources collections. The
Regional Synthesis Report on the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic
Resources in Europe (IPGRI/FAO 1996) stated that characterization was perceived as
insufficient by countries and required input of more resources. The State of the World report
specified that 53% of countries in Eastern Europe and 24% in Western Europe viewed the
lack of characterization and evaluation data a major constraint to utilization of germplasm
collections.
The GPA highlighted this concern by the inclusion of activity area 9 that specifically deals
with the expansion of germplasm characterization, evaluation and the number of core
collections to facilitate use.
Setting priorities
The responses of 24 countries in 2000 identified Expanding Characterization, Evaluation and
Number of Core Collections to Facilitate Use as one of the top five GPA priority activity areas.
More specifically 67% of countries assigned a high priority to activity area 9, while 29%
classified it as a medium priority (Table 21). It appears that the low UN Rate group trailed
the other groups somewhat in targeting this area for priority attention. There was virtually
no change in the priority status of activity area 9 between 1998 and 2000 (Table 21).
Table 21. Priority setting for GPA activity area 9 (Expanding characterization and evaluation data)
(Source: FAO 2000)
1998 2000
UN Rate Group
Low Med High Low Med High
Low 1 2 4 1 3 3
Medium 0 4 6 0 2 7
High 0 1 6 0 2 6
1 7 16 1 7 16
All countries
(4%) (29%) (67%) (4%) (29%) (67%)
Progress made with characterization and evaluation work

In 1995, almost every country identified the need for a greater effort to evaluate germplasm
collections, although in many countries activities were ongoing usually on selected crops or
specific types of collections such as core collections. However, precise information on the
state of the evaluation of collections was very rare. Data from 1998 suggested that:
- in the period 1995-1998 two National Programmes (Armenia and Macedonia (FYR)) in
the low UN Rate group initiated characterization and evaluation activities, while in
seven countries the activities were ongoing;
- in the medium UN Rate group, Ireland reported modest progress while eight other
countries reported ongoing activities. One of these, Poland, restarted these activities
after a pause during 1992-1995, while Turkey started 20 new projects. Three reported
extra funding received from the National Programme or European Union6 dedicated to
these activities;
- in the high UN Rate group all eight countries reported ongoing activities.
The estimated percentage of accessions with characterization data in 2000 is on average

39%. The estimates for individual countries are listed in Table 22.
Table 22. Estimated percentage of collection accessions with characterization and evaluation data in
2000 (Source: FAO 2000)
Country % Country % Country %
Albania 100 Belarus Austria 35
Armenia 40 Czech Republic 29 Finland
Azerbaijan Greece 10 Germany
Cyprus 5 Hungary 70 Italy 45
Estonia 40 Ireland 10 the Netherlands 90
Iceland Poland 70 Russian 70
Federation
Latvia 50 Portugal 30 Spain 10
Lithuania 50 Romania 10 Sweden 20
Macedonia (FYR) Slovenia 10 Switzerland 44
Slovak Republic 30 Turkey 20
Yugoslavia 10 Ukraine 80
Average 41 34 35
Standard deviation 18.1 28.6 25.5
The variation is such that no differences between UN Rate groups could be distinguished.
No relationship between the size of the collections and the percentage of accessions with
characterization data could be established.
The use of molecular techniques by genebanks appears to have increased substantially
(Table23). Asked about important changes regarding characterization in the period 1995-
1998, only four out of 26 countries (15%) mentioned the use of molecular methods. In 2000,
countries were specifically asked about the use of molecular methods for characterization
and evaluation and 16 out of 30 (53%) reported their use.
Table 23. Use of molecular techniques by genebanks (Sources: IPGRI 1998; FAO 2000)
UN Rate Group 1995 – 1998 2000
Low 1 (11%) 3 (30%)
Medium 1 (11%) 7 (64%)
High 2 (25%) 6 (66%)
6 Within the framework of Regulation 1467/94 on the conservation, characterization, collection and
utilization of genetic resources in agriculture.
Cooperation with users

In the 1998 survey, a number of countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy,
Lithuania, the Netherlands and Turkey) mentioned collaborative efforts between genebanks
and users such as public and private sector breeders and/or other genebanks. Table 24
shows that almost all countries have established some level of cooperation with users and, in
principle, could share tasks associated with characterization and evaluation among different
partners.
Table 24. Cooperation mechanisms established between genebanks and users (Source: IPGRI 1998)
1995 1998
UN Rate Group
None Partial Yes None Partial Yes
Low 2 5 3 0 7 2
Medium 1 6 4 0 5 6
High 1 4 4 1 6 2
4 15 11 1 18 10
All countries
(13%) (50%) (37%) (3%) (62%) (35%)
Only 35% of National Programmes reported well-established cooperation mechanisms

with users. This is borne out by responses to questions about collaboration in National
Programmes for the 2000 survey (Table 3). Whereas breeders and universities have a strong
involvement with the National Programme, other user groups such as the private sector,
farmers and NGOs show much lower levels of involvement.
Electronic availability of characterization and evaluation data

The number of collections having computerized characterization and evaluation data
increased in the low and medium UN Rate group during the period 1995-1998 (Table 25).
The high UN Rate group appears to have more of its characterization data computerized
than the other two groups.
Table 25. Computerization of characterization and evaluation data (Source: IPGRI 1998)
1995 1998
UN Rate Group
None Partial Full None Partial Full
Low 6 2 2 3 5 1
Medium 3 6 2 1 7 3
High 0 6 3 0 3 6
9 14 7 4 15 10
All countries
(30%) (47%) (23%) (14%) (52%) (33%)
Overall it appears that the degree of computerization of characterization and evaluation

data has increased in the period 1995-1998 although much of the work still needs to be
completed. Nevertheless an improved electronic availability of characterization and
evaluation data would not only improve the access of a wider audience of users to this
information (quantitative aspect of use), but also facilitate an analytical use of the data
(qualitative aspect of use).
Documentation
In 1996 FAO reported that much of the world's ex situ plant genetic resources were poorly
documented, although the status of documentation in Europe was considered better than
other Regions in terms of completeness and computerization. In Europe most
documentation systems are computerized or in the process of becoming computerized. In
some countries centralized systems exist, while in other cases, especially in Western Europe,
individual institutions manage their own databases.
Setting priorities
The construction of comprehensive information systems for PGRFA (GPA activity area 17) is
one of the top five GPA priority areas identified by European countries in 2000.
There has been a remarkable shift towards a higher priority for this area in the period
after 1998 (Table 26). Especially in the low and medium UN Rate countries the importance of
creating comprehensive documentation systems has increased. This is possibly the result of
various pan-European documentation and information initiatives such as the establishment
of the Documentation and Information Network within ECP/GR and the implementation of
the European Plant Genetic Resources Information Infra-Structure (EPGRIS) project.
Table 26. Priority setting by National Programmes for GPA activity area 17 (constructing
comprehensive IS for PGRFA) (Source: FAO 2000)
1998 2000
UN Rate Group
Low Medium High Low Medium High
Low 2 3 2 0 2 5
Medium 1 2 6 0 1 9
High 0 1 5 0 1 6
3 6 13 0 4 20
All countries
(14%) (27%) (59%) (0%) (17%) (83%)
Information systems for PGRFA

In most European countries the germplasm documentation activities seem fairly well
established. Information from 1998 on the implementation of the GPA in Europe indicates
that most countries based their work on IPGRI and UPOV descriptors. Between 1995 and
1998, the number of computerized national germplasm inventories increased (Table 27).
Many countries that had no computerized germplasm inventory in 1995 had at least part of
their inventory converted to an electronic format by 1998. At the same time the proportion
of countries having a complete national inventory in electronic format doubled from 27% to
54%.
Table 27. Existence of computerized national germplasm inventories (Source: IPGRI 1998)
1995 1998
UN Rate Group
None Partial Complete None Partial Complete
Low 6 3 0 2 5 2
Medium 4 3 5 2 3 7
High 2 4 3 0 2 7
12 10 8 4 10 16
All countries
(40%) (33%) (27%) (13%) (33%) (54%)
Perhaps not surprisingly, the number of national documentation systems for PGRFA in
existence follows a similar trend (Table 28). The proportion of countries without national
documentation systems decreased from 45% to 17%, although so far the implementation of a
national documentation system was only partially completed for a large proportion of
countries (52%).
Table 28. Existence of national documentation systems (Source: IPGRI 1998)

1995 1998
UN Rate Group
None Partial Complete None Partial Complete
Low 5 3 1 2 5 2
Medium 4 3 4 1 5 5
High 4 5 0 2 5 2
13 11 5 5 15 9
All countries
(45%) (38%) (17%) (17%) (52%) (31%)
The medium UN Rate countries had a relatively high proportion of established national
documentation systems. The low and high UN Rate groups had established fewer national
documentation systems, but apparently for different reasons. In the low UN Rate group, the
actual availability to information systems for PGRFA and seed stock data management
might have been a limiting factor (Fig. 4).
100.0
80.0
% Use of a PGRFA
60.0 information system
40.0 % Common
systems in use
20.0
0.0
Low Medium High
income income income
Fig. 4. Information systems in National PGRFA Programmes in 2000 (Source: FAO 2000).
In 2000, countries reported significantly less use of these systems than the other groups
(50% compared to >80%). Also the amount of staff training provided since 1998 in the area
of documentation was much lower in this group (27%) than in the medium (55%) and high
(44%) UN Rate groups. In the high UN Rate group, there was no particular shortage of
information systems (90%), but systems seemed to coexist and were not (yet) integrated into
a common national documentation system.
Twenty-six countries (87%) reported that they had access to international databases such
as the World Information and Early Warning System (WIEWS) on PGRFA or the System-
wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) of the CGIAR, with no
significant differences between the UN Rate groups. However, the available data did not
permit an evaluation of the quality of access in terms of speed and reliability.
Utilization of plant genetic resources
Increasing genetic enhancement and base-broadening efforts

Overall there has been a tendency between 1998 and 2000 towards more implementation of
activities related to increasing genetic enhancement and base-broadening (Table 29). The
implementation has been strongest in the medium and high UN Rate countries. Among the
low UN Rate group implementation has been strong in some countries, but this is offset by a
relatively large number of countries with no activities at all.
Table 29. Increasing Genetic Enhancement and Base Broadening Efforts (Source: FAO 2000)
1998 2000
UN Rate Group Efforts Activities Efforts Activities
No activities No activities
started underway started underway
Low 4 2 3 4 2 4
Medium 4 2 2 1 6 3
High 2 3 2 2 2 4
Promoting sustainable agriculture through diversification of crop production and

broader diversity in crops
In 2000, approximately 75% of countries reported that measures were being taken to
encourage the diversification of crops. Since 1998, assessments of the genetic uniformity and
vulnerability of crop production were made in four countries and partially completed in 12
countries.
Promoting development and commercialization of underutilized crops and species

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

Financial incentives directed at seed companies and farmer organizations to support the
small farming sector, gender programmes or marginalized groups are reported by 20% of the
low UN Rate group and 40% of the medium UN Rate group countries but by none of the
high UN Rate group countries.
Developing new markets for local varieties and “diversity-rich” products

Only seven out of 31 countries (23%) reported that the range of local crop varieties available
at local markets has increased since 1998. Twenty-one (68%) reported no significant changes,
while three (9%) indicate that no information is available to make an estimate. Only five
countries (18%) reported well-established markets for diverse food crops. These included
Albania, Belarus, the Netherlands, Spain and Yugoslavia. Fifteen countries (54%) indicated
that initial efforts to establish such markets were underway. Eight countries (28%) reported
the absence of such markets and no activities underway to promote them.
Responding to disasters and threats
Assisting farmers in disaster situations to restore agricultural systems

Data from the 2000 survey indicates that respondents feel that the threat to agricultural
systems in Europe from disasters is fairly low. Only three out of 31 respondent countries
reported the existence of operational plans to assist farmers in recovering or restoring
germplasm following disaster situations. Six out of 31 reported the existence of an
information system that could help to identify germplasm for re-introduction following
disaster situations.
Developing monitoring and early warning systems for loss of PGRFA

By 2000, 70% of countries in the medium UN Rate group had appointed national focal points
responsible for collecting information on genetic erosion. Only 40% of low and high UN
Rate groups had a national focal point for this topic. In general the monitoring of genetic
erosion for ex situ collections is somewhat better established than the monitoring of in situ
collections (Table 31). The countries in the low UN Rate group had fewer monitoring
systems in place than the other groups.
Table 31. Monitoring systems for genetic erosion of PGRFA (% of group respondents)
(Source: FAO 2000)
In situ Ex situ
No No
UN Rate Group Partial Threats Partial Threats
monitoring monitoring
monitoring monitored monitoring monitored
mechanism mechanism
Low 50 50 0 33 66 0
Medium 27 55 18 9 36 55
High 25 50 25 13 13 74
Ninety-two percent of respondents consider WIEWS to be an appropriate system for

monitoring the loss of PGRFA. Most respondents (85%) would provide relevant information
on genetic erosion of PGRFA to WIEWS.
Outlook
Significant progress has been made in Europe in implementing the GPA and addressing its
activity areas. Progress is notable in National Programme development, networking
participation, in situ conservation activities and number of accessions conserved ex situ
among others. However, the following issues arose from this analysis as areas of possible
future focus and development.
Increasing the involvement of users in PGRFA programmes

The linkages of the National Programmes with traditional user communities such as
breeders and universities seem fairly well developed across the European Region. However,
there are additional groups such as the private sector, farmers and NGOs whose
involvement with the National Programmes could be strengthened. Although genebanks
might not always have a direct interaction with these groups, their involvement and
understanding of what a National PGRFA Programme is trying to achieve can transform
these groups into a valuable support base. Engagement of users helps to ensure that the
National Programme is focused on responding to the needs of users, which in turn is
expected to generate support for PGRFA activities as it increases the relevance of PGRFA
conservation to the user community. It also helps to increase the likelihood of significant
benefits to society resulting from germplasm conservation activities, in terms of food
security, biodiversity conservation and UN Rate enhancement.
Low level of public awareness activity

Although significant progress was seen between 1995 and 2000, most countries reported
limited public awareness efforts. Limited public awareness threatens the viability of
National Programmes, assuming that awareness of the importance of PGRFA conservation
and use would result in political support and financial support for PGRFA activities. It
would appear from the results to inquiries about budgets and staffing for ex situ
conservation that they are static or facing reductions. Sixty-eight percent of countries
responding reported static or reduced budgets between 1998 and 2000, and 90% of
respondents reported static or reduced staffing. At the same time, the majority of countries
reported that the number of accessions conserved had increased. Fifty-five percent of
respondents reported that the number of accessions requiring urgent regeneration had
increased or remained unchanged since 1998. This would imply a certain decline in the
strength of National Programmes because fewer human and financial resources are available
to manage a larger programme (at least in terms of ex situ conservation). Increased public
awareness efforts, perhaps supported at the Regional level or by IPGRI, could reverse this
situation.
Addressing training needs

Seventy-five percent of countries reported that their training needs were only partially met
or not met at all. Furthermore, this situation has apparently not changed a great deal since it
was first reported in 1995, as the percentage of countries reporting inadequate training in
PGRFA has not changed much in that time. Only eight countries reported having training
strategies to address GPA priority areas. No training strategies were reported by high UN
Rate countries. Training would appear to be an area where attention could be paid by
National Programmes, networks and IPGRI.
Increasing project support to PGRFA activities

Only 13% of projects reported were located in low UN Rate countries and 30% in medium
UN Rate countries. Most projects are national in scope, with only 16% being Regional.
Sixty-nine percent of projects are funded by national governments. This would imply that
there are not enough projects to supplement government efforts and that only a limited
number of projects are supported by external donors. Most projects do not take advantage of
the potential benefits to be gained by a Regional approach.
Characterization and evaluation is an example of an area where PGRFA projects could
complement National Programmes. Most genebanks have regular ongoing characterization
and evaluation programmes, but several indicated that they secured additional external
funding to bolster these activities. However, most if not all GPA activity areas could benefit
from supplemental project funding.
Setting priorities for biodiversity surveys

Biodiversity surveys are usually quite resource intensive. Priority setting is necessary to
make the most effective use of existing resources. All national priority areas for surveying
had been assigned by approximately 40% of countries in 2000. There are clear differences
between the UN Rate groups whereby 50% of the medium UN Rate and 60% of high UN
Rate countries have developed priorities for biodiversity surveys as compared to only 20% of
the low UN Rate countries. Activities are in progress and percentages will undoubtedly
increase. But in view of the large differences between UN Rate groups in the progress made
with priority setting process, possibly some attention should be given to priority setting at a
Regional level.
Balance between on-farm management of PGRFA and in situ conservation of

wild relatives
Since 1998 there seems to have been increased emphasis on the development of in situ
conservation activities across the entire European Region. However, only the high UN Rate
countries seem to have increased their activities related to on-farm conservation while in
other groups, notably the low UN Rate group, on-farm conservation efforts seem to have
decreased.
Acquiring appropriate information systems and training

Germplasm documentation programmes are generally well established in the Region.
Almost all countries reported ongoing activities related to documentation systems in 1998.
However, data from 2000 suggests that some of the lower UN Rate countries are having
problems acquiring suitable information systems and providing adequate staff training in
how to use such systems. The data are increasingly made available on-line, which
encourages much wider use. An assessment could be made whether on-line access needs to
be complemented with off-line access to ensure a broad access to the data. Although Internet
access is commonly available throughout Europe, the quality of the connections may vary
and might restrict access for some users.
Data integration at the national level

Based on pre-2000 data, there seems to be some scope to better integrate data at the national
level. Better integration at this level would facilitate a more effective coordination
nationwide and would also help countries to fulfil some of their international obligations in
the context of the CBD and the Clearing House Mechanism. One of these obligations is to
produce an inventory of national plant genetic resources. Projects such as the European
Plant Genetic Resources Information Infra-Structure (EPGRIS), which ended in
December 2003, clearly provide a basic information layer that supports further integration of
data, including characterization and evaluation data, at the national level.
References
IPGRI/FAO. 1996. Regional Synthesis on the Status of Plant Genetic Resources in Europe.
Pp. 1-38 in International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources: Preparatory
process for Europe. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute/Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome, Italy.
Gass, T and I. Thormann. 1999. Implementation in Europe of the Global Plan of Action for
Food and Agriculture. Pp. 22-34 in Implementation of the Global Plan of Action in Europe
– Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. Proceedings of the European Symposium, 30 June-3 July 1998, Braunschweig,
Germany (T. Gass, L. Frese, F. Begemann and E. Lipman, compilers). International Plant
Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
NATIONAL PROGRAMMES 67
PART IV. NATIONAL PROGRAMMES
Armenia 68
Austria 70
Azerbaijan 72
Belgium 74
Bulgaria 77
Croatia 81
Czech Republic 82
Denmark 84
Estonia 85
Finland 88
France 91
Georgia 93
Germany 95
Hungary 97
Israel 99
Italy 101
Latvia 106
Lithuania 108
Macedonia (FYR) 110
Republic of Moldova 113
The Netherlands 115
Norway 118
Poland 120
Portugal 123
Russian Federation 125
Serbia and Montenegro 127
Slovak Republic 130
Slovenia 133
Spain 136
Sweden 137
Switzerland 140
Ukraine 141
Armenia
Main activities for founding a National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources
in the Republic of Armenia
Samvel Avetisyan1 and Alvina Avagyan2

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

Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (1999);
Strategy on developing specially protected areas and National Action Plan, adopted by the
government of Armenia in January 2003;
Strategy on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing, within the framework of the
project Assessment of biodiversity priority capacity building needs and establishment of Clearing
House Mechanism in Armenia;
Strategy on taxonomic investigations and development of biodiversity monitoring, also within
the framework of the above-mentioned project.
Institutional structure
The different institutions and departments involved in plant biodiversity conservation at the
national level are closely interconnected. The organization and monitoring of protected
areas, collecting, conservation and providing access to genetic resources are also
implemented through consultations with researchers, taxonomists, breeders,
geologists/botanists, etc., taking into account the results of laboratory experiments and field
explorations carried out in the country.
The Ministry of Nature Protection has responsibility for a number of protected areas and
also oversees and supervises activities of other governmental agencies related to biological
resource use. The Ministry also issues licenses for the collecting of medicinal plants and
there are plans to extend the licensing system for other forms of natural resource use,
involving further regulations relating to dates, appropriate collection methods and fees.
The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the management of state agricultural lands
and for supporting farmers of privatized land. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture
oversees the management of agrobiodiversity and manages six of the State Reserves in
Armenia. This is implemented through a number of structures within the Ministry.
Activities on ex situ conservation are mainly implemented by the Institute of Botany and
Botanical Gardens under the National Academy of Sciences.
There is no national genebank in Armenia. Seed collections are located in different
scientific institutions. The basic seed collections in the country are concentrated in the
scientific centres under the Ministry of Agriculture. In this area is it necessary to develop a
programme for the establishment of a national genebank.
Crop varietal protection, approval, testing and propagation are assigned to the Centre of
Breeding Achievements Testing and Protection and Seed Quality, under the Ministry of
Agriculture.
Besides governmental organizations, a great number of NGOs are actively involved in
plant conservation activities, including the Armenian Botanical Society, Greens Society,
”Armenian Forest” Association, Union on Landscapes and Biodiversity Conservation and
others.
Thus, although there is close communication between the various operating ministries
and departments, the activities related to nature protection in Armenia are not coordinated
by a single body or technical council. The establishment of a coordinating body will promote
purposeful planning of actions and avoidance of duplication of functions and implemented
measures.
Active collaboration with international research centres, agencies and genebanks and
membership in regional networks makes a valuable contribution to National Programme
development. The implementation of international and regional projects contributes to the
development of information systems and the national inventory on plant genetic resources.
There are substantial problems related to conservation, protection and regeneration of
plant genetic resources in Armenia. It is urgent to develop an appropriate policy, work out
mechanisms of coordinated planning of activities and implementation of projects on plant
biodiversity conservation and mechanisms of access to and benefit-sharing of national
genetic resources. The current problems should determine the basic directions of
forthcoming activity in the field of plant genetic resources conservation and sustainable
utilization.
Austria
Status of the Austrian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme
Paul Freudenthaler
Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Linz, Austria
Sampling and conservation of plant genetic resources were started in the 1920s, with
renewed activity in the late 1960s. With increasing awareness about environmental
protection and conservation of genetic resources, several laws for nature conservation came
into force. In parallel with these developments, Austria ratified many international
agreements. The National Environmental Plan, published by the Austrian Federal
Government in 1995 takes a long-range view and serves as a binding framework that also
encompasses strategies to preserve biodiversity in Austria. After the adoption of the Global
Plan of Action, a departmental working group was established at the Federal Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management. Its task is to develop a
National Programme to preserve genetic resources that encompasses both flora and fauna.
Ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources

The collections contain a total of about 8000 samples of grain, vegetables, medicinal plants
and herbs, fruit trees as well as non-food plants. Beyond this, seeds are also stored in
agricultural technical colleges, federal educational and research institutes, provincial
laboratories, universities and by NGOs and the private sector.
As a result of the forest dieback issue, in 1986 the Forestry Research Centre developed the
”Conservation of Genetic Diversity” project, a cooperative effort bringing together a number
of different disciplines. Since then, a series of coordinated in situ and ex situ conservation
measures have been implemented within this framework.
In situ conservation is mainly conducted in nature protected areas. The nature protection
laws of the provinces contain regulations governing nature protection and conservation as
well as special utilization or non-utilization of certain habitats. Approximately 100 areas
have been nominated for the network ”Natura 2000” in order to implement the conservation-
related frameworks of the European Union. Most of these areas, however, include protection
areas already in existence. NGOs support these measures through public awareness.
On-farm conservation
The environmental programme ÖPUL7 supports measures to preserve biodiversity in the
agricultural sector. The cultivation of old varieties is one example of this programme. An
ecological evaluation by ÖPUL, which considers biodiversity to be a decisive item, is carried
out in parallel with the programme.
NGOs also play an important role in on-farm conservation. They offer varieties to
individual members and publish an annual catalogue. These are therefore available for
trading and continued regeneration.
7 ÖPUL = Österreichisches Programm zur Förderung einer umweltgerechten, extensiven und den
natürlichen Lebensraum schützenden Landwirtschaft.
Future measures for the conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources are to
complete the databases, enforce the characterization and evaluation and make this
information available (e.g. about resistance against diseases). Information about cultivation
and utilization can be exchanged through collaboration between all sectors at national and
international levels.
Azerbaijan
The National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources in Azerbaijan
Zeynal Akparov
Institute of Genetic Resources, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan
Management of the National Programme

The State Commission on Plant Genetic Resources of Azerbaijan was established after
achievement of independence in 1990. The National Programme (NP) was created by the
State Commission which also develops strategy, policy and action plans on plant genetic
resources (PGR) for the implementation of the NP. Activities are coordinated by the
National Council on Plant Genetic Resources.
The basic purposes of the NP are collecting, research, rational use of varieties, provision,
documentation and organization of PGR protection and conservation in the country.
Structure of the National Programme

Eight working groups cover the following areas: grain cereals; legumes; vegetable and
horticultural crops; fruit and berry species; subtropical crops and grapes; technical, aromatic
and medicinal plants; pasture and fodder crops; and forest species. The National Council
coordinates activities through working groups of research institutes dealing with their
respective crops. The groups are supervised by the chairman of the Commission.
Among the 4500 species of higher plants represented in Azerbaijan, 10 % are considered rare
and threatened. These species are protected in 14 national parks. Azerbaijan is one of the
centres of origin of grain cereals, legumes, some vegetable and horticultural crops, fruits and
berries and grapes. Unfortunately the wild relatives of these species are not protected, their
habitats are shrinking and they are not used in breeding work.
Collecting activities
Collecting missions resulted in 662 samples of grain, legume, vegetable, forage crops and
sugar beet belonging to 18 species and 90 species of their wild relatives, over 3000 accessions
of wild berries belonging to 22 species and over 100 samples of wild grapes.
On-farm and in situ conservation

In Azerbaijan the local population (farmers and the private sector) have grown native
landraces of grain cereals, legumes, berries and watermelons since ancient times. Their
conservation is linked to their use.
Ex situ conservation
The national germplasm collection consists of 35 000 samples, including grain crops (13 218),
legumes (3824), vegetable and horticultural crops (5800), fruits and berries (6192), grapes
(612), etc. The Botanical Garden maintains 2500 accessions of woody and grass plants. The
Institute of Botany possesses 600 000 herbarium specimens belonging to 3800 species.
There is no specialized genebank in Azerbaijan but the genetic resource collections are
concentrated and stored in specialized institutes. The Genetic Resources Institute was
created in November 2002 from the former Institute of Genetics and Selection of the
Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS). It is responsible for the coordination of
the specialized institutes in the area of PGR. The creation of a genebank for medium- and
long-term conservation is planned.
Database
According to the NP a National Information Network was created and a National Inventory
database is under development. The inventory and identification of the national germplasm
do not require much effort.
Characterization
Specialized institutes study and evaluate available genetic resources. Evaluation is carried
out for agronomic and biological characters, resistance to biotic and abiotic factors,
biochemical and technical properties. International descriptors are not used for
characterization and evaluation.
Utilization of genetic resources

Breeding is conducted on 55 crops in nine areas of the country. Materials held in collections
are used in breeding work and over 170 varieties have been created and multiplied.
Available resources are used rationally to ensure food security at national level.
Professional training
In the framework of the NP staff qualification is ensured in various institutes of the country
and through attendance at workshops organized by international CGIAR centres (IPGRI,
CIMMYT, ICARDA and ICRISAT).
International cooperation
Azerbaijan has established cooperation with international institutes (IPGRI, CIMMYT,
ICARDA, ICRISAT) and other genebanks.
Funding
The State budget partially finances the NP. The funds allocated are rather limited and
additional help is required. Support is needed for the creation of the genebank. Financial
support is required from the State and from international organizations for the purchase of
the necessary equipment and products.
Problems
For various reasons the natural vegetative cover is decreasing and valuable wild plants are
disappearing. Salinization of arable zones, erosion, overuse of natural pastures, irrational
population resettlement and urbanization result in dramatic genetic erosion. Some material
is lost from collections owing to the lack of good maintenance conditions. There is a need for
highly trained staff.
Future prospects
Collection of valuable indigenous genetic resources, restoration, reliable protection and
rational use remain major issues. The development of international cooperation and material
exchange is essential for the creation of the genebank for medium-term and long-term
conservation.
Belgium
Toward a Belgian National Programme for a safe and dynamic conservation

and utilization of plant genetic resources
Marc Lateur
Department of Biological Control and Plant Genetic Resources, Agricultural Research Centre,
Gembloux, Belgium
International context
Since the ratification by Belgium, in November 1996, of the legally binding Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) and moreover since adoption in June 1996 of the Global Plan of
Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture (GPA), under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
many national PGR related matters have changed.
Each country has more than ever a moral obligation to set up a National Programme and
to provide ad hoc financial support for planning and coordinating the conservation and
utilization of its plant genetic resources–also called ‘agricultural biological diversity’–which
are a part of biodiversity as a whole.
Specifically on agricultural matters, the CBD asked each member of the Working Party to
implement the GPA by setting up and/or making progress towards, the following actions:
- implementing a national strategy, programmes and plans which ensure the development
and successful implementation of policies and actions that lead to sustainable use of
agrobiodiversity components;
- identifying and assessing relevant ongoing activities and existing instruments at the
national level;
- establishing or enhancing mechanisms for increasing public awareness and
understanding the importance of the sustainable use of agrobiodiversity components;
- using any methods and indicators to monitor the impacts of agricultural development
projects, including the intensification and extensification of production systems, on
biological diversity;
- promoting contact with farming communities for the development, maintenance and use
of their knowledge and practices in the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity;
- helping to implement the Global Plan of Action (GPA);
- collaborating with other Contracting Parties to identify and promote sustainable
agricultural practices and integrated landscape management;
- reviewing agricultural biological diversity: implementing the National Programme of
work of phase I and adoption of a multi-year work programme;
- promoting regional and thematic cooperation within this framework of the programme
of work on agricultural biological diversity;
- providing financial support for implementation of the programme of work on
agricultural biological diversity;
- supporting actions to raise public awareness in support of sustainable farming and food
production systems that maintain agricultural biological diversity;
- coordinating its position in both the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.
The Global Plan of Action goes into more detail and strengthens the implementation of
National Programmes for the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture (Cooper et al. 1998).
Current situation in Belgium

Belgium has a long history of collecting and raising a wide range of plants, which are used in
horticulture and agriculture. It is estimated that at least 17 000 plant accessions are held in
different Belgian collections. The most advanced works are devoted to Rhododendron spp.
(5000, Agricultural Research Centre, Department of Plant Genetics and Breeding (CLO-DVP)
Gent); fruit tree species (3130, Agricultural Research Centre (CRA), Gembloux and NGOs);
Phaseolinae spp. (1400, National Botanical Garden, Meise); and Musa spp. (1100, INIBAP
collection at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL), Leuven).
At the Federal level there was only one research institution with the objective of
managing Plant Genetic Resources (Department of Biological Control and Plant Genetic
Resources - Agricultural Research Centre of Gembloux, CRA). Since 1 January 2002 most of
the agricultural activities are dealt with by the regional authorities. The former Federal
Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for coordinating the regions and represents them on
the international scene. For the moment, there is no centralized coordination structure for
the management of Belgian PGR. Activities are run on a voluntary basis, information is
collected from colleagues and from formal data but there is no centralized database. Precise
information is still kept by the curators, so at this stage we cannot really speak of an official
national inventory. Links with the main important collections and with general data are to
be found in a national inventory ”Biodiversity Resources in Belgium” federal Web site
(http://www.br.fgov.be/BIODIV) which is linked with the Belgian Clearing House
Mechanism of the CBD. Inside this mechanism there is very good federal collaboration
managed by the Focal Point, which is supported by the Belgian Federal Office for Scientific,
Technical and Cultural Affairs (BFOSTCA). However, there have been new plans which are
being discussed by the BFOSTCA for the setting up of a federal structure focused on Genetic
Resources management with the principal aims:
- coordinate the individual efforts inside the country;
- increase awareness within the political and research sector of the great importance of the
future of GR, so as to ensure an appropriate coordination structure and adequate
budgets;
- establish cooperation and coordination between the partners;
- develop the concept of ‘National Collections’ based on specific criteria and to develop a
real national policy on the matter.
At CRA, Gembloux, we have planned to start an initiative, using our own resources, to
combine in a central database the PGR crop databases held in different departments of our
research centre and in the Faculty of Agronomy of Gembloux. This initiative will be further
extended to all Belgian data existing in various institutes. There are indeed many work
databases developed by researchers for their own research programmes and by public
institutions such as botanical gardens which contain passport, characterization and
evaluation data, but such data are not yet freely available.
Concept of ‘national and European collections’

Due to the wide diversity of PGR and the shortage of financial support at the different
regional, federal and European levels we need to develop a coordinated strategy for the safe
conservation of our resources.
One of the proposals gathering support within the ECP/GR Working Groups is the
concept of sharing the responsibility between regional, national and European collections
through the establishment of decentralized collections of accessions, to ensure long-term

conservation and easy access to a wide range of biodiversity for the sake of European
horticulture, agriculture, forestry, cultural heritage or science. The different steps are as
follows:
1. Defining which criteria will be used for selecting the accessions to the decentralized
‘National collection’. The decision is taken in collaboration with all collection curators
and following some priority criteria. Examples of criteria could be Belgian origin or
strong sociocultural and historical relation to Belgium and good adaptation to our soil
and climatic conditions, extraordinary traits representing the diversity of crop cultivars
that have a potential value for our country;
2. Sorting out the original material from all collections by collecting passport data and
minimum evaluation and characterization data;
3. Comparing data from different collections and identifying unique and original material
to avoid duplication;
4. Establishing the ‘National collection’ list;
5. Establishing protocols for the network structure and sharing responsibility for the safe
conservation strategy for this priority collection.
Such procedures have to be followed both at the regional level, at the national level and
finally at the European level where the ‘European Collection’ is considered as the sum of the
different national collections. The global management of the network will be coordinated by
ECP/GR, in collaboration with the respective European Central Crop Database managers.
References
Cooper, D., C. Spillane, I. Kermali and M. Anishetty. 1998. Harnessing Plant Genetic
Resources for sustainable agriculture. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 114:1-8.
Bulgaria
Developing a partnership policy for the protection, sustainable use and

management of plant genetic resources in Bulgaria
Rada Koeva and Syika Angelova

Institute for Plant Genetic Resources (IPGR), Sadovo, Bulgaria
Introduction
The new International Treaty assigned a strategic place for the state policy of each country
concerning the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources, as well as calling for
the equitable sharing of rights and responsibilities among all partners who create, possess or
use available plant genetic resources.
Aims
The main objective of the present work is to describe the policy of partnership and its
expected outcome by increasing the opportunities for optimizing the conditions and
prerequisites for conservation and management of plant genetic diversity at all levels of its
formation and use.
This objective was accompanied by measures for activating the international exchange of
materials and information, with reduced barriers to communication and access to the
available genetic diversity, good control of its use and the provision of conditions for
regenerating plant material over a long time span.
Methods and approaches

To achieve the general aims and the scope of activities within the coordinated programme,
some major schemes and methodological approaches had to be used:
- listing and identification of the PGRFA collections and partners/stockholders, owners,
description of their main purposes and motives in maintaining collections and
programmes for research and management of valuable plant genetic resources;
- specifying the modern standards for collection, evaluation and conservation defined by
the European programme for the aforementioned lines and particularly those valid for
all levels of the partners’ structure;
- creating a database and partner network to improve the security of national collections
and to define the types of collection and the work to be undertaken on these (size of the
collections, structural analyses by origin, material type and storage methods, evaluation
of the available diversity in the collections).
Results and discussion

The policy for partnership and coordination of genetic resources related activities outlined a
number of actions of which the following were achieved:
- two inventories were conducted (in 2000 and 2002) to determine the list of partners and
available PGR collections in the country in terms of species diversity, volume of material
maintained, storage conditions and status of accessions, databases, access to and degree
of usability of the genetic diversity (questionnaire sent to 23 partners);
- the inventory revealed some important gaps: incorrect classification of collections;
heterogeneous evaluation systems; lack of databases (passport and evaluation data); low
level of long-term conservation; lack of access to collections and information;
- negative results arising from an inadequate coordination between partners in the field of
genetic resources due to individual peculiarities, differences or vagueness of interests
and motivation and distrust among partners regarding the use of genetic resources;
- the unsolved partnership problems and their negative effects were defined: lack of clarity
regarding the level and status of PGR collections; duplication of accessions in the
collections; uneven distribution of rights and responsibilities for PGR activities;
- the lost benefits and consequences of the negative results were summarized as: loss of
unstored germplasm; ineffective participation in the projects; loss of funds; inadequate
use of plant genetic resources;
- the ecogeographical distribution of genetic diversity and the partners in the centres and
collections investigated were recorded to construct a map of the National PGR
Programme (Fig. 1);
PARTNERS
1- IPGR - Sadovo
2- ABI - Kostinbrod
3- DAI - Dobrich
4- IFC - Pleven
5- IVK - Plovdiv
6- ICDW - Chirpan
7- IA - Karnobat
8- IM - Kneja
9- IAS - Russe
10- IPP - Kostinbrod
11- IMFPA - Troyan
BULGARIA 12- IVV - Pleven
Partnership: 13- IFL - Plovdiv
National 14- IA - Kjustendil
Programme for 15- IA - Shumen
Plant Genetic 16- RCES - Haskovo
17- RCES - Kardjali
Resources
18- IREMC - Kazanlik
19- IG - Sofia
20- IASAS - Sofia
21- BG - Sofia
Fig 1. Distribution of the partners involved in PGRFA conservation and sustainable use in Bulgaria.
- the activities promoting the implementation of the policy for partnership were classified
into three main groups of potential partners: (i) direct participants and executors in the
field of plant genetic resources; (ii) PGR-associated partners; (ii) the authorities and the
National PGR Programme;
- progress in the field of conservation and management of plant genetic resources was
summarized in four workshop papers. The different partners in Bulgaria, involved both
in short- and medium-term projects reported the main problems related to the
standardization of evaluation methods and to the work organization in this field;
- special emphasis was placed upon the general problems of assessment of the status and
type of the collections, as well as the accessions stored in a genebank and/or in working
collections; standardization of evaluation methods and storage conditions;
- determination of the specific threats to genetic diversity;
- A scheme for improving the effectiveness of partners' relations through the creation of a
PGR Partnership Council (Consulting) was suggested.
Conclusions
Signs of increased coordination between partners after the initiation of the policy for
partnership included an increase in the amount of germplasm conserved and especially local
genetic resources; participation in projects; organization of workshops; and discussions on
fundamental problems:
- the sustainable development of the National PGR Programme relies on the coordination
of objectives, research programmes, storage of local resources and general measures
against the threats to PGR;
- establishment of a national Partnership or Consulting Council and expert group with a
large institutional representation (Figs. 2 and 3);
Curators
Partnership for PGRFA
conservation and sustainable use Maintenance
Creators
57 Enrichment
60
Beneficients
50
Utilization
40
Ass. Departments
Part (%)
30 Priorities
13 11
20 9 Managers
5
10 2 3 Benefits
0 State departm.
1 Strategy
Partners / Motivation NGOs
Biodiversity
Partners: Motivation: PGRFA Part: activities (%)

Curators Maintenance 57
Creators Enrichment 13
End-users/beneficiaries Utilization 9
Ass. Departments Priorities 11
Managers Benefits 2
State Departments Strategy 3
NGOs Biodiversity conservation 5
Fig. 2. Partners and their motivation.

100
90
80 Curators
optimal
70 Creators
unsatisfactory
Explorers
60
Scale of effect
satisfactory
End users
50
good
Managers
40 unsatisfactory
Ass.departm.
30 satisfactory
State departm.
20 good
NGOs
very good
10
0
Partners / Effect of their contributions
Scale of effects
Unsatisfactory 20
Satisfactory 40
Good 60
Very good 80
Excellent 100
Fig. 3. Partners assessment: Effect on contributions for PGRFA conservation and sustainable use.
- compilation of database information for the National PGR Programme and for the
establishment of the National PGR Network (available and evaluated resources,
dynamics of resources maintained under short- and long-term storage);
- rationalizing and promoting the effectiveness of distribution of the rights and
responsibilities for protection and sustainable development of local plant genetic
resources, regulated by the State and its duty to fund the main necessary activities;
- measures of utmost importance to prevent and overcome the threats to genetic diversity
were outlined: quality of reproduction and seed samples; level and quality of short-term
storage conditions; omissions and lack of information and databases for the maintained
collections; regulation of germplasm transfer.
Croatia
The Croatian Bank of Plant Genes
Toni Safner
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
The Croatian Bank of Plant Genes is a national scientific project financed by the Ministry of
Science and Technology since 1990. It is situated at the Faculty of Agriculture, University of
Zagreb.
Plant genetic resources (PGR) in Croatia are largely unknown and uncollected. Our most
valuable PGR are local varieties as well as wild relatives of a number of crop species such as
cereals (wheat, barley, rye, oats), legumes (pea, lentil, chickpea, faba bean), grape, olive,
apple, medicinal and aromatic plants. Those resources are endangered by genetic erosion,
caused primarily by gradual introduction of modern high-yielding cultivars replacing
traditional varieties (landraces) and high-level urbanization that often causes habitat
destruction.
The general goal of the Croatian Bank of Plant Genes is ex situ conservation of PGR,
including the following activities.
Germplasm exploration and collecting

- Creating a list of traditional varieties grown in Croatia and the traditional uses of plants
through comprehensive ethnobotanical studies (literature survey and survey of
indigenous knowledge);
- Current collecting priorities are on traditional varieties of cereal and legume crops, and
medicinal and aromatic plants;
- A collecting mission to the Istra peninsula was successfully organized in 2002 and
another mission to the Kvarner Islands is planned.
Germplasm maintenance and regeneration

- Classical ex situ maintenance facilities consist of 75 m3 cold chamber space;
- On-farm conservation of traditional varieties is conducted in collaboration with the
Croatian NGO “Rustica”.
Germplasm characterization and evaluation

- The collected germplasm is being characterized using IPGRI standard descriptor lists;
- The development of suitable descriptor lists for medicinal and aromatic plants is
underway;
- The genetic structure of natural populations of medicinal and aromatic plants is being
studied using molecular markers within the national scientific project ”Genetic
variability of medicinal and aromatic plants”.
Germplasm documentation
An important goal of this project is the development of a germplasm documentation system
that would contain all the relevant information on the accessions.
The collected germplasm is freely available for use in scientific research programmes.
The whole project is carried out in accordance with the Convention on Biological
Diversity, the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21.
Czech Republic
The Czech National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and

Utilization
Ladislav Dotlačil, Zdeněk Stehno and Iva Faberová

Research Institute of Crop Production (RICP), Prague–Ruzyne, Czech Republic
The Czech National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization
was launched by the Czech Ministry of Agriculture in 1994. The project deals with gathering
(including collecting missions), documentation, characterization, evaluation and
conservation of plant genetic resources and provides services to users. Presently, 11
institutions in the Czech Republic participate in the project, including two state research
institutes, one agricultural university and eight private companies. The National
Programme is coordinated by the Research Institute of Crop Production in Prague (RICP),
which runs the Czech Gene Bank; the Czech Board for Plant Genetic Resources is an
advisory body and provides expertise and consultations for the National Programme.
The institutions holding collections are responsible for the maintenance, regeneration and
increase of collections (for seed-propagated species in cooperation with the genebank) and
for characterization, documentation and evaluation of genetic resources. For vegetatively
propagated species, the institutes holding collections are responsible for long-term
conservation of plant genetic resources. The Gene Bank at RICP Prague provides long-term
storage of seed samples of all seed-propagated collections in the Czech Republic as well as
services of the National Information System on Plant Genetic Resources (EVIGEZ) for all
cooperating institutions. The genebank, together with all institutions holding collections,
provide services to both local and foreign users of genetic resources.
The total number of accessions in Czech collections is now 52 000; genetic resources of
local origin are considered an essential part of the collections. Besides this, another 4500
accessions (mainly collected materials or genetic lines) are multiplied and studied in working
collections. Seed-propagated collections represent 82% and vegetatively propagated species
18% of the whole amount.
Increasing collections and collecting missions

The aim of increasing plant genetic resources collections is to secure existing biodiversity and
provide broad genetic diversity for the needs of present and future users. Primary attention
is paid to materials of local origin which include domestically bred cultivars, old local
cultivars, landraces and wild relatives.
The annual increase in all Czech collections reached 1800-2500 samples in recent years.
Most important sources of new materials are collecting missions and exchange of materials
with partner genebanks and other institutes abroad. Collecting missions are an important
tool to provide collections with new original diversity and save resources which are or could
be endangered in nature or in agricultural practice. However, not all the collected material is
included in the collections.
Documentation of plant genetic resources

The National Information System on Plant Genetic Resources (EVIGEZ) is used by all
institutes cooperating within the National Programme. It consists of three parts: passport,
characterization/evaluation, and storage documentation. The passport database (common
for all species) has been completed. Evaluation data are available for 20 500 accessions, i.e.
39.5% of all accessions. There has been a significant increase in the last three years. National
descriptor lists were developed for 34 crops and cover all important crops grown in the
Czech Republic. The documentation system is available on the Internet
(http://genbank.vurv.cz/genetic/resources/).
Characterization and evaluation of genetic resources

Recently, more attention has been paid to increasing the effective utilization of genetic
resources through their characterization and evaluation. The evaluation is based on two to
three years’ field experiments in which accessions are rated according to the national
descriptor lists (or simple sets of descriptors); the data are completed with results of
laboratory tests. Annually, 3500-4500 accessions are involved in some kind of evaluation.
The data are processed and included in the documentation system EVIGEZ. The data are
often utilized by cooperating breeders and researchers who can also participate in the
evaluation.
Genetic resources conservation

The collection holders are responsible for the maintenance of genetic resources in a living
state. In the case of vegetatively propagated crops, genetic resources are maintained in field
collections (fruit tree or hop gardens, vineyards), or in tissue culture (potatoes). All seed-
propagated collections are multiplied and regenerated by institutes (companies) holding
such collections; long-term maintenance of seed samples is provided by the Czech Gene
Bank in the active collection (at -5°C or -18°C respectively, according to the species) and base
collection (-18°C). Hence about 8500 accessions still need regeneration in the near future.
Conservation efforts remain a priority of the National Programme. The share of seed
samples in the genebank has increased to 77% of all seed-propagated accessions in
collections. The main crops in the genebank are cereals and legumes. Genetic resources of
local origin are maintained in both the active and base collections and safety-duplication is
being developed in cooperation with the Slovak Gene Bank in the Research Institute for Plant
Production (RIPP) in Piešťany.
Presently, in situ and on-farm conservation projects are not yet utilized for crop genetic
resources conservation in the Czech Republic. However, research and preparatory activities
are carried out and we expect them to be implemented on a limited scale in the near future.
Methods of cryopreservation are being developed in selected vegetatively propagated
species (potatoes, fruit trees, garlic, and hop) and preparations are made for routine work in
the cryobank. Research and improvement of long-term seed storage techniques is also
carried out.
Utilization of genetic resources and services to users

Annually, 3000 to 4000 samples of genetic resources are distributed to the users; the share of
samples provided to local and foreign users is roughly similar, or slightly in favour of the
local users.
In a number of cases, genetic resources supplied to breeders have been used in the
development of new cultivars or breeding materials. Acknowledged co-authorship of
collection curators for released cultivars indicates close and successful cooperation between
breeders and researchers.
Denmark
Status of the National Danish Plant Genetic Resources Programme
Lars Landbo
Danish Plant Directorate, Lyngby, Denmark
The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries is currently in the process of establishing a
formal National Programme on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. A draft
strategy has been formulated which will be followed by an action plan.
A national plant genetic resources board was established in 1999. The board gives advice
on issues relating to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and is composed of
representatives from various stakeholders: private and public institutions and organizations
(e.g. Farmers’ Union, the Agricultural Advisory Board etc.).
Many of the Danish activities on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are
conducted in cooperation with the other Nordic countries through the Nordic Gene Bank
(NGB). These activities encompass both practical work on genetic resources as such and
coordination and policy discussions.
Contact persons on the Danish National Programme on plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture:
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries

Anders Christiansen (Email: acr@fvm.dk)
Dorrit Krabbe (Email: dkr@fvm.dk)
Danish Plant Directorate

Lars Landbo (Email: lbo@pdir.dk)
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences

Ole Callesen (Email: ole.callesen@agrsci.dk)
Kell Kristiansen (Email: kell.kristansen@agrsci.dk)
Estonia
National Programme “Collection and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources

for Food and Agriculture”
Vahur Kukk and Külli Annamaa

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

- Sustainable conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources (PGR) of Estonian
origin to ensure implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD);
- Development of the national PGR network;
- Exploration and utilization of collections.
Responsibility sharing
Genebank of the Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute

The genebank was granted the status of national genebank for ex situ preservation by the
Minister of Agriculture in 2002. Its functions are:
- Long-term ex situ conservation of cereals, grasses, legumes and vegetables;
- 670 ex situ accessions of 37 species, 96 varieties of Estonian origin;
- 160 potato accessions in field collections;
- 3500 accessions in breeders’ field collections;
- Collecting missions to the natural habitats of forage legumes and grasses;
- Preservation of safety-duplicates of the most valuable genotypes of Estonian origin at the
Nordic Gene Bank.
Contacts
Vahur Kukk (National Coordinator for ECP/GR) - Email: Vahur.Kukk@jpbi.ee
Külli Annamaa - Email: Kylli.Annamaa@jpbi.ee
48309 Jõgeva, Estonia
Plant Biotechnological Research Centre EVIKA of the Estonian Agricultural University

- In vitro conservation of agricultural and horticultural crops;
- 1300 accessions of 34 species;
- 800 meristem clones of 420 potato varieties, breeding material and landraces;
- Disease eradication and multiplication.
Contact
Katrin Kotkas - Email: Katrin.Kotkas.002@mail.ee
Teaduse 6a, 75501 Saku, Harjumaa, Estonia
Polli Horticultural Institute (Estonian Agricultural University)

- Breeding and research centre of fruit crops;
- Conservation of fruit trees and berry plants;
- 900 accessions of 14 species;
- 93 varieties of Estonian origin.
Contact
Kalju Kask - Email: asta@pai.neti.ee
69104 Karksi-Nuia, Viljandimaa, Estonia
Institute of Experimental Biology (Estonian Agricultural University)

- Preservation of wild relatives of wheat and disease-resistant hybrid wheat lines;
- Monosomic aneuploid analysis and molecular genetics techniques for characterization of
conserved disease-resistant wheat genotypes.
Contact
Oskar Priilinn - Email: ebi@ebi.ee
76902 Harku, Estonia
Botanical Garden (Tartu University)

- Conservation of natural habitats of grasses;
- Conservation of decorative species and varieties;
- Coordination of activities of private collectors.
Contact
Ain Vellak - Email: avellak@ut.ee
Lai 38/40, 51005 Tartu, Estonia
Department of Pharmacy (Tartu University)

- Preservation of medicinal and aromatic plants in ex situ field collections;
- 390 species and varieties.
Contact
Ulve Pihlik - Email: Ulve@ut.ee
Jakobi 2, 51014 Tartu, Estonia
Finances
All activities are financed from the budget of the National Programme ”Collection and
Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2002-2006” (Table 1).
Table 1. Funding of activities in the Estonian National PGR Programme

Budget/year (in thousand EEK)
Activities
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
Inventory of collections 160 185 345
Creation and management of electronic database 280 260 100 100 740
Preservation and rejuvenation of collections 630 1240 1345 1435 1470 6120
Evaluation and characterization of accessions;
430 455 475 500 1860
methodological investigations
Equipment for genebank management 80 215 225 260 260 1040
Participation in the Nordic-Baltic PGR project 65 125 125 155 155 625
Participation in the PGR projects coordinated by
65 210 220 245 245 985
FAO and IPGRI
Total 1000 2685 2630 2670 2730 11715
Documentation system
Accessions of Estonian origin are evaluated and characterized. The basic structure of the
documentation system for the national inventory has been developed. Further development
of the electronic database will be continued within the EPGRIS project. The database will be
regularly updated and searchable on-line.
International activities
- Full member of the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources
Networks (ECP/GR);
- Participation in the EPGRIS project ”European Plant Genetic Resources Information
Infrastructure”;
- Participation in the joint Nordic-Baltic project supported by the Nordic Council of
Ministers;
- Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation for PGR conservation with the
N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR), St. Petersburg.
Finland
National Plant Genetic Resources Programme for Agriculture and Forestry
Mia Sahramaa
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Plant Production Research, Jokioinen, Finland
Finnish agriculture and forestry, as well as food production and forest industries that are
dependent on them, are based on the sustainable use of renewable natural resources. The
conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources for agriculture, horticulture and
forestry are covered by international agreements (Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Global Plan of
Action (GPA)). In Finland, the body responsible for the conservation and sustainable use of
these resources is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
The Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry appointed a working group for the
preparation of a Finnish National Plant Genetic Resources Programme related to the
implementation of the CBD and the GPA. The working group was appointed for the period
1 March 1998 – 31 December 2000. The group continued the work of the first Committee for
Plant Genetic Resources appointed in 1995. The Finnish Advisory Board to the Nordic Gene
Bank (NGB) was included in the working group as a sub-division.
The National Plant Genetic Resources Programme for Agriculture and Forestry outlines
the main principles, objectives and proposals for measures for the conservation and
sustainable use of genetic resources for agriculture, horticulture and forestry. The
Programme does not cover herbs, medicinal, ornamental or landscape plants as they are not
included within the mandate of the Nordic Gene Bank. These categories of plants can be
most appropriately managed by the Advisory Board for Plant Genetic Resources, the
appointment of which is proposed in the present programme, as they are adopted into the
mandate of the NGB.
It is the contention of the working group that the Nordic Gene Bank should be utilized
more efficiently than at present for the coordination, planning and implementation of work
for the conservation of national plant genetic resources. The working group recommends
that responsibility for the implementation of the Finnish National Plant Genetic Resources
Programme for Agriculture and Forestry be assigned to MTT Agrifood Research Finland.
The corresponding organization responsible for forest genetic resources is the Finnish Forest
Research Institute (Metla).
Measures proposed in the National Plant Genetic Resources Programme will be primarily
carried out by the competent authorities of the various administrative sectors. Indeed, the
successful implementation of the programme calls for close cooperation between several
administrative sectors.
Main objectives of the programme

- A national board for genetic resources will be established to coordinate activities and to
prepare national approaches to policy issues;
- Agricultural plant genetic resources will be stored primarily in the Nordic Gene Bank;
- Conservation of vegetatively propagated agricultural and horticultural crops will be
arranged nationally, particularly at MTT;
- Gene resource collections of forest trees will be complemented;
- Development of the programme will be in harmony with international development in
this sector;
- The programme will also participate in the development of indicators for measuring
sustainable use of PGR at the national and international levels;
- Research on PGR and activities of associations and organizations promoting PGR will be
supported through existing resources.
Specific measures
Legislation and international agreements on genetic resources

- Participation in national preparation of international agreements to ensure the
conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. These agreements include
notably the CBD and the International Treaty agreement;
- Implementation of the Nordic strategy for genetic resources;
- Participation in the preparation of international and national legislation on the
ownership of plant genetic resources;
- Within available resources, research into the effects of legislation on the conservation and
sustainable use of genetic resources will be supported.
Conservation of plant genetic resources

- The responsibility of MTT Agrifood Research Finland will be increased for the
conservation of nationally valuable genetic resources for agriculture;
- The storage of the plant genetic resources for agriculture will be centralized in the Nordic
Gene Bank. Operations of the NGB will be developed through active participation of
Finland in the Board of the NGB.
- Work by various associations and other organizations for the promotion of the
conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for agriculture will be
supported within the limits of available resources;
- Measures promoting the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for
agriculture will be maintained and developed through the system of agri-environmental
support;
- New gene reserve forests and new collections of hardwood trees will be established. In
addition to these, collections for the conservation of genetic material of aspen, black
alder, Siberian larch and juniper will be established. The management and maintenance
of gene reserve forests and the collections will be ensured.
- The Advisory Board for Plant Genetic Resources to be established will study
opportunities for extending the mandate of the NGB to cover also herbal, medicinal,
ornamental and landscape plants, as well as the national measures for the organization of
the protection, maintenance and sustainable use of these plant categories.
Sustainable use of plant genetic resources

- Breeding of varieties adapted to Finnish conditions will be maintained and, when
necessary (with funds from the National Emergency Supply Fund), breeding of
commercially non-profitable field crops that are nevertheless necessary to secure a
national seed supply will be supported;
- The maintenance and cultivation of landraces, varieties and old cultivars will be
promoted as part of the system of agri-environmental support;
- The development of indicators for measuring the sustainable use of genetic resources will
be participated in, both nationally and internationally;
- Within available resources, research into the diverse utilization of plant genetic resources
for agriculture will be promoted, as will the transfer of research results into practice;
- Long-term programmes for forest tree breeding and seed supply, as well as legislation
regulating the production of genetically improved reforestation material, will be kept up
to date.
Research, information, education and training, and advisory services regarding PGR
- Efforts will be made to enhance the efficiency of research, education and advisory
services for the protection, conservation and sustainable use of PGR in Finland;
- Efforts will be made to ensure that research on PGR for agriculture, forestry and
horticulture is sufficiently covered in current and future research programmes on genetic
resources;
- The expertise of NGB will be utilized in research and education on the conservation of
genetic resources (for example, through participation in Nordic researcher workshops).
- Within available resources, research will be supported on the conservation and
sustainable utilization, as well as diversity, of plant genetic resources;
- Links will be established on the MTT Agrifood Research Finland Web site to the Web
sites of major organizations in the field of conservation and sustainable use of the genetic
resources for agriculture and forestry;
- Associations and other organizations will, within their resources, provide practical
advisory services for issues involving the utilization of plant genetic resources.
Contacts
Leena Hömmö
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Malminkatu 16
FIN-00023 Government
Finland
Email: leena.hommo@mmm.fi
Mia Sahramaa
MTT Agrifood Research Finland
Plant Production Research
FIN-31600 Jokioinen
Finland
Email: mia.sahramaa@mtt.fi
Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla)

Unioninkatu 40 A
FIN-00170 Helsinki
Finland
Email: info@metla.fi
France
The French National Plant Genetic Resources Programme
Martine Mitteau
Bureau des Ressources Génétiques (BRG), Paris, France
Establishment of the Programme

France has a long history of plant collecting and breeding, especially since the 1850s. Since
then, numerous collections, for research or exhibition purposes, have been built up, many of
which still existed in the 1980s. Besides these, in 1926 the first national nature reserve was
created as a first step towards in situ conservation.
Since the 1960s, many initiatives geared to conserving the genetic resources of plant
species have been undertaken. In 1983, the need to organize and better coordinate these
initiatives and to elaborate a national strategy led to the creation of the Bureau des
Ressources Génétiques (BRG) by the State authorities. In 1993, BRG was strengthened into an
interministerial organization.
In 1998, a National Charter for the Management of Genetic Resources in France,
elaborated by BRG coordinating a very large consultation process, was adopted by the State
authorities.
Objectives and coverage

The French National Plant Genetic Resources Programme covers all the related activities—
management, research, training, public awareness and policy—in France, including overseas
territories. Similar programmes are in place, with the same policy and the same
coordination, on animals and microbial genetic resources.
France has chosen a decentralized system of genetic resources management, considering
the system of large central genebanks to be too remote from users. The system adopted aims
to involve, by means of networks, the various participants, from curators to users, in long-
term maintenance of a ”National Collection”, sharing between them the burden and cost of
conservation activities, while coordinating them in a common management and policy
framework, under the auspices of BRG.
Structure and coordination

BRG organizes and coordinates the long-term preservation of plant genetic diversity, as
heritage material, for present and future generations and as strategic input for breeding and
economic development. Established in 1993 as a Scientific Group with nine co-sponsors, it
currently involves 13 members: the Ministries in charge respectively of Research, Industry,
Agriculture, Environment, Overseas Territories and Cooperation, and seven public scientific
institutions. Its mandate covers the field of plant, animal and microbial genetic resources:
- To organize the management of genetic resources at the national level and to mobilize
the whole range of stakeholders involved;
- To promote research and to enhance the transfer of knowledge;
- To inform and to communicate;
- To provide French expertise and representation in European and international
organizations and fora.
The special function of BRG is to deal simultaneously with the coordination and
federation of national activities on genetic resources, accompanying these activities by
promoting specific research programmes and inserting them, as appropriate, into global and
regional programmes, while participating in the national and international regulations on
genetic resources.
Stakeholder involvement
All stakeholders involved in plant genetic resources, both from the public and the private
sectors, take part in the implementation of the national policy. They take part in the
networks; they are regularly consulted to improve the national strategy and to prepare
French international commitments.
These stakeholders may be public or private bodies for plant breeding, research, training,
collection or the management of nature reserves. They may also be associations, regional
genebanks, territorial authorities, etc.
Legal and policy framework

Under the French environmental legislation, genetic diversity is part of the national heritage,
but the legal status of individual genetic resources is dealt with under the intellectual
property rights law, where relevant.
With regard to the conservation and management of genetic resources, the policy
framework is more advanced than the legal one. The National Charter was adopted in 1998;
since then it has determined the national policy under which national and regional activities
are undertaken. Its implementation is through BRG.
Overview of activities
The National Programme deals with cultivated crops (temperate and tropical) and with
specific wild species (forests, wild relatives of crops, meadow species). It focuses on the
sustainable management of ”National Collections”, gathering genetically diverse and
representative material throughout French territory, and facilitating access to it according to
the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and to the FAO Global Plan of Action on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (1996).
The ”National Collections” include resources preserved ex situ, in situ and on-farm within
networks of partners coming from public, private and associative sectors. A platform for
tropical and Mediterranean species, specialized in conservation methods, ensures
germplasm healthy transit, expertise and staff training. Several long-term experimental
programmes are being carried out to ensure a dynamic management of genetic diversity,
sometimes with a pre-breeding objective.
Funding
The coordination of national activities on genetic resources through BRG is funded by
Ministries and public research institutions. Research on genetic resources is funded in the
same way. Management activities are funded by a combination of public and private
resources.
Contact
BRG – Bureau des Ressources Génétiques
16 rue Claude Bernard
F–75231 Paris cedex 05
France
Tel.: +33 (0) 144 08 72 61
Fax: +33 (0) 144 08 72 63
Email: brg@inapg.inra.fr
Internet: www.brg.prd.fr
Georgia
The National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources in Georgia
Gogotur Agladze, Guram Alexidze and Tamriko Jinjikhadze

Academy of Agricultural Sciences (AAS), Tbilisi, Georgia
Introduction
In spite of its small area (approximately 70 000 km2), Georgia has a rich biological diversity
owing to its very varied climatic, geological, topographical and hydrological conditions.
Endemic plant species of Georgia constitute about 9% of the total flora, a high proportion
compared with other, larger countries in Europe and Asia.
This small country is the centre of origin of many crops, particularly of wheat. In the
1930s 12 species of wheat were recorded, including 5 endemic species, 144 varieties and
about 100 landraces. Many grapevine, fruit and forest species originate in Georgia; perennial
and annual food crops, vegetables and horticultural crops also display a great diversity.
Structure of the National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources in Georgia

The Steering Committee for Plant Genetic Resources (was established in 1998 at the
Academy of Agricultural Sciences (AAS). The Academy is organized in the following
working groups: cereals; forest species; fodder grasses; fruit and grapes; aromatic and
ornamental wild plants; food legumes and medicinal plants; vegetables; and orchards.
The main PGR-related activities are collecting (collecting missions and seed exchange
between institutes), evaluation and conservation. Most institutes carry out ex situ
conservation.
The Academy of Agricultural Sciences collaborates with the following research institutes:
Scientific Research Institute of Farming; Agrarian State University; Institute of Botany;
Botanical Garden; Institute of Viticulture, Horticulture and Winemaking; Institute of
Forestry; and also with NGOs (“Elkana”, Agrobiodiversity Protection Society of Georgia
(DIKA), etc.)
The computerized national inventory currently records a total of 663 accessions
(Table 1).
Table 1. Ex situ collections in Georgian institutes

Institute No. of accessions
Institute of Farming 225
Institute of Botany 211
Institute of Viticulture, Horticulture and Winemaking 10
Mtskheta Breeding Station 6
Agrobiodiversity Protection Society ”DIKA” 211
Total 663
Recent achievements and current projects
April 2000: establishment of the Georgian PGR Centre

The Centre, located at the Institute of Farming (Mtskheta, Tserovani), is financed by the
government budget with additional support from IPGRI and the International Center for
Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). Its responsibilities are to:
- Undertake an inventory of germplasm holdings in Georgia;
- Document these holdings in a suitable database system;

- Assemble representative samples of these accessions in one location under conditions
suitable for long-term storage;
- Characterize these accessions according to international genebank standards.
The following collaborative projects have been undertaken:

- Participation in the EPGRIS project (European Plant Genetic Resources Information
Infrastructure) - National inventory of ex situ collections in Georgia;
- Participation in the project entitled “Undertaking an inventory of the genetic resources
holdings in Georgia of plant genetic resources of cereal crops, food legumes, fodder and
pasture species”. The project is based on an agreement between ICARDA, AAS and the
Institute of Farming;
- International scientific collecting mission in Georgia (2001): The goal of the mission was
to collect endemic indigenous and wild species of cereals, grain legumes, fodder and
pasture crops. This project was carried out by ICARDA and the Australian Center for
International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). Scientists from various countries and
institutes (VIR, St. Petersburg; ICARDA; AWWC (Australian Winter Wheat Collection);
IPK-Gatersleben, Germany; and the Georgian PGR centre) took part in the mission. A
total of 152 accessions were collected.
- Participation in the project entitled “Conservation and sustainable use of grapevine
(Vitis vinifera L.) genetic resources in the Caucasus and the Northern Black Sea region”
(IPGRI and Research Institute of Viticulture, Horticulture and Winemaking);
- Creation of the CAC (Central Asia and Caucasus) Web site: This project was carried out
by ACIAR and can be found at http://www.cac-biodiversity.org/geo/index.htm.
Future activities
Policy issues
- Official establishment of the National PGR Programme and discussion of biodiversity
issues at national level;
- Organization of the second national meeting and discussion of results achieved so far.
Computerization and documentation systems

- Of the nine Georgian institutes involved in PGR work, only five have computer facilities.
The other four institutes (Botanical Institute; Institute of Horticulture, Viticulture and
Winemaking; Institute of Tea and subtropical crops; and Institute of Botany) should be
provided with computer facilities and a local computer network should be established
with the PGR Centre located at the Institute of Farming;
- Establishment of the National Documentation Unit and linkages between the
documentation unit and documentation specialists based in institutes holding PGR
collections;
- Organization of database training for staff of the institutes.
Germplasm collections
- Increasing the number of accessions in the collections;
- Organization of short missions to collect endemic species and local landraces;
- Characterization of the material;
- Preparation of storage facilities and establishment of a Caucasus regional genebank for
three countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia).
Germany
National Programme for Genetic Resources of Agricultural and Horticultural

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

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

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

The National Programme for Genetic Resources of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops in
Germany was formally established in March 2002. It was developed under the leadership of
the German Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture together with other
participants, in particular representatives of the Federal and Länder governments, research
institutions, breeding organizations and non-governmental organizations. It is based upon
the structure of the Global Plan of Action (GPA) and its four main areas are: (1) in situ
conservation and development; (2) ex situ conservation; (3) utilization; and (4) capacity
building.
Organization
Due to the distributed responsibilities for conservation and use of plant genetic resources in
Germany, an Advisory and Coordinating Committee for PGRFA (BeKo/PGR) has been
established. The BEKO/PGR consists of 18 representatives of the Federal and Länder
governments, as well as of research institutions, breeding organizations and non-
governmental organizations. The work of the BeKO/PGR is supported by thematic working
groups (WG) that will support and advise the actors involved in implementing and carrying
out the programme. At present two working groups have been established, one for in situ
and on-farm aspects and one for the national support of the European Cooperative
Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR).
Objectives
- To maintain the diversity of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA)
and their wild relatives (in situ and ex situ) for the long term in a cost-efficient and
scientifically sound way;
- To promote the use of PGRFA e.g. through better characterization, evaluation,
documentation and pre-breeding;
- To sustainably use a wider range of agricultural and horticultural (including ornamental)
crops in market-oriented production;
- To promote the conservation and rehabilitation of agricultural and horticultural
ecosystems;
- To promote greater transparency in the shared responsibilities of the competent
authorities at the Federal and Länder levels and among all stakeholders involved;
- To exploit synergies from closer cooperation at national and international levels.
To fulfil these main objectives, 96 activities are listed in the programme. These activities
relate to the following areas:
- In situ conservation, monitoring and development;
- Collection and ex situ conservation (with crop-specific measures);
- Utilization;
- Education, research and development;
- Information, documentation, extension and public relations work.
Selected priority activities (as of 2003)

- Transfer of the collection of the Federal Centre for Breeding Research on Cultivated
Plants (BAZ, Braunschweig) to the genebank of the Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop
Plant Research (IPK, Gatersleben);
- Transfer of the responsibility for the fruit genebank of IPK to BAZ;
- Establishment/update of an inventory of PGRFA in situ and on farm in Germany;
- Collaboration in ECP/GR, e.g. support for the establishment of a conservation system for
PGRFA by sharing of responsibilities in Europe;
- Establishment of a national inventory for ornamental crops;
- Establishment of a public/private partnership for the evaluation of PGRFA in Germany;
- Integration of the distributed relevant data in the National Inventory on PGRFA in
Germany (PGRDEU, http://www.genres.de/pgrdeu/).
Implementation
Different participants comprising Federal and Länder governments, research institutions,
breeding organizations and non-governmental organizations contribute to the programme
according to their expertise and capacities.
Contacts
Dr Wílbert Himmighofen
Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMVEL)
Rochusstraße 1
D-53123 Bonn
Germany
Email: Wilbert.Himmighofen@bmvel.bund.de
Secretariat
German Centre for Documentation and Information in Agriculture (ZADI)
Information Centre for Biological Diversity (IBV)
Villichgasse 17
D-53177 Bonn
Germany
Email: ibv@zadi.de
Hungary
The Hungarian Crop Genetic Resources Programme
Bertalan Székely1, László Holly2, István Már2 and Gábor M. Csizmadia2

1 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Budapest, Hungary
2 Institute for Agrobotany, Tápiószele, Hungary
The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Hungary is responsible for the
coordination of the national genetic resources programme. The Ministry provides funding
and technical supervision of the Hungarian National Programme for Crop Genetic Resources
with the involvement of the National Gene Bank Council. In accordance with Ministry
Decree No. 92/1997 (XI. 28.) FM, the Crop Gene Bank Council also acts as an advisory body
to develop recommendations for the scope of activities and priorities. In order to support the
activities of the Council, working groups have been organized with participation of experts
according to the main crop groups grown in Hungary, including field crops, vegetables,
fruits, grapes, medicinal plants, ornamentals, forest trees and shrubs, and microorganisms.
The activities of the working groups include the monitoring of ex situ collections,
identification of gaps in collections, preparation of proposals for necessary actions,
implementation of recommendations developed by the Crop Gene Bank Council. Financial
support is provided to 62 institutions holding PGRFA collections registered in the National
Data Base. Registration is subject to the condition that only unique accessions duplicated in
the National Base Collection (so far only for seed-propagated species) are eligible for
inclusion.
Further development of the National Programme for PGRFA conservation and
sustainable use is under way considering the scientific achievements and experiences to fulfil
the requirements of the National Programmes for Agro-Environment and Rural
Development. National legislation is being modified in order to harmonize with EU
regulations and the FAO International Treaty on PGRFA. More support will be provided to
in situ and on-farm activities and the completion of the national inventory of native genetic
resources.
The Institute for Agrobotany, Tápiószele, acts as a coordination centre for all crop genetic
resources activities in Hungary excluding forestry species and microorganisms. Its main
responsibilities include:
- maintenance of the national collections of field and vegetable crops;
- monitoring and supervising the technical conditions in specialized collections
maintained by other institutions;
- coordination of activities associated with international collaboration;
- development of the National Base Collection for seed-propagated crops;
- establishment of a National Data Base for all Hungarian ex situ collections;
- assessment of the National Inventory for PGRFA;
- secretariat support for the National Gene Bank Council.
In order to improve the efficiency of the National PGRFA Programme special attention is
paid to the extension of collaboration with local organizations including non-profit
institutions and foundations, gardens’ friends groups, eco-villages and farms, nature
reserves and national parks. It is also intended to strengthen the collaboration with other
national and regional programmes working under similar ecological conditions. Utilization
of PGRFA and more detailed evaluation of existing collections will also receive more
attention in the future.
The Hungarian PGRFA programme collaborates actively with FAO and IPGRI and
participates in ECP/GR, EUFORGEN, EPGRIS and PGR Forum.
Israel
Arieh Levy1, Elie Putievsky1 and Miriam Waldman2

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

In the following plan, we present the activities of the IGB in the area of conservation,
evaluation and use of plant genetic resources (PGR). The IGB acts to prevent the
disappearance of important PGR in the future. The steps taken for promoting the
preservation of PGR are:
- identifying target species to be conserved, e.g. those which constitute a crop’s genepool
or which have a hitherto untapped potential; source material for forage and forest plants;
wild relatives of ornamental plants; rare endemic species; target species listed by
international organizations;
- identifying immediate and future threats to the genepool of these target species;
- identifying sites for in situ conservation of target species related to cultivated crops (such
as wheat in Amiad);
- preserving target species also through ex situ conservation of seeds, management of
living and vegetatively propagated collections and in situ conservation of wild relatives
of agricultural crops;
- the building of a new facility for the IGB is in progress and will enable the expansion of
the PGR conservation;
- evaluation of the various accessions both at the phenotypic and genotypic levels using
molecular tools and building a Web site and an up-to-date database for the PGR of the
IGB;
- assisting all the interested people and institutions (scientists, breeders, farmers and
others) in obtaining samples and information related to the activities of the IGB and
genetic resources from foreign sources;
- support and encouragement of research related to PGR and especially for their collection,
conservation, evaluation and use;
- promote regional and international cooperation on PGR activities and enhance exchange
of ideas, data, plant material and experts from different countries.
This plan of action will be conducted through the collaboration of governmental and
NGOs such as Rotem, the Nature Reserve Authority and the Society for the Protection of
Nature in Israel. The limiting steps for its implementation are limited funds and low
awareness of the importance of PGR by policy-makers.
Italy
Ex situ plant genetic resources conservation in Italy
F. Grassi, M.G. Piazza and P. Engel

Istituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura (ISF), Rome, Italy
The Italian public system for the conservation of plant genetic resources is highly fragmented
among several central and regional administrations, which limits the efficiency of the
common management of the collections and of access to the relative data (Table 1).
The only public institution exclusively devoted to plant genetic resources conservation is
the Istituto del Germoplasma belonging to the National Research Council (CNR). The
mission of this Institute, established in 1970, is the acquisition, evaluation, conservation and
exploitation of plant genetic resources, mainly of the Mediterranean Region. It is one of the
four centres in the world storing a duplicate of the world wheat collection and it is also
responsible for some other crop collections such as Pisum, Vicia, etc. (Table 2).
Table 1. Italian administrations funding plant genetic resources activities

Administration Acronym
Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policies MiPAF.
Ministry of Education, University and Research MIUR
National Research Council CNR
Regional Administrations
Local Administrations
Table 2. Ex situ germplasm collections held at the Istituto del Germoplasma, Bari (Source: P. Perrino)
No. of No. of No. of No. of
Crop Genus Crop Genus
species samples species samples
Triticum 27 32464 Brassica 14 800
Hordeum 4 1997 Lycopersicon 10 608
Aegilops 31 1599 Allium 8 264
Zea 2 1356 Cucurbita 4 186
Cereals
Secale 12 398 Beta 2 148
Avena 2 289 Cucumis 4 193
Oryza 4 42 Vegetables Capsicum 5 198
Total 82 38145 Lactuca 3 104
Pisum 1 4429 Raphanus 2 116
Vicia faba 1 2000 Cichorium 2 94
Phaseolus 15 1409 Citrullus 2 83
Phaseolus 50 952 Others 42 498
Legumes Cicer 1 357 Total 98 3292
Lens 5 337 Sorghum 4 352
Lathyrus 15 222 Lolium 6 316
Lupinus 5 112 Forage Dactylis 1 224
Total 93 9818 grasses Phalaris 8 158
Vicia 65 2422 Others 56 890
Medicago 23 1161 Total 75 1940
Trifolium 28 488 Sesamum 1 116
Forage
Hedysarum 4 149 Helianthus 4 94
legumes
Trigonella 3 88 Manihot 1 83
Medicinal
Others 28 368 Hibiscus 3 66
TOTAL 151 4676 Amaranthus 4 46
Others Total 25300 Abelmoschus 1 51
GRAND TOTAL = 83960
Only recently, decree no. 143 of 4 June 1997 assigns the responsibility for the conservation
of genetic resources to the Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (MiPAF).
In this regard, since 1999, MiPAF has been funding on an annual basis a specific project
named ”Plant Genetic Resources” promoted by the Istituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura
(ISF), in order to assess the plant genetic material present in the ex situ collections. The
project has two lines of action: the first involves the Agricultural Research Institutes (IRSA)
belonging to the MiPAF, while the second is a more specific action on fruit tree germplasm
present in most of the Italian research institutions and regional research agencies.
Action 1
This part of the project involves 15 of the 23 IRSA. The IRSA are public research institutes
controlled by MiPAF that carry out research activities at the national level on the basis of
annual programmes approved and financed by the Ministry.
They also coordinate the National Research Programmes of MiPAF from which they
receive additional funding. From the organizational point of view, these institutes are made
up of headquarters and of a variable number of external field stations (including
laboratories), an arrangement that assures a wide distribution over the national territory.
The majority of the institutes are generally working on single crops (olives, grapes,
tobacco, etc.) or on groups of crops (cereals, forages, industrial crops, fruit trees, ornamental
plants, etc.) while others carry out activities in scientific disciplines (agronomy, plant
protection, plant nutrition, soil protection, etc.).
The IRSA generally maintain active collections mainly for research and breeding
purposes. Nevertheless, the institutes are slowly but steadily increasing the activity directly
connected to the conservation of PGR, as a result of both the influence of the project and of
the international conventions linked to this issue.
The IRSA involved in the project and the corresponding composition and size of the
collections are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Agricultural Research Institutes (IRSA) involved in the project

Total no. of No. of Italian
Istituto Sperimentale Genus Species
accessions accessions
Agronomico 1 1 202 159
per l’Agrumicoltura 12 66 310 157
per l’Assestamento Forestale e l’Alpicoltura 4 4 30 28
per la Cerealicoltura 5 43 8759 2366
per le Colture Foraggere 2 3 1770 1770
per le Colture Industriali 4 5 826 206
per l’Elaiotecnica 1 1 109 82
per la Floricoltura 13 60 379 165
per la Frutticoltura 15 80 4546 1883
per l’Olivicoltura 1 1 296 256
per l’Orticoltura 3 8 45 34
per la Selvicoltura 6 12 705 568
per il Tabacco 1 68 1711 329
per la Viticoltura 1 8 2106 1681
per la Zoologia Agraria 1 6 49 19
The figures reported in Table 3 are variable among the IRSA reflecting both the richness of
the different crops’ diversity and the priority given to the conservation activity within the
general programme of the institute.
At present, the inventory includes a total number of 21 843 accessions, 44.4% of which are
of Italian origin. The accessions of only two IRSA (Istituto Sperimentale per la Cerealicoltura
and Istituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura) account for 60.9%.
In the 15 participating institutes 366 species are conserved ex situ (Table 4); cereals and
forage crops, horticultural and industrial crops are generally conserved as seeds; fruit trees,
medicinal, aromatic and ornamental plants and forest trees are usually conserved in vivo.
Table 4. List of the main species conserved by the IRSA

Istituto Sperimentale Main species
Agronomico Prunus amygdalus
per l’Agrumicoltura Citrus spp., Poncirus trifoliatum, Microcitrus spp., Fortunella spp.
per l’Assestamento Forestale e l’Alpicoltura Chamomilla recutita, Gentiana lutea, Salvia officinalis, Iris pallida
Avena sativa, Hordeum vulgare, Triticum aestivum, Triticum
per la Cerealicoltura durum, Triticum dicoccum, Triticum monococcum, Triticum spelta,
x triticosecale, Zea mays
per le Colture Foraggere Medicago sativa, Trifolium repens, Trifolium subterraneum.
Beta vulgaris, Cannabis sativa, Linum usitatissimum, Solanum
per le Colture Industriali
tuberosum, Solanum lycopersicum
per l’Elaiotecnica Olea europea sativa
Alstroemeria spp., Asparagus spp., Fabiana imbricata,
per la Floricoltura Gypsophyla spp., Hebe spp., Viburnum spp., Pyrachanta spp.,
Limonium spp, Lilium spp., Osteospermum spp.
Actinidia arguta , Actinidia chinensis , Actinidia deliciosa, Corylus
avellana, Diospyros kaki, Feijoa sellowiana, Ficus carica, Fragaria
vesca x ananassa, Juglans regia, Malus domestica, Pyrus
per la Frutticoltura communis, Pyrus serotinia, Prunus amygdalus, Prunus
armeniaca, Prunus avium, Prunus cerasus, Prunus domestica,
Prunus salicina, Prunus persica, Eriobotrya japonica, Ribes spp.,
Rubus spp., Vaccinium spp.
per l’Olivicoltura Olea europea sativa
per l’Orticoltura Capsicum annum, Lycopersicon esculentum, Solanum tuberosum
Abies alba, Abies bornmulleriana, Abies nordmanniana, Abies
equitrojani, Abies nebrodensis, Castanea sativa, Juglans regia,
per la Selvicoltura
Pinus halepensis, Pinus brutia, Pinus eldarica, Prunus avium,
Pseudotsuga menziesii
per il Tabacco Nicotiana spp.
per la Viticoltura Vitis spp.
per la Zoologia Agraria Morus spp.
Most of the material collected is made up of cultivars (51%). The breeding selections
represent 18% and wild material 15%. “Other” material (natural populations of forage crops,
mutants, provenances and clones of forest trees) amounts to 12%, while landraces represent
4% of the total accessions. In order to harmonize the collation of data, a general minimum
descriptor list, suitable for all the species conserved, was defined in collaboration with the
PGR managers of the different IRSA according to the passport descriptors used by UPOV
and IPGRI.
All the IRSA joining the project were asked to supply the list of the accessions conserved
in their collections and their descriptions using the minimum descriptor list. All the
descriptions were entered in MS Excel and then imported into Access. At present, the only
missing data in order to complete the database according to the minimum descriptor list are
for the ”Country of origin” (13%) and ”Genetic status” (6%).
All the data collected on the accessions conserved will be available on-line at the
beginning of 2004; a volume containing only the accessions of Italian origin will be also be
published. At present, the passport descriptors are being updated according to the EURISCO
descriptors.
Action 2
This part of the project is exclusively devoted to fruit tree genetic resources and involves not
only scientific institutions (universities and the National Research Council) but also regional
research agencies. Some local institutions, NGOs, nurseries, schools, etc., not formally
participating in the project, have also provided information about the local germplasm that
they conserve.
Table 5 shows the total number of accessions and those of Italian origin maintained by the
different holders: scientific institutes including 14 universities (Ancona, Bari, Bologna,
Firenze, Milano, Napoli, Padova, Palermo, Piacenza, Pisa, Reggio Calabria, Torino, Udine
and Viterbo) and 3 research institutes (ISF, CNR Sassari and Firenze); regional (8) and local
(3) agencies and schools (2); and 6 private entities: NGOs (2), farms (2) and nurseries (2).
Table 5. Fruit species accessions conserved by scientific, public and private entities
Institutions/ Entities Total no. of accessions No. of Italian accessions
Scientific Institutions 11197 4546
Regional and local institutions 2182 1743
Private entities 552 552
Total 13931 6841
A total of 13 931 accessions belonging to 80 different species of fruit trees are conserved
ex situ in the field collections of the 36 institutes. Peach, apple, pear, apricot, cherry, plum
are, in this order, the species with the highest number of accessions. Of all the accessions,
6841 (about 49%) are of Italian origin. Considering the different species, in general, the local
accessions are more numerous in pome fruit than in stone fruit. Most of the material
collected consists of cultivars (41.4%) and non-cultivated varieties (36.4%). ”Other” material
(generally breeders’ selections and of unknown origin) amounts to 14.7%, while landraces
account for 7.5% of the accessions. The total number of different varieties is 68.3% of the
accessions present in the institutes. Considering the percentage of duplication, the survey
has shown that about 68% of the accessions are present in only one collection; a similar
percentage is also found for the varieties of Italian origin.
Having completed the general survey, a minimum descriptor list (passport data) and a
species-specific descriptor list (characterization data) were elaborated within the project. A
bibliographic study was first conducted in order to find as much information as possible to
complete the description of each variety, after which curators were asked to check, correct
and update the data requested for each descriptor. At present, 80% of the 16 general
descriptors are documented, while for the species-specific descriptors the missing data vary
from 20% to 10%.
All the data collated will be entered in an Access database, currently being developed at
ISF, and will be easily accessible via Internet.
Conclusions
Although there is a strong desire for coordination among the researchers and other players
involved in PGR, a national information system has yet to be established, mainly due to a
lack of political will and awareness of this issue and to the scattered nature of competence
among the different administrations.
The absence of a recognized common central focal point with clear guidelines contributes
to generating misunderstandings among the different responsible administrations and
institutions and, as a direct consequence, gaps in PGR management remain unfilled.
The project ”Plant Genetic Resources” is the first attempt to centralize the information
related to conservation, characterization, evaluation and utilization of PGR, and could be
considered a first step towards the establishment of a national central database. In fact, the
elaboration of general and species-specific descriptors, the number of which is still low
compared to the accessions’ potential richness in diversity and characteristics to be
investigated, and the adoption of a common electronic format are playing an important role
in the harmonization among the different entities dealing with PGR and in increasing their
awareness of the need to be part of a national network.
The aim of the project at present is to also include the Istituto di Genetica Vegetale (ex-
Istituto del Germoplasma) in the project funded by Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e
Forestali. This will provide a sufficiently complete picture of the ex situ conservation activity
and will lead to the establishment of a comprehensive national information system.
Latvia
Status of plant genetic resources conservation activities in Latvia
Isaak Rashal1, Edite Kaufmane2 and Gints Lanka3

1 Institute of Biology, University of Latvia, Salaspils, Latvia
2 Dobele Horticultural Plant Breeding Experimental Station, Dobele, Latvia
3 Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia, Riga, Latvia
There is no separate National Programme for plant genetic resources (PGR) in Latvia at the
moment. Nevertheless, PGR activities are conducted in the framework of the National
Programme of implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which includes a
section on agricultural biodiversity, both of animal and crop genetic resources. The Ministry
of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia is responsible for activities mentioned in this section.
The Ministry of Agriculture elaborated a scheme for the national PGR activities that has
started to be implemented. According to this scheme the Latvian Plant Genetic Resources
Council would be the responsible body for taking main decisions related to national PGR
activities and the practical PGR work should be carried out by the Latvian Plant Genetic
Resources Centre and connected institutions.
The Latvian PGR Centre, located at the Institute of Biology, University of Latvia, runs the
Latvian Gene Bank of Cultivated Plants and is responsible for the Latvian PGR inventory
and maintenance of the corresponding database. The Centre also coordinates collecting
missions and organizes the repatriation of accessions of Latvian origin. Molecular
characterization of some species has been started here.
The mandate of the Latvian Gene Bank of Cultivated Plants is the long-term storage of
seed samples of accessions of cultivated plants of Latvian origin, including medicinal and
aromatic plants and excluding ornamentals, and also seed samples of wild relatives of
cultivated plants collected in Latvia. At the moment all available seed accessions of Latvian
origin are maintained there. Multiplication of the seed material, as well as characterization
and evaluation of accessions, is carried out by experts from corresponding plant breeding
stations (Table 1).
Table 1. Partners of the Latvian Gene Bank of Cultivated Plants for the multiplication, evaluation and
observation of seed-propagated crops
Institution Crops
Priekuļi Plant Breeding Station cereals, peas
Stende Plant Breeding Station cereals
Latvia University of Agriculture cereals
Research Centre “Skrīveri” forage crops
Pūre Horticultural Research Station vegetables
Mežotne Plant Breeding Station sugar beet
Latgale Centre of Agricultural Science flax
The safety-duplication collection of Latvian PGR is kept in the Nordic Gene Bank.
Latvian genetic resources of vegetatively propagated plants are maintained in field
collections in corresponding breeding institutions (Table 2), where evaluation and
observation of those crops are carried out. The potato collection is also kept in in vitro
conditions.
Table 2. Field collections of the Latvian genetic resources of vegetatively propagated cultivated plants
Institution Crops
Priekuļi Plant Breeding Station potato
Dobele Horticultural Plant Breeding Experimental Station horticultural crops
Pūre Horticultural Research Station horticultural crops and vegetables
Latvia University of Agriculture medicinal and aromatic plants
Latvian PGR activities are financed both nationally and internationally. In the early
stages, support received from the Nordic-Baltic Project on PGR was very important. It
included technical aid and no less significantly, knowledge and experience transfer, mainly
from the Nordic Gene Bank. It is encouraging to note that the national contribution to the
PGR activities has increased in recent years. Different aspects of PGR-related activities are
covered both by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia and by the Latvian
Council of Sciences. Since 1993 Latvian participants have taken part in several ECP/GR
activities as observers. In July 2003 the Ministry of Agriculture signed the Letter of
Agreement with IPGRI and Latvia is joining the ECP/GR Programme as a full member.
Lithuania
The Lithuanian National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources
Juozas Labokas1 and Aušra Gineitaitė2

1 Institute of Botany, Vilnius, Lithuania
2 Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture (LIA), Kėdainiai dist., Lithuania

In Lithuania the initiative of coordinated plant genetic resources activities began at the
Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture over 15 years ago. Dr Alma Būdvytytė put a lot of effort
in before the first results appeared and the National PGR Coordinating Centre was
established at the Institute in 1993. The network of institutions sharing responsibilities in
plant genetic resources conservation was created mid-1994. Then State financial support was
allocated through the State Science and Studies Foundation. Simultaneously, the Nordic-
Baltic PGR cooperation commenced. The year 1994 is considered as the beginning of the first
phase of the Lithuanian National Programme on PGR. Initially seven institutions joined the
network and a total of nine working groups were established.
In 1998 the Ministry of Education and Science approved a 5-year national scientific
programme on genetic resources. This date is considered to be the beginning of the second
phase of the Lithuanian National Programme on PGR. It involved activities on plant,
livestock, poultry and honey-bee genetic resources. A total of 17 research projects were
launched on plant genetic resources at nine institutions (universities, research institutes,
botanical gardens and breeding centres). The work was shared among 12 informal working
groups, which covered the range from the smallest aromatic plant species to timber tree
species, including ornamentals and landscape gardening species. The Law on National Plant
Genetic Resources was prepared during this phase and approved by Parliament (Lithuanian
Seimas) in 2001. Article 6 of the Law begins with the statement that "scientific research,
collecting, implementation of measures for conservation and restoration of national PGR are being
financed by the funds of the state budget”.
Objectives, coverage and functioning

Currently in phase III, as a follow-up to the Law on National PGR, the Lithuanian National
PGR Programme focuses on the investigations of plant genetic resources of all groups which
are to be considered national PGR sensu stricto. The main criteria employed are the
socioeconomic value of species, their traditional use as well as indigenous/local origin of the
genetic resources. From the very beginning in 1994, the main actors in PGR conservation
and utilization were scientific research and education institutions, holding and investigating
ex situ collections of PGR, as well as conducting research on in situ conservation. Funding is
provided by the Ministry of Education and Science. According to the experience, traditions
and resources available at those institutions, five crop-specific PGR coordinating centres
were established in 2002 following the Law on National PGR (Table 1).
Table 1. The ten institutions and ten research projects within the Lithuanian National PGR Programme
in 2003
Leading institution / Research project on
Partner institution
Coordinating centre (institution involved)
Cereals and grain legumes (1,6)
1. Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture/ 6. Lithuanian University of
Forage and lawn grasses (1,6)
Field crops Agriculture
Technical crops (1)
2. Lithuanian Institute of Horticulture/ Vegetables (2)
Garden plants Fruit and berries (2)
Wild small fruit/non-traditional
7. Kaunas Botanical Garden
3. Institute of Botany/ horticultural plants (3,4,7)
of Vytautas Magnus
Medicinal and aromatic plants Medicinal and aromatic plants
University
(3,6,7)
4. Vilnius University/ Ornamental plants (3,4,7,8,9) 8. Outdoor Floriculture
Ornamental plants Natural and induced mutants (4) Experimental Station
9. Lithuanian Forest Tree
5. Lithuanian Forest Research
Breeding Centre
Institute/ Forest trees and shrubs (5,9,10)
10. Vilnius Pedagogical
Forest trees and shrubs
University
The long-term seed storage established at the Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture with the
direct financial support of NGB in 1997 currently stores 1681 accessions of 85 plant species of
most crop groups (Table 2).
Table 2. Seeds stored in the long-term seed storage

Plant group No. of accessions
Cereals 202
Grain legumes 65
Forage grasses 681
Forage legumes 202
Technical crops 50
Vegetables 57
Medicinal and aromatic plants 121
Trees 303
Total 1681
The Standing Commission on National PGR, established by the Ministry of Environment

in 2002 and consisting of the leading representatives of scientific/educational institutions
and the Ministries of Environment, Education and Science and Agriculture acts as an
advisory body to the Ministry of Environment within the field of PGR. Overall management
of the National PGR Programme in its current phase is performed by the Programme
Committee.
The most recent step towards full implementation of the Law on National PGR is the
government decision on the establishment of the plant genebank, which starts operating as a
budget institution on 1 January 2004.
The future functioning of the national PGR activities is foreseen under the status of the
“State Order for Research”, the general scheme of which is now under development at the
Ministry of Education and Science.
Macedonia (FYR)
Status report on PGR conservation in Macedonia (FYR)
Sonja Ivanovska1 and Gordana Popsimonova2

1 Faculty of Agriculture, Skopje, Macedonia (FYR)
2 Institute of Agriculture, Skopje, Macedonia (FYR)
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is at the top of the list of states considered as
”European hotspots” based on the analysis of the richness of biodiversity within the
European continent. The great biodiversity found in Macedonia is a result of its long
historical development. The differentiation of indigenous species, as well as the invasion of
migrants from other areas, played a significant role in its genesis.
The largest percentage of vascular plants belongs to the Angiosperms, characterized by a
very high diversity. This group is represented by 120 families, 720 genera and 3200 species
(approximately 5000 taxa). The highest degree of polymorphism in the Dicotyledon families
is found in the Compositae (around 470 species), Leguminosae (457), Caryophyllaceae (345),
Cruciferae (264), Labiatae (262), etc., whereas in the Monocotyledons the Gramineae are
represented with approximately 280 species and Liliaceae with 130.
In 1999 the agricultural area covered 49.9% of the whole country (25 713 km2). In 1960 it
covered 15 400 km2. This loss of agricultural area in as little as four decades indicates that
the situation for Macedonian agriculture is one of serious decline. Fields and gardens,
followed by orchards and vineyards, are potentially the most intensive systems of use. With
regard to sown surfaces, grain crops occupy the largest share (over 60%), followed by
kitchen garden crops (17%) among which the most represented are tomato, pepper, melons
and beans. Most orchards are planted with apples, plums, cherries and apricots. Industrial
crops, however, show an increase in area of 9-12%, with sunflower as the most cultivated
crop. Among forage crops, alfalfa occupies a stable fraction of approximately 10%.
Historically, the percentage of different crops in the overall production varies from season
to season. Some crops such as poppy, cotton, sesame, cannabis and flax that used to be
economically important in the past are not cultivated any more. In the meantime no
landraces and old cultivars were conserved. With a similar pattern, many other crops are
facing extinction. For example, due to the successful wheat breeding programme in
Macedonia (FYR), almost all old cultivars have been replaced with the newly created
varieties, even in the areas with extensive agriculture.
The transitional period resulted in extensive agricultural practices with reduced usage of
commercial varieties and hybrids, especially in rural mountain areas. Consequently, long-
forgotten local varieties returned to home farms as a significant source of genes.
Traditionally, large-scale production is carried out with commercial varieties, mainly of
foreign origin, since there are few breeding programmes currently underway in Macedonia
(FYR). Only a few of the varieties are domestic ones, mostly cereals, created at the Institute
of Agriculture in Skopje. Nevertheless, many small farmers still grow landraces and old
cultivars, mostly oats, rye, beans, vegetables, fruits and forages.
Many efforts have been made in the past to prepare a National Programme for organized
and planned agrobiodiversity conservation, but none came to fruition. Finally, a project for
developing a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was prepared under the
Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, assisted by a consultant from the World
Bank. The Project was approved by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and financed by
the World Bank. It comprised several goals to be achieved: preparation of the National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; needs assessment and establishment of a Clearing
House Mechanism. Different working groups (WG) were created for the preparation of the
national documents: WG on biodiversity assessment; WG on bio-resources assessment and
use; WG on socioeconomic analyses; WG on institutions, legislation and existing
conservation programmes; and WG on country context and problem analysis, and finalizing
the strategy and the action plan. The Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan include four key
components or phases: National Study, Biodiversity Strategy, Biodiversity Action Plan and
Implementation Mechanisms. All documents will be completed by the end of 2003. The
status and use of agricultural biodiversity is included in the programme which is a
significant starting point for further conservation. It also represents a legal framework to
work on different themes of PGR conservation. However, a more detailed programme is
urgently needed that will consider conservation of agrobiodiversity along with all related
procedures under the Ministry of Agriculture.
Through several individual projects with variable sources of funding, collections of
numerous crops have been established. They are maintained by the Institute of Agriculture
in Skopje, the Institute for Southern Crops in Strumica and the Institute for Tobacco in Prilep.
These institutes deal only with ex situ conservation of commercial varieties and breeders’
lines. No missions were undertaken to collect landraces and wild relatives. The collections
comprise a total of 43 different crops with around 1740 accessions. The accessions are kept
only as seeds in cold chambers at 4oC. Very few (mainly cereals) are characterized according
to IPGRI descriptors. The records are partially computerized and are not included in the
European databases, so interest in the collections is very limited and requests for material are
based mostly on personal contacts. Local breeders are the only regular users. Access to the
collection is not legally regulated; it is free for exchange or use upon simple request.
During the period 1968-71 landraces of many crops were collected and characterized as
part of an international project with the USA. The accessions are still maintained at the
National Seed Storage Laboratory in Fort Collins. They are free for repatriation when
reliable conditions for their maintenance become available. It would be interesting to
compare them with those still to be found today in the same areas.
Wild relatives and wild crops

Many of the crops cultivated in the Republic of Macedonia have wild relatives which are
frequently found in the vicinity of cultivated fields (Avena sp., Triticum sp., Hordeum sp.,
Papaver sp., Cannabis ruderalis, etc.).
Wild forms or material that was formerly partially cultivated are mostly present in fruit
species. They are used as a grafting base or for direct food consumption. They are very
often found in small orchards and are actively maintained by the local people for fresh
consumption or processing. The diversity of forage crops, both in ploughed fields and
natural grasslands, is also very high. Most of the forage crops in Macedonia are wild or
spontaneously selected from the wild forms. Some of them were cultivated long ago, and
some are included in the current breeding programmes.
Use of wild plants

The following groups of wild plants have the highest economic importance:
Mushrooms
They have an enormous economic significance for the local people and are collected
throughout the country. Nevertheless, there are no exact records of the number of collectors
nor of the fresh quantities collected. The most important species that are marketed are
Boletus pinicola, Boletus edulus, Boletus aereus, Canthaurela cibarius, Marasmius oreades, Amanita
caesarea, Lactarius deliciosus, Morchella conica, Agaricus campestris, Tricholoma lucis, Perdium sp.
and others. They are important export products (328 693 kg/year with an income of US$2
million), but there is no evidence on the local productivity to enable sustainable use to be
organized.
Teas
In Macedonia (FYR) there is no production of cultivated teas and spices and therefore many
companies and individuals collect these plants for additional income or personal use. In
2001, 1 127 825 kg of teas were exported, representing an income of US$1.5 million Bearing
in mind that in some years, US$4-5 million have been earned from these products it is
obvious that steps need to be taken to control this valuable national resource.
Wild fruits
This category comprises fruits that can be found on the high mountains. The most important
fruits are blueberries (Vaccinium myrtillus) found above 1300 m altitude, collected mostly for
export. According to the market value they are ranked as follows: cornal (dogwood),
blackberry, raspberry, rose-hip and blackthorn; all of these are used by the local people for
processing. Lately the collecting of wild apples, pears and cherries is increasing due to their
use for fruit teas. It is also important to note that there is a very intensive chestnut
population (Castanea vesca): around 250 000 kg per year, mainly for the national market.
Needs for sustainable use of wild forms

Considering the importance of the biological resources and their overuse, there is a real
threat of extinction for many wild plants. A legal framework is essential to determine the
natural productivity and yearly quantities which should be collected. The establishment of
registered places for trading in many localities is an urgent measure to be taken, as well as
training of the collectors. Bearing in mind that Macedonia (FYR) is not a polluted region it is
essential to introduce a system of organic certification of the collected species. Thus the
product could be priced on its real value, which will contribute to the improvement of the
farmers’ livelihoods in the rural areas.
Republic of Moldova
Current status of agrobiodiversity conservation and perspectives for the

development of a National Plant Genetic Resources Programme in Moldova
Anatol Ganea1 and Gheorghe Savin2

1 Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of Moldova, Republic of Moldova
2 National Institute for Viticulture and Oenology, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
Due to its geographic situation, small area and fairly large population, the Republic of
Moldova is subject to several environmental problems. An important element of the
country’s sustainable development is ensuring food security, based among other things on
the possibility of biodiversity conservation and its effective use. After the International
Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources (Leipzig, 1996), which passed the Global
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture (GPA) and other international agreements, an awakening of
activity in this field was observed in Moldova. The enactment of the Law of the fund of
natural protected areas (1998) is of great importance. The natural areas and the particular
nature protection units are identified in the Law. Their total area is now 66 467 ha, i.e. 1.96%
of the territory of Moldova. The main function of the protected areas is the conservation of
endangered plant and animal species. A number of wild crop relatives (fruits, berries,
vegetables, herbs, aromatic plants) most of which are passively protected, grow in five
scientific reserves. Until now this plant group has not been monitored. The genetic structure
of populations and the degree of their genetic erosion are unknown. The fact that the
populations of many species grow beyond the protected areas, where they are subjected to
strong anthropogenic pressure, including direct destruction of specimens (collecting, felling,
etc.) or populations (in the case of environmental stresses or natural disasters, such as
drought, flood, landslides, etc.) is of special concern. On-farm conservation of local crop
varieties (cultivars, populations) is also significant and is considered to be an important
component of food security worldwide. The total inventory of local crop varieties has yet to
be carried out.
A positive aspect of agrobiodiversity conservation activity was the foundation in 1998, by
a special Governmental Resolution, of the Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of Moldova
(Centre for PGR) as a research, coordinating and informational institution of the country.
One of the Centre’s tasks is the creation and maintenance of the national crop collection.
Priority is given to local varieties, wild crop relatives, main cultivated species, new non-
traditional crops and genetically identified material. Also, ex situ conservation of plant
genetic resources is carried out in nine scientific institutions. The material maintained by the
applied research institutes is kept as working collections, the content and structure of which
can be changed according to the scientific, industrial or other interests of these institutions.
Except for the Research Institute of Maize and Sorghum, the above-mentioned institutions
do not have special conditions for seed storage and the varieties collected are maintained in
active collections. In the Centre for PGR, besides the above-mentioned method, conservation
is carried out at +2°C/+4oC on special premises. So far there is no close interaction between
the institutions for specimen conservation and their joint use. There is as yet no system for
the creation and conservation of duplicate collections. These questions could be solved if
additional financial resources were available.
There is no existing National Programme on genetic resources in Moldova, but the legal
basis for its initiation has been developed. In April 2001 the Biological Diversity
Conservation National Strategy and Action Plan was adopted by the Parliament of the
Republic of Moldova. The main goal of the strategy is the conservation, restoration,
reconstruction and rational use of biological and landscape diversity. Its basic goals are
defined as follows:
- in situ conservation of biodiversity;
- inventory and socioeconomic assessment of biological resources and their sustainable
use;
- ex situ conservation of biodiversity;
- restoration and conservation of germplasm, maintenance of biological safety of the
country.
Depending on the components, the term of implementation of the strategy can be:
- short, less than five years (for protection of species, germplasm conservation and ex
situ conservation methods);
- medium, from five to ten years (at ecosystem level);
- long, over ten years.
The total financial resources needed for the implementation of the plan of action are
estimated at US$18.7 million. Among the activities on ex situ conservation stipulated in the
Action Plan, the following can be emphasized:
- elaboration of a law on ex situ protection and conservation of biological diversity;
- elaboration of the National Programme on ex situ protection of biological diversity;
- elaboration of a consolidation programme for the Centre for Plant Genetic Resources
of Moldova;
- monitoring ex situ biodiversity.
At present the Centre for PGR has an active dialogue with the governmental structures in
order to accelerate the passing of the corresponding documents, on the basis of which the
National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources in Moldova will be elaborated. Some
positive improvements in this field are taking shape.
The Netherlands
The National Genetic Resources Programme of the Netherlands
Loek J.M. van Soest and Bert Visser

Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN), Foundation DLO, Wageningen,
The Netherlands

The Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) is responsible for statutory
research tasks in the Netherlands that relate to the biodiversity of importance to agriculture
and forestry. One of these tasks is the implementation of the governmental programme
aimed to conserve and promote utilization of genetic resources, including crops, forest trees
and farm animal species. As such it is responsible for a major part of the National
Programme. This programme also foresees the establishment of a high-level Genetic
Resources Platform that will advise the government in the development of its National
Programme and the establishment of a National Focal Point on Genetic Resources, a task
with which CGN has been charged as well.
The plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) part of the programme was
established in 1985, whereas the genetic resources activities on farm animals and forestry
were more recently incorporated into CGN. The genetic resources programme of CGN is
organized in three clusters:
- Cluster Plant Genetic Resources (PGRFA);
- Cluster Animal Genetic Resources (AGR);
- Cluster Forest Genetic Resources (FGR).
In 2001, additional non-PGR tasks (e.g. plant variety research and development of variety
lists) were added to its mandate. CGN is part of Wageningen University and Research
Centre. The PGFRA cluster of CGN is housed in the buildings of Plant Research
International (PRI) and also uses the facilities of this institute.
This short report will particularly deal with PGRFA.
Objectives
The overall objective is to deliver the Netherlands’ contribution to the conservation and
utilization of genetic resources, as part of agrobiodiversity. In practice, CGN is responsible
for the optimal conservation of collections by conducting the following activities:
- collecting and preserving germplasm of crops important to national and international
agriculture;
- promoting utilization of the germplasm maintained in its collections;
- increasing and documenting knowledge of its collections through research;
- supporting on-farm conservation and development of genetic diversity;
- further contributing to international efforts to prevent genetic erosion.
Coverage
CGN-PGR maintains collections of more than 20 agricultural and horticultural crops. In
general the collections include landraces, old and more recent cultivars and wild relatives
(Table 1). The activities of the PGR programme are particularly focused on a number of
vegetable crops (lettuce, cabbage, onion, pepper and cucumber), potato, flax and some
forages, without geographic restrictions regarding the germplasm origin. For the other crop
collections emphasis is placed primarily on genetic resources of Dutch origin and material
previously included in working collections of both governmental and private breeders from
the Netherlands. CGN stores its collections under optimal storage conditions. At present it
maintains nearly 23 000 accessions (Table 1). The number of samples distributed by CGN
exceeds over 5000 samples annually.
Table 1. Number of accessions per crop/crop-group maintained by CGN

(Remark: only material with CGN accession numbers is taken into account)
Crop/Crop-group No. of accessions
Onion (Allium spp.) 331
Apple (Malus spp.) 105
Barley (Hordeum spp.) 3455
Clover (Trifolium spp.)) 243
Cocksfoot (Dactylus glomerata) 32
Cruciferae (several species) 1710
Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) 869
Eggplant (fruit-bearing Solanum spp.) 328
Faba beans (Vicia faba) 726
Fescue (Festuca spp.) 32
Flax (Linum spp.) 890
Lettuce (Lactuca spp.) 2506
Ryegrass (Lolium spp.) 333
Lupine (Lupinus spp.) 69
Maize (Zea mays) 488
Meadow grass (Poa pratensis) 74
Oats (Avena spp.) 536
Peas (Pisum spp.) 986
Pepper (Capsicum spp.) 839
Potato (tuber-bearing Solanum spp.) 1171
Spinach (Spinacia spp.) 385
Timothy (Phleum spp.) 105
Tomato (Lycopersicon spp.) 1159
Wheat (Triticum spp.) 5494
Total 22 866
CGN also implements a project on options for in situ conservation of grassland species in
the Netherlands.
In addition to its activities in collection management, CGN has given major priority to the
further development of documentation and information approaches and collection
management strategies, to research into the use of molecular markers and to supporting
government policy. By emphasizing these activities, CGN aims to make a contribution with
innovations to the genetic resources community.
From next year onwards, a project in support of the genetic resources NGO sector in the
Netherlands will be implemented.
Stakeholder involvement in PGR

At the national level, close links exist with the private plant breeding industry and
departments of Wageningen University and Research Centre. These institutions participate
in the regeneration, characterization and evaluation of its collections. Five crop-orientated
committees operate with representatives of different stakeholders such as private breeders,
researchers and plant variety specialists, advising CGN on its operations.
CGN is a partner in ECP/GR and in the Community Biodiversity Development and
Conservation programmes. The latter programme focuses on the support of farming
communities, which maintain genetic diversity in situ, as complementary to ex situ genebank
conservation. The new project, aiming at support for the Dutch NGO sector will further add
to stakeholder involvement.
Legal and policy framework

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

on access and benefit sharing related with Sources of existence: conservation and
to genetic resources, the Netherlands sustainable use of genetic diversity. A policy
document of the Government of the Netherlands
Internet site CGN http://www.cgn.wageningen-ur.nl
Internet site CBDC http://www.cbdcprogram.org

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

Document plant genetic resources in Norway, including considering the need for
conservation measures;
Conserve genetic material of vegetatively propagated species in clonal archives/field
genebanks;
Develop an information system for storage and distribution of data about PGR in
Norway;
Contribute to increased knowledge and public awareness about PGR in general and to
increased research activity in the field.
An Advisory Board of Plant Genetic Resources in Domestic Plants is established to run

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

Mr Even Bratberg Mr Åsmund Asdal
Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)8 Norwegian Crop Research Institute
Department of Horticulture and Crop Sciences Division Landvik
PO Box 5003 N-4886 Grimstad
N-1432 Ås Tel.: +47 37257700
Tel: (47-64) 965654 Fax: +47 37257710
Fax: (47-64) 947802 Email: aasmund.asdal@planteforsk.no
Email: even.bratberg@umb.no
8 Formerly the Agricultural University of Norway - NLH

Poland
The National Crop Genetic Resources Conservation Programme in Poland
Wieslaw Podyma
National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (PBAI),
Radzików, Blonie, Poland
Conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture in Poland

Collecting and conservation of plant genetic resources were initiated in Poland by
Prof. Kaznowski at the Research Institute of Agronomy (PINGW) in Pulawy in 1922 and the
Agricultural Academy in Dublany. Since the foundation of the Plant Breeding and
Acclimatization Institute (PBAI) in 1951, crop collections were established with particular
focus on Polish local cultivars and ecotypes. The National Crop Genetic Resources
Conservation Programme established in 1979 constitutes the continuation of earlier
investigations in this field. Its main goal is to preserve genetic material of major crop plants
and their wild and weedy relatives for breeding and research. The objectives of the
programme are implemented through:
- collecting of genotypes threatened with extinction;
- evaluation of collected materials;
- preservation of collected materials in viable form and its provision for breeders; and
- documentation of collected materials.
The National Crop Genetic Resources Conservation Programme has long experience in ex
situ conservation of crops, possesses genebank facilities and has developed standards for
storage, documentation and evaluation. The National Crop Genetic Resources Conservation
Programme in Poland is based on multi-institutional input: three universities, nine branch
institutes, seven experimental stations and the Botanical Garden of the Polish Academy of
Science are responsible for crop collections. The programme is financed by the Ministry of
Agriculture. About 70 000 accessions have been collected, representing all economically
important plant groups: cereals, fodder plants, root crops, vegetables, fruit crops, herbage
and industrial plants. Seed samples collected under the auspices of the National Crop
Genetic Resources Conservation Programme are stored, since 1981, in the central long-term
storage located at the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (Fig. 1). A total of 62 000
accessions are currently kept in long-term storage. The seeds are kept in temperature-
controlled chambers at -15°C and 0°C.
Hop, garlic, asparagus and fruit plants are maintained as field collections. At the Division
of PBAI in Bonin the potato strains are stored in vitro. The samples gathered in the collections
are recognized as a part of the national heritage. The structure of collections is oriented
towards breeders who prefer to work with advanced materials and breeding lines.
However, collecting expeditions provide important amounts of unique material.
Fig. 1. Preservation of seed samples in long-term storage.
Collecting missions
Systematic collecting and conservation of indigenous plant genetic resources in Poland
started in 1971. Expeditions are carried out almost every year. The collecting missions have
several aims:
- collecting of old cultivars and local landraces of agricultural and horticultural crops and
their weedy and wild relatives;
- collecting of ecotypes of grasses;
- collecting of plant material for research - special purpose collection; and
- monitoring the progress of genetic erosion.
Priorities of the missions have changed over time. In the period 1976-1979, expeditions
mainly focused on the collecting of old cultivars and landraces of field crops in their main
regions of occurrence. New tasks, made necessary by the erosion of recorded genetic
resources in other cultivated plant groups, have been added to the collecting activities.
Systematic collecting of vegetables began in the early 1990s, while the registration of old fruit
tree gardens and collecting of medicinal and ornamental plants found in house gardens are
tasks recently assigned to the expeditions.
The expeditions are organized jointly by the National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources
of the PBAI for agricultural crops and other species, the Botanical Garden of the PBAI for
grasses and the Department of Germplasm Collection of the Institute of Vegetable Crops for
vegetables.
Poland is a unique example among central European countries where the old local forms
of crop plants survived owing to the fragmented structure of farming. Since 1976, several
trips have been conducted to northeastern, eastern and southeastern Poland to collect
cultivated, wild and weedy germplasm. These regions have been traditionally regarded as
agriculturally least advanced and, therefore, most likely to provide old varieties and
landraces of crop plants. Most of the indigenous germplasm was collected in the
mountainous regions of Southeast Poland (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Distribution map of landraces in Poland.
The modernization of Polish agriculture, exclusion of marginal areas from cultivation and
wide access to seeds of new varieties are threatening the local populations of all crops. The
accessions collected during missions in the period 1976-1979 are the ”core” of the maintained
landraces of field crops of Polish origin. At present, the local crop cultivars are available
mainly as the materials stored in the genebank. According to our evaluations in the last
decade, the local populations of crops have disappeared almost completely. However, there
are regions where traditional vegetable varieties are still grown.
Sample exchange
Ten percent of the total number of accessions stored are provided annually to other
collections or breeders. The samples are requested mainly by plant breeding stations and
institutes. About 30% of the samples are sent abroad.
Additional information about our activities is available from our home page
(www.ihar.edu.pl/gene_bank).
Portugal
Programme for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Agrarian

Genetic Resources
Eliseu Bettencourt and Sónia Dias

Estação Agronómica Nacional INIAP, Oeiras, Portugal
Although the establishment of germplasm collections, mainly fruit trees and cereals, started
in Portugal in the 1930s, the germplasm collecting missions only adopted a more systematic
and coordinated approach in 1977.
In 1977, with the technical and financial support of FAO/IBPGR, regular and systematic
collecting missions were launched, mainly to collect cultivated cereals (maize, rye and
wheat), targeting, in the following year, Phaseolus and other food legumes. In the 1980s, in a
collaborative effort, several collecting missions were organized and carried out in
collaboration with Spain, covering part of the national continental territories of both
countries, aiming at cultivated crops and wild relatives, the latter mostly of the genera
Aegilops and Lupinus.
As a direct consequence of the active and continuing collecting activities translated in a
growing public and political awareness, the Portuguese Plant Genebank (BPGV) was
inaugurated in 1992. Later, in 1996, it moved to a new and modern infrastructure built to
accommodate the Genebank and its germplasm collections.
Portugal has been a member of the European Cooperative Programme for Conservation
and Exchange of Crop Genetic Resources (ECP/GR) (now the European Cooperative
Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks) since its inception in 1981. When the
European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN) was established in 1993,
Portugal joined the new initiative given the obvious benefits and the success of the
international cooperation within the framework of ECP/GR.
Efforts started in 1994 in order to establish a formalized National Coordination Structure
for the genetic resources sector in the country. However, it was only in November 1998 that
the Commission on Agrarian Genetic Resources was formally established within the
framework of the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INIA). The Commission
includes representatives from all six National Research Stations of INIA with the mandate
for the coordination of the agricultural genetic resources activities (plant, animal, microbial
and forest genetic resources) within INIA.
Efforts continued to be made in order to extend the scope of the coordinating structure to
the national ambit. As a result, in April 1999, by decision of the Minister for Agriculture,
Rural Development and Fisheries (MADRP), published in the Official Journal, the Technical
Council of the MADRP for Agrarian, Fisheries and Aquaculture Genetic Resources was
created. The Council’s main objective is to facilitate and coordinate the activities on
agricultural genetic resources at the national level within the MADRP structure and it is
composed of all relevant Directorates-General of the Ministry dealing with plant, animal,
microbial, fisheries, forestry and aquaculture genetic resources.
In 2002, the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INIA) and the Institute for
Fisheries and Sea Research (IPIMAR) were merged to form the National Institute for
Agricultural and Fisheries Research (INIAP). The merging determined the need for a
revision of the composition of the Commission on Agrarian Genetic Resources to include the
new field of fisheries genetic resources. Accordingly, the INIA Programme for the
Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Agrarian Genetic Resources was re-evaluated
and a revised Workplan, to be carried out within INIAP, was prepared.
Russian Federation
Development of the National Programme on Agrobiodiversity in the Russian

Federation
Sergey M. Alexanian
N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Efforts to date include the creation of a broad, multidisciplinary National Programme on

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

PGR coordinator coordinator
National Ex situ Ex situ Sperm

genebank collection collection genebank
holder holder
RCG RCG RCG
Main
Collection Workgroup
Botanical
On-farm collections
In situ Workgroup
Gardens
Crop Workgroup
DB Workgroup
DB Workgroup
DB Workgroup
Workgroup
Fig. 1. Proposed National Agrobiodiversity Network of the Russian Federation

(RCG = Research Consultative Group; DB = Database).
From 2004 to 2010, participating institutions will be involved in:

- the development of theoretical/practical aspects of in situ/on-farm conservation;
- the conservation of ex situ genetic resources;
- undertaking an inventory of national ex situ collections;
- creating a research network to ensure effective management of ex situ collections;
- strengthening of coordination between the broad spectrum of organizations working
in the sphere of agro-bioresources mobilization;
- strengthening of international cooperation in the field of collecting, conservation and
use of varieties;
- public awareness activities.
A National Coordinating Committee on agrobiodiversity will be established, composed of

representatives of all the above-mentioned curator institutes directly involved in the
implementation of the programme. The Committee will coordinate strategic planning and
activities, identify national policy and strategy in the area of agrobiodiversity, develop
proposals for the Russian Federation Government on legislation, and coordinate relevant
international collaboration.
Serbia and Montenegro
Current status of plant genetic resources activities in Serbia and Montenegro
Ivana Dulić-Marković
Federal Department for Plant and Animal Genetic Resources, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
Although there is no formal National Programme for plant genetic resources (PGR) in Serbia
and Montenegro, the level of organization of PGR conservation and sustainable utilization is
significant, both at institutional and organizational levels. Table 1 summarizes the history of
genetic resources collection and conservation activities.
Human and financial resources allocated to PGR are as follows:
a. Serbian Government: the Department of Genetic Resources and Genetically
Modified Organisms (as part of the Ministry of Agriculture) has three or four staff
members including the Head of the Department, who are engaged in PGR activities;
b. Montenegrin Government: it is still unclear which ministry and/or department has
formally taken over responsibility for PGR conservation since the transfer of these
activities from the federal level;
c. State-owned research institutes / Seed companies: in general, institutes which
maintain their active collections fall into two main categories: those that have a
separate genebank department with full-time genebank staff and those that have
genebanks as an assembly of breeders' collections with breeders in charge. With
many breeders acting as collection curators it is not simple to identify the total
number of people involved in PGR conservation activities;
d. NGO sector: it is difficult to assess the human resources dedicated to PGR
conservation and sustainable use in this sector as there is very little coordination
between the activities of the NGO sector and the first two aforementioned groups.
This lack of coordination and cooperation could be explained either by a low level of
NGO activity in this field and/or a lack of a mechanism for effective coordination of
work.
128
Table 1. Historical summary of PGR-related activities in Serbia and Montenegro
Period Background Activities Achievements Constraints
Up to - Collection, evaluation and - Development of breeding programmes; - Local varieties collected; - No coordination between institutes;
EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES PROGRAMMES

1988 protection of GR concentrated in - Participation in ECP/GR (1979). - Germplasm exchanged; - No governmental awareness of the
scientific institutes and used for - Breeding collection increased (around necessity to create a National GR
breeding. 32 000 accessions); Programme.
- Training through ECP/GR.
1988- - Budget allocated by the Federal - Project “Establishment of a genebank in - 1988: National Programme for PGR - Too ambitious and too expensive;
1992 government for the Yugoslavia” with FAO support for a established but not formally approved; - Sustainable use of PGR not included;
implementation of a National regional role of the genebank; - National collection formed (around 5000 - Economic crisis and break-up of the
programme for PGR (Socialist - Project “Establishment of National PGR accessions); six-republic Socialist Yugoslavia.
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia); collection for the national plant - Initiation of activities on evaluation,
- Activities financed through the genebank”; characterization and documentation.
Federal Ministry of Science and - Accompanying database for National
Development. Collection established in NGB’s Nobis
software;
- National PGR seed collection stored
under medium-term storage conditions
(+4°C, RH 45-50%);
- National fruit and Vitis PGR collection
ex situ “in vivo”, i.e. field collections
established at several locations.
1992- - Financial difficulties; - Continuation of the participation in the - Maintenance of the National Collection by - The construction of genebank
1996 - Splitting of Yugoslavia; ECP/GR; means of annual contracts with holding practically stopped;
- UN economic sanctions. - Slowing down of the projects for the institutes across the country. - Lack of money;
establishment of a central genebank in - Hyperinflation.
Yugoslavia and the National PGR
Collection at a standstill.
1996- - Federal Department for Genetic - Continuation of the participation in - Maintenance of the National Collection by - Conflict of interest between the
2000 Resources formed under the ECP/GR; means of annual contracts with holding Federal Ministries of Science and
Yugoslav Ministry of Agriculture - Parallel (and to a significant degree institutes across the country. Agriculture;
with the mandate of managing uncoordinated) work on PGR - Lack of a National Programme;
Yugoslavia’s genetic resources. conservation by two federal institutions; - Duplicate National Collection severely
- Creation of duplicate seed National damaged by flooding.
Collection.
2000- - Ownership over National Plant - Project based approach for funding - Maintenance of the National Collection; - Low level of cooperation between
2002 Genebank, National PGR PGR collection and conservation; - Further work on collecting and stakeholders;
collection and related - Continuation of the participation in characterization of PGR. - Lack of a National Programme;
documentation transferred from ECP/GR; - Lack of public awareness;
the Federal Ministry of Science - Documentation for National Collection - Duplicate seed collection in very bad
to the Federal Ministry of transferred into Microsoft Access format condition.
Agriculture (Department for and adapted for Internet access;
Genetic Resources). - Viability and health monitoring of main
and duplicate seed National Collection.
Table 1 (cont.). Historical summary of PGR-related activities in Serbia and Montenegro
Period Background Activities Achievements Constraints
2003 - Transformation of Yugoslavia - Project based approach for funding - Maintenance of the National Collection; - Still unidentified stakeholder base;
into Serbia & Montenegro and PGR collection and conservation; - Further work on collecting and - Lack of a National Programme;
transfer of PGR responsibilities - Continuation of the participation in characterization of PGR. - Lack of public awareness and
from federal level to the two ECP/GR. information channels;
republics. Serbia’s Ministry of - Seed National Collection still stored
Agriculture incorporates the under medium-term conditions (15
Federal Department for Genetic years) and no long-term storage
Resources. available;
- Small National ex-situ collection
(around 5000 accessions);
- No safety-duplicate collection;
- National fruit and Vitis PGR collection
ex situ “in vivo” Æ ex situ field
collections? in poor condition’
- Low level of communication and
coordination’
- Limited collection, characterization,
evaluation activities as well as very
restricted efforts on sustainable use’
- Policy and legal framework
inadequate or non-existent’
- Lack of qualified/trained personnel
and experts in public administration,
higher education and research’
- Lack of suitable equipment’
- Insufficient research support’
- Partly unclear status of National
Collection vs. Active Collections
(mostly fruit and Vitis collections).
NATIONAL PROGRAMMES
129
Slovak Republic
The Slovak National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture
Daniela Benediková and Maria Žaková

Gene Bank, Research Institute of Plant Production (RIPP), Piešťany, Slovak Republic
Structure of the National Programme

The Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA) is implemented in Slovakia by the National
Programme for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. All basic activities on
plant genetic resources (PGR)—collecting, documentation, evaluation and conservation—are
carried out in the framework of the National Programme, formally established in 1991. The
conservation of cultivated plant germplasm is funded and supported by the Ministry of
Agriculture.
The Gene Bank at the Research Institute of Plant Production Piešťany (RIPP) has national
responsibilities for PGR. The institute was granted the mandate for coordination by a new
law No. 215/2001 ”Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture”. The
implementation of this law, approved in May 2001 and ratified in July 2001, was an
important issue.
In Slovakia 19 partners participate in PGR activities, including the Slovak Agricultural
University in Nitra which takes part as a non-governmental organization representative in
the programme ”Conservation of endangered plant genepool in Slovakia” (Table 1).
Table 1. Institutions involved in germplasm conservation in the Slovak Republic

Institution Collection
1 HERBATON Ltd., Klčov Fruits
2 ISTROPOL, Solary Industrial crops
3 Research Institute for Viticulture and Oenology, Bratislava Vineyards
4 MIPROS Ltd., Potvorice Flowers
5 Research Institute of Agroecology, Michalovce Collecting missions, medicinal plants
6 SELEKT, Bučany Root crops
7 LESTRA & CO Ltd., Nesvady Vegetable, root crops
8 Slovak Agricultural University, Botanical garden, Nitra Collecting missions, medicinal plants
9 Breeding station, Levočske Lúky Grasses
10 Breeding station, Horná Streda Grain legumes
11 Breeding station, Veselé Fruits
12 Research and Breeding Institute of Potatoes, Veľká Lomnica Potatoes
13 Research Institute of Fruit and Decorative Trees, Bojnice Fruits
14 Research Institute of Plant Production, Piešťany Cereals, grain legumes, fodder crops,
oilseed crops, collecting missions
15 Breeding station, Malý Šariš Oilseed crops
16 Breeding station, Vigľaš-Pstruša Cereals
17 Research Institute of Grasslands and Mountain Agriculture, Grasses, in situ collection
Banská Bystrica
18 Research and Breeding Institute of Vegetables and Special Vegetable, medicinal plants
Crops, Nové Zámky
19 SEMPOL Holding, Trnava Maize, oilseed crops
Activities in the field of PGR require intensive international contacts. The Department of
Plant Genetic Resources and the Gene Bank cooperate with FAO and IPGRI. The
Department of PGR entered international cooperation through its participation in the
ECP/GR Working Groups. Passport data for 21 genera were included in the ECP/GR
Central Crop Databases. International cooperation, especially with Austria, the Czech
Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Russian Federation, etc. is considered important.
Activities of the Gene Bank since 1997

The Slovak Gene Bank (GB) in Piešťany started operating in 1996. It is responsible for
medium- and long-term genetic resources conservation. The capacity of the GB was planned
for 50 000 accessions. The GB holds a basic seed collection for long-term conservation (-18°C)
as well as an active collection (5°C) used for distribution, regeneration and evaluation. Each
sample from the basic collection is safety-duplicated, packed separately and stored in the
Gene Bank of the Research Institute of Crop Production in Prague (RICP), Czech Republic.
Reciprocally, RIPP keeps safety-duplicates for RICP. Each collection (basic or active) has two
chambers.
If the received material is interesting for inclusion in the Gene Bank, it is first recorded
with a temporary receipt number. Seeds are accepted only if accompanied by sending
protocol and passport data. After checking these data, samples are stored in paper bags in a
drying room, at 20°C and 15% relative humidity. Before storage, the average moisture
content of one of the transmitted species is determined and germinability tests conducted for
each sample (2 x 100 seeds). After drying, the samples with the required germination rate
are packed into glass containers. The seeds are left in the drying room until they reach a
moisture content of 5-6%. Germination tests are carried out for each sample (two replicates,
100 seeds per replicate). Samples are stored in twist-cap glass containers.
Evaluation and utilization of the collection

In 2002 the activities of the GB concentrated on conservation and documentation of samples.
Studies carried out in this period include:
Collecting and conservation of the world collection: species, lines, breeding material,
wild forms. The aim of the study of genetic resources is to collect the world diversity of
varieties, lines and wild species and evaluate them for morphological, biological and
economic characters and disease resistance. Priority is given to the collecting of
indigenous landraces and to the varieties entered in the list of Released Varieties in the
Slovak Republic.
Evaluation according to standard descriptor lists: morphological, biological and
economic characters of crops are evaluated according to the morphological descriptor list
developed on the basis of IPGRI, ÚKSÚP (Slovak Control and Testing Institute in
Agriculture) and EVIGEZ (Czech National Information System on Plant Genetic
Resources) descriptor lists. With the increasing size of genetic resources collections,
methods for the analysis and classification of their genetic variability are increasingly
required. Agromorphological descriptors, mainly those recommended by IPGRI, are
generally used to characterize the collections in genebanks. This type of characterization
provides very useful information to breeders.
Analysis of the biological material (evaluation of wheat types for flour milling and
bakery characteristics, etc.). This includes genotype identification by application of
modern biomolecular techniques (study of differences in storage proteins and in nucleic
acid composition). Research undertaken in 2002 in the Department of PGR and the GB
include the creation of biochemical databases for strategic crops, image documentation
and searching for duplicates and gaps in the collections conserved in the genebank.
Besides the passport, spike and morphological databases, the biochemical databases are
also being documented.
Provision of information and research results to breeders and other research workers,
and implementation of research results. In the last three years over 1500 genotypes were
provided for breeding purposes; over 2300 accessions were provided to research
programmes and over 400 accessions were sent abroad.
Computerization of data (FoxPro). The National PGR inventory database is developed in
RIPP Piešťany. The total number of records (over 25 000) includes the working, active
and base collections. The number of ex situ accessions, representing 190 plant species, is
estimated at over 17 000. By the end of 2002 the active collection contained over
10 000 accessions and the base collection about 2500 accessions. The largest collections are
those of cereals (24.1%), followed by fruits (19.9%), legumes (18.6%), grapes (7.8%) and
grasses (6.9%). Other crops represent less than 6% of the collections (Table 2). All data
are in electronic format. Email and Internet connection are available.
Finding duplicates in the collections. The first step to finding duplicates is based on a
comparison of plant morphology. Multivariate statistical analysis is used for the analysis
of morphological and biochemical data. Morphological diversity was investigated within
cultivated triticale, lentil, grass pea, white clover, chickpea, lupine, safflower, alfalfa, bean
landraces, barley and maize. Between 11 and 32 agromorphological descriptors were
evaluated, mostly those recommended by IPGRI. The next step is the application of
genetic markers to PGR collections. Cluster analyses are made with SPSS software.
Table 2. Collections held at RIPP Piešťany as of 31.12. 2002

Crop groups No. of accessions %
Cereals 6245 24.1
Fruits 5176 19.9
Grain legumes 4822 18.6
Vineyards 2023 7.8
Grasses 1802 6.9
Maize 1520 5.9
Root crops 1058 4.1
Fodder crops 1069 4.1
Flowers 242 0.9
Industrial crops 847 3.3
Vegetables and medicinal plants 774 3.0
Oilseed crops 376 1.4
Total 25954 100
Contacts
Daniela Benediková and Mária Žaková

Genebank, Research Institute of Plant Production (RIPP)
Bratislavská 122
921 68 Piešťany
Slovak Republic
Emails: benedikova@vurv.sk / zakova@vurv.sk
Slovenia
The Slovenian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme
Mihaela Černe1, Jelka Šuštar-Vozlič2, Borut Bohanec3, Zlata Luthar3, Janko Rode4 and
Andreja Čerenak4
1 Španova pot 5, Slovenia
2 Agricultural Institute of Slovenia, Hacquetova 17, Ljubljana, Slovenia
3 University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Agronomy Department, Jamnikarjeva 101, Ljubljana,
Slovenia
4 Institute of Hop Research and Brewing of Slovenia, Žalskega tabora 2, Žalec, Slovenia
With a land area of only 20 251 km2, Slovenia has three main climatic areas: Mediterranean,
Alpine and Pannonian and eight soil/climatic regions: Submediterranean, Subpannonian,
Pannonian, Subalpine lowland, Subalpine highland, Alpine, Alpine highland and Karst
highland. The biological diversity of Slovenian agricultural plants is the result of natural
conditions and also the efforts of our ancestors in breeding and maintaining crops from the
Mediterranean and Euro-Siberian gene centre and, some centuries ago, of introducing crops
such as potato, maize and beans from America. Slovenian landraces were important in the
past as a source material for the breeding of new cultivars. From the first collection of
Slovenian landraces and ecotypes made for breeding purposes after World War II, only
seeds of maize and perennial plants in ex situ collections were preserved. The collecting of
annual crops for the genebank started in 1989 and has been continued until now with the
cooperation of the Czech and Croatian genebanks. In 1988 Prof. Dr Jože Spanring studied
the establishment of the former Yugoslav genebank. Slovenian curators were nominated for
potato, fodder plants, hop, lettuce, small fruits and grapes. After the independence of
Slovenia, in 1991, three-year projects financed by the Ministry of Science and Technology
were carried out at the Biotechnical Faculty of the University of Ljubljana and at the
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia together with the Institute for Hop Research and Brewing
in Žalec. Data on Slovenian collections were published in the Directory of European
Institutions Holding Crop Genetic Resources Collections (1995).
The main objective of the Slovenian National Plant Genetic Resources Programme is to
collect, characterize, evaluate, regenerate and conserve landraces, ecotypes and cultivars of
Slovenian origin. The Slovenian PGR Programme, which started in 1995 after the
nomination of the Commission by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, is
decentralized and conducted at three institutions with the following crop responsibilities:
- The Agricultural Institute of Slovenia maintains about 1000 bean, 34 faba bean,
170 lettuce, 100 onion, 12 cabbage, 28 potato, 750 grass and forage legume accessions, 189
clones and 49 old grape cultivars, five wild types of raspberries of Slovenian origin, and
one old wheat cultivar;
- The Agronomy Department of the Biotechnical Faculty holds 474 buckwheat, 202
wheat, 519 maize, 98 other cereals, 122 apple, 44 pear, 13 walnut, 146 forage legume and
grasses and 350 medicinal and aromatic plant accessions;
- The Institute for Hop Research and Brewing maintains 325 hop and 332 medicinal and
aromatic plant accessions.
In 1994, two storage rooms of 44 m3 in total were built at the Agricultural Institute of
Slovenia, applying internationally recommended standards. Refrigerators for medium-term
seed storage are available at the Agronomy Department of the Biotechnical Faculty and at
the Institute for Hop Research and Brewing. The Agronomy Department also has one deep-
freezer with a temperature capacity of -17°C.
All the Slovenian potato tubers are also stored under in vitro conditions as plantlets and
microtubers. Part of the hop, apple and grapevine collections has been reproduced and
maintained in vitro. Field collections in Slovenia are maintained for perennial, medicinal and
aromatic plants at two different locations; apple, pear and raspberries at one location, and
grapes in five locations.
Chemical analyses were performed on some collections, e.g. cabbage, raspberries, maize
and some medicinal and aromatic plants. Buckwheat and part of the bean, maize, apple,
grape and oregano collections were analyzed using molecular markers. Out of 27 accessions
of Phaseolus vulgaris, 14 accessions were significantly different from 240 Andean genotypes
using the RAPD assay and represent the unique set of germplasm which should be included
in the Phaseolus germplasm collections.
Accessions were documented and evaluated according to multicrop passport descriptors
and species-specific descriptors developed by IPGRI. For grapevine, OIV and UPOV
descriptors were also used.
With the need for a uniform and centralized documentation and information system, four
separate databases (three on agricultural crops and one on forest species) were merged,
which will enable uploading to the EURISCO database.
Slovenia was invited by ECP/GR in 1993 to a EUCARPIA meeting in France. In March
1996, the Country Report was sent to FAO and IPGRI for the Fourth International Technical
Conference on Plant Genetic Resources held in Leipzig (Černe et al. 1995). In 1998, the
Slovenian Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Food signed the agreement for the inclusion
of Slovenia in ECP/GR. From this year on Slovenian curators have all the benefits and
responsibilities of belonging to various Working Groups and Networks. The Slovenian
curator for medicinal and aromatic plants took active part in the establishment of the new
ECP/GR Working Group on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. The first meeting of this
Working Group was held on 12-14 September 2002 in Gozd Martuljek, Slovenia.
From 1996 onwards, when the National Programme started, the Commission proposed a
yearly financial budget to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. The National
Programme for Plant Genetic Resources, together with the National Programme for Animal
Genetic Resources, has been included in the Slovenian Law on Agriculture issued on 16 June
2000. Since then the financing has been permanent as the Genebank was made a public
service. Article 93 of the Law defines the tasks of the genebank: collecting, evaluation,
characterization, maintenance, regeneration and exchange of collected material; these do not
include activities dealing with on-farm conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic
resources.
The Slovenian Agricultural Environmental Programme issued in May 2001 supported
on-farm conservation and management of Slovenian traditional and indigenous cultivars
and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in organic
farming. The project "Revitalization of Sloveniaʹs Agricultural Biodiversity Heritage",
financed by the EU in 2002-2003 and carried out at the Union of the Slovenian Organic
Farmers’ Association, promotes seed production of Slovenian landraces and cultivars in
organic farming. The importance of Slovenian landraces and cultivars is illustrated by the
fact that 200 landraces were obtained from 140 participants during training. Three
agricultural schools are interested in growing Slovenian cultivars and landraces on part of
their land.
References
Černe, M., M. Pečnik, J. Ileršič, M. Rednak, J. Spanring, H. Kraigher, G. Božič, R. Brus,
A. Golob, M. Pavle and Ž. Veselič. 1996. The Republic of Slovenia. Country report.
International Conference and Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ICPPGR).
Spain
National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization
Luis Ayerbe
Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos CRF-INIA, Alcalá de Henares, Spain
The main objectives of the Programme are to avoid the loss of genetic diversity of
autochthonous plant species and varieties and to characterize and document those materials,
so that they can be used for research and breeding purposes.
The above objectives are met by multi-year Action Plans, each Plan proposing specific
working fields and priorities for the term.
Public and private institutions may participate in the programme with the aim of
collecting, conserving, characterizing and documenting plant genetic resources.
Participating institutions receive financial support from the Instituto Nacional de
Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria, INIA (National Institute for Food and
Agriculture Research and Technology), and constitute the Programme Collections Network.
Calls for proposals to develop projects are made yearly, each project having a three-year
duration. Action Plans also establish financial aid for conservation activities of plant genetic
resources of partner genebanks of the network, independently from their participation in the
programme projects.
The Centre for Plant Genetic Resources (CRF) of the INIA is responsible for the long-term
conservation of duplicates of all the Spanish seed collections, development of a National
Inventory and management of its own active collections.
A National Commission for Plant Genetic Resources, composed of chair, vice-chair,
secretary and ten members is responsible for the management of the Programme. The
Commission is chaired by the Director General of INIA.
Contacts
Subdirección General de Prospectiva, Coordinación y Programas

INIA
Carretera de La Coruña km 7.5
28040-Madrid
Spain
Tel.: +34 91 347 40 00
Fax: +34 91 347 39 31
Email: direcion.general@inia.es
Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos (CRF-INIA)

Autovía NII, km 36
Apdo. 1045
28800-Alcalá de Henares
Spain
Tel.: +34 91 881 92 86/61
Fax: +34 91 881 92 87
Email: ayerbe@inia.es
Sweden
National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources
Eva Jansson and Jens Weibull

Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Alnarp, Sweden
In order to conserve and make sustainable use of its resources of cultivated plants, Sweden
adopted a National Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants (POM) in December
2000. Through this programme, work on cultivated plants is to be better coordinated and
developed. The background to the programme is that Sweden, together with 187 other
countries, has pledged to conserve biodiversity by signing the UN Convention on Biological
Diversity. Sweden has also signed the FAO Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and
Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources.
Main components of the Programme

The Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants, or POM, covers five major fields of
work:
- conservation of cultivated plants by collecting, describing and various other methods;
- utilization of cultivated plants by growing and plant breeding;
- research and development work on such factors as the relationships between species and
their genetic variation;
- education and information for dissemination of knowledge and raising of public
awareness; and
- cooperation in various international bodies.
Swedish plant genetic resources?

Although Sweden is not particularly rich in genetic resources, crop cultivation has a long
history in our country. This has helped to give us numerous species and varieties that are
adapted to our conditions. The climate and growing conditions in Sweden make special
demands on the cultivated plants grown in the country. The plants must be sufficiently
hardy to survive our long, cold winters and short and often cool summers. The Swedish
tradition of plant breeding has also contributed to this diversity. POM is to be a vital
instrument for the conservation and utilization of Sweden’s plant resources in a sensible and
sustainable manner. In our roles as research workers, plant breeders, growers or consumers,
we all have a responsibility for conserving these resources and maintaining Sweden’s
inheritance of cultivated plants.
Governance and coordination

As a consequence of Agenda 21 and the international commitment regarding sustainable
development, Sweden adopted in 1999 a series of different so-called environmental quality
objectives (http://miljomal.nu/english/english.php). One of these objectives refers to the
agricultural sector and reads ”A varied agricultural landscape”. One measure among several
to accomplish this involves the formation and development of a national plant genetic
resources programme. POM therefore has strong political support, which is an asset for the
overall management of the programme. While the Swedish Board of Agriculture, as the
responsible sector agency, is supervising the programme, the Swedish Biodiversity Centre
has been granted the role of coordinator.
What is the Swedish Biodiversity Centre?

The Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM) (http://www.cbm.slu.se/eng/cbmengelsk.htm) is a
national coordinating body with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and
Uppsala University as its parent bodies. The task of the CBM is to coordinate and stimulate
research on the biodiversity of both wild and cultivated species and to work on education
and information. The CBM was founded in 1994 in order to meet environmental targets and
to live up to the demands made in the Convention on Biological Diversity. Conserving
biodiversity is considered to be one of our most important issues for the future.
Inventory to be made of cultivated plants

A priority issue for POM includes a national inventory to be made of our cultivated plants
and their relatives. A ten-year strategy has therefore been developed that lays down the
priorities and technical details of how the inventory will be carried out. In 2000, small-scale
inventories were made on a trial basis of three groups of our very popular and well-known
cultivated plants with the aim of evaluating inventory techniques. For instance, inventories
were made in limited areas of older varieties, unimproved varieties and varieties that were
introduced early of daffodils and white narcissi (Narcissus), roses (Rosa) and turnips (Brassica
rapa ssp. rapa). Recently more comprehensive inventories of other cultivated plants or plant
groups have been initiated throughout Sweden. These include seed of vegetable crops that
have not been collected as yet, cultivars of certain berry crops (e.g. gooseberries) that are
presumed lost and perennial ornamentals. Plant groups to be dealt with later on involve
fruit trees, forage crops, ornamental trees and bushes, pot plants and landscape plants. For
the broadest possible impact, the general public will also be invited to contribute knowledge
and plant material.
Partners in POM
- The Swedish Species Information Centre;
- The Swedish botanical gardens;
- The Swedish Biodiversity Centre;
- The Swedish open-air museums;
- The Swedish National Organization of Leisure Gardening Societies;
- Sesam (an NGO for seed cultivation and protection of cultivated plants in Sweden);
- The Swedish Board of Agriculture;
- The Federation of Swedish Farmers;
- The National Environment Protection Agency;
- The Nordic Gene Bank;
- The National Heritage Board;
- The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency;
- The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial
Planning (Formas);
- The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences;
- The National Gardening Federation;
- The Swedish plant breeding companies;
- The Swedish Pomological Society.
‘Rings on the water’

Conservation of plant genetic resources can never be fully realized without the acceptance
and participation of people. We depend upon their knowledge and skills when it comes to
maintaining plant material. Their love for the ”green cultural heritage” is a cornerstone in
our work. Thus we expect a range of positive social effects as a result of the Programme for
the Diversity of Cultivated Plants:
- conservation of biodiversity;
- conservation of handicraft traditions;
- conservation of cultivated land;
- dynamic cultural environments;
- enhanced environmental knowledge;
- better environment;
- better food;
- increased interest in gardening;
- better health;
- increased cultural and horticultural tourism;
- beneficial effects for sparsely populated areas.
More information
There is information about the Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants on the
Internet, although as yet only in Swedish (www.pom.info). In the future we plan to include
searchable databases giving more information about projects, people and institutions
involved, possibilities of financing projects, new publications and contact people.
Contacts
Coordinators for the Programme for the Diversity of Cultivated Plants are:
The CBM regional office at Alnarp, Sweden:
Eva Jansson - Email: eva.jansson@cbm.slu.se
Jens Weibull - Email: jens.weibull@cbm.slu.se
The Swedish Board of Agriculture in Jönköping, Sweden:

Agneta Börjesson - Email: agneta.borjesson@sjv.se
Correspondence:
CBM, PO Box 54, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden
Switzerland
The Swiss National Programme for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Beate Schierscher
Swiss Commission for the Conservation of Cultivated Plants, Domaine de Changins, Nyon,
Switzerland
Establishment of the Swiss National Programme for Conservation and Use of Genetic
Resources
Conservation of plant genetic resources in Switzerland is carried out by both public and
private organizations. Some of the public organizations such as the Federal Research
Stations have been working actively on this topic for more than 40 years. Private
organizations initiated their activities 20 years ago. This decentralized approach requires a
coordinating body to oversee the activities. In 1991, supported by the Federal Office of
Agriculture (FOAG), the Swiss Commission for the Conservation of Cultivated Plants (CPC)
was created with representatives of private and public organizations. The CPC promotes the
conservation of genetic diversity of cultivated plants. The main tasks are the coordination
and information of the activities in crop genetic resources conservation at the national level
and the maintenance of an inventory of the different groups of long-term conserved plant
species including berries, vine, cereals/corn and industrial plants, vegetables, fodder plants,
aromatic and medicinal plants, potatoes and fruit trees. The genebank of the Federal
Research Station for Plant Production of Changins holds national responsibility for most of
these PGR, but private organizations are also involved in long-term storage.
Since the adoption of the Global Plan of Action (GPA), Switzerland has established its
National Plan of Action (NPA). In order to implement the NPA the Federal Office of
Agriculture created a budget four years ago for financing projects dealing with plant genetic
resources. During the first four years, from 1999 to 2003, priority was given to making field
inventories of the different groups of plant species, especially berries, fruit trees and corn. In
the meantime, concepts, including strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of
plant genetic resources, have been developed for all groups of plant species. For the second
phase (2003-2006) priority is given to the implementation of the concepts for the conservation
and sustainable use of plant genetic resources and for the National PGR documentation
system. The National PGR documentation system will contain a database with passport
data, characterization data, evaluation data and genebank management data. Further
priorities for this phase are in vitro conservation and public awareness.
Documentation
The networks are encouraged to use the FAO/IPGRI Multi-crop passport descriptors. Some
National collections are ready to upload their data to EURISCO.
One of the first tasks of the CPC was to undertake an inventory of all organizations and
institutes involved in describing species and the number of accessions conserved. The
genebank of the Federal Research Station for Plant Production of Changins has national
responsibilities for PGR.
The National Inventory (NI) is documented using MS Access software. Since April 2003
the NI has also been available on the Internet (www.cpc-skek.ch).
The CPC coordinates the procedures for implementing the Swiss NI. All curators of
collections are contacted to prepare the procedures for implementing the NI.
Ukraine
The Ukrainian National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources
Victor K. Ryabchoun and Roman L. Boguslavskyi

National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of the Ukraine (NCPGRU), V.Ya. Yurjev Institute of
Plant Production, Kharkiv, Ukraine
The territory of the Ukraine stretches from the forest zone ”Polissya” to the subtropical
southern coast of the Crimea and includes steppes with highly fertile black soils (chernozem)
and ancient forests and meadows in the Carpathian Mountains. On the whole, conditions
for agriculture are favourable and it has been practised there for more than 7000 years.
Many important trade routes also went through the Ukraine and had a great influence on the
diversity of cultivated crops.
Intensive development of the plant industry and agricultural science in the Ukraine in the
19 -20th centuries, in particular plant breeding and genetics, has created a rich genepool.
th
Cultivars and hybrids adapted to the natural and climatic conditions of growing regions and
to intensive growing technologies, highly productive, pest and disease resistant, tolerant of
low temperatures, drought and other stresses are bred.
The Ukraine is also rich in wild relatives of cultivated crops. Among 4500 species of
vascular plants growing in the Ukraine, there are wild relatives of wheat (incl. T. boeoticum,
species of Aegilops, Dasypyrum, Elytrigia, Elymus, etc.), barley, oat, pea, lentil, beet, flax, hemp,
a series of vegetables, officinal, essential oil-bearing plants, apple, pear, plum and others.
The genepool of these and other useful wild plants is being conserved in situ, in state-
protected reserves. In some areas, in particular in the Carpathians, it is possible to find
traditional varieties grown on small private farms.
The National Programme for Plant Genetic Resources started in 1992, when the Ukraine
became independent, based on a decision of the Ukrainian Academy of Agricultural
Sciences. The main tasks of the National Programme are:
- to provide plant breeding, research, educational, production, ecological and other
programmes with initial material;
- to increase the diversity of cultivated plant species and varieties;
- to conserve plant genetic resources for present and future generations.
The National Plant Genebank (NPG) was established to implement these tasks.
Maintenance and management of the NPG are implemented by the plant genetic resources
(PGR) System which includes 34 institutions specialized in the breeding of specific crops.
The coordinating centre is the National Centre for PGR of the Ukraine (NCPGRU), hosted at
the V.Ya. Yurjev Institute of Plant Production in Kharkiv.
The implementation of the National Programme for PGR is regulated by national Laws
(on vegetables, on plant cultivars, on plant quarantine), the Custom Code of the Ukraine and
others. The draft of the Law on PGR is currently being elaborated.
The NPG collection holds 123 000 accessions of 310 cultivated plants and over 500 wild
relatives of crops grown in the Ukraine or of significance for its national economy.
The NPG contains 10 400 accessions (8.5%) of advanced Ukrainian cultivars; 29.9%
advanced cultivars of other world countries; 16.3% landraces (including 4.5% of Ukrainian
origin); 23.8% breeding lines; 2.3% genetic lines; 5.7% wild relatives; and from 1.3% to 6.1%
synthetic populations, clones, hybrids and others.
Cereals are best represented in the NPG, with 33 900 accessions. A large number of
accessions is also available for pulses (14 100), groat crops (10 000), fruit, nut and berry crops
(20 100). Collections of maize, oil-bearing, industrial, medicinal, volatile oil, forage,
vegetable and melon crops, potato, grape, ornamental and forest plants also have a
significant genetic potential.
In 1999, the Ukrainian Government declared the NPG as a ”Scientific Establishment of
National Possession”, in recognition of its significance for the country.
The Ukraine takes part in the implementation of the Global Plan of Action (GPA). In this
respect, the National Programme for PGR is carried out according to the following
directions.
Introduction of new genepool accessions from the Ukraine and other countries
Every year, 7000 to 8000 accessions of different plant species are being investigated with the
aim of forming the NPG collections. Among them, about 3000 samples are collected in the
Ukraine; more than 5000 samples of foreign origin are received in general on the basis of
joint research programmes and other forms of collaboration with CIMMYT, ICARDA, VIR,
NGB, genebanks, breeding and seed-producing institutions and private firms, botanical
gardens from European countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech
Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Republic of
Moldova, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and
Montenegro, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, UK) but also from the Middle-East (Egypt, Israel,
Syria, Turkey), North America (Canada, USA), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico,
Peru), Asia (China, India, Philippines), Australia, etc.
Fourteen collecting missions have been carried out since 1992 and over 3000 samples of
landraces and wild crop relatives were collected. Nine of the missions were carried out with
colleagues from Moldova, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovakia and the USA. This was
made possible thanks to financial and material support from the national genebanks of
Poland and the USA. One of the most important topics is to collect and maintain indigenous
landraces of different crops. For this purpose, contacts are being established with farmers.
Comprehensive investigation of the genepool diversity

This is being carried out in order to evaluate the genepool for economically valuable traits
such as productivity, optimal length of the growing period, resistance to diseases and pests,
hardiness, quality of production, etc. Over 40 000 samples of various crops are being studied
yearly. Studies are carried out in the field or in the laboratory. Based on the results, trait and
genetic collections are formed and base collections are optimized. The accessions selected as
sources and donors of valuable traits are sent to breeding and research institutions and used
as initial material in breeding, research, educational and other programmes and agricultural
farming.
The institutions of the NCPGRU System transfer more than 10 000 samples each year to
users, mostly in the Ukraine (about 8000) but also to other countries (over 2000).
Long-term conservation of plant genetic diversity in the National Depository, field

collections and natural reserves
About 93 000 accessions of the NPG are seed-propagated. The National Depository was
established for the storage of its seed, with the assistance of IPGRI. Seed samples are air-
dried and hermetically sealed in glass, plastic and foil containers.
Seed is stored in three blocks according to the conditions:
- non-regulated temperature (22 000 samples);
- cool chamber at +4°C (3000 samples of species not suited for long-term conservation);
- storage in deep-freeze chests at -18°C (1000 samples).
The samples stored belong to 197 plant species in 42 families.

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

- passport data for 67 000 accessions of 323 crops;
- genealogies of genepool accessions (6000 records);
- new accessions (over 25 000);
- the seed pool of the National Depository (over 26 000);
- requests for genepool accessions;
- transfer of genepool accessions;
- a reference system including directories of crops and crop groups, countries and regions,
institutions and firms involved in plant breeding and genetics, and descriptors.
The establishment of the information system was made possible thanks to the assistance
of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing and CGN, the Netherlands.
Registration of valuable germplasm samples and genepool collections created by

breeding programmes and research experiments
Registration is carried out on behalf of the Ukrainian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. This
is one of the important activities of NCPGRU. Special certificates proving scientific
copyright are provided to authors and originators of registered valuable samples and
collections created both in the Ukraine and in other countries. The registration is carried out
on the basis of expertise for novelty, according to the regulations.
Information on different aspects of PGR-related work is published in scientific
publications. In 2003, NCPGRU started publishing the journal ”Plant Genetic Resources”
which accepts contributions both from the Ukraine and from other countries.
APPENDICES 145
APPENDICES
Appendix I. Open Space Sessions 146
Appendix II. Alnarp Statement calling for Sustainable Conservation and Use of
European Genetic Resources 151
Appendix III. Acronyms and Abbreviations 152
Appendix IV. Agenda 156
Appendix V. List of participants 157

Appendix I. Open Space Sessions
Building and implementing a National PGR Programme
1. What are the driving forces of a strong National Programme (NP)?

Issue: Strong National Programme, Driving forces
Convener: Ladislav Dotlačil
Participants: Ladislav Dotlačil, Lorenzo Maggioni, Rob van Raalte, Ladislav Rosenberg and
Loek J.M. Van Soest
2. How to make a NP successful and what are the prerequisites for a NP?
Issue: 1. How do you make a National Programme successful? 2. Which are the
preconditions for having a National Programme?
Convener: Mia Sahramaa, Ivana Dulić-Marković
Participants: Külli Annamaa, Gogotur Agladze, Guram Alexidze, Taiul Berishvili, Sergey
Alexanian, Ivana Dulić-Marković, Drazen Jelovac, Vladimir Pekič and Goran Zivkov
3. What are the three great obstacles in building a NP and how to overcome them?
Issue: What are the three greatest obstacles in building your National Programme and how
do you intend to overcome them?
Convener: Vladimir Pekič
Participants: Luis Ayerbe, Drazen Jelovac, Katrin Kotkas, Lars Landbo, Sonja Maznevska,
Gordana Popsimonova, Loek Van Soest
4. Common requirements and approaches to NPs

Issue: Common requirements and approaches to National Programmes
Convener: Alvina Avagyan
Participants: Gogotur Agladze, Guram Alexidze, Sergey Alexanin, Külli Annamaa, Alvina
Avagyan, Samvel Avetisyan, Taiul Bereshvili, Ivana Dulić-Marković, Drazen Jelovac,
Vladimir Pekič, Mia Sahramaa, Goran Zivkov
5. How comprehensive should a NP be? Should it be sectorial or include all living

organisms (plants - including forest species, animals, microorganisms)?
Issue: How comprehensive should a National Programme be? Should it be sectorial or
include all fields (plants, animals, micro-organisms, forestry)?
Convener: Sónia Dias
Participants: Sónia Dias, Grethe Evjen, Ken Richards, and Jozef Turok
6. How to promote sustainable use of PGRFA within a NP?

Issue: Promote sustainable use of PGRFA within National Programmes
Convener: Eliseu Bettencourt
Participant: Siyka Angelova, Roman Boguslavskiy Anatol Ganea, Aušra Gineitaitė, Fabrizio
Grassi, Siegfried Harrer, László Holly, Andrei Kadyrov, Rada Koeva, Martine Mitteau,
Gheorghe Savin, Silvia Strajeru, and Eva Thörn
7. How are NGOs involved in NPs? What can an NGO contribute in a NP?
Issue: How are NGOs involved in NP? What can NGOs contribute in a NP?
Convener: Béla Bartha
Participants: Siyka Angelova, Daniela Benediková, Agneta Börjeson, Aušra Gineitaitė, János
Lazányi, Rob van Raalte, Beate Schierscher and Jozef Turok
OPEN SPACE SESSIONS 147
8. How do we continue after the programme has ended?

Issue: How do we continue after the programme has ended?
Convener: Katrin Kotkas
Participants: Külli Annamaa, Katrin Kotkas, Juozas Labokas and Wieslaw Podyma
Technical aspects of PGR collection management (on-farm, in situ and ex situ)
9. Criteria for choosing varieties for on-farm cultivation

Issue: Criteria of the choice of varieties for on-farm cultivation
Convener: Jons Eisele
Participants: Åsmund Asdal, Luis Ayerbe, Harald Bajorat, Daniela Benediková Agneta
Börjesson, Clara Goedert, Jaap Hardon, Elinor Lipman, Nigel Maxted, Beate Scheirscher,
Maria Žaková
10. Criteria and methods for choosing varieties/cultivars of vegetatively propagated plants
for National Collections
Issue: Criteria and methods for choosing varieties/cultivars of vegetatively propagated
plants for National Collections
Convener: Åsmund Asdal
Participants: Katarina Wedelsbäck Bladh, Roman Boguslavskiy, Even Bratberg, Anatol
Ganea, Eva Jansson, Katrin Kotkas, Aarne Kurppa, Mia Sahramaa and Gheorghe Savin
11. Molecular markers in germplasm evaluation

Issue: Molecular markers in germplasm evaluation
Convener: Toni Safner
Participants: Leena Hömmö, Kadri Järve, Aarne Kurppa, Isaak Rashal
12. How to deal with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in genebank collections
and NPs?
Issue: How to deal with GMOs in genebank collections /NPs?
Convener: Leena Hömmö
Participants: Gogotur Agladze, Yagut Akbarova, Zeynal Akparov, Sergey Alexanian, Guram
Alexidze, Eliseu Bettencourt, Daniela Benediková, Taiul Berishvili, Katarina Wedelsbäck
Bladh, Roman Boguslavskiy, Árni Bragason, Michaela Černe, Ladislav Dotlačil, Grethe
Evjen, Paul Freudenthaler, Clara Oliveira Goedert, Jaap Hardon, Siegfried Harrer, Leena
Hömmö, László Holly, Kadri Järve, Juozas Labokas, Elinor Lipman, Lorenzo Maggioni,
Nigel Maxted, Eli Putievsky, Radha Ranganathan, Ken Richards, Victor Ryabchoun, Toni
Safner, Silvia Strajeru, Eva Thörn, Merja Veteläinen, Maria Žaková and Goran Zivkov
13. Do our knowledge and tools facilitate collection of the most valuable PGR in the
genebanks?
Issue: Do our knowledge and tools facilitate collection of the most valuable plant gene
resources into the gene banks?
Convener: Aarne Kurppa
Participants: Arni Bragason, Paul Freudenthaler, Aarne Kurppa, Göran Svanfeldt
14. Genetic erosion in genebanks

Issue: Genetic erosion in genebanks
Convener: Sónia Dias
Participants: Inger Hjalmarsson and Katrin Kotkas
15. Relations between genebanks and NGOs

Issue: Relations among genebanks and NGOs
Convener: Wieslaw Podyma and Lars-Åke Gustavsson
Participants: N. Murthi Anishetty, Béla Bartha, Mihaela Černe, Jons Eisele, Paul
Freudenthaler, Elinor Lipman, Vladimir Pekič, Eli Putievsky, Beate Schierscher and Silvia
Strajeru
PGR conservation and use
16. How to bring old varieties into use, if they are still of interest?
Issue: How to bring old varieties into use, if they still are of interest?
Convener: Göran Svanfeldt
Participants: Katarina Wedelsbäck Bladh, Even Bratberg, Marc Lateur and Elzbieta
Lenarczyk-Priwiezienc
17. How can we combine conservation of plant varieties with the care of historical
(cultural) sites in our countries? Relationship between in situ conservation and nature
protection
Issue: 1) How can we combine conservation of plant varieties with the care of historical
(cultural) sites in our counties? 2) Relationship between in situ conservation and nature
protection.
Convener: Lars-Åke Gustavsson
Participants: Åsmund Asdal, Harald Bajorat, Arieh Levy, Gert Poulsen, Beate Schierscher,
Gjoshe Stefkov and Miriam Waldman
18. Is it possible to increase and promote the sustainable use of PGR by setting up an
international labelling system under the auspices of IPGRI?
Issue: Is it possible to increase and to promote the sustainable use of PGR by setting up an
international label system under the auspices of IPGRI?
Convener: Marc Lateur
Participants: Béla Bartha, Jons Eisele, Arieh Levy and Miriam Waldman
19. Implementation of the NP in agricultural practice

Issue: Implementation of the NP in agricultural practice
Convener: Elzbieta Lenarczyk-Priwiezienc
Participants: Alvina Avagyan, Samvel Avetisyan, Katrin Kotkas and Wieslaw Podyma
20. In situ genetic reserve methodologies

Issue: In situ genetic reserve methodologies
Convener: Nigel Maxted
Participants: Siyka Angelova, Daniela Benediková, Sónia Dias, Paul Freudenthaler, Lars-Åke
Gustavsson, Siegfried Harrer, Peter Herthelius, László Holly, Edite Kaufmane, Rada Koeva,
Juozas Labokas, Janos Lazanyi, Martine Mitteau, Wieslaw Podyma, Gordana Popsimonova,
Beate Schierscher, Gjoshe Stefkov, Miriam Waldman and Maria Žaková
OPEN SPACE SESSIONS 149
Strategies for improving public awareness, training and education on PGR
21. How to improve public awareness in PGR conservation?

Issue: How to improve public awareness in PGR conservation?
Convener: Juozas Labokas
Participants: Åsmund Asdal, Luis Ayerbe, Agneta Börjesson, Siegfried Harrer, Lars-Åke
Gustavsson, Juozas Labokas, Lars Landbo, Elinor Lipman, Martine Mitteau and Beate
Schierscher
22. What can be done to improve training and education on PGRFA?

Issue: What can be done to improve training and education on PGRFA?
Convener: Jozef Turok
Participants: Zeynal Akparov, N. Murthi Anishetty, Alvina Avagyan, Eliseu Bettencourt,
Mihaela Černe, Ivana Dulić-Marković, Anatol Ganea, Aušra Gineitaitė, Elzbieta Lenarczyk-
Priwieziencew, Sonia Maznevska, Gordana Popsimonova, Gheorghe Savin, Rob van Raalte,
Silvia Strajeru and Goran Zivkov
23. The need to quantify the value of PGR for the national economy to secure permanent
funding
Issue: The need to quantify the value of PGR to the economy of the state for permanent
funding
Convener: Miriam Waldman
Participants: Paul Freudenthaler, Arieh Levy, Wieslaw Podyma, Gordana Popsimonova and
Gjoshe Stefkov
24 How can we make our ministries understand that PGR is a cross-cutting issue?
Issue: How can we make our ministries understand that PGR is a cross cutting issue?
Convener: Jens Weibull
Participants: Agneta Börjesson, Alvina Avagyan, Samuel Avetisyan, Luis Ayerbe, Béla
Bartha, Aušra Gineitaitė, Jons Eisele, Clara Olivia Goedert, Leena Hömmö, Kadri Järve,
Drazen Jelovac, Foto Kashta, Lars Landbo, Gints Lanka, Arieh Levy, Vladimir Pekič,
Wieslaw Podyma, Elzbieta Lenarczyk-Priwieziencew, Ranga Ranganathan, Xhevat Shima,
Miriam Waldman and Jens Weibull
Definition of research priorities for PGR
25. Research priorities for plant genetic resources

Issue: Research priorities for plant genetic resources
Convener: Nigel Maxted
Participants: About 30-35 participants but unfortunately the names were not recoded.
26. Lobbying and resources for European PGR

Issue: Lobbying and resources for European PGR
Conveners: Nigel Maxted (Group 1) and Eliseu Bettencourt (Group 2)
Participants: Sergey Alexanian, Külli Annamaa, Åsmund Asdal, Alvina Avagyan, Luis
Ayerbe, Eliseu Bettencourt, Even Bratberg, Sónia Dias, Ladislav Dotlačil, Ivana Dulić-
Marković, Fabrizio Grassi, Jaap Hardon, Peter Herthelius, László Holly, Leena Hömmö,
Kadri Järve, Drazen Jelovac, Juozas Labokas, Lars Landbo, Janos Lazanyi, Marc Lateur,
Arieh Levy, Martine Mitteau, Wieslaw Podyma, Eli Putievsky, Isaak Rashal, Ken Richards,
Eva Thörn, Goran Zivkov, plus others whose names were not recorded
Perspectives in international cooperation
27. Cooperation in Europe

Issue: NP – Cooperation in Europe
Convener: Siegfried Harrer
Participants: Harald Bajorat, Katarina Wendelsbäck Bladh, Peter Herthelius, Andrei
Kadyrov, Katrin Kotkas, Lorenzo Maggioni and Mia Sahramaa
28. A common European genebank

Issue: A common European Gene Bank
Convener: Eva Thörn
Participants: N. Murthi Anishetty, Külli Annamaa, Harald Bajorat, Eliseu Bettencourt,
Mihaela Černe, Jaap Hardon, László Holly, Marc Lateur, Lorenzo Maggioni, Sonja
Maznevska and Eva Thörn,
29. Are Biological Resource Centres (BRCs) the future of genetic resources?
Issue: Are Biological Resources Centres (BRC) the future of Genetic Resources?
Convener: Martine Mitteau
Participants: Johan Bäckman, Ladislav Dotlačil, Fabrizio Grassi, Andrei Kadyrov, Toni
Safner, Silvia Strajeru and Victor Ryabchoun
ALNARP STATEMENT 151
Appendix II. Alnarp Statement calling for Sustainable Conservation

and Use of European Genetic Resources 9
The diversity of European plant genetic resources species, those species of direct socioeconomic
value and necessary for the well-being of humankind, forms a vital component of Europe’s
natural and cultural heritage and is a major resource. The European Community Biodiversity
Strategy acknowledges, as do the Convention on Biological Diversity, the FAO Global Plan of
Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and
the European Plant Conservation Strategy, that plant genetic resources are an essential but finite
resource, and that there is a need to improve conservation efficiency if we are to retain their
potential for utilization by future generations. The plants of socioeconomic importance, those
upon which Europe’s agriculture and horticulture are based and upon which sustainable rural
development is predicated, are in equal decline to their host ecosystems.
Although the current threat facing agrobiodiversity is widely acknowledged, there is currently
little concerted effort, except for the activities under the aegis of the European Cooperative
Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR), to ensure that these critical
resources are collected, maintained and evaluated for potential use. Furthermore, in the face of
this growing threat to European plant genetic resources conservation, efforts are being hindered
by a serious lack of scientific knowledge, trained personnel and resources. For example, little
knowledge is available about the patterns of this socioeconomically important genetic diversity,
whether it is effectively conserved, or even which appropriate strategies and techniques to apply
to ensure that this vital diversity is retained for future generations. The economic and social
factors responsible for declining agrobiodiversity are also poorly understood. If we are to
achieve the ambitious goal of halting the erosion of plant genetic resources by 2010 as stated in
the European Union’s Sixth Action Programme and the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation,
then there is a need for a step-shift in efficiency of collaborative activities, a new emphasis on
fundamental research to underpin the required conservation actions, as well as security for
existing germplasm collections. It is not merely a matter of improving a single, existing
technique or implementing a conservation methodology, but it will involve acquiring a better
knowledge of socioeconomically important agrobiodiversity, along with the formulation and
implementation of new conservation models.
As a step toward achieving this goal, experts from 39 countries met at the European
Workshop on National Plant Genetic Resources Programmes in Alnarp, Sweden, to debate these
issues and emphasized the need for a Europe-wide approach to resolving the fundamental issues
facing the assessment, conservation and sustainable use of European plant genetic resources
species. The participants identified the European Commission and other agencies as the best
positioned to assist the formal sector and NGOs together in achieving, on a regional level the
objectives established by the EU’s Sixth Framework Programme and thus facilitating the meeting
of commitments made in the European Plant Conservation Strategy and by ratifying the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Furthermore the participants believed that these
fundamental issues could only be efficiently addressed through closer collaboration of the
different communities dealing with genetic resources of socioeconomic importance for European
agriculture, horticulture and forestry, including plant species and their wild relatives,
domesticated animals, forest trees and microorganisms.
9 The Alnarp Statement was endorsed by the participants of the European Workshop on National
Plant Genetic Resources Programmes, held in Alnarp, Sweden, 24-26 April 2003.
Appendix III. Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAFC Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottowa, Ontario, Canada

AAS Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Tbilisi, Georgia
ACIAR Australian Center for International Agricultural Research
ANAS Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences
APF Agriculture Policy Framework
ARO Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel
ASTA American Seed Trade Association
AWWC Australian Winter Wheat Collection
BAZ Bundesanstalt für Züchtungsforschung an Kulturpflanzen (Federal Centre
for Breeding Research on Cultivated Plants), Braunschweig, Germany
BeKo/PGR Beratungs- und Koordinierungsausschusses für genetische Ressourcen
landwirtschaftlicher und gartenbaulicher Kulturpflanzen (Advisory and
Coordinating Committee for PGRFA), Germany
BFOSTCA Belgian Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs
BMVEL Bundesministerium für Ernährung Landwirtschaft und
Verbraucherschutz (Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer
Protection), Bonn, Germany
BPGV Portuguese Plant Genebank, Braga, Portugal
BRCs Biological Resource Centres
BRG Bureau des Ressources Génétiques, Paris, France
BSAP 1999 Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Republic of Armenia
CAC Central Asia and Caucasus
CAPGRIS Canadian Agriculture Plant Genetic Resources System
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBDC Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme
CBM Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Uppsala, Sweden
CENARGEN National Center for Genetic Resources, Brazil
CGB Canadian Clonal genebank, Harrow, Canada
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CGN Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen, the Netherlands
CGRFA Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO)
CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (International
Maize and Wheat Improvement Center)
CIP International Potato Center, Peru
CIRAD Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le
développement (Centre for International Cooperation in Agronomic
Research for Development), France
CLO-DvP Centrum voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek – Departement voor
Plantengenetica en –veredeling (Agricultural Research Centre,
Department of Plant Genetics and Breeding), Ghent, Belgium
CNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (National Research Council), Italy
CNRS Centre national de la recherche scientifique (National Centre for Scientific
Research), France
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 153
CPC Swiss Commission for the Conservation of Cultivated Plants, Nyon,

Switzerland
CPGRFA Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO)
CRA Centre de Recherches Agronomiques (Agricultural Research Centre),
Gembloux, Belgium
CRF-INIA Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos, (Centre for Plant Genetic Resources),
Alcalá de Henares, Spain
DIKA Agrobiodiversity Protection Society of Georgia
ECP/GR European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks
EMBRAPA Brazilian Agriculture Research Corporation
ENSAR Ecole nationale supérieure agronomique de Rennes, France
EPGRIS European Plant Genetic Resources Information Infrastructure
EU European Union
EUCARPIA European Association for Plant Breeding Research
EUFORGEN European Forest Genetic Resources Programme
EURISCO European search catalogue of ex situ collections maintained in Europe
EVIGEZ National Information System on Plant Genetic Resources, Czech Republic
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FOAG Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture, Bern, Switzerland
FORMAS Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and
Spatial Planning
GATT The Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GEF Global Environment Facility
GEVES Groupe d’étude et de contrôle des variétés et des semences (Group for the
Study and Monitoring of Varieties and Seeds), France
GMO genetically modified organism
GPA Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
GRIN Germplasm Resources Information Network, USA
GRIN-CA Germplasm Resources Information Network – Canadian version
IARCs International Agricultural Research Centres
IBV Informationszentrum Biologische Vielfalt (Information Centre for
Biological Diversity), Bonn, Germany
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India
ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Syria
IDC Information And Documentation Centre, Israel
IFREMER Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (French
Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea), France
IGB Israeli Gene Bank, Bet Dagan, Israel
INIA Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária (National Institute for
Agricultural Research), Lisbon, Portugal
INIA Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria
(National Institute for Food and Agriculture Research and Technology),
Madrid, Spain
INIAP Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e das Pescas (National Institute

for Agricultural and Fisheries Research), Lisbon, Portugal
INIBAP International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain,
Montpellier, France
INRA Institut national de la recherche agronomique (National Agronomic
Research Institute), France
IPGR Institute for Plant Genetic Resources, Sadovo, Bulgaria
IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
IPIMAR Instituto de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar (Institute for Fisheries and
Sea Research), Portugal
IPK Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben
(Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research), Gatersleben,
Germany
IPR intellectual property rights
IRD Institut de recherche pour le développement (Research Institute for
Development), France
IRRI International Rice Research Institute, Phillippines
IRSA Istituti di ricerca e sperimentazione agraria (Agricultural Research
Institutes), Italy
ISF Istituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura, Rome, Italy
ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
IU International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources
KUL Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Catholic University of Leuven), Belgium
KSLA Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry
LIA Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture, Këdainiai dist., Lithuania
LNV Ministry of Agriculture, Nature management and Fisheries, the Hague,
the Netherlands
MADRP Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas
(Ministry for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries), Portugal
Metla Finnish Forest Research Institute, Finland
MII Matching Investment Initiative, Canada
MiPAF Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (Ministry for Agriculture and
Forest Policies), Rome, Italy
MNHN Muséum national d' histoire naturelle (National Museum for Natural
History), France
MTA Material Transfer Agreement
NCPGRU National Centre for PGR of the Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine
NGB Nordic Gene Bank, Alnarp, Sweden
NGO non-governmental organization
NI National Inventory
NMR Nordic Council of Ministers
NP National Programme
NPA Swiss National Plan of Action
NPG National Plant Genebank, Ukraine
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 155
OIV Organisation internationale de la vigne et du vin (International

Organisation of Vine and Wine), Paris, France
ÖPUL Österreichisches Programm zur Förderung einer umweltgerechten,
extensiven und den natürlichen Lebensraum schützenden Landwirtschaft
(Austria)
PBAI Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, Radzików, Blonie, Poland
PBR plant breeders' rights
PGR plant genetic resources
PGRC Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Saskatoon, Canada
PGRDEU National Inventory on PGRFA in Germany
PGRFA Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
PGR Forum European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation
Forum
PINGW Research Institute of Agronomy, Pulawy, Poland
POM Programmet för Odlad Mångfald (Swedish National Programme for the
Diversity of Cultivated Plants)
RENARGEN Brazilian Genetic Resources Network
RICP Research Institute of Crop Production, Prague, Czech Republic
RIPP Research Institute of Plant Production, Piešťany, Slovak Republic
Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SINGER System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (CGIAR)
SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
ÚKSÚP Ústredný Kontrolný a Skúšobný Ústav Pol’nohospodársky (Slovak
Control and Testing Institute in Agriculture), Bratislava, Slovak Republic
UMB Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNEP United Nations Environment Network
UPOV Union internationale pour la protection des obtentions végétales
(International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants),
Geneva, Switzerland
USDA United States Department of Agriculture, USA
USDA/ARS USDA, Agricultural Research Service, USA
VIR N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry, St Petersburg, Russian Federation
VNIIL All Russian Flax Research Institute, Torzhok, Russia
WB World Bank
WG working group
WIEWS World Information and Early Warning System on PGRFA
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
WRI World Resources Institute
WTO World Trade Organization
ZADI Zentralstelle für Agrardokumentation und –information (German Centre
for Documentation and Information in Agriculture), Bonn, Germany
Appendix IV. Agenda
European Workshop on National Plant Genetic Resources Programmes

24 April 2003
08:30 - 10:00 Registration / Poster arrangements
10:00 - 10:20 Welcoming statements (Eva Jansson and Jens Weibull, Swedish Biodiversity
Centre; Roland von Bothmer, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)
10:20 - 10:50 Plant genetic resources for sustainable agriculture: how far have we come?
(N. Murthi Anishetty, FAO)
10:50 - 11:15 Coffee break
11:15 - 11:45 Status of European National Programmes in implementing the Global Plan
of Action (Jozef Turok, IPGRI)
11:45 - 12:30 Case study: Brazil (Clara Oliveira Goedert, CENARGEN–EMBRAPA)
12:30 - 13:30 Lunch
13:30 - 14:15 Case study: Canada (Ken Richards, Plant Gene Resources of Canada)
14:15 - 15:00 Case study: France (Martine Mitteau, Bureau des Ressources Génétiques)
15:00 - 15:30 Coffee break
15:30 - 16:30 Introduction to Open Space (Eva Broms, Framtidsverkstäder AB)
16:30 - 18:00 Open Space (facilitation E. Broms)
18:30 - 20:00 Reception (’A World Food Party’) and Poster session
25 April 2003
12:00 - 13:00 Lunch
13:00 - 17:00 Excursions
Tour 1: Alnarp – Visits to the Department of Crop Science and the spectacular
park area of the Alnarp campus
Tour 2: Alnarp – Visits to the Nordic Gene Bank and the recently established
Alnarp Garden for Rehabilitation
Tour 3: Fredriksdal Open-Air Museum
26 April 2003
12:30 - 13:30 Lunch
13:30 - 14:30 Evaluation and rounding off (facilitation E. Broms)
14:30 - 15:15 ‘Personal reflections: What did we do and where do we go from here?’(Jaap
Hardon, formerly Wageningen Agricultural University)
15:15 - 15:30 Closing of the workshop (Eva Thörn, NGB and Ladislav Dotlačil, RICP)
18:00 - 21:00 Conference dinner (Restaurant ‘Slagthuset’ in Malmö)
PARTICIPANTS 157
Appendix V. List of participants
European Workshop on National Plant Genetic Resources Programmes

Foto Kashta Yagut Y. Akbarova

Research Institute of Agriculture and Crops Institute of Botany
Fushe-Kruje Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences
Albania Patamdar shosse 40
Tel: +355 0682036399 370073 Baku
Email: salimetani@yahoo.com Azerbaijan
Tel: +994 12 97 50 45
Xhevat Shima Fax: +994 12 97 50 45
Research Institute of Vegetable and Potatoes Email: yagut_a@yahoo.com
Rr. Skener Kosturi
Tirana Zeynal Akparov
Albania Institute of Genetic Resources
Tel: +355-4 228422 Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences
Fax: +355-4 228422 Azadlig Avenue 155
Email: instpp@albmail.com 1106 Baku
Azerbaijan
Alvina Avagyan Tel: +994 12 49 91 29 /
Agricultural Support Republican Center mobile +994 55 775 39 05
Mamikonyantz Str. 39-A Fax: +994 12 49 92 20
375051 Yerevan Email: akparov@yahoo.com
Armenia
Tel.: +374 1 23 03 80 Andrei Kadyrov
Fax: +374 1 23 24 41 Belarus Scientific Research Institute of Arable
Email: aprav@netsys.am Farming and Fodders
1, Timiryazev Str.
Samvel Avetisyan 222160 Zhodino, Minsk region
Ministry of Agriculture Belarus
Nalbandyan Street 48 Tel: +375 1775 3 38 42
375010 Yerevan Fax: +375 1775 3 70 66
Armenia Email: niizk@mshp.minsk.by
Tel: +374 1 52 48 34
Fax: +374 1 52 37 93 Marc Lateur
Email: naxartex@yahoo.com Dept. Biological Control & PGR
Chemin de Liroux 4
Paul Freudenthaler 5030 Gembloux
Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety Belgium
Divisional Office Linz Tel: +32 81 620 314
Wieningerstr. 8 Fax: +32 81 620 349
4020 Linz Email: lateur@cra.wallonie.be
Austria
Tel: +43 732 381 261 260 Clara Oliveira Goedert
Fax: +43 732 385 482 CENARGEN–EMBRAPA
Email: paul.freudenthaler@lwlnz.ages.at Caixa Postal 02372, Asa Norte
70770-900 Brasilia DF
Brazil
Tel: +55 61 2730100
Fax: +55 61 2743212
Email: cgoedert@cenargen.embrapa.br
Siyka Angelova Ladislav Rosenberg

Institute for Plant Genetic Resources Selgen A.S.
"K. Malkov" (IPGR) Stupice
Druzba 1 250 84 Sibrina
4122 Sadovo Czech Republic
Bulgaria Tel: +420 602 200 958
Tel: +359 32 629 026 Fax: +420 2 8197 1732
Fax: +359 32 629 026 Email: rosenberg@selgen.cz
Email: angelova@ipgr-bg.org
Lars Landbo
Rada Koeva Danish Plant Directorate
Institute for Plant Genetic Resources Skovbrynet 20
"K. Malkov" (IPGR) 2800 Lyngby
Druzba 1 Denmark
4122 Sadovo Tel: +45 45 26 36 00
Bulgaria Fax: +45 45 26 36 10
Tel: +359 32 629 026 Email: lbo@pdir.dk
Fax: +359 32 629 026
Email: rada_k@abv.bg Külli Annamaa
Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute (PBI)
Ken Richards 48309 Jõgeva
Plant Gene Resources of Canada Estonia
Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada Tel: +372 77 66901
107 Science Place Fax: +372 77 66902
Saskatoon (SK) S7N 0X2 Email: kylli.annamaa@jpbi.ee
Canada
Tel: +1 306 956 7641 Kadri Järve
Fax: +1 306 956 7246 Institute of Experimental Biology
Email: richardsk@agr.gc.ca Estonian Agricultural University
Retke 22-37
Toni Safner 13415 Tallinn
Faculty of Agriculture Estonia
University of Zagreb Tel: +372 6560609
Svetosimunska 25 Fax: +372 6506091
10000 Zagreb Email: kadri@ebi.ee
Croatia
Tel: +385 1 239 3869 Katrin Kotkas
Fax: +385 1 239 3631 Plant Biotechnological Research Centre
Email: tsafner@agr.hr (EVIKA)
Teaduse 6a
Ladislav Dotlačil 75501 Saku, Harju
Research Institute of Crop Production (RICP) Estonia
Drnovska 507 Tel: +372 60 41484
161 06 Praha-Ruzyne Fax: +372 60 41136
Czech Republic Email: katrin.kotkas.002@mail.ee
Tel: +420 2 330 223 74
Fax: +420 2 330 222 06
Email: dotlacil@vurv.cz
PARTICIPANTS 159
Leena Hömmö Gogotur Agladze

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Academy of Agricultural Science
Department of Agriculture; Research and Marjanishvili Street 18
Extension Unit 380031 Tbilisi
Malminkatu 16 Georgia
PO Box 30 -Government Tel: +995 32 52 09 20
00023 Helsinki Fax: +995 32 00 13 68
Helsinki Email: agladze@hotmail.com
Finland
Tel: +358 9 160 52919 Guram Alexidze
Fax: +358 8 160 52203 Academy of Agricultural Science
Email: leena.hommo@mmm.fi 82 Chavchavadze Avenue
380062 Tbilisi
Aarne Kurppa Georgia
MTT Agrifood Research Finland/ Tel: +995 32 52 83 65
Plant Production Research Fax: +995 32 00 13 86
31600 Jokioinen Email: guram4@hotmail.com
Finland
Tel: +358 3 4188 2541 Taiul Berishvili
Fax: +358 3 4188 2584 Agrobiodiversity Protection Society "Dika"
Email: aarne.kurppa@mtt.fi III Delisi Str., Nakveti 16
380077 Tbilisi
Mia Sahramaa Georgia
MTT Agrifood Research Finland/ Tel: +995 32 32 83 21
Plant Production Research Fax: +995 32 53 64 84
Crops and Biotechnology Email: dika@access.sanet.ge
31600 Jokioinen
Finland Harald Bajorat
Tel: +358 3 4188 2452 Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and
Fax: +358 3 4188 2437 Agriculture
Email: mia.sahramaa@mtt.fi Rochusstrasse 1
53123 Bonn
Mirja Suurnäkki Germany
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Tel: +49 228 529 4378
Department of Agriculture Fax: +49 228 529 3425
PO Box 30 Email: harald.bajorat@bmvel.bund.de
Government
00023 Helsinki Jons Eisele
Finland Ministry of Environment, Conservation,
Tel: +358 9 160 2420 Agriculture & Consumer Protection -
Fax: +358 9 1608 8663 Northrhine-Westfalia
Email: mirja.suurnakki@mmm.fi Schwannstrasse 3
40476 Düsseldorf
Martine Mitteau Germany
Bureau des ressources génétiques (BRG) Tel: +49 211 456 6792
16 rue Claude Bernard Fax: +49 211 456 6456
75231 Paris cedex 05 Email: jons.eisele@munlv.nrw.de
France
Tel: +33 (0) 144 08 72 69
Fax: +33 (0) 144 08 72 63
Email: martine.mitteau@inapg.inra.fr
Siegfried Harrer Arieh Levy

German Centre for Documentation and Dept. of Genetics, Field Crop Institute
Information in Agriculture (ZADI) Volcani Center
Information Centre for Biological Diversity 50-250 Bet-Dagan
(IBV) Israel
Villichgasse 17 Tel: +972 3 968 3476
53177 Bonn Fax: +972 3 966 9642
Germany Email: alevy@volcani.agri.gov.il
Tel: +49 228 954 8205
Fax: +49 228 954 8220 Eli Putievsky
Email: harrer@zadi.de Agricultural Research Organisation (ARO)
PO Box 6
László Holly 50-250 Bet Dagan
Institute for Agrobotany Israel
Külsömezö 15 Tel: +972 3 9683226/7
2766 Tápiószele Fax: +972 3 9665327
Hungary Email: elip@volcani.agri.gov.il
Tel: +36 53 380 070
Fax: +36 53 380 072 Miriam Waldman
Email: lholly@agrobot.rcat.hu Ministry of Science and Technology
PO Box 49100
János Lazányi 91490 Jerusalem
Eco-Select Foundation Israel
Komlossy ut. 26 Tel: +972 2 5411132/1
4032 Debrecen Fax: +972 2 5810883
Hungary Email: miriam@most.gov.il
Tel: +36 30 853 5354
Fax: +36 52 321 981 Fabrizio Grassi10
Email: lazanyi@helios.date.hu Istituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura (ISF)
Via Fioranello 52
Bertalan Székely 00134 Roma
Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Italy
Development Tel: +39 06 79348194
Kossuth Lajos ter 11 Fax: +39 06 79348194
1055 Budapest Email: f.grassi@mclink.it
Hungary
Tel: +36 1 301 4111 Edite Kaufmane
Fax: +36 1 301 4668 Dobele Horticultural Plant Breeding
Email: bertalan.szekely@fvm.hu Experimental Station
1 Graudu Street
Árni Bragason 3701 Dobele
Environment and Food Agency of Iceland Latvia
Sudurlandsbraut 24 Tel: +371 37 22294
108 Reykjavík Fax: +371 37 81718
Iceland Email: kaufmane@latnet.lv
Tel: +354 591 2000
Fax: +354 591 2010 Gints Lanka
Email: arni@ust.is Ministry of Agriculture
2, Republic Square
1981 Riga
Latvia
Tel: +371 7027258
Fax: +371 7027514
Email: gints.lanka@zm.gov.lv
10 † 2003
PARTICIPANTS 161
Isaak Rashal Anatol Ganea

Institute of Biology Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of Moldova
University of Latvia PO Box 302
3 Miera Street 2001 Chisinau
2169 Salaspils Moldova, Republic of
Latvia Tel: +373 2 550 249
Tel: +371 7945435 Fax: +373 2 550 249
Fax: +371 7944986 Email: a_ganea@yahoo.com
Email: izaks@email.lubi.edu.lv
Gheorghe Savin
Aušra Gineitaitė National Institute for Viticulture and
Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture (LIA) Oenology
Instituto Aleja 1, Dotnuva-Akademija Str. Grenoble, 128
5051 Kedainiai distr. 2019 Chisinau
Lithuania Moldova, Republic of
Tel: +370 3 4737289 Tel: +373-2 76 16 22/+ 373 2 58 88 39
Fax: +370 3 4737096 Fax: +373 2 56 32 67
Email: ausra.gineitaite@lzi.lt Email: gsavin@mail.md
Juozas Labokas Jaap Hardon

Institute of Botany (former Director, CGN, the Netherlands)
Zaliuju Ezeru 49 Agromisa
2021 Vilnius Hartenseweg 18
Lithuania 6705 BJ Wageningen
Tel: +370 2 729930 The Netherlands
Fax: +370 2 729950 Email: antine.hardon@wur.nl
Email: labokas@botanika.lt
Rob van Raalte
Sonja Ivanovska LNV
Faculty of Agriculture PO Box 20401
Blvd. Aleksandar Makedonski bb Den Haag
1000 Skopje The Netherlands
Macedonia (FYR) Tel: +31 70 37 84 471
Tel: +389 2 3115 277 ext. 133 Fax: +31 70 37 86 105
Fax: +389 2 3134 310 Email: r.a.van.raalte@iz.agro.nl
Email: s.ivanovska@zf.ukim.edu.mk
Loek J. M. Van Soest
Gordana Popsimonova Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands
Institute of Agriculture (CGN)
Ss. Cyril and Methodius University Droevendaalsesteeg 1
Blvd. Aleksandar Makedonski bb PO Box 16
1000 Skopje 6700 AA Wageningen
Macedonia (FYR) The Netherlands
Tel: +389 2 230 910 Tel: +31 31 747 70 11
Fax: +389 2 114 283 Fax: +31 31 741 80 94
Email: popsi@mt.net.mk Email: loek.vansoest@wur.nl
Gjoshe Stefkov Åsmund Asdal

Faculty of Pharmacy Norwegian Crop Research Institute
Vodnjanska 17 Reddalsveien 215
1000 Skopje 4886 Grimstad
Macedonia (FYR) Norway
Tel: +389 212 6024 / 126032 Tel: +47 37 25 77 00
Fax: +389 212 3054 Fax: +47 37 25 77 10
Email: gstefkov@yahoo.com Email: aasmund.asdal@planteforsk.no
Even Bratberg Silvia Strajeru

Agricultural University of Norway Suceava Genebank
PO Box 5022 Bulevardul 1 Decembrie 1918 no. 17
1432 Aas 5800 Suceava
Norway Romania
Tel: +47 64 94 78 04 Tel: +40 230 521016
Fax: +47 64 94 78 92 Fax: +40 230 521016
Email: even.bratberg@ipf.nlh.no Email: genebank@assist.ro
Grethe Helene Evjen Sergey Alexanian

Agricultural Ministry of Norway N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant
PO Box 8007 Industry (VIR)
0030 Oslo 42, Bolshaya Morskaya Street
Norway 190000 St. Petersburg
Tel: +47 222 49311 Russian Federation
Fax: +47 22 24 95 59 Tel: +7 812 314 4848
Email: grethe-helene.evjen@ld.dep.no Fax: +7 812 311 8762
Email: s.alexanian@vir.nw.ru
Elzbieta Lenarczyk-Priwieziencew
The Social Ecological Institute Ivana Dulić-Marković
17, Czeladnicza Street Federal Dept. for Plant and Animal Genetic
04-743 Warsaw Resources
Poland Omladinskih Brigada 1
Tel: +48 22 812 53 13 11070 Belgrade
Fax: +48 22 812 53 13 Serbia and Montenegro
Email: elapri@o2.pl Tel: +381 63 367 381
Fax: +381 11 311 7591
Wieslaw Podyma Email: ivanadm@eunet.yu
National Centre for PGR
Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute Drazen Jelovac
(IHAR) Maize Research Institute "Zemun Polje"
05-870 Blonie Slobodana Bajica 1
Poland 11080 Belgrade-Zemun
Tel: +48 22 725 3611 Serbia and Montenegro
Fax: +48 22 725 4714 Tel: +381 11 3756704
Email: w.podyma@ihar.edu.pl Fax: +381 11 3756707
Email: djelovac@mrizp.co.yu
Eliseu Bettencourt
INIAP / Estação Agronómica Nacional Vladimir Pekič
Quinta do Marquês Maize Research Institute "Zemun Polje"
2784-505 Oeiras Slobodana Bajica 1
Portugal 11080 Belgrade-Zemun
Tel: +35 12 14403688 Serbia and Montenegro
Fax: +35 12 14416011 Tel: +381 11 3756 704
Email: e.bettencourt@meganet.pt Fax: +381 11 3756 707
Email: vpekic@mrizp.co.yu
Sónia Dias
INIAP / Estação Agronómica Nacional Goran Zivkov
Quinta do Marquês FAO
2784-505 Oeiras Zeljka Marinovica 2
Portugal 11000 Belgrade
Tel: +35 12 14403688 Serbia and Montenegro
Fax: +35 12 14416011 Tel: +381 11 661 713
Email: soridi@net.sapo.pt Fax: +381 11 660 886
Email: gz@www.yu
PARTICIPANTS 163
Daniela Benediková Agneta Börjeson

Research Institute of Plant Production (RIPP) Swedish Board of Agriculture
Bratislavska 122 Vallgatan 8
921 68 Piesťany 551 82 Jönköping
Slovak Republic Sweden
Tel: +421 33 77 22 311 Tel: +46 36 15 51 64
Fax: +421 33 77 26 306 Fax: +46 36 71 05 17
Email: benedikova@vurv.sk Email: agneta.borjesson@sjv.se
Maria Žaková Urban Emanuelsson

Research Institute of Plant Production (RIPP) Swedish Biodiversity Centre
Bratislavska 122 PO Box 7007
921 68 Piesťany 750 07 Uppsala
Slovak Republic Sweden
Tel: +421 33 77 22 312 Tel: +46 18 67 27 30
Fax: +421 33 77 26 306 Fax: +46 18 67 35 37
Email: zakova@vurv.sk Email: urban.emanuelsson@cbm.slu.se
Mihaela Černe Lars-Åke Gustavsson

Spanova pot 5 Fredriksdals friluftsmuseum
1000 Ljubljana PO Box 7123
Slovenia 250 07 Helsingborg
Tel: +386 1 256 3433 Sweden
Email: mihaela.cerne@siol.net Tel: +46 42 10 45 29
Fax: +46 42 10 45 10
Luis Ayerbe Email: lars-
CRF-INIA ake.gustavsson@stad.helsingborg.se
Apdo. 1045
28800 Alcalá de Henares Inger Hjalmarsson
Spain Nordic Gene Bank (NGB)
Tel: +34 91 881 92 86/61 PO Box 41
Fax: +34 91 881 92 87 230 53 Alnarp
Email: ayerbe@inia.es Sweden
Tel: +46 40 53 66 45
Maria Berlekom Fax: +46 40 53 66 50
Swedish Biodiversity Centre Email: inger@ngb.se
PO Box 7007
750 07 Uppsala Eva Jansson
Sweden Swedish Biodiversity Centre
Tel: +46 18 67 27 68 PO Box 54
Fax: +46 18 67 02 46 230 53 Alnarp
Email: maria.berlekom@cbm.slu.se Sweden
Tel: +46 40 41 52 15
Roland von Bothmer Fax: +46 40 46 08 45
Dept. of Crop Science Email: eva.jansson@cbm.slu.se
(SLU) Lena Nygårds
PO Box 44 POM – Sesam
230 53 Alnarp Hornsgatan 75
Sweden 118 49 Stockholm
Tel: +46 40 41 50 01 Sweden
Fax: +46 40 41 55 19 Tel: +46 8 668 82 82
Email: roland.von.bothmer@vv.slu.se Email: lenanygards@chello.se
Gert Poulsen Béla Bartha

Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) Pro Specie Rara
PO Box 41 Pfrundweg 14
230 53 Alnarp 5000 Aarau
Sweden Switzerland
Tel: +46 40 53 66 46 Tel: +41 62 823 50 26
Fax: +46 40 53 66 50 Fax: +41 62 823 50 25
Email: gert@ngb.se Email: bela.bartha@psrara.org
Göran Svanfeldt Radha Ranganathan

The Swedish Amateur Gardening Federation International Seed Federation
(FOR) 7 Chemin du Reposoir
Åsögatan 149 1260 Nyon
116 32 Stockholm Switzerland
Sweden Tel: +41 22 365 4420
Tel: +46 8 556 930 86 Fax: +41 22 365 4421
Fax: +46 8 640 38 98 Email: r.ranganathan@worldseed.org
Email: goran.svanfeldt.for@swipnet.se
Beate Schierscher
Eva Thörn Swiss Commission for the Conservation of
(former Director, NGB) Cultivated Plants
Swedish Biodiversity Centre Domaine de Changins
Swedish Uni. of Agricultural Sciences CP 254
P.O. Box 54 1260 Nyon 1
230 53 Alnarp Switzerland
Sweden Tel: +41 22 363 47 01
Tel: +46-40 415587 Fax: +41 22 363 46 90
Fax: +46-40 460845 Email: beate.schierscher-viret@rac.admin.ch
eva.thorn@cbm.slu.se
Roman Boguslavskiy
Katarina Wedelsbäck Bladh Institute of Plant Production
Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) Moskovskyi pr., 142
PO Box 41 61060 Kharkiv
230 53 Alnarp Ukraine
Sweden Tel/Fax: +380 357 779 77 63
Tel: +46 40 53 66 59 Email: ncpgru@kharkov.ukrtel.net
Fax: +46 40 53 66 50
Email: katarina@ngb.se Victor Ryabchoun
Institute of Plant Production
Jens Weibull Moskovskyi pr., 142
Swedish Biodiversity Centre 61060 Kharkiv
PO Box 54 Ukraine
230 53 Alnarp Tel/Fax: +380 357 779 77 63
Sweden Email: ncpgru@kharkov.ukrtel.net
Tel: +46 40 41 55 31
Fax: +46 40 41 55 19 Nigel Maxted
Email: jens.weibull@cbm.slu.se School of Biosciences
University of Birmingham
Merja Veteläinen Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT
Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) United Kingdom
PO Box 41 Tel: +44 121 414 5571
230 53 Alnarp Fax: +44 121 414 5463
Sweden Email: nigel.maxted@dial.pipex.com
Tel: +46 40 53 66 44
Fax: +46 40 53 66 50
Email: merja@ngb.se
PARTICIPANTS 165
FAO Anna-Maria Larsson

Dept. of Landscape Architecture
N. Murthi Anishetty Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
FAO (SLU)
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla Sundsvägen 4
00100 Rome 230 53 Alnarp
Italy Sweden
Tel: +39 06 5705 46 52 Email: l9annlar@alfa.stud.slu.se
Fax: +39 06 57 05 63 47
Email: murthi.anishetty@fao.org Linnea Oskarsson
Dept. of Crop Science
IPGRI (SLU)
PO Box 44
Elinor Lipman 230 53 Alnarp
IPGRI Regional Office for Europe Sweden
c/o INIBAP
Parc Scientifique Agropolis II Ulrika Åkerlund
34397 Montpellier cedex 5 Dept. of Landscape Architecture
France Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Tel: +33 (0) 467 61 13 02 (office) / (SLU)
(0) 467 04 13 03 (home) Sundsvägen 4
Fax: +33 (0) 467 61 03 34 230 53 Alnarp
Email: e.lipman@cgiar.org Sweden
Email: l8ulrake@alfa.stud.slu.se
Lorenzo Maggioni
IPGRI Regional Office for Europe
00057 Maccarese, Rome
Italy
Tel: +39 06 61 18 231
Fax: +39 06 61 979 661
Email: l.maggioni@cgiar.org
Jozef Turok
IPGRI Regional Office for Europe
00057 Maccarese, Rome
Italy
Tel: +39 06 61 18 250
Fax: +39 06 61 979 661
Email: j.turok@cgiar.org
Open Space Secretariat (SLU)
Agnese Kolodinska-Brantestam
Dept. of Crop Science
(SLU)
PO Box 44
230 53 Alnarp
Sweden
Tel: +46 40 41 55 25
Fax: +46 40 41 55 19
Email: agnese.kolodinska@vv.slu.se
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Agladze, G. ..................................................93 Koeva, R. ..................................................... 77

Akparov, Z. .................................................72 Kukk, V........................................................ 85
Alexanian, S.A...........................................125 Labokas, J. ................................................. 108
Alexidze, G. .................................................93 Landbo, L. ................................................... 84
Angelova, S..................................................77 Lanka, G. ................................................... 106
Anishetty, N.M. ....................................12, 43 Lateur, M..................................................... 74
Annamaa, K.................................................85 Le Blanc, A. ................................................. 30
Avagyan, A..................................................68 Levy, A. ....................................................... 99
Avetisyan, S.................................................68 Luthar, Z. .................................................. 133
Ayerbe, L. ..................................................136 Már, I. .......................................................... 97
Bajorat, H. ....................................................95 Mitteau, M............................................. 30, 91
Begemann, F. ...............................................95 Pereira, G..................................................... 30
Benediková, D. ..........................................130 Piazza, M.G............................................... 101
Bettencourt, E. ...........................................123 Planchenault, D. ......................................... 30
Boguslavskyi, R.L. ....................................141 Podyma, W. .............................................. 120
Bohanec, B. ................................................133 Popsimonova, G....................................... 110
Bothmer, R. von ............................................8 Putievsky, E. ............................................... 99
Bratberg, E. ................................................118 Rashal, I. .................................................... 106
Čerenak, A. ................................................133 Ricart, A....................................................... 30
Černe, M.....................................................133 Richards, K.W............................................. 23
Csizmadia, G.M. .........................................97 Rode, J........................................................ 133
Dias, S.........................................................123 Ryabchoun, V.K. ...................................... 141
Dotlačil, L.....................................................82 Safner, T. ..................................................... 81
Dulić-Marković, I......................................127 Sahramaa, M............................................... 88
Eisele, J. ........................................................95 Savin, G. .................................................... 113
Engel, P. .....................................................101 Schierscher, B............................................ 140
Faberová, I. ..................................................82 Soest, L.J.M. van....................................... 115
Freudenthaler, P. ........................................70 Sontot, A...................................................... 30
Ganea, A. ...................................................113 Stehno, Z. .................................................... 82
Ghosh, K. .....................................................12 Šuštar-Vozlič, J. ........................................ 133
Gineitaitė, A. .............................................108 Székely, B. ................................................... 97
Goedert, C.O................................................17 Teissier du Cros, E. .................................... 30
Grassi, F. ....................................................101 Thomas, G. .................................................. 30
Hardon, J.H. ................................................38 Turok, J. ....................................................... 43
Harrer, S.......................................................95 Valls, J.F.M. ................................................. 17
Hazekamp, Th.............................................43 Visser, B..................................................... 115
Holly, L. .......................................................97 Waldman, M. .............................................. 99
Ivanovska, S...............................................110 Watts, J......................................................... 43
Jansson, E...................................................137 Weibull, J................................................... 137
Jinjikhadze, T...............................................93 Žaková, M. ................................................ 130
Kaufmane, E. .............................................106

Alnarp Proceedings Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alnarp Proceedings Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL PLANT GENETIC

Report of an International Workshop

© International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 2005

PART II. PRESENTED KEYNOTE PAPERS 7

PART III. STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL PLAN OF

PART IV. NATIONAL PROGRAMMES 67

The Netherlands 115

PART I. SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP

In April 2003, a hundred participants from 39 countries came together in a European

Dear friends from all over Europe,

Open Space sessions

The Open Space methodology

The “Alnarp statement”

Personal notes on the discussions

National programmes, cooperation within Europe and funding

- Develop a blueprint for such a programme in consultation with member countries of

In situ conservation, sustainable use, public awareness, consumer interests

Genebanks and GMOs

Economic value of PGRFA

Closing of the workshop

PART II. PRESENTED KEYNOTE PAPERS

The National Programme of Plant Genetic Resources–development and priorities in

The Brazilian National Programme of Conservation and Use of Genetic Resources

Conflicting interests in plant genetic resources Error! Bookmark not defined.

The National Programme of Plant Genetic Resources–development

Roland von Bothmer

What is a National Programme and who should be partners?

Priorities for work in a National Programme

Priorities among various groups of cultivated plants

Conservation vs. utilization

Genepools and relationships

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Plant Genetic Resources for Sustainable Agriculture: how far have

N. Murthi Anishetty and Kakoli Ghosh

The road we have travelled

Recent developments and directions

Global partnerships for agrobiodiversity

Future role for FAO and ECP/GR

The Brazilian National Programme of Conservation and Use of

Clara O. Goedert and José Francisco M. Valls

3. To introduce, collect, characterize, conserve, document and propagate germplasm

1. Enrichment Intensive germplasm collection, introduction and exchange

RENARGEN – Component Projects and Action Plans

Network Component Project 1 – Enrichment of genetic variability, documentation and

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

Network Component Project 3 - Collection, characterization and ex situ germplasm

Network Component Project 4 - Collection, characterization and ex situ conservation of

Network Component Project 5 - Collection, characterization and conservation ex situ of

Network Component Project 6 - Collection, characterization and ex situ germplasm

Network Component Project 7 - Collection, characterization and conservation of forest and

Network Component Project 8 - Collection, characterization and ex situ conservation of

Network Component Project 9 - Collection, characterization and ex situ conservation of

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

The genetic resources network's major contribution is in maintaining agrobiodiversity,

Evolution of the Canadian Plant Germplasm System

Relocation and change

Regeneration, characterization and evaluation

Reviews (external and internal)

Now and the future

Networking: the French Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources

(ENSAR-INRA), Rennes, France

A long tradition in France

In 1983: a political will