26 November 2004

1
Sharing of responsibilities for conservation
in Europe

• AEGIS organizational structures and
• institutional relationships
• Lorenzo Maggioni
• IPGRI, Rome

2
Summary

• Organizational structures (examples, pros and
  cons)
• Elements required
• Tasks for the crop groups

3
Organizational structures for European
collections

• On a crop-by-crop basis (centralized)
• On an accession basis (decentralized)
• Sub-regional basis
• (Gass and Begemann, 1999)

4
Crop-by-crop (centralized)

• One (or few) institution(s) hold specific
  European crop collections in trust for all
  partner institutions

5
Crop-by-crop (centralized)

• PROS
• Specialization
• Excellence
• Knowledge of the crop
• Knowledge of users
• Easier rationalization

• CONS
• Large collections (difficult management)
• Distance from original environment
• Distance from
• users

6
Crop-by-crop (centralized) Examples

• Potato, Beta and Cichorium German/Dutch
  bilateral arrangement
• Long-day Allium Czech Republic
• Short-day Allium Israel
• Seed propagated Allium HRI, UK
• Cruciferous crops HRI, UK
• Wild brassicas Spain
• Taxonomic Allium collection - Gatersleben,
  Germany

7
Proposed ECP/GR consortium for vegetatively
propagated Allium germplasm

• Long-day garlic (Czech Republic, Germany, Poland,
  Spain)
• Short-day garlic (France, Israel, Spain)
• Shallot (Czech Republic, Lithuania, NGB)
• Vegetative leek Mediterranean wild species
  (Greece, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, UK)
• Continental wild species (Czech Republic,
  Germany, Lithuania, Ukraine)
• Chives and Chinese chives (Netherlands, NGB,
• UK)

8
Accession basis (decentralized)

• Responsibility shared among a large number of
  partners. Each partner is committed to conserve a
  number of designated accessions as trustee on
  behalf of all other partners

9
Accession basis

• PROS
• Little investment required
• Each country conserves its own germplasm (no
  political implications)
• Prioritization on a regional level becomes
  possible

• CONS
• Relies on CCDBs
• Many different standards
• Dispersed collection makes it difficult to manage
  entire diversity

10
Accession basisExamples

• Several theoretical agreements within ECP/GR
  Working Groups none is fully operational
• Cereals
• Forages
• Malus/Pyrus and Prunus
• Potato
• Beta

11
Accession basis Mechanisms proposed by WGs

• Definition of purpose and scope (charter)
• Identification of designated accession
• Formalization of commitment by national authority
• Safety-duplication by black box in a different
  genebank (or country)
• Monitoring of gaps in conservation

12
(Sub)-Regional basis

• A central genebank serves the needs of
  several countries of a sub-region

13
(Sub)-Regional basis

• PROS
• Cost-effective
• Rational

• CONS
• Requires high level of consensus among
  institutions countries

14
Sub-regional basis Examples

• Nordic Gene Bank
• Southern African Development Community
• US National Plant Germplasm System
• India China Brazil

15
Sub-regional basis Possible
scenarios

• SEEDNet (South East Development Network)
• 3 - 4 sub-regional genebanks
• 1 regional genebank (or integrated system)

16
Elements required for an integrated
conservation system

• Formal commitment (to ensure continuity)
• Quality standards (to enhance mutual trust)
• Material Transfer Agreement (to ensure
  facilitated access)
• Central Database (to enable effective management)
• Safety-duplication system (to protect from the
  unexpected)

17
Institutional relationships (roles to
be defined)

• Long-term conservation
• Regeneration / Multiplication
• Distribution
• Information management
• Safety-duplication
• Coordination of conservation management
  (monitoring gaps regeneration needs
  implementation
  
• of quality standards service to users
  etc.)

18
Tasks for the crop groups

• Define most suitable operational structures on
  the basis of
• Current situation
• Needs/opportunities to modify current status
• Willingness of partners to follow proposed
  directions
• Estimated costs involved in the whole process

19
Tasks for the crop groups

• Define process to reach target

• Prepare documentary evidence
• Gain further support from stakeholders
• Submit proposals
• Remove obstacles to implementation

20
ECP/GR / AEGIS can assist with

• Providing existing background documents
• Technical backstopping
• Looking for funds for travel, meetings, etc.
• Investigating policy issues
• Sharing information from other regions