In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areas Two conferences and a pilot.

In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areas

Two conferences and a pilot

In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areas

Two conferences and a pilot

GRIPA 2009:Genetic Resources in protected Areas –

Management and Access

In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areas

Two conferences and a pilot

GRIPA 2009:Genetic Resources in protected Areas –

Management and Access

GRIPA 2010:Genetic Resources in protected Areas –

From Words to Action

In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areas

Two conferences and a pilot

Web:

www.nordgen.org/gripa

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “Implementation of in situ conservation of forest genetic

resources - from the national to the European level”

• “Landscape management by applying old native breeds of farm animals”

• “In situ conservation of crop wild relatives in Europe: a strategic approach”

• “Status reports from Norway, Finland, Lithuania & Sweden”

• “The relict plants of Hammershus – Plan and landscape management”

• “In situ conservation of Danish plant genetic resources in wild relatives to agricultural crops”

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “Implementation of in situ conservation of forest genetic

resources - from the national to the European level”

Tore Myking Norway:• European initiative: EUFORGEN.• The Norwegian solution: Use existing reserves instead of

creating dedicated reserves for forest tree genetic resorces.• Challenging to include genetic resources into aims and

conservation plans for nature reserves constructed for other purposes.

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “Landscape management by applying old native breeds of

farm animals”

Juha Kantanten Finland:• Use land races of farm animals to manage grazing

meadows.• Different animals graze in different ways, have differnt

tastes, and different body strctures.• The plant genetic diversity in a meadow is best preserved

by applying the same gaing that prodced the diversity in the first place.s

• Protects both the animal land races and the plants.

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “In situ conservation of crop wild relatives in Europe: a

strategic approach”

Shelagh Kell UK:• How to prioritize taxa.• How to chose areas• How to manage the areas• Some European projects: AEGRO, CWR red list, PGR secure

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “In situ conservation of crop wild relatives in Europe: a

strategic approach”

Shelagh Kell UK:• Number of Crop Wild Relatives:Denmark: 2056Estonia 1501Finland 1771Iceland 540Latvia 1323Lithuania 1477Norway 2276Sweden 2362

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “Status reports from Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania &

Sweden”

Guðni Þorvaldsson Iceland:• Old grass fields in Iceland.• Iceland special with much grassland, hard weather

conditions, thin soil.• Today ex situ conservation but to start in situ conservation.

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “Status reports from Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania &

Sweden”

Åsmund Asdal Norway:• Meadows important• Meadows disappearing• Knowledge but not much action• Heirloom-silver-project• Experience: Conseration is more easily accepted by farmers

when incldes genetic resorces for agriclture.

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “Status reports from Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania &

Sweden”

Juha Kantanen finland:Special demands de to northern lattitude.Reconstraction of some old meadows part of Natura 2000.A special on farm conservation system.

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “Status reports from Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania &

Sweden”

• Juozas Labokas Lithuania:• How to select spots.• Medical plant genetic resources.• Law in Lithuania promoting in situ conservation of plant

genetic resources.• Some incompatibility problems between law of plant

genetic reosurces and law on protected areas.

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “Status reports from Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania &

Sweden”

Erik Persson Sweden:• Investigation people responsible for protected areas in

Sweden abot the present sitation and their attitudes to including genetic resources in protection plans.

• Conclusions:• Not much is done so far.• No real rules or guidelines from the top.• A cautiously positive attitude.• Some worries that have to be addressed.• Need of knowledge, resources, guidelines and coordination.

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “The relict plants of Hammershus – Plan and landscape

management”

Tino Dich Bjerregaard Denmark:• Practical example about in situ conservation of relict

species at Hammershus on Bornholm

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION• “In situ conservation of Danish plant genetic resources in

wild relatives to agricultural crops”

Kell Kristiansen Denmark:• Project for in situ conservation of CWR in Denmark• Survey of 100 taxa• Found 80 taxa sited for in situ protection

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

• SESSION II – ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING• “Beyond Access - What kind of legislation do the Nordic

Countries need to implement to meet the ABS obligation in the CBD”

• “Access and Benefit-sharing under the CBD and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture”

• “Norwegian Nature Management Act – new approach to regulating access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing”

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

• SESSION III – Workshop

• Group discussions

• Joint discussion

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

• SESSION III – Workshop

• Group discussions:

• 3 groups: In situ ABS Data

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

• SESSION III – Workshop

• Group discussions:

In situ-group: Use existing structures What do we know about the places already and what do we

need for the future? Joint Nordic platform. Inform and educate those working with protected areas. Need a shortlist of 1-200 species. Use the report made by Gert Poulsen.

GRIPA 2009Röstånga

• SESSION III – Workshop

• Joint discussion:

We need to figure out how to make a shortlist of taxa.

We need to figure out how to make inventories of protected areas.

We need communication across country and sector borders.

We need another GRIPA.

In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areas

Two conferences and a pilot

GRIPA 2010:Genetic Resources in Protected Areas –

From Words to Action

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Questions:– How do we combine traditional nature protection with

conservation of genetic resources?– How do we improve the protection of intraspecies

diversity (and not just interspecies diversity) in the efforts of protecting biodiversity?

– How and what can the plant sector and the forest sector learn from each other regarding in situ conservation of genetic resources?

– How do we convert words into action; what is the next step?

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Proceeding:– Presentations of examples of how existing protected

areas are used for conservation of forest and plant genetic resources.

– Presentations of examples of planned or existing protected areas designated for conservation of forest genetic resources.

– Presentation of current research.– Presentations of examples of good practice regarding in

situ conservation.– Group discussions.

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Aims:– Share knowledge and thoughts among countries, researchers,

agencies and other relevant actors in the field.– Increase cooperation between agencies, between departments

(environment and agriculture), and between the Nordic countries in a cost-efficient way that provides added Nordic value.

– Share knowledge and experiences between the forest sector and the plant sector.

– Compilation of short listing of crop wild relatives that need and can be the objects of inventories and protection in protected areas in the Nordic countries.

– Outline an action plan for how to achieve a joint cost effective protection and sustainable use of genetic resources in protected areas in the Nordic countries.

– Decide on an immediate next step.

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day I• “Protecting biodiversity”• “Genetic diversity”• “Priority listing for in situ conservation of crop wild relatives”• “In situ conservation of forest genetic resources (FGR) in Norway

and beyond”• “SWORT analysis of in situ PGR conservation system in Lithuania”• “Promoting crop plant diversity conservation in protected areas:

Experiences in Europe”• “Genetic reserve conservation of CWR and landraces in Europe”• “Sularp nature reserve - saved by volunteers”• “The evidence-base movement: how to efficiently use and share

knowledge”

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day I• “Protecting biodiversity”

Urban Emanuelsson Sweden:• Talks about biodiversity protection from a nature

conservation perspective.• Emphasizes that better cooperation is needed between

nature and culture sectors.

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day I• “Genetic diversity”

Mikael Hedrén Sweden:• Talks about the importance of intraspecies genetic

diversity.

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day I• “Priority listing for in situ conservation of crop wild

relatives”

Gert poulsen Denmark:• Presents his work with a Danish priority list.• The list that was wanted at the previous conference.

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day I• “In situ conservation of forest genetic resources (FGR) in

Norway – and beyond”

Tor Myking Norway:• Contination of the work presented at last conference• Discussion of what information is needed about forest

genetic resources• How do we combine with other conservation goals and deal

with conflict swith other goals?

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day I• “SWORT analysis of in sit PGR conservation system in

Lithuania”

Juozas Labokas Lithuania:• Strengths: Legal framework established• Weaknesses: Some responsible persons do not consider

themselves responsible for genetic resource conservation.• Opportunities: Develop targeted management plans,

networking would be beneficial• Responsibilities: Make better use of international expericence• Threats: Complicated to establish new category of protected

area.

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day I• Promoting crop plant diversity in protected areas –

Experiences in Europe

Pedro Mendes-Moira Portugal:• Landraces

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day I• “Promoting crop plant diversity in protected areas –

Experiences in Europe”

Lothar Frese Germany:• AEGRO• Terminology

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day I• “Sularp nature reserve - saved by volunteers”

Linda birkedal Sweden:• Meadow with high biodiversity that was on its way to being

lost.• Saved by a local nature conservation organisation.

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day I• ”The evidence-base movement – how to efficiently se and

share knowledge”

Per Millberg Sweden:• Evidence based medicine succesfull.• Nature conservation rarely evidence based.• Meta-analysis helps decision makers.• Need more publictions about practical field tests.

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day II• “Gene conservation of forest trees in protected areas – a

future strategy”• “Developing National Strategies for Crop Wild Relative

Conservation: An Illustrated Case Study for the United Kingdom”

• Report on the work of access and benefit sharing (ABS) from COP10 of the Convention on Biodiversity

• “Implementing the ABS in seed exchange. Examples of a gene bank and a botanic garden”

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day II• ”Gene conservation of forest trees in protected areas. A

future strategy”

Sanna Black-Samuelsson Sweden:• Plans of using established protected areas as forest gene

reserves in Sweden

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Day II• “Developing National Strategies for Crop Wild Relative

Conservation: An Illustrated Case Study for the United Kingdom”

Nigel Maxted UK:• Terminology and statistics• CWR are widely used as genetic resources and have a significant

economic value.• In situ conservation strategies• Including species that have links to people’s everyday life can

increase prople’s interest in and acceptance for conservation in general.

• Promotes combination of in situ and ex situ conservation of CWR.

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Workshop

• Group discussions – In situ

• Joint discussion – in situ

• Joint discussion – ABS

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Workshop

• Group discussions – In situ

Group I: “How do we combine traditional nature protection with conservation of genetic resources?”

Group II: “How do we improve the protection of intraspecies diversity (and not just interspecies diversity) in the efforts of protecting biodiversity?”

Online-group: “Next steps?”

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Workshop

• Group I: “How do we combine traditional nature protection with conservation of genetic resources?”

Called for better cooperation between nature conservation sector and conservation of genetic resources.

Called for changes in legislation to better incorporate genetic resources conservation needs.

Called for the construction of species list and inventories of areas.

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Workshop

• Group II: “How do we improve the protection of intraspecies diversity (and not just interspecies diversity) in the efforts of protecting biodiversity?”

Called for improved information to managers of protected areas

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Workshop

• Online Group: “Next steps?”

• 1. Prioritize• 2. Collate distribution data• 3. Simple in situ gap analysis using PA data• 4. Verify presence in PAs• 5. Talk to PA managers about incorporating CWR conservation into

existing management plans• 6. Where possible, carry out ecogeographic and genetic diversity

analyses to target the most important populations• 7. Where these occur outside of PAs, need to talk to local landowners

and farmers.• 8. An important issue in the Nordic countries is that most CWR (apart

from forestry CWR) probably occur outside of PAs

GRIPA 2010Malmö

Workshop

• Joint discussion – in situ

Make a pilot study including protected areas of different kinds – one in each Nordic country

A concrete outcome:

A pilot project

A concrete outcome:

A pilot project

One protected area in each Nordic country

A concrete outcome:

A pilot project

Contact appropriate authority in charge of protected areas

A concrete outcome:

A pilot project

Together choose suitable areas

A concrete outcome:

A pilot project

Identify suitable species in these areas

A concrete outcome:

A pilot project

Together with appropriate authorities try to include measures for PGR

conservation in the management plans

A concrete outcome:

A pilot project

Document and publish our experiences in different formats for different

audiences

A concrete outcome:

A pilot project

Use the experiences and the documentation to keep the ball

moving