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

1. In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areasTwo conferences and a pilot

2. In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areasTwo conferences and a pilot GRIPA 2009: Genetic Resources in protected Areas – Management and Access

3. In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areasTwo 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

4. In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areasTwo conferences and a pilot Web: www.nordgen.org/gripa

5. 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”

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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: 2056 Estonia 1501 Finland 1771 Iceland 540 Latvia 1323 Lithuania 1477 Norway 2276 Sweden 2362

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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”

18. GRIPA 2009Röstånga • SESSION III – Workshop • Group discussions • Joint discussion

19. GRIPA 2009Röstånga • SESSION III – Workshop • Group discussions: • 3 groups: • In situ • ABS • Data

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areasTwo conferences and a pilot GRIPA 2010: Genetic Resources in Protected Areas – From Words to Action

23. 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?

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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”

27. 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.

28. GRIPA 2010Malmö Day I • “Genetic diversity” Mikael Hedrén Sweden: • Talks about the importance of intraspecies genetic diversity.

29. 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.

30. 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?

31. 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.

32. GRIPA 2010Malmö Day I • Promoting crop plant diversity in protected areas – Experiences in Europe Pedro Mendes-Moira Portugal: • Landraces

33. GRIPA 2010Malmö Day I • “Promoting crop plant diversity in protected areas – Experiences in Europe” Lothar Frese Germany: • AEGRO • Terminology

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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”

37. 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

38. 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.

39. GRIPA 2010Malmö Workshop • Group discussions – In situ • Joint discussion – in situ • Joint discussion – ABS

40. 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?”

41. 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.

42. 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

43. 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

44. GRIPA 2010Malmö Workshop • Joint discussion – in situ • Make a pilot study including protected areas of different kinds – one in each Nordic country

45. A concrete outcome: A pilot project

46. A concrete outcome: A pilot project One protected area in each Nordic country

47. A concrete outcome: A pilot project Contact appropriate authority in charge of protected areas

48. A concrete outcome: A pilot project Together choose suitable areas

49. A concrete outcome: A pilot project Identify suitable species in these areas

50. A concrete outcome: A pilot project Together with appropriate authorities try to include measures for PGR conservation in the management plans