Report from the Independent Expert Group to the Commission on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture
Date: 2001-10-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, biotechnology, energy resources, exchange of information, exploitation of resources, farming sector, management of resources, report












EUR-Lex - 52001DC0617 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



52001DC0617

Report from the Independent Expert Group to the Commission on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture  /* COM/2001/0617 final Volume II */  









REPORT FROM THE INDEPENDENT EXPERT GROUP TO THE COMMISSION on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agricultureCONTENTSI. PreambleII. Terms of reference (based on Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 and Work Programme)III. The mid-term situation of the GENRES programme1. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 (COM(97) 327)2. Working Paper of the 2034th session of the European Council of 20/21 October 19973. EP Resolution on the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 (OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 303)IV. Observations of the independent Expert Group1. Have the objectives of the Programme been met-2. Has the Programme been on target-3. Were the priorities in the choice of species and organisation of work being done in concerted actions and shared cost projects adequate-4. Has the programme had proper Union coverage-5. Have inventory and accompanying measures been properly undertaken-6. Are the projects in line with CAP and the Rio Convention (Convention on Biodiversity)-7. Have administrative and management issues been properly handled-8. Legal aspects on the use of genetic resources9. Involvement of NGO's10. Involvement of International Organisations on the same subjects11. The integration of national genetic resources programmesV. RecommendationsI. PreambleBiodiversity has become an issue of worldwide concern at the highest level. All Member States of the EU have signed, and therefore are committed to the Convention on Biodiversity. It has importance not only in the widest sense of agriculture, but also in protecting and improving the environment for future generations.Although public awareness on general issues of Biodiversity has increased substantially, awareness about the central importance of genetic diversity for all kinds of dynamic changes that occur in biodiversity lags far behind.This applies even more to the lack of awareness about the central role that genetic diversity has played for adaptation changes in cultivated plants and domesticated animals that have accompanied agriculture since the early beginning.Intentional breeding efforts and progress in efficiency of breeding methods have greatly accelerated the dynamics of change that has taken place with plants cultivars and animal breeds during the 20th century and, as it realised today, may endanger the remaining level of genetic diversity.It is also true that efforts to conserve genetic diversity trace back to the early decades of the 20th century mainly by collecting seed samples from landraces that were endangered to disappear. Several hundred thousands seed samples fill the shelves of genebanks in EU member States and around the world. However, useful genetic diversity that has been conserved and still to be preserved will only become apparent from proper evaluation of differences in economically important characters. Recently developed more refined laboratory methods even have the potential to measure the size of genetic distance between genebank samples and animal populations. This has opened the way to determine genetic diversity that still is present within or exists between advanced breeds of farm animals as well as among old animal races. It also applies to wild relatives of cultivated plants. But neither proper evaluation of economically important plant characters in genebank accessions nor measuring genetic distances between farm animals is easy to obtain.With adequate awareness about the central role of genetic diversity it should not be difficult to see and understand the added value that will be obtained from co-operation and concerted actions among EU member States as they have been introduced with well coordinated projects under Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture [1]. It may be anticipated that beyond the conservational obligations that have been agreed in the Convention on Biodiversity it will be access to and utilisation of genetic diversity that becomes a matter of prime importance. In order to serve the needs for continuity and success in the breeding process with cultivated plants and domesticated animals, which are needed to match the request for sustainable farming systems in Europe during the 21st century.[1]  OJ L 159, 28.6.1994, p. 1.II. Terms of Reference (based on Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 and Work Programme)Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 stipulates (Article 11.1) that, during the third year of implementation, the Commission shall carry out a review of the Programme, analyse the situation, in particular the financial position and submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the results of the review.Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 stipulates (Article 11.2) that, at the end of the programme, the Commission shall appoint a group of independent experts to assess the results. The group's report, together with the Commission's comments, shall be submitted to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Economic and Social Committee.The procedures for implementing the Programme under Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 referred to in Article 8 are detailed in Annex 1. The general provisions included the establishment of a permanent inventory of genetic resources in Agriculture in the Community, concerted actions, share-cost projects for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of those genetic resources and accompanying measures. It gives (Annex 1, part III) technical procedures including scope and actions (permanent inventory as well as conservation, documentation and information exchange). For each project, different steps were sorted as follows:1) establish the work plan,2) characterise the collections,3) evaluation with secondary characterisation,4) sort the collections,5) rationalise the collection,6) acquire genetic resources.For this review free hands were given to the expert panel concerning the "terms of reference". Preliminary information were given by the Commission as well as a large number of documents:- Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 of 20 June 1994, 17 pages,- the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 30 June 1997 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 (COM(97) 327 final), 32 pages,- EP Resolution of 15 May 1998 on the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 (OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 303),- all the remarks made by the expert panels concerning the three published calls for applications,- the minutes of the 13 meetings of the Committee on Genetic Resources,- the minutes of the meetings organised by the Commission with the NGOs,- the technical annex of each contract for the 21 selected projects,- the questionnaire sent to each project coordinator on 25 January 2000,- the responses, when available, to the above-mentioned questionnaire,- and when necessary, the availability of the genetic resources administrative files on the shelves in the archives.With reference to Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 and the Resolution from the European Parliament where 7 major points were identified:1. lack of determination,2. failure to use the accompanying measures for exchanges between private and public genebanks and to improve the quality of collected resources for better recording,3. recommend to modify the approach by focusing not only on one species but also on related groups of species,4. include more in situ conservation and utilisation measures,5. promote not only premium varieties but also the conservation of regional useful plants,6. ensure constructive collaboration between partners (gene banks, in situ conservators, gardeners, and breeders),7. recommend to cooperate more closely with the ECP/GR and EUFORGEN in the distribution of tasks,the expert panel decided to adopt the following terms of references:1. Have the objectives of the Programme been met-2. Has the Programme been on target-3. Were the priorities in the choice of the species and organisation of work adequate-4. Has the Programme had proper union coverage-5. Have inventory and accompanying measures been properly undertaken-6. Are the projects in line with CAP and the Rio Convention (CBD) -7. Have administrative and management issues been properly handled-8. Legal aspects on the use of genetic resources9. Involvement of NGO's10. Involvement of International Organisations on the same subjects11. The integration of national genetic resources programmes.III. The mid-term situation of the GENRES programme1. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 30 June 1997 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94, COM(97) 327The following conclusions and recommendations regarding the managerial aspects shall be mentioned:- the Programme Committee has emphasised the importance of increasing expenditures on animal genetic resources,- a special effort should be made to complete the Commission's "Inventory of Sources" so that it can be published on the World Wide Web.There is a special need for:- seminars, workshops and technical conferences, in particular on aspects of sustainable use of genetic resources,- training, specifically targeted at helping NGOs.Relevant conclusions are:- the Regulation should cover not only "European" genetic resources but also their wild relatives,- Member States have agreed that internationally agreed and universally implemented access agreements are crucial to the effective conservation and durable utilisation of plant genetic resources,- it seems advisable that the management of Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 should maintain regular contacts with its homologues in other international programmes, in order to achieve maximum synergy and added value,- in view of current difficult international discussions on access to and ownership of plant genetic resources, it would be wise for the Union to establish a unified position on animal genetic resources, pre-emptively.2. Working Paper of the 2034th session of the European Council of 20/21 October 1997In light of the report presented by the Commission, the Council took stock of the implementation of the Community programme launched in 1994 and endorsed the Presidency's conclusions, which highlight:- the importance of this action and the fact that it must have sufficient funding and personnel to ensure its success, which is not yet the case (lack of funding for certain good projects, lack of persons assigned to programme management),- the need to improve the balance between projects concerning animals and plants.Finally, it asked that preparatory work be started as soon as possible within the Commission on the action programme that will succeed the present one in two years' time: all of the Delegations felt that the scope of this programme and the funding allocated for it should be increased, notably in order to reinforce the EU's credibility in international negotiations.3. EP Resolution on the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 (OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 303)IV. Observations of the Expert Group1. Have the objectives of the Programme been met-The Council states in Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 that "all necessary measures should be taken to conserve, characterise, collect and utilise those resources to promote the aims of the CAP and safeguard biological diversity in line with the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD)".These overall intentions are furthermore specified in the Work Programme (VI/4128/94) as follows "The objective of the Programme is to coordinate and to promote at Community level work undertaken in the Member States, with a view to the achievement of the aims of the CAP, and, in accordance with the principle of subsidiary, to support and supplement the efforts made in the Member States where current work appeared inadequate".These specifications focus on the aims of CAP with particular attention to the uses of the genetic resources. However, CBD also contains safeguard aspects not relating to uses, and these have not directly been addressed in the projects.The assessment of how far the programme objectives have been met in the approved projects has mainly to be based on the stated objectives in the proposals and the replies to the Questionnaire because 7 projects have only just started and only two projects have been completed with submission of the final report.The Expert Group concludes that:1. The specific priorities itemised in the Work Programme (Article 1.6), i.e. priority given to species of economically significance in the EC have generally been met in the objectives of the approved projects.2. The particular preferences to the use of genetic resources for (1) diversification of production, (2) improved product quality and (3) better care for the environment have in general only been indirectly dealt with in the objectives of the approved projects.3. The aim of directing the work on characterisation and utilisation towards improving the quality of products and production systems which help reduce inputs and promote extensification, thus assuring a better care of the environment have indirectly been met through project focus on non-productive traits relating to health and robustness in minor breeds which are not competitive compared to the breeds used in the commercial dairy, pig and rabbit production systems. Likewise plant projects have focused at resistance and tolerance to stress. The aim of finding new uses for traditional or new agricultural products, with a view to increasing their added value have not directly been addressed. However, the focus on minor breeds and underutilised crops as well as their specific non-productive traits would fit into organic farming systems with production of special products.4. The aim of limiting collecting to races where there are gaps which demonstrably limit their utility or to races with expected unique characteristics which might be lost is indirectly met through the selection of minor breeds which are not competitive compared to the breeds used in the commercial dairy, pig and rabbit production.Table 1 presents an overview of the attention paid to the different elements of the overall objectives. In general, characterisation and coordination have been paid most attention. The plant projects have put more emphasis on utilisation and rationalisation than have animal projects.Table 1. Scores on the degree of meeting the objectives&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;blank: no attention* slight attention  //** medium attention*** high attention  //2. Has the programme been on target-Eligible and ineligible topics have been described in Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 under item III 'Technical Procedures' and in detail in the Work Programme VI/4128/94 under 1.5. 'Eligible and Ineligible topics'.It appears that this delimitation has generally been correctly conceived and that all projects accepted (21 projects) are well in line.In annual herbaceous plant species that either originate in Europe or have close relatives on this continent, more emphasis could have been laid on in situ conservation. Such genetic resources often have valuable genes, particularly for disease and pest resistance, that could be incorporated in their cultivated relatives grown in Europe.In perennial woody plant species there may be somewhat too much emphasis on clonal material, not recognising the fact, that conserving seed propagated material has an important dynamic dimension. Collections based on clones are of course a first priority where the clones are recognised old cultivars. It must however be noted, that clonal conservation is static, thus not responding to global climatic change and to host-parasite interactions. Clones are in many ways dead-ends from an evolutionary aspect and they do not contribute greatly to increasing genetic diversity. Seed propagated materials constitute populations of genetically different individuals. Such populations are therefore particularly valuable in a world set for global climatic change as they can respond genetically to the changing environment. There are some valuable suggestions on this particular point given in the project No 78 on European elm. It is suggested that more emphasis be given to in situ conservation of natural populations that eventually regenerate by seed. In collecting perennial plant species in clonal archives (ex situ), it appears as if the "Community coverage" aspect may in some cases cause the establishment of living collections that are hold material from the whole coverage area in Europe. Such archives encompass several distinctly different ecoregions within the Community. This should however be avoided as there is strong genetic adaptation in such species to ecological gradients due to light, temperature, latitude and altitude. Therefore collections of this kind do not reflect species diversity very well as clones from different ecoregions react differently to the environment of the archive. Rather living collections should be based on ecoregional zonation; it is better to establish several small living collections ecoregionally than only one or two, ignoring adaptive considerations. Also ecoregional collections may be directly interfaced with the utilisation of collected material for plant breeding purpose.The four animal projects have been focused on database development and breed characterisation. The pig and rabbit projects furthermore focus on conservation by means of cryopreservation. The database development is aimed at integrating the existing EAAP and FAO databases for pigs and cattle and at entering the rabbits into the FAO database. The breed characterisation is aimed at determining which minor pig and cattle breeds should be selected for conservation and utilisation. The conservation efforts are concentrated on improving and promoting cryopreservation techniques and their uses in pigs and rabbits. The utilisation aspects are only indirectly addressed.3. Priorities in the choice of species and organisation of work being done in concerted actions and shared cost projectsSpecific priorities for the choice of species have been formulated within the outlines for a Work Programme that has been issued by the Commission under Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94, paragraph 1.6. It appears that these outlines have not been applied very strictly and special case decisions may have been made on the basis of differences in quality between applications and furthermore may have been influenced by periodic lack of funds under a non obligatory budget (i.e. short duration of the farm animal project No 88).The outline in the Commission for Work Programme, mentioned above, has asked for the observation in 6 "logical steps". Only 2 of these steps actually applied to all of these projects, being concerned with the use, updating and sometimes the development of descriptors that meet with international standards (i.e. IPGRI for plants and EAAP/FAO for animals) for setting up relevant databases. The next step of characterisation and evaluation likewise is to a high degree based on established international standards.a) Animal projectsFour projects have been selected including three species and the fourth one devoted to an inventory of genetic resources in Europe. The supplementary characterisation for secondary traits relating to product quality and health/robustness is of importance in relation to addressing the Global Action Plan (GAP) aims. Likewise the characterisation based on selected genetic (DNA) markers is of importance for the final choice of the diverse breeds to be examined in depth.In the third step the selection among the available minor breeds has to be undertaken on the basis of the uniqueness and the degree of genetic relationship between the breeds.In the final step of the animal projects the selected breeds undergo experimental examinations in order to strengthen the rationale for their conservation and in order to determine their potential uses in niche productions related to organic, extensive farming systems.b) Plant projects17 plant projects have been selected from the three calls for applications. They included 35 species of cultivated crops of which 27 belong to minor and often under-utilised crops.An obligatory request of the outlines of the above mentioned Work Programme was the evaluation of economically important characters and rapid utilisation. The majority of plant traits actually considered concerns biotic (disease resistance) or abiotic stress while quality characters only occasionally have been included. In this way, the actual work appears to be biased against the original objectives. But even with this bias, effective progress has been made from the co-ordinated and concerted efforts that have been brought on the way.As far as utilisation is concerned, it should be mentioned that within three projects (barley, Beta and potato), private breeding companies were involved in the evaluation work. In this way the most rapid utilisation of evaluation results may be achieved.Only a few case (barley and potato) projects succeeded in having NGOs included. They participated in field tests and are interested in immediate use of appropriate landraces materials. More NGOs participation was expected but if the few ones finally succeed, they may serve as pioneer's examples for the future.Even if it does not necessarily apply, the outlines for working programmes of the Commission require that the first 3 steps should be completed before activities for rationalisation and further collecting should be undertaken. Sorting out of core collections and identification of duplicates are introduced for the purpose of rationalisation. Within 10 projects, the development of core collections actually belongs to the working plan (Allium, fruit trees, potato, rice, Beta, elm, maize, barley, Avena, Cucumis). Identification of duplicates is expected in even more projects. If successful, at least for large sized collections, it would help to optimise access to the base collection. But, if core collections had been set up first on ecoregional basis, it would have been possible to direct additional evaluation activities more efficiently. As far as the duplicates are concerned it will not be possible to identify them on the basis of common databases and further activities may be required for success.Large size collection activities are duly avoided. But the determination of gaps, in existing collections, is part of the working plan in some projects as a basis for planning future collection missions. Realising that genetic resources from wild relatives will gain in importance, it is strongly suggested to seriously check on possibilities for the establishment of in situ conservation sites within EU member states where wild relatives are constitutive elements of the natural flora (Beta, Brassica, carrots).A number of projects report on activities that are underway for undelayed diffusion of results obtained, which in some cases (minor fruit trees, potato, Beta) include the distribution of evaluated materials. It appears from available information that diffusion activities in general are carried out in a very satisfactory manner.4. Has the Programme had proper Union coverage-As the Council of the European Union decided to coordinate and promote measures on the treatment of genetic resources in agriculture at community level (Regulation (EC) No 1467/94, Article 1), the question, to what extent the activities emerged from the GENRES programme have covered the Community level, deserves special attention. Hence the group of independent experts analysed in particular the 21 GENRES projects started during the first action programme (Table 2). The group of experts expresses its conviction, that satisfying projects should preferably address potential partners representing more than 60% of relevant Member States (Union coverage), in order to accelerate achievement of the aims of the common agricultural policy. All together, five classes of «Union coverage » with a span of 15% were distinguished (Table 2).The group of independent experts states herewith, that the majority of projects exhibit a good Union coverage of more than 75%, four out of 21 projects even address partners of nearly all relevant member states. Only two projects (12, 52) are providing unsatisfying Union coverage of less than 60% and two further ones provide very limited Union coverage of less than 45% . Large Member States (D, E, F, I, UK) having a greater amount of relevant institutions, are obviously more often involved than small Member States. As they hold a vast number of plant and animal varieties, it is important, to have them involved in the projects to a necessary extent. However, the Commission should take care of partner balance in project structure during future negotiations, so that one Member State will not exceed a share of more than one third (e.g. 104). Small Member States should be encouraged in contributing to future programmes.Having analysed the Union coverage of the 21 approved projects, the group of independent experts states, that a remarkable progress in coordination of measures on genetic resources at Community level was made, in spite of all administrative difficulties. The group of independent experts stresses the fact, that additional activities are needed in order to complete the started efforts.Table 2. Union coverage of projects realised during the period 1995-2000&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;IS = Iceland, CH = Switzerland, HU = Hungary, BG = Bulgaria, [ ] = subcontractors.5. Have inventory and accompanying measures been properly undertaken-a) Inventory in the framework of the General Provisions, the permanent inventory was considered as a working tool to support the programme activities.The validity of the inventories, which were to be periodically updated and regularly published, was only expressed in terms of the programme, in two versions of the «inventory of inventories » which included information in database and Web site.All the shared cost projects and concerted actions have made a great effort in order to develop this point, but advantages of uploading this information as a global strategy, on pre-existing and more flexible and efficient structures, for plants and trees (integration of FAO, IPGRI, etc.) has been observed elsewhere. For such reasons the expert panel fully endorses the intention not to support further activities on the development of inventories on genetic resources under this Regulation. The project on farm animals aimed at improving the integration of the FAO/EAAP databases.Although the Inventory has been considered obsolete by Commission in mid-term report, because it has evolved according to the expectations and the work has been done and completed, it is important to take into account that in view of results, attention must be paid to the adequate description of the inventories, mainly those which are more difficult to describe (e.g. ex situ collection).Other aspects which were considered in the Council Regulation, and which should be envisaged in the inventories, are the micro-organisms and wild flora and fauna, which could be used in the field of agriculture.b) Accompanying measuresThe accompanying measures which were clearly defined and for which full financing was granted, had different levels of success and development.The most continuous element consisted in the promotion and utilisation of the results, carried out through the three NGO/GO informal meetings. In the final analysis there has been an option to favour and promote their cooperation.In the mid term programme it was evident the necessity of making a particular effort because the accompanying measures were not being sufficiently activated, and the Committee of Genetic Resources made proposals for specific seminars and workshops. All this could not be carried out because of lack of funds in the following years.Having identified the accompanying measures as higher priority than shared cost projects, its developing was postponed, and the programme with the highest rate of failure have been those related to training and mobility schemes for specialist personnel, thereby losing part of the initial priorities whose objectives was the comprehension and exchanges between NGO/GO.Bearing in mind the limitations of financial resources, it could be advisable to take advantage of the initiatives of participants, concerning meetings and workshops and to use them for conclusions and recommendations.This situation does not permit for the time being to satisfy another of the targets, i.e. the presentation of results by the projects coordinators in a final report meeting.6. Are the projects in line with CAP and the Rio convention (Convention on Biodiversity, CBD)-The Work Programme (VI/4128/94) APPENDIX VI provides the objectives concerning CAP and CBD.The four main objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have so far generally been met, but it is premature do draw conclusions at this time. As to "bringing the production down to levels more in line with market demands" obviously environmentally specialised plants and small races and breeds of animals are the nucleus of market demands for specialised high quality products, e.g. on the cheese market (goat cheese) and for the production of special wines and other beverages with a degree of uniqueness. The "focus of support for farmers' incomes where it is most needed" many of the projects have emphasised marginal ecological areas that benefit most from the project. This is also the incitement for "encouraging farmers to remain on the land" under marginal ecological and/or socio-economic conditions. As to "protecting the environment and developing the natural potential of the countryside", this has been given due emphasis only as far as resistance to disease and pest is concerned. In this context it is suggested that the projects look more carefully at the possibilities of "multiple use" of their genetic resources, e.g. plants for use in food, feed and landscaping. Particularly the minor fruits, with their ornamental values, may play a considerable role in developing the landscape.The projects are generally in line with the Rio Convention (CBD). However, "the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources" needs to be studied carefully under the "Community framework". It is not always default that joint projects render joint use of genetic resources that come from different countries. Coordination is needed from the Commission. A model can possibly be found in the Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) that operates ecoregionally.7. Have administrative and management issues been properly handled-The coordination by the CommissionRegulation (EC) No 1467/94 states that a Committee on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture shall be set up composed of representatives of the Member States and chaired by a representative of the Commission.Genetic resources covering world agriculture has become an ever more important issue during the time since this programme was initiated in 1994. Work done and to be done in international fora like FAO, CGIAR and WTO concerning exchange, trading and usage of nationally owned genetic resources, including intellectual property rights (IPR) on genetic material, has increased and is increasing as we enter the 21st century. We feel that the Commission must strengthen its involvement in the coordination functions of this important development. We also believe, that such coordination needs to be planned for two more five-year periods, i.e. up to 2010.Staff allocationRegulation (EC) No 1467/94 states in its ANNEX 2 "INDICATIVE FINANCIAL BREAKDOWN" that the permanent inventory amounts to approximately 10% of the total programme costs and involves two A grade, two B grade and two C grade staff.The expert group has been informed that this allocation of specialist personnel was not implemented. Genetic resources in agriculture, we understand, have important repercussions in a number of EU Commission internal structures and directorates. In addition the EU must play an important role on the global level. The present 21 projects under scrutiny are thus only a small part of all EU activities in this field of increasing international importance. The Commission must be commended for the work initiated and done so far, but we visualise some shortcomings in present staff allocation to this item, in order to maintain a strong coordinating function. Considering the increase in future importance, it is now imperative to establish permanent staff allocation to this item.Second and future Work ProgrammesA second Work Programme was foreseen by the Commission. It is referred to in GENRES(NGO) 002/VI/1997 to be proposed by the end of 1998.The 21 projects of the present Regulation have mostly been well organised, but they represent a small and fractured share of all the important genetic resources in European agriculture. We believe that a clearly directed call for a second 5-year work programme could remedy present insufficiencies. We also see this as important considering the next incorporation of new Member States that hold considerable shares of valuable European agricultural genetic resources. However, a second Work Programme was newer proposed. In a longer perspective, we believe that a third programme of 5 years that would end around 2010 may be necessary to complete the aims of the initial Regulation.The incomplete use of funds foreseen in the Regulation, problems with non-obligatory fundingWe were informed that the expenditure of EUR 20M foreseen for Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 was classified non-obligatory and thus the actual sum engaged has been roughly only half of this sum.Non-obligatory expenditures are adapted each year in accordance with other budgetary urgencies. This certainly introduces a component of instability for new projects to be incorporated in the Council Regulation. A second point is the unacceptable delay in payment of funds to the projects, reflected in many project coordinator comments. This must be corrected in the future, perhaps firstly by upgrading to obligatory expenditures and secondly by speeding up payment of yearly funds.8. Legal aspects on the use of genetic resourcesThe Rio convention (CBD) states that genetic resources are national natural resources. This concerns genetic resources collected after 1993.This introduces legal aspects in common usage of genetic resources within the EU. Other legal issues concern Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of genetic resources both within countries, within the EU and on a global scale. We are convinced, that the proper handling of such legal aspects needs to be coordinated with greatest possible expertise by the Commission and its special Committee mentioned in the Regulation. Collaborating EU member states should adhere to common ruling when operating within projects in the Regulation.9. Involvement of NGO'sThe Commission has executed three meetings with European NGO's and the meeting minutes (GENRES(NGO) 001/VI/1996, 002/VI/1997, 003/VI/1999) are the basis of this comment.The Commission has taken special effort in informing and involving NGO's in the Regulation and its projects. However, reading the projects and the minutes of specially commissioned NGO-meetings, it appears that their contribution has been minimal. As NGO's could be important players in the Programme, their participation in future activities must be strengthened and a better modus operandi must be established to overcome existing difficulties.10. Involvement of international organisations on the same subjectsAlmost all projects mention one or many of the following organisations as important interactors: FAO, EAAP, CGIAR (specifically IPGRI) and NGB. A Nordic Genebank for animals (NGH) is established and a bank for Nordic forest trees (NGF) is being planned. It is imperative that the Commission on highest possible level organise and coordinate networking and clearly demarcate the EU dimension. This could greatly help member states to rationalise their own programmes that have been set after the Leipzig Global Plan of Action (GPA).11. The integration of national genetic resources programmesAfter the Leipzig Global Plan of Action (GPA) in 1996, national genetic resources programmes have been established in most of the participating European countries. It is now timely that these national programmes be integrated in cooperative networks on an European scale. This adds a new dimension in the future. Many of the ongoing projects could immediately benefit from the national programmes and vice versa. Coordination at EU level is now necessary.In longer perspective, the national programmes may greatly enhance the speed at which the European Regulation is executed. Again, coordination at EU level is imperative.V. RecommendationsDraft Recommendations1. The Regulation has to be continued.2. A second revised five-year Programme must be launched.3. The Commission staff must be permanently established under the present regulation.4. More emphasis must be given to in situ conservation of both plant and animal genetical resources.5. Coordinated rationalisation efforts with ex situ collections should be encouraged.6. In animals ex situ collections should complement in situ conservation.7. In future projects emphasis should be on proper relevant ecoregional coverage.8. Activities on permanent inventories should not continue under the present regulation.9. More active involvement of the Commission services is needed in the execution of accompanying measures.10. The proper handling of CBD legal aspects needs to be coordinated with greatest possible expertise.11. A better contribution of NGOs has to be stimulated and promoted.12. More attention needs to be given to the involvement of the Commission in coordinating networking and demarcating the EU dimension.13. Coordinating national genetic resources programmes should be an essential part of the Regulation mandate in future activities.ANNEX  Regulation (EC) No 1476/94: Ongoing shared cost and concerted action projectsNo 0012 Characterisation and conservation of pig genetic resources in EuropeNo 0020 Protecting future European Community crops: a programme to conserve, characterise, evaluate and collect Allium crops and wild speciesNo 0029 Conservation evaluation, exploitation and collection of minor fruit tree speciesNo 0037 Constitution, description and dynamic management of genetic resources in rice (Oryza sativa) for European useNo 0042 Evaluation and enhancement of Beta collections for extensification of agricultural productionNo 0034 Genetic resources of potato including conservation, characterisation, and utilisation of secondary potato varieties for ecological production systems in EuropeNo 0052 European network for characterisation and evaluation of genus Rosa germplasmNo 0060 Inventory, characterisation, evaluation, conservation and utilisation of European rabbit genetic resourcesNo 0061 International network on Prunus genetic resourcesNo 0078 Coordination for conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources of European elmsNo 0081 European network for grapevine genetic resources conservation and characterisationNo 0083 A permanent inventory of European farm animal genetic resources and of activities on characterisation conservation and utilisation of those resourcesNo 0088 Implementation of the European network for evaluation, conservation and utilisation of European maize landraces genetic resourcesNo 0097 Conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in Olive (Olea Europea)No 0104 Evaluation and conservation of barley genetic resources to improve their accessibility to breeders in EuropeNo 0118 Towards a strategy for the conservation of the genetic diversity of European cattleNo 0105 The future of European carrot: a programme to conserve, characterise, evaluate and collect carrot and wild relativesNo 0108 Management, conservation and valorisation of genetic resources of Cucumis melo and wild relativesNo 0109 Brassica collections for broadening agricultural useNo 0113 Management, conservation and valorisation of genetic resources of eggplants (Solanum species)