COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee Agricultural Genetic Resources - from conservation to sustainable use
Date: 2013-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European agricultural model, agricultural production, biodiversity, conservation of resources, food safety, genetics, sustainable development













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0486 - EN











|



52013SC0486

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee Agricultural Genetic Resources - from conservation to sustainable use /* SWD/2013/0486 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee
Agricultural Genetic Resources -
from conservation to sustainable use

1.                      
INTRODUCTION

The Commission launched, in 2004, a specific
“Community programme on the conservation, characterisation, collection and
utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture established by Council
Regulation (EC) No 870/2004’ to address genetic resources (GR) conservation
in agriculture.
The Community programme provides co-funding for
17 actions which were implemented by around 180 partners in 25 Member States
and 12 non-EU countries. The budget allocated to co-funding actions established
under the programme was EUR 8.9 million, to be spent over a four-year
period. Twelve actions concerned plant GR — notably cereals, fruits,
vegetables, grapevine, spices, and forest resources. Actions aimed at enhancing
the morphological and genetic knowledge of plant GR and at disseminating
results to scientists and end-users. The remaining five actions concerned the
conservation of farm animals’ GR. They aimed at formulating and establishing strategies
and guidelines for conserving livestock biodiversity, including EU-level
coordination of semen cryo-preservation (freezing) and the creation of a
European database for farm animal species and breeds.
As provided for in Article 14 of the above
Regulation, a group of independent experts (hereinafter: the expert group) was
requested to report on the implementation of the Regulation, to assess the
results, and to make appropriate recommendations. The group’s report, together
with the Commission’s comments, is to be submitted to the European Parliament,
the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. This Working
document summarises the results of the evaluation report, presents the
Commission’s comments, and explores options for future action.

2.                      
EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY PROGRAMME

In line with the legal requirement, an expert
group was convened, based on a call for expression of interests, to assess the
results of the Community Programme and to make recommendations. To complement
and feed into the evaluation work, the Commission conducted a stakeholder
consultation.

2.1.                
Achievements

The expert group assessed the results of the
programme and concluded that the programme's objectives in terms of
conservation, characterisation, collection and use of GR had been effectively addressed
and globally achieved.
Conservation activities concerned various farm
animals, crops and forest trees, both in-situ and ex-situ,
and several thousand new accessions were collected, characterised and
evaluated. The expert group noted that the programme had helped to establish
conservation infrastructures, databases, core collections, gene-banks and
accession catalogues. These were welcomed as good and useful outcomes of the
actions. The direct use of GR resulted in breeding programmes, in the
formulation of guidelines, and in the exchange of genetic material between
programme participants and end-users (farmers, breeders, gardeners). The
evaluation emphasised that the programme advanced the scientific knowledge on
the nature, management and potential of various agricultural GR, but that some
important species were missing.
The requirement for actions to be
transnational, as laid down in the Regulation, helped to build effective
cross-border cooperation and to stimulate contacts and active networking.
Dissemination activities, training, workshops and direct contacts with
end-users and industries were facilitated within the programme. The information
exchange between beneficiaries in different countries was recognised as a
positive outcome that was highly appreciated by the beneficiaries. This
cooperation helped to share concerns and created EU added value.
The expert group considers that the Community
programme stimulated considerable attention among stakeholder groups on the
importance of conservation activities, reflecting the need for action in
agricultural GR conservation.
The expert group concludes that the programme
was most valuable in terms of advancing the understanding of local practices
and needs and of contributing to the sustainability and profitability of
agriculture.

2.2.                
Weaknesses

The expert group noted that the beneficiaries
of the programme were mainly research institutes and emphasised the need for a
wider participation of end-users in order to achieve the programme's objective
of using GR more efficiently and to strike a balance between ex-situ
and in-situ/on-farm conservation activities.
The expert group suggested that the funding
rate and the administrative requirements did not encourage end-users to
participate in the programme, and recommended that these issues be addressed in
relation to future activities.
According to the expert group, the low
attention given to dissemination activities to and information exchange with
wide range of stakeholder groups was due partly to the dominance of the
scientific community in the implementation of the actions. The expert group
criticises that the programme results did not appear to have fully reached the
end-users, even where these results might have been relevant to them. The
expert group therefore pointed to limitations in valorising the outcomes for agricultural
practice.
The expert group welcomed the establishment of
conservation infrastructures but expressed concerns about their long-term
viability, considering the high cost of maintaining and updating these
infrastructures. The need to ensure that end-users had open access to databases
was also underlined.

2.3.                
Recommendations

The expert group recommended setting up another
Community programme, with particular focus on the use of GR, as one of
the main objectives to be pursued. It underlined the need for better involvement
of end-users, for more emphasis on in-situ conservation, and for closer
cooperation with Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME) with a view to
integrating GR conservation into the wider economic context. To encourage
end-user participation, the expert group suggested getting stakeholders
involved in establishing a new GR programme and recommended looking for ways of
reducing the administrative burden for beneficiaries.
The expert group underlined that EU added value
should be achieved by harmonising efforts, policies and programmes on
agricultural GR more effectively across all Member States. Better coordination
of relevant EC programmes should generate economies of scale, avoid overlaps,
create synergies, and ensure better end-user involvement. At the same time, the
expert group underlines that conservation activities should take into account
the climatic, financial and cultural specificities and differences across
Member States.
According to the expert group, the scope of the
programme should be widened to freshwater and marine aquaculture. Attention
should also be given to interactions between microbes and farm animals/crop
plants as well as to plant species of relevance to biomass production.
The expert group also recommended encouraging a
more effective and comprehensive transfer of results to potential end-users. By
harnessing scientific and technological developments towards practice
application, in line with needs, the programme could more effectively interlink
applied research and end-users. Given the high cost of long-term conservation,
the expert group suggested supporting activities with potential for generating
income for end-users, so as to make GR conservation self-supporting.

3.                      
Appraisal of evaluation results

The Commission staff appreciates the evaluation
report as a particularly useful input into the formulation of future activities
concerning the conservation of Genetic Resources in agriculture. It shares the
view that, while the objectives of the programme remain pertinent, further prioritisation
shall be envisaged. This should result in a better balance between ex-situ
and in-situ/on-farm conservation and give more emphasis to dissemination
and encouraging enhanced involvement of end-users. As underlined in the
evaluation report, a better balance between ‘Targeted’[1], ‘Concerted’[2] and
‘Accompanying’[3]
actions should be ensured. This has direct implications on dissemination and
information activities, on the funding rate (increase from 50% of targeted
actions to 80% of concerted and accompanying actions), and on the wider
participation of stakeholders. Ways and means need to be sought to mobilise
traditional knowledge and combine farmers’ expertise with innovative
approaches, in order to generate economic, environmental and social benefits.
The Commission staff agrees with the expert
group that the scope of the programme should be widened, that EU activities
should foster the conservation of GR of particular interest for agriculture,
and that the regional perspective should be taken into account. The Commission
also endorses the view that EU added value can be achieved by harmonising and
reinforcing coordination of policies and programmes to achieve economy of scale,
to create synergies, and to make it easier to identify gaps and shortcomings.
Instrumental in this respect would be the development of common guidelines on
conservation activities and the establishment of joint databases on GR
collections and gene banks. 
The Commission staff shares the view that GR
conservation should be interlinked with innovative initiatives in order to
combine its potential for economic growth with the establishment of sustainable
practices. Cooperation among stakeholders and knowledge exchange between
researchers, farmers and other actors should help to valorise GR conservation
and exploit its potential in a way which is economically viable. The Commission
agrees that close-to-market actions and short food supply chains can strengthen
local systems, develop niche markets, generate economic opportunities and facilitate
viable GR conservation. Beside agro-environment-climate measures to purely
support conservation of endangered breeds and crops under threat of genetic
erosion, the proposal for Rural Development Policy 2014-2020, provide for
measures to valorise agricultural GR into the production chain. In particular,
measures supporting quality schemes (Art. 17) can be used to promote products
with given quality derived from local and/or traditional breeds and crops. In
this context, making consumers more aware can be an important element and needs
to be specifically addressed. Furthermore, measures targeting Local Action
Groups (Art. 42) can be used for setting up and support diverse, collaborative
local activities in the context of conservation of GR as well as their
valorisation.

4.                      
Conclusions

In its evaluation report, the expert group
noted the valuable results in terms of agrobiodiversity conservation achieved
by the Community programme and recommended pursuing the objectives of
conserving, characterising, collecting and utilising GR. The expert group
underlines the need for coordinated programmes and activities as well as for
major, lasting efforts in securing GR in agriculture, while pointing to the
need for significant budget resources for both science-related actions (e.g.
genetic and phenotypic characterisation, evaluation, storage infrastructures,
coordinated databases and inventories) and practical actions directed at
farmers and other end-users. To encourage the involvement of those categories
of actors who are less familiar in setting up and conducting programmes'
activities, the group of experts recommended to simplify the administrative
procedures, to reduce and adapt the requirements for participation and to raise
the co-funding rates. The expert group recommended putting much more emphasis
on wide dissemination of results and on better exchange and knowledge-sharing
among the different categories of stakeholders. In particular, it underlined
the need for interlinking applied research and end-users with a view to
achieving problem-oriented solutions.
The expert group suggested broadening the
programme's activities so as to cover GR relevant for biomass production, to
improve knowledge on microbial genetic resources with particular focus on
microorganisms' interactions with agriculturally relevant animal and plants,
and to include freshwater and marine aquaculture. By
establishing a framework in line with those recommendations, the EU can add
value to the wide range of activities being taken to conserve traditional
breeds and local varieties, at different geographical levels and in different
natural and economic contexts.
Making GR conservation a success is of
paramount importance as it provides a solid basis for
greater sustainability and economic viability of agriculture, contributes to
food security, ensures high food quality and more varied products, and achieves
established biodiversity goals.
ANNEX

Independent Expert Evaluation 
of 
Council Regulation (EC) No. 870/2004


Conservation, Characterisation, Collection and
Utilisation of Genetic Resources in Agriculture
Prepared by a group of independent experts
Georgios Banos (Chair)
Leen Davidse
Elisabetta Giuffra
Lucyna Kątska-Ksiąźkiewicz
Géza Kovács
Diego Rubiales Olmedo


1st JUNE 2012

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 -
Abstract                                                                                                                          8
Chapter 2 -
Executive Summary                                                                                                          9
Chapter 3 – The
background to this evaluation                                                                                  12
Chapter 4 - The
scope of the evaluation                                                                                            14
Chapter 5 - The
methodology of the evaluation                                                                                  15
Chapter 6 - The
consultation of stakeholders                                                                                     17
Chapter 7 - The
results of the evaluation                                                                                            23
7.1 WHAT WAS
DONE: ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS                                                        23
7.2 WHAT WAS
DONE: TECHNICAL ASPECTS                                                                   25
7.3 WHAT WAS
DONE: OUTCOMES AND IMPACT                                                           29
7.4 WHAT WAS
DONE: WIDER CONTEXT                                                                           35
7.5 WHAT SHOULD
BE DONE IN THE FUTURE                                                                  40
Chapter 8 - Conclusions and
recommendations                                                                                 49
Conclusions                                                                                                                                 49
Recommendations                                                                                                                        49
Chapter 9 -
Annexes                                                                                                                        51
Annex 1:
Documents provided by the Commission to the experts                                                  51
Annex 2:  A
sample of actions co-funded by INTERREG.                                                            52
Annex 3:  Some
projects on plant genetic resources co-funded by FP7                                         53
Annex 3b:  Some
activities on plant genetic resources in the COST programme                             54
Annex 4: List
of stakeholders receiving invitation to the questionnaire                                             54
List of member
state countries invited to participate in stakeholders Questionnaire                         54
List of
stakeholders invited by the Commission                                                                             54
List of
Stakeholders who requested to participate                                                                         54
List of the
coordinators of 17 co-funded actions invited to participate in Stakeholders Questionnaire
as well as in Coordinators Questionnaire                                                                                                          54
Annex 5: The
Stakeholders questionnaire                                                                                      54
Annex 5b:
Specific Questions to Coordinators of the 17 funded actions of the
Community Programme on Genetic Resources in Agriculture                                                         54
Annex 6:     Sample list of scientific publications
from Actions co-funded under Council Regulation 870/200.         54
Annex 7:     Examples highlighting a potentially
unclear demarcation between this
Community Programme and the Rural Development policy.                                                           54
Annex 8:   
Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary                                                                       54
A - D                                                                                                                                          54
F - G                                                                                                                                           54
H - Q                                                                                                                                          54
R - Z                                                                                                                                           54
Glossary                                                                                                                                      54

Chapter 1 - Abstract

This report presents an independent expert
evaluation of the European Community Programme (Council Regulation 870/2004) on
the conservation, collection, characterisation and utilisation of genetic
resources in agriculture.
First, the scope and methods of evaluation
are described. The material for the evaluation included data from the 17
individual Actions funded under this particular Programme, a special
consultation with stakeholders, information on the preceding Council Regulation
(EC) No. 1467/94, and  documents provided by the Commission (e.g. Rural
Development Programme) and other organisations (e.g. Convention on Biological
Diversity and the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, and the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). The criteria for
the evaluations were effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of the
implementation of the Community programme, and coherence with other EU
instruments.
The results of the evaluation are a set of
several conclusions and recommendations: a new Programme is recommended whose
aim should be to deliver the best possible utilisation of agricultural genetic
resources in practice. End-users should be directly involved in the funded
Actions together with applied research organisations. Actions should improve
cooperation, reduce duplication of effort and deliver added value at EU level. 
Some new topics for work are identified

Chapter 2 - Executive Summary

This report presents an independent expert
assessment of the key results and findings of Council Regulation (EC) 870/2004
leading to a number of recommendations. The legal basis of this evaluation is
defined in Article 14 of this Regulation. 
The evaluation focused on the
effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of the implementation of the Community
Programme, and its coherence with other related EU instruments. The following sources of information were taken into account:
1.       The 17 individual Actions funded under
Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004: The effectiveness and efficiency of the
Community Programme were assessed in a critical analysis of administrative and
technical aspects of these Actions. Emphasis was placed on the extent to which
the Actions contributed to meeting the Programme's objectives with regards to
conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources
in agriculture. Outcomes and effects of these Actions were analysed offering an
assessment of the relevance of implementing the Community Programme. Here the
focus was on the impact of the Programme, as reflected in the individual
Actions, on end-users and on the agricultural sector as a whole.
2.       Consultation with stakeholders and
coordinators of the funded Actions: The Commission services identified a list
of target stakeholders, and formulated a questionnaire to canvass their views
on the Community Programme. A second questionnaire was prepared for
coordinators of the funded Actions. Responses to the questionnaires were
summarised and used in the assessment of the Programme's effectiveness,
efficiency, relevance and coherence with other instruments, and also identify
and to help evaluate future needs.
3.       Material provided by DG AGRI relevant to
the implementation of the preceding Council Regulation (EC) No. 1467/94: This
information contributed to the assessment of the overall effectiveness and
relevance of the two Programmes on genetic resources in agriculture.
4.      
Relevant information
provided by various Commission sources (Rural Development Programme, material
from DGs RTD, SANCO and ENV), together with material from the Convention on
Biological Diversity, from the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which
was useful in the assessment of the coherence of this Community Programme with
other EU instruments.
Our independent analysis of all the
material described above has led us to the following conclusions:

 The Council Regulation (EC) 870/2004
     "establishing a second Community Programme on the conservation,
     characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in and
     repealing Regulation (EC) No 1467/94" has:
  Stimulated considerable interest
      among various groups of stakeholders within the European Union and beyond.
  Promoted collaboration among diverse
      groups of stakeholders in different countries.
  Led to the establishment of useful
      links and partnerships across Europe.
  Advanced the understanding of some
      local practices and needs.
  Led to useful results and guidelines
      for the conservation of valuable genetic resources.
  Established well characterised and
      evaluated core collections and cryo-banks of various plant and animal
      species.
  Improved the scientific knowledge on the nature, management
      and potential of genetic resources of some species of farm animals, crops
      and forest trees in Europe.
 Because of considerable emphasis on scientific activities
     relative to their implementation in practice, although the
     characterisation, collection and conservation aspects of agricultural
     genetic resources were effectively addressed for the species studied, the
     utilisation component of the Programme was not addressed to the same
     extent.
 In some cases the structure of reimbursing costs made it
     difficult for certain organisations to participate.
 In some cases, the project results, although potentially
     relevant, were not available to the end users.
 A number of newly developed databases and established ones were
     used to accommodate the data generated but open access to these results was
     not always possible. Furthermore, no mechanism was put in place to
     facilitate accessibility to the results via a single European portal.
 Long-term benefits of conservation may not be
     realised due to the high costs of relevant activities.

In view of the above conclusions, the
following recommendations were made:
1.      
The
EC Programme on agricultural genetic resources should continue, building on the
successes of the two previous Programmes. Ways should be found to reduce the
administrative burden on coordinators in order to improve the effectiveness of
project execution and delivery of results.
2.      
A
new Community Programme should require that the primary objective of selected
Actions be the delivery of appropriate utilisation of agricultural genetic
resources in practice. To attain this objective, an increased involvement of
end-users and Small and Medium Enterprises in the funded Actions should be
promoted, to ensure the immediate transfer and implementation of project
results.
3.      
The
new Community Programme must harness all recent scientific and technological
developments, which can offer improvements in the speed and efficacy of
characterisation of agriculturally relevant traits. The aim should be the
practical application of recent scientific advances to the conservation and
utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture. To this end, participation of
applied research organisations in combination with the end-users mentioned
above should be encouraged.
4.      
Another
important emphasis of the new Community Programme should be on adding value at
EU level through the harmonisation of efforts, policies and programmes on the
conservation and utilisation of the agricultural genetic resources across all
Member States.
5.      
Activities
that promote the evaluation and exploitation of agriculturally important
interactions between microbes and farm animals/crop plants that have been
identified and characterised in previous research should be encouraged.
6.      
Another
priority of the new Community Programme should be the conservation, characterisation
and utilisation of genetic resources for fresh-water and marine aquaculture.
7.      
The
new Community Programme should also focus on plant species for production of
biomass and industrial products.
8.      
Options
should be explored for better coordination of relevant EC programmes with the
objectives of achieving economies of scale, avoiding overlaps, creating
positive synergies and leading to outcomes for end-users.
9.      
Given
the high costs of long-term conservation, a new Community Programme should
support relevant activities that have the potential to eventually generate
income for the end-users. The aim should be that the conservation and
utilisation of these agricultural genetic resources become self-supporting.
10.   Before the
launch of any new programme, the Commission should organise a two-day meeting
of stakeholders to discuss the modalities and to start build interest groups.

Chapter 3 – The background to this evaluation

In this chapter we briefly survey the
background and relevant developments. Recently, the European Commission has
launched a new European Innovation Partnerships (EIP) on Agricultural
Sustainability and Productivity, which aims to provide a working interface
between agriculture, bio-economy, science, and others at EU, national and
regional level. It will also serve as a catalyst to enhance the effectiveness
of innovation-related actions supported by Rural Development Policy as well as
the Union Research and Innovation. In this context, the European Academies
Science Advisory Council (EASAC) has emphasised "that it is vital for
policy-makers in the EU and at the Member States level to recognise the crucial
contribution that plant genetic resources can make to tackling the EU societal
challenges across a broad front and ensuring policies are in place to support
their enhanced conservation and use". A third recent development at EU
level is the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 which includes (Action 10)
"The Commission and Member States will encourage the uptake of
agri-environmental measures to support genetic diversity in agriculture and
explore the scopes for developing a strategy for the conservation of genetic
diversity". 
In science, the years since the first EU
Regulation on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of
genetic resources in agriculture (Council regulation (EC) No 1467-94) have seen
remarkable advances in research relevant to biodiversity and since the second
(current) Regulation became operational in 2004 the pace of advance seems even
to have accelerated. There are now new possibilities for the utilisation of
genetic resources when these developments have been realised. For example,
refined phenotype recording should enable new desirable traits related to
'robustness' (e.g. to climate change, pathogens etc) and improved welfare to be
understood at a genetic and genomic level, and eventually to be transferred to
practice. In agricultural crops, breeding efforts have led to increased
productivity, largely due to the development of modern varieties that, although
each is genetically uniform, taken together cover a considerable range of
genetic variation. 
Such considerations raise the need to
harmonise collaborations and synergies of current and future Community
Programmes on research, preservation and utilisation of genetic resources, so
as to achieve economies of scale, avoid overlaps, create positive synergies and
lead to outcomes that are useful in practice.
At the international level there have also
been important developments since 1994 and the first Regulation. Among
legislative developments particular to genetic resources covered by the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(ITPGRFA)[4]
and also of collections from the international agricultural research centres
(Art 15 of the ITPGRFA), is the new legal requirement for standard Material
Transfer Agreement (MTA) to govern access to plant genetic resources and the
fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of genetic
resources on a world scale. In this global context, it should be noted that the
coordinators and partners of the two Community Programmes have accumulated much
experience of MTAs, ABS, etc., which can certainly contribute to the EU's
participation in the implementation of the Treaty obligations.
We should also mention that there have been
organisational developments over the same period. National structures of
agricultural research have been rationalised, re-organised, privatised, or even
done away with. 
It is against this background that the
Evaluation has taken place. 

Chapter 4 - The scope of the evaluation

Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004 (24
April 2004) establishing a second Community Programme on the conservation,
characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in
agriculture and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 lays down (Article 14)
that, at the end of the programme, the Commission shall appoint a group of
independent experts to report on the implementation of this regulation, to
assess the results and to make appropriate recommendations. The group's report,
together with the Commission's comments, shall be submitted to the European
Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic and Social Committee.
The scope of this evaluation is the
Community Programme on genetic resources in agriculture, in particular the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004, as well as the
conclusions drawn from the implementation of the preceding Council Regulation
(EC) No 1467/1994. It takes into account the 17 Actions co-funded under the
Regulation, the annual and final reports of those Actions, and the expert
evaluations of those reports. The scope also includes preparatory
familiarization of the background context and major issues.
The evaluation is based on the following
criteria: the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance of implementing the
Community Programme, and its coherence with other related EU instruments.

Chapter 5 - The methodology of the evaluation

This chapter describes the approach and the
methodology which were used in the evaluation of the Community Programme
(Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004) on genetic resources in agriculture. The
evaluation focused on the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance of implementing
the Community Programme, and the coherence with other related EU instruments,
as discussed below.
A group of independent experts was
appointed by the Commission to report on the implementation of Council
Regulation (EC) No 870/2004, to assess the results of the Community Programme
and to make appropriate recommendations. In order to achieve this, the
independent experts had a first preparatory meeting in Brussels in November
2011 to agree on the structure and the road map for this evaluation. The
experts had the opportunity to meet with relevant members of various DGs to
gather information about their programmes, and with the inter-service Steering
Group to comment on the programme. The draft evaluation started at that
meeting, following a schema suggested by the Commission, and was continued
remotely. After receiving feedback from the Commission's Steering Group, this
first draft was revised during a second meeting of the experts in Brussels in
April 2012.
The group of experts examined the final
results of the 17 co-funded Actions under Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004
with respect to the achievement of the objectives of the Community Programme.
Information analysed included the initial Action description submitted; the
recommendations of the evaluation panel and the ensuing technical reports
(annual interim progress reports, final reports and assessment reports by
independent experts). The analysis of administrative and technical aspects of
what was done in each Action and the results obtained (Chapters 7.1, 7.2 and
7.3 of this report) allowed the assessment of the Programme's efficiency and
effectiveness. Furthermore, outcomes and effects of the individual Actions were
evaluated in order to assess the relevance of implementing the Community
Programme (Chapter 7.3).
The group of experts also took into account
the conclusions drawn from the implementation of the preceding Council
Regulation (EC) No 1467/94.  This information included the reports of other
independent experts to the Commission, and of the Commission to the Council.
This helped understanding what was done in the past, thus contributing to the
assessment of the effectiveness and relevance of the current Community
Programme.
In addition, the Commission services
identified a list of target stakeholders and prepared an on-line questionnaire
to canvass their views on the Community Programme. A second questionnaire was
prepared for coordinators of the co-funded Actions. The experts were given the
opportunity to comment on the content of both questionnaires. Responses to this
questionnaire are summarised in Chapter 6 and were used in the assessment of
the Programme's effectiveness and efficiency (Chapters 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3),
relevance (Chapter 7.3) and coherence with other instruments (Chapter 7.4), and
also to identify and evaluate the relevance of future needs (Chapter 7.5). 
The evaluation took also into consideration
information from other EU instruments supporting the conservation of
agricultural resources that were provided by various DGs (AGRI, ENV, RTD, and
SANCO) and, as far as information was available, corresponding measures
undertaken by Member States. The evaluation considered also the
"Biodiversity Strategy", first adopted by the EU in 2001, and
recently renewed towards 2020 (COM 2011 - 44 final) and "Plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture: roles and research priorities in the
European Union", (Policy report 17 of the European Academies Science
Advisory Council (EASAC), December 2011). Furthermore, the evaluation
considered material from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) of the UN-Food
and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) including the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. This facilitated the overall
assessment of the coherence of this Community Programme with other related
instruments (Chapter 7.4).
All documents made available for this
evaluation are listed in Annex 1 (Chapter 9).

Chapter 6 - The consultation of stakeholders

Invitations to participate to the
stakeholders' questionnaire were sent to 188 participants (see list in Annex 4
of Chapter 9). Replies were submitted by 43 respondents, of whom 2 were the
same. Respondents were at liberty to leave an answer blank and some answers
were disregarded as being outside the scope of the original question. We thank
the respondents for their work and assure all of them that each response has
retained our complete attention. Their input informed our views throughout the
evaluation process.
As regards Q 1, the main benefits of
conserving agricultural resources were thought to be environmental; agronomic
and/or economic; food security; scientific interest; larger products ranges
(diversification, products offer) and no regret strategy in case of future
needs. Important meaning has got also Non-tangible benefits (cultural,
ethical).
As regards Q 2, “Are you familiar with the
Community Programme established by Council Regulation No. 870/2004” the
majority of the respondents affirmed acquaintance of the Community Programme. 
As regards Q 3, most of the respondents
were actively, directly involved in conserving genetic resources and some of
respondents were responsible for coordination and management of the Programmes
at national level (Ministry etc.), i.e. indirect involvement. Only a few
respondents did not affirm involvement. 
Q 4 was 'The Community Programme had the
objective "to help ensure and improve conservation, characterisation,
collection and use of plant, animal & microbial genetic resources". To
what extent has the objective been realised?' Most respondents positively
evaluated the realisation of the objectives. Criticisms included the limited
scope of the Programme and level of funding, also the problems of access to
participation for farmers, small organisations and others with little
experienced in applying for EU projects. A few respondents criticised the lack
of work on conservation in situ (on farm/in garden), inadequate farmer
information about the Programme, and lack of environmental policies.  
Q 5, 6 and 7 concerned the other objectives
of the Programme. The majority of respondents felt that the objective of
coordinating and harmonising actions in Member States had been achieved but a
sizeable minority thought that realisation of those objectives was limited or
partial, and a few thought that the long term impact would be small. A little
more than 1/3 of the responders thought that the objective (q6) of
"promoting information exchange" had been achieved. The most frequent
criticism was that information exchanges had been limited to the project
partners, and/or scientists. Responses to Q7, regarding multidisciplinarity,
tended to agree; about half the respondents criticised the lack of
collaboration with NGOs, farmers and gardeners.
Q 8 gave stakeholders the opportunity to
list the positive and negative effects to be expected from the Programme. The
positive effects were thought to be an increased level of cooperation,
coordination and sharing of information between participants etc. Among the
negative aspects were listed e.g. the problem of continuing funding after the
end of the Programme and also limited dissemination of results to the public,
and the apparent dispersal of efforts at EU level, due to a perceived
fragmentation of policy approaches between the various Directorates of the
Commission.
Q 9 was a follow up to q 8, regarding the
administration of the Programme, with recommendations for the future. Many
stakeholders drew attention to the low funding rate by comparison with FP7
(which provides up to100% reimbursement of the costs of project management).
There was also a general consensus that administrative bureaucracy should be
significantly reduced in any future programme. Opinions on calls for proposals
were mixed - some thought that there should be a call every 1 or 2 years, but
others thought that one call every 4 years should be enough. 
Q10 asked about Rural Development
Programmes, and how they supported conservation measures in the respondents'
country. Responders indicated that for the current funding period (2007-2013)
the Council Regulation No. 1698/2005 on the "support for rural development
by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)" sets the
general framework for the rural development policy. The implementation of the
EAFRD at national level supports a sustainable rural development through a
variety of agri-environmental-friendly measures, including the conservation and
utilisation of genetic resources. However, national policy and support regarding
levels of subsidies for the protection of plant and animal resources
significantly differed between the respondents' countries.
The relationship between the EU's
Programmes dealing with genetic resources under (i) Rural Development, (ii)
Research, and (iii) the Community Programme, was explored in q 11. According to
the responses it is clear that the same respondents may seek funding for their
work under any or all of these three schemes. Some respondents drew attention
to significant differences and complementarities between them, with the
Research Programmes concentrating on research, which is specifically excluded
from the Community Programme, and Rural Development reaching out to a wider
range of stakeholders than the other two, and in particular giving support to
those who care for rare breeds in situ. Some respondents pointed to
overlapping aims and lack of adequate coordination between the three actions.
Q 12 asked stakeholders which sector could
benefit in particular from efforts to conserve genetic resources in
agriculture. There was a very substantial majority opinion that the main
benefit was for Farmers, Breeders and Consumers. Other respondents indicated
benefit for Agri-food industry and scientific bodies. Some of the replies
mentioned "Other"; notably the human health, cosmetics, and
bio-energy sectors.
Q 13 asked about the existing initiatives
and activities of EU and other organisations. The sectors that could benefit
from efforts to conserve genetic resources in agriculture are mentioned as
follows: EU Community Programme (Council Regulation No 870/2004) was chosen by
most respondents, followed by EU Rural Development Policy; European Cooperative
Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) and International Treaty on Plant
Genetic resources for Food and Agriculture; EU Research Framework Programmes;
European Regional Focal Point for Animal Genetic Resources (ERFP). There was
also mention of activities of the UN-Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), including the Nagoya protocol. 
 
Twenty-six respondents answered Q 14
regarding the impact of the EU seed and propagating material and zootechnical
legislation on actions relevant for the conservation of genetic resources
diversity (GRD). While two stakeholders affirmed that the legislation has a
positive impact on GRD, 13 clearly affirmed the opposite. The remaining 11 gave
their general views but this did not allow choosing for a clear
(positive/negative) opinion. One of the stakeholders responded “the
directives on conservation varieties are an important step forward because they
implicitly acknowledge that seed regulations since the 1960s have contributed
to the genetic erosion of agricultural diversity and so must be amended
somehow.”
Q 15 asked for opinions as to how actors at
all levels could be encouraged to engage in the conservation of agricultural
genetic resources. The few responses to this question
included the following:
1.     
Local action: to promote niche marketing of
local products, afford legal protection to in situ conservation of wild
crop relatives, allow the production and sale of varieties not on the Common
catalogue.
2.     
Regional action: to support projects which aim
to market genetic diversity.
3.     
National action: establishment of national
programmes on genetic resources conservation.
4.     
The European Union action: support specific
activities at European level including the participation of non-member states.
Q 16 asked: "With respect to
decisions on different types of measures and their implementation, which role
should be attributed to the local, regional, and national level? Which
decisions and which types of action should be undertaken specifically at the EU
level?" Twenty-eight stakeholders answered to q16, but only few of
them clearly indicated the distinction between levels
(local/regional/national/EU). It was thought that one of the most important
tasks at local level is to identify local varieties and breeds to be conserved,
to identify and train local farmers to conserve material on-farm, and to
encourage support networks so as to maintain GR in use and to record
traditional knowledge. At regional level the most important task was thought to
be adapted to EU guidelines in a coherent way with the national laws. Other
respondents mentioned the networking of local actors, organising knowledge
transfer, and stimulate (including financing) in situ and ex situ
conservation. At national level respondents indicated a need to integrate the
ITPGRFA (especially art. 5, 6 & 9), into national legislation. Respondents
also mentioned the need to maintain inventories at national level, to
coordinate research and conservation activities across national borders, in
cooperation with the national and international genebanks. At EU level,
respondents suggested a unification of the overall framework for conservation
activities, integrated into the CAP, with continuous funding for in situ
and ex situ conservation work.
Q 17 asked about the match between actual
needs, and the stated objectives of Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004. Out of
the 35 respondents, the majority replied that that the Programme is completely
relevant to the needs. A few respondents added that the Programme is mainly
oriented to ex situ conservation and more in situ dynamic
management would be desirable. Some respondents suggested the initiation of
priority-based funding. Other respondents suggested that the Programme
relevance belongs to the category of "enough”, and the comments are
similar as in the previous question, saying that the next programme has to be
more oriented to in situ conservation and on farm management of GR. 
Then come several questions which invited
the respondent to put a list of items in rank order. Q 18 asked about the use
of resources. The majority of options chosen by respondents indicated
"Conservation" and "Characterisation" followed by “Use” and
“Evaluation”, followed by “Collection” and “Collection maintenance and
updating”. Interestingly, development of genetic diversity (level of population)
got the lowest ranking. 
Q 19 asked about the type of conservation
actions to be promoted. Taken  all replies, animals and plants together, the
overall majority opinion was that in situ and ex situ actions are
of equal importance followed by "in situ more important than ex
situ".
Thirty-two responses were received to the Q
20 about the "utility of EU lists". According to the majority of
respondents EU-wide lists of endangered breeds and plant varieties would be
useful for the implementation of a possible future EU-Community programme. Only
one response recognised these lists as a good starting point, and few
respondents mentioned that, although it is a good starting point, its
applicability would be fairly limited. A few stakeholders mentioned that the
development of these lists should be a national responsibility; and a few
respondents suggested that the lists are not useful.
Q 21 asked stakeholders to put a given list
of actions for in situ conservation in rank order. 36 respondents chose
at least 1 option. The majority of respondents indicated 'Knowledge transfer'
followed by 'Networking'.  
Q 22 asked stakeholders to put a given list
of actions for ex situ conservation in rank order. Thirty-seven
respondents chose at least one option. "Maintaining databases" and
"Developing databases" were the two majority opinions and networking
was also indicated as a very important task. Although "Funding" is
not considered as an 'action' but as an 'instrument' it was indicated by
several stakeholders. "Centralisation of database and collection" was
ranked last. 
Q 23 asked for the stakeholder's view
regarding the obstacles to valorising under-utilised and traditional varieties
and breeds. According to the stakeholders' responses this is one of the most
important questions for sustainable agriculture and the use of genetic
resources. To overcome the obstacles, Europe wide communication is needed,
including political effort, financial managements systems, legislative
processes, and closer interaction between all stakeholders in the agricultural
sector starting from research till the consumers. To overcome the existing
obstacles, problems have to be solved not only in the genetic resources
community itself, because many basic societal questions have to be taken into
account. It would be very important to study these questions in more details by
using one of the EU funded research instruments. A few stakeholders replied
that under-utilised and traditional varieties and breeds tend to be of limited
economical value. Other stakeholders blamed legislation systems, industry and
market standards, global market chains, the dominance of ex situ
conservation over in situ dynamic management etc. as obstacles. 
Question 24 was about invertebrates and
micro-organisms; it invited stakeholders to put a list of priority areas in
rank order. Twenty two respondents chose at least one option. The top rated
priority was "Soil biodiversity", second was "Plant & animal
health microorganisms", followed by "Agro-industry",
"Biocontrol" and "Pest and diseases".
"Pollinators" were also mentioned. Two respondents added the category
of ruminant protozoa. All answers indicated the need for a systemic, rather
than fragmented, approach.
Q 25 asked about the link between securing
product quality and quantity and the conservation and sustainable use of
genetic resources. Respondents though that holders of genetic resources should
do more detailed assessment of quality and production characters, that all such
analyses should be done in close collaboration with end-users (e.g. breeders)
and that the resulting data, together with the genetic materials, should be
easily available. It was also thought that evaluation the assessment exercise
should include the archiving of associated traditional knowledge. Collaboration
between the various actors (farmers, foresters and gardeners, breeders,
researchers, retailers and consumers) was seen as important to maximise
opportunities, resources and efforts and to interchange knowledge.
Thirty responses were received for Q 26 on
short food supply chains. Most respondents agreed that short supply chains can
promote the use of traditional varieties, with benefits for rural development.
There was also a number of calls for improvements in specific labelling
schemes, such as the EU-label "Protected Designation of Origin" and
"Protected Geographical Indication" with the suggestion of a new EU
label" traditional and local agricultural or under-utilised genetic
resources" so that dynamic conservation and production lead to marketable
products.
As regards "Other comments &
suggestions" (Q27), 13 stakeholders made some comments or suggestions. The
major concern was the need for more and sufficient funding for GR conservation
and use, with several respondents mentioning the needs of small farms. Several
respondents mentioned the need of a new, or the extension of recent Community
Programme on genetic resources to the fields of various untapped subjects such
as aquaculture and industry (non-food), and energy crops.

Chapter 7 - The results of the evaluation
7.1 WHAT WAS DONE: ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS
4.1.1.          
a) Action selection process: how was the funding
selection process and subsequent monitoring conducted?

Calls for Proposals were published in the
Official Journal of the European Union on 26/7/2005 (closing date 30/9/2005)
and on 28/4/2006 (closing date 30/6/2006). A total of 72 proposals were
submitted in response to the two Calls. There were 60 proposals for Targeted
Actions, seven for Concerted Actions, and four for Accompanying Actions.
Following examination by the Commission services, seven proposals were deemed
ineligible under the published Tender Specifications. The 65 eligible proposals
were evaluated by teams of independent experts, who established final lists of
proposals in ranked order on the basis of the Tender Specifications. The top
proposals were selected for funding - a total of 17 proposals across the two
Calls – based on: (1) Relevance of the action to the objectives of the
Community Programme; (2) Technical quality of the proposed work; (3) Quality of
the management of the action; (4) European added value and potential impact of
the action; (5) Quality of the coordination between the proposer and the
partners; (6) Mobilisation of resources for the action. Further details for
each funded Action are summarised in Table 1.
Four of the 65 eligible proposals dealt
with micro-organisms, 20 proposed work on animals, 38 on plants (including
forest trees) and three proposed joint work on plants and on animals. No
proposals for work on micro-organisms achieved the necessary level of
excellence and neither did any of those on animals-plus-plants. The 17 selected
proposals comprised five dealing with animal species and 12 with plants (crops
or forest trees).
Each short list of selected proposals was
submitted to the Programme Management Committee which delivered its opinion on
the draft. The Commission services then established contracts with each of the
selected proposers. The contracts were based on the wording of the proposal as
submitted.
Although the evaluation reports of the
individual proposed Actions by independent experts suggested to "improve
the plan for dissemination" or "simplify and downsize the molecular
section", we understand that there was no formal process for such remarks
to be included in the final contracts.
The total estimated cost of the selected
"animal" Action was 3,769,368 euros; the 50% EU contribution was
1,946,478 euros. In individual Actions, contributions ranged from 382,375 to
460,098 euros. The total estimated cost of the selected "plant"
Actions was 15,077,987.2 euros and the EU contribution was 6,971,239 euros,
with a range between 329,507 and 929,507 euros per project. The total EU
contribution to the 17 Actions was 8,917,717 euros.
Once the Actions had started, coordinators
were required to submit annual progress reports, plus a financial statement of
accounts, to the Commission. At the end of the Action the coordinator submitted
a final technical report covering the whole period. All reports were reviewed
by external independent experts using the following rating scheme for each
aspect of the work, and overall: Share of total score 81% to 100%=A, 66% to 80%
= B; 51% to 65% = C; 26% to 50% = D; 0% to 25% = E. Activities and results in
the top quintile (group "A") were awarded the mark Excellent and so
on through Good, Satisfactory, Poor, down to Unacceptable for anything in the
bottom quartile, (group "E"). The Commission prepared a summary of
the evaluator's marks and accompanying text, derived some management instructions,
and sent summary plus instructions to the coordinator for action. On many
occasions a long sequence of exchanges ensued, placing considerable
administrative burden on the coordinators of funded Actions.
In conclusion, the call stimulated considerable
interest among stakeholders, attesting to the effectiveness of the Call.
However, the subsequent administrative procedures were at times burdensome and
complex. The latter was also expressed by stakeholders in their response to at
least 3 questions (Q 4, 9 and 12). We conclude that major steps towards
simplification are needed. In this context we draw attention to the
simplification procedures that have been put in place for the new Horizon 2020
Programme. “Horizon 2020 must attract the most excellent researchers and
innovative enterprises. This requires further simplification of rules and
procedures for participants. The FP7 interim evaluation report concluded that
major steps towards further simplification were needed, through an approach
based on an adequate balance between risk taking and trust in participants”.

4.1.2.          
b) Types of actions: targeted, concerted,
accompanying; are they balanced?

The 17 selected and funded proposals
comprised 15 Targeted Actions (12 on plants, three on animals), one Concerted
Action and one Accompanying Action, both on animals. The balance was heavily
tilted towards Targeted Actions.
Given the relative success of the Concerted
and the Accompanying Actions (both received high marks in the independent
evaluation of their final reports) it might be argued that more of such
measures should have been funded. This observation is in line with a
recommendation from the expert group that evaluated the 1st Community Programme
(Council Regulation No. 1467/1994). However, the success of the Concerted and
Accompanying Actions became apparent only at the end of the Programme.
Furthermore, the original selection process was strictly based on the merit of
each proposal as determined by the independent experts.

4.1.3.          
c) Type of beneficiaries: who are the most
represented and those not represented?

Across the 17 Actions selected for funding,
the five animal actions had a total of 45 partners from different institutions,
and the twelve plant actions 133. Some institutions featured in more than one
Action. Partners were drawn from all but four of the current 27 Member States
of the EU. The large majority (nearly 80%) were professional scientists from
national genebanks or research institutes or universities. Other beneficiaries
included breed associations and societies, and governmental and
non-governmental organisations.
The relatively low level of participation
of potential end-users of genetic resources (e.g. farmers, breeders, producers,
growers, foresters etc) is troubling. The high representation of scientific
participants (universities and research institutes) is probably due to the fact
that such organisations have appropriate built-in infrastructures to promptly
respond to Calls for proposals. Although involvement of these organisations
ensures the important scientific dimension to the conservation, collection and
characterisation of genetic resources, lack of end-users compromises their
potential utilisation for the benefits to agriculture.
In conclusion, lack of balance between
scientific partners and end-users adversely affected the achievement of the
main objective of this Community Programme to "provide an efficient and
practical support to the actual and future end-users of genetic resources"
thereby compromising the effectiveness and relevance of the Programme.

7.2 WHAT WAS DONE: TECHNICAL ASPECTS

Table 1 (pages 30-33 of this document)
provides a summary of the 17 Actions and the technical achievements of each
action in conserving, characterising, collecting, and utilising genetic resources.
We have evaluated the extent to which the
Actions, taken as a whole, have contributed to the effectiveness and the
efficiency of the Community Programme and the achievement of its overall
objectives. 
Reference to Table 1 shows that a number of
significant contributions to meeting the Community Programme’s objectives were
indeed made.
However, although individual Actions met
their contractual obligations as laid out in their Grant Agreement, we have
identified some areas of shortfall in the selection of Actions with regards to
the achievement of the objectives of the Community Programme and Regulation.
One such area is an overall bias across almost all Actions towards
academic/scientific activities, and little emphasis on practical applications
and involvement of direct end-users. This focus extended to the dissemination
and exploitation activities. In this respect, the panels who evaluated the
original proposals had already noted that the dissemination and exploitation
plans of some Actions were focussed more towards the scientific community than
to farmers and growers, and had asked for clearer utilisation plans for
end-users. However, no action seems to have been taken to implement the panels'
recommendations (some of the evaluation
forms asked for "Recommendations for the preparation of the grant
agreement”) because the
formal position of the Commission was not to change offers in order not to
compromise the equal treatment of applicants in the selection process.
Since the Detailed Implementation Plan of
each Action remained as originally proposed, our observations should not be
considered as implying weaknesses or failures of any particular Action. Rather,
they point to formal limitations that prevent the Commission from acting upon
the recommendations of the proposal evaluation panels.
We have also identified other generic
issues that affected the implementation of the Programme: notably, several
Actions experienced administrative problems and delays. These were due to
managerial failures in foreseeing or resolving financial, personnel, etc
issues.
 
Further evaluation of these aspects
relevant to the effectiveness and efficiency of the Programme follows.

4.1.4.          
d) In situ / ex situ conservation: are they
balanced?

There was a good balance between ex-situ
and in-situ conservation of animal genetic resources, especially in the 3
Targeted Actions. Actions 012 - EUREKA and 020 – EFABIS developed guidelines
and strategies for both cryopreservation ex situ and conservation in
situ. The Action 040 - HERITAGESHEEP had an excellent balance focusing on
specific in situ problems facing localised breeds, as well as strategies for
their ex situ conservation.
Among the plant
projects, Action 063 - CYNARES characterised several on farm collections.
Action 057 - AEGRO identified areas for in situ conservation of wild
relatives of Allium, Avena, Brassica, and Prunus;
however, as they explained "the partners come from public research
institutions which are responsible for research. The establishment of genetic
reserves is clearly beyond the formal responsibility of public research
institutions"; therefore, the in situ conservation guidelines
still remain to be put into practice, although such implementation was not a
contractual objective of the Action.
There were several more in situ
conservation projects, notably among the Actions on woody species (for example
008 - GRAPEGEN, 068 - SAFENUT, and 009 – EUFGIS).
The majority of plant Actions focused on ex
situ conservation, ranging from DNA banks, to cryopreservation of vegetative
tissue or of pollen, to storage of seeds and field collections. In our view,
such systems are a better use of EU funds than trying to maintain the same
material as living plants in situ.
Most of the Actions concerned existing
collections. Amongst the "animal" Actions only 040 - HERITAGESHEEP
had any activity on new collections (cryo-bank of 15 breeds of sheep in 5
Member States). All of the "animal" Targeted Actions worked on the
characterisation and evaluation of existing collections of genetic resources.
Some of the "plant" Actions
achieved substantial numbers of accessions characterised (including use of
molecular markers and phenotyping) e.g. 008 - GRAPEGEN (4,000 accessions
characterised) and 009 - EUFGIS (3,000 accessions); for further details on all
Actions see Table 1.

4.1.5.          
e) Number of genebanks and databases completed
and created?

Genebanks were established in the 040 -
HERITAGESHEEP Action (a new cryo-bank of material from local breeds of sheep),
056 - EURALLIVEG and 071 - RIBESCO (cryo-banks of pollen and dormant buds), and
049 - EURIGEN and 063 - CYNARES (DNA banks).
All the Targeted Actions used some sort of
database which they made available to partners and then to visitors over the
web. Two web applications for collecting and managing genebank data were also
developed.
As regards coverage of the databases,
notable examples among the "animal" Actions include 020 - EFABIS
(nine Member States now implementing national genebank guidelines established
by the project), 040 - HERITAGESHEEP (on-line database describing 49 breeds
from five Member States) and 066 - ELBARN (a large database covering a total of
43 European countries). Databases were also developed by Actions on the genomic
aspects of genetic resources; amongst the animal Actions, the 067 - GLOBALDIV
database of information on breeds with specific extreme genotypes is
particularly worthy of comment. The animal actions also established two
networks linking local databases, and breed preservation and rescue centres
across Europe.
As regards the "plants" Actions,
some Actions contributed or will contribute to existing European databases (008
- GRAPEGEN to the ECPGR European Vitis database; 061 - AVEQ to the
European Avena database, originally established with the support of Council
Regulation (EC) 1467/94) but it appeared that scientists in many Actions
developed their own individual database for their own particular needs with the
ambition of integrating it later; as one of them wrote "A project
database will be created as a project management tool and as a data repository
under development. After consolidation of the database concepts ways will be
sought to integrate the results collected in the project into already existing
data repositories as outlined below." and “It is not intended to leave
the project database as a new fragment in the puzzling landscape of
biodiversity informatics. Rather the results should be integrated in already
existing and well established information systems (ECCDBs, CWRIS, EUNIS,
GBIF)”. As the final report of the 071-RIBESCO action put it “At this
state, the RIBESCO action cannot deliver its data to EURISCO database, as
proposed by the evaluator of the 3rd Annual Interim Technical Report of
RIBESCO. This is because the EURISCO Web Catalogue currently contains passport
data only”. This may have deprived the users of the database from potential
benefits such as uninhibited information exchange and retrieval, and ease of
meta-analyses. Again, this is not meant as a criticism of the individual
action, where the grant agreement obligations were met, but it points to the
failure to recognise the possibility before the grant agreement was drawn.
There were some notable advances in
individual database content and presentation. However, database development in
most Actions relied on the availability of additional funding sources. Budget
limitations and unanticipated technical problems may have limited optimal
development as has been indicated by the coordinator of the action 061 – AVEQ: "Software
development normally by far exceeds the budgets available in genetic resources
projects. Achievements in this field, if any, are mainly by self exploitation
of enthusiastic workers".
In most cases, the databases were available
to the public and end-users under open-access terms. A few databases, however,
required user registration or communication with the coordinator of the Action,
thereby prohibiting immediate access to the results and diminishing the value
of the outcomes.
In sharp distinction to the USA, where the
USDA has maintained the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) for many
years (website: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl), Europe has
no single centralised database for genetic resources of agricultural crops or
forest trees. Under FP5, a Europe-wide database (EURISCO) was developed.
Regulation 870/2004 foresaw the "establishment, maintenance and
improvement of web-based European Central Crop Databases (ECCDBs) with
characterisation and evaluation data and linked to the network of national inventories
and to the EURISCO catalogue for the passport level data" which,
however, has not been achieved.
As to the future, we wish to echo comments
made by some coordinators in the stakeholder survey: "Creating a
database of living (in situ) resources is one thing, keeping it up to date is
quite another. This requires a perpetual commitment to remaking the database at
least once every breeding season." Similar attention is required for
the maintenance of in situ collections and of ex situ cryo-banks,
for either animals or plants. We return to this question later.
In conclusion, several useful databases
were developed to accommodate data generated in these Actions, which contribute
to the effectiveness and efficiency of the Community Programme. However, in
some cases, accessibility to the full content of the databases by end-users was
not straightforward. Furthermore, individual databases were constructed without
reference to one-another and there is no single portal by which access to all
these results can be gained.

4.1.6.          
f) Dissemination and exploitation of final
results: to which audience?

Most (about 60%) Actions did an excellent
job of disseminating their results in many European languages to a wide range
of stakeholder groups across the EU, including scientific, industry and farm
backgrounds and interests. Dissemination vehicles included not only partners'
websites, but also newsletters, questionnaires, training days and workshops for
stakeholders, as well as refereed publications and presentations to scientific
meetings. Some of the "plant" Actions produced printed material such
as booklets or variety identification cards for growers; Action 008 - GRAPEGEN
organised a wine tasting for growers.
There was, however, a significant minority
of Actions (we put it at 40% of the total) which concentrated almost
exclusively on disseminating results among the academic community. They did
little or no dissemination to key stakeholders such as breed societies, other
end-users of genetic resources, and also the European citizens. Even though the
Regulation lays down (Annex 1 Article 3.1) that “The actions should add
value (spreading knowledge, increasing use, improving methodologies, exchange
between Member States)”, in practice little was done by some of the actions
on either spreading knowledge or increasing use. Although these actions might
have individually met their contractual obligations as per the respective grant
agreements, they could not contribute to the Community Programme's requirement
for wide distribution of knowledge and results emanating from the funded
Actions.
Almost half of the "animal"
Actions laid plans for the exploitation of their results at policy level
(sustainable agricultural practices, conservation of biodiversity, other
initiatives at regional and government level). Some plant Actions (e.g. 001 –
LEAFYVEG, 049 - EURIGEN, 071 - RIBESCO) included partners who are active in
plant breeding providing an opportunity to apply the results in future breeding
of commercial varieties with increased agricultural performance and/or product
quality.
In conclusion, dissemination and
exploitation of final results generally received adequate attention by the
funded Actions, and high marks were awarded to most final reports by
independent experts. This contributes to the effectiveness, efficiency and
relevance of the Community Programme. However, although the audience and final
recipients of these dissemination activities always included scientific
targets, other end-users were not always reached. This may be due to the fact
that scientific organisations featured more often in the winning consortia than
end-users. Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous section, there is not
always open access to some of the results. This limits the added-value of the
Programme with regards to "spreading knowledge, increasing use, improving
methodologies".

7.3 WHAT WAS DONE: OUTCOMES AND IMPACT
4.1.7.          
g) Added value of the 17 co-funded Actions at EU
level?

Added value can found in the following
outcomes of individual funded Actions:

 Increased scientific knowledge of biodiversity in
     existing European collections at phenotypic and genomic level.
 Development of reliable ex situ/ in situ
     conservation techniques and establishment of reference frameworks for
     future management of in situ and ex situ diversity at EU and
     also national (Member States) level.
 Development and establishment of searchable
     databases and genebanks for future use, facilitating access to accessions
     with useful characteristics.
 Building links and collaboration across Europe
     between partners and beneficiaries.
 Generation of increased knowledge and awareness
     across Europe in the areas of agricultural biodiversity and
     sustainability, and food security issues.
 Availability of some well characterised and
     evaluated crop accessions to end-users.
 Availability of some virus-free accessions of
     some vegetatively propagated crops
 Opportunities for breeders and breeding companies
     to undertake innovative marker-assisted selection to develop competitive
     varieties/stock.

To further elaborate, we find it useful to
distinguish "soft" results (increased knowledge and awareness at EU
level, links and collaborations between partners) and "hard" results
(tangible outputs such as genebanks, databases, reference frameworks for
management of genetic resources ex situ or in situ).
For example, the 012 - EURECA Action had
significant "soft" results; the 020 - EFABIS Action provided
significant "hard" results - a formal framework of reference for
managing animal biodiversity. Some projects (e.g. 040 - HERITAGESHEEP) had
notable results of both "soft" (e.g. raised awareness among decision
makers) and "hard" (e.g. cryo-preserved germplasm) nature. All these
results have general applicability across the EU. Thus the added value of these
projects at EU level is considerable.
Among the plant Actions, improved
collections of vegetatively propagated species (garlic, artichokes, strawberry,
raspberry, Ribes species) should have particular added value, since they make
available material that has been well-characterised and which is virus-free.
"Soft" results include transfer
of information to breeders and breeding companies on, for example, innovative
marker-assisted selection techniques. We should also mention the sustained
collaboration of partners and initiatives to develop new projects for EU
funding (e.g. Actions 036 - GENBERRY and 071 - RIBESCO, and 057 - AEGRO
contributed to the new EU FP7 research projects EUBERRY and PGR Secure,
respectively). Such collaborative opportunities enable the undertaking of
actions that individual organisations might not be able to undertake alone.
Additional "soft" benefits include access to each other’s
infrastructure, exchange of ideas, practices, knowledge and resources, and a
greater possibility for public outreach.

4.1.8.          
h) To what extent are the added value results of
the actions likely to last after the termination of the projects?

"Soft" results (e.g. knowledge)
will persist long after the end of the individual Actions and should make a
significant contribution to the implementation of the Global Plans of Action on
Animal Genetic[5] Resources and Plant Genetic Resources[6]
in Europe. There will also be significant benefits from the links that have
been built and the collaboration that has been established between partners,
stakeholders and national authorities.
The lasting survival of the tangible or
"Hard" results of each project is more difficult to predict; for
example, a bank of preserved genetic material or a computer database needs
continuous and costly maintenance. Furthermore, for some notable outcomes (e.g.
the EFABIS database and RIBESCO collections) long-term survival will depend on
future specific circumstances in the implementing organisation and may likely
require funds from external sources. For example, the final report of 020 -
EFABIS (page 60) stated that “The long-term maintenance and further
development of the network of information systems has been intensively
discussed by the three parties involved (EAAP, FAO and European Regional Focal
Point (ERFP) represented by a secretary elected every 4 years) leading to a
draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). In the final stages of discussion, a
new secretary of the ERFP was elected in August 2010. Discussions on some
issues recommenced. The MoU is in the process of being signed by the three
parties.” The final report of the 071 - RIBESCO Action summarises the
probable sources of support of virus eradication and core collection
preservation after March 2011; (RIBESCO final report page 38). There were
various different solutions - some partners had been promised national funding
for the next few (one to three) years; some were relying on own resources; one
commented "It is considered essential that resources are allocated to
this kind of work either from the national government or at the EU level,
because large activities in conserving plant genetic resources are not possible
for universities and research institutes in their present funding situation."
On the other hand, we note that some established organisations such as EUFORGEN
are likely to take over maintenance of the database established by Action 009 –
EUFGIS.
In conclusion, high costs and funding
uncertainties of conservation and utilisation of genetic resources in
agriculture will influence the duration of added value accrued from the various
Actions. We therefore cannot predict with any certainty to what extent results
(both "soft" and "hard") will find implementation by
end-user for exploitation on the farm and increased sustainability of
agriculture and food security.

4.1.9.          
i) Do we address the most important problems for
the collection, characterisation, conservation and utilisation of agricultural
genetic resources?

All 17 funded Actions addressed the issues
of characterisation, collection and conservation in their subject species.
Utilisation was addressed in some but not all Actions, the likely reasons being
an under-representation of potential end-users in the consortia, a lack of
insistence on utilisation in the Call and selection process, and, possibly, financial
issues (e.g. limited funding, cost of preservation representing a small
proportion of the total financial support of the agricultural sector etc). 
In work on genetic resources, collection
and conservation chronologically precede characterisation and utilisation. The
040 - HERITAGESHEEP Action is an outstanding example of a project that
successfully collected and conserved a localised resource that found itself
under a very real threat i.e. the threat of wipe-out by compulsory slaughter.
Many other breeds and animal species could
also profit from a similar approach, but it seems unlikely that they would
attract enthusiasts with the same combination of competence and commitment.
Conservation-through-utilisation would seem to be the ideal, but this raises
financial issues which the Programme was never intended to address. However, if
synergies could be developed with other instruments such as the Rural
Development Programme, they would help remedy this problem. More on potential
complementarities between instruments are discussed in a following section.
The problems facing plant genetic resources
are more urgent for vegetatively propagated species (which are expensive to
maintain) than for species which can be easily and cheaply maintained as seeds.
For vegetatively propagated species, Actions 036 – GENBERRY, 050 - EURALLIVEG,
071 - RIBESCO and 063 - CYNARES have collected, rendered virus-free and
conserved material which might have been lost to disease or lack of interest.
Europe has, or used to have, many landraces
of cereals and vegetables. Those that still exist on farms are under
considerable threat. In the current programme, two Actions worked in this area
(061 - AVEQ and 057 - AEGRO). The first of these Actions evaluated a number of
landraces of Avena. The second Action developed in situ management
workplans for landraces of Avena, Beta, Brassica and Prunus.
As regards wild relatives of crops native
to Europe the genera, i.e. Avena, were studied in 061 – AVEQ, Avena,
Beta and Brassica by Action 057 – AEGRO and Vitis by 008 –
GRAPEGEN, but the potential importance of this material for use in agriculture
has not been quantified. 
Furthermore, as already noted in a previous
section, Europe still lacks a permanent and well coordinated single portal to the
various databases on agricultural genetic resources.
Finally, given the current systems of
scientific career management, there is a risk that project partners will pay
too much attention to "innovations" (which result in scientific
papers and hence career advancement) and not enough attention to repetitive
tasks required for resource utilisation and product development.
In conclusion, the most important issues
for the characterisation, collection and conservation of agricultural genetic
resources were effectively addressed for the species studied, thereby achieving
some of the relevant objectives of this Community Programme. On the other hand,
utilisation, although intended, was not always addressed properly.

4.1.10.       j) Which important species and varieties are missed out?

Although proposals on genetic resources of
microbes were submitted, none was considered to be of sufficient quality by the
evaluation panels.
There have been no "animal"
Actions funded by the two Community Programmes on chickens, and among minor
species, no projects on horses or other equidae, or water buffalo; and only one
on rabbits. This is likely due to the fact that stakeholders involved with
“mainstream” mammalian species (cattle, sheep, goats, swine) are more organised
and prepared to respond to Calls for proposals.
In this context, it should be noted that
aquaculture is the world's fastest-growing source of animal protein. Nearly
half of all fish consumed globally are farmed. This issue was also raised in
stakeholder response to the questionnaire. Aquaculture species did not feature
in this Community Programme.
As to crop plants and trees, the second
Community Programme included work on garlic and related Allium species,
artichokes (Cynara), oats (Avena), wild relatives of oats, Prunus,
currants and gooseberry (Ribes), forest (some forest trees), grapevine,
leafy vegetables, nuts and almonds, rice, saffron, strawberries and
raspberries.
Missing from the two Community Programmes
were, notably wheat, rye, triticale, forage crops (grasses, legumes), grain
legumes, oil crops (sunflower), fibre crops (flax, hemp), sweet and hot pepper,
cucurbits (except melon), tomato, umbelliferous crops (except carrot),
ornamental crops (except roses), medicinal and aromatic plants, and bio-energy
and industrial crops.

4.1.11.       k) Are the needs of agriculture addressed?

As regards animals, the needs of
agriculture for genetic resources primarily concern the contribution of local
breeds to the rural economy. Food quality issues of animal products were also
addressed in some of the funded Actions. Network activities enabled exchange of
practices that can be useful in the management of animal genetic resources,
especially in cases of geographically isolated endangered breeds. It should be
stressed that the survival of these breeds often depends on their increased
competitiveness in niche markets for special, high-quality products (e.g.
‘Appellation d' Origine’)
As regards plants, the main reason why some
crop varieties become "rare" is that they are less productive (less
responsive to high inputs) than others. In low-input conditions, the situation
is often reversed - the rustic varieties perform better than the others;
therefore, they play an important role in organic agriculture.
As also regards plants, the value of
Actions in which characterisation and evaluation of agronomic traits such as
resistance to abiotic and biotic stress was a major topic is evident. The same
holds true for Actions that measured the evaluation of product quality. Action
009 – EUFGIS prompted national agencies and other relevant stakeholders in many
countries to improve the management and documentation of their forest genetic
resources. In Actions primarily dealing with conservation, the value for
agriculture other than presence of the material in genebanks, could have been
better demonstrated.
It seems likely that in the near future,
there will be shortages of water for irrigation and of fertilisers. The search
in properly characterised European collections of crop germplasm for genotypes
that are able to resist such conditions should be encouraged. This would
require accurate phenotyping of relevant traits and advances in genomic
selection.
In conclusion, the Programme laid the
foundation for genetic resources to contribute to meeting the needs of
agriculture for sustainability and profitability. More emphasis on the possible
utilisation of the genetic resources would have provided the framework for
additional benefits at the end-users level, thereby enhancing the relevance of
implementing this Community Programme.

4.1.12.       l) Potential impact on breeders and end users (farmers, etc.)?

Regarding animal genetic resources,
guidelines developed and strategies proposed in the funded Actions can help end
users plan future in situ and ex situ activities. New
entrepreneurs wishing to enter the area of low-input and/or alternative
livestock farming may also benefit from information from Actions on
well-adapted genotypes. Policies at national, EU and international (e.g. FAO)
level would largely determine the future impact of these results. Access to the
existing databases and information will be affected by such policies.
Furthermore, animal conservation is an ongoing process and it is necessary to
continue supporting endangered breeds. It could be expected that conservation
programmes would be supported by national and Community authorities in various
forms including the financial contributions to non-production functions of
local breeds and specific policy measures contributing to the sustainable use
of underutilised farm animal genetic resources.
As regards the plant Actions there was not
always enough emphasis on providing information to end-users; for example to
those looking for specific traits, such as product quality or stress
resistance. In some actions there was too much investment in the newest
state-of-the-art molecular approaches (sometimes even not fully validated in
the given species) and not nearly enough on the distribution of information to
users, via for example user friendly, easily accessible databases. As mentioned
before, end-users were under-represented in the project teams and among
recipients of project results; this has compromised the potential impact and
relevance of this Community Programme.

7.4 WHAT WAS DONE: WIDER CONTEXT
4.1.13.       m) Complementarities/duplication between the projects co-funded by
the Community Programmes, the Research Framework Programmes and other EU
programmes including INTERREG 

Council Regulation 870/2004 established the
second Community Programme on genetic resources in agriculture, following up on
the completion of Council Regulation (EC) 1467/1974 that established the first
such Community Programme. A few "plant" Actions (e.g. 061 - AVEQ, 008
- GRAPEGEN and 049 - EURIGEN) of the second Programme built on and expanded
previous Actions funded by the first Programme, taking into account
developments in methodology of characterisation and evaluation. Furthermore,
Action 020 – EFABIS (a targeted action) built on an Action from the previous
Programme that had established an inventory of European farm animal genetic
resources and launched activities on characterisation, conservation and
utilisation of these resources. Action 020 - EFABIS basically expanded the work
that had been previously conducted. These are examples of potential
complementarities between the two Programmes.
In theory, there is a logical progression
in science; from basic (e.g. new methods to preserve genotypes, the development
of new tools to derive genomic information and understand genetic variation) to
the routine application of the discovery e.g. the characterisation and
utilisation of many collections (as in the Community Programmes). We know of
some cases which appear to fit this scenario. Among the “animal” Actions, for
example, the 020 - EFABIS targeted action complements a research action that
was co-funded under FP5. Among the “plant” Actions, several partners of the 057
- AEGRO project on crop wild relatives had previously worked together on the
same subject in the FP5 project "PGR Forum"; and some are now being
co-funded in an FP7 project "PGR Secure" on the same subject. A
similar relationship exists between the Community Programme funded actions 036
- GENBERRY and 071 - RIBESCO on the one hand with a project funded under FP7
(EUBERRY).
We are not however persuaded these are all
instances of a logical progression or complementarity of work between the
Framework Programme and this Community Programme. An alternative explanation is
that researchers were simply looking to "Brussels" for funds to continue
their work, and thus submitted applications to this Community Programme.
This view is exemplified by the fact that
some of the planned tasks which could not be completed were research-oriented.
For example, 049 - EURIGEN attempted to correlate basal level of gene
expression of signalling and defence genes with resistance to Magnaporthe
oryzae; because it was not successful this activity was abandoned. For 050
– EURALLIVEG, the development of the cryo-knife technology to obtain virus free
accessions was not successful, as well as the polydimensional SNP analyses. In
020 - EFABIS, a central workpackage concerned with the design and
implementation of environmental predictors failed to finalise and test a final
version. An opposite example is provided by 040 -HERITAGESHEEP, which was
successfully completed by a highly qualified team of scientists who eschewed
fundamental research activities and instead focussed on generating results that
were immediately applied in the field.
Further examples of research activities in
some of the Actions which, according to the expert group should not have been
included, can be found in Annex 6.
Furthermore, there is some confusion
regarding exploitation, as both the Community Programme and FP7 strive to
exploit knowledge. The distinction on how this should happen in the two
programmes should be clearer. A more integrated approach would also help ensure
compliance with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture stated "Each Contracting Party shall, subject to
national legislation, and in cooperation with other Contracting Parties where
appropriate, promote an integrated approach to the exploration, conservation
and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture".
We think it is important to avoid any
future misunderstanding and to ensure that there is real complementarity
between the different European measures on genetic resources in agriculture. In
this respect, taking lessons from the past, the top requirement of any future
work co-funded by a new Community Programme is that it should be
application-focused, aiming to benefit users on the ground and to promote
synergies between end-users across Europe. In this respect, we draw attention
to the potentials offered by the Rural Development Programme of the EU (see
next section). By the same token, when activities on conservation and
sustainable use of genetic resources for food and agriculture are undertaken
outside the Framework Programme, these activities should not be eligible for
Community financial support under the Framework Programme (see partial list in
Chapter 9). 
"Biodiversity" has become the
subject of a number of other policy fields, too. For example, INTERREG has
funded a substantial number of projects on genetic resources for agriculture
(see a partial list in Chapter 9 of this report). Furthermore, DG ENV has just
published a book  “European Red List of Vascular Plants” (doi:10.2779/8515) and
associated website ( http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/plants/wild_relatives_status.htm
 ) listing vascular plants included in European and
international policy instruments, aquatic plant species, and  selected priority
crop wild relatives present in Europe. The work was done under EU Commission
Service Contract No. 070307/2007/483311/MAR/B2.
Since there is no central clearing house
for information within the Commission, there may be other examples of such
crossovers that have escaped our notice.
In conclusion, complementarities and some
risks of overlaps, as described above, affected positively and negatively the
coherence of this Community Programme with other EU instruments. The coherence
level achieved by this Programme is considered satisfactory with room for
improvement.

4.1.14.       n) Application of national programmes/measures promoting the
conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of agricultural
genetic resources (including Rural Development Programmes)?

Many of the funded Actions involved
partners from different nations who already knew one another via organisations
such as EAAP and ECPGR. They were able to add value at national level via the
"hard" results, such as harmonised databases and joint repositories
of genetic material. There was also considerable "soft" added value
where partners were able, via the Action, to meet one another, frequently for
the first time. This latter benefit is likely to endure after the termination
of the Action.
The database work will have added value at
Community level in that it should improve the quality of their entries in the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's world database DAD-IS
(Domestic Animal Diversity Information System). The dataset for EU member
states is currently 46% complete.
The Rural Development Programme of the EU
is focussed on activities at national level. For example, it has already shown
itself successful in preserving autochthonous breeds of livestock in Greece. It
is thus an additional link between research, the Community Programme (co-funded
Action 040 - HERITAGESHEEP) and in situ conservation on the farm. Other
similar examples also exist within the EU but a more in-depth analysis of the
Rural Development Programme is beyond the scope of this evaluation report. 
The above are examples of potential
complementarities between different EU instruments and also of potential
benefits to end-users from increased synergies. In this respect, the coherence
of this Community Programme with another relevant EU instrument is being
achieved.
On the other hand, we have noticed a lack of
clarity as to which work could be co-funded by this Community Programme on in
situ and ex situ conservation, characterisation, collection and
utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture and which work can be co-funded
as part of the Rural Development policy, as per Council Regulation (EC)
1974/2006. A list of examples is provided in Annex 7.

4.1.15.       o) Balance between national, regional, trans-national (EU and
global) approaches?

Regarding animal genetic resources, some of
the funded Actions had a better balance between national and trans-national
approaches than others. Actions that focused on local endangered breeds
understandably tended to be more focused on local conditions, circumstances and
practices, while others took a wider approach on national and trans-national
issues (e.g. for the development of comprehensive databases). In all cases,
there was an effort for exchange of information and approach between regions
participating in the same Action.
In plants, most of the funded Actions
contributed to a good balance between national, regional and EU approaches.
With the participation of international players, such as Bioversity
International, the Community Programme has contributed to the global effort to
preserve plant genetic resources.
In the future, at the global level, notably
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's Commission on Genetic
Resources, Council Regulation (EC) n° 870/2004 should be an important
cornerstone of EU policy (e.g. in inter-sessional meetings of the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and meetings
implementing the Global Plans of Action, both animal and plants). It should be
noted that the coordinators and partners of this Community Programme's Actions
have accumulated much experience of Material Transfer Agreements, Access and
Benefit Sharing, etc,  which can certainly contribute to the formulation of the
above mentioned EU policy.  This would have carried even more weight had
Actions had more direct involvement of end-users.
The terms of the Council Regulation
870/2004 required that teams come from several different Member States. When
such teams developed guidelines, for example in the animal Action 012 - EURECA
and in the plant Action 057 - AEGRO, those guidelines were in fact
trans-national. This unifying tendency is much to be encouraged. It has proved
a great strength of the Community Programme and it sets the work apart from
other (national) programmes implemented by the Commission.
Also at the trans-national (EU) level,
there are a number of long-established European associations of academics and
researchers, including the EAAP for farm animals, ECPGR for crops, and EUFORGEN
for forest trees. Members of these associations have participated in several
Actions selected for funding under this Community Programme. While they have
done a good professional work, we also draw attention to the particular merits
to be derived from Actions depending on a "bottom up" approach,
engaging small enthusiastic teams of "outsiders".

4.1.16.       p) Effect of having a Call only once and not regularly; continuity
without interruption?

In some cases such as an Action leading to
the establishment of a network, a single call seems to us to have been
sufficient; continuous calls might have led to a costly duplication in effort,
in this regard; one of the coordinators of the funded Actions responding to the
questionnaire suggested that additional calls risked duplicating existing work.
However, another coordinator suggested that a second call could be useful, if
it enabled an ongoing Action to be expanded to partners from additional Member
(or non-Member) States. Attention was also drawn to the risk of a "fallow
period" intervening at the end of one Community Program and before the
start of the next. We would also comment that there was a very short period (2
months) between the publication of the call and the closing date for submission
of proposals. A longer period might have allowed a wider participation of
end-users in these proposals.
We now consider the various aspects
involved in having more than a single call. In the first place, new relevant
issues may emerge during the lifetime of a Regulation (e.g. climate change,
food safety etc rose in importance only after the end of Council Regulation
1467/94). It may be appropriate to promptly react to such topical issues. A
second aspect is that successive calls give the community of proposers the
chance to adjust their sights. For example, the experts who evaluated the
proposals under Council Regulation 1467/94 made 13 recommendations, including
"a better contribution of NGOs". The Actions selected for funding
under Council Regulation 870/2004 do include more NGOs (60% of the Animal
Actions but less in Plants). A third consideration in favour of more than one call
is that potential applicants need time to get prepared. This is particularly
true of those who are not part of one of the established networks such as EAAP
and ECPGR. A fourth consideration is that proposals that fail in the first
round are given the chance to strengthen the consortium and workplan, and
resubmit.
In conclusion, a more continuous approach
to Calls announcement would probably lead to a better implementation of
recommendations and more opportunities for funding which, in view of the many species
and crops not yet covered by the two Community Programmes, appears necessary. A
continuous approach to Calls would also facilitate stakeholders who wish to
propose a short-term Accompanying measure.

4.1.17.       q) Funding rates [programme was 50% and 80%] 

Many stakeholders called for an increase in
the total funds available, and in the percentage reimbursement of costs.
Requiring a high proportion of own contribution can deter many stakeholders
from participating. Indeed, for some beneficiaries it has been costly to
participate. Some Actions involved broad consortia of participants resulting in
only small funding per partner, which was not proportional to the size of the
allocated tasks, leading to delays and amendments of the workplan. 
Coordinators of the funded Actions were
canvassed in this regard, and those whose projects that had reached all their
objectives and milestones tended to reply that the funding rate was
sufficiently attractive. Some other coordinators, however, complained that the
funding rate, or total amount, was insufficient. We note that some of these
Actions (on both animal and plant) tended to have been less successful in
reaching all their objectives. In short, we think that the coordinators who
complained at the end of the project about the funding were probably
over-ambitious from the start. We do, however, acknowledge that the result for
some beneficiaries was that they ended up spending more than they received.
In conclusion, we believe that the
co-funding rate of this Community Programme compromised the participation of
certain organisations which might have instead participated if more attractive
funding schemes were possible.

7.5 WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IN THE FUTURE
4.1.18.       r) Different problems and approaches for North/South and old/new Member
States?

Modern technologies for conservation,
characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources are relevant
to and can be implemented, in principle, in all countries. There is therefore
considerable added value for Member States to work together in all areas of
genetic resources.
At the same time we acknowledge that
important climatic, financial and cultural distinctions remain between North
and South, and between Old and New Member States. For example, the preservation
of old breeds tends to have lower recognition as a political issue in the newer
Member States, than among the older members. Ruminants are in general more
important in southern states, swine in northern ones. We believe that future EU
actions should continue to take into consideration the specificities of the
various eco-regional systems with regards to genetic resources of animals.
Crops are of course much more sensitive to
agro-ecological conditions; for example only southern countries may want to
participate in an Action such as 063 - CYNARES (though northern countries may
have complementary experience with databases and quality assessment to
contribute). At all events, an ecological distinction may be valid, but
criteria such as the date of entry of a partner's Member State into the EU are
not.
In conclusion, future Community Programmes
on the utilisation of the genetic resources would continue to benefit from a
focus on the widest possible geographical coverage of agro-ecologically
relevant areas.

4.1.19.       s) Criteria for defining endangered animal breeds and plant
varieties and species in agriculture?

There are many different ways in which a
breed or variety can find itself under threat, and not all of those are easy to
predict. It is also difficult to define the particular unique value of any
given breed or variety, which complicate the decision on the appropriate
criteria and priorities in the characterisation and use of genetic resources in
agriculture.
For animals, the key criterion for
estimating endangeredness has been and will continue to be the number of
breeding females. The figure usually quoted in the scientific literature is
between 150 and 1,500[7], depending on the species. However the EU criterion is much higher
(7,500 breeding females). In our opinion the best criterion is the
"effective population size", which takes into account both the number
of breeding animals and the degree of relatedness between them. It is not
uncommon for a large population (e.g. cattle of the Holstein breed – the most
numerous one in the world) to have a very small "effective population
size" due to intensive long-term selection. In such cases, inbreeding
becomes an issue which can potentially threaten the very existence of a breed.
A universally accepted criterion for
endangeredness does not exist in plants. A possible working proposal is that -
if a "core collection" of a given species has been established ex
situ in at least two different locations, then the species is not seriously
endangered. We have the impression that there are not enough such collections
of either landraces or of crop wild relatives; this should be the first
priority as regards "endangeredness".

4.1.20.       t) How many animal breeds and plant varieties and species are
considered endangered in Europe?

For animals, the best source of information
is the FAO Global Data Bank DAD-IS, which makes it possible to generate a
substantial quantity of information with little effort - but it may not be
wholly up to date. We note for example that for 91% of national breed
populations no data on population size have been reported for any of the last
four years. The best available estimate is that 1,710 breeds (21% of the total)
are classified as being at risk. The figure varies between species; for
example, for rabbits, 38% of breeds are at risk. Many breeds are already
extinct; for example, at least 194 breeds of cattle and 160 of sheep. It is of
course unknown how many of these breeds were distinct or how many individual
genes are no longer available.
Regarding plants, thanks to the continuing
efforts of Member States and coordinating activities, existing seed and field
banks cover most agriculturally important crops and species. As already
mentioned, a matter of concern is the landraces and crop wild relatives. The
Action 009 - EUFGIS collected information on genetic conservation units of 91
forest tree species, thereby filling an important gap in forestry.

4.1.21.       u) Possibility to work with "red list" for stakeholders
and managers?

The best known red-list at world level is
that of the International Union for Conservation (IUCN) of wild species. The
categories in that list are extinct, extinct in the wild, critically
endangered, endangered, vulnerable, near threatened, and of least concern.
At EU level, the IUCN together with the
European Commission (DG ENV) have established a review list of the conservation
status of about 6,000 wild species found in the EU.
Although domestic and farm animals do not
figure on either of these lists, they may be of some use in fields such
domestication (link to wild ancestors), the utilisation of natural resources
and threats posed by stress.
At national level, national lists of
endangered animal breeds could be used to define the scope for financial
support under particular programmes. They could also provide an approach to
define public interest in terms of conservation of local ("national")
biological diversity. A European red list could then be developed, based on
these national lists. Harmonisation of criteria regarding the definition of an
endangered breed across country would be needed, and could be delivered in a
new Community Programme (provided that all the appropriate Member States were
involved).
As regards agricultural plants and forest
trees we draw attention to the "state of the world plant genetic resources"
country reports available at http://www.fao.org.

4.1.22.       v) Which further actions should be encouraged at national and EU
levels and beyond?

In situ
conservation activities should continue to be supported through programmes
implemented at regional/national level, where local circumstances are well
understood. At EU level, undoubtedly the first priority is to harmonize
efforts, policies, databases, etc between Member States. As regards databases,
Europe is still lacking a permanent single portal to the various relevant
databases, as previously discussed.
As regards threatened animal genetic
resources, the most important are those resources (breeds) that are currently
perceived to have little or no utility. The most basic "no-regrets"
action would be to ensure that genetic material has been preserved. A more
engaged approach would be to screen such breeds for unique genetic
characteristics and/or develop breeding programmes for genetic improvement. In
the medium to long term, it is going to be important to ensure a substantial
and wide genetic base of all domestic animals, in order to be able respond to
unforeseen challenges (e.g. climatic change, new market circumstances, new
legislation). This will require: (i) the development of strategies for the management
of genetic diversity in order to maintain a broad genetic base, (ii) measures
to increase the efficiency and profitability of less intensive and small scale
animal farming associated with endangered breeds, and (iii) the implementation
of knowledge on differences in genetic structures between breeds and their role
in farm animal agriculture.
All of the above require long-term
commitment. Based on past experience, we have some doubts whether the five or
seven year funding cycle is an appropriate vehicle for such activities.
While thinking about animal genetic
resources it should be remembered that aquaculture is emerging as the world's
fastest-growing source of animal protein. This issue was also raised in
stakeholder input and response to the questionnaire. Therefore the priority of
any future Community Programme should be extended to include genetic resources
of aquaculture species.
As regards both plant and animal genetic
resources, we still need more work on better and more refined phenotyping especially
traits related to health, fitness and product quality. An activity of potential
interest would be to support the transfer and use of established
"omics" techniques and of existing genetic resource collections for
the benefit of end-users in agriculture.
Further activities recommended for support
by a new Community Programme include a concerted action on the preservation of
plant landraces that would bring together projects that are already in progress
at national level, thus adding the sort of transnational value identified in
the present Programme.
Any future actions should be structured to
encourage a more active participation of relevant Small and Medium Enterprises
and of farmer organisations/associations (e.g. those that are engaged in
low-input farming, niche animal products, specialist products from heirloom
plant varieties etc).
Some of the most desirable developments
(e.g. cryo-banks) are likely to be too expensive for any one Member State to
maintain, while many of the supporting technologies (e.g. databases) show large
advantages of scale. There is, therefore, substantial scope for future
improvement, via better coordination of national efforts.
In summary, future activities should focus
on rational utilisation of genetic resources including agriculturally relevant
microbes and other organisms, and greater involvement of end-users that are
active in the area of sustainable agriculture. Closer integration across the
European Commission is desirable so as to promote the complementarity between
research and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture.
 Table 1. A summary of all funded Actions under Council Regulation 870/2004. 
 Action code || Action Acronym || Type || Species || Conservation || Characterisation || Collection || Utilisation Outcomes || Contribution to the Community Programme || Final Evaluation Report 
 001 || LEAFYVEG || Targeted || Leafy vegetables || ex situ || 1950 accessions phenotypically characterised ||   || Database, accessions ready to reintroduce to farming, accessions identified for breeding || (i) Establishment and coordination of permanent interlinked ex situ collections; (ii) activities leading directly to the use of conserved material || Yes (Good) 
 008 || GRAPEGEN || Targeted || wild and cultivated grapevine || mainly ex-situ || 4,000 accessions analyzed using molecular markers; morphological data recorded on 2,382 cultivars || 218 new accessions || Results accessible on web site including variety identity cards; Publications; Dissemination to growers including wine testing || (i) Establishment, maintenance and improvement of we-based European central crop database; (ii) Characterisation and evaluation of genetic resources || Yes (Satisfactory) 
 009 || EUFGIS || Targeted || Forest Trees || Mostly in situ || >3,000 populations || >3,000 accessions || Databases || (i) Only action promoting information exchange on methods, techniques and experiences with forest genetic resource conservation and management; (ii) web-based European network || Yes (Good) 
 012 || EURECA || Targeted || Cattle || In situ, Ex situ ||   || 16 existing breed data || Databases, Guidelines || (i) Promote work at Member States; (ii) Good EU geographical coverage; (iii) Strategies for the profitability of local breeds || Yes (Good) 
 018 || CROCUS || Targeted || Crocus species || ex situ || about 2000 accessions phenotypically characterised || about 900 new accessions || Database, linked with worldwide collection, some accessions were given to breeders || (i) European web-based network; (ii) Characterisation and evaluation of genetic resources || Yes (Satisfactory) 
 020 || EFABIS || Targeted || Livestock species || In situ, ex situ ||   ||   || Databases, Genebank management, Guidelines || (i) Establishment of a permanent European web-based network on national inventories; (ii) Development of European standards and requirements for conservation; (iii) Development of interlinked cryopreservation collections; (iv) Geographical coverage || Yes (Satisfactory) 
 036 || GENBERRY || Targeted. || strawberry, raspberry || mostly ex-situ || 92 accessions molecularly characterised and 80 phenotypically || 172 existing accessions || Database || (i) Establishment of a permanent European web-based network on national inventories || No 
 040 || HERITAGESHEEP || Targeted || Sheep || In situ, ex situ ||   || 49 existing breed data, 15 breed germplasm || Genebank, Database, Breeding programmes, Guidelines || (i) Development of European standards and requirements for conservation; (ii) Development of interlinked cryopreservation collections; (iii) Evaluation of animal genetic resources useful for agriculture; (iv) Development of strategies to support the profitability of local breeds; (v) Development of strategies for the promotion of under-utilised animal genetic resources. || Yes (Good) 
 049 || EURIGEN || Targeted || Rice || ex situ (seeds) || 455 accessions molecularly characterised of which 200 also phenotypically || 455 existing accessions || Web-based database; seed stock repository; DNA biorepository || (i) Establishment of a comprehensive publicly available database; (ii) Characterisation and evaluation of genetic resources; || Yes (Good) 
 056 || EURALLIVEG || Targeted || Garlic and shallot || ex-situ cryo-conservation || About 300 accessions ||   || Training courses, database, accession catalogue. || (i) Establishment, maintenance and improvement of we-based European central crop database; (ii) Establishment and coordination of permanent inter-linked ex-situ collections || Yes (Satisfactory) 
 057 || AEGRO || Targeted. || Avena Beta Brassica Prunus ||   || 242 accessions phenotypically characterised ||   || Database, congress ||   || Yes (Satisfactory) 
 061 || AVEQ || Targeted || Several species of the Avena genus || ex situ (seeds) || 668 accessions characterised phenotypically || 668 existing accessions || Database, dissemination, links with organic farming systems   || (i) Characterisation and evaluation of genetic resources || No 
 063 || CYNARES || Targeted || artichoke and cardoon || ex-situ || 150 accessions characterized molecularly and phenotypically || 438 accessions many of which were just gathered from already existing in national collections || Booklet with data of the evaluation on the website || (i) Information exchange; (ii) Establishment and coordination of European conservation network || Yes (Satisfactory) 
 066 || ELBARN || Concerted || Livestock species ||   ||   || 641 existing breed data || Databases, Conservation Rescue and "Ark" Centres, National Contact Points || (i) Establishment of a permanent European web-based network on national inventories; (ii) Establishment of a European network of "Ark Centres" || Yes (Good) 
 067 || GLOBALDIV || Accompanying || Livestock ||   ||   ||   || Databases, Website, Training || (i) Organisation of seminars, workshops, training courses || Yes (Good) 
 068 || SAFENUT || Targeted || Hazelnut and almond || in situ || 233 accessions phenotypically characterised || 140 new accessions || database, publication, close contact with breeders, growers and industry || (i) Information exchange; (ii) Characterisation and evaluation of genetic resources || Yes (Good) 
 071 || RIBESCO || Targeted || Several species of the Ribes genus || ex situ (fieldbanks, cryopreservation, in vitro) || 1400 accessions phenotypically characterised of which 800 also molecularly || 1400 existing accessions - collection upgrade || 1 database developed and 1 upgraded || (i) Upgrade/clean up of a European collection || Yes (Good) 

Chapter 8 - Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions

The independent experts conclude that
Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004 (24 April 2004) "establishing a second
Community Programme on the conservation, characterisation, collection and
utilisation of genetic resources in and repealing Regulation (EC) No
1467/94" has:

 Stimulated considerable interest among various groups of
     stakeholders within the European Union and beyond.
 Promoted collaboration among diverse groups of stakeholders in
     different countries.
 Led to the establishment of useful links and partnerships
     across Europe.
 Advanced the understanding of some local practices and needs.
 Led to useful results and guidelines for the conservation of
     valuable genetic resources.
 Established well characterised and evaluated core collections
     and cryo-banks of various plant and animal species.
 Improved the scientific knowledge on the nature,
     management and potential of genetic resources of some species of farm
     animals, crops and forest trees in Europe.

In addition:

 Because of considerable emphasis on scientific activities
     relative to their implementation in practice, although the
     characterisation, collection and conservation aspects of agricultural
     genetic resources were effectively addressed for the species studied, the
     utilisation component of the Programme was not addressed to the same
     extent.
 In some cases the structure of reimbursing costs made it
     difficult for certain organisations to participate.
 In some cases, the project results, although potentially
     relevant, were not available to the end users.
 A number of newly developed databases and established ones were
     used to accommodate the data generated but open access to these results
     was not always possible. Furthermore, no mechanism was put in place to
     facilitate accessibility to the results via a single European portal.
 Long-term benefits of conservation may not be
     realised due to the high costs of relevant activities.
Recommendations

In view of the above, the independent
experts make the following recommendations:
1.      The EC Programme on agricultural genetic resources should continue,
building on the successes of the two previous Programmes. Ways should be found
to reduce the administrative burden on coordinators in order to improve the
effectiveness of project execution and delivery of results.
2.      
A
new Community Programme should require that the primary objective of selected
Actions be the delivery of appropriate utilisation of agricultural genetic
resources in practice. To attain this objective, an increased involvement of
end-users and Small and Medium Enterprises in the funded Actions should be
promoted, to ensure the immediate transfer and implementation of project
results.
3.      The new Community Programme must harness all recent scientific and
technological developments, which can offer improvements in the speed and
efficacy of characterisation of agriculturally relevant traits. The aim should
be the practical application of recent scientific advances to the conservation
and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture. To this end, participation
of applied research organisations in combination with the end-users mentioned
above should be encouraged.
4.      Another important emphasis of the new Community Programme should be
on adding value at EU level through the harmonisation of efforts, policies and
programmes on the conservation and utilisation of the agricultural genetic
resources across all Member States.
5.      Activities that promote the evaluation and exploitation of
agriculturally important interactions between microbes and farm animals/crop
plants that have been identified and characterised in previous research should
be encouraged.
6.      
Another
priority of the new Community Programme should be the conservation,
characterisation and utilisation of genetic resources for fresh-water and
marine aquaculture.
7.      The new Community Programme should also focus on plant species for
production of biomass and industrial products.
8.      Options should be explored for better coordination of relevant EC
programmes with the objectives of achieving economies of scale, avoiding
overlaps, creating positive synergies and leading to outcomes for end-users.
9.      Given the high costs of long-term conservation, a new Community
Programme should support relevant activities that have the potential to
eventually generate income for the end-users. The aim should be that the
conservation and utilisation of these agricultural genetic resources become
self-supporting.
10.  Before the launch of any new programme, the Commission should
organise a two-day meeting of stakeholders to discuss the modalities and to
start build interest groups.

Chapter
9 - Annexes
Annex 1: Documents provided by the Commission to the experts

The following documents were provided by
the Commission to the experts at their first meeting and some others were added
by the experts.
1.     
First Community Programme
·        
Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94:
·        
Report from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No
1467/94 (mid term situation)
·        
Report from the independent expert group to the
Commission on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94
·        
Brochure: Genetic resources in agriculture
(1994-1999)
2.     
Second Community Programme
·        
Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004, especially
Article 14
·        
Work Programme
·        
Leaflet: Preserving genetic resources in
agriculture (2006-2011)
3.     
Rural Development Policy
·        
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, especially
Article 39(5)
·        
Council Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, especially
Articles 27(4) and 28
·        
European Court of Auditors: Is Agri-Environment
support well designed and managed?
4.     
Biodiversity strategy
·        
Communication "Our life insurance, our
natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020" (COM 2011 - 44
final)
·        
Biodiversity Action Plan "Halting
Biodiversity loss by 2010 - and beyond: sustaining ecosystems services for
human well being" COM 2006 - 216 final
5.     
DG RESEARCH (DG RTD)
·        
Research Framework Programmes FP6 and FP7
6.     
DG HEALTH & CONSUMERS (DG SANCO)
·        
Background
·        
EU legislation on marketing of seeds and
propagating materials
7.     
DG ENVIRONMENT (DG ENV)
·        
LIFE+ Regulation (EC) No 614/2007
·        
Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity
·        
Text of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and
Benefit-sharing
8.     
Communications
·        
Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council on the European Innovation Partnership
'Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability' 29.02.2012

9.     
FAO
·        
The Second Report on the State of the World's
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
·        
The State of the World's animal genetic
resources for food and agriculture
·        
Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture
·        
Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic
Resources

10.  EASAC policy report 17 - European Academies Science Advisory Council
"Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: roles and research priorities
in the European Union.
11.   ITPGRFA
·        
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture

Annex 2:  A sample of actions co-funded by
INTERREG.

·        
INTERREG III "Cross-border fruit tree
genetic resources and biodiversity" Management and development of Franco-
Walloon fruit tree biodiversity
·        
INTERREG IVC "Reverse - European Project to
preserve Biodiversity"
·        
INTERREG II Italy - Albania Cooperation Programme
·        
INTERREG IIIB GENMEDOC An interregional network
of Mediterranean seed banks
·        
INTERREG IIIB SEMCLIMED
·        
INTERREG IIIB CASTANEA REG
·        
INTERREG IVC Programme Report for The Managing
Authority (December 2006)
·        
INTERREG IIIA Research for Plant Breeding in
Slovakia and Austria
·        
INTERREG II Breeding of Grapevine germplasm and
production of improved viticultural products
·        
INTERREG IIIA Conservation and utilization of
the Balkan flora
·        
INTERREG IIIA Enhancement, sanitation and
production of local vines and wines.
·        
INTERREG II   Integrated software development
for monitoring and management in NATURA 2000 protected areas in Greece and
Italy.
·        
INTERREG IIIA Gene Save
·        
INTERREG/CARDS-PHARE: MARCBAL PROJECT
Marchigiana Cattle Breed in Western Balkans. A
cross-border cooperation and sustainable development plan.
·        
INTERREG IIIB CADSES 2007 - 2011: Integrated
management of biological and landscape diversity for sustainable regional
development and ecological connectivity in the Carpathians
·        
INTERREG III C EAST VINUM EST
·        
INTERREG IIIB GENMEDA

Annex 3:  Some projects on plant genetic
resources co-funded by FP7

·        
ABSTRESS Improving the resistance of legume
crops to combined abiotic and biotic stress
·        
ADAPTAWHEAT Genetics and physiology of wheat
development to flowering: tools to breed for improved adaptation and yield
potential
·        
AFSPAN Aquaculture for Food Security, Poverty
Alleviation and Nutrition
·        
AGFOODTRADE Quantifying trade liberalisation in
a changing world
·        
AGREE Agriculture and Energy Efficiency
·        
AGROCOS Screening natural products for cosmetics
and biopesticides
·        
ANIMALCHANGE AN Integration of Mitigation and
Adaptation options for sustainable Livestock production under climate CHANGE
·        
ARPAARI Assessment of research potential of
Aegean agricultural research institute
·        
BIOBIO Indicators for biodiversity in organic
and low-input farming systems
·        
CONGRESS Conservation genetic resources for
effective species survival
·        
ECOLOGY-EPN-FOOD WEB Molecular and ecological
approaches to study soil food webs for enhancing biological control of insect
pests and monitoring disturbances 
·        
EPPN European plant phenotyping network
·        
EUBERRY The sustainable improvement of European
berry production, quality and nutritional value in a changing environment:
strawberries, currants, blackberries, blueberries and raspberries
·        
FORESTFLOWERS Expressed sequences (EST) as tags
for functional genes for genetic characterisation of flowering woody ornamental
shrubs from an oriental origin 
·        
FORESTTRAC forest ecosystem genomics research:
supporting transatlantic cooperation
·        
FORGER Towards the Sustainable Management of
Forest Genetic Resources in Europe 
·        
FRUIT BREEDOMICS Integrated approach for
increasing breeding efficiency in fruit tree crops 
·        
GENCOMMONS Institutionalizing global
genetic-resource commons. Global Strategies for accessing and using essential
public knowledge assets in the life sciences. 
·        
GENOLIVE Historical genomics of the
Mediterranean olive tree
·        
IPRABIO Integrating new practices in programs of
Biological Control against Agricultural pests 
·        
PGR SECURE Novel characterization of crop wild
relative and landrace resources as a basis for improved crop breeding 
·        
PLANT SPECIATION A multilocus approach to the
phylogenetic inference of an island and continental plant radiations 
·        
PROCOGEN Promoting a functional and comparative
understanding of the conifer genome- implementing applied aspects for more
productive and adapted forests. 
·        
QUINOA Dynamic aspects of biodiversity
management of Quinoa 
·        
SOLIBAM Strategies for Organic and Low-input
Integrated Breeding And Management 
·        
TEEMBIO Toward Eco-Evolutionary Models for
BIODiversity Scenarios
·        
TREES4FUTURE Designing Trees for the future 

Annex 3b:  Some activities on plant
genetic resources in the COST programme


 Triticeace genomics for the advancement of essential European
     crops (TritiGen) http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fa/Actions/FA0604
 Cryopreservation of crop species in Europe
     http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fa/Actions/871
 East-West Collaboration for Grapevine Diversity Exploration and
     Mobilization of Adaptive Traits for Breeding
     http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fa/Actions/FA1003
 Evaluation of Beech Genetic Resources for Sustainable
     Forestryhttp://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/E52
 Genosilva : European Forest Genomics Network
     http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/E28


Annex 4: List of stakeholders receiving
invitation to the questionnaire

Access keys to the stakeholder
questionnaire were sent to the permanent representations of the 27 member
states (two keys each), to an initial list of 104 stakeholders, to the
coordinators of the 17 actions, and to a further twelve stakeholders who asked
to participate.

List of member state countries invited to participate in
stakeholders Questionnaire
 BE Belgie-Belgique 
 BG Bulgaria 
 CZ Ceska Republika 
 DK Danmark 
 DE Deutschland 
 EE Eesti 
 IE Eire - Ireland 
 EL Greece 
 ES España 
 FR France 
 IT Italia 
 CY Kypros-Kibris 
 LV Latvija 
 LT Lietuva 
 LU Luxembourg 
 HU Magyarorszag 
 MT Malta 
 NL Nederland 
 AT Osterrriech 
 PL Polska 
 PT Portugal 
 RO Roumania 
 SI Slovenija 
 SK Slovensko 
 FI Suomi-Finland 
 SE Sverige 
 UK United Kingdom 


List of stakeholders invited by the Commission

·        
A.E.I.A.R.
European Association for Rural Development Institutions 
·        
AER
/ ARE Assembly of European Regions 
·        
AgrBiodiversity
Network          Monitoring Institute for Rare Breeds and Seeds in Europe
·        
APURE
/ URE Association for the European rural universities 
·        
AREPO
European Association of Geographical Indicators 
·        
ARGE
Europaische ARGE Landentwicklung und Dorfemeuerung
·        
BEUC 
European Consumers Organisation
·        
Bioversity
Bioversity International
·        
Birdlife
International Partnership of conservation organizations to conserve birds
·        
BusinessEurope
Confederation of European Business (ex UNICE)
·        
CEETTAR
European Organisation of Agricultural and Rural Contractors 
·        
CEI-Bois
European Confederation of woodworking industries
·        
CEJA
European Council of Young Farmers
·        
CEL
/ ECF European Climate Foundation
·        
CELCAA
European Liaison Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union 
·        
CEMR
/ CCRE Council of European Municipalities and Regions 
·        
CEPF
Confederation of European Forest Owners 
·        
CEPI
Confederation of European Paper Industries 
·        
CEPS 
European Spirits Organisation 
·        
CIAA
Confederation of Food and Drink Industry in the EU
·        
CIOPORA
International Community of Breeders of Asexually Reproduced Ornamental and
Fruit Plants 
·        
COFACE
Confederation des Organisations Familiales de la Communaute Europeenne
·        
COPA/COGECA
Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations / General Committee for
Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union
·        
CPIV
Permanent International Vinegard Committee 
·        
CPVO
Community Plant Variety Office 
·        
CR
Credit Agricole
·        
CRPM/CPMR
Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions 
·        
EAAP 
European Federation for Animal Science 
·        
EARTO
European Association of Research and Technology Organisations
·        
EBB
European Biodiesel Board 
·        
ECBA
European Countries Biologists Association 
·        
ECNC
Biodiversity and sustainable development
·        
ECOVAST
European Council for the Village And Small Town 
·        
ECPA
European Crop Protection Association
·        
ECPGR
European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources 
·        
ECVC
European Coordination Via Campesina (Réseau Sémences Paysannes)
·        
EEB
/ BEE European Environmental Bureau 
·        
EFFAB
European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders 
·        
EFFAT
European Federation of Trade Unions in the Food, Agriculture and Tourism
sectors 
·        
EFNA
European Forest Nurseries Association 
·        
EFNCP
European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism 
·        
EFOV
European Federation of Origin Wine
·        
ELARD/LEADER
European LEADER Association for Rural Development
·        
ELO
European Landowners Organization 
·        
EOMF
European Observatory of Mountain Forests
·        
ERFP
European Regional focal Point for Animal Genetic Resources 
·        
ESA
European Seed Association 
·        
ETUC
European Trade Union Confederation 
·        
EUCARPIA
European Association for Research on Plant Breeding
·        
EUFORGEN
European Forest Genetic Resources Programme 
·        
EUPPA
European Potato Processors 
·        
EURADA 
European Association of Development Agencies
·        
EuroChambers
European Asociation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry 
·        
EUROCOMMERCE 
Retail Wholesale and International Trade Representation to the EU 
·        
EuroCoop
European Community of Consumer Co-operatives  (Food & Water Europe)
·        
EUROGITES
European Federation of Rural Tourism 
·        
Eurogroup
for Animals Eurogroup for Animals 
·        
EUROMONTANA
European Association of Mountain Regions
·        
EURONATUR
European Nature Heritage Fund
·        
EUROPABIO 
European Association of Bioindustries 
·        
EUROPATAT
European Potato Trade Association 
·        
EWL/LEF
European Women's Lobby 
·        
FACE
Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU 
·        
FAO
(animals) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 
·        
FAO
(plants) FAO Plant Genetic Resources and Seeds 
·        
FAO's
CGRFA FAO's Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 
·        
FEBO
European Timber Trade Association 
·        
FECOF
European Federation of Municipal and Local Community Forests 
·        
FoodDrinkEurope
European food and drink industry 
·        
Forum
Synergies Sustainable practices in rural areas
·        
Friends
of the Earth Friends of the Earth 
·        
FTA
Foreign Trade Association
·        
FTAO
Fair Trade Advocacy Office 
·        
FVE
Federation of Veterinarians of Europe 
·        
GRAIN
Grain
·        
GREENPEACE
Greenpeace EU Unit 
·        
IABG
Interntional Association of Botanic Gardens 
·        
ICAR
International Committee for Animal Recording 
·        
IFOAM
EU GROUP International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements 
·        
IISD
International Institute for Sustainable Development
·        
ITPGRFA
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 
·        
IUCN
World Conservation Union – Regional Europe Office
·        
Mountain
Forum Mountain Forum
·        
NordGen
NordGen director
·        
OECD
Sustainable Agriculture
·        
OECD
Trade and Agriculture (TAD) Directorate
·        
OECD
Consumer Policy
·        
OECD
Sustainable Development – Green Innovation
·        
OECD
OECD Environmental contact (Biodiversity, Environment and Development 
·        
OEIT
European Organisation of Tomato Industries 
·        
OIE
World Organisation for Animal Health 
·        
ORIGIN
EU Organisation for an international Geographical Indications Network 
·        
PREPARE
NETWORK Partnership for Rural Europe 
·        
RBI
Rare Breeds International
·        
RED
/ MER European Countryside Movement 
·        
SAVE
Foundation Safeguard for Agricultural Varieties in Europe
·        
SEVA
Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Voluntary Action
·        
UEAPME
European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 
·        
UECBV
European Livestock and Meat Trading Union 
·        
UEF
Union of European Foresters 
·        
UIOE
International Union of Winemakers 
·        
UPOV
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 
·        
USSE
Union des Syliviculteurs du Sud de l'Europe 
·        
WWF
/ EPO World Wildlife Fund of Nature 

List of Stakeholders who requested to participate

·        
Arche
Noah 
·        
Bifurcated
Carrots
·        
Bio
d'Aquitaine 
·        
BDD
Biodynamic Agricultural Association
·        
Bioversity
Bioversity International 
·        
CABI
UK 
·        
CRA-Fruit
Tree Research Centre
·        
DKN
- Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt e.V.
·        
GM-Free
Cymru
·        
Italian
Association for Organic Agriculture (AIAB)
·        
Pesticide
Action Network
·        
Red
de Semillas Resembrando e Intercambiando 
·        
Slow
Food International 

List of the coordinators of 17 co-funded actions invited to
participate in Stakeholders Questionnaire as well as in Coordinators
Questionnaire


 Action 001. Leafy Veg. CGN – Centre for Genetic Resources
     – DLO -  Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek, NL. 
 Action 008. GrapeGen - INRA Institut National de Recherché
     Agronomique, France. 
 Action 009. EUFGIS –Bioversity International -
     IPGRI - International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Maccarese, Italy.
 Action  012 EURECA – WUR –Wageningen University
     Research - Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek (DLO). Lelystad, NL.
 Action 018 – CROCUS UCLM  Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha,
     Spain. 
 Action  020 EFABISnet – EAAP European Association
     of Animal Sciences
 Action 036  GENBERRY INRA - Institut National de Recherche
     Agronomique, France. 
 Action 040 - Heritage Sheep – UoY - The
     University of York (). York, UK.
 Action 049 – EURIGEN FPTP - Fondazione Parco
     Tecnologico Padano Foundation, Italy. 
 Action 050 – EURALLIVEG – IPK - Leibniz Institut für
     Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung / Leibniz Institute of Plant
     Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben, Germany.
 Action 057 AEGRO -  BAZ - Bundesanstalt für
     Züchtungsforschung an Kulturpflanzen / Federal Centre for Breeding
     Research on Cultivated Plants, Germany .
 Action 061 – AVEQ - BAZ Bundesanstalt für
     Züchtungsforschung an Kulturpflanzen/Julius Kühn-Institute Federal
     Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Germany.
 Action 063 – Cynares – TU - Università degli Studi
     della Tuscia / Tuscia University (TU), Italy. 
 Action 066 – ELBARN -   EURONATUR - Stiftung
     Europäisches Naturerbe, Germany. 
 Action 067 – GLOBALDIV  - UCSC - Università
     Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy.
 Action 068 – SAFENUT – ENEA - Ente per le Nuove
     Tecnologie, L'Energia e L'Ambiente / National Agency for the New
     Technologies, the Energy and the Environment, Italy. 
 Action 071 – RIBESCO  - MTT Agrifood Research,
     Finland. 


Annex 5: The Stakeholders questionnaire

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE CONSULTATION OF
STAKEHOLDERS ON THE COMMUNITY PROGRAMME ON GENETIC RESOURCES IN AGRICULTURE –
Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004
It would be very much appreciated if the
questionnaire could be completed in English.
PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO SEND THE COMPLETED
QUESTIONNAIRE
BY 31 DECEMBER 2011 AT THE LATEST
Please do not use for any of the questions
more than 250 words (except where indicated otherwise)!
 Name of organisation:   Main field of interest:   ||   
Section 1 - Community programme established
by Council Regulation No 870/2004
1.     
In your view, which are the main benefits of
conserving agricultural genetic resources (max 5 choices)?
a.     
Agronomic and/or economic advantages/benefits
b.     
Consumer attraction /interest
c.     
Environmental benefits (biodiversity)
d.     
Food quality
e.     
Food security
f.       
Human health
g.     
Larger products range (diversification, products
offer)
h.     
Non-tangible benefits (cultural, ethical)
i.        
No regret strategy in case of future needs
j.        
Scientific interest
k.      
Other (please specify) ……………………………….
Please explain your choice (max 500
words):………………………………………..
2.     
Are you familiar with the Community
programme established by Council Regulation No870/2004? If you are not familiar
with the Community programme, please go to Section 2
3.     
If your organisation is involved in conserving
genetic resources diversity in agriculture (including actions under the
Community programme established by Council Regulation No 870/2004) please
provide brief details of its activities. 
4.     
The Community programme had the objective
"to help ensure and improve conservation, characterisation, collection and
use of plant, animal & microbial genetic resources". To what extent has the objective been realised? 
5.     
A second objective was "to co-ordinate
and harmonise actions in Member States with a view to reinforcing the
Community's efforts and eliminating duplication of effort". To what extent has the objective been realised?
6.     
 A third objective was "to promote an
effective information exchange between the Community main actors and the
relevant organisation concerned by genetic resources in agriculture". To what extent has the objective been realised? 
7.     
A fourth objective was "to be
multidisciplinary and to built constructive collaboration between partners
(e.g. the various stakeholders including gene banks, non-governmental
organisations, technical institutes, breeders, farmers, gardeners and the
forest sector)". To what extent has the objective
been realised?
8.     
In your view, what are the specific positive
(or negative) effects that can be expected from the Community programme? 
9.     
Do you have any views on the organisational
and administrative handling of the Community programme? If the programme were
to be renewed, what in your opinion should be maintained and what should be
modified or abandoned?  
Section 2 - Community programme, Rural
Development Policy & Research Framework Programme 
10.  According to your knowledge, which measures on the conservation of
endangered genetic resources in agriculture or the use of traditional and local
agricultural genetic resources (plant varieties/landraces and animal breeds)
have been promoted under Rural Development Programmes in your region(s) and/or
country (max 500 words)?
11.  In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the
three different types of measures, used for the conservation of genetic
resources in agriculture: Rural Development Policy; Community Programme on
Genetic Resources; EU Research Framework Programme? How could these measures
complement each other in a meaningful manner?
Section 3 – Identifying needs and
objectives
12.  In your views, which sector could benefit in particular from efforts
to conserve genetic resources in agriculture (max -5 choices)?
a.     
Agri-food industry
b.     
Biotechnology industry
c.     
Other industry (please specify) ……………………………….
d.     
Botanical and zoological gardens
e.     
Breeders
f.       
Consumers
g.     
Farmers
h.     
Scientific bodies
i.        
Tourism
j.        
Other (please specify) ……………………………….
Please explain your choice (max 500 words):
13.  Which of the existing initiatives and activities of EU and other
organisations do you consider to be most relevant for the conservation of
genetic resources in agriculture? Please choose 5 out
of the following possibilities: 
a.     
EU Community programme (Council Regulation No
870/2004) 
b.     
EU Rural Development Policy
c.     
Other relevant measures applied under EU Common
Agriculture Policy 
d.     
EU Research Framework Programmes
e.     
EU Biodiversity Strategy 
f.       
EU legislation on the protection of intellectual
property rights
g.     
Other EU policies (e.g. propagating material and
zoo-technical legislation)
h.     
Activities of the UN-Food and Agriculture Organisation
(FAO)
i.        
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), incl.
the Nagoya protocol
j.        
European cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic
Resources (ECPGR)
k.      
European Forest Genetic Resources Programme
(EUFORGEN)
l.        
European Regional Focal Point for Animal Genetic
Resources (ERFP) 
m.    International Treaty on Plant Genetic resources for Food and
Agriculture 
n.     
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
o.     
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)
p.     
Other (please specify)……………………..
What should be modified or strengthened in
order to enhance the effectiveness of the selected initiatives and actions (max
500 words)?
14.  In your opinion, which is the impact of the EU seed and propagating
material and zootechnical legislation on actions, including farming practises,
relevant for the conservation of genetic resources diversity? 
15.  In your opinion what would be the most effective and efficient
approaches to encouraging actors (including farmers, breeders, up-stream and
down-stream industry, scientists, and others) at local, regional, national, and
European levels to engage in the conservation of agricultural genetic resources
in their habitat (in situ) and outside their habitat (ex situ)? 
16.  With respect to decisions on different types of measures and their
implementation, which role should be attributed to the local, regional, and
national level? Which decisions and which types of action should be undertaken
specifically at the EU level? 
17.  The main objectives of the Community Programme on Genetic Resources
are "to help ensure and improve conservation, characterisation,
evaluation, collection, documentation, development and use of […] genetic
resources". How far do these objectives correspond to relevant needs?
Which other objectives should be pursued?
18.  In view of ensuring the most effective use of resources devoted to
the conservation of genetic resources, which priority should be given to the
items listed below. Please provide a ranking from top
(1) to bottom (7).
a.     
characterisation 
b.     
collection 
c.     
collection maintenance & updating
d.     
conservation
e.     
development of genetic diversity (level of
populations)
f.       
documentation (such as Web-based inventories) 
g.     
evaluation 
h.     
use
19.  In view of ensuring the most effective use of resources devoted to
the conservation of genetic resources, which relative importance should be
given to the different types of conservation actions? 
a.     
only in situ conservation of genetic resources 
b.     
in situ > ex situ 
c.     
in situ = ex situ 
d.     
in situ < ex situ
e.     
only ex situ 
Please explain your choice:
20.  In your view, how far could an EU-wide lists of endangered breeds
and plant varieties (e.g. the " list of endangered local breeds in danger
of being lost" and "plants under threat of genetic erosion" used
for Rural Development Programmes - Regulations 1698/2005 and 1974/2006 - Annex
IV) be useful for the implementation of a possible future EU-Community
programme?
21.  Which priority should be given to the different types of actions,
listed below, supporting in situ conservation at farm level? Please provide a ranking from top (1) to bottom (7).
a.     
Communication
b.     
Innovation
c.     
Knowledge transfer
d.     
Networking    
e.     
Training
f.       
Other (please specify):…………………………… 
Please explain your choice for the 3 top
ranking actions:
22.  Which priority should be given to the different types of actions,
listed below, supporting ex situ conservation? Please
provide a ranking from top (1) to bottom (10).
a.     
Centralisation of database & collections
b.     
Development of database & collections
c.     
Maintaining & updating databases &
collections
d.     
Centralised collection of cryopreserved samples
e.     
Funding
f.       
Innovation
g.     
Knowledge transfer
h.     
Networking    
i.        
Training
j.        
Other (please specify):…………………………… 
Please explain your choice for the 4 top
ranking actions:
23.  In your view, which are the most relevant obstacles to valorise
under-utilised crops and animal species and traditional varieties and breeds? How could these obstacles be overcome? 
24.  In your view, what are the priority areas regarding conservation and
sustainable use of genetic resources of agriculturally relevant microorganisms
and invertebrates? Please provide a ranking from top
(1) to bottom (6). 
a.     
Agro-industry microorganism
b.     
Bio-control microorganisms
c.     
Pest and disease (used in breeding programs)
d.     
Plant & animal health microorganism
e.     
Soil biodiversity
f.       
Other (please specify):……………………………
Please explain your choice for the 3 top
ranking actions:
25.  In your opinion, what would be the link between securing product
quality (and quantity) and the conservation and sustainable use of genetic
resources in agriculture and what should be done in this respect? 
26.  How far could short food supply chains help promoting the use of
traditional and local agricultural or underutilised genetic resources?
27.  Other comments & suggestions

Annex 5b: Specific Questions to
Coordinators of the 17 funded actions of the Community Programme on Genetic
Resources in Agriculture

1.         Action
Number/Acronym of your action:
2.         Species
Please indicate the plant or animal species
involved in your action 
3.         Conservation
a)         Plants
Approximately how many new accessions were
added:
-        
to in-situ collections? 
-        
to ex-situ collections? 
-        
to ex-situ genebanks?
If you created new core collections, please
briefly describe.
b) Animals
Approximately how many animal breeds were
conserved (in-situ, ex-situ, local or endangered or major breeds)?
4.         Characterisation
a) Plants
Approximately how many accessions
(cultivars, landraces, crop wild relatives) were newly characterised?
For cultivars, landraces, and crop wild
relatives that were studied in-situ: 
-        
Approximately how many populations were located
and identified in situ?
-        
How many in-situ populations were sampled and
newly characterised?
-        
Approximately how many passport characters did
you characterise per accession or population (on average)?
-        
Approximately how many other characters did you
characterise (on average)?
b) Animals
Approximately how many animal breeds (local
or endangered or major breeds) were characterised?
5.         Collection
a) Plants
Approximately how many new accessions
(cultivars, landraces, crop wild relatives) have been added to collections?
How many populations of crop wild relatives
were newly located and protected?
Regarding stored data, please briefly
describe the data and the database where the collected information is held
b) Animals (Cryo-preservation, in-situ and
databases)
Approximately how many animal breeds (local
or endangered or major breeds) were cryo-preserved?
How many animal breeds (local or endangered
or major breeds) were preserved in-situ
Regarding stored data, please briefly
describe the data and the database where the collected information is held
6.         Utilisation
Did your project have a deliberate approach
towards promoting effective exploitation of results? Yes/No
-           If yes, what was your approach?

-           If no, which were the reasons
for not considering it?
Do your action's deliverables continue to
address end users' needs (farmers, breeders, breeding companies, etc.). Yes/No
-           If yes, please explain the type
of user interest, e.g. animal feeding? Human food (quality, safety, special
foods)? Industrial use (e.g. cosmetics)? Others? 
-           If no, please explain briefly
(e.g. Have the needs already been addressed? Have the end users changed?
etc.)"
7.         Long term
Do you foresee a long-term added-value of
your action beyond the time span of community co-funding? Yes/No
- If yes: which approach do/will you
follow? 
- If no, for which reasons?

Annex 6:         Sample
list of scientific publications from Actions co-funded under Council
Regulation 870/200.


 Microsatellite variability and genetic structure
     in hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) cultivars from different growing
     regions; Roberto Botta and Paolo Boccacci Scientia Horticulturae 124
     (2010) 128-133. (SAFENUT)
 Impact of exogenous sucrose, raffinose and
     proline on cold acclimation of strawberry in vitro Lukoševiciute
     V., Rugienius R., Sasnauskas A., Stanys V., Bobinas C.  Acta Horticulturae
     2009. 839. P. 203-208. (GENEBERRY)
 Zróżnicowanie cech morfologicznych zasobów
     genetycznych czosnku pospolitego (Allium sativum L.) nie tworzącego pędów
     kwiatostanowych [Variability of morphological traits of non-bolting garlic
     (Allium sativum L.) germplasm].  Kotlińska T. & M. Olas-Sochacka.
     2010. Nowości Warzywnicze [Vegetable Crops News] 50: 45-62 (EURALLIVEG)
 Further examination of antiradical properties of
     Crocus sativus stigmas extract rich in crocins. Ordoudi, S.A.; Nenadis N.;
     Tsimidou M.Z. (2009). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 57,
     3080-3086. (SAFFRON)
 The Family of MADS-Box Transcription Factors
     Controlling Flower Formation in Crocus sativus L.  Tsaftaris, A.S.;
     Pasentsis, K.; Kalivas, A.; Argiriou, A.; Polidoras, A. (2010).  Acta
     Horticulturae, 850: 107-111. (SAFFRON)
 Evaluation of DNA Polymorphism among Cultivated
     and Wild Grapevine Accessions from Azerbaijan.  Salayeva S, Akhundova E,
     Mammadov A, 2010.  Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding. 46, 2:75-84. (GRAPEGEN)
 Plastid DNA sequence diversity in a worldwide set
     of grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L. subsp. vinifera). Schaal B.,
     Beck J., Hsu S.-C. , Beridze T., Gamkrelidze M., Gogniashvili M., Pipia
     I., Tabidze V., This P., Bacilieri R., Gotsiridze V., Glonti M., 2010. 10th International Conference on Grapevine Breeding and
     Genetics. Geneva, 1-5 August 2010. (GRAPEGEN)
 Novel hydroxycinnamoyl-Coenzyme A quinate
     transferase genes from artichoke are involved in the synthesis of
     chlorogenic acid. Sonnante G., D'Amore R., Blanco E.,
     Pierri C.L., De Palma M., Luo J., Tucci M., Martin C. 2010. Plant Physiology 153: 1-15.(CYNARES)
 Taxonomic ecogeographic and genetic studies of Prunus
     spp. C Teeling 2011Ph.D thesis University of Birmingham (AEGRO)


 Annex 7:        Examples highlighting a potentially unclear
demarcation between this Community Programme and the Rural Development policy.

Implementing the Global Plan of Action
for Animal Genetic Resources (Irene Hoffmann and
Beate Scherf Animal Genetic Resources, 2010, 47, 1–10. doi :10.1017/S2078633610001050
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1823t/i1823t02.pdf ) states “Many European countries use the national allocation
from the European Union Rural Development Programme (RDP) (Council Regulation
1698/2005) to support conservation of animal breeds within their jurisdiction.
A survey undertaken by the United Kingdom, which covered 21 European countries,
showed that only five of them do not have RDP measures for the support of
AnGR”. 
Another example is Agri-environment
Measures Overview on General Principles, Types of Measures, and Application
(European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Unit G-4 - Evaluation of Measures applied to Agriculture, Studies March 2005
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/agrienv/rep_en.pdf ) where, discussing genetic diversity it states:
“These measures are often quite modest in
size, but some nonetheless play a significant part in protecting rare breeds
and rare plant varieties. Various examples are set out below.
In Portugal the number of endangered
breeds represent about 10% of total livestock units. 11 breeds of cattle, 8 sheep,
3 goat and 2 pig breeds are supported by a specific agri - environmental
measure. For cattle, the measure covers a significant proportion of national
breeds.
In Germany there are a number of
measures relating to the genetic diversity. For instance, in Niedersachsen
nearly 7000 endangered animals are supported, of which over 1800 are on EU or
international lists of endangered breeds. There is also support for rare plant
varieties.
In Austria there has been a significant
increase in support for rare breeds of livestock and plants in recent years.
Farms protecting plant varieties increased to 1,300 in 2002, covering an area
of over 6000 ha. The number of endangered animals supported is now over 18,000.

In Piemonte (IT) there is a significant
programme covering several breeds of cattle, goats and sheep, and a total of
over 39,000 animals. Low uptake seems to be a problem in several countries for
these measures. For instance, in Navarra (ES) there are two animal breeds
supported (1 cattle and 1 equine) but the performance of the scheme seems to be
very weak (only a quarter of the programming target is likely to be reached by
2006).
In Wallonia (BE) there are two genetic
diversity conservation agri-environment measures covering both crop varieties
and animal breeds but low farmer interest means the success is very limited. In
Luxembourg the measure for the conservation of local endangered breeds targets
the Ardennes draught horse, but there were only 8 agreements and 29 animals in
2002.
In Ireland there are three animal
species (2 cattle and 1 equine) on the FAO List of Endangered Species that are
protected under agri-environment. However, interest in the measure seems on the
decline (fewer than 80 animals currently).”
Furthermore, Council Regulation (EC)
74/2009 (amending Council Regulation (EC) 1698/2005) on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
provides agri-environmental payments for Conservation of genetic diversity and
vocational training and information actions, for Information and dissemination
of knowledge related to biodiversity with the potential effect of raising
awareness and knowledge and thus indirectly the efficiency of operations
related to biodiversity.

Annex 8:    Acronyms, Abbreviations and
Glossary

Here we provide a list of the abbreviations
and acronyms, and a glossary of some terms that the reader is likely to
encounter.

A - D

·        
AEGRO:- Project 057: Crop biodiversity in situ 
·        
 AGR Animal Genetic
Resources
·        
 AVEQ:- Project 061: Oats 
·        
 CAP:- The Common Agricultural Policy 
·        
 CBD:- Convention on Biological Diversity 
·        
 CGIAR:- Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research 
·        
 CROCUSBANK:- Project
018: Saffron 
·        
 CYNARES:- Project 063: Artichokes 
·        
DAD-IS FAO Global Data Bank
·        
 DNA:- Deoxyribonucleic
acid
·        
 DUS:- Distinct, Uniform and Stable
·        
EAAP:- European Federation of Animal Science 
·        
EC (1.):- European Economic Community See EU,
below
·        
EC (2.):- European Commission 
·        
ECCDB:- European Central Crop Database
·        
ECPGR:- European Cooperative Programme for Plant
Genetic Resources 
·        
EFABIS:- Project 020: Farm animals 
·        
ELBARN:- Project 066: Livestock breeds 
·        
EPGRIS: - European Plant Genetic Resources
Information Infra-Structure 
·        
EU:- European Union 
·        
EUFGIS:- Project 009: Forest 
·        
EUFORGEN:- European Forest Genetic Resources
Programme 
·        
EURALLIVEG:- Project 050: Garlic and others 
·        
EuReCa: - Project 012: Cattle 
·        
EURIGEN: - Project 049: Rice 
·        
EURISCO: - European Information System CO (a
searchable catalogue of ex situ collections in Europe) 

F - G

·        
FAO:- Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations 
·        
FP, FP7:- The Community Framework Programmes of
Research and Development GAP:- Global Action Plan See GPA (1) and GPA (2),
below
·        
GENRES:- Genetic Resources for Agriculture
·        
GENBERRY:- Project 036: Straw- and raspberries 
·        
GLOBALDIV:- Project 067: Livestock global view 
·        
GPA (1):- Global plan of action for animal
genetic resources 
·        
GPA (2):- The Global Plan of Action for the
Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture 
·        
GRAPEGEN06:- Project 008: Grapevine 
·        
GRIN:- Germplasm Resources Information Network 


H - Q

·        
HERITAGESHEEP:-
Project 040: Heritage sheep 
·        
IPGRI:- International
Plant Genetic Resources Institute - now known as Bioversity International 
·        
IPR:- Intellectual
Property Rights
·        
ITPGR:- International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 
·        
IUCN:- International
Union for Conservation of wild species
·        
LEAFY VEG:- Project
001: Leafy vegetables 
·        
MCPD Multicrop
Passport Descriptors 
·        
MTA:- See SMTA, below
·        
NGB:- Nordic Gene Bank

·        
NGO:- Non-governmental
organization
·        
PGR Plant Genetic
Resources

R - Z

·       
Rio Convention:- See
CBD, above
·       
SAFENUT:- Project 068:
Hazelnuts and almonds 
·       
SMTA:- Standard
Material Transfer Agreement 
·       
SNP Single-nucleotide
polymorphism
·       
SoWPGR-2 The second
report on the state of the worlds plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture (Rome, 2010) ISBN 978-92-5-106534-1 
·       
USDA:- United States
Department of Agriculture
·       
WTO:- World Trade
Organization 

Glossary 

Accession: A sample of seeds of a given cultivar, a breeding line or a
collected field sample which is held in a storage for conservation. The sample
should contain sufficient seeds to (i) represent a significant proportion of
genetic variation of the population from which it was derived, to (ii) provide
material for germination tests to monitor viability and to (iii) provide seeds
for distribution and regeneration. 
Biodiversity: The totality of genes, species, and ecosystems in a given region,
be it a microhabitat or the world. Also called biological diversity
Character: A hereditable trait such as size, colour, resistance to disease
etc.
Characterisation: Assessment of plant traits that are highly heritable, easily seen
by the eye, expressed in all environments, and usable for distinguishing
between accessions.
Collection
(of plant genetic resources):

 The act of gathering together domesticates (landraces, old and
     modern cultivars and breeding lines), also related wild or weedy species.
 The material gathered by the act of collecting, is termed a
     collection

Conservation: Preservation for future use of the collected material. 
Cryopreservation:  Conservation at ultra
low temperatures
Database: An organized collection of data that can be used for easy
retrieval or analysis.
DNA bank: A repository of highly
purified genomic DNA (i.e. the DNA of the complete chromosome set).
In situ:  Maintenance for study of organism in that organisms native
environment.
In situ
conservation  : A conservation method that attempts
to preserve the genetic integrity of gene resources by conserving them in the
original habitat or natural environment. (cf. ex situ conservation, also
"off-site conservation"). 
Ex-situ conservation:

 Keeping components of biodiversity alive outside their original
     habitat or natural environment.

Gene banks: see DNA bank.
Genetic
diversity:  The heritable variability  of a given
species, variety or breed.
On farm
conservation: The conservation of a given variety
or landrace usually by farmers growing as a crop (ather than by scientists). If
conserved in the area of origin, the conservation is in-situ. 
Stakeholder: A person, group,
organization, member or system who affects or can be affected by an
organization's actions. 
Threatened
species: A species that is likely to become extinct
within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Wild
relatives: A species related to a crop species that
is not domesticated.
[1]               Directly addressing the conservation,
characterisation, evaluation and use of GR, and conservation facilities.
[2]               Exchange of information to improve coordination.
[3]               Information, dissemination and advisory measures.
[4] The European Union
is Member of the Treaty since 2004 (Council decision 2004/869/EC of
24/02/2004).
[5] Global plant of action
(GPA) for Animal genetic resources: the first GPA was adopted by the first
International technical Conference on AnGRFA in Interlaken in September 2007
[6] Global plan of
action (GPA) for the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture: the second GPA was adopted by the FAO
Council in Rome in November 2011.
[7] Alderson, L. (1981)
FAO Animal Production and Health Paper, No. 24, 53–76;.  Maijala, at al. (1984)
Final Report of an EAAP Working Party, Livestock Production Science, 11:3–22.