The U.S. agricultural sector—renowned for its productivity—owes much of its success to a continuing flow of improved crop varieties that produce higher yields and better withstand pests, diseases, and climate extremes. The genes necessary for these improved crops are contained in plant germplasm—the material in seeds or other plant parts that controls heredity. To maintain a high level of agricultural productivity, plant breeders need access to an ample supply of germplasm with diverse genetic characteristics so that they can continue to develop plant varieties that will provide increased yields and better resist pests, diseases, and environmental stresses. However, the diversity of germplasm available to present and future generations of breeders has been reduced by several factors, including the widespread use of genetically uniform crops in commercial agriculture and the destruction of natural habitats, such as forests, that have been important sources of germplasm. In the United States, the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), primarily administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), maintains germplasm collections for over 85 crops at 22 sites nationwide and in Puerto Rico. These collections contain numerous germplasm samples and provide breeders with access to germplasm with a broad range of genetic traits. In addition to maintaining the collections, NPGS is responsible for acquiring germplasm, developing and documenting information that describes the germplasm in the collections, and distributing germplasm to plant breeders and other users in the United States and worldwide. Germplasm collections are an important source of genetic material for plant breeders targeting specific traits, such as higher yield, increased resistance to disease and pests, good taste, improved nutritional quality, and environmental and climatic hardiness. To be of greatest use, these collections need to be genetically diverse, thereby giving breeders more possibilities to find the traits they need to develop improved crop varieties. In addition, information on germplasm traits and other related information (e.g., site of origin of the germplasm) should be obtained and documented, and the germplasm must be adequately preserved to be of optimal use to potential users. Diverse germplasm has played a key role in increasing food security through enhanced crop productivity and reduced crop vulnerability to pests and diseases. For example: According to a survey on the use of germplasm in 18 crops grown in the United States from 1976 to 1980, from 1 percent (sweet clover) to 90 percent (sunflower and tomato) of the crop varieties had been improved in part by the use of germplasm from wild relatives of the cultivated crops. The high productivity of modern wheat—resistant to many pests, diseases, and other stresses—results from combining germplasm from various varieties of wheat grown around the world to create improved wheat varieties. For example, one well-known germplasm sample from Turkey has been a source of resistance for three different types of disease—common bunt, stripe rust, and snow mold. This germplasm also has the ability to establish vigorous seedlings in hot, dry soils that deter the emergence of many other varieties. Most of the genes for insect and disease resistance in tomatoes come from a related wild species that originated outside of the United States. Germplasm from wild species is also a source of tolerance to environmental stress, such as drought. In particular, the discovery of resistance to a soil-borne organism known as the root-knot nematode has made the difference between growing or not growing tomatoes in many subtropical areas of the United States (such as southern California and Florida). In addition to providing a source of genetic diversity for plant breeders, germplasm collections serve as an archive for rare and endangered crop species. The loss of biodiversity worldwide has made the need for these collections all the more compelling. Expanding human populations, urbanization, deforestation, destruction of the environment, and other factors threaten many of the world’s plant genetic resources. These resources are vital to the future of agricultural productivity and the world’s food security. Many national and international collections have been established to rescue and conserve these resources for future use. In breeding plant germplasm into a narrowing genetic base of highly productive crop varieties, breeders have also reduced the genetic diversity of these crops, making them more uniform. Genetic uniformity in breeding also results when breeders inadvertently eliminate certain traits (such as resistance to disease and pests) that do not contribute directly to the desired characteristic (such as high yield) for which they were searching. While the resulting genetic uniformity can offer substantial advantages in both the quantity and quality of a commercial crop, it can also make crops more vulnerable to pests, diseases, and environmental hazards. A narrow genetic base presents the potential danger of substantial crop loss if a crop’s genetically uniform characteristics are suddenly and adversely affected by disease, insects, or poor weather. The risk of loss through the genetic vulnerability of uniform, common-origin planted crops is a serious concern. Such losses have occurred in the past. The Irish potato famine of the 1840s was a major factor in the death, impoverishment, and emigration of millions of Irish people. A single variety of the potato became Ireland’s staple food after its arrival from South America in the eighteenth century. The widespread use of this single variety increased the potato crop’s vulnerability to a previously unknown blight, which devastated a number of successive potato harvests. While the United States has not experienced such a widespread loss, several sizable crop failures have occurred as a result of a crop’s vulnerability to a particular disease. For example, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, about 70 percent of the wheat crop in the Pacific Northwest was wiped out by a disease known as stripe rust. In 1970, a disease known as the southern corn leaf blight swept from the southeastern United States to the Great Plains, costing farmers 15 percent of their corn crop that year. U.S. agriculture is based on crops that originated from areas outside of the United States. For example, as shown in figure 1.1, corn originated in Mexico and Guatemala, wheat in the Near East (in such countries as Iran), and soybeans in China. Crops of economic importance that are native to the United States are limited and include sunflowers, cranberries, blueberries, strawberries, and pecans. Thus, almost all the germplasm needed to increase the genetic diversity of U.S. agriculture comes from foreign locations. While immigrants to the United States, including the first colonists from Europe, brought seeds with them, native North Americans had already introduced corn, beans, and other crops from Central and South America. Today, to obtain new germplasm for U.S. collections, plant breeders and researchers often rely on collections located in foreign countries or on plant exploration trips to the centers of origin for their crops. Between 1986 and 1996, an estimated 75 percent of the germplasm samples added to NPGS’ collections were obtained from foreign countries. Although plant exploration trips are an important source of germplasm, most of the germplasm in NPGS has been obtained from existing collections both in the United States and in foreign national and international collections. Some of the U.S. and foreign collections belong to universities and private companies. Other foreign collections include (1) an international collection based in 16 international agricultural research centers that is administered by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and (2) foreign national collections. The international agricultural research centers, located primarily in developing countries, specialize in research intended to enhance the nutrition and well-being of poor people through sustainable improvements in the productivity of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. These centers, according to the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, have together assembled the world’s largest international collection of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. They account for a significant proportion, possibly over 30 percent, of the world’s unique germplasm samples maintained in collections away from their native environment. The international research centers are funded by voluntary contributions, and their plant germplasm has historically been freely available to any user. Moreover, users have not applied intellectual property protection to the material. The United States works cooperatively with these centers to support international activities to preserve germplasm. For example, U.S. germplasm facilities maintain duplicate collections for some of the international centers to provide for secure backup. In addition, U.S. scientists help various centers screen germplasm for resistance to pests and pathogens and serve in scientific liaison roles between the centers and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Finally, many countries, including most European nations, maintain germplasm collections. These national collections vary considerably in terms of the quality of preservation, organizational structure, the number of crops preserved, and the access provided to requesters. One of the largest collections of plant germplasm in the world is maintained at Russia’s Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry, named for the Russian scientist who was a pioneer in the study of plants. The National Plant Germplasm System is primarily a federally and state-supported effort aimed at maintaining supplies of germplasm with diverse genetic traits for use in breeding and scientific research. While NPGS has been evolving since USDA established its plant-collecting program in 1898, the main components of NPGS were not established until the passage of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The act also provided a legal basis for state and federal cooperation in managing crop genetic resources. The current organizational structure of NPGS—a geographically dispersed network of germplasm collections administered primarily by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS)—emerged in the early 1970s. Although ARS provides the lion’s share of support for NPGS, the system is also supported by the agricultural experiment stations at the state level.In addition, private industry provides some support for selected projects and develops and transfers germplasm in the form of plant hybrids and varieties to farmers and other consumers. NPGS’ major activities are (1) acquiring germplasm, (2) developing and documenting information on the germplasm in its collections, and (3) preserving the germplasm. (See table 1.1.) NPGS also distributes samples, free of charge, on request to plant breeders and other scientists. NPGS maintains about 440,000 germplasm samples for over 85 crops. In 1996, NPGS distributed about 106,000 germplasm samples to requesters in the United States and in 94 countries; it received about 7,800 germplasm samples, about 5,000 of which originated in foreign countries. NPGS is responsible for developing characterization information—data on traits such as plant structure and color that are little influenced by the environment. However, other information critical to the use of NPGS germplasm and documented in the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) is generally developed outside of NPGS. (GRIN, a database of NPGS’ holdings, is available to scientists and researchers worldwide.) For example, most evaluation data, which document traits typically affected by environmental conditions (e.g., plant yield and disease resistance), are developed outside of NPGS. These data are particularly important in providing plant breeders with the information they need to select the specific germplasm samples they seek from the sometimes thousands of possible choices offered by NPGS. Passport data, often provided by the person or organization that collected or supplied the germplasm, document the geographic origin and ecological conditions of its site of origin. Other germplasm collections in the United States—beyond NPGS’—are maintained by private companies, institutions such as universities and state agricultural experiment stations, and nonprofit organizations such as the Seed Savers Exchange. Some of these collections, as well as some foreign collections, are not freely available to users of germplasm. Although NPGS could not provide information on the number, size, and condition of all of these collections, they represent a substantial germplasm pool. NPGS maintains collections at 22 sites throughout the United States and in Puerto Rico. In addition, staff at 10 other sites work cooperatively with NPGS but do not receive NPGS funding. NPGS also maintains the National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) and the National Germplasm Resources Laboratory (NGRL). Figure 1.2 shows the locations of these sites and laboratories. While most NPGS collections are maintained at sites that house germplasm for numerous crops, NPGS also has five sites that specialize in crop-specific collections, such as potatoes or soybeans. In addition, NPGS has nine sites that are national clonal germplasm repositories and four that maintain genetic stock collections. The four regional plant introduction stationsare responsible for maintaining many of the major seed-reproducing species held by NPGS. In total, as of June 1997, they accounted for almost half of the germplasm samples maintained in NPGS collections. NPGS sites generally contain either “backup” or “active” collections, depending on the storage objectives. Backup collections maintain germplasm for long-term conservation, and active collections maintain germplasm for short- to medium-term conservation and distribution. Germplasm is maintained either as seeds or as living plants. The latter category is generally referred to as “clonal” germplasm and includes fruit trees, sugarcane, and strawberries. Clonal germplasm is likely to lose some of its distinct genetic characteristics when reproduced from seed; therefore, it is reproduced asexually from its own plant parts. Clonal germplasm can be costly to preserve. Some fruit trees, for example, may require isolation to prevent loss from pests as well as screened protection and other measures to ensure the normal development of plants or to keep the fruit free of pests. At each site, crop curators and other staff are responsible for maintaining the germplasm collections. Curators regenerate (or replenish) germplasm samples by growing additional plants from seed or other plant parts to ensure that an adequate number of samples are available for (1) distribution to plant breeders, research scientists, and institutions and (2) storage in long-term collections. In the process of regeneration, curators must ensure that each plant generation is as genetically similar to its predecessor as possible. During regeneration, curators also document certain plant characteristics (such as plant height and color) if this information is not already available. Curators and other staff are responsible for entering information about each germplasm sample into GRIN. The National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) at Fort Collins, Colorado, maintains the long-term backup collection of seeds for NPGS and some non-NPGS collections located in the United States and foreign countries and conducts research on preserving plant germplasm. NSSL’s storage facilities were modernized and expanded fourfold in 1992, with high-security vaults to protect the germplasm against natural disasters. The collection duplicates (or backs up) many of the germplasm samples in NPGS’ active collections in the event that the germplasm kept in active collections is lost. Germplasm can be lost for a variety of reasons, including natural disasters or degeneration through inadequate storage. Seeds preserved at NSSL are kept in colder, more secure conditions (i.e., sealed, moisture-proof containers in vaults at –18 degrees Celsius or containers over liquid nitrogen at –160 degrees Celsius) that preserve them longer than seeds preserved at many active sites. With few exceptions, such as apple buds that can be preserved in liquid nitrogen, NSSL does not back up clonal germplasm. Clonal collections may be backed up—in greenhouses, as tissue culture, or through cryopreservation— at the same sites as their active collections. The National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, located in Beltsville, Maryland, contains several units that support NPGS. The Plant Exchange Office—with extensive input from the CGCs and NPGS’ crop curators—is responsible for setting priorities for the germplasm needs of NPGS’ collections. Furthermore, the Office coordinates plant exploration trips, facilitates germplasm exchanges with other collections, and documents the entry of germplasm into NPGS, including its passport data. In addition, the Germplasm Resources Information Network/Database Management Unit manages GRIN, NPGS’ database, which provides information for users and managers, such as passport information on NPGS samples. ARS’ Plant Germplasm Quarantine Office works with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in administering the National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center in Beltsville, Maryland. These sites test specific types of imported germplasm for pests and pathogens before the germplasm is introduced into the United States. All plant germplasm coming into the United States must comply with federal quarantine regulations intended to prevent the introduction of pests and pathogens that are not widespread in the United States. APHIS writes, interprets, and enforces quarantine regulations, while ARS is generally responsible for providing research support, including the development of tests for pests and pathogens. In addition, ARS, through a 1986 Memorandum of Understanding with APHIS, maintains and tests germplasm that falls into the “prohibited” quarantine category. NPGS’ activities are supported at the federal level primarily by ARS, with additional support provided by states’ land grant universities through their agricultural experiment stations. Many of NPGS’ collections have been jointly developed and maintained by federal and state scientists at states’ agricultural experiment stations, and most NPGS sites are located on experiment station properties. State universities provide in-kind support in the form of services, personnel, and facilities. In addition, private industry provides limited support, such as regenerating germplasm at company sites or funding special projects. In fiscal year 1996, NPGS funding was $23.3 million. Of this amount, $19.5 million was provided by ARS; $1.4 million by USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; $1.3 million by APHIS; $0.8 million (in-kind support) from the states’ agricultural experiment stations; and $0.3 million from other nonfederal sources. Included in the ARS funding was $3.9 million for plant collection activities—germplasm acquisition, quarantine, and classification—and $15.6 million for such activities as preservation, documentation, and distribution. From fiscal years 1992 through 1996, ARS’ funding for NPGS has been essentially level; however, if calculated in constant dollars, funding declined by 14 percent during this period. During this period, NPGS’ germplasm collections increased by 10 percent. While ARS has the primary responsibility for managing NPGS, no single individual or entity has overall authority for managing the entire system. Within ARS, numerous officials and committees have different levels of authority and responsibility for components of the system. ARS’ National Program Leader for Plant Genetic Resources has a broad range of leadership responsibilities for the system, including developing budget proposals, planning resource allocations among the NPGS sites, and addressing international issues affecting germplasm. The program leader also participates in and is advised by various groups that make recommendations concerning NPGS’ operations and policies. The program leader, however, has limited authority for the budgets, projects, or management of each NPGS site. Responsibility for these activities rests with (1) ARS’ area directors, who have direct oversight responsibility and authority for the NPGS sites located within their areas of jurisdiction, (2) NPGS’ site leaders, and (3) ARS’ national program staff. In particular, the area directors coordinate some site program reviews, conduct performance ratings for key administrative staff, hire personnel, and manage discretionary funding for NPGS sites located in their jurisdiction. Because of the broad array of crops represented in NPGS’ collections—each requiring specific scientific and technical expertise—NPGS relies on 40 Crop Germplasm Committees (CGC) to provide expert advice on technical matters relating to germplasm activities. Among other things, the CGCs are expected to provide recommendations on the management of the germplasm collections for their crops, including setting priorities for acquisition and evaluation research. CGC members—representing ARS, universities, and the private sector—include plant breeders, NPGS curators, pathologists, and other scientists who are experts on specific crops. A crop committee can represent one crop group or several. For example, the soybean CGC provides advice on soybeans, while the leafy vegetable CGC is responsible for lettuce, spinach, chicory, and celery. (See app. III for a listing of the CGCs and the crops for which they are responsible.) These committees generally meet about once a year and issue reports on the status of their respective collections. However, they receive no funding for their work or related expenses. GAO and National Research Council reports, dating as far back as 1981, have cited management and organizational shortcomings and needs that have hindered NPGS’ overall effectiveness. In 1981, for example, GAO concluded that insufficient management attention by USDA to germplasm collection, storage, and maintenance had endangered the preservation of germplasm in the United States. Another GAO report, issued earlier that year, recommended that USDA centralize control over the Department’s genetic resources and develop a comprehensive plan for their use. In 1990, GAO reported that ARS had difficulty in setting priorities and allocating funding among the various plant germplasm management activities. In a comprehensive evaluation of NPGS issued in 1991, the National Research Council concluded that NPGS had no discernible structure and organization for managing and setting priorities for its activities, formulating national policies, or developing budgets to act on emerging priorities. The Council made many recommendations, including that USDA strengthen NPGS by centralizing its management and budgeting functions and by establishing clear goals and policies for NPGS’ leadership to use in developing long-range plans. Other recommendations included expanding the capacity of NSSL and providing financial support to the CGCs. During the 1990s, USDA has made several changes to address some of the operational shortcomings discussed above. In particular, it has expanded NSSL’s long-term, secure storage facility fourfold. Furthermore, NPGS’ sites with active collections are making greater use of –18 degree Celsius storage to improve germplasm preservation. In addition, NPGS’ GRIN database has been substantially improved by the addition of such features as a new search function and access to users through the Internet. We surveyed the members of the 40 CGCs for their views on the sufficiency of NPGS’ principal activities—acquiring germplasm to ensure the diversity of the collections in order to reduce crop vulnerability, developing and documenting information on germplasm, and preserving germplasm. Specifically, we surveyed the 680 members of the CGCs—including 38 additional experts identified by USDA. The median CGC response rate was 86 percent, and all NPGS curators participated in the survey. We conducted this survey from November 1996 through March 1997. In addition, we obtained information about NPGS’ major activities—acquisition, development and documentation of information, and preservation—from interviews with the following: two acting National Program Leaders for Plant Genetic Resources; several NGRL officials responsible for plant exploration, quarantine, and GRIN; the Director, National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center, APHIS; the Director and research leaders, NSSL; the site leaders of the four regional plant introduction stations and the Davis, California clonal repository; a number of curators and breeders at various NPGS sites; and ARS budget staff. We visited NGRL and APHIS officials in Beltsville, Maryland; two of the four regional plant introduction stations (Ames, Iowa, and Griffin, Georgia); the National Soybean Collection, Urbana, Illinois; and NSSL in Fort Collins, Colorado. We also interviewed officials from USDA’s Economic Research Service; Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., a large seed producer; the Department of State; and the Agency for International Development. In addition, we reviewed (1) NPGS program documents, including planning and budget documents; (2) acquisition and preservation data (based on GRIN data) provided to us by NGRL officials, as well as preservation data provided by officials from the four plant introduction stations; (3) CGC reports; (4) site and program reviews; and (5) documents from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and from international sources related to germplasm access. We did not verify the accuracy and reliability of the data provided by NPGS. We conducted our review from July 1996 through September 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided USDA with a draft of our report for review and comment. These comments and our response to them are in appendix IV. Most CGCs reported that the overall diversity in freely available germplasm collections—including NPGS’—is sufficient for reducing their crops’ vulnerability. Nonetheless, they ranked the acquisition of additional germplasm as a top priority for NPGS, thereby underscoring the importance they place on having maximum genetic diversity in NPGS’ collections. A number of issues may be contributing to the CGCs’ emphasis on acquiring germplasm for the NPGS collection. For example, most CGCs said that at least one of the four types of germplasm that generally constitute their collections is inadequate; each type contains genetic material that plays an important role in a collection’s overall diversity. Most CGCs considered acquiring more germplasm to be a top priority; however, problems with some countries have hindered access to potential sources of new germplasm in those areas. In addition, certain provisions in the Convention on Biological Diversity, which entered into force in 1993, may place constraints on the use of and access to some foreign germplasm in the future. Even when NPGS acquires new germplasm, its release to breeders and research scientists has sometimes been delayed as a result of problems in USDA’s management of the quarantine process. According to many CGCs whose germplasm generally undergoes the most intensive quarantine testing, the process has resulted in the delayed release and, to a lesser extent, the loss of some germplasm. When all freely available collections were taken into account, almost three-quarters of the CGCs reported that these collections are sufficiently diverse for reducing the vulnerability of their crops. For the NPGS collections alone, just over half the CGCs reported that the genetic diversity of their NPGS collections is sufficient to reduce crop vulnerability. Nonetheless, the CGCs overall viewed the acquisition of additional germplasm as a top NPGS priority—out of 14 germplasm-related activities—in the event of additional funding. Several concerns highlighted by the CGCs in our survey may contribute to the importance they place on increased acquisition. These concerns include the lack of diversity within specific parts of their collections and the potential loss of germplasm that is endangered in nature or in at-risk collections (e.g., collections of scientists who are retiring). When all freely available collections (including NPGS’) were considered, 29 of the 40 CGCs reported that the genetic diversity in the collections for their crops is sufficient for reducing crop vulnerability. Major crops—such as corn, wheat, and soybeans—are in this category. The sufficiency of the collections declined somewhat when only NPGS collections were considered: Twenty-two, or just over half of the CGCs reported that the NPGS collections for their crops have sufficient genetic diversity overall to reduce crop vulnerability. (See fig. 2.1.) Nine CGCs said that the genetic diversity of the NPGS collection for their crops is insufficient for reducing crop vulnerability: grapes, cool season food legumes, sweet potatoes, cucurbits (e.g., squash and melons), tropical fruit and nut, walnuts, herbaceous ornamentals, prunus (e.g., peach and cherry trees), and woody landscape. In addition, nine CGCs said that their collections have neither sufficient nor insufficient diversity. While over half the CGCs believed that the genetic diversity of their NPGS germplasm collections for their crops is sufficient, they all reported that it is moderately to extremely important to increase the diversity of their NPGS collections. The importance the CGCs placed on increasing diversity is underscored by the high priority given to germplasm acquisition in the event of additional funding—of 14 germplasm-related activities, the CGCs, on average, gave acquisition the highest ranking. (Fig. 2.2 shows the average ranking that CGCs gave to each activity, with 1 being the highest possible ranking.) All 40 CGCs stated that they knew of germplasm samples that would increase the genetic diversity of the NPGS collections and that should be added to them. For example, the Wheat CGC’s 1996 report to NPGS cited three critical collection needs for the NPGS wheat collection and specified where much of this germplasm could be obtained, including landraces (seeds passed down by farmers from one generation to another to produce desired plant characteristics) from Guatemala, where they have not been collected before, and wild wheat relatives from Albania, Greece, and the former Yugoslavia. Similarly, the Sweet Potato CGC wanted to enhance the limited genetic diversity of the NPGS sweet potato collection by obtaining a representative sample of germplasm from the International Potato Center in Peru. This collection contains about 6,500 germplasm samples of sweet potato, compared with about 1,170 in the NPGS collection. Although most CGCs reported that their NPGS collections overall are sufficiently diverse at this time, they cited several concerns with the collections that may account for the importance they place on increased acquisition. First, most CGCs reported that at least one of the following types of germplasm in their collections is insufficiently diverse for reducing crop vulnerability: wild and weedy relatives of cultivated crops, landraces, and genetic stocks. Only obsolete and current cultivars, the fourth type of germplasm samples in a collection, are considered to be sufficient by most CGCs. Specifically: Wild and weedy relatives of crops were reported to be insufficient by almost half the CGCs, including those for major crops such as corn and soybeans. Wild relatives have often been used to improve crops, such as tomatoes, and sometimes to develop new ones. Landraces—many of which are grown from selected quality seed passed down by farmers from one generation to another—were reported to be insufficient by 12 of the 40 CGCs. Landraces are rich sources of genes for traits such as resistance to pests and pathogens. Genetic stocks are insufficiently diverse, according to over half the CGCs, including those for major crops such as alfalfa, peanuts, and grapes. While genetic stock material is essential to genetic research, according to NPGS officials, it has generally played a minor role in commercial breeding programs. However, it is expected to become increasingly important in breeding programs that use molecular genetic tools to manipulate and transfer genes to create new products, according to the National Research Council. Obsolete and current cultivars are sufficient for reducing the vulnerability of their crops, according to most CGCs. Only five CGCs cited insufficiencies in this area. Furthermore, 39 CGCs said that NPGS should place increased emphasis on acquiring germplasm endangered in nature or acquiring germplasm from collections at risk, such as the Vavilov collection in Russia or the collections of scientists who are retiring. If such collections are not obtained and preserved, their germplasm may be lost. Finally, 37 CGCs reported that certain plants are becoming extinct or hard to find. NPGS’ acquisition policy is to rely heavily on the 40 CGCs and the NPGS curators to assess the adequacy of their respective germplasm collections and recommend areas where additional acquisition may be needed. However, NPGS has not developed a comprehensive, long-term plan to establish critical acquisition needs for its germplasm collections and priorities for collection trips to fill those needs. Currently, NPGS’ collection trips are based primarily on proposals that are submitted to NPGS’ Plant Exchange Office by federal and university scientists and endorsed by the appropriate CGCs. In addition, staff from the Plant Exchange Office occasionally make or participate in collection trips. However, some exploration trips are funded by other USDA or non-USDA federal agencies. According to NPGS officials in the Plant Exchange Office, some germplasm collections are more frequently targeted for collection trips than others because (1) the gaps in some collections are better known and (2) some collections have more assertive champions—e.g., a germplasm curator, CGC, or other interested scientist who aggressively seeks out collection opportunities. This approach may overlook the needs of some crops. For example, according to the head of the Plant Exchange Office, 16 of the CGCs’ reports state acquisition needs only in a general fashion and therefore are of limited value for planning or setting acquisition priorities. The exchange officer acknowledged the need to develop a long-term plan that would reflect collection priorities for each crop. He noted that such a plan would use existing funds more efficiently and help ensure that the needs of all crops are being addressed. NPGS has been working to develop such a plan for several years, but progress has been slow because the office has lacked the resources to adequately staff the project and provide needed scientific expertise. The initial plan, which is intended to be flexible to accommodate changing needs and conditions, is expected to be completed by Spring 1998. Concerns about NPGS’ acquisition planning process are long-standing. For example, over 15 years ago, GAO recommended that a long-range plan be developed to address gaps in germplasm collections and objectives for collecting or otherwise acquiring needed germplasm. In 1991, the National Research Council recommended, among other things, that NPGS develop a comprehensive plan for plant exploration. The Council noted that in the past, the lack of an exploration plan resulted in some crops receiving attention, while others went unserved. Although CGCs want to acquire more germplasm, most reported that difficulties between the United States and some foreign countries have hindered NPGS’ efforts to obtain the germplasm needed to increase the diversity of its collections. For example, the Soybean CGC report indicated that relations between the United States and North Korea have hindered the CGC from obtaining germplasm from North Korea. The report stated that the few soybean germplasm samples from North Korea in NPGS’ collection were either obtained more than 60 years ago or have been received since then through third parties. Several other CGC reports—including those for sugarbeets, peas, and wheat—cited difficulties in obtaining germplasm from the Middle East. The Wheat CGC, for example, noted that Iran, a country with which the United States does not have diplomatic relations, holds potentially valuable wheat germplasm. In addition, issues relating to the ownership and use of foreign germplasm have become more problematic as a result of the entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993. Prior to the Convention, germplasm from most countries, other than those where access was restricted, has been generally available to requesters. However, the Convention recognizes the sovereign rights of nations over their natural resources and their rights to exchange these resources under terms mutually agreeable to the nation and the germplasm recipient. Officials from NPGS, the State Department, the Agency for International Development, and the World Bank observed that access to plant germplasm could be reduced as a result of these provisions but that the full impact of the Convention may be unknown for a number of years. However, one likely result of the Convention will be the increased use of material transfer agreements—contracts that require germplasm users to agree to certain conditions in exchange for the use of the germplasm. These agreements may require, for example, that the requester not seek intellectual property rights or claim ownership over the germplasm. USDA officials will sign material transfer agreements only if their terms are consistent with NPGS’ policy to provide users with free and open access to germplasm. A number of problems related primarily to USDA’s overall management of the germplasm quarantine program have hampered the program’s effectiveness and resulted in delays in the release of some germplasm. While most CGCs reported that U.S. quarantine regulations and processes have been effective in reducing the introduction of pests and pathogens into the United States, 13 CGCs, most of whose germplasm often undergoes more intensive scrutiny in quarantine, reported problems with the timeliness of the quarantine process, and 5 reported problems with the release of viable germplasm. While the CGC for prunus (e.g., cherry and peach trees) reported that USDA’s regulations and processing have been very ineffective in both of the above areas, CGCs for crops such as apples, pears, potatoes, and corn also reported problems. All plant germplasm coming into the United States must comply with federal quarantine regulations intended to prevent the introduction of pests and pathogens not widespread in the United States. These regulations range from a category requiring only visual inspection at the port of entry for germplasm such as the seeds of most vegetables and flowers, to a category—known as “prohibited”—requiring that the germplasm be sent to a quarantine facility for testing or observation before release. Although less than 3 percent of the world’s plant species are in this latter category, it includes a wide range of crops: all or most clonally propagated prunus, apples, pears, potatoes, sugarcane, strawberries, sweet potatoes, grapes, certain woody landscape plants, and grasses as well as the seeds of wheat, corn, and rice from some regions where there are serious diseases not already in the United States. Thirteen CGCs—most of whose germplasm is often in the prohibited category—reported that USDA’s management of the quarantine process hinders the timely acquisition of viable germplasm. In addition, ARS officials told us that some germplasm has died while in quarantine because it was poorly maintained. The specific types of problems identified by the CGCs, ARS and APHIS officials, and ARS reviews included (1) poor production practices during quarantine, (2) inadequate facilities or sites, and (3) the types of testing procedures that are currently in use. Eleven CGCs, representing such germplasm collections as prunus, apples, pears, potatoes, and sweet potatoes, reported that poor crop production practices—such as inadequate watering, soil preparation, and weeding—during quarantine hinder the timely acquisition of viable germplasm. Furthermore, an internal review of tree-growing practices at the Maryland quarantine facility, conducted in 1996 by a horticultural scientist at the request of ARS, noted the death of several thousand fruit trees planted between 1993 and 1995. The review cited improper horticultural practices as a major cause of many of the deaths and recommended improved practices. When trees in quarantine are not properly maintained, they may die and their germplasm will need to be imported again. For example, an ARS scientist at the quarantine office estimated that about 20 percent of all prunus germplasm samples brought into the country in the past 10 years had died because they did not receive proper horticultural care. In addition, poor production practices have kept trees from maturing sufficiently to permit testing, thereby delaying the release of germplasm. Such delays have occurred with the germplasm of prunus, apple, pear, and quince trees. For example, since 1991, the release of hundreds of germplasm samples for apple, pear, quince, and prunus trees has been delayed as a result of inadequate horticultural practices, according to the ARS scientists at the quarantine office who test and monitor these trees. Delays for most of the clonal apple, pear, and quince germplasm have been about 8 to 10 years. Furthermore, the average time for the unconditional release of prunus germplasm at the Maryland quarantine facility has been about 10 years; however, generally no more than 4 years should be required, according to APHIS officials. ARS officials expect that it will not unconditionally release apple, pear, quince, or prunus clonal material until the year 2000 or later because of horticultural practices that have resulted in the lack of mature trees needed for testing. Thirteen CGCs—including those for prunus, pears, corn, and rice—reported that conditions at the quarantine facilities used to grow their plants hinder the timely release of viable germplasm. Problems with quarantine facilities were also reported in ARS reviews in 1994 and 1996. The 1996 review stated that conditions at the quarantine facilities in Maryland were not conducive to promoting plant health. For example, it noted that the Maryland site’s soil was unsuitable for growing trees and recommended the installation of space heaters in the screenhouses to keep the temperature slightly above freezing. In addition, a plant breeder on the pear CGC said that the Beltsville facility is not ideal for pears or apples because the climate of the mid-Atlantic region is conducive to the development of fire blight, a serious bacterial disease that is difficult to control once trees are infected. Sixteen CGCs—including the prunus, apple, pear, corn, wheat, rice, and potato CGCs—reported that required testing procedures hinder the timely acquisition (e.g., introduction and distribution) of viable germplasm for their crops. While ARS is responsible for developing new tests, APHIS must approve the tests that are used as well as the release of germplasm from quarantine. Nearly all of the quarantine testing procedures currently in use date back to the early 1980s or before. These procedures involve testing for pathogens such as viruses and other infectious agents. For some crops, testing begins by closely observing the quarantined plants for symptoms of disease during plant growth and subjecting the plants to a battery of tests for latent pathogens. Some tests for trees can take considerable time because the tree must first bear fruit before tests can be completed. For example, tests on prunus trees generally require a minimum of about 3, and no more than 4, years to complete, according to APHIS officials. More sophisticated testing methods using molecular techniques to identify pathogens are being developed, and some are already available. These tests could save considerable time in quarantine as well as the costs associated with caring for the plants during that time. Such tests could also curtail the loss of germplasm that is associated with longer quarantine periods, according to APHIS and ARS officials. ARS has developed, and APHIS has approved, molecular tests for potato viruses; these tests have cut quarantine testing from 2 years to 1, according to an ARS scientist. In addition, APHIS is currently reviewing newly developed molecular tests for detecting certain diseases in prunus that would allow the conditional release of prunus in about 18 months, on average. In addition, ARS is working on the development of molecular tests for certain sweet potato pathogens. However, some plant breeders are concerned that the development and approval of new testing methods has been unduly slow. A 1994 review of the germplasm quarantine office, conducted by ARS and university scientists at the request of ARS, noted that virtually all popular new apple and pear trees clones of foreign origin enter the United States illegally, without pathogen testing. It stated that both ARS and APHIS needed to adopt policies that would make pathogen testing more responsive to the needs of the deciduous fruit industry and its associated germplasm collections and CGCs. According to most CGCs, NPGS collections for their crops lack sufficient information on germplasm traits to facilitate the germplasm’s use in crop breeding. Specifically, these CGCs raised concerns about two types of information—evaluation and characterization. Evaluation information describes traits (such as yield and resistance to disease) of particular interest to plant breeders, while characterization information describes traits (such as plant structure, seed type, and color) that are little influenced by environmental conditions. Most CGCs reported that passport data—a third type of information that describes, among other things, the site of origin of the germplasm—are sufficient for breeding crops. NPGS officials acknowledged that gaps exist in needed information, in part because the information has not been developed and in part because the information that has been developed has not always been entered into NPGS’ centralized database—the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). They noted, however, that given their limited resources, the day-to-day tasks of preserving germplasm to maintain its viability take precedence over developing and documenting information. Three-quarters of the CGCs reported insufficiencies with evaluation information, and almost half found characterization information insufficient for crop-breeding purposes. On the other hand, most CGCs reported that passport information is sufficient for crop-breeding purposes. Several NPGS managers told us, however, that passport information—particularly for older samples—is not adequate for NPGS’ internal planning and management. Breeders need comprehensive evaluation information to select germplasm with the traits they are seeking from the myriad of germplasm samples. According to the National Research Council, evaluation is a prerequisite for the use of germplasm—germplasm samples that are not evaluated remain mostly curiosities. In developing evaluation data, scientists test germplasm samples for various traits under a wide range of conditions. Although the preliminary evaluation of traits is generally considered an NPGS activity, most evaluations are part of the research that accompanies breeding programs and are conducted and funded primarily through other ARS programs and universities. In addition, industry conducts and funds a small amount of germplasm evaluation for NPGS. Thirty of the 40 CGCs reported that the evaluation information on their NPGS collections is somewhat or very insufficient for crop breeding, and only 3 reported that it is somewhat sufficient—the alfalfa, sugarbeets, and tropical fruit and nut CGCs. Figure 3.1 shows the sufficiency of evaluation information, as reported by the 40 CGCs. The CGCs reported that the trait most likely to have been evaluated—of the five traits we asked for their views on—is “resistance to pests and pathogens considered to be a serious risk.” Even so, less than half the CGCs reported that their germplasm has been evaluated to a moderate extent for this trait and only one to a great extent. For the remaining four evaluation traits, 35 to 38 CGCs reported their germplasm had been evaluated only to some, little, or no extent. These traits include tolerance to abiotic stresses, such as salt or drought, considered a serious risk; quality characteristics, such as flavor or appearance; production characteristics, such as yield; and root stock traits. (See fig. 3.2.) While identifying shortcomings in the evaluation information, almost half of the CGCs said that NPGS’ management of evaluation data has improved since about 1990. (In addition, 20 CGCs said that there has been no change, and 1 said it has worsened.) Root stocks are used in grafting clonal crops. germplasm sample is maintained. It is generally the responsibility of NPGS curators to develop characterization information when they regenerate germplasm samples. Nineteen of the 40 CGCs reported that characterization information on their NPGS germplasm is somewhat or very insufficient for crop breeding. These 19 CGCs included some economically important crops, such as cotton, grapes, and peanuts. Only nine CGCs reported that characterization information for their crops’ germplasm is somewhat sufficient for breeding. Figure 3.3 shows the sufficiency of characterization information, as reported by the CGCs. In addition, over half the CGCs said that NPGS’ management of characterization data has improved since 1990. Passport information includes the data on the plant’s classification, the location of the germplasm sample’s origin, and the ecology of that location. This information is essential for assessing the quality of the collections and for using and managing these collections. NPGS uses the data to ensure, for example, that it does not unnecessarily collect samples that have previously been collected from the same location. Passport data are generally the first data obtained on a new germplasm sample and are often provided by the donor when the germplasm is given to NPGS. However, much germplasm is donated to NPGS without complete passport information. Although NPGS’ passport information may be incomplete, the CGCs were considerably more positive about the passport information than about either evaluation or characterization information. As shown in figure 3.4, almost three-quarters of the CGCs reported that passport information for their crops is somewhat or very sufficient for crop-breeding purposes. Only five CGCs reported passport information to be somewhat insufficient for breeding. Furthermore, three-quarters of the CGCs said that NPGS’ management of passport data has improved since about 1990. Although most CGCs found passport information to be somewhat or very sufficient for crop-breeding purposes, NPGS officials told us that it is not sufficient for their internal planning for germplasm acquisition. About two-thirds of NPGS’ samples lack passport data on the location of origin, according to the GRIN data provided by NPGS officials. This information is key to pinpointing areas where germplasm has already been collected, thereby minimizing the possibility of unnecessarily collecting material already in the NPGS collection. Origin information also assists in targeting sites for future collection trips. Furthermore, according to NPGS officials, even when location information is available, it is sometimes inaccurate or incomplete. GRIN data, for example, show that 90 percent of NPGS’ samples have no information on the latitude and longitude of the site of origin. Incomplete passport information also makes it more difficult for curators to determine which samples are unique and which are duplicates.Identification of duplicate samples is necessary to avoid needless duplication of costly germplasm-related activities, such as preservation, characterization, and evaluation. Curators for about half of the crop collections reported that it is moderately to extremely important to decrease the duplication of samples in their NPGS collection. For example, the sorghum curator estimated that about 10 to 25 percent or more of the samples in the sorghum collection are duplicates. He added that the elimination of these duplicates would be expensive and time-consuming because many samples lack complete passport data. While some information has not been developed because of resource constraints, even data that have been developed have not always been entered into GRIN. NPGS officials told us that developing, obtaining, and documenting information in GRIN are lower priorities than preserving the germplasm collections, and in some cases, these activities are outside the system’s control. Thirty-nine CGCs estimated that, on average, 50 percent of existing, useful evaluation data on their collections are not in GRIN. According to the NPGS managers of several sites and ARS officials who oversee crop-specific research programs, gaps in evaluation data for NPGS germplasm result from a variety of factors, including the large amount of germplasm that needs to be evaluated, the resource-intensive nature of evaluations, and limited resources. In addition, most germplasm evaluations are conducted outside of NPGS, primarily by ARS and university scientists who do not always provide NPGS with the resulting information for entry into GRIN. Thus, even when evaluation data exist, they are not always available through GRIN. Some scientists who conduct germplasm evaluations are funded by ARS and are required to submit their evaluation results to NPGS. However, other scientists, not funded by ARS, conduct evaluations as part of their larger research objectives. According to a former National Program Leader for Plant Genetic Resources, some of these evaluations merit inclusion in GRIN; however, he said that NPGS does not have a clear policy on the curators’ responsibility in obtaining this information. Several CGC reports developed for NPGS have identified the need to enter additional evaluation information into GRIN. For example, the 1996 corn CGC report stated that much evaluation data had accumulated without being entered into GRIN or otherwise disseminated. Furthermore, according to the 1996 CGC report for cucurbits (e.g., squash, watermelon, cucumbers), NPGS has had relatively few requests for watermelon germplasm, in part because of the lack of relevant evaluation data in GRIN. In addition, NPGS does not have a process for tracking whether scientists under agreement with ARS to evaluate NPGS germplasm have submitted evaluation data for entry into GRIN. As a result, NPGS has little assurance that the results of these ARS-supported evaluations are entered into GRIN. While several NPGS managers said they believe that most of this information is in GRIN, NPGS is nonetheless developing a system to track the information. The system is expected to be completed by early 1998. Finally, some passport information—for example, the location of origin—cannot be developed because the germplasm samples were provided many years ago, and it would be very difficult or impossible to reconstruct the missing data. In addition, some passport information may be available but has not been added to GRIN. Although GRIN may not have complete data, 36 CGCs reported that it effectively provides information about their NPGS germplasm collections. Thirty-seven CGCs reported that NPGS’ management of GRIN had improved since about 1990, making it the NPGS activity that was cited most frequently as having improved. According to several NPGS officials responsible for managing germplasm activities, preserving germplasm to keep it viable is of more fundamental importance than developing information and making it available. In addition, the total number of germplasm samples in NPGS’ collections has increased about 29 percent from 1986 through 1996, according to the GRIN data provided by an NPGS official. With larger collections come greater demands on curators’ time and resources. Therefore, the development and documentation of characterization information, which is done primarily by NPGS curators, occurs only as time permits. A case in point is the cucurbit collection. The CGC for cucurbits reported that characterization and evaluation information is insufficient for breeding of its crops. However, the curators for these crops reported that some cucurbit regeneration backlogs had increased and that between 5 and 40 years would be required to regenerate various parts of this collection given current resources. Preservation activities—including viability testing, germplasm regeneration, and secure, long-term backup storage of germplasm—have not kept pace with the preservation needs of the collections. First, only minimal viability testing—testing that determines the amount of live germplasm in a sample—has been conducted at some sites, including two plant introduction stations that account for over one-fourth of NPGS’ germplasm samples. Viability testing is needed to determine when germplasm should be reproduced to prevent the loss of the sample. Second, NPGS has significant backlogs for regenerating germplasm at all four plant introduction stations. Regeneration—reproducing germplasm to obtain sufficient numbers of viable seeds—is essential, particularly when viability is known to be low or has not been tested. Third, over one-third of NPGS’ germplasm is not backed up in NPGS’ National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL), which provides secure, long-term storage for the system. Germplasm that is not backed up at NSSL is at greater risk of being lost. NPGS’ standards require that viability testing be conducted as often as is needed for each species. Managers of three plant introduction stations stated that the germplasm in their collections should be tested every 5 to 10 years, depending on the species and the storage conditions for the germplasm. Viability testing is important to determine when the sample is at risk of being lost. According to NPGS data and NPGS officials, the amount of testing at some locations—including two of the four plant introduction stations—is insufficient. These two stations account for more than one-quarter of NPGS’ active collection. The stations—in Griffin, Georgia, and Pullman, Washington—had tested less than one-fourth of their germplasm from 1986 through 1996. A curator at the Griffin station cited a specific consequence of the failure to test for viability on a regular basis—all 10 samples of recently tested butternut squash were dead. The collection had previously not been tested for many years. As a result, he feared that much or all of this collection of about 500 samples—the only one of its kind in NPGS—may be dead. While agreeing that viability testing is important, the Griffin and Pullman station managers told us that, given their large regeneration backlogs, focusing their limited resources on regeneration to maintain germplasm viability is more likely to save diversity in the germplasm collections than testing the germplasm. Other obstacles cited as reasons for infrequent testing include the large numbers of different species to test and the lack of testing methods for some of them. NSSL also conducts viability tests on the germplasm it maintains in long-term storage. At NSSL, 82 percent of its samples have been tested, 69 percent from 1985 through 1996. Of the 18 percent never tested, 61 percent do not have enough seeds for testing, and 39 percent are part of a backlog that has not yet been processed because of the lack of resources, according to NSSL data and NPGS officials. While NPGS’ data indicate that viability testing is not conducted as often as it should be, responses to our survey on the sufficiency of viability testing were mixed. Only 4 of the 40 CGCs we surveyed reported that NPGS’ viability testing activities are insufficient for their crops, although 29 indicated that the current staff levels for testing (as well as for regeneration) have hindered the preservation of their collections. However, when we examined the responses of the curators alone—who are responsible for maintaining and preserving the collections and are most knowledgeable about their condition—curators for part or all of 16 of 38 crop collections (including major crops such as corn, alfalfa, and cotton) reported that viability testing for their crop collections is insufficient. For example, the curator responsible for over 80 percent of the corn collection reported that regeneration and viability testing are somewhat insufficient and should be the first priority in case of additional funding. Regeneration is necessary to ensure that NPGS has an adequate supply of viable seeds. NPGS generally schedules a sample for regeneration when the viability of the sample is low—i.e., more than 35 percent of the sample’s seeds are dead—or the quantity of seeds is too low for distribution. NPGS has significant backlogs of germplasm requiring regeneration. According to NPGS officials, large backlogs may cause the loss of diversity in collections or prevent distribution to users and to NSSL for secure backup. NPGS officials from two plant introduction stations told us that, generally, their sites’ germplasm that is low in viability or quantity should be regenerated within 2 to 5 years in order to minimize the loss of diversity in their collections over the long term. However, it may take as much as 75 to 100 years for the samples at these two locations that need regenerating to be regenerated, according to NPGS curators. Table 4.1 shows the estimated number of years required to regenerate samples, at current resource levels, for various crops at the four plant introduction stations, as of Spring 1997. Some of these years are underestimated because they do not include the regeneration that would be required to provide germplasm for secure backup to NSSL and material to users that has been correctly regenerated. As table 4.1 shows, of the four plant introduction stations, the Pullman, Washington, location has the biggest backlog in terms of the percentage of samples requiring regeneration. Such regeneration is important not only for preservation of diversity but also for supplying seed to NSSL for long-term, secure backup. Several factors contribute to these backlogs. The biggest single factor is the limited number of permanent employees and seasonal laborers available to manage and carry out the necessary field and greenhouse activities, according to NPGS officials. Furthermore, at some locations, facilities for regeneration are inadequate, and at others the growing conditions for germplasm are less than ideal for producing good yields of high-quality seed. For some collections, these regional climatic conditions also contribute to the development of pests and pathogens, which can hinder the preservation and use of germplasm. To overcome these problems and increase its capacity to regenerate quality seed, NPGS recently established a new site—at Parlier, California—that is in an arid region with a long growing season. The Department has requested increased funding for genetic resources research in the fiscal year 1998 budget, part of which is to increase regeneration capability, according to an NPGS official. CGC responses to our survey regarding the sufficiency of regeneration activities were similar to those on viability testing. Only 7 of the 40 CGCs we surveyed reported that NPGS’ regeneration activities are insufficient for their collections, although 29 CGCs reported that the lack of staff for regeneration and viability testing had hindered the preservation of their collections. When we examined the responses of the curators (those most knowledgeable about the collections’ conditions), curators for part or all of 15 of 39 crop collections reported that regeneration is insufficient for part or all of their crop collections. The curator responsible for most of NPGS’ corn collection reported that regeneration is insufficient and that the 15-year regeneration backlog for corn placed an important part of this collection at the risk of losing diversity. Although NPGS’ policy requires that all seed samples in active collections be backed up at NSSL, over one-third are not. Furthermore, methods to ensure the secure backup of most clonal germplasm have not yet been developed. Backup is needed to provide protection against losses at the active sites resulting from (1) deterioration, which generally occurs more rapidly in seeds stored at active sites, or (2) human error, extreme weather, equipment failure, flood, fire, vandalism, or other catastrophes. Sixty-one percent of the approximately 440,000 seed samples at NPGS’ active sites are backed up at NSSL, where they are stored at –18 degrees Celsius or in containers over liquid nitrogen to slow deterioration. Of these backed-up samples, 44 percent do not meet NPGS’ standards and goals for the quantity of seeds and the percentage that should be viable—65 percent. The seed samples not stored at NSSL are at increased risk of deterioration because seeds generally deteriorate much more rapidly at active sites, which generally store germplasm at warmer temperatures—5 degrees Celsius. According to NPGS officials, seeds have not been adequately backed up primarily because of the large regeneration backlogs at active sites. That is, until the sites regenerate germplasm, they often do not have a sufficient number or quality of seeds to send to NSSL for backup storage. In addition, even when they have sufficient quantities of seeds, some sites have not sent the seeds to NSSL because before they can be sent, the sites must reinventory the germplasm samples and repackage the seeds. According to NPGS officials, these activities use resources that are in short supply. In addition, NSSL has its own 16-month backlog of about 27,000 samples that must be processed (which includes viability testing) before being placed in secure, long-term storage. The backup of clonal samples is even more limited, with only 4 percent of the approximately 30,000 samples at the active sites backed up at NSSL. This limited backup occurs because the methods for providing secure, long-term storage for most clonal germplasm have not yet been developed. Clonal germplasm may be backed up—in greenhouses as living plants, as tissue culture, or through cryopreservation—at the active site where the primary collection is maintained. Thus, in case of a natural disaster, disease, or other catastrophe, both the active and backup samples could be destroyed. For example, in 1992, over 2,000 germplasm samples were lost at NPGS’ Miami facility following Hurricane Andrew. These samples were not backed up at another NPGS site or at NSSL. Included in this group were about 30 percent of the mango and avocado collections and about 50 percent of the site’s ornamental collection (e.g., palm trees). The storm uprooted the trees, and they could not be successfully replanted. The curator for these crops stated that most of this material will not be replaced because of resource constraints, difficulties in locating the material, and difficulties in getting foreign collections to provide replacement samples. CGC responses to our survey regarding the sufficiency of backup storage of germplasm varied. Only 6 of the 40 CGCs surveyed reported that NPGS’ activity in the area of backup storage/preservation is insufficient for their crop collections. In contrast, the curators for part or all of 15 of 40 crop collections reported that NPGS’ activity in the area of backup storage/preservation of their crop collection is insufficient. The curators for the collections of six major crops—corn, soybeans, wheat, alfalfa, potato, and cotton—reported no insufficiencies in this area.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO surveyed the 680 members of the 40 crop germplasm committees (CGC) for their views on the sufficiency of the National Plant Germplasm System's (NPGS) principal activities focusing on: (1) acquiring germplasm to ensure the diversity of the collections in order to reduce crop vulnerability; (2) developing and documenting information on germplasm; and (3) preserving germplasm. GAO noted that: (1) just over half of the CGSs reported that the genetic diversity contained in NPGS' collections is sufficient to reduce the vulnerability of their crops; (2) considering both this collection and all other freely available collections, almost three-quarters of the committees said that the diversity in these collections is sufficient for reducing their crops' vulnerability; (3) at the same time, the committees identified several concerns affecting the diversity of their collections, and they ranked the acquisition of germplasm as the highest priority for the germplasm system if more funding becomes available; (4) current acquisition efforts are hindered by problems in obtaining germplasm from some countries and by the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) management of the quarantine system, which has contributed to the loss of germplasm and delays in its release for certain plants; (5) according to the crop committees, many of the system's collections lack sufficient information on germplasm traits to facilitate the germplasm's use in crop breeding; (6) officials of the germplasm system acknowledged that some information on plant traits, such as resistance to disease or plant structure, has not been developed because it is considered to be a lower priority than preserving germplasm; in other instances, the information has been developed by scientists outside of the system and has not been provided for entry into the database; (7) preservation activities--viability testing, regeneration, and the long-term backup storage of germplasm--have not kept pace with the preservation needs of the collections; (8) only minimal viability testing--testing the seeds in a sample to determine how many are alive in order to prevent the loss of the sample--has occurred at two of four major locations; (9) in addition, the system has significant backlogs for regenerating (that is, replenishing) germplasm at the four major locations; and (10) over one-third of the system's germplasm is not stored in the system's secure, long-term storage facility, thereby increasing the risk that samples located around the nation could be lost through environmental damage or other catastrophes.