Joint PGR Secure/ECPGR workshop:

Conservation strategies for European CWR and LR diversity

7–9 September 2011, Palanga, Lithuania

Joana Magos Brehm, Shelagh

Kell, Nigel Maxted, Brian V.

Ford-Lloyd, Maria Amélia

Martins-Loução

CWR prioritization at national level: case studies and lessons learnt

• Introduction

• United Kingdom

• Portugal

• Lessons learnt

Overview

• Broad CWR definition with generic limit =

relative large number of taxa

• Limited financial and human resources

How to do it?

Which criteria to use?

Which method to use?

Introduction

CWR InventoryUNITED

KINGDOM

UK CWR

European and Mediterranean

Catalogue of CWR (Kell et al. 2005)

Country filter

• 2300 plant species

▫ 1863 CWR (81% UK Flora) (Maxted et al. 2007)

▫ 300 food and agriculture CWR species

▫ 850 ornamental CWR species

▫ 80 threatened CWR species (IUCN categories: CR, EN, VU)

CWR Prioritization

UNITED KINGDOM

• Economic value

▫ Crops listed in DEFRA’s home production statistics

▫ Seed Traders National Annual Return (forage/fodder crops)

▫ EU Common Catalogue of Agricultural and Horticultural crops genera

▫ Genera in International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of

Plants (UPOV)

▫ Ornamental species with more than 100 nursery suppliers (in 2004)• Threatened status

▫ Red List (80 threatened CWR) (Cheffings et al. 2005)

250 PRIORITYCWR

(Maxted et al. 2007)

CWR Prioritization

UNITED KINGDOM

Portuguese CWR

European and Mediterranean Catalogue of CWR (Kell et al.

2005)

Economic value

In situ conservation

Ex situ conservation

Ethnobotanical uses

Flora Iberica /Flora de Portugal

Taxonomic harmonisation

PORTUGUESE CWR INVENTORY

Threatened status

Legislation

National distribution

Global distribution

Country filter

Internetwww.jb.ul.pt

PORTUGAL

(Magos Brehm et al. 2008)

CWR inventory

• 2262 CWR (mainland) (~68% Portuguese Flora)

• Leguminosae, Compositae, Poaceae – higher number of CWR

• 141 Portuguese endemics and 253 Iberian endemics

• ~12% ex situ conservation

• <1% in situ conservation

• ~14% threatened spp.

Magos Brehm et al. 2008

PORTUGALCWR inventory

Inventory Priority speciesPrioritisation at species level- 8 criteria, 4 methods-

2262 CWR 20 priorities

(Magos Brehm et al. 2010)

In situ conservation

National distribution

Legislation

Global distribution

Threatened category

Ex situ conservation

Economic value

Native status

PORTUGAL

CWR prioritization

Prioritising – different methods

▫ Point Scoring Procedure

▫ Point Scoring Procedure with Weighting

▫ (Simple Ranking System)

▫ Compound Ranking System

▫ Binomial Ranking System

(Magos Brehm et al. 2010)

PORTUGAL

CWR prioritization

E.g. SCORESCRITERIA 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Crop category No uses

Other uses

Ornamental

Aromatic and

Medicines

Forestry Industrial Fodder/ Forage

Food

Global Distribution No data

Europe/World

Mediterranean

Iberian Peninsula+North Africa+1 country

Iberian Peninsula+North Africa

Iberian Peninsula+1 country

Iberia Peninsula

Portugal

Σ (Economic Value + Threatened Status + Conservation status + Legislation + Global Distribution + National distribution)

Highest scores - priorities for conservation

PORTUGAL

Point scoring procedure

Highest scores - priorities for conservation

15 % 10 % 10 %

Global distribution

National distribution

Legislation

Other international legislation

Euro Council

Habitat’s Directive

Bern Convention National legislation

Economic value Threatened Status Conservation status

Ex situ In situ (active)

Native status

20 % 15 %15 %

15 %

PORTUGALPoint scoring procedure with

weighting

ECONOMIC VALUE

Production (€) Individual Ranking

Σ

Economic Value Ranking Any Economic Value? (Y/N)

Production (tons) “”

Surface (ha) “”

Traditional products “”

# grown varieties

“”

THREATENED STATUS Threatened status Threatened Status Ranking Any Threat Category? (Y/N)

CONSERVATION STATUS

Ex situ conservation “” Σ Conservation Status Ranking Being Conserved? (Y/N)

In situ conservation “”

LEGISLATION

Habitat’s Directive “”

Σ Legislation Ranking Affected by any Legislation? (Y/N)

Bern Convention “”

Euro Council “”

Other international legislation

“”

National legislation “”

DISTRIBUTIONGlobal distribution Global Distribution Ranking

National distribution National Distribution Ranking

NATIVE STATUS Native status Native Status Ranking Native? (Y/N)

Level 2

Compound Ranking System

Level 1

Simple Ranking System

Level 4

Binomial Ranking System

Threatened status

Legislation

National distribution

Global distribution

20 Priority CWR Species

PORTUGUESE CWR INVENTORY

Species occurring in ≥ 4 methods

50 top species

Point scoring procedure (PSP)

Point scoring procedure with weighing (PSP)

Compound ranking system (CRS1, CRS2, CR3)

Binomial ranking system (BRS1, BRS2, BRS3)

Economic value

In situ conservation

Ex situ conservation

Native status

(Magos Brehm et al. 2010)

PORTUGAL

CWR prioritization

PSP PSPW CRS1 CRS2 CRS3 BRS1 BRS2 BRS3PSP 100 - - - - - - -

PSPW 38 100 - - - - - -

CRS1 9 19 100 - - - - -

CRS2 15 5 1 100 - - - -

CRS3 8 6 2 9 100 - - -

BRS1 12 10 6 19 19 100 - -

BRS2 23 7 4 26 10 36 100 -

BRS3 25 6 2 11 26 23 40 100

Final 21 17 9 20 23 27 29 25

Matrix of overlapping % between methods and between

the final list of priority CWR (by combining the different

methods) and the result obtained with each method

(Magos Brehm et al. 2010)

PORTUGAL

CWR prioritization

The criteria and the method used in setting conservation priorities tend to differ with the user, country, etc. A single criterion or the use of different methods change greatly the results Relatively low level of similarity between individual results and the final list obtained by combining all methods (high degree of subjectivity associated with the use of a single method) Need to reduce subjectivity in order to obtain reliable results: combination of methods Whatever the criteria and the method, priorities must be viewed as a working hypotheses based on the best available information.

Lessons learnt

Joint PGR Secure/ECPGR workshop:

Conservation strategies for European CWR and LR diversity

7–9 September 2011, Palanga, Lithuania

Joana Magos Brehm, Shelagh

Kell, Nigel Maxted, Brian V.

Ford-Lloyd, Maria Amélia

Martins-Loução

CWR prioritization at national level: case studies and lessons learnt