Chapter 21: Collecting vegetatively propagated crops (especially roots and tubers)

Alexandre Dansi
Laboratory of Agricultural Biodiversity and Tropical Plant Breeding (LAAPT),
Faculty of Sciences and Technology (FAST), University of Abomey-Calavi (UAC), Benin
E-mail: adansi2001(at)gmail.com

This chapter is a synthesis of new knowledge, procedures, best practices and references for collecting plant diversity since the publication of the 1995 volume Collecting Plant Diversity; Technical Guidelines, edited by Luigi Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao and Robert Reid, and published by CAB International on behalf of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) (now Bioversity International), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The original text for Chapter 21: Collecting Vegetatively Propagated Crops (Especially Roots and Tubers), authored by Z. Huaman, F. de la Puente and C. Arbizu, has been made available online courtesy of CABI. The 2011 update of the Technical Guidelines, edited by L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao and E. Goldberg, has been made available courtesy of Bioversity International.

Please send any comments on this chapter using the Comments feature at the bottom of this page. If you wish to contribute new content or references on the subject please do so here.

Back to list of chapters on collecting

References for this chapter

Internet resources for this chapter

	Farmers and researchers using four-square analysis to collect information about yam diversity at Igboloudja, Togo (Photo: A. Dansi)

Abstract

Many of the developing world's poorest farmers and food-insecure people are highly dependent on root and tuber crops (RTCs) as a supplementary, if not principal, source of food, nutrition and cash income. Hence, the development and utilization of genotypes that can withstand abiotic and biotic pressures are the keys for sustainable production. Genes for such traits are often available in wild species and landraces; therefore, their genetic resources need to be collected, documented, characterized, evaluated and preserved. This paper supplements the original 1995 chapter by summarizing recent technical guidelines for collecting both wild and cultivated roots and tubers. The sampling procedures are discussed with particular attention given to the involvement of local communities in the case of cultivated species. To be of value, accessions should be well documented, an issue that is discussed, and guidelines are provided. Techniques of handling vegetative material in the field are summarized and the concept of in vitro collecting presented. Future challenges and needs in the areas of report preparation, germplasm conservation, research (characterization and evaluation) and information exchange are briefly discussed.

Introduction

Root and tuber crops are plants that are grown for their modified, thickened roots or stems, which generally develop underground (Bradshaw 2010). These organs are rich in carbohydrates and are commonly used as a dietary staple, livestock feed, raw material for the production of industrial products such as starch and alcohol, or processed into various food products.

The 1995 version of this chapter lists the most important root and tuber crops. This list has not changed. Those cultivated on a global scale include potato (Solanum tuberosum), cassava (Manihot esculenta), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), yams (Dioscorea spp.) and taro (Colocasia esculenta). Others that are of regional, national or local importance include, in total, over a dozen dicot and monocot families, most of which originated in tropical or subtropical areas. While they are mainly used as sources of carbohydrates, many minor root and tuber crops, such as turmeric (Curcuma longa) and arrowroot (Maranta arundinacea, Tacca leontopedaloides), are used in folk medicine and as spices (Sastrapradja et al. 1981).

All these crops are vegetatively propagated. There are many different types of plant material that can be used to propagate crops vegetatively, definitions and examples of which are given in the 1995 version of this chapter.

Collecting material

Site selection

In addition to the plant material used for propagation, the selection of the site where the plants are to be collected is very important. Selecting sites only along roads should be avoided. Selected sites should be well spread throughout the occurring (wild species) or the production (cultivated species) zones of the species. Some collecting sites should be also selected in the marginal production areas where rare varieties may be found, following Bressan et al. (2005), Clausen et al. (2005) and Pillai et al. (2000). With yam, for example, marginal areas include arid zones affected by drought, lowland rich regions and mountainous zones with gravelly soils normally not suitable for the production of this crop but where particular varieties adapted to these abiotic constraints are cultivated.

Documentation

To be of value, collected accessions should be well documented. For this, it is important to prepare a documentation sheet adapted to the species considered. Bioversity International has developed such collecting sheets for many crops (including roots and tubers). These sheets included in the crop descriptors, can be used as models. Multi-crop passport descriptors (Alercia et al. 2001) also exist and can be used. Descriptors for farmers’ knowledge of plants have also been recently developed by Bioversity International to provide a standard format for the gathering, storage, retrieval and exchange of farmers’ knowledge (Bioversity and The Christensen Fund 2009). Labelling (markers, plastic labels, etc.) and field handling materials (bags made with net, for example, for better airing) should also be prepared. Collecting sites should be georeferenced (latitude, longitude, altitude) using GPS.

Sampling

In a traditional farmer's field of a root or tuber crop, there will be a mixture of many different genotypes (e.g., Jackson et al. 1980), each being the result of intensive selection by farmers over many generations. Random sampling of such a field, the usual method for sexually reproducing species, is not appropriate, as it will over-represent abundant clones at the expense of rare ones. In regions such as West Africa, where there is a good association between names and diversity for some crops (yam, taro, cassava, etc.), a two-step procedure involving farmers at both the community and individual level is recommended.

First, an exhaustive inventory of the farmer-named varieties or morphotypes is made at village level and in groups of 40 to 60 farmers (depending on the size of the community) of different ages as older farmers have a better knowledge of the ancient varieties, while young farmers will be more knowledgeable about the novel varieties and uses. To carry out a correct inventory, an understanding of the folk nomenclature is sometime a prerequisite. A typical example is related to yam with the sociolinguistic group Yom in northern Benin. In that ethnic area, where single-harvest and double-harvest varieties of guinea yam (D. cayenensis and D. rotundata) and varieties of water yam (D. alata) are known under the generic names of “assina”, “noudouosse” and “kpatanga”, respectively (Dansi et al. 1997), a diversity inventory generally erroneously yields three varieties (instead of 20 to 60), which are nothing more than these three types of yam, if a detailed listing under each category is not requested from farmers.

Second, collect three to four propagules of each listed variety per site (e.g., village). Generally, at tuber-collecting time for some crops, such as potatoes and yam, there will be no above-ground parts visible to identify the variety or look for any morphological variation. Moreover, when farmers harvest the tubers, they gather them (mixed or separated) in barns. It is recommended that the propagules be collected from different farmers, and when possible, experienced farmers should be asked, in groups, to confirm the identities of the propagules before numbering them (e.g. collector number) and recording data on them. With species like yam, where two harvests are possible, the use of the terms “early-maturing” and “late-maturing” to distinguish single-harvest and double-harvest varieties should be avoided as it creates confusion: farmers differentiate early-maturing and late-maturing cultivars within the single-harvest and the double-harvest classes of yam. This process should be repeated at each sampling site.

Farmer’s knowledge

Local knowledge is crucial to the sampling process, just as it is crucial in deciding when and where to sample in the first place. Most farmers are aware of the extent of variation in their field, village and district, i.e., the number of distinct cultivars available in a given area, their names, appearance and characteristics. Documentation of varieties by individual farmers is good, but for accurate data collection, it is recommended that the documentation exercise be carried out with farmers in groups in order to avoid incorrect information. At each collecting site, the distribution and extent of each listed variety are among the crucial information to be documented; its compilation at the national level will indicate where and how common each farmer-named variety is across the country. This can easily be assessed using the Four Squares Analysis (FSA) approach described by Brush (2000), Tuan et al. (2003) and Dansi et al. (2008; 2010). At the community level, and based on two parameters (number of households and cultivated area), this method of participatory analysis helps to classify existing varieties into four groups: varieties cultivated by many households on large areas (++), varieties cultivated by many households on small areas (+ -), varieties cultivated by few households on large areas (- +) and varieties cultivated by few households on small areas (- -) (see table 21.1). To do this, varieties are individually taken and evaluated by farmers (in groups) using the first parameter (number of households). For this parameter, farmers are asked to indicate for each variety whether it is produced by many or few households. The same evaluation process is repeated for all the varieties for the second parameter (cultivated area). By combining the results of the two parameters, varieties can be classified into the different quadrants, and the results can immediately be presented to the farmers for comments and validation. Table 21.1 and figure 21.1 present, as examples, the results recently obtained on yam (Dioscorea rotundata) at Igboloudja (District of Ogou, Department of Plateau), a village of southern Togo (Dansi, unpublished).

Four-cell/square analysis is a powerful participatory tool to understand the amount (richness) and distribution (evenness) of crop diversity at the community level and socioeconomic rationale of them for community-based conservation actions. At the same time, this can be used to make decision as to which varieties to collect on priority basis. In the above example, the collector may assign higher priority to collect the varieties that are rare (occurring in the right hand bottom quadrant) as these are cultivated by few households and in small areas and hence are greatly threatened with genetic erosion. It is important to note that the time required to do the FSA depends on the number of varieties. Generally, the time available to collectors in any given location or site is relatively short, so to avoid wasting time, the process should be well understood by the collectors (some level of training in using the methodology is therefore required) and well explained to the local community.

In vitro collecting

Chapter 24 of the Technical Guidelines describes the concept of in vitro collecting, gives general guidelines and provides some examples. Two further examples are worth mentioning here, specifically that focus on root and tuber crops. The in vitro collecting method developed at the International Center for Tropical Agricultural (CIAT) for cassava consists in taking actively growing vegetative buds or terminal stem cuttings from branches without flowering buds. Explants of 1.0cm to 1.5cm are immersed in 70% ethanol for 5–15 minutes and then surface-sterilized by immersion in a 0.5% solution of calcium hypochlorite for 5 minutes. Finally, they are rinsed with cool boiled water. Explants are inoculated into semisolid culture medium (MS or 4E) containing an antibiotic such as rifampicin in a small wick of filter paper. In contrast, the in vitro methods tested at the International Potato Center (CIP) for sweet potatoes have so far not produced high rates of survival of the cultures. A simple method that has been partially successful consists of taking cuttings containing one node with axillary buds; they are surface-sterilized and introduced into a test tube containing 1ml of antibiotic solution (100ml distilled water + 0.025 g streptomycin). Particularly high losses due to contamination have been noticed in sweet potatoes with thin or very pubescent stems.

Table 21.1: List, Distribution and Extent of Yam (Dioscorea rotundata) Landraces Recorded at Igboloudja (South of Togo)

Note: Newly introduced varieties are marked with an asterisk.

Figure 21.1: Diagrammatic representation of the classification of yam varieties into the four quadrants after the participatory evaluation at Igboloudja (south of Togo)

Future challenges/needs/gaps

Conservation of collected germplasm in the field

Various approaches exist for the conservation of the collected germplasm, among which is the field genebank. In field genebanks, the plant genetic resources (PGR) are kept as live plants that undergo continuous growth and require continuous maintenance. Field genebanks provide an easy and ready access to the PGR for characterization, evaluation or utilization (Saad and Ramanatha Rao 2001). However, a field genebank is generally expensive to maintain and has high levels of risk from natural disasters and adverse environmental conditions like drought, floods or attacks from pests and diseases (Engels and Visser 2003). When field genebank conservation is the only feasible option, careful planning and field management can help to mitigate the risks.

For cultivated species like cassava, taro and yam, in which synonymies are frequent, accessions of the same vernacular name may be planted side by side to facilitate observations. Before planting, some collected materials may be cleaned through treatment with a complex of insecticide, nematicide and fungicide to avoid attack by and /or propagation of pests and diseases. It is recommended that a minimum of five plants be maintained for each accession, as well as duplicate field genebanks in more than one site or an in vitro genebank as a safety backup (Reed et al. 2004). Best practices for establishing and managing a field genebank are described by Reed et al. (2004). Recently, the Global Crop Diversity Trust assisted many countries in regenerating and safely duplicating their root and tuber crop germplasm in another genebank, such as the one at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA).

Information exchange

Effective sharing of information about the collected germplasm is important. For this, Bioversity and its partners have published several descriptor lists (www.bioversityinternational.org) to standardize the way plant resources should be documented. For Allium, banana, carrot, potato, sweet potato, taro, Xanthosoma and yam, such descriptors exist free of charge and should be used. Recently, FAO has developed a database named HORTIVAR (www.fao.org/hortivar/index.jsp) in which information on the performance of cultivars can be compiled for public use. Writing and publishing a comprehensive report on a collection mission – as Pillai et al. (2000) have done on taro, Adair et al. (2006) have done on Allium, and Nair and Sekharan (2009) have done with Saccharum – is recommended.

Morphological and genetic characterization

Morphological characterization should be carried out to identify morphotypes and cultivar groups. For the cultivated species in which synonymy exists, complementary participatory characterization and classification is recommended for correct establishment of the equivalence between vernacular names.
Some species, like yam, that are polyploid, require cytogenetic characterization by chromosome count and flow cytometry (Dansi et al. 2000, 2001, 2005).
When possible, molecular characterization should be also done for diversity assessment and duplicate identification. Details on the use of molecular markers in the management of PGR can be found in Karp et al. (1997) and Spooner et al. (2005), as well as for some species, such as cassava (Raji et al. 2009, yam (Siqueira et al. 2011) and taro (Mace et al. 2006). There are numerous specific publications in the literature that can serve as guides.

Conclusions

There are not many countries that have perfect germplasm collections of their root and tuber crops. Many root and tuber crop species are neglected, underutilized, absent or poorly represented in both national and international genebanks. Apart from the commonly cultivated species, the genetic variability of many root and tuber crops is seriously endangered, mainly due to environmental degradation and changes in agricultural practices. Their diversity can be preserved and used only if it is collected in time.

Back to list of chapters on collecting

References and further reading

Adair R, Johnson RC, Hellier B, Kaiser W. 2006. Collecting tapertip onion (Allium acuminatum Hook.) in the great basin using traditional and GIS methods. Native Plant Journal 7(2):141–148.

Alercia A, Diulgheroff S, Metz T. 2001. FAO/IPGRI multi-crop passport descriptors. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome. Available online (accessed 8 October 2011): www.bioversityinternational.org/nc/publications/publication/issue/faoipgri_multi_crop_passport_descriptors.html.

Bell AD. 1991. Plant Form: An Illustrated Guide to Flowering Plant Morphology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Bioversity and The Christensen Fund. 2009. Descriptors for Farmers’ Knowledge of Plants. Bioversity International, Rome, and The Christensen Fund, Palo Alto, California. Available online (accessed 8 October 2011): www.bioversityinternational.org/nc/publications/publication/issue/descriptors_for_farmers_knowledge_of_plants.html.

Bradshaw JE, editor. 2010. Root and Tuber Crops. Handbook of Plant Breeding, Vol. 7. Springer Verlag, London.

Bressan EA, Veasey EA, Peroni N, Felipim AP, Santos KMP. 2005. Collecting yam (Dioscorea spp.) and sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) germplasm in traditional agriculture small-holdings in the Vale do Ribeira, São Paulo, Brazil. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 144:8–13.

Brush SB, editor. 2000. Genes in the field: on-farm conservation of crop diversity. Boca Raton, Lewis Publishers, p 288

Clausen AM, Colavita M, Butzonitch I, Carranza AV. 2005. A potato collecting expedition in the province of Jujuy, Argentina and disease indexing of virus and fungus pathogens in Andean cultivars. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 52(8):1099–1109. Available online (accessed 8 October 2011): www.springerlink.com/content/p2q2101253288938.

Dansi A, Zoundjihékpon J, Mignouna HD, Quin M. 1997. Collecte d'ignames cultivées du complexe Dioscorea cayenensis - rotundata au Bénin. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter: 112, 81- 85

Dansi A, Pillay M, Mignouna HD, Daïnou O, Mondeil F, Moutaïrou K. 2000. Ploidy level of the cultivated yams (Dioscorea cayenensis / D. rotundata complex) from Benin Republic as determined by chromosome counting and flow cytometry. African Crop Science Journal 8(4):355–364.

Dansi A, Mignouna HD, Pillay M, Zok S. 2001. Ploidy variation in the cultivated yams (Dioscorea cayenensis-Dioscorea rotundata complex) from Cameroon as determined by flow cytometry. Euphytica 119:301–307.

Dansi A, Daïnou O, Agbangla, Ahanhanzo C, Brown S, Adoukonou-Sagbadja H. 2005. Ploidy level and nuclear DNA content of some accessions of water yam (Dioscorea alata) collected at Savè, a district of central Benin. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 144:20–23.

Dansi A, Adjatin A, Adoukonou-Sagbadja H, Faladé V, Yedomonhan H, Odou D, Dossou B. 2008. Traditional leafy vegetables and their use in the Benin Republic. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55(8):1239–1256.

Dansi A, Adoukonou-Sagbadja H, Vodouhe R. 2010. Diversity, conservation and related wild species of Fonio millet (Digitaria spp.) in the northwest of Benin. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 57(6):827–839.

Engels JMM, Visser L, editors. 2003. A guide to effective management of germplasm collections. IPGRI Handbooks for Genebanks No. 6. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome. Click here to download this publication. (1.3 MB)

Jackson MT, Hawkes JG, Rowe PR. 1980. An ethnobotanical field study of primitive potato varieties in Peru. Euphytica 29:107–113.

Karp A, Kresovich S, Bhat KV, Ayad WG, Hodgkin T. 1997 Molecular Tools in Plant Genetic Resources Conservation: A Guide to the Technologies. IPGRI Technical Bulletin No. 2. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome. Available online (accessed 8 October 2011): http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACB166.pdf.

Mace ES, Mathur PN, Izquierdo L, Hunter D, Taylor MB, Singh D, DeLacy IH, Jackson GVH, Godwin ID. 2006. Rationalisation of taro germplasm collections in the Pacific Island region using SSR markers. Plant Genetic Resources 4:210–220

Nair NV, Sekharan S. 2009. Saccharum germplasm collection in Mizoram, India. SUGAR TECH 11(3):288–291. Available online (accessed 8 October 2011): www.springerlink.com/content/q54rq7784u846455.

Pillai SV, Nair PG, Thankamma PK, Hore DK. 2000. Collecting taro and other tuber crops from North Eastern Hill region of India. Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources 13(2): 159–162.

Raji AAJ, Anderson JV, Kolade OA, Ugwu CD, Dixon AGO, Ingelbrecht IL. 2009. Gene-based microsatellites for cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz): prevalence, polymorphisms, and cross-taxa utility. BMC Plant Biology 2009, 9:118 . Available online (accessed 8 October2011): www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/9/118.

Reed BM, Engelmann F, Dulloo ME, Engels JMM. 2004. Technical guidelines for the management of field and in vitro germplasm collections. IPGRI Handbook for Genebanks No.7. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome. Click here to download this publication. (0.5 MB)

Saad MS, Ramanatha Rao V, editors. 2001 Establishment and management of field genebank: a training manual. IPGRI-APO, Serdang, Malaysia.

Sastrapradja S, Wilijarmi-Soetjipjo N, Donimihardja S, Soejono R. 1981. Root and Tuber Crops. International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR), Rome.

Siqueira MVBM, Marconi TG, Bonatelli ML, Zucchi MI, Veasey EA. 2011. New microsatellite loci for water yam (Dioscorea alata, Dioscoreaceae) and cross-amplification for other Dioscorea species. American Journal of Botany 98(6):144–146.

Spooner DM, Van Treuren R, De Vicente MC. 2005. Molecular Markers for Genebank Management. IPGRI Technical Bulletin No. 10. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome.

Tootill E, editor. 1984. Dictionary of Botany. Penguin, London.

Tuan HD, Hue NN, Sthapit BR, Jarvis DI, editors. 2003. On-farm management of agricultural biodiversity in Vietnam. Proceedings of a symposium 6–12 December 2001, Hanoi, Vietnam. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome.

Internet resources

Descriptors for farmers’ knowledge: www.bioversityinternational.org/nc/publications/publication/issue/descriptors_for_farmers_knowledge_of_plants.html

HORTIVAR (Horticulture Cultivars Performance Database): www.fao.org/hortivar/index.jsp

Multi-crop passport descriptors: www.bioversityinternational.org/nc/publications/publication/issue/faoipgri_multi_crop_passport_descriptors.html.

Back to top

Chapter 40: Collecting DNA for conservation

M. C. de Vicente
Consultant Es Mercadal, Spain
E-mail: cdevicente(at)gmail.com

This chapter is a synthesis of new knowledge, procedures, best practices and references for collecting plant diversity since the publication of the 1995 volume Collecting Plant Diversity: Technical Guidelines, edited by Luigi Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao and Robert Reid, and published by CAB International on behalf of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) (now Bioversity International), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The 2011 update of the Technical Guidelines, edited by L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao and E. Goldberg, has been made available courtesy of Bioversity International.

Please send any comments on this chapter using the Comments feature at the bottom of this page. If you wish to contribute new content or references on the subject please do so here.

Back to list of chapters on collecting

References for this chapter

Internet resources for this chapter

Abstract

	Preparing samples prior to storage in the tissue collection. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Cali, Colombia. (Photo: Carlos Andres Tovar/Bioversity.)

There are increasing initiatives to collect DNA for conservation, either as a "back-up" to traditional ex situ collections, such as seed and tissue genebanks, or as samples generated from the application of genetic and genomic tools. A few concerted efforts have been made and nowadays DNA banks are not just in-house initiatives: some are open to hosting samples from different origins. Conservation of DNA is still a new way of collecting genetic resources, and the development of standard procedures is happening slowly. This chapter annotates key references that summarize the most up-to-date procedures and protocols for collecting DNA for conservation.

Introduction

Of all the types of material collected for conservation of diversity, DNA is undoubtedly the latest and likely the last. In the late 1980s molecular studies started an era of expansion, and soon conserving DNA for future research was identified as a sensible undertaking, given the cost and time involved in extracting DNA, no matter the project. Tests of viability of DNA samples kept at different temperatures and in different storage solutions were done routinely to ensure that further research, late verifications and even exchanges with collaborators would be possible. Then, in the early 2000s conserving DNA in general became an activity in itself.

After traditional collections of genetic resources, DNA banks provide a new resource for the ready availability of DNA with great potential for the characterization and utilization of biodiversity. The DNA molecule contains all the information necessary to make up any plant, but conserved DNA is not a direct resource for conservation, as DNA alone cannot contribute to the regeneration of biodiversity as seeds and other tissues can. The objectives of DNA collections are diverse. DNA is kept as a by-product of ongoing research and as the foundation of future research. DNA serves the study of the origin and evolution of species (including the effects of environmental factors). It helps in understanding biodiversity and analysing phylogenetic relationships. It complements taxonomic studies and helps define biodiversity conservation strategies. And it contributes to the investigation of population dynamics, and acts as a resource for biotechnological applications, among other things.

The scope of the Technical Guidelines, as published in 1995, was restricted to collecting material, but the conservation of DNA for banking, in addition to collection, involves operations such as extracting, storing, documenting, analysing and exchanging. Also, a DNA collection may include much more than just raw DNA: a DNA collection may store tissues, and DNA in the form of genetic and genomic resources, which are "identified" DNA sequences.

Similar to conventional collections, all DNA collections require the establishment of good practices and methods. However, because setting up DNA banks is a recent phenomenon in the conservation of genetic resources, collecting procedures for the development and maintenance of DNA banks are only slowly being documented and improved.

Current status

Generic advice for collecting plant material for DNA extraction and conservation is basically similar to that for plant tissues in general. Distinctive and essential advice for collecting material for DNA conservation is that the material must be high quality to guarantee good extraction, and the associated information must be correct and adequate. For a very recent and complete publication on collecting for DNA banking, see Gemeinholzer et al. (2010). This paper gives guidelines for all the tasks required for pre-DNA isolation of samples, from both plants and animals. It includes information about sampling strategies, methodological considerations for collecting different types of plant tissues, strategies for tissue preservation and DNA isolation in the field, relevant logistics and safety considerations in the field, labelling of samples and recording essential information, transportation practices from the field to the laboratory and necessary equipment. Preserving DNA samples both in the field and in the DNA bank, standardization of DNA quality and characterization, and hosting sample information is thoroughly covered by Walters and Hanner (2006).

A complementary publication on collecting DNA for conservation is the comprehensive review by Hodkinson et al. (2007). This paper contains information on collecting material – including the preparation of associated vouchers or maintenance of living collections, tissue banking as DNA-rich material, a compilation of DNA extraction methods, assessment of DNA quality and quantity, DNA storage conditions, documenting DNA banks, and considerations for DNA exchange. In view of the delay observed in the development of procedures for DNA collection, the authors claim that DNA banks should be integrated with other collection initiatives, such as botanic gardens and seed and genetic resources in general, which have developed appropriate protocols for curation and documentation. With this in mind, they review and illustrate DNA curation and management practices, following the different steps of bank operation.

Simple recommendations are summarized on the web page of the Department of Molecular Biodiversity and DNA Bank of the Botanic Garden "Viera y Clavijo" of the Canary Islands (www.bioclimac.com/mbdna/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128&Itemid=220). It contains tips to set up a DNA bank, which cover the entire DNA banking operation: collecting and organizing samples, extracting and storing DNA and sample-exchange procedures, including a link to an example of sample-management policy.

Future challenges/needs/gaps

No matter the advances in DNA conservation, there are challenges – technical, infrastructural and legal – to be resolved for this conservation approach to become widespread and to benefit the genetic resources community from north to south.

From a technical point of view, the cost of DNA extraction and the consistency in obtaining high-quality material continue to be important limitations. While problems of consistency can largely be solved by the use of commercial kits amenable to different types of species and tissues, the cost of the extraction per sample remains the highest among collecting operations.

DNA extraction protocols that allow preservation at room temperature are extremely important, as they remove the necessity of equipment for cold storage. In developing countries, an added challenge is not only the availability of the appropriate infrastructure – including bioinformatics – but also the maintenance of that infrastructure, which is often the main obstacle to setting up a DNA bank. Perhaps it is because of the costs related to the infrastructure that developing countries lag behind in DNA conservation; however, regional collaborative initiatives could overcome some of these difficulties (Ebert et al. 2006). Therefore, an effort to communicate with the scientific communities in these countries could help to close the gap.

DNA storage has advanced in the private sector, where infrastructure and capacity – including funds – are optimal (Andersson et al. 2006). This could also be an indirect result of the legalities involved in DNA exchange, with issues pending in the public sector being much less relevant in the private sector.

Legal issues related to collecting, conserving and exchanging DNA are complex, perhaps even more complex than those that affect genetic resources in general. Graner et al. (2006) provide a simple account of ownership and intellectual property issues, both for DNA held in trust in a collection and for its products, following the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement of the World Trade Organization. In spite of several areas of confusion, current DNA banks are routinely exchanging DNA, taking care to observe the legal issues by using material transfer agreements.

Last, but not least, issues related to data standards, data curation and information retrieval and exchange are also pending. In the end, it is not the DNA, per se, that counts, but the access to the information it contains that will assure the use of genetic resources like DNA to the fullest – realizing the maximum benefit of DNA banks and their resources.

DNA banking may be considered to be in a beginning phase as compared with traditional methods of collecting and storing plant genetic resources, but in order to work towards a standardized set of procedures and best practices, it would be very helpful to compile a list of world DNA collections, to which one could refer for information and comparison. The task would require first defining what a "DNA collection" is and a "DNA bank", considering whether functions include DNA storage only or also hosting and sharing DNA. A DNA collection could exist in many modern laboratories that engage in genetic and genomic research, and they could exchange material samples among collaborators in similar projects. Other DNA collections might consider exchanging resources outside a close circle of collaborators. A DNA bank might host DNA samples from other laboratories and organizations, and it should offer to share samples with clients at large. Starting a list of collections should take these considerations into account. Once the criteria are clear, this list could focus first on official DNA collections linked to national collections of plant genetic resources (for example, those belonging to a national genebank, or those adjunct to botanical gardens and herbaria) and it could then be expanded to accommodate DNA collections of genomic resources.

Back to list of chapters on collecting

References and further reading

Andersson MS, Fuquen EM, de Vicente MC. 2006. State of the art of DNA storage: results of a worldwide survey. In: de Vicente MC, Andersson MS, editors. DNA Banks—Providing Novel Options for Genebanks? Topical Reviews in Agricultural Biodiversity. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. pp.6–10. Available online (accessed 31 October 2011): http://cropgenebank.sgrp.cgiar.org/images/file/learning_space/dna_banks.pdf.

de Vicente MC, Andersson MS, editors. 2006. DNA Banks—Providing Novel Options for Genebanks? Topical Reviews in Agricultural Biodiversity. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. Available online (accessed 31 October 2011): http://cropgenebank.sgrp.cgiar.org/images/file/learning_space/dna_banks.pdf.

Ebert AW, Karihaloo JL, Ferreira ME. 2006. Opportunities, limitations and needs for DNA banks. In: de Vicente MC, Andersson MS, editors. DNA Banks—Providing Novel Options for Genebanks? Topical Reviews in Agricultural Biodiversity. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. pp.61–68. Available online (accessed 31 October 2011):  http://cropgenebank.sgrp.cgiar.org/images/file/learning_space/dna_banks.pdf.

Gemeinholzer B, Rey I, Weising K, Grundmann M, Muellner AN, Zetzsche H, Droege G, Seberg O, Petersen G, Rawson DM, Weigt LA. 2010. Organizing specimen and tissue preservation in the field for subsequent molecular analyses. In: Eymann J, Degreef J, Häuser C, Monje JC, Samyn Y, VandenSpiegel D, editors. ABC-Taxa, Volume 8. Manual on Field Recording Techniques and Protocols for All Taxa Biodiversity Inventories, Chapter 7. pp.129–157.

Graner A, Andersson MS, de Vicente MC. 2006. A model for DNA banking to enhance the management, distribution and use of ex situ stored PGR. In: de Vicente MC, Andersson MS, editors. DNA Banks—Providing Novel Options for Genebanks? Topical Reviews in Agricultural Biodiversity. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. pp.69–76. Available online (accessed 31 October 2011):  http://cropgenebank.sgrp.cgiar.org/images/file/learning_space/dna_banks.pdf.

Hodkinson TR, Waldren S, Parnell JAN, Kelleher CT, Salamin K, Salamin N. 2007. DNA banking for plant breeding, biotechnology and biodiversity evaluation. Journal of Plant Research 120:17–29. Available online (accessed 31 October 2011): www.scribd.com/doc/45316957/DNA-Banking-for-Plant-Breeding.

Walters C, Hanner R. 2006. Platforms for DNA banking. In: de Vicente MC, Andersson MS, editors. DNA Banks—Providing Novel Options for Genebanks? Topical Reviews in Agricultural Biodiversity. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. pp.25–35. Available online (accessed 31 October 2011):  http://cropgenebank.sgrp.cgiar.org/images/file/learning_space/dna_banks.pdf.

Internet resources

Australian Plant DNA Bank: www.dnabank.com.au

Berlin-Dahlem DNA Bank and its Database: www.bgbm.org/bgbm/research/dna

Department of Molecular Biodiversity & DNA Bank of the Canarian Flora: www.bioclimac.com/mbdna/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128&Itemid=220

DNA Bank, Brazilian Flora Species: www.jbrj.gov.br/pesquisa/div_molecular/bancodna/sobre_ing.htm

DNA Bank Network: www.dnabank-network.org

Kew Royal Botanic Gardens, DNA Bank Database: http://data.kew.org/dnabank/homepage.html

NIAS DNA Bank, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences: www.dna.affrc.go.jp

William L. Brown Center, Missouri Botanical Garden: www.wlbcenter.org/dna_banking.htm

Back to top

Chapter 42: Gap analysis: A tool for genetic conservation

N. Casteneda
...
E-mail: ...
N. Maxted
School of Biological Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK
E-mail: nigel.maxted(at)dial.pipex.com

Text.

Please send any comments on this chapter using the Comments feature at the bottom of this page. If you wish to contribute new content or references on the subject please do so here.

Back to list of chapters on collecting

References for this chapter

Internet resources for this chapter

Abstract

Text

Introduction

Text

Conclusions

Text

Back to list of chapters on collecting

References and further reading

Text

Internet resources

 Text

Back to top

Chapter 2: Legal issues in plant germplasm collecting

G. Moore
Bioversity International, Maccarese, Rome, Italy
E-mail: g.moore(at)cgiar.org
K. A. Williams
USDA-ARS National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, BARC-West Beltsville, MD 20705, USA
E-mail: Karen.Williams(at)ars.usda.gov

This chapter is a synthesis of new knowledge, procedures, best practices and references for collecting plant diversity since the publication of the 1995 volume Collecting Plant Diversity: Technical Guidelines, edited by Luigi Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao and Robert Reid, and published by CAB International on behalf of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) (now Bioversity International), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The original text for Chapter 2: Legal Issues in Plant Germplasm Collecting, authored by IPGRI (now Bioversity International), FAO, IUCN and UNEP, has been made available online courtesy of CABI. The 2011 update of the Technical Guidelines, edited by L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao and E. Goldberg, has been made available courtesy of Bioversity International.

Please send any comments on this chapter using the Comments feature at the bottom of this page. If you wish to contribute new content or references on the subject please do so here.

Back to list of chapters on collecting

References for this chapter

Internet resources for this chapter

	A wild sunflower (Helianthus simulans) in Louisiana, US. Sunflower is one of the crops included in Annex 1 of the Treaty.(Photo: K.A. Williams)

Abstract

The legal environment governing the collection and conservation of germplasm has changed extensively since the Technical Guidelines were first published in 1995. This chapter looks at these changes and the implications for germplasm collection of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization.

Introduction

Many developments have occurred in the legal environment governing the collection of plant germplasm since the first edition of these Technical Guidelines, including the adoption of the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (hereinafter “the Global Plan of Action”) in 1996, the entry into force of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (hereinafter “the Treaty”) in June 2004, the establishment of the Global Crop Diversity Trust in 2004, and the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (hereinafter “the Nagoya Protocol”) in 2010. There have also been developments and new activities in the area of plant breeders’ rights.

The Global Plan of Action was adopted by 150 countries at an international technical conference in Leipzig and reflects consensus on the main priority areas covering in situ conservation and development, ex situ conservation, plant genetic resources utilization, and institutions and capacity building. It is now in the process of being updated.

The entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 (with its emphasis on the sovereign rights of countries of origin of genetic resources and on the premise that access should be on the basis of prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms) raised concerns about the potential impact of an essentially bilateral system of access and benefit-sharing on the flow of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) so critical to food security and the development of sustainable agriculture. The response of the international agricultural community was to call for the revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, with its emphasis on the free flow of PGRFA, to bring it into harmony with the CBD while still allowing for the exchange of the PGRFA most essential to food security without incurring prohibitive transaction costs. The product was the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (www.planttreaty.org/texts_en.htm), which was adopted by the FAO Conference in 2001 and now has some 127 Contracting Parties.

The Treaty establishes a multilateral system of access and benefit-sharing (MLS) for the plant genetic resources of a number of the crops and forages that are most important for food security and on which countries are most dependent (listed in Annex 1 of the Treaty, which can be updated from time to time by consensus of all Contracting Parties). All Annex 1 PGRFA that are under the management and control of Contracting Parties and in the public domain are automatically included in the MLS, and Contracting Parties are to encourage other holders of Annex 1 PGRFA to place them in the MLS. Access and benefit-sharing for the plant genetic resources of the genera of some 64 crops and forages listed in Annex 1 to the Treaty, as between Contracting Parties to the Treaty, is to be on the basis of multilaterally agreed terms and conditions as set out in a standard material transfer agreement (SMTA), thus reducing the transaction costs involved in negotiating access and benefit-sharing on a strictly bilateral basis. Facilitated access under the Treaty covers only the crops and forages listed in Annex 1, although a number of Contracting Parties, mostly developed countries, have chosen to extend facilitated access under the SMTA to the plant genetic resources of other crops.

The MLS was designed primarily with access to ex situ collections in mind. Access to the plant genetic resources of Annex 1 crops and forages from in situ conditions is to be provided in accordance with national legislation or (in its absence) in accordance with such standards as may be set by the Treaty’s Governing Body. Nevertheless, these resources are still covered by the MLS. The exact implications of the reference to national legislation in connection with access and benefit-sharing for PGRFA found in in situ conditions have not yet been considered by the Governing Body of the Treaty. In any case, much germplasm collection will normally be carried out in areas not covered automatically by the MLS (e.g., non-Annex 1 PGRFA or PGRFA in famers’ fields or in countries not yet party to the Treaty). The legal environment governing the collection of germplasm will thus inevitably be a patchwork of norms under both the Treaty and the CBD.

The CBD itself is a framework convention setting out the main principles governing the conservation and sustainable use of all genetic resources: access to genetic resources outside the scope of the Treaty is governed by the CBD and will be subject to the terms of the Nagoya Protocol once that protocol enters into force. Access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their use is to be on the basis of prior informed consent and on mutually agreed terms. Exactly what this means in practice is the subject of the Nagoya Protocol, which sets out in more detail the process for obtaining access to genetic resources and related traditional knowledge (as well as the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use) on the basis of prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms.

The following update concentrates on the impact of the Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol. Work has not yet started on the development of standards for access to PGRFA in in situ conditions under the MLS, which will inevitably throw more light on the meaning and implications of the provisions of the Treaty that deal with this issue. The following update also examines recent developments regarding ex situ conservation, including the adoption of the Global Plan of Action and the establishment of the Global Crop Diversity Trust. It also briefly describes new developments in the area of plant breeders’ rights and ex situ conservation techniques.

	Collecting germplasm of a wild bean in Florida (Photo: M. Welsh)
	Collecting germplasm of a wild chile in Paraguay (Photo: K.A. Williams)

Current Status

The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

The Treaty entered into force on 29 June 2004 and (as of 15 June 2011) has 127 Contracting Parties. The objectives of the Treaty are the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use (in harmony with the CBD) for sustainable agriculture and food security. Articles 5 and 6 set down general provisions regarding conservation, exploration, collection, characterization, evaluation and documentation of PGRFA and their sustainable use. Article 5.1.(b) requires each Contracting Party, subject to national legislation, to promote the collection of PGRFA that are under threat or are of potential use, along with relevant associated information. Under paragraph 5.1.(e), Contracting Parties are required to cooperate to promote the development of an efficient and sustainable system of ex situ conservation, giving due attention to the need for adequate documentation, characterization, regeneration and evaluation, and to promote the development of appropriate technologies for this purpose. They are also to monitor the maintenance of the viability, degree of variation and genetic integrity of collections of PGRFA (Article 5.1.(f)). Nothing further is said in the Treaty as to what should constitute an “efficient and sustainable” system of ex situ conservation, but more indications are given in the Global Plan of Action adopted in 1996 (see below).

Part IV of the Treaty establishes the MLS for the plant genetic resources of crops and forages listed in Annex 1 to the Treaty: the genera of some 35 crops and 29 forages. The Contracting Parties agree to grant other Contracting Parties, or legal and natural persons under their jurisdiction, facilitated access to PGRFA included in the MLS in their countries for the purpose of conservation and utilization for research, breeding and training for food and agriculture. All PGRFA of Annex 1 crops and forages that are under the management and control of the Contracting Party and in the public domain are automatically included in the MLS. Other holders of Annex 1 PGRFA are invited to include their holdings in the MLS and Contracting Parties agree to take measures to encourage them to do so. Some light has been shed on the meaning of these terms by the Ad Hoc Advisory Technical Committee on the Standard Material Transfer Agreement and the Multilateral System of the Treaty (hereinafter “the Ad Hoc Advisory Technical Committee”) in the report on its first session in 2010 (ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/agp/planttreaty/gb4/AC_SMTA_MLS1/ac_smta_mls1_repe.pdf).

All PGRFA in the MLS are to be made available in accordance with standard multilaterally agreed terms and conditions as set out in the SMTA adopted by the Governing Body of the Treaty at its first session in June 2006 (www.planttreaty.org/smta_en.htm). These include the requirement that the PGRFA shall be used only for research, breeding and training for food and agriculture, that access shall be accorded expeditiously and free of charge apart from administrative expenses, and that the recipients should not claim any intellectual property rights over the material received that would limit facilitated access by others to the PGRFA in the form received from the MLS. The MLS also provides for benefit-sharing on a multilateral basis. Facilitated access to PGRFA is expressly recognized as being a major benefit of the system. Other forms of benefit-sharing include exchange of information, access to and transfer of technology, capacity building and the sharing of monetary and other benefits of commercialization.

In this context, the MLS provides that a recipient who commercializes a product that is itself a PGRFA and that incorporates material accessed from the MLS should pay an equitable share of the benefits arising from the commercialization into an international fund set up for this purpose. The payment, which was set by the Governing Body at its first session at the rate of 1.1% of the gross sales of the product less 30% (i.e., 0.77%) is mandatory where the recipient takes action to restrict the availability of the product for further research and breeding (e.g., by taking out certain types of patents over the product). Where availability of the product is not so restricted, then the payment is to be voluntary, though encouraged. In addition to the monetary payments, recipients of material from the MLS are required to make available to the MLS all non-confidential information resulting from the research and development carried out on the material.

As noted by the Ad Hoc Advisory Technical Committee (FAO 2010a) in the report of its first session, the term “PGRFA under the management and control of the Contracting Parties”, encompasses both PGRFA in in situ conditions and that held ex situ”. The Treaty provides that access to PGRFA found in in situ conditions will be provided according to national legislation, or in the absence of any such legislation, in accordance with such standards as may be set by the Governing Body. This provision is without prejudice to the other provisions of the MLS. While the exact meaning of this is not entirely clear, it does imply that facilitated access should still be granted to Annex 1 PGRFA that meet the conditions for inclusion in the MLS, but that the way in which access is to be granted, including the actual process of any collection, would be subject to the requirements of national legislation. The Governing Body has not yet authorized the development of standards regarding the collection of PGRFA from in situ conditions, whether this would consist of the revision of the Code of Conduct on Plant Germplasm Collection or the development of entirely new standards. At the same time, at its second session, the Ad Hoc Advisory Technical Committee (FAO 2010b) introduced a further note of caution, suggesting that the whole question of the interrelationship of the provisions of Article 12.3.(h) regarding access to PGRFA in in situ conditions with the rest of the provisions of the MLS should be further worked on.

Whatever the outcome of the future discussions in the Governing Body on the subject of the scope and implications of Article 12.3.(h), it is clear that the international legal framework governing the collection of PGRFA from in situ conditions will be a patchwork of norms from both the Treaty and the CBD. In the end, all will depend on how these provisions are interpreted and implemented at the national level through national legislation. In any event, it is clear that the coverage of the MLS provisions will be only partial, given that non-Annex 1 material will not be covered, nor will Annex 1 PGRFA found in farmers’ fields, unless these are placed in the MLS through voluntary action or as a result of collection by national authorities and subsequent incorporation in governmental ex situ collections.

The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization

Under the CBD, access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing is subject to national legislation, to prior informed consent and to mutually agreed terms with the country that is the country of origin of those resources or that has acquired them in accordance with the CBD. The rather general CBD provisions regarding access and benefit-sharing have been recently fleshed out in the Nagoya Protocol (www.cbd.int/abs/text), which was adopted in September 2010 and has now been signed by 65 states. The Protocol will enter into force 90 days after the deposit of the 50th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

The Nagoya Protocol lays particular stress on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. In this context, it draws on previous work undertaken within the framework of the CBD, including the Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of Their Utilization (www.cbd.int/abs/bonn) (hereinafter “the Bonn Guidelines”) adopted by the Conference of Parties to the CBD in 2002. The list of possible monetary and non-monetary benefits set out in the Annex to the Nagoya Protocol is drawn directly from the Bonn Guidelines. It also deals in a parallel way with access to genetic resources and to traditional knowledge related to those resources: in both cases prior informed consent is required, and access and benefit-sharing is to be on mutually agreed terms. Where indigenous and local communities have an established right to grant access to particular genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, then the prior informed consent of those communities must be obtained, and access and benefit-sharing must be negotiated with them on mutually agreed terms.

The Nagoya Protocol seeks to ensure legal certainty with respect to the terms and procedures for access and benefit-sharing, as well as to the genetic resources having been acquired with the prior informed consent of the country providing them and in accordance with mutually agreed terms. Thus, Parties to the Protocol are required to

• provide for legal certainty, clarity and transparency of their domestic access and benefit-sharing legislation or regulatory requirements
• provide for fair and non-arbitrary rules and procedures on accessing genetic resources
• provide information on how to apply for prior informed consent
• provide for a clear and transparent written decision by a competent national authority, in a cost-effective manner and within a reasonable period of time
• provide for the issuance at the time of access of a permit or its equivalent as evidence of the decision to grant prior informed consent and of the establishment of mutually agreed terms, and notify the Access and Benefit-sharing Clearing-House accordingly
• where applicable, and subject to domestic legislation, set out criteria and/or processes for obtaining prior informed consent or approval and for the involvement of indigenous and local communities in acquiring access to genetic resources
• establish clear rules and procedures for requiring and establishing mutually agreed terms (which are to be set out in writing)

Central to the whole process will be the Access and Benefit-sharing Clearing-House set up under Article 11 of the Nagoya Protocol to act as a central information point for legislative, administrative and policy measures on access and benefit-sharing, including procedures, requirements and information on national focal points and national authorities, and for notifications of the issuance of permits or certificates of compliance with requirements for those accessing genetic resources.

In developing and implementing legislation and regulatory schemes for access and benefit-sharing, Parties are required to create conditions to promote and encourage research that contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, particularly in developing countries. This includes developing simplified measures for access for non-commercial research purposes, taking into account the need to address a change of intent for such research. Parties are also required to pay due regard to cases of present or imminent emergencies that threaten or damage human, animal or plant health, as determined nationally or internationally. Parties may take into consideration the need for expeditious access to genetic resources and expeditious fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of such genetic resources, including access to affordable treatments by those in need, especially in developing countries. Finally, they are required to consider the importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture and their special role for food security.

With respect to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, Parties are to take into consideration the laws, protocols and procedures of indigenous and local communities and to support, as appropriate, the development by those communities of community protocols in relation to access and benefit-sharing, of minimum standards for mutually agreed- terms for benefit-sharing and of model contractual clauses for benefit-sharing.

Parties to the Nagoya Protocol are required to take appropriate, effective and proportionate measures to provide that genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge utilized within their jurisdiction have been accessed in accordance with prior informed consent and that mutually agreed terms have been established, as required by the domestic access and benefit-sharing legislation of the country providing the genetic resources. They are also required to monitor the utilization of genetic resources, including establishing one or more checkpoints related to prior informed consent, the source of the genetic resources, the establishment of mutually agreed terms and the utilization of the genetic resources. Users will be required to provide pertinent information at these checkpoints, including internationally recognized certificates of compliance where they are available. Such certificates of compliance will serve as evidence that the genetic resources covered by the certificates have been accessed in accordance with prior informed consent and that mutually agreed- terms have been established as required. They are to include the following minimum information:

• issuing authority
• date of issuance
• provider
• unique identifier of the certificate
• the person or entity to whom prior informed consent was granted
• subject-matter or genetic resources covered by the certificate
• confirmation that mutually agreed terms were established
• confirmation that prior informed consent was obtained
• commercial and/or non-commercial use

Presumably, the SMTA will constitute an internationally recognized certificate of compliance insofar as access to PGRFA in the MLS is concerned. In any case, the Nagoya Protocol specifically recognizes that where a specialized international access and benefit-sharing instrument, such as the Treaty and its SMTA, applies, the Nagoya Protocol will not apply for the Party or Parties to that specialized instrument: the Protocol and other specialized instruments are to be implemented in a mutually supportive manner.

The Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

As noted above the Global Plan of Action adopted at the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources in Leipzig in 1995 provided a sound framework for the development of an efficient and sustainable global system of ex situ conservation. The relevant provisions are contained in the policy/strategy sections for sustaining existing ex situ collections (Activity 5) and regenerating threatened ex situ accessions (Activity 6) (http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/PGR/GPA/gpaeng.pdf):

82. Policy/Strategy: The international community has interests in and responsibilities for the ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. It is this understanding which provides the basis for an effective, integrated and rational global plan to secure existing collections. Countries have national sovereignty over, and responsibility for, their own plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.

83. Full use should be made of appropriate existing facilities, including national, regional and international centres. Conserved materials should be, as appropriate, replicated and stored in long-term facilities meeting international standards, in accordance with applicable international agreements. Unintended and unnecessary duplications between collections within the networks should be reduced to promote cost efficiency and effectiveness in global conservation efforts. Countries could be assisted in identifying which genetic resources are already stored and duplicated in long-term facilities.

84. FAO in cooperation with countries and with relevant institutions should facilitate the formalizing of agreements to safeguard diversity in ex situ collections in conformity with applicable international agreements. This would allow those countries so desiring to place collections voluntarily in secure facilities outside their boundaries.

The Global Plan of Action has now been revised by the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture for adoption by the FAO Council in November 2011.

The Global Crop Diversity Trust

Central to the implementation of the global system of ex situ conservation will be the Global Crop Diversity Trust (hereinafter “the Trust”), an international endowment fund set up by international agreement in 2004 and recognized by the Governing Body of the Treaty at its first session in 2006 as being an essential element of the funding strategy of the Treaty in relation to the ex situ conservation and availability of PGRFA. The objective of the Trust is to ensure the long-term conservation and availability of PGRFA with a view to achieving global food security and sustainable agriculture and, in doing so, to promote an efficient, goal-oriented, economically efficient and sustainable global system of ex situ conservation in accordance with the Treaty and the Global Plan of Action. For this purpose, it runs an endowment fund to secure the long-term financing of eligible collections of PGRFA. At present, the endowment fund stands at some US$117 million, and long-term grants are made at the rate of over US$2.3 million a year.

New developments in technical knowledge on ex situ conservation

Technical knowledge on ex situ conservation has advanced considerably since the publication of the first Technical Guidelines in 1995. Much progress has been made in the development of techniques for in vitro storage of germplasm, which has become standard practice for many species in genebanks. In vitro samples are useful for conservation of genetic resources that are (1) vegetatively propagated or have short-lived recalcitrant seeds, (2) rare or endangered or (3) the products of biotechnology, such as elite desirable genotypes maintained as clones. In addition to their utility for conservation in active and base collections, in vitro techniques are useful for a number of other purposes, including rapid multiplication, production of disease-free material, safety duplication and distribution.

New developments in the area of plant breeders’ rights

International treaties related to plant breeders’ rights were introduced in the first version of the Technical Guidelines. As of April 2011, 69 states were members of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), with different members having acceded to different acts. Over 150 states are now obligated to comply with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) as a result of their membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The World Intellectual Property Rights Organization (WIPO) established a committee in 2000 to discuss the relationship between intellectual property, genetic resources, traditional knowledge and expressions of folklore. The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) is currently working on an international legal instrument to protect genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.

Linkages and possible inconsistencies between the international treaties protecting intellectual property and the regimes established by the CBD have been discussed in several fora. It is uncertain what impact the stronger intellectual property protections mandated by TRIPs, UPOV and WIPO will have on the CBD objective of fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of biological genetic resources. One measure that has been suggested as a way to support the principles of the CBD through intellectual property systems is a requirement for the origin of genetic materials used in inventions to be disclosed. The WIPO IGC has considered the relationship between access to genetic resources and the need for disclosing in patent applications the origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, but no legally binding obligations have been approved. Thus far, the UPOV Council has asserted that the CBD and UPOV are already mutually supportive and has resisted including the disclosure of origin as an additional condition for protection.

The most discussion on the issue of disclosure has taken place in the TRIPs Council, which has discussed many times the relationship between TRIPs and the CBD, and the need to amend TRIPs to support compliance with the CBD’s access and benefit-sharing obligations. Recent negotiations in the TRIPs Council have focused on whether TRIPs should include a requirement for disclosure (in patent or other types of applications protecting intellectual property rights) of the origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, possibly including proof of prior informed consent and benefit-sharing with the source. Members opposing this change take the position that contracts between countries and national access and benefit-sharing systems are already adequate to prevent misappropriation of genetic resources. An international certificate of origin has been proposed as one means of providing proof of compliance with national legislations on access and benefit-sharing that could be used to provide disclosure in applications for intellectual property rights. The International Regime on Access and Benefit Sharing outlined in the Nagoya Protocol lacks a mandatory requirement for disclosure in patent applications. Instead, it has a general description of checkpoints that are to be used to monitor compliance with national laws related to access and benefit-sharing, which has reinforced the push by some countries to add the disclosure requirement to TRIPs.

Future challenges/needs/gaps

What is now required is consolidation and practical implementation of the legal environment governing the collection of plant germplasm. It is especially important to clarify the way the regimes established by the CBD and the Treaty will operate with respect to the collection of PGRFA from in situ conditions. The interrelationship between Article 12.5.(h) of the Treaty and the rest of the provisions relating to the multilateral system and the development of standards for plant collecting and transfer will be of particular importance in this respect. The development of model contractual clauses (including clauses covering benefit-sharing arising from the utilization of genetic resources and traditional knowledge held by indigenous and local communities) will also be important.

Conclusions

Many significant developments have taken place in the legal environment governing plant germplasm collecting since the first edition of the Technical Guidelines in 1995:

• the entry into force of the Treaty, which established a multilateral system of access and benefit-sharing for the plant genetic resources of crops and forages listed in Annex 1 (chosen on the basis of their importance for food security and the degree to which countries are dependent on them)
• the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing

At present, the legal environment governing plant germplasm collecting is a patchwork of provisions from the CBD, the Nagoya Protocol and the Treaty. A great deal of work will be needed to ensure that these regimes are implemented in a harmonious and cooperative manner to ensure a proper basis for food security and sustainable agriculture.

Meanwhile, as a practical approach, it is suggested that collectors should be careful to ensure that prior informed consent is always sought from the country where collecting missions are to take place and that the conditions set by the country for the collecting mission are scrupulously adhered to. Collectors are referred to the box, which provides practical guidance for seeking prior informed consent for collecting missions.

Back to list of chapters on collecting

References and further reading

FAO. 2010a. First Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Technical Committee on the Standard Material Transfer Agreement and the Multilateral System of the Treaty. IT/AC-SMTA-MLS 1/10/Report. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available online (accessed 30 September 2011): ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/agp/planttreaty/gb4/AC_SMTA_MLS1/ac_smta_mls1_repe.pdf.

FAO. 2010b. Second Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Technical Committee on the Standard Material Transfer Agreement and the Multilateral System of the Treaty. IT/AC-SMTA-MLS-2/10/Report. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available online (accessed 30 October 2011): www.planttreaty.org/sites/default/files/ac_smta_mls2_repe.pdf.

Moore G, Tymowski W. 2005. Explanatory Guide to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 57. IUCN–The World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland. Available online (accessed 3 October 2011): www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-057.pdf.

Internet resources

Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of Their Utilization: www.cbd.int/abs/bonn

Explanatory Guide to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources: www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-057.pdf

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, full text: www.planttreaty.org/texts_en.htm

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, SMTA: www.planttreaty.org/smta_en.htm

National Focal Points of the Convention on Biological Diversity: www.cbd.int/information/nfp.shtml

The Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/PGR/GPA/gpaeng.pdf

The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization: www.cbd.int/abs/text

Back to top