1. In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areas Two conferences and a pilot

2. GRIPA 2009: Genetic Resources in protected Areas – Management and Access

3. In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areas Two conferences and a pilot GRIPA 2009: Genetic Resources in protected Areas – Management and Access GRIPA 2010: Genetic Resources in protected Areas – From Words to Action

4. In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areas Two conferences and a pilot Web: www.nordgen.org/gripa

5. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “Implementation of in situ conservation of forest genetic resources - from the national to the European level” “Landscape management by applying old native breeds of farm animals” “In situ conservation of crop wild relatives in Europe: a strategic approach” “Status reports from Norway, Finland, Lithuania & Sweden” “The relict plants of Hammershus – Plan and landscape management” “In situ conservation of Danish plant genetic resources in wild relatives to agricultural crops”

6. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “Implementation of in situ conservation of forest genetic resources - from the national to the European level” Tore Myking Norway: European initiative: EUFORGEN. The Norwegian solution: Use existing reserves instead of creating dedicated reserves for forest tree genetic resorces. Challenging to include genetic resources into aims and conservation plans for nature reserves constructed for other purposes.

7. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “Landscape management by applying old native breeds of farm animals” Juha Kantanten Finland: Use land races of farm animals to manage grazing meadows. Different animals graze in different ways, have differnt tastes, and different body strctures. The plant genetic diversity in a meadow is best preserved by applying the same gaing that prodced the diversity in the first place.s Protects both the animal land races and the plants.

8. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “In situ conservation of crop wild relatives in Europe: a strategic approach” Shelagh Kell UK: How to prioritize taxa. How to chose areas How to manage the areas Some European projects: AEGRO, CWR red list, PGR secure

9. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “In situ conservation of crop wild relatives in Europe: a strategic approach” Shelagh Kell UK: Number of Crop Wild Relatives: Denmark: 2056 Estonia 1501 Finland 1771 Iceland 540 Latvia 1323 Lithuania 1477 Norway 2276 Sweden 2362

10. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “Status reports from Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania & Sweden” Guðni Þorvaldsson Iceland: Old grass fields in Iceland. Iceland special with much grassland, hard weather conditions, thin soil. Today ex situ conservation but to start in situ conservation.

11. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “Status reports from Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania & Sweden” Åsmund Asdal Norway: Meadows important Meadows disappearing Knowledge but not much action Heirloom-silver-project Experience: Conseration is more easily accepted by farmers when incldes genetic resorces for agriclture.

12. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “Status reports from Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania & Sweden” Juha Kantanen finland: Special demands de to northern lattitude. Reconstraction of some old meadows part of Natura 2000. A special on farm conservation system.

13. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “Status reports from Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania & Sweden” Juozas Labokas Lithuania: How to select spots. Medical plant genetic resources. Law in Lithuania promoting in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. Some incompatibility problems between law of plant genetic reosurces and law on protected areas.

14. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “Status reports from Iceland, Norway, Finland, Lithuania & Sweden” Erik Persson Sweden: Investigation people responsible for protected areas in Sweden abot the present sitation and their attitudes to including genetic resources in protection plans. Conclusions: Not much is done so far. No real rules or guidelines from the top. A cautiously positive attitude. Some worries that have to be addressed. Need of knowledge, resources, guidelines and coordination.

15. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “The relict plants of Hammershus – Plan and landscape management” Tino Dich Bjerregaard Denmark: Practical example about in situ conservation of relict species at Hammershus on Bornholm

16. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION I – IN SITU-CONSERVATION “In situ conservation of Danish plant genetic resources in wild relatives to agricultural crops” Kell Kristiansen Denmark: Project for in situ conservation of CWR in Denmark Survey of 100 taxa Found 80 taxa sited for in situ protection

17. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION II – ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING “Beyond Access - What kind of legislation do the Nordic Countries need to implement to meet the ABS obligation in the CBD” “Access and Benefit-sharing under the CBD and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture” “Norwegian Nature Management Act – new approach to regulating access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing”

18. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION III – Workshop Group discussions Joint discussion

19. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION III – Workshop Group discussions: 3 groups:  In situ  ABS  Data

20. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION III – Workshop Group discussions:  In situ-group:  Use existing structures  What do we know about the places already and what do we need for the future?  Joint Nordic platform.  Inform and educate those working with protected areas.  Need a shortlist of 1-200 species.  Use the report made by Gert Poulsen.

21. GRIPA 2009 Röstånga SESSION III – Workshop Joint discussion:  We need to figure out how to make a shortlist of taxa.  We need to figure out how to make inventories of protected areas.  We need communication across country and sector borders.  We need another GRIPA.

22. In Situ management of genetic resources in protected areas Two conferences and a pilot GRIPA 2010: Genetic Resources in Protected Areas – From Words to Action

23. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Questions: –How do we combine traditional nature protection with conservation of genetic resources? –How do we improve the protection of intraspecies diversity (and not just interspecies diversity) in the efforts of protecting biodiversity? –How and what can the plant sector and the forest sector learn from each other regarding in situ conservation of genetic resources? –How do we convert words into action; what is the next step?

24. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Proceeding: –Presentations of examples of how existing protected areas are used for conservation of forest and plant genetic resources. –Presentations of examples of planned or existing protected areas designated for conservation of forest genetic resources. –Presentation of current research. –Presentations of examples of good practice regarding in situ conservation. –Group discussions.

25. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Aims: –Share knowledge and thoughts among countries, researchers, agencies and other relevant actors in the field. –Increase cooperation between agencies, between departments (environment and agriculture), and between the Nordic countries in a cost-efficient way that provides added Nordic value. –Share knowledge and experiences between the forest sector and the plant sector. –Compilation of short listing of crop wild relatives that need and can be the objects of inventories and protection in protected areas in the Nordic countries. –Outline an action plan for how to achieve a joint cost effective protection and sustainable use of genetic resources in protected areas in the Nordic countries. –Decide on an immediate next step.

26. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day I “Protecting biodiversity” “Genetic diversity” “Priority listing for in situ conservation of crop wild relatives” “In situ conservation of forest genetic resources (FGR) in Norway and beyond” “SWORT analysis of in situ PGR conservation system in Lithuania” “Promoting crop plant diversity conservation in protected areas: Experiences in Europe” “Genetic reserve conservation of CWR and landraces in Europe” “Sularp nature reserve - saved by volunteers” “The evidence-base movement: how to efficiently use and share knowledge”

27. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day I “Protecting biodiversity” Urban Emanuelsson Sweden: Talks about biodiversity protection from a nature conservation perspective. Emphasizes that better cooperation is needed between nature and culture sectors.

28. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day I “Genetic diversity” Mikael Hedrén Sweden: Talks about the importance of intraspecies genetic diversity.

29. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day I “Priority listing for in situ conservation of crop wild relatives” Gert poulsen Denmark: Presents his work with a Danish priority list. The list that was wanted at the previous conference.

30. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day I “In situ conservation of forest genetic resources (FGR) in Norway – and beyond” Tor Myking Norway: Contination of the work presented at last conference Discussion of what information is needed about forest genetic resources How do we combine with other conservation goals and deal with conflict swith other goals?

31. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day I “SWORT analysis of in sit PGR conservation system in Lithuania” Juozas Labokas Lithuania: Strengths: Legal framework established Weaknesses: Some responsible persons do not consider themselves responsible for genetic resource conservation. Opportunities: Develop targeted management plans, networking would be beneficial Responsibilities: Make better use of international expericence Threats: Complicated to establish new category of protected area.

32. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day I Promoting crop plant diversity in protected areas – Experiences in Europe Pedro Mendes-Moira Portugal: Landraces

33. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day I “Promoting crop plant diversity in protected areas – Experiences in Europe” Lothar Frese Germany: AEGRO Terminology

34. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day I “Sularp nature reserve - saved by volunteers” Linda birkedal Sweden: Meadow with high biodiversity that was on its way to being lost. Saved by a local nature conservation organisation.

35. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day I ”The evidence-base movement – how to efficiently se and share knowledge” Per Millberg Sweden: Evidence based medicine succesfull. Nature conservation rarely evidence based. Meta-analysis helps decision makers. Need more publictions about practical field tests.

36. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day II “Gene conservation of forest trees in protected areas – a future strategy” “Developing National Strategies for Crop Wild Relative Conservation: An Illustrated Case Study for the United Kingdom” Report on the work of access and benefit sharing (ABS) from COP10 of the Convention on Biodiversity “Implementing the ABS in seed exchange. Examples of a gene bank and a botanic garden”

37. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day II ”Gene conservation of forest trees in protected areas. A future strategy” Sanna Black-Samuelsson Sweden: Plans of using established protected areas as forest gene reserves in Sweden

38. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Day II “Developing National Strategies for Crop Wild Relative Conservation: An Illustrated Case Study for the United Kingdom” Nigel Maxted UK: Terminology and statistics CWR are widely used as genetic resources and have a significant economic value. In situ conservation strategies Including species that have links to people’s everyday life can increase prople’s interest in and acceptance for conservation in general. Promotes combination of in situ and ex situ conservation of CWR.

39. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Workshop Group discussions – In situ Joint discussion – in situ Joint discussion – ABS

40. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Workshop Group discussions – In situ  Group I: “How do we combine traditional nature protection with conservation of genetic resources?”  Group II: “How do we improve the protection of intraspecies diversity (and not just interspecies diversity) in the efforts of protecting biodiversity?”  Online-group: “Next steps?”

41. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Workshop Group I: “How do we combine traditional nature protection with conservation of genetic resources?”  Called for better cooperation between nature conservation sector and conservation of genetic resources.  Called for changes in legislation to better incorporate genetic resources conservation needs.  Called for the construction of species list and inventories of areas.

42. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Workshop Group II: “How do we improve the protection of intraspecies diversity (and not just interspecies diversity) in the efforts of protecting biodiversity?”  Called for improved information to managers of protected areas

43. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Workshop Online Group: “Next steps?” 1. Prioritize 2. Collate distribution data 3. Simple in situ gap analysis using PA data 4. Verify presence in PAs 5. Talk to PA managers about incorporating CWR conservation into existing management plans 6. Where possible, carry out ecogeographic and genetic diversity analyses to target the most important populations 7. Where these occur outside of PAs, need to talk to local landowners and farmers. 8. An important issue in the Nordic countries is that most CWR (apart from forestry CWR) probably occur outside of PAs

44. GRIPA 2010 Malmö Workshop Joint discussion – in situ  Make a pilot study including protected areas of different kinds – one in each Nordic country

45. A concrete outcome: A pilot project

46. A concrete outcome: A pilot project One protected area in each Nordic country

47. A concrete outcome: A pilot project Contact appropriate authority in charge of protected areas

48. A concrete outcome: A pilot project Together choose suitable areas

49. A concrete outcome: A pilot project Identify suitable species in these areas

50. A concrete outcome: A pilot project Together with appropriate authorities try to include measures for PGR conservation in the management plans

51. A concrete outcome: A pilot project Document and publish our experiences in different formats for different audiences

52. A concrete outcome: A pilot project Use the experiences and the documentation to keep the ball moving