1. Prioritising the Crop Wild Relative List revisited: the way forward for PGR Forum? Brian Ford-Lloyd, Maria Scholten, Joana Brehm, Marianne Mitchell

2. What will I talk about? Why prioritise? Background in relation to PGR Forum workshops Problems Some possible solutions Items for further discussion in WS 2

3. Key PGR Forum objectives: 1.To produce an assessment of baseline biodiversity data, threat and conservation status for wild crop relatives 2.…..establish a means of assessing genetic erosion and genetic pollution as an aid to their in situ conservation These objectives cannot be fully addressed without prioritisation of taxa within the CWR list If the conservation status was already known for the CWR taxa, then arguably there would be less need for prioritisation

4. Why is there a need for prioritising the Crop Wild Relative List? The CWR catalogue has over 20,000 taxa –we deliberately made it comprehensive and as inclusive as possible Many of these do not require any conservation action Others may be unimportant as genetic resources in Europe as a whole

5. Prioritisation criteria discussed in Workshop 1 Use: –food crop –fodder/forage –industrial/fibre/oil –condiment –medicinal –ornamental –forestry/agroforestry Economic value Cultural value Direct use value Ease of use (genetic) –GP1 –GP2

6. European Crop Wild Relative Conservation Criteria: Workshop 5 Antonio Flor, Eliseu Bettencourt, Pedro Ivo Arriegas and Sonia Dias Groups of criteria: –Threat –Conservation –Genetic –Economic –Utilization

7. Open discussion at Workshop 5 Opinions were varied Some consensus for prioritisation on economic value – but how to do? (Maria Scholten to follow) Some consensus for prioritisation on threat status National priorities may differ from European PGR Forum priorities (Joana Brehm to follow)

8. So, how to prioritise the list? A complete set of data for all CWR taxa must be available for any criterion used Problem 1 - lack of data –seriously incomplete for economic value? –seriously incomplete for threat status? Problem 2 – what algorithm: –composite priority value? –hierarchical? Problem 3 – how to achieve consensus on prioritisation criteria?

9. Problem 1 - Lack of data on Economic Value There are only limited data available using various measures of economic value (Maria Scholten to follow) A simple approach could be the one tentatively described in WS1 Or the detailed use categories identified by Maria Scholten could be used subjectively on a larger scale, or……. From WS1:-Score Use: Food crop5 Fodder/forage4 Industrial3 Forestry3 Spice/condiment2 Medicinal2 Ornamental1 Cultural value1 (Direct use)1/0) (Ease of use1/0)

10. Problem 1 cont’d - Lack of data on Threat Status Red list threat status is not known for all CWR taxa –UK, Netherlands, Belgium etc complete? –Others? –But not for Europe as a whole? So, could we use ‘number of countries in which a taxon is recorded as present’ as a proxy indicator of threat?

11. Problem 2 - Compound value or hierarchical? Criterion:Score: Threat0-2 Conservation0-2 Genetic0-2 Economic0-2 Utilization0-2 Total compound0-10 Prioritise on economic value –then on threat then on conservation status –then on utilization »then on genetic Compound Hierarchical Problem: we do not have full data sets available Problem: we do not have full data sets available, and will not provide a satisfactory answer

12. What methods are used elsewhere? Most prioritisation does not focus on species, but on habitats and ecosystems But: Natural rarity and management needs (Species level) Partel et al 2005 Integrating costs of conservation into prioritisation (Reserve level) Moore et al 2004 Priorities for medicinal plants Use value, sensitivity index, importance value -Compound prioritisation (Species level) Dhar et al 2000 Australian endemic flora (Taxa, ecosystems, communities) Coates and Atkins, 2001

13. Problem 3 - Achieving consensus on criteria? In a European context – more difficult than nationally? The first prioritisation must be done using a criterion for which we have, or can soon obtain a nearly complete set of data in order to be able to focus on the taxa that are in greatest need of attention

14. Proposal for PGR Forum: use simple prioritisation on two criteria first – this can be achieved now for the complete CWR catalogue No. of countriesScore 1-25 3-54 6-103 11-202 > 201 From WS1:-Score Use: Food crop5 Fodder/forage4 Industrial3 Forestry3 Spice/condiment2 Medicinal2 Ornamental1 Cultural value1 (Direct use)1/0) (Ease of use1/0) Obtain 1-10 priority index combining ‘proxy threat’ and ‘proxy economic value’ But could be even simpler!

15. A slightly different alternative: Sort the CWR list on economic/use categories first Then apply the proxy threat criterion (No. of countries) to each category individually End up with 5 separate prioritised lists Score:54321 Category 1foodfodderindustrialminor food- Category 2forestry?? Category 3medicinal? Category 4ornamental Category 5direct use/cultural value

16. Next stages? focus conservation activity on CWR taxa with highest proxy threat/economic value index, and/or: Prioritise on ease of utilization –achievable now for all CWR taxa, but requiring considerable time and effort use taxon group system Prioritise on conservation status –only partially achievable now, but with considerable time and effort use information from ex situ collections, and protected areas

17. More intensive studies Red list threat assessment –Population monitoring Molecular population genetic assessment Designation, design and establishment of reserves

18. Finally, four issues to decide? Which proxy economic/use criteria to use, and how to score? Threat assessment using country occurrence as a proxy? Which way to use? –Combine criteria –Sequential (hierarchical)? Relationship to national needs?

19. Relationship to Jose’s 3 categories How will species in Jose’s three categories appear in the CWR prioritised list? –Category 1 no problem – top of list –Category 2?? –Category 3 – no problem – high up the list

20. Enjoy the discussion!