Transcript CWR prioritization at national level: case studies and

CWR prioritization at national level:
case studies and lessons learnt
Joana Magos Brehm, Shelagh Kell,
Nigel Maxted, Brian V. Ford-Lloyd,
Maria Amélia Martins-Loução
Joint PGR Secure/ECPGR workshop:
Conservation strategies for European CWR and LR diversity
7–9 September 2011, Palanga, Lithuania
Overview
• Introduction
• United Kingdom
• Portugal
• Lessons learnt
Introduction
• Broad CWR definition with generic limit = relative large
number of taxa
• Limited financial and human resources
How to do it?
Which criteria to use?
Which method to use?
CWR Inventory
European and
Mediterranean
Catalogue of CWR
(Kell et al. 2005)
Country filter
UK CWR
CWR Prioritization
• 2300 plant species
▫ 1863 CWR (81% UK Flora) (Maxted et al. 2007)
▫ 300 food and agriculture CWR species
▫ 850 ornamental CWR species
▫ 80 threatened CWR species (IUCN categories: CR, EN, VU)
CWR Prioritization
• Economic value
▫ Crops listed in DEFRA’s home production statistics
▫ Seed Traders National Annual Return (forage/fodder crops)
▫ EU Common Catalogue of Agricultural and Horticultural crops genera
▫ Genera in International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
(UPOV)
▫ Ornamental species with more than 100 nursery suppliers (in 2004)
• Threatened status
▫ Red List (80 threatened CWR) (Cheffings et al. 2005)
250 PRIORITY
CWR
(Maxted et al. 2007)
CWR inventory
European and Mediterranean
Catalogue of CWR (Kell et al.
2005)
Country filter
Taxonomic
harmonisation
Portuguese CWR
Ethnobotanical
uses
Economic
value
Flora Iberica /
Flora de Portugal
Global
distribution
Ex situ
conservation
National
distribution
In situ
conservation
Threatened
status
Legislation
PORTUGUESE CWR INVENTORY
Internet
www.jb.ul.pt
(Magos Brehm et al. 2008)
CWR inventory
• 2262 CWR (mainland) (~68% Portuguese
Flora)
• Leguminosae, Compositae, Poaceae – higher
number of CWR
• 141 Portuguese endemics and 253 Iberian
endemics
• ~12% ex situ conservation
• <1% in situ conservation
• ~14% threatened spp.
Magos Brehm et al. 2008
CWR prioritization
Economic
value
Native
status
In situ
conservation
Ex situ
conservation
20 priorities
2262 CWR
Global
distribution
National
distribution
Inventory
Threatened
category
Legislation
Prioritisation at species level
- 8 criteria, 4 methods-
Priority species
(Magos Brehm et al. 2010)
CWR prioritization
Prioritising – different methods
▫
Point Scoring Procedure
▫
Point Scoring Procedure with Weighting
▫
(Simple Ranking System)
▫
Compound Ranking System
▫
Binomial Ranking System
(Magos Brehm et al. 2010)
Point scoring procedure
E.g.
CRITERIA
SCORES
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Crop category
No
uses
Other
uses
Orname
ntal
Aromatic
and
Medicines
Forestry
Industrial
Fodder/
Forage
Food
Global Distribution
No
data
Europe
/
World
Mediter
ranean
Iberian
Peninsula+
North
Africa+1
country
Iberian
Peninsula+
North
Africa
Iberian
Peninsula+
1 country
Iberia
Peninsula
Σ
Portugal
(Economic Value + Threatened Status + Conservation status + Legislation + Global
Distribution + National distribution)
Highest scores - priorities for conservation
Point scoring procedure with weighting
Native status
Threatened
Status
Economic value
Conservation status
Ex situ
15 %
20 %
In situ (active)
15 %
15 %
Highest scores - priorities for conservation
15 %
Global
distribution
10 %
Habitat’s Directive
Bern Convention
10 %
Other international legislation
National legislation
Legislation
Euro Council
National
distribution
Simple Ranking Compound Ranking Binomial Ranking
System
System
System
Level 1
Production (€)
ECONOMIC VALUE
THREATENED
STATUS
CONSERVATION
STATUS
LEGISLATION
DISTRIBUTION
NATIVE STATUS
Level 4
Individual Ranking
Production (tons)
“”
Surface (ha)
“”
Traditional products
“”
# grown varieties
“”
Threatened status
Level 2
Σ
Economic Value
Ranking
Threatened Status Ranking
Ex situ conservation
“”
In situ conservation
“”
Habitat’s Directive
“”
Bern Convention
“”
Euro Council
“”
Other international
legislation
“”
National legislation
“”
Σ
Σ
Global distribution
Global Distribution Ranking
National distribution
National Distribution Ranking
Native status
Native Status Ranking
Any Economic Value? (Y/N)
Any Threat Category? (Y/N)
Conservation Status
Ranking
Being Conserved? (Y/N)
Legislation Ranking
Affected by any Legislation?
(Y/N)
Native? (Y/N)
CWR prioritization
PORTUGUESE CWR INVENTORY
Global
distribution
Economic
value
Native status
Point scoring
procedure (PSP)
Ex situ
conservation
National
distribution
Threatened
status
Legislation
In situ
conservation
Point scoring procedure
with weighing (PSP)
Compound ranking system
(CRS1, CRS2, CR3)
Binomial ranking system
(BRS1, BRS2, BRS3)
50 top species
Species occurring in ≥ 4 methods
20 Priority CWR Species
(Magos Brehm et al. 2010)
CWR prioritization
PSP
PSPW
CRS1
CRS2
CRS3
BRS1
BRS2
BRS3
Final
PSP
100
38
9
15
8
12
23
25
21
PSPW
100
19
5
6
10
7
6
17
CRS1
100
1
2
6
4
2
9
CRS2
100
9
19
26
11
20
CRS3
100
19
10
26
23
BRS1
100
36
23
27
BRS2
100
40
BRS3
100
29
25
Matrix of overlapping % between methods and between the final
list of priority CWR (by combining the different methods) and the
result obtained with each method
(Magos Brehm et al. 2010)
Lessons learnt
The criteria and the method used in setting conservation priorities
tend to differ with the user, country, etc.

A single criterion or the use of different methods change greatly
the results

Relatively low level of similarity between individual results and the
final list obtained by combining all methods (high degree of
subjectivity associated with the use of a single method)

Need to reduce subjectivity in order to obtain reliable results:
combination of methods

Whatever the criteria and the method, priorities must be viewed as
a working hypotheses based on the best available information.

CWR prioritization at national level:
case studies and lessons learnt
Joana Magos Brehm, Shelagh Kell,
Nigel Maxted, Brian V. Ford-Lloyd,
Maria Amélia Martins-Loução
Joint PGR Secure/ECPGR workshop:
Conservation strategies for European CWR and LR diversity
7–9 September 2011, Palanga, Lithuania