Inside protected areas
Protected areas are suitablelocations to establish a genetic reserve.
However, active conservation to CWR populations should be carried out
Protected areas (PA) are defined and recognised sites managed to achieve the long-term conservation of nature. The majority of PA contain multiple CWR populations, however, they are conserved passively (not carrying out direct conservation actions to CWR).
There are other international networks, that aim to conserve biodiversity in situ, and could in the future play a more active role in in situ CWR conservation. The consensus of the need to conserve CWR diversity is increasing, but CWR are still not usually actively conserved in situ or not managed in the most appropriate manner to conserve the genetic diversity, rather than the species per se or the entire ecosystem in which the target CWR is found.
Some examples of international networks dedicated toin situ conservation of nature are:
It is the largest coordinated network of PAs in the world. It stretches across 27 EU countries and over 18% of EU’s land and almost 6% of its marine territory. The network was created within the framework of the Habitats Directive in 1992 (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). It consists of two types of sites:
a. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) – created under the Habitats Directive.
b. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – created much earlier, before Natura 2000 network establishment–under the Birds Directive from 1979 and amended in 2009 (Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds).
Concerning CWR in situ conservation, it may be expedient to focus on SACs because they are most strongly associated with the type of management required by CWR GRs. SACs are delimited according to Habitats Directive Annex III and they are designed to protect natural habitats of Community interest listed in Habitats Directive Annex I, as well as animal and plant species of Community interest listed in Habitats Directive Annex II. However, Annex IV lists animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection. Some Annex II and Annex IV plants species are CWR, moreover several Annex I natural habitats, especially non-forest ones, are important CWR habitats.
A study conducted by the Farmer’s Pride project (www.farmerspride.eu) identified 863 European priority CWR taxa found that 519 taxa occur within the limits of Natura 2000 network. 17 of them are included under Annexes II and IV, and 84 are characteristic species of some of the natural habitats protected by Annex I. 83 of the 233 habitat types included in Annex I have one or more CWR taxa amongst their characteristic species. Therefore, each SAC is likely to contain multiple CWR taxa and GRs could be established by amending the management plan to ensure active CWR population management.
The Emerald Network is an ecological network made up of Areas of Special Conservation Interest (ASCI). Its implementation was launched by the Council of Europe as part of its work under the Bern Convention (Recommendation No. 16 (1989) of the standing committee on areas of special conservation interest). However, the conservation of ASCI is looser and not bound by strict and binding legal regulations as are Natura 2000 sites.
However, the EMERALD network site management plans are still amendable to more actively support CWR in situ conservation. Seven countries, Andorra, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine and UK, have officially adopted Emerald sites on their territories. Moreover, there is also a list of officially nominated candidate sites from Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Russian Federation and Serbia. In the case of EU, which is also a Contracting Party to the Bern Convention, Natura 2000 sites are considered as the contribution from the EU member States to the Emerald Network.
The strictly protected flora species under Bern Convention are listed in its Appendix I. Some of them can also be considered CWR. CWR species can also be found in Resolution No. 6 (1998) listing the species requiring specific habitat conservation measures. The endangered habitat types are listed in the Revised Annex I of Resolution 4 (1996) of the Bern Convention on endangered natural habitats types using the EUNIS habitat classification (year of revision 2010).
The UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB) is an Inter-governmental Scientific Programme aiming to set a scientific basis for the improvement of the relationships between people and their environment globally. Launched in the early 1970s, it provides interdisciplinary research and capacity building targeting the ecological, social and economic dimensions of biodiversity loss and the reduction of this loss.
The World Network now comprises 701 biosphere reserves in 124 countries, including 21 trans-boundary sites. They seek to reconcile conservation of biological and cultural diversity and economic and social development through partnerships between people and nature. Biosphere reserves are thus globally considered as sites of excellence where new and optimal practices to manage nature and human activities are tested and demonstrated.
Following designation, biosphere reserves remain under national sovereign jurisdiction, yet they share their experience and ideas nationally, regionally, and internationally within the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Given their compromise with biodiversity conservation and economic and social development, they are appropriate settings for in situ CWR conservation.
UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS): The Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, commonly abbreviated to World Heritage Convention, was adopted by UNESCO on 16 November 1972 and has subsequently been ratified by 193 states.
The WHC brings together the concepts of nature conservation, the preservation of cultural properties and the balance between the two. It sets out the duties of States Parties in identifying potential sites and their role in protecting and preserving them, as well as defining the kind of natural or cultural sites to be included in the World Heritage List. Sites must be of "outstanding universal value" and meet at least one of the ten defined selection cultural and natural criteria.
GIAHS (Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems), a FAO initiative, are the sole international site-based conservation network that have a focus on agrobiodiversity, although not actual PAs.
GIAHS aim to promote public understanding, awareness and recognition of Agricultural Heritage systems. They also aim to safeguard the social, cultural, economic and environmental goods and services associated with agrobiodiversity and support family farmers, smallholders, indigenous people and local communities working with this diversity.
GIAHS sites are selected based on their provision of local food security, high levels of agricultural biodiversity and associated biological diversity.