A potential linking model

The four different approaches. Advantages & Disadvantages (A & D)

A. Demand & Supply mediated by the PGRC

The user requests a CWR population sample from an in situ conservation site and the sample is collected by the PGRC or GR staff. Once documented and packaged, the sample is sent to the user.

A & D. Additional in situ samples are only collected under request, so the PGRC work is somehow reduced to a minimum. However, it does imply a delay in providing the sample to the user.

B. Black box safety backup

The sample is collected by the PGRC or GR staff, and processed and conserved in a virtual ‘black box’ at the PGCR. The samples would only be available to the original donor.

A & D. As the usual PGRC monitoring procedures would not take place, this approach reduces the potential in situ backup costs when resources are limited. However, the in situ resource will not be available to the user community.

C. In situ backup

The sample is collected by the PGRC or GR staff, and sent to the PGRC for processing and conservation. When regeneration is required, rather than regenerating the existing sample, a fresh sample will be taken from the in situ population.

A & D. The regeneration process is replaced by fresh sampling of the in situ conserved population, therefore reducing maintenance costs. Another advantage is that samples are available to potential users.

D. Long term ex situ conservation

The sample is collected by the PGRC or GR staff, and sent to the PGRC for processing and conservation. The sample is then incorporated into the PGRC as a normal ex situ collection/accession, with the only difference that it has been collected as a backup sample from an in situ conservation site.

A & D. The sample is treated as any normal accession added to the PGRC, but representing an in situ conserved population. However, if in situ conservation was implemented in a truly complementary manner to the ex situ one, it will significantly increase PGRC recurrent expenditure. This option is the most expensive for the PGRC to implement.

IMPORTANT: There is an added advantage to each option. That is, the GR manager interest in keeping control over samples taken ex situ would be guaranteed by the ABS legal agreement signed between the GR manager and the plant genetic resource centre.

Tip

The figure shows some tips for CWR in situ conservation managers (o GR managers) when developing an ex situ duplication linkage.

Germplasm transfer

All germplasm that is transferred away from a wild population should be transferred legally with the relevant technical documentation, and in accordance with the international and national regulations, such as phytosanitary/quarantine laws, ITPGRFA or CBD access regulations, and national laws for genetic resources access (FAO 2014).

Most notably there are requirements under the ITPGRFA or CBD Nagoya protocol to use a Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) or Material Transfer Agreements (MTA) when transferring material from in situ to ex situ conservation. Although the requirement under the ITPGRFA only applies to taxa specifically listed in Annex 1, there is a general consensus on using the SMTA for the exchange of materials, even for PRGFA species not included in the so-called Annex I. The national application of these rules will depend on whether the country has signed the Nagoya Protocol and/or the ITPGRFA. 

Access and Benefit Sharing

It is essential for CWR plant owners to agree the terms of any change of such ownership, and/or receive a fair and reasonable share of any benefits derived from the commercial utilization of their plant material. Whatever arrangements are put in place, they must be open and transparent, so that CWR plant owners are not deterred from positive engagement with CWR plant conservation, both in situ and ex situ. Such issues should be clearly addressed in the MTA signed by the in situ site owner, the PGRC and the end user.

As well as the global legally binding requirements, there may also be national legislation that requires action when transferring seed or samples ex situ, and material should always be transferred in compliance with phytosanitary requirements (FAO, 2014). The gene bank where the deposit is to lodged may require a specific form of phytosanitary certificate, other additional declarations, certificate of donation, certificate of no commercial value and import permit, and other documents, especially if the sample is moving between countries (see ISTA website for more details).