38
2 Genetic Resources: Status, Development, Losses, and Conservation
2.4.2
In Situ Conservation
The above-mentioned ex situ conservation methods are increasingly being
complemented by efforts to maintain and use the diversity of PGRF A either in its
natural habitat (especially wild relatives and forestry species) or in locations
where the material has evolved, i.e., on farms or in home gardens. In the latter
cases, farmers manage diversity and maintain it through use in their production
systems. As defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity, in situ
conservation for PGRF A "". means ". the maintenance and recovery of ".
domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have
developed their distinctive properties." (UNEP, 1994a).
Although the ex situ conservation is dominantly utilized for PGRF A, in situ
conservation, known as strategy for conservation of ecosystems, habitats and the
general inter-species diversity of wildlife therein, has recently entered the stage
for conservation of intra-species diversity of PGRF A. This historical development
has two implications for PGRF A conservation:
1. The outline for in situ conservation was designed for the conservation of
wildlife and later additional for wild flora, without considering the distinctive
characteristics of PGRF A conservation, i.e., the conservation of the intraspecific genetic variation of crops and their wild relatives, hence positive
conservation impacts for wild or weedy crop relatives occurs as an unplanned
resule 6 (Hoyt, 1988).
2. Because of the historical process, parallel institutional and organizational
structures for conservation activities have been developed 17 and links between
those concerned are extremely weak in almost all countries. Furthermore, the
above-mentioned (Chap. 2.3) competitive relation between conservation of
plant genetic resources diversity in general and the diversity of PGRF A
conservation dominate the relation. Therefore, PGRF A conservation has not
been seen as an integrated part of the general plant genetic resources
conservation.
The conceptual framework for in situ conservation for PGRF A is just emerging
(see Fig. 2.7. ), because only some countries have been involved in in situ
conservation programs for PGRFA until now (see Table 2.7). In addition to the
conservation of wild relatives of PGRF A, where in situ conservation was
incorporated in Biosphere Reserve management objectives (ntis et aI., 1979), or
habitat conservation, in situ conservation for PGRF A is conceptualized as on-farm
management and improvement for the conservation of landraces and old cultivars.
The different in situ conservation methods can be systematized according to the
16 Hoyt's survey came to the conclusion that even though some protected areas in Europe
overlapped with the geographical ranges of the wild crop relatives of apples, plums, cherries,
peaches, and almonds, there was very little specific consideration of these genetic resources
within the protected areas descriptions or management plans (Hoyt, 1988).
17 E.g., on the international level the secretariat of CBD is in charge of the conservation of
general biodiversity and FAG of the PGRFA conservation.
2 Genetic Resources: Status, Development, Losses, and Conservation
2.4.2
In Situ Conservation
The above-mentioned ex situ conservation methods are increasingly being
complemented by efforts to maintain and use the diversity of PGRF A either in its
natural habitat (especially wild relatives and forestry species) or in locations
where the material has evolved, i.e., on farms or in home gardens. In the latter
cases, farmers manage diversity and maintain it through use in their production
systems. As defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity, in situ
conservation for PGRF A "". means ". the maintenance and recovery of ".
domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have
developed their distinctive properties." (UNEP, 1994a).
Although the ex situ conservation is dominantly utilized for PGRF A, in situ
conservation, known as strategy for conservation of ecosystems, habitats and the
general inter-species diversity of wildlife therein, has recently entered the stage
for conservation of intra-species diversity of PGRF A. This historical development
has two implications for PGRF A conservation:
1. The outline for in situ conservation was designed for the conservation of
wildlife and later additional for wild flora, without considering the distinctive
characteristics of PGRF A conservation, i.e., the conservation of the intraspecific genetic variation of crops and their wild relatives, hence positive
conservation impacts for wild or weedy crop relatives occurs as an unplanned
resule 6 (Hoyt, 1988).
2. Because of the historical process, parallel institutional and organizational
structures for conservation activities have been developed 17 and links between
those concerned are extremely weak in almost all countries. Furthermore, the
above-mentioned (Chap. 2.3) competitive relation between conservation of
plant genetic resources diversity in general and the diversity of PGRF A
conservation dominate the relation. Therefore, PGRF A conservation has not
been seen as an integrated part of the general plant genetic resources
conservation.
The conceptual framework for in situ conservation for PGRF A is just emerging
(see Fig. 2.7. ), because only some countries have been involved in in situ
conservation programs for PGRFA until now (see Table 2.7). In addition to the
conservation of wild relatives of PGRF A, where in situ conservation was
incorporated in Biosphere Reserve management objectives (ntis et aI., 1979), or
habitat conservation, in situ conservation for PGRF A is conceptualized as on-farm
management and improvement for the conservation of landraces and old cultivars.
The different in situ conservation methods can be systematized according to the
16 Hoyt's survey came to the conclusion that even though some protected areas in Europe
overlapped with the geographical ranges of the wild crop relatives of apples, plums, cherries,
peaches, and almonds, there was very little specific consideration of these genetic resources
within the protected areas descriptions or management plans (Hoyt, 1988).
17 E.g., on the international level the secretariat of CBD is in charge of the conservation of
general biodiversity and FAG of the PGRFA conservation.