42
2 Genetic Resources: Status, Development, Losses, and Conservation
Table 2.6 Countries reporting in situ conservation programs involving PGRFA
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Near East
Source:
Countries
Burkina Faso
Ethiopia
Malawi
Bolivia
Brazil
Columbia
Mexico
Peru
USA
Azerbaijan
Kyrgyzstan
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Turkmenistan
Bulgaria
Dominating in situ conservation programs
Landraces of millet and sorghum
Wild relatives of coffee
Landraces ofteff, barley, chick pea, sorghum and faba bean
No detailed information available
No detailed information available
Wild relatives of cassava, peanut
No detailed information available
Wild relatives of maize
No detailed information available
No detailed information available
Wild fruit trees and shrubs
Wild fruit trees and shrubs
No detailed information available
Wild relatives of rice, legumes, spices, wild fruit trees
No detailed information available
Wild fruit trees and shrubs
Wild relatives of various crops
Czech Republic Wild relatives of various crops
France
No detailed information available
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Turkey
Egypt
Israel
Wild relatives of apples, pears
No detailed information available
No detailed information available
Wild relatives of cereals, horticultural and ornamental
flower
No detailed information available
Wild relatives of wheat
relevant Country Reports
The two different concepts of conservation were differentiated by those who
were the major actors in those conservation activities: ex situ conservation -
enforced and promoted by governmental and inter-governmental organizations,
and the private seed sector - has been managed for the conservation of those
crops, which are mainly of interest at global level. In situ conservation was mainly
promoted by NGOs, handling regional or local important food crops as well as
crops which are not suitable for genebanks.
system allows for pooling similar landraces and even the introgression of valuable genes
from exotic sources (Cooper and Cromwell, 1994).