Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Developing UK indicators for the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020: Plant Genetic Resources Indicator Options Paper
Key findings
 The genetic diversity of UK plant resources includes domesticated plants and their
wild relatives, and other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable plant
species, encompassing plants grown in a farming or horticultural setting or both,
and commercial cultivars, landraces and traditional varieties and their wild
relatives.
 Important sources of genetic diversity exist both in situ and ex situ.
 Forty-three indicators, each of which referred to different aspects of genetic
diversity, were identified as having potential to track the conservation status of UK
plant genetic resources (PGR).
 Of these, expert consensus identified and/or developed five indicators specifically
relevant to contributing to the UK’s obligation of reporting against Aichi Target 13
of the Convention for Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020, as well as other regional and national biodiversity targets:
A. Crop wild relative distribution in the UK
B. The level of ex situ conservation of target plants in the UK
C. The genetic diversity of selected plants
D. The implementation of conservation strategies affecting target species
E. The diversity of horticultural plants
 The ‘ideal’ indicator for UK PGR would directly measure the genetic diversity of all
in situ and ex situ populations of all target taxa. However, due to data limitations,
indicators will likely focus on proxies for genetic diversity and/or on subsets of
taxa. While these may result in taxonomic bias and/or fail to consider both in situ
and ex situ resources, such indicators would be supported by sound, available data
and could be reliably communicated.
 A combination of indicators would provide the most robust measure of PGR in the
UK.
1. Rationale and Approach
Biodiversity worldwide is under great pressure (Butchart et al. 2010) and the UK Government is committed to
reporting against global, regional and national frameworks which aim to address biodiversity loss. Targets set
within these frameworks include those on the conservation of plant genetic resources (PGR), however there is
currently no national indicator that could track change in PGR of the UK. The Natural Environment White Paper
(HM Government, 2011) set out a commitment to the Convention for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity 2011-2020, yet the UK Government currently has no means to monitor progress against Aichi
Target 13:
By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives,
including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have
been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.
The England biodiversity strategy of the UK Government has established the priority action to:
Ensure that ‘agricultural’ genetic diversity is conserved and enhanced wherever appropriate.
1
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Relevant actions under this include raising awareness and encouraging responsible management and
conservation of genetic diversity, incorporating maintenance of genetic diversity into policies and programmes
and monitoring and maintaining genetic diversity in ex situ collections (Defra, 2011). The UK made a large
number of commitments to PGR when it became a Party to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2004. As part of the FAO Council, the UK also adopted the Second Global
Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2011. In addition, Defra committed to a
five point Action Plan in response to the Foresight (2011) report on the future of food and farming
(Environmental Audit Committee, 2011).
The aim of this paper is to present a number of indicator options that could be used by the UK Government to
monitor progress against Aichi Target 13 as well as other regional and national biodiversity targets. The
process of indicator option identification/development started by compiling a preliminary list of potential
indicators for PGR from the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA 2012), the minutes of the second
meeting of the Executive Committee of the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources
(ECPGR, 2011), and suggestions from an online survey of UK specialists in plant genetic resources and their
conservation. UK experts in the field of PGR then met at a workshop convened by the UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), during which the preliminary list of indicators was refined and
further indicators were either suggested or considered for development.
The quality of each potential indicator was evaluated against various criteria. Based on the assessment
process, five indicator options were shortlisted for development and are presented below for consideration. A
detailed overview of the project structure and methodology is provided in Annex 1 and Annex 2.
Note, all PGR referred to in Aichi Target 13 are collectively termed “target plants”, i.e. cultivated plants and
wild relatives, including other socio-economical as well as culturally valuable plant species. It is expected that
expert knowledge will be required to identify suitable target plants for each indicator. It was also agreed that
any target plant which grows in or is cultivated in the UK, or has grown in or has been cultivated in the UK,
could be included in the indicator1.
1
The definition of UK diversity has been debated previously, for the vegetable landrace inventory of England and Wales (Kell et al., 2009),
which concluded, “ if a variety is grown in the UK it can be included in the inventory, regardless of its origin”
2
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
2. Summary of Data Sources
Sources of data that could be used to generate the five suggested indicators indicator of PGR are described
below, and where relevant, potential data issues noted. A range of additional data sources identified but not
considered useful for any of the five indicator options selected are presented in Annex 3.
Option A. Crop wild relative distribution in the UK
 Countryside Survey (CS). A database of repeated surveys of natural resources of the UK’s
countryside, describing the extent, condition and change of terrestrial habitats
(countrysidesurvey.org.uk).
o Data considerations. The CS is the only UK-wide common data source that can be used to
extract habitat extent for broad habitat categories. Survey data is reliable for common
plant species but less so for rare species which may be missed. CS data is currently
collected every 6-10 years, however this is under review and the surety of future data
collection is not known.
Option B. The level of ex situ conservation of target plants in the UK
 European Plant Genetic Resources Search Catalogue (EURISCO). An online catalogue that
provides free access to all available ex situ PGR information in Europe (eurisco.ecpgr.org),
including (amongst others) the National Fruit Collection at Brogdale, University of Reading; The
National Vegetable Genebank at Wellesbourne, University of Warwick; The National Pea
Genebank and the National Cereals Collection(s), John Innes Centre; The Millennium Seed Bank,
Kew Gardens. A standard set of descriptors for germplasm are used, following the protocol of the
FAO/IPGRI Multicrop Passport Descriptors (MCPD) (FAO & IPGRI, 2001).
 Garden Organic Heritage Seed Library (HSL). Collection of vegetable seeds of European varieties
and landraces available for use by HSL members and for scientific purposes on request
(gardenorganic.org.uk/hsl). Includes seeds from 800 unique accessions.
 Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA). Collection of seeds and tubers of modern and
traditional agricultural crop varieties, landraces, wild populations and crop wild relatives,
research lines, genetic lines and lines used for disease testing (17,440 unique accessions of seven
agricultural crops and 29 vegetable crops (correct as of September 2012)).
o Data considerations. Most of these are not duplicated in other UK collections. More
details on holdings are given in Annex 4 (Table A4.1).
 UK Information Portal on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GRFA). Publicly available
online database including details of in situ genetic material of crop wild relatives (CWRs) and
landraces in UK genebanks (grfa.org.uk).
Option C. The Genetic diversity of selected plants.
 Molecular marker data sets. Held and collected by the James Hutton Institute; East Malling
Research; Barcode Wales (native Welsh flowering plants).
Option E. The diversity of horticultural plants
 Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) Plant Finder. Publicly available online database
(apps.rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder), providing an indication of the availability of horticulturally
important species. Also includes registration databases.
o Data considerations. Limited to commercially available plants.
3
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.

Plant Heritage Threatened Plants Project. A database currently under development of British
and Irish horticulture with an indication of threatened2 cultivars (nccpg.com/tpp.aspx).
2
The Threatened Plants Project defines ‘threatened’ as: fewer than seven occurrences in total of: National Plant Collections; the previous
five years of the RHS Plant Finder; and the Last Listed component of the RHSPF (i.e. plants that have ceased to be listed in the RHS Plant
Finder).
4
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
3. Indicator Options
Five potential indicators of PGR are presented below. Each indicator is described in terms of how it would be
presented and interpreted, together with a description of the data that would be required to generate the
indicator, its strengths and weaknesses, and potential costs of producing the indicator. An example graphic
(using dummy data) is also presented to illustrate how the indicator may be presented.
Option A. Crop wild relative distribution in the UK
The indicator (description and interpretation): This option considers the occurrence and extent of broad
habitat important to wild relatives of crop plants (CWR) in the UK, as well as the abundance of some flagship
CWR species. The indicator would be based on a change index between sampling dates for the distribution of
CWR, broad habitat extent and abundance of flagship species (Figure 1). In each case the first sampling would
be given the default value of 100. In subsequent years a value of greater than 100 indicates an increase in the
extent of broad habitats important to CWR and abundance of flagship plant species; values of less than 100
indicates a decrease in the extent of broad habitats important to CWR and abundance of flagship plant
species.
Data sources: The CS contains data on occurrence and broad habitat extent of CWRs. This data is currently
collected every 6-10 years through systematic, scientifically robust and representative plot sampling methods
(e.g. Firbank et al., 2003), however see notes in Section 2 about future data collection. Data on the abundance
of flagship species could be obtained from field surveys undertaken for the indicator.
Strengths and weaknesses: This indicator has a number of potential limitations:




The CS does not represent an exhaustive list of UK plant species and may not include all crop wild
relatives, particularly rare species.
The indicator does not assess ex situ conservation efforts and is largely limited to genetic diversity at
the species and sub-species level.
It makes the assumption that genetic diversity can be related to the distributional extent of a taxon. In
a study of three UK CWR belonging to the same genus, black mustard (Brassica nigra) and turnip (B.
rapa) showed significant genetic differences between populations, so the assumption would be
correct for these species; however for wild cabbage (B. oleracea), the assumption may not hold true
as there were relatively minor genetic differences between populations (Watson-Jones et al., 2005
cited by: Hopkins & Maxted, 2010). The relationship between distributional extent and genetic
diversity therefore may not always be present, resulting in an overestimation of the importance of
geographic distribution for some species. It is recommended to consider choosing species for which
such a relationship has been established as the flagship species for field surveys.
There may also be difficulty in interpreting observed changes in broad habitat extent – i.e. changes
may not indicate a change in the level of genetic diversity, but rather reflect modifications to
management plans that have affected distribution patterns of plant species.
Cost of producing indicator3:
a) Initial development. Significant costs for expert consultation to identify a representative set of target
taxa, identification of the broad habitats in which they occur. Field-based abundance monitoring of
flagship species would incur substantial costs, depending on the frequency of updates.
b) Ongoing data collection. Minor costs associated with obtaining historical data from the CS; if the CS is
discontinued, alternative data sources would need to be sought at substantial cost. Monitoring of
flagship species would incur major costs.
c) Ongoing analysis . Minor costs once procedures have been established.
3
Costs are described as major (>£100,000); substantial (£50,000–100,000); significant (£10,000-£50,000); or minor (<£10,000).
5
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
140
120
Index
100
80
Crop Wild Relatives
60
Flagship species
40
Ecosystem extent
20
0
1990
1998
2007
201?
202?
Year
Figure 1. Example graphic - Crop wild relative distribution in the UK.
Note: Ongoing work and discussions with workshop participants have led to the suggestion that a
measurement of UK IUCN threat assessment could be included in this indicator, building on the priority list of
143 CWR taxa that has recently been developed for England (see Fielder & Maxted, unpublished data, Annex
5). It is worth noting that one of the criteria for this priority list is change in population range; therefore this list
may be biased towards species suffering losses. Similar lists are near completion for Scotland and Wales,
although there are currently no plans in place to extend the list to Northern Ireland. This could be codified for
each priority list species and updated every time the IUCN Red List status is reassessed. In addition, the ex situ
status could be assessed, either by average number of CWR accessions per priority list taxon (with a target of
10 per taxon) or by average number of CWR accessions per priority list taxon, but dividing the geographic
extent of occurrence into a grid of 10 units, and counting only one accession per unit (again with a target of 10
per taxon). This could also be considered as a method for arriving at an index for target plants in Option B.
Option B. Level of ex situ conservation of target plants in the UK
The indicator (description and interpretation): This option aims to show the level of conservation of target
plants in the UK by measuring the genetic diversity of ex situ UK target plants held in UK germplasm
collections, taking into account the threat of losing reference material through reduced seed viability. The
number of accessions (germplasm samples) per taxon is used as a proxy for the level of genetic diversity in ex
situ germplasm collections. The indicator would contain two measures (Figure 2):
i) Accessions of target plants held in UK collections4. This would be based on a change index describing,
ii)
for example, the mean percentage change over time in the number of accessions aggregated across
taxa. An index of 100 would indicate that the number of accessions across taxa is stable, above 100
indicates an increase, and below 100 indicates a decrease in genetic diversity.
Percentage of accessions for which a regeneration is being implemented. An ascending line on this
graph would suggest that the gene banks are keeping up with the regeneration cycle for the seeds in
storage. A declining line would indicate a reduced number of accessions for which regeneration is due
with the aim of reaching 100 percent of accessions.
4
A number of metrics were considered. The number of cultivars was rejected as this is not expected to rise for many collections. Similarly
the total number of accessions could also be misleading as the focus may be on particular species in certain collections and therefore not
representative of genetic diversity overall.
6
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Data sources: Most germplasm collections encompass all categories of plants covered by Aichi Target 13, i.e.
crops, wild relatives, landraces, traditional varieties and horticultural plants, although some groups, such as
CWR are under-represented (Maxted et al. 2008). The Millennium Seed Bank is in the early stages of
negotiations with the National Trust and several major UK botanic gardens to develop a programme for
conserving their horticulturally important collections as seed (J. Dickie, pers. comm. ), which would help to
improve the representation of culturally-important plants.
Data that takes into account the need for regeneration to avoid loss of seed viability would also be required for
this option. However, it is currently unclear as to how these data could be obtained.
Strengths and weaknesses: This option makes the assumption that the number of accessions per taxon is
positively related to the level of genetic diversity stored ex situ. However, this relationship may not always
exist, particularly for commercial cultivars, since many cultivars are bred for the same market and hence are
phenotypically and probably genetically very similar. CWR populations, for example, are considered to contain
far more genetic diversity than crops themselves (Hopkins & Maxted, 2010) and without prior genetic
knowledge it is difficult to assess how much genetic variation is present in a collection.
The indicator focuses on ex situ conservation in germplasm collections, which will represent only a small
proportion of the total genetic diversity. The EURISCO catalogue is the most comprehensive database
available, containing more than half of the ex situ accessions maintained in Europe (EURISCO, 2012).
However, it is not a comprehensive data set for the UK (N. Green, pers. comm.) and other data sources should
also be considered.
Cost of producing indicator:
a) Initial development. Substantial costs for expert review to select target plants and statistical advice on
the development of a change index.
b) Ongoing data collection. Minor costs to access publicly available data. It is not known whether
information on the percentage of accessions in need of regeneration could be obtained.
c) Ongoing analysis. Minor costs to compile and update data.
120
100
Index
% of accessions with regeneration strategy
90
80
70
110
60
105
50
40
100
30
20
95
% Regeneration strategy
Index (2005=100)
115
10
90
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Figure 2. Example graphic - Level of ex situ conservation of target plants in the UK.
7
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Note: This indicator could also incorporate the diversity of horticultural plants as described in Option E, if the
focus were extended beyond germplasm collections.
Option C. Genetic diversity of selected plants
The indicator (description and interpretation): This option aims to monitor the level of plant genetic diversity
for certain crops held in UK collections and National List varieties and CWRs for which molecular genetic
diversity has been characterised. The exact measure to evaluate level of genetic diversity held in collections
would have to be decided, however it is suggested that the indicator is based on a change index, where: a
value of 100 indicates a stable level of genetic diversity is held in UK collections; a value of greater than 100
would indicate an increase in the level of genetic diversity held; and a value less than 100 would indicate a
decreasing level of genetic diversity held in UK collections (Figure 3).
Data sources: Genetic diversity data is already available for some plant species from collections held at the
James Hutton Institute, Barcode Wales and East Malling Research. Breeder data may be more extensive, but is
not currently in the public domain and may require extensive negotiation in order to obtain or be given access
to it (if possible at all).
Strengths and weaknesses: This option is unique among those presented as it is a direct measure of plant
genetic diversity. However, the indicator would only measure genetic diversity among target plants that have
been analysed genetically, thereby representing a small subset of all target plants and is likely to be biased
towards plants of highest economic importance. Genetic expertise would be required to establish the
methodology and ensure that it is scientifically valid.
Cost of producing the indicator:
a) Initial development. Significant costs to establish methodology.
b) Ongoing data collection. Major funding to monitor genetic diversity levels and secure future data.
c) Ongoing analysis. Minor costs associated with analysis.
140
120
Index
100
80
2005
2010
60
2015
40
20
0
Peas
Barley
Potatoes
Roses
Apples
Figure 3. Example graphic - Implementation of the genetic diversity of selected plants.
8
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Option D. The implementation of conservation strategies affecting target species
The indicator (description and interpretation): This option is based on using the uptake of Agri-Environment
Scheme (AES) agreements as a proxy measure of PGR conservation achieved through sustainable
management, which may be preferable for CWRs and potentially for the production of landraces. The uptake
of AES agreements can be measured by the number of active agreements that are signed. An increasing trend
indicates continuous uptake of AES agreements, and hence an increase in conservation efforts affecting target
species. A descending trend indicates a decline in the number of agreements, and hence could reflect a
decrease in conservation strategies affecting target species (Figure 4).
Data sources: Data on AES agreements could be obtained from relevant UK government institutions and
agencies.
Strengths and weaknesses: The uptake of AES may not be directly related to the conservation of plant genetic
diversity, since the conservation of genetic resources is a secondary objective for the Environmental
Stewardship AES (Natural England, 2009). Kleijn and Sutherland (2003) reported that where AESs were
evaluated against botanical objectives, they showed poor performance in enhancing the botanical diversity of
intensively farmed agricultural land, particularly when intense use had persisted long enough to deplete the
local seed bank. Furthermore, agricultural land is unlikely to be representative of habitats which are priorities
for CWRs, such as the woodland edges and coastal zones required for some CWRs (J. Hopkins, pers. comm.).
Hence AESs should be considered a passive form of CWR conservation with potentially beneficial side effects
for the conservation of CWRs. This indicator is similar to indicator B1 of the UK Biodiversity Indicators
(www.jncc.defra.gov.uk/byip).
In addition, AESs are now closed to new applicants in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2012), AESs are being
replaced by Glastir in Wales from 2012 (Welsh Government, 2012) and in Northern Ireland, there are two
schemes – the Northern Ireland Countryside Management Scheme and the Organic Farming Scheme (DARDNI,
2012). This could lead to a variety of substantial challenges associated with generating a UK-level indicator
from data obtained from the four constituent countries of the UK.
Landraces are not an AES priority, however Scholten et al. (2011) recommended incorporating them into the
schemes. The number of farmers engaged in the Landrace Protection Scheme (SASA, 2012) could also be
included for Scotland, and potentially other countries if the scheme is extended. It may be possible to extend
the indicator by using data on taxon-specific conservation strategies.
Cost of producing the indicator:
a) Initial development. Minor costs to establish methodology.
b) Ongoing data collection. Minor costs to access data on agri-environment schemes from relevant UK
authorities or institutions.
c) Ongoing analysis. Minor costs to analyse data, rising to significant if new schemes incorporated.
9
No. of active AES Agreements in
the UK (thousands)
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Figure 4. Example graphic - Implementation of conservation strategies affecting target species.
Option E. Diversity of horticultural plants
The indicator (description and interpretation): This option represents the diversity of horticultural plants at
the level of species, variety and form available from nurseries in the UK and the number of those taxa under
threat of disappearance from UK nurseries and plant collections.
The indicator would measure the number of taxa (species/variety/form) listed for a selection of horticulturally
important genera in the RHS Plant Finder (RHSPF) and the number of selected taxa considered threatened
according to the Plant Heritage Threatened Plants Project (TPP). The indicator would contain two measures: i)
the number of taxa represented in the selected genera, and ii) the number within that set which are
threatened (Figure 5). A rising trend line on would indicate an increase in the number of threatened plants.
The indicator could therefore be used to illustrate when taxa are at risk of loss. It would also be possible to
obtain an indication of the success of efforts made to downgrade plants from the threatened status as it will
reflect when the number of locations where they are cultivated has increased.
Data sources: The indicator could be compiled from publically available data in the RHSPF and the TPP.
Threatened plants are defined as having fewer than seven occurrences in total of: National Plant Collections;
the previous five years of the RHS Plant Finder; and the Last Listed component of the RHSPF (i.e. plants that
have ceased to be listed in the RHS Plant Finder). The data are regularly updated and follow consistent
guidelines.
Strengths and weaknesses: This indicator considers a limited number of the target plants, with a focus on taxa
important to horticulture and those that are traded.
Cost of producing the indicator:
a) Initial development. Significant costs for expert consultation to select genera and for negotiating the
use of RHS intellectual property.
b) Ongoing data collection. Data are currently freely available, however, minor costs would be involved
with the download and transformation of data into a useable format.
c) Ongoing analysis. Minor costs involved with updating the indicator.
10
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
700
600
No. of taxa
500
400
Total number of taxa
300
Number threatened
200
100
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Figure 5. Example graphic - Diversity of Horticultural Plants.
Evaluation of indicator options
All five options have been ranked against the criteria for quality testing indicator options (see Annex 2). Subtotals of evaluation scores for data issues, the methodology and indicator characteristics are provided in Table
1. A comprehensive breakdown of scores against individual criteria is presented in Annex 2 (Table A2.4).
Total evaluation scores for all criteria were similar across all indicator options (Table 1), as well as the key
criteria of data availability and quality, policy relevance, and communication (Table 2). However, when the
types of plant genetic resources and needs of the indicator were compared for each option, Option B appeared
to have the broadest scope (Table 3).
Details of how each of the options maps against the CBD Aichi Targets and the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020
are presented in Annex 6. In summary, all options could be a primary indicator for Aichi Target 13 of the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, and may be relevant indicators for Targets 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15. All
options could also be a primary indicator for Target 3 (Action 9b) of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, and
Objective II (Target 9) of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.
Table 1. Summary evaluation scores.
Option
A B C D E
Data issues
17 19 13 18 20
Methodology
5 6 5 5 5
Indicator characteristics 10 12 16 12 12
11
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Table 2. Evaluation scores for key criteria, where 1=low, 2=medium, 3=high (see Table A2.4 in Annex 2 for
more details).
Option
Data availability and quality
Transparency and auditability (data availability)
Frequency of updates
Spatial coverage
Temporal coverage
Transparency and soundness
Precision
Policy Relevance
Progress towards Biodiversity 2020 targets (CBD,
EU, UK , country)
Communication
Ease of communication
A
B
C
D
E
3
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
?
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
2
Table 3. Comparison of plant type and needs for each indicator.
Crop Wild Relative
Landrace
Horticultural
Maintenance of
diversity
Measure of threat
Option A
Measured in situ,
habitat extent for
selected species
(Countryside
Survey), abundance
measures available
IF new surveillance
is funded
Option B
Measured ex situ –
some options for
formulae based on
average number of
accessions per
taxon.
Option A (not
explicit, but could
be included)
Threatened if
habitats declining
by certain %, or
abundance
declining by certain
%
Option B
Accessions data for
ex situ – no
accessions lost
Option B
MSB holdings of
horticulturally
important from
National Trust? –
Not available yet.
Option E
Number of taxa
listed for a genus
within RHS Plant
Finder
Option B
Could this come
from information
on accessions with
regeneration
strategy?
Alternative could
be to consider IUCN
threat assessment
12
Option E
Proportion of a
genus considered
threatened within
Growing Heritage
TPP project
Crop varieties
Option B
Accessions data for
ex situ – no
accessions lost
Option C
IF genetic data
exists and can be
appropriately
analysed can
provide a
translation of no
accessions lost to
no loss of genetic
diversity
Option B
Could this come
from information
on accessions with
regeneration
strategy?
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Table 3. Continued
Conservation
schemes
Crop Wild Relative
Landrace
Option D
Passive
conservation within
AES (as a whole).
Option D
Included within
Landrace
Protection Schemes
or AES (in situ), if
such information
can be identified.
There could be
other measures,
such as inclusion
within SSSIs or
particular AES
measures.
Horticultural
Crop varieties
Option E
Collections that
have ‘taken on’
threatened
varieties from TPP
(proportion of
threatened
varieties covered)
4. Discussion Points
It would be helpful if the working group for plant genetic resources at the 6th Biodiversity Indicators Forum
could provide input on the following:
1.
2.
Which of the options outlined above should be taken forward to the next stage?
Is the presentation of the potential indicators appropriate? How could they be improved?
3. Are there any other ‘easy-to-do’ options which have been missed?
13
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
5. References
Braithwaite, M. E., Ellis, R. W. & Preston, C. D. (2006). Change in the British Flora 1987–2004, Botanical Society
of the British Isles, London.
Butchart, S., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J., Almond, R., Baillie, J., Bomhard, B.,
Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K., Carr, G., Chanson, J., Chenery, A., Csirke, J., Davidson, N.,
Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R., Hockings, M., Kapos, V.,
Lamarque, J., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Hernández, M.,
Thomasina, M., Oldfield, E., Pauly, P., Quader, S. , Revenga, C., Sauer, J., Skolnik, B., Spear, D.,
Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T., Vié, J., Watson, R. (2010). Global
Biodiversity Declines Continue. Science 328, 1164-1168. [Online]. Available at:
<http://www.bipindicators.net/bippublications>.
DARDNI. (2012). Agri-environment schemes. [Online]. Available at: <
http://www.dardni.gov.uk/ruralni/index/environment/countrysidemanagement/schemes.htm>
Defra (2011). Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services. Defra, London, UK.
Available at: < http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy-2020111111.pdf>.
ECPGR. (2011). Minutes of the 2nd ECPGR Executive Committee meeting. Maccarese, Italy. 17-19 October
2011. [Online]. Available at:
<http://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/fileadmin/www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/EXCO/finalExCo2_200112.pdf>.
Environmental Audit Committee (2011). Supplementary written evidence submitted by Professor Sandy
Thomas, Head of Foresight, Government Office for Science, Department for Business Innovation and
Skills. Available at
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/879/879we20.htm>.
EURISCO. (2012). Accession List. [Online]. Available at: < http://eurisco.ecpgr.org/>.
European Commission. (2011). Our life insurance, our natural captial: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.
Brussels. 17 pp. [Online]. Available at: <
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%5
b1%5d.pdf> .
FAO & IPGRI. (2001). Multi-crop passport descriptors. [Online]. Available at: <
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/bioversity/publications/pdfs/124_FAOIPGRI_Multicrop_passport_descriptors.pdf?cache=1349342136>.
Fera. (2010). Guide to national listing of varieties of agricultural and vegetable crops in the UK. Food and
Environment Research Agency. Cambridge, UK. 28 pp. [Online]. Available at: <
http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantVarieties/nationalListing/documents/nlGuideSept10.pdf>.
Firbank, L. G., Barr, C. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Furse, M. T., Haines-Young, R., Hornung, M., Howard, D. C., Sheail, J.,
Sier, A., and Smart, S. M. (2003). Assessing stock and change in land cover and biodiversity in GB: an
introduction to Countryside Survey 2000. Journal of Environmental Management 67 (3): 207-218.
Foresight (2011). The future of food and farming. Final project report. The Government Officer for Science,
London, UK. Available at <http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/11-546future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf>.
HM Government (2011). The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. Presented to Parliament by the
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. TSO (The Stationery Office), London, UK.
Available at <http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.pdf>.
Hopkins, J. J. & Maxted, N. (2010). Crop Wild Relatives: plant conservation for food security. Natural England
Research Reports, Number 037. Natural England, Sheffield.
Kell, S., Maxted, N., Allender, D., Astley, D., Ford-Lloyd, B. V., and Contributors. (2009). Vegetable landrace
inventory of England and Wales. The University of Birmingham. UK. 117 pp. [Online]. Available at: <
http://www.grfa.org.uk/media_files/publications_plant/veg_lr_inventory_england_and_wales.pdf>.
14
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Kleijn, D. and Sutherland, W. J. (2003). How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving
and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 40 (6): 947-969.
Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V., Kell, S.P., Iriondo, J.M., Dulloo, E. & Turok, J. (Eds). (2008). Crop wild relative
conservation and use. CAB International. Wallingford, UK.
Natural England. (2009). Agro-environment schemes in England 2009. A review of results and effectiveness.
Natural England. 120 pp.
Natural England. (2012). Entry level stewardship scheme. [Online]. Available at: <
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/els/default.aspx>.
Prance, G. T. (1997). The conservation of botanical diversity. In: Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B. V., & Hawkes, J. G.,
(eds.). Plant genetic conservation: the in situ approach. Chapman & Hall, London, U.K. 3-14.
Preston, C. D., Pearman, D. A. & Dines, T. D. (2002). New Atlas of the British and Irish flora, Oxford. University
Press, Oxford.
Preston C.D., Telfer M.G., Roy D.B., Carey P.D., Hill M.O., Meek W.R., Rothery P., Smart S.M., Smith G.M.,
Walker K.J. & Pearman D.A. (2003). The changing distribution of the flora of the United Kingdom:
technical report. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Huntingdon.
Radley, G. (2009) Analysis of the current and potential value of Environmental Stewardship as a mechanism for
conserving priority species of Crop Wild Relatives. Unpublished report, Natural England,
Peterborough. cited by Natural England. (2009). Agro-environment schemes in England 2009. A
review of results and effectiveness. Natural England. 120 pp.
SASA. (2012). Scottish Landraces and Traditional Varieties. [Online]. Available at: <
http://www.scottishlandraces.org.uk/scotlandrace_index.htm>.
Scholten, M, Maxted, N. & Ford-Lloyd, B. (2011). UK National Inventory of Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture. University of Birmingham. 86 pp.
Scottish Government. (2012). Agri-environment schemes. [Online]. Available at: <
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/Environment/Agrienvironment>.
Welsh Government. (2012). Glastir. [Online]. Available at: <
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/farmingandcountryside/farming/glastirhome/?la
ng=en>.
15
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
6. Annexes
Annex 1 – Project overview and approach for developing UK biodiversity indicators
Despite the collective efforts of the biodiversity conservation community to bring attention to biodiversity loss,
pressures on biodiversity are continuing to rise (Butchart et al, 2010, available at
http://www.bipindicators.net/bippublications). Following the 10th Conference of Parties to the CBD in October
2010 and adoption of the new Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011-2020), a flexible Pressure, State, Benefits,
Response (PSBR) framework of indicators has been proposed to report on the 20 Aichi targets at multiple
scales (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/15/INF/6, available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=sbstta-15). There is also a
widespread perception that alternative tools are needed to mainstream issues of biodiversity loss across
sectors through ecosystem services assessment.
The UK has been the first nation to relate ecosystem assessment to ecosystem services, with the recent
publication of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA, 2011, available at http://uknea.unepwcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx). This initiative, combined with the new Biodiversity Strategic Plan
(2011-2020) championed by the CBD, has resulted in timely emphasis on enhancing the suite of UK biodiversity
indicators to ensure that they continue to be based on the most robust and reliable data, and are relevant to
the new Aichi Targets as well as the revised European Biodiversity Strategy, including requirements for the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
The Biodiversity Indicator Steering Group (BISG) has proposed an interim set of 24 biodiversity indicators for
reporting against global and European frameworks (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4229). A number of the
proposed indicators need refinement and/or development. Key challenges will be meeting tight reporting
deadlines and country priorities. To ensure that the UK meets international and national obligations, there is
an imperative to use data currently available.
The major objective of Defra project WC1301 is to construct indicators for six thematic areas identified by the
BISG as requiring development, ensuring that new developments and refinements have a sound scientific
base. These thematic areas are: awareness of biodiversity conservation; status of species and habitats
supporting ecosystem services; habitat connectivity; plant genetic resources; climate change adaptation; and
integrating biodiversity into business activities. In order that the UK retains links from global to country-based
indicators, it will be important that UK indicators can be disaggregated to country level (England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland) and that they are aligned, as far as practicable, with global and EU frameworks.
The first step in this project was to undertake a scoping exercise to review and synthesize the metadata used
in the UK NEA and identify data sets that might be suitable for developing UK biodiversity indicators. Results of
the scoping exercise informed and guided subsequent, more detailed data searches and development of
indicator options and methodologies, in consultation with experts.
An options paper has been produced for each thematic area for consideration by: i) invited experts to the UK
Biodiversity Indicator Forum, and ii) the BISG. A codified methodology will be developed for the
implementation of each selected indicator option.
16
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Annex 2. Detailed overview of approach taken to develop options for a UK indicator of
plant genetic resources.
The scoping exercise identified data sets that could be used to support the development of indicators of PGR.
In addition, relevant indicators were identified from the minutes of the second meeting of the Executive
Committee of the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources and from an online survey of
PGR practitioners.
This resulted in the compilation of a list of indicators, which were considered and built upon at a workshop
convened by UNEP-WCMC in August 2012 (Table A2.1). This workshop was attended by 13 participants that
had a wide range of expertise in PGR and indicator development.
Specific objectives of the workshop and subsequent work were:



To explore the possibilities of developing indicators of plant genetic resources for the UK
based on the exploration of available data and expert consultation.
Review data sources that could be used to support indicators.
Use agreed criteria to select and prioritise three to five options for
using/updating/developing an indicator of plant genetic resources.
The long list of indicators was first assessed against how well they could answer key policy questions devised
by workshop participants (Table A2.2). The most applicable indicators were further assessed and shortlisted
against criteria for relevance to PGR (Table A2.3). Finally, the top five indicators shortlisted and the associated
data sources were systematically ranked against criteria for quality testing indicator options (Table A2.4).
17
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Table A2.1. Indicators considered for UK Plant Genetic Resources
Indicator
Number of crops for which complementary in situ and ex situ conservation programmes exist
Number of collections AQUAS-certified
Number of European Accessions registered as AEGIS (A European Genebank Integrated System)
accessions
Number of accessions included in breeding programmes/new varieties
Number of contributing partners
Number of national and subregional programmes
Number of SMTAs (Standard Material Transfer Agreements) signed
Number of accessions included in SMTAs
Distribution of forested land in the UK
Extent of ancient and semi-natural woordland in the UK
Species richness of vegetation plots in Great Britain
Changes in wetland plant species
Numbers of crop plant species, and their constituent landraces and varieties, for which in situ and ex
situ conservation programmes exist and are being implemented
Number of PGR surveyed/identified
Number of accessions conserved in genebanks and national plant collections®
Number of accessions registered in EURISCO
UK holdings of the Millennium Seed Bank and other UK PG Institutions eg John Innes, Warwick and
national plant collections®
Proportion of ex situ accessions in need of regeneration
Number of farmers’ varieties/landraces/species delivered from gene banks to farmers
Extent of specific in situ PGR conservation options uptake in agri-environment scheme agreements
Number of crop wild relatives effectively conserved in situ (with government support)
Extent (including geographical distribution and locational densities) of recorded crop wild relative
(CWR) species
Number of in situ surveys of PGR carried out
Number of threatened PGR identified during surveys
Proportion of cultivated lands under farmer’s varieties/landraces
Growers and seed producers of landraces.
Number of farming communities involved in on farm management and improvement activities with
government support
Number of maintainers of heritage varieties and number of national collection holders
Maintainers of conservation varieties (agricultural / horticultural)
Maintainers of heritage potato varieties
Maintainers of open pollinated varieties
Number of registered varieties
Extent (including geographical distribution and locational densities) of ancient and semi-natural
woodland
Change in plant species richness (separately for different habitat types)
Molecular marker data (for barley, pea, potato, and grasses)
UK natives held in UK Botanic Gardens according to the BGCI Plant List
Number of accessions/collections with phenotypic characterization or evaluation information
Number of crops for which genetic diversity has been measured
Proportion of total registered cultivars currently threatened in cultivation
Trend in wild foods
Trends in crop wild relatives conserved in situ with government support
Number of farming communities involved in on farm management and improvement activities without
government support
Trends in crop wild relative distribution in the UK.
Level of genetic diversity of cultivated plants and wild relatives, including other socio-economically and
culturally valuable species
Effectiveness and implementation of conservation strategies for cultivated plants and wild relatives,
including other socio-economically and culturally valuable species.
Genetic diversity of selected crops.
Diversity of horticultural plants available in commerce
18
Source
ECPGR
ECPGR
ECPGR
ECPGR
ECPGR
ECPGR
ECPGR
ECPGR
NEA
NEA
NEA
NEA
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Table A2.2. Key policy questions that a UK plant genetic resources indicator could be used to address.
Key Questions
What is the current level of UK genetic diversity for target plants?
Is the level of genetic diversity being maintained?
What strategies have been developed and implemented to minimise genetic erosion?
Do we know what is key info which makes something definable as a valuable genetic
resource? e.g. Passport accession info, morphology, genotype
Are we conserving expertise?
Should diet play a role in what crop/species are conserved? Do we focus on
traditional UK diet as well as culturally diverse diets?
What diversity of crop species exist, is actively conserved and is used?
What diversity of crop wild relatives exist, is actively conserved and is used?
What diversity of non-cultivated socio economic species is actively conserved and is
used?
Criterion
Table A2.3. Criteria for relevance to plant genetic resources.
Level
Species covered
Type of conservation
Utilisation
1. Limited to a single species or crop type
2. Multiple species or crop types
3. Comprehensive coverage of all plant genetic resources valuable to the UK
1. No direct relationship to populations
2. Ex situ only
3. In situ only
4. Covers in situ and ex situ populations
1. Only one of commercial, traditional and wild relatives
2. Any two of commercial, traditional and wild relatives
3. All three of commercial, traditional and wild relatives
19
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Table A2.4. Evaluation scores for indicator options. The criteria build upon that provided in the Defra
specification for WC1301 (Developing UK indicators for the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020) with
reference to CBD5, Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI) 6, and Biodiversity Indicators
Partnership (BIP)7 criteria.
Criteria
1. Transparency and
auditability
Data issues
2. Verification
1. Data unavailable to public
2. Limited summary data available
3. Full raw/primary data set and metadata available
3. Frequency of updates
4. Security
3. Annual or biennial
1. Future data collection discontinued
2. Future data collection uncertain
5. Spatial coverage
7. Capacity for
disaggregation
8. Transparency and
soundness
9. Precision
A
Options
B
C
D
x
x
x
x
x
x
E
x
x
1. Unverified data
2. Limited verification checks in place
3. Detailed verification in place and documented
1. Sporadic
2. Every 3-5 years
6. Temporal coverage
Methodology
Levels
x
x
3. Future data collection secure
1. Partial UK coverage
x
x
2. UK coverage, some bias
3. Full UK coverage, including adjacent marine areas, if and where
appropriate
x
x
1. Insufficient data for assessment (<5 years)
2. Sufficient data to assess progress (5-10 years)
x
x
2. Can be disaggregated but data quality and assessment issues arise
3. Can be disaggregated to Country level and assessed
1. Methodology not available
x
x
5
20
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/10 (2003). Monitoring and indicators: designing national-level monitoring programmes and indicators. UN Environment
Programme. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-09/official/sbstta-09-10-en.pdf
EEA (2007). Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. EEA Technical report No
11/2007. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2007_11
7
2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010) Guidance for national biodiversity indicator development and use. UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre. http://www.bipnational.net/
6
x
?
?
3. Long (10+ years) and short-term trends can be assessed
1. Cannot be disaggregated
2. Methodology available but not peer reviewed
3. Methodology published and peer reviewed
1. Unknown precision or precision quantifiable but unable to statistically
assess trends
2. Uncertainty quantifiable and signal-to-noise ratio allows for statistical
assessment of trends
3. Uncertainty quantifiable and signal-to-noise ratio allows for year-on-year
statistical assessments
x
x
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Table A2.4. Continued.
Criteria
Options
A
B
x
x
10. Policy relevance:
progress towards
Biodiversity 2020 targets
(CBD, EU, UK, country)
1. No clear relationship with 2020 targets
2. Relates indirectly to progress towards 2020 targets
11. Biodiversity relevant
1. Indicator is a proxy for biodiversity change
2. Indicator directly addresses biodiversity and relates indirectly to state,
pressures, benefits and/or responses
3. Indicator directly addresses biodiversity and relates directly to state,
pressures, benefits and/or responses
x
1. Unknown relationship between indicator and issue of concern
x
12. Cause-effect
relationship
Indicator characteristics
Levels
13. Sensitive to change
14. Human-induced vs
natural changes
15. Communication
D
E
x
3. Relates directly to progress towards 2020 targets
x
2. Accepted theory of relationship between indicator and issue of concern
3. Quantifiable relationship between indicator and issue of concern
1. Indicator does not detect changes in systems within timeframes and
spatial scales that are relevant to decision-making
2. Indicator detects changes in systems only within timeframes or only on
spatial scales that are relevant to decision-making
3. Indicator detects changes in systems within timeframes and spatial scales
that are relevant to decision-making
1. Indicator cannot discriminate between human-induced and natural
changes
2. Indicator potentially discriminates between human-induced and natural
changes
3. Indicator clearly discriminates between human-induced and natural
changes
1. Indicator is complex, difficult to communicate and not accepted by all
major stakeholders
2. Indicator is complex and difficult to communicate but accepted by all
major stakeholders
3. Indicator is simple, easy to communicate and accepted by all major
stakeholders
21
C
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
n/a
x
n/a
x
x
x
x
n/a
x
x
x
x
Sub-score: Data issues
17
19
13
18
20
Sub-score: Methodology
5
6
5
5
5
Sub-score: Indicator characteristics
10
12
16
12
12
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Annex 3. Potential data sources considered but not included in indicators








Crop Wild Relatives: It was suggested that a database of CWR should be created. Base data could be
sourced from Braithwaite et al. (2006), Preston et al. (2002) and Preston et al. (2003).
BAP priority habitats in England: Extent and condition of traditional orchards. A new scheme, 25% of
orchards have been surveyed so far. Will continue to be monitored and provide the best measure of
the extent of heritage orchard fruits.
The Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette: Provides information on the availability of some crops.
National Plant Collections® catalogues: The accession catalogue contains 100,000 accessions.
o Data considerations: the catalogue is currently incomplete and contains duplicates, although
this is expected to rectified by 2015. Also, the catalogue is not currently publicly available.
Crop wild relative portal
Defra statistics of seed production: Includes cereals and oil seed rape. Previously EuroSemStats.
UK National Lists: UK National Lists are lists of varieties of the main agricultural and vegetable species
that are eligible for certification and marketing in the UK; entries must meet various criteria. Those
criteria which are relevant to the development of a PGR indicator include that they are distinct, stable
and uniform and have a maintainer (Fera, 2010).
Biological Records Centre: Detailed species occurrence information available via the National
Biodiversity Network.
22
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Annex 4. Seed and tuber collections at SASA
Table A4.1. Seed and Tuber Collections at SASA.
Crop Type
Number of Accessions as at
28.08.2012
Seed Marketing Legislation
Vegetable
Cereals
Fodder
Potato
Oil & Fibre
TOTAL
9223
6,022
1,161
1,029
122
17,557
TOTAL
2,646
2,670
1,029
952
706
209
122
8,334
TOTAL
1,969
1,400
883
686
755
471
438
414
327
298
242
198
168
172
158
119
105
65
60
45
49
39
35
68
26
19
9
3
2
9,223
Seed and Tuber Collections Agricultural Crops
Wheat
Barley
Potato
Field Pea
Oat/Small Oat
Swede
Turnip Rape
Seed and Tuber Collections: Vegetable Crops
Pea
Cabbage
Carrot
Lettuce
Onion and Shallot
Radish
French Bean
Cauliflower
Brussels Sprout
Leek
Turnip
Beetroot
Celery/Celeriac
Calabrese/Broccoli
Marrow
Tomato
Curly Kale/Vegetable Napus Kale
Parsnip
Runner Bean
Chinese Cabbage
Watercress
Parsley
Leaf Beet
Broad Bean
Melon
Cucumber/Gherkin
Spinach
Endive
Kohlrabi
23
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Crop Type
Number of Accessions as at
28.08.2012
Cereal Seed Collections
Winter Wheat M
Spring Wheat M
Wheat T&L
Winter Barley M
Spring Barley M
Spring Barley T&L
Winter Oat M
Winter Oat T&L
Spring Oat M
Spring Oat T&L
Small Oat L
Vegetable Crop types
Legumes
Leafy Brassicas
Root crops
Alliums
Salad crops
Cucurbits
Vegetable Fruits
2151
491
4
904
1696
70
99
4
550
20
33
TOTAL
24
2,535
2,463
1861
1053
989
177
145
9,223
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Annex 5. Priority English crop wild relatives
An inventory of 143 priority English CWR was developed by Field and Maxted (unpublished data), based on a
list of English CWR taxa selected using the following criteria: use of the related crop, native status, economic
value of the related crop, degree of relatedness to the crop and change in population range (Table A5.1).
Similar tables have also been produced for Scottish and Welsh CWRs.
Table A5.1. Priority English Crop Wild Relatives (Fielder & Maxted, unpub.).
No.
1
Agrostis canina
Common
Name
Velvet bent
2
3
Agrostis capillaris
Agrostis curtisii
Common bent
Bristle bent
4
5
6
7
Agrostis gigantea
Allium ampeloprasum
Allium oleraceum
Allium schoenoprasum
subsp. schoenoprasum
Allium scorodoprasum
Black bent
Wild leek
Field garlic
Chives
Allium
sphaerocephalon
Allium ursinum
Round-headed
leek
Ramsons
Allium vineale
Alopecurus
geniculatus
Alopecurus pratensis
Wild onion
Marsh foxtail
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Taxon
15
Anthoxanthum
odoratum
Apium graveolens
16
Apium inundatum
17
18
19
Armoracia rusticana
Arrhenatherum elatius
Asparagus officinalis
subsp. officinalis
Asparagus officinalis
subsp. prostratus
Atriplex laciniata
Atriplex portulacoides
Avena fatua
Beta vulgaris subsp.
maritima
Brassica nigra
20
21
22
23
24
25
Most closely related crop/s
Common name/s
Agrostis capillaris; Agrostis
gigantea
Agrostis capillaris
Agrostis capillaris; Agrostis
gigantea
Agrostis gigantea
Allium ampeloprasum
A.ampeloprasum; A.sativum
Allium schoenoprasum
subsp. schoenoprasum
Allium ampeloprasum;
Allium sativum
Allium ampeloprasum;
Allium sativum
A.cepa; A.chinense;
A.fistulosum;
A.ampeloprasum;
A.sativum;
A.schoenoprasum;
A.tuberosum
A.ampeloprasum; A.sativum
Alopecurus pratensis
Common bent; Black
bent
Common bent
Common bent; Black
bent
Black bent
Leek
Leek; Garlic
Chives
Alopecurus pratensis
Meadow foxtail
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Sweet vernal grass
Apium graveolens var. dulce;
A. graveolens var. rapaceum
Apium graveolens var. dulce;
A. graveolens var. rapaceum
Armoracia rusticana
Arrhenatherum elatius
Asparagus officinalis
Celery; Celeriac
Asparagus officinalis
Asparagus
Frosted orache
Sea-purslane
Wild oat
Sea beet
Atriplex nummularia
Atriplex nummularia
Avena sativa
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Old man saltbush
Old man saltbush
Oat
Root beet
Black mustard
Brassica nigra
Black mustard
Sand leek
Meadow
foxtail
Sweet vernal
grass
Wild celery
Lesser
marshwort
Horse-radish
False oat grass
Garden
asparagus
Wild asparagus
25
Leek; Garlic
Leek; Garlic
Onion; Chinese scallion;
Welsh onion; Leek;
Garlic; Chives; Chinese
chives
Leek; Garlic
Meadow foxtail
Celery; Celeriac
Horse-radish
False oat grass
Asparagus
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
No.
Taxon
26
27
Brassica oleracea
Brassica rapa subsp.
campestris
Calamagrostis
epigejos
Capsella bursapastoris
Chenopodium album
Chenopodium bonushenricus
Chenopodium
ficifolium
Chenopodium murale
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Chenopodium
polyspermum
Chenopodium urbicum
36
Chenopodium vulvaria
37
38
39
Cichorium intybus
Corylus avellana
Cynosurus cristatus
40
41
43
Dactylis glomerata
Daucus carota subsp.
carota
Daucus carota subsp.
gummifer
Diplotaxis tenuifolia
44
Erodium cicutarium
45
46
Festuca arundinacea
Festuca gigantea
47
50
Festuca ovina subsp.
hirtula
Festuca ovina subsp.
ophioliticola
Festuca ovina subsp.
ovina
Festuca pratensis
51
Fragaria vesca
52
53
54
Holcus lanatus
Hordeum marinum
Hordeum murinum
subsp. murinum
Hordeum secalinum
42
48
49
55
Common
Name
Cabbage
Wild turnip
Wood small
reed
Shepherd'spurse
Fat-hen
Good-KingHenry
Fig-leaved
goosefoot
Nettle-leaved
goosefoot
Many-seeded
goosefoot
Upright
goosefoot
Stinking
goosefoot
Chicory
Hazel
Crested dog’s
tail
Cock’s foot
Wild carrot
Sea Carrot
Perennial wallrocket
Common
stork’s bill
Tall fescue
Giant fescue
Sheep’s fescue
Sheep’s fescue
Sheep’s fescue
Meadow
fescue
Wild
strawberry
Yorkshire fog
Sea barley
Wall barley
Meadow
barley
Most closely related crop/s
Common name/s
Brassica oleracea
Brassica rapa
Cabbage
Turnip
Calamagrostis canadensis
Bluejoint
Brassica rapa; Brassica
napus
Chenopodium quinoa
Chenopodium quinoa
Turnip; Rape
Chenopodium quinoa
Quinoa
Chenopodium quinoa
Quinoa
Chenopodium quinoa
Quinoa
Chenopodium quinoa
Quinoa
Chenopodium quinoa
Quinoa
Cichorium intybus
Corylus avellana
Cynosurus cristatus
Chicory
Hazel
Crested dog’s tail
Dactylis glomerata
Daucus carota subsp.
sativus
Daucus carota subsp.
sativus
Diplotaxis tenuifolia
Cock’s foot
Carrot
Erodium cicutarium
Common stork’s bill
Festuca arundinacea
Festuca arundinacea;
Festuca pratensis
Festuca arundinacea;
Festuca pratensis
Festuca arundinacea;
Festuca pratensis
Festuca arundinacea;
Festuca pratensis
Festuca pratensis
Tall fescue
Tall fescue; Meadow
fescue
Tall fescue; Meadow
fescue
Tall fescue; Meadow
fescue
Tall fescue; Meadow
fescue
Meadow fescue
Fragaria × ananassa
Garden strawberry
Holcus lanatus
Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare
Yorkshire fog
Barley
Barley
Hordeum vulgare
Barley
26
Quinoa
Quinoa
Carrot
Perennial wall-rocket
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
No.
Taxon
56
Koeleria macrantha
57
58
59
60
Lactuca saligna
Lactuca serriola
Lactuca virosa
Lathyrus linifolius
61
Lathyrus pratensis
62
Lathyrus sylvestris
63
67
Lepidium
heterophyllum
Linum bienne
Linum catharticum
Linum perenne sybsp.
anglicum
Lolium perenne
68
Lotus corniculatus
69
Lotus pedunculatus
70
71
Malus sylvestris
Medicago arabica
72
73
74
Medicago lupulina
Medicago minima
Medicago polymorpha
75
80
Medicago sativa
subsp. falcata
Medicago sativa susp.
varia
Melilotus altissimus
Ornithopus perpusillus
Pastinaca sativa var.
sativa
Phalaris arundinacea
81
82
Phleum alpinum
Phleum bertolonii
83
84
Phleum pratense
Poa annua
85
Poa nemoralis
86
Poa pratensis
87
Poa trivialis
64
65
66
76
77
78
79
Common
Name
Crested hair
grass
Least lettuce
Prickly lettuce
Great lettuce
Bitter-vetch
Most closely related crop/s
Common name/s
Koeleria macrantha
Crested hair grass
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa
Lathyrus cicera; Lathyrus
ochrus; Lathyrus sativus
Lathyrus cicera; Lathyrus
ochrus; Lathyrus sativus
Lathyrus cicera
Garden lettuce
Garden lettuce
Garden lettuce
Chickling vetch; Cyprus
vetch; Indian pea
Chickling vetch; Cyprus
vetch; Indian pea
Chickling vetch
Lepidium sativum
Garden cress
Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum
Flax
Flax
Flax
Perennial rye
grass
Common bird’s
foot trefoil
Greater bird’s
foot trefoil
Crab apple
Spotted
medick
Black medick
Bur medick
Toothed
medick
Sickle medick
Lolium perenne
Perennial rye grass
Lotus corniculatus
Malus domestica
Medicago sativa
Common bird’s foot
trefoil
Common bird’s foot
trefoil
Apple
Lucerne/Alfalfa
Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa
Lucerne/Alfalfa
Lucerne/Alfalfa
Lucerne/Alfalfa
Medicago sativa
Lucerne/Alfalfa
Sand lucerne
Medicago sativa
Lucerne/Alfalfa
Tall Melilot
Bird’s foot
Wild parsnip
Melilotus albus
Ornithopus sativus
Pastinaca sativa var.
hortensis
Phalaris arundinacea
White melilot
Common bird’s foot
Parsnip
Phleum pratense
Phleum pratense
Timothy
Timothy
Phleum pratense
Poa pratensis
Timothy
Smooth meadow-grass
Poa pratensis
Smooth meadow-grass
Poa pratensis
Smooth meadow-grass
Poa pratensis
Smooth meadow-grass
Meadow
vetchling
Narrow-leaved
Everlasting-pea
Smith’s
pepperwort
Pale flax
Fairy flax
Perennial flax
Reed canary
grass
Alpine cat’s tail
Smaller cat’s
tail
Timothy
Annual
meadow-grass
Wood
meadow-grass
Smooth
meadow-grass
Rough
meadow-grass
Lotus corniculatus
27
Reed canary grass
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
No.
Taxon
88
Potentilla palustris
89
90
Prunus avium
Prunus domestica
subsp. domestica
Prunus domestica
subsp. insititia
Prunus domestica
subsp. italica
Prunus padus
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Prunus spinosa
Pyrus communis
Pyrus cordata
Raphanus
raphanistrum subsp.
maritimus
Raphanus
raphanistrum subsp.
raphanistrum
Ribes rubrum
Ribes spicatum
Rorippa amphibia
Common
Name
Marsh
cinquefoil
Wild cherry
Plum
Garden strawberry
Prunus avium
Prunus domestica
Cherry
Plum
Damson
Prunus domestica
Plum
Greengage
Prunus domestica
Plum
Bird cherry
Apricot; Cherry; Cherry
plum; Dwarf cherry;
Plum; Almond; Peach
Blackthorn
Pear
Plymouth pear
Sea radish
P.armeniaca; P.avium;
P.cerasifera; P.cerasus;
P.domestica; P.dulcis;
P.persica
Prunus domestica
Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis
Raphanus sativus
Wild radish
Raphanus sativus
Radish
Red currant
Downy currant
Great yellow
cress
Water-cress
Ribes rubrum
Ribes rubrum
Rorippa indica; Rorippa
nasturtium-aquaticum
Rorippa nasturtiumaquaticum
Rorippa indica; Rorippa
nasturtium-aquaticum
Rubus fruticosus; Rubus
idaeus
Rubus fruticosus; Rubus
idaeus
Rubus idaeus
Rubus fruticosus; Rubus
idaeus
Sinapis alba
Red currant
Red currant
Variableleaf yellowcress;
Water-cress
Water-cress
Brassica rapa; B.napus;
B.nigra; B.juncea;
B.carinata; Raphanus
sativus
Trifolium incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum
Trifolium pratense
Trifolium repens
Trifolium subterraneum
Turnip; Rape; Black
mustard; Mustard;
Ethiopian cabbage;
Radish
Crimson clover
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum
Red clover; Crimson
clover
103
104
Rubus caesius
Creeping
yellow cress
Dewberry
105
Rubus chamaemorus
Cloudberry
106
107
Rubus idaeus
Rubus saxatilis
Raspberry
Stone bramble
108
Sinapis alba subsp.
alba
Sinapis arvensis
White mustard
Trifolium incarnatum
subsp. molinerii
Trifolium pratense
Trifolium repens
Trifolium
subterraneum
Trifolium arvense
Long-headed
clover
Red clover
White clover
Subterraneum
clover
Hare’s foot
clover
110
111
112
113
114
Common name/s
Fragaria × ananassa
Rorippa nasturtiumaquaticum
Rorippa sylvestris
109
Most closely related crop/s
Charlock
28
Plum
Pear
Pear
Radish
Variableleaf yellowcress;
Water-cress
Bramble; Raspberry
Bramble; Raspberry
Raspberry
Bramble; Raspberry
White mustard
Red clover
White clover
Subterranean clover
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
No.
Taxon
Common
Name
Twin-headed
clover
115
Trifolium bocconei
116
Trifolium glomeratum
117
Trifolium medium
Clustered
clover
Zigzag clover
118
119
Trifolium occidentale
Trifolium ochroleucon
Western clover
Sulphur clover
120
Trifolium scabrum
Rough clover
121
Trifolium squamosum
Sea clover
122
Trifolium striatum
Knotted clover
123
Trifolium suffocatum
124
Trifolium fragiferum
Suffocated
clover
Strawberry
clover
125
Trifolium
ornithopodioides
Bird's-foot
Clover
126
Trifolium strictum
Upright clover
127
Trifolium campestre
Hop trefoil
128
131
132
Trisetum flavescens
subsp. flavescens
Vaccinium oxycoccos
Vaccinium
microcarpum
Vaccinium myrtillus
Vicia bithynica
133
Vicia cracca
Yellow oat
grass
Cranberry
Small
cranberry
Billberry
Bithynian
vetch
Tufted vetch
129
130
Most closely related crop/s
Common name/s
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum
Trifolium repens
Red clover; Crimson
clover
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum
Trifolium repens
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum
Trifolium repens
Red clover; Crimson
clover
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
repens; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum; Trifolium
subterraneum
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
repens; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum; Trifolium
subterraneum
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
repens; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum; Trifolium
subterraneum
Trifolium pratense; Trifolium
repens; Trifolium
incarnatum subsp.
incarnatum; Trifolium
subterraneum
Trisetum flavescens
Red clover; White clover;
Crimson clover;
Subterranean clover
Vaccinium oxycoccos
Vaccinium oxycoccos
Cranberry
Cranberry
Vaccinium oxycoccos
V.narbonensis; V.pannonica;
V.sativa
V.articulata; V.ervilia
Cranberry
Narbon vetch; Hungarian
vetch; Common vetch
One flower vetch; Bitter
vetch
29
White clover
White clover
Red clover; Crimson
clover
Red clover; Crimson
clover
Red clover; Crimson
clover
Red clover; Crimson
clover
White clover
Red clover; White clover;
Crimson clover;
Subterranean clover
Red clover; White clover;
Crimson clover;
Subterranean clover
Red clover; White clover;
Crimson clover;
Subterranean clover
Yellow oat grass
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
No.
134
Vicia hirsuta
Common
Name
Hairy tare
135
Vicia lathyroides
Spring vetch
V.faba; V.narbonensis;
V.pannonica; V.sativa
136
137
Vicia lutea
Vicia orobus
Vicia pannonica
V.articulata; V.ervilia
138
Vicia parviflora
Yellow-vetch
Wood bitter
vetch
Slender tare
139
Common vetch
Vicia sativa
Common vetch
Vicia sativa
Common vetch
141
Vicia sativa subsp.
nigra
Vicia sativa subsp.
segetalis
Vicia sepium
One flower vetch; Bitter
vetch
Faba bean; Narbon
vetch; Hungarian vetch;
Common vetch
Hungarian vetch
One flower vetch; Bitter
vetch
One flower vetch; Bitter
vetch
Common vetch
Bush vetch
V.faba; V.narbonensis;
V.pannonica; V.sativa
142
Vicia sylvatica
Wood vetch
V.articulata; V.ervilia
143
Vicia tetrasperma
Smooth tare
V.articulata; V.ervilia
Faba bean; Narbon
vetch; Hungarian vetch;
Common vetch
One flower vetch; Bitter
vetch
One flower vetch; Bitter
vetch
140
Taxon
Most closely related crop/s
V.articulata; V.ervilia
V.articulata; V.ervilia
30
Common name/s
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Annex 6. Relevance to Aichi Targets, EU Strategies and other CBD indicators in
development
Aichi Targets for which this is a primary indicator
 Strategic Goal C. To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and
genetic diversity
 Target 13. By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals
and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is
maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and
safeguarding their genetic diversity.
Aichi Targets for which this is a relevant indicator
Option A. Crop wild relative distribution in the UK
 Aichi Target 5. By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and
where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.
 Aichi Target 12. By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their
conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.
Option B. Level of ex situ conservation of target plants in the UK
Aichi Target 12. By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their
conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.
Option C. Genetic diversity of selected plants
 No other relevant Aichi Targets identified.
Option D. The implementation of conservation strategies affecting target species
 Aichi Target 5. By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and
where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.
 Aichi Target 7. By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably,
ensuring conservation of biodiversity
 Aichi Target 8. By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are
not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.
 Aichi Target 11. By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of
coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem
services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and
well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures,
and integrated into the wider landscape and seascapes.
 Aichi Target 14. By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to
water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into
account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.
 Aichi Target 15. By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks
has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per
cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and
to combating desertification.
Option E. Diversity of horticultural plants
 Aichi Target 12. By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their
conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.
EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 targets for which this is a relevant indicator
31
Paper 03 for the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.

Target 3. Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing
biodiversity.
o Action 9b. The Commission and Member States will establish mechanisms to facilitate
collaboration among farmers and foresters to achieve continuity of landscape features,
protection of genetic resources and other cooperation mechanisms to protect biodiversity.”
(European Commission, 2011).
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation targets for which this is a primary indicator

Objective II. Plant diversity is urgently and effectively conserved.
o Target 9. 70 per cent of the genetic diversity of crops including their wild relatives and other
socio-economically valuable plant species conserved, while respecting, preserving and
maintaining associated indigenous and local knowledge.
32