1. Regional Red List Assessment of Crop Wild Relatives in Europe Marianne Mitchell

2. Meeting Targets CBD – Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: –Target 9: ‘70 per cent of the genetic diversity of crops and other major socio-economically valuable plant species conserved, and associated indigenous and local knowledge maintained’ –Target 13: ‘The decline of plant resources, and associated indigenous and local knowledge innovations and practices, that support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health care, halted.’

3. Aims Create regional red list assessments for wild crop relatives in selected European countries using available data. Highlight problems –Data –Vagrancy –Introductions

4. Background Red lists – determines relative risk of extinction Assessment – uses IUCN global and regional criteria Categories and criteria – Categories are awarded based on the fulfilment of threshold criteria using population size, reduction and location data.

5. Creating an assessment

6. Finding the data - UK New atlas of the British and Irish Flora British Red Data Books. 1. Vascular plants NBN Gateway – BSBI data Interactive flora of the British Isles UK BAP

7. Finding the data - Holland Red lists Heukels’ Interactieve Flora van Nederland Floron

8. Finding the data – On the web Portugal – SIPNAT ARKive Germany – Big Flora Poland - ATPOL

9. Finding the data - Redlists Red lists compiled using 1994 categories: –Poland (2001) –Sweden (2000) –Finland (2001) –Spain(2000) Alternative Red lists: –Belgium –Denmark –Latvia –Holland –Germany

10. Finding the data – PGR Forum Taxon Data sheets Contacting partners: –Germany –Spain –Poland Group e-mail

11. Dealing with data Databases: –Access Online –PGR Forum

12. Scale 10 - 2x 2km = 40km 2 4 - 10x 10km = 400km 2 From the British Red Data book there are only 13 1x1km = 13km 2 Koeleria vallesiana NT LC VU - D2 Differences in scale = Different assessment?

13. Assessments UK - 7 CR, 14 EN, 20 VU, 19 NT Holland – 2 CR, 13 EN, 31 NT, 8 NT Portugal – 3 VU, 1 NT Updated red lists that use outdated criteria –Sweden –Spain –Finland Using Taxon Data sheets –Spain –Belgium –Portugal –Lithuania

14. Updating old assessments

15. NA species IUCN category NA applies to species that are: –Alien or Neophyte –Vagrant But… Some of these species are threatened.

16. NA species - Example Avena strigosa a casual species decreased from 243 hectads pre 1970 to just 39 (84% decrease) Decline due to cessation of cultivation. Probably arose in cultivation so while it isn’t native it has no known natural range NA VU – A2(b)

17. Should the species be NA?

18. Confirmation Interpretation of data may differ, discussing the assessment with others can help to offer confirmation of the assessment. In the UK the JNCC are just about to bring out the Redlists for all of the UK flora: –Agreed on 25/41 – differences due to extra data and in some cases disagreement.

19. Reports Species given a threatened category need a report explaining why this category was given.

20. Summary Assessments for crop wild relatives depend on: –Data availability –Quality –Scale –Interpretation Native / Alien

21. Users IUCN PGR Forum Conservation community –NGO’s –Conservation projects –Governmental conservation programmes Public –Educational –Conservation 2010 Biodiversity Target (CBD)

22. Continuation Completing Europe –More data available or becoming available –Identification of gaps Overview of state of European CWR

23. Achieving CBD targets 2010 National Red lists form baselines for future conservation assessments

24. Acknowledgements Thanks are due to the many contributors to this work including; Nigel Maxted, Brian Ford-Lloyd, Maria Scholten, Shelagh Kell, Craig Hilton-Taylor and the partners of the PGR Forum.

25. Country Source AtlasIUCN Red ListOther Red ListFloraOther Websites Belgium http://mrw.walloni e.be/dgrne/sibw http://nl.wikipe dia.org Czech Republic www.natur.cuni.cz/ CBS/redlist.pdf Denmark www.sns.dk/pdf/r odlis.pdf http://www.bille der.dnlb.dk/ Finland Rassi et al. (2001) France http://sophy.u-3mrs.fr/ PSHTM/flsidi20.htm Olivier et al. (1995) Germany www.floraweb.de, www.big-flora.de BfN (1996) Holland www.floron.nl http://nl.wikipedia. org, Van der Meijden, R., (1996) Van der Meijden (1999) Italy Conti et al. (1992) Latvia Andrusaitis (2003) Poland www3.uj.edu.pl/IB/CH RONPOL/index.html Kazmierczakowa, R. & Zarzycki, K. (2001) Portugal http://www.icn.pt/sipn at/sipnat3.html Spain www.programanthos. org Aizpuru et al. (2000) Sweden www-umea.slu.se/ MiljoData/webrod/SO KNING.cfm http://linnaeus.n rm.se/flora/welc ome.html UK www.searchnbn.org & Preston et al. (2002) Wigginton (1999) Stace (1997)www.arkive.org Europe www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/e nglish/botany/afe UN (1991) Tutin et al. (1964)

26. Regional Red List Assessment of Crop Wild Relatives in Europe Marianne Mitchell