Establishment and implementation of in situ conservation priorities

In situ CWR conservation sites may be set up for individual or multiple CWR taxa. Sites that are established for the conservation of more than one taxon have the obvious advantage of making the best use of limited conservation resources. However, it will not always be possible to establish multiple CWR sites, because some priority taxa may only occur in sites where no other priority CWR are found. The balance between whether to establish single or multiple CWR in situ conservation sites will ultimately depend on the financial and human resources available for, and allocated to, CWR conservation.

CWR genetic reserves may be implemented within existing PAs or outside such a formal network. Firstly, it is important to note that the vast majority of PAs in any country are likely to contain CWR populations. However, these PAs have most probably been established to target specific landscapes, habitats or fauna, and not CWR diversity itself. Therefore, in most cases the conservation of CWR within existing PAs is passive (i.e. without any formal management or monitoring plan¹). Moreover, if individual CWR populations decline or disappear entirely, it might pass unnoticed by the PA manager. On the other hand, if an existing PA is designated as a ‘national CWR genetic reserve’, the management plan should be amended in order to integrate the genetic conservation of CWR populations occurring within the protected area boundaries. This should result in the implementation of positive management action before any deleterious factor can impact on the CWR populations. So why is it that implementing genetic reserves within existing PA is the most practical option in economic and political terms?

• These sites already have an associated long-term conservation ethos and are less prone to hasty management changes associated with private land or roadsides (where conservation value and sustainability is rarely a consideration).
• It is relatively easy to amend the existing site management to facilitate genetic conservation of CWR species.
• It means creating novel conservation sites can be avoided, so the likely prohibitive cost of acquiring previously non-conservation managed land is not necessary (Maxted et al. 2008a).

However, the practice of locating genetic reserves within existing PA may be questioned because:

• CWR are found both within and outside of current PA networks so if the goal is to conserve the full range of CWR genetic diversity then it is unlikely the full range of genetic diversity will be present only within existing PA.
• CWR are often found in disturbed, pre-climax plant communities and anthropogenic environments (see Jarvis et al. 2015) and these are rarely designated as PA (PA more commonly being established to conserve pristine habitats or ecosystems, or rare or threatened taxa).

• Countries vary markedly in the representative coverage of PA and, coincidentally, countries with high levels of priority CWR per unit area (e.g. Lebanon, Israel, Greece, Portugal, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Syria and Turkey) also tend to be the countries with poorer representative coverage of PA.
• Establishing CWR genetic reserves requires close collaboration between agro-biodiversity and PA conservationists, but in too many countries the two communities work independently without meaningful collaboration and so there is no administrative route for genetic reserve establishment and implementation.

In situ conservation of CWR outside of existing PA is a possible yet, until now, largely underexplored alternative to formally establishing genetic reserves. Suitable sites may include roadsides, field margins, orchards and even fields managed using traditional agro-silvicultural practices. In each of these cases the sites are not managed for biodiversity conservation and the occurrence of CWR populations is purely incidental. If these sites are to be considered suitable for sustainable conservation, the management they currently receive—that has permitted the existence of a healthy CWR population—must be consistent over an extended time frame. Examples of the additional threats faced by non-protected area sites include: widening of roads, removal of hedgerows or orchards, cutting of roadside verges at the wrong time of year, use of herbicides rather than physical weed control. To ensure the long-term survival of a CWR population it would be advisable to reach a management agreement between the CWR conservationists and the non-conventional protected area site owner and/or manager to ensure that current site management is maintained and CWR diversity is not negatively impacted. By definition, sites outside PAs are primarily managed for reasons other than conservation, so the management interventions at the site are likely to be minimal—it may simply consist of maintaining the current management and agreeing not to make significant changes to the site management without discussion with the conservation agency. However, the conservation agency will need to monitor the site routinely to ensure efficient management of the target CWR populations. Therefore, informal in situ conservation offers an opportunity to conserve populations that may otherwise not be conserved. It is a clear way of integrating agrobiodiversity conservation into normal community activities. The local community however will need to engage with the conservation at an early stage and on a continuing basis.

In conclusion, in situ conservation of CWR should be planned both within and outside of PA. There will be added conservation value to genetic reserves and informal CWR management sites if their overall management is coordinated and organized in an in situ CWR network. National networks could themselves contribute to regional and global CWR networks that together maximize global, regional and national CWR diversity conservation. In turn, the sites and networks should be linked to systematic ex situ conservation as a back-up for the in situ conservation, but also as a means of promoting greater sustainable exploitation of the conserved CWR resource.

¹Passive versus active conservation. Passive conservation means that a species and the genetic diversity within it is not being monitored and managed, while active conservation is when a species and the genetic diversity within it is efficiently conserved through long-term monitoring and management of populations. An example of passive conservation is when a particular taxon occurs within a PA but without any formal conservation or management plan.