France. 2. Stakeholder interviews. Chris Kik 1 and Emmanuel Geoffriau 2

Transcription

1 France Chris Kik 1 and Emmanuel Geoffriau 2 1 CGN, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands ( chris.kik@wur.nl) and, 2 AGROCAMPUS OUEST, Centre d'angers, Institut de Recherche en Horticulture et Semences IRHS (INRA- AGROCAMPUS OUEST-UA), rue André Le Nôtre 2, Angers Cedex 01, France ( emmanuel.geoffriau@agrocampus-ouest.fr) 1. Introduction In February 2012, E Geoffriau PhD agreed to function as a key person for France. Stakeholder lists were obtained from V Chable (INRA-Rennes; agro-ngos), MC Daunay (INRA-Avignon; genebanks and government), whereas Geoffriau and Kik prepared lists of public research organizations and breeding companies respectively. As in France crop collections are linked to research, it is not possible to separate genebanks from public research organizations. In total 31 public research organizations / genebanks were identified. Furthermore 10 agro-ngos, 43 breeding companies and 1 contact at the government were identified. On the basis of these lists the following stakeholders were selected for interviewing: as agro-ngos: Réseau semences paysannes (Aiguillon; G Kastler), as research organizations: INRA-Avignon (genetics & breeding; M Causse), INRA-Clermont (genebank; F Balfourier and A Didier), INRA-Angers (genetics & breeding; F Laurens), INRA-Rennes (participatory breeding; V Chable), Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité FRB (Paris; I Bonnin and R Goffaux), as breeding and seed companies: Limagrain (Chappes; A Murigneux and C Duchenne), HM Clause (La Bohalle; R Levieil), Gautier Semences (Eyragues; F Moquet), Germinance (Baugé, F Delmond), and as government: Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries (Paris; J Perchet), and Fédération des Conservatoires botaniques (Paris; F Hendoux). From May 28 June these organizations were interviewed by Geoffriau and Kik. 2. Stakeholder interviews 2.1 PGR collections and networks Public national collections and networks Compared to other countries, there is no centralized genebank in France. The structure of the French PGR collections is organized in crop networks, including both public and private stakeholders, and mostly coordinated by a public partner (i.e. INRA, Geves, Agrocampus Ouest). Around 66,000 accessions are held in France (Table 1). Most of the accessions are managed by the public research organizations like INRA.

2 Table 1. Overview of the number of accessions present in the French PGR networks in 2011 (with permission of E Geoffriau, ACO-IRHS, Angers). (Data not included for rose, bulb ornamentals, lavender, fig, olive, citrus, sunflower and tropical species) cultivated wild Agriculture cereals forage 1255 legume oilseed 1050 Horticulture fruit trees ornamentals vegetables Grand total The number of accessions held involving agricultural species equals more or less the number of accessions held involving horticultural species. Cereals, fruit trees and vegetables are the crop groups which have most accessions present. The locations of the ex situ PGR collections in France can be seen in Figure 1. Three types of collections are recognized, namely a. private collections (companies, or scientific material of research institutes), b. network collections managed by PGR networks (public-private collections; open to network members), and c. national collections managed by PGR networks (mainly patrimonial accessions, open to everybody). The national collections managed by INRA can be visited via Access to these three types of collections differs: a. accessions present in the national collections are freely distributed and are intended to be included in the multilateral system, b. access to accessions present in the network collections is only possible for network members (French public research organizations and private companies who are based or have an affiliate in France) and the list of the corresponding accessions is usually not available outside these partners and c. no common policy is present concerning the access to accessions present in private collections (like INRA) as its depends mostly on research unit policy regarding genebanking activities: in some collections there is easy access to the collections (cereals; INRA-Clermont Ferrand), whereas for fruit vegetables (INRA-Avignon) the access seems to be more restricted. There are no formal genebanks in France as most PGR collections are linked to research programmes. This results in differences in the management of collections and unclearity about their future. For example as a research programme is stopped the collection attached to such a programme will not be supported by the corresponding organization (such as INRA) or by the government, or at best only limited until some other organization take over the charge. The organization of PGR in networks including private and public expertise on a given crop is seen by many interviewed organizations as positive. However, the lack of coordination of the French PGR networks since the end of BRG is seen as a major problem and many interviewed organizations would like to see that the French Ministry of Agriculture would

3 take action to improve this situation by creating an independent body (like the former BRG) which would take responsibility for PGR in France and the management of these networks. This action should be accompanied by the assignment of a clear juridical status to the PGR collections, which would give the national authorities full ownership of these collections. The practical management of the collections differs considerably between collections depending on local resources dedicated to gene banking activities. Some collections are managed in such a way that the long term storage is guaranteed via adequate storage procedures, whereas other collections are maintained in much less favorable conditions which will inevitably result in the long run in the loss of PGR. Therefore it would be of great importance to update a common set of procedures (developed under the BRG) among the PGR network collection holders to adequately manage their collections, and have a follow-up on their implementation. Also the need to distribute PGR is an issue of discussion: some collection holders think this is an important activity, whereas others see it as a financial burden affecting their research activities. The unclear juridical status of collections represent also a limitation for distribution. Also in this case it would be of importance to develop a common set of rules and a national policy. Figure 1. Overview of the locations of the French collections and networks (involved institutes : Inra, Cirad, Ird, Geves, Agrocampus Ouest ).

4 However, there are many research programmes studying genetic diversity or based on the use of genetic diversity, which is encouraging for the maintenance of PGR and important for obtaining phenotypic and genotypic data Association based collections There are also numerous plant collections managed by associations or regional public bodies. At the regional level, there are several regional centers for genetic resources, targeting both animal and plant resources but of local origin. At the national level, organisations working on genetic resources for organic farming are federated through the network Réseau Semences Paysannes, whereas the Conservatoire des Collections Végétales Spécialisées (CCVS, conservatory of specialized plant collections), created in 1989, federates collections from public gardens or private stakeholders in order to maintain the botanical and horticultural patrimony Public research organizations The public research in France is organized in joint research units including research institutes (such as INRA, CIRAD), universities (Ministry of Education), and higher education institutes for agriculture (Ministry of agriculture): AgroParisTech, Montpellier SupAgro, Agrocampus Ouest ). Several joint research units deal with genetic diversity, genetics and breeding (Angers, Rennes, Clermont-Ferrand, Montpellier, Avignon, Dijon). Since about 15 years, the public research institutes, in the field of genetics and breeding like INRA, do not develop anymore cultivars, except for long-term breeding programmes (such as apple for which the cultivar development is done in close cooperation with private nurseries) or for specific cropping systems. The conducted research is mainly upstream (biological mechanisms, trait genetic control) with applied and fundamental objectives, but realized in many cases with private stakeholders through national or European collaborative projects. Research is done on PGR knowledge and management through genetic diversity and structure studies: population size effect, definition of pools, definition of core-collections, species evolution genetics, long-term conservation of seeds or plant parts. On several species, regular evaluation of PGR for disease resistance or quality traits is conducted. However, the results are not always made available on databases. There is a renewed interest in PGR due to the development of methodologies such as association mapping and because of enhanced genotyping capabilities. A group of researchers dealing with participatory research has emerged, helping farmers to develop varieties (participatory breeding), conducting genetic studies and developing methodologies, especially on forage, durum wheat, wheat and other crops, e.g. faba beans, broccoli, tomato. The research units are involved in projects at the European level, whether for genetic resources (several GenRes projects), genetic diversity and genetics (Eu-Sol, Fruit Breedomics) or participatory breeding (Solibam). Several researchers are involved in ECPGR (as WG members or chairs), and act at the national level as coordinators of crop PGR networks. The access to PGR for researchers is not a problem: own collections, research contacts, databases. Characterization and phenotyping capacities is a major limitation. Landraces and

5 wild relatives are less used than cultivars, except for participatory breeding in which the use of LR in their programmes is large as basis of their research. As genetic and breeding programs have stopped in the past on several species, the corresponding collections are at stake and orphan (no PGR network). Another concern is the reduced public funding. 2.3 Non-governmental organizations There are two important complementary agro-ngos dealing with seeds for organic farming in France, namely Réseau Semences Paysannes (RSP; and Kokopelli (www. kokopelli-semences.fr). Kokopelli is more focused on buying and selling genetic resources (=GR), whereas RSP is more focused on conservation, breeding, dynamic management and use of local GR on farms and gardens. Both agro-ngos consist of networks of individuals, local farmers, local associations. RSP is a larger network including also chain networks (from wheat to bread) and small organic breeding companies or local agro-ngos involved in organic farming and breeding. Several NGOs are involved in PGR management, and in some cases hold rich collections such as for apple or rose. As an interview took place with G Kastler (RSP), the views of RSP will be presented as being typical for the French agro-ngos. Several thousand people in France are involved in RSP and six are paid by RSP. Member persons are on a voluntary basis involved in farmers training sessions (knowhow sharing). RSP is a flat organization, so no management layers involved. The annual financial budget in 2009 was around 390,000 (foundations 32%, research projects 13%, sales/donations 12%, others (local governments, associations, etc). RSP works on many crops, wheat is most important. The material they started with are French LR. RSP does not have back-up collections of their varieties but it is addressed by the development of farmers seed houses. Currently they are thinking with INRA participatory breeding researchers how to develop community genebanks. Per year around varieties are regenerated by RSP. New varieties are developed by first letting the material evolve without selection during 4-5 years depending on the species. After this period, selection and crossing can take place to develop new material (= evolutionary plant breeding). Characterization of the material has not been systematically done. RSP tries to facilitate, amongst other actions, the development of an operating space for farmers to cultivate local varieties (= conservation varieties) which have genetically enough potential to adapt to changing environmental/management conditions. These types of varieties include often landraces but also newly bred varieties by small breeders / farmers. These varieties are cultivated in an organic context. The philosophy behind the cultivation of these varieties differs from the mainstream conventionally cultivated varieties as the latter ones are selected for DUS (distinctness, uniformity, stability) and thus often harbor less genetic variation compared to their non-conventional counterparts. The EU has issued three directives (for vegetables, agricultural crops and fodder crops) to regulate the marketing of the seed of these varieties. The regulations are from the point of view of RSP too strict and will not promote the sustainable cultivation of these resources. Kastler mentioned that only three percent of the surface of France is used for organic farming. This three percent is cultivated by ca. 22,000 organic farmers. Around 10-15% of

6 the 3% organically managed land in France is annually cultivated with farmers seed, which is different from farm-saved seed (from certified varieties). For example: wheat: 5 million ha is cultivated in France annually: ca. 50% is cultivated with certified seed, ca. 50% is cultivated with farm-saved previously certified seed and less than 1% (<50,000 ha) is cultivated by farmers varieties. corn: 1.6 million ha is cultivated in France (grain corn); only certified seed are used as the varieties are all F1 hybrids. Less than 1 % (< 16,000 ha) is cultivated with farmer varieties. The cultivation of conservation varieties in France is not really (sometimes through agroenvironmental measures) supported by the government as there are no national programmes focusing on this issue. Most of the budget goes to O-mics projects. Regional programmes have now and then budget for research on LR. If there is budget from the government it comes mostly from the Ministry of Ecology and not from Agriculture or Science. Relationships are developed with INRA researchers engaged on issues around the cultivation of conservation varieties / organic farming for a number of crops involving forage, durum wheat, wheat and others, e.g. faba beans, broccoli, tomato. 2.4 Breeding companies The French breeding companies interviewed were diverse in breeding strategy and financial means. Germinance was interviewed as this is an example of a small organic breeding company, Gautier was selected because it is a small conventional breeding company and Limagrain was selected as an example of a large multinational active in conventional breeding with large financial means allowing them to incorporate modern biotechnological insights into their breeding programmes. Small organic breeding company At Germinance five people are permanently employed and during the season also two parttime people (total 5 fte). The annual turn-over is around k 400. Germinance sells around half their vegetable seeds to hobby gardeners and the other half to professional vegetable growers. The activity is based on (negative) mass selection and the development of new varieties is done via mass selection in existing French LR and carried out under organic farming conditions. Delmond, Germinance manager, participated in the SOLIBAM and FSO EU projects (coordinated by V Chable INRA) and valued these projects for his work. Delmond holds the opinion that the EU directive on vegetable conservation varieties (2009/145/EC) is very restricted, as according to him, conservation varieties do not necessarily have to be developed in a single region. Furthermore he has problems with the costs for registration of conservation varieties as they are too high. He would be in favour of a proposal stipulating that below a certain threshold (say 500) of annual net seed sales per vegetable variety, such a variety can be freely marketed, whereas above 500 a fee would be applicable. For the sourcing of new material for his breeding programme, the access to PGR is not a limitation. The main limitation is the lack of time to explore potential sources of material. However, the French PGR databases on vegetables on internet are not available and the structure of the French PGR network on vegetables is not open for him. More than a list of accessions, trials would be needed to promote PGR in collections.

7 Small conventional breeding company Gautier is a small breeding company and has been established sixty years ago. It is a familyowned company with no affiliates in other countries. Seventy-nine people, amongst which eight breeders, are currently working at Gautier Semences. The company s seed market is France and surrounding countries. Conventional and organic breeding is taking place at the company. Tomato, lettuce and melon/squash are the most important crops in which breeding is carried out. However they also breed in cauliflower, pepper/eggplant, radish, onion/leek and carrot. Mainly F1 hybrids are being developed. Biotic stresses, yield, quality and, for the future, drought tolerance are important breeding targets. The use of LR in breeding is very low (< 1% of crosses), as LR were integrated in the breeding material previously. They use for their breeding programmes mostly cultivars which are on the market. Obtaining PGR from INRA and CGN is easy, however obtaining material from S-America and India is impossible. Receiving material from UC Davis collection is currently more difficult due to sanitary issues, however it is not blocked. Some material was obtained from VIR in the past. Gautier is member of PGR networks in France, which according to them facilitates the access to material and knowledge. Worries in this context are about the closing down of breeding programmes at INRA and the consequences for maintaining the crop collections. What further worries them is the possible impact patents can have on the accessibility of PGR and, particularly as a small company, the costs of high tech research on their breeding operation. Multinational breeding company Limagrain is an agricultural cooperative company with international activities, which has its headquarters in France. Worldwide, around 7200 people (ca researchers, most of them in the breeding/genetics programs) are employed amongst which 72% in Europe (ca researchers). The annual turn-over worldwide is around 1,555 M and seventy percent of the annual turn-over is realized in foreign countries. The research budget is around 157 M per year (14% turn over). Limagrain is active in four areas namely agro-productions, field seeds, vegetable seed & garden products and cereal products. The big Limagrain crops are corn, wheat and rape. Next to that breeding takes place in vegetable crops in Limagrain by Vilmorin, HM Clause, Hazera Nickerson Zwaan and Mikado Kyowa. Two interviews were carried out: one with the research management for field crops and one with a vegetable breeder. Important breeding goals are stability of yield, drought tolerance and nitrogen use efficiency, next to selection for disease and pest resistance. As a breeding strategy they choose for a combined approach, so breed in general for broad adaptation, but also take care of specific adaptation for pedoclimatic or market reasons. It is already some sixty years ago that Limagrain held its last collecting mission. However individual breeders at the company, who saw the threat of genetic erosion, did collect seeds before the nineties of the previous century. Generally it is felt that within the company enough PGR is present for the development of new cultivars in many crops. Nevertheless Limagrain encourages genebanks to collect PGR as the quest for PGR shall always remain. The current use of LR in breeding programmes is limited, however in the past more use of this material has been made to develop new varieties. The use of CWR has always been limited as many generations are needed to introgress the genes of interest into elite lines and one is mostly confronted with linkage drag. Public support in these upstream programs is

8 important for the use of LR and CWR. Also an important drawback of using LR and CWR is the paucity of information on the material. A major challenge for the use of PGR is the screening and phenotyping capabilities. The Nagoya protocol helps a bit to get access to PGR, but it is only a little step on a long road, and various limitations can exist at the national level. Concerning the smta of IT- PGRFA it was mentioned that on the positive side one could say that there is a text which you cannot change, it facilitates exchange of PGR and recognizes the breeder s exemption, but on the negative side that the text is rather vague and therefore multi-interpretable (for example application depending on the breeding generation). Private companies such as Limagrain participate in providing PGR to the multilateral system via national crop networks. Access to PGR in certain countries is a problem for example PR China and India. Concerning the national French collections and also the French network collections it was mentioned that these collections are accessible and contain valuable information. However it was also said that it is of crucial importance that public collection holders remain to pay significant attention to enrich their accessions with characterization & evaluation (C&E) data, next to passport data in order to provide the users efficient selection possibilities. Also it was said there are well-structured networks for managing PGR on the national level, however there is no (effective) coordination concerning these networks. Therefore there is a need for a national policy on this issue. No big money is necessary, but more stable money than one shot projects. Until six years ago, the BRG was acting as a coordinating body for French ex situ held PGR, and this functioned very well. Since then not much has happened and that s a pity. Working together with others is seen as an important issue. Especially EU programmes are important to build up and maintain networks. Cooperating with agro-ngos was not really taking place due to the differences of insight concerning developments in the seed market. As major constraints in their breeding activities a. paucity of C&E data and information on genebank accessions, b. access to PGR, c. clarity of what has been signed (MTA issues), d. agronomic value and phenotyping capacities, and e. intellectual property protection and patenting were mentioned. 2.5 Government Before 2007 there were two organizations in France involved in the sustainable management of biodiversity in France, namely the Bureau des Ressources Genetiques (BRG) and the Institut Français de la Biodiversité (IFB). The BRG focused on developing and conducting national policies and research on genetic resources of plant, animal and microbial species of agronomic interest, and to function as a platform for expertise exchange between the various stakeholders. The IFB consisted of a number of organizations involved in research on natural biodiversity. In 2007 the Sarkozy administration initiated a so-called Grenelle de l environnement to bring together all the stakeholders in France in the area of biodiversity with the aim to set up a new policy and structure in France for the knowledge, use and protection of biodiversity. Among other measures, this resulted in the establishment of the Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité (FRB) in 2008, which was meant as the successor of the BRG and the IFB. From the interviews held, even if FRB presents other advantages, the general opinion expressed is that the FRB did not really facilitate the PGR community organization compared to the BRG. Especially the lack of coordination of the French PGR networks and collections by the FRB was felt as a serious shortcoming. FRB s

9 actions are at another level: FRB supports research on biodiversity, has developed links between research, society and various stakeholders about biodiversity, and is helping to consider PGR in biodiversity thinking (also cultivated biodiversity and not only the natural biodiversity). The non-functioning of the NFP (national focal point) and the CNA (competent national authority) was also a major concern which was expressed by the French PGR community as this non-functioning affects the international PGR activities of France, like the delayed payments to the ECPGR and the non-uploading of French accessions into the EURISCO database. Recognizing the importance of PGR for the future of French agriculture, the Ministry of Agriculture has recently taken a few actions. An important action was the adoption by the French parliament of article 660 of Code Rural which specifically addresses PGR issues and recognizes the conservation of PGR in France with the definition of PGR, patrimonial PGR and the national collection. Other positive developments were observed concerning the knowledge and protection of wild flora and habitats by the eleven Conservatoires botaniques via in situ management or ex situ collections of endangered flora species. 3. SWOT analysis and recommended actions 3.1 SWOT analysis Strengths France is an important agricultural country and manages unique PGR A PGR network structure is in place which spreads the management of crop specific PGR over institutes PGR are managed in public-private networks with crop expertise Some collections are linked to strong research programmes A good functioning agro-research system is present Active agro-ngos are present, at the local and national level A high interest in PGR by a large number of stakeholders is present Active participation of French experts to ECPGR working groups Weaknesses NFP and CNA are not adequately functioning No laws adequately protecting French ex situ PGR No specific policy and adequate regulation on on-farm management of PGR No adequate coordination of the French PGR network Loss of visibility and support of cultivated PGR compared to ecological biodiversity Insufficient utilization of PGR by users due to relatively invisible collections and often inadequate service levels Insufficient means for characterization and evaluation of PGR Documentation of characterization and evaluation data of French ex situ PGR is poor making selection by users difficult, Opportunities Assign a clear juridical status to the collections Threats Absence of policy or management for several crop collections

10 Establishment of a central ex situ PGR coordination Establishment of clear ex situ genebank procedures adopted by all French institutes involved in the management of PGR Development of on farm regulations on the governmental level leading to a better operating space for conservation varieties Cooperation of research organizations, small breeding companies to develop locally adapted cultivars (in an organic farming context) No clear public funding dedicated to PGR management Ongoing trend toward a government spending less budget to the public cause and focusing on omics research leading to inadequate funding of ex situ PGR collections Adverse effects of patents on the development of cultivars Ongoing concentration of breeding companies, leading to a few companies active in France, which may lead to the cultivation of less adapted varieties Increasing constraints related to pests risks on material exchange Uncertainty of future EU regulation 3.2 Recommended actions Although there is a well-designed structure in France to manage ex situ PGR, it is urgently needed to establish an independent coordinating body to manage this network of ex situ PGR collections adequately. Furthermore a clear juridical status needs to be assigned to these collections to better protect these unique resources. A clear policy needs to be implemented for orphan collections. It is urgently needed that the government establishes an adequately functioning NFP and CNA for PGR issues as at the moment these institutions are not functioning properly. There is a clear need to harmonize the genebanking procedures among the various ex situ collections held in France as currently every collection holder has its own procedures leading in a number of cases to inadequate management threatening the future of these collections. The visibility of the French ex situ PGR should be improved as currently only a fraction of the 66,000 ex situ held accessions can be approached via internet. The documentation of the characterization and evaluation data in databases should be improved leading to a better use of ex situ PGR. It is urgently needed on the governmental level that an on-farm management policy is developed, adopted and implemented, in order to facilitate and promote the use of conservation varieties by farmers and organize the funding of participatory plant breeding.