Seed Hunter Blog

So What About Pastures

Picture of Clover stand“So what about pastures”.  I guess the ambiguity is obvious here.  For many folk living busy city lives this could be a statement that means “who gives a toss about pastures – a field of clover is no big deal to me – and besides, aren’t they the ones that produce that nasty little burr that sticks to my picnic blanket?”   Well here’s the thing, if you enjoy milk on your corn flakes a cappuccino at lunch time and a big hairy steak for dinner; if you look for that 100% wool label when you are buying clothes then I guess “so what about pastures” should have a big fat question mark at the end.  With this Blog article I want to inform you of why pasture genetic resources are so important and let you know about a national scandal that is occurring in Australia.

 

In the film you see us hunting wild chickpea and me enthusing about wheat, but we are equally concerned about those plant species that are used for pastures.  We just as enthusiastically seek out, collect and conserve pasture plants.  Let me be real clear here, pastures underpin our agricultural industry and thus are of fundamental importance.  In particular, the meat, dairy and wool industries would virtually cease to exist if it wasn’t for well adapted pastures.  So you can thank pastures for being able to throw a juicy steak on the BBQ, for being able to enjoy your favorite ice cream and for your Dairy productswoolen sox.  Not only this, legume pastures pump millions of tons of nitrogen (plant food) into our agro-ecosystem each year and thus contribute to a more sustainable cropping system – so you can thank them for your daily bread too.

 

Phil cocksI guess I am kind of have a soft spot for pastures and in particular pasture genetic resources.  As it happens my career in science got started when a wonderful man and a fantastic scientist, Professor Phil Cocks, offered me a PhD scholarship in which I studied the genetic variation of a novel pasture species.  Phil and many other very bright Australian scientists spent large parts of their career’s dedicated to researching pasture ecosystems and what make them durable. This work allowed pasture breeders to develop well adapted and productive varieties based on an understanding of what makes pastures tick.   In fact Australian pasture scientists and breeders were once global leaders in the field (the corny pun was not intended by the way).

 

Not only were Australian scientists world leaders in understanding the dynamics of pasture systems they were also busy scouring the planet, collecting and conserving pasture bio-diversity. This work was very important in the sense that genetic erosion was well advanced in many of the areas they collected in and thus the material that they collected probably does not exist in the field any more.  In this context their work was a significant contribution to the global effort to conserve agro-biodiversity and thus our food security.   And here I would like to acknowledge another dedicated Seed Hunter, Prof Clive Frances, who was out collecting clovers and Medics all over the Mediterranean basin when I was still struggling with high school chemistry classes.  Clive’sCLive in Armenia collection missions provided the raw material for many of our most important pasture varieties.  It was also Clive who got me started as a Seed Hunter when he handed me a couple of projects focused on genetic resource conservation in Central Asia and the Caucuses.  Despite the fact that Clive is now officially retired he continues to contribute to legume sciences where he donates his time and expertise to the Center for Legumes In Mediterranean Areas (CLIMA) based at the University of Western Australia.

 

Clover seedsThrough the efforts of dedicated people like Clive Frances and millions of dollars of support from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) we now have in Australia some of the most important pasture genetic resource collections in the world.  At this point let me emphasize that these collections represent a global resource that is currently made freely available to the rest of the world.  In the Australian context these collections underpinned pasture development work that, as emphasized above, underpin our agricultural system and the a supply of big hairy steaks to throw on the barbie .

 

The things is, agricultural eco-systems continue to change and we can expect some pretty dramatic challenges to agricultural production, particularly in Australia, as climate change sets in.  As emphasized in the film, one of the best ways to remain abreast of these challenges is to keep up our efforts to breed varieties that are adapted to the new sets of conditions.  This is just as true for pasture species as it is for wheat or chickpeas.  Thus, these pasture genetic resource collections held at the SARDI Genetic Resource Centre in South Australia and the Australian Trifolium GenebankGenetic Resource Centre held in Perth are of more importance now than they ever have been because they underpin our efforts to breed new more resilient pastures.  And as I have pointed out, this does eventually affect you.

 

A national scandal that you should be very concerned, if not angry, about.

 

I would like to preface the following by saying the views below are not expressed as an employee of the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas – rather they are my own views expressed as a concerned Australian/global citizen.

 

Now here is the real point of this blog article.  The pasture genetic resource collections mentioned above are in grave danger of being mothballed due to a lack of funding.  Not only that, national efforts to breed new pasture varieties have also been gutted by a lack of funding.  CAN YOU BELIVE THIS.  Right at this juncture in human history when we face one of the single most important challenges to agriculture and food security, our government and industry funding bodies can’t seem to find the money to invest in pasture genetic resources and breeding.

 

To put this in context, according to The Age newspaper (Nov 25,2006),  the Australian government, that is the Australian tax payers,  have spent over 20 billion dollars on the war on “terror” since September 2001.  Now if we really sit back and consider things we would come to the unequivocal conclusion that the threat posed by climate change to our security and way of life is orders of magnitude greater than the threat posed by an incredibly small minority of disgruntled people.  In this context it would take a miniscule faction of what we spend annually on the so called war on “terror” to secure our genetic resource collections and increase our research and breeding efforts to meet the challenges of a far greater and over-arching threat.

 

Sheep in fieldIt is estimated that the value of pastures in the production of meat, wool and dairy and other industries is $13 billion annually.  Thus, the Australian government is not the only group of people who should bare responsibility for this neglect; it is also the industry bodies that are the direct beneficiaries of pasture genetic resources and research.  That is the wool, meat and dairy industries and in particular the research and development corporations: Australian Wool Innovation, Meat and Livestock Australia, Dairy Australia.  It is these bodies who could and should take some financial responsibility for supporting our pastures work. But as it turns out, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Perhaps to them “So what about pastures” is a statement as opposed to a question of concern?

 

So my question to these organizations is – for years GRDC has supported the pasture genetic resource collections and research in Australia so don’t you think it is time you collectively stepped up to the plate and shouldered your part of the responsibility to maintain and preserve what you in the past have benefited so enormously from and will continue to do so in the future.

 

If this situation bothers you as much as it does me, why don’t you go ahead and contact your state and or federal government representatives and raise your concerns or contact the CEOs of Australian Wool Innovation, Meat and Livestock Australia, Dairy Australia and ask them for an explanation.

Leave a Comment!

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.




Showing comments 1 to 10 of 21 | Next | Last
Heather McPherson
Comment
Interested gardener
Comment #21 on : Wed October 07, 2009, 12:47:02
Wow after reading all the above comments, my mind boggles! I'm not a scientist so I don't understand a lot but it seems to me our present Government is more interested in big noting themselves like show ponies than caring for our future and our grandchildren's future - do they care. They seem happy to spend billions on 'stimulus stuff' but ignoring the plight of our forgotten farmers. Our Government should think again about where they direct our money. We need to support research into SEEDS, PASTURES & WATER - anything that will enable not just Australia but all the other countries in the owrld to survive. I congratulate people such as Dr Ken Street for giving their all for the sake of our future. Come on Aussies let you local members know you want more done to help these researchers & we don't want to sell our country out to overseas companies - WE CAN DO IT if we are wise with the distribution of our finances, let's start to rebuild Australia....Bravo Ken for all you are doing!
(Oh & hey gardeners - don't just plant anything, get hold of original seeds of plants that are local to your area to grow).
Anthony Leddin
Comment
Pasture breeder, Valley Seeds
Comment #20 on : Fri July 03, 2009, 09:45:30
Things are worse than you think with pastures in Australia. You are now charged to get accessions from seed banks, up to $150 per sample. Temperate pastures have been sent to NZ for storage as there is no funding to keep them in Australia and it is difficult to get them back in with AQIS.
Over the last 10 years 9 public breeding programs in pastures have closed down or are on the verge of closing down due to lack of funding. Pastures Australia have said that passture breeding is now the responsibility of private companies. Most of the pastures companies in Australia are foreign owned with breeding programs overseas. These countries are not experiencing the rate of climate change and the hot summers that Australia has hence variety persistency is decreasing.
To my knowledge we are the only private company in Autralia that employ a breeder to do a continuous breeding program with pastures.
Just as the breeding programs are finishing so is the interest to become a plant breeder. There were 5 students doing plant breeding when I went through Uni in 1998 and now the course doesn't exist.
It was in my 3rd year of Uni where I discovered my passion of plant breeding. Jobs were so rare in pasture breeding that it took ten years to find one in Australia, I was offered opportunities overseas but Australia is where the work really needs to be done.
I have just finished an application for a grant to do a collection for summer dormant perennial grasses in Libya. I believe that summer dormancy in temperate grasses will be the backbone of their survival here in the future. The last time there was a collection in Libya for these was back in the 50's and talking to people that have collected in Libya before this genetic resource is disappearing rapidly due to overgrazing. This would be my ultimate dream to do an overseas collection as its what drove me to become a plant breeder, that childhood obsession of being the "Indiana Jones" of the plant world.
When I saw your documentry my heart lept for joy and I hope that one day I will have the opportunity to do a collection too and save genetic resources to one day help save our planet.
john kleber
Comment
pastures for school work
Comment #19 on : Mon June 29, 2009, 11:16:10
answer the following questions
1.the impact of changes in pastures production on
-grazing
-australia's economy
-research aboriginal involvement in the industry of pasture production on northern australia
Malcolm Crout
Comment
Hobby.Beef Producer
Comment #18 on : Thu May 14, 2009, 14:19:11
Why does this not surprise me? As a former public sector employee, the political interest horizon is the next election. This is why we end up with short term fixes and rhetoric for the serious challenge of food security facing Australia which will directly impact on our grandchildren. Sadly the lack of unity in the scientific community has created confusion for the public and an impasse for the politicians. I doubt this will change until all the science and real proof is brought to the discussion so that the informed public can then put the pressure on their politicians. Only then will we make the first step on the road to resolving this issue. So all you scientists need to put away your own private agendas, look at the real scientific proof and quit bleating that the general community are apathetic and politicians are gutless - the buck is with you!
vishal kmar narnoli
Comment
i respect and salute your devotion to human civilization.
Comment #17 on : Sun April 26, 2009, 04:36:01
sir,almost three day ago i saw you show seed hunter on national geographic. i got as much inspired by your show that i decided to make a blog on savibng the earh.in that particular show sir u said about some food grains seed which can meet our food supply in future.so,sir i request you to publish a list of all such seeds in your sites that we could ge some knowledge about it.
thats all sir
and atlast thanks very much for your important help to save life on earth.
Dave Wood
Comment
former manager, CIAT genebank
Comment #16 on : Thu March 05, 2009, 22:05:00
For some years I managed the genebank storage of global tropical pastures collection at CIAT. Stephanie says that we need to check on duplication. The CIAT collection was put together often with Australian cooperation, and is duplicated in Svalbard. Stephanie rightly points to the need to recognise duplication (and not to assume any collection is unique).

I am nervous about Peter’s view of the Treaty and the Global Crop Diversity Trust. The Treaty coverage of pasture species in fragmentary, excluding important genera such as Stylosanthes and Brachiaria (and Australian wild Glycine). Even with a federal system to place Australian collections in the Treaty, may important species will not fall directly under the Treaty terms (although, under Treaty text, duplicate samples already in CIAT will).

I say directly as there are workarounds to the Treaty coverage. For example, any pasture sample sent in future unconditionally to CIAT will be included in the Treaty. Also, any sample sent for storage in Svalbard will, under the Svalbard depositor agreement, fall into the Treaty. For example, there are 57,000 samples of Mexican origin in the Treaty through Svalbard deposit although Mexico has not ratified the Treaty. The USDA is putting duplicates of all its samples in Svalbard (and therefore into the Treaty) and Australia could do likewise. There may, of course, by future diplomatic protests if Australia includes in the Treaty samples from other countries without their permission.

Stephen says the Crop Diversity Trust will back the Treaty with long-term conservation (as in Svalbard) but this is a minor funding role of the Trust. Most Trust funds will be spent on dozens of crop evaluation networks, with the danger of taking donor funding away from excellent but underfunded existing networks. All samples evaluated by the networks will become part of the Treaty, even if they are not species covered by the Treaty (example, tomato).

Australia has an excellent record in collecting, evaluating, and networking introduced crops and pastures. This depends on good science and good policy (and the policy now seems to be adrift). One startling set of figures (and I can only pray they are wrong) can be found in the CGIAR SINGER database.
http://ipgri.singer.cgiar.org/index.jsp?page=distribution

This shows the distribution of pasture germplasm from CIAT and ICARDA has collapsed from 2002. This is of extreme importance to Australia. I argue, and I could be wrong, that the Treaty and associated Material Transfer Agreement are so complex as to be unworkable. There is almost nothing going into CGIAR Centres and almost nothing coming out. There are now four systems in Rome with people sitting behind desks making things complicated for scientists and farmers: the Treaty Secretariat; the Global Crop Diversity Trust; Bioversity (former IPGRI); and the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources. These are soaking up funding – lots of it - needed for breeding and trials. If every single one of them were to be scrapped, we could go back to the system under the Convention on Biological Diversity which freely allowed the distribution of samples and trial material from crucial CGIAR collections.
Peter Lawrence
Comment
genebank curator, Australia
Comment #15 on : Tue January 20, 2009, 16:45:32
The sustainability and future development of Australia’s food, agriculture, and horticulture industries is fundamentally dependent on access to new sources of genetic diversity. Scientists need to continually breed improved crop varieties that are adapted changing climatic conditions or to meet consumer demands for healthier foods. No country is self-sufficient with respect to plant genetic resources, and Australia is almost wholly dependent on plant genetic resources originating from other countries. To facilitate global sharing of plant genetic resources, most countries, including Australia, have now ratified the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. This Treaty, which came into force in 2006, establishes a multi-lateral system for access and benefit sharing of plant genetic resources. In parallel, the Global Crop Diversity Trust was established to secure the long term conservation aims of the International Treaty through long-term funding. Australia contributed $21.5 million to these international efforts.

Whilst Australia and Australians have played a crucial role in focusing international policies, our own efforts within Australia are fragmented, superficial, and poorly funded. There have been 16 reviews since 1992 to develop a national system for the conservation of agricultural plant genetic resources. The Primary Industries Standing Committee has agreed “in principle” on at least four occasions over the past nine years to rationalise the operations and funding of the plant genetic resource centres. But to date no action has resulted. We lack national policies on genetic resources conservation. Indeed, we have difficulty in deciding if we need a national policy and who should make it. There is a stalemate between the Commonwealth, the States and Industry on who should fund the conservation of plant genetic resources.

During the past two years of bureaucratic procrastination, plant genetic resource operations in Australia have declined significantly. Funding has decreased dramatically, vital work to regenerate and conserve some globally unique plant genetic resources has stopped, skilled staff have resigned or retired, and some States have moth-balled some collections of plant genetic resources. This will place Australia in breach of its obligations under the International Treaty and jeopardise our future ability to access plant genetic resources from other countries.

Conservation of plant genetic resources is a form of public-good insurance for future generations. Our generation has an obligation to ensure these living resources are not lost to future generations. Proposals to rationalise the conservation of plant genetic resource collections in Australia are already available, no more reviews are required.


Australia has an extensive germplasm collection of tropical forages (11,600 accessions) comprising 614 species of legumes and 225 species of grasses, which were collected over the past 60 years from countries in South America, South East Asia, and Africa. Approximately half the accessions are globally unique, because they no longer exist in the wild due to the impact of excessive grazing and large-scale agricultural or urban development, and are not conserved in any other ex-situ genebank. Many of these accessions were collected from environments that are similar to semi-arid sub-tropical regions of Australia. Yet, when these accessions were originally imported into Australia they were evaluated at coastal research stations. They have not been adequately evaluated in semi-arid sub-tropical environments of Queensland.

CSIRO maintained the tropical forage germplasm collection for many years. But with zero funding from R&D Corporations, CSIRO decided not to continue maintaining the national collection. Fortunately, Queensland DPI&F came to the rescue in 2002 and amalgamated the tropical forage collection with its tropical field crops collection, with a verbal understanding that national funding would become available within 3 years. The collection, as received, was in poor shape and 67% of the accessions required regeneration to ensure their long-term conservation. Hence, DPI&F hired two staff and commenced a 10-year project to regenerate the collection, using limited funds from CSIRO and siphoning funds from grains project work. From 2002-08, despite numerous submissions for funding, no specific funding was forth-coming from either industry or government to regenerate the tropical forage collection. Hence, in December 2008 DPI&F stopped all regeneration work on tropical forages, terminated the employment of skilled staff, and moth-balled the collection.

I predict that over the next decade of global warming, broad-acre farmers in southern Australia will be seeking new pasture species adapted to droughts and warmer climates. There is a good chance that the Australian tropical forage collection probably has accessions that could meet this future requirement.

After the passport information for all the national germplasm collections was made available on the web (http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/auspgris), Argentina contacted the Australian Tropical Crops & Forages Collection at Biloela requesting a sample of all accessions originating from Argentina. Part of this request has been met, but unfortunately some accessions had very low seed quantities that required regeneration before they could be returned to their country of origin. Papua New Guinea has also requested Biloela for samples of wing-bean originating from PNG, and again the request could not be met because the accessions first require regeneration.

Australia has a many wild species that are related to major field crops, and collecting seed of these indigenous wild species is Australia’s contribution to global genetic resources. Over the past decade staff from the Biloela centre have collected Cajanus, Galactica, Glycine, Gossypium, Oryza, Rhynchosia, Sorghum, and Vigna from areas of northern Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia. Three species collected for the first time are Cajanus aromaticus, C. lanuginosus and Sorghum grande. There has been strong demand from researchers worldwide to receive seed of these indigenous wild species.

The expertise of the Genetic Resource Centre at Biloela in collecting wild relatives of crop species was recognised by Japan who financially supported a trip to collect seed of indigenous wild rice from northern Australia. Staff from the Biloela centre organised and led the trip. The main obstacle was it took two years to negotiate a Material Transfer Agreement between the Northern Territory government, the Queensland government, and Japan before seed could be dispatched to Japan. It should be noted that Oryza is included in the Multi-Lateral System of the International Treaty.

Two indigenous species, Sorghum grande, S. macrospermum have very restricted geographical distributions and possibly should be listed as endangered species. Another species, Gossypium sturtianum which incidentally is the flora emblem of the Northern Territory, has been lost in Queensland from over-grazing. Australian research suggests these three species are potentially valuable sources of genetic variation to plant breeders, and therefore it would be valuable to establish small in-situ conservation areas to ensure the survival of these species.
Magalie Delalande
Comment
curator of genebank, France
Comment #14 on : Fri January 16, 2009, 23:43:30
I feel bewildered knowing that Australia'as pasture GRC are severely affected by the current state of funding. Pasture GRC owned by Australia is the most important in the world ! It is now well known that GR is of first importance for the well being of humanity tomorrow. It is just unbelievable that Australia, that had spend to much energy to gather plants from all over the world, and more over that depends so much on overseas plants in its agriculture could stop or limit funding GR collections.
The Australian pasture collection is the richest in the world, it allows scientific research on how the climate evolution had affect the pasture, it own material that we may not be able to found anywhere because of genetic erosion, wars, beacuse it concern the native australian pasture.
I cannot believe that Autralian government be blind to all the benefits the GR can provide to scientist but also to the future generations !
I hope I will receive good news for Autralia's GR soon. (and please excuse my english).
Anonymous
Comment
parliamentary watcher
Comment #13 on : Fri January 16, 2009, 14:26:45
The following question and answer from Federal Parliament is relevant to your blog

SENATE QUESTION - Question No 778

Senator Milne: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 7 November 2008:

(1) Are the Commonwealth government, state governments and the agricultural industry cooperating to establish a national system for managing our agricultural plant genetic resources; if so, what policy mechanisms, funding arrangements and strategic goals (including time frames) are in place that binds each party to ongoing cooperation.
(2) Is there a national guideline in place in regard to protecting and utilising Australian agricultural plant genetic resources; if so, what is the content of that guideline, and how and over what period of time will it be implemented.
(3) Given that 16 reviews have been undertaken since 1992 into Australian agricultural plant genetic resources, what are the impediments to any national progress that required continuous review, and what steps is/will the Commonwealth Government take to remove all impediments to national progress.
(4) Exactly how is Australia to meet and/or in what manner is Australia actually meeting its legally binging obligations under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture to conserve globally-significant collections of plant genetic resources.
(5) What are the Commonwealth Government’s short-, medium- and long-term plans for Australia’s collection of globally-unique agricultural plant genetic resources.
(6) Which collections of plant genetic resources, including those managed by the states, have been placed under the auspices of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and which collections are therefore available to other countries to access under the treaty’s multilateral system for sharing and access.
(7) Have the Commonwealth and state governments clarified the intellectual property status of indigenous wild plant species of citrus, mung bean, rice, and sorghum that are listed in the international treaty; if so, what process was used to achieve clarification and what are the implications of such status.
(8) Which countries have approached the Australian Government over the past 16 years and/or are seeking access to Australia’s agricultural plant genetic resources.
(9) Given that many indigenous wild plant species such as citrus, mung bean, rice and sorghum possess unique attributes of drought tolerance to changing climatic conditions, disease and pest resistance to combat changes in climate, provide nutritional quality for a more healthy diet, and may contain valuable new genes, what is the optimal use and best market for such species.

Senator Sherry – The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

(1) Yes – Following consideration of approaches relating to the formation of a National Genetic Resources Centre (NGRC), the Industries Development Committee (IDC) of the Primary Industries Standing Committee (PISC), at its last meeting (December 2008), referred the issue of nationally managing our agricultural plant genetic resources to the Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC). The issue is to be considered within the context of the National Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Framework (a collaborative effort involving the agricultural industry, state and Commonwealth governments). This was further to agreement at PIMC 10 (April 2006) to recommendations in relation to strategic goals for a NGRC and endorsement at PIMC 11 (November 2006) of an NGRC Statement of Strategic Intent. A broad approach to funding was agreed to in 2007 by the PISC and specific funding arrangements and timeframes for the NGRC are matters requiring further consideration.
All Australian and state/Territory (and New Zealand) government ministers responsible for agricultures food, fibre, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture industries/production and rural adjustment policy are members of the PIMC, and its operational arrangements are consistent with the Protocols and General Principles for the Operation of Ministerial Councils agreed by the Council of Australian Goverments (COAG) in June 2001.
(2) There is no formal national guideline. A national policy on genetic resources is being progressed through PIMC and PISC.
(3) Following Australia’s signing of the international treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2002 and ratification of the treaty in 2005, in November 2005, the then Australian Government announced that a National Genetic Resources Centre (NGRC) would be set up to coordinate Australian-based collections and to improve their content and long-term efficiency. The establishment of the NGRC is being progressed by the PISC, reporting to the PIMC.
(4) The major Australian ex situ collections of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) are managed by the states. These collections are largely organised around the major crops and pastures grown in Australia. The Australian Winter Cereals Collection at Tamworth holds large numbers of accessions (an individual sample of seeds or plants entered into a collection) of winter cereals such as wheat, barley and oats. The Australian Tropical Crops and Forages Collection in Biloela, houses large numbers of tropical crops and forages including sorghum, rice, and mungbean. The other major seed banks are: the Australian Trifolium Genetic Resource Centre in Perth; the Australian Temperate Field Crop Collection in Horsham; and the Australian Medicago Genetic Resource Centre in Adelaide. There are other collections of PGRFA some of which hold accessions of Australian native species such as those belonging to the citrus family.
The institutions catalogue and administer the scientific study of the material. These institutions underpin most plant improvement and new variety development by Australian plant breeders, including for the adaptation of crops and pastures to significant challenges such as climate change by regularly suppling essential genetic resources in the form of seeds. Programs to maintain the viability of the collections are central to the work and service delivery of institutions that hold resources as seeds.
Institutions conduct on-site pest management and deposit samples of accessions in off-site back up facilities to manage threats to the collection from fire or other catastrophic event The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) provides systems to protect any native PGRFA should it become threatened in situ.
These collections will form the basis of any material placed into the multilateral system (MLS) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the treaty) and their maintenance and documentation status will facilitate their effective integration into it. The PIMC is considering arrangements for the formation of the NGRC which is expected to delivery the necessary mechanisms to deal effectively with the requirements of the Treaty.
(5) The PISC IDC has referred progression of the NGRC to PIMC for consideration under the National RD&E Framework.
(6) The state collections of relevant PGRFA have not been placed under the auspices of the Treaty. The Commonwealth does not have any relevant collections. The formation of the NGRC is expected to provide a national focal point for Australia’s plant genetic resource collections and a means to allow facilitated access through the MLS of the Treaty to the collections and associated information.
(7) Intellectual property (IP) can be an invention, trade mark, original design or practical application of a good idea. Confidential information (also referred to as trade secrets), patents, registered designs, trade marks, copyright, circuit layout rights and plant breeder’s rights (PBR) are all legally classified as IP rights. The type of IP rights applied to plant genetic resources are most likely to be patents and PBR. In both cases, these IP rights need to be actively sought, are not automatic and any rights granted are restricted to the national jurisdiction in which they were granted. For these reasons, the Commonwealth or the states can not clarify, a priori, the IP status of indigenous wild species of citrus, mungbean, rice and sorghum.
(8) Officially, no governments of countries have approached the Australian Government over the past 16 years seeking access to Australia’s agricultural plant genetic resources. However, Australia’s state-run plant genetic resource centres holding PGRFA have received many thousands of applications for access to material directly from plant breeders and private and/or public agricultural institutions overseas.
(9) Optimal use and markets for wild plant species are determined by a range of interacting stakeholders, such as researchers, plant breeders, R&D decision-makers, farmers, and commercial markets. As such, it is a complex issue with no single optimum. Native plants have significant potential as a source of useful traits to help farmers meet the challenges of climate change, pests and diseases, sustainability, and improved nutrition. Such genetic resources need to be accessible and further explored for the development of new varieties for agriculture.
Stephanie Greene
Comment
USDA Geneticist/Curator
Comment #12 on : Wed January 14, 2009, 12:53:02
Thank you, Ken Street, for making a persuasive and eloquent argument for the importance of forage genetic resources! There is no question in my mind that the Australian forage collection is a unique global resource. I echo the sentiments of others that the collection is priceless, in terms of being a source of diversity, especially in mitigating the effects of global climate change. On the other hand, I fully appreciate the challenges inherent in funding germplasm collections. Radical times need radical action, but I think mothballing is premature. Has triage even been performed? What is the level of duplication within the collection? Can this be addressed? How much duplication exists between the Australian collections and other collections? Have we explored sharing the burden? I like the approach being taken by the ECPGR Forage Working Group. Across Europe, the “most original accessions” (MAO) are being identified, and individual collections assuming responsibility as primary holders. Can this approach be explored at a global level? My point is three-fold: 1) Australian funding agencies need to understand that the Australian Forage Collections have global importance and that mothballing is not the answer. 2). Cost cutting measures need to be explored to the fullest- be it collection rationalization, reprioritization, sharing the burden, etc. And lastly, 3) since the Australian forage germplasm collection is a global resource, I think it behooves the Global Crop Trust to turn their attention to the situation.
Showing comments 1 to 10 of 21 | Next | Last