A key aim of plant genetic resources (PGR) conservation is to maximize the available genetic diversity for the user community (e.g. plant breeders, farmers and researchers) to underpin crop improvement. This can most effectively be achieved by a combination of complementary in situ (on-site, either in the wild or in cultivation) and ex situ (off-site) conservation activities, but this assumes equal access to the conserved resource. Experience has shown direct access by users to PGR populations conserved in situ is not practical—therefore, the logical alternative is via genebanks and their tried tested protocols for facilitate access to material using material transfer agreements (MTAs). However, the question arises how to facilitate access to in situ conserved material via genebanks that respect the rights of the in situ PGR maintainer and avoid significant additional workload for genebanks? Four options are proposed:

1. All in situ conserved populations are treated like normal ex situ samples;

2. All in situ conserved populations are backed-up in genebanks using the black box protocol (i.e., not made available to users);

3. In situ conserved populations are not made available routinely—only on request from a user; and

4. All in situ conserved populations are treated like normal ex situ samples but not regenerated – when germination levels fall, fresh samples are collected.

The preferred option to maximize the conservation and availability of genetic diversity is Option 4.

Community seedbanks (CSBs) have been developed throughout Europe since the 1980s, to put PGR conservation and use directly in stakeholders hands’ and conserve the resource for future generations. In Farmer’s Pride CSB structure and development in four different countries been analyzed to inform CSB coordinators, decision-makers and genebank managers. The analysis shows development is associated with different internal and external factors, such as organizational, membership and funding structure, commercial orientation, political commitment, and the national legal environment. The advantages of CSBs in a national conservation context were also analyzed and shown to complement national and state-funded genebanks. CSBs strength is in regional outreach to the wider population, direct stakeholder engagement, reintroduction of PGR into diverse agroecosystems and awareness raising, while more formal genebanks have the advanced facilities for backup, supportive quality assurance and know-how transfer. Concrete examples how CSBs describe the PGR they manage and better document the exchange, transfer and traceability of the varieties maintained. Working in collaboration and monitoring PGR as described should allow for the greatest possible dynamics of PGR management and effectively record the various activities of the CSB network members.

Given that agrobiodiversity is associated with a range of important but poorly quantified public good ecosystem services, its conservation requires public support. Farmer’s Pride surveys designed to determine the general public’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) for wheat landrace conservation in Europe (demand-side), as well as to assess the willingness of farmers to participate in on-farm conservation (supply-side), reveal that estimated conservation costs (€1.8m–€33m p.a.) are well within the general public’s willingness to pay (€80.2m p.a.), resulting in a high benefit-cost ratio (2.4–44.6). Yet while formal support schemes under the CAP exist for animal genetic resources, at best only ad hoc ones exist for landraces and these can fail to cover farmer stated opportunity costs. National policymakers urgently need to explore mechanisms through the CAP and/or their national policies to systematically support the on-farm conservation of Europe’s agricultural heritage of landraces of wheat and other crops; thereby improving the alignment of agrobiodiversity conservation funding with EU citizens’ preferences. Furthermore, given the high heterogeneity in farmers’ WTA compensation for participating in public good conservation activities—including across different landraces, the use of conservation tender mechanisms has high potential for improving cost-effectiveness and social equity, given that savings relative to current uniform payments approaches could be significant (21–60%). For more information, visit: farmerspride/key-documents/policy-documents/

Plant genetic resources (PGR) are the genetic material of plants which is of value as a resource for present and future generations of people. The two core components of PGR are crop wild relatives (the wild taxa most closely related to crops), and crop landraces (the local varieties of crops maintained by seed-saving generation after generation). Both can contribute useful adaptive traits to crops, and landraces are also valued for their adaptations to local environmental conditions, as well as culinary and heritage uses. However, both types of PGR are threatened by loss of genetic diversity, and even extinction. Two strategies are applied to conserve PGR: in situ (on-site, either in the wild or in cultivation) and ex situ (off-site)—however, 99% of current PGR conservation activities are ex situ in genebanks, while in situ conservation is minimal and ad hoc. Meanwhile, plant breeders and farmers require far greater diversity to address the challenges posed by climate change—particularly to sources of traits adapted to abiotic and biotic stresses. Our objective is to establish a permanent network of in situ sites, populations and stakeholders to maximize the PGR diversity conserved and accessible for use. The network builds on existing regional, national and local networks, and relevant initiatives and policies. We encourage all stakeholders to join our network for the food, nutrition and economic security of future generations. To find out more, visit: https://more.bham.ac.uk/farmerspride/network/