Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:33:47.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indicators: Do we have effective tools to measure trends in genetic diversity of domesticated animals?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2010

E. Martyniuk ,
D. Pilling  and
B. Scherf
E. Martyniuk*
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
D. Pilling
Affiliation:
Animal Genetic Resources Branch, Animal Production and Health Division, FAO, Rome, Italy
B. Scherf
Affiliation:
Animal Genetic Resources Branch, Animal Production and Health Division, FAO, Rome, Italy
*
Correspondence to: E. Martyniuk, Department of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. email: elzbieta_martyniuk@sggw.pl
Get access

Summary

The need to provide policy-makers with succinct, yet informative, messages is widespread in biodiversity management, and has led to the development of various “indicators” that can serve this purpose. While global data on the status of animal genetic resources for food and agriculture (AnGR) have been made available in a number of publications, the issue of developing a global indicator for AnGR has come to prominence only relatively recently. This paper describes the policy background to these developments and reviews initiatives in AnGR indicator development at national and regional levels. It also outlines some of the issues raised at an expert meeting on indicators organized by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in January 2010. To date, AnGR indicator development has largely been restricted to Europe. Globally, options are restricted by the limited availability of data. The expert meeting favoured an indicator set that describes both the relative abundance of native versus non-native breeds and summarizes breed risk status. The former will require a new breed classification system that is acceptable to countries and applicable globally. The risk-status categories of approximately 64 percent of reported breeds are available in the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System, but a lack of regular updates of countries' breed population data means that trends cannot be described adequately at present.

Résumé

Dans le domaine de la gestion de la biodiversité, il est nécessaire de fournir aux décideurs des messages succincts mais informatifs, ce qui a eu pour résultat la mise au point de différents «indicateurs» pouvant être utiles à cette fin. Si les données mondiales sur l'état des ressources zoogénétiques sont disponibles dans un certain nombre de publications, la question de la mise au point d'un indicateur mondial pour les ressources zoogénétiques n'a gagné de l'importance que dans ces derniers temps. Le présent document décrit le contexte politique à la base de ces développements et examine les initiatives relatives à la mise au point d'indicateurs pour les ressources zoogénétiques aux niveaux national et régional. En outre, il expose brièvement quelques-unes des questions soulevées lors d'une réunion d'experts organisée par la FAO au mois de janvier 2010. A ce jour, la mise au point d'indicateurs pour les ressources zoogénétiques est limitée à l'Europe. Au plan mondial, les options sont restreintes en raison de la disponibilité limitée des données. Les experts, lors de la réunion, ont privilégié un ensemble d'indicateurs décrivant l'abondance relative des races indigènes par rapport aux races non indigènes et résumant l'état de danger des races. Le premier indicateur aura besoin d'un nouveau système de classification des races qui soit acceptable pour les pays et applicable dans le monde entier. Les catégories de l'état de danger d'environ 64 pour cent des races signalées sont disponibles dans le Système d'information sur la diversité des animaux domestiques, mais la carence de mises à jour régulières des données relatives aux populations raciales des pays fait en sorte qu'à présent, on n'est pas en mesure de décrire les tendances de façon adéquate.

Resumen

La necesidad de proporcionar a los responsables del diseño de políticas, a nivel informativo, mensajes está muy extendido en la gestión de la biodiversidad, y han llevado al desarrollo de varios “indicadores” que pueden servir para este propósito. Mientras los datos mundiales sobre la situación de los recursos zoogenéticos (AnGR por sus siglas en inglés) han hecho posible que se disponga de una serie de publicaciones, la cuestión del desarrollo de un indicador global para los AnGR ha llegado a ser relevante hace relativamente poco tiempo. Este trabajo describe el contexto político de estas medidas y la revisión de iniciativas en el desarrollo de indicadores para los AnGR a nivel nacional y regional. También se describen algunas de las cuestiones planteadas en una reunión de expertos sobre indicadores organizada por la FAO en enero de 2010. Hasta la fecha, el desarrollo del indicador para los AnGR ha sido en gran parte limitado a Europa. A nivel mundial, las opciones son restringidas debido a la limitada disponibilidad de datos. La reunión de expertos estuvo a favor de un conjunto de indicadores que describen tanto la relativa cantidad de razas locales frente a las foráneas y resume la situación de riesgo en las razas. Primero será necesario un nuevo sistema para la clasificación de las razas que sea admisible por los países y aplicable mundialmente. Las categorías acerca del nivel de riesgo de extinción de aproximadamente el 64 por ciento de las razas notificadas están disponibles en el Sistema de Información sobre la Diversidad de los Animales Domésticos, pero la falta de actualizaciones de manera regular acerca de los datos relativos a las poblaciones raciales hacen que las tendencias no puedan ser descritas adecuadamente en la actualidad.

Keywords

indicatorgenetic diversitydomesticated animalsIndicateurdiversité génétiqueanimaux domestiquesindicadordiversidad genéticaanimales domesticados
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 47 , July 2010 , pp. 31 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alkemade, R., Bakkenes, M., Bobbink, R., Miles, L., Nellemann, C., Simons, H. & Tekelenburg, T. 2006. GLOBIO-3: framework for the assessment of global terrestrial biodiversity. In Bouwman, A.F., Kram, T. & Klein Goldewijk, K., eds. Integrated modelling of global environmental change; an overview of IMAGE 2.4, pp. 171–186. Bilthoven, The Netherlands, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP).Google Scholar
Alkemade, R., van Oorschot, M., Miles, L., Nellemann, C., Bakkenes, M. & ten Brink, B. 2009. GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems, 12: 374–390, DOI: 10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldi, S. 2001. Internet and the use of data for international affairs (available at http://hostings.diplomacy.edu/baldi/malta2001/statint/index.htm).Google Scholar
Bodó, I. 1992. The minimum number of preserved populations. In Hodges, J., ed. The management of global animal genetic resources, pp. 91–104. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 104. Rome, FAO (available at www.fao.org/docrep/006/t0665e/t0665e00.htm).Google Scholar
Bubb, P., Jenkins, J. & Kapos, V. 2005. Biodiversity indicators for national use: experience and guidance. Cambridge, UK, UNEP-WCMC.Google Scholar
Buiteveld, J., van Veller, M.G.P., Hiemstra, S.J., ten Brink, B. & Tekelenburg, T. 2009. An exploration of monitoring and modelling agrobiodiversity. From indicator development towards modelling biodiversity in agricultural systems on the sub-specific level. Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) and Wageningen University and Research Centre, Report 2009/13.Google Scholar
Butchart, S.H.M., Stattersfield, A.J., Bennun, L.A., Shutes, S.M., Akçakaya, H.R., Baillie, J.E.M., Stuart, S.N., Hilton-Taylor, C. & Mace, G.M. 2004. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: red list indices for birds. PLoS Biol., 2: 2294–2304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CBD. 2002. COP Decision VI/26. Strategic plan for the convention on biological diversity (available at www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7200).Google Scholar
CBD. 2003a. Report of the expert meeting on indicators of biological diversity including indicators for rapid assessment of inland water ecosystems. Annex II Designing national-level monitoring programmes and indicators. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/7 (available at www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-09/information/sbstta-09-inf-07-en.pdf).Google Scholar
CBD. 2003b. Monitoring and indicators: designing national-level monitoring programmes and indicators. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/10 (available at www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-09/official/sbstta-09-10-en.pdf).Google Scholar
CBD. 2003c. Proposed indicators relevant to the 2010 target. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/26 (available at www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-09/information/sbstta-09-inf-26-en.pdf).Google Scholar
CBD. 2004. COP Decision VII/30. Strategic plan: future evaluation of progress (available at www.cbd.int/decision/?id=7767).Google Scholar
CBD. 2006. COP Decision VIII/15. Framework for monitoring implementation of the achievement of the 2010 target and integration of targets into the thematic programmes of work (available at www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=11029).Google Scholar
Charvolin, E. 2007. Development of a common methodology to evaluate and monitor the population population-genetic status of farm animal breeds in Europe and derive a common interpretation of the status of endangerment of breeds. In 13th Workshop of the NCs of Europe, 2007 (available at www.rfp-europe.org/files/Methodology-evaluation-and-monitoring-population-genetics_CHARVOLIN.pdf).Google Scholar
Charvolin, E. 2008. INDICATORS project. For a common methodology to evaluate and monitor the animal genetic resources in Europe. In 14th Workshop of the NCs of Europe, 2008, Vilnius (available at www.rfp-europe.org/files/2_IndicatorsVilnius.pdf).Google Scholar
Defra. 2009a. UK biodiversity in your pocket 2009. Measuring progress towards halting biodiversity loss. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the UK Biodiversity Partnership (available at www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/Biyp_2009.pdf).Google Scholar
Defra. 2009b. UK biodiversity indicators statistical release (available at www.defra.gov.uk/news/2009/090403a.htm).Google Scholar
Eaton, D., Windig, J.J., Hiemstra, S.J., van Veller, M., Trach, N.X., Hao, P.X., Doan, B.H. & Hu, R. 2006. Indicators for livestock and crop biodiversity. Centre for Genetic Resources, The Netherlands, CGN Report 2006/05 (available at documents.plant.wur.nl/cgn/literature/reports/Indicators.pdf).Google Scholar
EC. 2000. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy. COM (2000) 20 final, Brussels, 26 January 2000 (available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0020:FIN:EN:PDF).Google Scholar
EEA. 1999. Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical Report No. 25, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
EEA. 2005. Agriculture and environment in EU-15 – the IRENA indicator report. EEA Report No. 6/2005 (available at www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2005_6).Google Scholar
EEA. 2007. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. EEA Technical Report No. 11/2007, ISSN 1725-2237, 74–79 (available at www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2007_11).Google Scholar
EEA. 2009a. Progress towards the European 2010 biodiversity target. EEA Technical Report No. 4/2009. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
EEA. 2009b. Progress towards the European 2010 biodiversity target – indicator fact sheet. Compendium to EEA Report No. 4/2009. EEA Technical Report No. 5/2009. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
FAO. 1981. Animal genetic resources conservation and management. FAO Anim. Prod. Health Paper 24: 1–388.Google Scholar
FAO. 2007a. The state of the world's animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. edited by Rischowsky, B. & Pilling, D.. Rome (available at www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1250e/a1250e00.htm).Google Scholar
FAO. 2007b. Report of the international technical conference on animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. Interlaken, Switzerland, 3–7 September 2007, ITC-AnGR/07/REP (available at www.fao.org/AG/againfo/programmes/en/genetics/ITC_docs.html).Google Scholar
FAO. 2007c. Report of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 11th Regular Session, Rome, 11–15 June 2007; CGRFA-11/07/Report (available at www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/cgrfa11.htm).Google Scholar
FAO. 2007d. Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources and the Interlaken Declaration adopted by the International Technical Conference on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Interlaken, Switzerland, 3–7 September 2007, ISBN 978-92-5-105848-0 (available at www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1404e/a1404e00.htm).Google Scholar
FAO. 2009a. Format and content of future status and trends reports on animal genetic resources. Intergovernmental Technical Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Fifth Session, Rome, 28–30 January 2009, CGRFA/WG-AnGR-5/09/3.2 (available at www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/genetics/documents/ITWG_AnGR_5_09_3_2.pdf).Google Scholar
FAO. 2009b. Status and trends of animal genetic resources – 2008. Intergovernmental Technical Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Fifth Session, Rome, 28–30 January 2009, CGRFA/WG-AnGR-5/09/Inf. 7 (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/016/ak220e.pdf).Google Scholar
FAO. 2009c. Report of the Fifth Session of the Intergovernmental Technical Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy, 28–30 January 2009, CGRFA/WG-AnGR-5/09/REPORT (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/017/k5573e.pdf).Google Scholar
FAO. 2009d. Report of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 12th Regular Session, Rome, 19–23 October 2009, CGRFA-12/09/Report (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/017/k6536e.pdf).Google Scholar
FAO/UNEP. 1993. World watch list for domestic animal diversity. 1st edition, edited by Loftus, R. & Scherf, B.. Rome.Google Scholar
FAO/UNEP. 1995. World watch list for domestic animal diversity 2nd edition, edited by Scherf, B.D.. Rome.Google Scholar
FAO/UNEP. 2000. World watch list for domestic animal diversity. 3rd edition, edited by Scherf, B.D.Rome (available at www.fao.org/dad-is).Google Scholar
Hiemstra, S.J. 2007. Widening the analytical scope of GLOBIO3 modelling global biodiversity. Project BO-10-003-01. Project Report. Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands/Animal Science Group, Wageningen UR. Lelystad.Google Scholar
Hiemstra, S.J., Eaton, D., Trach, N.X., Hao, P.X., Doan, B.H. & Windig, J.J. 2006. Indicators to monitor livestock genetic diversity. In Eighth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 13–18 August 2006, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil Paper 33_490-802Google Scholar
IRENA. 2002. Indicator Fact Sheet: IRENA Indicator 25 – Genetic diversity (available at http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/irena/library?l=/final_delivery/indicator_sheets/irena_diversity_finaldoc/_EN_1.0_&a=d).Google Scholar
Laikre, L., Allendorf, F.W., Aroner, L.C., Baker, C.S., Gregovich, D.P., Hansen, M.M., Jackson, J.J., Kendall, K.C., McKelvey, K., Neel, M.C., Olivieri, I., Ryman, N., Schwartz, M.K., Short Bull, R., Stetz, J.B., Tallmon, D.A., Taylor, B.L., Vojta, C.D., Waller, D.M. & Waples, R.S. 2010. Neglect of genetic diversity in implementation of the convention on biological diversity. Conserv. Biol., 24: 86–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levrel, H. 2007. Selecting indicators for the management of biodiversity. Paris, Les Cahiers de l'IFB, IFB Edition, 94 p (available at www.gis-ifb.org/documentation/les_publications_de_l_ifb/les_cahiers_de_l_ifb).Google Scholar
Maijala, K., Cherekaev, E.V., Devillard, J.M., Reklewski, Z., Rognoni, G., Simon, D.L. & Steane, D.E. 1984. Conservation of animal genetic resources in Europe. Final report of an EAAP Working Group. Livestock Prod. Sci. 11: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. 1993. Environmental indicators for environmental performance reviews. Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 1999a. Environmental indicators for agriculture. Vol.1. Concepts and framework, pp. 1–45. Paris, France, OECD Publications Service,Google Scholar
OECD. 1999b. Environmental indicators for agriculture. Vol. 2. Issues and design “The York Workshop”, pp. 1–216. Paris, France, OECD Publications.Google Scholar
OECD. 2001. Environmental indicators for agriculture. Vol. 3. Methods and results, pp. 1–400. Paris, France, OECD Publications Service. ISBN: 9789264188556. The Executive Summary of this report is available from the OECD agri-environmental indicators web site at: www.oecd.org/agr/env/indicators.htm (see “Publications”).Google Scholar
OECD. 2003a. Summary and recommendations. Agriculture and biodiversity: developing indicators for policy analysis. In Proceedings from an OECD Expert Meeting, Zurich, Switzerland, November 2001, pp. 1–280. Paris, France, OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 2003b. OECD environmental indicators: development, measurement and use, pp. 1–37. Reference paper. Paris.Google Scholar
OECD. 2008. Environmental performance of agriculture in OECD countries since 1990, pp. 1–576. Paris, France, OECD Publications Service, ISBN: 9789264040922 (available at www.oecd.org/tad/env/indicators).Google Scholar
SEBI 2010. 2009a. (available at http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995).Google Scholar
SEBI 2010. 2009b. Halting the loss of biodiversity in Europe – the 2009 assessment based on the first set of biodiversity indicators (available at http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/fol168004/review-draft-sebi-2010-indicator-based-assessment-73936/1-halting-loss-biodiversity-europe-2009).Google Scholar
SEBI 2010. 2009c. Annex 4 – detailed factsheets for each indicator (available at http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/fol168004/review-draft-sebi-2010-indicator-based-assessment-73936/2-annex-4-detailed-factsheets-each-indicator).Google Scholar
Simon, D.L. and Buchenauer, D. 1993. Genetic diversity in European livestock breeds, pp. 1–581. EAAP Publications No. 66. Wageningen, The Netherlands, Wageningen Press.Google Scholar
Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communications. Reprinted with corrections from The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 379–423, 623–656, July, October, 1948 (available at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163: 688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villanueva, B., Sawalha, R., Roughsedge, T., Rius, E. & Woolliams, J. 2009a. Report on Defra project cr 0404 “UK biodiversity indicators – development of an indicator of genetic diversity in selected farm breeds”. Department for Food Environment and Rural Affairs, London.Google Scholar
Villanueva, B., Sawalha, R.M., Roughsedge, T., Rius-Vilarrasa, E. & Woolliams, J.A. 2009b. Development of a genetic indicator of biodiversity for farm animals. In Book of Abstracts, EAAP – 60th Annual Meeting, Barcelona, 24–27 August 2009, Session 13: p. 119.Google Scholar
Wetterich, F. 2003. Biological diversity of livestock and crops: useful classification and appropriate agri-environmental indicators. In Agriculture and biodiversity: developing indicators for policy analysis. Proceedings from an OECD Expert Meeting, Zurich, Switzerland, November 2001, OECD 2003, Paris.Google Scholar