options could also be a primary indicator for Target 3 (Action 9b) of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, and Objective II (Target 9) of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Table 1. Summary evaluation scores. Option A B C D E Data issues 17 19 13 18 20 Methodology 5 6 5 5 5 Indicator characteristics 10 12 16 12 12 Table 2. Evaluation scores for key criteria, where 1=low, 2=medium, 3=high (see Table A2.4 in Annex 2 for more details). Option A B C D E Data availability and quality Transparency and auditability (data 3 3 2 2 3 availability) Frequency of updates 1 3 1 3 3 Spatial coverage 2 2 2 2 2 Temporal coverage 3 3 ? 3 3 Transparency and soundness 3 3 3 2 2 Precision 2 3 2 3 3 Policy Relevance Progress towards Biodiversity 2020 targets 2 2 3 1 3 (CBD, EU, UK , country) Communication Ease of communication 2 3 3 3 2 Table 3. Comparison of plant type and needs for each indicator. Crop Wild Relative Landrace Horticultural Crop varieties Maintenance of Option A Option B Option B Option B diversity Measured in situ, Accessions data for MSB holdings of Accessions data for habitat extent for ex situ – no horticulturally ex situ – no selected species accessions lost important from accessions lost (Countryside National Trust? – Survey), abundance Not available yet. Option C measures available IF genetic data IF new surveillance Option E exists and can be is funded Number of taxa appropriately listed for a genus analysed can Option B within RHS Plant provide a Measured ex situ Finder translation of no options for accessions lost to formulae based on no loss of genetic average number of diversity accessions per taxon. Measure of threat Option A (not Option B Option E Option B explicit, but could Could this come Proportion of a Could this come be included) from information genus considered from information
options could also be a primary indicator for Target 3 (Action 9b) of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, and Objective II (Target 9) of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Table 1. Summary evaluation scores. Option A B C D E Data issues 17 19 13 18 20 Methodology 5 6 5 5 5 Indicator characteristics 10 12 16 12 12 Table 2. Evaluation scores for key criteria, where 1=low, 2=medium, 3=high (see Table A2.4 in Annex 2 for more details). Option A B C D E Data availability and quality Transparency and auditability (data availability) 3 3 2 2 3 Frequency of updates 1 3 1 3 3 Spatial coverage 2 2 2 2 2 Temporal coverage 3 3 ? 3 3 Transparency and soundness 3 3 3 2 2 Precision 2 3 2 3 3 Policy Relevance Progress towards Biodiversity 2020 targets (CBD, EU, UK , country) 2 2 3 1 3 Communication Ease of communication 2 3 3 3 2 Table 3. Comparison of plant type and needs for each indicator. Crop Wild Relative Landrace Horticultural Crop varieties Maintenance of diversity Option A Measured in situ, habitat extent for selected species (Countryside Survey), abundance measures available IF new surveillance is funded Option B Measured ex situ options for formulae based on average number of accessions per taxon. Option B Accessions data for ex situ – no accessions lost Option B MSB holdings of horticulturally important from National Trust? – Not available yet. Option E Number of taxa listed for a genus within RHS Plant Finder Option B Accessions data for ex situ – no accessions lost Option C IF genetic data exists and can be appropriately analysed can provide a translation of no accessions lost to no loss of genetic diversity Measure of threat Option A (not explicit, but could be included) Option B Could this come from information Option E Proportion of a genus considered Option B Could this come from information
03_BIF_BackgroundPaper_PlantGeneticResources.docx