60 likes | 177 Views
Workshop 5. Session 3 Prioritising the CWR list. Group 1: Agricultural. Lother, Stefano, Sabine, Zedenk, Dag, Malgorzata, Asmund,Helmut, Helena, Silvia Tamara, Issak, Caroline, Micheal, Lazlo, Vojtech. Facilitator : Sónia Dias Rapporteur : Maria Scholten. Objective.
E N D
Workshop 5 Session 3 Prioritising the CWR list Group 1: Agricultural Lother, Stefano, Sabine, Zedenk, Dag, Malgorzata, Asmund,Helmut, Helena, Silvia Tamara, Issak, Caroline, Micheal, Lazlo, Vojtech Facilitator: Sónia Dias Rapporteur: Maria Scholten
Objective To discuss possible differences, specific examples and different methodologies when considering genetic erosion and genetic pollution in agricultural CWR
Discussion points: • Are there any differences and specific examples and methodologies to consider when considering genetic erosion and pollution in agricultural CWR? • Are there any special cases? • Are there any special needs?
Summary Report Genetic erosion CWR • Crop • Market value • Area of distribution • Genetic base • Reproductive system • Pollinators • Landscape and amenity -habitats -natural disasters -threat -Socio, cultural and economic value- present and potencial -Genetic crossability -Importance for crop improvement -Reproductive system -Presenc/absence in protected areas -Presenc/absence in protected areas -Area of distribution -pollinators Threat status
Summary Report Genetic pollution CWR • Crop • acreage • proximity • occurrance • Reproductive system • Growning GM varieties • Origin • pollinators -present / absent -proximity / risk -occurrence -threat status -reproductive system -type of pollination -life cycle -pollinators
Summary Report Recommendations/further steps: • Procedures for prioritisation • Weighing • Decision tree • Decision for crop based or cwr based or both • Address again at wp2