agriculture - Reverse, European Project to Preserve Biodiversity

EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY
CHARTER

2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
These recommendations are the culmination of contributions from 14 organizations since January 2010. We would
like to thank all the members of the Reverse team for having identified and discussed the content of this book:
Camille MASSOL, Bénédicte HAMON (Aquitaine Region); Immacolata BARBAGIOVANNI, Paolo COLLEPARDI,
Paola TAVIANI, Lino LELLI, Stefano PAOLETTI, Roberto REA, Stefano CARRANO, Paola CIRIONI, Massimo TANCA,
Mariateresa COSTANZA, Claudio DI GIOVANNATONIO (ARSIAL); Marta ROZAS , Azucena SALAZAR (Basque
Government); Bertrand LASSAIGNE, Jennifer KENDALL, Angela MALLARONI (Bio d’Aquitaine); Henrich KLUGKIST
(Bremen Region); Hervé CODHANT (CEN Aquitaine); Daniela BENEDIKOVÁ, Michaela BENKOVÁ , Iveta CICOVÁ � � (PPRC
Piešt’any); Karin KRUUSMAA, Merrit SHANSKIY, Kalev SEPP, Elis VOLLMER, Maaria SEMM (Estonian University
of Life Sciences); Polymnia SKLAVAKI, Voula NOUSIA, Ioannis FOTAKIS, Dimos DIMITRIOU (Forest Directorate of
Chania-Crete Region); Christini FOURNARAKI, Panagiota GOTSIOU, Adamantia KOKKINAKI, Aristidis STAMATAKIS
(MAICh); Marcelo MARTINEZ PALAO, Ramón BALLESTER SABATER, Inmaculada RAMÍREZ SANTIGOSA, Antonio
VICTORIA LÓPEZ, Francisco FLORES ALBACETE, Rafael DÍAZ GARCÍA (Murcia Region); Lambros TSOURGIANNIS,
Kiki HARALAMPIDOU, Dimitris TSIANIS (Region of East Macedonia and Thrace); Josefine GUMPRECHT, Benjamin
KÜTHER (ttz Bremerhaven); Ivana STELLA, Giuseppe MERLI, Rodolfo INGUAGGIATO, Paolo PAPA, Raoul SEGATORI
(Umbria Region); Luciano CONCEZZI, Livia POLEGRI, Federico MARIOTTI (3A-Umbria Agrofood Technology Park).
Special thanks to the Umbria Region, 3A-Umbria Agrofood Technology Park, Bio d’Aquitaine, MAICh for writing this
book- and to the Aquitaine Region for coordinating and editing it.
We also warmly acknowledge Salvatore CECCARELLI (ICARDA Consultant) and Katarzyna BIALA (EEA) for writing
relevant preambles to this book.
Last but not least, we acknowledge the work done by EDEN Traduction as proof-reader and D-Day for the design.
Book published in 2012

4
A WORD FROM SALVATORE CECCARELLI
Participatory Plant Breeding: Linking Biodiversity, Hunger and Climate Changes
Global food security is threatened by the continuous decline of agrobiodiversity, by the unpredictability of the climate,
which is expected to increase, and by the fact that increasing the accessibility and availability of food, is more urgent
than increasing food production per se. Although the three issues of biodiversity, climate changes and hunger are closely
related, they are almost always discussed separately.
Biodiversity, as a key element of food safety, is directly related to the right to food, one of the fundamental human rights.
Crop genetic diversity has been shown to reduce risk exposure to abiotic and biotic stresses both of which are expected
to increase as a consequence of climate change, which will have profound and direct impacts on agricultural and food
systems. An obvious contradiction is that on one side we have been very active and reasonably successful in collecting,
characterizing and conserving biodiversity, while on the other side modern, industrialized agriculture has moved more
and more towards monoculture and uniformity. In other words, most of the interest and concern about biodiversity has
not had a substantial effect on crop and animal biodiversity.
We believe that it is possible to develop an alternative model of agricultural research which a) increases both agricultural
production and availability and accessibility of food, b) increases crop biodiversity, and c) contributes to adaptation to
climate change: this requires a change to one of the fundamental paradigms of modern agricultural development by which
the uniformity generated by modern plant breeding programs matches the uniformity of agricultural environments, made
similar by using inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and water, thus making our food systems extremely vulnerable.
As modern plant breeding, contrary to the breeding techniques practiced by farmers for millennia, is considered to be one
of the main causes of the reduction of animal and crop biodiversity, one of the keys to sustaining a type of agriculture that
is in harmony with the environment and creating sustainable food systems is to utilize available biodiversity in participatory
breeding programmes that emphasize specific adaptation to a multitude of physical and social environments. Participatory
plant breeding, which is a form of plant breeding that can increase both food and feed production and crop biodiversity at
farm level, puts farmers at the centre of the entire process of developing new cultivars, including seed production, and
combines modern science with local knowledge.
As more and more breeding programs are becoming private, a further development of participatory plant breeding is
evolutionary plant breeding, which can largely be handled by the farmers themselves. Evolutionary plant breeding consists
in deploying widely variable heterogeneous populations in farmers’ fields, which, by continuously evolving over time,
represent a permanent source of novel diversity that is suited to the conditions where the populations evolve as well as to
climate change. This is a dynamic, inexpensive and extremely powerful strategy for specifically adapting crops to climate
change, and in general to all possible agronomic environments.
Eventually, participatory and evolutionary plant breeding promotes the use of landraces and wild relatives as these genetic
resources may well possess useful genes for adaptation to low input agricultural systems and to climatic changes.
(1) International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syria.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
A WORD FROM SALVATORE CECCARELLI
Salvatore Ceccarelli
ICARDA (1)
Consultant

A WORD FROM DR. KATARZYNA BIALA
Biodiversity in European agroecosystems
Agricultural ecosystems provide a reservoir of biodiversity with a range of rare and specialised species and characteristic
managed habitats, supporting important functions such as pollination, natural pest control and recycling of organic matter.
A large number of highly valued wildlife species and semi-natural habitat types in Europe are dependent on extensively
managed agricultural land. However, increasing demand for food and energy crops is putting more pressure on extensive
agriculture and natural systems. Furthermore, biodiversity on grazing land and extensive meadows is threatened by
reduced management of the land (abandonment and marginalisation).
Policy responses to biodiversity loss have been formulated at global and regional levels. The EU has responded inter alia
with the Habitats and Birds Directives, the Biodiversity Action Plan and the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
- Recent analyses revealed that 70% of species of European interest linked to agro-ecosystems and 76% of habitats have
unfavourable conservation status (EEA, 2010).
- More than 80% of assessments for amphibians linked to agroecosystems are unfavourable, while mammals and
invertebrates are the only species groups with favourable assessments (less than 10%) (EEA 2010).
- Changing agricultural methods, especially increased specialisation and intensification, have driven the decline of farmland
birds. The decrease in farmland bird populations levelled off in the mid-1990, but many species remain heavily depleted.
- Europe’s grassland butterflies have declined by nearly 70% since 1990 and this reduction shows no sign yet of levelling
off. Intensification in use and production across relatively flat areas of western (and other parts of) Europe is the most
important threat to butterflies. By contrast, abandonment and lack of low intensity grazing is the major threat in southern
and eastern Europe, in mountain areas or areas with relatively poor soils.
Currently a wide range of farming systems - ranging from very intensive to highly extensive - serve different societal
demands in Europe. The latter type form a large part of the High Nature Value (HNV) farming areas, which are inherently
rich in wildlife. Maintaining HNV systems is critical to sustaining and developing biodiversity. As such, it is one of the
mandatory impact indicators in the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of the CAP. However, market pressures
may lead to harmful intensification or abandonment of HNV farming systems.
Between the extremes there is a range of farming systems that can be defined as ‘low input farming systems’, including
integrated farming, conservation agriculture, organic farming, precision farming and silvopastoralism (combined farmingforestry
systems). These low input farming systems all aim to enhance biological soil fertility and the natural capacity to
reduce negative effects on agricultural production, such as pest and diseases and climate change.
In the context of increasing awareness of the need to guarantee food security for a growing world population and increasing
demand of land for other uses such as biomass, it is difficult to advocate halting agricultural intensification completely
on land with high production potential.
The challenge for biodiversity conservation is therefore to introduce into intensely farmed systems buffering elements
that enhance the landscape complexity and provide a mosaic of habitats for species, such hedges, small ponds, beetle
banks and other habitats. Combined with agricultural practices such as long and diverse rotations, more heterogeneous
regional distribution of crops and better adjustment to the natural soil fertility, these practices can contribute to enhanced
biodiversity while at the same time maintaining a high level of productivity.
Moreover, biodiversity conservation goals in Europe will not be met only by protecting particular habitats or species, or
designating certain areas for their management. We must also maintain the low-intensity uses that favour the dynamics
of natural processes and create opportunities for biodiversity to flourish across large, contiguous area of land..
Dr Katarzyna Biała
Project Manager - Biodiversity and Ecosystem Indicators
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv, 6
DK-1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
A WORD FROM DR KATARZYNA BIAŁA 5

A word from Salvatore Ceccarelli
A word from Dr. Katarzyna Biala
A. Impact of agriculture on biodiversity
B. Agrobiodiversity: History and new conservation approaches
INDEX
BIODIVERSITY IN EUROPE: CHALLENGES AND ACTIONS 8
AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY: IMPACTS AND INTERRELATIONS 12
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY FOR BIODIVERSITY AND AGROBIODIVERSITY 18
A. How European Common Agricultural Policy takes into account biodiversity
B. How European policies take into account agrobiodiversity
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLANS ON AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY 24
CHALLENGE 1 26
SYNERGIES BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY
Develop an European Farm Evaluation System (EFES) to assess the impact of the agricultural
production process and farm management on biodiversity. EFES should be developed on the basis
of indicators proposed by EEA in the framework of EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 “Our life insurance,
our natural capital”
Link public financial support to good agricultural practices related to biodiversity conservation
Increase the protection level of and economic support to High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF)
in European countries
Raise awareness in the agricultural sector and in public society about the importance of preserving
natural and cultivated biodiversity
CHALLENGE 2 30
CONSERVATION AND PROMOTION OF AGROBIODIVERSITY
Preserve and maintain biodiversity from existing genetic resources for food and agriculture
as well as the heritage of knowledge and culture linked to them
Set up and support European networks of stakeholders working on the conservation,
enhancement and management of agrobiodiversity, in order to encourage regional and national initiatives
and create new entities, also encouraging knowledge transfer on in situ and ex situ conservation
Establish a clear European legal framework, within the review of legislation on marketing of seeds
and propagating material, which will recognize farmers’ right to exchange and market their own propagation
material (seeds, bulbs, tubers) for biodiversity conservation, dynamic management or plant breeding purposes,
without satisfying the stringent legal requirements currently in force
Promote dynamic on-farm conservation of genetic resources, applying protocols of participatory plant breeding
Implement and promote specific marketing actions to promote the cultivation of endangered local varieties and
breeding of local breeds
Promote and enlarge GMO-free regions in the European Union
Appendix 36
4
5
13
14
19
20
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

BIODIVERSITY IN EUROPE: CHALLENGES AND ACTIONS
8
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
BIODIVERSITY IN EUROPE: CHALLENGES AND ACTIONS

Biological diversity, better known for short as biodiversity, is the variety of life on Earth (microorganisms, plants, fungi
and animals) and the natural patterns it forms. Three different and interrelated levels of biodiversity are commonly
defined as: genetic diversity (i.e. the range of genes in all individuals as well as between individuals), species diversity
(i.e. the range of species within and between populations) and ecosystems (i.e. the range of habitats, communities,
and ecological processes, including intra-ecosystem variations). Although this is not easy to quantify, all levels are
the basis to ensure evolution and adaptation to a changing environment.
Definition
[ Biological diversity
The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other
aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species,
between species and of ecosystems.
Source: Article 2, Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations, 1992) ]
Biodiversity certainly has intrinsic value. It is also essential to human life and wellbeing in the sense that humans
have always depended on natural resources. More specifically, biodiversity ensures the quality, quantity and stability
of ecosystems’ goods and services, i.e. the series of material, cultural and spiritual benefits humans draw from the
ecological functions played by ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Biodiversity provides raw
materials for food, health and shelter (e.g. agricultural products, fish, wood, medicine, wool, etc.) and in doing so, it
becomes the basic resource for many economic activities; it regulates and recycles the air, soil and water conditions
necessary for our survival; it forms the basis for cultural and recreational activities (such as ecotourism), scientific
and educational programmes, as well as spirituality, religion, ethics and emotions. Biodiversity is the result of both
natural processes and human practices. Biological diversity in agriculture, a natural subset of biological diversity,
is the result of such an interaction.
Biodiversity has, however, been increasingly negatively affected by human activity. In Europe, like elsewhere in the
world, biodiversity is deteriorating. 25% of marine mammals, 15% of terrestrial mammals and 12% of birds are
threatened with extinction (EEA, 2010). Moreover, 62% of European habitats and 52% of European protected species
included in the “Habitat” Directive have an unfavourable conservation status (EEA-ETC/BD, 2009).
The loss of variation in crops due to modernization has been described as genetic erosion, which is a complex process
and has been mostly associated with the introduction of modern cultivars (Van De Wouw et al., 2009 and 2010). In
Italy in the early years (1920-1950) a relatively high rate of genetic erosion was observed (13.2% p.a.) and from the
1950s until 1980s erosion rates between 0.48 and 4% p.a. were estimated (Hammer and Laghetti, 2005, Hammer
and Teklu, 2010, Heal et al. 2004).
The key pressures include rapid shifts in land use, which have been acknowledged as a major threat (IUCN, 2007,
2009, 2010). Extensive farming land declined by 2.6% between 1990 and 2006 across Europe (2) with natural grassland
areas also declining. Over the same period, built-up, industrial and artificial areas have gone up by 7.9%. Subsequent
threats of pollution and overexploitation come next. Cropland, forests and pastures cover almost 80% of the total
European land area, EU-25 plus Norway and Switzerland (EEA, 2007). Unsurprisingly, pressure from the twin trends
of the intensification of agricultural and forestry practices, together with land abandonment, plays a major role.
Furthermore, invading exotic species spread out, especially in aquatic ecosystems and in the context of a changing
climate: more than 10,000 non-native species have been observed in Europe, more than 10% of them having adverse
economic or ecological impacts (3) .
(2) Figures related to land cover (agriculture, natural grassland, industrial areas) come from the latest available statistics from CORINE,
a European Environment Agency land cover database, accessible at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover
(3) See the European Invasive Alien Species Gateway from DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe), accessible at
http://www.europe-aliens.org
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
BIODIVERSITY IN EUROPE: CHALLENGES AND ACTIONS 9

10
The legal and regulatory framework for biodiversity conservation at European level
Reversing biodiversity loss is a major challenge at global, regional and local levels. The European Union, among
other bodies, has actively committed its member states to biodiversity conservation for a number of years. Specific
legislation, strategies and plans have been set up to create a framework for policy action aimed at providing longterm
protection and conservation of nature. They all emanate from legally binding conventions at global level. A
selection of the most relevant official literature is provided below.
Along with international treaties, many policies including directives, regulations, strategies and action plans, have
been adopted at European level. The two central legal instruments are the Directive on the protection of wild birds
(known as the Birds Directive, 2009/147/EC, a codified version of Directive 79/409/EEC as amended) that was enacted
in 1979, and the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora in 1992 (the Habitats
Directive, 92/43/EC). The Birds Directive was the first major EU law to address the issue of nature conservation
at European level. The Habitats Directive provided a more inclusive framework for other endangered habitats and
species of interest, and tackled the integration of nature protection requirements into other EU policies such as
agriculture, regional development and transport. The main EC funding tool supporting the implementation of both
Directives is the LIFE-Nature fund. As at today, over 1000 animals and plant species and over 200 habitat types that
are important to Europe are protected under the Directives (4) .
Reference
[ International conventions framing biodiversity protection in Europe
The Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), is a United Nations legal instrument dated 1993 that all EU
members states have signed along with other European countries. Its objectives are i) the conservation of
biodiversity, ii) the sustainable use of its components and iii) the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising from the use of genetic resources. Among many other requirements, contracting Parties have to
develop national strategies and integrate the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into relevant
sector or cross-sector plans, programmes and policies. Held in Nagoya in 2010, the tenth Conference of the
Parties (CoP10) of the CBD led to the adoption of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, a global Strategic Plan
for biodiversity over the 2011-2020 period.
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the Ramsar
Convention), which was adopted in 1971 and came into force in 1975, provides a framework for international
cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands. Parties are to designate suitable wetlands for
inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance, to formulate and implement their planning
so as to promote the conservation of wetlands included in the List and the wise use of all wetlands in their
territory. For a comprehensive approach to the national implementation of the Convention, many countries
have developed National Wetland Policies. In its 1994 work programme for the implementation of the 5 th
Environmental Action Programme, the European Commission included the Communication on the Wise Use and
Conservation of Wetlands (1995), providing the strategic basis for a wetland policy, spelling out the issues that
negatively affect wetlands and providing an outline of the actions that need to be taken. It was later replaced
by the Water Framework Directive.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), signed in
1973 and implemented in the EU nine years later, aims to ensure that international trade in species of wild
animals and plants does not threaten their survival. It affords varying degrees of protection to more than 30,000
species of animals and plants. CITES works by making international trade in specimens of selected species
subject to certain controls. These controls require that the import, export, re-export and introduction into the
sea of species covered by the Convention are authorized through a licensing system. The species covered by
CITES are divided into three categories, according to the degree of protection they need.
Adopted in 1979 and taking effect in 1982, the Bern Convention was the first comprehensive legal instrument
for pan-European nature conservation (it also extends to some African States). A keystone treaty for biodiversity
within the framework of the Council of Europe, it aims to conserve wild European flora and fauna and their
natural habitats (especially endangered habitats and vulnerable species). The preparation of the Birds Directive
and later the Habitats Directives is a direct result of the implementation of this Convention.
Since 1979, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, also known as the
Bonn Convention, has aimed to conserve migratory species and their habitats by providing strict protection for
endangered migratory species, by concluding multilateral Agreements for the conservation and management of
migratory species that require or would benefit from international cooperation, and by undertaking cooperative
research activities.
Sources: see Appendix to access the source documents ]
(4) More information on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
BIODIVERSITY IN EUROPE: CHALLENGES AND ACTIONS

Created under the Habitats Directive, Natura 2000 is the main tool of EU nature & biodiversity policy, and is the
transposition of EC commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. It is a European ecological network
of natural protection areas for the most valuable and endangered species and habitats. Applying to bird sites, habitat
sites and marine areas, it includes Special Areas of Conservation (under the Habitats Directive) and Special Protection
Areas (under the Birds Directive). While the network does not systematically ban human activities nor nationalize
land, requirements consist of sustainable management. Provided that some conservation measures are fulfilled, the
EU, through the LIFE-Nature fund, may assist member states with co-financing the network.
Several other European directives are indirectly concerned with biodiversity conservation. The Water Framework
Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) have established a framework for
Community action against the fragmentation of European water policy. They require all inland and coastal waters
to reach “good ecological status” by 2015 and by 2020 for marine ecosystems. Other directives relate to pollution
prevention, such as the Nitrates Directive (91/676/ EEC), the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC), and the Urban
waste water (91/271/EEC) Directive.
Contrary to many other environmental media, soil receives no legal protection although it is a major reservoir of
biodiversity. To bridge this gap, the Commission of the European Communities drafted a directive proposal in 2006
to establish a common strategy for the protection and sustainable use of soil (by integrating soil concerns into other
policies), preserving soil function, preventing threats to soil and mitigation of their effects, as well as restoring
degraded soils to a level of functionality at least consistent with their current and approved future use (CEC, 2006).
Alongside existing legislation, the EU has issued a series of successive strategies and plans that outline binding
actions for the member states in the coming years (e.g. the 1995 Pan European Biological and Landscape Diversity
Strategy). The latest EU Biodiversity Action Plan, dated 2006 (2006 Biodiversity Action Plan), draws from an EC
communication dedicated to “Halting Biodiversity Loss by 2010 - and Beyond: Sustaining ecosystem services for
human well-being”. In May 2011, having seen its failure to reach the 2010 target, the EC adopted the new EU
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Several targets have been set to address both the 2020 headline target and the overall
commitments agreed by the EU and its member states. They pursue three key orientations: protecting and restoring
biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, enhancing the positive contribution of agriculture and forestry, and
reducing key pressures on EU biodiversity and stepping up the EU’s contribution to global biodiversity.
Reference
[ The EU 2020 biodiversity strategy
The vision: by 2050, European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides - its natural capital -
will be protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity’s intrinsic value and for their essential
contribution to human well-being and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes caused by the
loss of biodiversity are avoided.
2020 headline target: halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU
by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global
biodiversity loss.
Source: European Commission, 2011 ]
Reverse project - recommendations from European regions to improve European policy
Whereas biodiversity conservation certainly requires a legal framework and policy action, it cannot be effective without
relying on sustainable economic activity. In other words, biodiversity conservation and economic development must go
hand in hand. Experience shows that this is possible and replicable. Building on successful initiatives from a number
of European regions, this is the ambition of Reverse; a European project to protect biodiversity. Across three areas
closely linked to biodiversity - agriculture food production, land planning and tourism - using a bottom-up approach,
the 14 European Reverse Partners have worked together to identify local actions that should be easy to transpose
and to offer policy recommendations to improve biodiversity conservation.
The present charter is one of the key outputs of the Reverse project. It forms a set of sector policy recommendations
aimed at policy-makers at European level, to improve the effectiveness of regional policies in conserving biodiversity
while promoting economic development.
You can find the three Reverse charters focused on agriculture, tourism and land planning respectively, and the cross
disciplinary collection of 47 study cases on the Reverse website: www.reverse.aquitaine.eu
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
BIODIVERSITY IN EUROPE: CHALLENGES AND ACTIONS 11

AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY:
IMPACTS AND INTERRELATIONS
12
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY: IMPACTS AND INTERRELATIONS

A. IMPACT OF AGRICULTURE ON BIODIVERSITY
With farmers managing almost half of the EU’s land area, the agricultural sector is one of the main sources of
pressure on Europe’s environment. Over the past five decades, the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) - which accounts for around half of the EU’s budget - has encouraged the sector to become more and more
intensive, as has the growing globalization of the world’s economy. As a result, the agricultural sector is responsible
for a significant proportion of the pollution of surface waters and seas by nutrients, for the loss of biodiversity, and
for pesticide residues in groundwater.
Agricultural intensification and land abandonment are two of the main pressures on biodiversity linked to
agro-ecosystems in Europe. These developments are driven by a combination of factors including technological
innovation, agriculture subsidies and international market developments, as well as climate change, demographic
trends and lifestyle changes. The concentration and specialisation of agricultural production have had major
consequences for biodiversity, as it has become apparent with the strong decline of farmland birds during the last
quarter of the 20 th century but which has stabilised since the mid-1990s. Farmland butterflies have also declined
since 1990 at least, and the decline has not stopped since (EEA, 2010).
Agricultural intensification means decreased crop diversity, simplified cropping methods, fertiliser and pesticide
use, and homogenised landscapes. Introducing biofuel crops may intensify fertiliser and pesticide use, exacerbating
biodiversity loss. Industrial chemicals, metals and pharmaceutical products likewise end up in the soil or in water.
Although nitrate and phosphorus pollution of rivers and lakes has declined, excess atmospheric nitrogen deposition
is still an issue across the EU (EEA, 2010).
Pan-European studies looking at the effects of agricultural practices and landscape characteristics on biodiversity
have confirmed the significant impact of agriculture at different scales. At plot level, fertilisation, tillage and pesticides
are disturbances with a negative overall effect. At landscape level, negative effects are linked to the disappearance
of such man-made elements as hedges and field margins. Eco-tones at the edge of agricultural areas might change
as a result of alterations to hydrology and land use with the disappearance of woodland, semi-natural grassland and
ponds. The same applies to the homogenisation of crops and the synchronisation of practices, such as harvesting
and mowing dates. In addition, intensive agriculture in homogenous landscapes, leading to monocultures, promotes
the development of populations of crop pests (INRA, 2008 in EEA, 2010).
The abandonment of farmland has significant environmental consequences and is often associated with social and
economic problems in rural areas. In areas that were previously intensively managed, abandonment has brought
environmental benefits, particularly a reduction in chemical pollution. However, cessation of farming in extensively
managed areas may entail significant biodiversity loss. The decline or loss of specialist species and the deterioration
of habitats has been documented with farmland abandonment in semi-natural grasslands with high botanical value
or conservation interest for birds and other animal groups (Moreira et al., 2005 in EEA 2010).
The SOER 2010 soil assessment revealed that intensively cultivated soils have been shown to have low levels of
biomass, which is essential for maintaining key soil functions. A large proportion of intensively cultivated soils in
Europe has already reached the lower threshold of 2% soil organic carbon suggested for essential soil functions
(Loveland and Webb, 2003; Arrouays et al., 2001; 2006). The problem is particularly prominent in Southern Europe,
but also in parts of France, Sweden and the United Kingdom (EEA 2010).
Reforms of the CAP in the 1990’s, and measures taken by the sector itself, have brought about some improvements,
but more is needed to balance agricultural production, rural development, and the environment (5) . A comprehensive
agriculture strategy must take all of these different levels into account through suitable instruments, covering the
three main fields of biodiversity:
- the genetic variety of domesticated plants and animals (gene pool), which appears after centuries of equilibrium
between human activities and natural ecosystems;
- “wild” biodiversity (wild flora and fauna related to farmland);
- the life-support systems (including soil microbiota, pollinators, predators, all organisms that support the
fertility and productivity of agro-ecosystems).
1. The benefits of biodiversity for agriculture (6)
The conservation of biological diversity is a decisive factor in agricultural activities: at the heart of the various
biological processes utilized by agriculture, biodiversity allows farmers to produce food and non-food products, as
well as services. Biodiversity is the basis of the life-support systems, which have particularly important benefits,
allowing agriculture to produce food.
(5) European Environment Agency (EEA), http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/agriculture, as in 30/6/2011
(6) Biodiversity action plan for agriculture of 2001, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
(COM2001/0162-3 rd volume)
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY: IMPACTS AND INTERRELATIONS 13

14
Moreover, the constant adaptation of gene pools resulting from natural processes and agricultural practices have led
to increased yields and better adaptation to varying environments. The use of biodiversity in agriculture thus allows
the creation of new varieties and breeds thereby enabling economic, health, technical and ecological objectives to be
reached. The sustainable utilization of biological diversity in agriculture contributes to changes in certain practices,
by reducing the use of insecticides through the action of beneficial insects, reducing ploughing to increase the soil’s
biological activity, and preserving yields by increasing pollination.
(7) Ibid.
2. The benefits of agriculture for biodiversity (7)
Concurrently sustainable agricultural practices contribute to maintaining or enhancing biodiversity through managing
rural areas, and preserving soil from erosion and consequently from biodiversity impoverishment. They create and
maintain special ecosystems and habitats, such as the mosaic of cultivated fields and field boundaries demarcated
by hedges and ditches, which provide refuge and sources of food for certain flora, fauna and micro-fauna. Agriculture
has formed a semi-natural environment where endemic and endangered species have often survived. Non-intensive
agriculture thus maintains both wild and domesticated plant and animal species, varieties or breeds, as well as
ecosystems, which are at times under threat of extinction. Thanks to selection and research, domesticated plant
and animal species also develop their intraspecific variability (e.g. selection of plants adapted to dry environments).
By managing a large part of the Community’s territory, in some cases, agriculture preserves many specific ecosystems
that would disappear if farming activities were abandoned. Clearance of undergrowth and scrub by sheep in areas
that are difficult to access, prevention of erosion caused by the action of water and wind through the growth of plant
cover, maintenance of flora diversity in semi-natural grassland thanks to pasturage, preservation of biodiversity in
Alpine uplands, and conservation of wetlands, etc. are all examples of agriculture’s benefits to biodiversity.
3. Threats of Agriculture for Biodiversity
As mentioned above, the agricultural sector is one of the major sources of pressure on Europe’s environment. This
is confirmed by reports on the conservation status of species and habitat types, targeted by the Habitats Directive,
that show consistently negative trends. Habitat types linked to agro-ecosystems generally have a relatively poor
conservation status, with only 7% of assessments being favourable, compared to 17% for habitat types not related
to agro-ecosystems [COM/2009/358 final]. This has generally resulted from the intensification of more productive
land or the abandonment or forestation of less productive land, leading to the gradual disappearance of low-intensity
high nature value farming systems (Cooper et al., 2009).
B. AGROBIODIVERSITY: HISTORY AND NEW CONSERVATION APPROACHES
Biological diversity in agriculture is a subset of natural biological diversity. It is composed of different levels of
diversity: the diversity of systems, species, populations within species and individuals within the population, together
with the variety of the macro and micro-organisms living in the environment. The balance between the individual
components of the agro ecosystem, and thus its overall health, is closely dependent on its level of diversity, because
this determines its resilience, i.e. its capacity to return to its former state after undergoing stress of any kind.
The first reduction of diversity in agricultural species took place with the domestication of plants and animals by
early farmers. By selecting the types most suitable for cultivation and breeding, a significant proportion of diversity
in wild forms was naturally lost. After this selection, new diversity in species has, however, been created by the
accumulation of spontaneous mutations or crossings of related species or between different populations of the same
species. Man has often driven this evolutionary process, selecting the forms that are best suited to their needs and
preferences. In the beginning, the farmer was a breeder, capable of inducing new diversity and of selecting types
according to specific goals. Plants and animals, accompanying man in his migrations, have therefore evolved into a
variety of types and have been shaped by their new environments and by farmers themselves.
These multiple forms (landraces or farmers’ varieties and breeds), each suited to a different environment and a
different culture, were the basis of food supply and the economy in farming communities around the world. Due
to their adaptability to the environment in which they had evolved, they overcame or tolerated the adverse climate
of that specific environment. Due to their large genetic base, they came through or tolerated the sudden adversity
without succumbing to it, thus ensuring an important stability of food production in rural communities. According to
Harlan (1975), landraces are “equilibrated populations, in balance with the environment and the pathogens, genetically
dynamic but also subject to selection by farmers”. A more recent definition reports that: “A landrace (…) is a variable
population, which is identifiable and usually has a local name. It lacks ‘formal’ crop improvement, is characterized by a
specific adaptation to the environmental conditions of the area of cultivation (tolerant to the biotic and abiotic stresses of
that area) and is closely associated with the uses, knowledge, habits, dialects, and celebrations of the people who developed
and continue to grow it” (Del Greco et al., 2007). Landraces/farmers’ varieties and breeds are a significant part of the
genetic resources for food and agriculture, containing a large variety of genes that are useful for the evolutionary
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY: IMPACTS AND INTERRELATIONS

adaptation of species and for human needs. A pioneer of modern studies on agrobiodiversity, Nikolaj I. Vavilov (8) was
the first, in the early decades of the 20th century, to point out that a wealth of variety in crop species still remained
to be revealed to science. His original phyto-geographical research method led to his main discovery: the areas with
the greatest biodiversity are those where the species originated. He called those areas species’ “centres of origin”.
Rural communities around the world, especially in those areas, often in developing countries, profited from this
diversity until the start of the Green Revolution 60 years ago.
The Green Revolution, the major period of change in agriculture, was characterized on the one hand, by the creation
of new production tools (machinery, fertilizers, pesticides) needed to achieve the goals of maximum productivity, and,
on the other hand, by the creation of selected varieties and breeds characterized by a narrow genetic base, allowing
them to exploit the productive potential of the production tools developed. This led to new, uniform and productive
varieties, suited to high-input agriculture.
The evident success of the Green Revolution, in terms of global food production, population growth and the economic
development of some areas, came at a high cost with the dramatic impoverishment of agro-ecosystems and their
related rural communities. The old varieties and breeds that were the basis of agriculture before the Green Revolution
- less uniform but more adaptable, more rich in diversity and therefore more reliable in hostile environments - were
quickly replaced by a few varieties and breeds selected in environments that were often very different from those to
which they were then introduced. Species and varieties traditionally grown locally and suited to a specific territory
gradually disappeared. To meet the needs of mechanization, hedges and crop rotation also disappeared.
The extreme simplification of the systems broke the balance and the link between environment and agricultural
process: the system became vulnerable.
This vulnerability has been evidenced in recent decades by the devastation of entire harvests, both in developing and
developed countries, due to the wide distribution of pathogen races to which the commercially available cultivars,
homogeneous and closely related to one another, are very sensitive. The great famine in Ireland, which occurred
between 1845 and 1847, caused around a million deaths and was the main driver of the great emigration to America.
This is an example, which occurred before the Green Revolution, of the effects of extreme simplification of an
agricultural system: potatoes were the main food source for the poorest and there was mainly one variety grown,
which was extremely sensitive to the fungus Phytophtora infestans. The parasite found fertile ground and completely
destroyed the crops.
Increasing biodiversity in crops, or recovering the lost biodiversity, can be a powerful tool for guaranteeing food
production against various kinds of threats, including those related to climate change (Ceccarelli, 2009).
At this time, when industrial agriculture showed its vulnerability and its effects on territory and on the social fabric,
people realized that much of the diversity created by centuries of evolution and adaptation was disappearing, often
together with the related communities. The term “genetic erosion” is used to indicate the process of the disappearance
of systems, species, varieties, and breeds caused by drastic changes to the environment or in human activity. In the
case of agriculture, the term gives an idea of the meaning of loss of biological resources, but not that of the loss of
culture that accompanies it.
According to FAO statistics, today there are about 7,000 species of plants used by man as food, but only 150 are
cultivated. About 75% of food consumed by humans comes from only 12 plant species and five animal species and
about 50% of the same food is provided by only 4 plant species (rice, corn, wheat and potato) and three major species of
animals (belonging to cattle, pigs and poultry). Even species traditionally grown in the past and particularly important
for nutrition in poor countries, as well as in marginal areas of developed countries, are now underutilized or ignored.
The remaining diversity in agriculture, partially preserved in germplasm banks located throughout the world, is
still present in cultivation in marginal areas where industrial agriculture is not developed, because of soil, climatic
or cultural reasons. Elderly people often maintain old varieties and breeds in their home gardens, because of an
attachment to their specific tastes or methods of cultivation, which are different from that of commercial varieties.
Especially in Europe, the conservation of local varieties and breeds is related to the deep connection between them
and their territory of origin, where tradition has an important role. Nevertheless, because of the old age of their
owners and the changing social conditions, those landraces and local breeds are now threatened by extinction.
(8) Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov (1887 -1943) was the botanist, geneticist, biologist, geographer, explorer, agronomist and plant breeder who developed the
fundamental theory on the centres of origin of cultivated plants. During his activity, he organized a series of botanical-agronomic expeditions, collecting
seeds from every part of the globe, and created the world’s largest collection of plant seeds at that time, in Leningrad. Vavilov first identified five centres
of origin for species, which became eight in his last papers: China, India, Central Asia, Near East, the Mediterranean coast, Ethiopia, Central and South
America, especially in mountain areas or highlands. His theory and observations were fundamental to the birth of modern studies on crop biodiversity.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY: IMPACTS AND INTERRELATIONS
15

16
In those areas where selected varieties have completely replaced landraces and local breeds, there is a strong
demand for biodiversity, especially by those who practice organic and low input farming. The characteristics of
plasticity, adaptability, and stability of production of landraces are, in fact, particularly useful for a kind of agriculture
that reduces the use of chemicals and energy. Vandana Shiva (9) points out that “the conservation of biodiversity is
impossible until it becomes itself a part of the production process”.
However, there are two obstacles for those who want to bring biodiversity into the production process: one is related
to the availability of varieties and breeds that are suited to low-input agriculture and to local market conditions, and
the other one relates to the difficulty accessing propagation material.
One of the possible solutions to these constraints is a radical change of approach in the breeding process, establishing
real cooperation between those who create and those who use the genetic material, in order to really meet the
needs of a type of agriculture that does not impoverish natural resources and does not pollute the environment.
This “participatory” approach is currently applied in specific breeding programmes in several, mostly developing,
countries, and is considered an important tool for increasing productivity and food safety in rural communities through
the increase of agrobiodiversity in the production process (Ceccarelli and Grando, 2009).
Testing this type of methodology in a European context marks a major change in perspective with respect to the
principles of industrial agriculture: diversity against simplification, decentralization against centralization, established
varieties suited to the environment instead of adapting the environment to the variety. The farmer is then no longer
just a person who “uses” or “preserves”, but is also someone who “manages” and “creates” new diversity.
The emphasis on agriculture by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992) stimulated governments and
scientific institutions to develop strategies to arrest the loss of biodiversity in agriculture. The objective of the
Convention is not only to promote the conservation of biological resources, but also the sustainable use and equitable
sharing of the benefits derived from them. The CBD talks about the conservation of genetic resources ex situ (outside
their own environment, i.e. in seed banks, collections, botanical gardens, bioparks, etc.) and in situ (in their own
environment of origin, so that they can continue to evolve).
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA, 2001), adopted by the FAO
Conference, is further deepening the relationship between diversity, agriculture and local communities, putting
emphasis on the sustainable use of genetic resources, creating a multilateral mechanism for facilitating access to
resources and proposing a system of benefit sharing (also by appropriate funding) that recognizes farmers’ role in
managing biodiversity. The need to promote and sustain the in situ/on-farm conservation of genetic resources is
further emphasized.
There are different approaches to biodiversity of agricultural interest in the various European Countries. The type
of approach depends on several factors, including the different characteristics of the agricultural systems and the
different national agricultural and environmental policies.
(9) Vandana Shiva is an Indian physician, philosopher, economist and environmental activist who has written more than 20 books and over 500 papers in
leading scientific and technical journals about intellectual property rights, biodiversity, biotechnology, bioethics, genetic engineering and eco-feminism.
For her fight to change the practice and paradigms of agriculture and food in order to protect local communities, in 1993 she was awarded with the
Right Livelihood Award. In 2003, Time Magazine identified Dr Shiva as “an environmental hero”. She currently collaborates with the governments of
India and several other countries, as well as Non-Governmental Organisations.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY: IMPACTS AND INTERRELATIONS

EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY: IMPACTS AND INTERRELATIONS
17

EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY
FOR BIODIVERSITY AND AGROBIODIVERSITY
18
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY FOR BIODIVERSITY AND AGROBIODIVERSITY

A. HOW EUROPEAN COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT BIODIVERSITY
Europe’s biodiversity is inextricably linked to agricultural practices creating valuable agro-ecosystems across the
whole of Europe. A large number of highly valued wildlife species and semi-natural habitat types in Europe are
dependent on continuing low-intensity agricultural practices and are under considerable pressure as a result of
intensification, abandonment of farmland, loss of natural and semi-natural habitats, and climate change.
The environmental sustainability of agriculture has become a major concern, with the Rio Earth Summit (1992) being
a notable turning point. Following the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), the European Commission released
a communication on a Community Biodiversity Strategy (1998) and Specific Action Plans have emerged, including
actions related to Agriculture [see COM (2001) 162 final]. Furthermore, the European Community’s Sixth Environment
Action Programme, covering the period from 2002 to 2012 (Decision 2002/1600/EC), and the 2006 EU Biodiversity
Action Plan “Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010” (COM/2006/216 and annexes), have addressed the challenge of
integrating biodiversity concerns into various policy sectors, including the CAP, in a unified way.
The European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has an important influence on agricultural land use in the
EU. As agriculture in Europe strongly influences the management of natural resources and biodiversity, the CAP
assumes an important role in managing the environment in the EU’s rural areas (EEA, 2009). The various CAP reforms
that have taken place since 1992 have resulted in it being significantly reorganized. At present, the CAP is divided
into two main pillars: Pillar 1, consisting of direct payments to farmers and market interventions such as subsidies;
and Pillar 2, a rural development policy. Among other changes, there is a clear focus on dealing with environmental
issues and both pillars can contribute directly and indirectly to biodiversity conservation: Pillar 1 by decoupling direct
payments from quantities of agricultural production and by applying cross-compliance rules that focus primarily
on preventing environmental damage by farm operations; and Pillar 2, by specific instruments such as the agroenvironment
measures, but also payments related to Natura 2000 areas, the Water Framework Directive, Natural
Handicap Areas, forests and environmental investments.
Cross-compliance rules were made compulsory to all farmers receiving direct payments (both under Pillar 1 and
Pillar 2). The cross-compliance system respects statutory management requirements and good agricultural and
environmental condition standards, many of which are related to biodiversity. However, its implementation at Member
State level has proved problematic. Both the control and the sanction systems are weak and ineffective and cannot
guarantee minimum environmental standards (Birdlife International, 2011). Moreover, cross-compliance rules can
only make a small contribution to biodiversity conservation because they do not have a clear focus and cannot really
ensure active management of ecosystems that are rich in biodiversity. Finally, implementation of the statutory
management requirements, including the biodiversity related Birds and Habitats Directives, can be extremely difficult
at farm level due to the absence of prescriptions and guidance (European Court of Auditors, 2008).
The benefits of current support under Pillar 2 are also questionable. Although the Agro-environment Schemes are
very promising for biodiversity, only a tiny proportion of the entire CAP budget is dedicated to these schemes and
they often involve practices with no clear environmental benefit. On the other hand, rural development support under
‘Pillar 2’ varies considerably between Member States with regard to the payments per hectare of farmland under
agri-environment and natural handicap area measures, suggesting a great divergence of policy implementation
among Member States with regard to the use of measures that may support biodiversity conservation (EEA, 2009).
Other rural development measures are often used to support environmentally destructive practices. For example,
Less Favoured Area (LFA) payments aim to address the problem of land abandonment, preserve farmland landscapes,
and support the rural community. However, they go to all farmers in designated areas, regardless of whether they
practice environmentally friendly farming (Birdlife International, 2011a). At the same time, they do not differentiate
between non-HNV (High Nature Value) farming systems and HNV farming that delivers public benefits (EEA, 2010).
High Nature Value Farmland is defined as ‘‘those areas in Europe where agriculture is a major (usually the dominant)
land use and where that agriculture supports, or is associated with, either a high species and habitat diversity or the
presence of species of European conservation concern, or both’’ (Andersen 2003). Thus, HNV farmland is qualified
as areas where farming practices are associated with high biodiversity value and they often include Less Favoured
Areas (LFAs), which are defined as agricultural areas that are geographically and economically marginalized due to
natural disadvantages. Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that agricultural practices affect many other habitat
types beyond agricultural land in the narrow sense. These habitat types include types of heath, wetlands, forest and
even sand dunes (EEA, 2010). However, there is variance across Europe in the types of habitat affected and their
specific links to agricultural management practices.
Despite the different reforms, the CAP has not changed sufficiently to reduce biodiversity loss (Cooper et al., 2009).
In several EU countries, direct support is provided on a historical basis, which, in practice, favours more productive
land, usually farmed intensively. Millions of subsistence and semi-subsistence farmers, many of them from new
member states, who are practising traditional farming practices that maintain Europe’s natural and cultural heritage,
do not receive the necessary support and often do not receive any subsidies at all (Birdlife International, 2011a).
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY FOR BIODIVERSITY AND AGROBIODIVERSITY
19

20
Positive environmental side effects in relation to biodiversity resulted from the obligatory set-aside of arable land
and the incentive measures for long-term set-aside, which were introduced during the McSharry reform (1992) in
order to limit overproduction. However, decoupling caused arable set-aside to be abolished, as noted in the ‘Health
Check of the CAP’ (2008). Furthermore, a study by Birdlife International (2011b) in three key European countries
(Spain, Germany and the Czech Republic) has shown that the level of subsidies was not found to reflect conservation
values or public goods delivery levels.
Given the EU’s limited success in halting the loss of biodiversity by meeting the 2010 Targets as set in the Sixth
Community Environment Action Programme, major efforts will be needed to reach the new Targets of the Biodiversity
Strategy to 2020 (COM/2011/244). The critical role of the CAP in helping meet the EU’s biodiversity targets is broadly
highlighted in this new Strategy and particularly in Target 3.A, which is directly relevant to Agriculture and also
indirectly linked to Targets 1 and 2. Target 3.A is as follows: “By 2020, maximize areas under agriculture across
grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as
to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status
of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as
compared to the EU2010 Baseline, thus contributing to enhance sustainable management.” The above-mentioned
‘measurable improvement’ is to be measured against the quantified enhancement targets for the conservation
status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under Target 2.
The recently announced reform of the CAP should be an opportunity to enhance synergies and maximize coherence
between Agriculture and Biodiversity protection objectives as foreseen in the general framework of the European
policy for sustainable development.
One of the objectives of the CAP 2014-2020 is the “sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, with
a focus on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, soil and water” [COM(2011) 625 final/2]. The need for a “greening” of
the first Pillar is underlined, because market prices do not reward farmers for adopting practices that are particularly
favourable to environmental and climate objectives as providers of such public goods.
In addition, rural developments have to be allowed to significantly contribute towards the completion of the
implementation of both the Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directives and to the achievement of the EU’s 2020
biodiversity strategy.
On the basis of the evaluation of the current policy framework and an analysis of future challenges and needs, the
impact assessment assesses and compares the impact of three alternative scenarios. The three scenarios prepared
in the impact assessment are: 1) an adjustment scenario that continues with the current policy framework while
addressing its most important shortcomings, such as the distribution of direct payments; 2) an integration scenario
that entails major policy changes in the form of enhanced targeting and greening of direct payments and reinforced
strategic targeting for rural development policy in better coordination with other EU policies, as well as extending the
legal base for a broader scope of producer cooperation; and 3) a refocus scenario that reorients the policy exclusively
towards the environment with a progressive phasing out of direct payments, assuming that productive capacity can
be maintained without support and that the socio-economic needs of rural areas can be served by other policies.
The three scenarios have different focuses in order to achieve the objectives of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
The most accredited scenario at the moment (the integration scenario) provides different tools to support actions
related to biodiversity protection: a greening component of direct payments through measures that go beyond crosscompliance,
an enhanced cross-compliance to better address climate change, the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive and a stronger rural development policy with reinforced strategic targeting. This scenario is
considered the best suited to contribute to the achievement of the 2020 biodiversity targets. The integration scenario
also contributes to an increase of connective elements in the Green Infrastructure (10) (GI), thereby helping to preserve
the pastures and buffer zones along the rivers (Lavalle et al. 2011).
B. HOW EUROPEAN POLICIES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AGROBIODIVERSITY
The issue of agrobiodiversity in European strategies and programmes is supported by interesting and important
principles but its development is stunted by legal barriers and very limited budgets.
There is no overall policy on genetic resources for agriculture in Europe. The issue is dealt with by eight commission
departments in different types of regulations and programmes pursuing often conflicting objectives with conflicting
measures. The main legislative framework on genetic resources is provided by Zootechnics and Seeds EU Legislation
driven by DG SANCO, the CAP’s Rural Development Policy and council regulation EC 870/2004 driven by DG AGRI.
1. European policies and context for agrobiodiversity
The Biodiversity Action Plan for agriculture (COM/2001/0162final) has a specific chapter dedicated to genetic
resources, stressing their importance for animals and plants, and the need to explore in situ conservation after
having worked on ex situ conservation. In the specific chapter on seed legislation, it is noted that “The conservation
and improvement of in situ/on-farm plant genetic resources also depends on the effective possibility of sustainable
(10) The Green Infrastructure (GI) is defined as a set of spatially and functionally connected areas, which maintain ecological coherence as an essential
condition for healthy ecosystems. The objective of the GI is to mitigate the fragmentation and erosion of the natural/semi-natural ecosystems due to
the intensification of land management and the expansion of what is now often termed grey infrastructure.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY FOR BIODIVERSITY AND AGROBIODIVERSITY

uses and hence on legislation which makes it possible to market diversified genetic materials”. Actually, it appears
that seed laws have had an unintended negative impact on cultivated agrobiodiversity “reducing the numbers of
cultivars grown and impinging on the ability of farmers to grow older varieties or landraces not present in the
catalogue” (Negri et al., 2009).
The EU programme (2006-2011) on the conservation, characterization, collection and utilisation of genetic resources
in agriculture (Council Regulation (EC) 870/2004) was implemented then to promote genetic diversity and information
exchange between member states and the European Commission for the in situ and ex situ conservation and
sustainable use of genetic resources in agriculture. Seventeen actions have been undertaken within the framework
of the programme. Twelve of these actions are related to plants and five to animals, but the resources allocated to
meet the challenges are insufficient (budget: €10 M for 178 implementing organizations, for five years).
In the CAP’s Rural Development Policy (Council Regulation (EC) 1698/2005), complementary opportunities are
given to support “genetic resource conservation“. The first one is given by the Agri-environment payments to rear
endangered local breeds of farm animals and to preserve threatened plant genetic resources (Articles 39(1) to 39(4)).
The system of direct payment (by surface area cultivated) rarely offers appropriate support to endangered breeds
or varieties. Furthermore, new opportunities are offered at national and regional level for specific support for the
conservation of genetic resources in agriculture (Article 39(5) ). This last article seems to have been applied by only
seven member states.
Another EU financial instrument is the 7 th Framework Program for research activities. There is no specific “genetic
resources and biodiversity program”, however various entry points exist, including theme 2, Food agriculture and
fisheries, and biotechnology. Different research programs are or have been focused on genetic resources and
agrobiodiversity (e.g. Farm Seed Opportunities, Solibam, Diverseeds, Biobio, PGR Secure (11) ). The challenge is to
transfer the results and to involve agriculture stakeholders in these programs.
In parallel, in 2008 the Council of Europe and the Planta Europa network submitted a European Strategy for Plant
Conservation to the Scientific Body of the CBD (SBSTTA), essentially dedicated to wild species and wild crop relatives.
One of the targets of the 2008-2014 phase was to “Prepare a European inventory of traditional, local crop landrace
varieties” (Negri &al, 2009), which is a work in progress at the moment.
Regarding animal biodiversity, the management of local breed conservation was defined in the “Global Plan of Action
for Animal Genetic Resources” in the first International Technical Conference on Animal Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture organized by FAO (3-7 September 2007, Interlaken, Switzerland) and it was signed by 109 States, the
EC and 42 Organizations. The Global Plan of Action contains strategic priorities for the sustainable use, development
and conservation of animal genetic resources, as well as provisions for financing its implementation and follow-up
(see report “Funding Strategy for the implementation of the GPA” FAO, 2010). European institutions have developed
the European Farm Animal Biodiversity Information System (EFABIS) as a contribution and gateway to transfer data
from national inventories to the global information system DAD-IS at the FAO.
Recently, “A global view of livestock biodiversity and conservation” (12) , a project funded by the EC, reviewed the main
drivers of biodiversity loss and the main strategies for the characterization, evaluation, prioritization and conservation
of livestock genetic resources. More data are stored in databases of projects like: EuReCa (“Toward self-sustainable
European Regional cattle breeds”), HERITAGESHEEP, EU GENRES (“European Genetic Resources”) and ELBARN (13) .
In the reports of these projects a redundant problem is highlighted: In addition to the agricultural and rural policies,
EU has designed new legislation for veterinary and food safety, mainly to cope with newly-discovered health hazards,
like BSE and dioxin contamination. Therefore, there is now a considerable amount of food safety legislation, on
animals and animal products within the EU (14) . On the other hand, maintenance of local breeds and development of
local food products may be hindered by this kind of legislation, because big investments are needed by a farmer to
comply with the regulations. For the small-scale farmer with a few local cow breeds, the investments are particularly
high for committing to a specific on-farm product (e.g. cheese).
Moreover, the EU’s zootechnical legislation regulates trade in breeding animals and their genetic material (15) . It also
lays down rules for entering animals into herdbooks, recording performance data, and estimating breeding values
and acceptance for breeding purposes (Hiemstra and al, 2010).
Finally, the last Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 (COM/2011/244) takes into account agrobiodiversity in its 3 rd target;
action 10 specifically points out the necessity to conserve Europe’s agricultural genetic diversity: “The Commission and
member states will encourage the uptake of agri-environmental measures to support genetic diversity in agriculture
and explore the scope for developing a strategy for the conservation of genetic diversity.”
(11) http://www.farmseed.net/; www.solibam.eu/; www.diverseeds.eu/; www.biobio-indicator.org/; www.pgrsecure.org/
(12) www.globaldiv.eu
(13) www.elbarn.net
(14) http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/food_safety/index_en.htm
(15) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/zootechnics/legislation_en.htm
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY FOR BIODIVERSITY AND AGROBIODIVERSITY
21

22
2. Toward an appropriate legislation and policy framework for cultivated biodiversity?
The challenge for the EU and EU member states is now to have a specific policy framework for local breeds and
varieties that really offers the possibility of increasing the use of biodiversity in agriculture.
For seeds and plants, encouraging policy signals came from the EU seed regulation system, but the framework for
conservation varieties is still not well suited. The current revision of the EU’s regulatory framework for plants and
seeds could be an opportunity to give an appropriate status to agrobiodiversity, its marketing and its property rights.
2.1. Content, limitations and inadequacy of conservation variety regulations
The specific context of conservation varieties (Dir 95/98) was clarified by three new EU directives, in 2008, 2009 and
2010 (16) . This new space reserved for conservation varieties reflects a recognition of the specificity of certain varieties,
including their heterogeneity and instability. The changes proposed must be considered a step in this overall process,
targeting a particular type of variety and answering some of the new objectives to be included: agrobiodiversity
conservation and environmental protection (i.e. organic and low input agriculture).
AC Moÿ, in 2010, detailed the limitations of these regulations:
The 2008 Directive was supposed to respond to the difficulty of including local varieties by providing less stringent
registration criteria but these registration rules allow little tolerance with respect to homogeneity (10% of off-types)
and are strict on stability. It did, however, set the goal of allowing the marketing of seeds of “primitive races” defined
as “a set of populations or clones of a plant species naturally suited to environmental conditions in their area.”
A diverse population is, by definition, diverse for all of its components and not only for 10% of off-types. The
proportions of each component can vary from year to year. No population, let alone group of populations, can become
“homogeneous” and “stable” on demand. This internal contradiction of the EU directive must necessarily bring it to
evolve to allow consideration of more flexible criteria for homogeneity and stability.
The obligation to provide proof that a particular variety was traditionally cultivated in the region could also greatly
restrict the opportunities offered by this directive, as it prevents varieties from recent local selections/adaptations
from being taken into account.
The geographical limitation on the sale of seeds in the same region of origin can be justified, in some cases, to
strengthen the protection of local designations, but cannot be justified in most other cases.
Finally, for species with limited distribution, the quantitative restrictions proposed can also be a major obstacle to
the effective conservation of biodiversity for economic reasons, as a minimum production volume must be exceeded
for efficiencies of scale to be achieved.
With the regulation on vegetable varieties, created to respond to particular growing conditions (2009/145/EC),
the European Commission has removed some of these barriers: the variety may have evolved or been selected
recently, and its seeds can be marketed outside the region of origin. The directive does not limit varieties of “use for
home gardeners,” and it allows the sale of seeds for professional use. It also removes restrictions on quantity, but
reintroduces them with an indirect limitation through the packaging: “the relatively high price of seeds sold in small
packages leading to quantitative restrictions.”
The 2010 Directive is limited to fodder plant seed mixtures.
These legal frameworks currently limit the potential of participatory research into seed selection and on-farm
conservation, management, and marketing by restricting farmers’ access to diverse seeds. This concern is also
apparent in the final report of the evaluation of European seed legislation prepared by the Food Chain Evaluation
Consortium (FCEC). FCEC’s concern is that the new directive may well be restrictive if implemented incorrectly
and FCEC is not certain that member states will understand how to implement it with the flexibility, freedom and
adaptability that the Commission intended (FCEC, 2008).
(16) EU Directive 2008/62/EC allows for certain exceptions for acceptance of agricultural landraces and varieties that are naturally suited to the local
and regional conditions and threatened by genetic erosion and for the marketing of seed and seed potatoes of those landraces and varieties.
It provides for certain exceptions for the marketing of seeds of landraces and varieties that are naturally suited to the local and regional conditions
and threatened by genetic erosion.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:72008L0062:EN:NOT
EU Directive 2009/145/EC allows for certain exceptions for acceptance and the marketing of vegetable landraces and varieties that have been
traditionally grown in particular locations and regions and are threatened by genetic erosion and of vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for
commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009L0145:en:NOT
2010/60/EU allows for certain exceptions for marketing of fodder plant seed mixtures intended for use in the preservation of the natural environment.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32010L0060:EN:NOT
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY FOR BIODIVERSITY AND AGROBIODIVERSITY

2.2. Genetic resources of fruit plant species, toward a further loss of biodiversity?
Council Directive 2008/90/EC “on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for
fruit production” defines a legal framework for fruit plant species that is more stringent than it was before. Indeed,
the directive requires a specific reference for the marketing of propagation material of fruit plant species (including
plants for fruit production) for the variety to which it belongs, which is either legally protected, officially registered
or commonly known (i.e. registered in another member state or already marketed before 30/9/2012, provided that it
has an officially recognized description). The suppliers also have to be officially registered and subjected to controls
on the safety certification of propagation material marketed.
Nevertheless, the exceptions allowed for local circulation and for supplier marketing only to non-professional end
consumers are not binding, and in fact, some member states have not implemented them yet. Consequently, some
EU associations involved in organic farming and in biodiversity conservation consider that, despite the declared
intention to help preserve genetic diversity, this directive may increase bureaucracy in the spreading of genetic
resources, thus contributing to a further loss of biodiversity. The chance for the local communities involved in the
conservation of genetic resources to have easier access to propagation material would be in accordance with one
of the main statements of CBD and ITPGRFA, namely the equitable distribution of the benefits arising from the use
of the genetic resources to local communities: unfortunately, it is not compulsory for member states to implement
these dispensations.
3. The current revision of the EU’s regulatory framework for plants and seeds: strong divergent
interests between stakeholders.
The market for seeds and propagation material (production and sale) is strictly regulated by a long series of 12
Directives, many of which date back to the sixties and seventies. In 2008, the DG SANCO started the process of
reviewing the legislation regarding “Seed and Propagation Material”, with the aim of defining new objectives and
needs that the seed legislation should address in the future (17) .
In this context, it has prepared a document named “Options and analysis of possible scenarios for the review of
the European Union legislation on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material”. In these scenarios,
conservation varieties are considered to be “niche markets”. The debate is hot at the moment and the first set of
legislative proposals is expected for mid-2012.
As well as this legislation review, the EU legislation on plant variety rights is under external evaluation as well. This
evaluation was finalized in June 2011. During the evaluation, “Representatives from six member states indicated that
there may be some tensions between the EU programmes and the Community Plant Variety Rights Acquis (CPVR),
particularly regarding transfers of plant genetic resources between different stakeholders and overly stringent
uniformity requirements” (Evaluation CPVR Acquis DG SANCO 2011). The results of this evaluation were presented
in October 2011 at a conference entitled ‘EU plant variety rights in the 21 st century’. The main conclusions presented
seem to essentially point out the necessity to reinforce the plant breeders’ rights towards growers cultivating farm
saved seeds (18) .
On the whole, the revision of these two main legislative frameworks aims to simplify the legislation, to change the
governance, and to take into account new technologies (transgenesis and all other biotechnologies) in the legislative
framework of the marketing of Seed and Propagation Material and of plant variety rights, but the challenge is to
properly take into account the specificities of agrobiodiversity.
In the “Farm Seed Opportunities” (FSO) research project (www.farmseed.net) the conclusion states that “all the
diverse varieties having no correspondence with the DUS criteria (19) may be important for increasing genetic diversity
in the field - specifically in organic and low-input agriculture -, playing a key role also in facing climate change. All
of this could be considered part of the European informal seed system.
Finding the right balance between formal and informal seed systems within the European context should be one of
the objectives of the regional strategy for on-farm conservation of Plant Genetic Resources For Agriculture”.
(17) http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/index_en.html
(18) http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propertyrights/index_en.htm
(19) DUS stands for Distinct Uniform Stable. DUS tests prove if the new variety is clearly distinguishable from all other existing varieties within the
crop concerned (Distinct), whether the variety remains uniform during propagation (Uniform) and whether the characteristics of the variety remain
stable during repeated propagation (Stable).
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY FOR BIODIVERSITY AND AGROBIODIVERSITY
23

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLANS
ON AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY
24
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLANS ON AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY

CHALLENGE 1 26
SYNERGIES BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY
Develop an European Farm Evaluation System (EFES) to assess the impact of the agricultural
production process and farm management on biodiversity. EFES should be developed on the basis
of indicators proposed by EEA in the framework of EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 “Our life insurance,
our natural capital”
Link public financial support to good agricultural practices related to biodiversity conservation
Increase the protection level of and economic support to High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF)
in European countries
Raise awareness in the agricultural sector and in public society about the importance of preserving
natural and cultivated biodiversity
CHALLENGE 2 30
CONSERVATION AND PROMOTION OF AGROBIODIVERSITY
Preserve and maintain biodiversity from existing genetic resources for food and agriculture
as well as the heritage of knowledge and culture linked to them
Set up and support European networks of stakeholders working on the conservation,
enhancement and management of agrobiodiversity, in order to encourage regional and national initiatives
and create new entities, also encouraging knowledge transfer on in situ and ex situ conservation
Establish a clear European legal framework, within the review of legislation on marketing of seeds
and propagating material, which will recognize farmers’ right to exchange and market their own propagation
material (seeds, bulbs, tubers) for biodiversity conservation, dynamic management or plant breeding purposes,
without satisfying the stringent legal requirements currently in force
Promote dynamic on-farm conservation of genetic resources, applying protocols of participatory plant breeding
Implement and promote specific marketing actions to promote the cultivation of endangered local varieties and
breeding of local breeds
Promote and enlarge GMO-free regions in the European Union
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLANS ON AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
25

26
CHALLENGE 1
SYNERGIES BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY
1 st RECOMMENDATION
DEVELOP AN EUROPEAN FARM EVALUATION SYSTEM (EFES) TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF THE
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION PROCESS AND FARM MANAGEMENT ON BIODIVERSITY. EFES SHOULD BE
DEVELOPED ON THE BASIS OF INDICATORS PROPOSED BY EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY (EEA)
IN THE FRAMEWORK OF EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY 2020 “OUR LIFE INSURANCE, OUR NATURAL
CAPITAL” (20)
Intensive agriculture has a negative impact on the environment and biodiversity: it pollutes water and soil, the
agro-ecosystem becomes simplified, unstable and low in biodiversity. In contrast, a responsible type of sustainable
agriculture can contribute towards the suitable management of the environment and, therefore, towards the
conservation of biodiversity. If negative impacts are not perceived by the agricultural sector itself, and if sustainable
agriculture is not respected and promoted by environmental and Agricultural European Policy, any co-responsibility
effort will be unsuccessful.
ACTION PLAN
Implementation of the proposed indicators (SEBI indicators (21) ) to monitor the impact of agricultural practices
on biodiversity and the evolution of the situation, at local and farm level. Implementation of SEBI Agriculture
Indicators including the use/preservation of agricultural genetic resources and the conservation of soil
biodiversity.
Definition of the Impact Analysis and Impact Assessment procedures.
Definition of correction and compensation tools.
Distribution of soil health assessment tools to European farmers.
Improvement of the definition of limitations to intensive farming in Natural Protected Areas and Natura 2000 sites.
(20) [COM(2011) 541 final], Annexes to impact assessment [SEC(2011) 244 final].
(21) http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/sebi-indicators
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
CHALLENGE 1

2 nd RECOMMENDATION
LINK PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES RELATED TO BIODIVERSITY
CONSERVATION
The adoption of biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices has to be supported by public funds. One of the objectives
of this recommendation is to link farmers’ access to Rural Development Policy (RDP) funds to the European Farm
Evaluation System (EFES) foreseen in previous recommendation.
ACTION PLAN
Use the European Farm Evaluation System (EFES) to give farms that respect biodiversity-friendly agricultural
practices special access to RDP funds, e.g. raising the access score based on the EFES.
Facilitate farmers’ access to credit (through public warrantee) for specific investments that will enable them
to limit the impact of agricultural practices on the environment, to preserve biodiversity and to contribute
to the connectivity of landscape features, thereby boosting the establishment of the Green Infrastructure.
Include in the new RDP specific measures for farmers who adopt practices that contribute to the Green
Infrastructure.
Include direct payments in the CAP’s first pillar rewarding agricultural practices that have a positive impact
on biodiversity, recognizing farmers who protect biodiversity as public goods providers.
Encourage member States to implement the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and identify the related
operational obligations for farmers to be included in cross-compliance as proposed by the integration scenario
of the legal proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020 (22) .
Promote the practice of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) (23) , also identifying potential public or private
bodies interested in “buying” services originating from biodiversity-conserving management practices.
(22) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm
(23) Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), also known as Payments for Environmental Services (or Benefits) is the practice of offering incentives to
farmers or landowners in exchange for managing their land to provide some sort of ecological service.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
CHALLENGE 1
27

28
3 rd RECOMMENDATION
CHALLENGE 1
INCREASE THE PROTECTION LEVEL OF AND ECONOMIC SUPPORT TO HIGH NATURE VALUE FARMLAND
(HNVF) IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
The maintenance of HNV farmland is a clear policy priority for the EU, critical to meeting its commitments to
biodiversity and representing a pressing rural development challenge. HNVF constitutes a key to the survival of
much of Europe’s natural biodiversity and the maintenance of landscapes, but it often also plays a key role in rural
vitality, supporting the tourism and recreation industry, and preserving cultural and gastronomic traditions. In most
cases, HNV systems suffer from low competitiveness, and face decline and ultimately collapse if not adequately
supported. Not all EU countries have accomplished the task of identifying HNV farmland resources, assessing their
condition, and creating accurate baseline figures against which to assess the impacts of the current rural development
programmes post-2013.
ACTION PLAN
Encourage member States and Regions to define HNVF at national and regional level, choosing appropriate
homogeneous indicators at European level, on the basis of available developed indicators.
Take into account the use of landraces and the presence of wild crop relatives as indicators for the definition
of HNVF.
Encourage member States and Regions to define HNVF management plans and monitoring indicators.
Define the access criteria for Rural Development Plan funds for farmers operating on HNVF.
Raise awareness among farmers of the value of HNVF, at European, national and regional level, in collaboration
with public authorities, protected areas, universities and research institutes and farmers’ associations.
Create a mapped inventory of HNVF at national and regional level.
Raise awareness among the public of the ecological value of HNVF and the value of their products for
biodiversity protection.
Promote the concept of HNVF in European Countries that do not currently use it.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
CHALLENGE 1

4 th RECOMMENDATION
RAISE AWARENESS IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR AND IN PUBLIC SOCIETY ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE
OF PRESERVING NATURAL AND CULTIVATED BIODIVERSITY
Even if Biodiversity is a well-known concept in European countries, is still necessary to raise awareness in the
agricultural sector and in public society about the importance of preserving natural and cultivated biodiversity. The
RDP and the CAP do not currently allocate enough money to this kind of activity.
ACTION PLAN
Provide a communication plan for farmers and farming sector representatives regarding the issues and
advantages generated by biodiversity and raise awareness among them of the environmental, technical and
economic advantages of cultivating biodiversity.
Support participatory projects aimed at involving farmers, breeders, tour operators, environmental
associations, farmers’ associations, trade organisations and politicians involved in decision-making about
measures on agrobiodiversity protection and mitigation of the impact of agriculture on biodiversity.
Strengthen efforts in terms of the distribution and transfer of best practices to agricultural professionals.
Distribute existing communication media regarding crop biodiversity and the links between agriculture and
surrounding biodiversity.
Organize open days and training days to raise awareness among representatives or professional managers.
Organize demonstration days in the field or in benchmark farms.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
CHALLENGE 1
29

30
5 th RECOMMENDATION
CHALLENGE 2
CONSERVATION AND PROMOTION OF AGROBIODIVERSITY
PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN BIODIVERSITY FROM EXISTING GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE AS WELL AS THE HERITAGE OF KNOWLEDGE AND CULTURE LINKED TO THEM
Some EU regions and countries have developed national or regional strategies for the protection of existing biodiversity
of agricultural interest, in accordance with EU statements [Reg. 870/2004/CE, COM (2001) 162]. In order to preserve
and maintain the potential for evolution of genetic resources, both the ex situ and in situ conservation of such resources
must be promoted. In situ/on-farm conservation also makes it possible to maintain the close connection that exists
between each resource and its traditional area of cultivation/breeding.
ACTION PLAN
Promote and support the creation of permanent regional and national inventories of endangered genetic
resources and a heritage of knowledge about food and agriculture through the exploration of rural areas,
especially marginal and upland areas.
Support the maintenance and coordination of ex situ collections/inventories of such resources (seed banks,
in vitro collections, inventory orchards, botanical gardens).
Support (promote/enforce) the recovery and revitalization of knowledge related to such resources through
sociological and anthropological research, studies, and interviews.
Support the effective in situ (on-farm) conservation of genetic resources threatened with genetic erosion by
providing incentives for farmers in the next European Rural Development Programme.
Recognize farmers involved in in situ conservation as providers of public goods. It is considered relevant to
change the rules concerning access to the Rural Development Programme funds (measures for the agroenvironment):
funds are currently linked to the size of the cultivated area and not to the value of the public
goods conserved.
Implement the “Priority Activities” recommended in the FAO’s Second Global Plan of Action (GPA) for Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (24) at EU, national and regional level, even developing an EU Plan
of Action in order to meet the specific needs of European agriculture.
Encourage policy-makers to provide financial support to national activities intended to achieve the objectives
of the FAO’s Second GPA.
(24) This Plan was adopted by the FAO Council in Rome on 29 November 2011 as a new global framework aimed at the conservation and sustainable
use of the world’s diversity of plants on which food and agriculture depend. It underlines governments’ commitment to ensure that management
of plant diversity continues to be a key element in global efforts to alleviate poverty and increase food safety in times of climate change. The text is
available on the website: http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/PGR/GPA/GPA2/GPA2_en.pdf
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
CHALLENGE 2

6 th RECOMMENDATION
SET UP AND SUPPORT EUROPEAN NETWORKS OF STAKEHOLDERS WORKING ON THE CONSERVATION,
ENHANCEMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF AGROBIODIVERSITY, IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE REGIONAL AND
NATIONAL INITIATIVES AND CREATE NEW ENTITIES, ALSO ENCOURAGING KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
ON IN SITU AND EX SITU CONSERVATION.
The FAO’s Second Global Plan of Action (GPA) for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture affords significant
importance to network activity, in particular to collaboration among stakeholders, including farmers, breeders,
gene banks, crop working groups, researchers, NGOs, small-scale seed producers, distribution enterprises and
technology transfer bodies. The participation of all stakeholders, in particular women farmers and local breeders,
is expressly advocated. Particular attention is given to the networks’ capacity to implement the International Treaty
on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (25) , especially the Multilateral System of exchange of genetic
material. In some European regions, similar networks are established by law: for example, the Regional Acts of some
Italian regions on the conservation of native agrobiodiversity provide the Conservation and Safety Network as a tool
to promote in situ (on-farm) conservation, giving farmers easier access to genetic material, technology and public
funds, also allowing the enhancement of the economic value of biodiversity and knowledge transfer.
ACTION PLAN
Map relevant European stakeholders and national entities working on biodiversity and create the European
Network.
Include in the European Network, national and regional research bodies, ex situ collection, gene banks
managed by local communities and networks of farmers (e. g. the European Coordination of Let’s Liberate
Diversity, bringing together national farmers’ association representatives involved in promoting local and
sustainable agriculture).
Favour in situ and ex situ conservation through the European Network, encouraging knowledge transfer on
the conservation and management of genetic resources.
Promote stable co-operation between research institutes and farmers involved in the protection/management
of biodiversity.
Link the European Network to the European Network for rural development to share best practices on
agrobiodiversity, and contribute to the evolution of the RDP.
(25) www.planttreaty.org
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
CHALLENGE 2
31

32
7 th RECOMMENDATION
CHALLENGE 2
ESTABLISH A CLEAR EUROPEAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK, WITHIN THE REVIEW OF LEGISLATION ON
MARKETING OF SEEDS AND PROPAGATING MATERIAL, WHICH WILL RECOGNIZE FARMERS’ RIGHT
TO EXCHANGE AND MARKET THEIR OWN PROPAGATION MATERIAL (SEEDS, BULBS, TUBERS) FOR
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION, DYNAMIC MANAGEMENT OR PLANT BREEDING PURPOSES, WITHOUT
SATISFYING THE STRINGENT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS CURRENTLY IN FORCE
European regulations for conservation varieties have evolved (EU Dir 2008/62, 2009/145), establishing specific sections
in the official varieties catalogue for amateur and traditional varieties threatened by genetic erosion, for which a
partial dispensation from the Distinctiveness Uniformity and Stability criteria is allowed. However, the very strict
registration criteria can only be applied in a few cases, because the farmers’ informal system of seed exchange and
the materials involved have very heterogeneous characteristics; it is hard to apply the rules governing industrial seed
production to such a complex system. At present, EU legislation concerning the marketing of seeds and propagating
material (PM) is under further review. At the moment, farmers cannot sell or exchange seeds or PM of non-listed
varieties. This may led to a further loss of diversity, in contradiction of the CBD’s strategic plan (CBD, Tenth meeting
of the Conference of the Parties, Nagoya, 2010), target 15, which requires that “by 2020, the genetic diversity of
cultivated plants (…) is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion
and safeguarding their genetic diversity”, and with the statements of EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 [COM(2011) 541
final]. European farmers expressed their opinion and requests in the Declaration of Szeged (26) . Moreover, the opinion
of the advocate general of the EU court of justice on case C-59/11 (27) , delivered on 19 January 2012, gives new light
on the effect of EU laws on seed marketing: “(…) the present case demonstrates that the restriction of biodiversity
in European agriculture results, at least in part, from rules of EU law (…).”
Reference
ACTION PLAN
Encourage European policy-makers to recognize that farmers are contributing positively not only to
conservation but also to the increase of biodiversity for food and agriculture: for this reason, they should be
granted easier access to genetic resources for conservation and dynamic management, and this should be
included in legislation on Farmers’ Rights, as specifically requested in the Declaration of Szeged.
Encourage the European Commission to choose, among the five scenarios proposed for the review of
Community legislation on marketing of seeds and propagating material, a scenario taking into account the
fundamental role of farmers in protecting and promoting biodiversity, recognizing their right to select, develop,
grow, exchange and sell genetic resources for conservation purposes.
Encourage the European Commission to also foster appropriate strategies aimed at the spreading of
propagating material, thereby facilitating farmers’ access to genetic resources.
[ The current review of the EU’s regulatory framework for plants and seeds: strong divergent interests
between stakeholders.
The seed industry, represented by the European Seed Association (ESA), seems to be satisfied with the direction
taken by the current review “Their recommendations are to a large extent similar if not identical to those
ESA’s different responsible Working Groups have elaborated” said ESA Secretary General Garlich von Essen.
But he is, however, conscious and preoccupied about the fact that “Seeds and plants have become part of a
highly controversial societal debate in Europe. It is this societal debate about the future of farming, and the
use of new technologies (including but not restricted to genetic modifications), the quality and security of food
supply that is likely to have an unprecedented impact on the legislative framework”. (Cultivar Seed Oct. 2011)
(26) On 24 February 2011, farmers from 17 European countries produced the Declaration of Szeged, Hungary, asking the European Union and the
Contracting parties of the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) to put in place policies that support the
implementation of articles 5,6 and 9 (concerning support to on-farm conservation, sustainable use of genetic resources and farmers’ rights). See box.
(27) See full text on http://curia.europa.eu/
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
CHALLENGE 2

At the moment, the position of stakeholders working on the dynamic conservation of biodiversity is drastically
different from this position. On 24 February 2011, the 7th anniversary of the European signature of the ITPGRFA,
farmers and farming sector professionals from 17 European countries met in Szeged, Hungary, and prepared
a statement to be addressed to European governments, the European Union and the Governing Body of the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. This statement was prepared one
month before the Bali ITPGRFA meeting in March 2011, and asked for the right:
- to choose freely, select, develop and grow their own seeds (except for GMOs) and then to sell the crops,
irrespective of whether they come from varieties listed in the catalogue or not;
- to be granted free access to plant genetic resources in ex situ seed banks;
- to exchange and sell seeds for conservation purposes and for the dynamic management or selection
on the farm used for agricultural production. In this respect, we demand explicit recognition of farmers’
rights to select and conserve their own seeds and, for this reason, to exchange plant genetic resources of
varieties not listed in the catalogue, as breeders are doing;
- to reproduce their own seeds in order to adapt them to local conditions. An explicit recognition of the
right to use freely, and without need for a license, is needed for all varieties, regardless whether or not the
varieties are protected by industrial property rights, in order to be able to develop new varieties;
- to protect their seeds from genetic contamination and appropriation through contamination by patented genes.
(Declaration of Szeged, 2011, http://www.liberate-diversity-hungary2011.org/) ]
8 th RECOMMENDATION
PROMOTE DYNAMIC ON-FARM CONSERVATION OF GENETIC RESOURCES, APPLYING PROTOCOLS OF
PARTICIPATORY PLANT BREEDING
Low-input agriculture, especially in certain contexts such as marginal areas, requires greater biodiversity to be
included in the farming system. Notably, there is a lack of varieties suited to the specific needs of organic agriculture.
The principles of Participatory Plant Breeding (28) suggest a pattern of action that would allow the management of
biodiversity available both inside and outside of the region, to select or create suitable varieties for such specific
needs, thus increasing the level of biodiversity present in the system.
ACTION PLAN
Provide incentives for the dynamic management of genetic resources, funding projects essaying participative
protocols of characterization, evaluation, multiplication and breeding of different kind of materials, in order
to obtain varieties suited to low-input agriculture and to specific agro-environmental contexts.
Provide incentives for the experimental construction of networks of exchange and seed banks managed by
communities of farmers, where both local and newly created varieties are maintained on-farm.
Promote stable cooperation between research institutes and farmers involved in the protection/management
of biodiversity.
Promote the dissemination of knowledge related to the peculiarities and use of such resources, providing
incentives for training, the creation of networks, and the organization of meetings, conferences and publications.
Support the characterisation of technical, nutritional, organoleptic, and social interests of these new genetic
resources to allow their promotion among agricultural stakeholders, and final consumers.
(28) Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) is an experimental model of selection and breeding where the diversity in the agricultural system is managed
through a continuous cooperation between researchers and farmers in the field, in order to develop varieties that really meet their specific needs. The
involvement of the farmers consists in the conduction of tests (often performed in their own fields), observation, assessment and selection activities,
and it also includes an extensive use of local germplasm stored in banks or maintained in the rural communities. Using this approach, farmers’ and
scientific researchers’ knowledge is used within the breeding programme in the same way and decisions are made jointly. The challenge of the PPB
is to link the increase in productivity and food security not only to agrobiodiversity conservation but also to the increase of agrobiodiversity in the
production process. PPB-based projects have only recently been activated in the EU (www.solibam.eu/), essentially targeting low-input and organic
agriculture. See Ceccarelli and Grando, 2009.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
CHALLENGE 2
33

34
9 th RECOMMENDATION
CHALLENGE 2
IMPLEMENT AND PROMOTE SPECIFIC MARKETING ACTIONS TO PROMOTE THE CULTIVATION OF
ENDANGERED LOCAL VARIETIES AND BREEDING OF LOCAL BREEDS
The market can be a strong incentive for the on-farm conservation of endangered genetic resources. As affirmed in
the Jakarta charter on business and biodiversity (CBD and UNEP, Third Business and the 2010 Biodiversity Challenge
Conference, Jakarta, 2009), the “sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystem services are a source
for future business operations as well as a condition for new business opportunities and markets. (…) Integrating
biodiversity into business can also contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable development”. The tools suggested
are: voluntary corporate actions as well as market-oriented enabling policies and approaches, international standards
and certification systems and related initiatives. In order to make it profitable for farmers to cultivate/breed genetic
resources, appropriate public economic support - up to now available only for PDO, PGI (REG CE 510/2006) and organic
products (REG CE 834/2007) - is needed. In addition, marketing actions such as labelled certification can add value to
the product, raising its price and promoting on-farm conservation. The promotion strategies for endangered genetic
resources not included in the PDO or PGI certification system, are not homogeneous in the different EU countries
and public or private initiatives often lack coordination and sometimes pursue diverging objectives.
Definition
[ Quality Agricultural Products
Agricultural products benefiting from a quality label, such as designation of origin (PDO, PGI) or an organic
label, create environmental added value in addition to their economic and social returns.
Most origin-linked products are produced by small-scale farms with several workshops. Production
specifications are likely to include traditional environmentally friendly cultural and breeding practices. They
are generally the result of the ongoing adaptation of agricultural practices to increasingly difficult pedo-climatic
conditions. These natural constraints require technical improvements allowing on-site processing, longer
preservation and the enhancement of diminished agricultural potential.
Farming practices for quality organic products have to include crop rotation and a certain percentage of locally
produced animal feed. These production methods contribute to promoting diversified territories.
Quality products, therefore, favour variety in terms of cultivation and landscape while inducing sustainable
management for agricultural lands with high biodiversity. ]
ACTION PLAN
Draw up a European programme to promote the marketing of local traditional endangered genetic resources.
The programme should include an assessment of the current situation regarding the production of local,
traditional, endangered varieties and local endangered breeds, the development of production criteria,
certification procedures and labelling, and the assessment of funding needs and sources.
Encourage the creation of a national organisation dealing with the marketing of products from local traditional
varieties and local breeds. The organisation should include a wide range of stakeholders and interest groups
like farmers, food producers, tourism organisations, marketing organisations, and trade agencies.
Increase public marketing support for regional producers of endangered varieties and breeds linked to the
territory.
Develop a systematic promotion of products from local traditional varieties and local breeds in younger
people (aged 10-20 years), via school lessons and seminars from experts in this area. This will help farmers
of local, traditional, endangered varieties and local endangered breeds, to gain consumers of their products
for many years.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
CHALLENGE 2

10 th RECOMMENDATION
PROMOTE AND ENLARGE GMO-FREE REGIONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Possible contamination by GMOs of crops from conventional and organic farming (Altieri 2005, Binimelis 2008), as
well as wild relatives (Binimelis et al. 2009, Sanvido et al. 2007), weeds (Muller et al., 2009) and non-target organisms
living in the environment (Lu et al. 2010), is irreversible. These effects become particularly relevant in centres of crop
origin and diversity (Dyer et al., 2009, Engels et al., 2006), where significant contamination of the landraces still present
is revealed (Pineyro-Nelson et al., 2009). The question is strongly debated (Devos et al. 2008), but many scientists
believe that coexistence is not possible. In addition, the GMO agriculture system increases the extreme simplification
of agro-ecosystems, which are already based on few genotypes that are strongly related: the resistance introduced
with plant engineering is based on single genes (vertical resistance) that can be overcome, thus seriously affecting
the resilience of the system. This kind of approach is not compatible with biodiversity conservation. Furthermore,
the changes caused to wild flora by the increased use of total herbicides, as well as those caused to wildlife by the
insertion of genes codifying toxic compounds for insects, seriously threaten wild biodiversity and the overall balance
of the agro-ecosystem. In the E.U., in particular, due to the precautionary principle, all the products within the E.U.
that contain at least 0.9% of GM ingredients should be labelled as products containing GMOs or GM ingredients
according to Directive 2001/18 and Regulation (E.C) 1829/2003 (Krystallis and Chryssohoidis, 2004). Furthermore, the
Regulation (E.C) 1829/2003 set requirements about the labelling of feed that contains at least 0.9% of GM ingredients
or GMOs. However, it is not compulsory to label livestock products derived from animals fed with GM feed as GM
products. The same problem exists with honey (how can consumers be sure that the honey is not produced by bees
fed with the pollen of GM plants?) and many other agricultural products.
ACTION PLAN
Create a European Regulation in order to recognize GMO-free regions in the European Union.
Develop and apply communication plans targeting farmers and the general public, which emphasize the
consequences of GMO use regarding environmental, social and economic issues. The communication plan
will be based on scientific results.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
CHALLENGE 2
35

36
APPENDIX
1. Glossary
Biodiversity keywords Description
Access and benefit-sharing One of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as set out
in its Article 1, is the “fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of
the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic
resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account
all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding”.
The CBD also has several articles (especially Article 15) regarding international
aspects of access to genetic resources.
Accession Word used in plant genetic resources’s collection and identified the entity collected
it is indicated with a number, a codex or a farmer’s name, collected person,
collected place, etc. In the case of seeds collection a distinct, uniquely identifiable
sample of seeds representing a cultivar, breeding line or a population, which is
maintained in storage for conservation and use.
Agrobiodiversity The variability among living organisms associated with the cultivation of crops and
rearing of animals, and the ecological complexes of which those species are part.
This includes diversity within and between species, and of ecosystems.
Agro-ecological knowledge Ecological knowledge refers to what people know about their natural environment,
based primarily on their own experience and observation. Agro-ecological
knowledge refers to farmers’ knowledge of ecological interactions within the
farming system.
Alien species A species occurring in an area outside of its historically known natural range as
a result of intentional or accidental dispersal by human activities (also known as
an exotic or introduced species).
Ancestor An organism from which later individuals or species has evolved.
Benchmarking A management tool for comparing performance against an organisation that
is widely regarded as outstanding in one or more areas, in order to improve
performance.
Biodiversity Short for biological diversity - means the diversity of life in all its forms - the
diversity of species, of genetic variations within one species, and of ecosystems.
Biome A major portion of the living environment of a particular region (such as a fir forest
or grassland), characterised by its distinctive vegetation and maintained largely
by local climatic conditions.
Biotechnology Any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or
derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use.
Breed A grouping of animals of the same species having a common ancestor and the
same set of characteristics. Farmers use selective mating to produce offspring
(a breed) with the desired characteristics.
Buffer zone The region adjacent to the border of a protected area; a transition zone between
areas managed for different objectives.
Centre of crop diversity Geographical area containing a high level of genetic diversity for crop species in
in situ conditions.
Centre of origin Geographical area where a plant species, either domesticated or wild, first
developed its distinctive properties.
Collection A collection of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture maintained in situ,
ex situ, on farm, in vitro.
Compensation Equivalent in money for a loss sustained; equivalent given for property taken or for
an injury done to another; recompense or reward for some loss, injury or service.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX

Connectivity Structural and functional connectivity is equal to habitat continuity and is measured
by analysing landscape structure, independent of any attributes of organisms.
This definition is often used in the context of metapopulation ecology. Functional
connectivity is the response of the organism to the landscape elements other than
its habitats (ie the non-habitat matrix). This definition is often used in the context
of landscape ecology.
Conservation System of genetic resources maintained.
Conservation status The sum of the influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical species that
may affect its long-term natural distribution, structure and functions as well as
the long-term survival of its typical species or the sum of the influences acting on
the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance
of its populations.
Corridor (ecological) A strip of a particular type of land that differs from the adjacent land on both
sides. Such corridors may have important ecological functions, including conduit,
barrier and habitat.
Crop Cultivated plant or the yield of cultivated plant for a given season or harvest.
Cultivar Cultivated variety (from cultivated + variety) (abbr: cv.). A category of plants that
are, firstly, below the level of a sub-species taxonomically, and, secondly, found
only in cultivation. It is an international term denoting certain cultivated plants
that are clearly distinguishable from others by stated characteristics and that
retain their distinguishing characters when reproduced under specific conditions.
Domesticated species Species in which the evolutionary process has been influenced by humans to meet
their needs. Sin. Cultivated species.
Ecolabel An ecolabel is a voluntary environmental performance certificate that is awarded
to products and services. These products and services have to meet specific,
identified criteria depending on the product groups, which reduce overall
environmental impact.
Ecological coherence of Natura
2000
Sufficient representation of habitats / species to ensure favourable conservation
status of habitats and species across their whole natural range. ‘Sufficient
representation’ is a function of patch quality, total patch area, patch configuration
and landscape permeability.
Ecology A branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their
environment; the study of ecosystems.
Ecosystem goods and services The ecological, social and economic benefits provided by ecosystems and
biodiversity that contribute to human well-being.
Ecosystems Dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their
non-living environment interacting as a functional unit.
Ecosystems services The benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services
such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control;
cultural services such as spiritual and recreational benefits; and supporting
services such as nutrient cycling that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. The
concept “ecosystem goods and services” is synonymous with ecosystem services.
Ecotone Zone / transition areas between two ecosystems where these two systems overlap.
Ecotones support species from both of the over lapping ecosystems and also
species found only in this zone. Consequently, the species richness in ecotones
might be higher than in surrounding areas. In principle, fragmentation causes
an increase in habitat edges, therefore increasing the proportion of ecotones
within a landscape. In this context, it has also been considered that habitat edges
have a negative influence on interior conditions of habitat (e.g. through increased
predation and invasion), i.e. the edge effect.
Ecotourism Travel undertaken to witness sites or regions of unique natural or ecologic quality,
or the provision of services to facilitate such travel that have the least impact on
biological diversity and the natural environment.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX 37

38
Ecotype A type or subspecies of life that is especially well adapted to a certain environment.
Emblematic species Species that are closely associated by the public with a particular region, nation or
continent, or that seem to ‘sum up’ the region in question. For example, kangaroos
for Australia, pandas for China, or kiwis for New Zealand.
Endangered species A technical definition used for classification referring to a species that is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. IUCN The World
Conservation Union defines species as endangeredif the factors causing their
vulnerability or decline continue to operate.
Endemic species A species which is only found in a given region or location and nowhere else in the
world. This definition requires that the region that the species is endemic to, be
defined, such as a “site endemic” (e.g. just found on Mount Celaque),6 a “national
endemic” (e.g. found only in Honduras), a “geographical range endemic” (e.g. found
in the Himalayan region, which however covers several Himalayan countries and
therefore is not a national endemic), or a political region endemic (e.g. found in
countries of Central America). Taken to an extreme, a cosmopolite species is still
endemic to Earth!
Evolution Any gradual change. Organic evolution is any genetic change in organisms from
generation to generation.
Ex situ (Conservation) System of conservation of biological diversity outside their natural habitats.
Extinction The evolutionary termination of a species caused by the failure to reproduce and
the death of all remaining members of the species; the natural failure to adapt to
environmental change.
Fauna All of the animals found in a given area.
Flora All of the plants found in a given area.
Habitat fragmentation Normally encompasses two components, the loss (or change) of habitat and the
breaking up of the remaining habitat into smaller units (although the term is
commonly used to describe only the latter process).
Gene The functional unit of heredity; the part of the DNA molecule that encodes a single
enzyme or structural protein unit.
Gene bank A facility established for the ex situ conservation of individuals (seeds), tissues, or
reproductive cells of plants or animals.
Genetic diversity The heritable variation within and among populations which is created, enhanced
or maintained by evolutionary or selective forces.
Genetic engineering Changes in the genetic constitution of cells (apart from selective breeding) resulting
from the introduction or elimination of specific genes through modern molecular
biology techniques. This technology is based on the use of a vector for transferring
useful genetic information from a donor organism into a cell or organism that
does not possess it (gene cloning). A broader definition of genetic engineering also
includes selective breeding and other means of artificial selection.
Genetic erosion Plant genetic diversity is threatened by “genetic erosion”, a term coined by
scientists for the loss of individual genes and of combinations of genes, such
as those found in locally adapted landraces. The main cause of genetic erosion,
according to FAO’s State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture, is the replacement of local varieties by modern varieties. As old
varieties in farmers’ fields are replaced by newer ones, genetic erosion frequently
occurs because the genes found in the farmers’ varieties are not all contained in
the modern variety. In addition, the sheer number of varieties is often reduced
when commercial varieties are introduced into traditional farming systems.
Other causes of genetic erosion include the emergence of new pests, weeds and
diseases, environmental degradation, urbanization and land clearing through
deforestation and bush fires.
Genetic material Any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units
of heredity.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX

Genetic modification Alteration of the genetic material of living organisms in order to make them
capable of producing new substances or performing new functions. The term is
often used in cases when biotechnological techniques have been used (referred
to as genetic engineering) that induce genetic changes that would not normally
occur in nature.
Genetic resources Genetic material of actual or potential value.
Genetically Modified Organism An organism into which has been inserted - through genetic engineering - one
or more genes from an outside source (either from the same species or from an
entirely different species) that contains coding for desired characteristics, such
as herbicide resistance or an antibacterial compound.
Good Agricultural Practices Practices that address environmental, economic and social sustainability for onfarm
processes, and result in safe and quality food and non-food agricultural
products.
Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure is an interconnected network of green space that conserves
natural ecosystem values and functions and provides associated benefits to human
populations.
Green Revolution Name given by William Goud to the dramatic increase in crop productivity during
the third quarter of the 20th century, as result of integrated advances in genetics
and plant breeding, agronomy, and pest and disease control.
Habitat The place or type of site where an organism or population naturally occurs.
Habitat conservation Series of measures required to maintain or restore the natural habitats and the
populations of species of wild fauna and flora at a favourable status.
Hotspot An area on earth with an unusual concentration of species, many of which are
endemic to the area, and which is under serious threat by people.
In situ (Conservation) System of conservation of biological diversity inside their natural habitats.
Indicator species A species whose status provides information on the overall condition of the
ecosystem and of other species in that ecosystem.
Indigenous knowledge Indigenous knowledge is the local knowledge that is unique to a given culture
or society. It contrasts with the international knowledge system generated by
universities, research institutions and private firms. It is the basis for locallevel
decision making in agriculture, health care, food preparation, education,
natural-resource management, and a host of other activities in rural communities.
Indigenous information systems are dynamic, and are continually influenced by
internal creativity and experimentation as well as by contact with external systems.
Land (use) planning The systematic assessment of land and water potential, alternative patterns of
land use and other physical, social and economic conditions, for the purpose of
selecting and adopting land-use options which are most beneficial to land users
without degrading the resources or the environment, together with the selection
of measures most likely to encourage such land uses. Land-use planning may be
at international, national, district (project, catchment) or local (village) levels. It
includes participation by land users, planners and decision-makers and covers
educational, legal, fiscal and financial measures.
Land use Land use refers to how a specific piece of land is allocated: its purpose, need or
use (e.g. agriculture, industry, residential or nature).
Landrace In plant genetic resources, an early, cultivated form of a crop species, evolved
from a wild population, and generally composed of a heterogeneous mixture of
genotypes.
Landscape character A distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that
makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse.
Marginal areas Marginal areas are identified by the following four criteria: a) significantly lower per
capita incomes, b) low infrastructure equipment, c) cultural isolation, d) difficult
natural conditions.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX
39

40
Mitigating measures Measures that allow an activity with a negative impact on biodiversity, but reduce
the impact on site by considering changes to the scale, design, location, process,
sequencing, management and/or monitoring of the proposed activity. It requires
a joint effort of planners, engineers, ecologists, other experts and often local
stakeholders to arrive at the best practical environmental option. An example is
the unacceptable impact on biodiversity of the construction of a certain road, that
is mitigated by the construction of a wildlife viaduct.
Native species Flora and fauna species that occur naturally in a given area or region. Also referred
to as indigenous species.
Natural environment The natural environment comprises all living and non-living things that occur
naturally on Earth. In its purest sense, it is thus an environment that is not
the result of human activity or intervention. The natural environment may be
contrasted to “the built environment”, and is also in contrast to the concept of
cultural landscape.
Natural habitat Terrestrial or aquatic areas distinguished by geographic, abiotic and biotic features,
whether entirely natural or semi-natural.
On farm (conservation) System of conservation of biological diversity trough farming.
Overexploitation Overexploitation occurs when harvesting of specimens of flora and fauna species
from the wild is out of balance with reproduction patterns and, as a consequence,
species may become extinct.
Protected area Geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to
achieve specific conservation objectives.
Red List IUCN The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species provides taxonomic, conservation status
and distribution informationon taxa that have been globally evaluated using the
IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. This system is designed to determine the
relative risk of extinction, and the main purpose of the IUCN Red List is to catalogue
and highlight those taxa that are facing a higher risk of global extinction (i.e. those
listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable). The IUCN Red List
also includes information on taxa that are categorized as Extinct or Extinct in the
Wild; on taxa that cannot be evaluated because of insufficient information (i.e.
are Data Deficient); and on taxa that are either close to meeting the threatened
thresholds or that would be threatened were it not for an ongoing taxon-specific
conservation programme (i.e. are Near Threatened).
Resilience (ecological) Ecological resilience can be defined in two ways. The first is a measure of the
magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the (eco)system changes
its structure by changing the variables and processes that control behaviour. The
second, a more traditional meaning, is as a measure of resistance to disturbance
and the speed of return to the equilibrium state of an ecosystem.
Restoration The return of an ecosystem or habitat to its original community structure, natural
complement of species, and natural functions.
Seedbank A facility designed for the ex situ conservation of individual plant varieties through
seed preservation and storage.
Small-scale farming Farmers grow food for themselves, their family and sometimes the local market
on a small piece of land with limited resources. Often, these farmers do not have
the money to buy resources they need.
Soil sealing (artificialisation) Soil sealing refers to changing the nature of the soil such that it behaves as an
impermeable medium (for example, compaction by agricultural machinery). Soil
sealing is also used to describe the covering or sealing of the soil surface by
impervious materials by, for example, concrete, metal, glass, tarmac and plastic.
Species A group of organisms capable of interbreeding freely with each other but not with
members of other species.
Species range (natural) The spatial limits within which the habitat or species occurs. A natural range is
not static but dynamic: it can decrease and expand.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX

Stakeholders Stakeholders are those people or organisations which are vital to the success or
failure of an organization or project to reach its goals. The primary stakeholders
are (a.) those needed for permission, approval and financial support and (b.) those
who are directly affected by the activities of the organization or project. Secondary
stakeholders are those who are indirectly affected. Tertiary stakeholders are
those who are not affected or involved, but who can influence opinions either for
or against.
Strategic Environmental
Assessment
A similar technique to environmental impact assessment (EIA) but normally applied
to policies, plans, programmes and groups of projects. Strategic environmental
assessment (SEA) provides the potential opportunity to avoid the preparation and
implementation of inappropriate plants, programmes and projects and assists
in the identification and evaluation of project alternatives and identification of
cumulative effects. SEA comprises two main types: sectoral SEA (applied when
many new projects fall within one sector) and regional SEA (applied when broad
economic development is planned within one region).
Sustainable development Development that meets the needs and aspirations of the current generation
without compromising the ability to meet those of future generations.
Sustainable farming Type of farming that can make use of nature’s goods and services while producing
a sufficient yield in an economically, environmentally, and socially rewarding way,
preserving resources for future generations.
Sustainable use Means the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that
does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining
its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations.
Threatened species A technical classification referring to a species that is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. 12,259 species are known by IUCN, the World Conservation Union, to be
threatened with extinction. IUCN keeps the world’s inventory of the conservation
status of animals and plants, compiling data from thousands of scientists and
conservationists worldwide.
Traditional knowledge Information and learning processes developed over many years and passed down
from one generation to the next. Traditional knowledge is not static; it evolves or
changes over time.
Transgenic organism An individual in which a transgene has been integrated into its genome. In
transgenic eukaryotes, the transgene must be transmitted through meiosis to
allow its inheritance by the offspring. / Any organism that has been genetically
engineered to contain a gene from another organism, usually a different species’.
Variety Plant grouping, within a single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, defined by
the reproducible expression of its distinguishing and other genetic characteristics.
Wetlands Transitional areas between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in which the water
table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.
Wetlands can include tidal mudflats, natural ponds, marshes, potholes, wet
meadows, bogs, peatlands, freshwater swamps, mangroves, lakes, rivers, and
even some coral reefs.
Wild species Organisms captive or living in the wild that have not been subject to breeding to
alter them from their native state.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX
41

42
2. Acronyms
AEGIS A European Genebank Integrated System
AGR Animal Genetic Resources
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CGRFA Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
CITIES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CPVO Community Plant Varieties Office
DUS Distinct Uniform Stable
ECPGR European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources
ECST European Charter for Sustainable Tourism
EDEN European Destinations of Excellence
EEA European Environment Agency
EFABIS European Farma Animal Biodiversity Information System
EFES European Farm Evaluation System
EURISCO The European Plant Genetic Resources Search Catalogue, a web-based catalogue that provides
information about ex situ plant collections maintained in Europe.
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
GMO Genetically Modified Organism
GSTC Global Sustainable Tourism Council
HNV High Nature Value
IES Institute for Environment and Sustainability
IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resouces Institute. Now Bioversity International
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
JRC Joint Research Centre
LFA Less Favoured Areas
NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
PES Payment for Ecosystem Services
PGR Plant Genetic Resources
PPB Participatory Plant Breeding
RDP Rural Development Policy
SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
UAA Agricultural Area in Use (effective agricultural land)
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development - (Rio de Janeiro) (3-14 june 1992).
(Informal name: Earth Summit. Output: CBD)
UPOV International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
WSSD Word Summit on Sustainable Development. (Johannesburg) (26 aug - 4 sept 200). (Informal name
Rio+10 Output: 2010 Biodiversity Objective)
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX

3. Reference list
Altieri M. A., 2005. The myth of coexistence: why transgenic crops are not compatible with agroecologically based systems
of production. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25 (4): 361-371.
Andersen E., Baldock D., Bennet H, Beaufoy G., Bignal E., Brouwer F., Elbersen B., Eiden G., Godeschalk F., Jones
G., Mc Cracken D., Nieuwenhuizen W., van Eupen M., Hennekens S., Zervas G., 2003. Developing a High Nature Value
Farming area indicator. FINAL REPORT, 30 th of November 2003, revisions June 2004.
http://www.ieep.eu/assets/646/Developing_HNV_indicator.pdf [Accessed on the 25th October 2011].
Arrouays D., Deslais W., Badeau V., 2001. The carbon content of top soils and its geographical distribution in France.
Soil Use and Management 17, 7-11.
Arrouays D., Saby N., Walter C., Lemercier B., Schvartz C., 2006. Relationships between particle-size distribution and
organic carbon in French arable topsoils. Soil Use and Management 22, 48-51.
Binimelis R., 2008. Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: is an individual choice possible? Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (5): 437-457.
Binimelis R., Pengue W. and Monterroso I., 2009. ‘‘Transgenic treadmill”: Responses to the emergence and spread of
glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass in Argentina. Geoforum, 40 (4): 623-633.
Birdlife International, 2011a. Shortcomings in the current CAP.
http://www.birdlife.org/eu/EU_policy/Agriculture/eu_agriculture3.html [Accessed on the 25 th October 2011].
Birdlife International, 2011b. Reality Check - Are Common Agricultural Policy subsidies paying for environmental quality?
http://www.birdlife.org/eu/EU_policy/Agriculture/eu_agriculture_transparency_report.html [Accessed on the 25 th
October 2011].
Ceccarelli S., 2009. Biodiversity, Participatory Plant Breeding Programs and Right to Food.
Ceccarelli S. and Grando S., 2007. Decentralized-participatory plant breeding: an example of demand driven research.
Euphytica, 155 (3): 349-360.
Commission of the European communities, 2006. Thematic strategy for soil Protection COM(2006)231/Final
http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Cooper T., Hart K. and Baldock D., 2009. The Provision of Public Goods Through Agriculture in the European Union. Report
Prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Contract No 30-CE-0233091/00-28, Institute for European
Environmental Policy (IEEP): London. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/public-goods/report_en.pdf
[Accessed on the 21 st October 2011].
Del Greco A., Negri V.and Maxted N., 2007. Report of a Task Force on On-farm Conservation and Management. Second
Meeting, 19-20 June 2006, Stegelitz, Germany. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy.
Devos Y., Demont M., Dillen K., Reheul D., Kaiser M., Sanvido O., 2008. Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and
non-GM crops in the European Union. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29 (1): 11-30.
DG SANCO, 2011 Evaluation of the Community Plant Variety Right Acquis - Final Report April 2011 http://ec.europa.eu/
food/plant/propertyrights/docs/cpvr_evaluation_final_report.pdf [accessed 15 th November 2011]
Diana O., EU Comission DG Agri, 2010 http://www.globaldiv.eu/Livestock_Biodiversity_Workshop/
Presentations/5th%20May%202010/Diana.pdf [accessed 15 th November 2011]
Dyer G. A. J. Serratos-Herna´ndez A., Perales H. R., Gepts P., Piñeyro-Nelson A., Chàvez A., Salinas-Arreortua N.,
Yùnez-Naude A., Taylor J. E., Alvarez-Buylla E. R., 2009. Dispersal of Transgenes through Maize Seed Systems in Mexico.
PLoS ONE, 4 (5): e5734.
Engels J. M. M. Ebert A. W., Thormann I. and de Vicente M. C., 2006. Centers of crop diversity and/or origin, genetically
modified crops and implications for plant genetic resources conservation. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 53:
1675-1688.
EEC, 1991. Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
EEC, 1991. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources http://eur-lex.europa.eu
EEC, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 1995. Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. Nature and Environment,
No. 74. Council of Europe Press, 1996.
European Commission, 1998. Council Directive 98/95/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, in respect of the consolidation
of the internal market, genetically modified plant varieties and plant genetic resources, Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/
EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed,
cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of
agricultural plant species. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2000. Council Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX
43

44
European Commission, 2001. Council Directive2001/18/EC of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment
of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2002. Council Decision No 1600/2002/EC of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community
Environment Action Programme (10/9/2002, L.242/1-15).
European Commission, 2003. Council Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food
and feed. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2004. Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004 of 24 April 2004 establishing a Community programme
on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilization of genetic resources in agriculture and repealing Regulation
(EC) No 1467/94. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2006. Council Directive 2006/118/EC of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater
against pollution and deterioration. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2006. Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical
indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2006. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond - Sustaining ecosystem services for
human well-being COM(2006)216 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2006. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection COM(2006)231 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2007. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling
of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2008. Council Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community
action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2008. Council Directive 2008/90/EC of 29 September 2008 on the marketing of fruit plant
propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2008. Directive 2008/62/EC of 20 June 2008 providing for certain derogations for acceptance of
agricultural landraces and varieties which are naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and threatened by
genetic erosion and for marketing of seed and seed potatoes of those landraces and varieties. http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2009. Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under Article
17 of the Habitats Directive COM(2009)0358 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2009. Directive 2009/145/EC of 26 November 2009 providing for certain derogations, for acceptance
of vegetable landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and are
threatened by genetic erosion and of vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but
developed for growing under particular conditions and for marketing of seed of those landraces and varieties
http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2009. Council Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds
http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2010. Directive 2010/60/EU of 30 August 2010 providing for certain derogations for marketing
of fodder plant seed mixtures intended for use in the preservation of the natural environment http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2011. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 COM(2011)244/
Final http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2011. Regulation of 1 June 2011 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011
implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved
active substances COM(2011) 541 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
European Commission, 2011. Regulation establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within
the framework of the common agricultural policy COM(2011) 625 final/2 http://ec.europa.eu
European Commission - Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, 2008. Health Check of the
Common Agricultural Policy http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/healthcheck/index_en.htm & http://ec.europa.eu/
agriculture/healthcheck/before_after_en.pdf
European Court of Auditors, 2008. Is cross compliance an effective policy? Special report No 8-2008. http://eca.europa.
eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/8428900.PDF [Accessed on the 21 st October 2011].
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2007 Europe’s environment The fourth assessment EEA Copenhagen, 2007
http://www.eea.europa.eu [Accessed on the 11 st June 2012].
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2009. Distribution and targeting of the CAP budget from a biodiversity perspective.
EEA Technical report No 12/2009 Copenhagen.
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2010. 10 messages for 2010 -Agricultural ecosystems. Copenhagen. ISBN 978-
92-9213-142-5. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/10-messages-for-2010-agricultural-ecosystems [Accessed
on the 21 st March 2011].
European Environment Agency - European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (EEA-ETC/BD), 2009. Newsletter
December 2009. http://bd.eionet.europa.eu [Accessed on the 11 st June 2012].
Farm Seed Opportunities, FP6 European Research Framework (2007-2009), targeted to support the implementation of seed
regulations on conservation varieties (directive 98/95/EC and new directives 2008/62/EC, 2009/145/EC and 2010/60/EC)
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX

and to propose complementary seed regulation scenarios taking into account the diversity of the European seed systems.
www.farmseed.net [accessed 15 th November 2011].
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC), 2008. Evaluation of the Community acquis on the marketing of seed and
plant propagating material (S&PM). Final Report, European Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumers.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7[1].pdf [accessed
15 th November 2011].
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2001. International treaty on plant genetic resources
for food and agriculture. http://www.planttreaty.org/content/texts-treaty-official-versions [accessed 20 th December
2011].
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2010. Funding strategy for the implementation of
global plan of action for animal genetic resources. adopted by the Twelfth Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture October 2009 (CGRFA-12/09/Report-Appendix C) http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/
i1674e/i1674e00.pdf [accessed 15 th June 2012].
Hammer K. and Laghetti G., 2005. Genetic erosion - examples from Italy. Gen. Res. Crop Evol. 52: 629-634.
Hammer K. and Teklu Y., 2008. Plant genetic resources: selected issues from genetic erosion to genetic engineering.
Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics Vol. 109, 1: 15-50.
Harlan J.R., 1975.Crops & Man. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.
Heal G., Walker B., Levin S., Arrow K., Dasgupta P., Daily G., Ehrlich P., Goran Maler K., Kautsky N., Lubchenco J.,
Schneider S., Starrett D., 2004. Genetic diversity and interdependent crop choice in agriculture. Resource and Energy
Economics 26: 175-184.
Hiemstra, S.J., Haas De, Y., Mäki-Tanila and Gandini, G., 2010. Local cattle breeds in Europe. EU GENRES 870/04
project EURECA. Wageningen Academic Publishers. http://www.regionalcattlebreeds.eu/publications/documents
/9789086866977cattlebreeds.pdf [accessed 15 th November 2011].
INRA, 2008. Agriculture and biodiversity Benefiting from synergies Synthesis of the multidisciplinary scientific assessment
http://www.international.inra.fr/the_institute/scientific_expertise/expert_reports/agriculture_and_biodiversity
[accessed 24May th 2012].
IUCN, 2007. The Status and Distribution of European Mammals, The European Red List of Mammals. http://www.iucn.org
IUCN, 2009. European Red List of Reptiles. http://www.iucn.org
IUCN, 2010. Future directions for biodiversity action in Europe overseas : outcomes of the Review of the Implementation
of the Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.iucn.org
Krystallis A. and Chryssohoidis G., 2005. “Consumers” willingness to pay for organic food: Factors that affect it and
variation per organic product type, British Food Journal, Vol. 107, 5: 320 - 343.
Lavalle C., Baranzelli C., Mubareka S., Rocha Gomes C., Hiederer R., Batista e Silva F., Estreguil C., 2011. Implementation
of the CAP Policy Options with the Land Use Modelling Platform. A first indicator-based analysis. ISBN 978-92-79-20917-
8 (print) / 978-92-79-20918-5 (pdf)ISSN 1018-5593 (print) / 1831-9424 (online)doi: 10.2788/44614. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Loveland P. and Webb J., 2003. Is there a critical level of organic matter in the agricultural soils of temperate regions: a
review. Soil & Tillage Research 70: 1-18.
Lu Y., Wu K., Jiang Y., Xia B., Li P., Feng H., Wyckhuys K. A. G., Guo Y., 2010. Mirid Bug Outbreaks in Multiple Crops
Correlated with Wide-Scale Adoption of Bt Cotton in China. Science 328: 1151.
Mac Sherry R., 1992. Reform of the Common agricultural policy (Arable Crops, Sheepmeat, Beefmeat).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington,
DC.Moreira F., Pinto M. J., Henriques I., and Marques T., 2005. The importantance of low-intensity farming Systems
for fauna, flora and habitats protected under the European ‘Birds’ and ‘Habitats’ Directives: Is agriculture Essentials for
preserving biodiversity in the Mediterranean region? In: Burk, A.R. (ed.), Trends in Biodiversity Research. Nova Science
Publishers, New York, pp. 117-145.
Moÿ Anne-Charlotte, 2010, Etude sur le devenir juridique des variétés issues de sélection participative et paysanne,
réalisée dans le cadre du programme DIVERBA (AVEM/INRA) April 2010, 88: 17-18. http://www.semencespaysannes.
org/bdf/docs/etude_devenir_juridique_varietes_selection_participative_042010.pdf [accessed 15 th November 2011]
Muller M.H., Délieux F., Fernàndez-Martìnez J. M. , Garric B. , Lecomte V., Anglade G., Leflon M. , Motard C., Segura
R., 2009. Occurrence, distribution and distinctive morphological traits of weedy Helianthus annuus L. populations in Spain
and France. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 56: 869-877.
Negri V., Maxted N., Vetelainen M., 2009. European landraces conservation: an introduction. In: Vetelainen M., Negri
V., Maxted N. (eds), 2009, European landraces: on-farmconservation, management and use, Bioversity International.
Piñeyro-Nelson A., Van Heerwaarden J., Perales H. R., Serratoshernández J. A.,Rangel A., Hufford M. B., Gepts
P., Garay-Arroyo A., Riverabustamante R. and Álvarez-Buylla E. R., 2009. Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular
evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations. Molecular Ecology 18: 750-761.
Sanvido Romeis J. and Bigler F., 2007. Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: ten years of field research and
commercial cultivation. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology 107: 235-78.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX 45

46
Szeged Declaration, 2011. European Forum “Let’s Liberate Diversity!” http://www.liberate-diversity-hungary2011.
org/szeged-declaration [accessed 15 th November 2011]
United Nations, 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, http://www.cbd.int/ [accessed 20 th December
2011].
United Nations, 2011. Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits
arising from their utilization to the convention on Biological diversity Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9.
Van De Wouw M., Kik C., Van Hintum T., Van Treuren R., Visser B., 2009. Genetic erosion in crops: concept, research
results and challenges. Plant Genetic Resources 8(1): 1-15.
Van De Wouw M., Van Hintum T., Kik C., Van Treuren R., Visser B., 2010. Genetic Diversity trends in twentieth century
crop cultivars: a meta analysis. Theor Appl Genet 120: 1241-1252.
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY CHARTER
APPENDIX

MORE ABOUT REVERSE PROJECT
The Reverse project is based on sharing experience among 14 European partners who are aware of the major challenges linking biodiversity
and economic development. More specifically, it focuses on opportunities and insufficiencies in biodiversity conservation policies in three
sectors: Agriculture and food production, Land planning, and Tourism.
Reverse is a three-year European interregional cooperation project (January 2010 - December 2012). Lead by the Aquitaine Region, it
involves seven European countries: Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Slovakia and Spain. It is co-financed by the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) and made possible by the INTERREG IVC programme. As part of the European Territorial Cooperation Objective,
the INTERREG IVC Programme (2007-2013) is an EU programme that helps regions of Europe work together to share their knowledge
and experience.
Reverse partners comprise regional authorities, public establishments, associations, research institutes and universities, which contribute
to the conservation and development of wild and cultivated biodiversity. They work on various complementary subjects such as the
conservation of species in situ, gene banks, the management of natural areas, region-wide strategies for the conservation of biodiversity,
ecological corridors, local legislation for the protection of biodiversity, education, etc.
Regions:
Aquitaine Region (France)
www.aquitaine.fr
Bremen Region (Germany)
www.umwelt.bremen.de
Specialised organizations:
Bio d’Aquitaine (France)
www.bio-aquitaine.com
Natural Areas Conservatory
of Aquitaine - CEN Aquitaine (France)
www.cen-aquitaine.fr
Umbria Region (Italy)
www.regione.umbria.it
Mediterranean Agronomic Institute
of Chania (Greece)
www.maich.gr
Decentralized Administration
of Crete-Forest Directorate of
Chania (Greece)
www.crete-region.gr
Estonian University of Life Sciences-EMU (Estonia)
www.emu.ee
Euskadi Region (Spain)
www.euskadi.net
The Plant Production Research Center
Piešt’any - PPRC Piešt’any (Slovakia)
www.cvrv.sk
Region of East Macedonia and
Thrace (Greece)
www.remth.gr
Murcia Region (Spain)
www.murcianatural.carm.es
Regional Agency for the Development
and the Innovation of Agriculture in Lazio - ARSIAL (Italy)
www.arsial.it
Technology Transfer Centre
Bremerhaven
ttz Bremerhaven (Germany)
www.ttz-bremerhaven.de

Find all Reverse documents on our website:
www.reverse.aquitaine.eu
This project is cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
and made possible by the INTERREG IVC programme
Photos credits: Roux Claude/Deepix - Alban GILBERT - Region Aquitaine - Agrobioperigord - M. Tanca/ARSIAL 2006. Printed on PEFC certified paper - Conseil régional d’Aquitaine - Internal Communication - Reprographics - August 2012