CBCN Newsletter
incorporating Plant Collections Newsletter: Canada

Vol. 4, N. 4, December, 1999

|home|

 

Species at Risk Act

Thanks to Our Members and Supporters

Genetic Resources and Sharing Benefits

World Botanic Gardens Congress 2000

New NC Publications

IUCN Medicinal Plants Specialist Group

ANPC Conference Report

Gymnosperm Seeds

U of G To Host Stewardship Conference

Ottawa Botanic Garden Society

CBCN-L Update

Federal Environment Minister David Anderson Sets Stage For SARA

David Galbraith

On Friday, 17 December, 1999, Canadian Minister of the Environment David Anderson made a presentation at Calgary Zoo to introduce the federal government's "Species at Risk Strategy." The strategy is intended by the federal government as one of the final steps toward "SARA", the "Species at Risk Act," which will be introduced to the legislature in the coming year as Canada's endangered species act.

According to the news release of 17 December that coincided with Minister Anderson's speech, the federal government hopes to employ a three-part strategy to protect species and habitats by:

  • "building on partnerships with provinces and territories through the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk"

  • "promoting stewardship and incentive programs to assist private landowners, citizens, Aboriginal peoples and organizations that are helping to protect species and habitats; and,"

  • "introducing the proposed Species at Risk Act (SARA) early in the new year."

Minister Anderson is quoted in an Environment Canada news release as stating that "The federal approach would emphasize voluntary incentives and stewardship, including funding, as the primary way to engage Canadians in protecting species and their habitats."

The new strategy, released at the December 17 presentation and entitled "Canada's Plan for Protecting Species at Risk," promises protection of habitats through an enhancement of stewardship activities, and also leaves open the potential of leveling fines for critical habitat destruction. Lack of provision for protection of the habitat of species at risk of extinction was one of the serious gaps in the earlier attempts at an endangered species act in Canada.

The plan also addresses the way in which species are listed as being at risk in Canada. COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, has been in operation for more than 20 years as Canada's independent body of scientific expertise on the status of endangered species. The committee functions independently of government as a group of volunteer specialists who review the situations of individual species and make recommendations as to their status on the basis of the best available scientific information.

The role of COSEWIC as the independent body assessing the status of species at risk appears to be strengthened in SARA compared to earlier proposals that would have weakened the committee's independence. However, there is still cause for concern as to the independence of the process of listing species as endangered. Under the proposed act, COSEWIC will independently review the status of species and make recommendations as to whether individual species should be listed as being at risk. The COSEWIC list will then be forwarded to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC), which consists of the respective Provincial ministers responsible for endangered species protection plus the federal Minister of the Environment. the Council and COSEWIC will jointly issue the status list, and the ministers are not supposed to change the scientific content of COSEWIC materials.

However, there is potential for species at risk to be kept off of the federal list because of political or economic pressure. Following submission of the COSEWIC list to the Council, it will be up to the Council to decide whether each species is or is not actually placed on the federal "legal" list.

"When a species is listed as threatened or endangered, legal protections would automatically come into force, which could carry social and economic implications, including legal sanctions and penalties. Such a process must involve political accountability for both those who want species to be listed and for those concerned about possible negative impacts of listing" (pg. 10, "Canada's Plan for Protecting Species at Risk").

In other words, there exists the potential for blocks or challenges to the listing of a species that may be at risk of extinction because of political or economic pressure applied under the guise of "political accountability." To be fair, the updated plan also notes that under SARA, the Minister of the Environment will have to justify any differences between the COSEWIC list and the approved "legal list." There is not indication in the material released to date as to how any disputes would be handled under this process.

It should be noted that the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council was established under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada (1996). Under the Accord, the provinces and the federal government have agreed to cooperate to protect species at risk. Concerns over lack of independence also arises because the Accord specifically states that disputes that arise under it will be referred to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council for resolution: a circular arrangement.

The material presented by the Minister of the Environment is clearly a work in progress; much more detail is going to be needed before people will be able to understand the proposed SARA and how it will be expected to function. Considerable clarity will also be needed in the final act if it is not to draw political fire from vocal conservation organizations such as the Sierra Club. For example, the wording used in the material released to date regarding habitat protection uses the term "residence" rather than habitat.

The process for endangered species recovery proposed for SARA is essentially the same as announced before. Within one year any species being (legally) listed as endangered, CESCC will be responsible for ensuring that a recovery plan is in place; two years will be allotted for species listed as threatened. This does not mean every listed species will necessarily have its own plan: whole ecosystems at risk might have a single plan that would encompass multiple species.

There is also no identified sources of funds relating to endangered species recovery in the December 1999 release. Page 14 of the backgrounder reads in part:

"Implementation of other activities proposed by Action Plans would be implemented by government agencies, land owners, land users Aboriginal communities, conservation organizations, university researchers, zoos, botanical gardens, and others. The federal government would support the participation of groups and individuals involved in recovery planning and implementation through various means, including funding and stewardship incentives."

It is interesting that Minister Anderson made his announcement at Calgary Zoo. In the speech itself he acknowledged the role of institutions like zoos:

"The Calgary Zoo has been a world leader in re-creating the natural habitats of many of the species living here, and we can foresee many kinds of partnerships in scientific and stewardship measures with this Zoo and other similar institutions."

Much of the updated plan for protecting species at risk is aimed at convincing private land owners and farmers that the new act will not interfere with their business or personal interests. The stance taken by the government's plan is to engage voluntary cooperation by private property owners toward stewardship through positive incentives, with punitive measures such as fines being reserved as last-ditch measures. These concerns were in part behind the decision to use Calgary as the location for the announcement.

Minister Anderson's new strategy has not been met with universal praise. In a report published in the Globe and Mail on 18 December, The Canadian Nature Federation, the Sierra Club of Canada, the World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Endangered Species Campaign and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund were all cited as criticizing the plans for SARA. Most of the concerns focus on the relatively weak approach to conservation of habitat presented in the strategic plan.

Sierra Legal Defence Fund lawyer Stewart Elgie was quoted as saying:

"To be effective, the bill must require protection of species' critical habitat -- the places they need to live, feed and raise their young -- on all lands and waters. . . . Unfortunately, the current proposal comes up short in the crucial area of habitat protection. It does not say that habitat protection will be required even on federal land."

For more information or to access the original documents related to the Dec 17 announcement by David Anderson, visit the Environment Canada web site at:

Environment Canada's web site also hosts pages specifically on species at risk at:

 

Thanks to CBCN's Members, Volunteers and Supporters

The Canadian Botanical Conservation Network was created as a concept in 1994, in response to the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy and the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. CBCN was incorporated and registered as a charitable organization in Canada in 1998.

CBCN was set up as a membership organization to reach out to the botanical gardens and arboreta of Canada and encourage greater participation by these organizations in the conservation of Canada's biological diversity. There is no doubt that there's still lots to do, but CBCN has come a long way already because of the support of our members, volunteers and financial supporters.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my profound thanks to the members, supporters and volunteers that have made CBCN possible. I look forward to the coming year with great enthusiasm and the hope that together we can continue to support the cause of plant conservation in Canada.

The year 2000 will be a watershed in many ways. At the national level we can look forward to lively (and I hope constructive) discussions on the proposed Species at Risk Act, and with any luck some real conservation progress as more species are brought into the recovery planning and action process.

Here in the Botanical Conservation Office, we will be completing the Biodiversity Action Plan for Botanical Gardens and Arboreta in Canada, begun in 1998, and will be launching into the pilot phase of work on the seed bank for rare and endangered plants in cooperation with Royal Botanical Gardens. The coming year should also be exciting because of the launch of the Natural Heritage Gene Bank program, our Canada-wide effort to develop seed gene banks, research and educational programs in support of recovery efforts and habitat rehabilitation in situ.

With very best wishes for the Holidays and the coming New year,

David A. Galbraith, Ph.D.
Coordinator
Canadian Botanical Conservation Network

 

CBCN's Institutional Members

  • Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, ON

  • Les Jardins de Metis, Grand-Metis, QU
  • Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland Botanical Garden, St. John's, NF
  • Niagara Parks Botanical Gardens and School of Horticulture, Niagara Falls, ON
  • Royal Botanical Gardens, Hamilton, ON
  • Sherwood Fox Arboretum, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON
  • The Arboretum, Univ. of Guelph, Guelph, ON
  • Toronto Zoo, Scarborough, ON
  • Univ. of British Columbia Botanical Garden, Vancouver, BC

1999 Associate Institutional Members

  • City of Mississauga, Mississauga, ON

  • Niagara College, Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON

  • Ontario Forestry Association, Willowdale, ON
  • American Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta (through a reciprocal membership agreement made in 1999)

1999 Associate Individual Members

  • Dr Steve Bodsworth, Etobicoke, ON

  • Mr. Doug Campbell, Mississauga, ON
  • Dr Vernon Harms, Saskatoon, SK
  • Dr Peter Hough, Yellowknife, YK
  • Mr. Paul Morris, Walsingham, ON
  • Dr. Ted Mosquin, Lanark, ON
  • Mr. Rene Provonost, Quebec, QU

Volunteer Board of Directors

Our core of volunteers is small but vital to the work of CBCN. Most important in 1999 was the contributions of our Board of Directors:

  • Dr Susan Dudley (Associate Professor, Biology Department, McMaster University)

  • Chris Graham (Acting Director of Science, RBG)
  • Richard Jones, President of the CBCN Board of Directors (Grimsby, Ontario)
  • Dr Alan Watson (Director, The Arboretum, University of Guelph)

Our 1999 Supporters

Financial and other support for the work of the Canadian Botanical Conservation Network during 1999 is gratefully acknowledged from:

  • The W. Garfield Weston Foundation (as a charitable donation to Royal Botanical Gardens in support of CBCN and the development of a seed bank for endangered native plants of Canada)

  • Environment Canada's Biodiversity Convention Office (as a contract with Royal Botanical Gardens in support of the development and implementation of a biodiversity action plan for the botanical gardens of Canada)

  • Royal Botanical Gardens (as provision of office support and other in-kind services, including hosting the CBCN Web site)

  • The Hay Foundation (as a charitable donation in support of developing stronger ties between CBCN and the international plant conservation community)

  • McMaster University (by support of CBCN-L, our Internet discussion list server)

CBCN's 1999 Staff

Kate Zavitz - Summer Research Assistant

Kate is a student in Environmental Studies at University of Waterloo, and a veteran member of Royal Botanical Gardens summer staff. In 1999 Kate joined the Botanical Conservation Office as our Summer Research Assistant, and proved invaluable in keeping things going! She also proved to be a skilled designer of Web pages, and creating both a "CBCN For Kids" site for CBCN and also a "Rare Wildflowers of Ontario" site for RBG.

Paul O'Hara - Biodiversity and Conservation Intern

Paul was hired on 13 December, 1999 for one year as our Intern. Paul will be spending half his time working in the herbarium of Royal Botanical Gardens, and half of his time on the seed bank for endangered plants, a joint project of Royal Botanical Gardens and CBCN.

David Galbraith - Coordinator

David continues his work as the Coordinator of the Canadian Botanical Conservation Network as a full-time member of Royal Botanical Gardens' Science Department. As if that were not enough, David is also an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Biology Department of McMaster University, where he teaches undergraduate courses in conservation biology and genetics part-time.

Special Thanks to Royal Botanical Gardens from the CBCN Coordinator

Royal Botanical Gardens has been the organizing entity behind the Canadian Botanical Conservation Network, and over the past year has continued to support CBCN through its Botanical Conservation Office. Over the past year, Royal Botanical Gardens has continued its strong support of the network in countless ways, most obvious to those of use working in the BCO in the daily provision of in-kind services, human resources assistance and the management of fund-raising and development.

CBCN and RBG share many core values and mission objectives, and will continue to work closely in the future on joint projects that demonstrate that we are indeed stronger together. I would like to extend my personal appreciation to the Staff, Board of Directors, Volunteers and Members of Royal Botanical Gardens for their interest in CBCN and their collegial relationships with me. Special thanks are owing to RBG's Director Sharilyn J. Ingram and Acting Director of Science Chris Graham.

 

International Workshop Produces Common Policy Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Sharing of Benefits by Botanical Gardens

David A. Galbraith

The collections of plants that form the hearts of botanical gardens represent many things, such as educational opportunities, aesthetic enjoyment and resources for research. Both living and preserved plant collections may also be considered as genetic resources. In earlier issues of CBCN Newsletter, I reported on an international project to develop a common set of policy guidelines for botanical gardens that would bring their activities in the sphere fo genetic resources into harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity (Vol. 4 (1+2), May, 1999; and Vol. 3(1): March, 1998).

To date, most botanical gardens in Canada with which I have had contact have not themselved had much contact with commercial enterprises interested in developing products from their collections. Royal Botanical Gardens (Hamilton/Burlington, Ontario, Canada) for example, has had only one inquiry related to bioprospecting in recent years, a request for specimens related to the Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia, the original source of the diterpene taxol, a potent anti-cancer compound). In this instance, RBG was unable to supply specimens as the species were not represented the institution's collections.

The question of the use of plant genetic resources and the Convetion on Biological Diversity, however, will not go away. For example, a story entitled "Mayan Indians oppose university research into medicinal plants" was published by the CNN Web site on 7 December, 1999 ( http://cnn.com/1999/HEALTH/12/07/uga.mayan/index.html). In the CNN story, it was related that an anthropologist at University of Georgia is under pressure from Mayan Indians in the State of Chiapas, Mexico, to stop a research project on the medicinal value of plants used in traditional Mayan medical practices. Opposition to the research project is coming from the Council of Indigenous Traditional Healers and Midwives of Chiapas, who are concerned that the research project will essentially steal the traditional medical practices of the Maya and produce few if any benefits for the Maya in return.

The concern of the Mayan traditional healer reflects a serious problem for developing countries. On the one hand, biologists, ecologists and anthropologists have been saying for many years that the natural biological diversity of the world is of great value and must be protected. On the other hand, there have been repeated instances of resources and knowledge being taken from local communities, developing countries or natural areas without any benefits from the use of those resources flowing back to the point of origin.

Botanical gardens have been caught in the middle of this issue, which came to a definitive focus during the 1992 Earth Summit at which the Convention on Biological Diversity was opened for signature. The formal process of the Convention itself is still feeling its way through the complex and at times contentious issues surrounding the use of genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising from its use. These issues are encapsulated in Article 15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, but they also appear in other sections as well.

As was reported earlier, the Pilot Project on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefits Sharing by Participating Botanic Gardens was organized in 1997 by Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in the United Kingdom, with the support of the UK Department for International Development (DFID).

The workshop group has met three times to date: in the fall of 1997 at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in the United Kingdom; in the fall of 1998 at Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden in South Africa and at Beijing Botanical Garden in the Peoples' Republic of China.

The objective of the Pilot Project has been to create a set of policy guidelines for botanical gardens that allow the traditional activities of these institutions to proceed in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity. The key issue that this group has had to address in developing the policy guidelines is coming to terms with issues surrounding the provenience of the genetic resources represented by plants in their collections.

For the most part, botanical gardens have traditionally viewed their collections as representing resources held in trust for the common good. Collegial attitudes of free access for legitimate purposes can be viewed as being in conflict with some of the aspects of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the various trends, policies and legislation that have arisen since the Convention came into effect in 1993.

The botanical gardens participating in the development of the CPG have desired to recognize the vital role that botanical gardens world wide in conservation, research and education, and to balance that traditional activity with a commitment to cooperate fairly and equitably with the various stakeholders now involved in the conservation and use of genetic resources. The representatives of these institutions have strongly felt that this commitment is necessary for the benefit of humankind and the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

Under the CBD, states have sovereign rights over genetic resources and thus the right to determine the conditions for access and trade in them. Addressing the issues surrounding the use of biological resources and genetic resources y one sector of society, such as botanical gardens, requires understanding that access to genetic resources is subject to national legislation and policy development. The participating botanical gardens have therefore made efforts to keep national authorities involved and informed about the development of the Common Policy Guidelines.

States are not the only stakeholders, however. Many other stakeholders, including indigenous and local communities and farmers, have important stakes in biological resources and associated information. Acknowledgement of those roles have been included in the CPG, as well as commitments to include stakeholders in the whole process of dealing with genetic resources covered by the CBD.

The participants have been determined to honour the letter and spirit of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and other international, regional, national and sub-national laws and policies concerning biodiversity.

None of these developments have taken place in a vacuum, either. Botanical gardens have received and exchanged specimens in the past under various types of agreements. The participants felt it was important that any new policy guidelines would honour the terms and conditions under which they have acquired biological resources in the past.

Figure 1: Participating botanical gardens in the Pilot Project are located in Canada, USA, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Morocco, Ghana, South Africa, Russia, China, Malaysia and Australia.

The finalized document, entitled the Common Policy Guidelines For Participating Botanic Gardens On Access To Genetic Resources And Benefit-Sharing, which is frequently being abbreviated as CPG. The actual document consists of a preamble, eight sections detailing the guidelines themselves, and three annexes. The structure and language of the CPG appear fairly legalistic; in fact, considerable effort has been put into the language itself in an effort to make it as clear and unambiguous as possible.

The objectives of the Common Policy Guidelines are:

  1. to ensure that the activities of the Participating Gardens involving access to genetic resources are consistent with the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international, regional, national and sub-national laws and policies concerning biodiversity;

  2. to promote cooperation between botanic gardens, individuals, organizations, groups, and other Stakeholders dealing with genetic resources;

  3. to establish conditions that facilitate access by others to the genetic resources within the collections held by the Participating Gardens and that may help each Participating Garden to access the genetic resources worldwide, whether found in in situ or ex situ conditions;

  4. to promote the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, their progeny and derivatives, with the country of origin that provided the genetic resources and with other Stakeholders, as appropriate. The benefits to be shared arise both from the use of genetic resources, their progeny and derivatives, by the Participating Gardens and from the use by others of genetic resources, their progeny and derivatives, provided by Participating Gardens; and

  5. to encourage other botanic gardens to become Participating Gardens and follow a harmonized system of access to genetic resources and benefit sharing.

The first three sections of the CPG establish Objectives, Definitions and Principles for what follows. Section 4, on Acquisition of specimens by participating botanical gardens, establishes that gardens have responsibilities when it comes to receiving specimens into their collections. For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity establishes the expectation that genetic resources will be acquired for study and use under conditions of prior informed consent ("PIC") and under mutually-agreed terms ("MAT").

When a participating botanical gardens collects genetic resources itself or gains access to genetic resources from another party, the participating garden agrees to abide by applicable law and the principles of best practice. This may require obtaining the prior informed consent of the government of the country of origin of the material. If genetic resources are obtained from another institution maintaining them under ex situ conditions, it is necessary that this access takes place with the prior informed consent of the body governing the source ex situ collection, and with abiding by any agreements under which the collection was made in the first place.

Section 5, "Records, Tracking and Management" acknowledges that in order to live up to the intent of the agreement, it is necessary to keep track of the agreements and the specimens covered by those agreements. The CPG does not set out how botanical gardens should manage information, material and staff; it only recognizes that the procedures in place in a participating institution should be in accordance with the guidelines.

Guidelines for the conditions under which genetic resources within botanical gardens should be transferred to other parties make up Section 6, "Supply." As with the section on acquiring plant material, the section on supplying it to others is structured around a careful consideration of each of the requirements of PIC and MAT, and how to achieve these in the context of botanical gardens dealing with specimens that were likely collected long before the biodiversity convention was created.

Sharing the benefits that arise out of the use of genetic resources with the country that was the source of those resources has been one of the most controversial aspects of the CBD. Section 7 of the CPG, "Benefit-Sharing," puts the benefits of the use of genetic resources by botanical gardens into perspective.

Of the various concerns surrounding genetic resources and botanical gardens, one of the most important is the difference between specimens collected before and after the Convention on Biological Diversity came into effect. "Pre-CBD" collections cannot be covered by the CBD in force of law. Put simply, there is no way to obtain Prior Informed Consent for something that happened in the past. Also, it is a basic principle in law that one cannot make an activity illegal retroactively. Thus, legally, standards of record-keeping and permission that may be deemed needed today for new collections cannot be expected to extend backward in time.

However, the participants in the Pilot Project decided early on that as a general principle, specimens should not be treated differently if they were collected pre- or post-CBD. The participating gardens should make the same kinds of efforts to keep track of provenience, records, and permissions, and to extend the sharing of benefits from the use of resources, regardless of the date of collection. Paragraph 7.1.2 of the Common Policy Guidelines therefore reads:

"To the extent possible, each Participating Garden will share the benefits arising from the use of materials acquired prior to and after the entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity in the same manner."

There is also much confusion as to what constitutes a "benefit" to be shared. Most discussion of benefits have focused unnecessarily on financial benefit. The Common Policy Guidelines makes no prescriptions as to the kind of benefits that may come from using genetic resources, but notes that benefits include, but may not be limited to, taxonomic, biochemical, ecological, horticultural and other information and data, access to collections and databases; benefits in kind such as augmentation of national collections in the country of origin and support of community development activities; the transfer of technology such as hardware, software and know-how; training in science, in situ and ex situ conservation and management, information technology and management and administration of access and benefit-sharing; institutional development, strengthening and management; and joint research and development, through collaboration in training and research programs, participation in product development, joint ventures and co-authorship of publications. It is also acknowledged that, in the case of commercialization, monetary benefits such as royalties may be generated.

Key to making practical use of the concept of sharing benefits is that the benefits should be understood at the time of making an agreement to transfer a specimen. Therefore, the development of the necessary plant material transfer agreements is an important step in any agreement to move plant genetic resources in or out of a participating botanical garden.

Finally, Section 8 of the Common Policy Guidelines, "Implementation", is a short note as to the steps the participants hope will happen to bring the CPG into wide use.

Appended to the CPG are three Annexes: a List of Participating Gardens adopting these Common Policy Guidelines, a Model Material Acquisition Agreement, and a Model Material Supply Agreement. The model agreements are intended to be just that: models. The CPG recognizes the importance of keeping track of the specifics of agreements on the use of biological resources: what should and shouldn't happen in each case. The models were derived from actual agreements in use by some of the participating institutions. Others, however, use much simpler forms. Simpler Plant Material Transfer Agreements (PMTAs) are in use by many institutions and could be adapted for use with the CPG.

Seven of the 17 botanical gardens that are participants in the development of the Common Policy Guidelines have adopted the CPG as of 15 December, 1999:

  • Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, United Kingdom

  • Botanic Gardens of the University of Bonn, Germany
  • Beijing Botanical Gardens, People's Republic of China
  • Aburi Botanic Gardens, Ghana
  • Botanic Garden of the State University of Irkutsk, Russian Federation
  • Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden, Brazil
  • Quindio Botanical Garden, Colombia

The complete text of the Common Policy Guidelines, along with supporting documents, can be found on the CBCN Web site at:

The CPG has now been translated into French, Russian, Chinese and Spanish. English, French and Russian versions are available through the Web site at this time. Other participating botanical gardens are preparing versions in various languages.

A parallel Web site on the CPG and text of the Convention on Biological Diversity has been set up by Dr. Victor Kuzevanov, Director of the Botanic Garden of the State University of Irkutsk, Russian Federation, at:

For more information, botanical gardens and other institutions interested in adopting the Common Policy Guidelines should contact :

Kerry ten Kate
Policy and Conventions Section
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AE
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)181 332-5741
Fax +44 (01) 181 332-5757
email:

 

World Botanic Gardens Congress 2000:

CPC, AABGA, and BGCI Partner for Major Conservation Meeting at the North Carolina Arboretum

Faith D. Maddy
CPC Director of Development

The Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), American Association of Botanic Gardens and Arboreta (AABGA), Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI), and the North Carolina Arboretum are co-organizing the first World Botanic Gardens Congress (WBGC) which will be held in Asheville, North Carolina June 25-30, 2000.

At this landmark event, delegates representing a diverse range of botanical gardens and environmental institutions worldwide will come together to learn from one another and share their experiences. The Congress will expand collaborations within and among the world's botanic gardens and their networks in the presentation, preservation, and sustainable use of the Earth's plants and habitats. A major objective of the Congress will be to help the botanic garden community forge deeper and more diverse cooperative partnerships with other sectors of the botanical and plant conservation communities.

The WBGC will also launch the International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation-a new international strategy for botanic gardens for the next millennium. The CPC has been actively involved in the development of the strategy, focusing on rare, native plant conservation and related elements. The International Agenda represents the culmination of a two year, worldwide consultation process, and delegates will be seeking ways to implement it during the early part of the next century.

The CPC will hold its Annual Meeting and a Board of Trustees meeting in conjunction with the Congress. For additional information about the Congress or the CPC Annual Meeting, contact Faith D. Maddy, Director of Development, by phone (314-577-9459)

 

 Two New Publications from The Nature Conservancy

The Conservation Science Division of The Nature Conservancy is pleased to announce the release of two new publications. "Guidelines for Representing Ecological Communities in Ecoregional Conservation Plans" provides guidelines on how best to represent ecological communities in a network of conservation sites. These guidelines are applicable to any large-scale conservation planning effort that is seeking to incorporate the variety of communities and ecosystems within a set of conservation sites or nature reserves. "A Practical Handbook for Population Viability Analysis" provides practical yet rigorous advice for conservation practitioners on how and when they should conduct population viability analyses. Both publications are available on the web at:

Hard copies are also available. Contact Monica Perez at (703) 841-4845 or by email at:

 

New Programme Home for the IUCN Medicinal Plant Specialist Group at the Canadian Museum of Nature

Dr Danna J. Leaman
Executive Secretary, MPSG

The Medicinal Plant Specialist Group (MPSG) is a global voluntary network, currently made up of approximately 70 individual scientists, field researchers, government officials, and conservation leaders, whose work supports the conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants. The MPSG was established by the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN—The World Conservation Union in May 1994 in response to concern about the impact of trade in medicinal plants on conservation and sustainable use of these species. Through a broad range of research and educational activities, the MPSG’s mandate is to identify threats to medicinal plant conservation, and to promote conservation action. The MPSG is chaired by Dr. Uwe Schippmann, Head of the CITES Scientific Authority for Plants, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany.

The MPSG has established a new programme office in Canada, hosted by the Canadian Museum of Nature. The Canadian Museum of Nature also hosts the Canadian Committee for the IUCN. The MPSG programme office is located in the Natural Heritage Building of the Canadian Museum of Nature in Aylmer, Quebec. Establishment of this office will facilitate programme and website development, institutional collaboration, and fundraising for the MPSG's global and regional activities related to identification and conservation of threatened medicinal plants.

Two of the MPSG's publications can currently be found online:

Directory for Medicinal Plant Conservation: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/mpsg/main/publications.html

MPSG newsletter, Medicinal Plant Conservation: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/mpsg/main/news.html

For further information, please contact:

Dr Danna J. Leaman
Executive Secretary
Mailing Address:
Medicinal Plant Specialist Group of the IUCN-SSC
Canadian Museum of Nature
P.O. Box 3443
Station D.
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6P4 Canada

Tel: ++1/613/364-4140
Fax: ++1/613/364-4022
Email:

 

Conference Report: Promotion, Practice and Partnerships: the Australian Network for Plant Conservation conference

Jeanette Mill
National Coordinator, Australian Network for Plant Conservation

Promotion, Practice and Partnerships was the theme of the Fourth Biennial Australian Network for Plant Conservation Conference, held in late November.

The focus was on bringing the outcomes of research to practitioners and showcasing practical projects in plant conservation. Several themes were carefully chosen to challenge delegates on some of the most pressing areas in conservation, such as conservation of what has become know as the forgotten flora, the non-vascular plants, and the conservation and restoration of ecological communities and ecosystems.

The ANPC is a partnership of stakeholders in plant conservation from government, industry and community, and this was reflected well in the conference program. Presenters and delegates attended from as far afield as the UK, reflecting the degree of international interest in the ANPC’s internationally recognized model of integrated plant conservation.

A keynote paper by Dr Kingsley Dixon, Director of Plant Science at Kings Park and Botanic Garden, Perth, Western Australia, and President of the ANPC, highlighted the need for scientists to be relevant to the conservation community in their research, and to bring outcomes to practitioners in an accessible way. Dr Dixon also recommended that practitioners look over the shoulder of a scientist, and actively form partnerships to promote the vital two way flow of information. The ANPC’s unique and crucial role in achieving this was emphasized.

Dr David Given, Chair of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Plant Conservation Subcommittee, Manager of the International Centre for Nature Conservation in New Zealand, and ANPC Vice-President, brought an international perspective. Global strategies such as the SSC Plant Conservation Programme for 2000-2005 were discussed, with ANPC being presented as a world-leading proponent in conservation networking.

Lucy Sutherland, representing Botanic Gardens Conservation International, brought delegates up to date on the new International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation, being formulated through a world-wide consultative process.

A paper from Andrew Pengelly of the National Herbalists Association of Australia entitled Sustainable Harvest? Indigenous plant medicine and conservation explored the issues of the impact of the herbal medicine industry on the Australian flora, and called for close ties between the industry and plant conservation.

Michael Treanor, representing the Friends of Grasslands, spoke of the efforts of this community group to conserve and raise the profile of one of Australia’s most threatened ecosystems.

Jeanette Mill, National Coordinator of the ANPC, reviewed the Network’s achievements since the last conference. This included the conducting of the ANPC Plant Conservation Techniques Course in Hobart, Tasmania in 1998. This eight day course was attended by participants and presenters from all over Australia and as far afield as Hong Kong and New Zealand. Eleven newly appointed Bushcare Officers attended the course as part of their induction training, and other attendees included a school teacher, a farmer and professional botanists. The course covered a wide range of topics from assessing threats and rare plant survey to using smoke to germinate seed.

It has been suggested that the course so closely fits the SSC Plant Conservation Programme’s training objectives that it could be conducted overseas, perhaps as part of a larger package along with the International Diploma in Plant Conservation Techniques conducted by Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. If sufficient funds can be raised, it is also planned to sponsor attendance at Australian courses from surrounding countries such as Indonesia. The ANPC has been discussing this with counterparts from the Indonesian Network for Plant Conservation, who are keen to see this happen. This could have the flow-on effect of INetPC adapting the course to local needs, and conducting similar courses in Indonesia.

Best practice guidelines have been produced by ANPC working groups to guide practitioners in achieving good conservation outcomes in germplasm conservation and threatened plant translocations. These guidelines have been supported by the Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation ministerial Council and adopted by a range of target users, including funding agencies assessing grant applications and government departments reviewing development applications. They are also being used as course texts, by industry groups and international agencies. Produced by specialists from botanic gardens, conservation agencies, research facilities and community groups, the guidelines synthesize the available information and document recent research outcomes.

ANPC Regional Groups have been flourishing in areas where strong voluntary regional coordination is present, and are playing an important role in dissemination of information to the local level.

ANPC’s international role in conservation networking continues to flourish with the ANPC acting as the SSC Australasian Plant Specialist Group, and the Chair of the SSC Plant Conservation Subcommittee serving as Vice-President of the ANPC.

Regional groups were endorsed by delegates as important in dissemination and application of science to on-ground projects. Training and strong regional networking were the major mechanisms by which delegates felt this could be achieved. Targeted regions should include biodiversity hotspots where there is little plant conservation action currently.

In discussing ANPC’s International role delegates resolved that ANPC needs to maintain its voice in international networks, and to provide assistance to surrounding countries as is deemed appropriate by those countries.

After all this hard work delegates enjoyed a range of field trips, including a three day guided tour of the extensive alpine restoration work in Kosciuszko National Park. For 100 years cattle grazed the high country, with the resultant severe degradation of many fragile plant communities. In some areas the soil and plant community losses have been so severe that the original communities could not be restored. Decades of restoration work offer many valuable lessons for those seeking to undertake this resource-consuming activity. The value of linkages between soil scientists and plant conservationists was demonstrated by the field trip, as the restoration work requires knowledge of processes such as mycorrhizal associations in order for successful re-establishment of plant communities to occur

The workshop on Conservation and Restoration of Ecological Communities & Ecosystems recommended that ANPC establish a working group to review existing restoration guidelines and accredit those which meet best practice in the area. This would include modifying guidelines to take into account gaps such as cryptogams and heavy metals.

ANPC would be grateful to hear of any existing guidelines, and any information can be sent to the contact details below.

It was also recommended that a module on restoration be added to the ANPC Conservation Techniques Course.

In discussing conservation actions for non-vascular plants, it was recommended that a working list of Rare or Threatened Non-vascular plants be produced. This was originally proposed by Tom May of Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, as a ROTAF list (Rare or Threatened Australian Fungi) but was considered to be such an important initiative that it soon expanded out to cover all of the non-vascular plants.

The Research into Practice session focussed on the importance of translating the outcomes of science into practice. Continuation of the program of producing guidelines, such as for in situ conservation and provenance, was considered an effective means of achieving these aims.

Finally, the importance of effective partnerships was highlighted by a series of papers on linking government, industry and community, and overcoming the increasing problems of fragmentation. A set of guidelines on partnerships was recommended, and some of Australia’s leading lights in forming partnerships have volunteered to collaborate on this.

A series of practical workshops held on the weekend provided practitioners with an unprecedented opportunity to tap into the assembled wealth of expertise, and offered an affordable and accessible option for local landcarers. These workshops covered such topics as the value and conservation of soil crust lichens, community mapping of fungi, and rare plant monitoring.

For further information on the ANPC, including publication orders, contact:

Jeanette Mill
National Coordinator
Australian Network for Plant Conservation
GPO Box 1777, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia
Ph 61 2 62 509 509 Fax 61 2 62 509 528
Email:


Website http://www.anbg.gov.au/anpc

References

Australian Network for Plant Conservation Germplasm Working Group. (1997). Germplasm Conservation Guidelines for Australia. Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra, ACT, Australia. AUD$10 each plus postage and handling.

Australian Network for Plant Conservation Translocation Working Group. (1997). Guidelines for the Translocation of Threatened Plants in Australia. Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra, ACT, Australia. AUD$10 each plus postage and handling.

Danthonia: Newsletter of the Australian Network for Plant Conservation. Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra, ACT, Australia. Free with ANPC membership.

Porigneaux, J-M. (1998). Australian Network for Plant Conservation Internet Directory: a Guide for Web Sites on Threatened Plant Species. Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra, ACT, Australia. See ANPC website.

 

Request for Gynosperm Seeds For Research into Nutrient Reserves

Prof. John Lott
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Gymnosperm seeds are needed for a study of the mineral reserves in the seeds themselves. In studies of mineral nutrient reserves in mature seeds, our laboratory found that Pinus seeds not only contain globoids (composed of phytate and associated cations such as K, Mg and Ca) which are commonly found in angiosperm seeds, but also contain Fe-rich particles (high levels of Fe and P) which are not commonly found in this form within angiosperm seeds. We have determined that the presence of Fe-rich particles is typical for seeds from genera of the Pinaceae but now we wish to extend our study to determine if these particles can be found throughout the Gymnosperms. We would appreciate any assistance in helping us to obtain seeds from our list. We would require at least 10 mature, filled seeds for each seed type that is available to us. We have listed the genera that we need representative seeds from. The species is not important to us but will certainly need to be known to be reported in the study.

Primary genera needed:

Conifers:

Family Cephalotaxaceae

      Genera:Cephalotaxus, Amentotaxus

Family Podocarpaceae

      Genera: Dacrydium, Phyllocladus, Saxegotheca

Additional Desired Genera:

Cycads:

Family Cycadaceae

      Genera: Zamia, Bowenia, Stangeria, Dion, Ceratozamia, Microcycas, Macrozamia, Enchephalartos

Conifers:

Family Taxaceae

      Genera: Torreya, Austrotaxus

Family Taxodiaceae

      Genera: Cryptomeria; Glyptostrobus; Sciadopitys; Metasequioa; Cunninghamia; Taiwania; Athrotaxus

Family Cupressaceae

      Genera: Fitzroya, Callitropsis, Fokenia, Librocedrus, Tetraclinis, Diselma, Widdringtonia, Cupressu, Thujopsis, Arceuthos, Actinostrobus

Gnetales:

      Genera: Gnetum, Welwitschia

Anyone who may be able to assist Professor Lott in his research is asked to contact him at McMaster University:

John N. A. Lott, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Biology
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1 Canada

Tel: 905-525-9140 ext. 24589
Fax: 905-522-6066
E-mail:

 

University of Guelph to Host Major Conference on Nature Stewardship on Private Lands

A National Millennium Conference Entitled Caring For Our Land: Stewardship And Conservation In Canada will be held June 3-6, 2000, at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. The meeting is being organized by the Centre for Land and Water Stewardship (CLAWS) at the University.

According to the call for participation issues in late 1999, this event will serve as Canada's first national land trust gathering and an opportunity for non-government organizations and community groups to meet and network. We anticipate this event will attract a strong mix of national and provincial, non-government and government, stewardship and conservation leaders from municipal to federal levels. The organizers also hope to involve a wide and diverse audience from all sectors - first nations, agriculture, forestry, wildlife, water, non-renewable resources, and energy. They hope that anyone interested in 'Caring for our Land' through stewardship and conservation programs will attend.

The conference goals are:

  1. To bring people together who share the common goal of caring for the land, particularly the groups working at the community level, non-government organizations, and land trusts; to strengthen and sustain their efforts in land protection, and in securing lands for protection,

  2. To identify the needs and support required for success in conservation and stewardship at the municipal, provincial, and federal government levels with regard to legislation, policies, programs, and funding.

  3. To develop new visions and new forms of organization and partnership; to promote and sustain land conservation and stewardship in Canada.

For more information, Visit the CLAWS web site at:

Or contact Peter Mitchell by FAX at 1-519-824-5730

 

Ottawa Botanic Garden Society launches Web Site

 The Ottawa Botanic Garden Society is proposing the development of a new botanical garden on the site of the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa, Ontario. A new web site describes the proposal and invites participation by the public at:

 

CBCN-L Mailing List

The changes to the CBCN-L mailing list announced in the last newsletter have been completed. CBCN-L now has now been moved to the Mailman system at McMaster University. To subscribe free of charge to the CBCN-L mailing list, visit CBCN’s Web site ( http://www.rbg.ca/cbcn) and follow the links to the CBCN-L list server, or go directly to McMaster University’s Mailman Listserver Web site ( http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cbcn-l). On the McMaster Web page you can read more about how the mailing list works, and subscribe directly. Once you have taken out a subscription in CBCN-L, you can customize or end your subscription from the same Web site, or by email.