Do Defra papers reveal that under ‘Treaty and Best Value’ obligations the National Fruit Collections may be reduced to a single collection, apples, and that either none or as little as 10-20% of this apple collection may be held in a form suitable for public visits? Is there any guarantee for the long-term security of all the Collections?
A paragraph in a scientific report to Defra summarised the importance of the National Fruit Collections both nationally and internationally:
The UK National Fruit Collections safeguard a valuable part of our agricultural heritage. The Collection comprises just less than 4000 varieties of apple, pear, plum, cherry, quince, medlar, hazelnut, currant, gooseberry and vine. More than two thousand apple varieties are maintained at Brogdale ……… The Collections ……… form a unique resource whose value is internationally recognised.
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources list those crops for which conservation is considered most important, this includes Malus or apple, the primary UK crop.
The Defra contract for the maintenance and curation of the Collections from April 2008 states : ‘The National Fruit Collection currently includes a range of species, some of which are more important to the U.K. than others. Separate costs for the maintenance and housing of each collection should be included, ideally along with a justification for why the various species should be included in the Collection.’
Although scientific advice has previously justified all the existing National Fruit Collections, is Defra indicating that not all of the Fruit Collections are important to the UK and therefore do not need to be supported? Defra is certainly asking bidders to justify the inclusion of particular fruit collections and even then their inclusion seems to be conditional on the maintenance and housing costs being acceptable. If Defra did remove support for some or most of the Collections it would represent a major break with the past and seems a strange way for government to safeguard a valuable part of the UK’s agricultural heritage and what is internationally recognised as a unique resource.
In research paid for by Defra, scientists have confirmed that ‘the area of land required for growing the trees is responsible for much of the cost of maintaining the National Fruit Collections as a field collection’, but the report also clearly states that ‘there are many advantages of maintaining a field collection’. It examined for Defra various methods of lowering costs by reducing the land required through the use of dwarfing rootstocks, cordons, potted plants, cryopreservation etc. In a fundamental change to the past, it proposed ‘an active field collection representing the diversity of the total collection and also containing frequently requested cultivars and others showing unique genes. This may represent 20% of the total collections but ….. it may be as low as about 10%.’ Each has its own advantages and disadvantages including risks to the germplasm resource.
The Defra contract specification is not specific as to how a collection should be maintained, but Defra’s emphasis is on the Collections’ use as a germplasm resource and the suitability of cryopreservation or other in-vitro techniques for the long-term secure storage of the Collections. Historically the Collections have been maintained, for good reason as a living reference library, in accordance with sound commercial practice, grown as they would be in a modern orchard, with two trees for each variety.
Would cost cutting linked to ‘Best Value’ by Defra mean that government support for individual collections would be removed, perhaps leaving only the Apple Collection? Conserved not as trees but in another form, say cryopreserved or only 10-20% of the collection planted as cordons that simply reflect the diversity of the total collection.The reduction in accessions in the active field collection will obviously result in reduction in land and maintenance costs, but there are risks.
Defra has recently spent public money on repropagating most of the collections. The Pear Collection, which is the second largest with more than 500 varieties, has only recently been re-propagated. In due course the Apple Collection will be also be renewed. If the Collections were to be discontinued or were to be moved from their current site either this public money might be seen as wasted or would need to be incurred again to enable the Collections to be moved. In either case could Defra be said to be squandering public money if the Collections were not maintained in the future?
Has a clear scientific framework or guidance been established prior to the bid as to the best way to protect and conserve the National Fruit Collections for the future? Without it any group appointed to examine the bids may find there is scepticism both from the scientific community and the public over advice as to securing the future of the National Fruit Collections. Although National Fruit Collections, is there going to be any public consultation to inform government how the public wish the Collections to be conserved?
Robert White
For more background see:
DEFRA’S National Fruits Collections Accessions Policy. This document describes the rationale used to determine the content of the DEFRA National Fruit Collections (NFCs) and the methods by which they are conserved – http://www.nfc.u-net.com/Policy.htm
Imperial College London warning that lack of funding for world crop diversity threatens sustainable food supply – http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P3631.htm
