ACQUISITION AND CURATION STRATEGY-2017

ICRAF GENEBANK

1 | P a g e

Contents1. Background1.1. The World Agroforestry Centre’s Genetic Resources Unit1.2.Why a GRU Collections Policy is needed

2. ICRAF’s global agroforestry tree mandate2.1.Defining agroforestry tree species2.2.The role of ICRAF’s GRU2.2.1. ICRAF GRU’s current role2.2.2. ICRAF GRU’s potential role2.3.ICRAF’s current GRU policy

3. Prioritising collections based on ICRAF’s global mandate3.1.State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources Review, 20143.2.Survey of Economic Plants in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands3.3.Useful Tropical Plants database3.4.The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

4. Prioritising collections based on the needs of users4.1.ICRAF user’s surveys4.2.ICRAF GRU’s records of species-specific requests for material4.3.Useful wild genotypes and domesticated cultivars in other genebanks

5. Gap analysis5.1.ICRAF GRU’s global coverage5.2.ICRAF GRU’s coverage of user priority species5.3. ICRAF GRU’s coverage of wild genotypes and cultivars for

domestication

6. ICRAF GRU collections policy6.1.Acquisition policy6.2.Managing the collections cost-effectively, including decisions about

retaining or discarding collections6.2.1. Criteria for determining cost-effective storage and multiplication

methodologies6.2.2. Retaining or discarding material6.3. Other considerations6.3.1. Infrastructures and facilities6.3.2. Partnerships6.3.3. ABS compliance

References

[Cover photo: the monkey orange tree, Strychnos cocculoides]

2 | P a g e

AcronymsABS Access and Benefit Sharing

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CBO Community Based Organisation

CIAT International Centre for Tropical Agriculture

CRP CGIAR Research Program

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

EMBRAPA Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FGR Forest Genetic Resources

GBOWS Gene Bank of Wild Species

GRIN Germplasm Resources Information Network

GRU Genetic Resources Unit

IARC International Agricultural Research Centres

ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

KALRO Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization

MSB Millennium Seed Bank

NARS National Agricultural Research Systems

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NTSC National Tree Seed Centre

PGRFA Plant Genetic Resources in Food and Agriculture

SEPASAL Survey of Economic Plants in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands

SID Seed Information Database

SMTA Standard Material Transfer Agreement

SOWFGR State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

UTP Useful Tropical Plants

3 | P a g e

1. Background1.1. The World Agroforestry Centre’s Genetic Resources UnitEstablished in 1993, the World Agroforestry Centre’s (ICRAF’s) Genetic Resources Unit (GRU) aims to collect, conserve, document, characterise and distribute a diverse collection of agroforestry trees, with a strong focus on indigenous species. The GRU comprises a medium-term cold storage facility located at ICRAF’s headquarters in Nairobi (ex situ genebank), short-term seed storage facilities in Bamako (Mali) and Lilongwe (Malawi), and 37 agroforestry field genebanks in 15 countries, mostly in tropical Africa, but with a few in addition in South America (Peru) and Asia (Vietnam and Bangladesh). In 2006, ICRAF signed an agreement (Article 15) with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) Secretariat as one of a group of International Agricultural Research Centres (IARC). ICRAF’s collections falls under Article 15.1b for non-Annex 1 crops held by the IARC, which includes germplasm of multi-purpose uses such as for fruits, forages and fibre. As part of this agreement, ICRAF has agreed to manage and administer the germplasm held by its GRU in accordance with internationally accepted standards, in particular the Genebank Standards endorsed by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. ICRAF also agreed to avail germplasm in accordance with the provisions of the Material Transfer Agreement (later the Standard Material Transfer Agreement, the SMTA). Since 2012, the ICRAF GRU has received funding under the CGIAR Research Programme (CRP) for Managing and Sustaining Crop Collections (Genebank) to support the long-term conservation and sustainable utilisation of agroforestry tree germplasm. The fund is managed by the Global Crop Diversity Trust.

1.2. Why a GRU Collections Policy is neededIn June 2015 the Global Crop Diversity Trust commissioned an External Review of ICRAF’s GRU (Smith & Thomson, 2015) to:

Assess the operations and activities of the ICRAF genebanks; Assess the roles, services and use of the genebanks, and the linkages with users and partners

both within and outside the CGIAR; Consider the status of the genebanks and/or individual collections, in the context of a global

system for the long-term conservation and use of the species in question; Review the status of the genebanks with respect to performance targets and the feasibility

of proposed work plans to reach targets; and Provide actionable recommendations related to all of the above.

The Review noted that:

“The GRU’s existing collections are globally significant, and their value will be increased once they are fully characterized, and their passport data is complete. However, in order for ICRAF’s GRU to fulfil its true potential, it needs to develop a collections acquisition and retention policy based on ICRAF’s global mandate, identified user needs and cost-effectiveness. ICRAF’s collections represent only a fraction of the several thousand tree species that deliver a whole host of products and services in agroforestry systems to smallholder farmers in developing countries. The recent State of the

4 | P a g e

World’s Forest Genetic Resources Review (2014) concludes that around 8,000 tree species are used in forestry around the world. Only a proportion of these will be used in developing countries, and still fewer in agroforestry. However, the Review recommends that ICRAF considers adopting a more pro-active approach to acquire, as a minimum, genetically representative collections of the most important species globally in agroforestry systems. This would also include tree species which can ensure resilience in agroforestry systems in the face of predicted climate change and extremes.”

This document is written in response to this recommendation. It sets out a collections acquisition and retention strategy based on ICRAF’s global agroforestry mandate, user needs, gaps in collections and cost effectiveness.

5 | P a g e

2. ICRAF’s global agroforestry tree mandate2.1. Defining agroforestry tree speciesNoordwijk, Coe & Sinclair (2016) define agroforestry as “…the practice and science of the interface and interactions between agriculture and forestry, involving farmers, trees, livestock and forests at multiple scales.” Their definition incorporates three complementary agroforestry paradigms:

A set of specific practices that combine trees, crops and/or livestock with the aim of supporting positive interactions among these components;

The landscape level interface of trees and farms, farmers and forests, tree domestication, forest use rights, ecosystem services and markets for tree products; and

Agroforestry within the policy context of sustainable development goals, globalising markets and global climate change.

While this definition of agroforestry (outlined further in Figure 2.1) is helpful for understanding the systems that constitute agroforestry, it is less useful for deciding which tree species constitute ‘agroforestry species’ and which don’t, because it embraces multiple systems, formal and informal, for a multitude of purposes from revenue generation to ecosystem services, and at a wide range of scales.

Common denominators of agroforestry systems are that they constitute a specific response to the special needs of tropical developing countries, in particular, to low capital availability and to farming in degraded or marginal lands. From this context, we can start to set criteria that characterise ‘agroforestry tree species’. Normally they will be low input and well adapted to poor or marginal lands. They also will be genetically diverse and resilient. Ideally, they should be able to be integrated into rotation/mixed production systems. In addition, agroforestry species should have ecological as well as economic benefits. From this we might conclude that a typical agroforestry tree or shrub requires low inputs and delivers economic benefits (e.g. food, forage or fuel) and/or ecological benefits (e.g. shade, habitat or soil fertilisation). By the same reasoning, trees that do not qualify as agroforestry species are likely to be high input, highly bred commodity crop or forestry species that are planted at large scale in monocultures.

6 | P a g e

Figure 2.1. Three agroforestry concepts mapped on to the agriculture-forestry interface (from van Noordwijk, 2014)

2.2. The role of ICRAF’s GRU

2.2.1. ICRAF GRU’s current role

A recent survey of ICRAF genebank users (see Section 3.3 and Annex 1) indicated that:

ICRAF primarily supplies seed to African countries, particularly to Kenya; 50% of the users who responded to the survey come personally to ICRAF’s GRU to obtain

seed, as many are recipients of seed for ICRAF projects; Users are more likely to obtain seed from ICRAF than from government seed centres or

commercial seed suppliers; Seeds are primarily for on farm use, research and restoration/afforestation; A wide range of species are used for a wide range of purposes; Preferred species that are difficult to obtain are primarily multipurpose (37%), food (27%)

and medicinal (16%) trees; and The most problematic issues identified by users concerning germplasm acquisition are

limited information on suitable species for a given region, lack of visibility of the collections and lack of characterisation and evaluation data.

2.2.2. ICRAF GRU’s potential role

In response to the question “What role do you think the ICRAF genebank should play in the supply of agroforestry seeds and information?”, the respondents in ICRAF’s user survey (also see Section 4.1) indicated that the primary roles of the GRU should be the supply of agroforestry germplasm, the dissemination of agroforestry knowledge, and user training and capacity building. Perhaps because of the way the question was phrased, only 2% of respondents saw the GRU’s primary role as

7 | P a g e

research, only 2% cited conservation of germplasm as an activity that ICRAF should engage in, and only 6% identified monitoring and evaluation as ICRAF’s primary role (Total number of respondents =57).

The views of users on the importance of seed supply and capacity building are indicative of the lack of investment in recent years in National Tree Seed Centres (NTSCs) and National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS), reflected in crumbling infrastructures, fewer staff and the general lack of availability of high quality tree seed and associated information on appropriate use and management. There is also some evidence to suggest that the exchange of plant genetic resources between countries has become more difficult since the advent of the Convention on Biological Diversity and, specifically, since national laws and regulations related to the Nagoya Protocol have come in to force. The trend of disinvestment in NARS and NTSCs has seen a drastic decline in extension services advising and training farmers in the use of agroforestry trees. There has been reduced financial and technical support to NTSCs by donors, and the gap in funding has frequently not been filled by host governments.

How ICRAF can help address gaps in the dissemination of knowledge and in the development of capacity around tree germplasm is part of its research agenda (especially of the Tree Diversity, Domestication and Delivery science domain). Further discussion on this point is beyond the scope of this report, but that ICRAF’s GRU has an important role to play in the supply of agroforestry tree germplasm is beyond doubt. This is discussed in more detail below.

Important steps and/or decisions that ICRAF needs to make with regard to its future role in conserving and supplying agroforestry tree seed include:

Broadening the geographical scope of ICRAF genebanks. Currently, the ICRAF GRU supplies the vast majority (>90%) of its seed to Africa. As the World Agroforestry Centre, it has a much broader mandate than this.

Better defining which agroforestry species, genotypes and cultivars fall within the ICRAF GRU’s purview, e.g. tropical versus temperate taxa relevant to ICRAF’s geographical focus above. Similarly, which uses are appropriate? Article 15 only encompasses food, forage and fibre species, but ICRAF currently works with a much wider range of utilitarian species including timber and medicinal trees.

Considering a greater focus on long term seed conservation. ICRAF’s GRU is currently set up primarily for short to medium term seed storage, with limited back up of its collections in long term storage facilities elsewhere (Svalbard, Kunming and the Millennium Seed Bank). Given the decline in global seed conservation capacity, ICRAF’s GRU could take the decision to invest more in long term storage capacity to better fill an important global niche in conserving agroforestry tree germplasm.

Considering a wider range of storage approaches. For recalcitrant species, medium to long term storage or maintenance of vegetative material in cryopreservation in addition to field genebanks may be more important in the future.

Investing further in strategic partnerships. As part of the Global System for PGRFA, ICRAF has excellent opportunities to create strategic alliances with NARS and other CGIAR centres engaged in the conservation and supply of agroforestry tree germplasm. There is already some collection overlap with ILRI and CIAT, and here rationalisation of collections and roles would be invaluable. Similarly, ICRAF already partners with some NARS in co-managing field genebanks, but this could be expanded to include seed banks (e.g. Fort Collins, CSIRO

8 | P a g e

Australia, EMBRAPA Brazil) that hold significant agroforestry tree collections, taking into account the regional importance of taxa and their ecological limitations.

Improving access to resources. ICRAF is in a position to facilitate access to a wide range of International Treaty species under the SMTA. For species not covered under the Treaty, the CGIAR centres, including ICRAF, have a potential role to play in facilitating access to third parties through bespoke bilateral or multilateral agreements.

These and other issues related to the acquisition, retention and distribution of agroforestry tree germplasm are discussed in more detail in Section 6 below.

2.3. ICRAF’s current Genetic Resources StrategyICRAF’s Agroforestry Tree Genetic Resources Strategy 2013-2017 sets out its goal for germplasm collection, acquisition and rationalisation. We recount sections of this strategy of relevance to the current document below, before considering issues further in following sections:

“The ICRAF collection of priority agroforestry tree species will be expanded to fill important gaps in the coverage of the genepool and rationalised as needed after review of diversity based on the results of characterisation and eco-geographic mapping.”

The strategy goes on to state:

“Although species priority setting has been an important activity for deciding which trees to promote and domesticate within ICRAF regional programmes (Franzel & Kindt, 2012), no specific priority setting exercise has been carried out to determine targets for conservation. Priority setting for conservation overlaps, but in important elements is different from that for domestication. As well as market considerations, it takes into account the level of diversity and degree of threat to the resource and existing conservation initiatives, as well as the potential for current and future use of the tree. A clear process of priority setting for conservation will be carried out by region over the next five years to determine which species to focus on. Priority setting is an ongoing dynamic process to meet current and future needs, and requires a broad perspective to respond to global challenges such as climate change. Ongoing consultations with partners and farmers will be needed to ensure that the collections remain relevant to their needs. Criteria used to determine key species for conservation during this process will include:

Global importance Market demand and importance to livelihoods (health, nutrition, income) of farmers Domestication suitability for cultivation, production and processing Level of coverage by other conservation efforts, including the long-term viability of in situ

methods, and genebanks Availability of potential partners for conservation Gaps in collections Level of threat, endangered nature of the species and its role in the environment for

supporting the sustainable use of other flora and fauna Presence of useful adaptive traits such as drought tolerance, salt tolerance and resistance to

pests and diseases.

9 | P a g e

The amount of genetic diversity within the key agroforestry species and access to this diversity within the access and benefit sharing conditions of international treaties, [in addition to the] distribution [of] and knowledge about the species and funding will determine the size of species-specific collections. Representative samples will be collected across the distribution range to capture a wide range of diversity.”

The strategy also makes a commitment to address information gaps for agroforestry tree species and to facilitate access to materials from genebank collections. Regarding access to material, the strategy states:

“In line with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Intellectual Assets (IA) principles, ICRAF considers its germplasm collections as global public goods and is committed to the widespread diffusion and use of material and information to achieve the maximum possible access, scale, scope of impact and sharing of benefits to advantage the poor, especially farmers in developing countries.”

Regarding germplasm delivery systems, it says:

“Germplasm delivery systems for agroforestry trees generally do not follow a formal breeding and delivery approach. Lack of access to high quality planting material of a wide range of tree species to small-scale farmers constrains their adoption of agroforestry practices. Improving the ways by which growers gain access to planting material is therefore crucial in bringing trees into cultivation on farms, and thus is an essential consideration in tree domestication strategies. Considering the variation in species of interest between different countries and even different regions of the same country, local field genebanks and seed orchards will be used in addition to the conventional seed genebank to meet needs. In order to make the germplasm available to a diverse set of users, germplasm will be made available on a non-profit basis to cover the costs of production.”

Finally, the strategy makes a commitment to strategic partnerships, saying:

“Partnerships involving the sharing of responsibilities for conservation and management are central to this strategy. ICRAF will continue to work closely with existing national and international partners in the regions and will seek and initiate new partnerships for conservation as needed, based on the ICRAF partnerships strategy and guidelines. The modalities for involvement of different partners will vary depending on local conditions and needs. However, all partnerships will be governed by contracts that identify responsibilities and cost sharing arrangements. Service agreements will be concluded with service providers or partners taking on specific responsibility for conservation or testing.”

10 | P a g e

3. Prioritising collections based on ICRAF’s global mandateAs indicated in Section 2.3, ICRAF’s Agroforestry Tree Genetic Resources Strategy considers global importance, market demand/importance to livelihoods, level of threat and role in the environment as criteria that should be used to determine key tree species for conservation. In this regard, there are a number of sources of information on globally important agroforestry tree species, genotypes and cultivars that ICRAF may wish to use to prioritise which collections it should acquire and/or retain. These include the first State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources Review and various useful and threatened species databases. We consider some of these below (further information can also be found at ICRAF’s online Agroforestry Species Switchboard, http://www.worldagroforestry.org/output/agroforestry-species-switchboard-13).

3.1. State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources (SOWFGR) Review, 2014The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) gathered country reports from 86 nations on the current status of forest genetic resource conservation and use to synthesise the recent first State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources (SOWFGR) Review (FAO, 2014). Country reports mentioned 8,000 species of trees, palms and bamboos, and economic and conservation value were given as the two main reasons for nominating priorities for conservation and management. Of the 8,000 species, around 2,400 were described as being actively managed, i.e. managed specifically for their products and services (although not necessarily cultivated). The remainder were indicated to be harvested from the wild. The main products and functions targeted through management activities were reported by countries as timber (42%), non-wood forest products (41%) and energy (mainly fuelwood, 19%).

While the species listed in the country reports of high income nations are generally of limited interest, those cultivated by the more than 50 low and middle income countries who participated in the SOWFGR give a good indication of species that are of importance locally and globally in a development context. These lists also give some indication of user demand and importance to livelihoods of species, at least in qualitative terms.

We have obtained a database from FAO listing the species cited by the SOWFGR country reports from 58 low and middle income countries, and use these data in the gap analysis in Section 5 below.

3.2. Survey of Economic Plants in Arid and Semi-Arid Landshttp://www.kew.org/science-conservation/research-data/science-directory/projects/survey-economic-plants-arid-and-semi

The Survey of Economic Plants in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (SEPASAL) database is the world's most comprehensive online source of information on useful 'wild' and semi-domesticated tropical and subtropical dryland plants, with a focus on Africa. It includes plants which humans eat, use as medicine, feed to animals, make things from, use as fuel, and many other uses. The SEPASAL database focuses on drier parts of the world because these are home to one sixth of the world's

11 | P a g e

population, in some of the poorest countries. The database contains information on approximately 7,000 species. Registration is required to access the database, but entry is free. SEPASAL can be searched by scientific name, distribution and use. Relevant lists of useful species that can be generated include: food plants, food additives, animal food, bee plants, materials, fuelwoods, social uses, medicines and environmental uses (e.g. erosion control, shade, soil improvers). Lists can be filtered with useful criteria such as habit, conservation status, domestication status, and adaptive traits such as disease and pest resistance.

3.3. Useful Tropical Plants database

A useful counterpart to SEPASAL is the Useful Tropical Plants (UTP) database (http://tropical.theferns.info) that, unlike SEPASAL, includes species from the wet tropics. The UTP database currently includes records of over 11,000 useful plant species from the tropics. The database can be searched by use (e.g. medicine, food, green manure), and lists generated accordingly. Advanced search options enable the user to search on adaptive traits such as drought tolerance, nitrogen fixation and tolerance of poor soils, among others.

3.4. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

An important criterion in the ICRAF GRU strategy is level of threat. The IUCN Global Red List (http://www.iucnredlist.org) can be searched by taxonomy, location, ecosystem, habitat, threat, assessment and plant growth forms (e.g. shrub or tree). The Red List is not currently comprehensive for plants as it does not include national and regional assessments. However, it is the best source of information available for globally threatened plant species and is therefore relevant to ICRAF as a data source.

Botanic Garden Conservation International (www.bgci.org) will launch ‘ThreatSearch’, the most comprehensive list of threatened plant species, incorporating global, regional and national threat assessments, later this year. This list includes non-IUCN threat assessments such as the Australian and US assessments. This database should therefore also be a useful resource.

12 | P a g e

4.Prioritising collections based on the needs of users

As indicated in Section 2.3, ICRAF’s Agroforestry Tree Genetic Resources Strategy states that criteria used to determine key species for conservation should include a strong use focus. There are a number of potential sources of information on agroforestry tree user’s needs that ICRAF may wish to use to prioritise which collections it should acquire and/or retain. These include ICRAF’s own user surveys, the ICRAF GRU’s species-specific records on requests for material, and useful wild genotypes and domesticated cultivars in other genebanks. Each of these is described below.

4.1. ICRAF user’s surveysAnalysis of seed distributed from ICRAF HQ Seed Bank by user sector (derived from 2012-2016 ICRAF Genebank Annual Reports; Table 4.1) show most of the seeds from the GRU going to ICRAF research projects and individual farmer/farmer organisation/CBO categories but fewer distribution to research institutions and the commercial sector. These users also have the ability to add value to and/or scale up the use of material. Similarly, distribution analysis of seedlings from Field Genebanks 2014 to 2016 ICRAF Genebank Annual Reports data show the same pattern (Table 4.2). In addition, the geographic distribution of seed samples from ICRAF HQ Seed Bank in 2012-2016 (Table 4.3) showed that 82% of the samples distributed by the GRU went to Kenya. Although some of the ‘Kenyan’ recipient seed may have been distributed more widely through ICRAF projects, it wasn’t possible to quantify this, and the conclusion was that the international reach of ICRAF’s GRU was quite limited. Notably, quantifying dispatch by samples distributed may not be a true reflection of seeds distributed. Depending on the species, the seed samples may contain several seed numbers; for example in 2014 of the 309 samples distributed HQ Seed Bank, the database records show that these were indeed 3,195,555 seeds of 46 species; if all these seeds developed to maturity, this is a great number of long-lived tree species added to agroforestry systems.

Table 4.1. Seed distribution from ICRAF HQ Seed Bank by user sector between 2012 and 2016

User Number of samples

% of total

ICRAF 767 29Agricultural Research Institutes or Universities 254 10Other CGIAR centres 20 1Commercial sector 0 0Farmers, farmer organizations, NGOs 1,175 44NARS or national genebanks 18 1International genebanks 280 11Individuals, unknown or other users 152 6Total 2,666 100

13 | P a g e

Table 4.2. Seed distribution from ICRAF Field Banks by user sector between 2014 and 2016

User Number of samples

% of total

ICRAF 10,118 51.13Agricultural Research Institutes or Universities 63 0.32Commercial sector 3,877 19.6Farmers/Farmer organization/CBO/NGO 4,741 23.96NARS or national genebanks 389 1.97Individuals, unknown or other users 600 3Total 19,788 100

Table 4.3. Seed distribution from ICRAF HQ Seed Bank by country in 2012-2016

Country name Number of samples Number of speciesKenya 2189 70Uganda 48 23Kenya 45 24Somali 29 11China 23 3Tanzania 116 6Malawi 83 2Mali 38 3United Kingdom 16 16Sudan 12 11Congo Kinshasa 11 6United States 11 4Finland 10 6Cameroon 8 6Liberia 8 5Ghana 6 6Rwanda 5 1Ethiopia 3 2Portugal 2 2Cote d'voire 1 1India 1 1Unites States of America 1 1Total 2438 210

The ICRAF GRU’s 2016 user survey results confirmed these patterns (see Section 2.2.1) but also included a request for information on which species users wanted to plant. ICRAF also carried out consultations with users in 2013 (Africa) and in 2015 (Africa and SE Asia). A combined list of 65 preferred agroforestry tree species identified by users is reproduced in Annex 1.

4.2. ICRAF GRU’s species-specific records of requests for material14 | P a g e

A further useful indicator of demand is ICRAF’s seed supply records for requests for individual species. Annex 2 lists the top 50 taxa requested from ICRAF over the period 2013 to 2016.

Assorted agroforestry tree seed samples packed for distribution

4.3. Useful wild genotypes and domesticated cultivars in other genebanksThe tree collections held in the world’s agricultural, horticultural, forestry and botanical garden sectors are highly diverse and, sometimes, are accompanied by passport data that includes their utility and extent of use. These genebanks are a source of material and data encompassing wild taxa and cultivars.

The most diverse ex situ wild tree collections are held in the living collections and seed banks of the world’s 3,000 botanic gardens and arboreta (https://www.bgci.org/garden_search.php). Collectively, these manage at least one third of known plant diversity in their living collections. For example, wild tree seed collections are well represented in Kew’s Millennium Seed Bank (MSB) that holds more than 5,000 tree taxa, many with multiple accessions. The MSB’s seed list (http://apps.kew.org/seedlist/SeedlistServlet) indicates that a proportion of these collections are freely available to users, with many more taxa available under specific conditions of use. Duplicates of all MSB collections are held in national genebanks in the countries of origin, and in cases where material is not directly available from the MSB, it is often available from the counterpart national genebank. Other, large, specialist wild species genebanks include Kunming Institute of Botany’s Genebank of Wild Species (GBOWS) and the Royal Botanic Garden, Sydney’s PlantBank. The most comprehensive listing of the names of tree accessions held in the world’s botanic gardens and arboreta is Botanic Garden Conservation International’s PlantSearch database

15 | P a g e

(https://www.bgci.org/plant_search.php ). PlantSearch lists more than 1.3 milllion collection records, representing more than 500 thousand taxa (including cultivars), at over a thousand contributing institutions. However, PlantSearch does not yet provide individual accession level data. This information is currently only available, where it exists, from the institutions themselves.

In the agricultural/horticultural sector, the most comprehensive list of accessions is provided by the GENESYS database (https://www.genesys-pgr.org/welcome). GENESYS currently lists more than 3.5 million accessions from almost 500 institutes, and includes accession names and some passport data. GENESYS is primarily devoted to food crops but includes some tree collections from ICRAF, ILRI, CIAT and a number of national genebanks, including those of the USDA.

Characterisation and/or passport data for wild collections in genebanks is often very limited. While collections from large, well-resourced, modern wild seed banks like the MSB and GBOWS come with detailed passport data, including latitude/longitude coordinates (from which environmental variables can be derived), soils and geology, most wild collections in national forestry genebanks may simply be accompanied by a rough locality and a date of collection. Similarly, for cultivars, characterisation data although more likely to be recorded is often of variable quality. For this reason, a key question in identifying priority collections for acquisition will be “How good is the accompanying data?” Ideally, material will have both good passport data (including GPS geo-referenced location data and other detailed information from collection sites) and good characterisation data (phenotypic and/or genotypic – especially on key traits important for breeding purposes). Accurate sample location data is increasingly important because of the ability to extrapolate from it to environment based on global climate overlays and other global geo-referenced datasets.

In addition, of course, material will need to be available for acquisition, preferably under the SMTA of the International Treaty (see Section 6.3.3.).

16 | P a g e

5. Gap analysisA key criterion identified in ICRAF’s Agroforestry Tree Genetic Resources Strategy in terms of goals for germplasm collection, acquisition and rationalisation is to assess and act on gaps in collections. Below we examine some of the gaps in ICRAF’s collections against the global importance and user’s needs criteria discussed in Sections 3 and 4 of this document.

5.1. ICRAF GRU’s global coverageA comparison of ICRAF’s current accessions with the top 137 useful tree species used in five or more developing/emerging countries according to the SOWFGR Review is detailed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Comparison of ICRAF GRU species collections with widely used species in developing and emerging countries according to the SOWFGR Review (FAO, 2014)

Range of countries % ICRAF GRU coverage

Key species not in ICRAF GRU

Used in 20 or more countries

100% None

Used in 10-19 countries

56% Albizia lebbeck, Azadirachta indica, Ceiba pentandra, Cocos nucifera, Elaeis guineensis, Juglans regia, Khaya senegalensis, Mangifera indica, Pinus caribaea, Pongamia pinnata, Populus alba, Swietenia macrophylla

Used in 5-9 countries

21% Anacardium occidentale, Acacia catechu, Acacia saligna, Aegle marmelos, Afzelia Africana, Albizia procera, Annona muricata, Anogeissus leiocarpa , Antiaris toxicaria, Artocarpus altilis , Bambusa vulgaris, Bauhinia variegate, Borassus aethiopum, Bruguiera gymnorhiza, Calophyllum inophyllum, Cassia fistula, Casuarina cunninghamiana, Cedrela odorata , Cedrus deodara, Celtis australis, Ceratonia silique, Cinnamomum camphora, Commiphora Africana, Cryptomeria japonica, Detarium microcarpum, Diploknema butyracea, Distemonanthus benthamianus, Elaeagnus angustifolia, Entandrophragma candollei, Erythrina abyssinica, Eucalyptus globulus, Eucalyptus tereticornis, Falcataria moluccana, Ficus sycomorus, Guazuma ulmifolia, Hevea brasiliensis, Hyphaene thebaica, Khaya anthotheca, Klainedoxa gabonensis, Laurus nobilis, Magnolia champaca, Malus sieversii, Morinda citrifolia, Morus alba, Olea europaea, Pericopsis elata, Phyllanthus emblica, Picea schrenkiana, Pinus brutia, Pinus elliottii, Pinus halepensis, Pinus kesiya, Pinus pinaster, Pinus pinea, Pinus taeda, Piptadeniastrum africanum, Pistacia atlantica, Pistacia vera, Pithecellobium dulce, Populus euphratica, Prunus dulcis, Prunus armeniaca, Psidium guajava, Pterocarpus angolensis,Pterocarpus erinaceus, Pycnanthus angolensis, Rhizophora apiculate,

17 | P a g e

Rhizophora mucronata, Robinia pseudoacacia, Salix alba, Sesbania grandiflora, Sterculia setigera, Styphnolobium japonicum, Syzygium cordatum, Syzygium cumini, Syzygium malaccense, Terminalia bellirica, Terminalia catappa, Terminalia superba, Thespesia populnea,Toona ciliate, Ximenia Americana, Yushania alpina

5.2. ICRAF GRU’s coverage of user priority speciesWhen compared against the species identified by user surveys as preferred or priority taxa (Annex 1), ICRAF’s GRU fares much better in terms of representation, with 48% of these species stored by the GRU and available to users. Species that are however not currently available from the ICRAF GRU are listed in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2. User priority species not currently available from the ICRAF GRU

Species SpeciesAnnona squamosa Litchi chinensisAzadirachta indica Lophira lanceolataBaccaurea racemosa Macadamia spp.*Boswellia dalziellii Malus spp.*Callistemon citrinus Mangifera indica*Canarium schweinfurthii Mangifera odorataCastanopsis spp. Myrianthus holstiiCytisus proliferus Pinus caribaeaCoffea spp. Allophylus cobbeDetarium macrocarpum Psidium guajava*Dimocarpus longan Pterocarpus angolensisDurio spp. Sandoricum koetjapeErythrina abyssinica Securidaca longepedunculataFilicium decipiens Spondia dulcisGarcinia indica Stelechocarpus buraholKhaya anthotheca Syzygium guineensisLannea humilis Terminalia catappa

* Conserved in collaboration with KALRO

Again, there are species in Table 5.2 that are readily available from other sources (e.g. Azadirachta indica, Mangifera indica). Some species that are widely used in important ICRAF mandate areas such as tropical Africa are however not currently available from the GRU. The ICRAF GRU should thus consider acquiring these (e.g. Khaya anthotheca, Lannea humilis, Pterocarpus angolensis and Syzygium guineensis).

18 | P a g e

5.3. ICRAF GRU’s coverage of wild genotypes and cultivars for domestication

Species under domestication by ICRAF are listed in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3. Species covered by ICRAF’s domestication programme

Acacia senegal Guazuma crinitaAdansonia digitata Irvingia gabonensisAllanblackia floribunda* Irvingia tenuinucleataAllanblackia parviflora Irvingia roburAllanblackia stuhlmannii Mangifera indicaBactris gasipaes Prunus africanaCalycophyllum spruceanum Sclerocarya birreaCombretum glutinosum Strychnos cocculoidesCombretum micranthum Tamarindus indicaDacryodes edulis* Uapaca kirkiana*Docynia indica* Vangueria infaustaGliricidia sepium Vitellaria paradoxaGnetum africanum Warburgia ugandensis

* Priority species

ICRAF’s current collections of the species that are priorities in its domestication programme (all fruit trees) are listed in Table 5.4. These collections are currently being characterised, which will enable ICRAF to formulate and develop collections acquisition, retention and discard policy for these taxa.

Table 5.4. Numbers of ICRAF accessions of ICRAF priority species for domestication

Species Number of accessions Seed bank/field genebankAllanblackia floribunda 449 Field genebanks (Cameroon)Dacryodes edulis 422 Field genebanks (Cameroon & DRC)Docynia indica 66 Field genebank (Vietnam)Uapaca kirkiana 1742 Field genebanks (Malawi, Zambia & Zimbabwe)

Should ICRAF wish to acquire further material for these taxa, and assuming that material is available and comes with good passport data, criteria that could be employed in a gap analysis to identify priority wild genotypes and cultivars for acquisition include the following: material of specific geographical or environmental origin (e.g. genotypes adapted to particular regions, countries or localities; cultivars optimal for specific environments); material with useful traits of importance in breeding programmes (e.g. important existing cultivars; material with desirable characteristics for future breeding programmes and/or research); and material with genetic variability (i.e. genotypes/cultivars with alleles not already in the collection).

19 | P a g e

6. ICRAF GRU collections policyIn developing an acquisition, retention and discard collections policy for ICRAF’s GRU, we are making the following assumptions based on ICRAF’s Agroforestry Tree Genetic Resources Strategy (see Section 2.3):

That ICRAF has a global agroforestry tree mandate, which includes potential users in all sectors (public, private, civil) in developing countries throughout the world;

That, although Article 15 of the International Treaty confines itself to food, forage and fibre species, ICRAF is not confined to working solely under the Treaty and therefore no group of useful tree species (e.g. timber species) is excluded from the mandate;

That ICRAF’s GRU has both a conservation and a service provision role; and That ICRAF wishes to work in partnership with other genebanks in the CGIAR and beyond to

improve its conservation and service provision functions.

6.1. Acquisition policyThere are a number of ways in which ICRAF may acquire material. These include through:

Proactive acquisition by field collection, purchase or exchange; Donations; and GRU participation in ICRAF research and development projects

In all cases, ICRAF’s GRU will have to decide whether the material is of high, medium or low priority. Criteria are described below for each category and are summarised in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1. Criteria defining ICRAF GRU priority species and collections

High priority collections Medium priority collections Low priority collections

Widely used in global agroforestry but not currently represented in the GRU collections

User’s priority species and cultivars

Species/cultivar in high demand Threatened agroforestry

species/genotype/cultivar Unique or rare genotype/cultivar

with specific traits not currently represented in the GRU

A collection important for the delivery of a project but which does not fulfil any of the high priority criteria

Other collections verified as being useful but not meeting the high priority criteria

All collections that do not meet high or medium priority criteria

20 | P a g e

Material should be a high priority and proactively acquired by the ICRAF GRU if:

It is a ‘gap’ species, genotype or cultivar that is widely used in agroforestry but is not currently represented in the GRU collections (SOWFGR Top 500 – Section 5.1);

It is a species, genotype or cultivar in high demand (ICRAF’s records of requests – Section 5.2);

It is a useful agroforestry species or genotype known to be threatened in the wild or to be in decline (Section 3.4); and

It represents a unique or rare genotype or cultivar not currently represented in the collections or with specific desirable traits, e.g. adaptive potential (Section 5.3)

Medium priority material that might be acquired under certain circumstances, e.g. by donation or through a specific project, will include:

A species, genotype or cultivar important for the delivery of a project but which does not fulfil any of the criteria above;

Although it is a user’s priority species, genotype or cultivar, it is not frequently requested (Section 4.2 & Annex 2); and

A species that SEPASAL or other economic botany databases list as being useful (Section 3.2)

Collections from all other species, genotypes or cultivars should be regarded as low priority and should not be acquired or retained.

6.2. Managing the collections cost-effectively, including decisions about retaining or discarding collectionsIn order for high and medium priority collections to be managed efficiently and cost-effectively, management decisions need to be based on:

The most cost-effective conservation methodology (seed bank versus field genebank) The most cost-effective multiplication methodology (re-collection or regeneration).

A management decision tree, taking these criteria into account, is presented in Figure 6.1. These criteria are discussed below.

6.2.1. Criteria for determining cost-effective storage and multiplication methodologies

Seed storage behaviour. Seed conservation is by far the most cost-effective methodology for storing germplasm long term. Desiccation tolerant (orthodox) seeds can be dried and stored at sub-zero temperatures for many years without significant loss of viability. However, desiccation sensitive (recalcitrant) seeds cannot be stored under conventional seed bank conditions of low temperature and humidity without losing viability, sometimes quickly. The most comprehensive source of information on seed behaviour is Kew’s Seed Information Database (SID, http://data.kew.org/sid/sidsearch.html ). Other sources of information include ICRAF’s own genebank records and species information sheets such as those produced by Plant Resources of Tropical Africa (http://www.prota.org/). Various relevant databases are given in ICRAF’s Agroforestry Species Switchboard.

21 | P a g e

Expensive/difficult to re-collect. Regeneration of material may be a more cost effective option than re-collecting seed for species, genotypes or cultivars that are difficult or expensive to sample. These may include taxa with small, scattered populations (including rare and threatened species), that occur only in inaccessible or dangerous places; and that rarely set seed.

Taxa with long regeneration times. Even where taxa are expensive to collect seed from, if regeneration times are long, then it will usually be more cost effective to re-collect seed (that is if it still available in natural ecology). Taxa with long regeneration times will include any species that take longer than five years to set seed. This will be the case for many perennials and most trees and shrubs.

True to type. Open pollinated plants will result in random allele selection, meaning that traits based on genic combinations may not be passed from parent to seed. If material exhibiting specific, selected traits is required then field genebanks may be the most cost-effective option for long term storage and the supply of material to users. Under controlled, field genebank conditions, cuttings can be taken or controlled pollination can be carried out on plants of known provenance. Alternatively, cuttings or controlled pollination can be carried out with species in the wild but this is difficult for inaccessible or rare species.

Hyphaene petersiana

22 | P a g e

Figure 6.1. ICRAF Germplasm management decision tree

6.2.2. Retaining or discarding material

As indicated in Figure 6.1, orthodox seeds from low priority collections (see Table 6.1) should be discarded or archived (i.e. not actively managed but not actually discarded). In the case of recalcitrant-seeded species, only high priority collections should be retained because of the additional expense associated with maintaining such collections in field genebanks. Given the

23 | P a g e

Seed behaviour

Orthodox

High priority

Yes

High demand

Yes

Expensive/difficult to re-collect

No

Re-collect

Seed bank

Yes

Long regeneration time

No

Regenerate as required

Seed bank

Yes

True to type material required

No

Re-collect

Seed bank

Yes

Field genebank

No

Seed bank

No

Medium priority

Yes

Seed bank

No

Discard

Recalcitrant

High priority

Yes

Expensive/difficult to re-collect

No

Re-collect

Yes

True to type material required

No

Re-collect

Yes

Field gene bank

No

Discard

expense associated with establishing field genebanks, an option for existing, low priority genebanks is to reduce their maintenance costs by keeping them secure but no longer actively managing them. Table 6.2 summarises criteria that should be applied to retaining, discarding or archiving material. Other factors that should be taken into account in deciding whether to retain, archive or discard material include:

Material quality. Seed collections of low viability should be discarded or archived. International standards vary between 75% and 85% as a ‘pass rate’ for viability. However, ICRAF may want to lower the bar for certain high priority collections. Care should be taken to ensure that viability is genuinely low before seeds are discarded. Sub-optimal germination protocols may lead to false negative results, and complementary Tetrazolium or cut tests are recommended before material is discarded. When in any doubt, archiving material by continuing to store it but ceasing to actively manage it (e.g. no longer carrying out viability testing) is an option. In the case of field genebanks, trees in poor condition will have limited utility.

Diseased or infested material. Material which is not clean (i.e. carries disease or is infested with a pest) should not only be discarded, but incinerated as a biohazard. ICRAF already has procedures in place to detect such material.

Invasive alien or other proscribed species. ICRAF already has measures in place to ensure that prohibited alien invasive taxa are never distributed. Such collections should be discarded from ICRAF’s collections unless they are supporting research into control of such taxa. Taxa that are not prohibited but that have the potential to be invasive are already flagged by ICRAF with cautionary warnings on the seed packet and with further information available through the Agroforestry Species Switchboard.

Data quality. Material with limited passport data is of limited utility. In some cases, it is possible to characterise material retrospectively. However, if vital information such as date, locality of collection or sampling methodology is lost, then material has reduced utility.

ABS compliant material. The status of ICRAF’s material under Article 15 of the International Treaty is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.3.3. However, material acquired by ICRAF in the future may be subject to further national laws or regulations under the Nagoya Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is not uncommon, for example, for material to be supplied only for the duration of a research project after which it will need to be repatriated or destroyed.

Table 6.2. Criteria relevant to retaining/discarding material

Retain material Discard/archive material High/medium priority taxa/cultivars

(orthodox species) High priority taxa/cultivars (recalcitrant

species) High quality seed or field genebank

accession High quality collection data ABS or ITPGRFA compliant material

Low priority taxa/cultivars (orthodox species)

Medium/low priority taxa/cultivars (recalcitrant species)

Poor quality material Diseased or infested material Invasive aliens or other proscribed taxa Collections with poor quality data Non-ABS compliant material (or as

stipulated in a bilateral agreement)

24 | P a g e

6.3. Other considerations

6.3.1. Infrastructures and facilities

As already discussed in Section 2.2.2, ICRAF’s GRU is currently set up primarily for short to medium term seed storage with limited back up of its collections in long term storage facilities overseas (Svalbard, Kunming and the Millennium Seed Bank). Given the decline in global seed conservation capacity, ICRAF’s GRU could take the decision to invest in long term storage capacity thereby fulfilling an important global role in conserving agroforestry tree germplasm. If ICRAF’s leadership decides that the organisation should (a) significantly broaden and strengthen ICRAF’s collections, and (b) play a more active role in long term seed conservation for agroforestry tree species, genotypes and cultivars, then it will be cost effective to build larger storage facilities, including long term seed storage capacity at ICRAF’s HQ in Nairobi. Given the lack of long term conservation capacity in most NARS, this is an option that should be given serious consideration.

6.3.2. Partnerships

Regardless of whether the ICRAF GRU decides to strengthen its collections and/or play a greater role in the long term conservation of agroforestry tree germplasm, we recommend that ICRAF strengthens its partnerships with other genebanks to improve both the range of collections available to users and the long term conservation of agroforestry tree species.

Using the Gene Bank CRP and existing tools such as GENESYS and GRIN Global, it should be possible to rationalise and share the task of supplying material to users. For example, if ICRAF, ILRI, CIAT and large NARS such as USDA’s Fort Collins were to combine their seed lists so that the user’s request was automatically directed to the genebank with the relevant accession, this would help to avoid duplication of effort and a prolonged process trying to find the right seeds for the user.

Furthermore, some kind of rationalisation between the relevant CGIAR genebanks would make economic and logistic sense. For example, if CIAT were responsible for agroforestry collections from tropical America, ICRISAT from Asia, ICRAF from tropical Africa and ILRI from drylands Africa, non-essential duplication could be avoided and the costs of acquiring material reduced.

Finally, partnership makes sense where safety duplication is required. All high and medium priority collections should be held to international standards in at least two seed banks. The current arrangements for safety duplication that ICRAF has with Svalbard, the Kunming Institute of Botany and the Millennium Seed Bank may well be adequate. However, if they are not, then existing partnerships should be strengthened or new partnerships developed.

6.3.3. ABS compliance

ICRAF’s Tree Genetic Resources Policy (2014) states (Section 2.2) that “ICRAF considers its tree germplasm collections as global public goods and will manage them in ways that maximize their global accessibility and/or ensure that they lead to the broadest possible impact on target beneficiaries in furtherance of the ICRAF and CGIAR vision.’

It goes on to say (section 2.3) that “ICRAF reaffirms its continuing commitment to the principles of its 26th October 1994 agreement with FAO, which placed CGIAR germplasm ex situ collections under the auspices of FAO. ICRAF holds designated ex situ germplasm collections of agroforestry tree

25 | P a g e

species “in trust” for the benefit of the international community, in particular developing countries, under Article 15 of the ITPGRFA, in accordance with ICRAF´s agreement with the Governing Body of the ITPGRFA, signed on 16th October 2006.” Under this agreement, all food, forage and fibre material and associated data acquired by ICRAF prior to October 2006 is subject to Article 15 of the ITPGRFA and can be supplied under the Treaty’s SMTA without the need to renegotiate access with the country of origin.

For material not covered by Article 15 and for material acquired after 2006, however, ICRAF is subject to the relevant national laws and regulations that govern access to material under the Nagoya Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity. ICRAF’s Tree Genetic Resources Policy (Section 2.5) states: ”ICRAF recognizes the sovereign rights of states over their natural resources and that the authority to determine access to genetic resources rests with the national governments and is subject to national legislation. It also recognizes that access to such resources is subject to the prior informed consent of the country of origin and to the fair and equitable sharing of benefits deriving from their use, in accordance with the CBD and, as applicable, its Nagoya Protocol, without prejudice to the application of the ITPGRFA. All agroforestry tree germplasm accessed after the coming into force of CBD (on 29th December 1993) and not covered by the use of the SMTA shall be provided according to national ABS laws and in accordance with CBD and, as applicable, its Nagoya Protocol.”

Although ICRAF is explicit about its adherence to the principles and practice of the Nagoya Protocol, it is not clear to what extent this approach has been tested, i.e. how much material during recent years has been acquired under bilateral agreements with sovereign governments and the conditions attached to the use of such material, particularly with regard to supply of that material to third parties. It is possible that the bureaucratic burden associated with negotiating bilateral agreements under Nagoya and the conditions under which such material may be supplied to third parties will severely restrict ICRAF’s ability to grow its collections and its impact.

ICRAF HQ Seed Bank

26 | P a g e

27 | P a g e

ReferencesFAO (2014). State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Rome, 2014.

Franzel, S. and Kindt, R. (2012). Species priority setting procedures. In: Dawson, I., Harwood, C., Jamnadass, R., Beniest, J. eds. Agroforestry tree domestication: a primer. Nairobi. World Agroforestry Centre ICRAF, Kenya p. 36-45.

ICRAF (2012). ICRAF Agroforestry Tree Genetic Resources Strategy 2013-2017. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/products/grunew/downloads/ICRAFGeneticResourcesStrategy2013.pdf

ICRAF (2014). Tree Genetic Resources Policy. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sites/default/files/users/admin/Genetic%20Resources%20Policy.pdf

ICRAF Genebank Annual Technical Reports-Multipurpose Trees- 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 http://intranet.worldagroforestry.org/apps/grunew/index.php/documentation

ICRAF Genebank Annual Technical Reports-FRUIT TREE- 2014, 2015 and 2016 http://intranet.worldagroforestry.org/apps/grunew/index.php/documentation

Smith, P. and Thomson, L. (2015). External Review of the ICRAF Genetic Resources Unit. Commissioned by the Global Crop Diversity Trust, Bonn.

Van Noordwijk, M. (2014). Agroforestry as plant production system in a multifunctional landscape. Inaugural lecture upon taking up the special professorship in Agroforestry at Wageningen University 16 October 2014. Wageningen, Netherlands. Wageningen University. 24 p.

Van Noordwijk, M., Coe, R., Sinclair, F. (2016). Central hypotheses for the third agroforestryparadigm within a common definition. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Working paper 233, Bogor(Indonesia) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/WP16079.PDF

28 | P a g e

Annex 1 Combined list of preferred species identified by ICRAF GRU user surveys (2013, 2015 and 2016)

Species Region In ICRAF collectionsAcacia senegal Africa YesAdansonia digitata Africa YesAllanblackia stuhlmannii East & Southern Africa YesAnnona squamosa South East Asia NoAzadirachta indica Africa NoBaccaurea racemosa South East Asia NoBalanites aegyptiaca Africa YesBoswellia dalziellii Africa NoCalliandra calothyrsus Africa YesCallistemon citrinus Africa NoCanarium schweinfurthii East & Southern Africa NoCastanopsis spp. South East Asia NoChamaecytisus palmensis Africa NoCoffea spp. Africa NoCola spp. West & Central Africa YesDacryodes edulis West & Central Africa YesDetarium macrocarpum West & Central Africa NoDimocarpus longan South East Asia NoDocynia indica South East Asia YesDovyalis caffra Africa YesDurio spp. South East Asia NoErythrina abyssinica East & Southern Africa NoEucalyptus spp. Africa YesFaidherbia albida Africa YesFilicium decipiens Africa NoGarcinia indica South East Asia NoGarcinia kola West & Central Africa YesGrevillea robusta Africa YesIrvingia spp. West & Central Africa YesJacaranda mimosifolia Africa YesKhaya anthotheca East & Southern Africa NoLannea humilis Africa NoLitchi chinensis South East Asia NoLophira lanceolata Africa NoMacadamia spp. Africa NoMalus spp. Africa NoMangifera indica East & Southern Africa NoMangifera odorata South East Asia NoMelia volkensii Africa YesMoringa spp. Africa YesMyrianthus holstii East & Southern Africa No

29 | P a g e

Nephelium lappaceum South East Asia YesParkia biglobosa West & Central Africa YesPinus caribaea Africa NoPometia pinnata South East Asia NoPrunus africana Africa YesPsidium guajava Africa NoPterocarpus angolensis East & Southern Africa NoRicinodendron heudelotii West & Central Africa YesSandoricum koetjape South East Asia NoSclerocarya birrea East & Southern Africa YesSecuridaca longepedunculata Africa NoSesbania sesban East & Southern Africa YesSpondia dulcis South East Asia NoStelechocarpus burahol South East Asia NoSyzygium guineensis East & Southern Africa NoTamarindus indica Africa YesTephrosia vogelii Africa YesTerminalia catappa East & Southern Africa NoUapaca kirkiana East & Southern Africa YesVangueria madagascariensis East & Southern Africa YesVitellaria paradoxa West & Central Africa YesVitex spp. East & Southern Africa YesWarburgia ugandensis Africa YesZiziphus mauritiana Africa Yes

30 | P a g e

Annex 2Top 50 species requested from ICRAF’s GRU (total requests, 2013-2016)

Species Name Total requestsCalliandra calothyrsus 362Casuarina equisetifolia 263Leucaena trichandra 249Moringa oleifera 194Gliricidia sepium 177Sesbania sesban 164Markhamia lutea 111Faidherbia albida 98Tephrosia candida 78Afrocarpus falcatus 73Olea capensis 68Cordia africana 65Passiflora edulis 62Cupressus lusitanica 54Acacia senegal 50Cytisus proliferus 47Moringa stenopetala 45Senna siamea 43Delonix regia 43Tamarindus indica 42Grevillea robusta 40Acacia xanthophloea 39Leucaena diversifolia 38Spathodea campanulata

36

Melia volkensii 34Acacia polyacantha 32Eucalyptus grandis 33Croton megalocarpus 31Callistemon lanceolatus 30Adansonia digitata 28Melia azedarach 29Vitex keniensis 28Dovyalis caffra 24Leucaena leucocephala 24Ziziphus jujuba 24Olea europaea 22Senna spectabilis 19Juniperus procera 18Terminalia brownii 17Sclerocarya birrea 16Acacia nilotica 12Jatropha curcas 12Leucaena pallida 11

31 | P a g e

Eucalyptus saligna 10Tectona grandis 9Tipuana tipu 7Acacia mearnsii 7Dombeya torrida 7Calotropis procera 6

32 | P a g e