Center for Bio-diversitet |
The preliminaries of the International Evaluation.
An international evaluation of all breeding aspects of
the joint Danish efforts within was originally announced at the start of
year 2000 as an investigation where the evaluation group was to pay visits
to selected breeders; however, nothing happened until December where it
was announced that it was now going to be a questionnaire evaluation.
The lack of information and discussion prior to the evaluation
as to what genetic conservation really is seen in a breeding perspective
has so far led to the deplorable result that certain breeder associations
have only reported addresses of breeders participating in selection and
prize-giving to their animals, probably with the best of intentions, because
these breeders seen in a selection context possess the îbestî animals.
In this way the evaluation will be îlopsidedî from the
start because breeders involved in pure-breeding and conservation do not
necessarily hear about the evaluation and are given an opportunity to participate.
The process does not strengthen the credibility of the
evaluation; however, the Centre for Bio-Diversity has in Loci no. 1-2001
(Enclosure 1 b) and on our homepage urged breeders of traditional breeds
with an interest in pure-breeding and conservation of genes to approach
[SJVF ] The Danish Agricultural and Veterinary Research Council) and request
a questionnaire; however, we can only reach a fraction or the breeders
who should know about the evaluation and be given a possibility to express
their opinion.
The Centre for Bio-Diversity has provided the Danish
Research Agency with about 100 names and addresses of breeder associations
which should be invited to participate in the evaluation if an evaluation
comprising the total of Danish efforts within conservation of genetic resources
of Danish domestic animals is to be conducted. The Danish Research Agency
has, however, only sent a briefing to a random selection of these associations.
We have asked the Danish Research Agency which breeds
fall within the target group and who performed the selection, but have
never received an answer!
The definition îoriginally established in Denmarkî used
in the evaluation seems rather erratic. It is a fact that several of the
breeds subsidised by the Genetic Resources Committe originally came from
another country ? just like the Oldenborg Horse and the Kilk (a danish
bearded breed of flying pigeons) which are not subsidised. The Hertha
Pointer and the Kantvingen (a danish storked breed of flying pigeons) are
not included in the Genetic Resources Committeeís publication îOld Breeds
of Danish Domestic Animalsî although both breeds were founded in Denmark
and do not exist elsewhere. Several other examples could be mentioned,
and there seems to be no clear-cut line in the selection of Danish breeds,
some breeds are excluded in spite of a history parallel to some of the
breeds which the Genetic Resources Committe has chosen to give priority
to.
According to the Rio Convention and FAO recommendations,
the individual country has a special obligation to secure breeds found
only in that particular country, and this includes local or national lines
of other breeds which through many generations of breeding have adapted
to the local conditions. In other words, the countries are to monitor and
protect the total genetic variation.
The Danish definition of conservation-worthy genetic
resources and îold Danish breedsî has so far been very limited seen
in relation to FAOís recommendations and the practice of other countries.
For comparison you could have a look at:
Question 1:
Describe the Associationís efforts (strong and weak sides) to preserve
the genetic resources of the old Danish breeds which the Association focuses
on.
Answer:
The Centre for Bio-Diversity was founded in 1995 to function
as an independent information centre for biological diversity among domesticated
animals and cultivated plants.
Since 1996 the Centre has issued a newsletter in addition
to 2 books.
All activities are based on voluntary work, free rooms,
computer hardware, telephone etc., and financing is one of the Centreís
weak points.
The membership fees from the presently about 200 support
members are the most important source of income; in addition there are
incomes from sale of books, and from time to time fees for features and
other articles.
Applications for major amounts to finance professional
literature, operational costs of secretariat and salaries fail on the fact
that the Green Foundation, which supports activities following up on the
Rio Convention in Denmark, finds that cultivated plants and domesticated
animals fall outside what they see as conservation of biological diversity,
and the Genetic Resources Committee has very limited funds for support.
We have, however, received support for printing costs
in connection with the 2 books and a debate and thematical issue on conservation
work in Denmark:
Hans Ranvig: The justification of conserving the Danish
Landrace Fowl. 1. First edition 1997 (Enclosure 2)
- Plumís Ecological Foundation DKR 2000.
Heine Refsing: Old Danish pigeon breeds 1998. (Enclosure
3)
- Genetic Resources Committee DKR 25,000.
- DFfR DKR 5000.
Newsletter from Centre for Bio-Diversity no. 4-2000.
(Enclosure 4)
- The Green Foundation DKR 11,000.
- Plumís Ecological Foundation DKR 4500.
Also the Centre for Bio-Diversity is suffering from the
atmosphere within the field as the 2 associations struggeling The
association "Old Danish Breeds" and "Danish Livestock ?Breeder's Association
for Old Danish Breeds" both openly suspect the Centre of being an accomplice
of their counterpart in spite of our declared neutrality. The first reaction
of other breeders and interest organisations tells much about the reputation
of genetic ressource work in Denmark. They ask more or less openly: We
take it that you are not involved with "The association Old Danish Breeds"
or "Danish Livestock - Breeder Association for Old Danish Breeds" ?
Question 2:
Which do you find to be the strong and weak sides of the efforts
of the Genetic Resources Committee established by the Ministry of Food
in relation to preservation of the genetic resources of old Danish breeds
in the period starting in 1991 and ending in year 2000?
Answer:
Strong sides:
The Genetic Resources Committee has become increasingly
active during the period, but apart from that it is hardly reasonable to
ask an NGO to evaluate whether a governmental committee has done a good
or bad job on the basis of a given grant and mandate. It would require
resources outside our reach to conduct a fair and thorough analysis hereof.
None of the NGOs in Denmark receive funding of a magnitude to finance salaries
and expenses for participation in or management of such an extensive effort.
Therefore we shall abstain from a further evaluation of the strong sides,
and the Government is probably in control of utilisation of appropriations
in conformity with the planned objectives. We shall therefore limit ourselves
to indicating some problems and launching some suggestions as answers to
Question 2; however, this should not be interpreted to imply that the work
of the Genetic Resources Committee has only had weak sides over the years
passed. We take it that the Committee has followed its mandate and appropriations
description and done its best within the relatively narrow framework and
the relatively tangled background for cooperation with breeders and interest
organisations.
The Centre for Bio-Diversity has experienced the Genetic
Resources Committee as cooperative and non-bureaucratic in our limited
contact with the Committee.
The Centre for Bio-Diversity has received support from
the Genetic Resources Committee for the following:
1. Publication of the book: Old Danish pigeon breeds
2. Support promise for part of the printing costs in
connection with new book on the Danish Landrace Fowl.
The Centre for Bio-Diversity has from the Genetic Resources
Committee been declined support for the following:
1. A thematical issue on the Danish discussions on genetic
conservation.
2. A grant of DKR 10,000 kr. for professional litterature
and works of reference to strengthen the activities of the Centre as an
independent information centre. (Enclosure 5)
3. An information and discussion campaign of 11 months
with at view to creating more dialogue and knowledge about genetic conservation.
In this connection the work with the International Evaluation. (Enclosure
6)
Weaknesses:
Securing the populations
The populations are small and do not increase significantly.
The breeding lines are not secured against sudden disappearance because
of dissolution of individual stocks or exaggerated inbreeding.
Cooperation with NGOs
GRU´s controversy with Oregaard and the association
Old Danish Breeds has not been settled and even spread to other important
breeders.
It is hardly credible that Danish breeders would refuse
to accept subsidies without feeling that they have important reasons for
saying so, and these reasons should be respected ? unless the breedersís
motive is a wish to acquire a kind of monopoly ? and this can easily be
tested by obliging them.
The Genetic Resources Committee often refers to critical
breeders being welcome, but being unwilling to participate and conform
to the stipulated conditions. However, these conditions can be made
up in different ways; they are not inherent in nature.
The assignment has several dimensions:
To preserve the animals in a professionally responsible
way and to make the breeders put this assignment into practice. In a way
breeders are just as important as the animals, and the concept of professional
responsibility may imply more than one access to the assignment. As long
as straight breeding is practiced in the real meaning of the word. (cf.
Enclosure 7)
The Genetic Resources Committee has apparently chosen
to establish particularly tight ties to a single of the the many small
interest organisations The Association Danish Livestock ? Breeder's Association
for Old Danish Breeds. In the somewhat îtrickyî cooperation climate, myths
often arise and put the association in a position where unfair doubt is
easily cast on it.
Instead of sending minutes of Genetic Resources Committee
meetings, information about conferences and support possibilities to a
select crowd, all this information should be presented openly to everybody
interested by publishing the information in due time in the journal ARV
& AVL (Inheritance and Breeding). (Enclosures 8 a, b, c).
Resource prioritisation
So far the resources of the Genetic Resources Committee
have primarily been reserved for animal subsidies. So far this model may
have been the only one feasible because only few breeds have their
own breeder association with a conservation scope; therefore, the best
option for the Committee has been to support individual breeders with preservation-worthy
animals. In a longer view it is probably not beneficial to preservation
efforts that a patron-client relationship exists between the Government
and the individual breeder. Cheating on the Government is a rooted popular
tradition in Denmark, and therefore, among other things, it is important
that the individual breeder feels responsibility towards colleagues and
peers in an involved breeder association with a responsibility for the
preservation and breeding of the individual breed. An involved breeder
association will constitute the framework for the establishment of a professional
environment which is far better than the one arising out of the contact
between a governmental advisory office and the individual breeder. The
Danish Landrace Goat Breeders Association is a good example of this.
Granting subsidies for major projects may be better that
offering animal subsidies to small stocks of 2-3 animals. The best would
be for small stocks to be motivated by idealism and enthusiasm for breed
preservation just like people keep riding horses for the sake of their
pleasure. Granting subsidies to individual animals may attract people speculating
more in subsidies than in preservation and love for the breed, and it may
result in reducing breeder associations to trade unions negotiating the
size of the subsidies. To small breeders better conditions are far more
important than subsidies.
If a model could be found to support and strengthen the
interest organisations financially and professionally, it would be a good
idea to give this matter higher priority in future. However, it is important
to ensure that the result will not be the establishment of a small permanent
group receiving a bag of money for internal distribution which may entice
them not to attract new participants as that would mean more persons to
share the same amount of money. Maybe subsidies could be granted in proportion
to membership fees or similar activity parameters and as subsidies for
individual projects with a future perspective in relation to animal preservation
and distribution.
Who are the owners of the animals?
According to an old saying, we have borrowed the Earth
from future generations. It would benefit the case if a similar understanding
would spread among breeders of non-modern breeds ? that we have borrowed
the old breeds from future generations and are responsible for nursing
the animals during the time we are involved in breeding activities. A step
in that direction could be a strengthening of the breeding associations
of the individual breeds so that together with the individual breeders
they will be responsible for plannng breeding activities and monitor that
no breeding lines diasppear or dominate the population. If the individual
breeder becomes a participant of a joint project on planning the future
of the breed, it will create more continuity than what the individual breeder
feels as a master of his own house with the power of life and death over
his own animals.
If breeder associations are granted influence on the
composition of new breeder groups etc. it will also invalidate the market
mechanisms which now distribute the animals of the most productive, but
not necessarily critical, breeder to the largest number of new breeders.
The professional discussion
We have not succeeded in putting genetic conservation
on the agenda in breeder circles.
Generally, there is still a lack of consciousness between
the difference between conserving phenotypes and genotypes, and the importance
of conserving both genotypes and the genetic variation both generally and
within the individual breeds.
However, this is something which not only the Genetic
Resources Committee should be blamed for; there is a tradition where breeders
are often organised in associations with sports and competition as the
primary aim; a governmental Committee will never succeed in changing such
a tradition in the anti-authoritarian Denmark. A new tradition must necessarily
germinate from the ground among grassroots and preservation enthusiasts
as it has happened in other countries.
Some herd books allow a certain interbreeding still within
the official definition of straight breeding. As regards pigeons, fowls
and other poultry breeds without flock books inbreeding is not an issue
raising doubts at all among progressive breeders as this is the way that
esteemed pioneers have always acquired results. Breeders stubbornly adhering
to straight breeding of original breeds enjoy no particular esteem even
though they are respected for their point of view. Therefore, it is of
course difficult to avoid inbreeding in pure breeds when they lead isolated
lives, and there is no "official" understanding of the difference between
genotypes and phenotypes among breeder associations. (Enclosure 9)
In several instances the case of old breeds have become
issues of organisational politics because the old breeder associations
regard the old breeds as phenomena of the past or competitors to a modern
highly improved breed which applies to dogs and pigeons among others. To
those people the old breed will in certain instances represent all the
qualities they have been fighting for a lifetime while improving the old
breed towards a îmodern idealî. The professional discussion furthering
the understanding of the preservation worthiness of these non-modern animals
surviving among fanatics or only outside the inner circles of the exhibitors
has never been started.
Among many breeds, inbreeding is furthered by the breeding
principles being cherished because they are rooted in a very selective
and development oriented breeding where only a few super animals receive
prizes or are selected for breeding in each generation whereas breed-typical
individuals showing no îprogressî are excluded from breeding. In the cases
where the selection is organised, the procedures of the breeding associations
for selection and judgment are so cumbersome and costly, for example as
regards dogs and horses, that this factor in itself is a great limitation
of the number of persons even trying to get potential breeding animals
through the eye of the needle.
The basic problems of getting the preservation work started
at all have so far prevented a real opening of discussions on how to preserve
and maintain the special qualities of the breeds.
The Convention on Biological Diversity emphasises, not
without good reason, in-situ preservation. îas regards domesticated or
cultivated species shall take place in the surroundings where they have
developed their distinctive propertiesî. (Article 2)
However, the question is hardly raised if the animals
preserve their resistance, frugality and other special characteristics
under the conditions they are kept, such as for example:
Question 3:
Which, in your opinion, are the strong and weak sides in connection
with the entire Danish effort to preserve the genetic resources of old
Danish breeds in the period starting in 1991 and ending in 2000?
Answer:
Minor animals have been on a retreat during this period.
An ever-increasing number of rules and regulations threatens to kill the
whole culture we have about these breeds.
It is for example the requirement for CHR registration
(sec: Central registration of domestic animals) and earmarking of even
quite small flocks of sheep and goats.
Pigeons sold on markets or used for shows are subjected
to vaccination requirements.
Registration requirements as a seller of fowl even if
you just sell a small surplus of breeding animals to new breeders or colleagues;
it means that you have to keep records of who you sold a single bantam
or pigeon to and store the information for 5 years. The price of a prime
individual of old Danish fowl varies between DKR 25 and 200 so breeders
are actually forced to choose between giving up or circumventing legislation.
Prohibition against sale of surplus eggs from purebred
fowl because you cannot obtain status as a salmonella-free stock prevents
people from the fringe benefits which have traditionally accompanied a
minor poultry keeping and contributed a little to fodder costs.
Established breeders will probably hang in and manage
by circumventing the rules and regulations; however, the rules and regulations
constitute a barrier to the natural recruiting which for generations has
taken place at markets etc. Here new potential breeders met breeders and
their animals under unobligating circumstances, maybe bought animals at
reasonable prices and gathered their first experience as to breeding. During
the period from 1991 till 2000, the new rules and regulations have crushed
a century-old market tradition and reduced the populations as old breeders
gradually withdraw from the scene.
Generally speaking, the rules and regulations represent
overkill and do great damage seen in relation to their potentially beneficial
effect.
When imposing too many rules and regulations and bureaucratic
obstacles on animal husbandry conducted for non-commercial reasons, the
population sizes will become too small for the breeds to survive in a longer
perspective. Annoyance and inconvenience aroused by such frustrations among
breeders cannot be compensated for by means of animal subsidies or other
forms of financial support. In a highly regulated and bureaucratic society
where the majority already feel overwhelmed by that type of obligations,
extra bureaucracy in relation to keeping animals as a hobby will often
be the last straw that breaks the camelís back. It means that breeders
will quit or go over to incidental animals without contact to organised
breeder associations because it will be easier to dodge registration and
bureaucracy. (Enclosures 10 a, b, c, d, e, f, g)
The intended effect on prevention of diseases could be
acquired with better results and without damaging effects through information
on best practice in connection with breeding and marketing.
The greatest weakness in connection with the overall Danish efforts to preserve the genetic resources of old Danish breeds is the fact that the efforts were not launched within the context in which the animals and the breeders have to survive. One the one hand, information has been distributed on preservation of animals and attempts have been made to keep them; however, other authorities have simultaneously made it still more difficult and impossible to keep animals on a hobby basis because, in some instances, the same set of rules applies to the owner of large industrial animal factory and the owner of a flock of 10 bantams. The balance between these two development trends has unfortunately been very disproportionate and unfavourable to breeders and old breeds which will appear from the higher average age of breeders and decreasing population size of unfashionable breeds.
Ideally speaking, all animals should be registered, entered
into stud books, herd books or flock books and participate in some form
of organised breeding; it is, however, doubtful if all breeds will ever
reach sustainable populations of fully registered individuals ? this applies
for example to sheep, goats and dogs. In order to pave the way for broader
participation, it is important that hobby breeders be given better general
conditions so that, in addition to the well organised core, there will
be a spare pool of unfashionable breeds with less documentation on paper.
In cases where still tighter veterinary rules make life
difficult for small breeders, it should be considered if it would be possible
to grant unfashionable breeds outside the scope of efficient production
more lenient rules and regulations than those applying to industrial production
animals raised for export.
As regards poultry, it could for example comprise permission
to sell a minor quantity of eggs from own production without salmonella
control and without jeopardising food safety. In turn, it could be relevant
to prohibit the sale of industrial fowl to further egg production as the
broken down fowl constitutes the greatest infection risk to the poultry
keeping of hobby breeders when, after intensive egg production in large
installations, their environment is suddenly changed to outside fowl runs.
In addition, hobby poultry keeping could be allowed the
same veterinary standard as wild birds in relation to diseases such as
New Castle Disease etc. In reality the contact between hobby poultry and
wild birds is far more widespread than the contact between hobby fowl and
production fowl.
It may be desirable to exert a certain selection pressure
on the old breeds in relation to disease resistance as the potentiality
of these breeds for future breeding purposes is more prominent within these
characteristics than within production characteristics. Therefore, if a
model could be developed allowing unfashionable breeds a less stringent
life in terms of medical and veterinary protection, it would make life
easier for breeders and maintain the genetic potentiality of the animals.
An example of Salmonella control
A poultry breeder in Northern Jutland had 24 fowls and
3 bantams of 3 different breeds. After the Salmonella deaths at Ejstrupholm
where a family fell ill after eating raw eggs from fowls originating from
a Salmonella-renovated commercial egg producer, the breeder enrolled for
Salmonella control to be on the safe side.
Manure samples showed a certain infection and blood tests
were to be taken from each individual fowl; the breeder tried to have each
test tube marked with the ring number of each fowl to be able to identify
the disease carriers; however, this was declined by the district veterinarian
officer.
The result was that 7 fowls from the stock were infected,
and the district veterinarian officer found the percentage to be so high
that all fowls were to be destroyed. The breeder of course wanted to destroy
the 7 infected animals, but it was not possible.
The procedure is quite unreasonable when applied to hobby
breeders who may have been breeding with a pure-bred strain for half a
lifetime and who will have his whole breeding destroyed because 7 of 24
individuals are disease carriers; the non-disease carriers have specifically
proved their resistance by not being infected although staying in the environment.
The procedure may be reasonable when applied to a commercial
egg producer because the individual fowls cannot be identified if the flock
comprises thousands of individuals and has to be replaced when a certain
percentage has been infected. The egg producerís relationship to his fowls
is purely commercial and can therefore be compensated in the form of money,
whereas the hobby breeder, who does not even have a commercial interest,
may have invested years of his life and much breeder pleasure, an effort
which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The value of the old breeds
can rarely be calculated in terms of money because their value is of a
genetic, cultural/historic and affective nature.
To the breeder from Northern Jutland the experience meant
that he will not have his new stock examined if he embarks on fowl breeding
again.
The story is a textbook example of how it is unreasonable
to apply the the same procedures to commercial farming and hobby breeders
of non-modern breeds or the same control model if the obligations prescribed
by the Convention on Biological Diversity are to be observed: îrespect,
protect and conserve knowledge and practice found in local communities
with a traditional lifestyle of importance to the conservation of the biological
diversityî (Article 8j).
As to Salmonella, a reasonable procedure could be to
offer breeders suspecting disease a free test of each individual and then
destroy the disease carriers ascertained. The result of the present procedure
is that breeders do not utilise the testing option even when suspicious
if they have a unique stock they have been working with for years or a
breed not found in many other places in this country.
Question 4:
In which way do you think that efforts in Denmark to preserve the
genetic resource of old Danish breeds can be strengthened in the future?
Answer:
Conservation of the domesticated bio-diversity in domesticated
plants and animals is in Denmark the most overlooked and least prioritised
part of all the fields covered by the Rio Convention.
The Rio Convention recommends the countries to stimulate
NGO (grassroot) participation in conservation of the old breeds and
varieties of cultural plants and to involve NGOs in the general conservation
of the biological diversity.
The same recommendation has been repeated many times
by FAO, The Nordic Gene Bank and the EU; in actual terms, however, it has
gone the other way since 1992 ? it has become more difficult for Danish
NGOs to participate in the work. (Enclosure 11)
It would undoubtedly be highly beneficial to the conservation
efforts if biological diversity was seen in a wider perspective and in
a greater context. The Convention on Biological Diversity expressly specifies
that it also covers preservation of domesticated animals and cultivated
varieties of plants, and that these efforts are to take place "in situ",
meaning in the form of viable population sizes in the original environment
and production system of the breeds.
FAOís recommendations for the genetic variation comprise
the total genetic variation and do not indicate that the individual countries
shall only make limited efforts for the breeds produced by the countries
themselves. The recommendations do prescribe that the countries shall make
an extra effort for their own breeds.
Minor animal husbandry is part of our culture as an agricultural
nation since ancient times. Today hobby breeders and not agriculturists
are the ones keeping the old breeds alive because these animals are of
no short-term interest to the modern, highly efficient agriculture.
If the intentions of the Convention on Biological Diversity
were to be put into practice, life should be made easier for such breeders;
however, the opposite has happened to a wide extent ? in spite of the beautiful
wording and good intentions of the Convention, a whole culture is being
suffocated.
The extention of the breeds is gradually being narrowed
down to an ever diminishing group of older breeders who are hanging in
because they have had the animals for a lifetime. However, the undergrowth
of new breeders trying on their own and from which group new breeders of
the old breeds are to be recruited is diminishing.
Unnecessary restrictions and bureaucracy makes it unreasonably
difficult to start up almost unprofitable animal husbandries of breeds
of low or no productivity which are largely part of a cultural activity.
Today it is easier to keep exotic pets in Denmark than
to keep ordinary non-modern breeds, a development which is tragic in an
old agricultural nation, and a development which is decimating the populations
of old breeds to levels which are not genetically sustainable, and
disregarding our obligations pursuant to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Actually, there is a great potential for NGO participation
as there are still many people who would like to keep various kinds of
animals. They are often scared off, however, when confronted with the many
rules and regulations applying to even a minor husbandry.
The international recommendations always formulate it
in the way that NGO îparticipationî is to be furthered; however, as regards
small animals in particular, it is not a question of mere îparticipationî
in conservation efforts. The only conservation work being conducted "in-situ"
is performed by the NGOs. This is not with the assistance and support of
the authorities. On the contrary, the conservation work is carried out
despite of the different obstacles established by these authorities.
Breeders of both plants and animals have predominantly
gathered negative experience from governmental authorities, and the fine
intentions of the Rio Convention are largely unknown ? or the fine words
just make them smile.
Especially as regards small animals, proliferation and
rearing of these breeds would benefit from deregulation excepting hobby
husbandry from the rules and regulations making life difficult for breeders,
and replacing control and denigration with information and cooperation.
As breeders of small animals often live in owner-occupied
dwellings located in city districts, a general safeguarding of Danish citizensí
right to keep small animals such as poultry, rabbits, goats and sheep to
a reasonable extent would be a great incentive to increase the number of
breeders. This right is rooted in century-long traditions, but has been
curtailed to an ever increasing extent over the last 20 years.
In certain places it is for example prohibited to keep
cocks together with the hens or only one cock is allowed which makes serious
breeding of a race almost impossible.
A general strengthening of the biological diversity of
Danish domestic animals would primarily require improvements for all small
breeders of non-industrial breeds. Otherwise, the small husbandry and breeder
culture catering for the unfashionable breeds will disappear. The Rio Convention
specifically mentions the importance of conserving the local culture sustaining
the domesticated diversity and the need for adjustment of legislation and
rules to benefit and preserve such cultures.
All countries are to:
"identify processes and categories of activities which
have or are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity, and monitor their effects
through sampling and other techniquesî
(Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 7 c)
" develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or
other regulatory provisions for the protection of the threatened species
and populations"
"regulate or manage the relevant processes and categories
of activities where a significant adverse effect on the biological diversity
has been determined pursuant to Article 7"
(Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8 k and
8 l)
"integrate consideration of the conservation and sustainable
use of biological resources into national decision-making"
"adopt measures relating to the use of biological
resources to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the biological diversity"
"protect and encourage customary use of biological
resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible
with conservation or sustainable use requirements"
(Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 10 a, b
and c)
In a highly productive agricultural country like Denmark
conservation of unfashionable breeds is particularly of cultural/historic
importance. The animals may gain a productive importance under very changed
production conditions, but it lies far into an uncertain future. The preservation
efforts would therefore benefit from not justifying the conservation of
the animals on grounds of agricultural production potential, but instead
emphasise conservation of the animalsí original frugality, resistance and
hardiness and let them become part of a more general effort to preserve
the part of the Danish culture focusing on small-scale animal husbandry
for self-sufficiency and leisure activity without having an eye to productivity
measured in kg and Danish kroner. More emphasis should be attributed to
the quality of life which this way of living entails for the individual
and the importance this culture plays in keeping rural districts living
and active, or to give people in the owner-occupied housing districts in
the cities positive leisure activity contents. The basis of the small-scale
farmer culture has to be nurtured to further the populations of the non-modern
breeds.
It is important to integrate the preservation of non-modern
breeds in a larger context comprising preservation of the Danish farming
and breeding culture, environmentally friendly cultivation, preservation
of rural amenities and conservation of the diversity of wild plants and
animals.
The Danish inclination to see the wild bio-diversity
and the domesticated bio-diversity as separate issues should be revised.
The extensive small-scale farms have a positive interplay with the wild
bio-diversity which does not florish on the large intensively farmed agricultural
areas. Much of the Danish flora and fauna has through centuries been adapted
to an interplay with traditional cultivation and animal husbandry.
Therefore, a strengthening of efforts to preserve the
genetic resources of Danish farm animals should start with the following:
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1:
a - Loci no.2-2001
b - Loci no.1-2001: International evaluation huups.
Enclosure 2: Hans Ranvig: The justification of conserving
the Danish Landrace Fowl. 1997, 1999.
Enclosure 3: Heine Refsing: Old Danish pigeon breeds
1998.
Enclosure 4: Newsletter from Centre for Bio-Diversity
no. 4-2000 (thematical and discussion issue)
Enclosure 5: Refusal from the Governmentís Genetic Resources
Committee.
Enclosure 6: Refusal from the Governmentís Genetic Resources
Committee.
Enclosure 7: Feature article in Fyens Stifstidende 29/1
2001: The fight for the old cattle.
Enclosure 8:
a - Danish Livestockís member journal January 2001, p.
4
b - Danish Livestockís member journal April 2001, p.
20
c - Danish Landrace Goat Breedersí newsletter Feb. 2001
p. 5.
Enclosure 9: Letter to the editor in îFlyveduebladetî
(Flying Pigeonsí Journal) no. 3 June 2001. Letter from Kim.
Enclosure 10:
a - Letter to the editor in the annual journal of Scottish
Highland 1999 p. 38-39: Dancing around the BVD calf.
b - Letter to the editor in îRacefjerkræî (Journal
of Danish poultry exhibition society) no. 2 1996 p. 35-36: We are making
fools of ourselves
c - Letter to the editor in îRacefjerkræî (Journal
of Danish poultry exhibition society) no. 2 1996 p. 36: Newcastle disease.
d - Editorial in îRacefjerkræî (Journal of Danish
poultry exhibition society) no. 12 1996 p. 299: Understand it who can.
e - Letter to the editor in îRaceduenî (Journal of Danish
pigeon exhibition society) no. 4 1998 p. 74: Outbreak of Newcastle Disease
f - Letter to the editor in îRaceduenî (Journal of Danish
pigeon exhibition society) no. 11 1998 p. 238: Pigeon carrier.
g - Letter to the editor in îRaceduenî (Journal of Danish
pigeon exhibition society) no. 12 1998 p. 272: Laughing stock.
Enclosure 11: Praktisk Økologi (Journal of Practical
Ecology) no. 2 1997: Bio-diversity ? itís a long way from Rio to Brussels.
© Center for Bio-diversitet. Denmark
latest update December 2001.
Please link to - http://www.biodiverse.dk - only!
Center for Bio-diversitet is an independent NGO/CSO information-center. We aim to promote biological diversity and the protection and conservation of old and new varieties with valuable characteristics.
Editor: Heine Refsing