A recent Q&A with Jimmy Smith, Director General of the International Livestock Research Center (ILRI), included this exchange:
Q. ILRI is calling for the creation of a livestock gene bank. What would it look like and how could it benefit people?
A. There are many gene banks for crops around the world, but we have no such facility for livestock breeds native to developing countries, even though animal diversity in those countries is being eroded in the same way as plant diversity…
That’s only the beginning of a longish answer, which you can read in full on SciDevNet. It elicited the following response on the DAD-Net (Domestic Animal Diversity Network) mailing list from Michèle Tixier-Boichard, chair of the French cryobank at INRA, which we quote here in full with her permission.
The advertisement for the ‘first world gene bank’ at ILRI deserves some remarks.
It is generally an excellent idea to set up genebanks for livestock, both for research and for the management of animal genetic diversity in complementarity with in situ management of populations.
Fortunately, it is not the first time that some countries think of that. For instance in Europe, several countries have a cryobank coupled with DNA samples. ((Ed.: Same in the US also, for that matter.))
In France, a national infrastructure project called ‘CRB-Anim’ has been funded from 2012 to 2019 to set up a network of biological resources centers for 22 species of livestock and companion animals. The aim is to collect, characterize, secure and distribute semen, embryos, DNA, RNA, tissues, for research as well as for the management of genetic diversity of livestock species.
In order to go beyond the national scale, a bottom-up approach is generally preferable to set up a regional network between national gene banks, with harmonisation and standardisation of procedures, sharing of technologies, distribution of samples… The system of automatic delivery which has been set up for some plant genetic resources by CGIAR international centers does not meet the current requirements of the livestock community. Ownership and principles for access and benefit sharing are not considered by the livestock community in the same terms as they are by the plant community, animal breeds are generally considered as club goods rather than public goods, particularly local breeds. So, there is a need for coordination and exchange of knowledge and practise between livestock gene banks, including the possibility of duplication for safety, rather than for systematic globalisation.
Centralisation of resources in a unique gene bank raises a number of major issues that may trigger opposition from many stakeholders, that must consider the Nagoya protocol, and, in any case, will require thorough discussions that should take place under the leadership of FAO.
Some interesting points there, in particular highlighting the differences that exist at the policy level between crop and livestock genetic resources conservation. I suspect that what is meant by the “automatic delivery which has been set up for some plant genetic resources by CGIAR international centers” is the “facilitated access” allowed for under the Multilateral System of the International Treaty, and I confess I had no idea that the livestock conservation community had such reservations about that approach. Dr Smith did not mention the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources process being led by FAO in his answers, but one of the key people involved, Irene Hoffmann, chief of Animal Genetic Resources at FAO, is quoted in an accompanying SciDevNet piece on the technical challenges involved in setting up a global livestock bank. However, it’s not quite clear whether the following statement on the possible policy hurdles, which comes right after that quote, reflects Dr Hoffman’s views or is an impression gathered by the writer of the article from other sources.
There is also the issue of ownership, as some countries do not want to deposit what they consider their national heritage into a global genebank.
Either way, ILRI will have its work cut out.
Dr. David Steane also weighed in on this question this AM (DAD-Net), proposing that national (rather than global) genebanks be supported, and commenting on the need for proper sampling of stock.
Certainly even this is going to be difficult for countries such as Burundi, where we have (as yet) no means of assuring constant supply and maintenance of appropriate containers; nor scientific sampling of local (indigenous) stock – namely, Ankole cattle and Central African Goats.
At the same time, provisioning a regional or global facility with samples would most certainly be met with problems of attribution and protection of first providers – a point Dr. Hoffman mentions in the above quote.
The need is realized, but the framework has yet to be worked out.