4.4 Different Systems for the Transaction of Genetic Resources
99
development assistance through the UN organizations and their funds, mainly
FAO, UNDP, and UNEP, regional and other development banks and their funds,
e.g., the World Bank, GEF, and IFAD. NGOs, foundations, universities, and
research institutes contribute to the conservation and utilization of PGRFA as
we1l 45 • The developing countries, however, call for new additional funding for the
conservation of PGRFA. They do not accept the present funding as part of the
claimed benefit-sharing in CBD and from the further revised International
Undertaking 46 •
New and additional funding may be derived from very different sources.
Indirect financing mechanisms could be realized through programs such as debt
reduction and special bonds, investment rights, and joint implementation
programs. On the other hand, direct financing of the international fund could be
made feasible by raising funds through international levies or charges with
relation to specific markets. This is legally possible through the implementation of
what are called "Remuneration Rights" (Correa, 1994). For instance, taxes
imposed on the profit or turnover of the private (and public) seed sector or on
agricultural products could be sources of financing for the international fund.
Swaminathan (1996c) suggests that technology-rich countries should add 0.01 %
of their GDP to their official development assistance for a "Global Fund for
Biodiversity Conservation for Sustainable Food Security" or a 2% levy on all seed
sales (Swaminathan, 1996b). Furthermore, a 1% assessment on all agriculturerelated products should be transferred to "National Community Gene Funds" for
the realization of Farmers' Rights (Swaminathan 1996c).
As an additional source of funding, FAO (1996b) suggests an increase in the
efficiency of existing funding, e.g., to reduce duplication of efforts and a
reallocation of existing bilateral and multilateral financing and domestic
agricultural expenditures.
A further point yet to be solved is the mechanism and criteria for the fund
distribution. The mechanism for the distribution, through existing or new
channels, is of only marginal importance at present. The criteria of distribution are
of major relevance. FAO (1996b) proposed the criteria and priorities for funding
as agreed to by the first Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (UNEP, 1994b). These criteria are still, however, very general; a priority
can, therefore, not be identified in following these criteria.
Regardless of how the international exchange system and financing
mechanisms for the management and utilization of agrobiodiversity are ultimately
framed, they will always require a concept according to which an external
monitoring and evaluation system by which instruments could be constantly and
purposefully evaluated and controlled. Without such a mechanism there is a high
risk that the financial resources provided are spent inefficiently or consumed by
high transaction costs .
., See Chap. 5.3 for more detailed information.
.. These differences were the main reason for almost breaking off all the discussions at the
International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources in Leipzig.
99
development assistance through the UN organizations and their funds, mainly
FAO, UNDP, and UNEP, regional and other development banks and their funds,
e.g., the World Bank, GEF, and IFAD. NGOs, foundations, universities, and
research institutes contribute to the conservation and utilization of PGRFA as
we1l 45 • The developing countries, however, call for new additional funding for the
conservation of PGRFA. They do not accept the present funding as part of the
claimed benefit-sharing in CBD and from the further revised International
Undertaking 46 •
New and additional funding may be derived from very different sources.
Indirect financing mechanisms could be realized through programs such as debt
reduction and special bonds, investment rights, and joint implementation
programs. On the other hand, direct financing of the international fund could be
made feasible by raising funds through international levies or charges with
relation to specific markets. This is legally possible through the implementation of
what are called "Remuneration Rights" (Correa, 1994). For instance, taxes
imposed on the profit or turnover of the private (and public) seed sector or on
agricultural products could be sources of financing for the international fund.
Swaminathan (1996c) suggests that technology-rich countries should add 0.01 %
of their GDP to their official development assistance for a "Global Fund for
Biodiversity Conservation for Sustainable Food Security" or a 2% levy on all seed
sales (Swaminathan, 1996b). Furthermore, a 1% assessment on all agriculturerelated products should be transferred to "National Community Gene Funds" for
the realization of Farmers' Rights (Swaminathan 1996c).
As an additional source of funding, FAO (1996b) suggests an increase in the
efficiency of existing funding, e.g., to reduce duplication of efforts and a
reallocation of existing bilateral and multilateral financing and domestic
agricultural expenditures.
A further point yet to be solved is the mechanism and criteria for the fund
distribution. The mechanism for the distribution, through existing or new
channels, is of only marginal importance at present. The criteria of distribution are
of major relevance. FAO (1996b) proposed the criteria and priorities for funding
as agreed to by the first Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (UNEP, 1994b). These criteria are still, however, very general; a priority
can, therefore, not be identified in following these criteria.
Regardless of how the international exchange system and financing
mechanisms for the management and utilization of agrobiodiversity are ultimately
framed, they will always require a concept according to which an external
monitoring and evaluation system by which instruments could be constantly and
purposefully evaluated and controlled. Without such a mechanism there is a high
risk that the financial resources provided are spent inefficiently or consumed by
high transaction costs .
., See Chap. 5.3 for more detailed information.
.. These differences were the main reason for almost breaking off all the discussions at the
International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources in Leipzig.