5.1 Analysis of the Costs for PGRFA Conservation
113
with farmers' varleties is calling for action. Such a qualitative high level of
agrobiodiversity in situ represents the optimum level of in situ conservation. But the
large group of marginalized farmers are utilizing far too much land with farmers'
varieties than is needed to maintain a national optimal level, because they have no
alternatives.
Although the high opportunity costs are reason enough to reduce the area under
traditional varieties as much as possible, the high fixed costs of approximately US $
500 are questioning expensive in situ programs and projects. Hence, a system of in
situ conservation has to be found which is flexible enough to react when needed and
is less expensive.
As a first preliminary approach at estimating the costs of in situ conservation
based on the introduced "controlled in situ conservation" system (see Chap.
3.4.2.2), the following details have to be considered:
For each traditional variety to be conserved in situ an average 1,000 m 2 is
sufficient. For safety reasons, it was further recommended that 10 to 50 farmers
should cultivate one distinct variety to reduce the risk of yield failure.
Consequently, less than 5 ha are necessary for the in situ conservation of one
distinct variety or landrace. These 5 ha is the areal Minimum Safety Standard
(aMSS).
Furthermore, all agricultural crops consists of approximately 3 million distinct
varieties (FAO, I 996a). Hence, an aMSS of roughly 15 million ha of arable land
must be utilized for a safe, but minimized in situ conservation; I % of the existing
1.4 billion hectares arable land (Engelman and LeRoy, 1995) is necessary to
conserve the estimated 3 million distinct varieties
54 •
As long as the economic and technological development has not yet transformed
all marginalized areas into high potential areas, much more than I % of the arable
land is still utilized with traditional varieties and landraces. In India, more than 40%
of arable land is cultivated with high-yielding varieties (CMIE, 1988). Hence, in
most cases no intervention is required; no financial costs will be incurred. In situ
conservation, however, is supposed to be sustainable even in the face of changes of
comparative advantages of traditional varieties to modern varieties. Consequently, a
rough estimate has to guide the decision whether in situ conservation will be
justifiable in the light of scarce financial resources.
To quantify the overall costs for in situ conservation, a detailed analysis is
needed on a country level. These analyses must take into account the degree of
technological development in each region. The incentives are only justifiable if the
technological development has opened the opportunity for farmers to change their
production system and therefore the risk of a declining agrobiodiversity is evident.
The in situ conservation has then only to be stimulated.
In the first place, financing the controlled in situ conservation may lay in the
hand of each country, which has the sovereignty over its genetic resources, as was
stressed by CBD (UNEP, 1994a). There may, however, be countries, which need
more than the calculated 1 % of their arable land for the in situ conservation of all
" For the sake of comparison: India has set aside 4% of the country's surface for almost 500
wildlife protected areas (Singh, 1996),
113
with farmers' varleties is calling for action. Such a qualitative high level of
agrobiodiversity in situ represents the optimum level of in situ conservation. But the
large group of marginalized farmers are utilizing far too much land with farmers'
varieties than is needed to maintain a national optimal level, because they have no
alternatives.
Although the high opportunity costs are reason enough to reduce the area under
traditional varieties as much as possible, the high fixed costs of approximately US $
500 are questioning expensive in situ programs and projects. Hence, a system of in
situ conservation has to be found which is flexible enough to react when needed and
is less expensive.
As a first preliminary approach at estimating the costs of in situ conservation
based on the introduced "controlled in situ conservation" system (see Chap.
3.4.2.2), the following details have to be considered:
For each traditional variety to be conserved in situ an average 1,000 m 2 is
sufficient. For safety reasons, it was further recommended that 10 to 50 farmers
should cultivate one distinct variety to reduce the risk of yield failure.
Consequently, less than 5 ha are necessary for the in situ conservation of one
distinct variety or landrace. These 5 ha is the areal Minimum Safety Standard
(aMSS).
Furthermore, all agricultural crops consists of approximately 3 million distinct
varieties (FAO, I 996a). Hence, an aMSS of roughly 15 million ha of arable land
must be utilized for a safe, but minimized in situ conservation; I % of the existing
1.4 billion hectares arable land (Engelman and LeRoy, 1995) is necessary to
conserve the estimated 3 million distinct varieties
54 •
As long as the economic and technological development has not yet transformed
all marginalized areas into high potential areas, much more than I % of the arable
land is still utilized with traditional varieties and landraces. In India, more than 40%
of arable land is cultivated with high-yielding varieties (CMIE, 1988). Hence, in
most cases no intervention is required; no financial costs will be incurred. In situ
conservation, however, is supposed to be sustainable even in the face of changes of
comparative advantages of traditional varieties to modern varieties. Consequently, a
rough estimate has to guide the decision whether in situ conservation will be
justifiable in the light of scarce financial resources.
To quantify the overall costs for in situ conservation, a detailed analysis is
needed on a country level. These analyses must take into account the degree of
technological development in each region. The incentives are only justifiable if the
technological development has opened the opportunity for farmers to change their
production system and therefore the risk of a declining agrobiodiversity is evident.
The in situ conservation has then only to be stimulated.
In the first place, financing the controlled in situ conservation may lay in the
hand of each country, which has the sovereignty over its genetic resources, as was
stressed by CBD (UNEP, 1994a). There may, however, be countries, which need
more than the calculated 1 % of their arable land for the in situ conservation of all
" For the sake of comparison: India has set aside 4% of the country's surface for almost 500
wildlife protected areas (Singh, 1996),