116
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
National expenditures on PGRFA conservation are difficult to assess, largely
because of uncertainties in defining the scope of PGRFA programs. It seems that
most countries' national efforts to conserve PGRFA are in the hand of different
departments in different ministries. In addition to the complex administrational
structure, other parastatel and non-governmental organizations are involved in the
conservation activities as well. Only in some countries are all efforts coordinated by
an overall national program. Hence, the costs involved are not always visible.
Furthermore, countries are involved in PGRFA conservation but do not have
specially defined budget lines for these activities. For instance, if a genebank
belongs to a national breeding institute and its costs are incorporated in the
institute's overall budgetS?, it is difficult to assess its specific costs.
In view of the inherent difficulties and limitations in compiling data on current
expenditures on PGRFA, the purpose of these costing estimates were confined to
obtain orders of magnitude of the current efforts made.
Information was requested from 154 countries at the end of 1995. Each country
had established a focal point for the preparatory process of the International
Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. These focal points were
contacted for this purpose. As of June, 1996,43 countries had replied. Four of these
countries provided data which could not be employed (Angola, Gabon, Guinea, and
Zaire). Thus, 28% of all surveyed countries provided data which could be analyzed.
Among those responding were countries thought to have substantial programs in
PGRFA (inter alia, the USA, Germany, Russian Federation, China, India, and
Ethiopia), as well as a number of countries with smaller programs.
The data concerning the national expenditures for conservation of PGRFA can
be divided into three different groups:
• domestic expenditures, which have been spent for conservation activities in the
country;
• expenditures, which have been spent for conservation activities in the country,
but which derive from financial assistance received for PGRFA conservation
(through bi- or multilateral contributions);
• expenditures, which have been contributed as financial aid for PGRFA
conservation (through bi- or multilateral contributions).
The most important group for the actual purpose is the domestic expenditures.
Countries receiving financial assistance may have domestic expenditures equaling
the financial assistance, i.e., utilizing the financial assistance for conservation
activities. But countries may spend more than the financial assistance only for
conservation activities, i.e., these countries do utilize domestic financial resources
for PGRFA conservation. Therefore, domestic expenditures include expenditures
derived from received financial assistance. Table 5.9 indicates the nature of the
information received from each country. 58
" The genebank in GaterslebenlGermany, for instance, is part of the IPK.
" The difficulties concerning the interpretation of the data are:
I.
The data received were not homogenous. Countries provided data based on different
definitions of PGRFA conservation. Some countries included plant breeding activities,
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
National expenditures on PGRFA conservation are difficult to assess, largely
because of uncertainties in defining the scope of PGRFA programs. It seems that
most countries' national efforts to conserve PGRFA are in the hand of different
departments in different ministries. In addition to the complex administrational
structure, other parastatel and non-governmental organizations are involved in the
conservation activities as well. Only in some countries are all efforts coordinated by
an overall national program. Hence, the costs involved are not always visible.
Furthermore, countries are involved in PGRFA conservation but do not have
specially defined budget lines for these activities. For instance, if a genebank
belongs to a national breeding institute and its costs are incorporated in the
institute's overall budgetS?, it is difficult to assess its specific costs.
In view of the inherent difficulties and limitations in compiling data on current
expenditures on PGRFA, the purpose of these costing estimates were confined to
obtain orders of magnitude of the current efforts made.
Information was requested from 154 countries at the end of 1995. Each country
had established a focal point for the preparatory process of the International
Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. These focal points were
contacted for this purpose. As of June, 1996,43 countries had replied. Four of these
countries provided data which could not be employed (Angola, Gabon, Guinea, and
Zaire). Thus, 28% of all surveyed countries provided data which could be analyzed.
Among those responding were countries thought to have substantial programs in
PGRFA (inter alia, the USA, Germany, Russian Federation, China, India, and
Ethiopia), as well as a number of countries with smaller programs.
The data concerning the national expenditures for conservation of PGRFA can
be divided into three different groups:
• domestic expenditures, which have been spent for conservation activities in the
country;
• expenditures, which have been spent for conservation activities in the country,
but which derive from financial assistance received for PGRFA conservation
(through bi- or multilateral contributions);
• expenditures, which have been contributed as financial aid for PGRFA
conservation (through bi- or multilateral contributions).
The most important group for the actual purpose is the domestic expenditures.
Countries receiving financial assistance may have domestic expenditures equaling
the financial assistance, i.e., utilizing the financial assistance for conservation
activities. But countries may spend more than the financial assistance only for
conservation activities, i.e., these countries do utilize domestic financial resources
for PGRFA conservation. Therefore, domestic expenditures include expenditures
derived from received financial assistance. Table 5.9 indicates the nature of the
information received from each country. 58
" The genebank in GaterslebenlGermany, for instance, is part of the IPK.
" The difficulties concerning the interpretation of the data are:
I.
The data received were not homogenous. Countries provided data based on different
definitions of PGRFA conservation. Some countries included plant breeding activities,