5.2 Expenditures of PGRFA Conservation
117
The information received was tabulated into the main two cost categories (ex situ
and in situ conservation activities), wherever possible. Difficulties arose in defining
the scope of PGRFA expenditure. The informational content received by the
countries was very different. Some countries prepared a more detailed analysis
(e.g., Germany), some presented data on a very high aggregation level (e.g., USA).
Therefore, the comparison of all received data is only possible on a high
aggregation level, i.e., discussing expenditures for PGRFA conservation as a total.
It is not possible to differentiate the expenditures made by the countries into the
three different categories as described in Chap. 5.1.
Based on the data provided, the order of magnitude of domestic expenditures
spent for the conservation of PGRFA by 37 of 43 named countries amount to
approximately US $ 475 million for the year 1995 (see Table 5.9 ). This figure
includes the financial assistance of US $ 17 million, which 15 countries received
through bilateral and multilateral contributions. From the 39 countries mentioned
above, 12 contributed bi- and multilateral financial assistance of approximately US
$ 50 million.
The differences between the foreign assistance contributed by countries and that
received by countries are determined by two facts:
• not all contributed assistance is distributed bilaterally, therefore the difference is
partially determined by the multilateral financial contribution, e.g.,to
international organizations which operate their own programs;
• furthermore, the difference is determined by the fact that the bilateral financial
assistance of the respective 12 countries is not contributed exclusively to the 16
receiving countries mentioned here.
The interpretation of data, particularly highly aggregated data, is problematic.
With more information from the countries, a more precise estimate of the overall
expenditure could be made. Concluding the analysis of the international
expenditures for the conservation of PGRFA, the survey result for 39 countries is
drawn up in Fig. 5.3 ; 89% of the expenditures by the OECD countries surveyed (of
US $ 456 million) are spent for their domestic conservation activities (US $ 406
million), mainly the ex situ conservation of their PGRFA accessions. 76% of the
expenditures for the conservation activities in the developing countries surveyed
(US $ 52 million) were funded nationally, nearly one quarter of the domestic
expenditures were funded through bi- and multi-lateral financial contributions (US
$ 16 million). Even though the 16 OECD countries are conserving 53% and the 23
whereas others only included the conservation of PGRFA in a very narrow sense. Most
countries did not clearly define what was covered by expenditure or foreign assistance
data. Similarly, some data on assistance contributions included only activities closely
related to conservation and utilisation of PGRFA. Some countries provided data only on
the general national contribution to international organisations.
2.
The data received were often not desegregated. Sums were given without indicating
whether it applied to conservation, utilisation, or both.
3.
Some countries, although they probably contribute foreign assistance for PGRFA, did not
send any data on the amount of contributions.
4.
Other countries, which probably receive foreign assistance did not provide data on this.
117
The information received was tabulated into the main two cost categories (ex situ
and in situ conservation activities), wherever possible. Difficulties arose in defining
the scope of PGRFA expenditure. The informational content received by the
countries was very different. Some countries prepared a more detailed analysis
(e.g., Germany), some presented data on a very high aggregation level (e.g., USA).
Therefore, the comparison of all received data is only possible on a high
aggregation level, i.e., discussing expenditures for PGRFA conservation as a total.
It is not possible to differentiate the expenditures made by the countries into the
three different categories as described in Chap. 5.1.
Based on the data provided, the order of magnitude of domestic expenditures
spent for the conservation of PGRFA by 37 of 43 named countries amount to
approximately US $ 475 million for the year 1995 (see Table 5.9 ). This figure
includes the financial assistance of US $ 17 million, which 15 countries received
through bilateral and multilateral contributions. From the 39 countries mentioned
above, 12 contributed bi- and multilateral financial assistance of approximately US
$ 50 million.
The differences between the foreign assistance contributed by countries and that
received by countries are determined by two facts:
• not all contributed assistance is distributed bilaterally, therefore the difference is
partially determined by the multilateral financial contribution, e.g.,to
international organizations which operate their own programs;
• furthermore, the difference is determined by the fact that the bilateral financial
assistance of the respective 12 countries is not contributed exclusively to the 16
receiving countries mentioned here.
The interpretation of data, particularly highly aggregated data, is problematic.
With more information from the countries, a more precise estimate of the overall
expenditure could be made. Concluding the analysis of the international
expenditures for the conservation of PGRFA, the survey result for 39 countries is
drawn up in Fig. 5.3 ; 89% of the expenditures by the OECD countries surveyed (of
US $ 456 million) are spent for their domestic conservation activities (US $ 406
million), mainly the ex situ conservation of their PGRFA accessions. 76% of the
expenditures for the conservation activities in the developing countries surveyed
(US $ 52 million) were funded nationally, nearly one quarter of the domestic
expenditures were funded through bi- and multi-lateral financial contributions (US
$ 16 million). Even though the 16 OECD countries are conserving 53% and the 23
whereas others only included the conservation of PGRFA in a very narrow sense. Most
countries did not clearly define what was covered by expenditure or foreign assistance
data. Similarly, some data on assistance contributions included only activities closely
related to conservation and utilisation of PGRFA. Some countries provided data only on
the general national contribution to international organisations.
2.
The data received were often not desegregated. Sums were given without indicating
whether it applied to conservation, utilisation, or both.
3.
Some countries, although they probably contribute foreign assistance for PGRFA, did not
send any data on the amount of contributions.
4.
Other countries, which probably receive foreign assistance did not provide data on this.