122
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
grouped like a broad-shaped "U" - its two ends characterizing countries strongly
committed to PGRFA conservation, based on opposite prerequisites. On the one
side (left top) are the demand-driven spenders. These are agrobiodiversity-poor
countries which spend much for PGRFA conservation. The governments of these
countries feel the need for their breeding industry to safeguard their demand for
genetic resources as input for breeding. On the other side (right top) are the supplydriven spenders, which are agrobiodiversity-rich countries. These countries invest
much for the conservation of PGRFA. They do so for their own country's breeding
efforts but also to be able to appear on a market for genetically coded information
yet to be developed.
So far, the expenditures for PGRFA conservation were interpreted as similar
qualitative investments into an effective conservation system. The costeffectiveness of conservation has not been discussed at all yet. For the time being, a
simple, but ultimately, the most important input-output ratio is deduced from the
information gathered. The domestic expenditures for PGRFA conservation are
compared with the numbers of accessions stored in the respective country in Table
5.10. The ratio gives a first impression on the efficiency of conservation operation
in the selected countries. The countries are divided into three groups, based on the
unit costs of conserved accessions in the country.
It can be seen that countries with the same amount of conserved accessions may
have very different unit costs. With 17,000 accessions, Switzerland pays US $ 225
after all to conserve one accession, whereas Pakistan, which conserves
approximately 19,000, has unit costs of only US $ 6.
Besides the differences in conservation quality, the differences in conservation
activities included in the overall expenditures reported by the countries determines
mainly the varying ratio. For instance, the different approach in plant breeding has
to be understood in order to explain the big difference between USA's unit cost of
US $ 37 and the high ratio for some countries of the European Union. In the USA,
PGRFA conservation is strictly restricted to the activities of collection, storage,
regeneration, multiplication, and documentation of the germplasm (Shands, 1994).
In Germany, the Braunschweig Genetic Resources Center (BGRC), for instance, is
integrated in the Federal Center for Breeding Research on Cultivated Plants (BAZ)
and evaluation and genetic enhancement are combined research activities.
An order-of-magnitude estimate of expenditures spent by all countries in 1995
was carried out based on data received from the 39 countries. 165 countries were
integrated in the estimate. Such countries were ignored that did not participate in
the preparatory process for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic
Resources, or did not have any kind of national program for the conservation of
PGRFA, and where no information is available on any PGRFA conservation
activities in the respective country. In such a country, the possibility that this
country has any expenditures for PGRFA conservation activities is reduced to
zer061.
6\
Therefore countries like Kuwait, Djibouti, Si~gapore, and Liechtenstein were excluded.
Furthemore, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North-Korea) was excluded because
of unsafe information. (For a full list of countries participating, see Appendix 12.)
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
grouped like a broad-shaped "U" - its two ends characterizing countries strongly
committed to PGRFA conservation, based on opposite prerequisites. On the one
side (left top) are the demand-driven spenders. These are agrobiodiversity-poor
countries which spend much for PGRFA conservation. The governments of these
countries feel the need for their breeding industry to safeguard their demand for
genetic resources as input for breeding. On the other side (right top) are the supplydriven spenders, which are agrobiodiversity-rich countries. These countries invest
much for the conservation of PGRFA. They do so for their own country's breeding
efforts but also to be able to appear on a market for genetically coded information
yet to be developed.
So far, the expenditures for PGRFA conservation were interpreted as similar
qualitative investments into an effective conservation system. The costeffectiveness of conservation has not been discussed at all yet. For the time being, a
simple, but ultimately, the most important input-output ratio is deduced from the
information gathered. The domestic expenditures for PGRFA conservation are
compared with the numbers of accessions stored in the respective country in Table
5.10. The ratio gives a first impression on the efficiency of conservation operation
in the selected countries. The countries are divided into three groups, based on the
unit costs of conserved accessions in the country.
It can be seen that countries with the same amount of conserved accessions may
have very different unit costs. With 17,000 accessions, Switzerland pays US $ 225
after all to conserve one accession, whereas Pakistan, which conserves
approximately 19,000, has unit costs of only US $ 6.
Besides the differences in conservation quality, the differences in conservation
activities included in the overall expenditures reported by the countries determines
mainly the varying ratio. For instance, the different approach in plant breeding has
to be understood in order to explain the big difference between USA's unit cost of
US $ 37 and the high ratio for some countries of the European Union. In the USA,
PGRFA conservation is strictly restricted to the activities of collection, storage,
regeneration, multiplication, and documentation of the germplasm (Shands, 1994).
In Germany, the Braunschweig Genetic Resources Center (BGRC), for instance, is
integrated in the Federal Center for Breeding Research on Cultivated Plants (BAZ)
and evaluation and genetic enhancement are combined research activities.
An order-of-magnitude estimate of expenditures spent by all countries in 1995
was carried out based on data received from the 39 countries. 165 countries were
integrated in the estimate. Such countries were ignored that did not participate in
the preparatory process for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic
Resources, or did not have any kind of national program for the conservation of
PGRFA, and where no information is available on any PGRFA conservation
activities in the respective country. In such a country, the possibility that this
country has any expenditures for PGRFA conservation activities is reduced to
zer061.
6\
Therefore countries like Kuwait, Djibouti, Si~gapore, and Liechtenstein were excluded.
Furthemore, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North-Korea) was excluded because
of unsafe information. (For a full list of countries participating, see Appendix 12.)