128
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
other development banks and funds are major players in agricultural development
projects and NARS capacity building. However it is difficult to assess the
proportion related to PGRFA. Hence, international flows include about US $ 7
million annually channeled through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for
PGRFA related activities 67 (Virchow, 1996a). Thus only a small portion of the GEF
currently allocated to PGRFA can be estimated.
On the other hand, the financial assistance contributed by some countries for
specific conservation activities in other countries also play an important role. To
quantify these contributions is difficult. For instance, the new genebank in New
Delhi, India, which was inaugurated in November 1996, was financed mainly by
the USA. The USA, however, did not mention the US $ 28 million nine year
program with India, even though there were significant expenditures for the project
in 1995 (Chandel, 1996).
Expenditures of funding and executing agencies for conservation of PGRFA
were calculated by compiling the information gathered from communications and
documents beginning in September 1995 up to early 1996. The information
received represents most of international agencies which are involved in activities
relating to conservation of PGRFA (see Table 5.12 ). Furthermore, the risk of
double-counting financial resources was eliminated in this approach by tracking the
different activities and projects funded by cross checking the project codes. In
addition to this, the differentiation between the national expenditures, including the
listing of financial assistance contributed to other countries or national and
international agencies, and the expenditure estimation on international level,
eliminates the risk of double-counting.
Bearing the limitations of this approach in mind, the rough overall estimate of
the expenditures in PGRFA conservation on international level is summarized in
Table 5.14 and can be described as follows.
About US $ 83 million were channeled through international organizations to
activities relating to the conservation of PGRFA in 1995. Most of the money was
spent by the above mentioned international funding and executing agencies for the
conservation of PGRFA, mainly as an integrated element of larger development
projects or programs.
However, information was not available for some of the agencies listed above.
Nineteen major NGOs active in the field of PGRFA with specifically programs
covering all regions were surveyed, of which one responded. Similarly, information
from private foundations is scant.
" This includes two projects specifically devoted to PGRFA, plus an estimated share (5%) of a
number of projects for biodiversity conservation which are likely to contribute to PGRFA
conservation.
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
other development banks and funds are major players in agricultural development
projects and NARS capacity building. However it is difficult to assess the
proportion related to PGRFA. Hence, international flows include about US $ 7
million annually channeled through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for
PGRFA related activities 67 (Virchow, 1996a). Thus only a small portion of the GEF
currently allocated to PGRFA can be estimated.
On the other hand, the financial assistance contributed by some countries for
specific conservation activities in other countries also play an important role. To
quantify these contributions is difficult. For instance, the new genebank in New
Delhi, India, which was inaugurated in November 1996, was financed mainly by
the USA. The USA, however, did not mention the US $ 28 million nine year
program with India, even though there were significant expenditures for the project
in 1995 (Chandel, 1996).
Expenditures of funding and executing agencies for conservation of PGRFA
were calculated by compiling the information gathered from communications and
documents beginning in September 1995 up to early 1996. The information
received represents most of international agencies which are involved in activities
relating to conservation of PGRFA (see Table 5.12 ). Furthermore, the risk of
double-counting financial resources was eliminated in this approach by tracking the
different activities and projects funded by cross checking the project codes. In
addition to this, the differentiation between the national expenditures, including the
listing of financial assistance contributed to other countries or national and
international agencies, and the expenditure estimation on international level,
eliminates the risk of double-counting.
Bearing the limitations of this approach in mind, the rough overall estimate of
the expenditures in PGRFA conservation on international level is summarized in
Table 5.14 and can be described as follows.
About US $ 83 million were channeled through international organizations to
activities relating to the conservation of PGRFA in 1995. Most of the money was
spent by the above mentioned international funding and executing agencies for the
conservation of PGRFA, mainly as an integrated element of larger development
projects or programs.
However, information was not available for some of the agencies listed above.
Nineteen major NGOs active in the field of PGRFA with specifically programs
covering all regions were surveyed, of which one responded. Similarly, information
from private foundations is scant.
" This includes two projects specifically devoted to PGRFA, plus an estimated share (5%) of a
number of projects for biodiversity conservation which are likely to contribute to PGRFA
conservation.