140
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
approach, the three identified objectives of PGRFA conservation, i.e., freezing for
future utilization, accessibility of stored PGRF A, and adaptation to changing
environmental conditions, have to be divided into more operational sub-objectives
and quantifiable indicators. Because of the general difficulties with the initial stage
of conservation activities, the data availability restricts the assessment to a few key
indicators (see Fig. 5.8. ). Not all surveyed countries could be included in the
analysis of their effectiveness in PGRF A conservation 70.
The effectiveness of PGRF A conservation is hereby defined as the degree of goal
achievement of the national conservation activities. The aggregate results of the
analysis on the effectiveness of PGRF A conservation in the different countries can
be seen in Table 5.16. This is based on the disaggregated assessment described
below. At the aggregate level it shows that only 15% of 34 countries (5 countries)
may be classified as countries with a high total effectiveness. Only 2 countries (6%)
were classified as having a medium total effectiveness in their conservation efforts.
27 countries, representing 79% of the surveyed countries, had a low overall
effectiveness. It is interesting to note that effectiveness of PGRF A conservation
does not necessarily relate to income level of the countries. The group with a high
effectiveness of conservation efforts consists of high-income countries like the US,
Japan, and Germany, but low-income countries like Ethiopia and countries in
transition like Poland also belong to this group. On the other hand, countries like
Switzerland, Madagascar, France, and India belong to the group representing
countries with a low effectiveness in PGRF A conservation efforts.
Operational sub-objectives and indicators for the first objective - freezing for
future utilization, can be defined as the existence of long-term storage facilities on
the one hand and as the storage quality on the other hand (see Fig. 5.8 ).
70 For instance, Lesotho does not have a genebank at present, but plans are being made to build one.
Some material has been collected by international institutions during 1989-1991, which is stored in
the UK for the time being. Hence, at present no characterization or evaluation has been carried out
in Lesotho (CRL, 1995). Therefore, Lesotho was not considered in the analysis. Other countries,
like Norway and Finland, belong to the Scandinavian group which is running a regional genebank
in Sweden, the Nordic Gene Bank, in which the collections of all Scandinavian countries are stored.
Therefore, the single countries do not conserve the material in their own country, but rather keep
some working collections stored. Hence, Norway's and Finland's information would distort the
survey. Therefore, they were excluded from the effectiveness analysis as well. Even though Italy
provided information on their expenditures related to PGRFA conservation, there was not enough
substantial information to involve Italy in this analysis. Therewith, 34 countries were included in
the survey.
Countries included in the survey are: Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, China, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Greece, Haiti, India, Ireland, Japan, Madagascar,
Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Seychelles, Slovak Republic, South Africa,
Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, the United Kingdom, and theUnited
States of America.
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
approach, the three identified objectives of PGRFA conservation, i.e., freezing for
future utilization, accessibility of stored PGRF A, and adaptation to changing
environmental conditions, have to be divided into more operational sub-objectives
and quantifiable indicators. Because of the general difficulties with the initial stage
of conservation activities, the data availability restricts the assessment to a few key
indicators (see Fig. 5.8. ). Not all surveyed countries could be included in the
analysis of their effectiveness in PGRF A conservation 70.
The effectiveness of PGRF A conservation is hereby defined as the degree of goal
achievement of the national conservation activities. The aggregate results of the
analysis on the effectiveness of PGRF A conservation in the different countries can
be seen in Table 5.16. This is based on the disaggregated assessment described
below. At the aggregate level it shows that only 15% of 34 countries (5 countries)
may be classified as countries with a high total effectiveness. Only 2 countries (6%)
were classified as having a medium total effectiveness in their conservation efforts.
27 countries, representing 79% of the surveyed countries, had a low overall
effectiveness. It is interesting to note that effectiveness of PGRF A conservation
does not necessarily relate to income level of the countries. The group with a high
effectiveness of conservation efforts consists of high-income countries like the US,
Japan, and Germany, but low-income countries like Ethiopia and countries in
transition like Poland also belong to this group. On the other hand, countries like
Switzerland, Madagascar, France, and India belong to the group representing
countries with a low effectiveness in PGRF A conservation efforts.
Operational sub-objectives and indicators for the first objective - freezing for
future utilization, can be defined as the existence of long-term storage facilities on
the one hand and as the storage quality on the other hand (see Fig. 5.8 ).
70 For instance, Lesotho does not have a genebank at present, but plans are being made to build one.
Some material has been collected by international institutions during 1989-1991, which is stored in
the UK for the time being. Hence, at present no characterization or evaluation has been carried out
in Lesotho (CRL, 1995). Therefore, Lesotho was not considered in the analysis. Other countries,
like Norway and Finland, belong to the Scandinavian group which is running a regional genebank
in Sweden, the Nordic Gene Bank, in which the collections of all Scandinavian countries are stored.
Therefore, the single countries do not conserve the material in their own country, but rather keep
some working collections stored. Hence, Norway's and Finland's information would distort the
survey. Therefore, they were excluded from the effectiveness analysis as well. Even though Italy
provided information on their expenditures related to PGRFA conservation, there was not enough
substantial information to involve Italy in this analysis. Therewith, 34 countries were included in
the survey.
Countries included in the survey are: Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, China, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Greece, Haiti, India, Ireland, Japan, Madagascar,
Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Seychelles, Slovak Republic, South Africa,
Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, the United Kingdom, and theUnited
States of America.