5.4 Effectiveness of PGRFA Conservation for Analyzed Countries 145
problem is increased because the documentation standard in some countries may be
better than judged in this process. Because of a decentralized national conservation
policy, the documentation data are not always distributed well. Consequently, they
do not appear in the Country Report. The negative externalities of an uncoordinated
decentralized conservation and information management are the reduced
accessibility of genetic resources for the various users. These users may search for
specific genetically coded information or functions by utilizing the information
accessible on national level and consequently fail to find the existing information,
which is not to be found on national level. The transaction costs for searching for
genetically coded information will be high in a decentralized conservation system
without a well functioning information management. Hence the potential users of
the specific genetically coded information will either find the same or similar
information in another country or will change the direction of research.
Consequently, the accessibility of germplasm stored in ex situ storage facilities will
decrease, based on the degree of national decentralization of PGRF A conservation
combined with a lacking or bad information management. The Country Reports'
information on the national documentation standard as an indicator reflects this
situation.
According to the rough estimation utilized, 56% of the analyzed countries have
poorly documented ex situ storage facilities (see Table 5.19 and for more detailed
information Appendix 16) and only 25% of the countries show a good quality
standard in their documentation of ex situ stored PGRF A. This assessment is
determined mainly by no or only very little other data available except passport
data.
Distribution of accessions: The third and final key indicator for the degree of
goal achievement of the second objective is the distribution of accessions in 1994.
An important role of conservation facilities is to promote and facilitate the
distribution of their stored germplasm. This involves international movement of
germplasm as well as the distribution at the national level - usually to plant breeders
and other researchers, but only seldom directly to farmers. In general, germplasm
has been freely available to bona fide users upon request. Consequently, annual
germplasm distribution reflects best the actual state of accessibility of the
conservation facilities, also this may be partly an issue of lack of effective demand
in the country concerned. If there had been sufficient data for every surveyed
country, germplasm distribution could be the only key indicator needed for
assessing the goal achievement of accessibility. Only 10 countries, however,
reported the germplasm movement in their storage facilities (see Table 5.19 and for
more detailed information Appendix 17). Hence, this indicator was used in addition
to the other two indicators discussed above. If the distribution of germplasm in
1994 was 10% of the stored accessions or more, the standard of distribution was
judged as good quality standard. If the conservation facilities distributed by less
than 10% but more than 3% of the stored accessions, they received a basic quality
standard. If the conservation facilities distributed less than 3% of their stored
material, their quality standard is defined as poor. Only three countries have a good
quality standard of germplasm distribution: the USA which distributed
approximately 128,000 accessions in 1994 (23% of their stored material), Ethiopia
problem is increased because the documentation standard in some countries may be
better than judged in this process. Because of a decentralized national conservation
policy, the documentation data are not always distributed well. Consequently, they
do not appear in the Country Report. The negative externalities of an uncoordinated
decentralized conservation and information management are the reduced
accessibility of genetic resources for the various users. These users may search for
specific genetically coded information or functions by utilizing the information
accessible on national level and consequently fail to find the existing information,
which is not to be found on national level. The transaction costs for searching for
genetically coded information will be high in a decentralized conservation system
without a well functioning information management. Hence the potential users of
the specific genetically coded information will either find the same or similar
information in another country or will change the direction of research.
Consequently, the accessibility of germplasm stored in ex situ storage facilities will
decrease, based on the degree of national decentralization of PGRF A conservation
combined with a lacking or bad information management. The Country Reports'
information on the national documentation standard as an indicator reflects this
situation.
According to the rough estimation utilized, 56% of the analyzed countries have
poorly documented ex situ storage facilities (see Table 5.19 and for more detailed
information Appendix 16) and only 25% of the countries show a good quality
standard in their documentation of ex situ stored PGRF A. This assessment is
determined mainly by no or only very little other data available except passport
data.
Distribution of accessions: The third and final key indicator for the degree of
goal achievement of the second objective is the distribution of accessions in 1994.
An important role of conservation facilities is to promote and facilitate the
distribution of their stored germplasm. This involves international movement of
germplasm as well as the distribution at the national level - usually to plant breeders
and other researchers, but only seldom directly to farmers. In general, germplasm
has been freely available to bona fide users upon request. Consequently, annual
germplasm distribution reflects best the actual state of accessibility of the
conservation facilities, also this may be partly an issue of lack of effective demand
in the country concerned. If there had been sufficient data for every surveyed
country, germplasm distribution could be the only key indicator needed for
assessing the goal achievement of accessibility. Only 10 countries, however,
reported the germplasm movement in their storage facilities (see Table 5.19 and for
more detailed information Appendix 17). Hence, this indicator was used in addition
to the other two indicators discussed above. If the distribution of germplasm in
1994 was 10% of the stored accessions or more, the standard of distribution was
judged as good quality standard. If the conservation facilities distributed by less
than 10% but more than 3% of the stored accessions, they received a basic quality
standard. If the conservation facilities distributed less than 3% of their stored
material, their quality standard is defined as poor. Only three countries have a good
quality standard of germplasm distribution: the USA which distributed
approximately 128,000 accessions in 1994 (23% of their stored material), Ethiopia