148
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
Table 5.19. Effectiveness of conservation ofPGRFA in national programs
« ~
Access
~
"' "
0
.,
U)
U)
~
., c
=
.,
0
0
.::
t:l
"",'''::
~
E
oS
-0 C
~
... .,
"'-l
OIl
~ §
i
=
B 8
j
rn-o
f-o
Austria
e.
good
poor n.i.
low
Belarus
n-e.
basic
poor n.i.
low
Brazil
e.
poor
basic poor
low
Canada
e.
good
basic basic
medium
China
e.
good
poor n.1.
low
Cyprus
n-e.
basic
basic n.i.
low
Czech
e.
basic
good basic
medium
Republic
Egypt
e.
poor
poor n.i.
low
Ethiopia
e.
good
good good
high
France
e.
basic
good n.1.
low
Germany
e.
basic
good basic
high
Greece
e.
basic
basic n.i.
low
Haiti
n-e.
poor
n-e.
n.l.
low
India
e.
poor
poor n.1.
low
Ireland
e.
basic
poor n.l.
low
Japan
e.
good
good basic
high
Madagascar n-e.
poor
poor n.1.
low
Pakistan
e.
basic
basic basic
low
Peru
n-e.
basic
basic n.l.
low
Poland
e.
good
good basic
high
Portugal
e.
basic
poor n.l.
low
Romania
n-e.
basic
poor n.l.
low
Russia
n-e.
basic
poor poor
low
Seychelles
n-e.
poor
poor n.l.
low
Slovak
n-e.
basic
poor n.1.
low
Republic
72 Data ofPGRFAdistribution are from 1994.