150
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
coordinators between the long-tenn storage and the short-tenn needs of breeders
and other researchers.
On the one hand, in situ conservation of PGRF A, understood as maintaining
landraces in fanners' fields, is undertaken by fanners as a positive external effect.
Hence, no costs are attributed to this approach of in situ conservation. On the other
hand, programs and projects are conceptualized to promote in situ conservation.
Until now, few of these have been economically analyzed. Of the known results, it
seems, however, that high costs may be involved with this approach. One example
in Peru indicates program costs of US $ 500 per accession and year. Even if it may
be assumed to be a pilot project including breeding components, transferable to
other regions for less costs, it cannot be economically sound and sustainable to
promote similar projects.
The analysis of the effectiveness of storage facilities in 34 countries suggests that
the present costs for the conservation of PGRF A at the national and international
level do not give much evidence concerning the impact of conservation activities.
Some countries with very different expenditure structures have received a high
rating by achieving all three conservation objectives. The result implies that
existing financial resources should be used more effectively. The emphasis must,
therefore, be on measures which improve the efficiency of conservation through the
rationalization of efforts, e.g., the rationalization of collections through regional and
international collaboration, an improved data and infonnation management, as well
as the reduced over-duplication of samples. Furthennore, mechanisms should allow
countries to place materials in secure storage facilities outside their borders, without
compromising their sovereign rights over such material.
5 Conservation Costs of PGRFA
coordinators between the long-tenn storage and the short-tenn needs of breeders
and other researchers.
On the one hand, in situ conservation of PGRF A, understood as maintaining
landraces in fanners' fields, is undertaken by fanners as a positive external effect.
Hence, no costs are attributed to this approach of in situ conservation. On the other
hand, programs and projects are conceptualized to promote in situ conservation.
Until now, few of these have been economically analyzed. Of the known results, it
seems, however, that high costs may be involved with this approach. One example
in Peru indicates program costs of US $ 500 per accession and year. Even if it may
be assumed to be a pilot project including breeding components, transferable to
other regions for less costs, it cannot be economically sound and sustainable to
promote similar projects.
The analysis of the effectiveness of storage facilities in 34 countries suggests that
the present costs for the conservation of PGRF A at the national and international
level do not give much evidence concerning the impact of conservation activities.
Some countries with very different expenditure structures have received a high
rating by achieving all three conservation objectives. The result implies that
existing financial resources should be used more effectively. The emphasis must,
therefore, be on measures which improve the efficiency of conservation through the
rationalization of efforts, e.g., the rationalization of collections through regional and
international collaboration, an improved data and infonnation management, as well
as the reduced over-duplication of samples. Furthennore, mechanisms should allow
countries to place materials in secure storage facilities outside their borders, without
compromising their sovereign rights over such material.