28
2 Genetic Resources: Status, Development, Losses, and Conservation
Other governments, e.g., the US government, subsidize private insurance
companies (Hyde and Vercammen, 1997; Swanson et aI., 1994).
The major institutional factor determining the maintenance of PGRF A
diversity is the missing or poorly defined property rights for genetic resources.
The public good characteristics which still exist give rise to free rider problems.
Property rights are essential for the conservation of agrobiodiversity: the
incentives to maintain or decrease the amount of PGRF A diversity depend on the
structure of the various rights of all agents involved. Open access conditions
prevail where no property rights exist.
The level of PGRF A diversity is determined by the existing framework, the
present situation of markets for PGRF A, policies influencing the maintenance of
PGRF A, and adequate institutions as well as the intensity and direction of landuse development. In addition to these two important factors, the farm level is the
key position of the decision-making process influencing the diversity in situ.
If the farmer expects more benefits resulting from new varieties, which were
improved on the basis of the old varieties, the farmer will replace the old varieties
with the new varieties 12. According to the field experience of Pundis (1996),
farmers take over a new variety if the yield gains are over 15% more as compared
to the traditional variety. The more the results from plant breeding are better (i.e.,
incorporation of all needed or asked for traits), the more farmers' varieties will be
replaced by the improved varieties. The replacement may take place in one step;
but as breeding is a long and difficult process, the replacement will be occurring
over some time as well. For each trait incorporated in an improved variety, the
advantage of one or more farmers' varieties will be diminished or lost.
Summarizing this section, it can be highlighted that most loss of biodiversity
and agrobiodiversity is an incidental or unintended side-effect of other activities
(McNeely, 1996). The extent of losses of PGRF A is less than expected and often
described in the literature. The factors determining the level of agrobiodiversity
may be found on three different levels, indicating a further decline in diversity
unless a market for PGRF A can be developed, which incorporates an expected
high value for PGRF A.
There is not only a loss of genetic resources in situ, but rather genetic resources
are also lost in genebanks. Because of insufficient financial resources,
mismanagement, and untrained staff the condition of stored genetic resources is
far from being safe. For instance, at the genebank at Fort Collins, USA, 50% of all
conserved accessions are not viable and only 28% of the accessions stored are still
healthy and may be utilized in the future (Hobbelink, 1989).
12 This generalized benefit optimizing on the farmer level is even not questioned by the findings
of Bush and Meng, 1996 stating that farmers, even though introducing improved varieties are
keeping farmers' varieties in their production systems. However, these farmers are doing this
mainly because the introduced varieties do not have certain traits (i.e., taste) which are
known in the traditional varieties. However, assuming that improved varieties may
incorporate these specific traits as well, the farmers will have no benefits in keeping the
traditional varieties any longer.
2 Genetic Resources: Status, Development, Losses, and Conservation
Other governments, e.g., the US government, subsidize private insurance
companies (Hyde and Vercammen, 1997; Swanson et aI., 1994).
The major institutional factor determining the maintenance of PGRF A
diversity is the missing or poorly defined property rights for genetic resources.
The public good characteristics which still exist give rise to free rider problems.
Property rights are essential for the conservation of agrobiodiversity: the
incentives to maintain or decrease the amount of PGRF A diversity depend on the
structure of the various rights of all agents involved. Open access conditions
prevail where no property rights exist.
The level of PGRF A diversity is determined by the existing framework, the
present situation of markets for PGRF A, policies influencing the maintenance of
PGRF A, and adequate institutions as well as the intensity and direction of landuse development. In addition to these two important factors, the farm level is the
key position of the decision-making process influencing the diversity in situ.
If the farmer expects more benefits resulting from new varieties, which were
improved on the basis of the old varieties, the farmer will replace the old varieties
with the new varieties 12. According to the field experience of Pundis (1996),
farmers take over a new variety if the yield gains are over 15% more as compared
to the traditional variety. The more the results from plant breeding are better (i.e.,
incorporation of all needed or asked for traits), the more farmers' varieties will be
replaced by the improved varieties. The replacement may take place in one step;
but as breeding is a long and difficult process, the replacement will be occurring
over some time as well. For each trait incorporated in an improved variety, the
advantage of one or more farmers' varieties will be diminished or lost.
Summarizing this section, it can be highlighted that most loss of biodiversity
and agrobiodiversity is an incidental or unintended side-effect of other activities
(McNeely, 1996). The extent of losses of PGRF A is less than expected and often
described in the literature. The factors determining the level of agrobiodiversity
may be found on three different levels, indicating a further decline in diversity
unless a market for PGRF A can be developed, which incorporates an expected
high value for PGRF A.
There is not only a loss of genetic resources in situ, but rather genetic resources
are also lost in genebanks. Because of insufficient financial resources,
mismanagement, and untrained staff the condition of stored genetic resources is
far from being safe. For instance, at the genebank at Fort Collins, USA, 50% of all
conserved accessions are not viable and only 28% of the accessions stored are still
healthy and may be utilized in the future (Hobbelink, 1989).
12 This generalized benefit optimizing on the farmer level is even not questioned by the findings
of Bush and Meng, 1996 stating that farmers, even though introducing improved varieties are
keeping farmers' varieties in their production systems. However, these farmers are doing this
mainly because the introduced varieties do not have certain traits (i.e., taste) which are
known in the traditional varieties. However, assuming that improved varieties may
incorporate these specific traits as well, the farmers will have no benefits in keeping the
traditional varieties any longer.