3 Economic Framework of Conservation
After giving an overview of the state and development of diversity generally for
wild plants and specifically for PGRF A, the conceptual framework has to be
outlined. This chapter will concentrate only on economic aspects of PGRFA
conservation.
3.1
Conceptual Overview
In Chapter 2 it was argued that the decline in varietal diversity is a result of the
economic factors. The individual farmer rarely benefits from the expected value of
the production of agrobiodiversity as a public good. Consequently, he or she has
little incentive to continue growing the old varieties or landraces, but an incentive
to turn to modern varieties when higher income is expected.
Biological scientists argue that almost all genetic resources are potentially
valuable and hence should be conserved (e.g., Wilson, 1988). It is assumed that all
genetic material has potential value, because the future technologies and
environmental conditions are not yet known (McNeely et aI., 1990).
Consequently, the future value of existing genetic resources cannot be determined
at present. This results in the call to conserve a maximum amount of genetic
diversity. Additionally, there are arguments defining the value of genetic resources
purely from an environmental-ethical point of view (e.g., Shiva, 1991; Busch et
aI., 1989; Oldfield, 1989).
On the other hand, conservation of genetic resources require financial as well as
other resources, which compete with other activities. The competition for
resources implies that genetic resources with currently low expected value will not
be conserved. Therefore, a ranking for the most important genetic resources is
suggested to determine what should be conserved (Brown 1990). Hence, it is
necessary to analyze both the costs of diversity conservation as well as the
benefits to the extent possible (e.g., Evenson 1993; Wright 1995).
Conventional instruments are of limited use when it comes to assessing
environmental goods. The natural resources are essentially different from other
economic goods on account of their concern to the public, the irreversibility of
extinction, difficulty of substituting them, and their intergenerational existence
(Hampicke, 1991). Consequently, the market is only able to capture a fraction of
the overall value of these goods.
After giving an overview of the state and development of diversity generally for
wild plants and specifically for PGRF A, the conceptual framework has to be
outlined. This chapter will concentrate only on economic aspects of PGRFA
conservation.
3.1
Conceptual Overview
In Chapter 2 it was argued that the decline in varietal diversity is a result of the
economic factors. The individual farmer rarely benefits from the expected value of
the production of agrobiodiversity as a public good. Consequently, he or she has
little incentive to continue growing the old varieties or landraces, but an incentive
to turn to modern varieties when higher income is expected.
Biological scientists argue that almost all genetic resources are potentially
valuable and hence should be conserved (e.g., Wilson, 1988). It is assumed that all
genetic material has potential value, because the future technologies and
environmental conditions are not yet known (McNeely et aI., 1990).
Consequently, the future value of existing genetic resources cannot be determined
at present. This results in the call to conserve a maximum amount of genetic
diversity. Additionally, there are arguments defining the value of genetic resources
purely from an environmental-ethical point of view (e.g., Shiva, 1991; Busch et
aI., 1989; Oldfield, 1989).
On the other hand, conservation of genetic resources require financial as well as
other resources, which compete with other activities. The competition for
resources implies that genetic resources with currently low expected value will not
be conserved. Therefore, a ranking for the most important genetic resources is
suggested to determine what should be conserved (Brown 1990). Hence, it is
necessary to analyze both the costs of diversity conservation as well as the
benefits to the extent possible (e.g., Evenson 1993; Wright 1995).
Conventional instruments are of limited use when it comes to assessing
environmental goods. The natural resources are essentially different from other
economic goods on account of their concern to the public, the irreversibility of
extinction, difficulty of substituting them, and their intergenerational existence
(Hampicke, 1991). Consequently, the market is only able to capture a fraction of
the overall value of these goods.