66
3 Economic Framework of Conservation
be coherent with market mechanisms so as to develop a market for genetically
coded information but also to afford protection against the market, i.e., protection
against potential external effects on existing, non-use values of agrobiodiversity.
The implementation of mechanisms to induce the in situ conservation of PGRFA
must be further aimed at the objectives of conservation.
The main direct incentive for selected individual farmers maintaining
agrobiodiversity would be a price which compensates the farmer for continuously
cultivating a specific variety or maintaining a specific level of agrobiodiversity in
his or her fields. Because of the difficulties in measuring the value of farmers'
contributions to the conservation of agrobiodiversity, the amount of compensation
could be determined by the opportunity costs of foregoing production system
conversion to a system with modern varieties. As Gupta (1996) points out, other
direct incentives could be awards for diverse production systems or other social
based incentives. But the most important non-monetary incentive would be an
improved cooperation between farmers and genebanks, especially enabling
farmers to receive germplasm from the genebank for further utilization (Gupta,
1996).
3.4.2.2
An Applicable Approach for a "Controlled in Situ Conservation"
The present situation of agrobiodiversity seems to imply that there is no urgent
call for action to conserve PGRFA diversity in situ. The agricultural development
will, however, continue to take place, therefore the present status quo may change
rapidly and unforeseeably in every stage and region. The threat related to such a
rapid and uncontrolled change of production systems, due to continuous
development and improvement of crop varieties adopted to specific environmental
and economic conditions, may be that existing endemic plant genetic resources
may be extinguished, before any conservation takes place.
Consequently, a system of a controlled in situ conservation should be
implemented at the national levd 9 • The basic idea is to create an in situ
conservation system, which enables the maintenance of an endangered variety on
a required areal minimum safety standard (aMSS) and at the same time guarantees
a conservation system with the highest possible flexibility based on a selfcorrecting price as an incentive mechanism. Only if the cultivated area of a
specific traditional variety falls under the defined aMSS, i.e., the variety is
threatened by extinction, must the instruments of incentives take effect. In
addition to the incentive mechanism, the flexibility has to be based on the selftargeting of the farmers cultivating the endangered variety.
The areal minimum safety standard is defined as a minimum of production area
needed to prevent any negative effects duo to plant population dynamic issues,
29
In some literature, in situ conservation is supposed to be reduced to the gene megacenters
defined by Zeven and Zhukovsky (1975) (e.g., Hentschel, 1997). Due to the significant
differences in landraces and the discussed secondary centers, in situ conservation should be
promoted at the country or at least at regional level and not only in the megacenters.
3 Economic Framework of Conservation
be coherent with market mechanisms so as to develop a market for genetically
coded information but also to afford protection against the market, i.e., protection
against potential external effects on existing, non-use values of agrobiodiversity.
The implementation of mechanisms to induce the in situ conservation of PGRFA
must be further aimed at the objectives of conservation.
The main direct incentive for selected individual farmers maintaining
agrobiodiversity would be a price which compensates the farmer for continuously
cultivating a specific variety or maintaining a specific level of agrobiodiversity in
his or her fields. Because of the difficulties in measuring the value of farmers'
contributions to the conservation of agrobiodiversity, the amount of compensation
could be determined by the opportunity costs of foregoing production system
conversion to a system with modern varieties. As Gupta (1996) points out, other
direct incentives could be awards for diverse production systems or other social
based incentives. But the most important non-monetary incentive would be an
improved cooperation between farmers and genebanks, especially enabling
farmers to receive germplasm from the genebank for further utilization (Gupta,
1996).
3.4.2.2
An Applicable Approach for a "Controlled in Situ Conservation"
The present situation of agrobiodiversity seems to imply that there is no urgent
call for action to conserve PGRFA diversity in situ. The agricultural development
will, however, continue to take place, therefore the present status quo may change
rapidly and unforeseeably in every stage and region. The threat related to such a
rapid and uncontrolled change of production systems, due to continuous
development and improvement of crop varieties adopted to specific environmental
and economic conditions, may be that existing endemic plant genetic resources
may be extinguished, before any conservation takes place.
Consequently, a system of a controlled in situ conservation should be
implemented at the national levd 9 • The basic idea is to create an in situ
conservation system, which enables the maintenance of an endangered variety on
a required areal minimum safety standard (aMSS) and at the same time guarantees
a conservation system with the highest possible flexibility based on a selfcorrecting price as an incentive mechanism. Only if the cultivated area of a
specific traditional variety falls under the defined aMSS, i.e., the variety is
threatened by extinction, must the instruments of incentives take effect. In
addition to the incentive mechanism, the flexibility has to be based on the selftargeting of the farmers cultivating the endangered variety.
The areal minimum safety standard is defined as a minimum of production area
needed to prevent any negative effects duo to plant population dynamic issues,
29
In some literature, in situ conservation is supposed to be reduced to the gene megacenters
defined by Zeven and Zhukovsky (1975) (e.g., Hentschel, 1997). Due to the significant
differences in landraces and the discussed secondary centers, in situ conservation should be
promoted at the country or at least at regional level and not only in the megacenters.