Info

Renkow, M., and Traxler, G., 1994, Incomplete adoption of modern cereal varieties: The role of grain-fodder tradeoffs, Selected paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, San Diego (August 7-10, 1994).

Rice, E., Smale, M., and Blanco, J.-L., 1998, Farmers' use of improved seed selection practices in Mexican maize: Evidence and issues from the Sierra de Santa Marta, World Dev. 26(9): 1625-1640.

Rijal, D. K., Rana, R„ Subedi, A., and Sthapit, B. R„ 2000, Adding value to landraces: Community-based approaches for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in Nepal, in: Participatory Approaches to the Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources, E. Friis-Hansen and B. Sthapit, eds., International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, pp. 166-172.

Rijal, D. K„ Subedi, A., Upadhaya, M. P., Rana, R. B„ Chaudhary, P., Tiwari, P. R„ Tiwari, R. K., Sthapit, B. R., and Gauchan, D., 2001, Community biodiversity registers: Developing community-based databases for genetic resources and local knowledge in Nepal, paper prepared for the First National Workshop of the Project, Strengthening Scientific Basis of In situ Conservation of Agrobiodiversity On-farm: Nepal, Lumle, Nepal (April 24-26, 2001).

Romer, P. M., 1993, Two Strategies for Economic Development: Using Ideas and Producing Ideas. Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics 1992, The World Bank, Washington, D. C.

Sandler, T., 1999, Intergenerational public goods: Strategies, efficiency and institutions, in: Global Public Goods, I. Kaul, I. Grunberg, and M. A. Stein, eds., Oxford University Press and United Nations Development Programme, New York, pp. 20-50.

Smale, M., and Bellon, M., 1999, A conceptual framework for valuing on-farm genetic resources, in: Agrobiodiversity: Characterization, Utilization, and Management, D. Wood and J. Lenne, eds., CABI International, Wallingford, U. K„ pp. 387-408.

Smale, M., Bellon, M., and Aguirre, A., 2001, Maize diversity, variety attributes, and farmers' choices in Southeastern Guanajuato, Mexico, Econ. Devel. Cult. Change 50(1): 201-225.

Smale, M., Bellon, M., Aguirre, A., Manuel, I., Mendoza, J., Solano, A. M., Martinez, R., Ramirez, A., and Berthaud, J., 2003, The economic costs and benefits of a participatory project to conserve maize landraces on farms in Oaxaca, Mexico, Agric. Econ. 29:265275.

Smale, M., Just, R. E., and Leathers, H. D., 1994, Land allocation in HYV adoption models: An investigation of alternative explanations, Amer. J. Agri. Econ. 76:535-546.

Sperling, L., Loevinsohn, M., and Ntambovura, B., 1993, Rethinking the farmer's role in plant breeding: Local bean experts and on-extension selection in Rwanda, Exp. Agric. 29:509-519.

Sthapit, B. R., Joshi, K. D., and Witcombe, J. R., 1996, Farmer participatory cultivar improvement. Ill: Participatory plant breeding, A case of high altitude rice from Nepal, Exp. Agric. 32:479-496.

Tapia, M. E., and Rosa, A., 1993, Seed fairs in the Andes: A strategy for local conservation of plant genetic resources, in: Cultivating Knowledge, W. de Boef, K. Amanor, and K. Wellard, with A. Bebbington, eds., Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 111-118.

Thiele, G., Gardiner, G., Torrez, R., and Gabriel, J., 1997, Farmer involvement in selecting new varieties: Potatoes in Bolivia, Exp. Agric. 33:275-290.

Tripp, R., 2000, Seed Provision and Agricultural Development: The Institutions of Rural Change, Overseas Development Institute, London; James Currey, Oxford; and Heinemann, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Unnevehr, L., Duff, B., and Juliano, B. O., 1992, Consumer Demand for Rice Grain Quality, Terminal Report of IDRC Projects, National Grain Quality (Asia) and International Grain Quality Economics (Asia), IDRC, Ottawa, and IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.

Van Dusen, E., 2000, In situ conservation of crop genetic resources in the Mexican Milpa System, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis, California.

vom Brocke, K., 2001, Effects of farmers' seed management on performance, adaptation, and genetic diversity of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum [L.] R.Br.) populations in Rajasthan, India, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hohenheim, Germany.

Weltzien, E., Smith, M. E., Meitzner, L. S., and Sperling, S., 2000, Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding—from the Perspective of Formal Plant Breeding: A Global Analysis of Issues, Results, and Current Experience. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation.

Westgren, R. E., 1999, Delivering food safety, food quality, and sustainable production practices: The Label Rouge poultry system in France, Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 81(5): 1107-1111.

Witcombe, J. R., and Joshi, A., 1995, The impact of farmer participatory research on the biodiversity of crops, in: Using Diversity: Enhancing and: Maintaining Genetic Resources On-Farm, L. Sperling and M. Loevinsohn, eds., Workshop Proceedings, International Development Research Center, New Delhi, India (June 19-21), pp. 87-101.

Witcombe, J. R., Joshi, K. D., and Sthapit, B. R., 1996, Farmer participatory cultivar improvement. I: Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity, Exp. Agric. 32:445-460. Zimmerer, K. S., 1996, Changing Fortunes: Biodiversity and Peasant Livelihood in the Peruvian Andes, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London.

IN SITU CONSERVATION: METHODS AND COSTS

Detlef Virchow

InWEnt, Capacity Building International, Wielinger Str. 52, D-82340 Feldafing, Germany

Abstract: Conservation policies will be pursued with quite different sets of instruments and conservation methods depending on the objectives and the costs implied. In this chapter, the objectives of genetic resources conservation are discussed and in situ conservation methods are described, and the costs related to these conservation methods are analyzed. This chapter demonstrates that despite the intensive multilateral discussions regarding the potential and the political will of various countries to foster in situ conservation activities, the direct costs have not yet been assessed, much less the related indirect costs which will be even more difficult to assess. It is discussed that agrobiodiversity is largely produced by farmers as a positive externality without any conservation program costs. In the future, assuming a risk of an unplanned loss of traditional varieties, the question will be with what economic instruments and incentives can agrobiodiversity be kept at the social optimum, securing nonmarketable genetic resources? It is argued that efficient interventions as well as flexible and self-targeting incentive mechanisms are needed to enable the farmers to benefit from the product agrobiodiversity and at the same time to decrease the social opportunity costs of in situ conservation without losing varieties.

Key words: conservation costs; conservation methods; conservation policies; incentive mechanism; in situ conservation; plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment