Info

where Eq denotes the expectation operator over all the stochastic or inherently unknown variables in the model and AW in Eq. (4) is replaced with E0{AW }. If these covariance terms are positive, then the change in net welfare is higher with the stochastic model (4") than the deterministic model in (4').

The economically efficient allocation of conservation funds among regions would be the one in which the marginal value of conservation investments is equated across regions. Given Eq. (3), at the optimum, resources should be allocated between in situ conservation areas such that

Eqs. (4) through (4") demonstrate that the marginal value of an additional dollar of conservation investment is not only a direct function of the marginal change in welfare due to a change in accessions, but it is also a function of the marginal change in cultivars conserved per additional dollar of investment. The latter is certainly higher in areas of high diversity than in areas of low diversity, ceteris paribus. Hence, the analytical analysis can be seen as making a case for concentrating limited conservation resources in areas of high diversity, especially when little is known about the quality of the diversity with regards to agricultural uses. However, if dAjtl dljt can also vary by conservation region according to differences in the farmers' opportunity cost of adoption of modern varieties (i.e., the argument in Chapter 5), generalizations become more difficult to make. Note that it is likely easier in principle to generate data on the marginal change in the number of cultivars conserved per additional dollar of investment than on the marginal change in welfare due to the change in the number of these accessions.

d NW

0 0

Post a comment