Advertisement

The Sharing of Benefits from the Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

  • Joseph C. Cooper
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 27)

Abstract

A major issue in international multilateral negotiations is the creation of a fund for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFAs). This chapter provides a conceptual understanding of the economic value of PGRFAs, identifies proxies for this value that can be used to determine the relative contribution of each country to the benefit-sharing fund, and evaluates the suitability of each proxy to this task.

Key words

agriculture benefit-sharing biodiversity Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture conservation developing countries economic value environmental indicators International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture plant genetic resources 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K., and Fisher, A., 1974, Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility, Quarterly J. of Econ. 88:312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASSINSEL (International Association of Plant Breeders), 1998, ASSINSEL: Position on Access to Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Use, Position Statement, ASSINSEL, Nyon, Switzerland (June 5, 1998).Google Scholar
  3. Association of University Technology Managers, Inc. (AUTM), 1993, AUTM Licensing Survey: Fiscal Years 1991–1993.Google Scholar
  4. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), undated, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Official text), Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Rome, Italy; ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/it/ITPGRe.pdf and www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm.Google Scholar
  5. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), 2000, Item 2 of the Draft Provisional Agenda: Third Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Contact Group, CGRFA/CG-3/00/2, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome (April, 2000).Google Scholar
  6. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), 1999, Report of the Eight Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, CGRFA-8/99/4, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome (April 19–23, 1999).Google Scholar
  7. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 1998, Report of the Fifth Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, CGRFA-Ex5/98/Report, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome (June 8–12, 1998).Google Scholar
  8. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Biodiversity, 1997, Report of the Third Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Buenos Aires, Argentina, November 1996, UNEP/CBD/COP/3/38 (February, 1997).Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, J. C., 1998, The economics of public investment in agro-biodiversity conservation, in: Agricultural Values of Genetic Resources, R. Evenson, D. Gollin, and V. Santaniello, eds., CABI International, Wallingford, U. K.Google Scholar
  10. FAO, 1996, State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, background documentation prepared for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, Leipzig, Germany, FAO, Rome (June 17–23, 1996).Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, A., and Hanemann, M., 1986, Option value and the extinction of species, Advances in Applied Micro-Economics 4:169–190.Google Scholar
  12. Gollin, D., and Evenson, R., 1998, Breeding values of rice genetic resources, in: Agricultural Values of Genetic Resources, R. Evenson, D. Gollin, and V. Santaniello, eds., CABI International, Wallingford,UK.Google Scholar
  13. Henry, C, 1974, Investment decisions under uncertainty: The irreversibility effect, American Economic Review 64:1006–1012.Google Scholar
  14. International Seed Federation, undated, Seed statistics, http://www.worldseed. org/~assinsel/stat.htm.Google Scholar
  15. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2001, Key Environmental Indicators, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  16. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2000, Background Information on Future OECD Work on Agri-Environmental Indicators, COM/AGR/CA/ENV/RD(2000)131, OECD, Paris (March 27, 2000).Google Scholar
  17. Reid, W., McNeely, J., Tunstall, D., Bryant, D., and Winograd, M., 1993, Biodiversity Indicators for Policy-makers, World Resources Institute, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  18. Simpson, R., Sedjo, R., and Reid, J., 1996, Valuing biodiversity for use in pharmaceutical research, J. Polit. Econ. 104(February):163–185.Google Scholar
  19. UPOV, 1995, Plant Variety Protection Statistics for the Period 1990–1994, document number C/27/7, UPOV, Geneva (October 1995).Google Scholar
  20. Wright, B., 1998, Intellectual property and farmers’ rights, in: Agricultural Values of Genetic Resources, R. Evenson, D. Gollin, and V. Santaniello, eds., CABI International, Wallingford, U. K.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph C. Cooper
    • 1
  1. 1.Deputy Director, Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service (United States Department of Agriculture)Washington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations