GRSV Blog No. 3,
Released on 16/04/2019,
Even as I think about it, the dilemma about valuation of biodiversity (including that of plant genetic resources) is continuing. This dilemma has been referred to as Utilitarian Dilemma (Bartkowski 2017). This dilemma seems to arise with our preoccupation to put value on each and everything that we come across. When someone says he/she got something, immediate question would be how much it cost? This human preoccupation with use and value is relevant to day today living as well as long-term progress. Nevertheless, putting an economic value (disregarding existence value; one of the non-use values, the others being bequest value and altruistic value.) can be quite counterproductive to many human endeavours.
Usually, researchers who are in the business of placing value on biodiversity seek to understand what constitutes biodiversity, which is basic to any valuation process. Biodiversity is, as implied is diversity of lifeforms on earth. For ease of understanding we can say diversity of lifeforms can be perceived as the number of varities in an ecosystem (including agroecosystem in the case of PGR) – as reflected as richness, balance (distribution of elements across the system) – evenness and and disparity (degree of difference between lifeforms i.e. less similar, the higher diversity). These may be easier to understand and value. However, it is the interactions among these and among other elements of an ecosystem (see GRSV TB Ecosystem Functions and Biodiversity) that create complications making estimation of value in economic terms a great deal tougher and in most cases impossible.
Thus, I think that the economic valuation biodiversity including agricultural biodiversity, remains problematic as these not only have direct value in terms of food and nutrition to humans and other beings, but also have indirect uses which include adaptation to low input conditions, co-adaptive complexes, yield stability (reduction of risk), aesthetic value and meeting religious and socio-cultural needs. And in the case of agricultural biodiversity, farmers’ (to whom it is a livelihood asset) is never considered. However, some researchers argue that the economic valuation is necessary to develop conservation strategies and raise necessary funding. Thus, valuation efforts may help the conservationists to argue for more funding for conservation, research, and use efforts. However, the question remains if such argument based on economic valuation is necessary for conserving life sustaining resource such as biodiversity (one along with soil, water and air). I believe that that is being too narrowminded and pure materialistic view.
Ramanatha Rao, V.
Former Senior Scientist, Bioversity International & Co-Founder,
Global Research for Development Support Ventures (GRSV), Bengaluru, India
Readers are requested/encouraged to provide comments and suggestions which will add value and also enable the GRSV Group to make these blogs etc. more informative and topical.