Official documents in the field of crop diversity all have a familiar ring to them. Take a look at the Global Plan of Action adopted by 150 countries in 1996, or the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources adopted in 2001. Or even the legal documents associated with the creation of the Global Crop Diversity Trust. All refer to the need to develop a rational, effective, efficient and sustainable global system for conserving crop diversity and making it available. Yes. Of course. Sure. Why not add goal-oriented, participatory, gender sensitive, regionally balanced, and scientifically-based too?

One could be forgiven for tuning out in the middle of the litany. Some descriptors have become so automatic as to numb the senses. The words are used frequently but contemplated rarely.

Biological Inflation

Let's look at a couple of the words, starting with "efficient" and "effective".

Forty years ago the leading scientists in the field, still revered today, concluded that a small number of facilities would be required to handle the long-term storage of plant genetic resources. Six or seven perhaps. At the time, several hundred thousand samples had been collected.

Today, the FAO list of genebanks runs to 1400. These facilities are holding more than 6 million samples, two-thirds acquired since the mid-1980s when collecting from fields and farms began to decline before finally drying up completely in the 1990s. Where did the samples come from? Not from collecting obviously, but from the few genebanks that continued to honour requests.

Recently this conclusion was underscored when a genebank director showed me photos of his new facility, remarking proudly that they had collected many thousands of samples in the past year that were now safely conserved. I was impressed. Astonished, actually. "Did you collect all of those samples in your country?" "Oh no", he replied, "we collected most of them from the CGIAR", referring to a group of ten international genebanks. Instead of a collecting expedition, there was an email. Today, another genebank is being built in that particular country. And, it seems they would like financial support for it.

Of the more than 6 million samples in genebanks, perhaps 1.5 million are "unique", the majority of the remaining being duplicates "collected" when collecting started to be done by postcard and email.

Someone is paying to store literally millions of excess duplicate samples. Calls for the development of an "effective" system imply that the existing system is flawed. It is difficult to discern a "benefit" in this "every-man-for-himself" approach, especially as the International Treaty provides facilitated access to genetic resources and alternative uses for the funds (for plant breeding for instance) are so compelling.

Today, it's 1400 collections. 6 million samples. 1.5 million unique. Tomorrow, we could easily have 2000 institutions storing 10 million copies of the same 1.5 million samples. We're on track towards that dubious destination. But, can we afford the fare? Where does it all end? One is reminded of the old adage that tells us to be careful – if you don't know where you are going, you might just end up getting there.

$13,000,000,000

Using the per sample conservation costs of the CGIAR , we estimate that $49 million would be needed annually to maintain all samples currently held by developing countries and the CGIAR . To generate such income annually the Global Crop Diversity Trust would need to have a non-depleting fund of $1.22 billion, making a 4% return. But, this figure might actually be too conservative! Why? Because these samples are spread amongst 711 facilities, each needing its own set of equipment, a good roof and a staff regardless of the number of samples held. If recent CGIAR genebank upgrading costs are any indication, it could easily require more than $1 billion to bring the 711 facilities up to standard. Maintaining that standard – calculating this time on the basis of per institution rather than per sample costs – could require a trust fund of $13 billion!

Contrast these "options" - $1.22 billion or $13 billion (plus a billion dollars of upgrading) – with the original estimate the Trust made, namely that a non-depleting fund of $260 million would accomplish the job, forever.

We have choices to make. And the choices have consequences. We can store more samples than needed in more facilities than necessary. Or, we can cooperate by devising – and here comes one of those words – a "rational" system based on a division of labour that makes sense scientifically, administratively and financially.

Theoretically the conservation job can be done for any of these prices:

$260,000,000

$1,300,000,000

$13,000,000,000

What won't work, what won't be effective, is the $13 billion dollar approach (finance every collection and facility regardless of redundancy or scientific need) with the $260 million dollar fund. That's a strategy where everyone gets a little money, but not enough to do the job individually or collectively. Success requires that we adopt a strategy in line with our resources, bearing in mind that the goal is not to conserve all genebanks but to conserve all diversity.

If we are to design an "effective" system, we would be wise to focus on developing a truly "efficient" system. An inefficient system might still function and even make a number of people happy. But it will cost much more. More than we are ever likely to have.

So we return to words. Rational. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. Global. They really do mean something.

Fowler, C. and T. Hodgkin, "Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Assessing Global Availability". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol. 29. 16 July 2004 .

"The Role of the Global Crop Diversity Trust in Helping Ensure the Long-Term Conservation and Availability of PGRFA" http://www.croptrust.org/main/role.php

The Trust has announced a $1.5 million competitive grants scheme for enhancing the value of crop diversity. This program will support evaluation of collections with priority given to screening for traits of utility to the poor and for adaptation to climate change.

The Rockefeller Foundation, Stanford University and the Trust recently convened a small 3-day workshop on crop diversity and climate change. The meeting brought together some of the world's leading climate scientists, plant breeders and genebank managers to discuss how we can ensure that agriculture, with the help of our genebank collections, really will be able to adapt to a climate changed world. More news coming to our website soon.

Finally, we welcome new staff members: Layla Daoud, Suzy Gemma, Hang Nguyen, Kerri Wright Platais, Anna Stolyarskaya, Kem Turner and Kijo Waruhiu. You can find biographical sketches and photos of all the staff at: http://www.croptrust.org/main/staff.php