Institutional capacity and implementation issues in farmers' rights

Armed with the ‘equity’ and ‘conservation’ arguments that have a deep resonance with farming communities, developing countries are crafting a range of measures designed to protect farmers’ access to innovations, reward their contributions to the conservation and enhancement of plant genetic resources and provide incentives for sustained on-farm conservation. These measures range from the commericialization of farmers’ varieties to the conferment of a set of legally enforceable rights on farming communities – the exercise of which is expected to provide economic rewards to those responsible for on-farm conservation and innovation. The rights-based approach has been the cornerstone of legislative provision for implementing farmers’ rights in most developing countries. In drawing up these measures, developing countries do not appear to have systematically examined or provided for the substantial institutional capacity required for the effective implementation of farmers’ rights provisions. The lack of institutional capacity threatens to undermine any prospect of serious implementation of these provisions. More importantly, the expectation that significant incentives for on-farm conservation and innovation will flow from these ‘rights’ may be based on a flawed understanding of the economics of intellectual property rights. While farmers’ rights may provide only limited rewards for conservation, they may still have the effect of diluting the incentives for innovative institutional breeding programs – with the private sector increasingly relying on non-IPR instruments to profit from innovation. The focus on a rights-based approach may also draw attention away from alternative stewardship-based approaches to the realization of farmers’ rights objectives.

The relationship between multi-species catch and effort: among fishery comparisons

The control of fishing mortality via fishing effort remains fundamental to most fisheries management strategies even at the local community or co-management level. Decisions to support such strategies require knowledge of the underlying response of the catch to changes in effort. Even under adaptive management strategies, imprecise knowledge of the response is likely to help accelerate the adaptive learning process. Data and institutional capacity requirements to employ multi-species biomass dynamics and age-structured models invariably render their use impractical particularly in less developed regions of the world. Surplus production models fitted to catch and effort data aggregated across all species offer viable alternatives. The current paper seeks models of this type that best describe the multi-species catch–effort responses in floodplain-rivers, lakes and reservoirs and reef-based fisheries based upon among fishery comparisons, building on earlier work. Three alternative surplus production models were fitted to estimates of catch per unit area (CPUA) and fisher density for 258 fisheries in Africa, Asia and South America. In all cases examined, the best or equal best fitting model was the Fox type, explaining up to 90% of the variation in CPUA. For lake and reservoir fisheries in Africa and Asia, the Schaefer and an asymptotic model fitted equally well. The Fox model estimates of fisher density (fishers km−2) at maximum yield (iMY) for floodplain-rivers, African lakes and reservoirs and reef-based fisheries are 13.7 (95% CI [11.8, 16.4]); 27.8 (95% CI [17.5, 66.7]) and 643 (95% CI [459,1075]), respectively and compare well with earlier estimates. Corresponding estimates of maximum yield are also given. The significantly higher value of iMY for reef-based fisheries compared to estimates for rivers and lakes reflects the use of a different measure of fisher density based upon human population size estimates. The models predict that maximum yield is achieved at a higher fishing intensity in Asian lakes compared to those in Africa. This may reflect the common practice in Asia of stocking lakes to augment natural recruitment. Because of the equilibrium assumptions underlying the models, all the estimates of maximum yield and corresponding levels of effort should be treated with caution.