Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Front Plant Sci ; 11: 844, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32733497

ABSTRACT

The spread of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense tropical race 4 (Foc TR4), causal agent of Fusarium wilt of banana (FWB), has been projected to reach 17% of the global banana-growing area by 2040 equaling 36 million tons of production worth over US$10 billion. This potential loss has fueled (inter)national discussions about the best responses to protect production and small-scale growers' livelihoods. As part of a multi-crop ex ante assessment of returns on research investments conducted by the CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers, and Bananas (RTB) from 2012 to 2016, four FWB research options were assessed: (i) improved exclusion, surveillance, eradication, and containment (ESEC) measures to reduce Foc TR4 spread, (ii) integrated crop and disease management (ICDM) to facilitate production of partially FWB resistant cultivars on Foc-infested soils, (iii) conventional breeding of FWB-resistant cultivars (CBRC), and (iv) genetically modified (GM) FWB-resistant cultivars (GMRC). Building on a risk index (Foc scale) predicting the initial occurrence and internal spread of Foc TR4 in 29 countries, an economic surplus (ES) model, cost-benefit analysis, and poverty impact simulations were used to assess impact under two adoption scenarios. All options yield positive net present values (NPVs) and internal rates of return (IRRs) above the standard 10% rate. For the conservative scenario with 50% reduced adoption, IRRs were still 30% for ICDM, 20% for CBRC, and 28% for GMRC. ESEC has IRRs between 11 and 14%, due to higher costs of capacity strengthening, on-going surveillance, farmer awareness campaigns, and implementation of farm biosecurity practices, which could be effective for other diseases and benefit multiple crops. The research investments would reach between 2.7 million (GMRC) and 14 million (ESEC) small-scale beneficiaries across Asia/Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America/Caribbean. The options varied in their potential to reduce poverty, with the largest poverty reduction resulting from CBRC with 850,000 and ESEC with 807,000 persons lifted out of poverty (higher adoption scenario). In the discussion, we address the data needs for more fine-grained calculations to better guide research investment decisions. Our results show the potential of public investments in concerted research addressing the spread of Foc TR4 to yield high returns and substantially slow down disease spread.

2.
J Environ Manage ; 92(8): 1938-49, 2011 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21531068

ABSTRACT

Co-management is now established as a mainstream approach to small-scale fisheries management across the developing world. A comprehensive review of 204 potential cases reveals a lack of impact assessments of fisheries co-management. This study reports on a meta-analysis of the impact of fisheries co-management in developing countries in 90 sites across 29 case-studies. The top five most frequently measured process indicators are participation, influence, rule compliance, control over resources, and conflict. The top five most frequently measured outcome indicators are access to resources, resource well-being, fishery yield, household well-being, and household income. To deal with the diversity of the 52 indicators measured and the different ways these data are collected and analysed, we apply a coding system to capture change over time. The results of the meta-analysis suggest that, overall fisheries co-management delivers benefits to end-users through improvements in key process and outcome indicators. However, the dataset as a whole is constituted primarily of data from the Philippines. When we exclude this body of work, few generalisations can be made about the impact of fisheries co-management. The lack of comparative data suitable for impact assessment and the difficulties in comparing data and generalising across countries and regions reiterates calls in other fields for more systematic approaches to understanding and evaluating governance frameworks.


Subject(s)
Conservation of Natural Resources/methods , Developing Countries/economics , Ecosystem , Fisheries/methods , Organizational Case Studies , Socioeconomic Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...