This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
Reversing in situ crop genetic diversity loss through incentive-based conservation
Downloads
Authors
Abstract
Crop genetic diversity underpins the adaptive capacity of food systems but is declining. Maintaining diversity is challenging because most crop varieties underperform the best-suited ones under current conditions, therefore the private value of currently low-yielding varieties to farmers is limited. However they may carry traits that become critical as conditions change, so their public value as a genetic resource is large and long-term. Payments for Agrobiodiversity Conservation Services (PACS) – adapted from Payments for Ecosystem Services – aims to address this disparity by compensating farmers’ opportunity cost of conserving declining landraces. Here we provide the first counterfactual evaluation of a PACS scheme, using competitive bidding to allocate community conservation contracts among 461 farmers. We focus on enset (Ensete ventricosum), a staple food for over 20 million Ethiopians, which is almost entirely absent from ex situ collections. Of 141 enset landraces, 70% were threatened and 26% locally extinct. Using two complementary difference-in-differences designs we show that, relative to controls, PACS increased richness by 4.9 landraces per household, doubling typical farm diversity, and increased the number of households cultivating contracted landraces tenfold. Rather than crowding out non-contracted landraces, PACS improved their conservation status, with larger gains in communities with a greater share of contracted landraces. This indicates motivational crowding in, with PACS delivering conservation gains beyond those paid for. Scaling average compensation (US$8.46 per household) suggests that securing threatened enset diversity nationally would require US$141,000-640,000, <0.1% of Ethiopia’s agriculture and food security budget. PACS offers a cost-effective, scalable strategy for in situ agrobiodiversity conservation.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.32942/X2N10V
Subjects
Agricultural and Resource Economics, Agricultural Science, Agriculture, Agronomy and Crop Sciences Life Sciences, Environmental Studies, Food Science, Other Economics
Keywords
Agrobiodiversity, Payments for Ecosystem Services, Incentive mechanisms, Causal inference
Dates
Published: 2026-10-16 13:46
Last Updated: 2026-10-16 13:46
License
CC BY Attribution 4.0 International
Additional Metadata
Data and Code Availability Statement:
Anonymised survey, tender and plant measurement and use data, together with all R code used for the analyses and figures have been deposited in https://github.com/SCJago/PACS/. Anonymised interview data are provided in the supplementary information. Some study data could identify people so are not made public, but do not prevent replication of the analysis. Landrace names with associated uses are the traditional knowledge of the communities that named and maintain them, so in line with the Nagoya Protocol and Ethiopia’s Access to Genetic Resources and Community Knowledge, and Community Rights Proclamation (No. 482/2006), they have been replaced with unique identifiers. Community names and household geographic coordinates have also been removed to protect participant confidentiality. The control household data used for bootstrapping are provided in processed form without identifying information, so all reported analyses can be reproduced; only the supplementary map (Supplementary Figure S1) requires withheld coordinates. Requests for restricted data should be directed towards the corresponding author and will be considered subject to the consent of participating communities, collaborating institutions and the relevant Ethiopian Authorities.
Language:
English
Metrics
Views: 45
Downloads: 5
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.