PROPOSALS FOR A GLOBAL PROGRAMME FOR IMPROVED USE OF FOREST GENETIC RESOURCES (continued)

IV. A GLOBAL PROGRAMME FOR FOREST GENETIC RESOURCES (continued)

IV B. PROPOSED PROGRAMME 1975–79 (continued)

Table 2 - EXPLORATION AND COLLECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATION

+ Note: Based on priorities given in Table 6.

		Number of species⁺ Priority			Estimated cost (thousand dollars)
Country/Region		1	2	Proposed sources of funds	1975	1976	Total 1977–79	Total 1975–79	Operational responsibility
1.	Canada/USA	8	9	FAO *	3	3	14	20	IUFRO, individual countries/UNDP
				Developed countries *	25	29	116	170
				Developing countries/UNDP	-	-	40	40
				Total requirement	28	32	170	230
2.	Mexico	2	8	FAO *	5	6	24	35	INIF Mexico, bilateral aid or UNDP
				Mexico (INIF) *	8	9	37	54
				Bilateral aid or UNDP	-	5	16	21
				Total requirement	13	20	77	110
3.	Central America	1	11	FAO *	-	6	24	30	CFI, Oxford
				UK *	20	23	92	135
				Total requirement	20	29	116	165
4.	South America	1	6	CGIAR	5	6	24	35	Countries/UNDP
				Developing countries/UNDP *	8	9	38	55
				Total requirement	13	15	62	90
5.	Northern and Central Europe	1	-	Developed countries *	20	23	92	135	IUFRO, developed countries
				Total requirement	20	23	92	135	IUFRO, developed countries
6.	Mediterranean	5	5	FAO *	3	3	14	20	Committee on the Coordination of Mediterranean Forestry Research
				Developed countries *	5	6	23	34
				Developing countries*/UNDP	5	6	25	36
				Total requiremenat	13	15	62	90
7.	Africa	13	5	CGIAR	6	7	28	41	FDFR Nigeria, CTFT France
				East Africa*	4	5	17	26
				France (CTFT)*	5	6	23	34
				Nigeria (FDFR)*	5	6	23	34
				Total requirement	20	24	91	135
8.	North and Central Asia	7	12	CGIAR	4	5	18	27	Countries/UNDP
				Developed countries	12	15	54	81
				Developing countries/UNDP	4	5	18	27
				Total requirement	20	25	90	135
9.	South and S.E. Asia	7	3	FAO *	5	6	24	35	Danish/FAO Seed Centre, FRI Canberra, CTFT France, FRI Dehra Dun, Countries/UNDP
				Denmark*	20	23	92	135
				Australia*	15	17	69	101
				France*	10	-	-	10
				India*	10	12	48	70
				Developing countries/UNDP	5	6	25	36
				Total requirement	65	64	258	387
10.	Australia	34	51	FAO *	5	6	24	35	FRI Canberra
				Australia *	24	28	110	162
				Total requirement	29	34	134	197
11.	Global totals by proposed sources of funds			FAO *	21	30	124	175
				CGIAR	15	18	70	103
				Australia*	39	45	179	263
				Denmark*	20	23	92	135
				East Africa*	4	5	17	26
				France	15	6	23	44
				India*	10	12	48	70
				Mexico*	8	9	37	54
				Nigeria*	5	6	23	34
				U.K. *	20	23	92	135
				Other bilateral aid	-	5	16	21
				Developed countries (self-financed)	62	73	285	420
				Other Developing countries (with/without UNDP assistance)	22	26	146	194
GRAND TOTAL					241	281	1152	1674

Table 3 - COLLECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSERVATION/SELECTION EX SITU

+ Note: Based on priorities given in Table 6.

		Number of species⁺ Priority			Estimated cost (thousand dollars)
Country/Region		1	2	Proposed sources of funds	1975	1976	Total 1977–79	Total 1975–79	Operational responsibility
1.	Canada/USA	1	-	Developed countries	?				Developed countries. In a number of cases conservation in situ may be more appropriate
2.	Mexico	11	10	UNEP	-	2	18	20	INIF, Mexico, bilateral aid
				Mexico (INIF)	-	3	27	30
				? Bilateral aid or UNDP?	-	2	13	15
				Total requirement	-	7	58	65
3.	Central America	7	3	UNEP	-	4	14	18	CFI Oxford
				U.K. *	15	17	70	102
				Total requirement	15	21	84	120
4.	South America	1	3	UNEP	-	2	18	20	Countries/UNDP
				Developing countries/UNDP	-	3	27	30
				Total requirement	-	5	45	50
5.	North and Central Europe	-	-	Developed countries	?				Developed countries. In a number of cases conservation in situ may be more appropriate
6.	Mediterranean	6	-	UNEP	1	2	12	15	Committee on the Coordination of Mediterranean Forestry Research
				Developed countries	1	3	21	25
				Developing countries/UNDP	1	3	21	25
				Total requirement	3	8	54	65
7.	Africa	12	3	UNEP	-	2	18	20	FDFR Nigeria, CTFT France
				East Africa *	0.5	0.5	2	3
				France (CTFT)	-	2	18	20
				Nigeria (FDFR)	-	2	18	20
				Total requirement	0.5	6.5	56	63
8.	North and Central Asia	2	-	UNEP	2	2	8	12	Countries/UNDP
				Developed countries	6	6	24	36
				Developing countries/UNDP	2	2	8	12
				Total requirement	10	10	40	60
9.	South and S.E. Asia	4	1	UNEP	3	3	14	20	Danish/FAO Seed Centre, FRI, Canberra, Countries/UNDP
				Denmark *	10	12	48	70
				Australia	3	3	14	20
				India	10	12	48	70
				Other developing countries UNDP	3	3	14	20
				Total requirement	29	33	138	200
10.	Australia	2	2	Australia	1	1	3	5	Australia. In a number of cases conservation in situ may be more appropriate
11.	Global totals by proposed sources of funds			UNEP	6	17	102	125
				Australia	4	4	17	25
				Denmark *	10	12	48	70
				East Africa *	0.5	0.5	2	3
				France	-	2	18	20
				India	10	12	48	70
				Mexico	-	3	27	30
				Nigeria	-	2	18	20
				U.K. *	15	17	70	102
				Other bilateral aid	-	2	13	15
				Developed countries self financing	(7)	(9)	(45)	(61)
				Other Developing countries with/without UNDP assistance	6	11	70	78
GRAND TOTAL					(58.5)	(91.5)	(478)	(628)

Table 4 - ESTABLISHMENT OF PROVENANCE CONSERVATION/SELECTION STANDS EX SITU

+ Additional finance needed in 1980 to cover 5 year establishment period
o Additional finance needed in 1980 and 1981 to cover 5 year establishment period

Species and area etc.	Proposed “Host” Countries	Proposed sources of funds	Estimated cost (thousand dollars)				Operational responsibility	Remarks
Species and area etc.	Proposed “Host” Countries	Proposed sources of funds	1975	1976	Total 1977–79	Total 1975–79	Operational responsibility	Remarks
1. Eucalyptus camaldulensis	1. Nigeria	CGIAR (direct costs)	5	5	6	16		Prototype Stands for refining techniques and costings
1. Eucalyptus camaldulensis		Nigeria (supervision)	1	1	2	4
2 sites per country	2. India	CGIAR (direct costs)	5	5	6	16	Introducing
2 provenances per site		India (supervision)	1	1	2	4
10 ha per provenance plot	3. Ivory Coast	CGIAR (direct costs)	5	5	6	16	Countries
10 ha per provenance plot		Ivory Coast (supervision)	1	1	2	4
	4. Sudan	CGIAR (direct costs)	-	5	10	15⁺
		Sudan (supervision)	-	1	2	3⁺
	Total - Euc. camaldulensis		18	24	36	78
2. Eucalyptus tereticornis	1. Nigeria	UNEP (direct costs)	-	-	13	13^o
2. Eucalyptus tereticornis		Nigeria (supervision)	-	-	3	3^o
2 sites per country	2. India	UNEP (direct costs)	-	5	10	15⁺	Introducing
2 provenances per site		India (supervision)	-	1	2	3⁺
10 ha per provenance plot	3. Congo	UNEP (direct costs)	-	-	13	13^o	Countries
10 ha per provenance plot		Congo (supervision)	-	-	3	3^o
	4. Sudan	UNEP (direct costs)	-	5	10	15⁺
		Sudan (supervision)	-	1	2	3⁺
	Total - Euc. tereticornis		-	12	56	68
3. Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis	1. Nigeria	UNEP (direct costs)	-	8	14	22⁺
3. Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis		Nigeria (supervision)	-	2	3	5⁺
	2. East Africa	East Africa	1	1	3	5
		Bilateral assistance	1	1	3	5
2 sites per country	3. Fiji	UNEP (direct costs)	8	7	9	24
3 provenances per site		Fiji (supervision)	2	1	3	6	Introducing
10 ha per provenance plot	4. Thailand	UNEP (direct costs)	-	8	14	22⁺
10 ha per provenance plot		Thailand (supervision)	-	2	3	5⁺
	5. India	UNEP (direct costs)	8	7	9	24	Countries
		India (supervision)	2	1	3	6
	6. Venezuela	UNEP (direct costs)	-	8	14	22⁺
		Venezuela (supervision)	-	2	3	5⁺
	7. Congo	UNEP (direct costs)	8	7	9	24
		Congo (supervision)	2	1	3	6
	Total - Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis		32	56	93	181
4. Pinus oocarpa	1. Nigeria	UNEP (direct costs)	8	7	9	24
		Nigeria (supervision)	2	1	3	6
	2. East Africa	East Africa	-	1	3	4⁺
		Bilateral assistance	-	1	3	4⁺
2 sites per country	3. Zambia	UNEP (direct costs)	8	7	9	24
3 provenances per site		Zambia (supervision)	2	1	3	6	Introducing
10 ha per provenance plot	4. Congo	UNEP (direct costs)	-	8	14	22⁺
10 ha per provenance plot		Congo (supervision)	-	2	3	5⁺
	5. India	UNEP (direct costs)	8	7	9	24	Countries
		India (supervision)	2	1	3	6
	6. Thailand	UNEP (direct costs)	-	8	14	22⁺
		Thailand (supervision)	-	2	3	5⁺
	7. Mexico	UNEP (direct costs)	-	8	14	22⁺
		Mexico (supervision)	-	2	3	5⁺
	8. Brazil	UNEP (direct costs	8	7	9	24
		Brazil (supervision)	2	1	3	6
	Total - Pinus oocarpa		40	64	105	209
5. Totals by proposed sources of funds		UNEP	56	107	193	356
		CGIAR	15	20	28	63
		Brazil	2	1	3	6
		Congo	2	3	9	14
		East Africa	1	2	6	9
		Fiji	2	1	3	6
		India	5	4	10	19
		Ivory Coast	1	1	2	4
		Mexico	-	2	3	5
		Nigeria	3	4	11	18
		Sudan	-	2	4	6
		Thailand	-	4	6	10
		Venezuela	-	2	3	5
		Zambia	2	1	3	6
		Bilateral assistance	1	2	6	9
Grand Total			90	156	290	536

Table 5 - ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF STRICT NATURAL RESERVES FOR CONSERVATION IN SITU

		Estimated cost (thousand dollars)
Country/Region	Proposed sources of funds	1975	1976	Total 1977–79	Total 1975–79	Remarks
1. Brazil	UNEP (other costs)	-	12	46	58	Operation responsibility of countries concerned, with assistance from FAO, IUCN, UNESCO. Salary of specialist forest gene resources conservation officers to be paid by countries concerned. Field costs, travel training and fellowships to be paid by UNEP.
1. Brazil	Brazil (salary)	-	12	46	58
2. Central America	UNEP (other costs)	-	12	46	58
2. Central America	C. American countries (salary)	-	12	46	58
3. India	UNEP (other costs)	10	12	46	68
3. India	India	10	12	46	68
4. West Africa	UNEP (other costs)	-	12	46	58
4. West Africa	W. African countries (salary)	-	12	46	58
5. East Africa	UNEP (other costs)	10	12	46	68
5. East Africa	E. African countries (salary)	10	12	46	68
6. Totals by proposed sources of funds	UNEP	20	60	230	310
	Brazil	-	12	46	58
	C. American countries	-	12	46	58
	India	10	12	46	68
	W. African countries	-	12	46	58
	E. African countries	10	12	46	68
Grand Total		40	120	460	620