combined summaries: technologies to sustain tropical ... · ment technologies to sustain tropical...

Combined Summaries: Technologies ToSustain Tropical Forest Resources and

Biological Diversity

May 1992

OTA-F-515NTIS order #PB92-182104

Recommended Citation:

US. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Combined Summaries: Technologies toSustain Tropical Forest Resources and Biological Diversity, OTA-F-515 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1992).

Foreword

Loss of tropical forests and reduction in the Earth’s biological diversity have grown fromdevelopment assistance concerns to themes of global debate during the last decade. At thesame time that the value of biological resources to local communities and individual nationshas become more fully appreciated, the connections between these resources and globalenvironmental stability and economic development potential have been uncovered.

Loss of tropical forests still is associated with poverty in tropical developing nations, butit now is juxtaposed with potential disruption of global weather patterns. Reduction inbiological diversity still impedes communities from diversifying their development options,but it also may preclude development of some new products and processes that could supportglobal advances in agriculture, medicine, and industry. And, because of the biological richnessof tropical forests and our incomplete knowledge of their resources, tropical forestconservation and protection of biological diversity have become inextricably linked.

In the years since the Office of Technology Assessment published Technologies toSustain Tropical Forest Resources (1984) and Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity(1987), new issues have arisen, new approaches have been devised, and new policies havebeen adopted. Yet the technologies underlying efforts to manage the resources sustainablyhave changed little. Thus, in continuing service to Congress, OTA is reprinting the summariesof the two earlier assessments and is providing an introduction to the changes that haveoccurred since their publication.

u JOHN H, GIBBONSDirector

,,.Ill

OTA Project Staff-Combined Summaries: Technologies toSustain Tropical Forest Resources and Biological Diversity

Roger C. Herdrnan, Assistant Director, OTAHealth and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Program ManagerFood and Renewable Resources

Alison L. Hess, Project Director

Bruce Ross, Contractor

Administrative and Support Staff

N. Ellis Lewis, Office Administrator

Nellie Hammond, Administrative Secretary

Carolyn Swarm, PC Specialist

iv

Introduction toCombined Summaries

Contents

NEW PUBLIC AND CONGRESSIONAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Global Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Land-Based Sources of Coastal Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Human Contact With New Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Multiplied and Magnified Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rights of Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tropical Countries’ Mounting Debt Burdens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Trade and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Threats of War and Ecoterrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Unintended Impacts of Forest Protection Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NEW CONSERVATION APPROACHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Development Assistance Focus on Improving Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tropical Forestry Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planning and Coordinating Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Debt-for-Nature Swaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Extractive Reserves and Buffer-Zone Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Research Reserves and Gene Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Development of New Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Consumer Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NEW POLICIES AND PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Endangered Species and Endangered Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Forestry Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Multilateral Development Bank Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Tropical Timber Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Environmental Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Expanding International Environmental Accord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

445566677788899

1011111213141414151617181921

BoxesBox Page

A. Amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act Concerning Tropical Forests andBiological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. Excerpts From the Paris Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

TableTable Page

1. Number of Forestry Projects Financed (Initiated) by the World Bank byTime Period and Type of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Introduction to Combined Summaries

Policy makers have become increasingly con-cerned with conservation of natural resources overthe past decade. When OTA published its assess-ment Technologies To Sustain Tropical ForestResources [58] for the U.S. Congress, policymakersin America and abroad were just beginning toappreciate the implications of rapid destruction ofthe tropical forest biome. Tropical forests provideenvironmental services and fundamental life supportto many of the world’s people, and house anestimated two-thirds of the world’s plant and animalspecies. Subsequently, OTA published Technolo-gies To Maintain Biological Diversity [57] for theU.S. Congress, addressing specific means to protectgenetic, species, and ecosystem diversity. Becauseof the biological richness of tropical forests, theissues of tropical forest loss and species loss areinseparable.

Since the early 1980s, new estimates of the loss oftropical forests and of biological diversity-bio-diversity-have generated increasing alarm. Data ontropical deforestation remain imprecise, but the mostrecent figures indicate the forest loss rate is at leastas high as estimated in the mid- 1980s. By one recentestimate, tropical forest now is disappearing 40percent faster than a decade ago [3 1]. Data on loss ofindividual species is yet more difficult to obtain, butpopulations and their genetic heritage certainly arelost as habitats are degraded. The loss of tropicalforests and declining biodiversity have seriousimplications for human populations. As biodiversitydeclines, the quest for new pharmaceuticals, renew-able industrial feedstocks, and other such naturalresource products, and the search for genetic materi-als to supply agricultural and medicinal biotechnol-ogy efforts are less likely to yield results. Further,the role of tropical forests in stabilizing globalclimate has become better known. For both reasons,the search for policies that will promote conserva-tion of forests and biodviersity and for technologiesto implement those policies has become moreurgent.

Congressional concern with international envi-ronmental protection has increased markedly overthe last decade; a key issue in the 1980s was how tohelp foreign assistance agencies respond to prob-lems of tropical deforestation and loss of species.

U.S. foreign assistance programs began incorporat-ing environmental concerns in the late 1970s whena series of amendments to the Foreign AssistanceAct defined the Agency for International Develop-ment’s (AID) mandate in the area of environmentand natural resource management. These amend-ments specifically emphasized promoting efforts tohalt tropical deforestation and maintain biodiversity,and led to further congressional actions in the 1980s(box A).

With congressional guidance, AID rapidly in-creased its investment in tropical forestry andinternational biodiversity programs. Policymakersfor multilateral institutions, other countries’ bilat-eral assistance agencies, some developing countrygovernments, and many nongovernmental organiza-tions (NGO) also moved in this direction. Conse-quently, international efforts to conserve forests andbiodiversity increased rapidly. Significant progresshas occurred with institutional commitments andpolicy developments; technical solutions, however,have been slow to develop.

A few apparently successful conservation effortssuggest that deforestation and biodiversity loss arenot wholly intractable problems. However, existingproblems largely result from complex institutional,political, social, and technical causes. The intern-ational assistance agencies and concerned developingcountry governments have not yet demonstratedgeneral solutions, nor have they learned how toreverse deforestation and extinction trends. Thus,continued leadership by Congress is likely to benecessary to sustain the momentum already achieved.

OTA’s tropical forest and biodiversity assess-ments indicated that policy and institutional con-straints on conservation of forests were more severethan technical constraints. Today, as organizationalstructures, policies, and funding for ecologicallysustainable development are becoming functional,the importance of technical constraints seems to beincreasing. To support the amplified congressionalinterest, and because of the close relationshipbetween maintenance of tropical forests and bio-diversity, OTA is reissuing the two assessmentsummaries in a combined form. This publicationincorporates updated information related to these

-3–

4 Combined Summaries

Box A—Amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act ConcerningTropical Forests and Biological Diversity

1977: Amended section 102 to 102 environment and natural resources to areas the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (AID) should address.

1977: Added new section 118 on ‘Environment and Natural Resources,” authorizing AID to fortify “the capacityof less developed countries to protect and manage their environment and natural reSOurces” and to “maintainand where possible restore the land,vegetation, water, wildlife, and other resources upon which depend economicgrowth and well-being, especially that of the poor.”

1978: Amended section 118 , requiring AID to carry out country studies in the developing world to identify naturalresource problems and institutional mechanisms to solve them.

1978/79: Amended section 103 to emphasize forestry assistance, acknowledging that deforestation, with itsattendant species loss, constitutes an impediment to meeting basic human needs in developing countries.

1981: Amended section 118, making AID’s environmental review regulations part of the Foreign Assistance Act,and added a subsection (d), expressing that “Congress is particularly concerned about the continuing andaccelerating alteration, destruction, and loss of tropical forests in developing countries. ” Instructs the Presidentto take these concerns into account in formulating policies and programs relating to bilateral and multilateralassistance and to private sector activities m the developing world.

1983: Added section 119, directing AID in consultation with other Federal agencies to develop a U.S. strategy onconserving biological diversity in developing countries.

1986: Redesignated section 118 as section 117, with the new section 118 addressing tropical forest issues. Amendedsection 119, which among other things earmarked money for biological diversity projects.

1988: Directed AID to monitor the economic and environmental soundness of multilateral development bankprograms and projects.

1990: Directed AID to increase the number and expertise of staff in environmental and natural resources fields, andto focus efforts on developing countries projected to produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases to theatmosphere.

SOURCE: MlqwXl from Us. ~ Office of ‘Rchno@y AsscssxxK@ T&hIW@H to Maiutain Biolo@caI Diwm@, O’IA-F-331(S@@idd VA: Nadond lkchnical Momstion Service, March 1987).

global ongoing renewable resource problems, and development assistance agencies, and nongovem-introduces new issues and approaches that have mental organizations are promoting a variety ofarisen since publication of the original OTA reports. policies to address these new issues as they grow in

prominence.

NEW PUBLIC AND Global Climate ChangeCONGRESSIONAL ISSUES Forests store a substantial part of the Earth’s

Congressional committees in the early and mid-1980s requested OTA assessments of technologiesto sustain tropical forests and biological diversitylargely for two reasons: interest in promotingsustainable economic development in tropical de-veloping countries, and concern over the loss ofproduct opportunities and species of interest to U.S.citizens. Since then, new, related public policyissues have wisen. Some of these underscore theneed to conserve forests and biodiversity, whereasothers constrain efforts to do so. Governments,

carbon. Deforestation and forest degradation world-wide, but especially in tropical regions, releasecarbon stored in the wood and forest soil as carbondioxide (C@) gas, one of the gases implicated inglobal climate change. Net tropical forest lossaccounted for about one quarter of all carbonreleased to the atmosphere over the past decade[5,56]. Halting deforestation would reduce thiscontribution to climate change and preserve animportant carbon ‘‘sink. ’ Further, tropical refores-tation and careful forest management may have

Introduction to Combined Summaries ● 5

significant potential to help remove carbon gas fromthe atmosphere. The growing season in many partsof the tropics is year-round, whereas in temperateregions the growing season is much shorter. Refor-estation, therefore, will trap C02 more quickly in thetropics than in temperate areas. Once forests reachmaturity in either region, however, their growthslows considerably and additional storage of C02

decreases, necessitating some amount of harvest andreplanting to continue carbon sequestration.

Biodiversity is greatly at risk from global warm-ing. First, natural ecosystems, for example theSerengeti Plain in East Africa and the FloridaEverglades, cannot move as climate zones shiftrapidly. Some species will not be able to adapt to thechanging characteristics of their surroundings and,thus, probably will be lost. Secondly, because ofpotential sea level changes, coastal zones andwetlands-biologically the most diverse ecosystemsnext to tropical forests-are the ecosystems most atrisk from the effects of climate change [4].

Land-Based Sources of Coastal Pollution

Coastal zones, particularly wetlands, estuaries,and coral reefs, have high biodiversity and generallyare of great economic importance. Pollution of theseecosystems from land-based sources-such as sedi-ment eroded from cut-over forests and fertilizers andsediment transported from poorly managed famlands-sharply reduces the ability of estuaries and coralreefs to support diverse marine species [9]. At BacuitBay in the Philippines, economists and natural andsocial scientists measured revenues from logging,fisheries, and tourism in an area where sedimentpollution from the logging operations had damagedthe marine environment. The analysis showed thattotal income would double if logging ceased [12].However, as is commonly the case, normal marketforces did not result in pollution control. As thetimber company did not incur the costs of lostfishery and tourism income, apolitical decision wasnecessary to stop the logging.

Natural coastal mangrove forests typically havevery high biological productivity. The high organicproduction is exploited by many fish, and certainmarine crustaceans spend part of their life cyclesinhabiting the mangrove environment. The netenergy outflow from mangrove habitats has benefi-

Photo credit: Alison L Hess, Office of Technology Assessment

Coastal mangrove forests capture sediment fromfreshwater runoff, protect inland vegetation from salt spray

and tidal surges, provide high levels of nutrients fornearshore aquatic life, and provide habitat for a diversity ofspecies. Thus, loss of these forests can compromise the

livelihoods of entire coastal communities throughdiminished agricultural and fishery productivity,

increased exposure to weather hazards, or reducedtourist income.

cial effects on marine fisheries. The livelihoods ofhundreds of thousands of people in coastal regionsare at risk because mangrove forests are beingdegraded by pollution, overcutting, and human-caused hydrological changes [21].

Human Contact With New Diseases

AIDS1, Ebola virus, and Marburg disease are afew of the highly infectious and commonly fatal‘‘emerging viruses” that have struck human com-munities in recent years. Many of these viruses arenot new, but derive from new human exposure todisease-carrying animal populations. As humansettlement extends into previously uninhabited trop-ical forests, exposure increases to new organisms,some of which may carry diseases that can spread tomore general populations [70]. For example, mon-keypox is a new human orthopoxvirus infection thatoccurs in remote villages sited in tropical rainforestsof West and Central Africa [2]. Tegumentary leishma-

1 Ac@txI immu.nodeficiemy syndrome.

297-928 0 - 92 - 2 : QL3


niasis is a human parasitic disease prevalent inColombia’s Pacific coastal forested areas, whereinsect vectors and animal reservoirs seem impervi-ous to control measures [64].

Moreover, ‘‘changes wrought by war, migration,agriculture, deforestation and population growthhave expedited the movement of viruses fromisolated animal reservoirs to the larger, humancommunity’ [29]. Rainforest clearing for agricul-ture in western Africa provided prime breedinggrounds for the malaria-carrying mosquito, whichsubsequently supplanted other species that could notadapt to the new environment. Empty coconut andcacao hulls provide breeding pools for disease-carrying mosquitoes and midges around the tropicalworld; other insect species preferentially breed inartificial containers that accompany human settle-ment. Disease-carrying rodents flourish in expand-ing grasslands and grain fields. Even the yearlyoutbreaks of common influenza are associatedstrongly with fish-waterfowl-swine aquiculture sys-tems practiced in Southeast Asia. Yet viral emer-gence is rarely if ever taken into consideration indevelopment activities. One proposal to contain thespread of infectious disease would be to establish aworldwide network of research and response centersfor international disease surveillance and healthprograms [29]. A complementary approach wouldbe to include “viral traffic planningin developmentplans” and to conduct regular “viral impact assess-ments” for development projects likely to involvechanges in land use or ecological systems [30].

Multiplied and Magnified Disasters

Rural populations continue to grow rapidly through-out the developing nations, and continue to spreadagriculture into marginally productive and physi-cally hazardous regions. The consequent damage totropical forests is most severe in infertile drywoodlands of rapidly growing countries such asKenya [24]. Even in wetter, more fertile areas,however, population growth coupled with land-extensive farming practices leads to deforestation. Inthe Philippines, for example, so many landless poorhave emigrated from the fertile lowlands that nearlyone-third of the country’s population now lives inthe once-forested upland areas. There, relativelyinfertile soils necessitate practicing shifting agricul-ture that exposes widening areas to erosion and lossof the soil’s meager fertility.

During intensive rains, landslides on denudedhillsides claim lives and property [52], and sediment-laden runoff exacerbates flooding. For example,tropical storm Thelma is reportedly responsible formore Philippine deaths, largely by landslides, thanthe eruption of Mount Pinatubo [17]. Further,removal of coastal shelterbelt forests, such asmangroves, leaves large populations vulnerable toonshore strong winds and tidal surges during tropi-cal storms. Such storms have repeatedly claimedthousands of lives in low-lying areas of Bangladesh.

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Many tropical forest areas are inhabited byindigenous peoples who practice low-impact subsis-tence methods of survival. Their numbers areincreasing in some places, such that renewability ofbiological resources is threatened. In other areas,subsistence lifestyles are being displaced by com-peting, more destructive land uses that give highershort-term returns. Politicians in countries such asthe Philippines express growing concern over indige-nous peoples’ claims to forest land tenure [26]. Inaddition, legal claims of the forest dwelling peopleare mired in highly disordered land law in manytropical countries [18].

NGOS and some scientists advocate secure forestland tenure and modified subsistence practices as thebasis for the sustainable economic development ofindigenous communities and for old-growth forestprotection [13]. In most places, however, littlescientific effort has been made to determine whetherand how tribal practices can be made more produc-tive without degrading natural resources.

Tropical Countries’ Mounting Debt Burdens

Conservation becomes increasingly difficult astropical countries’ debts increase. The need forforeign exchange to service debts and rebuildeconomies provides a strong incentive for nationaldecisionmakers to approve rapid liquidation ofexportable timber [8]. Public funds are lacking fordirect investment in forest conservation and forinvestment in job-generating development programsthat could relieve the need to convert forests tomarginal farmland. Even when low-interest loansare available from international development banks,poor countries are reluctant to add to their debt byborrowing for forest conservation and managementprojects; such investments are at risk for a longperiod before payback is realized.


International Trade and the Environment

Although international agreements exist to con-trol or prohibit trade in products from threatened orendangered species (e.g., the Convention on Interna-tional Trade in Endangered Species), the broaderrelationship between trade and environment is littleunderstood. Trade may promote competition andthus efficiency in production, thereby reducingwaste and, potentially, pollution. Further, someargue that trade sanctions can serve as a strongincentive for countries to institute biodiversity andforest protection policies. Conversely, internationaltrading patterns may increase developing countries’dependence on extraction of natural resources andintensive production of tropical cash crops, hencepromoting resource degradation.

The main organization governing internationaltrade agreements and promoting liberalized trade—the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)--has been increasingly criticized for neglect of theenvironmental consequences of trade. Several inter-national agreements dealing with global environ-mental problems, on the other hand, contain trade-related measures such as allowing discriminatorytreatment of imports that contain stratosphericozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, Some envi-ronmental protection measures may be eliminatedunder current international trade negotiations [63].In fact, a recent GATT dispute resolution panel ruledthat the United States could not restrict tuna importsfrom Mexico because of Mexico’s noncompliancewith a U.S. domestic law prohibiting tuna harvesttechnologies that kill excessive numbers of dolphins[7,55]. National and international conflicts betweenenvironmental protection efforts and trade liberali-zation efforts are likely to increase, with uncertainoutcome.

Threats of War and Ecoterrorism

Political unrest and its most extreme expression—war-is a widespread and pervasive threat to tropi-cal forests and biodiversity. Valuable tropical tim-ber, such as Myanmar’s (formerly Burma) teakforests, may be harvested at unsustainable rates tofund military actions [41], Forested areas are com-mon sites for militants to hide, and fight. In additionto deliberate efforts to devegetate such areas, asoccurred in Vietnam, subsequent actions may com-pound forest and biodiversity loss. For example,farmers may shift from areas degraded by craters,

shrapnel, and live munitions into forested areas. Duein large part to an international trade embargoimposed on Vietnam after 1975, much of its energyis supplied by firewood and charcoal, resulting infurther forest loss [28].

Biodiversity in entire ecosystems is threatened byacts of war. Examples include the deliberate oilspills and well frees that have occurred in Kuwait[37]. As biodiversity has been proclaimed an import-ant value to political constituencies in developedcountries, it has become a concern during thedestruction caused by war and a potential target forterrorist acts. In the United States, forest rangers andendangered spotted owls have become the targets of‘‘environmental terrorists’ protesting restriction oftimber harvest to protect the owl’s habitat [14], andold-growth trees have been spiked with nails, thusendangering the loggers and sawmillers. Charis-matic tropical species—such as gorillas-may besimilarly threatened by some people to gain atten-tion or to extort concessions. Conversely, efforts toeducate people about the ‘‘world heritage’ value ofmountain gorillas seems to have fostered specialefforts to protect them during recent Ugandan-Ruandan conflicts in the gorilla’s habitat [43].

Unintended Impacts of ForestProtection Policies

Because of the diversity of cultural and govern-mental systems, general policies may, in someplaces, have counterproductive results. In suchcountries as the Philippines and India, politicalmomentum is building for logging bans. At the sametime, conservation groups in Europe and NorthAmerica have discovered that forest policies ofdevelopment assistance organizations are vulnera-ble to political lobbying. As a result, the World Bankdeclared it will no longer lend for projects thatinclude cutting natural tropical forests [67]. Conse-quently, logging may be officially banned in someareas and investments to improve management ofproduction forests may be deferred in others. How-ever, illegal and unmonitored logging may continue[cf: 1], and laborers who previously supported them-selves through logging may turn to agriculture inforested areas. Where governments have made treecutting illegal (e.g., the sal forest area of Bangla-desh), forest degradation and deforestation oftencontinues and may even accelerate [68]. Gover-nment agencies may not be capable of or motivated to

8 ● Comined Summaries

Photo credit: Walter E. Parham, Office of Technology Assessment

Although harvest restrictions may be required in manycases to protect tropical forests and the environmentalservices they provide, total logging bans may lead toillegal “timber poaching” in areas where forests are

not monitored.

protect forests that have no readily apparent orimmediately accessible economic value.

NEW CONSERVATION APPROACHESSeveral new approaches to conservation of tropi-

cal forests and natural areas have been developed inrecent years. Congress has supported these signifi-cantly, but will need to monitor and evaluate them,as the efficacy of most of these approaches is not yetproven.

Development Assistance Focus onImproving Policies

The OTA assessments and similar analyses oftropical forestry and biodiversity problems con-ducted in the mid- 1980s concluded that governmentpolicies-especially land/resource use rights andeconomic policies (e.g., taxes, prices, equity, andsector development priorities)-strongly foster de-struction of forests and their genetic resources.Policy reform was recognized as a necessary condi-tion for effective conservation.

Several influential policy studies [cf:3] in the late1980s identified specific opportunities for policyreform. The United Nations, with its TropicalForestry Action Plan (TFAP) program, the multilat-eral development banks, and AID (especially the

Asia missions) all began to develop ways to usedevelopment assistance to promote policy reform.Commonly, development assistance agencies con-duct policy studies jointly with host governments,often in the context of forestry action plans, forestrymaster plans, or planning for specific forestry sectorassistance projects. Then development assistanceagencies encourage the host governments to act onrecommendations. For example, funds for develop-ment projects may not be released to the hostgovernments until key policy reforms are adoptedand implemented.

Tropical Forestry Action Plan

TFAP, initiated in 1985, was designed to helpgovernments: 1) reassess forest development priori-ties, 2) increase the amount of international invest-ment in forestry, and 3) coordinate forestry sectordevelopment assistance funding. The OTA assess-ment and other reports indicated that poor coordina-tion among donors was an important constraint onefficient use of development assistance from AIDand other assistance providers. The United Nations’Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), togetherwith World Bank, the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP), and the World ResourcesInstitute, developed TFAP to set out developmentefforts on fuelwood and agroforestry; industrialforestry; research, training, and extension institu-tions; land use on upland watersheds; and ecosystemconservation. It was estimated in 1985 that invest-ment needs for these aspects of tropical forestrywould be $5.3 billion over 5 years.

Development assistance investments havereached nearly 70 percent of the 1985 estimate ofneeds [67]. The TFAP program stimulated manypeople and organizations to discuss the causes of andpossible remedies for deforestation. About 60 coun-tries decided to prepare national forestry plans(forestry “action” plans in some and forestry“master’ plans in others). The plans are beginningto prove effective in coordinating and focusinginternational forestry assistance. For example, theForestry Master Plan in Nepal was developed withsupport from the Asian Development Bank andtechnical assistance from the Government of Fin-land. The AID mission in Nepal now is providingtechnical assistance for the plan’s implementation.

TFAP has, however, been criticized heavily.Plans are viewed as too government-oriented and too


focused on harvesting timber as opposed to reducingdeforestation. Some NGOs argue that TFAP-sponsored national plans give little consideration toneeds and priorities of people living in or near theforests. In addition, some feel the plans do notadequately address institutional weaknesses or govern-ment corruption-major causes of forest degrada-tion in some countries.

FAO has undertaken a major evaluation of TFAP[19]. Concerned multilateral and bilateral develop-ment assistance agencies are meeting with keytropical governments and NGOs to reformulate theplan’s goals, objectives, and procedures. Changesare likely to include improved integration of thenational forestry plans with other national planning,increased participation by people whose livelihoodsdepend on the forests, greater emphasis on multisec-toral actions, and increased attention to governmentpolicies that directly and indirectly affect forestsustainability [67]. An international consultativegroup on tropical forests reportedly has been pro-posed to oversee and advise TFAP and periodicallyreview its impact [19].

The U.S. Government has participated in TFAPthrough support for FAO and other multilateralsponsors, through AID participation in developmentof the national forestry action plans and masterplans, and through Forest Service and AID participa-tion in efforts to evaluate and revamp the program.The extent to which AID forestry activities areguided by TFAP and the national forestry plansvaries from country to country, depending on AIDofficers’ judgments and on the extent to which thehost governments use the plans to coordinate donors.

Planning and Coordinating Interventions

Where destruction of genetic resources is immi-nent, biologists may use structured “rapid ap-praisal’ techniques to focus research and programson threatened organisms and habitats. For example,the Rapid Assessment program sponsored by Con-servation International uses satellite imagery, aerialreconnaissance, and ‘‘quick and dirty’ field surveysto inventory species and provide preliminary identifi-cation of regions of particular biological richness[45]. The methods can lead to efforts to conservehabitats, rescue genetic resources, or at least capturesome material and information of scientiic valuebefore the resource is lost. The techniques developedfor this purpose also may help to make scientific

investigations more cost-effective on the sites thatare not threatened, hastening discoveries that dem-onstrate the economic potential of biodiversity. Thisis one of several approaches being used to setpriorities for, plan, and coordinate tropical forest andbiodiversity conservation projects.

Other approaches focus on conservation planning.The World Bank, for example, has developedbiodiversity profiles of numerous countries to assistin project planning and assessment, and is preparingregional strategies to support biodiversity conserva-tion. National Conservation Strategies developed inmany tropical countries in recent years have identi-fied policy reforms that can enhance tropical forestand biodiversity conservation.

Debt-for-Nature Swaps

An officer of the U.S. World Wildlife Federationin 1984 proposed a way to use debt reduction to fundenvironmental protection in developing countries.The mechanism, commonly referred to as “debt-for-nature swaps,’ was first applied to Bolivia, Ecua-dor, and Costa Rica in 1987. At frost, this mechanismcould only use commercial debt. Since then, withsupport from the U.S. Congress and other donorgovernments (e.g., Germany, England, the Nether-lands, Sweden), the approach has been broadened tobe applicable to some public debt and has been usedto fund nature conservation in African and Asiantropical countries as well. Funding from many suchswaps has been used to establish and manage naturalforest protected areas. Thus, the biodiversity bene-fits probably are substantial. Some arrangementshave been used to fund other types of conservationand development programs, and the largest havebeen used as incentives for policy commitments.

The significance of debt swaps for reducinginternational debt or for meeting the needs forconservation funding seemed modest in mid-1989[34], when only about $100 million in debt-for-nature swaps had been negotiated. Since then,however, the pace of this activity has increasedrapidly. For example, in late 1989 the Governmentof Germany wrote off $405 million of Kenya’s debtsin return for commitments to protect the environ-ment. AID initiated a natural resources managementprogram in 1991 that will pay off about $100 millionof the Philippines debt as the Philippines Govern-ment adopts and implements policies that lead tosustainable tropical forest management. While debt

10 ● Combined Summaries

swaps may become a significant factor in develop-ment assistance funding to conserve tropical forestsand biodiversity, it is unlikely they will retire asignificant portion of developing countries’ debts.For 13 countries involved in debt swaps between1987 and 1990, under one-twentieth of 1 percent ofcountries’ external debts was retired [62].

Most debt-for-nature swaps to date have beenarrangements negotiated among the central bank ofa developing country, an international NGO actingas broker, one or more public or private donors, alocal developing country NGO, and the naturalresources agency of the developing country. Theinternational NGO uses money from the donors topurchase the developing country’s debt at a discounton the secondary market. The debt is then canceledin return for the debtor nation’s commitment to anature conservation action. Actions might includeissuing bonds to produce a stream of funding thatcan be used for conservation programs implementedby local environmental NGOS, or for establishingand managing nature reserves in forested areas. Theapproach is flexible, however. Recently, large swapshave been arranged directly between donors and hostgovernments. AID’s Natural Resources Manage-ment Program in the Philippines combines directrepayment of Philippines’ debt with a usual NGO-brokered swap of dollar debt for local currencybonds.

The U.S. Congress has been instrumental inencouraging development of the debt-for-natureswap mechanism. The 1988 Foreign AssistanceAppropriations Act ordered the Treasury Depart-ment to analyze debt-for-nature arrangements. Treas-ury issued a ruling that gave U.S. banks a taxincentive to act as private donors in debt swaps [38].The ruling was modified to increase the incentivesafter a Senate inquiry. The International Develop-ment and Finance Act of 1989 encouraged multilat-eral development bank involvement in debt-for-nature swaps, authorized AID spending for suchswaps, and modified AID practices to allow grantees(e.g., NGOs) to retain the interest on proceedsresulting from the exchanges. Thus, Congress al-lowed AID funds to be used for exchanges wherelocal currency bonds are issued and where conserva-tion organizations are given endowments rather thanjust current-year funding. This helps to resolve asignificant problem identified in the 1984 OTAassessment: tropical forest conservation needs to besupported by long-term programs, but most develop-

ment assistance funding has been limited to short-term projects.

Debt-for-nature exchanges are a new and politic-ally appealing form of development assistance.However, most analyses of debt-for-nature swaps donot mention from whose pocket the funds come, andfew questions have been asked about grantee accountabil-ity, the efficiency of investments made throughdebt-for-nature swaps, or whether the technologiesthe finds are spent on are effective. With the stakesgetting higher, Congress may consider looking intothese issues.

Extractive Reserves andBuffer-Zone Development

Tropical country governments commonly do nothave sufficient resources to enforce resource-userestrictions on public lands without the willingcooperation of local people. For at least a decade,environmentalists have promoted resource-use zon-ing in certain areas, using buffer-zone developmentand extractive reserves as ways to give local peoplea stake in forest conservation. Both zoning ap-proaches are based on reducing local peoples’ needto use resource-degrading practices in areas of highbiodiversity or environmental service. For example,some sites particularly vulnerable to human-induceddegradation might be restricted from any human use.In other areas where sustainable wood productionand nature conservation are not compatible, onlycontrolled harvests (’‘extraction”) of non-woodproducts would be allowed. Forests in buffer zonesnear settled areas would be intensively managed forwood products the local people use. Forests furtherfrom settlements would be managed for industrialtimber. Extensionists, from forestry departments orfrom local NGOs, would facilitate local peoples’participation in establishing the restrictions, and thepeople would enforce the restrictions through socialpressure.

Variations of the buffer zone approach are beingtried, mostly in small-scale projects developedcooperatively by forest departments and NGOs. Anextensive review of these efforts in several tropicalcountries indicates that most such projects are lessthan 5 years old, few are large enough in scale toaffect a majority of the people living near the subjectforest, and most of the NGOs are inexperienced inrural development [65]. Thus, these must be consid-


ered trial efforts and the projects undertaken so farcannot yet be considered successful or replicable.

The only large-scale test of the extractive reserveconcept is in Brazil. Rubber tappers and Brazil nutharvesters promoted such reserves as an alternativeto timber harvesting and land clearing, and theBrazilian Government has established a legal frame-work for such reserves. A substantial investment,including development assistance funds, is beingmade in research and infrastructure, so monitoringand evaluation will probably indicate the degree ofsuccess within a decade. This important test of theextractive reserve theory may be undermined, how-ever, by events outside of local or national control,such as low world prices for natural rubber.

Research Reserves and Gene Sanctuaries

Certain tropical forest and other biologicallydiverse areas have been set aside to advancescientific understanding of ecosystems, and to pro-tect germplasm of economically important species.For example, most biosphere reserves have zonesdesignated for ecological research and managementtrials. Tropical research stations, such as La Selva(Costa Rica), operated by the Organization forTropical Studies, and Barro Colorado Island (Pan-ama), managed by the Smithsonian Institution,allow scientists access to undisturbed tropical eco-systems. The United States also has established asystem of marine and estuarine sanctuaries whichserve as research reserves prohibited from use otherthan by scientists attempting to understand thedynamics of their ecological systems. The scientificknowledge derived from study of these researchreserves likely will provide new insights intoecosystem management.

Scientists who explore tropical forests for new orspecific plants continue to introduce new products toU.S. and other markets. For example, out of 85 fruitand nut crops recently brought to the United Statesfrom the Malaysian rain forests, six are expected tobe introduced to U.S. markets. The plant materialfrom all of these species will be available forresearch to the U.S. Agricultural Research Service‘‘regardless of the fate of their native rainforests’[60], Despite their potential contributions to worldmarkets, few forest areas have been set asidespecifically to safeguard the genetic resources ofcrop species. The Indian Government has estab-lished a gene sanctuary for citrus plants in the

northeastern part of the country. Mexico has estab-lished a 350,000 acre biosphere reserve near Guada-lajara that safeguards Zea diploperennis, a perennialcom with genes that provide resistance to severaldiseases [46].

Development of New Products

The potential that genetic resources hold for thedevelopment of new medicines, other new products,and improved agricultural crops is a primary ration-ale for biodiversity conservation. The OTA assess-ments reported scientists’ expectation that economicbotany and ethnobiology research could reveal thispotential and thus motivate improved managementand conservation of the natural resource base. Thatexpectation has now been reinforced by substantialimprovement in the methods for screening naturalproducts for their potential as medicines. Usingbiotechnology, scientists have isolated receptors andenzymes involved in certain diseases, and manytypes of diseased cells can now be cultured for usein screening. With robotics, technicians can nowscreen thousands of samples in the time it took to test20 to 50a decade ago [48].

New investments are being made in biodiversityresearch, and probably will lead to new conservationefforts as well. Some 200 companies and nearly asmany research institutions worldwide are reportedlylooking for plants as sources of pharmaceuticals andpesticides. For example, AID, the National ScienceFoundation, and the National Cancer Institute haveproposed a Joint Program on Drug Discovery,Biodiversity Conservation, and Economic Growththat would provide grants for pharmaceutical develop-ment from plants [11]. Another innovative program,coordinated by AID, is the United States-AsiaEnvironmental Partnership, a coalition of U.S.Government agencies, NGOs, businesses, and theirAsian counterparts. This includes a Regional Bio-diversity Conservation Network that is intended toassist local communities to benefit economicallyfrom preservation and use of Asian forest and marinegenetic resources [54].

In some cases it is possible to synthesize the activecomponent of a plant-derived drug when it has beenisolated, but synthesis has not been technically oreconomically feasible for some promising com-pounds [59]. For these, cultivation or sustainedharvest from natural populations becomes neces-sary. Taxol, a drug being investigated for treatment


of cancer, is a current example. Taxol is extractedfrom the bark of slow-growing Pacific yew trees, andit takes six 100-year-old trees to extract enough drugto treat one patient. Removal of the bark kills thetrees. Destruction of the trees has become a problem,even though the drug is still in the research anddevelopment stage. U.S. Department of Agriculturescientists are investigating extraction of taxol fromyew tree cells and propagation of Pacific yews bytissue culture.

Private fins, research organizations, and envi-ronmental NGOs have begun cooperating to developmethods for sustainable harvest of plants thatproduce medicines and chemicals. The same organi-zations have begun to search for legal arrangements(commonly called intellectual property rights) bywhich people in tropical countries could benefitfinancially from conservation and subsequent com-mercial development of the genetic potential in theirbiologically diverse ecosystems. One of the firstsuch arrangements is an agreement between CostaRica and a large U.S.-based pharmaceutical com-pany. Costa Rica will protect its biota in return forgranting exclusive rights to screen plants collectedby a Costa Rican National Biodiversity Institute forpharmaceutically active substances. Profits from“chemical prospecting’ will be shared, and profitsaccruing to Costa Rica will be devoted to its nationalconservation program [22]. Similarly, other compa-nies are relying on the knowledge of shamans (nativehealers) to assist them in their search for naturaldrugs. Further, compensating indigenous peoples fortheir knowledge or protection of resources valuableto companies in the developed world is recognizedin the draft Biodiversity Convention to be discussedat the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environ-ment and Development [11]

Consumer Campaigns

A number of conservation organizations andprivate firms have begun to promote “green”products. Some promotions discourage consumeruse of products made with materials believed todamage the environment (such as beef raised oncleared tropical forest areas or tuna harvested inways that kill dolphins). More proactive promotionsurge consumers to buy products made with materialsthat come from locally managed natural resources(such as Brazil nuts from extractive reserves). Theapproach is new, and its direct impact on resourceconservation has not been assessed, but evidence

Photo credit: J.Tinsley, USDA Forest Service

Taxol, an anticancer drug produced from the Pacificyew tree, was only recentiy discovered. Expandedinvestigations into the chemical characteristics of

marine and terrestrial organisms show promise fordevelopment of pharmaceuticals and other products.

exists that the promotions are having indirectbeneficial impacts. For example, U.S. consumerpreference for “dolphin safe” labeled tuna mayhave induced non-U.S. fishing companies to modifitheir harvest practices to comply voluntarily withU.S. marine mammal protection laws.

Numerous European governments have directlyrestricted use of tropical wood products. The Inter-national Tropical Timber Organization is developinga system for rating tropical timber productionaccording to sustainability. The results will bepublicized; wood from well-managed tropical for-ests may be labeled as environmentally “green.”Similarly, the Ecological Trading Company (ETC)is negotiating with the World Wide Fund for Natureto “setup an independent monitoring agency whichcould give a seal of approval to ‘acceptable sources[69]. ETC is a tropical timber company that negoti-ates agreements directly with forest communities,selects individual high-value trees for harvest rather


than clear-cutting, and uses portable sawmills andhorse-drawn timber removal. Although definition of‘‘well-managed’ forests and ‘‘acceptable sources’of tropical timber is problematic, certainly consumercampaigns have potential to raise general awarenessabout conservation.

Ecotourism

Tourism is a potential source of income, includingforeign exchange, that can be generated by tropicalforest and biodiversity protection. The game parks inEast Africa are the best-known example of nature-orecotourism, but tropical forest parks also are attract-ing many visitors. Tropical countries worldwidecontain some 1,420 individual national parks andother protected areas [6], many of which regularlyappear on ecotourism itineraries, and the majority ofwhich were relatively recently designated. Globally,protected acreage now stands at some 175 millionhectares; in some countries protected area growthhas been particularly dramatic. Costa Rica’s net-work of 55 national and private wildlife reservescover nearly 20 percent of the country’s total landarea [6]. Few of these existed before 1973.

By one estimate, nature tourism accounted forbetween $2 and $12 billion of the $55 billion tourismgenerated for developing countries in 1988 [25].Many developing countries, perceiving ecotourismas a more environmentally benign and sustainablealternative to mass tourism, and a potentially lucra-tive industry, have developed institutions and pro-grams to attract ecotourists. In many Latin Americanand Caribbean countries, newly passed legislationencourages investment in ecotourism infrastructure[6]. Besides increasing foreign exchange earnings,tourism generates employment and attracts capitalfor infrastructure development; through this andother “multiplier effects’ it can contribute toeconomic diversification as well as growth [6,15].

Some parks in Thailand generate income thattotals 3 to 10 times the cost of park management[12]. Most tourism income does not become availa-ble for conservation, however, as it accrues toprivate sector service providers (e.g., hoteliers).Still, that income can influence politicians to pro-vide larger budgets and increased political protec-tion for parks. At numerous tropical parks, NGOs areexperimenting with ways to make ecotourism bene-fits accrue to local people. AID is sponsoring suchefforts in Costa Rica, Indonesia, and other countries.

Photo credit: Alison L. Hess, Office of Technology Assessment

Tourism revenues may provide economic justification forprotection of species and habitats. The Kenyan “visitor

attraction value” of a single lion has been estimatedat $27,000/year; that of a herd of elephants at

$81 0,000/year [25].

Despite sparse data, conservationists and eco-nomic planners are finding that ecotourism and therevenues it generates, can, in fact, provide aneconomic rationale for natural resource conservationand wildlife protection policies [49]. This rationalemay be the only broadly accepted means of counter-ing efforts to develop these resources for near-termprofits-that is, ‘‘economic value must be assignedto ecological resources if these are to be conserved’[10]. Further, ecotourism can be an important part ofa more comprehensive conservation and develop-ment strategy by “helping to build a constituencynecessary for effective policy and action” [23]. Asfrost-hand contacts with a wild area and its inhabi-tants increase, so grows the group of advocates forits protection.

Conversely, tourism may deprive indigenouspeople access to the resource areas they traditionallyhave used for hunting, fishing, and foraging [15],potentially driving them farther into vulnerable

297-928 0 - 92 - 3 : QL3


ecosystems or into resource-degrading employment.Tourism also is an unstable source of income,subject to widely fluctuating demand scenarios;local economies that rely heavily on tourist dollarscan be severely disrupted by a sudden decline intourist arrivals. More radically, certain terroristgroups have harassed or killed tourists in an effort todestabilize government regimes in countries highlydependent on ecotourism revenues. This has hap-pened, for example, in Kenya, Papua New Guinea,and Peru [43]. Decline in tourism revenues for anyof these reasons eventually is likely to reduce theprotection afforded to habitats and species.

NEW POLICIES AND PROGRAMSNew information, new concerns, and experimen-

tal approaches are surfacing in international effortsto sustain tropical forests and biodiversity. Pro-posals range from reorienting research, to sweepingchanges in international organizations and new,widescale international agreements. Some of themore immediate and far-reaching of these proposalsfollow.

Endangered Species andEndangered Ecosystems

The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) estab-lished a regulatory program specifically designed toprotect U.S. species from extinction. Under ESA,species are listed as endangered or threatened solelyon the basis of their population and range trends. Theact restrains Federal agencies from funding, author-izing, or carrying out any activity that may imperila species officially listed as endangered and prohib-its all citizens from harming, killing, or uprootingsuch species on public or private kind. Finally, ESArequires the Fish and Wildlife Service or NationalMarine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, to developand implement recovery plans for species in dangerof extinction. Despite four congressional amend-ments, ESA has not lost its reputation as the UnitedStates’ most powerful and rigorous piece of environ-mental legislation.

ESA comes before Congress for reauthorizationin 1992, and undoubtedly will be the focal point forheated debate. Listing of the northern spotted owl,native to old-growth forests in the Pacific North-west, and subsequent restrictions on logging thoseforests, has spurred intense debate over regulatorydemands affecting land use and property rights. A

coalition of agricultural, mining, forest products,and other industrial interest groups is devoting itsattention to reducing ESA’s power over land-usedecisions.

Since 1973, at least 550 species of animals andplants have been listed as endangered or threatened—of these, six are considered recovered and at leastseven have been declared extinct [33]. Six-hundredother species are considered endangered, but are notyet formally listed as such. At current staff andfunding levels, the Department of Interior’s Inspec-tor General estimates it will take 38 to 48 years tomove these species through the listing process [61];another 3,500 species suspected of endangermentbut awaiting analysis will not be dealt with fordecades. Consequently, numerous conservation bi-ologists and some members of Congress are advo-cating an ecosystem protection approach that wouldprotect regionally dispersed, ecologically represen-tative communities of species,

The most far-reaching of these proposals is todevelop an “Integrated National Biodiversity Pol-icy’ within which ESA would function as a ‘‘law oflast resort” [39]. Another proposal is to devise anational biodiversity strategy based on representa-tive ecosystems and subsequently to establish aNational Center for Biological Diversity [33]. Acounterproposal is to require that the values ofcontinuing a species’ existence be compared to theeconomic values of the activities that endanger it,and thereby determine a winner.

Forestry Research

Forestry, agroforestry, and related environmentalissues are being incorporated in the mandate of theConsultative Group for International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR). the major network of researchinstitutions funded by bilateral and multilateraldonors to support development in tropical regions.The International Center for Research in Agro-forestry and one other tropical forestry researchinstitution not yet identified will be brought into thesystem. A new strategic agenda for forestry researchwill be shared by these 2 institutions and 10 otherCGIAR centers that include forestry projects in theirresearch programs. Other progress in forestry re-search includes establishment of a Special Programfor Developing Countries within the InternationalUnion for Forestry Research Organizations, andinternational donor support to the forestry research


Existing natural forest management systems weredeveloped at least 30 years ago, and only piecemealinformation has been gathered on natural forestssince then. Several systems are thought to besustainable, but implementation and monitoring toconfirm this is lacking. The comprehensive reviewof tropical forest management commissioned by theInternational Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)states that:

. . . it is not yet possible to demonstrate conclu-sively that any natural tropical forest anywhere hasbeen successfully managed for the sustainable produc-tion of timber [36].

Existing systems, if rigorously followed, producelow yields of high-value timber over very longrotations. Low yields and low economic returns maybe one reason why only about 800,000 hectares oftropical moist forest is being deliberately managedfor sustainable production of timber (0.1 percent oftropical moist forest in ITTO countries), whereasabout 40 million hectares have been designated asprotected areas where timber production is excluded[36].


Forestry and agroforestry have been incorporated in themandate of the major network of international

agricultural research institutions with the addition ofthe International Center for Research in Agroforestry

in Nairobi, Kenya, and one other institution notyet identified.

capacity of national agencies in the developingcountries.

It is likely that much of this new activity willcontinue the pattern of tropical forestry researchconducted over the past 30 years, which has been todownplay natural forest management and to focusinstead on forest plantations and, more recently, onagroforestry. Several systems for management ofnatural tropical forests were developed between1900 to 1960, but little has occurred since then.Meanwhile, research and technology developmentfor tropical forest plantations have achieved woodyields that are now about 10 times the yields fromnatural forests. High yielding plantations often arementioned as a means to offset pressure on naturalforests. However, this claim is dubious, becauseforest plantation establishment commonly beginswith razing a natural forest [36].

Multilateral Development Bank Policies

The pace of multilateral bank lending and thenature of bank-sponsored forestry projects havechanged dramatically since 1980. Most forestrylending until the 1970s was for extraction of rawmaterials and development of wood-based indus-tries. World Bank projects in the 1970s reflected theBank’s broadening social goals; many forestryprojects were oriented to tree planting for ruraldevelopment and other longer term purposes. TheWorld Bank’s 1978 policy paper articulated the linkbetween social needs and forestry development andbecame an important model for policy at othermultilateral banks. The pace of project startupsaccelerated in the 1980s, with a larger share of theprojects aimed at reforestation, farm forestry, water-shed protection, and similar social and environ-mental purposes (see table 1). Forestry at othermultilateral banks evolved similarly: few loans noware made for direct support of wood industries, butmany are made to establish plantations. The bankshave begun in the past 2 years to develop projectswith explicit biodiversity conservation objectives.

Some agriculture and infrastructure developmentprojects financed by the banks have caused destruc-tion of tropical forests and other natural habitat for


Table l—Number of Forestry Projects Financed(Initiated) by the World Bank byTime Period and Type of Project

Type of Forestry Project

Period Industrial Social Environmental

1949 -1969 . . . . . . . . 6 0 01970 -1979. . . . . . . . 18 6 01980 -1985 . . . . . . . . 11 16 41986 -1990 . . . . . . . . 10 15 7

SOURCE: World Bank Environment Department, Forest Policy Paper(Washington DC: World Bank, 1991).

biodiversity. Largely because of congressional insis-tence, development banks have implemented environ-mental impact assessment procedures that shouldhelp to avoid such damage in future projects. Mostrecently, the U.S. executive directors of all multi-lateral banks have been directed by Congress not tovote in favor of any action that:

. . .would have a significant impact on the environ-ment, unless a summary of the environmental impactof the action has been made available to the director120 days prior to the vote. Each director, in turn, hasthe responsibility to make that information availableto the public [32].

The effect of these new directives for environ-mental impact assessment of development bankprojects bears monitoring; implementation of theseprocedures is just beginning, and the motivation forthis reform of bank practices has been mainlyexternal.

The World Bank’s new Forest Policy Paper [67]heralds continued evolution in the nature of theforestry projects. Effects on forests and biodiversitywill apparently be given increased considerationwhen the Bank undertakes interventions outside ofthe forestry sector. Within the forestry sector, Bankinterventions will emphasize policy reform andinstitutional strengthening to support forest andbiodiversity conservation. The Bank plans to giveincreased support to international programs, such asthe Global Environment Facility,2 that providegrants or low-interest financing for biodiversityprojects. The Bank’s forest plantation projects willavoid razing natural forests or usurping farmland.The new policy paper makes a strong commitment

to buffer-zone development, support for parks andreserves, and rigorous environmental impact assess-ment. Political pressure on the World Bank tocommit itself to conservation-oriented forestry hascome from the U.S. Congress and, more recently,from the governments of Germany and other Euro-pean nations. The Asian Development Bank hasadopted similar policies, focusing much of itsforestry lending on reforestation and social forestryprograms.

International Tropical Timber Trade

International organizations concerned with tropi-cal forests and biodiversity commonly focus onestablishment and management of protected areas.Many tropical country forestry departments andresearch organizations concentrate development ef-forts on forest plantations. ITTO, however, is the oneinternational organization that concentrates on tradeand commodities coming from all forests in tropicalnations.

The main outcome of the International TropicalTimber Agreement, which became effective in 1985,was a framework for cooperation between nationsthat produce tropical timber and those that import it.The agreement set up the International TropicalTimber Organization. ITTO has objectives typical ofa commodity trade group (e.g., regulation of pricesand supplies), but a growing focus of its activitieshas been analyzing the sustainability of tropicalforest use and promoting policy and programchanges that would extend sustainable forest man-agement and would develop technical improve-ments in management systems. Unlike other com-modity organizations, meetings to set ITTO policyinclude representatives from conservation organiza-tions and academia in addition to government andindustry representatives.

ITTO’s producer members control roughly 70percent of the world’s tropical moist forests [36].The organization commissioned a major review offorest management for timber production in itsmember nations, and concluded that the conditionsnecessary for successful management to sustainproduction forests are:

2 me Glo~ Enviro~e=t F~~@J (G~ is op~~ by & world B~ on ~~ of its fo~ders, the U.N. Development Prograr.nme d U.N.Environment Programrne. GEF is expected to provide “several hundred million dollars” for biodiversity research and protection over the next 3 years[27].


●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

government resolve;a sound political and social case for the decisionto maintain a permanent forest estate;long-term security for the forest estate, oncechosen;stable markets for forest products;adequate information for selection, planning,and management of the forest estate;flexible, predictive systems for planning andcontrol;the resources needed for control; andthe will needed by all concerned for effectivecontrol [36].

International Environmental Security

Since the 1980s, the concept of environmental orecological security, based on the premise that threatsto the environment are as serious to human qualityof life as military threats [16], has been the focus ofconsiderable discussion related to international en-vironmental law. In a 1989 letter to the UnitedNations, international ecological security was de-scribed as:

[A] state of affairs in international relations withinwhich a system of. . broad co-operation on the basisof international law will safeguard preservation ofthe environment and improvement of its quality witha view to creating appropriate conditions for a lifeworthy of human beings and securing sustainableand safe development of all States [44].

An international legal basis for establishing envi-ronmental security as a guiding principle wasestablished in the World Charter for Nature [53].This document states that:

. . .nature shall be respected and its essentialprocesses. . not. . impaired [Article 1]; living re-sources shall not be utilized in excess of their naturalcapacity for regeneration, the productivity of soilsshall be maintained or enhanced, [and] non-renewable resources. . shall be exploited with re-straint [Article X; and] nature shall be securedagainst degradation caused by warfare or otherhostile activities [Article V; and] military activitiesdamaging to nature shall be avoided [Article XX][66].

Recognition of international environmental secu-rity as a guiding concept for intergovernmentalrelations, however, likely would require codificationof international environmental laws. One frameworkfor codification would be to establish two primarycategories of environmental management problems.

1.

2.

Problems associated with protection of theenvironment: a) avoidance of vandalism (war-time or other non-remunerative destruction);b) avoidance of pollution (of air, water, or soil)that is in excess of the natural renewal orcleansing processes; and c) avoidance ofpermanent anthropogenic intrusion in spe-cially designated protected areas; andProblems associated with utilization of theenvironment: a) avoidance of resource userates that exceed estimated maximum sus-tained yield or maximum sustained absorp-tion; and b) avoidance of resource use at ratesthat will prevent recovery of degraded envi-ronments (and potentially provision of humanassistance to aid that recovery) [66].

Creation of such a state of affairs would requirethe “espousal of obligatory principles and norms ofconduct for governments’ [50] and, thus, likelywould require reconsideration of the realms ofnational sovereignty and international cooperation.Because of the acknowledged ‘‘globalization” inareas such as production, trade, investment, commu-nications, and tourism, this type of redefinitionalready is occurring [40]:

In many crucial respects, nations are no longer thesole masters of their destinies. . . .What happens inpractically any part of the world can affect remoteareas elsewhere. This interdependence in economic,military, and environmental affairs has alreadybegun to erode traditional notions of security andeven national sovereignty itself.

Regional and international mechanisms to prog-ress toward international environmental securityalready exist, and have shown progress towardsinternational environmental accords. Regional mech-anisms take such forms as multilateral and bilateralagreements, international commissions, or licensingarrangements. One prominent example is the UnitedNations Regional Seas Program, which brokersagreements among countries sharing ocean basinssuch as the Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas (e.g.,Convention on Land-Based Sources of Pollution inthe Caribbean).

International mechanisms are likely to be conven-tions, agreements, charters, or guiding principlespromulgated by such institutions as the UnitedNations and the former Warsaw Treaty Organ-ization. International legal principles address anddefine international environmental problems and


solutions; international agreements legally bindparties, creating rights and obligations concerningthe regulated resources [42].3 Such efforts alreadyhave brought us the World Charter for Nature, theConvention on Trade in Endangered Species, andthe unfinished Convention on the Law of the Sea.The latter exemplifies the difficulties in reachingsuch accords. Further, international organizationsthat deal with environmental issues commonly lackthe capability, or the authority, to ensure adherencewith international agreements [44]. For example, theGoverning Council of the United Nations Environ-ment Programme (UNEP) has only the powers orrecommendation, and not of enforcement. Proposalsto remedy this range from enhancing development ofregional environmental agreements and organi-zations [66], to strengthening coordination of envi-ronmental concerns at the United Nations anddirecting UNEP to spearhead codification of interna-tional environmental law, to establishing a U.N.Environmental Security Council (requiring amend-ment of the U.N. Charter) [44].

Expanding InternationalEnvironmental Accord

The arena for current negotiations on internationallaw related to biodiversity, climate change, andtropical forests is the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED or ‘ ‘EarthSummit’ to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June1992. Government negotiators representing devel-oped and developing countries have been meetingfor over a year to determine the content and wordingof new international charters, statements of princi-ples, and agreements. In addition, and unlike previ-ous international environmental summits, nongover-nmental organizations have played a significant rolein preparation of documents and introduction ofissues into negotiations. The negotiations have beenfraught with controversy, largely over “North-South” responsibility for financing conservationefforts [cf:35]; the United States’ position currentlyis unclear.

The UNCED Intergovernmental Negotiating Com-mittee (INC) on Biodiversity is working towardreaching an agreement that would be signed at theJune 1992 “Earth Summit. ” Topics of particularconcern to the negotiating parties are financing ofbiodiversity conservation in developing countries,

f%oto credit:A. Fullerton, USDA Forest Service

The search for medicines from plant and animal sources ismost cost-effective when scientists focus on traditionalmedicines, such as those sold by traditional medicine

vendors in China. With the surge in “chemicalprospecting,” however, UNCED negotiators have facedincreasing controversy surrounding access to genetic

materials, product patenting and distribution of royalties,and “intellectual property rights.”

biotechnology and intellectual property rights, andthe potential for a sweeping international treaty to‘‘interfere with individual nations’ authority tomanage resources or protect domestic biodiversity.The INC on Climate Change also has faced consid-erable controversy about provision of ‘‘new andadditional’ resources to assist developing countriesto meet the objectives of the treaty, which specifiestargets and timetables for reduction in carbondioxide and other greenhouse gases.

A nonbinding statement of “Principles on WorldForests” is in preparation for UNCED, but is notpresently under negotiation in the form of aninternational agreement. Instead, it is one compo-nent of Agenda 21, an overall environment anddevelopment agenda for the future. Still, negotia-tions on world forest principles have led to agree-ment on some basic points, that may in the futurebecome the basis for a legally binding convention.As currently agreed, the principles should:

● cover all types of forests;. establish sustainable management as the goal of

forest management;

3 In the absence of international agreements, global resource regulation is based on the rules and principles of international customary law.


●

●

●

●

●

identify ‘‘social, ecological, cultural and spiri-tual needs, as well as economic” goals ofmanagement;strengthen national-level forest managementinstitutions;recognize the value of environmental servicesof forests, including protecting biodiversity andregulating watersheds and water resources;respect sustainable use by ‘‘forest dwellers,indigenous peoples, and local communities;foster forest management plans based on com-plete cost and benefit accounting; andencourage development of an internationaleconomic climate that supports sustainableforest development in all countries [47].

Discussion of a Forest Convention is expected tobe reopened, likely during the 1992 renegotiation ofthe International Tropical Timber Agreement, po-tentially leading to a single international legalinstrument on forests [20].

Partly in preparation for development of theUNCED Principles on World Forests, the Tenth

makers from 136 countries, passed The Paris Decla-ration (box B) and produced a set of detailedconclusions and recommendations [51]. The princi-ples stated in the Paris Declaration are intended tocontribute to the debate leading to UNCED andbeyond.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant progress has been made in mobilizinginternational assistance finding and in coordinatingand focusing international conservation efforts inthe years since OTA assessed technologies tomaintain biological diversity and to sustain tropicalforest resources. The stage for forest conservation isbeing set at high government levels with develop-ment of national action plans that set new prioritiesand call for new programs, institutional develop-ment, and major policy reforms. Conservationistsbehind the planning process are learning to developnecessary links to policies and programs in othersectors, such as population, agriculture, and rural

World Forestry Congress, involving forestry decision- development.

Box B—Excerpts From the Paris Declaration

The Tenth World Forestry Congress, having assembled more than 2,500 participants from 136 countries from17 to 26 September 1991;

addressees] the public, political leaders and international, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizationsthroughout the world

reminds them● of the importance of the renewable goods and services provided by trees and forests in the face of growing

demand for construction materials, fuel, animals, food, fodder, recreation areas. . .;● of the wealth and diversity of forest environments, and of their positive role in water and carbon cycles, soil

protection and the conservation of biodiversity;. of the availability, too often ignored, of techniques for the sustainable management of trees and forests,

which can ensure their permanence and even increase their capacity for providing goods and services;. that it is essential to avoid irreversible darnage to the biosphere; and. of the advantages of long-term planning in the management of natural resources;

asserts. that the real challenge is to reconcile the economic use of natural resources with protection of the

environment through integrated and sustainable development;● that the solution of forest problems requires common efforts to reduce poverty; increase agricultural

productivity; guarantee food security and energy supplies; and promote development; that forest management plans can be used as comprehensive took for managing the economic, ecological,

social and cultural functions of the resource, thus enlarging the concept of sustain yield;● that the preservation of specific forest areas in order to protect biodiversity constitutes a particular objective

of forest management policy;

(Continued on next page)


Box B—Excerpts From the Paris Declaration-(Continued)

and recommends●

●

●

●

●

●

that all people be involved in the integrated development of their region, and that they be provided with theinstitiutional technical and financial means to do so;that land-management planning be based on the land’s potential and on long-term priorities in order todetermine sites that are best suited to be forest@ and that the needs of all people concern~ particularlythose who depend on forests for their livelihood should becarefully taken into consideration at the planningstage;that the continuity of tree and forest management policies be guarant~ given the need to manage forestson a long-term basis;that the designation of certain representative or endangered forests as protected zones continue, and thatthese areas be integrated into national or international networks;that appropriate silvicultural techniques, the extension of woodlands and the long-term use of wood be usedto contribute to the absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide;that agroforestry systems, afforestation and reforestation be developed more actively.

The Tenth World Forestry Congress aware of the seriousness, the urgency and the universality of developmentand environmenttal problems; emphasking the renewable nature of forest resources and convinced of the soundnessof solutions afforded by sustainable management of all the world’s forests, within the context of national forestrypolicies,

solemnly calls upon decision-makers to:●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

commit themselves to the “Greening of the World” through afforestation, reforestation and sustainablemanagement of the multiple functions of trees and forests; and to actions in the form on integratedprogrammed, involving the participation of all people concerned, in the context of national land managementpolicies;assess developments in the forest heritage at a national and international level, drawing on the global ForestResources Assessment 1990 Project carried out by FAO;limit all emissions of pollutants that damage forests;contain emissions of greenhouse gases, including those produced by power generation;adapt economic and financial mechanisms to the long-term approach required for forest management, andincrease national and international financial provisions, particularly in favour of developing countries;work toward the harmonious development of international trade in forest products through the prohibitionof any unilateral restriction that is inconsistent with GAIT; and promote the utilization of forest products;develop cooperative initiatives at the political level and on clearly identified forestry issues of regionalimportance, such as the fight against desertification the protection of forests, the management of majorwatersheds, etc.;strengthen and coordinate research and field trials, training and the exchange of information, as well scooperation in all disciplines that contribute to sustainable management of forest ecosystems;strengthen the activities of and coordination among the relevant international organizations;integrate its conclusions and reccomendations into the planning process of the United Nations Conferenceon environrnent and Development (UNCED), to be held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in order to define anon-legally authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservationand sustainable development of all types of forrests;’

and, in the context of the current negotiations on biodiversity and climate change being conducted under theauspices of the United Nations;

● strengthen international cooperation, particularly in the context of the Tropical Forestry Action Programme(TFAP), of a Mediterranean FAP and of other future programmes;

● raise awarenes of the public, and more particularly of young generations, and disseminate informationon forest issues so they will be better appreciated by all people;

● envisage ways of following Up its recommend&MM and invite FAO to advise the appropriateintergovernmental bodies and the Eleventh World Forest Congress of them.

SOURCE: Unasyfw, ‘%nth World Forestry C~ssior,” vol. 43, No. 1, Winter 1992, pp. 3-9.


Significantly less progress has been made on theground. Development of practical methods formanagement and conservation of forests and biodiver-sity has been slow. Although forest management ishighly site specific, general principles and systemscan be adapted to different situations. For 30 years,however, scant attention has been given to implementing tropical forest management systems, im-proving them, or developing new ones. NGOs havebegun innovative projects in and around tropicalforest protected areas. Monitoring and evaluation ofthese will lead, gradually, to methods for involvinglocal people in integration of tropical forest conser-vation and development. Other aspects of forestprotection are being neglected, however, such aspreventing government corruption that allows treecutting and land clearing not sanctioned by man-agement plans.

The existing (old) systems for sustainable man-agement of tropical forests impose severe restric-tions on use of the resources, so opportunity costs ofsustainable management are high. Although thebenefits would also be high when environmentaleffects such as biodiversity conservation are in-cluded, the opportunity costs accrue directly tocitizens of tropical nations while the benefits arespread over global populations. Little scientificeffort is directed to increasing the direct financialbenefits from sustainable management of naturalforests to local communities. Meanwhile, the majorunderlying cause of deforestation and species extinc-tions—lack of alternative employment opportunitiesfor rapidly growing populations of tropical countries—remains. Hence, the forests and their biodiversity arestill in jeopardy, despite momentum at the interna-tional and national policy and planning levels.

Numerous tropical countries now have nationalplans establishing goals and priorities for biodiver-sity conservation and forest management, and majorprograms to reform and implement improved forestsector policies have begun. Concern for biodiversitycontinues to grow, promoted by international assist-ance agencies and local NGOs through biodiversityconservation planning and through site-specificprojects. The implementation of these plans andprograms will succeed or fail in the next 5 to 10years. Strong momentum for conservation-orienteddevelopment assistance exists in the United Statesand other donor countries. The bilateral and multilat-eral assistance agencies have accepted forcefulmandates to promote forest and biodiversity conser-

297-928 0 - 92 - 4 : QL3

vation. International technical and financial assist-ance will be a necessary but hardly sufficientcondition for success.

Implementation of policy reforms requires securecommitments from national leaders, sufficient tech-nical knowledge and skills, and continued momen-tum from grassroots supporters. Yet issues that havenot been adequately addressed include the capabilityof technologies to achieve the goals over the longterm, the ability of government agencies and NGOsto control corruption that undermines managementplans, and the ways in which forestry and biodiver-sity use and conservation are linked to othereconomic and political sectors.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

REFERENCESAbate, T, “Into the Northern Philippines Rain-forest,” Bioscience, vol. 42, No. 4, 1992, pp.246-251.Arita, I., et al., “Human Monkeypox: A NewlyEmerged Orthopoxvirus Zoonosis in the TropicalRain Forests of Africa,” American Journal ofTropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 34, No. 4,1988,pp. 781-789.Asian Development Bank, “Economic Policies forSustainable Development,” Manila, 1990.Ausubel, Jesse H., ‘‘A Second Look at the Impacts ofClimate Change, ‘‘ American Scientist, vol. 79, No. 3,May-June 1991, pp. 210-221.Boden, T. A., Kanciruk, P., and Farrell, M. P., Trends’90: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (OakRidge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information AnalysisCenter, 1990).Boo, E., Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pifalls, 2vols. (Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund, 1991).Bryson, N. and Koehn, S., “An International FishStory,” Legal Times vol. 14, Jan. 20, 1992, pp. 22,25.Capistrano, A.D.N., ‘‘Macroeconomic Influences onTropical Forest Depletion: A Cross-country Analy-sis,” Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Florida,Gainesville FL, 1990.Carpenter, R. A., and Maragos, J. E., EnvironmentalImpacts on Tropical Islands and Coastal Areas(Honolulu, HI: East-West Center Environment andPolicy Institute, 1980).Ceballos-Lascurian, H., “Tourism, Ecotourism andProtected Areas, ‘‘ in J.A. Kusler (cd.), Ecotourismand Resource Conservation, vol. 1., pp. 24-30, 1991.Diversity, “In Search of: Mechanisms to Compen-sate Indigenous Peoples for Botanical Knowledge, ”vol. 7, No. 3, 1991, pp. 21-23.Dixon, J.A. and Sherman, P. B., Economics of Pro-tected Areas: A New hok at Benefits and Costs

22 ● combined summaries

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21,

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

(Washington, DC: Island Press, 1990).Dufour, D.L., “Use of Tropical Rainforests byNative Amazonians,” Bioscience, vol. 40, No. 9,1990, pp. 652-659.Ecology USA, ‘“Environmental Terrorists’ Kill Spot-ted Owls in Washington,’ vol. 20, No. 4, Feb. 25,1991, p. 33.English, E. P., The Great Escape?An Examinationof North-South Tourism (Ottawa, Canada: The North-South Institute, 1986).Fairclough, A. J., ‘‘Global Environmental and Natu-ral Resource Problems-Their Economic, Political,and Security Implications,’ The Washington Quar-terly, vol. 14, Winter 1991, pp. 81-98.Hamilton, L., “Guest Comment: Storm Disasters—Has Logging Been Unfairly Blamed?” IUCN ForestConservation Programme Newsletter, No. 12, Janu-ary 1992, p. 5.Hurst, P., Rainforest Politics (Atlantic Highlands,New Jersey: Zed Books, 1990), pp. 180-181.International Union for the Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources, “A Future for the TropicalForestry Action Plan?’ IUCN Forest ConservationProgramme Newletter, No. 12, January 1992, pp.1-2.International Union for the Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources, “UNCED Opts for ‘State-ment of Principles’, ” IUCN Forest ConservationProgramme Newletter, No, 11, September 1991, pp.1-2.John, D.M. and Lawson, G. W., “A Review ofMangrove and Coastal Ecosystems in West Africaand Their Possible Relationships,” Mangrove Oceanog-raphy, vol. 31, No. 5, 1990, pp. 505-518.Joyce, C,, “Prospectors for Tropical Medicines,”New Scientist, vol. 132, No. 1791, Oct. 19, 1991, pp.36-40.Kermath, B. M., “Nature Conservation and Eco-tourism in Brazilian Amazonia,” in J.A. Kusler (cd.),Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, VOL 1, pp.401409, 1991.Kisovi, L. M., “Population Pressure in Kitui District(Kenya),” Ph.D. Dissertation, The University ofManitoba, 1990.Lindberg, K., Policies for Maximizing Nature Tour-ism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits (Wash-ington DC: World Resources Institute, 1991).Lynch, O. J., Jr, “Philippine Law and Upland Ten-ure, ’ Man, Agriculture and the Tropical Forest:Change and Development in the Philippine Uplands(Bangkok, Thailand: Winrock International, 1986).McNeely, J. A., “Review of ‘The Expendable Fu-ture: U.S. Politics and the Protection of BiologicalDiversity, ’ ‘‘ Environment, vol. 34, No. 2, 1992, pp.25-27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Milner, J.E., “Replanting Vietnam,” South, No. 120,March 1991, pp. 58-59.Morse, S. S., “Stirring Up Trouble: EnvironmentalDisruption Can Divert Animal Viruses Into People,’The Sciences, September/October, 1990, pp. 16-21.Morse, S. S., “Regulating Viral Traffic” Issues inScience and Technology, vol. 7, Fall 1990, pp. 81-84.Multinational Environmental Outlook, “Slants &Trends,” vol. 17, No. 19, Sept. 17, 1991, p. 145.NGO Networker, “U.S. Congress Passes New Lawon Environmental Impact of Development BankProjects, “ World Resources Institute, No. 15, Winter1992, p. 1.Palmer, T, “The Final Act?,” Buzzworm, vol. 3,November/December 1991, pp. 31-35.Patterson, A., “Debt for Nature Swaps,” Environ-ment, vol. 32, No. 10, December 1990, pp. 4-13.Pearce, F. “Ecology and the New Colonialism,”New Scientist, vol. 133, No. 1806, Feb. 1, 1992, pp.55-56.Poore, D., et al., No Timber Without Trees: Sustaina-bility in the Tropical Forest (London, England:Earthscan, 1989).Popkin, R., “Responding to Eco-Terrorism,” EPAJournal, vol. 17, No. 3, July/August, 1991, pp. 23-26.Post, M, “The Debt for Nature Swap: A Long-termInvestment for the Economic Stability of LessDeveloped Countries,” International Lawyer, vol.24, Winter 1990, pp. 1071-1098.Reid, W. V., “The United States Needs a NationalBiodiversity Policy,’ WRI Issues and Ideas (Wash-ington DC: World Resources Institute, February1992).Renner, M., “National Security: The Economic andEnvironmental Dimensions,” Worldwatch Paper 89(Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, May 1989).Ryan, J. C., ‘‘War and Teaks in Burma’ WorldWatch, vol. 3, No. 5, September/October 1990, pp.8-9.Saunders, M. B., “Valuation and International Regu-lation of Forest Ecosystems: Prospects for a GlobalForest Agreement,” Washington Law Review, vol.66, July 1991, pp. 871-892.Schaller, G. B., Wildlife Conservation International,New York Zoological Society, personal communica-tion, April 1, 1992.Schrijver, N., ‘‘International Organization for Envi-ronmental Security, ” Bulletin of Peace Proposals,vol. 20, No. 2, 1989, pp. 115-122.Science, “Ranking the Rain Forests,” vol. 51, No.5001, Mar. 29, 1991, pp. 1559-1560.Smith, N. J. H., et al. “Conserving the Cornucopia, ”Environment, vol. 33, No. 6, July/August 1991, pp.7-9,30-32.Spivy-Weber, F., “The Missing Forest Principles,”Independent Sectors Network ‘92,” The Centre for

Introduction to Combined Summaries . 23

48.

49.

50.

51.

5~.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

Our Common Future and the IFC, No. 13, January1992, p. 3.Suffness, M., Program Coordinator for Natural Prod-ucts at the National Cancer Institutes, quoted in R.Eisner, “Botanists Ply Trade in Tropics, SeekingPlant-Based Medicinal,” The Scientist, vol. 5, No.12. June 10, 1991.Sutton, D. B., “From the Taj to the Tiger,” CulturalSurvival Quarferly, vol. 14, No. 2, 1990, pp. 15-19.Timoshenko, A. S., “Ecological Security: The Inter-national hgal Aspect, ’ Rene~*able Resources Jour-nal, vol. 7, Winter 1989, pp. 9-12.Unasyllfa, ‘ ‘Tenth World Forestry Congress—Dossier, ” vol. 43, No. 1, Winter 1992, pp. 3-9.Upland Multisectoral Policy Group, ‘Policy Impera-tives in Upland Management for National Recov-ery, ’ Los Banes Philippines: University of thePhilippines, 1986, cited in P. Hurst, RainforestPolitics (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Zed Books,1990), pp. 180-181.U.N. General Assembly, World Charter for Nature,Resolution No. 37/7 of Oct. 28, 1982 (New York,New York: United Nations General Assembly, 1982).U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureaufor Asia, United States-Asia Environmental Partner-ship-Businesses, Governments and CommunitiesWorking Together,” 1992 brochure.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Trade and En~’ironment OTA- BP-ITE-94 (Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May1992).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Changing by Degrees=$teps To Reduce Green hol~seGdses, OTA-O-482 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gover-nment Printing Office, February 1991).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Technologies Tolkiaintain Biological Diversity, OTA-F-330 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Informa-tion Service, March 1987).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources,OTA-F-214 (Springfield, VA: National TahnicalInformation Service, March 1984).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Plants: The Potentials for Extracting Protein, Medi -

60.

61.

62,

63.

640

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

cines, and Other Useful Chemicals, Workshop Pro-ceedings, OTA-BP-F-23 (Washington DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, September 1983).U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Re-search Service, “Quarterly Report of Selected Re-search Projects, ’ Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 1991, p. 5.U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of theInspector General, ‘‘Audit Report-The EndangeredSpecies Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,”Report No. 90-98, Washington, DC, September1990.U.S. General Accounting Office, ‘Developing Coun-try Debt—Debt Swaps for Development and NatureProvide Little Debt Relief,” Washington, DC, De-cember 1991.van Bergeijk, P. A. G., “International Trade and theEnvironmental Challenge” Journal of WorZd Trade,vol. 25, No. 6, December 1991, pp. 105-116.Weigle, K.A. et al., “Leishmania Braziliensis Fromthe Pacific Coast Region of Colombia: Foci ofTransmission, Clinical Spectrum and IsoenzymePhenotypes,” American Journal of Tropical Medi-cine and Hygiene, vol. 35, No. 4, 1986, pp. 722-731.Wells, M., Brandon, K., and Hannah, L., People andParks: An Analysis of Projects Linking ProtectedArea Management with heal Communities (Wash-ington DC: The World Bank, 1991).Westing, A. H., “Regional Security in a WiderContext,’ Comprehensive Security for the Baltic,A.H. Westing (cd.) (Imndon: Sage Publications,1989), pp. 113-120.World Bank Environment Department, World BA“Forest Policy Paper,” Washington, DC, 1991.World Resources Institute, Bangladesh Environmentand Natural Resource Assessment (Washington, DC:World Resources Institute and Center for Intern-ational Development and Environment, 1989).Wright, M., “Selling Timber Without Selling out,’”Tomorrow, vol. 1, No. 2, 1991, p. 87.Yuill, T.M. “Disease-causing Organisms: Compo-nents of Tropical Forest Ecosystems, ’ Ecosystems ofthe World (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ElsevierScientific Publishing, 1983), pp. 315-324.

Technologies to SustainTropical Forest Resources

Foreword

The United States has a stake in the sustained economic development of tropical nationsfor humanitarian, political, and economic reasons. To a great extent, the development of thesenations depends on increasing production from their potentially renewable soil, forest, andwater resources. But tropical forest resources, which cover nearly one-half of the tropicalnations’ land, are being consumed at a rate that may make them nonrenewable. They areexploited for timber and cleared for pasture and cropland with little regard for their abilitiesto produce important goods, maintain soil productivity, regulate water regimes, or regeneratethemselves in a long-term sustainable fashion.

International recognition of the importance of tropical forest resources and efforts tosustain the productivity of these resources have increased significantly in the last decade. In1980, the House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee onInternational Organizations held hearings on tropical deforestation. The committee thenrequested the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to conduct a more thoroughassessment of the problem, the technologies that could help sustain tropical forest resources,and possible options for Congress. The Subcommittee on Insular Affairs of the HouseCommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollutionof the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works endorsed the request. The SenateCommittee on Energy and Natural Resources asked that the assessment specifically addressforest resources of the U.S. insular territories in the Caribbean and western Pacific.

This summary presents the study’s major findings. The full report and its two backgroundpapers (Reforestation of Degraded Lands and US, and International Institutions) identify anddiscuss in depth some of the constraints and opportunities to develop and implementforest-sustaining technologies.

OTA greatly appreciates the contributions of the advisory panel and workshopparticipants assembled for the study, the authors of the commissioned technical papers, andthe many others who assisted us, including liaisons from other Government agencies. As withall OTA studies, however, the content of the report is the sole responsibility of the Office ofTechnology Assessment.

- D i r e c t o r

Eddie AlbertConservationist

Hugh BollingerVice PresidentNative Plants Inc.

Robert CassagnolTechnical CommitteeCONAELE

Advisory PanelTechnologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

Leonard Berry, ChairCenter for Technology, Environment, and Development

Clark University

Robert CramerFormer PresidentVirgin Islands Corp.

Gary EilertsAppropriate Technology International

John EwelDepartment of BotanyUniversity of Florida

Robert HartWinrock International

Susanna HechtDepartment of GeographyUniversity of California

Marilyn HoskinsDepartment of SociologyVirginia Polytechnic Institute

John Hunter*Michigan State University

Norman JohnsonVice President, North Carolina RegionWeyerhaeuser Co.

Jan LaarrnanDepartment of ForestryNorth Carolina State University

Charles LankesterU.N. Development Programme

Robert OwenChief Conservationist (retired)Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

Christine PadochInstitute of Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin

Allen PutneyEastern Caribbean Natural Area Management

ProgramWest Indies Laboratory

Jeff RommDepartment of ForestryUniversity of California

John TerborghDepartment of BiologyPrinceton University

Henry TschinkelRegional Office for Central American ProgramsU.S. Agency for International Development

Resigned in July 1982.

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members.The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for thereport and the accuracy of its contents.

OTA Project StaffTechnologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

H. David Bantal and Roger Herdman,2 Assistant Director, OTAHealth and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, ManagerFood and Renewable Resources Program

Analytical Staff

Susan Shen, Forester

Alison L. Hess, Resource Economist

Chris Elfring, Science Journalist

Eric Hyrnan, Environmental Planner3

Denise Toombs, Resource Policy Analyst3

Jim Kirshner, Resource Policy Analyst3

Bruce A. Ross-Sheriff, Geographer,Project Director

Administrative Staff

Phyllis Balan, Administrative Assistant

Nellie Hammond, Secretary

Carolyn Swarm, Secretary

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Reed Bundy Debra M. Datcher

Joe Henson Glenda Lawing Linda A. Leahy Cheryl J. Manning

Until August 1983.

From Dec. 26, 1983.Tempory staff (4-month period).

ContentsPage

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31IMPORTANCE OF TROPICAL FOREST RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31STATUS OF TROPICAL FORESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Technologies for Undisturbed Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Technologies to Reduce Overcutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Technologies for Disturbed Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Resource Development P1arming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Education, Research, and Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Expand and Coordinate Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Encourage Resource Development Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46ImproveTropicalForest Research and Market Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Protect Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Expand U.S. Expertise in Tropical Forest Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

U.S. TROPICAL FORESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48The U.S. Caribbean Territories: Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49The U.S. Western Pacific: Micronesia and American Samoa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Issues and Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

FiguresFigure Pagel. Global Areas of Tropical Woody Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312. Areas of Woody Vegetation in 76 Tropical Nations

(thousands of hectares, 1980 estimates) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333. A Typical Biosphere Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374. Locationof Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands . .

. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

S. Location of the U.S. Pacific Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

TablesTable Page1. 1985 Estimates of Closed Forest Area Sand Deforestation Rates in

Tropical Africa, America, and Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342. 1991 Estimates of Tropical Forest Area and Deforestation Rate for 87

Countries in the Tropical Region (area figures are millions of hectares) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

INTRODUCTIONForests of various kinds cover 42 percent of the

tropical nations’ land (fig. 1). To support a popula-tion of 2 billionl, these nations must use the naturalresources found in these forests: soil, water, plants,and animals. The productivity of these resources canbe renewable, but only if tropical people useresource-sustaining technologies.

Some tropical nations are experiencing severeshortages of forest products and services. To avoideven more acute problems, they need to restoreresource productivity. Other nations, even thosewith adequate forests, need to sustain their forestresources to avoid future problems. In just 30 years,the population of tropical nations is expected todouble to 4 billion people.2 Thus, the importance oftropical forest productivity is increasing as more andmore people depend on forest products and servicesfor basic needs such as fuel, materials for shelter, anda reliable water supply.

Substantial institutional activity is occurring world-wide that directly or indirectly benefits tropicalforest resources. The U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (AID), the United Nations agencies,the multilateral development banks, and others haveincreased their attention to forestry in recent years.Private corporations and nonprofit organizationsalso have been involved in the search for solutionsto tropical forest problems. Most importantly, tropi-cal nations’ governments have come to recognizethat deforestation and forest resource degradationconstrain their economies and their developmentoptions.

The large number of organizations that has someresponsibilities in forestry might imply an adequatelevel of activity is underway. But the total amount ofexpertise and funding available to forestry stillremains small relative to the scope of the problem.International development assistance organizationscannot fund enough forest conservation to offset

deforestation because the underlying institutionalcauses can only be resolved by the tropical countriesthemselves.

IMPORTANCE OF TROPICALFOREST RESOURCES

For tropical nations, forests and shrublands pro-vide wood for lumber and paper, building materials,and fuel, and are an important source of foreignexchange. Forests help maintain soil quality, limiterosion, stabilize hillsides, modulate seasonal flood-ing, and protect waterways and marine resourcesfrom accelerated siltation. In addition, many mill-ions of people living in and near the forests depend

Figure l-Global Areas of TropicalWoody Vegetation

Land surface of the Earth

Land surface of the 76 counties Studied

r Forest =

r

/fallow

Conifer forests \Plantations

SOURCE: M. Hadley and J.P. Lanley, “Tropical Forest Ecosystems:Identifying Differences, Seeking Similarities,” Nature and Re-sources, UNESCO, 19(1 ):2-1 9,1983.

1 In the seven years since the OTA’s report on tropical forest resources was writteq the population of tropical nations (excluding C@ includingIndia) grew to 2.4 billion, an increase of 17 percent [C. Haub, et al., “1991 World Population Data Sheet” (Washington, DC: Population ReferenceBureau, 1991)].

2 me ~opic~ ~tiom’ population is now ex~ted t. Each 4 bifion in the ym 2015 [C. Haub, et al., “1991 World Population Data Sheet”(Washingto~ DC: Population Reference Bureau, 1991)].

–31_

-.


directly on them for food, medicines, and other basicneeds.

The benefits from tropical forests are not limitedto tropical nations. World trade in tropical wood issignificant to the economies of both the producingand consuming nations. The United States is thesecond largest importer of tropical wood productsand U.S. demand for tropical wood has beengrowing at rates well above our population and grossnational product growth rates. Tropical forests alsoprovide a broad array of nonwood products such asoils, spices, and rattan that are valuable for bothsubsistence and commerce. The annual world tradein rattan, for example, is estimated to be $1.2 billion.Thus, industrial wood and other forest productexports earn substantial foreign exchange for nationsthat trade with the United States.4

The productivity of renewable resources in theTropics affects both the economic viability of U.S.investments overseas and political stability in thetropical nations. Many development projects fundedby the U.S. Government or the U.S. private sectorare being undercut by flooding, siltation of reser-voirs, pest outbreaks, and other problems associatedwith deforestation. Food and jobs, both critical forpolitical stability in developing nations, can bereduced by the consequences of deforestation.

The highly diverse tropical forests contain plants,animals, genetic material, and chemicals that havegreat potential value for medicine, agriculture, andother industries. The Tropics are thought to containtwo-thirds of the world’s approximately 4.5 millionplant and animal species. An estimated 2.5 millionof the tropical species are yet unknown to sciencesConsidering the value to society that has come fromthose tropical species that have been studied (e.g.,

many major agricultural crops, anticancer drugs,insects used in integrated pest management), it isvery likely that some of the remaining unstudiedspecies offer potentially important resources, partic-ularly for pest control, plant breeding, geneticengineering, and other biotechnologies. Biologistsare already using new techniques for cloning plantsand microorganisms to screen existing organisms fortheir production of useful chemicals.

Tropical forests also provide habitats for many ofthe world’s migratory birds and various endangeredspecies. About two-thirds of the birds that breed inNorth America migrate to Latin America or theCaribbean for winter. Some of these migratory birdsplay an important role controlling agricultural pestsin the United States.

STATUS OF TROPICAL FORESTSSome 76 nations located entirely or largely within

the tropical latitudes contain about half the world’spopulation (approximately 2 billion).G These nationsare characterized by rapidly growing populations,low per capita incomes, and predominantly agrarianeconomies. Near forest lands, much of the agricul-ture is subsistence farming, often in upland areaswhere soils are dry or have low fertility. Commercialagriculture, on the other hand, generally is sited onthe more fertile and often irrigated alluvial plains ofmajor river valleys. Both types of agriculture arestrongly affected by the 1.2 billion hectares7 of moisttropical forest and 800 million hectares of drier openwoodlands.

The type and distribution of forests vary consider-ably across regions in the Tropics (fig. 2). Two-thirds of the closed forests8 are found in tropical

3 h 1989, he IJnited Shtes ranked as the major developed country importer of two unfinished wood products ffom developing COUIMrkS, wood Pdp

and fiberboard, Imth coming mostly from Brazil. It also ranks as a major importer of sawn hardwood (from Brazil), veneer sheets (from Brazil and thePhilippines), and plywood (I%om Indonesia). However, Japan far outranks the United States as an importer of these and other developing country woodproducts ~nited Nations, Food and Agriculture Org anization, “Forest Products Yearbook: 1978 -1989,” Rome, Italy, 1991].

4 ~ 1985, me ~jor ~opi~ Wwd exwfig ~tiom ~v~ jofied the ~jor ~porting~tions in the hte~tio~ Timber Trade ~animion @’fT()),

which is unique among commodity trade groups in that conservation of the resoume base is a major focus of its activities. (See introduction.)5 Es~@s of the nw~r of Swcim ~ve ~n revis~ upw~ in r~~t y~. T~onom.is~ ~ve descriw d MIIId about 1.4 million species;

the total number of species now is estimated to range from 10 to 30 million. Most of these reside in tropical forests and are likely to become extinct beforethey are described ~.O. WilsoU “The Current State of Biological Diversity,” Biodiversify (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988); J.A,McNeely, et al,, Conserving the Worfd’s Biological lliversify Gland, Switzerland and Washington DC: International Union for the Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources, 1990)].

A III mid.1991 the 76 nations’ population was appro ximately 2.4 billion [C. Haub, et al., “1991 World Population Data Sheet” (WashingtorL DC:Population Reference Bureau, 1991)].

7 one h~t~e equals 2.4 acres.8 clo5~ for=t m- mat trees sh~e so much of the ground tit a continuous layer Of ~S (XIKIOt grOW.

Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources . 33

Figure 2—Areas of Woody Vegetationa in 76 Tropical Nations (thousands of hectares, 1980 estimates)

TROPICAL AMERICA

I_ Plantation forest

~ S h r u b l a n d s

~ Open woodland fallow

I ~ Closed forest fallow 1

~ Closed forest

216.997

TROPICAL AFRICA

TROPICAL ASIA

30,948

6

104

442,740

%Iosedforest has dense tree canopies and noncontinuous grass cover. Open forest has scattered trees and continuous grass cover. Forest fallow is land usedfor or abandoned from agriculture. Shrubland has woody vegetation under 7 meters high.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

America, while Africa has two-thirds of the open Data on the extent and condition of tropicalforests.9 Even within regions, forest types are forests are widely scattered and often inaccurate.unequally distributed among countries. Overall figures for deforestation10 mask consider-

9 @en fOrmt M.S ~ees tit Covm at l=5t 10 ~rcent of the ground but still allow enough light to reach the forest floor so tit a dense! confiuomcover of grass can grow.

10 Defore~@tion is tie ~onvemion of closed or open forest to no~orest. A dis~ction should be -e &tweendeforestation nd degradatio~ the latterrefers to biological, physical, and chemical processes that result in loss of the productive potential of natural resources in areas that remain classifiedas forest. This distinction explains some of the confusion in estimates of change in forest resources.

34 . Combined Summaries

Table 1—1985 Estimates of Closed Forest Areas and Deforestation Rates in Tropical Africa, America, and Asia

Closed forest Percent Closed forest Percentarea deforested area deforested

Country (1,000 ha) per year Country (1 ,000 ha) per year

Tropical Africa:Ivory CoastNigeriaRwandaBurundiBeninGuinea-BissauLiberiaGuineaKenyaMadagascarAngolaUgandaZambiaGhanaMozambiqueSierra LeoneTanzaniaTogoSudanChadCameroonEthiopiaSomaliaEquatorial GuineaZaireCentral African RepublicGabonCongoZimbabweNamibiaBotswanaMaliUpper VoltaNigerSenegalMalawiGambia

Totals

Tropical America:ParaguayCosta Rica

4,4585,950

1202647

6602,0002,0501,105

10,3002,900

7653,0101,718

935740

1,440304650500

17,9204,3501,5401,295

105,7503,590

20,50021,340

200b

b

bb

b

22018665

216,634

6.55.02.72.72.62.62,31.81.71.51.51.31.31.31.10.80.70.70.60.40.40.20.20.20.20.10.10.1

bb

b

bb

bbbb

0.61

4,070 4.71,638 4.0

HaitiEl SalvadorJamaicaNicaraguaEcuadorHondurasGuatemalaColombiaMexicoPanamaBelizeDominican RepublicTrinidad and TobagoPeruBrazilVenezuelaBoliviaCubaFrench GuianaSurinamGuyana

Totals

Tropical Asia:NepalSri LankaThailandBruneiMalaysiaLaosPhilippinesBangladeshViet NamIndonesiaPakistanBurmaKampucheaIndiaBhutanPapua New Guinea

Totals

4814167

4,49614,2503,7974,442

46,40046,250

4,1651,354

629208

357,480357,480

31,87044,010

1,4558,900

14,83018,475

678,655

1,9411,6599,235

32320,9958,4109,510

9278,770

113,8952,185

31,9417,548

51,8412,100

34,230

305,510

3.83.23.02.72.42.42.01.81.30.90.70.60.40.40.40.40.20.1

b

bb

0.6

4.33.52.71.51.21.21.00.90.70.50.30.3

;:;0.10.10.6

aFrom 1981-85.bNo data; in most cases this is where the areas are very small.

SOURCES: Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, “Tropical Forest Resourees Assessment project (GEMS): TropicalAfrica, Tropical Asia, Tropical Ameriea,” 4 VOIS., Rome, 1981.

able differences among the rates at which individual another 13 countries would exhaust theirs within 55countries are using and altering their forest resources years. ll

(table 1). If present trends were to continue, nine Estimates of overall deforestation rates alsotropical countries would eliminate practically all of conceal significant differences in the types oftheir closed forests within the next 30 years and tropical forest affected. The loss of species is

11 Datasumrnarized in Figure 2 and Table 1 are taken from the FAO/UNEP assessment of tropical forest areas for 1980. The FAO undertook a newassessment to update the data to 1990. The results, summarized in ‘Ihble 2, are considered more accurate than the earlier assessments. They indicate thatthe deforested area horn 1981 to 1990 averaged 16.9 million hectares per year. This is a si~lcant increase over the 11.3 million hectares per yemestimated for 1976-80 [United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, ‘‘Second Interim Report on the State of Tropical Forests,’ Presented to theloth World Forestry Congress, Paris, September 1991].

Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources ● 35

Table 2—1991 Estimates of Tropical Forest Area and Deforestation Rate for 87Countries in the Tropical Region (area figures are millions of hectares)

Area Rate ofTotal Forest Forest deforested changeland area area annually percent

Countries studies (#) area 1980 1990 1981-1990 per year

Latin AmericaCentral America and Mexico (7). . . . . 245 77 64 1.4 -1.8940Caribbean Sub-Region (8).. . . . . . . . . 70 49 47 0.2 -0.4Tropical South America (7). . . . . . . . . 1,361 797 729 6.8 -0.8

Subtotal, Latin America (32).. . . . . . . . . . 1,676 923 840 8.4 -0.9

AsiaSouth Asia (6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 71 66 0.4 -0.6Continental Southeast Asia (5)...... 193 83 70 1.3 -1.6insular Southeast Asia (4). . . . . . . . . . 258 157 139 1,8 -1.2

Subtotal, Asia(15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897 311 275 3.5 -1.2

AfricaWest Sahelian Africa(8) . . . . . . . . .. 528 42 38 0.4 -0.9East Sahelian Africa (6). . . . . . . . . . . . 490 92 85 0.7 -0.8West Africa (8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 55 43 1.2 -2.1Central Africa (7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 230 215 1.5 -0.6Tropical Southern Africa (lo). . . . . . . . 558 218 206 1.1 -0.5Insular Africa (l). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 13 12 0.2 -1.2

Subtotal, Africa (40). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,243 650 600 5.1 -0.8

Total (87). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..4,816 1,884 1,715 17.0 41.9Y0

SOURCE: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, “Second Interim Report on the State of TropicalForests,” Presented to the Ioth World Forestry Congress, Paris, France, September 1991.

probably greatest in the broad-leaved humid low-land forests, as these are biologically the mostcomplex and diverse. But the tropical conifer forestscover much smaller areas and have been severelydegraded by logging and agriculture. Direct impactson people are greatest in dry regions where degrada-tion of open forests leads to severe shortages ofwood for fuel. But the loss of mountain watershedforest may affect even more people by making riverflows more erratic.

Each year approximately 11.3 million hectares ofthe Earth’s remaining tropical forests-an arearoughly the size of Pennsylvania-are cleared andconverted to other uses. 12 were cleared land isdeveloped for sustainable agriculture, deforestationcan be beneficial. But most land being clearedcannot sustain farmin g or grazing with availabletechnologies, so it is abandoned after a few years.Often, commercially valuable trees do not growback quickly because of highly weathered soils,harsh climates, and recurring fires. Thus, highlyproductive but underused forest resources are givingway to low-productivity grasslands and deserts.

Deforestation and degradation of tropical landsare not new. losses of forest resources have beenreported as early as 450 B.C. in the African Saheland 1000 A.D. in South China. For centuries,tropical deforestation has been associated withpoverty and with patterns of economic developmentthat result in inequitable access to farmland. Peopledisplaced by development in the lowlands oftenhave been the direct agents of deforestation becausethey have little choice if they are to survive.

The main agents of tropical deforestation andforest resource degradation continue to be subsis-tence agriculturalists, livestock raisers, fuelwoodcollectors, and people who set fries to facilitateclearing or gathering activities. Commercial agricul-ture plays a smaller role in deforestation today thanit has in the past, although in some areas (e.g.,Central America and Brazil) clearing tropical forestsfor cattle ranching causes a large part of the forestresource loss. Commercial logging is also an impor-tant cause of forest degradation.

Subsistence and commercial use of forest landscan cause deforestation. Combined, they form par-

12 me ~vaage ma of ~opi~ forest deforested ~~y from 1980-1990 was 17 million hectares ~tlitd Nations, Food ~d A@cuhureOrganization, ‘‘Second Interim Report on the State of Tropical Forests,’ Presented to the loth World Forestry Congress, Paris, September 1991].

297-928 0 - 92 - 6 : QL3


ticularly pernicious relationships. For example, log-gers build roads through undisturbed forests toremove timber. Slash-and-bum cultivators use theroads to gain access to the forests and clear patchesfor temporary agriculture. Ranching or commercialagriculture may follow the farmers, exploit theland’s remaining productivity, then move on intonew areas. These agents of tropical forest changevary in prominence among tropical America, Africa,and Asia.

Alternative techniques exist that could be substi-tuted for these destructive practices. However,sustainable forestry and agriculture practices gener-ally are not being developed and applied. Theunderlying causes of this failure lie in political,economic, and social forces (e.g., undefined prop-erty rights) that cause people to use forests in waysthat are inappropriate to ecological conditions.Deterioration of the forest resources seems likely tocontinue until combinations of improved technolo-gies and enforced resource development policiesmake sustaining the forests more profitable thandestroying them.

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTThis report discusses various technologies to

develop tropical forest resources. Some are tech-niques to manage forests—undisturbed and dis-turbed-and some are technologies to use forests toprotect related resources such as agriculture andwater. Others are techniques to prepare people forthe various tasks involved in developing and imple-menting technologies to sustain the resources.

Technologies for Undisturbed Forests

Undisturbed forests produce many valuable prod-ucts and services, usually with little or no humanmanagement. One way to reduce the rate at whichundisturbed forests are converted to other, nonsus-tainable uses is through systematic preservation ofsample ecosystems in parks and protected areas.Another approach is to enhance the value of theforest by developing its resources other than timber—the nonwood products and forest food sources. Foreither approach to succeed, willing involvement oflocal people and political commitment from gover-nment decisionmakers are essential.

Maintaining Sample Ecosystems

Parks and protected areas can be managed fordirect income (e.g., tourism) and for indirect bene-

fits, such as preventing siltation of reservoirs. Someof these benefits can be estimated for resourceallocation decisions. Other major benefits providedby protected areas-e. g., preservation of biologicaldiversity-cannot be measured in dollars. Thus, inthe past, the locations of protected areas have beendetermined more for watershed protection or touristpotential than consideration of biological diversity.

A marked disparity exists in the worldwidedistribution of parks and protected areas, with sometypes of ecosystems well represented and others notrepresented at all. Many legally protected areas lackfirm commitments from local, national, and intern-ational agencies. Consequently, they receive littleactual protection or are inadequately managed. Strictpreservation with total exclusion of economic activ-ity is not practical for many sites where protection ofundisturbed forests is important. Recognizing thegrowing demands to develop rural land, protectedarea planners and managers have begun to pay moreattention to socioeconomic and institutional factors.They seek participation from both the people whowill affect or be affected by forest resources and thepeople and agencies that must support managementprograms.

Some innovative plans that include the surround-ing biophysical and socioeconomic setting havebeen developed for protected areas. One suchactivity is the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere(MAB) program’s worldwide network of biospherereserves (fig. 3). The management of these reservesconsiders the needs of local populations and seeksways to make benefits available to local people.More field experience and monitoring are needed toevaluate the successes of existing biosphere re-serves. However, the MAB effort is constrained bya lack of strong, consistent commitments from U.S.and other governments.

Making Undisturbed Forests More Valuable

Few deliberate attempts have been made toharvest forest products other than timber and fuel-wood in a sustainable, organized way. Incentives tomaintain unlogged forests would be greater ifmethods were developed to use forest resourcesother than timber more filly-either by discoveringnew, valuable products or by encouraging collectionand processing of existing products.

Products obtained from animals and from wood,bark, leaves, or roots of trees and other forest


Figure 3—A Typical Biosphere Reserve

Core area ❑R Research station

The biosphere reserve considers the needs of the local people byincorporating biophysical and socioeconomic factors into itsmanagement plan.SOURCE: M. Batisse, “The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for Environmental

Conservation and Management,” EnvironmentalConservation,vol. 9, summer 1982.

vegetation offer significant opportunities for tropi-cal countries to develop cottage industries. Employ-ment and incomes for people living in or near forestscould be improved while encouraging maintenanceof the natural ecosystems. Improved assessment ofthe role of forest products in subsistence economiesand development of markets for nonwood productscould help decisionmakers recognize the value ofundisturbed forests. U.S. scientific and managerialexpertise could be applied to this problem, espe-cially from the fields of ecology, botany, business,and forest management. Few technologies existtoday that can extract selected renewable resourcesfrom a tropical forest while leaving the forest nearlyintact. Crocodile and butterfly farming are twoexamples that are being implemented. The develop-ment of other such resource-conserving systems isneeded.

Technologies to Reduce Overcutting

Much resource degradation is caused in closedtropical forests by inappropriate wood harvestingmethods and in mountain and dry forests by cutting

more wood than grows each year. Development ofimproved wood processing technologies and mar-kets for more of the many tree species and sizesgrowing in the closed forests would reduce the areathat must be logged to satisfy timber demand. Wheretoo much wood is being cut, it may be necessary toreduce demand by increasing the efficiency ofwoodstoves and charcoal kilns or by substitutingalternative energy sources.

Industrial Wood

Intensive forest harvesting could give increasedoutput per unit area, thus reducing demand to cutelsewhere. But this approach can have positive andnegative impacts. It can make reforestation plantingmore feasible. On the other hand, it increases thepotential for damage to the site from poor roadengineering, inadequate site protection, and tardyrestoration of forest stands. Intensive harvestingwould require strict enforcement of regulations toprevent adverse impacts on the land’s long-termproductivity.

Intensive harvesting depends on the availabilityof profitable technologies to extract, process, andmarket a wider range of tree species and sizes.Grouping species according to their uses (e.g.,construction material) is an approach that has beensuccessful in Africa. However, many unused specieshave sizes, shapes, or wood characteristics that make

Photo credit: L. Lind, USDA Forest Service

Throughout much of South Asia and Africa, fodder forlivestock is as important a forestry product as wood. Like

logging, however, the potential for overcutting existswithout controls on timing or amounts removed.

them difficult to harvest and process and that limittheir usefulness.

The use of smaller trees would require costlyreplacement of existing equipment designed forlarge logs. Portable sawmills and small units thatcould be carried easily and set up to mill logs at thestump could make logging much more efficient.Such technologies might minimize adverse environ-mental effects from hauling logs but might encour-age logging of currently inaccessible areas.

The greatest progress toward making intensiveharvest profitable has occurred where multispecieswood chips are produced for wood pulp or fuel. The“press-dry paper process” developed at the U.S.Forest Products Laboratory promises to increase theworld market for hardwood chips. However, chip-ping can have adverse impacts because in moisttropical forests most of the plant nutrients arelocated in the trees rather than in the soil. Thus,wood chip harvesting that removes most trees canseverely reduce the fertility of the site.

For little known but potentially marketable lum-ber species, cost-effective preservation and dryingtechnologies are needed to improve use charac-teristics. Many types of wood are susceptible toattack by termites, other insects, or fungi undertropical conditions. Although wood preservativesare available, they generally are costly. Some lessexpensive techniques exist, but their effectivenesshas not been proven.

Fuelwood

Approximately 80 percent of the estimated 1billion cubic meters of wood removed annually fromtropical forests is used for fuel.13 The effects ofexcessive fuelwood cutting are seen frost near citiesand towns where fuel demand is concentrated. Butovercutting does not always remain a local problem.Mangrove forests of Thailand and dry forests ofKenya, for example, are overcut to produce charcoalthat is transported by ship to other nations.

Most wood fuel is used in homes for cooking,though tobacco drying and other rural industries alsoconsume substantial quantities. Common domesticstoves waste much of the wood energy, as dotraditional methods of making charcoal. Therefore,

Photo credit: S. Pandey, USDA Forest Service

With most tropical nations still dependent mainly onwood and crop residues for cookng fuel, enhancing

fuel-use efficiency by introducing improved stoves is amajor opportunity for technology development to reduce

pressure on forests, especially in semi-arid areas.

it should be possible to reduce fuelwood demand andconsequent overcutting significantly by disseminat-ing more efficient stoves and charcoal kilns. At-tempts to introduce such technologies in tropicalnations have had mixed success. Improved stovesare not quickly and widely accepted. Though cheapby U.S. standards, they often cost too much. Somereduce the range of fuels that can be used. Further,improved charcoal production sometimes does notlead to less wood cutting because charcoal makersmay use the time or profits they gain to make evenmore charcoal. Techniques to reduce demand re-quire especially careful planning, monitoring, andevaluation.

Nonwood fuels such as kerosene can sometimesbe used to reduce wood demand temporarily whilefuelwood plantations are established and whilenatural forests recover fromn exploitation. But thecosts of obtaining and distributing nonwood fuelsubstitutes are often prohibitive, especially to therural poor. Small-scale, renewable energy technolo-gies such as solar dryers have more potential for

13 ~ me d~ade fmm 1979 t. Ig89, toti wood removals from tropical country forests rose by about 25 percent. Es~ed fuelw~ co~~ptionin tropical countries remains at about 80 percent of total wood use CUnited Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization ‘‘Forest Products Yearbook:1978-1989, ” Rome, Italy, 1991].


long-term use, but their adoption is inhibited byfinancial and managerial constraints.

Substituting plantation-grown wood for naturalforest wood clearly is an important option in manytropical regions. Investment in plantations is con-strained, however, where access to “free-for-the-taking’ forest wood is not restricted. Thus, regula-tory controls on fuelwood gathering from the naturalforest must be enforced if the fuelwood plantationoption is to be used before all the accessible naturalforests are destroyed. Where fuelwood has commerc-ial value above the cost of cutting and transporta-tion, the possibility exists that farmers and businesswill invest in planting trees.

Securing future wood supplies is a social, politi-cal, and economic problem. Investments of land,labor, and capital in tree growing are constrained byproblems with land ownership, laws, and socialorganization. Until these are resolved and woodfuelsupplies are being effectively replenished, measuresto reduce demand will fail to reach the root of theproblem. Demand reduction creates no incentivesfor increased supply; it may achieve the reverse.

Technologies for Disturbed Forests

An estimated 400 million hectares of potentiallyproductive secondary forest14 exist in closed tropicalforest areas. Approximately 2 billion hectares oftropical lands are in various stages of degradation.Investment in the improvement of secondary forestsand reforestation of degraded lands offers opportuni-ties to meet needs for materials, substitute domesticproduction for imports, and provide new sources ofemployment in wood production and processing.

Management of Secondary Forests

Many tropical countries could sustain productionof all the wood they will need for decades if adequateinvestments were made to develop and managecutover secondary forests. However, such invest-ments are seldom made. Land tenure can be aconstraint, but even where the forests are clearlyowned and controlled by government forestry agen-cies or private landowners, investments are usuallyinadequate. Technologies for sustained forest pro-duction exist, but for most of these the time lagbefore payback begins is too long and return on theinvestments is too low to attract adequate private and

public capital. Opportunities to improve this situa-tion

●

●

●

●

include:

resolution of land tenure issues,public and private investments in research anddevelopment to make sustainable secondaryforest management more profitable,increased technology transfer of profitableresource-sustaining forest management meth-ods, andimplementation of resource use regulations, taxlaws, or subsidies to make investments insecondary forest management more profitable.

Simply reducing logging damage by using appro-priate or improved harvesting equipment can in-crease the number of trees available for a future crop,as well as increase natural regeneration and facilitateenrichment planting. But to ensure this occurs,regulations to control logging practices must beenforced.

Reforestation of Degraded Lands

Technologies are available to reforest certaindegraded lands. But tree planting sometimes doesnot compete well, in economic terms, with otherland uses. The solutions to this dilemma includereducing reforestation costs, reducing plantationfailure rates by enlisting support of local people,increasing plantation yields, and developing meth-ods to quantify the indirect benefits of reforestation.

Reforestation costs can be reduced if land prepa-ration is used to reduce weed invasion and ensure afavorable environment for seedling growth. Planta-tion yields can be increased by selecting high-yielding, fast-growing, soil-enriching, and stress-tolerant tree species. Developing and implementingtree breeding and improvement programs can pro-duce varieties with high yields and other desiredcharacteristics. Careful provenance testing—matching the appropriate variety to a particularsite— should improve species performance and re-duce mortality.

To achieve successful reforestation, several con-straints must be overcome:

. shortage of planting stock and lack of qualitycontrol in seed and clone production,

14 SwOndw forest includes ~~ ~e~id~ fom~t tit &s ken cut on~ or sever~ ties d~g tie p~t 60 to 80 years ~d second ~OWth-fONStS matinvade after periodic cultivation.

.


. inadequate knowledge of tropical site condi-tions, and

● lack of information dissemination.

The coordination of collection, certification, andinternational distribution of high-quality seeds incommercial quantities needs to be improved. Infor-mation on proven silvicultural techniques must bedisseminated to the local people.

These technical problems can be solved, givenadequate funding and time. A more subtle problemis to get local people to maintain tree plantations.First of all, they must clearly understand the reasonsfor planting trees. The trees should produce productslocal people want, and the people must be convincedthat substantial benefits from the trees will accruedirectly to them. Often this means using speciesselected by local people rather than species selectedby foresters.

Forestry Technologies to SupportTropical Agriculture

Medium-and long-term maintenance of tropicalforest resources may depend more on sustaining theland already under cultivation than on refining use ofthe remaining forest. Introducing woody perennialsinto farming and pastoral land (agroforestry) andimproving farming techniques for upland watershedareas could help sustain the productivity of landsunder cultivation and so reduce the need to clearadditional forest lands.

Agroforestry

Agroforestry encompasses many well-known andlong-practiced land-use methods. The aim is tocreate productive farming systems able to supply ahigher and more sustainable output of basic needsand saleable products than occurs without trees.Agroforestry is most important on lands with serioussoil fertility problems and lands where inadequaterural infrastructure makes it vital for people toproduce most of their own basic needs for fertilizers,food, fodder, fuel, and shelter.

Agroforestry is a newly recognized field andcould benefit from a critical examination of practices


Substantial progress has been made in describing anddeveloping agroforestry systems that combine woody andnon-woody species on a single plot of land. Agroforestrysystems commonly are developed based on traditional

agroforestry models such as those practiced in southernChina combining food, fuel, and medicine production.

and quantification of information. Since agroforestrycuts across several disciplines, its research anddevelopment requires an interdisciplinary approach.Because of fragmented institutional jurisdiction,however, agroforestry is not receiving adequatesupport from either forestry or agricultural institu-tions. ls

Great technological potential for agroforestryseems to lie in genetic improvement (systematicbreeding and selection) of multipurpose tree andshrub species. Selection of appropriate provenances,subspecies, and varieties can greatly enhance thesuccess of agricultural systems designed for particu-lar land requirements.

The potential for farmers and pastoralists to adoptagroforestry system improvements is more difficultto assess. Peasant farmers can ill afford the risks ofinnovation. Large-scale adoption of new agro-forestry systems would require creating incentivesto enable people to implement new practices in spiteof the initial risks and delayed returns.

15 Sevmd research organi.zations located in tropical nations carried out important research on agroforestry during the 1980s. In 1991, forestry,agroforestry, and related environmental issues were incorporated in the mandate of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research(CGIAR), the major network of research institutions funded by bilateral and multilateral donors to support development in tropical regions. (Seeintroduction.)


Watershed Management

The greatest problems in tropical watershedsoccur where subsistence farmers and their livestockmove onto steep uplands. Excluding farmers andlivestock from such areas can allow vegetation timeto recover, but enforcing such policies is difficult.Mechanical structures and replanting methods canrestore water flow stability from some deforestedslopes. Further, conservation practices exist thatallow farming and grazing on many moderatewatershed slopes. However, the watershed manage-ment techniques are unlikely to become widespreaduntil farmers and herders in upland areas haveincentives to stop destructive land-use practices. Toprovide upland farmers with nondestructive land-use alternatives necessitates:

●

●

●

developing methods of land use that are moreprofitable to the local community and at thesame time improve control of water flows;developing improved techniques to measureand predict tradeoffs of different managementactions; andtesting new technologies and getting the usefulones adopted by the local community. Subsi-dies from downstream beneficiaries of thewatershed protection may be necessary. Socio-logical studies could help define the type ofincentives needed to obtain farmers’ coopera-tion.

Resource Development Planning

Most conversions of tropical forests to other landuses take place without adequate consideration ofwhether the natural and human resources availablecan sustain the new land use. Sometimes, destructiveforest conversions are an unplanned result of someother, narrowly planned development. For instance,poorly sited logging roads can open highly erodibleforest land to unplanned clearing for slash-and-bumagriculture.

This problem can be ameliorated through the useof resource development plarming techniques thatmatch land development activities to the natural andhuman capabilities of specific sites. These tech-niques can identify which sites can sustain cropproduction, grazing, reservoirs, new settlements,intensive forestry or agroforestry, and which will bemost productive if retained as natural forest.

Ideally, resource development planning includesfour components: biophysical assessment, financial(investor’s viewpoint) and economic (society’s view-point) assessment, social assessment, and projectmonitoring and evaluation. Biophysical assessmentis used more often than the others, although it still isunderused. Furthermore, the techniques commonlyare used to determine the best sites for particulardevelopment purposes rather than to develop acomprehensive strategy for all sites in a region.

Use of each of the four planning components isconstrained by a lack of information on cause-and-effect relationships. Economic assessment encoun-ters difficulty measuring nonrnarket values. Farther,the analyses may consider the forest values only ofa small site, disregarding the interrelationshipsbetween that site and the surrounding area. Forexample, loss of the genetic resources in a smallpatch of a large forest may seem unimportantbecause nearby forested areas contain the samebiological diversity. Consequently, individual eco-nomic analyses may justify clearing the forestedregion piece by piece without accounting for theoverall genetic loss incurred.

Finally, even well-planned development mayprove unsustainable if planning stops after imple-mentation begins. Most planning is done beforeprojects begin, when least is known about biophysi-cal and human resources at the site. Continuousplanning, monitoring, and evaluation are necessaryduring and after the project. The major developmentassistance organizations have begun to institute suchprocedures but have not yet determined how to usethe results.

Opportunities to enhance the use of resourcedevelopment planning include improving data avail-ability, more demonstration of the techniques’potentials, better communication of planning suc-cess, increasing the number of trained planners,improving techniques for economic and socialanalysis, and assuring that projects remain open toredirection after implementation begins.

Education, Research, andTechnology Transfer

Forest resource development is constrained inmost tropical nations by a shortage of professionaland technical personnel who know about appropriatetechnologies and who also understand the institu-tional, economic, and cultural aspects of forest

resource systems. In the near term, expatriates,including U.S. professionals, can provide someexpertise. But this is not likely to be sufficientbecause the scope of tropical forest resource prob-lems is so large and the number of expatriate expertsis small. Further, expatriates lack the political andcultural ties necessary to influence policy. Sustain-ing tropical forest resources requires development ofindigenous expertise in all aspects of resourcedevelopment. Education, research, and technologytransfer are the means to develop expertise both inthe United States and in tropical nations.

Education

U.S. universities can act to sustain tropical forestsin two ways: educating professionals who will workin tropical forestry-related fields and strengtheningtropical nations’ universities. However, tropicalforestry is peripheral to the interests of most U.S.forestry schools and the experts are scattered widelyamong institutions. Consequently, efficient mecha-nisms must be developed to bring together multidis-ciplinary teams of researchers and educators andconnect them with students, foreign universities, andother seeking to develop tropical forest expertise.16

Twinning, which creates associations betweentropical nation institutions and individual developednation institutions, has worked with a few universityforestry schools. Consortia of U.S. universities canprovide tropical institutions access to a wider rangeof expertise and experience than twinning arrange-ments. However, this approach still does not resolveseveral of the fundamental deficiencies that reducethe effectiveness of U.S. institutions. U.S. forestryschools lack tropical settings for teaching andresearch. Further, their curricula do not preparestudents to solve the social and institutional prob-lems that confront tropical forest resource develop-ment. The development of one or more U.S. centersof excellence in tropical forestry might resolve thesedeficiencies. For example, a center of excellence inPuerto Rico could focus on Latin American forestdevelopment needs, providing the necessary tropicalsetting as well as benefiting the U.S. tropical forests.

A major objective of U.S. efforts to enhancetropical forest education could be to strengthen

schools in the Tropics. Some 138 universities and220 technical schools in tropical nations provideforestry education and training. Nearly all theseschools are new. Most are small and produce fewgraduates each year. Thus, substantial support isneeded to provide in-service faculty training, toproduce locally relevant course materials, and tomodernize basic education facilities such as herbari-um, library collections, and computers.

Resource development professionals, the scien-tists who develop technologies and the technicianswho implement them, are ineffective without strongsupport from the many people who make decisionsabout the use of natural resources. Environmentaleducation aims to change people’s attitudes andbehavior by providing them with the motivation andthe knowledge necessary to make decisions and takeactions that will sustain natural resource productiv-ity.

Environmental education efforts can be directedat the general public using mass media or programsin primary and secondary schools. Or the efforts canbe directed more narrowly at higher level decision-makers. Unfortunately, the behavioral science basisfor environmental education is not well established,so the techniques must be developed by unscientifictrial and error. This development could be acceler-ated if significant investments were made to evalu-ate, document, and communicate the environmentaleducation efforts that are under way. Having neithera strong scientific foundation nor substantial docu-mentation of the causes of program success andfailure, environmental education projects have adifficult time competing with other projects forfunds and personnel.

Research

Technologies intended to develop renewable re-sources are likely to fail if they are based o ninadequate knowledge. Thus, both fundamental andapplied research are necessary components of anystrategy to sustain tropical forest resources. Funda-mental research is the foundation for applied re-search, while applied research is needed to improveexisting forestry technologies and develop newtechnologies.

16 substiti~ nemortig among academicians intmxtecl in tropical forestry occurred during the past decade. The U.S. Forest Service, IUD,

non-governm ent organiza tions working in tropical forestry, university consortia organized for international development assistance, and privateconsulting fms have established databases to facilitate matching U.S. forestry academicians to developing country needs and opportunities for haining,research, and technical assistance.


Many experts conclude that sustaining tropicalforests is not so much a technical problem as it is aninstitutional problem. Thus, research is especiallyneeded to determine the interactions between thesocial and biophysical factors of tropical forestsystems. Some knowledge about social and institu-tional factors is being used in resource developmentprojects supported by U.S. agencies. However, thisknowledge usually is based on personal experience,not on careful research. A substantial increase intruly interdisciplinary research could enhance thelikelihood that institutional changes would result insustainable forest resource development.

The techniques used to manage tropical forestresources are generally based on trial-and-errorexperience gained in past centuries. They havebenefited little from the rapid advances in funda-mental and applied biology that have occurredrecently. For most tropical forest types, tech-niques have not been developed that can:

produce the products, environmental services,and employment opportunities that local peo-ple need, andsustain the productivity of the resource base,andbe profitable enough to motivate people to risktheir scarce capital, labor, and land.

Applied research to improve existing technolo-gies probably will not suffice to meet these goals.Innovations based on new fundamental research willalso be necessary.

Low levels and short periods of funding are majorconstraints on fundamental research in tropicalareas, but these are not the only reasons why basicknowledge is inadequate to sustain tropical forests.Most fundamental research in tropical biology hasbeen designed to develop evolutionary theory, andrelatively little work has been done or is being doneon ecological theory.

Another problem is poor communication amongresearchers and between researchers and technologyusers. Most forestry and biology research organiza-tions reward scientists, including those working onapplied research, for publishing in journals thattechnology users seldom read. In fact, few journals

exist that are designed to communicate researchresults to resource developers. The U.S. ForestService periodical The Caribbean Forester onceserved this purpose but has been discontinued. As aresult of poor communication, the pace of innova-tion is slower than it needs to be, techniques arereinvented, some mistakes are continually repeated,and potentially successful technologies spread slowly,if at all.

Technology Transfer

The experience of U.S. forestry organizationsshows that many potentially profitable techniqueslanguish for lack of effective technology transferamong scientists, between scientists and technologyusers, and among technology users. Thus, it isappropriate that international development assist-ance organizations focus their efforts not on promot-ing particular technologies but rather on buildinglocal institutions’ capacities to choose, receive,adapt, and deliver technologies appropriate to localcircumstances.

An important constraint on development assist-ance effectiveness in forestry is the lack of coordina-tion among many bilateral and multilateral projects.Coordination of resource development projects sothat each project contributes the appropriate actionsat the appropriate time to accomplish long-rangeplans should be the responsibility of tropical gover-nments. But donor agencies usually fund the projectsthey identify rather than projects identified in somelong-term planning process. One approach to imp-rove plannin g and coordination of technologytransfer is the use of ad hoc international committeesthat are separate from the policies and problems ofindividual government agencies or developmentassistance organizations.

17 Committees such as thenewly instituted Coordination for Development inAfrica could assist tropical governments in develop-ing long-range plans and in identifying and recom-mending projects for the various international organ-izations.

The OTA assessment identified a number ofnecessary conditions for successful technology trans-fer. 18 For most technologies, the lack of these

17 ~Pmt Progess in development assistice PI arming and coordination for forestry has occurred since 1985. The Tropical Forestry Action Planprocess, facilitated by FAO, and the Forestry Master Plans being facilitated by the multilateral development banks, are identifying forestry developmentpriorities and providing a framework for focusing and coordinating the efforts of donor agencies. (See introduction.)

16 ~ese ~onditiom were a result of discussions ~ong OTA st~; Roger MNllLT, ~; ad G~ Eilem, Appropriate ~chnoIogy ktemLitiOIld.


conditions seems to be constraining wider adapta-tion and adoption:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Technology is transferred most effectively bydirect people-to-people actions. People who areto adapt and apply the technology need to learnit directly from people who have experienceapplying it.Technology needs to be adapted at the users’end to local biophysical and socioeconomicconditions.Well-qualified people with knowledge aboutthe technology are needed on the source end ofthe transfer, and receptive, capable people areneeded on the receiving end. These people maybe local transfer agents or they maybe the endusers.Another type of actor, the ‘ ‘facilitator,” is alsonecessary. Facilitators understand the technol-ogy transfer process, including the market forthe technology and its products and the politi-cal, social, and economic constraints and op-portunities that affect all the other actors.Users and transfer agents should be involved inchoosing the technologies and in planning andimplementing the transfer process so the tech-nology and the transfer meet actual needs andare appropriate for the local situation.All parties involved-source, transfer agents,facilitators, and end users—must feel they arewinners and must, in fact, be winners. Eachactor’s self-interests should be identified at thestart of the technology transfer process so theycan be addressed.Each participant must be aware of subsequentsteps in the transfer process so his or her actionsare appropriate to the later steps. This requiresearly definition of roles for each person in-volved.The environment for technology demonstra-tions should be similar to the environment thatwill exist during subsequent steps of thetransfer process. Pilot transfer projects shouldnot be unrealistically easy.The initial commitment of resources to theprocess should be sufficient to carry the tech-nology transfer until it is self-supporting.The transfer process must include mechanismsthrough which all participants can contribute

effectively to interim evaluations and improve-ments.

ISSUES AND OPTIONSFOR CONGRESS

Tropical forest resources represent a great oppor-tunity for sustained development because they arefundamentally renewable. However, too little suchdevelopment is occurring. Instead, the productivityof the forests continues to be diminished. The U.S.Congress has already helped to sustain tropicalforests by directing AID and the U.S. representativesto international organizations to give forest resourcedevelopment higher priority in development assist-ance programs. To expand this progress, Congresscould take actions that would enhance tropicalgovernments’ abilities to plan and coordinate re-source development projects.19

The underlying causes of forest resource deterio-ration are institutional, social, and economic. Conse-quently, the reforms needed to support sustainableresource development can only come from thegovernments and people of the tropical nations.However, the United States can help stimulate suchreforms. Some U.S. technologies, such as Landsatimagery, already supply vital information to im-prove resource development decisions. U.S. diplo-macy—for example, supporting the United NationsEnvironment Programme and UNESCO’S Man andthe Biosphere program-also can help to fosterunderstanding of resource problems and coordinateinternational efforts to resolve them.

Congress can address technical constraints moredirectly. U.S. and international organizations thatCongress can influence have the capability to: 1)develop production systems that provide the basicneeds of local people while conserving forestproductivity, and 2) assist tropical organizations andindividuals in developing, adapting, and implement-ing such technologies. U.S. agencies that are apply-ing this type of expertise include AID, the ForestService, the National Academy of Sciences, theNational Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice, and the Soil Conservation Service. Somecommercial fins, private voluntary organizations,

19 me fipact of ~e.e ~onve~sio~ d~ectives, ~d con~uing attention from Con=ess, ~ been substiti~. D’s investment in forestry prOJeCtSrose to about $130 million per year by 1991. Comparable investment in agricultural activities is $565 million. Multilateral development banks have alsoincreased investments in tropical foresby. (See introduction.)

.



Coordination of international development organizations’assistance in developing, adapting, and implementing

agriculture and forestry systems could eliminateduplication and inconsistency and improve cost-

effectiveness of interventions, necessary objectives in

regions with widespread and severe land degradation such

as Haiti’s once-forested hillsides.

and U.S. universities also have expertise relevant tosustaining tropical forest resources.

Congress has ways to influence multilateral banksand U.N. agencies, some obvious (e.g., throughallocation of funds and assistance) and some subtle(e.g., using the prestige of Congress to give credibil-ity to a new idea), The final chapter describesopportunities for congressional action to:

●

●

●

●

●

expand and coordinate development assistance,encourage resource development planning,improve tropical forest research and develop-ment efforts,protect biological diversity, andexpand U.S. expertise in tropical forest re-sources.

U.S. tropical forests are discussed separately inthis summary.

Expand and CoordinateDevelopment Assistance

issue (Projects): Development assistance prog-ress is slow and the gains are insufficient to sustain

tropical forest resources. Many opportunities exist toenhance gains already made, but congressionalvigilance is necessary to ensure that forestry projectsreceive an appropriate share of U.S. developmentassistance funds and that other types of projectscomplement the forestry efforts.

The Foreign Assistance Act directs developmentassistance organizations in which the United Statesparticipates to give higher priority to protectingagainst the loss and degradation of tropical forests.Accordingly, AID, the World Bank, the U.N. Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO), and someother multilateral organizations have increased fund-ing in recent years for forest-related projects. How-ever, many opportunities for use of developmentassistance to sustain tropical forest resources are notbeing pursued adequately. Examples of such oppor-tunities are:

●

●

●

●

emphasize agroforestry and innovative cropsand techniques that can sustain permanentagriculture on relatively poor soils;

promote reforestation and management of natu-ral forests to sustain environmental servicesand produce fuelwood, construction wood,polewood, and nonwood products;

stress institution-building to enable tropicalgovernments to exercise improved control overtimber concession operators; and

support livestock projects that do not result indeforestation or forest degradation.

Option—To encourage expanded support forforestry projects, committees of Congress couldcontinue oversight hearings requesting AID officialsand U.S representatives to multilateral developmentassistance organizations to testify on the extent towhich assistance practices accomplish the objec-tives set forth in Section 118 of the ForeignAssistance Act.

Issue (Coordination): Development assistanceagencies generally do not coordinate their projectseffectively at the country or regional level. Toimprove their effectiveness, projects could be organ-ized as steps in comprehensive strategies designed todevelop sustainable forest resource use systems.Individual development assistance agencies haveneither developed nor coordinated such strategies.zo

20 c~rdination of fore~q Smtor development assistice tiding is an expressed goal of the Tropical Foresu ~tion pl~. (s= ~troduction”)

46 . CCombined Summaries

The reasons why host governments and interna-tional assistance organizations do not coordinateactivities more effectively are complex. But coordi-nation could play a key role in improving the costeffectiveness of U.S. assistance. If the Congressdecides that improving cost effectiveness is worthrelinquishing some degree of U.S. control over whatprojects are funded, it could mandate increased U.S.effort to enhance the tropical nations’ abilities tocoordinate the work of development assistanceorganizations.

Options-One way to begin such a fundamentalshift in the development assistance process would beto direct the Department of State to assess whethervarious tropical nations are able and politicallyready to develop long-term action plans for sus-tained forest resource development. Another mecha-nism is to create ad hoc committees of experts fromdonor nations and tropical nations to work togetherto identify problems and plan regional forest re-source development strategies.

Encourage Resource Development Planning

Issue: Although resource development planningtechnologies can improve the sustainability of tropi-cal forest development, they are seldom applied totheir full potential.

Resource development planning techniques canbe used to identify development activities that matchthe available human and natural resources. Thetechniques can give decisionmakers a clearer pictureof the social, economic, and environmental implica-tions of a particular type of development on aparticular site. Also, they can be used to determinethe best locations for protection of natural areas tomaintain biological diversity while providing tangi-ble benefits. But the application of planning ishampered by shortages of information on howbiophysical, social, and economic factors interact.

Options-To encourage the use of resourcedevelopment planning, Congress could maintain theavailability of low-cost Landsat images to tropicalgovernments. Congress also could direct AID toexpand its Environmental Profiles to include macro-level land classification and collection of informa-tion for social and institutional analyses. Further,Congress could direct U.S. representatives to multi-lateral development banks to promote environ-

mental assessments at an early stage of projectplanning. This request could be followed up withhearings to determine whether the banks are usingenvironmental assessment procedures effectively.

Improve Tropical Forest Researchand Market Development

Issue (Research): Fundamental research, appliedresearch, and technology implementation related totropical forests are not well coordinated. Moreover,interactions among factors that constrain forestresource development are poorly understood. Con-sequently, resource development projects often failand technologies that seem to succeed in trials fail tospread beyond demonstration areas. Research ontropical forest resources needs to be more interdisci-plinary and more closely related to technologyimplementation.

Much work remains to develop profitable tech-nologies that can supply local people’s needs whilesimultaneously sustaining forest productivity. Newtechniques need to be based on improved under-standing of the biological, economic, and culturalfactors affecting forest resources. This calls forinterdisciplinary research based on an adequateunderstanding of the needs of technology implemen-tors.

Options-Initially, Congress could conduct hear-ings to determine whether the research organizationsthat receive U.S. funds give adequate priority tointerdisciplinary tropical forestry that links researchand development. Special attention should be paid todisseminating research results. Congress could in-crease support for agencies where such research anddevelopment is stressed.

The other approaches would be for Congress toappropriate funds specifically to support UNESCO’sMAB program or to amend the Foreign AssistanceAct to include funds for the United Nations Univer-sity. Both promote interdisciplinary research. Addi-tionally, Congress could amend the existing legisla-tion that explicitly allocates funds for tropicalagriculture to include tropical forestry, and Congressalso could determine the feasibility of establishing aforestry research program at existing ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR) institutions.21 Congress could establish atrust fund for the Forestry Department of FAO

21 me CGIAR has tided fores&y and agroforestry to its mandate. (See Introduction.)


specifically to support improved communicationamong researchers and technology implementors.

Issue (Market Development): In many areas,Sust aning tropical forest resources will depend onmarkets for local forest products. People seldomattempt to sustain the productivity of natural re-sources used for subsistence products because theseappear to be “free.’ Government agencies typicallyare not aware of the natural forest potential tosupport rural communities.

Tropical forest ecosystems house complex asso-ciations of vegetation, wildlife, and other potentialresources that could be developed. Development ofmarkets, along with research on ways to manage theunused resources for sustained yields, could helpmotivate local people and local resource agencies tomanage the forests effectively. It could be possiblein some places to maintain biological diversity andsimultaneously support profitable rural develop-ment. However, such market development is likelyto reduce economic and even subsistence opportuni-ties for landless poor people.

Options-Congress could direct and fund theU.S. Forest Products Laboratory to develop newproducts and market information to use tropical treespecies and increase its efforts to transfer technolo-gies. Similarly, AID could be directed to expand itssupport for synthesis and dissemination of informa-tion on underused tropical forest resources and tobegin developing markets for those products that canbe produced on a sustainable basis.

Protect Biological Diversity

Issue: Benefits from preserving the biologicaldiversity of tropical forests accrue to society as awhole, including future generations in the UnitedStates and elsewhere, yet the costs are borne by thepeople of tropical countries.

Developing new markets and ways of harvestingand using tropical forest species eventually maymake it possible to manage natural forests profitablyand sustainably. But until the markets and technolo-gies are developed, it is necessary to protect andmaintain undisturbed portions of these biologicallydiverse ecosystems for future generations.

Options-Congress could take two approaches tohelp maintain biological diversity. First, it couldconduct hearings on its recent amendment to theForeign Assistance Act which directs AID, inconcert with other appropriate agencies, to developa comprehensive U.S. strategy to maintain biologi-cal diversity.

Additionally, Congress could support the creationof an international fund to subsidize the establish-ment and maintenance of tropical parks and pro-tected areas. Money for such a fund could becontributed by a variety of sources, includingtransfers from existing assistance agencies (e.g.,AID, multilateral development banks, and U.N.agencies), increased export taxes and import dutieson tropical forest products, and donations fromprivate foundations and multinational corporations.22

Expand U.S. Expertise inTropical Forest Resources

Issue: U.S. tropical forest resource expertise iswidely scattered and is not being developed or usedeffectively .23

The United States has recognized expertise (bothindividuals and organizations) in many resourcefields, including reforestation, watershed manage-ment, commercial forestry, resource inventory andmapping, resource development planning, and infor-mation collection, processing, and dissemination.But only a few of these experts or organizations havethe experience or training to apply their skills

22 The Global Envtionment Facility (GEF), organized under the United Nations Development Programme, fivko~ent Pfogramme, and the WorldB@ planned approval for 15 projects in 1991 with a combined cost of $215 million. This is the first tranche in the three-year pilot program of GEF.Of the first 26 projects planned, 11 (mainly biodiversity projects) were focused on tropical forests llhited Nations Development Programme, “GlobalEnvironment Facility Work Program: Fiscal Year 1992- First Tranche” (Washington DC: World Bank 1991)].

23 ~Creased ~ f~ding for ~opical for~~ has resulted in substantial improvement in the use of American ex~se and the tH311SfW Of AXlleriCantechnical knowledge. For example, a new Office of International Forestry, authorized by the 1990 International Forestry Cooperation Act (Title VI ofthe Foreign Operations Appropriations Act), has been established to coordinate expansion of educatioml and training assistance in forest managementcooperative research, direct forest management assistance, and protection of forest resources. In 1983, some 3.6 million hectares of tropical forest weredestroyed by wildfires in Indonesia. Apparently wildfiis of this scale are a new threat to tropical forests, caused by human- caused changes in the forestconditions during droughts P. Poore, et al., No Timber Without Trees: Sustainability in the Tropical Forest @ndou England: EarthscarL 1989)1.Indonesia’s 1991 fiie season seems likely to result in extraordinary damage again. Responding within a few days to a request from the Indonesiangovernmen6 the U.S. Forest Service dispatched a team of fire prevention and control experts to assess the problem and to develop recommendations,possibly including further U.S. assistance.


directly to the increasingly important field of tropi-cal forest resources.

Options-Congress could modify the organiclegislation of those U.S. agencies whose actionsaffect the tropical nations or the U.S. tropicalterritories to state that tropical forests are valuablerenewable resources and to direct each agency toconduct its activities without contributing to theunplanned or unmanaged conversion or degradationof tropical forests. Further, Congress could directFederal agencies to encourage employees to partici-pate in international assistance efforts under existinglaws or it could amend legislation to encourage suchinterchange. Congress could encourage participa-tion of the U.S. private sector to develop andimplement technologies to sustain tropical forestresources. Congress could contribute to the UnitedNations Associate Experts Program whereby youngU.S. professionals can gain field experience intropical forestry. Congress also could designate U.S.centers of excellence in tropical forest resources todevelop and make available U.S. expertise intropical resource issues.

U.S. TROPICAL FORESTS24

Introduction

Less than 1 percent of the world’s tropical forestsfall under U.S. jurisdiction. These forests are locatedprimarily in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,Hawaii, and the U.S. western Pacific territories ofAmerican Samoa and Micronesia (which includesGuam, the Commonwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands, and the Trust Territory of the PacificIslands 25). As Congress becomes more involved inefforts to sustain tropical forest resources world-wide, it has reason to pay particular attention to thetropical forests under its care.

Despite their small total land area, the U.S.tropical forests are important resources to localpeople and economies: they supply food, fodder,fuel, and employment; reduce erosion; and protectocean fisheries. Most wood products, however, areimported to these areas. For example, Puerto Ricoimported $400 million worth of wood products in1981. Perhaps the most important value of forests onthese tropical islands is regulation of water regimes.For instance, because of deforestation the U.S.Virgin Islands no longer has permanent streams.Most other islands also have experienced problemswith water quality and quantity.

Only in Hawaii has forestry been made an integralpart of the region’s economic development.2G Toprotect watershed values, most forested land inHawaii is classified under conservation zoningwhich restricts or prohibits conversion to land usesother than forest. Nearly half of Hawaii’s designated“commercial forest land” is owned by the State.Since 1962, the Hawaii Department of Land andNatural Resources has followed multiple-use pro-grams for managing water, timber, livestock forage,recreation, and wildlife habitat on these lands. Inaddition, two of the three programs of the U.S.Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands Forestryare dedicated to research on Hawaiian forests.

Even though forestry problems still exist in theHawaiian islands (e.g., the recent dieback of nativeforests, endangerment of native plants and animals)considerable effort has been applied to understandand mitigate these problems. Numerous organiza-tions working to sustain tropical forest resources arebased in Hawaii, including the Nitrogen-Fixing TreeAssociation, the Bioenergy Development Corp., theEast West Center, and the College of TropicalAgriculture and Human Resources at the Universityof Hawaii. These are among the sources of expertise

m Mom dewed ~ysis of U. S.-affliated island forestry and agroforestq (and other na~al resouce management) technologies, issues and optionsis available in: U.S. Congress, OffIce of lkchnology Assessment Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas, OTA-F-325(Springfield, VA: National ‘lkchnical Information Service, June 1987.)

25 The F~~t~ Sbtes of ~cronesia ~d tie Republic of tie ~M Iskds, which (along with the commonwealth of the Northern mmIslands and Palau) comprised the former Trust lkrritory of the United States, have signed Compacts of Free Association with United States to becomeFreely Associated States. This status allows the islands free control of internal affairs, assures them fiscal aid, and makes them etigible for someinternational aid; the United States retains responsibility for mtional defense ~.S. Congress, Office of lkchnology Assessmen4 Znregrated RenewableResource Management for U.S. Insu/ar Areas, O’E4-F-325 (Spxingfleld, VA: National lkchnical Information Service, June 1987)]. Compact of FreeAssociation negotiations with Palau are ongoing.

26 s~ce acquisition of po~ble sa~ls ~ 19g2, tie fi~o ~c~ Fo~st se~i~ Ms su~esfily md economically thinnd, milled, ~d marketedteak, mahogany, and Caribbean pine from its Commonwealth forests; forest management and development of a wood products industg has subsequentlyresurged in local importance ~.J. Pool, “Forestry and Agmforestry Technologies: Development Potentials in U.S.-Affiliated Caribbean Islands,”contractor report prepared the Office of ‘Ikchnology Assessmen4 Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas, OT4-F-325(Springfield VA: National ‘lkchnical Information Service, June 1987)].


Figure 4—Location of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

Costa Rica’

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

housed in Hawaii that can be applied to the U.S.tropical territories and to the world’s tropical forestresources.

Forest resources in the U.S. Caribbean and Pacifictropical territories are not receiving a similar level ofattention. The forests have suffered degradation inthe past as a result of poor land use practices. Morerecently, incentives for local people to undertake andimprove agricultural or forestry activities have beenreduced by dependence on U.S. Federal incomesupports and by economic development focusing onindustrial growth. This has resulted in a movementaway from agriculture and a corresponding increasein abandoned agricultural land and unmanagedsecondary forests. In many places, runoff anderosion resulting from past forest loss threaten watersupplies and coastal marine resources. With forestresource development technologies, much of theproductivity of this degraded and abandoned landcould be restored to support economic growth.

Although current overexploitation of forest re-sources is not a problem in most of the territories, theremaining forests are vulnerable as populations andexpectations rise. Future problems could be averted,however, if sustainable forest use techniques couldbe integrated into strategies for regional economicdevelopment.

Islands

The U.S. Caribbean Territories: Puerto Ricoand the U.S. Virgin Islands

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is the largestcontiguous tropical area under U.S. jurisdiction (seefig. 4). At least one-third of its land area is underforest cover—mostly second-growth trees, fruit treeplantations, and shade trees in coffee-growing re-gions. Because Puerto Rico has a relatively largeforest area, a relatively well-developed road system,and secure land tenure, it has significant potential forcommercial forestry to supply its domestic econ-omy. About 200,000 acres in Puerto Rico have beenidentified as suitable for commercial forestry. How-ever, large-scale forestry is hindered by high landprices and a law limiting the acreage that can beowned by an individual or corporation.

Opportunities exist to develop small-scale forestindustries to serve domestic markets using technolo-gies that require comparatively low capital outlay,such as the portable sawmills now used in PuertoRican Commonwealth forests. The sawmills are onecomponent of a Puerto Rico Department of NaturalResources program to bring private landholders intocommercial forestry. This program relies heavily onU.S. Federal cost-sharing programs and on fundingfrom the U.S. Forest Service’s State and PrivateForestry grants. Increased support for these activi-ties could encourage plantation forestry and increasePuerto Rican self-sufficiency in forest products.


The U.S. Virgin Islands have little remainingforest and no forest industry but are used extensivelyfor tourism. Lack of forest management and agrowing population in the U.S. Virgin Islands havedisturbed local water regimes. Thus, water must beshipped from Puerto Rico or desalinized from seawater at great expense. Reforestation and manage-ment of island watersheds could reduce runoff rates,decrease erosion, and enhance aquifer recharge.

The main constraints to sustaining tropical forestresources in the U.S. Caribbean are lack of supportfor existing forest resource development institutionsand lack of a skilled cadre of local resourcemanagers. The U.S. Forest Service maintains aforestry research station, the Institute of TropicalForestry (ITF). It also manages the CaribbeanNational Forest and supports a State and PrivateForestry cooperative program with the Puerto RicoDepartment of Natural Resources and the VirginIslands Department of Agriculture. At a time whenU.S. Forest Service research needs to be expanded toinclude agroforestry, watershed protection, and otherareas of importance to landholders and the public, itsresearch funds and staff size have been reduced.

In the short term, people with general tropicalforestry expertise can be attracted to work in the U.S.

Photo credit: USDA Forest Service

Artificial nests are one component of the species recoveryprogram for endangered Puerto Rican parrots in the

Caribbean National Forest, the only tropical U.S.national forest.

Caribbean, but in the long term an establishedmethod to train people to manage natural resourcesspecific to that region is needed. Increased environ-mental education, scholarships, and creation of anatural resource management curriculum at theUniversity of Puerto Rico could help train thenecessary resource managers. In the meantime,adequate Federal support of Puerto Rico and U.S.Virgin Islands forestry programs through the StateForestry Grants of the State and Private ForestryDivision of the U.S. Forest Service are needed tostimulate development, demonstration, and coordi-nation of desirable forestry practices.

The U.S. Western Pacific: Micronesia andAmerican Samoa

U.S. tropical forests exist on some 2,000 islandsspread over 3 million square miles in the westernPacific (see fig. 5). Forest cover varies with thenature of each island. Few truly undisturbed forestsexist, but considerable areas of secondary foresthave regenerated. Little of this is managed toprovide forest products. Fuelwood and some non-wood forest products are harvested for local use, butmost wood products are imported.

As in the U.S. Caribbean, the major value of forestresources in the U.S. western Pacific is not timberbut regulation of water regimes and protection ofbiologically rich coastal ecosystems. Island peoplein this region depend heavily for both subsistenceand trade on marine organisms that feed and spawnin mangrove habitats, lagoons, and coral reefs.Unplanned exploitation of upland forests can sub-stantially reduce the productivity of these coastalareas. This already is occurring on some islands.

Transportation costs, limited land areas, andinsecure or communal land tenure limit the region’sindustrial forestry opportunities. However, small-scale management, harvesting, and processing tech-nologies could be applied to the secondary forestsand abandoned coconut plantations to increase theirprovision of food, fuel, employment, and othergoods. For example, improved small-scale charcoalproduction, if developed and promoted wisely,could increase the importance of wood as a sustain-able energy source in the U.S. Pacific. Productionfrom existing agroforestry lands could be enhancedwith new techniques. Coconut shell charcoal can beused as a falter in various industrial and pharmaceuti-cal uses and could be exported from these islands.

—


Figure 5-Location of the U.S. Pacific Territories

Trust Territory of the

Marshall islands\

Equator

the U.S. westernPacific territories, however, will require carefulplanning and management to avoid further degrada-tion of the resources and to ensure the sustainableproduction of both goods and services provided bythe forests. This requires up-to-date and comprehen-sive databases on tropical forest resources, theiruses, and the potentials for their development. U.S.Federal agencies can play a major role in creatingthese databases.

Integrating forestry into development planning inthe U.S. western Pacific will require personnel withsubstantial knowledge in tropical resource manage-ment and strong local institutions through whichthey can work. Yet, no natural resource managementeducation and training programs exist in the U.S.western Pacific territories, and few of the studentswho receive training at U.S. or other institutionsreturn to work in their own regions. Actions to helpsupply needed expertise include creating a naturalresource management curriculum at the Universityof Guam and increasing scholarships for potentialresource managers. Additional extension services

also could be useful Developing a group of localgrassroots naturalists with generalized training toassist scientists, spread information on appropriateland uses, and help integrate new technologies withlocal customs could be a joint undertaking of U.S.and local western Pacific organizations.

Issues and Options for Congress

The primary requirement for sustaining tropicalforest resources in the U.S. tropical territories is thedevelopment of indigenous organizations capable ofmanaging the islands’ resources. Because the territo-ries’ governments still depend on U.S. support andtheir natural resource agencies are generally new,small, and undersupported, the U.S. retains a sub-stantial role in both the development of the resourceorganizations and in the development and imple-mentation of forest-sustaining technologies.

Option: Congress could direct the U.S. ForestService to expand the scope of research andtechnology development in its research institu-tions with jurisdiction in the U.S. tropical


territories and increase cooperative effortswith local governments.27

Development of forestry management plans, inthe short run, will require technical assistanceprovided by U.S. expertise. Similarly, adaptation oftechnologies to conditions in the U.S. tropicalterritories requires Federal assistance. In the longrun Federal aid could be replaced when more peopleare trained in natural resource management at localinstitutions. Development of programs to encourageprivate forestry appropriate for each island probablyalso will require Federal assistance. The Federalorganizations responsible for assisting forestry de-velopment in the U.S. tropical territories are toosmall and their focus is too limited to give theimpetus needed for local development. More re-search, more forestry technology transfer, and greaterresponse to the changing needs of the territories arerequired.

Option: Congress could support natural resourceagencies in U.S. territories by increasing fund-ing for the cooperative State and PrivateForestry programs of the U.S. Forest Serviceinstitutes in Puerto Rico and Hawaii. Congresscould also create a program of grants toterritorial governments to encourage invest-ment in privately owned forests.

The Federal Government subsidizes private for-estry with cost-sharing and direct payments to forestowners. Replacing these subsidies with a program ofgrants administered by the territorial governmentswould provide the flexibility needed to respond toeach island territory’s unique cultural, economic,and ecological characteristics. Furthermore, it wouldencourage the development of a constituency con-cerned with sustaining the forest resources.

27 he ~ ~ge ~~ t. ~crem~ ~onc~ over glob~ clfite c-e, ~opic~ fo~st d~titio~ and IOSS of biological diversity, tids ~d S@ff

for the U.S. Forest Service research institutions and Office of International Forestry have increased since the mid-1980s.

Technologies to MaintainBiological Diversity

Foreword

The reduction of the Earth’s biological diversity has emerged as a public policy issue inthe last several years. Growing awareness of this planetary problem has prompted increasedstudy of the subject and has led to calls to increase public and private initiatives to address theproblem.

One major concern is that loss of plant, animal, and microbial resources may impairfuture options to develop new important products and processes in agriculture, medicine, andindustry. Concerns also exist that loss of diversity undermines the potential of populations andspecies to respond or adapt to changing environmental conditions. Because humans ultimatelydepend on environmental support functions, special caution should be taken to ensure thatdiversity losses do not disrupt these functions. Finally, esthetic and ethical motivation to avoidthe irreversible loss of unique life forms has played an increasingly major role in promotingpublic and private programs to conserve particular species or habitats.

Congressional requesters of this assessment include the House Committee on Science,Space, and Technology; Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; and Senate Committee onAgriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, HouseCommittee on Agriculture, and House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries endorsedthe requested study.

The task presented to OTA by these committees was to clarify for Congress the natureof the problems of reduction of the Earth’s biological diversity and to set forth a range of policyoptions available to Congress to respond to various concerns. The principal aim of thisassessment is to identify and assess the technological and institutional opportunities andconstraints to maintaining biological diversity in the United States and worldwide. Twobackground papers (Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diversity in the United States andMaintaining Biological Diversity in the United States: Data Considerations) and a staff paper(The Role of U.S. Development Assistance in Maintaining Biological Diversity in DevelopingCountries) were also prepared in conjunction with this study.

OTA is grateful for the valuable assistance of the study’s advisory panel, workgroups,workshop participants, authors of background papers, and the many other reviewers from thepublic and private sectors who provided advice and information throughout the course of thisassessment. As with all OTA studies, the content of this report is the sole responsibility ofOTA.

u JOHN H. GIBBONSDirector

Advisory PanelTechnologies to Maintain Biological Diversity

Kenneth Dahlberg, ChairDepartment of Political Science

Western Michigan University

Stephen BrushInternational Agricultural DevelopmentUniversity of California, Davis

Peter CarlsonDirectorCrop Genetics International

Rita ColwellOffice of the Vice President for Academic AffairsUniversity of Maryland, Adelphi

Raymond DasmannDepartment of Environmental StudiesUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

Clarence DiasPresidentInternational Center for Law in Development

Donald DuvickSenior Vice President of ResearchPioneer Hi-Bred International

David EhrenfeldCook CollegeRutgers University

Major GoodmanDepartment of Crop ScienceNorth Carolina State University

Grenville LucasThe HerbariumKew Royal Botanic Gardens

Richard NorgaardDepartment of Agricultural and Resource

EconomicsUniversity of California, Berkeley

Robert Prescott-AllenPartnerPADATA, Inc.

Paul RisserVice President for ResearchUniversity of New Mexico

Oliver RyderResearch DepartmentSan Diego Zoo

Michael SouleAdjunct ProfessorSchool of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Michigan

John SullivanVice President of ProductionAmerican Breeders Service

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members.The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for thereport and the accuracy of its contents.

OTA Project StaffTechnologies to Maintain Biological Diversity

Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTAHealth and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager

Analytical Staff

Susan Shen, Project Director and Analyst

Edward F. MacDonald, Analyst

Michael S. Strauss, Analyst

Catherine Carlson,l Research Assistant

Robert Grossmann,2 Analyst

Allen Ruby,3 Research Assistant

Contractors

James L. chamberlainDavid Netter

Robert Prescott-AllenBruce Ross-Sheriff

Linda Starke4 and Lisa Olson,s Editors

Administrative Staff

Patricia Duranas Beckie Erickson,7 and SallyAdministrative Assistants

Nellie Hammond, SecretaryCarolyn Swann, Secretary

Shafroth, 8

Through January 1986.

Through August 1985.3

Summer 1985.4Through August 1986.5 After August 1986.6 Through July 1985.7Through October 1986.8 From Dec. 15, 1986.

ContentsPage

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59INTERVENTIONS TO MAINTAIN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61THE ROLE OF CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Strengthen the National Commitment to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Increase the Nation’s Ability to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Enhance the Knowledge Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Support International Initiative to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Address Loss of Biological Diversity in Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

BoxBox PageA. What Is Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

TablesTable Pagel. Examples of Management Systems to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622. Management Systems and Conservation Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623. Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644. Summary of Policy Issues for Congressional Action Related to Biological

Diversity Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity

Most biological diversity survives without humanintervention to maintain it. But as natural areasbecome progressively modified by human activities,maintaining a diversity of ecosystems, species, andgenes will increasingly depend on intervention byapplying specific technologies. A spectrum of tech-nologies is available to support maintenance ofbiological diversity (defined in box A).

THE PROBLEMThe Earth’s biological diversity is being reduced

at a rate likely to increase over the next severaldecades. This loss of diversity measured at theecosystem, species, and genetic levels is occurringin most regions of the world, although it is mostpronounced in particular areas, most notably in thetropics. The principal cause is the increasing conver-sion of natural ecosystems to human-modifiedlandscapes. Such alterations can provide consider-able benefits when the land’s capability to sustain

indicates that rapid and unintended reductions inbiological diversity are undermining society’s capa-bility to respond to future opportunities and needs.Most scientists and conservationists working in thisarea believe the problem has reached crisis propor-tions, although a few people from other fields remainskeptical and maintain this level of concern is basedon exaggerated or insufficient data.

The abundance and complexity of ecosystems,species, and genetic types have defied completeinventory and thus the direct assessment of changes.As a result, an accurate estimate of the rate of lossis not currently possible. Determin ing the numberof species that exist, 1 for example, is a majorobstacle in assessing the rate of species extinction.But use of biological principles and data on land useconversions has allowed biologists to deduce thatthe rate of loss is greater than the rate at which

development is preserved, but compelling evidence new species evolve.

Box A—What Is Biological Diversity?

Biological diversity refers to the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexesin which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different items and their relative frequency. Forbiological diversity, these items are organized at many levels, ranging from complete ecosystems to the chemicalstructures that are the molecular basis of heredity. Thus, the term encompasses different ecosystems, species, genes,and their relative abundance.

How does diversity vary within ecosystem, species, and genetic levels? For example:● Ecosystem diversity: A landscape interspersed with croplands, grasslands, and woodlands has more

diversity than a landscape with most of the woodlands converted to grasslands and croplands.. Species diversity: A rangeland with 100 species of annual and perennial grasses and shrubs has more

diversity than the same rangeland after heavy grazing has eliminated or greatly reduced the frequency of theperennial grass species.

. Genetic diversity: Economically useful crops are developed from wild plants by selecting valuableinheritable characteristics. Thus, many wild ancestor plants contain genes not found in today’s crop plants.An environment that includes both the domestic varieties of a crop (such as corn) and the crop’s wildancestors has more diversity than an environment with wild ancestors eliminated to make way for domesticcrops.

To date, concerns over the loss of biological diversity have been defined almost exclusively in terms of speciesextinction. Although extinction is perhaps the most dramatic aspect of the problem, it is by no means the wholeproblem. The consequence is a distorted definition of the problem, which fails to account for many of the interestsconcerned and may misdirect how concerns should be addressed.

—] Approximately 1.7 million species have been identified, Millions more, however, have yet to be discovered. Recent research indicates that species

of tropical insects alone could number 30 million.

–59–

Reduced diversity may have serious conse-quences for civilization.2 It may eliminate optionsto use untapped resources for agricultural, industrial,and medicinal development. Crop genetic resourceshave accounted for about 50 percent of productivityincreases and for annual contributions of about $1billion to U.S. agriculture. For instance, two speciesof wild green tomatoes discovered in an isolated areaof the Peruvian highlands in the early 1960s havecontributed genes for marked increase in fruitpigmentation and soluble-solids content currentlyworth nearly $5 million per year to the tomato-processing industry. Future gains will depend on useof genetic diversity.3

Loss of plant species could mean loss of billionsof dollars in potential plant-derived pharmaceuticalproducts. About 25 percent of the number ofprescription drugs in the United States are derivedfrom plants. In 1980, their total market value was $8billion. Loss of tropical rain forests, which harbor an

extraordinary diversity of species, and loss of desertecosystems, which harbor genetically diverse vege-tation, are of particular concern. Consequences tohumans of loss of potential medicines have impactsthat go beyond economic benefits. For example,alkaloids from the rosy periwinkle flower (Cathar-antus roseus), a tropical plant, are used in thesuccessful treatment of several forms of cancer,including Hodgkin’s disease and childhood leuke-mia.

Although research in biotechnology suggestsexciting prospects, scientists will continue to rely ongenetic resources crafted by nature. For example,new methods of manipulating genetic materialenable the isolation and extraction of a desired genefrom one plant or organism and its insertion intoanother. Nature provides the basic materials; scienceenables the merging of desired properties into newforms or combinations. Loss of diversity, therefore,

z TO e~ble pofixe~ m give appropriate weight to diversity and other aspects of nature, analysts have dtwdoped ~W methods to descrih Uvalue of biological resources. Categories of values include: (1) commercial use (marketed), (2) consumptive noncommercial use (co- but notmarketed), (3) non-consumptive use (ecological services, researck recreation),(4) option value (maintaining options for the future), and (5) ethical valuesregarding existence of wildlife and nature [J.A. McNeely, et al., Conserving the WorZd’s Biological Diversity (Gland, Switzerland and Washington DC:Intematiorud Union for the Consavation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1990)].

Commercial use of biological resources is the easiest to value. For example, the estimated productionvalue of caac~ a laxative derivedin the UnitedStates from tree bark is $1 million per year, and the retail value is $75 million per year [C. Prescott-Allen and R. hescott+ille~ The First Resource:Wild Species in the North American Economy (New Haveu CT: Yale University Press, 1986)]. However, such statistics are useful mostly as gcmeralindicators of signifkmce, since statistics on such “minor” products are restricted to a few items and are seldom available for the specific geographicsite about which a decision is being made.

Economists have used a number of methods to assign values to biological resources. The methods usually report quantities of material consum~such as 3 million kilograms of meat from sprhghare consumcd annually in Botswu or signifkance of the resources to peoples’ welfare, such as 75%of the population of Ghana depending on wild sources of protein [C. Prescott-Allen and R. Prescott-Alleq The FirstResource: Wi&iSpecies in the NorthAmerican Economy (New Haveq CT: Yale University Press, 1986)]. Sometimes a monetary measure is assigned by e+sthmting the value if the directlyconsumed materials had been sold at prevailing market prices; by this method wild pigs harvested by hunters in Malaysia are worth $1(X) million peryear [J. Caldecott, “Hunting and Wildlife Management in !%rawa)q” GlaI@ Mvitzmland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources, 1988].

Economists have developed methods to describe the economic loss incurred when natural potentials for environmental services, such as wastedispo@ are degraded ~. Peskin and E. Lutz, “A Survey of Resource and Environmental Accounting in Industrialkd Countries,” World BankEnvironment Department Working Paper No. 37, WashingtorL DC, 1990]. However, the methods have yet to be applied to biological diversity loss.

Option andethicalvalues seerned a few yeacs ago to be of more concern to environmentalists than to professional resource managers. Now, Americanforesters and other resource managers are actively developing ways to give more weight to such option values and existence values in their managementof protected natural areas and production landscapes.

Attempts to evaluate biological natural resources may begin to have more impact on policy, as methods are also being developed to adjust theconventional method of national income accounting. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Product (GNP) calculations, which haveimportant SCORktXl)irlg and management functions for development policymaking, are calculated without regard to depletion of natural resource stocks.American and European economists have begun to promote changes in the conventional methods for calculating these indices that would take accountof mtural resources. Biodiversity as a natural resource has not yet been explicitly included in the proposed accounting revisions, but the commercialvalue of natural forests and topsoil has been included, as have some nonco nsumptive use values& Repetto, et al., “Wasting Assets: Natural Resourcesin the National Income Accounts’ (Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 1989); H. Peskiq “A Proposed Environmental Accounts Frameworlq”in Ahmad, Y.J. et al. (eds), Environmental Accounting for Sustuinuble Development (Washington DC: World Bank 1989)1. Thus ev~~tion ofbiological resources is being moved beyond isolated statistics and into comprehensive analyses likely to influence development policy at national andinternational levels.

3 More ~ 200” Cmp s@es orig~~ in tropic~ for~ts. sci~~ts ~ the genetic resources con~~ kl ti wild ddhWS Of &OSe CrOpS tO brdcrop resistance to pests and pathogens, such as the psyllid insect that has attacked leucaenaplantations in Asia and the fungal disease blacksigatoka whichis decimating bananas and plantains in many regions where these crops are the most important staples. Genetic solutions to such problems are moreenduring, more environmentally benigQ and less expensive thao pesticides. Thus the loss of genetic diversity from tropical deforestation is expectedto drive up the price of such goods as coffee, chocolate, vani~ and tires NJ.H. Smith, et al. “Conserving the Cornucopia” Environment, vol. 33, No.6, July/August 1991, pp. 7-9,30-32].

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity . 61

may undermine societies’ realization of the technol-ogy’s potential.4

Another threatening aspect of diversity loss is thedisruption of environmental regulatory functionsthat depend on the complex interactions of ecosys-tems and the species that support them. Diversewetlands provide productive and protective proc-esses of economic benefit. Millions of waterfowland other birds of economic value depend on NorthAmerican wetlands for breeding, feeding, migrating,and overwintering. About two-thirds of the majorU.S. commercial fish, crustacean, and molluskspecies depend on estuaries and salt marshes forspawning and nursery habitat. Wetlands temporarilystore flood waters, reducing flow rates and protect-ing people and property downstream from flood andstorm damage. One U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’estimate places the present value of the CharlesRiver wetlands (in Massachusetts) for its role incontrolling floods at $17 million per year. Althoughplacing dollar values on such ecosystem services isproblematic and reflects rough approximations, themagnitude of the economic benefit stresses theimportance of these often overlooked values.5

Humans also value diversity for reasons otherthan the utility it provides. Esthetic motivationshave played important parts in promoting initiativesto maintain diversity. Cultural factors, as reflected inthe way Americans identify with the bald eagle orthe American bison or how plants and animals forma fundamental aspect of human artistic expression,illustrate these values.

Forces that contribute to the worldwide loss ofdiversity are varied and complex. Historically,concern for diversity loss focused on commercialexploitation of threatened or endangered species.Increasingly, however, attention has been focusedmore on indirect threats that are nonselective andmore fundamental and sweeping in scope.

Most losses of diversity are unintended conse-quences of human activity. Air and water pollution,

for example, can cause diversity loss far from thepollution’s source. The decline of several fishspecies in Scandinavia and the near extinction of asalmon species in Canada have been attributed toacidification of lakes due to acid rain. Populationgrowth in itself may not be intrinsically threateningto biological diversity. A populous country likeJapan is an example of how a high standard of living,appropriate government policies, and a predomi-nantly urbanized population can limit the rate ofecosystem disruption. However, when populationgrowth is compounded by poverty, a negativeimpact is characteristic. In many tropical developingcountries, high population growth and the practice ofshifting agriculture employed by peasant farmers areconsidered the greatest threats to diversity.

This report assesses the potential of diversity-maintenance technologies and the institutions devel-oping and applying these technologies. But main-taining biological diversity will depend on morethan applying technologies. Technologies do notexist to recreate the vast majority of ecosystems,species, and genes that are being lost, and there islittle hope that such technologies will be developedin the foreseeable future. Therefore, efforts tomaintain diversity must also address the socioeco-nomic, political, and cultural factors involved.

INTERVENTIONS TO MAINTAINBIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

There are two general approaches to maintainingbiological diversity. It may be maintained where itis found naturally (onsite), or it may be removedfrom the site and kept elsewhere (offsite). Onsitemaintenance can focus on a particular species orpopulation or, alternatively, on an entire ecosystem.Offsite maintenance can focus on organisms pre-served as germplasm or on organisms preserved asliving collections. Table 1 lists examples of manage-ment systems. These management systems havesomewhat different objectives, but all four arenecessary components of an overall strategy to

4 R~~t development of more cost.eff~tive t~~ques to sc~n m~~ chem.i~s for effectiven~s agtit dk~~ ks kd to a R3SUrgeXlCt! Of

interest in development of drugs from natural plant and animal chemicals. About 75 companies and 112 research firms are developing drugs based ontraditional medicines, an approach which also greatly increases the cost-effectiveness of the search for new drugs CN. Eisner, “Botanists Ply Trade inTropics, Seeking Plant-Based Chemicals, ” The Scientist, vol. 5, June 10, 1991, p. 12].

S me abfliw of mtions to adapt to the environmental changes expected to result frOm glob~ w-g will depend to a considerable extent onbiological diversity. Substantial changes are expected in the ecosystems upon which human economies depend [J.T. Houghtow et al., “Bffects onEcosystems, ” in Climute Change; The IPPCScienti@ Assessment (New Yorlq NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 283-310], and the capacityof ecosystems to recuperate from change depends largely on genetic diversity 10.T. Solbng, “The Origin and Function of Biodiversity’ Environment,vol. 33, No. 5, 1991, pp. 16-38].


Table l—Examples of Management Systems to Maintain Biological Diversity

Onsite Offsite

Ecosystem Species Living Germplasmmaintenance management collections storage

National parks Agroecosystems Zoological parks Seed and pollen banks

Research natural areas Wildlife refuges Botanic gardens Semen, ova, andembryo banks

Marine sanctuaries In-situ genebanks Field collections Microbial culturecollections

Resource development Game parks and Captive breeding Tissue culture collectionsplanning reserves programs

Increasing human intervention ++ - - – - — Increasing emphasis on natural processes

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.

conserve diversity. Conservation objectives can beenhanced by investing in any combination of thefour systems and by improving links to takeadvantage of their potential complementariness. Theobjectives of the management systems are summa-rized in table 2.

Maintaining plants, animals, and microbesonsite— in their natural environments—is themost effective way to conserve a broad range ofdiversity. Onsite technologies primarily focus onestablishing an area to protect ecosystems or speciesand on regulating species harvest. To date, theguidelines for optimal design of protected areas arelimited, however.

Offsite maintenance technologies are appliedto conserving a small but often critical part of thetotal diversity. Technologies for plants include seedstorage, in vitro culture, and living collections. Mostanimals are commonly maintained offsite as captivepopulations. Cryogenic storage of seeds, in vitrocultures, semen, or embryos can improve the effi-ciency of offsite maintenance and reduce costs.

Microbial diversity is important for both itsbeneficial and its harmful effects. That is, somemicrobes (e.g., bacteria and viruses) can presentserious threats to human health. By the same token,these organisms are used in a range of beneficialactivities, such as for developing vaccines or fortreating wastes.

Table 2—Management Systems and Conservation Objectives

Onsite Offsite

Ecosystem Species Living Germ plasmmaintenance maintenance collections storage

Maintain: Maintain: Maintain: Maintain:● a reservoir or “library” of ●

genetic resources

● evolutionary potential ●

● functioning of various ●

ecological processes

● vast majority of known and ●

unknown species

● representatives of unique ●

natural ecosystems

genetic interaction between ●

semi-domesticated speciesand wild relatives

wild populations for ●

sustainable exploitation

viable populations of ●

threatened species

species that provide ●

important indirect benefits(for pollination or pestcontrol)

“keystone” species with ●

important ecosystemsupport or regulating function

breeding material that cannot ●

be stored in genebanks

field research and ●

development on newvarieties and breeds

off site cultivation and ●

propagation

captive breeding stock of ●

populations threatened in thewild

ready access to wild species ●

for research, education, anddisplay

convenient source ofgermplasm for breedingprograms

collections of germplasm fromuncertain or threatenedsources

reference or type collectionsas standard for research andpatenting purposes

access to germplasm fromwide geographic areas

genetic materials fromcritically endangered species


Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 63

Scientists are hampered in their storage, use, andstudy of microbial diversity by their inability toisolate most microorganisms. For those microorga-nisms that have been isolated and identified, offsitemaintenance is the most cost-effective technique.

Links between onsite and offsite managementsystems are important to increasing the efficiencyand effectiveness of efforts to maintain diversity.Some technologies developed for domesticated spe-cies, for instance, can be adapted to wild species.Embryo transfer technologies developed for live-stock are now being adapted for endangered wildanimals,

Determining the efficacy and appropriateness oftechnologies depends on biological, sociopolitical,and economic factors. Taken together, these factorsinfluence decisionmaking and must be considered indefining objectives for maintaining diversity and foridentifying strategies to meet these objectives.

Biological considerations are central to the objec-tives and choice of systems. Only some diversity isthreatened; therefore, the task of maintaining it canfocus on elements that need special attention. Abiologically unique species (one that is the onlyrepresentative of an entire genus or family) or aspecies with high esthetic appeal may be the focusof intensive conservation management.

Political factors also influence conservation ob-jectives and management systems. Commitments ofgovernment resources, policies, and programs deter-mine the focus of attention, and to a large extent,such commitments reflect public interests and sup-port. For example, a disproportionate share of U.S.resources is devoted to programs for a few of themany endangered species.6 Substantial sums havebeen spent in 1lth-hour efforts to save the Californiacondor and the black-footed ferret, while otherendangered organisms such as invertebrate speciesreceive little attention.

The applicability of management systems alsodepends on economic factors. Costs of alternativemanagement systems and the value of resources tobe conserved may be relatively clear in the case ofgenetic resources. For example, the benefits of plant

breeding programs compared with the cost of seedmaintenance justify germplasm storage technolo-gies, However, cost-benefit analysis is more difficultwhen benefits are diffuse and accrue over a longperiod. And onsite maintenance programs competewith other interests for land, personnel, and funds.

Success in maintaining biological diversity de-pends largely on institutions that develop and applythe various technologies. Within the United States,a variety of laws in addition to public and privateprograms address various aspects of diversity con-servation. But while some aspects of diversity arecovered, other aspects are ignored. Table 3 listsmajor Federal mandates pertinent to diversity main-tenance.

Because U.S. interest in biological diversityextends beyond its borders, the United Statessubscribes to a number of international conservationlaws and supports programs through bilateral andmultilateral assistance channels. However, many ofthese programs have too little support to be effectivein resolving internationally important problems.

Domestic and international institutions deal withaspects of diversity. Some focus attention exclu-sively on maintaining certain agricultural crops,such as wheat, and others focus on certain wildspecies, such as whales and migratory waterfowl. Ashift has occurred in recent years from the traditionalspecies protection approach to a more encompassingecosystem maintenance approach.

Much of the work important to diversitymaintenance is done in isolation and is toodisjunct to address the full range of concerns.And some concerns receive little or no attention, Forexample, the objectives of the U.S. Department ofAgriculture’s National Plant Germplasm System(NPGS) place primary emphasis on economic plantsand little emphasis on non-crop species. Similarly,programs to protect endangered wild species directattention away from species that are threatened butnot listed as endangered. The lack of connectionsbetween programs is another institutional constraint.Linkages help define common interests and areas ofpotential cooperation—important steps in definingareas of redundancy, neglect, and opportunity.

~ A substantial portion of Federal Government investments focused on U.S. biodiversity continue to be allocated in response to threats to species,largely due to Endangered Species Act processes. U.S. development assistance funds focused on biodiversity, on the other hand, arc focused more onmultl-species habitat protection, research to determine priorities and develop projects that arc usually focused on ecosystems, and activities to SUppOrtdcvclopmcnt of pollers that will lead to ccosystcm maintenance [LJ.S. Department of .Agricullure, Forestry SUPPOII ~OgrMW “us- Enviro~entSector Analysis: 1991, ’ Rockvillc, MD: ICT, Inc., 1991].

Table 3-Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance

Common name Resource affected U. S. Code

Onsite diversity mandates:

Lacey Actof 1900.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. . . . . . . . .

Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937(Pittman-Robertson Act). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Whaling Convention Act of 1949. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish Restoration and Management Act of 1950(Dingell Johnson Act). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anadromous Flsh Conservation Act of 1965(Public Law 89-304). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fur Seal Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-702). . . . . . . .

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 . . . . . . . . .

Endangered Species Act of 1973(Public Law 93-205). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnuson Fishery Conservation andManagement Act of 1977 (PublicLaw94-532). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Whale Conservation and Protection Study Actof 1976 (Public Law 94-532). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980(Public Law 96-366). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Salmon and Steelhead Conservation andEnhancement Act of 1980 (PublicLaw 96-561) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934. . . . . . .

Flsh and Game Sanctuary Act of 1934. . . . . . . . . .

Historic Sites, Buildings,and AntiquitiesAct of 1935. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wilderness Act of 1964 (PublicLaw 88-577). . . . . .

National Wildlife Refuge System AdministrationAct of 1966 (PublicLaw91-135). . . . . . . . . . . . . .

wild animals

wild birds

wild birds

wild animais

wild birds

wild animals

fisheries

fisheries

wild anirnals

wild animals

wild plants andanimals

fisheries

wild animals

wild animals

fisheries

terrestrial/aquatichabitats

sanctuaries

natural landmarks

wildlife sanctuaries

wilderness areas

refuges

16 U.S.C. 667, 701

16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 916 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 757a-f

16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

7 U.s.c. 13616 U.S.C. 460,668,715,

1362,1371,1372,1402,1531 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 971, 1362,1801 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 915 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 1823 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 694

16 U.S.C. 694

16 U.S.C. 461-467

15 U.S.C. 713 et seq.16 U.S.C. 742 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.

THE ROLE OF CONGRESSGiven the implications and irreversible nature of

biological extinction, policymakers must continueto address the problem of diminishing biologicaldiversity. A significant increase in attention andfunding in this area seems consistent with U.S.interests, in view of the benefits the United States

currently derives from biological diversity and theadvances that biotechnology might achieve given adiversity of genetic resources. In addition, enoughinformation exists to define priorities for diversitymaintenance and to provide a rationale for takinginitiatives now, although further research and criti-cal review of the nature and extent of diversity lossare also warranted.

—


Table 3-Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance-Continued

Common name Resource affected U.S. Code

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (PublicLaw 90-542). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . river segments

Marine Protection, Research and SanctuariesAct of 1972 (Public Law 92-532). . . . . . . . . . . . . . coastal areas

Federal Land Policy and Management Actof 1976 (Public Law 94-579). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . public domain lands

National Forest Management Act of 1976(Public law 94-588) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . national forest lands

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978(Public law 95-514) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . public domain lands

Offsite diversity mandates:

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946(Research and Marketing Act). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . agricultural Plants

and animals

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public 93-205). wild plants and

Forest and Rangeland Renewable ResourcesResearch Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-307). . . . . tree germplasm

16 U.S.C. 1271-1287

16 U.S.C. 1431-143433 U.S.C. 1401.1402,

1411-1421, 1441-1444

7 U.s.c. 1010-101216 U.S.C. 5, 79,420,460,

478,522,523,551,133930 U.s.c. 50,51, 19140 U.s.c. 31943 U.S.C. 315,661,664,

665,687,869,931,934-939,942-944,946-959,961-970, 1701,1702,1711-1722,1731-1748,1753,1761-1771,1781, 1782

16 U.S.C. 472,500,513,515,516,518,521,576,581, 1600, 1601-1614

16 U.S.C. 1332, 133343 U.s.c. 1739, 1751-

1753.1901-1908

5 U.s.c. 53157U.S.C. 1006,1010,1011,

1924-1927,1929,1939-1933,1941-1943,1947,1981,1983,1985,1991,1992,2201,2204,2212,2651-2654, 2661-2668

16 U.S.C. 590, 1001-1005

42 U.S.C. 3122

7 U.s.c. 13616 U.S.C. 460,668,715,

1362,1371,1372,1402,1531 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 1641-1647.NOTE: Laws enacted prior to 1957 are cited by Chapter and not Public Law number.


OTA has identified options available to Congress. 5. addressing loss of biological diversity inThese options are discussed under five major issues: developing countries.

1.

2.

3.4.

strengthening the national commitment, For each issue, alternative or complementary

increasing the Nation’s ability to maintainoptions are presented. These range from legislative

biological diversity,initiatives to program changes within Federal agen-cies. Options also define opportunities to cultivate Or

enhancing the knowledge base,*.

support private-sector initiatives. In a number ofsupporting international initiatives, and areas, however, success will depend on increased or

Table 4—Summary of Policy Issues for Congressional Action Related toBiological Diversity Maintenance

Issue Finding OptionsStrengthen national Adopt a comprehensive approach to Establish a national biological diversity actcommitment maintaining biological Prepare a national conservation strategy

diversity Amend appropriate legislation of Federalagencies

Increase public awareness of biological diver sit y Establish a national conservation education actissues Amend the international Security and

Development Cooperation Act

increase ability to maintain Improve research, technology development and Direct Nationalk Science Foundation to tobiological diversity application establish a conservation biology program

Establish a national endowment for biologicaldiversity

Fill gaps and inadequacies in existing programs Provide sufficient funding for existingmaintenance programs

Improve i ink between on site and offsiteprograms

Establish new programs to fill specific gaps incurrent efforts

Enhance knowledge base Improve data collection, maintenance, and use Establish a clearinghouse for biological dataEnhance existing natural heritage network of

conservation data centers

Support international Provide greater leadership in the international Increase support of existing internationalinitiatives arena programs

Continue oversight hearings of multilateraldevelopment banks’ activities

Promote the exchange of genetic resources Examine U.S. options on international exchangeof germplasm

Amend the Export Administration Act to affirmU.S. commitment to free exchange ofgermpiasm

Address loss in developing Amend Foreign Assistance Act Adopt broader definition of biological diversity incountries Foreign Assistance Act

Enhance capability of the Agency for Direct AID to adopt strategic approach toInternational Development diversity conservation

increase AID staffing of personnel withenvironmental-training

Establish alternative funding sources for Create special account for natural resources andbiological diversity projects the environment

Apply more Public Law 480 funds to effort


redirected commitments of resources. Table 4 pro-vides a summary of policy issues and options.

Strengthen the National Commitment toMaintain Biological Diversity

The national commitment to maintain biologicaldiversity could be strengthened. Despite society’sreliance on biological resources for sustenance andeconomic development, loss of diversity has yet toemerge as a major concern among decisionmakers.About 2 percent of the national budget is spent onnatural resources-related programs, which includediversity-conservation programs as one subset.

A number of government and private programsaddress maintenance of biological diversity, butmost programs have objectives too narrowly definedto address the broad scope of biological diversityconcerns. Nor do the ad hoc programs use coordina-tion and cooperation to build a systematic approachto tackle the issue. State and private efforts fill somegaps in Federal programs, but they do not provide acomprehensive national commitment and thus leavemany aspects of the problem uncovered.

Federal agencies, for example, coordinate theonsite conservation activities mentioned specificallyin Federal species protection laws, such as those


under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of1973 (Public Law 93-205), but no formal institu-tional mechanism exists for the thousands of plant,animal, and microbial species not listed as threat-ened or endangered. Mandates for offsite conserva-tion are equally vague about which species they areto consider. For example, the Research and Market-ing Act of 1946 is intended to ‘promote the efficientproduction and utilization of products of the soil’ (7U. S.C.A. 427), but it is interpreted narrowly by theAgricultural Research Service (ARS) to mean eco-nomic plant species and varieties. Thus, littlegovernment attention has been given to conservingthe multitude of wild plant species offsite. Even lessattention is given to offsite conservation of domesti-cated and wild animals.

FINDING 1: A comprehensive approach is neededto arrest the loss of biological diversity. Signif-icant gaps in existing programs could beidentified with such an approach, and theresources of organizations concerned with theissue could be better allocated. Improvedcoordination could create opportunities toenhance effectiveness and efficiency of Fed-eral, State, and private programs withoutinterfering with achievement of the programs’goals.

The broad scale of the problem of diversity lossnecessitates innovative solutions. Various laws andprograms of Federal, State, and private organiza-tions already provide the framework for a concertedcomprehensive approach. At this time, however, fewof these programs state maintenance of biologicaldiversity as an explicit objective. As a result,diversity is given cursory attention in most conser-vation and resource management programs. Some ofthem, such as the Endangered Species Program,address diversity more directly but are concernedwith only one facet of the problem. Duplication ofefforts, conflicts in goals, and gaps in geographicand taxonomic coverage are consequences.

To resolve this institutional problem, a compre-hensive approach to maintaining biological diversityis needed. The implication is not that all programsshould address the full range of approaches; rather,organizations should view their own programswithin the broader context of maintaining diversityand should coordinate their programs with those ofother organizations. Programs and organizationswould thereby benefit from one another. Gaps could

be identified and eventually filled, and duplicateefforts could be reduced. And organizations couldimprove efficiency by taking the responsibilities forwhich they are best suited. Moreover, financialsupport for diversity maintenance could be moreeffectively distributed. A step in this direction hasbeen taken in recent initiatives, but congressionalcommitment to such an endeavor is necessary toensure that efforts will be made to achieve acomprehensive approach to maintaining biologicaldiversity.

Option 1.1: Enact legislation that recognizes theimportance of maintaining biological diversity asa national objective.

Current legislation addressing the loss of bio-logical diversity in the United States is largelypiecemeal. Although many Federal laws affectconservation of diversity, few refer to it specifically.The National Forest Management Act of 1976 is theonly legislation that mandates the conservation of a‘‘diversity of plant and animal communities,’ but itoffers no explicit direction on the meaning and scopeof diversity maintenance.

Consequently, existing Federal programs focuson sustaining specific ecosystems, species, or genepools, or on protecting endangered wildlife. Speciesprotection laws authorize Federal agencies to man-age specific animal populations and their habitats.Habitat protection laws authorize the acquisition ordesignation of habitats under Federal stewardship.Federal laws for offsite maintenance of plantsauthorize the collection and genetic development ofplant species that demonstrate potential economicvalue.

The Endangered Species Act authorizes protec-tion of species considered threatened or endangeredin the United States. However, listing endangeredspecies does not eliminate the problem; efforts arehampered by slow listing procedures, by emphasison vertebrate animals at the expense of plants andinvertebrates, and by concerns about conflicts thatendangered status might create.

Congress could pass a National Biological Diver-sity Act to endorse the importance of the issue andto provide guidance for a comprehensive approach.Such an act could explicitly state maintenance ofdiversity as a national goal, establish mechanismsfor coordinating activities, and set priorities fordiversity conservation. A national policy could

(68 ● Combined Summaries

bring about cooperation among Federal, State, andprivate efforts, help reduce conflicting activities,and improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness ofprograms.

To be effective, anew act would require a succinctdefinition of biological diversity and explicit goalsfor its maintenance. Otherwise, ambiguities wouldlead to misinterpretation and confusion. Diversity,for example, could be interpreted broadly whenauthorities and funding are being sought and nar-rowly when responsibilities are assigned. Identify-ing goals is likely to be a long and politicallysensitive process. Decisionmakers and the publicwill have to determine if conserving maximumdiversity is the desirable goal. Finally, to be effec-tive, the law must have public support and adequateresources, or it would simply provide a falsereassurance that something is being done.

Option 1.2: Develop a National Conservation Strat-egy for U.S. biological resources.

Another means of comprehensively addressingdiversity maintenance is to develop a NationalConservation Strategy (NCS). This strategy could bedeveloped in conjunction with, or in lieu of, amandate as suggested in the preceding option. Theprocess would initiate coordination of Federal pro-grams. Program administrators could identify meas-ures to reduce overlap and duplication, to minimizejurisdictional problems, and to develop new initia-tives.

A national strategy could minimize potentialcompetition, conflict, and duplication among pro-grams in the private and public sectors. In addition,preparation of an NCS would strengthen efforts topromote NCSs in other countries. Some 30 countries(mostly developing countries, but also includingCanada and the United Kingdom) have initiatedconcrete steps to prepare an NCS. U.S. action mightreinforce the momentum for NCSs in other coun-tries.

Congress could establish an independent com-mission to prepare the NCS. Members of thecommission could serve part-time and be provideda budget for meetings and administrative support.The commission could include representatives fromgovernment, academia, and the private sector. ThePublic Land Law Review Commission and theNational Water Commission are potential models.

In developing a national strategy, such a commis-sion

●

●

●

●

●

could do the following:

assess the adequacy of existing programs toconserve biological diversity;formulate a national policy on maintenance ofbiological diversity;identify measures required to implement thepolicy, any obstacles to such measures, and themeans to overcome those obstacles;determine how biological diversity mainten-ance relates to other conservation and devel-opment interests; andinclude a public consultation and informationprogram to build a consensus on the content ofthe national conservation strategy.

Another way to prepare a strategy is to tap theresources of an established government agency. Anappropriate body could be the Council for Environ-mental Quality (CEQ), which is part of the Office ofthe President. Created by the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969, CEQ already preparesannual reports for the President on the state of theenvironment. In doing so, it uses the services ofpublic and private agencies, organizations, andindividuals and hence has the experience andauthority to bring together various interest groupsand expertise. On the other hand, CEQ, though fullystaffed in the 1970s with a range of environmentalexperts, now has only a small staff of administrators.Coordinating and guiding the substantive develop-ment of an NCS is thus beyond the council’s currentcapacity except through use of consultants.

Because the success of an NCS depends onparticipation of a broad spectrum of interest groups,its preparation could be a daunting prospect. Thenumber, size, and nature of U.S. Governmentagencies and the different sectors involved couldmake preparation and implementation of a strategydifficult.

Option 1.3: Amend the legislation of Federalagencies to make maintenance of biologicaldiversity an explicit consideration in their activi-ties.

Yet another means for Congress to encourage acomprehensive approach is to make maintenance ofbiological diversity an explicit consideration ofFederal agencies’ activities. A number of Federalprograms affecting biological diversity are scatteredthroughout different agencies, but the lack of coordi-


nation results in inefficient and inadequate coverageof the problem.

These amendments could involve the creation ofnew programs, or they could lead to modifiedobjectives for existing programs. In either case, theamendments should redirect certain policies, consol-idate conservation efforts, and provide criteria forsettling conflicts. An amendment for Federal landmanaging agencies, for example, could require thatthese agencies make diversity conservation a prior-ity in decisions relating to land acquisition, disposal,and exchange.

Such amendments would probably be resisted byindividual Federal agencies, which could argue theyare already maintaining diversity and do not needmore explicit direction from Congress. In addition,agencies could argue they could not increase theiractivities without new appropriations; otherwise, thequality of existing work could be compromised.

Before such amendments are written, a systematicreview of all Federal resource legislation will beneeded to determine how existing statutory man-dates and programs affect the conservation ofdiversity and how they complement or contradictone another, and to designate which programs aremost in need of revision. Such a complex review willtake time and money and is likely to be opposed byagencies.

FINDING 2: Because maintenance of biologicaldiversity is a long-term problem, policy changesand management programs must be long--lasting to be effective. Such policies and pro-grams must be understood and accepted by thepublic, or they will be replaced or overshad-owed by shorter-term concerns. Conveying theimportance of biological diversity requiresformulating the issue in terms that are techni-cally correct yet understandable and convinc-ing to the general public. To undertake theinitiative will require not only biologists butalso social scientists and educators workingtogether.

Diversity loss has not captured public attentionfor three reasons. First, it is a complex concept tograsp. Rather than attempt to improve understandingof the broad issue, organizations soliciting supporthave made emotional appeals to save particularappealing species or spectacular habitats. Thisapproach is effective in the short term, but it keeps


Most public attention to conservation of biodiversityis based on efforts to save emotionally-appealing

species (commonly called “charismatic megafauna”)such as the mountain gorilla, black rhinoceros, or

the black-maned lion shown here.

the constituency and the scope of the problemnarrow. Second, the more pervasive threats todiversity, such as loss of habitat or diminishedgenetic bases for agricultural crops, are gradualprocesses rather than dramatic events. Third, mostbenefits of maintaining diversity are often diffuse,unpriced, and reaped over the long term, resulting inrelatively low economic values being assigned to thegoods and services provided. The benefits of diver-sity, therefore, are not presented concretely andcompetitively with other issues. Consequently, thepublic and policymakers generally lack an apprecia-tion of possible consequences of diversity loss.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, environmentalquality has been a major public policy concern sincethe 1970s, and it remains firmly entrenched in theconsciousness of the American public. A 1985Harris poll, for example, indicated that 63 percent ofAmericans place greater priority on environmentalclean-up than on economic growth. And because

70 ● combined summaries

stewardship of the environment includes maintain-ing diversity, this predisposition of Americans couldbe built on to develop support for diversity mainte-nance programs.

Biological diversity benefits a variety of specialinterest groups; its potential constituency is enormousbut fragmented. It includes, for example, the timberand fishing industries as well as farmers, gardeners,plant breeders, animal breeders, recreational hunt-ers, indigenous peoples, wilderness enthusiasts,tourists, and all those who enjoy nature. Thecombined interests of all these groups could culti-vate a national commitment to maintaining biologi-cal diversity, if properly orchestrated.

Option 2.1: Promote public education about biolog-ical diversity by establishing a National Conser-vation Education Act,

Just as sustaining support to enhance environ-mental quality required public education programs,so too will a concerted national effort to conservebiological diversity require a strong public educa-tion effort. A National Conservation Education Actcould be patterned after the Environmental Educa-tion Act of 1971 (Public Law 91-516), whichauthorized the U.S. Commissioner of Education toestablish education programs to encourage under-standing of environmental policies.7

A new act could support programs and curriculato promote, among other things, the importance ofbiological diversity to human welfare. A smallgrants program could support research and pilotpublic education projects. Funds could be madeavailable to evaluate methods for curricula develop-ment, dissemination of curricula, teacher training,ecological study center design, community educa-tion, and materials for mass media programs. The actcould support interaction among existing Stateenvironmental education programs, such as those inWisconsin and Minnesota, and encourage establish-ment of new programs in other States. The Depart-ment of Education could provide consulting servicesto school districts to develop education programs.

An attempt to establish additional environmentaleducation legislation might be opposed because ofthe trend to reduce the Federal Government’s role ineducation and to rely more on State find private-sector initiatives. Therefore, it could be argued thatprivate organizations, such as the Center for Envi-ronmental Education, are the appropriate agents toincrease public awareness. It could also be arguedthat Federal agencies are already educating thepublic about environmental issues and could easilyinclude biological diversity in their programs with-out new legislation.g Besides, new legislation wouldrequire additional appropriations, and in a time ofbudgetary constraints, funding requests for conser-vation education programs would probably be op-posed.

Option 2.2: Amend the International Security andDevelopment Act of 1980 to increase the aware-ness of the American public about internationaldiversity conservation issues that affect the UnitedStates.

Even more difficult than increasing the public’sawareness of domestic issues in biological diversityis increasing their awareness of the relevance ofdiversity loss in other countries. In addition tohumanitarian and ethical reasons, maintaining diver-sity in other countries benefits the United States bySustaining biological resources needed for Americanagriculture, pharmacology, and biotechnology in-dustries, and by sustaining natural resources neces-sary for commerce and economic development.

Maintaining biological diversity for security andquality of life enhancement, and the wisdom ofincorporating such issues into U.S. foreign assist-ance efforts, are justification for Congress to pro-mote public awareness of the global nature of theproblem.

Mechanisms for educating the public about suchinternational issues are already in place. Specifi-cally, several nongovernmental organimations (NGOs)have international conservation operations. A coalit-ion of these groups actively participated in the U.S.Interagency Task Force on biological diversity thatformulated the U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of

T ~ls act was repealed by Public Law 97-35 in 1981.

8 ~le ~ ~~m~reh~~i~e mtion~ comemation education pro- ~ not re-emerged, Federal agencies do SUppOrt the numerous programs thatprovide information and educational materials on various facets of environmental issues, often including biological diversity. For example, the Centerfor Marine Consemation (formerly the Center for Environmental Education mentioned in the text), has programs sponsored by NOAA and EPA thatprovide educational materials on ocean pollution for prirmuy and secondary teaehers and students.


Biological Diversity in Developing Countries. As agroup, they have identified public education as amajor role for NGOs.

The grassroots approach of NGOs is conducive toheightening public awareness, as illustrated by thesupport for programs to alleviate famine in Africa.Recognizing the potential of NGOs to stimulatepublic awareness and discussion of the political,economic, technical, and social factors relating toworld hunger and poverty, Congress amended theInternational Security and Development Coopera-tion Act of 1980 with Title III, Section 316, to furtherthe goals of Section 103.9

This amendment provides NGOs with Biden-Pellmatching grants to support programs that educateU.S. citizens about the links between Americanprogress and progress in developing countries. TheAgency for International Development (AID) hasused these grants mainly to promote Americanunderstand ing of the problems faced by farmers indeveloping countries and how resolution of thoseproblems benefits Americans. Recently, use of thegrants has been broadened to include public educa-tion on international environmental issues. Con-gress could encourage this action by expressing itsapproval during oversight hearings or by furtheramending the International Security and Develop-ment Cooperation Act specifically to authorizesupport for education programs on environmentalissues, especially on biological diversity.

Increase the Nation Ability toMaintain Biological Diversity

The ability to maintain biological diversity de-pends on the availability of applicable technologiesthat are useful and affordable and on programsdesigned to apply these technologies to clearlyidentified needs. Thus, increasing the Nation’sability to maintain diversity will require an im-proved system for identifying needs and for develop-ing or adapting technologies and programs toaddress these needs.

At present, technologies and programs are notsufficient to prevent further erosion of biologicalresources. The problem of diversity loss has been

recognized relatively recently, and scientists havejust begun to focus attention on it. Progress is slowpartly because basic research is poorly funded, andinstitutions are not organized to follow up basicresearch with synthesis of results, technology devel-opment, and technology transfer. The last reasonimplies a need for goal-oriented research.

Many of the Nation’s current research programsrelated to biological diversity do not have a goal-oriented approach. Institutional reward systems andprestige factors deter many scientists from engagingin work that translates basic science into practicaltools. Several Federal agencies support basic biol-ogy and ecology research, but too little supportexists for synthesis of the research into technologies.

Improved links between research and manage-ment systems, that is, technology transfer, canincrease efficiency, effectiveness, and ability formaintaining g diversity. For example, understandinghow to maintain and propagate wild endangeredspecies has been preceded by efforts to maintaindomestic species. Perhaps the most dramatic linkageis embryo transfer technology developed for live-stock now being adapted for endangered wildlife.Similarly, plant storage technologies developed for


Interspecific embryo transfer involves transfer ofembryos between related species so that embryos of arare species could be carried to term by a female of a

more common species. Successful transfers haveoccurred from mouflon (wild sheep) to domestic sheep,

guar to cattle, bongo to eland, Przewalski’s horse topony, and zebra to horse.

9 Sec. 103, entitled ‘‘Agriculture, Rural Development and Nutrition, ” recognizes that the majority of people in developing countries live in ruralareas and close to subsistence. It authorizes the President to furnish assistance to alleviate hunger and malnutrition, enhance the capacity of rural people,and to help create productive on- and off-farm employment. Sec. 316 encourages private and voluntary organizations to facilitate widespread publicdiscussion, analysis, and review of the issues of world hunger. It especially calls for increased public awareness of the political, economic, technical,and social factors affecting hunger and poverty.

agricultural varieties, such as cryogenics and tissueculture, maybe valuable tools for maintaining rare orthreatened wild plant species, even if only as backupcollections.

FINDING 3: Current technologies are insuffi-cient to prevent further erosion of biologicalresources. Thus, increasing the Nation’s abil-ity to maintain biological diversity will requireacceleration of basic research as well as re-search in development and implementation ofresource management technologies.

Most resource management technologies weredeveloped to meet narrow needs. Onsite technolo-gies are generally directed toward a particularpopulation or species, and offsite technologies aregenerally directed toward organisms of economicimportance. This restricted focus of basic researchand technology development is not sufficient tomeet the broad goal of maintaining diversity, giventhe number of species involved and the time andfunds available.

To accelerate research and application of diversity-conserving technologies, a shift of emphasis isnecessary in research funding. Agencies that fund orconduct research (e.g., the National Science Founda-tion (NSF) and the Agricultural Research Service ofthe USDA) generally do not focus on applyingresearch to technology development; they mostlyare oriented toward supporting basic research. Forexample, research funds are available for descriptivestudies of population genetics but not for studies onapplications of genetic theory to onsite populationmanagement. Scientists are rewarded for researchthat tests hypotheses relatively quickly and forpublication of research results in academic journals.These incentives discourage broad, long-term stud-ies and neglect analyzing research results to developtechnology systems.

Another avenue to increasing the ability tomaintain diversity is to encourage development andimplementation of programs by private organiza-tions. Although many private efforts are not definedin terms of diversity conservation per se, activities toconserve aspects of diversity (i.e., ecosystems, wildspecies, agricultural crops, and livestock) have hadsignifica.nt impact. These efforts are not likely toreplace public or national programs, but they couldbe an integral part of the Nation’s attempt tomaintain its biological heritage.

Option 3.1: Direct the National Science Foundationto establish a program for conservation biology.

The field of conservation biology seeks to de-velop scientific principles and then apply thoseprinciples to developing technologies for diversitymaintenance. Recently, the development of thisdiscipline has gained momentum through the estab-lishment of study programs at some universities andthe formation of a Society of Conservation Biology,with its own professional journal. Nevertheless,conservation biology is only beginning to be recog-nized by the academic community as a legitimatediscipline. No research funds support it explicitly.Therefore, few scientists can afford to conductinnovative conservation biology research.

Current funding for research and technologydevelopment in conservation biology is negligible,in large part because NSF considers it to be tooapplied, while other government agencies considerit to be too theoretical. Congress could encouragescientists to specialize in conservation biology byestablishing within NSF a separate conservationbiology research program that would support thebroad spectrum of basic and applied researchdirected at developing and applying science andtechnology to biological diversity conservation.

To enhance interprogram links, this programcould fund studies that integrate onsite and offsitemethods at the ecosystem, species, and geneticlevels. Such a program would also bring muchneeded national recognition, research funding, andscientific expertise to the field of conservationbiology. This support would accelerate its accep-tance and growth within the scientific communityand the development of new principles and technol-ogy. Current statutory authority of NSF would coversuch a program. NSF programs are supposed tosupport basic and applied scientific research rele-vant to national problems involving public interest;the maintenance of biological diversity is such aproblem.

NSF might resist establishing such a program,because NSF views conservation biology as amission-oriented activity. Since conservation biol-ogy includes technology development, NSF mightview a diversity program as a potentially dangerousprecedent to its role as the Nation’s major supporterof basic research. Furthermore, NSF might arguethat a new research program is not needed becauseits Division of Biotic Systems and Resources


already supports about 60 basic research projectsthat address biological diversity issues. These proj-ects, however, largely ignore the social, economic,political, and management aspects of biologicaldiversity, and conservation is usually of secondaryimportance to the projects.

An alternative to establishing an NSF programcould be to enhance or redirect existing programs inother agencies to promote research in diversitymaintenance. The Institute of Museum Services(IMS), a federally sponsored program, alreadyprovides a small amount of funding for research onboth onsite and offsite diversity maintenance. IMSsupports activities from ecosystem surveys to cap-tive breeding. However, the principal focus of IMSis public education, and its small budget is spreadover a wide range of programs (e. g., art museumsand historic collections), many of which are unre-lated to biological research. Thus, IMS would beunable, with its current funding, to take greaterresponsibility for technology development; newappropriations would be necessary.

Development and application of diversity-con-serving technologies could also be funded throughother Federal agencies’ research programs. Con-gress could encourage appropriate agencies toincrease emphasis on development of diversitytechnology. One source of funding is through theUSDA Competitive Research Grants Office (CRGO).At present, the only research related to geneticresources funded by USDA/CRGO is in the area ofmolecular genetics. As a result, little funding isavailable for scientists seeking to conduct researchin germplasm preservation, maintenance, evalua-tion, and use.

Option 3.2: Establish a National Endowment forBiological Diversity.

Congress could establish a National Endowmentfor Biological Diversity to fund private organ-izations in research, education, training, and main-tenance programs that support the conservation ofbiological diversity. Currently, no central institutionfunds such efforts.

Efforts, however piecemeal, of private organiza-tions and individuals are currently making signifi-cant contributions to the maintenance of the Na-

tion’s diversity. Frequently, they undertake activi-ties Federal and State agencies cannot or do notaddress. Through their special interests, thesegroups as a whole also play a major role in raisingpublic awareness and concern about the loss ofdiversity. In this way, they increase the constituencybacking government programs that maintain naturalareas as well as those that collect and safeguard

1 0 F i n d i n g , h o w e v e r , i s a m a j o rgenetic resources.constraint for nearly all these private activities. Aprogram of small grants with a ceiling of perhaps$25,000 per grant (similar to the grants awarded byIMS) could make a substantial contribution to theshoestring budgets of these small organizations andthus enhance national efforts to maintain biologicaldiversity at relatively little cost.

A National Endowment for Biological Diversitycould provide funds to private organizations to carryout the following:

●

●

●

●

support research and application of methods toconserve biological diversity,

award fellowships and grants for training,

foster and support education programs to in-crease public understanding and appreciationof biological diversity, and

buy necessary equipment such as small com-puters.

This national endowment could be created byamending the act that authorizes other nationalendowment (of arts and humanities) programs. TheNational Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act of1965 (Public Law 89-209) declares that nationalprogress is of Federal concern and supports scholar-ships, research, the improvement of education facili-ties, and encouragement of greater public awareness.

A major constraint to establishing an endowmentis the availability of funds during this period ofsevere budget cutbacks. However, even a smallprogram could significantly encourage private-sector initiatives in diversity maintenance. Thus, thetotal amount needed for such an endowment couldbe modest, and it might be feasible to use onIystartup funds and a partial contribution from theFederal Government and raise the remainder of theendowment from private-sector contributions.

10 For mm discussio~ se us, Conmess, OffIce of ~c~ology Assessment Grassroots Consemation ofBiological Diversity in the UnitedStateJ,

Background Paper #l, OTA-BP-F-38 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, Februaq 1986).


FINDING 4: Many Federal agencies sponsordiversity maintenance programs that are welldesigned but not fully effective in achievingtheir objectives because of inadequate fundingand personnel, lack of links to other programs,or lack of complementary programs in relatedfields.

Much is already being done to maintain certainaspects of diversity in the United States, but effortsare constrained by shrinkm“ g budgets and personnel.And as noted earlier, the programs addressingbiological diversity are piecemeal rather than com-prehensive or strategic. Whether or not Congresschooses to promote a comprehensive strategy fordiversity maintenance, specific attention is neededto remedy the major gaps and inadequacies inexisting programs.

Option 4.1: Provide increased funding to existingprograms for maintenance of diversi~.

A number of governmental programs for diversitymaintenance already exist, some because of con-gressional mandates. Yet the full potential of someof those programs has not been realized becausefunding is insufficient. Two such programs are theNational Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) and theEndangered Species program, though others wouldalso benefit from higher levels of funding.

The NPGS of the Agricultural Research Servicehas functioned for years on severely limited fundsand, consequently, is in danger of losing some of thestorehouse of plant germplasm. This desperatesituation is best illustrated by the National SeedStorage Laboratory (NSSL), which is expected toexceed its storage capacity in 2 years. At the sametime, NSSL is being pressured to increase collectionand maintenance of wild plant germplasm. NPGS isattempting to respond to various criticisms about its

Photo credit: Ken Hammond, USDA Forest Service

Critical habitat for the endangered northern spotted owl has only recently been designated, and is generating substantial controversyamong private landowners, public land-users, and proponents of owl conservation programs in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. ForestService research teams currently are studying the spotted owl and its old-growth forest habitat to refine estimates of population andareal extent of critical habitat, and to identify steps for recovery programs. Many species listed as endangered still await designation

of critical habitat.

.


effectiveness, ll but progress has been slow becauseof lack of funds and personnel. The 1986 appropria-tion for germplasm work is approximately $16million, but to support current programs adequatelywould cost about $40 million (198 1 dollars) annu-ally.

Similarly underfunded and understaffed is theEndangered Species Program of the Fish and Wild-life Service. A review of this program shows asubstantial and growing backlog of important work.The rate of proposing species for the threatened andendangered list is so slow that a few candidates (e.g.,Texas Henslow’s sparrow) may have become extinctwhile awaiting listing. Critical habitat has beendetermined for only one-fourth of the listed species,and recovery plans have been approved for onlysome of the listed species.

Congress could provide adequate funding forthese and other programs to achieve their goals inmaintaining diversity, NPGS could, as a result,increase the viability of stored germplasm throughmore frequent testing and regeneration of acces-sions. NSSL could increase its efficiency by expand-ing storage capacity and adopting new technologies.For example, cryogenic storage could be used toreduce maintenance cost and space, thereby ena-bling a larger collection of germplasm. Likewise, theEndangered Species Program would be able toassess candidate species faster to develop andimplement recovery plans for those already listedspecies.

Option 4.2: Amend appropriate legislation to im-prove the link between onsite and offsite mainte-nance programs.

Coordination between onsite and offsite programsis inadequate. By amending appropriate legislation,Congress could encourage the complementary useof onsite and offsite technologies. For example, theEndangered Species Act could be amended toencourage use of captive breeding and propagationtechniques. Such methods have been used with some

endangered species, such as the red wolf, whoopingcrane, and grizzly bear. But for other species, suchas the California condor, black-footed ferret, anddusky seaside sparrow, recovery plans do not existor were too long delayed. Recovery plans forendangered species seldom include the use of offsitetechniques, partly because captive breeding andpropagation are outside the scope of natural resourcemanagement agencies; rather, they are in the prov-ince of zoos, botanic gardens, arboretums, andagricultural research stations.

By mandating that recovery plans give specificconsideration to captive breeding and propagation.Congress could encourage links between separateprograms. The approach could be broadened toencourage cooperative efforts between public andprivate organizations working offsite and onsite toconserve ecosystem and genetic diversity. A modelfor such efforts exists in the emerging cooperationbetween the Center for Plant Conservation (anetwork of regional botanic institutions) and NSSL.

Option 4,3: Establish programs to fill gaps incurrent efforts to maintain biological diversity.

One of the most obvious gaps in domesticprograms is the lack of a formal national program tomaintain domestic animal genetic resources. Con-gress could establish a program to coordinateactivitiesfor animal germplasm conservation, therebyreducing duplication and encouraging complemen-tary actions. Such a program could be establishedthrough clarification of the Agricultural ResearchService mandate. An animal program could parallelthe National Plant Germplasm System, but otherstructures should be explored as well. Alternatively,a separate program established to be semi-inde-pendent from government agencies might serve agreater variety of interests. The best structure forsuch a program is at present unclear.

A congressional hearing could be held to identifythe main issues in establishing an animal germplasm

11 A tho~~ugh ~evlew of tie Nation~ Plmt Germplasm System ~dcfl~cn by tie National Research Counci]’s Board on Agriculture fo~d the SySh3m

badly in need of extensive reforms. The recommendations include: development of clear NPGS goals and policies; development of a s~c~e andorganiza tion to provide for national coordination and management of collections as national resources; increased NPGS investment in regenerating seedaccessions, with extra attention to special collections; expansion of the National Seed Storage Laboratory, which is antiquated and insut%cient to meetthe needs of the mtional system; establishment of sites for maintenance of germplasm that requires short day-lengths or arid environments; taking aproactive role in long-term planning and policy development for broader collections that encompass a wider range of biological diversity; taking a moreactive role in developing U.S. policies that guide relations with international agencies; and NPGS cooperation with other mtions’ germplasmconservation programs ~ational Research Council, Managing Giobal Genetic Resources: The U.S. National Plant Germplasm System (Washingto%DC: National Academy Press, 1991)].

76 ● Combined Summries

program and to discuss alternative structures andscope of such a program.

Coordination of international efforts is also neededto preserve the diversity of agriculturally importantanimals. Some efforts have already been made, andthe concept of an international program is gainingsupport. Congress could encourage the establish-ment of an International Board for Animal GeneticResources (IBAGR). This program could parallel theInternational Board for Plant Genetic Resources(IBPGR). An IBAGR could set standards andcoordinate the exchange and storage of germplasmbetween countries and address related issues such asquarantine regulations. It could foster onsite man-agement of genetic resources for both minor andmajor breeds.

Another major gap is protection of U.S. ecosys-tem diversity. Numerous types of ecosystems, suchas tall grass prairie, are not included in the Federalpublic lands system. Congress could direct Federalland-managing agencies to include representativeareas of major ecosystems in protected areas.

One vehicle for this is the Research Natural Area(RNA) system. Since 1927, the RNA system, withthe cooperation of multiple Federal agencies andprivate groups, has developed the most comprehen-sive coverage of natural ecosystem types in theUnited States. RNAs, however, are small scale andare mainly established on land already in publicownership. Therefore, the RNA system may not beable to cover the major ecosystems without someadditional mechanism to acquire land not already inthe Federal domain, possibly through land ex-changes. Nevertheless, Congress could recognizethe RNA system as a mechanism and direct agenciesto work toward filling the program gaps.

Enhance the Knowledge Base

Developing effective strategies to maintain diver-sity depends on knowing the components of biologi-cal systems and how they interact. Information onthe status and trends in biological systems is alsoneeded for public policy. The first step in developingsuch information is fundamental descriptions of thevarious component-species, communities, andecosystems. Data can then be analyzed to determinehow best to maintain biological diversity. Morespecifically, baseline data are needed for the follow-ing activities:

●

●

●

●

assessing the abundance, condition, and distri-bution of species, communities, and ecosys-tems;disclosing changes that may be taking place;monitoring the effectiveness of resource man-agement plans once they are implemented; anddetermining priorities for areas that meritspecial efforts to manage natural diversity thatwould benefit from protection, and that deserveparticular attention to avoid biological disrup-tion or to initiate mitigative actions.

To be effective and efficient, the acquisition,dissemination, and use of data must proceed withinthe context of defined objectives. For the most part,biological data used in diversity maintenance pro-grams have been acquired without the direction of acoordinating goal. Not surprisingly, these data arewidely scattered and generally incompatible. Geo-graphical and taxonomical data gaps exist. Sometaxonomic groups are ignored in field inventories,while others, particularly plants and animals witheconomic or recreational value, are monitored exten-sively. Finally, few data exist on the social, eco-nomic, and institutional pressures on biologicaldiversity. Consequently, available data cannot beused easily in decisionmaking directed at maintain-ing biological diversity.

FINDING 5: Congress and other policymakersneed improved information on biological di-versity. Such information cannot be suppliedwithout improvements in data collection, main-tenance, and synthesis.

Policymakers need comprehensive informationon the ramifications and scope of diversity loss.Information provided by the scientific communityshould be a basis for resource policy and manage-ment decisions. To serve in the context of publicpolicy, data should satisfy four criteria:

1.

2.

3.

4.

The data must be of high quality; they mustmeet accepted standards of objectivity, com-pleteness, reproducibility, and accuracy.The data must have value; they must address aworthwhile problem.The data must be applicable; they must beuseful to decisionmalcers responsible for mak-ing policy.The data must be legitimate; they must carry awidely accepted presumption of accuracy andauthority.

— .


Much information is already available but not inan assimilated form useful to decisionmakers. Dataon the status and trends of biological diversity arescattered among Federal, State, and foreign agenciesand private organizations. Consolidation of thesedata is necessary to identify gaps, to provide acomprehensive understanding of the status of theEarth’s biota, and especially to define priorities foraction.

Option 5.1: Establish a small clearinghouse for dataon biological diversity.

The purpose of a clearinghouse would be tocoordinate data collection, synthesis, and dissemina-tion efforts. It could serve government agencies,private organizations, corporations, and individuals.The clearinghouse could perform the followingfunctions:

●

●

●

●

survey and catalog existing Federal, State,private, and international databases on biologi-cal resources;evaluate the quality of databases;provide small grants and personnel supportservices to strengthen existing databases; andpublish annual reports on the status and needsof the biological data system.

Success in these endeavors would accelerateprogress toward several objectives:

1.2.3.4.

5.

6.

setting of priorities for conservation action;monitoring trends;developing an alert system for adverse trends;identifying gaps and reviewing needs to fillthem;facilitating development of environmental im-pact assessments; andevaluating options, actions, and successes andfailures.

As a data-coordinating body, the clearinghousecould guide efforts to collect data on biologicaldiversity, which will provide a comprehensiveperspective that Federal agencies cannot supplybecause of their varied mandates. Access to previ-ously inaccessible data would be facilitated, whichshould reduce duplication of effort. By evaluatingthe quality of information, the clearinghouse couldhelp eliminate a general distrust among users ofother databases. Access to a diversity of databasesmeans no standardized system is forced on data

users, which has been a formidable obstacle todatabase integration and use.

The clearinghouse would not necessarily main-tain its own primary database. Commercial data-bases in the public domain could be included in thesystem, and proprietary and other limited-accessdatabases could be reviewed regularly, with permis-sion. Database enhancements to cover gaps could befunded by small grants. The clearinghouse’s infor-mation systems could be made available through alibrary service and special searches. It could chargeappropriate fees for all its services.

The same clearinghouse could assess informationon biological diversity in international databases. Itcould provide a small amount of financial andpersonnel aid to help international organizationsimprove their databases. In addition, it could workwith development assistance agencies to support theparticipation of other countries’ national databasesin such international and regional networks as theInternational Union for the Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources’ Conservation MonitoringCenter, the United Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Man andthe Biosphere Program (MAB), and The NatureConservancy International.

Possible objections to such a clearinghouse in-clude the following: 1) lack of a unifom- system ofdata collection for the United States would hindernational data analysis and use, and 2) evaluating thequality of other agencies’ databases would bepolitically sensitive. Questions such as the size,administrative structure, and cost of a clearinghouseprogram must be answered as well. Because it wouldnot maintain its own primary database, however,such a clearinghouse would not need to be alarge-scale operation.

Option 5.2: Provide funding to enhance the existingnetwork of natural heritage conservation datacenters.

A number of state governments, aided by TheNature Conservancy (TNC), have already estab-lished a network of Natural Heritage Data Centers inmany States and in some foreign countries. Thesecenters collect and organize biological data specifi-cally for diversity conservation. All centers use astandardized format to collect and synthesize data.The result has been a vehicle to exchange and toaggregate information about what is happening to


biological resources at State and local levels and,more recently, around the Nation and across theWestern Hemisphere.

Funding for these data centers comes from acombination of Federal, State, and private (includ-ing corporate) sources. Progress has been limited,however, by the amount of available funds. Con-gress could enhance these efforts by providing aconsistent source of addition al funding. By increas-ing support for the Federal-State-private partner-ship, the action by Congress could reinforce theapplication of standard methods, enhance inter-agency compatibility, improve the efficiency ofbiological data collection and management, andfacilitate the free exchange of useful information.Moreover, the partnership could accelerate the rateat which data centers spread to the remaining Statesand nations.

An appropriation of $10 million per year, forexample, could be divided among several data centerfunctions: supporting central office activities inresearch, development, documentation, and train-ing; conducting taxonomic work; and matchinggrants from States and other participants. One sourceof funding could be the Land and Water Conserva-tion Fund. Although this fund is used mainly for landacquisition, it could also support preacquisitionactivities such as identification of lands to beacquired. Data centers are key to such activities.

This option does not necessarily replace the needfor an information clearinghouse because diversedatabases and information systems will continue tooperate. The two options could be complementary.Some clearinghouse functions might be handled byTNC, but others, such as facilitating improvement ofand access to data sources, could be best handled bya separate entity that functions much like a library.

Support International Initiative toMaintain Biological Diversity

Most biological resources belong to individualnations. However, many benefits from diversityaccrue internationally. American agriculture, forexample, depends on foreign sources for geneticdiversity to keep ahead of constantly evolving pestsand pathogens. And many bird populations impor-tant to controlling pests in the United States over-winter in the forests of Latin America.

Solutions to problems that cause diversity lossmust be implemented locally, but many of these willbe effective only if supported by internationalpolitical and technical cooperation. Examples ofsuch problems include the international trade in rarewildlife, the greenhouse effect of certain gases onthe climate, the effects of acid rain on freshwaterlakes and forests, and damage to oceans by pollutionand overfishing. The United States has the politicalprestige needed to initiate international cooperation,and it leads the world in much of the technicalexpertise needed, such as fundamental biology andinformation processing. Thus, the United States hasboth motive and ability to participate and to provideleadership in international conservation efforts.

The United States historically has played aleading role in promoting international conservationinitiatives, and precedence exists for extending thisleadership to an international or global approach forconserving biological diversity. A variety of intern-ational conventions and multilateral programs al-ready specifies biological diversity as an aspect ofbroader conservation objectives (e.g., biospherereserve program). Such internationally recognizedobligations can be important policy tools in concertwith technical, administrative, and financial meas-ures to encourage programs for conserving diversity.Obligations confirmed by international conventionsprovide conservation authorities with the justifica-tion frequently needed to strengthen their nationalprograms.

FINDING 6: The United States has begun toabdicate leadership in international conserva-tion efforts, with the result that internationalinitiatives are weakened or stalled in thetropical regions where diversity losses aremost severe. Renewed U.S. commitment couldaccelerate the pace of international achieve-ments in conservation.

The United States has been a model and an activeleader in international conservation activity. Themovement toward establishment of national parksworldwide grew out of the United States. In the early1970s, the United States was a leader in internationalenvironmental and resource deliberations, notably inthe 1972 UN-sponsored Stockholm Conference onthe Human Environment. U.S. leadership, for exam-ple, played an important role in establishing theUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),and in securing the Convention on International


Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES) and the World Heritage Convention,all important foundations of current internationalefforts to support maintenance of biological diver-sity.

However, U.S. support for these kinds of initia-tives has declined. The retrenchment in supportreflects austerity measures as well as dissatisfactionwith the performance of specific international organ-izations. Effective international projects, such asUNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program, havesuffered by association.

U.S. support of international conservation effortsis pivotal in that the United States has greaterresources and stronger technical abilities than mostother countries to address the complex issue ofdiversity loss. Without greater initiative and accessto resources, many countries will be unable to arrestloss of diversity within their borders. Under existingconditions, countries that harbor the greatest diver-sity are expected to devote a large part of theirnational resources to address the problem, eventhough benefits commonly extend beyond theircountries. It would seem equitable for those coun-tries that benefit, including the United States, toshare more fully in efforts to conserve diversity incountries otherwise unable to do so.

Option 6.1: Sustain or increase support of inter-national organizations and conventions.

International conservation initiatives are importanttools for long-term conservation of biological diver-sity. Yet, existing international agreements are oftenpoorly implemented because of lack of adequateadministrative machinery (e.g., adequately fundedand staffed secretariats), lack of financial support foron-the-ground programs (e.g., equipment, training,and staff, and lack of reciprocal obligations thatcould serve as incentives to comply.

An exception is CITES, which has mechanisms tofacilitate reciprocal trade controls and a technicalsecretariat. The existence of this machinery in largepart accounts for the relative success of this conven-tion. The United States has been globally influentialin supporting CITES and has reinforced it throughnational legislation that prohibits import into theUnited States of wildlife taken or exported inviolation of another country’s laws. The amendmentto the Lacey Act of 1900 (Public Law 97-79) in 1981backs efforts of other nations seeking to conserve

their wildlife resources. This law has been apowerful tool for wildlife conservation throughoutthe world because the United States is a majorimporter of wildlife specimens and products.

U.S. contributions to international conservationprograms have been diminishing recently. Theappropriation cycle for funding such programs hasbeen an annual tug-of-war between Congress and theAdministration. The budget of the World HeritageConvention in 1985 was $824,000. The UnitedStates, one of the major forces behind the Conven-tion’s founding, usually contributes at least one-fourth of the budget. U.S. contributions averaged$300,000 in fiscal years 1979 to 1982. From fiscalyear 1982 to 1984, the United States made nocontributions, but contributed $238,903 in fiscalyear 1985. In fiscal year 1986, $250,000 had beenappropriated, but the amount was cut to $239,000under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budgetand Emergency Deficit Control Act.

Congress could maintain or increase U.S. supportof international organizations and programs inseveral ways. Congress could ensure that theseorganizations receive adequate annual appropria-tions and could conduct oversight hearings toencourage the Administration to carry out the intentof Congress.

One possible drawback associated with contribu-tions to international intergovernmental organiza-tions is their lack of accountability. Compared to

Photo credit: Walter E. Patiam, Office of Ttino/ogy Assessment

The Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was established

to reduce or eliminate trade in products derived fromendangered species. Products such as the elephant

ivory shown here, however, continue to be illegally movedin international trade.


bilateral assistance channels, the United States haslittle control over how or to whom intergovernme-ntal organizations direct their resources. The conse-quence is that U.S. funds go to countries that areunfriendly or even adversarial to the United Statesand its policies.

It should be recognized, however, that manyinternational activities specific to maintenance ofbiological diversity, especially activities of UNEP,UNESCO-MAB, and IBPGR, operate largely withinscientific channels, which tends to reduce thepolitical overtones inherent in intergovernmentalorganizations. Also, objectivity can be enhanced inprograms willing to establish protocols. For exam-ple, establishing criteria to determine which areasqualify for biosphere reserve status or which uniqueareas warrant (natural) World Heritage status pro-vides objectivity in directing resources.

Congress could also encourage or direct Federalagencies to assign technical personnel to interna-tional organization or to the secretariats of thevarious conventions. This option could be difficultto implement without legislating special allowancesfor agency personnel ceilings and budgets. Other-wise, agencies will be reluctant to assign personneloverseas in light of a shrinkm“ g Federal work forceand budget.

Option 6.2: Continue to direct U.S. directors ofmultilateral development banks (MDBs) to do thefollowing: 1) press for more specific and system-atic MDB efforts to promote sound environmentaland resource policies akin to the World Bank’swildland policy, 2) work to make projects consist-ent with international and recipient countryenvironmental policies and regulations, and 3)seek to involve recipient country environmentalofficials and nongovernmental organizations inproject formulation processes.

A significant part of all international developmentassistance efforts is funded by the World Bank andregional MDBs. Thus, these organizations are uniquelysituated to influence environmental aspects of devel-opment, including the maintenance of biologicaldiversity. In fact, the MDBs’ priorities and policiescan be the single most important influence on thedevelopment model adopted by developing coun-tries. MDB agricultural, rural development, andenergy programs all have profound effects onbiological resources in developing countries.

The World Bank promulgated a new policy in1986 on the treatment of wildlands in developmentprojects. The bank recognizes that although furtherconversion of some natural land and water areas tomore intensive uses will be necessary to meetdevelopment objectives, other pristine areas mayyield benefits to present and future generations ifmaintained in their natural state. These are areasthat, for example, may provide important environ-mental services or essential habitats to endangeredspecies. To prevent the loss of these wildland values,the policy specifies that the Bank will normallydecline to finance projects in these areas and insteadprefer projects on already converted lands. Conver-sion of less important wildlands must be justifiedand compensated by financing the preservation of anecologically similar area in a national park or naturereserve, or by some other mitigative measures. Thepolicy provides systematic guidance and criteria fordeciding which wildlands are in need of protection,which projects may need wildland measures, andwhat types of wildland measures should be pro-vided.

In 1980, the World Bank, Inter-American Devel-opment Bank, Asian Development Bank, and sixother multilateral signed a “Declaration of Envi-ronmental Policies and Procedures Relating toEconomic Development,’ and formed the Commit-tee on International Development Institutions on theEnvironment (CIDIE), under the auspices of theUnited Nations Environment Programme. The agen-cies agreed to systematic environmental analysis ofactivities funded for environmental programs andprojects. However, a subsequent study found thesepolicy statements by the MDBs were not effectivelytranslated into action. Criticisms of how well MDBsimplement environmental policies remain strong.And it is too soon to determine the effectiveness ofthe World Bank’s wildland policy.

The United States is limited in its ability to effectchange at MDBs because the banks are internationalinstitutions run collectively by member nations.Since the United States is a large contributor,however, it does have considerable influence onbank policies, which are determined by boards ofdirectors.

The primary way Congress affects policies ofthese banks is by requesting that the U.S. executivedirectors-who are responsible to the Secretary ofthe Treasury-carry out congressionally approved


policies. These requests may be made at oversighthearings or in the language of appropriation legisla-tion. For instance, the 1986 House Committee onAppropriations Report stated guidelines for the U.S.executive directors (Sec. 539), which included theaddition of relevant staff, development of manage-ment plans, and commitment to increase the propor-tion of programs supporting environmentally benefi-cial projects. To continue this guidance, Congresscould require the U.S. executive directors of MDBsto encourage adoption of a policy similar to theWorld Bank’s wildlands policy statement.

FINDING 7: Constraints on international ex-change of genetic resources could jeopardizefuture agricultural production and progress inbiotechnologies. Such constraints are becom-ing more likely because developing countrieswith sovereignty over most such resourcesbelieve the industrial nations have benefited attheir expense. Debates on the issue couldbenefit from a more informed and less impas-sioned approach.

All countries benefit from the exchange of geneticresources. Many of the major crops currently grownin various countries have originated elsewhere.Coffee, for example, is native to the highlands ofEthiopia. Yet, today, it represents an importantsource of income for farmers in other parts of Africa,Asia, and Latin America. Maize, originally fromCentral America, is grown as a staple crop in NorthAmerica and Africa. Countries continue to dependon access to germplasm from outside their borders tomaintain or enhance agricultural productivity. Polit-ical and economic considerations, however, are nowprompting national governments to restrict access totheir germplasm. Behind these efforts is an implicitdesire by some countries to obtain greater compen-sation for the genetic resources currently madefreely available.

The International Board for Plant Genetic Re-sources (IBPGR) is the main international institutiondealing with the offsite conservation of plant geneticdiversity. Established in 1974, it promotes establish-ment of national programs and regional centers forthe conservation of plant germplasm. It has providedtraining facilities, carried out research in techniquesof plant germplasm conservation, supported numer-ous collection missions, and provided limited finan-cial assistance for conservation facilities. However,


Exchange of genetic resources in the form of cropshistorically has been an integral component of explorationand trade. The infamous “Mutiny on the Bounty” took placeon a ship carrying breadfruit seedlings from the Pacific

to Caribbean islands. Although the Bounty nevercompleted its journey, breadfruit has become a staple

food on some Caribbean islands.

it does not operate any germplasm storage facilitiesitself.

Due in part to the success of IBPGR in focusingattention on the need to conserve genetic diversity,the issue of germplasm exchange has becomeembroiled in political controversy. Some criticsregard the IBPGR as implicitly working for agribusi-ness interests of industrial nations. Central to theissue is a perception on the part of many developingcountries that they have been freely giving geneticresources to industrial nations which, in turn, haveprofited at their expense.

This controversy led the United Nations Food andAgricultural Organization (FAO) to sponsor anInternational Undertaking on Plant Genetic Re-sources. The undertaking proposed an internationalgermplasm conservation network under the auspicesof FAO. It declared that each nation has a duty tomake all plant genetic materials-including ad-vanced breeding materials-freely available. IBPGR

was to continue its current work, but it would bemonitored by FAO.

FAO then established the Commission on PlantGenetic Resources to review progress in germplasmconservation. The commission held its first meetingin March 1985, with the United States present onlyas an observer. Much of the discussion focused onthe concerns expressed in the undertaking and ononsite conservation.

The continuing controversy includes charges thatthe current international system enables countries torestrict access to germplasm in international collec-tions for political and economic reasons. Also ofconcern to some parties is the impact of plantpatenting legislation.

Current charges and arguments in the FAO forumtend to oversimplify the complexity of howgermplasm is incorporated into plant varieties and todistort the actual nature of genetic exchange be-tween and among industrial and developing count-ries. Restrictions on export of germplasm, forexample, appear to be more common for developingcountries. Nevertheless, the perception of inequityin the current situation is real, and it could result inincreasing national restrictions on access to andexport of germplasm. Further, the issue of controlover genetic resources could become a significantstumbling block to establishing international com-mitment and cooperation in the maintenance ofoverall biological diversity.

Option 7.1: Closely examine the actions available tothe United States regarding the issue of interna-tional exchange of genetic resources.

Efforts to address the conservation and exchangeof plant genetic resources in the FAO forum havebeen controversial. It is not yet apparent how theUnited States should act in this regard. Congresscould give increased attention to determining whatoptions are available.

One possible action is for Congress to request thatan independent organization, such as the NationalAcademy of Sciences, study this issue. In fact, NAShas already indicated interest in investigating this asa part of its current 3-year study of global geneticresources. Such a study could draw on otheragencies and individuals with interest and expertisein this area to define several general actions theUnited States might take in regard to international

exchange of genetic resources and the consequencesassociated with it.

Another option is to favor the status quo, ignoringthe criticisms and avoiding the risk that new politicalactions might disrupt effective scientific workingarrangements. A practical international flow ofgermplasm is likely to continue in the future, with orwithout the formal international arrangements envi-sioned by the FAO undertaking. In time, the politicalissues may be resolved equitably without pushingnations into conflicts over breeders’ rights or accessto genetic materials.

Another possibility would be for the United Statesto associate with the FAO Commission on PlantGenetic Resources. U.S. influence might strengthenthe international commitment to free flow ofgermplasm and reduce the risk that germplasm willincreasingly be withheld for political or economicreasons.

Unless Congress chooses to restrict plant breed-ers’ rights in the United States, the U.S. Governmentwill be unable to join the undertaking without majorreservations. Such a change in domestic law seemspolitically unlikely, given domestic benefits pro-vided by plant breeders’ rights and the effectivelobbying efforts of the seed industry. However, theUnited States could consider renegotiating the FAOundertaking to require a commitment to grant globalaccess to genetic resources-with appropriate ex-ceptions for certain privately held materials-withinthe context of an internationally supported commitm-ent to help countries conserve and develop theirgenetic resources. Parallel agreements also might bedeveloped for domestic animal, marine, and micro-bial resources. Such agreements could also definenational and international obligations to collect andconserve the germplasm that is being displaced bynew varieties or by changing patterns of agriculturaldevelopments.

Finally, U.S. representatives could consider pro-moting a discussion of genetic resource exchangesoutside formal channels in an effort to separate thetechnical issues from emotional ones. The KeystoneCenter, an environmental mediation organization, isexploring the possibility of conducting a policydialog on this topic in the near future.

Option 7.2: Affirm the U.S. commitment to the freeflow of germplasm through an amendment to theExport Administration Act.

—.


Specific allegations have been made that theUnited States has restricted the access to germplasmin national collections (at the National PlantGermplasm System) for political reasons. The gov-ernment, however, maintains it adheres to theprinciples of free exchange.

To reinforce recent executive affiliations of thefree flow of germplasm, Congress could exempt theexport of germplasm contained in national collec-tions from Export Administration Act restrictions orpolitical embargoes imposed for other reasons.Comparable provisions are already included in thisact with respect to medicine and medical supplies(50 U.S.C. app. sec. 2405 (g), as amended by PublicLaw 99-64, July 12, 1985). Because this germplasmis already accessible through existing mechanisms,such a provision would only reaffirm the U.S.position and remove from the current debate theallegations of U.S. restrictions of access togermplasm.

On the other hand, the process of amending the actmay generate support for restricting germplasm byexcluding certain countries from such an exemption.Restricting access in such a manner would likelylead to an international situation counter to U.S.interests. In such a case, no action would bepreferable to an amendment.

Address Loss of Biological Diversityin Developing Counties

The United States has a stake in promoting themaintenance of biological diversity in developingcountries. Many of these nations are in tropicalregions where biological systems are highly diverse,where pressures that degrade diversity are generallymost pronounced, and where the capacity to forestalla reduction in diversity is least well developed. Therationale for assisting developing countries rests on:1) recognition of the substantial existing and poten-tial benefits of maintaining a diversity of plants,animals, and microbes; 2) evidence that degradationof specific ecosystems is undermining the potentialfor economic development in a number of regions;and 3) esthetic and ethical motivations to avoidirreversible loss of unique life forms.

The U.S. Congress, recognizing these interests,passed Section 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act of1983, specifying conservation of biological diver-sity as a specific objective of U.S. developmentassistance. The U.S. Agency for International Devel-

t

Photo credit: Alison L. Hess, 0ffic8 of T=hnology Assessment

The U.S. Agency for International Development wasdirected by Congress to provide support for establishingand maintaining wildlife sanctuaries, reserves, and parks intropical developing countries, to protect the habitat of such

species as East Africa’s Grants Gazelle.

opment (AID), as the principaI agency providingdevelopment assistance, was given a mandate toimplement this policy, which reads in part:

In order to preseme biological diversity, the Presi-dent is authorized to furnish assistance to countriesin protecting and maintaining wildlife habitats and indeveloping sound wildlife management and plantconservation programs. Special effort should betaken to establish and maintain wildlife sanctuaries,reserves, and parks; to enact and enforce anti-poaching measures; and to identify, study, andcatalog animal and plant species, especially in tropi-cal environments.

A review of AID initiatives since 1983 suggeststhat despite the formulation of a number of policydocuments, the agency lacks a strong commitment toimplementing the specific types of projects identi-fied in Section 119. This lack of commitment is dueto several factors, including: 1) a belief that theagency is already addressing biological diversity tothe extent it should, 2) reduced levels of budgets andstaff to initiate projects, and 3) an inadequatenumber of trained personnel to address conservationconcerns generally.

Several questions arise in relation to the capacityand the appropriateness of U.S. commitments tosupport diversity conservation efforts through bilat-eral development assistance. First, it is uncle~whether Section 119, as the principal legislationdealing with concerns over diversity loss outside theUnited States, defines U.S. interests too narrowly.


Second, it is uncertain how Section 119 relates to theprincipal goals of foreign assistance, as specified inSection 101. Finally, questions remain concerningthe commitment of resources and personnel toaddress U.S. interests in maintaining diversity indeveloping countries.

FINDING 8: Existing legislation may be inade-quate and inappropriate to address U.S. inter-ests in maintaining biological diversity indeveloping countries.

Maintaining diversity will depend primarily ononsite maintenance. The ‘‘special effort’ initiativesidentified in Section 119 are important componentsof a comprehensive program. What is not clear,however, is whether the emphasis is appropriatewithin the context of U.S. bilateral developmentassistance. That is, establishing protected areas andsupporting anti-poaching measures can have adverseimpacts on populations that derive benefits fromexploiting resources within a designated area. Thesepopulations are characteristically among the ‘‘poor-est majority ‘‘ intended to be the principal benefici-aries of U.S. development assistance (Sec. 101).However, demands of local populations (e.g., forfuelwood or agricultural land) may threaten diver-sity and even the sustainability of the resource baseon which they depend. It does, however, raisequestions on the appropriateness of supportingactivities that could place increased stress on thesepopulations.

Second, existing legislation identifies concernover diversity loss separately from conversion oftropical forests and degradation of environment andnatural resources (Sec. 118 and 117, respectively).Clearly, these concerns are interrelated, although notsynonymous. It is questionable whether such adistinction is appropriate within the context ofdevelopment assistance legislation. An argumentcan be made that U.S. development assistanceshould approach diversity maintenance within thecontext of conservation-that is, as a wise use ofnatural resources, as elaborated in the World Conser-vation Strategy. In doing so, the objectives ofdiversity maintenance and development interestscould be made more compatible.

Finally, although Section 119 speaks of biologicaldiversity, the thrust of the legislation addresses anarrower set of concerns-that of species extinction.While certainly a prominent concern, and perhaps

even the central motivation behind the legislation, itfails to address the broader set of U.S. concerns overdiversity loss in developing countries. As notedearlier, a focus on unique populations would be amore appropriate, though more problematic, ap-proach. This is particularly important with regard topreserving genetic resources of potential benefit toagriculture or industry, which is the most stronglyargued rationale for conserving biological diversity.Existing legislation does not specifically identi~these interests.

Option 8.1: Restructure existing sections of theForeign Assistance Act to reflect the fill scope ofU.S. interests in maintaining biological diversityin developing countries.

The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) comes upfor reauthorization in 1987. Major restructuring ofthe act is already being considered. Revampingcould provide an opportunity to recast certainprovisions of the legislation to better account forU.S. interests in maintaining diversity in developingcountries.

Providing for conservation of natural resourcesand the environment in general, and of biologicaldiversity and tropical forests in particular, areimportant considerations in a restructuring of FAA.Less clear, however, is whether the language anddisaggregation of these interests is appropriate in thecontext of bilateral development assistance.

One specific consideration could be to resolvepotential conflicts of interest that exist in thelanguage of Section 119—that of emphasizing theneed to establish protected areas and poachingcontrols without specific reference to impacts onindigenous populations. Congress could correct thispotential conflict by adding language to Section 119such as, “Support for biological diversity projectsshould be consistent with the interests, particularneeds, and participation of local populations.’ It iswidely recognized that the viability of protectedareas is largely contingent on these provisions.Adding such language would thus provide greaterconsistency within the objectives of FAA as well asspecify criteria that heighten chances of projectsuccess.

In addition, Congress could recast the languageof existing legislation to provide a fuller accountingof U.S. interests in maintaining diversity in develop-ing countries. Such changes could expand from a


focus on endangered species to the loss of biologicalsystems, including ecosystems and genetic resources.Such an effort might also emphasize practicalaspects of conservation initiatives of particularinterest to developing countries and stress the goalof promoting ability and initiatives of the countriesthemselves.

Finally, Congress could combine those sections ofFAA that deal with natural resources and environ-mental issues to reflect the interrelatedness of theseamendments. Provisions could be made to accountfor specific concerns over species extinctions cur-rently emphasized in Section 119. But approachesand concerns reflected in these amendments areprobably best considered together. Provision offunding within such a restructuring would also beimportant.

FINDING 9: AID could benefit from additionalstrategic planning and conservation expertisein promoting biological diversity projects.

Congress has already taken steps to earmark findsfor biological diversity projects within AID’s budget.The existing mechanisms within the agency toidentify and promote diversity projects are not wellestablished, however. Because funding is minimal,it is all the more important to devise a strategy thatallows priority initiatives to be defined.

Environmental expertise within AID is slim. Inrecent years, in-house expertise in this area hasdeclined, and that which does exist has been severelyoverextended. Addressing biological diversity will,

therefore, require both increasing the number of AIDstaff with environmental training and an increasedreliance on expertise outside AID, in other govern-ment agencies and in the private sector. AID hasalready taken steps to cultivate this environmentalexpertise, but further actions could be taken.

Option 9.1: Direct AID to adopt a more strategicapproach in promoting initiatives for mainte-nance of biological diversity .12

The U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of Biologi-cal Diversity: An Interagency Task Force Report toCongress was delivered to Congress in February1985, in response to provisions in Section 119. Ageneral criticism of the document was that althoughit contained 67 recommendations, it lacked anysense of priority or indication of funding sources toundertake these recommendations. In an attempt toapply the recommendations to specific agencyprograms, AID drafted an Action Plan on Conserv-ing Biological Diversity in Developing Countries(January 1986). Comments received from AIDoverseas suggest that problems exist in translatingthe general principles and recommendations of anagency plan into specific initiatives at the countrylevel.

A more refined approach to addressing diversityinterests within the agency may be required. Such anapproach would seek to incorporate biologicaldiversity concerns into AID development activitiesat different levels of the agency, ranging fromgeneral policy documents at the agency level to

12 AID ~ouc~ a nw Envhonment ~tiative in Jwe 1990, with the expressed intent of linking environmental activities to development Concerns,to be followed by a Strategy Statement focusing the Agency’s environmental and natural resource efforts, and an &tion Plan to provide operationalguidelines. In its initial investigations, each extant regional bureau identified loss of biodiversity, conversion of tropical forests, and land degradationas primary environmental concerns. AID currently is developing the new Environmental Strategy, expected to be released shortly, that will establisha formal structure under which all regional bureau strategies will be conducted pJ.S. Agency for International Development, “The Environment InitiativeProgress Update--April 1991,” WashingtoXL DC, April 1991].

AID established the Conservation of Biological Diversity Project (CBD) in September 1988 as a direct response to congressional mandates to bringbiodiversity conservation into its projects (sections 118 and 119). The goal of CBD is to provide support to AID-supported countries to improve theircapacity to understand and respond to biodiversity comewation issues. In the 3 years since its inception, core funding for the CBD has risen from $9.8million to $20 millio~ with a current request to raise the ceiling yet again to $30 million to be expended over the 10 year life of the project (regionalbureaus and counby missions may provide additional funding to the CBD to carry out projects identified for their regions).

The CBD has two components at present: a Cooperative Agreement with the World Wildlife Fund which established a consortium with the NatureConsemuwy and the World Resources Institute and which in turn established the Biodiversity Support program, and an Interagency Agreement withthe National Science Foundation made subsequent to a congressional earmark for AID to fund NSF biodiversity research programs. These componentsprovide support for research; technical assistance; training; collectio~ evaluatio~ and disse mination of information establishment of networks thatfacilitate acxess by developing country institutions and scientists to fucial and technical resources; and small grants to host country scientists.

The Biodiversity Support Program currently employs 13 people who are involved in approximately 120 activities in 60 AID-supported countries.The AID/NSF Interagency Agreement directs funding to strengthen programs and facilities for biodiversity research and educatiow and creates anothervenue for collaborative working relationships between U.S. and foreign scientists. For f~cd years 1991 and 1992, at least $7 million was devoted byboth agencies to support 33 biodiversity projects worldwide (the $2.5 million horn AID is devoted solely to projects in AID-supported countries). @r.Sy Sohmer, Senior Biodiversity Adviser, OffIce of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau for Research and Development U.S. Agency forIntemationat Development personal communication+ WashingtorL DC, Apr. 17, 1992].

86 ● C o m b i n e d S u m m a r i e s

more strategic efforts at the regional bureau andmission levels.

At least two efforts could be considered at theagency level. First, Congress could direct AID toprepare a policy determination (PD) on biologicaldiversity. A PD would serve as a general statementthat maintaining diversity is an explicit objective ofthe agency. In developing a PD, AID should reviewprovisions contained in the recent World Bankwildlands policy statement.

Existence of a PD could mean that considerationof diversity concerns would, where appropriate,become an integral part of sectoral programming andproject design. Further, it would require that projectsbe reviewed and evaluated by the Bureau of programand Policy Coordination for consistency with theobjectives of the PD. Because of the increase inbureaucratic provisions this would create, the for-mulation of a PD on diversity probably would not bewell received within AID.

A second effort is to establish a centrally fundedproject within AID’s Bureau of Science and Tech-nology. AID has already developed a concept paperalong these lines as a prelude to a more concreteproject identification document. As conceived, theconcept paper examines the possibility of establish-ing a biological diversity project. One major benefitof such a project would be the establishment of afocal point for coordinating funding and technicalassistance on biological diversity. The Science andTechnology Bureau’s emphasis on technical assist-ance, research, training, and institutional develop-ment would make it the appropriate bureau for sucha program. A constraint to this approach is thatbiological diversity projects may continue to beseparate rather than an integral part of developmentprograms.

The three regional bureaus of AID (i.e., Africa,Asia and Near East, and Latin America and theCaribbean) could also prepare documents that iden-

tify important biological diversity initiatives in theirregions. 13 The Asia and Near East Bureau, in fact,has already prepared such a document that could beused in highlighting regional priorities. A reluctanceto direct scarce funds to diversity projects, at theexpense of more traditional development projects,has limited the utility of the document to date.Nevertheless, the development of such reports foreach regional bureau is considered an effective wayto identify priorities for existing diversity projects,especially given the earmarking of funds.

The most important focus of biological diversitystrategies is at the mission level, where projects areimplemented. Congress has already mandated thatCountry Development Strategy Statements and othercountry-level documents prepared by AID addressdiversity concerns. Most missions, however, lackthe expertise or adequate access to expertise neededto address this provision of Section 119 as amended.

Option 9.2: Direct AID to acquire increased conser-vation expertise in support of biological diversityinitiatives. 14

The ability of AID to promote biological diversityin developing countries is seriously undermined byits lack of personnel trained in environmentalsciences. While true at the agency headquarters, theproblem is particularly acute in its overseas miss-ions. Although AID designates an environmentalofficer at each mission, the person usually has littleprofessional experience or training in the area. Oftenenvironmental duties are combined with numerousother duties; few AID personnel are full-timeenvironmental officers. Under these circumstances,it is difficult to envision how AID can effectivelypromote biological diversity maintenance.

Congress could direct AID to recruit and hireadditional personnel with environmental sciencebackgrounds or, at a minimum, provide increasedtraining for existing staff. The near-term prospects

IS A.s ~~b~shed in tie newly rmrgtized AID, five regional bureaus now exist: Bureau for Atiica, Bureau for Asia, Bureau fOr Europe, Burmu forLatin America and the Caribbean, and Bureau for Near East. In additio% based on the break-up of the former Soviet Union, a Task Force for the NewlyIndependent States has been created. Each of these bureaus will be involved in development of the Environment Strategy and Action Plan.

]4 -activities ~ supp~ of ~o~emationof bi~versi~ Mve b~geoned s~ce publication of me OW Wessment in 1987, F~tig for biodiversityconservation efforts rose to $72 million by 1991 Dr. Sy Sohmer, Senior Biodiversity Adviser, Office of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureaufor Research and Development, U.S. Agency for International Development, personal communication+ Wash@tom DC, Apr. 17, 1992]. At the sametime, however, the number of direct hire environmental specialists has not grown commensurately. Responding in part to congressional directives, AIDhas stated explicit intentions to improve its environmental expertise by increasing the number of contracted environmental and natural resource advisors,and through a 5-year in- service environmental training program m.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, ‘Recent EnvironmentalActivities of the Agency for International Development, ” Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations,Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, Sept. 26, 1990].


for AID, however, point to a reduction in an alreadyoverworked staff. It seems unlikely, therefore, thatsignificant in-house conservation expertise will bedeveloped. Consequently, addressing biological di-versity within AID will depend on providing accessto conservation expertise within other governmentagencies and in the private sector. Even drawing onoutside expertise, AID will need some increase inenvironmental officers to manage and coordinateprojects.

AID already draws on other government agenciesto participate in projects supporting biologicaldiversity maintenance. Mechanisms such as Partici-pating Agency Service Agreements (PASA) andResource Services Support Agreements (RSSA)allow interagency exchanges of experts and serv-ices. AID currently has a RSSA with Fish andWildlife Service for the services of a technicaladvisor to handle biological diversity issues. Thesemechanisms could be used to facilitate furtheraccess to conservation experts in other governmentagencies.

A biological diversity program could be estab-lished within the existing Forestry Support Program,for example. The Forestry Support program is anRSSA between AID and the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) to provide technical assistanceto AID in the area of forestry and natural resources.A diversity program would likely be an RSSAbetween AID, the Department of the Interior, andUSDA. Such a program would provide AID mis-sions with access to conservation expertise withinthe Department of the Interior, the USDA, andthrough a roster of consultants.

A constraint to the RSSA and PASA is agencypersonnel ceilings and the limited number of person-nel with international experience. In light of areduction of the Federal work force, agencies maybereluctant to devote their staff to nonagency projects.Although some Federal programs have been suc-cessfully used in supporting AID projects, expertisewithin the private sector will also be needed toaddress AID’s requirements.

The Peace Corps is also seen as having specialpotential to support biological diversity projects.Cooperative agreements with the National ParkService, Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Man inthe Biosphere Program, and World Wildlife Fund/U.S. have increased the Peace Corps’ capacity andaccess to talent and training in this area, Another

area of potential collaboration is between the PeaceCorps and the Smithsonian Institution, especiallygiven the Smithsonian’s newly established Biologi-cal Diversity Program. Precedence exists for such acooperative relationship, in the form of the Smithson-ian-Peace Corps Environmental Program, whichwas terminated in the late 1970s. With the emer-gence of special interests in diversity maintenance,Congress could direct both agencies to investigatereestablishing a similar initiative focused on biolog-ical diversity projects.

Section 119 of FAA states:

whenever feasible, the objectives of this section shallbe accomplished through projects managed byappropriate private and voluntary organizations, orinternational, regional, or national nongovernmentalorganizations which are active in the region orcountry where the project is located.

A number of nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) are already working with AID to developcapacity to maintain diversity in developing coun-tries. These include important initiatives in the areasof conservation data centers, of supporting develop-ment of national conservation strategies, and ofimplementing field projects. AID is also using aprivate NGO to maintain a listing of environmentalmanagement experts. Such partnership could con-tinue to be encouraged by Congress through over-sight hearings, for instance. Encouraging jointpublic-private initiatives through matching grantsshould also be stressed.

FINDING 10: A major constraint to developingand implementing diversity-conserving proj-ects in developing countries is the shortage offunds. Present funding levels are insufficient toaddress the scope of the problem adequately.

Recently passed legislation earmarked $2.5 mil-lion of AID’s 1987 funds for biological diversityprojects. Given that this amount is intended to beused to address diversity loss over three continentsand is guaranteed for only 1 year, its adequacy canbe questioned. Faced with prospects of further cutsin an already reduced foreign assistance budget anda shift in the composition of this budget to propor-tionally less development and food aid in favor ofmilitary aid and economic support finds, it isdifficult to see where further funding for diversitymaintenance could be derived.


Option 10.1: Establish anew account within the AIDbudget to support biological diversity initiativesidentified in the Foreign Assistance Act.

Sections 117, 118, and 119 of FAA all definecongressional interest in conservation as an integralaspect of development. With the exception of the1987 earmarking of funds for biological diversity,no formal funding source has been attached to thesesections. The result is that support for conservationinitiatives generally has been weak, Support hasbeen further eroded recently because those func-tional accounts used for conservation projects—Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition; andEnergy, Private Voluntary Organization, and Se-lected Development Activities-have received dispro-portionate funding cuts.

Congress could define its support for the impor-tance of conservation to development by establish-ing a separate fund, perhaps called an Environmentand Natural Resources Account, that could be usedby AID to support diversity maintenance activities.Concerns exist that functional accounts generallytend to reduce AID’s flexibility, and considerationhas even been given to eliminating them entirely. Ifestablished, however, an Environment and NaturalResources account could be used to define congres-sional concerns in this area. Specific earmarking forbiological diversity could be considered within thisnew functional account.

Option 10.2: Amend the Agricultural Trade De-velopment and Assistance Act of 1954, specifyingthat funds from the Food for Peace Program(Public Law 480) could be used for projects thatdirectly promote the conservation of biologicaldiversity.

An existing source of funds for biological diver-sity projects is Public Law 480 Food for Peaceprogram. Titles I and III make commodities availa-ble at confessional rates with long-term, low-interest financing for debts incurred. Recipientcountries resell the U.S. commodities and arerequired by contract to apply part of the currency toself-help projects agreed on between the country andthe AID mission. The country can eventually cancelsome of its debt by applying equivalent funds tolong-term development projects. Title II providesU.S. commodities to developing countries in casesof emergency or for nutrition and developmentprograms. This Food for Work program has con-ducted reforestation and resource management proj-ects in which laborers are paid with food and withwages generated from the resale of U.S. commodi-ties. Hence, Public Law 480 funds are already beingused to finance projects that promote diversitymaintenance. More could be done if Congressamends Public Law 480 specifying that funds couldbe used for diversity conservation projects.

Other existing funding mechanisms could beredirected to include funding of diversity projects. Inresponse to funding cuts at AID, conservationgroups have proposed certain ways to providemoney for biological diversity projects. One suchmechanism is the use of economic support funds foradditional development assistance programs.Though primarily used for other purposes, economicsupport funds are the most flexible of AID’s funds,with the fewest restrictions on their use. Therefore,Congress could direct the General AccountingOffice to examine such funding mechanisms andassess their feasibility as funding sources formaintenance of biological diversity.

combined summaries: technologies to sustain tropical ... · ment technologies to sustain tropical...

Documents