Combined Summaries: Technologies To

Sustain Tropical Forest Resources and

Biological Diversity

May 1992

OTA-F-515

NTIS order #PB92-182104
Recommended Citation:

US. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Combined Summaries: Technologies to

Sustain 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 from

development assistance concerns to themes of global debate during the last decade. At the

same time that the value of biological resources to local communities and individual nations

has become more fully appreciated, the connections between these resources and global

environmental stability and economic development potential have been uncovered.

Loss of tropical forests still is associated with poverty in tropical developing nations, but

it now is juxtaposed with potential disruption of global weather patterns. Reduction in

biological diversity still impedes communities from diversifying their development options,

but it also may preclude development of some new products and processes that could support

global advances in agriculture, medicine, and industry. And, because of the biological richness

of tropical forests and our incomplete knowledge of their resources, tropical forest

conservation and protection of biological diversity have become inextricably linked.

In the years since the Office of Technology Assessment published Technologies to

Sustain Tropical Forest Resources (1984) and Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity

(1987), new issues have arisen, new approaches have been devised, and new policies have

been adopted. Yet the technologies underlying efforts to manage the resources sustainably

have changed little. Thus, in continuing service to Congress, OTA is reprinting the summaries

of the two earlier assessments and is providing an introduction to the changes that have

occurred since their publication.

u JOHN H, GIBBONS

Director

,,. Ill
OTA Project Staff-Combined Summaries: Technologies to

Sustain Tropical Forest Resources and Biological Diversity

Roger C. Herdrnan, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Program Manager

Food 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 to

Combined 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

4

5

5

6

6

6

7

7

7

8

8

8

9

9

10

11

11

12

13

14

14

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

Boxes

Box Page

A. Amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act Concerning Tropical Forests and

Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

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

Table

Table Page

1. Number of Forestry Projects Financed (Initiated) by the World Bank by

Time Period and Type of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Introduction to Combined Summaries

Policy makers have become increasingly concerned with conservation of natural resources over

the past decade. When OTA published its assessment Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest

Resources [58] for the U.S. Congress, policymakers

in America and abroad were just beginning to

appreciate the implications of rapid destruction of

the tropical forest biome. Tropical forests provide

environmental services and fundamental life support

to many of the world’s people, and house an

estimated two-thirds of the world’s plant and animal

species. Subsequently, OTA published Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity [57] for the

U.S. Congress, addressing specific means to protect

genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity. Because

of the biological richness of tropical forests, the

issues of tropical forest loss and species loss are

inseparable.

Since the early 1980s, new estimates of the loss of

tropical forests and of biological diversity-biodiversity-have generated increasing alarm. Data on

tropical deforestation remain imprecise, but the most

recent figures indicate the forest loss rate is at least

as high as estimated in the mid- 1980s. By one recent

estimate, tropical forest now is disappearing 40

percent faster than a decade ago [3 1]. Data on loss of

individual species is yet more difficult to obtain, but

populations and their genetic heritage certainly are

lost as habitats are degraded. The loss of tropical

forests and declining biodiversity have serious

implications for human populations. As biodiversity

declines, the quest for new pharmaceuticals, renewable industrial feedstocks, and other such natural

resource products, and the search for genetic materials to supply agricultural and medicinal biotechnology efforts are less likely to yield results. Further,

the role of tropical forests in stabilizing global

climate has become better known. For both reasons,

the search for policies that will promote conservation of forests and biodviersity and for technologies

to implement those policies has become more

urgent.

Congressional concern with international environmental protection has increased markedly over

the last decade; a key issue in the 1980s was how to

help foreign assistance agencies respond to problems of tropical deforestation and loss of species.

U.S. foreign assistance programs began incorporating environmental concerns in the late 1970s when

a series of amendments to the Foreign Assistance

Act defined the Agency for International Development’s (AID) mandate in the area of environment

and natural resource management. These amendments specifically emphasized promoting efforts to

halt tropical deforestation and maintain biodiversity,

and led to further congressional actions in the 1980s

(box A).

With congressional guidance, AID rapidly increased its investment in tropical forestry and

international biodiversity programs. Policymakers

for multilateral institutions, other countries’ bilateral assistance agencies, some developing country

governments, and many nongovernmental organizations (NGO) also moved in this direction. Consequently, international efforts to conserve forests and

biodiversity increased rapidly. Significant progress

has occurred with institutional commitments and

policy developments; technical solutions, however,

have been slow to develop.

A few apparently successful conservation efforts

suggest that deforestation and biodiversity loss are

not wholly intractable problems. However, existing

problems largely result from complex institutional,

political, social, and technical causes. The international assistance agencies and concerned developing

country governments have not yet demonstrated

general solutions, nor have they learned how to

reverse deforestation and extinction trends. Thus,

continued leadership by Congress is likely to be

necessary to sustain the momentum already achieved.

OTA’s tropical forest and biodiversity assessments indicated that policy and institutional constraints on conservation of forests were more severe

than technical constraints. Today, as organizational

structures, policies, and funding for ecologically

sustainable development are becoming functional,

the importance of technical constraints seems to be

increasing. To support the amplified congressional

interest, and because of the close relationship

between maintenance of tropical forests and biodiversity, OTA is reissuing the two assessment

summaries in a combined form. This publication

incorporates updated information related to these

-3–
4 Combined Summaries

Box A—Amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act Concerning

Tropical Forests and Biological Diversity

1977: Amended section 102 to 102 environment and natural resources to areas the U.S. Agency for International

Development (AID) should address.

1977: Added new section 118 on ‘Environment and Natural Resources,” authorizing AID to fortify “the capacity

of less developed countries to protect and manage their environment and natural reSOurces” and to “maintain

and where possible restore the land,vegetation, water, wildlife, and other resources upon which depend economic

growth 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 natural

resource problems and institutional mechanisms to solve them.

1978/79: Amended section 103 to emphasize forestry assistance, acknowledging that deforestation, with its

attendant 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 and

accelerating alteration, destruction, and loss of tropical forests in developing countries. ” Instructs the President

to take these concerns into account in formulating policies and programs relating to bilateral and multilateral

assistance 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 on

conserving biological diversity in developing countries.

1986: Redesignated section 118 as section 117, with the new section 118 addressing tropical forest issues. Amended

section 119, which among other things earmarked money for biological diversity projects.

1988: Directed AID to monitor the economic and environmental soundness of multilateral development bank

programs and projects.

1990: Directed AID to increase the number and expertise of staff in environmental and natural resources fields, and

to focus efforts on developing countries projected to produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases to the

atmosphere.

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 nongovemintroduces new issues and approaches that have mental organizations are promoting a variety of

arisen since publication of the original OTA reports. policies to address these new issues as they grow in

prominence.

NEW PUBLIC AND Global Climate Change

CONGRESSIONAL ISSUES Forests store a substantial part of the Earth’s

Congressional committees in the early and mid1980s requested OTA assessments of technologies

to sustain tropical forests and biological diversity

largely for two reasons: interest in promoting

sustainable economic development in tropical developing countries, and concern over the loss of

product opportunities and species of interest to U.S.

citizens. Since then, new, related public policy

issues have wisen. Some of these underscore the

need to conserve forests and biodiversity, whereas

others constrain efforts to do so. Governments,

carbon. Deforestation and forest degradation worldwide, but especially in tropical regions, release

carbon stored in the wood and forest soil as carbon

dioxide (C@) gas, one of the gases implicated in

global climate change. Net tropical forest loss

accounted for about one quarter of all carbon

released to the atmosphere over the past decade

[5,56]. Halting deforestation would reduce this

contribution to climate change and preserve an

important carbon ‘‘sink. ’ Further, tropical reforestation and careful forest management may have
Introduction to Combined Summaries ● 5

significant potential to help remove carbon gas from

the atmosphere. The growing season in many parts

of the tropics is year-round, whereas in temperate

regions the growing season is much shorter. Reforestation, therefore, will trap C02 more quickly in the

tropics than in temperate areas. Once forests reach

maturity in either region, however, their growth

slows considerably and additional storage of C02

decreases, necessitating some amount of harvest and

replanting to continue carbon sequestration.

Biodiversity is greatly at risk from global warming. First, natural ecosystems, for example the

Serengeti Plain in East Africa and the Florida

Everglades, cannot move as climate zones shift

rapidly. Some species will not be able to adapt to the

changing characteristics of their surroundings and,

thus, probably will be lost. Secondly, because of

potential sea level changes, coastal zones and

wetlands-biologically the most diverse ecosystems

next to tropical forests-are the ecosystems most at

risk 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 generally

are of great economic importance. Pollution of these

ecosystems from land-based sources-such as sediment eroded from cut-over forests and fertilizers and

sediment transported from poorly managed famlandssharply reduces the ability of estuaries and coral

reefs to support diverse marine species [9]. At Bacuit

Bay in the Philippines, economists and natural and

social scientists measured revenues from logging,

fisheries, and tourism in an area where sediment

pollution from the logging operations had damaged

the marine environment. The analysis showed that

total income would double if logging ceased [12].

However, as is commonly the case, normal market

forces did not result in pollution control. As the

timber company did not incur the costs of lost

fishery and tourism income, apolitical decision was

necessary to stop the logging.

Natural coastal mangrove forests typically have

very high biological productivity. The high organic

production is exploited by many fish, and certain

marine crustaceans spend part of their life cycles

inhabiting the mangrove environment. The net

energy outflow from mangrove habitats has benefiPhoto credit: Alison L Hess, Office of Technology Assessment

Coastal mangrove forests capture sediment from

freshwater runoff, protect inland vegetation from salt spray

and tidal surges, provide high levels of nutrients for

nearshore aquatic life, and provide habitat for a diversity of

species. Thus, loss of these forests can compromise the

livelihoods of entire coastal communities through

diminished agricultural and fishery productivity,

increased exposure to weather hazards, or reduced

tourist income.

cial effects on marine fisheries. The livelihoods of

hundreds of thousands of people in coastal regions

are at risk because mangrove forests are being

degraded by pollution, overcutting, and humancaused hydrological changes [21].

Human Contact With New Diseases

AIDS1, Ebola virus, and Marburg disease are a

few of the highly infectious and commonly fatal

‘‘emerging viruses” that have struck human communities in recent years. Many of these viruses are

not new, but derive from new human exposure to

disease-carrying animal populations. As human

settlement extends into previously uninhabited tropical forests, exposure increases to new organisms,

some of which may carry diseases that can spread to

more general populations [70]. For example, monkeypox is a new human orthopoxvirus infection that

occurs in remote villages sited in tropical rainforests

of West and Central Africa [2]. Tegumentary leishma1 Ac@txI immu.nodeficiemy syndrome.

297-928 0 - 92 - 2 : QL3
6 Combined Summaries

niasis is a human parasitic disease prevalent in

Colombia’s Pacific coastal forested areas, where

insect vectors and animal reservoirs seem impervious to control measures [64].

Moreover, ‘‘changes wrought by war, migration,

agriculture, deforestation and population growth

have expedited the movement of viruses from

isolated animal reservoirs to the larger, human

community’ [29]. Rainforest clearing for agriculture in western Africa provided prime breeding

grounds for the malaria-carrying mosquito, which

subsequently supplanted other species that could not

adapt to the new environment. Empty coconut and

cacao hulls provide breeding pools for diseasecarrying mosquitoes and midges around the tropical

world; other insect species preferentially breed in

artificial containers that accompany human settlement. Disease-carrying rodents flourish in expanding grasslands and grain fields. Even the yearly

outbreaks of common influenza are associated

strongly with fish-waterfowl-swine aquiculture systems practiced in Southeast Asia. Yet viral emergence is rarely if ever taken into consideration in

development activities. One proposal to contain the

spread of infectious disease would be to establish a

worldwide network of research and response centers

for international disease surveillance and health

programs [29]. A complementary approach would

be to include “viral traffic planningin development

plans” and to conduct regular “viral impact assessments” for development projects likely to involve

changes in land use or ecological systems [30].

Multiplied and Magnified Disasters

Rural populations continue to grow rapidly throughout the developing nations, and continue to spread

agriculture into marginally productive and physically hazardous regions. The consequent damage to

tropical forests is most severe in infertile dry

woodlands of rapidly growing countries such as

Kenya [24]. Even in wetter, more fertile areas,

however, population growth coupled with landextensive farming practices leads to deforestation. In

the Philippines, for example, so many landless poor

have emigrated from the fertile lowlands that nearly

one-third of the country’s population now lives in

the once-forested upland areas. There, relatively

infertile soils necessitate practicing shifting agriculture that exposes widening areas to erosion and loss

of the soil’s meager fertility.

During intensive rains, landslides on denuded

hillsides claim lives and property [52], and sedimentladen runoff exacerbates flooding. For example,

tropical storm Thelma is reportedly responsible for

more Philippine deaths, largely by landslides, than

the eruption of Mount Pinatubo [17]. Further,

removal of coastal shelterbelt forests, such as

mangroves, leaves large populations vulnerable to

onshore strong winds and tidal surges during tropical storms. Such storms have repeatedly claimed

thousands of lives in low-lying areas of Bangladesh.

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Many tropical forest areas are inhabited by

indigenous peoples who practice low-impact subsistence methods of survival. Their numbers are

increasing in some places, such that renewability of

biological resources is threatened. In other areas,

subsistence lifestyles are being displaced by competing, more destructive land uses that give higher

short-term returns. Politicians in countries such as

the Philippines express growing concern over indigenous peoples’ claims to forest land tenure [26]. In

addition, legal claims of the forest dwelling people

are mired in highly disordered land law in many

tropical countries [18].

NGOS and some scientists advocate secure forest

land tenure and modified subsistence practices as the

basis for the sustainable economic development of

indigenous communities and for old-growth forest

protection [13]. In most places, however, little

scientific effort has been made to determine whether

and how tribal practices can be made more productive without degrading natural resources.

Tropical Countries’ Mounting Debt Burdens

Conservation becomes increasingly difficult as

tropical countries’ debts increase. The need for

foreign exchange to service debts and rebuild

economies provides a strong incentive for national

decisionmakers to approve rapid liquidation of

exportable timber [8]. Public funds are lacking for

direct investment in forest conservation and for

investment in job-generating development programs

that could relieve the need to convert forests to

marginal farmland. Even when low-interest loans

are available from international development banks,

poor countries are reluctant to add to their debt by

borrowing for forest conservation and management

projects; such investments are at risk for a long

period before payback is realized.
Introduction to Combined Summaries ● 7

International Trade and the Environment

Although international agreements exist to control or prohibit trade in products from threatened or

endangered species (e.g., the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), the broader

relationship between trade and environment is little

understood. Trade may promote competition and

thus efficiency in production, thereby reducing

waste and, potentially, pollution. Further, some

argue that trade sanctions can serve as a strong

incentive for countries to institute biodiversity and

forest protection policies. Conversely, international

trading patterns may increase developing countries’

dependence on extraction of natural resources and

intensive production of tropical cash crops, hence

promoting resource degradation.

The main organization governing international

trade agreements and promoting liberalized trade—

the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)--

has been increasingly criticized for neglect of the

environmental consequences of trade. Several international agreements dealing with global environmental problems, on the other hand, contain traderelated measures such as allowing discriminatory

treatment of imports that contain stratospheric

ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, Some environmental protection measures may be eliminated

under current international trade negotiations [63].

In fact, a recent GATT dispute resolution panel ruled

that the United States could not restrict tuna imports

from Mexico because of Mexico’s noncompliance

with a U.S. domestic law prohibiting tuna harvest

technologies that kill excessive numbers of dolphins

[7,55]. National and international conflicts between

environmental protection efforts and trade liberalization efforts are likely to increase, with uncertain

outcome.

Threats of War and Ecoterrorism

Political unrest and its most extreme expression—

war-is a widespread and pervasive threat to tropical forests and biodiversity. Valuable tropical timber, such as Myanmar’s (formerly Burma) teak

forests, may be harvested at unsustainable rates to

fund military actions [41], Forested areas are common sites for militants to hide, and fight. In addition

to deliberate efforts to devegetate such areas, as

occurred in Vietnam, subsequent actions may compound forest and biodiversity loss. For example,

farmers may shift from areas degraded by craters,

shrapnel, and live munitions into forested areas. Due

in large part to an international trade embargo

imposed on Vietnam after 1975, much of its energy

is supplied by firewood and charcoal, resulting in

further forest loss [28].

Biodiversity in entire ecosystems is threatened by

acts of war. Examples include the deliberate oil

spills and well frees that have occurred in Kuwait

[37]. As biodiversity has been proclaimed an important value to political constituencies in developed

countries, it has become a concern during the

destruction caused by war and a potential target for

terrorist acts. In the United States, forest rangers and

endangered spotted owls have become the targets of

‘‘environmental terrorists’ protesting restriction of

timber harvest to protect the owl’s habitat [14], and

old-growth trees have been spiked with nails, thus

endangering the loggers and sawmillers. Charismatic tropical species—such as gorillas-may be

similarly threatened by some people to gain attention or to extort concessions. Conversely, efforts to

educate people about the ‘‘world heritage’ value of

mountain gorillas seems to have fostered special

efforts to protect them during recent UgandanRuandan conflicts in the gorilla’s habitat [43].

Unintended Impacts of Forest

Protection Policies

Because of the diversity of cultural and governmental systems, general policies may, in some

places, have counterproductive results. In such

countries as the Philippines and India, political

momentum is building for logging bans. At the same

time, conservation groups in Europe and North

America have discovered that forest policies of

development assistance organizations are vulnerable to political lobbying. As a result, the World Bank

declared it will no longer lend for projects that

include cutting natural tropical forests [67]. Consequently, logging may be officially banned in some

areas and investments to improve management of

production forests may be deferred in others. However, illegal and unmonitored logging may continue

[cf: 1], and laborers who previously supported themselves through logging may turn to agriculture in

forested areas. Where governments have made tree

cutting illegal (e.g., the sal forest area of Bangladesh), forest degradation and deforestation often

continues and may even accelerate [68]. Government 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 many

cases to protect tropical forests and the environmental

services they provide, total logging bans may lead to

illegal “timber poaching” in areas where forests are

not monitored.

protect forests that have no readily apparent or

immediately accessible economic value.

NEW CONSERVATION APPROACHES

Several new approaches to conservation of tropical forests and natural areas have been developed in

recent years. Congress has supported these significantly, but will need to monitor and evaluate them,

as the efficacy of most of these approaches is not yet

proven.

Development Assistance Focus on

Improving Policies

The OTA assessments and similar analyses of

tropical forestry and biodiversity problems conducted in the mid- 1980s concluded that government

policies-especially land/resource use rights and

economic policies (e.g., taxes, prices, equity, and

sector development priorities)-strongly foster destruction of forests and their genetic resources.

Policy reform was recognized as a necessary condition for effective conservation.

Several influential policy studies [cf:3] in the late

1980s identified specific opportunities for policy

reform. The United Nations, with its Tropical

Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) program, the multilateral development banks, and AID (especially the

Asia missions) all began to develop ways to use

development assistance to promote policy reform.

Commonly, development assistance agencies conduct policy studies jointly with host governments,

often in the context of forestry action plans, forestry

master plans, or planning for specific forestry sector

assistance projects. Then development assistance

agencies encourage the host governments to act on

recommendations. For example, funds for development projects may not be released to the host

governments until key policy reforms are adopted

and implemented.

Tropical Forestry Action Plan

TFAP, initiated in 1985, was designed to help

governments: 1) reassess forest development priorities, 2) increase the amount of international investment in forestry, and 3) coordinate forestry sector

development assistance funding. The OTA assessment and other reports indicated that poor coordination among donors was an important constraint on

efficient use of development assistance from AID

and other assistance providers. The United Nations’

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), together

with World Bank, the United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP), and the World Resources

Institute, developed TFAP to set out development

efforts on fuelwood and agroforestry; industrial

forestry; research, training, and extension institutions; land use on upland watersheds; and ecosystem

conservation. It was estimated in 1985 that investment needs for these aspects of tropical forestry

would be $5.3 billion over 5 years.

Development assistance investments have

reached nearly 70 percent of the 1985 estimate of

needs [67]. The TFAP program stimulated many

people and organizations to discuss the causes of and

possible remedies for deforestation. About 60 countries decided to prepare national forestry plans

(forestry “action” plans in some and forestry

“master’ plans in others). The plans are beginning

to prove effective in coordinating and focusing

international forestry assistance. For example, the

Forestry Master Plan in Nepal was developed with

support from the Asian Development Bank and

technical assistance from the Government of Finland. The AID mission in Nepal now is providing

technical assistance for the plan’s implementation.

TFAP has, however, been criticized heavily.

Plans are viewed as too government-oriented and too
Introduction to Combined Summaries ● 9

focused on harvesting timber as opposed to reducing

deforestation. Some NGOs argue that TFAPsponsored national plans give little consideration to

needs and priorities of people living in or near the

forests. In addition, some feel the plans do not

adequately address institutional weaknesses or government corruption-major causes of forest degradation in some countries.

FAO has undertaken a major evaluation of TFAP

[19]. Concerned multilateral and bilateral development assistance agencies are meeting with key

tropical governments and NGOs to reformulate the

plan’s goals, objectives, and procedures. Changes

are likely to include improved integration of the

national forestry plans with other national planning,

increased participation by people whose livelihoods

depend on the forests, greater emphasis on multisectoral actions, and increased attention to government

policies that directly and indirectly affect forest

sustainability [67]. An international consultative

group on tropical forests reportedly has been proposed to oversee and advise TFAP and periodically

review its impact [19].

The U.S. Government has participated in TFAP

through support for FAO and other multilateral

sponsors, through AID participation in development

of the national forestry action plans and master

plans, and through Forest Service and AID participation in efforts to evaluate and revamp the program.

The extent to which AID forestry activities are

guided by TFAP and the national forestry plans

varies from country to country, depending on AID

officers’ judgments and on the extent to which the

host governments use the plans to coordinate donors.

Planning and Coordinating Interventions

Where destruction of genetic resources is imminent, biologists may use structured “rapid appraisal’ techniques to focus research and programs

on threatened organisms and habitats. For example,

the Rapid Assessment program sponsored by Conservation International uses satellite imagery, aerial

reconnaissance, and ‘‘quick and dirty’ field surveys

to inventory species and provide preliminary identification of regions of particular biological richness

[45]. The methods can lead to efforts to conserve

habitats, rescue genetic resources, or at least capture

some material and information of scientiic value

before the resource is lost. The techniques developed

for this purpose also may help to make scientific

investigations more cost-effective on the sites that

are not threatened, hastening discoveries that demonstrate the economic potential of biodiversity. This

is one of several approaches being used to set

priorities for, plan, and coordinate tropical forest and

biodiversity conservation projects.

Other approaches focus on conservation planning.

The World Bank, for example, has developed

biodiversity profiles of numerous countries to assist

in project planning and assessment, and is preparing

regional strategies to support biodiversity conservation. National Conservation Strategies developed in

many tropical countries in recent years have identified policy reforms that can enhance tropical forest

and biodiversity conservation.

Debt-for-Nature Swaps

An officer of the U.S. World Wildlife Federation

in 1984 proposed a way to use debt reduction to fund

environmental protection in developing countries.

The mechanism, commonly referred to as “debt-fornature swaps,’ was first applied to Bolivia, Ecuador, and Costa Rica in 1987. At frost, this mechanism

could only use commercial debt. Since then, with

support from the U.S. Congress and other donor

governments (e.g., Germany, England, the Netherlands, Sweden), the approach has been broadened to

be applicable to some public debt and has been used

to fund nature conservation in African and Asian

tropical countries as well. Funding from many such

swaps has been used to establish and manage natural

forest protected areas. Thus, the biodiversity benefits probably are substantial. Some arrangements

have been used to fund other types of conservation

and development programs, and the largest have

been used as incentives for policy commitments.

The significance of debt swaps for reducing

international debt or for meeting the needs for

conservation funding seemed modest in mid-1989

[34], when only about $100 million in debt-fornature swaps had been negotiated. Since then,

however, the pace of this activity has increased

rapidly. For example, in late 1989 the Government

of Germany wrote off $405 million of Kenya’s debts

in return for commitments to protect the environment. AID initiated a natural resources management

program in 1991 that will pay off about $100 million

of the Philippines debt as the Philippines Government adopts and implements policies that lead to

sustainable tropical forest management. While debt
10 ● Combined Summaries

swaps may become a significant factor in development assistance funding to conserve tropical forests

and biodiversity, it is unlikely they will retire a

significant portion of developing countries’ debts.

For 13 countries involved in debt swaps between

1987 and 1990, under one-twentieth of 1 percent of

countries’ external debts was retired [62].

Most debt-for-nature swaps to date have been

arrangements negotiated among the central bank of

a developing country, an international NGO acting

as broker, one or more public or private donors, a

local developing country NGO, and the natural

resources agency of the developing country. The

international NGO uses money from the donors to

purchase the developing country’s debt at a discount

on the secondary market. The debt is then canceled

in return for the debtor nation’s commitment to a

nature conservation action. Actions might include

issuing bonds to produce a stream of funding that

can be used for conservation programs implemented

by local environmental NGOS, or for establishing

and managing nature reserves in forested areas. The

approach is flexible, however. Recently, large swaps

have been arranged directly between donors and host

governments. AID’s Natural Resources Management Program in the Philippines combines direct

repayment of Philippines’ debt with a usual NGObrokered swap of dollar debt for local currency

bonds.

The U.S. Congress has been instrumental in

encouraging development of the debt-for-nature

swap mechanism. The 1988 Foreign Assistance

Appropriations Act ordered the Treasury Department to analyze debt-for-nature arrangements. Treasury issued a ruling that gave U.S. banks a tax

incentive to act as private donors in debt swaps [38].

The ruling was modified to increase the incentives

after a Senate inquiry. The International Development and Finance Act of 1989 encouraged multilateral development bank involvement in debt-fornature swaps, authorized AID spending for such

swaps, and modified AID practices to allow grantees

(e.g., NGOs) to retain the interest on proceeds

resulting from the exchanges. Thus, Congress allowed AID funds to be used for exchanges where

local currency bonds are issued and where conservation organizations are given endowments rather than

just current-year funding. This helps to resolve a

significant problem identified in the 1984 OTA

assessment: tropical forest conservation needs to be

supported by long-term programs, but most development assistance funding has been limited to shortterm projects.

Debt-for-nature exchanges are a new and politically appealing form of development assistance.

However, most analyses of debt-for-nature swaps do

not mention from whose pocket the funds come, and

few questions have been asked about grantee accountability, the efficiency of investments made through

debt-for-nature swaps, or whether the technologies

the finds are spent on are effective. With the stakes

getting higher, Congress may consider looking into

these issues.

Extractive Reserves and

Buffer-Zone Development

Tropical country governments commonly do not

have sufficient resources to enforce resource-use

restrictions on public lands without the willing

cooperation of local people. For at least a decade,

environmentalists have promoted resource-use zoning in certain areas, using buffer-zone development

and extractive reserves as ways to give local people

a stake in forest conservation. Both zoning approaches are based on reducing local peoples’ need

to use resource-degrading practices in areas of high

biodiversity or environmental service. For example,

some sites particularly vulnerable to human-induced

degradation might be restricted from any human use.

In other areas where sustainable wood production

and nature conservation are not compatible, only

controlled harvests (’‘extraction”) of non-wood

products would be allowed. Forests in buffer zones

near settled areas would be intensively managed for

wood products the local people use. Forests further

from settlements would be managed for industrial

timber. Extensionists, from forestry departments or

from local NGOs, would facilitate local peoples’

participation in establishing the restrictions, and the

people would enforce the restrictions through social

pressure.

Variations of the buffer zone approach are being

tried, mostly in small-scale projects developed

cooperatively by forest departments and NGOs. An

extensive review of these efforts in several tropical

countries indicates that most such projects are less

than 5 years old, few are large enough in scale to

affect a majority of the people living near the subject

forest, and most of the NGOs are inexperienced in

rural development [65]. Thus, these must be consid-
Introduction to Combined Summaries ● 11

ered trial efforts and the projects undertaken so far

cannot yet be considered successful or replicable.

The only large-scale test of the extractive reserve

concept is in Brazil. Rubber tappers and Brazil nut

harvesters promoted such reserves as an alternative

to timber harvesting and land clearing, and the

Brazilian Government has established a legal framework for such reserves. A substantial investment,

including development assistance funds, is being

made in research and infrastructure, so monitoring

and evaluation will probably indicate the degree of

success within a decade. This important test of the

extractive reserve theory may be undermined, however, 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 biologically

diverse areas have been set aside to advance

scientific understanding of ecosystems, and to protect germplasm of economically important species.

For example, most biosphere reserves have zones

designated for ecological research and management

trials. Tropical research stations, such as La Selva

(Costa Rica), operated by the Organization for

Tropical Studies, and Barro Colorado Island (Panama), managed by the Smithsonian Institution,

allow scientists access to undisturbed tropical ecosystems. The United States also has established a

system of marine and estuarine sanctuaries which

serve as research reserves prohibited from use other

than by scientists attempting to understand the

dynamics of their ecological systems. The scientific

knowledge derived from study of these research

reserves likely will provide new insights into

ecosystem management.

Scientists who explore tropical forests for new or

specific plants continue to introduce new products to

U.S. and other markets. For example, out of 85 fruit

and nut crops recently brought to the United States

from the Malaysian rain forests, six are expected to

be introduced to U.S. markets. The plant material

from all of these species will be available for

research to the U.S. Agricultural Research Service

‘‘regardless of the fate of their native rainforests’

[60], Despite their potential contributions to world

markets, few forest areas have been set aside

specifically to safeguard the genetic resources of

crop species. The Indian Government has established a gene sanctuary for citrus plants in the

northeastern part of the country. Mexico has established a 350,000 acre biosphere reserve near Guadalajara that safeguards Zea diploperennis, a perennial

com with genes that provide resistance to several

diseases [46].

Development of New Products

The potential that genetic resources hold for the

development of new medicines, other new products,

and improved agricultural crops is a primary rationale for biodiversity conservation. The OTA assessments reported scientists’ expectation that economic

botany and ethnobiology research could reveal this

potential and thus motivate improved management

and conservation of the natural resource base. That

expectation has now been reinforced by substantial

improvement in the methods for screening natural

products for their potential as medicines. Using

biotechnology, scientists have isolated receptors and

enzymes involved in certain diseases, and many

types of diseased cells can now be cultured for use

in screening. With robotics, technicians can now

screen thousands of samples in the time it took to test

20 to 50a decade ago [48].

New investments are being made in biodiversity

research, and probably will lead to new conservation

efforts as well. Some 200 companies and nearly as

many research institutions worldwide are reportedly

looking for plants as sources of pharmaceuticals and

pesticides. For example, AID, the National Science

Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute have

proposed a Joint Program on Drug Discovery,

Biodiversity Conservation, and Economic Growth

that would provide grants for pharmaceutical development from plants [11]. Another innovative program,

coordinated by AID, is the United States-Asia

Environmental Partnership, a coalition of U.S.

Government agencies, NGOs, businesses, and their

Asian counterparts. This includes a Regional Biodiversity Conservation Network that is intended to

assist local communities to benefit economically

from preservation and use of Asian forest and marine

genetic resources [54].

In some cases it is possible to synthesize the active

component of a plant-derived drug when it has been

isolated, but synthesis has not been technically or

economically feasible for some promising compounds [59]. For these, cultivation or sustained

harvest from natural populations becomes necessary. Taxol, a drug being investigated for treatment
12 ● Combined Summaries

of cancer, is a current example. Taxol is extracted

from the bark of slow-growing Pacific yew trees, and

it takes six 100-year-old trees to extract enough drug

to treat one patient. Removal of the bark kills the

trees. Destruction of the trees has become a problem,

even though the drug is still in the research and

development stage. U.S. Department of Agriculture

scientists are investigating extraction of taxol from

yew tree cells and propagation of Pacific yews by

tissue culture.

Private fins, research organizations, and environmental NGOs have begun cooperating to develop

methods for sustainable harvest of plants that

produce medicines and chemicals. The same organizations have begun to search for legal arrangements

(commonly called intellectual property rights) by

which people in tropical countries could benefit

financially from conservation and subsequent commercial development of the genetic potential in their

biologically diverse ecosystems. One of the first

such arrangements is an agreement between Costa

Rica and a large U.S.-based pharmaceutical company. Costa Rica will protect its biota in return for

granting exclusive rights to screen plants collected

by a Costa Rican National Biodiversity Institute for

pharmaceutically active substances. Profits from

“chemical prospecting’ will be shared, and profits

accruing to Costa Rica will be devoted to its national

conservation program [22]. Similarly, other companies are relying on the knowledge of shamans (native

healers) to assist them in their search for natural

drugs. Further, compensating indigenous peoples for

their knowledge or protection of resources valuable

to companies in the developed world is recognized

in the draft Biodiversity Convention to be discussed

at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [11]

Consumer Campaigns

A number of conservation organizations and

private firms have begun to promote “green”

products. Some promotions discourage consumer

use of products made with materials believed to

damage the environment (such as beef raised on

cleared tropical forest areas or tuna harvested in

ways that kill dolphins). More proactive promotions

urge consumers to buy products made with materials

that come from locally managed natural resources

(such as Brazil nuts from extractive reserves). The

approach is new, and its direct impact on resource

conservation has not been assessed, but evidence

Photo credit: J.Tinsley, USDA Forest Service

Taxol, an anticancer drug produced from the Pacific

yew tree, was only recentiy discovered. Expanded

investigations into the chemical characteristics of

marine and terrestrial organisms show promise for

development of pharmaceuticals and other products.

exists that the promotions are having indirect

beneficial impacts. For example, U.S. consumer

preference for “dolphin safe” labeled tuna may

have induced non-U.S. fishing companies to modifi

their harvest practices to comply voluntarily with

U.S. marine mammal protection laws.

Numerous European governments have directly

restricted use of tropical wood products. The International Tropical Timber Organization is developing

a system for rating tropical timber production

according to sustainability. The results will be

publicized; wood from well-managed tropical forests may be labeled as environmentally “green.”

Similarly, the Ecological Trading Company (ETC)

is negotiating with the World Wide Fund for Nature

to “setup an independent monitoring agency which

could give a seal of approval to ‘acceptable sources

[69]. ETC is a tropical timber company that negotiates agreements directly with forest communities,

selects individual high-value trees for harvest rather
Introduction to Combined Summaries ● 13

than clear-cutting, and uses portable sawmills and

horse-drawn timber removal. Although definition of

‘‘well-managed’ forests and ‘‘acceptable sources’

of tropical timber is problematic, certainly consumer

campaigns have potential to raise general awareness

about conservation.

Ecotourism

Tourism is a potential source of income, including

foreign exchange, that can be generated by tropical

forest and biodiversity protection. The game parks in

East Africa are the best-known example of nature-or

ecotourism, but tropical forest parks also are attracting many visitors. Tropical countries worldwide

contain some 1,420 individual national parks and

other protected areas [6], many of which regularly

appear on ecotourism itineraries, and the majority of

which were relatively recently designated. Globally,

protected acreage now stands at some 175 million

hectares; in some countries protected area growth

has been particularly dramatic. Costa Rica’s network of 55 national and private wildlife reserves

cover nearly 20 percent of the country’s total land

area [6]. Few of these existed before 1973.

By one estimate, nature tourism accounted for

between $2 and $12 billion of the $55 billion tourism

generated for developing countries in 1988 [25].

Many developing countries, perceiving ecotourism

as a more environmentally benign and sustainable

alternative to mass tourism, and a potentially lucrative industry, have developed institutions and programs to attract ecotourists. In many Latin American

and Caribbean countries, newly passed legislation

encourages investment in ecotourism infrastructure

[6]. Besides increasing foreign exchange earnings,

tourism generates employment and attracts capital

for infrastructure development; through this and

other “multiplier effects’ it can contribute to

economic diversification as well as growth [6,15].

Some parks in Thailand generate income that

totals 3 to 10 times the cost of park management

[12]. Most tourism income does not become available for conservation, however, as it accrues to

private sector service providers (e.g., hoteliers).

Still, that income can influence politicians to provide larger budgets and increased political protection for parks. At numerous tropical parks, NGOs are

experimenting with ways to make ecotourism benefits accrue to local people. AID is sponsoring such

efforts in Costa Rica, Indonesia, and other countries.

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

Tourism revenues may provide economic justification for

protection of species and habitats. The Kenyan “visitor

attraction value” of a single lion has been estimated

at $27,000/year; that of a herd of elephants at

$81 0,000/year [25].

Despite sparse data, conservationists and economic planners are finding that ecotourism and the

revenues it generates, can, in fact, provide an

economic rationale for natural resource conservation

and wildlife protection policies [49]. This rationale

may be the only broadly accepted means of countering efforts to develop these resources for near-term

profits-that is, ‘‘economic value must be assigned

to ecological resources if these are to be conserved’

[10]. Further, ecotourism can be an important part of

a more comprehensive conservation and development strategy by “helping to build a constituency

necessary for effective policy and action” [23]. As

frost-hand contacts with a wild area and its inhabitants increase, so grows the group of advocates for

its protection.

Conversely, tourism may deprive indigenous

people access to the resource areas they traditionally

have used for hunting, fishing, and foraging [15],

potentially driving them farther into vulnerable

297-928 0 - 92 - 3 : QL3
14 ● Combined Summaries

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 dollars

can be severely disrupted by a sudden decline in

tourist arrivals. More radically, certain terrorist

groups have harassed or killed tourists in an effort to

destabilize government regimes in countries highly

dependent on ecotourism revenues. This has happened, for example, in Kenya, Papua New Guinea,

and Peru [43]. Decline in tourism revenues for any

of these reasons eventually is likely to reduce the

protection afforded to habitats and species.

NEW POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

New information, new concerns, and experimental approaches are surfacing in international efforts

to sustain tropical forests and biodiversity. Proposals range from reorienting research, to sweeping

changes in international organizations and new,

widescale international agreements. Some of the

more immediate and far-reaching of these proposals

follow.

Endangered Species and

Endangered Ecosystems

The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) established a regulatory program specifically designed to

protect U.S. species from extinction. Under ESA,

species are listed as endangered or threatened solely

on the basis of their population and range trends. The

act restrains Federal agencies from funding, authorizing, or carrying out any activity that may imperil

a species officially listed as endangered and prohibits all citizens from harming, killing, or uprooting

such species on public or private kind. Finally, ESA

requires the Fish and Wildlife Service or National

Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, to develop

and implement recovery plans for species in danger

of extinction. Despite four congressional amendments, ESA has not lost its reputation as the United

States’ most powerful and rigorous piece of environmental legislation.

ESA comes before Congress for reauthorization

in 1992, and undoubtedly will be the focal point for

heated debate. Listing of the northern spotted owl,

native to old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, and subsequent restrictions on logging those

forests, has spurred intense debate over regulatory

demands affecting land use and property rights. A

coalition of agricultural, mining, forest products,

and other industrial interest groups is devoting its

attention to reducing ESA’s power over land-use

decisions.

Since 1973, at least 550 species of animals and

plants have been listed as endangered or threatened—

of these, six are considered recovered and at least

seven have been declared extinct [33]. Six-hundred

other species are considered endangered, but are not

yet formally listed as such. At current staff and

funding levels, the Department of Interior’s Inspector General estimates it will take 38 to 48 years to

move these species through the listing process [61];

another 3,500 species suspected of endangerment

but awaiting analysis will not be dealt with for

decades. Consequently, numerous conservation biologists and some members of Congress are advocating an ecosystem protection approach that would

protect regionally dispersed, ecologically representative communities of species,

The most far-reaching of these proposals is to

develop an “Integrated National Biodiversity Policy’ within which ESA would function as a ‘‘law of

last resort” [39]. Another proposal is to devise a

national biodiversity strategy based on representative ecosystems and subsequently to establish a

National Center for Biological Diversity [33]. A

counterproposal is to require that the values of

continuing a species’ existence be compared to the

economic values of the activities that endanger it,

and thereby determine a winner.

Forestry Research

Forestry, agroforestry, and related environmental

issues are being 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.

The International Center for Research in Agroforestry and one other tropical forestry research

institution not yet identified will be brought into the

system. A new strategic agenda for forestry research

will be shared by these 2 institutions and 10 other

CGIAR centers that include forestry projects in their

research programs. Other progress in forestry research includes establishment of a Special Program

for Developing Countries within the International

Union for Forestry Research Organizations, and

international donor support to the forestry research
Introduction to Combined Summaries ● 15

Existing natural forest management systems were

developed at least 30 years ago, and only piecemeal

information has been gathered on natural forests

since then. Several systems are thought to be

sustainable, but implementation and monitoring to

confirm this is lacking. The comprehensive review

of tropical forest management commissioned by the

International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)

states that:

. . .it is not yet possible to demonstrate conclusively that any natural tropical forest anywhere has

been successfully managed for the sustainable production of timber [36].

Existing systems, if rigorously followed, produce

low yields of high-value timber over very long

rotations. Low yields and low economic returns may

be one reason why only about 800,000 hectares of

tropical moist forest is being deliberately managed

for sustainable production of timber (0.1 percent of

tropical moist forest in ITTO countries), whereas

about 40 million hectares have been designated as

protected areas where timber production is excluded

[36].

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

Forestry and agroforestry have been incorporated in the

mandate of the major network of international

agricultural research institutions with the addition of

the International Center for Research in Agroforestry

in Nairobi, Kenya, and one other institution not

yet identified.

capacity of national agencies in the developing

countries.

It is likely that much of this new activity will

continue the pattern of tropical forestry research

conducted over the past 30 years, which has been to

downplay natural forest management and to focus

instead on forest plantations and, more recently, on

agroforestry. Several systems for management of

natural tropical forests were developed between

1900 to 1960, but little has occurred since then.

Meanwhile, research and technology development

for tropical forest plantations have achieved wood

yields that are now about 10 times the yields from

natural forests. High yielding plantations often are

mentioned as a means to offset pressure on natural

forests. However, this claim is dubious, because

forest plantation establishment commonly begins

with razing a natural forest [36].

Multilateral Development Bank Policies

The pace of multilateral bank lending and the

nature of bank-sponsored forestry projects have

changed dramatically since 1980. Most forestry

lending until the 1970s was for extraction of raw

materials and development of wood-based industries. World Bank projects in the 1970s reflected the

Bank’s broadening social goals; many forestry

projects were oriented to tree planting for rural

development and other longer term purposes. The

World Bank’s 1978 policy paper articulated the link

between social needs and forestry development and

became an important model for policy at other

multilateral banks. The pace of project startups

accelerated in the 1980s, with a larger share of the

projects aimed at reforestation, farm forestry, watershed protection, and similar social and environmental purposes (see table 1). Forestry at other

multilateral banks evolved similarly: few loans now

are made for direct support of wood industries, but

many are made to establish plantations. The banks

have begun in the past 2 years to develop projects

with explicit biodiversity conservation objectives.

Some agriculture and infrastructure development

projects financed by the banks have caused destruction of tropical forests and other natural habitat for
16 ● Combined Summaries

Table l—Number of Forestry Projects Financed

(Initiated) by the World Bank by

Time Period and Type of Project

Type of Forestry Project

Period Industrial Social Environmental

1949 -1969 . . . . . . . . 6 0 0

1970 -1979. . . . . . . . 18 6 0

1980 -1985 . . . . . . . . 11 16 4

1986 -1990 . . . . . . . . 10 15 7

SOURCE: World Bank Environment Department, Forest Policy Paper

(Washington DC: World Bank, 1991).

biodiversity. Largely because of congressional insistence, development banks have implemented environmental impact assessment procedures that should

help to avoid such damage in future projects. Most

recently, the U.S. executive directors of all multilateral banks have been directed by Congress not to

vote in favor of any action that:

. . .would have a significant impact on the environment, unless a summary of the environmental impact

of the action has been made available to the director

120 days prior to the vote. Each director, in turn, has

the responsibility to make that information available

to the public [32].

The effect of these new directives for environmental impact assessment of development bank

projects bears monitoring; implementation of these

procedures is just beginning, and the motivation for

this reform of bank practices has been mainly

external.

The World Bank’s new Forest Policy Paper [67]

heralds continued evolution in the nature of the

forestry projects. Effects on forests and biodiversity

will apparently be given increased consideration

when the Bank undertakes interventions outside of

the forestry sector. Within the forestry sector, Bank

interventions will emphasize policy reform and

institutional strengthening to support forest and

biodiversity conservation. The Bank plans to give

increased support to international programs, such as

the Global Environment Facility, 2 that provide

grants or low-interest financing for biodiversity

projects. The Bank’s forest plantation projects will

avoid razing natural forests or usurping farmland.

The new policy paper makes a strong commitment

to buffer-zone development, support for parks and

reserves, and rigorous environmental impact assessment. Political pressure on the World Bank to

commit itself to conservation-oriented forestry has

come from the U.S. Congress and, more recently,

from the governments of Germany and other European nations. The Asian Development Bank has

adopted similar policies, focusing much of its

forestry lending on reforestation and social forestry

programs.

International Tropical Timber Trade

International organizations concerned with tropical forests and biodiversity commonly focus on

establishment and management of protected areas.

Many tropical country forestry departments and

research organizations concentrate development efforts on forest plantations. ITTO, however, is the one

international organization that concentrates on trade

and commodities coming from all forests in tropical

nations.

The main outcome of the International Tropical

Timber Agreement, which became effective in 1985,

was a framework for cooperation between nations

that produce tropical timber and those that import it.

The agreement set up the International Tropical

Timber Organization. ITTO has objectives typical of

a commodity trade group (e.g., regulation of prices

and supplies), but a growing focus of its activities

has been analyzing the sustainability of tropical

forest use and promoting policy and program

changes that would extend sustainable forest management and would develop technical improvements in management systems. Unlike other commodity organizations, meetings to set ITTO policy

include representatives from conservation organizations and academia in addition to government and

industry representatives.

ITTO’s producer members control roughly 70

percent of the world’s tropical moist forests [36].

The organization commissioned a major review of

forest management for timber production in its

member nations, and concluded that the conditions

necessary for successful management to sustain

production 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].
Introduction to Combined Summaries ● 17

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

government resolve;

a sound political and social case for the decision

to maintain a permanent forest estate;

long-term security for the forest estate, once

chosen;

stable markets for forest products;

adequate information for selection, planning,

and management of the forest estate;

flexible, predictive systems for planning and

control;

the resources needed for control; and

the will needed by all concerned for effective

control [36].

International Environmental Security

Since the 1980s, the concept of environmental or

ecological security, based on the premise that threats

to the environment are as serious to human quality

of life as military threats [16], has been the focus of

considerable discussion related to international environmental law. In a 1989 letter to the United

Nations, international ecological security was described as:

[A] state of affairs in international relations within

which a system of. . broad co-operation on the basis

of international law will safeguard preservation of

the environment and improvement of its quality with

a view to creating appropriate conditions for a life

worthy of human beings and securing sustainable

and safe development of all States [44].

An international legal basis for establishing environmental security as a guiding principle was

established in the World Charter for Nature [53].

This document states that:

. . .nature shall be respected and its essential

processes. . not. . impaired [Article 1]; living resources shall not be utilized in excess of their natural

capacity for regeneration, the productivity of soils

shall be maintained or enhanced, [and] nonrenewable resources. . shall be exploited with restraint [Article X; and] nature shall be secured

against degradation caused by warfare or other

hostile activities [Article V; and] military activities

damaging to nature shall be avoided [Article XX]

[66].

Recognition of international environmental security as a guiding concept for intergovernmental

relations, however, likely would require codification

of international environmental laws. One framework

for codification would be to establish two primary

categories of environmental management problems.

1.

2.

Problems associated with protection of the

environment: a) avoidance of vandalism (wartime or other non-remunerative destruction);

b) avoidance of pollution (of air, water, or soil)

that is in excess of the natural renewal or

cleansing processes; and c) avoidance of

permanent anthropogenic intrusion in specially designated protected areas; and

Problems associated with utilization of the

environment: a) avoidance of resource use

rates that exceed estimated maximum sustained yield or maximum sustained absorption; and b) avoidance of resource use at rates

that will prevent recovery of degraded environments (and potentially provision of human

assistance to aid that recovery) [66].

Creation of such a state of affairs would require

the “espousal of obligatory principles and norms of

conduct for governments’ [50] and, thus, likely

would require reconsideration of the realms of

national sovereignty and international cooperation.

Because of the acknowledged ‘‘globalization” in

areas such as production, trade, investment, communications, and tourism, this type of redefinition

already is occurring [40]:

In many crucial respects, nations are no longer the

sole masters of their destinies. . . .What happens in

practically any part of the world can affect remote

areas elsewhere. This interdependence in economic,

military, and environmental affairs has already

begun to erode traditional notions of security and

even national sovereignty itself.

Regional and international mechanisms to progress toward international environmental security

already exist, and have shown progress towards

international environmental accords. Regional mechanisms take such forms as multilateral and bilateral

agreements, international commissions, or licensing

arrangements. One prominent example is the United

Nations Regional Seas Program, which brokers

agreements among countries sharing ocean basins

such as the Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas (e.g.,

Convention on Land-Based Sources of Pollution in

the Caribbean).

International mechanisms are likely to be conventions, agreements, charters, or guiding principles

promulgated by such institutions as the United

Nations and the former Warsaw Treaty Organization. International legal principles address and

define international environmental problems and
18 Combined Summaries

solutions; international agreements legally bind

parties, creating rights and obligations concerning

the regulated resources [42].3 Such efforts already

have brought us the World Charter for Nature, the

Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, and

the unfinished Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The latter exemplifies the difficulties in reaching

such accords. Further, international organizations

that deal with environmental issues commonly lack

the capability, or the authority, to ensure adherence

with international agreements [44]. For example, the

Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has only the powers or

recommendation, and not of enforcement. Proposals

to remedy this range from enhancing development of

regional environmental agreements and organizations [66], to strengthening coordination of environmental concerns at the United Nations and

directing UNEP to spearhead codification of international environmental law, to establishing a U.N.

Environmental Security Council (requiring amendment of the U.N. Charter) [44].

Expanding International

Environmental Accord

The arena for current negotiations on international

law related to biodiversity, climate change, and

tropical forests is the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED or ‘ ‘Earth

Summit’ to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June

1992. Government negotiators representing developed and developing countries have been meeting

for over a year to determine the content and wording

of new international charters, statements of principles, and agreements. In addition, and unlike previous international environmental summits, nongovernmental organizations have played a significant role

in preparation of documents and introduction of

issues into negotiations. The negotiations have been

fraught with controversy, largely over “NorthSouth” responsibility for financing conservation

efforts [cf:35]; the United States’ position currently

is unclear.

The UNCED Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on Biodiversity is working toward

reaching an agreement that would be signed at the

June 1992 “Earth Summit. ” Topics of particular

concern to the negotiating parties are financing of

biodiversity conservation in developing countries,

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

The search for medicines from plant and animal sources is

most cost-effective when scientists focus on traditional

medicines, such as those sold by traditional medicine

vendors in China. With the surge in “chemical

prospecting,” however, UNCED negotiators have faced

increasing controversy surrounding access to genetic

materials, product patenting and distribution of royalties,

and “intellectual property rights.”

biotechnology and intellectual property rights, and

the potential for a sweeping international treaty to

‘‘interfere with individual nations’ authority to

manage resources or protect domestic biodiversity.

The INC on Climate Change also has faced considerable controversy about provision of ‘‘new and

additional’ resources to assist developing countries

to meet the objectives of the treaty, which specifies

targets and timetables for reduction in carbon

dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

A nonbinding statement of “Principles on World

Forests” is in preparation for UNCED, but is not

presently under negotiation in the form of an

international agreement. Instead, it is one component of Agenda 21, an overall environment and

development agenda for the future. Still, negotiations on world forest principles have led to agreement on some basic points, that may in the future

become 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.
Introduction to Combined Summaries ● 19

●

●

●

●

●

identify ‘‘social, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs, as well as economic” goals of

management;

strengthen national-level forest management

institutions;

recognize the value of environmental services

of forests, including protecting biodiversity and

regulating watersheds and water resources;

respect sustainable use by ‘‘forest dwellers,

indigenous peoples, and local communities;

foster forest management plans based on complete cost and benefit accounting; and

encourage development of an international

economic climate that supports sustainable

forest development in all countries [47].

Discussion of a Forest Convention is expected to

be reopened, likely during the 1992 renegotiation of

the International Tropical Timber Agreement, potentially leading to a single international legal

instrument on forests [20].

Partly in preparation for development of the

UNCED Principles on World Forests, the Tenth

makers from 136 countries, passed The Paris Declaration (box B) and produced a set of detailed

conclusions and recommendations [51]. The principles stated in the Paris Declaration are intended to

contribute to the debate leading to UNCED and

beyond.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant progress has been made in mobilizing

international assistance finding and in coordinating

and focusing international conservation efforts in

the years since OTA assessed technologies to

maintain biological diversity and to sustain tropical

forest resources. The stage for forest conservation is

being set at high government levels with development of national action plans that set new priorities

and call for new programs, institutional development, and major policy reforms. Conservationists

behind the planning process are learning to develop

necessary links to policies and programs in other

sectors, 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 from

17 to 26 September 1991;

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

throughout 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)
20 ● Combined Summaries

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 the

institiutional 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 to

determine sites that are best suited to be forest@ and that the needs of all people concern~ particularly

those who depend on forests for their livelihood should becarefully taken into consideration at the planning

stage;

that the continuity of tree and forest management policies be guarant~ given the need to manage forests

on a long-term basis;

that the designation of certain representative or endangered forests as protected zones continue, and that

these areas be integrated into national or international networks;

that appropriate silvicultural techniques, the extension of woodlands and the long-term use of wood be used

to 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 development

and environmenttal problems; emphasking the renewable nature of forest resources and convinced of the soundness

of solutions afforded by sustainable management of all the world’s forests, within the context of national forestry

policies,

solemnly calls upon decision-makers to:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

commit themselves to the “Greening of the World” through afforestation, reforestation and sustainable

management of the multiple functions of trees and forests; and to actions in the form on integrated

programmed, involving the participation of all people concerned, in the context of national land management

policies;

assess developments in the forest heritage at a national and international level, drawing on the global Forest

Resources 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, and

increase national and international financial provisions, particularly in favour of developing countries;

work toward the harmonious development of international trade in forest products through the prohibition

of 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 regional

importance, such as the fight against desertification the protection of forests, the management of major

watersheds, etc.;

strengthen and coordinate research and field trials, training and the exchange of information, as well s

cooperation 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 Conference

on environrnent and Development (UNCED), to be held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in order to define a

non-legally authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation

and sustainable development of all types of forrests;’

and, in the context of the current negotiations on biodiversity and climate change being conducted under the

auspices 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 information

on 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 appropriate

intergovernmental 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.
Introduction to Combined Summaries ● 21

Significantly less progress has been made on the

ground. Development of practical methods for

management and conservation of forests and biodiversity has been slow. Although forest management is

highly site specific, general principles and systems

can be adapted to different situations. For 30 years,

however, scant attention has been given to imple

menting tropical forest management systems, improving them, or developing new ones. NGOs have

begun innovative projects in and around tropical

forest protected areas. Monitoring and evaluation of

these will lead, gradually, to methods for involving

local people in integration of tropical forest conservation and development. Other aspects of forest

protection are being neglected, however, such as

preventing government corruption that allows tree

cutting and land clearing not sanctioned by management plans.

The existing (old) systems for sustainable management of tropical forests impose severe restrictions on use of the resources, so opportunity costs of

sustainable management are high. Although the

benefits would also be high when environmental

effects such as biodiversity conservation are included, the opportunity costs accrue directly to

citizens of tropical nations while the benefits are

spread over global populations. Little scientific

effort is directed to increasing the direct financial

benefits from sustainable management of natural

forests to local communities. Meanwhile, the major

underlying cause of deforestation and species extinctions—lack of alternative employment opportunities

for rapidly growing populations of tropical countries—

remains. Hence, the forests and their biodiversity are

still in jeopardy, despite momentum at the international and national policy and planning levels.

Numerous tropical countries now have national

plans establishing goals and priorities for biodiversity conservation and forest management, and major

programs to reform and implement improved forest

sector policies have begun. Concern for biodiversity

continues to grow, promoted by international assistance agencies and local NGOs through biodiversity

conservation planning and through site-specific

projects. The implementation of these plans and

programs will succeed or fail in the next 5 to 10

years. Strong momentum for conservation-oriented

development assistance exists in the United States

and other donor countries. The bilateral and multilateral assistance agencies have accepted forceful

mandates to promote forest and biodiversity conser297-928 0 - 92 - 4 : QL3

vation. International technical and financial assistance will be a necessary but hardly sufficient

condition for success.

Implementation of policy reforms requires secure

commitments from national leaders, sufficient technical knowledge and skills, and continued momentum from grassroots supporters. Yet issues that have

not been adequately addressed include the capability

of technologies to achieve the goals over the long

term, the ability of government agencies and NGOs

to control corruption that undermines management

plans, and the ways in which forestry and biodiversity use and conservation are linked to other

economic and political sectors.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

REFERENCES

Abate, T, “Into the Northern Philippines Rainforest,” Bioscience, vol. 42, No. 4, 1992, pp.

246-251.

Arita, I., et al., “Human Monkeypox: A Newly

Emerged Orthopoxvirus Zoonosis in the Tropical

Rain Forests of Africa,” American Journal of

Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 34, No. 4,1988,

pp. 781-789.

Asian Development Bank, “Economic Policies for

Sustainable Development,” Manila, 1990.

Ausubel, Jesse H., ‘‘A Second Look at the Impacts of

Climate 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 (Oak

Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis

Center, 1990).

Boo, E., Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pifalls, 2

vols. (Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund, 1991).

Bryson, N. and Koehn, S., “An International Fish

Story,” Legal Times vol. 14, Jan. 20, 1992, pp. 22,

25.

Capistrano, A.D.N., ‘‘Macroeconomic Influences on

Tropical Forest Depletion: A Cross-country Analysis,” Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Florida,

Gainesville FL, 1990.

Carpenter, R. A., and Maragos, J. E., Environmental

Impacts on Tropical Islands and Coastal Areas

(Honolulu, HI: East-West Center Environment and

Policy Institute, 1980).

Ceballos-Lascurian, H., “Tourism, Ecotourism and

Protected Areas, ‘‘ in J.A. Kusler (cd.), Ecotourism

and Resource Conservation, vol. 1., pp. 24-30, 1991.

Diversity, “In Search of: Mechanisms to Compensate Indigenous Peoples for Botanical Knowledge, ”

vol. 7, No. 3, 1991, pp. 21-23.

Dixon, J.A. and Sherman, P. B., Economics of Protected 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 by

Native Amazonians,” Bioscience, vol. 40, No. 9,

1990, pp. 652-659.

Ecology USA, ‘“Environmental Terrorists’ Kill Spotted Owls in Washington,’ vol. 20, No. 4, Feb. 25,

1991, p. 33.

English, E. P., The Great Escape?An Examination

of North-South Tourism (Ottawa, Canada: The NorthSouth Institute, 1986).

Fairclough, A. J., ‘‘Global Environmental and Natural Resource Problems-Their Economic, Political,

and Security Implications,’ The Washington Quarterly, vol. 14, Winter 1991, pp. 81-98.

Hamilton, L., “Guest Comment: Storm Disasters—

Has Logging Been Unfairly Blamed?” IUCN Forest

Conservation Programme Newsletter, No. 12, January 1992, p. 5.

Hurst, P., Rainforest Politics (Atlantic Highlands,

New Jersey: Zed Books, 1990), pp. 180-181.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources, “A Future for the Tropical

Forestry Action Plan?’ IUCN Forest Conservation

Programme Newletter, No. 12, January 1992, pp.

1-2.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources, “UNCED Opts for ‘Statement of Principles’, ” IUCN Forest Conservation

Programme Newletter, No, 11, September 1991, pp.

1-2.

John, D.M. and Lawson, G. W., “A Review of

Mangrove and Coastal Ecosystems in West Africa

and Their Possible Relationships,” Mangrove Oceanography, 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 Ecotourism 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 of

Manitoba, 1990.

Lindberg, K., Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits (Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 1991).

Lynch, O. J., Jr, “Philippine Law and Upland Tenure, ’ 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 Future: U.S. Politics and the Protection of Biological

Diversity, ’ ‘‘ 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: Environmental

Disruption Can Divert Animal Viruses Into People,’

The Sciences, September/October, 1990, pp. 16-21.

Morse, S. S., “Regulating Viral Traffic” Issues in

Science 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 Law

on Environmental Impact of Development Bank

Projects, “ World Resources Institute, No. 15, Winter

1992, p. 1.

Palmer, T, “The Final Act?,” Buzzworm, vol. 3,

November/December 1991, pp. 31-35.

Patterson, A., “Debt for Nature Swaps,” Environment, 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: Sustainability in the Tropical Forest (London, England:

Earthscan, 1989).

Popkin, R., “Responding to Eco-Terrorism,” EPA

Journal, vol. 17, No. 3, July/August, 1991, pp. 23-26.

Post, M, “The Debt for Nature Swap: A Long-term

Investment for the Economic Stability of Less

Developed Countries,” International Lawyer, vol.

24, Winter 1990, pp. 1071-1098.

Reid, W. V., “The United States Needs a National

Biodiversity Policy,’ WRI Issues and Ideas (Washington DC: World Resources Institute, February

1992).

Renner, M., “National Security: The Economic and

Environmental Dimensions,” Worldwatch Paper 89

(Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, May 1989).

Ryan, J. C., ‘‘War and Teaks in Burma’ World

Watch, vol. 3, No. 5, September/October 1990, pp.

8-9.

Saunders, M. B., “Valuation and International Regulation of Forest Ecosystems: Prospects for a Global

Forest Agreement,” Washington Law Review, vol.

66, July 1991, pp. 871-892.

Schaller, G. B., Wildlife Conservation International,

New York Zoological Society, personal communication, April 1, 1992.

Schrijver, N., ‘‘International Organization for Environmental 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, January

1992, p. 3.

Suffness, M., Program Coordinator for Natural Products at the National Cancer Institutes, quoted in R.

Eisner, “Botanists Ply Trade in Tropics, Seeking

Plant-Based Medicinal,” The Scientist, vol. 5, No.

12. June 10, 1991.

Sutton, D. B., “From the Taj to the Tiger,” Cultural

Survival Quarferly, vol. 14, No. 2, 1990, pp. 15-19.

Timoshenko, A. S., “Ecological Security: The International hgal Aspect, ’ Rene~*able Resources Journal, 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 Imperatives in Upland Management for National Recovery, ’ Los Banes Philippines: University of the

Philippines, 1986, cited in P. Hurst, Rainforest

Politics (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, Bureau

for Asia, United States-Asia Environmental Partnership-Businesses, Governments and Communities

Working Together,” 1992 brochure.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Trade and En~’ironment OTA- BP-ITE-94 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May

1992).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Changing by Degrees=$teps To Reduce Green hol~se

Gdses, OTA-O-482 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1991).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies Tolkiaintain Biological Diversity, OTAF-330 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, March 1987).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources,

OTA-F-214 (Springfield, VA: National Tahnical

Information 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 Proceedings, OTA-BP-F-23 (Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September 1983).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, “Quarterly Report of Selected Research Projects, ’ Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 1991, p. 5.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the

Inspector General, ‘‘Audit Report-The Endangered

Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,”

Report No. 90-98, Washington, DC, September

1990.

U.S. General Accounting Office, ‘Developing Country Debt—Debt Swaps for Development and Nature

Provide Little Debt Relief,” Washington, DC, December 1991.

van Bergeijk, P. A. G., “International Trade and the

Environmental Challenge” Journal of WorZd Trade,

vol. 25, No. 6, December 1991, pp. 105-116.

Weigle, K.A. et al., “Leishmania Braziliensis From

the Pacific Coast Region of Colombia: Foci of

Transmission, Clinical Spectrum and Isoenzyme

Phenotypes,” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 35, No. 4, 1986, pp. 722-731.

Wells, M., Brandon, K., and Hannah, L., People and

Parks: An Analysis of Projects Linking Protected

Area Management with heal Communities (Washington DC: The World Bank, 1991).

Westing, A. H., “Regional Security in a Wider

Context,’ 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 Environment

and Natural Resource Assessment (Washington, DC:

World Resources Institute and Center for International 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: Components of Tropical Forest Ecosystems, ’ Ecosystems of

the World (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier

Scientific Publishing, 1983), pp. 315-324.
Technologies to Sustain

Tropical Forest Resources
Foreword

The United States has a stake in the sustained economic development of tropical nations

for humanitarian, political, and economic reasons. To a great extent, the development of these

nations depends on increasing production from their potentially renewable soil, forest, and

water resources. But tropical forest resources, which cover nearly one-half of the tropical

nations’ land, are being consumed at a rate that may make them nonrenewable. They are

exploited for timber and cleared for pasture and cropland with little regard for their abilities

to produce important goods, maintain soil productivity, regulate water regimes, or regenerate

themselves in a long-term sustainable fashion.

International recognition of the importance of tropical forest resources and efforts to

sustain the productivity of these resources have increased significantly in the last decade. In

1980, the House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on

International Organizations held hearings on tropical deforestation. The committee then

requested the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to conduct a more thorough

assessment of the problem, the technologies that could help sustain tropical forest resources,

and possible options for Congress. The Subcommittee on Insular Affairs of the House

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution

of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works endorsed the request. The Senate

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources asked that the assessment specifically address

forest 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 background

papers (Reforestation of Degraded Lands and US, and International Institutions) identify and

discuss in depth some of the constraints and opportunities to develop and implement

forest-sustaining technologies.

OTA greatly appreciates the contributions of the advisory panel and workshop

participants assembled for the study, the authors of the commissioned technical papers, and

the many others who assisted us, including liaisons from other Government agencies. As with

all OTA studies, however, the content of the report is the sole responsibility of the Office of

Technology Assessment.

- Directo r
Eddie Albert

Conservationist

Hugh Bollinger

Vice President

Native Plants Inc.

Robert Cassagnol

Technical Committee

CONAELE

Advisory Panel

Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

Leonard Berry, Chair

Center for Technology, Environment, and Development

Clark University

Robert Cramer

Former President

Virgin Islands Corp.

Gary Eilerts

Appropriate Technology International

John Ewel

Department of Botany

University of Florida

Robert Hart

Winrock International

Susanna Hecht

Department of Geography

University of California

Marilyn Hoskins

Department of Sociology

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

John Hunter*

Michigan State University

Norman Johnson

Vice President, North Carolina Region

Weyerhaeuser Co.

Jan Laarrnan

Department of Forestry

North Carolina State University

Charles Lankester

U.N. Development Programme

Robert Owen

Chief Conservationist (retired)

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

Christine Padoch

Institute of Environmental Studies

University of Wisconsin

Allen Putney

Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management

Program

West Indies Laboratory

Jeff Romm

Department of Forestry

University of California

John Terborgh

Department of Biology

Princeton University

Henry Tschinkel

Regional Office for Central American Programs

U.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 the

report and the accuracy of its contents.
OTA Project Staff

Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

H. David Bantal and Roger Herdman,2 Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Manager

Food 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).
Contents

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

IMPORTANCE OF TROPICAL FOREST RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

STATUS OF TROPICAL FORESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Technologies for Undisturbed Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Technologies to Reduce Overcutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Technologies for Disturbed Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Resource Development P1arming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Education, Research, and Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Expand and Coordinate Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Encourage Resource Development Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

ImproveTropicalForest Research and Market Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Protect Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Expand U.S. Expertise in Tropical Forest Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

U.S. TROPICAL FORESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

The U.S. Caribbean Territories: Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

The U.S. Western Pacific: Micronesia and American Samoa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Issues and Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figures

Figure Page

l. Global Areas of Tropical Woody Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2. Areas of Woody Vegetation in 76 Tropical Nations

(thousands of hectares, 1980 estimates) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3. A Typical Biosphere Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4. Locationof Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Tables

Table Page

1. 1985 Estimates of Closed Forest Area Sand Deforestation Rates in

Tropical Africa, America, and Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2. 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

INTRODUCTION

Forests of various kinds cover 42 percent of the

tropical nations’ land (fig. 1). To support a population of 2 billionl

, these nations must use the natural

resources found in these forests: soil, water, plants,

and animals. The productivity of these resources can

be renewable, but only if tropical people use

resource-sustaining technologies.

Some tropical nations are experiencing severe

shortages of forest products and services. To avoid

even more acute problems, they need to restore

resource productivity. Other nations, even those

with adequate forests, need to sustain their forest

resources to avoid future problems. In just 30 years,

the population of tropical nations is expected to

double to 4 billion people.2 Thus, the importance of

tropical forest productivity is increasing as more and

more people depend on forest products and services

for basic needs such as fuel, materials for shelter, and

a reliable water supply.

Substantial institutional activity is occurring worldwide that directly or indirectly benefits tropical

forest resources. The U.S. Agency for International

Development (AID), the United Nations agencies,

the multilateral development banks, and others have

increased their attention to forestry in recent years.

Private corporations and nonprofit organizations

also have been involved in the search for solutions

to tropical forest problems. Most importantly, tropical nations’ governments have come to recognize

that deforestation and forest resource degradation

constrain their economies and their development

options.

The large number of organizations that has some

responsibilities in forestry might imply an adequate

level of activity is underway. But the total amount of

expertise and funding available to forestry still

remains small relative to the scope of the problem.

International development assistance organizations

cannot fund enough forest conservation to offset

deforestation because the underlying institutional

causes can only be resolved by the tropical countries

themselves.

IMPORTANCE OF TROPICAL

FOREST RESOURCES

For tropical nations, forests and shrublands provide wood for lumber and paper, building materials,

and fuel, and are an important source of foreign

exchange. Forests help maintain soil quality, limit

erosion, stabilize hillsides, modulate seasonal flooding, and protect waterways and marine resources

from accelerated siltation. In addition, many millions of people living in and near the forests depend

Figure l-Global Areas of Tropical

Woody 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 Resources, 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@ including

India) grew to 2.4 billion, an increase of 17 percent [C. Haub, et al., “1991 World Population Data Sheet” (Washington, DC: Population Reference

Bureau, 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_
-.

32 ● Combined Summaries

directly on them for food, medicines, and other basic

needs.

The benefits from tropical forests are not limited

to tropical nations. World trade in tropical wood is

significant to the economies of both the producing

and consuming nations. The United States is the

second largest importer of tropical wood products

and U.S. demand for tropical wood has been

growing at rates well above our population and gross

national product growth rates. Tropical forests also

provide a broad array of nonwood products such as

oils, spices, and rattan that are valuable for both

subsistence and commerce. The annual world trade

in rattan, for example, is estimated to be $1.2 billion.

Thus, industrial wood and other forest product

exports earn substantial foreign exchange for nations

that trade with the United States.4

The productivity of renewable resources in the

Tropics affects both the economic viability of U.S.

investments overseas and political stability in the

tropical nations. Many development projects funded

by the U.S. Government or the U.S. private sector

are being undercut by flooding, siltation of reservoirs, pest outbreaks, and other problems associated

with deforestation. Food and jobs, both critical for

political stability in developing nations, can be

reduced by the consequences of deforestation.

The highly diverse tropical forests contain plants,

animals, genetic material, and chemicals that have

great potential value for medicine, agriculture, and

other industries. The Tropics are thought to contain

two-thirds of the world’s approximately 4.5 million

plant and animal species. An estimated 2.5 million

of the tropical species are yet unknown to sciences

Considering the value to society that has come from

those tropical species that have been studied (e.g.,

many major agricultural crops, anticancer drugs,

insects used in integrated pest management), it is

very likely that some of the remaining unstudied

species offer potentially important resources, particularly for pest control, plant breeding, genetic

engineering, and other biotechnologies. Biologists

are already using new techniques for cloning plants

and microorganisms to screen existing organisms for

their production of useful chemicals.

Tropical forests also provide habitats for many of

the world’s migratory birds and various endangered

species. About two-thirds of the birds that breed in

North America migrate to Latin America or the

Caribbean for winter. Some of these migratory birds

play an important role controlling agricultural pests

in the United States.

STATUS OF TROPICAL FORESTS

Some 76 nations located entirely or largely within

the tropical latitudes contain about half the world’s

population (approximately 2 billion).G These nations

are characterized by rapidly growing populations,

low per capita incomes, and predominantly agrarian

economies. Near forest lands, much of the agriculture is subsistence farming, often in upland areas

where soils are dry or have low fertility. Commercial

agriculture, on the other hand, generally is sited on

the more fertile and often irrigated alluvial plains of

major river valleys. Both types of agriculture are

strongly affected by the 1.2 billion hectares7 of moist

tropical forest and 800 million hectares of drier open

woodlands.

The type and distribution of forests vary considerably across regions in the Tropics (fig. 2). Twothirds 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 the

Philippines), and plywood (I%om Indonesia). However, Japan far outranks the United States as an importer of these and other developing country wood

products ~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 before

they 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 of

Nature 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=tm- 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

~ Shrubland 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 used

for 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 tropical

forests. 9 Even within regions, forest types are forests are widely scattered and often inaccurate.

unequally distributed among countries. Overall figures for deforestation10 mask consider9 @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! confiuom

cover 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 latter

refers to biological, physical, and chemical processes that result in loss of the productive potential of natural resources in areas that remain classified

as 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 Percent

area deforested area deforested

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

Tropical Africa:

Ivory Coast

Nigeria

Rwanda

Burundi

Benin

Guinea-Bissau

Liberia

Guinea

Kenya

Madagascar

Angola

Uganda

Zambia

Ghana

Mozambique

Sierra Leone

Tanzania

Togo

Sudan

Chad

Cameroon

Ethiopia

Somalia

Equatorial Guinea

Zaire

Central African Republic

Gabon

Congo

Zimbabwe

Namibia

Botswana

Mali

Upper Volta

Niger

Senegal

Malawi

Gambia

Totals

Tropical America:

Paraguay

Costa Rica

4,458

5,950

120

26

47

660

2,000

2,050

1,105

10,300

2,900

765

3,010

1,718

935

740

1,440

304

650

500

17,920

4,350

1,540

1,295

105,750

3,590

20,500

21,340

200

b

b

b

b

b

220

186

65

216,634

6.5

5.0

2.7

2.7

2.6

2.6

2,3

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.1

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

0.61

4,070 4.7

1,638 4.0

Haiti

El Salvador

Jamaica

Nicaragua

Ecuador

Honduras

Guatemala

Colombia

Mexico

Panama

Belize

Dominican Republic

Trinidad and Tobago

Peru

Brazil

Venezuela

Bolivia

Cuba

French Guiana

Surinam

Guyana

Totals

Tropical Asia:

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Brunei

Malaysia

Laos

Philippines

Bangladesh

Viet Nam

Indonesia

Pakistan

Burma

Kampuchea

India

Bhutan

Papua New Guinea

Totals

48

141

67

4,496

14,250

3,797

4,442

46,400

46,250

4,165

1,354

629

208

357,480

357,480

31,870

44,010

1,455

8,900

14,830

18,475

678,655

1,941

1,659

9,235

323

20,995

8,410

9,510

927

8,770

113,895

2,185

31,941

7,548

51,841

2,100

34,230

305,510

3.8

3.2

3.0

2.7

2.4

2.4

2.0

1.8

1.3

0.9

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.1

b

b

b

0.6

4.3

3.5

2.7

1.5

1.2

1.2

1.0

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.3

;:;

0.1

0.1

0.6

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): Tropical

Africa, Tropical Asia, Tropical Ameriea,” 4 VOIS., Rome, 1981.

able differences among the rates at which individual another 13 countries would exhaust theirs within 55

countries are using and altering their forest resources years.

ll

(table 1). If present trends were to continue, nine Estimates of overall deforestation rates also

tropical countries would eliminate practically all of conceal significant differences in the types of

their 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 new

assessment to update the data to 1990. The results, summarized in ‘Ihble 2, are considered more accurate than the earlier assessments. They indicate that

the 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 yem

estimated for 1976-80 [United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, ‘‘Second Interim Report on the State of Tropical Forests,’ Presented to the

loth 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 87

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

Area Rate of

Total Forest Forest deforested change

land area area annually percent

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

Latin America

Central America and Mexico (7). . . . . 245 77 64 1.4 -1.8940

Caribbean Sub-Region (8).. . . . . . . . . 70 49 47 0.2 -0.4

Tropical South America (7). . . . . . . . . 1,361 797 729 6.8 -0.8

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

Asia

South Asia (6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 71 66 0.4 -0.6

Continental Southeast Asia (5)...... 193 83 70 1.3 -1.6

insular Southeast Asia (4). . . . . . . . . . 258 157 139 1,8 -1.2

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

Africa

West Sahelian Africa(8) . . . . . . . . .. 528 42 38 0.4 -0.9

East Sahelian Africa (6). . . . . . . . . . . . 490 92 85 0.7 -0.8

West Africa (8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 55 43 1.2 -2.1

Central Africa (7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 230 215 1.5 -0.6

Tropical Southern Africa (lo). . . . . . . . 558 218 206 1.1 -0.5

Insular 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 Tropical

Forests,” Presented to the Ioth World Forestry Congress, Paris, France, September 1991.

probably greatest in the broad-leaved humid lowland forests, as these are biologically the most

complex and diverse. But the tropical conifer forests

cover much smaller areas and have been severely

degraded by logging and agriculture. Direct impacts

on people are greatest in dry regions where degradation of open forests leads to severe shortages of

wood for fuel. But the loss of mountain watershed

forest may affect even more people by making river

flows more erratic.

Each year approximately 11.3 million hectares of

the Earth’s remaining tropical forests-an area

roughly the size of Pennsylvania-are cleared and

converted to other uses. 12 were cleared land is

developed for sustainable agriculture, deforestation

can be beneficial. But most land being cleared

cannot sustain farmin g or grazing with available

technologies, so it is abandoned after a few years.

Often, commercially valuable trees do not grow

back quickly because of highly weathered soils,

harsh climates, and recurring fires. Thus, highly

productive but underused forest resources are giving

way to low-productivity grasslands and deserts.

Deforestation and degradation of tropical lands

are not new. losses of forest resources have been

reported as early as 450 B.C. in the African Sahel

and 1000 A.D. in South China. For centuries,

tropical deforestation has been associated with

poverty and with patterns of economic development

that result in inequitable access to farmland. People

displaced by development in the lowlands often

have been the direct agents of deforestation because

they have little choice if they are to survive.

The main agents of tropical deforestation and

forest resource degradation continue to be subsistence agriculturalists, livestock raisers, fuelwood

collectors, and people who set fries to facilitate

clearing or gathering activities. Commercial agriculture plays a smaller role in deforestation today than

it has in the past, although in some areas (e.g.,

Central America and Brazil) clearing tropical forests

for cattle ranching causes a large part of the forest

resource loss. Commercial logging is also an important cause of forest degradation.

Subsistence and commercial use of forest lands

can cause deforestation. Combined, they form par12 me ~vaage ma of ~opi~ forest deforested ~~y from 1980-1990 was 17 million hectares ~tlitd Nations, Food ~d A@cuhure

Organization, ‘‘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
36 ● Combined Summaries

ticularly pernicious relationships. For example, loggers build roads through undisturbed forests to

remove timber. Slash-and-bum cultivators use the

roads to gain access to the forests and clear patches

for temporary agriculture. Ranching or commercial

agriculture may follow the farmers, exploit the

land’s remaining productivity, then move on into

new areas. These agents of tropical forest change

vary in prominence among tropical America, Africa,

and Asia.

Alternative techniques exist that could be substituted for these destructive practices. However,

sustainable forestry and agriculture practices generally are not being developed and applied. The

underlying causes of this failure lie in political,

economic, and social forces (e.g., undefined property rights) that cause people to use forests in ways

that are inappropriate to ecological conditions.

Deterioration of the forest resources seems likely to

continue until combinations of improved technologies and enforced resource development policies

make sustaining the forests more profitable than

destroying them.

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

This report discusses various technologies to

develop tropical forest resources. Some are techniques to manage forests—undisturbed and disturbed-and some are technologies to use forests to

protect related resources such as agriculture and

water. Others are techniques to prepare people for

the various tasks involved in developing and implementing technologies to sustain the resources.

Technologies for Undisturbed Forests

Undisturbed forests produce many valuable products and services, usually with little or no human

management. One way to reduce the rate at which

undisturbed forests are converted to other, nonsustainable uses is through systematic preservation of

sample ecosystems in parks and protected areas.

Another approach is to enhance the value of the

forest by developing its resources other than timber—

the nonwood products and forest food sources. For

either approach to succeed, willing involvement of

local people and political commitment from government decisionmakers are essential.

Maintaining Sample Ecosystems

Parks and protected areas can be managed for

direct income (e.g., tourism) and for indirect benefits, such as preventing siltation of reservoirs. Some

of these benefits can be estimated for resource

allocation decisions. Other major benefits provided

by protected areas-e. g., preservation of biological

diversity-cannot be measured in dollars. Thus, in

the past, the locations of protected areas have been

determined more for watershed protection or tourist

potential than consideration of biological diversity.

A marked disparity exists in the worldwide

distribution of parks and protected areas, with some

types of ecosystems well represented and others not

represented at all. Many legally protected areas lack

firm commitments from local, national, and international agencies. Consequently, they receive little

actual protection or are inadequately managed. Strict

preservation with total exclusion of economic activity is not practical for many sites where protection of

undisturbed forests is important. Recognizing the

growing demands to develop rural land, protected

area planners and managers have begun to pay more

attention to socioeconomic and institutional factors.

They seek participation from both the people who

will affect or be affected by forest resources and the

people and agencies that must support management

programs.

Some innovative plans that include the surrounding biophysical and socioeconomic setting have

been developed for protected areas. One such

activity is the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere

(MAB) program’s worldwide network of biosphere

reserves (fig. 3). The management of these reserves

considers the needs of local populations and seeks

ways to make benefits available to local people.

More field experience and monitoring are needed to

evaluate the successes of existing biosphere reserves. However, the MAB effort is constrained by

a lack of strong, consistent commitments from U.S.

and other governments.

Making Undisturbed Forests More Valuable

Few deliberate attempts have been made to

harvest forest products other than timber and fuelwood in a sustainable, organized way. Incentives to

maintain unlogged forests would be greater if

methods were developed to use forest resources

other than timber more filly-either by discovering

new, valuable products or by encouraging collection

and processing of existing products.

Products obtained from animals and from wood,

bark, leaves, or roots of trees and other forest
Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources ● 37

Figure 3—A Typical Biosphere Reserve

Core area ❑R Research station

The biosphere reserve considers the needs of the local people by

incorporating biophysical and socioeconomic factors into its

management plan.

SOURCE: M. Batisse, “The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for Environmental

Conservation and Management,” EnvironmentalConservation,

vol. 9, summer 1982.

vegetation offer significant opportunities for tropical countries to develop cottage industries. Employment and incomes for people living in or near forests

could be improved while encouraging maintenance

of the natural ecosystems. Improved assessment of

the role of forest products in subsistence economies

and development of markets for nonwood products

could help decisionmakers recognize the value of

undisturbed forests. U.S. scientific and managerial

expertise could be applied to this problem, especially from the fields of ecology, botany, business,

and forest management. Few technologies exist

today that can extract selected renewable resources

from a tropical forest while leaving the forest nearly

intact. Crocodile and butterfly farming are two

examples that are being implemented. The development of other such resource-conserving systems is

needed.

Technologies to Reduce Overcutting

Much resource degradation is caused in closed

tropical forests by inappropriate wood harvesting

methods and in mountain and dry forests by cutting

more wood than grows each year. Development of

improved wood processing technologies and markets for more of the many tree species and sizes

growing in the closed forests would reduce the area

that must be logged to satisfy timber demand. Where

too much wood is being cut, it may be necessary to

reduce demand by increasing the efficiency of

woodstoves and charcoal kilns or by substituting

alternative energy sources.

Industrial Wood

Intensive forest harvesting could give increased

output per unit area, thus reducing demand to cut

elsewhere. But this approach can have positive and

negative impacts. It can make reforestation planting

more feasible. On the other hand, it increases the

potential for damage to the site from poor road

engineering, inadequate site protection, and tardy

restoration of forest stands. Intensive harvesting

would require strict enforcement of regulations to

prevent adverse impacts on the land’s long-term

productivity.

Intensive harvesting depends on the availability

of profitable technologies to extract, process, and

market a wider range of tree species and sizes.

Grouping species according to their uses (e.g.,

construction material) is an approach that has been

successful in Africa. However, many unused species

have sizes, shapes, or wood characteristics that make

Photo credit: L. Lind, USDA Forest Service

Throughout much of South Asia and Africa, fodder for

livestock is as important a forestry product as wood. Like

logging, however, the potential for overcutting exists

without controls on timing or amounts removed.
them difficult to harvest and process and that limit

their usefulness.

The use of smaller trees would require costly

replacement of existing equipment designed for

large logs. Portable sawmills and small units that

could be carried easily and set up to mill logs at the

stump could make logging much more efficient.

Such technologies might minimize adverse environmental effects from hauling logs but might encourage logging of currently inaccessible areas.

The greatest progress toward making intensive

harvest profitable has occurred where multispecies

wood chips are produced for wood pulp or fuel. The

“press-dry paper process” developed at the U.S.

Forest Products Laboratory promises to increase the

world market for hardwood chips. However, chipping can have adverse impacts because in moist

tropical forests most of the plant nutrients are

located in the trees rather than in the soil. Thus,

wood chip harvesting that removes most trees can

severely reduce the fertility of the site.

For little known but potentially marketable lumber species, cost-effective preservation and drying

technologies are needed to improve use characteristics. Many types of wood are susceptible to

attack by termites, other insects, or fungi under

tropical conditions. Although wood preservatives

are available, they generally are costly. Some less

expensive techniques exist, but their effectiveness

has not been proven.

Fuelwood

Approximately 80 percent of the estimated 1

billion cubic meters of wood removed annually from

tropical forests is used for fuel.13 The effects of

excessive fuelwood cutting are seen frost near cities

and towns where fuel demand is concentrated. But

overcutting does not always remain a local problem.

Mangrove forests of Thailand and dry forests of

Kenya, for example, are overcut to produce charcoal

that is transported by ship to other nations.

Most wood fuel is used in homes for cooking,

though tobacco drying and other rural industries also

consume substantial quantities. Common domestic

stoves waste much of the wood energy, as do

traditional methods of making charcoal. Therefore,

Photo credit: S. Pandey, USDA Forest Service

With most tropical nations still dependent mainly on

wood and crop residues for cookng fuel, enhancing

fuel-use efficiency by introducing improved stoves is a

major opportunity for technology development to reduce

pressure on forests, especially in semi-arid areas.

it should be possible to reduce fuelwood demand and

consequent overcutting significantly by disseminating more efficient stoves and charcoal kilns. Attempts to introduce such technologies in tropical

nations have had mixed success. Improved stoves

are not quickly and widely accepted. Though cheap

by U.S. standards, they often cost too much. Some

reduce the range of fuels that can be used. Further,

improved charcoal production sometimes does not

lead to less wood cutting because charcoal makers

may use the time or profits they gain to make even

more charcoal. Techniques to reduce demand require especially careful planning, monitoring, and

evaluation.

Nonwood fuels such as kerosene can sometimes

be used to reduce wood demand temporarily while

fuelwood plantations are established and while

natural forests recover fromn exploitation. But the

costs of obtaining and distributing nonwood fuel

substitutes are often prohibitive, especially to the

rural poor. Small-scale, renewable energy technologies 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~~ption

in 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].
Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources ● 39

long-term use, but their adoption is inhibited by

financial and managerial constraints.

Substituting plantation-grown wood for natural

forest wood clearly is an important option in many

tropical regions. Investment in plantations is constrained, however, where access to “free-for-thetaking’ forest wood is not restricted. Thus, regulatory controls on fuelwood gathering from the natural

forest must be enforced if the fuelwood plantation

option is to be used before all the accessible natural

forests are destroyed. Where fuelwood has commercial value above the cost of cutting and transportation, the possibility exists that farmers and business

will invest in planting trees.

Securing future wood supplies is a social, political, and economic problem. Investments of land,

labor, and capital in tree growing are constrained by

problems with land ownership, laws, and social

organization. Until these are resolved and woodfuel

supplies are being effectively replenished, measures

to reduce demand will fail to reach the root of the

problem. Demand reduction creates no incentives

for increased supply; it may achieve the reverse.

Technologies for Disturbed Forests

An estimated 400 million hectares of potentially

productive secondary forest14 exist in closed tropical

forest areas. Approximately 2 billion hectares of

tropical lands are in various stages of degradation.

Investment in the improvement of secondary forests

and reforestation of degraded lands offers opportunities to meet needs for materials, substitute domestic

production for imports, and provide new sources of

employment in wood production and processing.

Management of Secondary Forests

Many tropical countries could sustain production

of all the wood they will need for decades if adequate

investments were made to develop and manage

cutover secondary forests. However, such investments are seldom made. Land tenure can be a

constraint, but even where the forests are clearly

owned and controlled by government forestry agencies or private landowners, investments are usually

inadequate. Technologies for sustained forest production exist, but for most of these the time lag

before payback begins is too long and return on the

investments is too low to attract adequate private and

public capital. Opportunities to improve this situation

●

●

●

●

include:

resolution of land tenure issues,

public and private investments in research and

development to make sustainable secondary

forest management more profitable,

increased technology transfer of profitable

resource-sustaining forest management methods, and

implementation of resource use regulations, tax

laws, or subsidies to make investments in

secondary forest management more profitable.

Simply reducing logging damage by using appropriate or improved harvesting equipment can increase the number of trees available for a future crop,

as well as increase natural regeneration and facilitate

enrichment planting. But to ensure this occurs,

regulations to control logging practices must be

enforced.

Reforestation of Degraded Lands

Technologies are available to reforest certain

degraded lands. But tree planting sometimes does

not compete well, in economic terms, with other

land uses. The solutions to this dilemma include

reducing reforestation costs, reducing plantation

failure rates by enlisting support of local people,

increasing plantation yields, and developing methods to quantify the indirect benefits of reforestation.

Reforestation costs can be reduced if land preparation is used to reduce weed invasion and ensure a

favorable environment for seedling growth. Plantation yields can be increased by selecting highyielding, fast-growing, soil-enriching, and stresstolerant tree species. Developing and implementing

tree breeding and improvement programs can produce varieties with high yields and other desired

characteristics. Careful provenance testing—

matching the appropriate variety to a particular

site—should improve species performance and reduce mortality.

To achieve successful reforestation, several constraints must be overcome:

. shortage of planting stock and lack of quality

control 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 mat

invade after periodic cultivation.
.

4 Combined Summaries

. inadequate knowledge of tropical site conditions, and

● lack of information dissemination.

The coordination of collection, certification, and

international distribution of high-quality seeds in

commercial quantities needs to be improved. Information on proven silvicultural techniques must be

disseminated to the local people.

These technical problems can be solved, given

adequate funding and time. A more subtle problem

is to get local people to maintain tree plantations.

First of all, they must clearly understand the reasons

for planting trees. The trees should produce products

local people want, and the people must be convinced

that substantial benefits from the trees will accrue

directly to them. Often this means using species

selected by local people rather than species selected

by foresters.

Forestry Technologies to Support

Tropical Agriculture

Medium-and long-term maintenance of tropical

forest resources may depend more on sustaining the

land already under cultivation than on refining use of

the remaining forest. Introducing woody perennials

into farming and pastoral land (agroforestry) and

improving farming techniques for upland watershed

areas could help sustain the productivity of lands

under cultivation and so reduce the need to clear

additional forest lands.

Agroforestry

Agroforestry encompasses many well-known and

long-practiced land-use methods. The aim is to

create productive farming systems able to supply a

higher and more sustainable output of basic needs

and saleable products than occurs without trees.

Agroforestry is most important on lands with serious

soil fertility problems and lands where inadequate

rural infrastructure makes it vital for people to

produce most of their own basic needs for fertilizers,

food, fodder, fuel, and shelter.

Agroforestry is a newly recognized field and

could benefit from a critical examination of practices

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

Substantial progress has been made in describing and

developing agroforestry systems that combine woody and

non-woody species on a single plot of land. Agroforestry

systems commonly are developed based on traditional

agroforestry models such as those practiced in southern

China combining food, fuel, and medicine production.

and quantification of information. Since agroforestry

cuts across several disciplines, its research and

development requires an interdisciplinary approach.

Because of fragmented institutional jurisdiction,

however, agroforestry is not receiving adequate

support from either forestry or agricultural institutions. ls

Great technological potential for agroforestry

seems to lie in genetic improvement (systematic

breeding and selection) of multipurpose tree and

shrub species. Selection of appropriate provenances,

subspecies, and varieties can greatly enhance the

success of agricultural systems designed for particular land requirements.

The potential for farmers and pastoralists to adopt

agroforestry system improvements is more difficult

to assess. Peasant farmers can ill afford the risks of

innovation. Large-scale adoption of new agroforestry systems would require creating incentives

to enable people to implement new practices in spite

of 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. (See

introduction.)
Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources . 41

Watershed Management

The greatest problems in tropical watersheds

occur where subsistence farmers and their livestock

move onto steep uplands. Excluding farmers and

livestock from such areas can allow vegetation time

to recover, but enforcing such policies is difficult.

Mechanical structures and replanting methods can

restore water flow stability from some deforested

slopes. Further, conservation practices exist that

allow farming and grazing on many moderate

watershed slopes. However, the watershed management techniques are unlikely to become widespread

until farmers and herders in upland areas have

incentives to stop destructive land-use practices. To

provide upland farmers with nondestructive landuse alternatives necessitates:

●

●

●

developing methods of land use that are more

profitable to the local community and at the

same time improve control of water flows;

developing improved techniques to measure

and predict tradeoffs of different management

actions; and

testing new technologies and getting the useful

ones adopted by the local community. Subsidies from downstream beneficiaries of the

watershed protection may be necessary. Sociological studies could help define the type of

incentives needed to obtain farmers’ cooperation.

Resource Development Planning

Most conversions of tropical forests to other land

uses take place without adequate consideration of

whether the natural and human resources available

can sustain the new land use. Sometimes, destructive

forest conversions are an unplanned result of some

other, narrowly planned development. For instance,

poorly sited logging roads can open highly erodible

forest land to unplanned clearing for slash-and-bum

agriculture.

This problem can be ameliorated through the use

of resource development plarming techniques that

match land development activities to the natural and

human capabilities of specific sites. These techniques can identify which sites can sustain crop

production, grazing, reservoirs, new settlements,

intensive forestry or agroforestry, and which will be

most productive if retained as natural forest.

Ideally, resource development planning includes

four components: biophysical assessment, financial

(investor’s viewpoint) and economic (society’s viewpoint) assessment, social assessment, and project

monitoring and evaluation. Biophysical assessment

is used more often than the others, although it still is

underused. Furthermore, the techniques commonly

are used to determine the best sites for particular

development purposes rather than to develop a

comprehensive strategy for all sites in a region.

Use of each of the four planning components is

constrained by a lack of information on cause-andeffect relationships. Economic assessment encounters difficulty measuring nonrnarket values. Farther,

the analyses may consider the forest values only of

a small site, disregarding the interrelationships

between that site and the surrounding area. For

example, loss of the genetic resources in a small

patch of a large forest may seem unimportant

because nearby forested areas contain the same

biological diversity. Consequently, individual economic analyses may justify clearing the forested

region piece by piece without accounting for the

overall genetic loss incurred.

Finally, even well-planned development may

prove unsustainable if planning stops after implementation begins. Most planning is done before

projects begin, when least is known about biophysical and human resources at the site. Continuous

planning, monitoring, and evaluation are necessary

during and after the project. The major development

assistance organizations have begun to institute such

procedures but have not yet determined how to use

the results.

Opportunities to enhance the use of resource

development planning include improving data availability, more demonstration of the techniques’

potentials, better communication of planning success, increasing the number of trained planners,

improving techniques for economic and social

analysis, and assuring that projects remain open to

redirection after implementation begins.

Education, Research, and

Technology Transfer

Forest resource development is constrained in

most tropical nations by a shortage of professional

and technical personnel who know about appropriate

technologies and who also understand the institutional, economic, and cultural aspects of forest
resource systems. In the near term, expatriates,

including U.S. professionals, can provide some

expertise. But this is not likely to be sufficient

because the scope of tropical forest resource problems is so large and the number of expatriate experts

is small. Further, expatriates lack the political and

cultural ties necessary to influence policy. Sustaining tropical forest resources requires development of

indigenous expertise in all aspects of resource

development. Education, research, and technology

transfer are the means to develop expertise both in

the United States and in tropical nations.

Education

U.S. universities can act to sustain tropical forests

in two ways: educating professionals who will work

in tropical forestry-related fields and strengthening

tropical nations’ universities. However, tropical

forestry is peripheral to the interests of most U.S.

forestry schools and the experts are scattered widely

among institutions. Consequently, efficient mechanisms must be developed to bring together multidisciplinary teams of researchers and educators and

connect them with students, foreign universities, and

other seeking to develop tropical forest expertise.16

Twinning, which creates associations between

tropical nation institutions and individual developed

nation institutions, has worked with a few university

forestry schools. Consortia of U.S. universities can

provide tropical institutions access to a wider range

of expertise and experience than twinning arrangements. However, this approach still does not resolve

several of the fundamental deficiencies that reduce

the effectiveness of U.S. institutions. U.S. forestry

schools lack tropical settings for teaching and

research. Further, their curricula do not prepare

students to solve the social and institutional problems that confront tropical forest resource development. The development of one or more U.S. centers

of excellence in tropical forestry might resolve these

deficiencies. For example, a center of excellence in

Puerto Rico could focus on Latin American forest

development needs, providing the necessary tropical

setting as well as benefiting the U.S. tropical forests.

A major objective of U.S. efforts to enhance

tropical forest education could be to strengthen

schools in the Tropics. Some 138 universities and

220 technical schools in tropical nations provide

forestry education and training. Nearly all these

schools are new. Most are small and produce few

graduates each year. Thus, substantial support is

needed to provide in-service faculty training, to

produce locally relevant course materials, and to

modernize basic education facilities such as herbarium, library collections, and computers.

Resource development professionals, the scientists who develop technologies and the technicians

who implement them, are ineffective without strong

support from the many people who make decisions

about the use of natural resources. Environmental

education aims to change people’s attitudes and

behavior by providing them with the motivation and

the knowledge necessary to make decisions and take

actions that will sustain natural resource productivity.

Environmental education efforts can be directed

at the general public using mass media or programs

in primary and secondary schools. Or the efforts can

be directed more narrowly at higher level decisionmakers. Unfortunately, the behavioral science basis

for environmental education is not well established,

so the techniques must be developed by unscientific

trial and error. This development could be accelerated if significant investments were made to evaluate, document, and communicate the environmental

education efforts that are under way. Having neither

a strong scientific foundation nor substantial documentation of the causes of program success and

failure, environmental education projects have a

difficult time competing with other projects for

funds and personnel.

Research

Technologies intended to develop renewable resources are likely to fail if they are based o n

inadequate knowledge. Thus, both fundamental and

applied research are necessary components of any

strategy to sustain tropical forest resources. Fundamental research is the foundation for applied research, while applied research is needed to improve

existing forestry technologies and develop new

technologies.

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 private

consulting fms have established databases to facilitate matching U.S. forestry academicians to developing country needs and opportunities for haining,

research, and technical assistance.
Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources . 43

Many experts conclude that sustaining tropical

forests is not so much a technical problem as it is an

institutional problem. Thus, research is especially

needed to determine the interactions between the

social and biophysical factors of tropical forest

systems. Some knowledge about social and institutional factors is being used in resource development

projects supported by U.S. agencies. However, this

knowledge usually is based on personal experience,

not on careful research. A substantial increase in

truly interdisciplinary research could enhance the

likelihood that institutional changes would result in

sustainable forest resource development.

The techniques used to manage tropical forest

resources are generally based on trial-and-error

experience gained in past centuries. They have

benefited little from the rapid advances in fundamental and applied biology that have occurred

recently. For most tropical forest types, techniques have not been developed that can:

produce the products, environmental services,

and employment opportunities that local people need, and

sustain the productivity of the resource base,

and

be profitable enough to motivate people to risk

their scarce capital, labor, and land.

Applied research to improve existing technologies probably will not suffice to meet these goals.

Innovations based on new fundamental research will

also be necessary.

Low levels and short periods of funding are major

constraints on fundamental research in tropical

areas, but these are not the only reasons why basic

knowledge is inadequate to sustain tropical forests.

Most fundamental research in tropical biology has

been designed to develop evolutionary theory, and

relatively little work has been done or is being done

on ecological theory.

Another problem is poor communication among

researchers and between researchers and technology

users. Most forestry and biology research organizations reward scientists, including those working on

applied research, for publishing in journals that

technology users seldom read. In fact, few journals

exist that are designed to communicate research

results to resource developers. The U.S. Forest

Service periodical The Caribbean Forester once

served this purpose but has been discontinued. As a

result of poor communication, the pace of innovation is slower than it needs to be, techniques are

reinvented, some mistakes are continually repeated,

and potentially successful technologies spread slowly,

if at all.

Technology Transfer

The experience of U.S. forestry organizations

shows that many potentially profitable techniques

languish for lack of effective technology transfer

among scientists, between scientists and technology

users, and among technology users. Thus, it is

appropriate that international development assistance organizations focus their efforts not on promoting particular technologies but rather on building

local institutions’ capacities to choose, receive,

adapt, and deliver technologies appropriate to local

circumstances.

An important constraint on development assistance effectiveness in forestry is the lack of coordination among many bilateral and multilateral projects.

Coordination of resource development projects so

that each project contributes the appropriate actions

at the appropriate time to accomplish long-range

plans should be the responsibility of tropical governments. But donor agencies usually fund the projects

they identify rather than projects identified in some

long-term planning process. One approach to improve plannin g and coordination of technology

transfer is the use of ad hoc international committees

that are separate from the policies and problems of

individual government agencies or development

assistance organizations.

17 Committees such as the

newly instituted Coordination for Development in

Africa could assist tropical governments in developing long-range plans and in identifying and recommending projects for the various international organizations.

The OTA assessment identified a number of

necessary conditions for successful technology transfer. 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 Plan

process, facilitated by FAO, and the Forestry Master Plans being facilitated by the multilateral development banks, are identifying forestry development

priorities 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.
44 . Combined Summaries

conditions seems to be constraining wider adaptation and adoption:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Technology is transferred most effectively by

direct people-to-people actions. People who are

to adapt and apply the technology need to learn

it directly from people who have experience

applying it.

Technology needs to be adapted at the users’

end to local biophysical and socioeconomic

conditions.

Well-qualified people with knowledge about

the technology are needed on the source end of

the transfer, and receptive, capable people are

needed on the receiving end. These people may

be local transfer agents or they maybe the end

users.

Another type of actor, the ‘ ‘facilitator,” is also

necessary. Facilitators understand the technology transfer process, including the market for

the technology and its products and the political, social, and economic constraints and opportunities that affect all the other actors.

Users and transfer agents should be involved in

choosing the technologies and in planning and

implementing the transfer process so the technology and the transfer meet actual needs and

are appropriate for the local situation.

All parties involved-source, transfer agents,

facilitators, and end users—must feel they are

winners and must, in fact, be winners. Each

actor’s self-interests should be identified at the

start of the technology transfer process so they

can be addressed.

Each participant must be aware of subsequent

steps in the transfer process so his or her actions

are appropriate to the later steps. This requires

early definition of roles for each person involved.

The environment for technology demonstrations should be similar to the environment that

will exist during subsequent steps of the

transfer process. Pilot transfer projects should

not be unrealistically easy.

The initial commitment of resources to the

process should be sufficient to carry the technology transfer until it is self-supporting.

The transfer process must include mechanisms

through which all participants can contribute

effectively to interim evaluations and improvements.

ISSUES AND OPTIONS

FOR CONGRESS

Tropical forest resources represent a great opportunity for sustained development because they are

fundamentally renewable. However, too little such

development is occurring. Instead, the productivity

of the forests continues to be diminished. The U.S.

Congress has already helped to sustain tropical

forests by directing AID and the U.S. representatives

to international organizations to give forest resource

development higher priority in development assistance programs. To expand this progress, Congress

could take actions that would enhance tropical

governments’ abilities to plan and coordinate resource development projects.19

The underlying causes of forest resource deterioration are institutional, social, and economic. Consequently, the reforms needed to support sustainable

resource development can only come from the

governments and people of the tropical nations.

However, the United States can help stimulate such

reforms. Some U.S. technologies, such as Landsat

imagery, already supply vital information to improve resource development decisions. U.S. diplomacy—for example, supporting the United Nations

Environment Programme and UNESCO’S Man and

the Biosphere program-also can help to foster

understanding of resource problems and coordinate

international efforts to resolve them.

Congress can address technical constraints more

directly. U.S. and international organizations that

Congress can influence have the capability to: 1)

develop production systems that provide the basic

needs of local people while conserving forest

productivity, and 2) assist tropical organizations and

individuals in developing, adapting, and implementing such technologies. U.S. agencies that are applying this type of expertise include AID, the Forest

Service, the National Academy of Sciences, the

National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Soil Conservation Service. Some

commercial 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 prOJeCtS

rose to about $130 million per year by 1991. Comparable investment in agricultural activities is $565 million. Multilateral development banks have also

increased investments in tropical foresby. (See introduction.)
.

Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources ● 45

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

Coordination of international development organizations’

assistance in developing, adapting, and implementing

agriculture and forestry systems could eliminate

duplication and inconsistency and improve costeffectiveness 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 to

sustaining tropical forest resources.

Congress has ways to influence multilateral banks

and U.N. agencies, some obvious (e.g., through

allocation of funds and assistance) and some subtle

(e.g., using the prestige of Congress to give credibility to a new idea), The final chapter describes

opportunities for congressional action to:

●

●

●

●

●

expand and coordinate development assistance,

encourage resource development planning,

improve tropical forest research and development efforts,

protect biological diversity, and

expand U.S. expertise in tropical forest resources.

U.S. tropical forests are discussed separately in

this summary.

Expand and Coordinate

Development Assistance

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

tropical forest resources. Many opportunities exist to

enhance gains already made, but congressional

vigilance is necessary to ensure that forestry projects

receive an appropriate share of U.S. development

assistance funds and that other types of projects

complement the forestry efforts.

The Foreign Assistance Act directs development

assistance organizations in which the United States

participates to give higher priority to protecting

against the loss and degradation of tropical forests.

Accordingly, AID, the World Bank, the U.N. Food

and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and some

other multilateral organizations have increased funding in recent years for forest-related projects. However, many opportunities for use of development

assistance to sustain tropical forest resources are not

being pursued adequately. Examples of such opportunities are:

●

●

●

●

emphasize agroforestry and innovative crops

and techniques that can sustain permanent

agriculture on relatively poor soils;

promote reforestation and management of natural forests to sustain environmental services

and produce fuelwood, construction wood,

polewood, and nonwood products;

stress institution-building to enable tropical

governments to exercise improved control over

timber concession operators; and

support livestock projects that do not result in

deforestation or forest degradation.

Option—To encourage expanded support for

forestry projects, committees of Congress could

continue oversight hearings requesting AID officials

and U.S representatives to multilateral development

assistance organizations to testify on the extent to

which assistance practices accomplish the objectives set forth in Section 118 of the Foreign

Assistance Act.

Issue (Coordination): Development assistance

agencies generally do not coordinate their projects

effectively at the country or regional level. To

improve their effectiveness, projects could be organized as steps in comprehensive strategies designed to

develop sustainable forest resource use systems.

Individual development assistance agencies have

neither 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 international assistance organizations do not coordinate

activities more effectively are complex. But coordination could play a key role in improving the cost

effectiveness of U.S. assistance. If the Congress

decides that improving cost effectiveness is worth

relinquishing some degree of U.S. control over what

projects are funded, it could mandate increased U.S.

effort to enhance the tropical nations’ abilities to

coordinate the work of development assistance

organizations.

Options-One way to begin such a fundamental

shift in the development assistance process would be

to direct the Department of State to assess whether

various tropical nations are able and politically

ready to develop long-term action plans for sustained forest resource development. Another mechanism is to create ad hoc committees of experts from

donor nations and tropical nations to work together

to identify problems and plan regional forest resource development strategies.

Encourage Resource Development Planning

Issue: Although resource development planning

technologies can improve the sustainability of tropical forest development, they are seldom applied to

their full potential.

Resource development planning techniques can

be used to identify development activities that match

the available human and natural resources. The

techniques can give decisionmakers a clearer picture

of the social, economic, and environmental implications of a particular type of development on a

particular site. Also, they can be used to determine

the best locations for protection of natural areas to

maintain biological diversity while providing tangible benefits. But the application of planning is

hampered by shortages of information on how

biophysical, social, and economic factors interact.

Options-To encourage the use of resource

development planning, Congress could maintain the

availability of low-cost Landsat images to tropical

governments. Congress also could direct AID to

expand its Environmental Profiles to include macrolevel land classification and collection of information for social and institutional analyses. Further,

Congress could direct U.S. representatives to multilateral development banks to promote environmental assessments at an early stage of project

planning. This request could be followed up with

hearings to determine whether the banks are using

environmental assessment procedures effectively.

Improve Tropical Forest Research

and Market Development

Issue (Research): Fundamental research, applied

research, and technology implementation related to

tropical forests are not well coordinated. Moreover,

interactions among factors that constrain forest

resource development are poorly understood. Consequently, resource development projects often fail

and technologies that seem to succeed in trials fail to

spread beyond demonstration areas. Research on

tropical forest resources needs to be more interdisciplinary and more closely related to technology

implementation.

Much work remains to develop profitable technologies that can supply local people’s needs while

simultaneously sustaining forest productivity. New

techniques need to be based on improved understanding of the biological, economic, and cultural

factors affecting forest resources. This calls for

interdisciplinary research based on an adequate

understanding of the needs of technology implementors.

Options-Initially, Congress could conduct hearings to determine whether the research organizations

that receive U.S. funds give adequate priority to

interdisciplinary tropical forestry that links research

and development. Special attention should be paid to

disseminating research results. Congress could increase support for agencies where such research and

development is stressed.

The other approaches would be for Congress to

appropriate funds specifically to support UNESCO’s

MAB program or to amend the Foreign Assistance

Act to include funds for the United Nations University. Both promote interdisciplinary research. Additionally, Congress could amend the existing legislation that explicitly allocates funds for tropical

agriculture to include tropical forestry, and Congress

also could determine the feasibility of establishing a

forestry research program at existing Consultative

Group on International Agricultural Research

(CGIAR) institutions.21 Congress could establish a

trust fund for the Forestry Department of FAO

21 me CGIAR has tided fores&y and agroforestry to its mandate. (See Introduction.)
Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources ● 47

specifically to support improved communication

among researchers and technology implementors.

Issue (Market Development): In many areas,

Sust aning tropical forest resources will depend on

markets for local forest products. People seldom

attempt to sustain the productivity of natural resources used for subsistence products because these

appear to be “free.’ Government agencies typically

are not aware of the natural forest potential to

support rural communities.

Tropical forest ecosystems house complex associations of vegetation, wildlife, and other potential

resources that could be developed. Development of

markets, along with research on ways to manage the

unused resources for sustained yields, could help

motivate local people and local resource agencies to

manage the forests effectively. It could be possible

in some places to maintain biological diversity and

simultaneously support profitable rural development. However, such market development is likely

to reduce economic and even subsistence opportunities for landless poor people.

Options-Congress could direct and fund the

U.S. Forest Products Laboratory to develop new

products and market information to use tropical tree

species and increase its efforts to transfer technologies. Similarly, AID could be directed to expand its

support for synthesis and dissemination of information on underused tropical forest resources and to

begin developing markets for those products that can

be produced on a sustainable basis.

Protect Biological Diversity

Issue: Benefits from preserving the biological

diversity of tropical forests accrue to society as a

whole, including future generations in the United

States and elsewhere, yet the costs are borne by the

people of tropical countries.

Developing new markets and ways of harvesting

and using tropical forest species eventually may

make it possible to manage natural forests profitably

and sustainably. But until the markets and technologies are developed, it is necessary to protect and

maintain undisturbed portions of these biologically

diverse ecosystems for future generations.

Options-Congress could take two approaches to

help maintain biological diversity. First, it could

conduct hearings on its recent amendment to the

Foreign Assistance Act which directs AID, in

concert with other appropriate agencies, to develop

a comprehensive U.S. strategy to maintain biological diversity.

Additionally, Congress could support the creation

of an international fund to subsidize the establishment and maintenance of tropical parks and protected areas. Money for such a fund could be

contributed by a variety of sources, including

transfers from existing assistance agencies (e.g.,

AID, multilateral development banks, and U.N.

agencies), increased export taxes and import duties

on tropical forest products, and donations from

private foundations and multinational corporations.22

Expand U.S. Expertise in

Tropical Forest Resources

Issue: U.S. tropical forest resource expertise is

widely scattered and is not being developed or used

effectively .23

The United States has recognized expertise (both

individuals and organizations) in many resource

fields, including reforestation, watershed management, commercial forestry, resource inventory and

mapping, resource development planning, and information collection, processing, and dissemination.

But only a few of these experts or organizations have

the 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 World

B@ 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, “Global

Environment 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 AXlleriCan

technical knowledge. For example, a new Office of International Forestry, authorized by the 1990 International Forestry Cooperation Act (Title VI of

the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act), has been established to coordinate expansion of educatioml and training assistance in forest management

cooperative research, direct forest management assistance, and protection of forest resources. In 1983, some 3.6 million hectares of tropical forest were

destroyed by wildfires in Indonesia. Apparently wildfiis of this scale are a new threat to tropical forests, caused by human- caused changes in the forest

conditions 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 Indonesian

governmen6 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.
48 ● Combined Summaries

directly to the increasingly important field of tropical forest resources.

Options-Congress could modify the organic

legislation of those U.S. agencies whose actions

affect the tropical nations or the U.S. tropical

territories to state that tropical forests are valuable

renewable resources and to direct each agency to

conduct its activities without contributing to the

unplanned or unmanaged conversion or degradation

of tropical forests. Further, Congress could direct

Federal agencies to encourage employees to participate in international assistance efforts under existing

laws or it could amend legislation to encourage such

interchange. Congress could encourage participation of the U.S. private sector to develop and

implement technologies to sustain tropical forest

resources. Congress could contribute to the United

Nations Associate Experts Program whereby young

U.S. professionals can gain field experience in

tropical forestry. Congress also could designate U.S.

centers of excellence in tropical forest resources to

develop and make available U.S. expertise in

tropical resource issues.

U.S. TROPICAL FORESTS24

Introduction

Less than 1 percent of the world’s tropical forests

fall under U.S. jurisdiction. These forests are located

primarily in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,

Hawaii, and the U.S. western Pacific territories of

American Samoa and Micronesia (which includes

Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific

Islands 25). As Congress becomes more involved in

efforts to sustain tropical forest resources worldwide, it has reason to pay particular attention to the

tropical forests under its care.

Despite their small total land area, the U.S.

tropical forests are important resources to local

people and economies: they supply food, fodder,

fuel, and employment; reduce erosion; and protect

ocean fisheries. Most wood products, however, are

imported to these areas. For example, Puerto Rico

imported $400 million worth of wood products in

1981. Perhaps the most important value of forests on

these 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 problems

with water quality and quantity.

Only in Hawaii has forestry been made an integral

part of the region’s economic development.2G To

protect watershed values, most forested land in

Hawaii is classified under conservation zoning

which restricts or prohibits conversion to land uses

other than forest. Nearly half of Hawaii’s designated

“commercial forest land” is owned by the State.

Since 1962, the Hawaii Department of Land and

Natural Resources has followed multiple-use programs for managing water, timber, livestock forage,

recreation, and wildlife habitat on these lands. In

addition, two of the three programs of the U.S.

Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry

are dedicated to research on Hawaiian forests.

Even though forestry problems still exist in the

Hawaiian islands (e.g., the recent dieback of native

forests, endangerment of native plants and animals)

considerable effort has been applied to understand

and mitigate these problems. Numerous organizations working to sustain tropical forest resources are

based in Hawaii, including the Nitrogen-Fixing Tree

Association, the Bioenergy Development Corp., the

East West Center, and the College of Tropical

Agriculture and Human Resources at the University

of 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 options

is 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 ~MIskds, which (along with the commonwealth of the Northern mm

Islands and Palau) comprised the former Trust lkrritory of the United States, have signed Compacts of Free Association with United States to become

Freely Associated States. This status allows the islands free control of internal affairs, assures them fiscal aid, and makes them etigible for some

international aid; the United States retains responsibility for mtional defense ~.S. Congress, Office of lkchnology Assessmen4 Znregrated Renewable

Resource Management for U.S. Insu/ar Areas, O’E4-F-325 (Spxingfleld, VA: National lkchnical Information Service, June 1987)]. Compact of Free

Association 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 marketed

teak, mahogany, and Caribbean pine from its Commonwealth forests; forest management and development of a wood products industg has subsequently

resurged 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)].
Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources ● 49

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 forest

resources.

Forest resources in the U.S. Caribbean and Pacific

tropical territories are not receiving a similar level of

attention. The forests have suffered degradation in

the past as a result of poor land use practices. More

recently, incentives for local people to undertake and

improve agricultural or forestry activities have been

reduced by dependence on U.S. Federal income

supports and by economic development focusing on

industrial growth. This has resulted in a movement

away from agriculture and a corresponding increase

in abandoned agricultural land and unmanaged

secondary forests. In many places, runoff and

erosion resulting from past forest loss threaten water

supplies and coastal marine resources. With forest

resource development technologies, much of the

productivity of this degraded and abandoned land

could be restored to support economic growth.

Although current overexploitation of forest resources is not a problem in most of the territories, the

remaining forests are vulnerable as populations and

expectations rise. Future problems could be averted,

however, if sustainable forest use techniques could

be integrated into strategies for regional economic

development.

Islands

The U.S. Caribbean Territories: Puerto Rico

and the U.S. Virgin Islands

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is the largest

contiguous tropical area under U.S. jurisdiction (see

fig. 4). At least one-third of its land area is under

forest cover—mostly second-growth trees, fruit tree

plantations, and shade trees in coffee-growing regions. Because Puerto Rico has a relatively large

forest area, a relatively well-developed road system,

and secure land tenure, it has significant potential for

commercial forestry to supply its domestic economy. About 200,000 acres in Puerto Rico have been

identified as suitable for commercial forestry. However, large-scale forestry is hindered by high land

prices and a law limiting the acreage that can be

owned by an individual or corporation.

Opportunities exist to develop small-scale forest

industries to serve domestic markets using technologies that require comparatively low capital outlay,

such as the portable sawmills now used in Puerto

Rican Commonwealth forests. The sawmills are one

component of a Puerto Rico Department of Natural

Resources program to bring private landholders into

commercial forestry. This program relies heavily on

U.S. Federal cost-sharing programs and on funding

from the U.S. Forest Service’s State and Private

Forestry grants. Increased support for these activities could encourage plantation forestry and increase

Puerto Rican self-sufficiency in forest products.
50 . Combined Summaries

The U.S. Virgin Islands have little remaining

forest and no forest industry but are used extensively

for tourism. Lack of forest management and a

growing population in the U.S. Virgin Islands have

disturbed local water regimes. Thus, water must be

shipped from Puerto Rico or desalinized from sea

water at great expense. Reforestation and management of island watersheds could reduce runoff rates,

decrease erosion, and enhance aquifer recharge.

The main constraints to sustaining tropical forest

resources in the U.S. Caribbean are lack of support

for existing forest resource development institutions

and lack of a skilled cadre of local resource

managers. The U.S. Forest Service maintains a

forestry research station, the Institute of Tropical

Forestry (ITF). It also manages the Caribbean

National Forest and supports a State and Private

Forestry cooperative program with the Puerto Rico

Department of Natural Resources and the Virgin

Islands Department of Agriculture. At a time when

U.S. Forest Service research needs to be expanded to

include agroforestry, watershed protection, and other

areas of importance to landholders and the public, its

research funds and staff size have been reduced.

In the short term, people with general tropical

forestry expertise can be attracted to work in the U.S.

Photo credit: USDA Forest Service

Artificial nests are one component of the species recovery

program for endangered Puerto Rican parrots in the

Caribbean National Forest, the only tropical U.S.

national forest.

Caribbean, but in the long term an established

method to train people to manage natural resources

specific to that region is needed. Increased environmental education, scholarships, and creation of a

natural resource management curriculum at the

University of Puerto Rico could help train the

necessary resource managers. In the meantime,

adequate Federal support of Puerto Rico and U.S.

Virgin Islands forestry programs through the State

Forestry Grants of the State and Private Forestry

Division of the U.S. Forest Service are needed to

stimulate development, demonstration, and coordination of desirable forestry practices.

The U.S. Western Pacific: Micronesia and

American Samoa

U.S. tropical forests exist on some 2,000 islands

spread over 3 million square miles in the western

Pacific (see fig. 5). Forest cover varies with the

nature of each island. Few truly undisturbed forests

exist, but considerable areas of secondary forest

have regenerated. Little of this is managed to

provide forest products. Fuelwood and some nonwood forest products are harvested for local use, but

most wood products are imported.

As in the U.S. Caribbean, the major value of forest

resources in the U.S. western Pacific is not timber

but regulation of water regimes and protection of

biologically rich coastal ecosystems. Island people

in this region depend heavily for both subsistence

and trade on marine organisms that feed and spawn

in mangrove habitats, lagoons, and coral reefs.

Unplanned exploitation of upland forests can substantially reduce the productivity of these coastal

areas. This already is occurring on some islands.

Transportation costs, limited land areas, and

insecure or communal land tenure limit the region’s

industrial forestry opportunities. However, smallscale management, harvesting, and processing technologies could be applied to the secondary forests

and abandoned coconut plantations to increase their

provision of food, fuel, employment, and other

goods. For example, improved small-scale charcoal

production, if developed and promoted wisely,

could increase the importance of wood as a sustainable energy source in the U.S. Pacific. Production

from existing agroforestry lands could be enhanced

with new techniques. Coconut shell charcoal can be

used as a falter in various industrial and pharmaceutical uses and could be exported from these islands.
—

Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources ● 51

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

Trust Territory of the

Marshall islands\

Equator

the U.S. western

Pacific territories, however, will require careful

planning and management to avoid further degradation of the resources and to ensure the sustainable

production of both goods and services provided by

the forests. This requires up-to-date and comprehensive databases on tropical forest resources, their

uses, and the potentials for their development. U.S.

Federal agencies can play a major role in creating

these databases.

Integrating forestry into development planning in

the U.S. western Pacific will require personnel with

substantial knowledge in tropical resource management and strong local institutions through which

they can work. Yet, no natural resource management

education and training programs exist in the U.S.

western Pacific territories, and few of the students

who receive training at U.S. or other institutions

return to work in their own regions. Actions to help

supply needed expertise include creating a natural

resource management curriculum at the University

of Guam and increasing scholarships for potential

resource managers. Additional extension services

also could be useful Developing a group of local

grassroots naturalists with generalized training to

assist scientists, spread information on appropriate

land uses, and help integrate new technologies with

local customs could be a joint undertaking of U.S.

and local western Pacific organizations.

Issues and Options for Congress

The primary requirement for sustaining tropical

forest resources in the U.S. tropical territories is the

development of indigenous organizations capable of

managing the islands’ resources. Because the territories’ governments still depend on U.S. support and

their natural resource agencies are generally new,

small, and undersupported, the U.S. retains a substantial role in both the development of the resource

organizations and in the development and implementation of forest-sustaining technologies.

Option: Congress could direct the U.S. Forest

Service to expand the scope of research and

technology development in its research institutions with jurisdiction in the U.S. tropical
52 ● Combined Summaries

territories and increase cooperative efforts

with local governments.27

Development of forestry management plans, in

the short run, will require technical assistance

provided by U.S. expertise. Similarly, adaptation of

technologies to conditions in the U.S. tropical

territories requires Federal assistance. In the long

run Federal aid could be replaced when more people

are trained in natural resource management at local

institutions. Development of programs to encourage

private forestry appropriate for each island probably

also will require Federal assistance. The Federal

organizations responsible for assisting forestry development in the U.S. tropical territories are too

small and their focus is too limited to give the

impetus needed for local development. More research, more forestry technology transfer, and greater

response to the changing needs of the territories are

required.

Option: Congress could support natural resource

agencies in U.S. territories by increasing funding for the cooperative State and Private

Forestry programs of the U.S. Forest Service

institutes in Puerto Rico and Hawaii. Congress

could also create a program of grants to

territorial governments to encourage investment in privately owned forests.

The Federal Government subsidizes private forestry with cost-sharing and direct payments to forest

owners. Replacing these subsidies with a program of

grants administered by the territorial governments

would provide the flexibility needed to respond to

each island territory’s unique cultural, economic,

and ecological characteristics. Furthermore, it would

encourage the development of a constituency concerned 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 Maintain

Biological Diversity
Foreword

The reduction of the Earth’s biological diversity has emerged as a public policy issue in

the last several years. Growing awareness of this planetary problem has prompted increased

study of the subject and has led to calls to increase public and private initiatives to address the

problem.

One major concern is that loss of plant, animal, and microbial resources may impair

future options to develop new important products and processes in agriculture, medicine, and

industry. Concerns also exist that loss of diversity undermines the potential of populations and

species to respond or adapt to changing environmental conditions. Because humans ultimately

depend on environmental support functions, special caution should be taken to ensure that

diversity losses do not disrupt these functions. Finally, esthetic and ethical motivation to avoid

the irreversible loss of unique life forms has played an increasingly major role in promoting

public 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 on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, House

Committee on Agriculture, and House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries endorsed

the requested study.

The task presented to OTA by these committees was to clarify for Congress the nature

of the problems of reduction of the Earth’s biological diversity and to set forth a range of policy

options available to Congress to respond to various concerns. The principal aim of this

assessment is to identify and assess the technological and institutional opportunities and

constraints to maintaining biological diversity in the United States and worldwide. Two

background papers (Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diversity in the United States and

Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States: Data Considerations) and a staff paper

(The Role of U.S. Development Assistance in Maintaining Biological Diversity in Developing

Countries) 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 the

public and private sectors who provided advice and information throughout the course of this

assessment. As with all OTA studies, the content of this report is the sole responsibility of

OTA.

u JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director
Advisory Panel

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity

Kenneth Dahlberg, Chair

Department of Political Science

Western Michigan University

Stephen Brush

International Agricultural Development

University of California, Davis

Peter Carlson

Director

Crop Genetics International

Rita Colwell

Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs

University of Maryland, Adelphi

Raymond Dasmann

Department of Environmental Studies

University of California, Santa Cruz

Clarence Dias

President

International Center for Law in Development

Donald Duvick

Senior Vice President of Research

Pioneer Hi-Bred International

David Ehrenfeld

Cook College

Rutgers University

Major Goodman

Department of Crop Science

North Carolina State University

Grenville Lucas

The Herbarium

Kew Royal Botanic Gardens

Richard Norgaard

Department of Agricultural and Resource

Economics

University of California, Berkeley

Robert Prescott-Allen

Partner

PADATA, Inc.

Paul Risser

Vice President for Research

University of New Mexico

Oliver Ryder

Research Department

San Diego Zoo

Michael Soule

Adjunct Professor

School of Natural Resources

University of Michigan

John Sullivan

Vice President of Production

American 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 the

report and the accuracy of its contents.
OTA Project Staff

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity

Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA

Health 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. chamberlain

David Netter

Robert Prescott-Allen

Bruce Ross-Sheriff

Linda Starke4 and Lisa Olson,s Editors

Administrative Staff

Patricia Duranas Beckie Erickson,7 and Sally

Administrative Assistants

Nellie Hammond, Secretary

Carolyn Swann, Secretary

Shafroth, 8

Through January 1986.

Through August 1985.

3

Summer 1985.

4

Through August 1986.

5 After August 1986.

6 Through July 1985.

7

Through October 1986.

8 From Dec. 15, 1986.
Contents

Page

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

INTERVENTIONS TO MAINTAIN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

THE ROLE OF CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Strengthen the National Commitment to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Increase the Nation’s Ability to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Enhance the Knowledge Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Support International Initiative to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Address Loss of Biological Diversity in Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Box

Box Page

A. What Is Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Tables

Table Page

l. Examples of Management Systems to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

2. Management Systems and Conservation Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3. Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4. Summary of Policy Issues for Congressional Action Related to Biological

Diversity Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity

Most biological diversity survives without human

intervention to maintain it. But as natural areas

become progressively modified by human activities,

maintaining a diversity of ecosystems, species, and

genes will increasingly depend on intervention by

applying specific technologies. A spectrum of technologies is available to support maintenance of

biological diversity (defined in box A).

THE PROBLEM

The Earth’s biological diversity is being reduced

at a rate likely to increase over the next several

decades. This loss of diversity measured at the

ecosystem, species, and genetic levels is occurring

in most regions of the world, although it is most

pronounced in particular areas, most notably in the

tropics. The principal cause is the increasing conversion of natural ecosystems to human-modified

landscapes. Such alterations can provide considerable benefits when the land’s capability to sustain

indicates that rapid and unintended reductions in

biological diversity are undermining society’s capability to respond to future opportunities and needs.

Most scientists and conservationists working in this

area believe the problem has reached crisis proportions, although a few people from other fields remain

skeptical and maintain this level of concern is based

on exaggerated or insufficient data.

The abundance and complexity of ecosystems,

species, and genetic types have defied complete

inventory and thus the direct assessment of changes.

As a result, an accurate estimate of the rate of loss

is not currently possible. Determin ing the number

of species that exist, 1 for example, is a major

obstacle in assessing the rate of species extinction.

But use of biological principles and data on land use

conversions has allowed biologists to deduce that

the 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 complexes

in which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different items and their relative frequency. For

biological diversity, these items are organized at many levels, ranging from complete ecosystems to the chemical

structures 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 the

perennial grass species.

. Genetic diversity: Economically useful crops are developed from wild plants by selecting valuable

inheritable 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 wild

ancestors has more diversity than an environment with wild ancestors eliminated to make way for domestic

crops.

To date, concerns over the loss of biological diversity have been defined almost exclusively in terms of species

extinction. Although extinction is perhaps the most dramatic aspect of the problem, it is by no means the whole

problem. The consequence is a distorted definition of the problem, which fails to account for many of the interests

concerned 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 consequences for civilization.2 It may eliminate options

to use untapped resources for agricultural, industrial,

and medicinal development. Crop genetic resources

have accounted for about 50 percent of productivity

increases and for annual contributions of about $1

billion to U.S. agriculture. For instance, two species

of wild green tomatoes discovered in an isolated area

of the Peruvian highlands in the early 1960s have

contributed genes for marked increase in fruit

pigmentation and soluble-solids content currently

worth nearly $5 million per year to the tomatoprocessing industry. Future gains will depend on use

of genetic diversity.3

Loss of plant species could mean loss of billions

of dollars in potential plant-derived pharmaceutical

products. About 25 percent of the number of

prescription drugs in the United States are derived

from plants. In 1980, their total market value was $8

billion. Loss of tropical rain forests, which harbor an

extraordinary diversity of species, and loss of desert

ecosystems, which harbor genetically diverse vegetation, are of particular concern. Consequences to

humans of loss of potential medicines have impacts

that go beyond economic benefits. For example,

alkaloids from the rosy periwinkle flower (Catharantus roseus), a tropical plant, are used in the

successful treatment of several forms of cancer,

including Hodgkin’s disease and childhood leukemia.

Although research in biotechnology suggests

exciting prospects, scientists will continue to rely on

genetic resources crafted by nature. For example,

new methods of manipulating genetic material

enable the isolation and extraction of a desired gene

from one plant or organism and its insertion into

another. Nature provides the basic materials; science

enables the merging of desired properties into new

forms 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 U

value of biological resources. Categories of values include: (1) commercial use (marketed), (2) consumptive noncommercial use (co- but not

marketed), (3) non-consumptive use (ecological services, researck recreation),(4) option value (maintaining options for the future), and (5) ethical values

regarding 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 United

States 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 gcmeral

indicators of signifkmce, since statistics on such “minor” products are restricted to a few items and are seldom available for the specific geographic

site 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 North

American Economy (New Haveq CT: Yale University Press, 1986)]. Sometimes a monetary measure is assigned by e+sthmting the value if the directly

consumed materials had been sold at prevailing market prices; by this method wild pigs harvested by hunters in Malaysia are worth $1(X) million per

year [J. Caldecott, “Hunting and Wildlife Management in !%rawa)q” GlaI@ Mvitzmland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources, 1988].

Economists have developed methods to describe the economic loss incurred when natural potentials for environmental services, such as waste

dispo@ are degraded ~. Peskin and E. Lutz, “A Survey of Resource and Environmental Accounting in Industrialkd Countries,” World Bank

Environment 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, American

foresters and other resource managers are actively developing ways to give more weight to such option values and existence values in their management

of 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 the

conventional method of national income accounting. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Product (GNP) calculations, which have

important 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 account

of mtural resources. Biodiversity as a natural resource has not yet been explicitly included in the proposed accounting revisions, but the commercial

value of natural forests and topsoil has been included, as have some nonco nsumptive use values& Repetto, et al., “Wasting Assets: Natural Resources

in 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 of

biological resources is being moved beyond isolated statistics and into comprehensive analyses likely to influence development policy at national and

international 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 brd

crop resistance to pests and pathogens, such as the psyllid insect that has attacked leucaenaplantations in Asia and the fungal disease blacksigatoka which

is decimating bananas and plantains in many regions where these crops are the most important staples. Genetic solutions to such problems are more

enduring, more environmentally benigQ and less expensive thao pesticides. Thus the loss of genetic diversity from tropical deforestation is expected

to 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 technology’s potential.4

Another threatening aspect of diversity loss is the

disruption of environmental regulatory functions

that depend on the complex interactions of ecosystems and the species that support them. Diverse

wetlands provide productive and protective processes of economic benefit. Millions of waterfowl

and other birds of economic value depend on North

American wetlands for breeding, feeding, migrating,

and overwintering. About two-thirds of the major

U.S. commercial fish, crustacean, and mollusk

species depend on estuaries and salt marshes for

spawning and nursery habitat. Wetlands temporarily

store flood waters, reducing flow rates and protecting people and property downstream from flood and

storm damage. One U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’

estimate places the present value of the Charles

River wetlands (in Massachusetts) for its role in

controlling floods at $17 million per year. Although

placing dollar values on such ecosystem services is

problematic and reflects rough approximations, the

magnitude of the economic benefit stresses the

importance of these often overlooked values.5

Humans also value diversity for reasons other

than the utility it provides. Esthetic motivations

have played important parts in promoting initiatives

to maintain diversity. Cultural factors, as reflected in

the way Americans identify with the bald eagle or

the American bison or how plants and animals form

a fundamental aspect of human artistic expression,

illustrate these values.

Forces that contribute to the worldwide loss of

diversity are varied and complex. Historically,

concern for diversity loss focused on commercial

exploitation of threatened or endangered species.

Increasingly, however, attention has been focused

more on indirect threats that are nonselective and

more fundamental and sweeping in scope.

Most losses of diversity are unintended consequences of human activity. Air and water pollution,

for example, can cause diversity loss far from the

pollution’s source. The decline of several fish

species in Scandinavia and the near extinction of a

salmon species in Canada have been attributed to

acidification of lakes due to acid rain. Population

growth in itself may not be intrinsically threatening

to biological diversity. A populous country like

Japan is an example of how a high standard of living,

appropriate government policies, and a predominantly urbanized population can limit the rate of

ecosystem disruption. However, when population

growth is compounded by poverty, a negative

impact is characteristic. In many tropical developing

countries, high population growth and the practice of

shifting agriculture employed by peasant farmers are

considered the greatest threats to diversity.

This report assesses the potential of diversitymaintenance technologies and the institutions developing and applying these technologies. But maintaining biological diversity will depend on more

than applying technologies. Technologies do not

exist to recreate the vast majority of ecosystems,

species, and genes that are being lost, and there is

little hope that such technologies will be developed

in the foreseeable future. Therefore, efforts to

maintain diversity must also address the socioeconomic, political, and cultural factors involved.

INTERVENTIONS TO MAINTAIN

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

There are two general approaches to maintaining

biological diversity. It may be maintained where it

is found naturally (onsite), or it may be removed

from the site and kept elsewhere (offsite). Onsite

maintenance can focus on a particular species or

population or, alternatively, on an entire ecosystem.

Offsite maintenance can focus on organisms preserved as germplasm or on organisms preserved as

living collections. Table 1 lists examples of management systems. These management systems have

somewhat different objectives, but all four are

necessary 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~sagtit 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 on

traditional medicines, an approach which also greatly increases the cost-effectiveness of the search for new drugs CN. Eisner, “Botanists Ply Trade in

Tropics, 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 on

biological diversity. Substantial changes are expected in the ecosystems upon which human economies depend [J.T. Houghtow et al., “Bffects on

Ecosystems, ” in Climute Change; The IPPCScienti@ Assessment (New Yorlq NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 283-310], and the capacity

of 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].
62 ● Combined Summaries

Table l—Examples of Management Systems to Maintain Biological Diversity

Onsite Offsite

Ecosystem Species Living Germplasm

maintenance management collections storage

National parks Agroecosystems Zoological parks Seed and pollen banks

Research natural areas Wildlife refuges Botanic gardens Semen, ova, and

embryo banks

Marine sanctuaries In-situ genebanks Field collections Microbial culture

collections

Resource development Game parks and Captive breeding Tissue culture collections

planning reserves programs

Increasing human intervention +

+-- – - — Increasing emphasis on natural processes

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.

conserve diversity. Conservation objectives can be

enhanced by investing in any combination of the

four systems and by improving links to take

advantage of their potential complementariness. The

objectives of the management systems are summarized in table 2.

Maintaining plants, animals, and microbes

onsite—in their natural environments—is the

most effective way to conserve a broad range of

diversity. Onsite technologies primarily focus on

establishing an area to protect ecosystems or species

and on regulating species harvest. To date, the

guidelines for optimal design of protected areas are

limited, however.

Offsite maintenance technologies are applied

to conserving a small but often critical part of the

total diversity. Technologies for plants include seed

storage, in vitro culture, and living collections. Most

animals are commonly maintained offsite as captive

populations. Cryogenic storage of seeds, in vitro

cultures, semen, or embryos can improve the efficiency of offsite maintenance and reduce costs.

Microbial diversity is important for both its

beneficial and its harmful effects. That is, some

microbes (e.g., bacteria and viruses) can present

serious threats to human health. By the same token,

these organisms are used in a range of beneficial

activities, such as for developing vaccines or for

treating wastes.

Table 2—Management Systems and Conservation Objectives

Onsite Offsite

Ecosystem Species Living Germ plasm

maintenance 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 species

and wild relatives

wild populations for ●

sustainable exploitation

viable populations of ●

threatened species

species that provide ●

important indirect benefits

(for pollination or pest

control)

“keystone” species with ●

important ecosystem

support or regulating function

breeding material that cannot ●

be stored in genebanks

field research and ●

development on new

varieties and breeds

off site cultivation and ●

propagation

captive breeding stock of ●

populations threatened in the

wild

ready access to wild species ●

for research, education, and

display

convenient source of

germplasm for breeding

programs

collections of germplasm from

uncertain or threatened

sources

reference or type collections

as standard for research and

patenting purposes

access to germplasm from

wide geographic areas

genetic materials from

critically endangered species

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 63

Scientists are hampered in their storage, use, and

study of microbial diversity by their inability to

isolate most microorganisms. For those microorganisms that have been isolated and identified, offsite

maintenance is the most cost-effective technique.

Links between onsite and offsite management

systems are important to increasing the efficiency

and effectiveness of efforts to maintain diversity.

Some technologies developed for domesticated species, for instance, can be adapted to wild species.

Embryo transfer technologies developed for livestock are now being adapted for endangered wild

animals,

Determining the efficacy and appropriateness of

technologies depends on biological, sociopolitical,

and economic factors. Taken together, these factors

influence decisionmaking and must be considered in

defining objectives for maintaining diversity and for

identifying strategies to meet these objectives.

Biological considerations are central to the objectives and choice of systems. Only some diversity is

threatened; therefore, the task of maintaining it can

focus on elements that need special attention. A

biologically unique species (one that is the only

representative of an entire genus or family) or a

species with high esthetic appeal may be the focus

of intensive conservation management.

Political factors also influence conservation objectives and management systems. Commitments of

government resources, policies, and programs determine the focus of attention, and to a large extent,

such commitments reflect public interests and support. For example, a disproportionate share of U.S.

resources is devoted to programs for a few of the

many endangered species.6 Substantial sums have

been spent in 1lth-hour efforts to save the California

condor and the black-footed ferret, while other

endangered organisms such as invertebrate species

receive little attention.

The applicability of management systems also

depends on economic factors. Costs of alternative

management systems and the value of resources to

be conserved may be relatively clear in the case of

genetic resources. For example, the benefits of plant

breeding programs compared with the cost of seed

maintenance justify germplasm storage technologies, However, cost-benefit analysis is more difficult

when benefits are diffuse and accrue over a long

period. And onsite maintenance programs compete

with other interests for land, personnel, and funds.

Success in maintaining biological diversity depends largely on institutions that develop and apply

the various technologies. Within the United States,

a variety of laws in addition to public and private

programs address various aspects of diversity conservation. But while some aspects of diversity are

covered, other aspects are ignored. Table 3 lists

major Federal mandates pertinent to diversity maintenance.

Because U.S. interest in biological diversity

extends beyond its borders, the United States

subscribes to a number of international conservation

laws and supports programs through bilateral and

multilateral assistance channels. However, many of

these programs have too little support to be effective

in resolving internationally important problems.

Domestic and international institutions deal with

aspects of diversity. Some focus attention exclusively on maintaining certain agricultural crops,

such as wheat, and others focus on certain wild

species, such as whales and migratory waterfowl. A

shift has occurred in recent years from the traditional

species protection approach to a more encompassing

ecosystem maintenance approach.

Much of the work important to diversity

maintenance is done in isolation and is too

disjunct to address the full range of concerns.

And some concerns receive little or no attention, For

example, the objectives of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s National Plant Germplasm System

(NPGS) place primary emphasis on economic plants

and little emphasis on non-crop species. Similarly,

programs to protect endangered wild species direct

attention away from species that are threatened but

not listed as endangered. The lack of connections

between programs is another institutional constraint.

Linkages help define common interests and areas of

potential cooperation—important steps in defining

areas 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 on

multl-species habitat protection, research to determine priorities and develop projects that arc usually focused on ecosystems, and activities to SUppOrt

dcvclopmcnt of pollers that will lead to ccosystcm maintenance [LJ.S. Department of .Agricullure, Forestry SUPPOII ~OgrMW “us- Enviro~ent

Sector 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 and

Management Act of 1977 (PublicLaw

94-532). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Whale Conservation and Protection Study Act

of 1976 (Public Law 94-532). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980

(Public Law 96-366). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and

Enhancement Act of 1980 (Public

Law 96-561). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Historic Sites, Buildings,and Antiquities

Act of 1935. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966 (PublicLaw91-135). . . . . . . . . . . . . .

wild animals

wild birds

wild birds

wild animais

wild birds

wild animals

fisheries

fisheries

wild anirnals

wild animals

wild plants and

animals

fisheries

wild animals

wild animals

fisheries

terrestrial/aquatic

habitats

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. 136

16 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 CONGRESS

Given the implications and irreversible nature of

biological extinction, policymakers must continue

to address the problem of diminishing biological

diversity. A significant increase in attention and

funding in this area seems consistent with U.S.

interests, in view of the benefits the United States

currently derives from biological diversity and the

advances that biotechnology might achieve given a

diversity of genetic resources. In addition, enough

information exists to define priorities for diversity

maintenance and to provide a rationale for taking

initiatives now, although further research and critical review of the nature and extent of diversity loss

are also warranted.
—

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity . 65

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

Common name Resource affected U.S. Code

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Public

Law 90-542). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . river segments

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries

Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-532). . . . . . . . . . . . . . coastal areas

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

of 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 Resources

Research Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-307). . . . . tree germplasm

16 U.S.C. 1271-1287

16 U.S.C. 1431-1434

33 U.S.C. 1401.1402,

1411-1421, 1441-1444

7 U.s.c. 1010-1012

16 U.S.C. 5, 79,420,460,

478,522,523,551,1339

30 U.s.c. 50,51, 191

40 U.s.c. 319

43 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, 1333

43 U.s.c. 1739, 1751-

1753.1901-1908

5 U.s.c. 5315

7U.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. 136

16 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.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.

OTA has identified options available to Congress. 5. addressing loss of biological diversity in

These 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 maintain

options are presented. These range from legislative

biological diversity,

initiatives to program changes within Federal agencies. Options also define opportunities to cultivate Or

enhancing the knowledge base,

*.

support private-sector initiatives. In a number of

supporting international initiatives, and areas, however, success will depend on increased or
Table 4—Summary of Policy Issues for Congressional Action Related to

Biological Diversity Maintenance

Issue Finding Options

Strengthen national Adopt a comprehensive approach to Establish a national biological diversity act

commitment maintaining biological Prepare a national conservation strategy

diversity Amend appropriate legislation of Federal

agencies

Increase public awareness of biological diver sit y Establish a national conservation education act

issues Amend the international Security and

Development Cooperation Act

increase ability to maintain Improve research, technology development and Direct Nationalk Science Foundation to to

biological diversity application establish a conservation biology program

Establish a national endowment for biological

diversity

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

maintenance programs

Improve i ink between on site and offsite

programs

Establish new programs to fill specific gaps in

current efforts

Enhance knowledge base Improve data collection, maintenance, and use Establish a clearinghouse for biological data

Enhance existing natural heritage network of

conservation data centers

Support international Provide greater leadership in the international Increase support of existing international

initiatives arena programs

Continue oversight hearings of multilateral

development banks’ activities

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

of germplasm

Amend the Export Administration Act to affirm

U.S. commitment to free exchange of

germpiasm

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

countries Foreign Assistance Act

Enhance capability of the Agency for Direct AID to adopt strategic approach to

International Development diversity conservation

increase AID staffing of personnel with

environmental-training

Establish alternative funding sources for Create special account for natural resources and

biological diversity projects the environment

Apply more Public Law 480 funds to effort

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.

redirected commitments of resources. Table 4 provides a summary of policy issues and options.

Strengthen the National Commitment to

Maintain Biological Diversity

The national commitment to maintain biological

diversity could be strengthened. Despite society’s

reliance on biological resources for sustenance and

economic development, loss of diversity has yet to

emerge as a major concern among decisionmakers.

About 2 percent of the national budget is spent on

natural resources-related programs, which include

diversity-conservation programs as one subset.

A number of government and private programs

address maintenance of biological diversity, but

most programs have objectives too narrowly defined

to address the broad scope of biological diversity

concerns. Nor do the ad hoc programs use coordination and cooperation to build a systematic approach

to tackle the issue. State and private efforts fill some

gaps in Federal programs, but they do not provide a

comprehensive national commitment and thus leave

many aspects of the problem uncovered.

Federal agencies, for example, coordinate the

onsite conservation activities mentioned specifically

in Federal species protection laws, such as those
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 67

under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of

1973 (Public Law 93-205), but no formal institutional mechanism exists for the thousands of plant,

animal, and microbial species not listed as threatened or endangered. Mandates for offsite conservation are equally vague about which species they are

to consider. For example, the Research and Marketing Act of 1946 is intended to ‘promote the efficient

production and utilization of products of the soil’ (7

U. S.C.A. 427), but it is interpreted narrowly by the

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to mean economic plant species and varieties. Thus, little

government attention has been given to conserving

the multitude of wild plant species offsite. Even less

attention is given to offsite conservation of domesticated and wild animals.

FINDING 1: A comprehensive approach is needed

to arrest the loss of biological diversity. Significant gaps in existing programs could be

identified with such an approach, and the

resources of organizations concerned with the

issue could be better allocated. Improved

coordination could create opportunities to

enhance effectiveness and efficiency of Federal, State, and private programs without

interfering with achievement of the programs’

goals.

The broad scale of the problem of diversity loss

necessitates innovative solutions. Various laws and

programs of Federal, State, and private organizations already provide the framework for a concerted

comprehensive approach. At this time, however, few

of these programs state maintenance of biological

diversity as an explicit objective. As a result,

diversity is given cursory attention in most conservation and resource management programs. Some of

them, such as the Endangered Species Program,

address diversity more directly but are concerned

with only one facet of the problem. Duplication of

efforts, conflicts in goals, and gaps in geographic

and taxonomic coverage are consequences.

To resolve this institutional problem, a comprehensive approach to maintaining biological diversity

is needed. The implication is not that all programs

should address the full range of approaches; rather,

organizations should view their own programs

within the broader context of maintaining diversity

and should coordinate their programs with those of

other organizations. Programs and organizations

would thereby benefit from one another. Gaps could

be identified and eventually filled, and duplicate

efforts could be reduced. And organizations could

improve efficiency by taking the responsibilities for

which they are best suited. Moreover, financial

support for diversity maintenance could be more

effectively distributed. A step in this direction has

been taken in recent initiatives, but congressional

commitment to such an endeavor is necessary to

ensure that efforts will be made to achieve a

comprehensive approach to maintaining biological

diversity.

Option 1.1: Enact legislation that recognizes the

importance of maintaining biological diversity as

a national objective.

Current legislation addressing the loss of biological diversity in the United States is largely

piecemeal. Although many Federal laws affect

conservation of diversity, few refer to it specifically.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 is the

only legislation that mandates the conservation of a

‘‘diversity of plant and animal communities,’ but it

offers no explicit direction on the meaning and scope

of diversity maintenance.

Consequently, existing Federal programs focus

on sustaining specific ecosystems, species, or gene

pools, or on protecting endangered wildlife. Species

protection laws authorize Federal agencies to manage specific animal populations and their habitats.

Habitat protection laws authorize the acquisition or

designation of habitats under Federal stewardship.

Federal laws for offsite maintenance of plants

authorize the collection and genetic development of

plant species that demonstrate potential economic

value.

The Endangered Species Act authorizes protection of species considered threatened or endangered

in the United States. However, listing endangered

species does not eliminate the problem; efforts are

hampered by slow listing procedures, by emphasis

on vertebrate animals at the expense of plants and

invertebrates, and by concerns about conflicts that

endangered status might create.

Congress could pass a National Biological Diversity Act to endorse the importance of the issue and

to provide guidance for a comprehensive approach.

Such an act could explicitly state maintenance of

diversity as a national goal, establish mechanisms

for coordinating activities, and set priorities for

diversity conservation. A national policy could
(68 ● Combined Summaries

bring about cooperation among Federal, State, and

private efforts, help reduce conflicting activities,

and improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of

programs.

To be effective, anew act would require a succinct

definition of biological diversity and explicit goals

for its maintenance. Otherwise, ambiguities would

lead to misinterpretation and confusion. Diversity,

for example, could be interpreted broadly when

authorities and funding are being sought and narrowly when responsibilities are assigned. Identifying goals is likely to be a long and politically

sensitive process. Decisionmakers and the public

will have to determine if conserving maximum

diversity is the desirable goal. Finally, to be effective, the law must have public support and adequate

resources, or it would simply provide a false

reassurance that something is being done.

Option 1.2: Develop a National Conservation Strategy for U.S. biological resources.

Another means of comprehensively addressing

diversity maintenance is to develop a National

Conservation Strategy (NCS). This strategy could be

developed in conjunction with, or in lieu of, a

mandate as suggested in the preceding option. The

process would initiate coordination of Federal programs. Program administrators could identify measures to reduce overlap and duplication, to minimize

jurisdictional problems, and to develop new initiatives.

A national strategy could minimize potential

competition, conflict, and duplication among programs in the private and public sectors. In addition,

preparation of an NCS would strengthen efforts to

promote NCSs in other countries. Some 30 countries

(mostly developing countries, but also including

Canada and the United Kingdom) have initiated

concrete steps to prepare an NCS. U.S. action might

reinforce the momentum for NCSs in other countries.

Congress could establish an independent commission to prepare the NCS. Members of the

commission could serve part-time and be provided

a budget for meetings and administrative support.

The commission could include representatives from

government, academia, and the private sector. The

Public Land Law Review Commission and the

National Water Commission are potential models.

In developing a national strategy, such a commission

●

●

●

●

●

could do the following:

assess the adequacy of existing programs to

conserve biological diversity;

formulate a national policy on maintenance of

biological diversity;

identify measures required to implement the

policy, any obstacles to such measures, and the

means to overcome those obstacles;

determine how biological diversity maintenance relates to other conservation and development interests; and

include a public consultation and information

program to build a consensus on the content of

the national conservation strategy.

Another way to prepare a strategy is to tap the

resources of an established government agency. An

appropriate body could be the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), which is part of the Office of

the President. Created by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, CEQ already prepares

annual reports for the President on the state of the

environment. In doing so, it uses the services of

public and private agencies, organizations, and

individuals and hence has the experience and

authority to bring together various interest groups

and expertise. On the other hand, CEQ, though fully

staffed in the 1970s with a range of environmental

experts, now has only a small staff of administrators.

Coordinating and guiding the substantive development of an NCS is thus beyond the council’s current

capacity except through use of consultants.

Because the success of an NCS depends on

participation of a broad spectrum of interest groups,

its preparation could be a daunting prospect. The

number, size, and nature of U.S. Government

agencies and the different sectors involved could

make preparation and implementation of a strategy

difficult.

Option 1.3: Amend the legislation of Federal

agencies to make maintenance of biological

diversity an explicit consideration in their activities.

Yet another means for Congress to encourage a

comprehensive approach is to make maintenance of

biological diversity an explicit consideration of

Federal agencies’ activities. A number of Federal

programs affecting biological diversity are scattered

throughout different agencies, but the lack of coordi-
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 69

nation results in inefficient and inadequate coverage

of the problem.

These amendments could involve the creation of

new programs, or they could lead to modified

objectives for existing programs. In either case, the

amendments should redirect certain policies, consolidate conservation efforts, and provide criteria for

settling conflicts. An amendment for Federal land

managing agencies, for example, could require that

these agencies make diversity conservation a priority in decisions relating to land acquisition, disposal,

and exchange.

Such amendments would probably be resisted by

individual Federal agencies, which could argue they

are already maintaining diversity and do not need

more explicit direction from Congress. In addition,

agencies could argue they could not increase their

activities without new appropriations; otherwise, the

quality of existing work could be compromised.

Before such amendments are written, a systematic

review of all Federal resource legislation will be

needed to determine how existing statutory mandates and programs affect the conservation of

diversity and how they complement or contradict

one another, and to designate which programs are

most in need of revision. Such a complex review will

take time and money and is likely to be opposed by

agencies.

FINDING 2: Because maintenance of biological

diversity is a long-term problem, policy changes

and management programs must be long-

-lasting to be effective. Such policies and programs must be understood and accepted by the

public, or they will be replaced or overshadowed by shorter-term concerns. Conveying the

importance of biological diversity requires

formulating the issue in terms that are technically correct yet understandable and convincing to the general public. To undertake the

initiative will require not only biologists but

also social scientists and educators working

together.

Diversity loss has not captured public attention

for three reasons. First, it is a complex concept to

grasp. Rather than attempt to improve understanding

of the broad issue, organizations soliciting support

have made emotional appeals to save particular

appealing species or spectacular habitats. This

approach is effective in the short term, but it keeps

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

Most public attention to conservation of biodiversity

is 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 problem

narrow. Second, the more pervasive threats to

diversity, such as loss of habitat or diminished

genetic bases for agricultural crops, are gradual

processes rather than dramatic events. Third, most

benefits of maintaining diversity are often diffuse,

unpriced, and reaped over the long term, resulting in

relatively low economic values being assigned to the

goods and services provided. The benefits of diversity, therefore, are not presented concretely and

competitively with other issues. Consequently, the

public and policymakers generally lack an appreciation of possible consequences of diversity loss.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, environmental

quality has been a major public policy concern since

the 1970s, and it remains firmly entrenched in the

consciousness of the American public. A 1985

Harris poll, for example, indicated that 63 percent of

Americans place greater priority on environmental

clean-up than on economic growth. And because
70 ● combined summaries

stewardship of the environment includes maintaining diversity, this predisposition of Americans could

be built on to develop support for diversity maintenance programs.

Biological diversity benefits a variety of special

interest groups; its potential constituency is enormous

but fragmented. It includes, for example, the timber

and fishing industries as well as farmers, gardeners,

plant breeders, animal breeders, recreational hunters, indigenous peoples, wilderness enthusiasts,

tourists, and all those who enjoy nature. The

combined interests of all these groups could cultivate a national commitment to maintaining biological diversity, if properly orchestrated.

Option 2.1: Promote public education about biological diversity by establishing a National Conservation Education Act,

Just as sustaining support to enhance environmental quality required public education programs,

so too will a concerted national effort to conserve

biological diversity require a strong public education effort. A National Conservation Education Act

could be patterned after the Environmental Education Act of 1971 (Public Law 91-516), which

authorized the U.S. Commissioner of Education to

establish education programs to encourage understanding of environmental policies.7

A new act could support programs and curricula

to promote, among other things, the importance of

biological diversity to human welfare. A small

grants program could support research and pilot

public education projects. Funds could be made

available to evaluate methods for curricula development, dissemination of curricula, teacher training,

ecological study center design, community education, and materials for mass media programs. The act

could support interaction among existing State

environmental education programs, such as those in

Wisconsin and Minnesota, and encourage establishment of new programs in other States. The Department of Education could provide consulting services

to school districts to develop education programs.

An attempt to establish additional environmental

education legislation might be opposed because of

the trend to reduce the Federal Government’s role in

education and to rely more on State find privatesector initiatives. Therefore, it could be argued that

private organizations, such as the Center for Environmental Education, are the appropriate agents to

increase public awareness. It could also be argued

that Federal agencies are already educating the

public about environmental issues and could easily

include biological diversity in their programs without new legislation.g Besides, new legislation would

require additional appropriations, and in a time of

budgetary constraints, funding requests for conservation education programs would probably be opposed.

Option 2.2: Amend the International Security and

Development Act of 1980 to increase the awareness of the American public about international

diversity conservation issues that affect the United

States.

Even more difficult than increasing the public’s

awareness of domestic issues in biological diversity

is increasing their awareness of the relevance of

diversity loss in other countries. In addition to

humanitarian and ethical reasons, maintaining diversity in other countries benefits the United States by

Sustaining biological resources needed for American

agriculture, pharmacology, and biotechnology industries, and by sustaining natural resources necessary for commerce and economic development.

Maintaining biological diversity for security and

quality of life enhancement, and the wisdom of

incorporating such issues into U.S. foreign assistance efforts, are justification for Congress to promote public awareness of the global nature of the

problem.

Mechanisms for educating the public about such

international issues are already in place. Specifically, several nongovernmental organimations (NGOs)

have international conservation operations. A coalition of these groups actively participated in the U.S.

Interagency Task Force on biological diversity that

formulated 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 that

provide information and educational materials on various facets of environmental issues, often including biological diversity. For example, the Center

for Marine Consemation (formerly the Center for Environmental Education mentioned in the text), has programs sponsored by NOAA and EPA that

provide educational materials on ocean pollution for prirmuy and secondary teaehers and students.
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 71

Biological Diversity in Developing Countries. As a

group, they have identified public education as a

major role for NGOs.

The grassroots approach of NGOs is conducive to

heightening public awareness, as illustrated by the

support for programs to alleviate famine in Africa.

Recognizing the potential of NGOs to stimulate

public awareness and discussion of the political,

economic, technical, and social factors relating to

world hunger and poverty, Congress amended the

International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980 with Title III, Section 316, to further

the goals of Section 103.9

This amendment provides NGOs with Biden-Pell

matching grants to support programs that educate

U.S. citizens about the links between American

progress and progress in developing countries. The

Agency for International Development (AID) has

used these grants mainly to promote American

understand ing of the problems faced by farmers in

developing countries and how resolution of those

problems benefits Americans. Recently, use of the

grants has been broadened to include public education on international environmental issues. Congress could encourage this action by expressing its

approval during oversight hearings or by further

amending the International Security and Development Cooperation Act specifically to authorize

support for education programs on environmental

issues, especially on biological diversity.

Increase the Nation Ability to

Maintain Biological Diversity

The ability to maintain biological diversity depends on the availability of applicable technologies

that are useful and affordable and on programs

designed to apply these technologies to clearly

identified needs. Thus, increasing the Nation’s

ability to maintain diversity will require an improved system for identifying needs and for developing or adapting technologies and programs to

address these needs.

At present, technologies and programs are not

sufficient to prevent further erosion of biological

resources. The problem of diversity loss has been

recognized relatively recently, and scientists have

just begun to focus attention on it. Progress is slow

partly because basic research is poorly funded, and

institutions are not organized to follow up basic

research with synthesis of results, technology development, and technology transfer. The last reason

implies a need for goal-oriented research.

Many of the Nation’s current research programs

related to biological diversity do not have a goaloriented approach. Institutional reward systems and

prestige factors deter many scientists from engaging

in work that translates basic science into practical

tools. Several Federal agencies support basic biology and ecology research, but too little support

exists for synthesis of the research into technologies.

Improved links between research and management systems, that is, technology transfer, can

increase efficiency, effectiveness, and ability for

maintaining g diversity. For example, understanding

how to maintain and propagate wild endangered

species has been preceded by efforts to maintain

domestic species. Perhaps the most dramatic linkage

is embryo transfer technology developed for livestock now being adapted for endangered wildlife.

Similarly, plant storage technologies developed for

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

Interspecific embryo transfer involves transfer of

embryos between related species so that embryos of a

rare species could be carried to term by a female of a

more common species. Successful transfers have

occurred from mouflon (wild sheep) to domestic sheep,

guar to cattle, bongo to eland, Przewalski’s horse to

pony, and zebra to horse.

9 Sec. 103, entitled ‘‘Agriculture, Rural Development and Nutrition, ” recognizes that the majority of people in developing countries live in rural

areas 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 public

discussion, 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 tissue

culture, maybe valuable tools for maintaining rare or

threatened wild plant species, even if only as backup

collections.

FINDING 3: Current technologies are insufficient to prevent further erosion of biological

resources. Thus, increasing the Nation’s ability to maintain biological diversity will require

acceleration of basic research as well as research in development and implementation of

resource management technologies.

Most resource management technologies were

developed to meet narrow needs. Onsite technologies are generally directed toward a particular

population or species, and offsite technologies are

generally directed toward organisms of economic

importance. This restricted focus of basic research

and technology development is not sufficient to

meet the broad goal of maintaining diversity, given

the number of species involved and the time and

funds available.

To accelerate research and application of diversityconserving technologies, a shift of emphasis is

necessary in research funding. Agencies that fund or

conduct research (e.g., the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Agricultural Research Service of

the USDA) generally do not focus on applying

research to technology development; they mostly

are oriented toward supporting basic research. For

example, research funds are available for descriptive

studies of population genetics but not for studies on

applications of genetic theory to onsite population

management. Scientists are rewarded for research

that tests hypotheses relatively quickly and for

publication of research results in academic journals.

These incentives discourage broad, long-term studies and neglect analyzing research results to develop

technology systems.

Another avenue to increasing the ability to

maintain diversity is to encourage development and

implementation of programs by private organizations. Although many private efforts are not defined

in terms of diversity conservation per se, activities to

conserve aspects of diversity (i.e., ecosystems, wild

species, agricultural crops, and livestock) have had

significa.nt impact. These efforts are not likely to

replace public or national programs, but they could

be an integral part of the Nation’s attempt to

maintain its biological heritage.

Option 3.1: Direct the National Science Foundation

to establish a program for conservation biology.

The field of conservation biology seeks to develop scientific principles and then apply those

principles to developing technologies for diversity

maintenance. Recently, the development of this

discipline has gained momentum through the establishment of study programs at some universities and

the formation of a Society of Conservation Biology,

with its own professional journal. Nevertheless,

conservation biology is only beginning to be recognized by the academic community as a legitimate

discipline. No research funds support it explicitly.

Therefore, few scientists can afford to conduct

innovative conservation biology research.

Current funding for research and technology

development in conservation biology is negligible,

in large part because NSF considers it to be too

applied, while other government agencies consider

it to be too theoretical. Congress could encourage

scientists to specialize in conservation biology by

establishing within NSF a separate conservation

biology research program that would support the

broad spectrum of basic and applied research

directed at developing and applying science and

technology to biological diversity conservation.

To enhance interprogram links, this program

could fund studies that integrate onsite and offsite

methods at the ecosystem, species, and genetic

levels. Such a program would also bring much

needed national recognition, research funding, and

scientific expertise to the field of conservation

biology. This support would accelerate its acceptance and growth within the scientific community

and the development of new principles and technology. Current statutory authority of NSF would cover

such a program. NSF programs are supposed to

support basic and applied scientific research relevant to national problems involving public interest;

the maintenance of biological diversity is such a

problem.

NSF might resist establishing such a program,

because NSF views conservation biology as a

mission-oriented activity. Since conservation biology includes technology development, NSF might

view a diversity program as a potentially dangerous

precedent to its role as the Nation’s major supporter

of basic research. Furthermore, NSF might argue

that a new research program is not needed because

its Division of Biotic Systems and Resources
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 73

already supports about 60 basic research projects

that address biological diversity issues. These projects, however, largely ignore the social, economic,

political, and management aspects of biological

diversity, and conservation is usually of secondary

importance to the projects.

An alternative to establishing an NSF program

could be to enhance or redirect existing programs in

other agencies to promote research in diversity

maintenance. The Institute of Museum Services

(IMS), a federally sponsored program, already

provides a small amount of funding for research on

both onsite and offsite diversity maintenance. IMS

supports activities from ecosystem surveys to captive breeding. However, the principal focus of IMS

is public education, and its small budget is spread

over a wide range of programs (e. g., art museums

and historic collections), many of which are unrelated to biological research. Thus, IMS would be

unable, with its current funding, to take greater

responsibility for technology development; new

appropriations would be necessary.

Development and application of diversity-conserving technologies could also be funded through

other Federal agencies’ research programs. Congress could encourage appropriate agencies to

increase emphasis on development of diversity

technology. One source of funding is through the

USDA Competitive Research Grants Office (CRGO).

At present, the only research related to genetic

resources funded by USDA/CRGO is in the area of

molecular genetics. As a result, little funding is

available for scientists seeking to conduct research

in germplasm preservation, maintenance, evaluation, and use.

Option 3.2: Establish a National Endowment for

Biological Diversity.

Congress could establish a National Endowment

for Biological Diversity to fund private organizations in research, education, training, and maintenance programs that support the conservation of

biological diversity. Currently, no central institution

funds such efforts.

Efforts, however piecemeal, of private organizations and individuals are currently making significant contributions to the maintenance of the Nation’s diversity. Frequently, they undertake activities Federal and State agencies cannot or do not

address. Through their special interests, these

groups as a whole also play a major role in raising

public awareness and concern about the loss of

diversity. In this way, they increase the constituency

backing government programs that maintain natural

areas as well as those that collect and safeguard

10 Finding, however, is a majo r genetic resources.

constraint for nearly all these private activities. A

program of small grants with a ceiling of perhaps

$25,000 per grant (similar to the grants awarded by

IMS) could make a substantial contribution to the

shoestring budgets of these small organizations and

thus enhance national efforts to maintain biological

diversity at relatively little cost.

A National Endowment for Biological Diversity

could provide funds to private organizations to carry

out the following:

●

●

●

●

support research and application of methods to

conserve biological diversity,

award fellowships and grants for training,

foster and support education programs to increase public understanding and appreciation

of biological diversity, and

buy necessary equipment such as small computers.

This national endowment could be created by

amending the act that authorizes other national

endowment (of arts and humanities) programs. The

National Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act of

1965 (Public Law 89-209) declares that national

progress is of Federal concern and supports scholarships, research, the improvement of education facilities, and encouragement of greater public awareness.

A major constraint to establishing an endowment

is the availability of funds during this period of

severe budget cutbacks. However, even a small

program could significantly encourage privatesector initiatives in diversity maintenance. Thus, the

total amount needed for such an endowment could

be modest, and it might be feasible to use onIy

startup funds and a partial contribution from the

Federal Government and raise the remainder of the

endowment 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).
74 ● Combined Summaries

FINDING 4: Many Federal agencies sponsor

diversity maintenance programs that are well

designed but not fully effective in achieving

their objectives because of inadequate funding

and personnel, lack of links to other programs,

or lack of complementary programs in related

fields.

Much is already being done to maintain certain

aspects of diversity in the United States, but efforts

are constrained by shrinkm“ g budgets and personnel.

And as noted earlier, the programs addressing

biological diversity are piecemeal rather than comprehensive or strategic. Whether or not Congress

chooses to promote a comprehensive strategy for

diversity maintenance, specific attention is needed

to remedy the major gaps and inadequacies in

existing programs.

Option 4.1: Provide increased funding to existing

programs for maintenance of diversi~.

A number of governmental programs for diversity

maintenance already exist, some because of congressional mandates. Yet the full potential of some

of those programs has not been realized because

funding is insufficient. Two such programs are the

National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) and the

Endangered Species program, though others would

also benefit from higher levels of funding.

The NPGS of the Agricultural Research Service

has functioned for years on severely limited funds

and, consequently, is in danger of losing some of the

storehouse of plant germplasm. This desperate

situation is best illustrated by the National Seed

Storage Laboratory (NSSL), which is expected to

exceed its storage capacity in 2 years. At the same

time, NSSL is being pressured to increase collection

and maintenance of wild plant germplasm. NPGS is

attempting 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 controversy

among private landowners, public land-users, and proponents of owl conservation programs in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Forest

Service research teams currently are studying the spotted owl and its old-growth forest habitat to refine estimates of population and

areal extent of critical habitat, and to identify steps for recovery programs. Many species listed as endangered still await designation

of critical habitat.
.

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 75

effectiveness, ll but progress has been slow because

of lack of funds and personnel. The 1986 appropriation for germplasm work is approximately $16

million, but to support current programs adequately

would cost about $40 million (198 1 dollars) annually.

Similarly underfunded and understaffed is the

Endangered Species Program of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A review of this program shows a

substantial and growing backlog of important work.

The rate of proposing species for the threatened and

endangered list is so slow that a few candidates (e.g.,

Texas Henslow’s sparrow) may have become extinct

while awaiting listing. Critical habitat has been

determined for only one-fourth of the listed species,

and recovery plans have been approved for only

some of the listed species.

Congress could provide adequate funding for

these and other programs to achieve their goals in

maintaining diversity, NPGS could, as a result,

increase the viability of stored germplasm through

more frequent testing and regeneration of accessions. NSSL could increase its efficiency by expanding storage capacity and adopting new technologies.

For example, cryogenic storage could be used to

reduce maintenance cost and space, thereby enabling a larger collection of germplasm. Likewise, the

Endangered Species Program would be able to

assess candidate species faster to develop and

implement recovery plans for those already listed

species.

Option 4.2: Amend appropriate legislation to improve the link between onsite and offsite maintenance programs.

Coordination between onsite and offsite programs

is inadequate. By amending appropriate legislation,

Congress could encourage the complementary use

of onsite and offsite technologies. For example, the

Endangered Species Act could be amended to

encourage use of captive breeding and propagation

techniques. Such methods have been used with some

endangered species, such as the red wolf, whooping

crane, and grizzly bear. But for other species, such

as the California condor, black-footed ferret, and

dusky seaside sparrow, recovery plans do not exist

or were too long delayed. Recovery plans for

endangered species seldom include the use of offsite

techniques, partly because captive breeding and

propagation are outside the scope of natural resource

management agencies; rather, they are in the province of zoos, botanic gardens, arboretums, and

agricultural research stations.

By mandating that recovery plans give specific

consideration to captive breeding and propagation.

Congress could encourage links between separate

programs. The approach could be broadened to

encourage cooperative efforts between public and

private organizations working offsite and onsite to

conserve ecosystem and genetic diversity. A model

for such efforts exists in the emerging cooperation

between the Center for Plant Conservation ( a

network of regional botanic institutions) and NSSL.

Option 4,3: Establish programs to fill gaps in

current efforts to maintain biological diversity.

One of the most obvious gaps in domestic

programs is the lack of a formal national program to

maintain domestic animal genetic resources. Congress could establish a program to coordinate

activitiesfor animal germplasm conservation, thereby

reducing duplication and encouraging complementary actions. Such a program could be established

through clarification of the Agricultural Research

Service mandate. An animal program could parallel

the National Plant Germplasm System, but other

structures should be explored as well. Alternatively,

a separate program established to be semi-independent from government agencies might serve a

greater variety of interests. The best structure for

such a program is at present unclear.

A congressional hearing could be held to identify

the 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 and

organiza tion to provide for national coordination and management of collections as national resources; increased NPGS investment in regenerating seed

accessions, with extra attention to special collections; expansion of the National Seed Storage Laboratory, which is antiquated and insut%cient to meet

the needs of the mtional system; establishment of sites for maintenance of germplasm that requires short day-lengths or arid environments; taking a

proactive role in long-term planning and policy development for broader collections that encompass a wider range of biological diversity; taking a more

active role in developing U.S. policies that guide relations with international agencies; and NPGS cooperation with other mtions’ germplasm

conservation 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 and

scope of such a program.

Coordination of international efforts is also needed

to preserve the diversity of agriculturally important

animals. Some efforts have already been made, and

the concept of an international program is gaining

support. Congress could encourage the establishment of an International Board for Animal Genetic

Resources (IBAGR). This program could parallel the

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources

(IBPGR). An IBAGR could set standards and

coordinate the exchange and storage of germplasm

between countries and address related issues such as

quarantine regulations. It could foster onsite management of genetic resources for both minor and

major breeds.

Another major gap is protection of U.S. ecosystem diversity. Numerous types of ecosystems, such

as tall grass prairie, are not included in the Federal

public lands system. Congress could direct Federal

land-managing agencies to include representative

areas of major ecosystems in protected areas.

One vehicle for this is the Research Natural Area

(RNA) system. Since 1927, the RNA system, with

the cooperation of multiple Federal agencies and

private groups, has developed the most comprehensive coverage of natural ecosystem types in the

United States. RNAs, however, are small scale and

are mainly established on land already in public

ownership. Therefore, the RNA system may not be

able to cover the major ecosystems without some

additional mechanism to acquire land not already in

the Federal domain, possibly through land exchanges. Nevertheless, Congress could recognize

the RNA system as a mechanism and direct agencies

to work toward filling the program gaps.

Enhance the Knowledge Base

Developing effective strategies to maintain diversity depends on knowing the components of biological systems and how they interact. Information on

the status and trends in biological systems is also

needed for public policy. The first step in developing

such information is fundamental descriptions of the

various component-species, communities, and

ecosystems. Data can then be analyzed to determine

how best to maintain biological diversity. More

specifically, baseline data are needed for the following activities:

●

●

●

●

assessing the abundance, condition, and distribution of species, communities, and ecosystems;

disclosing changes that may be taking place;

monitoring the effectiveness of resource management plans once they are implemented; and

determining priorities for areas that merit

special efforts to manage natural diversity that

would benefit from protection, and that deserve

particular attention to avoid biological disruption or to initiate mitigative actions.

To be effective and efficient, the acquisition,

dissemination, and use of data must proceed within

the context of defined objectives. For the most part,

biological data used in diversity maintenance programs have been acquired without the direction of a

coordinating goal. Not surprisingly, these data are

widely scattered and generally incompatible. Geographical and taxonomical data gaps exist. Some

taxonomic groups are ignored in field inventories,

while others, particularly plants and animals with

economic or recreational value, are monitored extensively. Finally, few data exist on the social, economic, and institutional pressures on biological

diversity. Consequently, available data cannot be

used easily in decisionmaking directed at maintaining biological diversity.

FINDING 5: Congress and other policymakers

need improved information on biological diversity. Such information cannot be supplied

without improvements in data collection, maintenance, and synthesis.

Policymakers need comprehensive information

on the ramifications and scope of diversity loss.

Information provided by the scientific community

should be a basis for resource policy and management decisions. To serve in the context of public

policy, data should satisfy four criteria:

1.

2.

3.

4.

The data must be of high quality; they must

meet accepted standards of objectivity, completeness, reproducibility, and accuracy.

The data must have value; they must address a

worthwhile problem.

The data must be applicable; they must be

useful to decisionmalcers responsible for making policy.

The data must be legitimate; they must carry a

widely accepted presumption of accuracy and

authority.
— .

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity . 77

Much information is already available but not in

an assimilated form useful to decisionmakers. Data

on the status and trends of biological diversity are

scattered among Federal, State, and foreign agencies

and private organizations. Consolidation of these

data is necessary to identify gaps, to provide a

comprehensive understanding of the status of the

Earth’s biota, and especially to define priorities for

action.

Option 5.1: Establish a small clearinghouse for data

on biological diversity.

The purpose of a clearinghouse would be to

coordinate data collection, synthesis, and dissemination efforts. It could serve government agencies,

private organizations, corporations, and individuals.

The clearinghouse could perform the following

functions:

●

●

●

●

survey and catalog existing Federal, State,

private, and international databases on biological resources;

evaluate the quality of databases;

provide small grants and personnel support

services to strengthen existing databases; and

publish annual reports on the status and needs

of the biological data system.

Success in these endeavors would accelerate

progress 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 fill

them;

facilitating development of environmental impact assessments; and

evaluating options, actions, and successes and

failures.

As a data-coordinating body, the clearinghouse

could guide efforts to collect data on biological

diversity, which will provide a comprehensive

perspective that Federal agencies cannot supply

because of their varied mandates. Access to previously inaccessible data would be facilitated, which

should reduce duplication of effort. By evaluating

the quality of information, the clearinghouse could

help eliminate a general distrust among users of

other databases. Access to a diversity of databases

means no standardized system is forced on data

users, which has been a formidable obstacle to

database integration and use.

The clearinghouse would not necessarily maintain its own primary database. Commercial databases in the public domain could be included in the

system, and proprietary and other limited-access

databases could be reviewed regularly, with permission. Database enhancements to cover gaps could be

funded by small grants. The clearinghouse’s information systems could be made available through a

library service and special searches. It could charge

appropriate fees for all its services.

The same clearinghouse could assess information

on biological diversity in international databases. It

could provide a small amount of financial and

personnel aid to help international organizations

improve their databases. In addition, it could work

with development assistance agencies to support the

participation of other countries’ national databases

in such international and regional networks as the

International Union for the Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources’ Conservation Monitoring

Center, the United Nations Educational, Scientific,

and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Man and

the Biosphere Program (MAB), and The Nature

Conservancy International.

Possible objections to such a clearinghouse include the following: 1) lack of a unifom- system of

data collection for the United States would hinder

national data analysis and use, and 2) evaluating the

quality of other agencies’ databases would be

politically sensitive. Questions such as the size,

administrative structure, and cost of a clearinghouse

program must be answered as well. Because it would

not maintain its own primary database, however,

such a clearinghouse would not need to be a

large-scale operation.

Option 5.2: Provide funding to enhance the existing

network of natural heritage conservation data

centers.

A number of state governments, aided by The

Nature Conservancy (TNC), have already established a network of Natural Heritage Data Centers in

many States and in some foreign countries. These

centers collect and organize biological data specifically for diversity conservation. All centers use a

standardized format to collect and synthesize data.

The result has been a vehicle to exchange and to

aggregate information about what is happening to
78 ● Combined Summaries

biological resources at State and local levels and,

more recently, around the Nation and across the

Western Hemisphere.

Funding for these data centers comes from a

combination of Federal, State, and private (including corporate) sources. Progress has been limited,

however, by the amount of available funds. Congress could enhance these efforts by providing a

consistent source of addition al funding. By increasing support for the Federal-State-private partnership, the action by Congress could reinforce the

application of standard methods, enhance interagency compatibility, improve the efficiency of

biological data collection and management, and

facilitate the free exchange of useful information.

Moreover, the partnership could accelerate the rate

at which data centers spread to the remaining States

and nations.

An appropriation of $10 million per year, for

example, could be divided among several data center

functions: supporting central office activities in

research, development, documentation, and training; conducting taxonomic work; and matching

grants from States and other participants. One source

of funding could be the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Although this fund is used mainly for land

acquisition, it could also support preacquisition

activities such as identification of lands to be

acquired. Data centers are key to such activities.

This option does not necessarily replace the need

for an information clearinghouse because diverse

databases and information systems will continue to

operate. The two options could be complementary.

Some clearinghouse functions might be handled by

TNC, but others, such as facilitating improvement of

and access to data sources, could be best handled by

a separate entity that functions much like a library.

Support International Initiative to

Maintain Biological Diversity

Most biological resources belong to individual

nations. However, many benefits from diversity

accrue internationally. American agriculture, for

example, depends on foreign sources for genetic

diversity to keep ahead of constantly evolving pests

and pathogens. And many bird populations important to controlling pests in the United States overwinter in the forests of Latin America.

Solutions to problems that cause diversity loss

must be implemented locally, but many of these will

be effective only if supported by international

political and technical cooperation. Examples of

such problems include the international trade in rare

wildlife, the greenhouse effect of certain gases on

the climate, the effects of acid rain on freshwater

lakes and forests, and damage to oceans by pollution

and overfishing. The United States has the political

prestige needed to initiate international cooperation,

and it leads the world in much of the technical

expertise needed, such as fundamental biology and

information processing. Thus, the United States has

both motive and ability to participate and to provide

leadership in international conservation efforts.

The United States historically has played a

leading role in promoting international conservation

initiatives, and precedence exists for extending this

leadership to an international or global approach for

conserving biological diversity. A variety of international conventions and multilateral programs already specifies biological diversity as an aspect of

broader conservation objectives (e.g., biosphere

reserve program). Such internationally recognized

obligations can be important policy tools in concert

with technical, administrative, and financial measures to encourage programs for conserving diversity.

Obligations confirmed by international conventions

provide conservation authorities with the justification frequently needed to strengthen their national

programs.

FINDING 6: The United States has begun to

abdicate leadership in international conservation efforts, with the result that international

initiatives are weakened or stalled in the

tropical regions where diversity losses are

most severe. Renewed U.S. commitment could

accelerate the pace of international achievements in conservation.

The United States has been a model and an active

leader in international conservation activity. The

movement toward establishment of national parks

worldwide grew out of the United States. In the early

1970s, the United States was a leader in international

environmental and resource deliberations, notably in

the 1972 UN-sponsored Stockholm Conference on

the Human Environment. U.S. leadership, for example, played an important role in establishing the

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),

and in securing the Convention on International
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 79

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora (CITES) and the World Heritage Convention,

all important foundations of current international

efforts to support maintenance of biological diversity.

However, U.S. support for these kinds of initiatives has declined. The retrenchment in support

reflects austerity measures as well as dissatisfaction

with the performance of specific international organizations. Effective international projects, such as

UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program, have

suffered by association.

U.S. support of international conservation efforts

is pivotal in that the United States has greater

resources and stronger technical abilities than most

other countries to address the complex issue of

diversity loss. Without greater initiative and access

to resources, many countries will be unable to arrest

loss of diversity within their borders. Under existing

conditions, countries that harbor the greatest diversity are expected to devote a large part of their

national resources to address the problem, even

though benefits commonly extend beyond their

countries. It would seem equitable for those countries that benefit, including the United States, to

share more fully in efforts to conserve diversity in

countries otherwise unable to do so.

Option 6.1: Sustain or increase support of international organizations and conventions.

International conservation initiatives are important

tools for long-term conservation of biological diversity. Yet, existing international agreements are often

poorly implemented because of lack of adequate

administrative machinery (e.g., adequately funded

and staffed secretariats), lack of financial support for

on-the-ground programs (e.g., equipment, training,

and staff, and lack of reciprocal obligations that

could serve as incentives to comply.

An exception is CITES, which has mechanisms to

facilitate reciprocal trade controls and a technical

secretariat. The existence of this machinery in large

part accounts for the relative success of this convention. The United States has been globally influential

in supporting CITES and has reinforced it through

national legislation that prohibits import into the

United States of wildlife taken or exported in

violation of another country’s laws. The amendment

to the Lacey Act of 1900 (Public Law 97-79) in 1981

backs efforts of other nations seeking to conserve

their wildlife resources. This law has been a

powerful tool for wildlife conservation throughout

the world because the United States is a major

importer of wildlife specimens and products.

U.S. contributions to international conservation

programs have been diminishing recently. The

appropriation cycle for funding such programs has

been an annual tug-of-war between Congress and the

Administration. The budget of the World Heritage

Convention in 1985 was $824,000. The United

States, one of the major forces behind the Convention’s founding, usually contributes at least onefourth of the budget. U.S. contributions averaged

$300,000 in fiscal years 1979 to 1982. From fiscal

year 1982 to 1984, the United States made no

contributions, but contributed $238,903 in fiscal

year 1985. In fiscal year 1986, $250,000 had been

appropriated, but the amount was cut to $239,000

under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act.

Congress could maintain or increase U.S. support

of international organizations and programs in

several ways. Congress could ensure that these

organizations receive adequate annual appropriations and could conduct oversight hearings to

encourage the Administration to carry out the intent

of Congress.

One possible drawback associated with contributions to international intergovernmental organizations is their lack of accountability. Compared to

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

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was established

to reduce or eliminate trade in products derived from

endangered species. Products such as the elephant

ivory shown here, however, continue to be illegally moved

in international trade.
80 ● Combined Summaries

bilateral assistance channels, the United States has

little control over how or to whom intergovernmental organizations direct their resources. The consequence is that U.S. funds go to countries that are

unfriendly or even adversarial to the United States

and its policies.

It should be recognized, however, that many

international activities specific to maintenance of

biological diversity, especially activities of UNEP,

UNESCO-MAB, and IBPGR, operate largely within

scientific channels, which tends to reduce the

political overtones inherent in intergovernmental

organizations. Also, objectivity can be enhanced in

programs willing to establish protocols. For example, establishing criteria to determine which areas

qualify for biosphere reserve status or which unique

areas warrant (natural) World Heritage status provides objectivity in directing resources.

Congress could also encourage or direct Federal

agencies to assign technical personnel to international organization or to the secretariats of the

various conventions. This option could be difficult

to implement without legislating special allowances

for agency personnel ceilings and budgets. Otherwise, agencies will be reluctant to assign personnel

overseas in light of a shrinkm“ g Federal work force

and budget.

Option 6.2: Continue to direct U.S. directors of

multilateral development banks (MDBs) to do the

following: 1) press for more specific and systematic MDB efforts to promote sound environmental

and resource policies akin to the World Bank’s

wildland policy, 2) work to make projects consistent with international and recipient country

environmental policies and regulations, and 3)

seek to involve recipient country environmental

officials and nongovernmental organizations in

project formulation processes.

A significant part of all international development

assistance efforts is funded by the World Bank and

regional MDBs. Thus, these organizations are uniquely

situated to influence environmental aspects of development, including the maintenance of biological

diversity. In fact, the MDBs’ priorities and policies

can be the single most important influence on the

development model adopted by developing countries. MDB agricultural, rural development, and

energy programs all have profound effects on

biological resources in developing countries.

The World Bank promulgated a new policy in

1986 on the treatment of wildlands in development

projects. The bank recognizes that although further

conversion of some natural land and water areas to

more intensive uses will be necessary to meet

development objectives, other pristine areas may

yield benefits to present and future generations if

maintained in their natural state. These are areas

that, for example, may provide important environmental services or essential habitats to endangered

species. To prevent the loss of these wildland values,

the policy specifies that the Bank will normally

decline to finance projects in these areas and instead

prefer projects on already converted lands. Conversion of less important wildlands must be justified

and compensated by financing the preservation of an

ecologically similar area in a national park or nature

reserve, or by some other mitigative measures. The

policy provides systematic guidance and criteria for

deciding which wildlands are in need of protection,

which projects may need wildland measures, and

what types of wildland measures should be provided.

In 1980, the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, and six

other multilateral signed a “Declaration of Environmental Policies and Procedures Relating to

Economic Development,’ and formed the Committee on International Development Institutions on the

Environment (CIDIE), under the auspices of the

United Nations Environment Programme. The agencies agreed to systematic environmental analysis of

activities funded for environmental programs and

projects. However, a subsequent study found these

policy statements by the MDBs were not effectively

translated into action. Criticisms of how well MDBs

implement environmental policies remain strong.

And it is too soon to determine the effectiveness of

the World Bank’s wildland policy.

The United States is limited in its ability to effect

change at MDBs because the banks are international

institutions run collectively by member nations.

Since the United States is a large contributor,

however, it does have considerable influence on

bank policies, which are determined by boards of

directors.

The primary way Congress affects policies of

these banks is by requesting that the U.S. executive

directors-who are responsible to the Secretary of

the Treasury-carry out congressionally approved
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity . 81

policies. These requests may be made at oversight

hearings or in the language of appropriation legislation. For instance, the 1986 House Committee on

Appropriations Report stated guidelines for the U.S.

executive directors (Sec. 539), which included the

addition of relevant staff, development of management plans, and commitment to increase the proportion of programs supporting environmentally beneficial projects. To continue this guidance, Congress

could require the U.S. executive directors of MDBs

to encourage adoption of a policy similar to the

World Bank’s wildlands policy statement.

FINDING 7: Constraints on international exchange of genetic resources could jeopardize

future agricultural production and progress in

biotechnologies. Such constraints are becoming more likely because developing countries

with sovereignty over most such resources

believe the industrial nations have benefited at

their expense. Debates on the issue could

benefit from a more informed and less impassioned approach.

All countries benefit from the exchange of genetic

resources. Many of the major crops currently grown

in various countries have originated elsewhere.

Coffee, for example, is native to the highlands of

Ethiopia. Yet, today, it represents an important

source of income for farmers in other parts of Africa,

Asia, and Latin America. Maize, originally from

Central America, is grown as a staple crop in North

America and Africa. Countries continue to depend

on access to germplasm from outside their borders to

maintain or enhance agricultural productivity. Political and economic considerations, however, are now

prompting national governments to restrict access to

their germplasm. Behind these efforts is an implicit

desire by some countries to obtain greater compensation for the genetic resources currently made

freely available.

The International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) is the main international institution

dealing with the offsite conservation of plant genetic

diversity. Established in 1974, it promotes establishment of national programs and regional centers for

the conservation of plant germplasm. It has provided

training facilities, carried out research in techniques

of plant germplasm conservation, supported numerous collection missions, and provided limited financial assistance for conservation facilities. However,

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

Exchange of genetic resources in the form of crops

historically has been an integral component of exploration

and trade. The infamous “Mutiny on the Bounty” took place

on a ship carrying breadfruit seedlings from the Pacific

to Caribbean islands. Although the Bounty never

completed its journey, breadfruit has become a staple

food on some Caribbean islands.

it does not operate any germplasm storage facilities

itself.

Due in part to the success of IBPGR in focusing

attention on the need to conserve genetic diversity,

the issue of germplasm exchange has become

embroiled in political controversy. Some critics

regard the IBPGR as implicitly working for agribusiness interests of industrial nations. Central to the

issue is a perception on the part of many developing

countries that they have been freely giving genetic

resources to industrial nations which, in turn, have

profited at their expense.

This controversy led the United Nations Food and

Agricultural Organization (FAO) to sponsor an

International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. The undertaking proposed an international

germplasm conservation network under the auspices

of FAO. It declared that each nation has a duty to

make all plant genetic materials-including advanced breeding materials-freely available. IBPGR
was to continue its current work, but it would be

monitored by FAO.

FAO then established the Commission on Plant

Genetic Resources to review progress in germplasm

conservation. The commission held its first meeting

in March 1985, with the United States present only

as an observer. Much of the discussion focused on

the concerns expressed in the undertaking and on

onsite conservation.

The continuing controversy includes charges that

the current international system enables countries to

restrict access to germplasm in international collections for political and economic reasons. Also of

concern to some parties is the impact of plant

patenting legislation.

Current charges and arguments in the FAO forum

tend to oversimplify the complexity of how

germplasm is incorporated into plant varieties and to

distort the actual nature of genetic exchange between and among industrial and developing countries. Restrictions on export of germplasm, for

example, appear to be more common for developing

countries. Nevertheless, the perception of inequity

in the current situation is real, and it could result in

increasing national restrictions on access to and

export of germplasm. Further, the issue of control

over genetic resources could become a significant

stumbling block to establishing international commitment and cooperation in the maintenance of

overall biological diversity.

Option 7.1: Closely examine the actions available to

the United States regarding the issue of international exchange of genetic resources.

Efforts to address the conservation and exchange

of plant genetic resources in the FAO forum have

been controversial. It is not yet apparent how the

United States should act in this regard. Congress

could give increased attention to determining what

options are available.

One possible action is for Congress to request that

an independent organization, such as the National

Academy of Sciences, study this issue. In fact, NAS

has already indicated interest in investigating this as

a part of its current 3-year study of global genetic

resources. Such a study could draw on other

agencies and individuals with interest and expertise

in this area to define several general actions the

United States might take in regard to international

exchange of genetic resources and the consequences

associated with it.

Another option is to favor the status quo, ignoring

the criticisms and avoiding the risk that new political

actions might disrupt effective scientific working

arrangements. A practical international flow of

germplasm is likely to continue in the future, with or

without the formal international arrangements envisioned by the FAO undertaking. In time, the political

issues may be resolved equitably without pushing

nations into conflicts over breeders’ rights or access

to genetic materials.

Another possibility would be for the United States

to associate with the FAO Commission on Plant

Genetic Resources. U.S. influence might strengthen

the international commitment to free flow of

germplasm and reduce the risk that germplasm will

increasingly be withheld for political or economic

reasons.

Unless Congress chooses to restrict plant breeders’ rights in the United States, the U.S. Government

will be unable to join the undertaking without major

reservations. Such a change in domestic law seems

politically unlikely, given domestic benefits provided by plant breeders’ rights and the effective

lobbying efforts of the seed industry. However, the

United States could consider renegotiating the FAO

undertaking to require a commitment to grant global

access to genetic resources-with appropriate exceptions for certain privately held materials-within

the context of an internationally supported commitment to help countries conserve and develop their

genetic resources. Parallel agreements also might be

developed for domestic animal, marine, and microbial resources. Such agreements could also define

national and international obligations to collect and

conserve the germplasm that is being displaced by

new varieties or by changing patterns of agricultural

developments.

Finally, U.S. representatives could consider promoting a discussion of genetic resource exchanges

outside formal channels in an effort to separate the

technical issues from emotional ones. The Keystone

Center, an environmental mediation organization, is

exploring the possibility of conducting a policy

dialog on this topic in the near future.

Option 7.2: Affirm the U.S. commitment to the free

flow of germplasm through an amendment to the

Export Administration Act.
—.

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 83

Specific allegations have been made that the

United States has restricted the access to germplasm

in national collections (at the National Plant

Germplasm System) for political reasons. The government, however, maintains it adheres to the

principles of free exchange.

To reinforce recent executive affiliations of the

free flow of germplasm, Congress could exempt the

export of germplasm contained in national collections from Export Administration Act restrictions or

political embargoes imposed for other reasons.

Comparable provisions are already included in this

act with respect to medicine and medical supplies

(50 U.S.C. app. sec. 2405 (g), as amended by Public

Law 99-64, July 12, 1985). Because this germplasm

is already accessible through existing mechanisms,

such a provision would only reaffirm the U.S.

position and remove from the current debate the

allegations of U.S. restrictions of access to

germplasm.

On the other hand, the process of amending the act

may generate support for restricting germplasm by

excluding certain countries from such an exemption.

Restricting access in such a manner would likely

lead to an international situation counter to U.S.

interests. In such a case, no action would be

preferable to an amendment.

Address Loss of Biological Diversity

in Developing Counties

The United States has a stake in promoting the

maintenance of biological diversity in developing

countries. Many of these nations are in tropical

regions where biological systems are highly diverse,

where pressures that degrade diversity are generally

most pronounced, and where the capacity to forestall

a reduction in diversity is least well developed. The

rationale for assisting developing countries rests on:

1) recognition of the substantial existing and potential benefits of maintaining a diversity of plants,

animals, and microbes; 2) evidence that degradation

of specific ecosystems is undermining the potential

for economic development in a number of regions;

and 3) esthetic and ethical motivations to avoid

irreversible loss of unique life forms.

The U.S. Congress, recognizing these interests,

passed Section 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act of

1983, specifying conservation of biological diversity as a specific objective of U.S. development

assistance. The U.S. Agency for International Develt

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

The U.S. Agency for International Development was

directed by Congress to provide support for establishing

and maintaining wildlife sanctuaries, reserves, and parks in

tropical developing countries, to protect the habitat of such

species as East Africa’s Grants Gazelle.

opment (AID), as the principaI agency providing

development assistance, was given a mandate to

implement this policy, which reads in part:

In order to preseme biological diversity, the President is authorized to furnish assistance to countries

in protecting and maintaining wildlife habitats and in

developing sound wildlife management and plant

conservation programs. Special effort should be

taken to establish and maintain wildlife sanctuaries,

reserves, and parks; to enact and enforce antipoaching measures; and to identify, study, and

catalog animal and plant species, especially in tropical environments.

A review of AID initiatives since 1983 suggests

that despite the formulation of a number of policy

documents, the agency lacks a strong commitment to

implementing the specific types of projects identified in Section 119. This lack of commitment is due

to several factors, including: 1) a belief that the

agency is already addressing biological diversity to

the extent it should, 2) reduced levels of budgets and

staff to initiate projects, and 3) an inadequate

number of trained personnel to address conservation

concerns generally.

Several questions arise in relation to the capacity

and the appropriateness of U.S. commitments to

support diversity conservation efforts through bilateral development assistance. First, it is uncle~

whether Section 119, as the principal legislation

dealing with concerns over diversity loss outside the

United States, defines U.S. interests too narrowly.
84 Combined Summaries

Second, it is uncertain how Section 119 relates to the

principal goals of foreign assistance, as specified in

Section 101. Finally, questions remain concerning

the commitment of resources and personnel to

address U.S. interests in maintaining diversity in

developing countries.

FINDING 8: Existing legislation may be inadequate and inappropriate to address U.S. interests in maintaining biological diversity in

developing countries.

Maintaining diversity will depend primarily on

onsite maintenance. The ‘‘special effort’ initiatives

identified in Section 119 are important components

of a comprehensive program. What is not clear,

however, is whether the emphasis is appropriate

within the context of U.S. bilateral development

assistance. That is, establishing protected areas and

supporting anti-poaching measures can have adverse

impacts on populations that derive benefits from

exploiting resources within a designated area. These

populations are characteristically among the ‘‘poorest majority ‘‘ intended to be the principal beneficiaries of U.S. development assistance (Sec. 101).

However, demands of local populations (e.g., for

fuelwood or agricultural land) may threaten diversity and even the sustainability of the resource base

on which they depend. It does, however, raise

questions on the appropriateness of supporting

activities that could place increased stress on these

populations.

Second, existing legislation identifies concern

over diversity loss separately from conversion of

tropical forests and degradation of environment and

natural resources (Sec. 118 and 117, respectively).

Clearly, these concerns are interrelated, although not

synonymous. It is questionable whether such a

distinction is appropriate within the context of

development assistance legislation. An argument

can be made that U.S. development assistance

should approach diversity maintenance within the

context of conservation-that is, as a wise use of

natural resources, as elaborated in the World Conservation Strategy. In doing so, the objectives of

diversity maintenance and development interests

could be made more compatible.

Finally, although Section 119 speaks of biological

diversity, the thrust of the legislation addresses a

narrower set of concerns-that of species extinction.

While certainly a prominent concern, and perhaps

even the central motivation behind the legislation, it

fails to address the broader set of U.S. concerns over

diversity loss in developing countries. As noted

earlier, a focus on unique populations would be a

more appropriate, though more problematic, approach. This is particularly important with regard to

preserving genetic resources of potential benefit to

agriculture or industry, which is the most strongly

argued rationale for conserving biological diversity.

Existing legislation does not specifically identi~

these interests.

Option 8.1: Restructure existing sections of the

Foreign Assistance Act to reflect the fill scope of

U.S. interests in maintaining biological diversity

in developing countries.

The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) comes up

for reauthorization in 1987. Major restructuring of

the act is already being considered. Revamping

could provide an opportunity to recast certain

provisions of the legislation to better account for

U.S. interests in maintaining diversity in developing

countries.

Providing for conservation of natural resources

and the environment in general, and of biological

diversity and tropical forests in particular, are

important considerations in a restructuring of FAA.

Less clear, however, is whether the language and

disaggregation of these interests is appropriate in the

context of bilateral development assistance.

One specific consideration could be to resolve

potential conflicts of interest that exist in the

language of Section 119—that of emphasizing the

need to establish protected areas and poaching

controls without specific reference to impacts on

indigenous populations. Congress could correct this

potential conflict by adding language to Section 119

such as, “Support for biological diversity projects

should be consistent with the interests, particular

needs, and participation of local populations.’ It is

widely recognized that the viability of protected

areas is largely contingent on these provisions.

Adding such language would thus provide greater

consistency within the objectives of FAA as well as

specify criteria that heighten chances of project

success.

In addition, Congress could recast the language

of existing legislation to provide a fuller accounting

of U.S. interests in maintaining diversity in developing countries. Such changes could expand from a
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 85

focus on endangered species to the loss of biological

systems, including ecosystems and genetic resources.

Such an effort might also emphasize practical

aspects of conservation initiatives of particular

interest to developing countries and stress the goal

of promoting ability and initiatives of the countries

themselves.

Finally, Congress could combine those sections of

FAA that deal with natural resources and environmental issues to reflect the interrelatedness of these

amendments. Provisions could be made to account

for specific concerns over species extinctions currently emphasized in Section 119. But approaches

and concerns reflected in these amendments are

probably best considered together. Provision of

funding within such a restructuring would also be

important.

FINDING 9: AID could benefit from additional

strategic planning and conservation expertise

in promoting biological diversity projects.

Congress has already taken steps to earmark finds

for biological diversity projects within AID’s budget.

The existing mechanisms within the agency to

identify and promote diversity projects are not well

established, however. Because funding is minimal,

it is all the more important to devise a strategy that

allows priority initiatives to be defined.

Environmental expertise within AID is slim. In

recent years, in-house expertise in this area has

declined, and that which does exist has been severely

overextended. Addressing biological diversity will,

therefore, require both increasing the number of AID

staff with environmental training and an increased

reliance on expertise outside AID, in other government agencies and in the private sector. AID has

already taken steps to cultivate this environmental

expertise, but further actions could be taken.

Option 9.1: Direct AID to adopt a more strategic

approach in promoting initiatives for maintenance of biological diversity .12

The U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of Biological Diversity: An Interagency Task Force Report to

Congress was delivered to Congress in February

1985, in response to provisions in Section 119. A

general criticism of the document was that although

it contained 67 recommendations, it lacked any

sense of priority or indication of funding sources to

undertake these recommendations. In an attempt to

apply the recommendations to specific agency

programs, AID drafted an Action Plan on Conserving Biological Diversity in Developing Countries

(January 1986). Comments received from AID

overseas suggest that problems exist in translating

the general principles and recommendations of an

agency plan into specific initiatives at the country

level.

A more refined approach to addressing diversity

interests within the agency may be required. Such an

approach would seek to incorporate biological

diversity concerns into AID development activities

at different levels of the agency, ranging from

general 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 operational

guidelines. In its initial investigations, each extant regional bureau identified loss of biodiversity, conversion of tropical forests, and land degradation

as primary environmental concerns. AID currently is developing the new Environmental Strategy, expected to be released shortly, that will establish

a formal structure under which all regional bureau strategies will be conducted pJ.S. Agency for International Development, “The Environment Initiative

Progress 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 bring

biodiversity conservation into its projects (sections 118 and 119). The goal of CBD is to provide support to AID-supported countries to improve their

capacity to understand and respond to biodiversity comewation issues. In the 3 years since its inception, core funding for the CBD has risen from $9.8

million 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 (regional

bureaus 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 Nature

Consemuwy and the World Resources Institute and which in turn established the Biodiversity Support program, and an Interagency Agreement with

the National Science Foundation made subsequent to a congressional earmark for AID to fund NSF biodiversity research programs. These components

provide support for research; technical assistance; training; collectio~ evaluatio~ and dissemination of information establishment of networks that

facilitate 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 another

venue for collaborative working relationships between U.S. and foreign scientists. For f~cd years 1991 and 1992, at least $7 million was devoted by

both 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 for

Intemationat Development personal communication+ WashingtorL DC, Apr. 17, 1992].
86 ● Combined Summarie s

more strategic efforts at the regional bureau and

mission levels.

At least two efforts could be considered at the

agency level. First, Congress could direct AID to

prepare a policy determination (PD) on biological

diversity. A PD would serve as a general statement

that maintaining diversity is an explicit objective of

the agency. In developing a PD, AID should review

provisions contained in the recent World Bank

wildlands policy statement.

Existence of a PD could mean that consideration

of diversity concerns would, where appropriate,

become an integral part of sectoral programming and

project design. Further, it would require that projects

be reviewed and evaluated by the Bureau of program

and Policy Coordination for consistency with the

objectives of the PD. Because of the increase in

bureaucratic provisions this would create, the formulation of a PD on diversity probably would not be

well received within AID.

A second effort is to establish a centrally funded

project within AID’s Bureau of Science and Technology. AID has already developed a concept paper

along these lines as a prelude to a more concrete

project identification document. As conceived, the

concept paper examines the possibility of establishing a biological diversity project. One major benefit

of such a project would be the establishment of a

focal point for coordinating funding and technical

assistance on biological diversity. The Science and

Technology Bureau’s emphasis on technical assistance, research, training, and institutional development would make it the appropriate bureau for such

a program. A constraint to this approach is that

biological diversity projects may continue to be

separate rather than an integral part of development

programs.

The three regional bureaus of AID (i.e., Africa,

Asia and Near East, and Latin America and the

Caribbean) could also prepare documents that identify important biological diversity initiatives in their

regions. 13 The Asia and Near East Bureau, in fact,

has already prepared such a document that could be

used in highlighting regional priorities. A reluctance

to direct scarce funds to diversity projects, at the

expense of more traditional development projects,

has limited the utility of the document to date.

Nevertheless, the development of such reports for

each regional bureau is considered an effective way

to identify priorities for existing diversity projects,

especially given the earmarking of funds.

The most important focus of biological diversity

strategies is at the mission level, where projects are

implemented. Congress has already mandated that

Country Development Strategy Statements and other

country-level documents prepared by AID address

diversity concerns. Most missions, however, lack

the expertise or adequate access to expertise needed

to address this provision of Section 119 as amended.

Option 9.2: Direct AID to acquire increased conservation expertise in support of biological diversity

initiatives. 14

The ability of AID to promote biological diversity

in developing countries is seriously undermined by

its lack of personnel trained in environmental

sciences. While true at the agency headquarters, the

problem is particularly acute in its overseas missions. Although AID designates an environmental

officer at each mission, the person usually has little

professional experience or training in the area. Often

environmental duties are combined with numerous

other duties; few AID personnel are full-time

environmental officers. Under these circumstances,

it is difficult to envision how AID can effectively

promote biological diversity maintenance.

Congress could direct AID to recruit and hire

additional personnel with environmental science

backgrounds or, at a minimum, provide increased

training 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 for

Latin 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 Newly

Independent 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 biodiversity

conservation efforts rose to $72 million by 1991 Dr. Sy Sohmer, Senior Biodiversity Adviser, Office of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau

for Research and Development, U.S. Agency for International Development, personal communication+ Wash@tom DC, Apr. 17, 1992]. At the same

time, however, the number of direct hire environmental specialists has not grown commensurately. Responding in part to congressional directives, AID

has 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 Environmental

Activities 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].
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity ● 87

for AID, however, point to a reduction in an already

overworked staff. It seems unlikely, therefore, that

significant in-house conservation expertise will be

developed. Consequently, addressing biological diversity within AID will depend on providing access

to conservation expertise within other government

agencies and in the private sector. Even drawing on

outside expertise, AID will need some increase in

environmental officers to manage and coordinate

projects.

AID already draws on other government agencies

to participate in projects supporting biological

diversity maintenance. Mechanisms such as Participating Agency Service Agreements (PASA) and

Resource Services Support Agreements (RSSA)

allow interagency exchanges of experts and services. AID currently has a RSSA with Fish and

Wildlife Service for the services of a technical

advisor to handle biological diversity issues. These

mechanisms could be used to facilitate further

access to conservation experts in other government

agencies.

A biological diversity program could be established within the existing Forestry Support Program,

for example. The Forestry Support program is an

RSSA between AID and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) to provide technical assistance

to AID in the area of forestry and natural resources.

A diversity program would likely be an RSSA

between AID, the Department of the Interior, and

USDA. Such a program would provide AID missions with access to conservation expertise within

the Department of the Interior, the USDA, and

through a roster of consultants.

A constraint to the RSSA and PASA is agency

personnel ceilings and the limited number of personnel with international experience. In light of a

reduction of the Federal work force, agencies maybe

reluctant to devote their staff to nonagency projects.

Although some Federal programs have been successfully used in supporting AID projects, expertise

within the private sector will also be needed to

address AID’s requirements.

The Peace Corps is also seen as having special

potential to support biological diversity projects.

Cooperative agreements with the National Park

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Man in

the Biosphere Program, and World Wildlife Fund/

U.S. have increased the Peace Corps’ capacity and

access to talent and training in this area, Another

area of potential collaboration is between the Peace

Corps and the Smithsonian Institution, especially

given the Smithsonian’s newly established Biological Diversity Program. Precedence exists for such a

cooperative relationship, in the form of the Smithsonian-Peace Corps Environmental Program, which

was terminated in the late 1970s. With the emergence of special interests in diversity maintenance,

Congress could direct both agencies to investigate

reestablishing a similar initiative focused on biological diversity projects.

Section 119 of FAA states:

whenever feasible, the objectives of this section shall

be accomplished through projects managed by

appropriate private and voluntary organizations, or

international, regional, or national nongovernmental

organizations which are active in the region or

country where the project is located.

A number of nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) are already working with AID to develop

capacity to maintain diversity in developing countries. These include important initiatives in the areas

of conservation data centers, of supporting development of national conservation strategies, and of

implementing field projects. AID is also using a

private NGO to maintain a listing of environmental

management experts. Such partnership could continue to be encouraged by Congress through oversight hearings, for instance. Encouraging joint

public-private initiatives through matching grants

should also be stressed.

FINDING 10: A major constraint to developing

and implementing diversity-conserving projects in developing countries is the shortage of

funds. Present funding levels are insufficient to

address the scope of the problem adequately.

Recently passed legislation earmarked $2.5 million of AID’s 1987 funds for biological diversity

projects. Given that this amount is intended to be

used to address diversity loss over three continents

and is guaranteed for only 1 year, its adequacy can

be questioned. Faced with prospects of further cuts

in an already reduced foreign assistance budget and

a shift in the composition of this budget to proportionally less development and food aid in favor of

military aid and economic support finds, it is

difficult to see where further funding for diversity

maintenance could be derived.
88 ● Combined Summaries

Option 10.1: Establish anew account within the AID

budget to support biological diversity initiatives

identified in the Foreign Assistance Act.

Sections 117, 118, and 119 of FAA all define

congressional interest in conservation as an integral

aspect of development. With the exception of the

1987 earmarking of funds for biological diversity,

no formal funding source has been attached to these

sections. The result is that support for conservation

initiatives generally has been weak, Support has

been further eroded recently because those functional accounts used for conservation projects—

Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition; and

Energy, Private Voluntary Organization, and Selected Development Activities-have received disproportionate funding cuts.

Congress could define its support for the importance of conservation to development by establishing a separate fund, perhaps called an Environment

and Natural Resources Account, that could be used

by AID to support diversity maintenance activities.

Concerns exist that functional accounts generally

tend to reduce AID’s flexibility, and consideration

has even been given to eliminating them entirely. If

established, however, an Environment and Natural

Resources account could be used to define congressional concerns in this area. Specific earmarking for

biological diversity could be considered within this

new functional account.

Option 10.2: Amend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, specifying

that funds from the Food for Peace Program

(Public Law 480) could be used for projects that

directly promote the conservation of biological

diversity.

An existing source of funds for biological diversity projects is Public Law 480 Food for Peace

program. Titles I and III make commodities available at confessional rates with long-term, lowinterest financing for debts incurred. Recipient

countries resell the U.S. commodities and are

required by contract to apply part of the currency to

self-help projects agreed on between the country and

the AID mission. The country can eventually cancel

some of its debt by applying equivalent funds to

long-term development projects. Title II provides

U.S. commodities to developing countries in cases

of emergency or for nutrition and development

programs. This Food for Work program has conducted reforestation and resource management projects in which laborers are paid with food and with

wages generated from the resale of U.S. commodities. Hence, Public Law 480 funds are already being

used to finance projects that promote diversity

maintenance. More could be done if Congress

amends Public Law 480 specifying that funds could

be used for diversity conservation projects.

Other existing funding mechanisms could be

redirected to include funding of diversity projects. In

response to funding cuts at AID, conservation

groups have proposed certain ways to provide

money for biological diversity projects. One such

mechanism is the use of economic support funds for

additional development assistance programs.

Though primarily used for other purposes, economic

support funds are the most flexible of AID’s funds,

with the fewest restrictions on their use. Therefore,

Congress could direct the General Accounting

Office to examine such funding mechanisms and

assess their feasibility as funding sources for

maintenance of biological diversity.