Technologies To Maintain Biological

Diversity

March 1987

NTIS order #PB87-207494
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity, OTA-F-330 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March

1987].

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619803

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
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, This interest in maintaining biological

diversity has created a common ground for a variety of groups concerned with

implications of a reduction or ultimate loss of the planet’s genetic, species, or ecosystem diversity,

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 1osses 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,

The broad implications of loss of biological diversity are also reflected in the

different concerns and jurisdictions of congressional committees that requested

or supported this study. Requesters 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 report 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 Bio]ogical 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.

Director

. . . {11
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 Soul&

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.

iv
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, ’ Research Assistant

Robert Grossman,’ Anal~wt

Allen Ruby, Research Assistant

Contractors

James L. Chamberlain

David Netter

Robert Prescott-Allen

Bruce Ross-Sheriff

Linda Starke’ and Lisa Olson, ’ Editors

Administrative Staff

Patricia Durana,” Beckie Erickson,’ and Sally Shaforth,” Administrative Assistants

Nellie Hammond, Secretary

Carolyn Swann, Secretar&y

1 Th rough January 1986,

2’1’hrough August I $)8s,

3

Summer 1985.

4

Through August 1986.

5After August 1986,

~’17h rough July I !385,

7Thruugh Cktober 1 !]86,

8

F’rom [)[1(:. 15, 1986,
CONTENTS

Chapter Page

l. Summary and Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Part I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2. Importance of Biological Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3. Status of Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4. Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 89

Part II: TECHNOLOGIES

5. Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............101

6. Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,., ., . . . .137

7. Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........169

8. Maintaining Microbial Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........205

Part III: INSTITUTIONS

9. Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States . . . . . . . . . . .. ....221

10. Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally . ..............,.....253

11. Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ..,285

APPENDIXES:

A. Glossary of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............311

B. Glossary of Terms . . . ., ., ., ., ., , ., ..., . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . ...313

C. Participants of Technical Workgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............317’

D. Grassroots Workshop Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . ....319

E, Commissioned Papers and Authors. . . . . .................,..........320
Chapter 1

Summary and

Options for Congress

.
CONTENTS

Page

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Role of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Strengthen the National Commitment To Maintain

Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Option: Establish a National Biological Diversity Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Option: Develop a National Conservation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Option: Amend Legislation of Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Option: Establish a National Conservation Education Act...... . . . . . . . 14

Option: Amend the International Security and Development Act . . . . . . 14

Increase the Nation’s Ability to Maintain Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I!i

Option:

Option:

Option:

Option:

Option:

Direct the National Science Foundation-To Establish a

Conservation Biology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Establish a National Endowment for Biological Diversity . . . . . . 17

Provide Sufficient Funding to Existing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8

Amend Legislation To Improve Onsite and Offsite

Program Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Establish New Programs To Fill Specific Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Enhance the Knowledge Base . . . . . . . .....;... . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Option: Establish a Small Clearinghouse for Biological Data . . . . . . . . . . 2o

Option: Fund Existing Network of Natural Heritage Conservation Data

Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......+.. 21

Support International Initiatives to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . 22

Option: Increase Support of International Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Option: Continue To Encourage Multilateral Development Banks to

Develop and Implement Environmental Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Option: Examine U.S. Options on the Issue of International

Exchange of Genetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Option: Amend the Export Administration Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Address Loss of Biological Diversity in Developing Countries. . . . . . . . . . . 27

Option:

Option:

Option:

Option:

Option:

Table No.

Restructure Conservation~Related Sections of the Foreign

Assistance Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Direct AID To Adopt Strategic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Direct AID To Acquire Greater Access to Conservation

Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Establish a New Funding Account for Conservation

Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Apply More Public Law 480 Funds To Promote Diversity

Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Tables

Page

l-1. Examples of Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity . . . 6

l-2. Management Systems and Conservation Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

l-3. Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . 9

l-4. Summary of Policy Issues and Options for Congressional Action

Related to Biological Diversity Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Box

Box No. Page

l-A. What Is Biological Diversity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Chapter 1

Summary and Options for Congress

Most biological diversity survives without hu- intervention by applying specific technologies.

man interventions to maintain it. But as natural A spectrum of technologies are available to supareas become progressively modified by human port maintenance of biological diversity (deactivities, maintaining a diversity of ecosytems, fined in box l-A),

species, and genes will increasingly depend on

Box I-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.

c 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.

Concerns over the loss of biological diversity to date 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.

THE PROBLEM

The Earth’s biological diversity is being reduced at a rate that is 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 development is preserved, but compelling

evidence 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

that the problem has reached crisis proportions,

3
4 ● Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

although a few remain skeptical and maintain

that 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. Determining the number of species that

exist, ] for example, is a major obstacle in assessing the rate of species extinction. But use of

biological principles and data on land use conversions have allowed biologists to deduce that

the rate of loss is greater than the rate at which

new species evolve.

Reduced diversity may have serious consequences for civilization. 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 tomato-processing industry. Future gains

will depend on use of genetic diversity.

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 deserts, which

harbor genetically diverse vegetation, are of

particular concern. Consequences to humans

of loss of potential medicines have impacts that

go beyond economic benefits. Alkaloids from

the rosy periwinkle flower (Catharantus roseus),

a tropical plant, for example, are used in the

‘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.

 H. 

A foggy, moss- and epiphyte-enshrouded tropical forest

i n Ecuador is about to be cleared for local agriculture,

a main cause of loss of diversity.

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, may undermine societies’ realization of the technology’s potential.

Another threatening aspect of diversity loss

is the disruption of environmental regulatory
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 5

 ” H 

A dense stand of Zea dip/operennis in Sierra de Manantalan,

Jalisco, Mexico. This ancient wild relative of corn could

be worth billions of dollars to corn growers around the

world because of its resistance to seven major diseases

plaguing domesticated corn.

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.

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 itseIf 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 re-create 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.
6 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

INTERVENTION$ 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 1-1 lists examples of management systems. These management systems

have somewhat different objectives, but all four

are necessary components of an overall strategy to 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 1-2.

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

Table 1-1 .—Examples of Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity

On site Off site

Ecosystem maintenance Species management Living collections Germplasm storage

National parks Agroecosystems Zoological parks Seed and pol=n banks

Research natural areas Wildlife refuges Botanic gardens Semen, ova, and embryo banks

Marine sanctl]aries /n-situ genebanks Field collections Microbial culture collections

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

planning

Increasing human intervention *

~ — Increasing emphasis on natural processes

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1986

Table 1-2. —Management Systems and Conservation Objectives

-- — Onsit e Off site

.—

Ecosystem maintenance Species maintenance Living collections Germplasm storage — —

Maintain: Maintain: Maintain: Maintain:

●

●

●

●

●

a reservoir or “1 ibrary ” 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 semidomesticated

species and wild relatives

. wi Id popu Iations for sustainable exploitation

. viable populations of

threatened species

. species that provide i mportant indirect benefits

(for pollination or pest

cent rol)

c “keystone” species with

important ecosystem support or regulating function

s breeding material that cannot be stored in

genebanks

. field research and development on new varieties and

breeds

s 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

● CO I Iections of germ plasm

from uncertain or threatened sources

● reference or type collections

as standard for research

and patenting purposes

● access to germ plasm from

wide geographic areas

“ genetic materials from critically endangered species

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986
Ch. 1—Summary and Options for Congress ● 7 —

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, 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.

Scientists are hampered in their storage, use,

and stud~’ of microbial diversity by their inability to isolate most micro-organisms. For

those micro-organisms 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. Substantial sums have been spent in

1 lth-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.

Photo credit B Dresser

Staff of the Cincinnati Wildlife Research Federation

working on an anesthetized white rhinoceros in an effort

to develop embryo transfer techniques. Proper equipment

must be developed for COI Iect ion of embryos from the

more common white rhino before it is tested on the

endangered black rhino. The white rhino would then

be used as a surrogate for embryos from black rhinos.

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
8 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

some aspects of diversity are covered, other

aspects are ignored. Table I-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.

Both 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 USDA’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.

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,

OTA has identified options available to Congress. These options are discussed under five

major issues:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

strengthening the national commitment,

increasing the Nation’s ability to maintain

biological diversity,

enhancing the knowledge base,

supporting international initiatives, and

addressing loss of biological diversity in

developing countries.

For each issue, alternative or complementary

options are presented. These range from legislative initiatives to programmatic changes

within Federal agencies. Options also define

opportunities to cultivate or support private sector initiatives. In a number of areas, however,

success will depend on increased or redirected

commitments of resources. Table 1-4 provides

a summary of policy issues and options.

Strongthon 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 resourcesrelated 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 nar-
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress . 9

Table l-3.— Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance

Common nam e Resource affected

Onsite diversity mandates:

Lacey Act of 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 Fish 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

(Public Law 94-532). . . . . . . . .,, ..,,.,, ,, .,, ,, ,, .., ,,

Whale Conservation and ProtectIon Study Act of 1976

(Public Law 94-532) ., ., . . ., ... ., ., .,

Fish and Wlldllfe Conservation Act of 1980 (Publtc Law 96-366) .,, ,.

Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act of 1980

(Publlc Law 96-561 ),. .,, ,, ,,,

Fish and Wildllfe Coordination Act of 1934 ., ...

Fish and Game Sanctuary Act of 1934 .., ., . ,

Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act of 1935

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

Wilderness Act of 1964 (Publlc Law 88-577) .,, ,,, .,,..,,

National Wlldllfe Refuge System Admlnistratlon Act of 1966

(Public Law 91-135) .,, ,, .., ,, .,, . . . . . . . . .

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Publlc Law 90-542) . . . . . .

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

(Publlc Law 92-532) .. ...,, .,, .,, .., ,..

wild animals

wild birds

wild birds

wild animals

wild birds

wild animals

fisheries

fisheries

wild animals

wild animals

wild plants and

animals

fisherles

wild animals

wild animals

fisheries

terrestrlal/aquatic

habitats

sanctuarles

natural landmarks

wildllfe sanctuaries

wilderness areas

refuges

river segments

coastal areas

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

(Publlc 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

Of/site diversity mandates:

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (Research and Marketing Act) ., agricultural plants

and an finals

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

animals

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978

(Public Law 95-307), ., ., ., ... . . . . . . . . . tree germplasm

NOTE Laws enacted prior to 1957 are cited by Chapter and not Publ!c Law number

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

U S, Code

16 USC, 667, 701

16 U.S,C 703 et seq.

16 USC 715 et seq.

16 U SC 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 SC, 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 USC 915 et seq

16 U S.C 2901 et seq.

16 U.S C 1823 et seq

16 U SC, 694

16 U.S.C 694

16 USC 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

16 U.S, C, 1271-1287

16 U,S.C 1431-1434

33 U,S.C. 1401, 1402, 1411-1421. 14411444

7 U.s.c 1010-1012

16 U S.C. 5, 79, 420, 460, 478, 522, 523, 551,

1339

30 us 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 US C. 1739, 1751-1753. 1901-1908

5 U,s.c 5315

7 U,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 SC 136

16 US C. 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372,

1402, 1531 et seq

16 U.S.C 1641-1647
10 ● Techno/ogjes TO Maintain Biological Diversity

— ———

Table l-4.—Summary of Policy Issues for Congressional Action Related to Biological Diversity Maintenance

Issue Finding Options

Strengthen national commitment Adopt a comprehensive approach

to maintaining bio/ogica/ diversity

Increase public awareness of

biological diversity issues

Increase ability to maintain

biological diversity

/reprove research, technology

development and application

Fill gaps and inadequacies in

existing programs

Enhance knowledge base /reprove data co//ection,

maintenance, and use

Support international initiatives Provide greater leadership in the

international/ arena

Promote the exchange of genetic

resources

Address loss in developing

countries

Amend Foreign Assistance Act

Enhance capability of the Agency

for /nternationa/ Development

Estab/ish alternative funding

sources for biological diversity

,~roiects .

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987

—

Establish a national biological diversity act

Prepare a national conservation strategy

Amend appropriate legislation of Federal

agencies

Establish a national conservation education act

Amend the International Security and

Development Cooperation Act

Direct National Science Foundation to establish

a conservation biology program

Establish a national endowment for biological

diversity

Provide sufficient funding for existing

maintenance programs

Improve link between onsite and off site

programs

Establish new programs to fill specific gaps in

current efforts

Establish a clearinghouse for biological data

Enhance existing natural heritage network of

conservation data centers

Increase support of existing international

programs

Continue oversight hearings of multilateral

development banks’ activities

Examine U.S. options on international exchange

of germplasm

Amend the Export Administration Act to affirm

U.S. commitment to free exchange of

germ plasm

Adopt broader definition of biological diversity

in Foreign Assistance Act

Direct AID to adopt strategic approach to

diversity conservation

Increase AID staffing of personnel with

environmental training

Create special account for natural resources

and the environment

Apply more Public Law 480 funds to effort — --—.. —

rowly 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 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
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress “ 11

- —

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 bring about cooperation among Federal, State, and private

efforts, help reduce conflicting activities, and

improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of

programs,
12 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

To be effective, a new 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 both 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 mainte-
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 1 3

nance 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 coordination 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 that they are already maintaining diversity

and do not need more explicit direction from

Congress, In addition, agencies could argue that

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. But, 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 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 stewardship

of the environment includes maintaining diversity, this predisposition of Americans could be

built onto 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 cuItivate a national commitment to maintaining biological

diversity, if properly orchestrated.
14 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

—

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 that would encourage understanding of environmental policies. z

A new act could support programs and curricula that promote, inter alia, 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

the 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 and private sector 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. Besides, new

This act was repealed by Public Lawr 97-35 in 1981, and the

I)epartment of Education has requested no funds for environmental education in its 1987 budget.

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 organizations (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 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
Ch. I—Summary and Options for Congress 15

1980 with Title III, Section 316, to further the

goals of Section 103.3

This amendment provides NGOs with BidenPell 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 understanding 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’s 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

‘Sm. 103, entitled ‘‘Agriculture, Rural De\’elopment and NLIt ri t ion, re[;ognizes that the majority of people in de~’eloping

(,ou nt rles 1 i~fe in rural areas and close to subsisten(;e. It authoriz(:s the I)resident to furnish assistance to alleviate hunger and

mal nut rit ion, enharr(:e the capacity of rural people, and to he] p

(. reate [) rod u(, t it’e on- and off-farm ern plojment. Sec, 315 en-

(:ourages pri i’at e a n[l k’ol LI n ta rk’ or~a n izat ions to fac I 1 i tate ti ] (1 [;-

~i)rea(l ~)uh] i{, (1 i s(; ussion, a nal}~ is, and re~’ie~~ of th[> issl}(;~ of

wor](] hunger, It espec ial]j’ (:a]]s for Increased pub] ic a~~’areness

of th (; pol it i(, a 1, fx, ono rn 1(,, te(. hnl(:al, and so(:ial factors aff(!(,t-

] ng h u ngt; r a n(l peter-t}.

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.

All too often, the Nation’s current research

programs related to biological diversity do not

have a goal-oriented 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 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 agricultural varieties, such as cryogenics and tissue culture, may be 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.
16 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

To accelerate research and application of

diversity-conserving 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 usually 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 significant impact. These efforts are not likely to replace public or national programs, but they

could bean integral part of the Nation’s attempt

to maintain its biological heritage.

Option 3.I: 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 both 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 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 diversityconserving 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 (C RGO). 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 that 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

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress 17

genetic resources.’ Funding, however, is a

major 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 the encouragement and support of 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 private sector initiatives in diversity

maintenance. Thus, the total amount needed

for such an endowment could be modest, and

it might be feasible to use only startup funds

and a partial contribution from the Federal Government and raise the remainder of the endowment from private sector contributions,

4

For further discussion, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diversity in the United States, Background Paper #1, OTA-BP-F-38

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February

1986].
18 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

. —

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 shrinking 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 diversity.

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 effectiveness, 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 (1981 dollars) annua]ly.

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 and 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 (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 activities for 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 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

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress 19

(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 \arious components—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;
20 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversify

●

●

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 has 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, there is little data 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.

Policy makers 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. The data must be of high quality; that is,

it must meet accepted standards of objectivity, completeness, reproducibility, and

accuracy.

2. The data must have value; that is, it must

address a worthwhile problem.

3. The data must be applicable; that is, it must

be useful to decisionmakers responsible for

making policy,

4. The data must be legitimate; that is, it must

carry a widely accepted presumption of accuracy and authority.

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 compre-
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress c 21

hensive perspective that Federal agencies

cannot supply because of their varied mandates. Access to previously inaccessible data

would be facilitated, which should reduce

duplication of efforts. By evaluating the qualit y of information, the clearinghouse could help

eliminate a general distrust among users of

other databases. Access to a diversity of databases means that 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) that lack of a uniform

system of data collection for the United States

would hinder national data analysis and use,

and 2) that 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 largescale 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 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 additional

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
22 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

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 Initiatives

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 carbon dioxide on the atmosphere, 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 has historically 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 specify 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 UNsponsored 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 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
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 2 3

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-theground programs (e.g., equipment, training, and

staf~, 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 one-fourth of the budget. In the fiscal years of 1979 to 1982, U.S. contributions averaged $300,000. But from fiscal

year 1982 to 1984, the United States made no

contributions. But in fiscal year 1985, $238,903

was contributed. 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.

Relative to 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 organizations 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 shrinking Federal work force and

budget.

Option 6.2: Continue to direct U.S. directors of

multilateral development banks (MDBs) to do

the following: l) press for more specific and
24 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

systematic MDB efforts to promote sound environmental and resource policies akin to the

World Bank’s wildland policy, Z) 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 are 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.

In 1986, the World Bank promulgated a new

policy 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 that

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 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 the 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 that the industrial nations

have benefited at their expense. Debates on
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 2 5

—

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 that are

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 the 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, 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.
26 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

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.

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 that it adheres to the principles of free exchange. ,

To reinforce recent executive affirmations of

the free flow of germ plasm, 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 a]-

ready 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.
Ch, l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 2 7

Address Loss of Biological Diversity

in Developing Countries

The United States has a stake in promoting

the maintenance of biological diversity in developing countries. Many of these nations are

in 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 Development (AID), as the

principal agency providing development assistance, was given a mandate to implement this

policy, which reads in part:

In order to preserve 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 anti-poaching 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 unclear whether Section 119, as the principal legislation dealing with concerns over

diversity loss outside the United States, defines

U.S. interests too narrowly. 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 maybe 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 antipoaching 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
28 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

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 identify these interests.

Option 8.1: Restructure existing sections of the

Foreign Assistance Act to reflect the full

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 interests 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 Zanguage of existing legislation to provide a fuller

accounting of U.S. interests in maintaining diversity in developing countries. Such changes

could expand from a 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

funds for biological diversity projects within

AID’s budget. The existing mechanisms within

the agency to identify and promote diversity
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 29

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.

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 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, 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
30 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

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.

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 nearterm prospects 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 may be 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 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
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 3 1

agencies to investigate re-establishing 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 in developing 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 funds, it is difficult

to see where further funding for diversity maintenance could be derived.

Option 10.1: Establish a new 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 longterm, low-interest 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
32 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

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.
Part I

Introduction and Background
Chapter 2

Importance of

Biological Diversity
CONTENTS

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Benefits to Ecological Processes

Ecosystem Diversity, .. ...,.,

Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . .

Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . .

Benefits to Research . . . . . . . . . .

Ecosystem Diversity. . . . . . . . .

Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . .

● ✌☛✎✎✎☛ ● ☛☛✎☛☛✎✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎☛✎✎☛✎✎☛ ✎☛☛✌✎✎ ✎

● ✌✎✎✎☛✌ ● 4...... ● *.*,**. .*, . ● .***** .*. *

,*. * ● *****. , ● *****O ● .**.*.* ....**** ● * ,

*,.**** ● * * * .**,*** ,.,,.... . ● .***** ● * , *

.**.**. ● ..*.,** ● *** . 6**,**, ● ,*.,.., ,* ,

,,,.,.. ● *.**.*. .,**.*,. .,.*.,* . *.,*** *

****..* ● ******.* .******** ● ..****** ● * . *

,,..,., ● *,**,.* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,*,**

,***.** ***,**.* ● **.**.* ● *....*. ● ..*** ,

Gknetic Diversi~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Benefits to Cultural Heritage ● ****** ,***.*** ● ******* ...,*,*, ,.,,..., . .

Ecosystem Diversity. . .**.*** ● ******* 9******* ***.  ● ** **,** ● *.,..

Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● ***,9* ● **,**.* ● .****** ● ..*..*

Genetic Diversity . . ● .*.*,, .*.**..* ..*,.*.. ● ..***** ..*,*..* O**,**..

Benefits to Recreation and Tourism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ecosystem Diversity. . . . . . .,**..* ● .****.. ● ..,,,** ..**.**, ,,,..... .,

Species Diversity ● **,*.. ......4. ● *.**.** ,.,,.... ....*.** .******. ,.

Genetic Diversity . . . . . ● **,*** ● *,.**.. ● ******* ..****** ● *,**.*. ● .**,

Benefits to Agriculture and Harvested Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ecosystem Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Species Diversity ● ****** ..,.  ● ** **.** ***.*..* ● .****** ● *..*.** . .

Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . ● ****** ● .*.*.** .,..*.** ●  .**  ..**,*., .*

Values and Evaluation of Biological Diversity .**,**. ● ***,.*. ● *****.* ● , *

Economic Value . . . . . . .....;... . . . . . . .

Intrinsic Value . . ;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Constituencies of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Awareness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Balancing Interests and Perspectives . . . .

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table

Tabie No.

2-1. Examples of Benefits From Ecosystem,

and Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

figure

Figure No.

● ☛☛☛☛☛☛ ● ****’*. ● *****.* *.** .

.****** ● ****O*. . . . . . ,,,.,,. .

● .**.** .*...*** .,...,00 ..0. 0

● *****. .*..**** ● *.*,*** . . . . .

● ***.*. .***.*** ● ***.*.. ● *** .

. . . . . . . ● .****** ..,..,.. ..** *

37

37

39

39

41

43

43

43

44

45

46

46

46

47

48

48

49

49

49

49

50

51

53

53

54

54

54

55

55

Page

Species,

,...0.. ● ..*.**, ● *.*,.*, ● *,, . 38

Page

2-1. Krill:The Linchpin to the Antarctic Foodweb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Boxe s

BOXNO. Page

20A. Components of Biological Diversity ● ****** ● .****** ●  .**  ● .***.*. 38

z-B. Scales of Ecosystem Diversity ● ● , . ● ● . . ● ● . ● . . . ● “* * # , ● , ● . . ● ● . , , , , , , ● ● 39
Chapter 2

Importance of Biological Diversity

Human welfare is inextricably linked to, and

dependent on, biological diversity. Diversity is

necessary for several reasons: 1] to sustain and

improve agriculture, 2) to provide opportunities

for medical discoveries and industrial innovations, and 3) to preserve choices for addressing unpredictable problems and opportunities

of future generations. Actual and potential economic uses range from subsistence foraging to

genetic engineering. The essential services of

ecosystems, such as moderating climate; concentrating, fixing, and recycling nutrients; producing and preserving soils; and controlling

pests and diseases are also dependent on biological diversity. Finally, diversity has esthetic

and ethical vaIues.

Biological diversity refers to the variety and

variability among 1iving organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different

kinds of items and their relative frequency in

a set (97). 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 the numbers and relative abundance of different ecosystems, species, and genes. (Box 2-A describes

major components of biological diversity.)

Species diversity, for example, decreases

when the number of species in an area is reduced or when the same number exists but a

few become more abundant while others become scarce. When a species no longer exists

in an area, it is said to be locally eliminated.

The extreme effect of species diversity loss is

extinction—when a species no longer exists

anywhere.

Biological diversity is the basis of adaptation

and evolution and is basic to all ecological processes. It contributes to research and education,

cultural heritage, recreation and tourism, the

development of new and existing plant and animal domesticates, and the supply of harvested

resources (table 2-1). The intrinsic importance

of biological diversity lies in the uniqueness of

all forms of life: each individual is different,

as is each population, each species, and each

association of species. Major functional and

utilitarian benefits of ecosystem, species, and

genetic diversity are described in the next five

sections; evaluation of diversity and the constituencies of diversity are discussed in the final sections.

37
38 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 2.1 .—Examples of Benefits From Ecosystem, Species, and Genetic Diversity

Agriculture and

Ecological Drocesses Research Cultural heritaae Recreation and tourism harvested resources

Ecosystem diversity

Maintenance of productivity; buffering environmental changes; watershed

and coastal protection

Species diversity

Role of plants and animals

in forest regeneration,

grassland production, and

marine nutrient cycling;

mobile links; natural fuel

stations

Genetic diversity

Raw material of evolution

required for survival and

adaptation of species and

populations

Natural research areas;

sites for baseline monitoring (e.g., Serengeti National

Park, Zambesi Teak Forest)

Models for research on human diseases and drug

synthesis (e.g., bristlecone

pine, desert pupfish, medicinal leeches)

Fruit flies in genetics, corn

in inheritance, and Nicotiana in virus studies

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S6.

Sacred mountains and

groves; historic landmarks

and landscapes (e. g.,

Mount Fuji; Voyageurs Park,

Minnesota)

National symbols (bald eagles); totems; objects of

civic pride (e.g., port orford

cedar, bowhead whale, Ficus religiosa)

Breeds and cultivars of

ceremonial, historic, esthetic, or culinary value

(e.g., Texas longhorn cattle,

rice festivals (Nepal))

700 to 800 million visitors

per year to US. State and

national parks; 250,000 to

500,000 visitors per year to

mangrove forests in Venezuela

95 million people feed, observe, andlor photograph

wildlife each year; 54 million fish; 19 million hunt

100,000 visitors per year to

Rare Breeds Survival Trust

in the United Kingdom

Rangeiands for livestock production (e.g., 34 in the U.S.);

habitats for wild pollinators

and pest enemies (e.g., saving $40 to $80 per acre for

grape growers)

Commercial logging, fishing,

and other harvesting industries ($27 billion/year in U.S.);

new crops (e.g., kiwi fruit, red

deer, catfish, and Ioblolly

pine)

Required to avoid negative

selection and enhancement

programs; pest and disease

resistance alleles
Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity ● 3 9

BENEFITS TO ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES

Ecological processes include—

●

●

●

●

●

●

regulation: monitoring the chemistry and

climate of the planet so it remains habitable;

production: conversion of solar energy and

nutrients into plant matter;

consumption: conversion of plant matter

into animal matter;

decomposition: breakdown of organic

wastes and recycling of nutrients;

protection processes: protection of soil by

grasslands and forests and protection of

coastlines by coral reefs and mangroves,

for example; and

continuation of life: processes of feeding,

breeding, and migrating.

Knowledge of the relationship between diversity and ecological processes is fragmentary,

but it is clear that diversity is crucial to the functioning of all major life processes, for diversity

helps maintain productivity and buffers ecosystems against environmental change. Diversity

within ecosystems is essential for protective,

productive, and economic benefits. Species

diversity is necessary for a stable food web. And

diversity of genetic material allows species to

adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Ecosystem Diversity

Ecosystems are systems of plants, animals,

and micro-organisms, together with the nonliving components of their environment (45).

It can be recognized on many scales, from

biome—the largest ecological unit—to microhabitat (box 2-B). Ecosystem diversity refers to

the variety that occurs within a larger landscape. Loss of ecosystem diversity can result

in both the loss of species and genetic resources

and in the impairment of ecological processes.

In eastern and southern Africa, for instance,

the mosaic of ephemeral ponds, flood plains,

and riparian woodlands enable antelope, elephant, and zebra to survive long cycles of wet

and dry years (16,23). On the American continent, many animal species cope with oscillations in weather and climate by migrating between biomes—spending the rainy season in

Box 2-B.—Scales of Ecosytem Diversity

Several ways exist to classify the many

scales of ecosystem diversity. An example

using the Pacific Northwest to illustrate four

levels of ecosystems is shown below. Animal

species characteristic of each level are noted.

1. Biome: temperate coniferous forest

–Rufous hummingbird

-Mountain beaver

Z. Zone: western hemlock

-Coho salmon

–Oregon slender salamander

3. Habitat: old growth forest

–Vaux’s swift

–Spotted owl

~. Microhabitat: fallen tree

–Clouded salamander

—California red-backed vole

The fallen tree component of old growth and

mature forests illustrates the contribution of

ecosystem diversity to ecological processes.

Fallen trees provide a rooting medium for

western hemlock and other plants that is moist

enough for growth to continue during the summer drought, a reserve of nitrogen and other

nutrients, and a source of food and shelter for

animals and micro-organisms that play key

roles in redistributing and returning the ntitrients to the regenerating forest. For example, the rotten wood provides habitat for truffles, and the truffles are eaten by the California

red-backed vole, which spreads the truffle

spores, so helping the growth of Douglas fir

trees, which require mycorrhizal fungi (such

as truffles) for uptake of nutrients (56).

the tropical dry forest and the dry season in

the rain forest, that is, summer in temperate

forest and winter in tropical forest. Others use

different habitats within the same biome; for

example, leaf-eating primates and flower-pollinating bats move from dry sites in the rainy

season to evergreen riparian trees in the dry

season (32,48).

Several types of ecosystems are closely associated with protective and productive processes

of direct economic benefit. Cloud forests, for
40 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

example, increase precipitation, often substantially (38). Watershed forests generally reduce

soil erosion and thereby help protect downstream reservoirs, irrigation systems, harbors,

and waterways from siltation (45). Coral reefs

are productive oases in otherwise unproductive

tropical waters. Algae living inside coral polyps

enable the corals to build the reefs (8,49). The

reefs, in turn, support local fisheries and protect coastlines.

Wetlands are another example of an ecosystem with protective processes linked to economic output. Millions of waterfowl and other

birds of great economic value depend on the

diverse North American wetlands—coastal tundra wetlands, inland freshwater marshes, prairie potholes, coastal saltwater marshes, and

mangrove swamps—for breeding, feeding, migrating, and overwintering.

These wetlands also support most commercial and recreational fisheries in the United

States. 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 (88,90). Other

wetland services include water purification (by

removing nutrients, processing organic wastes,

and reducing sediment loads), riverbank and

shoreline protection, and flood assimilation,

Wetlands temporarily store flood waters, reducing flow rates and protecting people and property downstream from flood and storm damage.

For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers chose protection of 8,500 acres of wetlands over construction of a reservoir or extensive walls and dikes as the least-cost solution

to flooding problems in the Charles River basin in Massachusetts, It was estimated that loss
Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity ● 4 1

of the Charles River wetlands would have resulted in an average of $17 million per year in

flood damage (80,88,90), (Data on wetlands ecosystem losses are given in chapter 3.)

Species Diversity

Some species play such an important role in

particular ecosystems that the ecosystems are

named after them. Zambezi Teak Forest and

Longleaf-Slash Pine Forest are examples. But

the ecological processes that maintain dominant species often depend on other species. For

example, elephants and buffaloes make a crucial contribution to regeneration of Zambezi

teak by burying seeds, providing manure, and

destroying competing thicket species (72),

Depletion of species can have a devastating

impact higher up the food chain. For example,

catches of common carp in the Illinois River

are one-tenth of what they were in the early

1950s. This decrease appears to be the result

of pollution-caused die-off in the 1950s of fingernail clams, may fly larvae, and other riverbottom macro-invertebrates. These macro-invertebrates are still scarce, for river-bottom sediment is slow to recover from pollution, much

slower than water quality, for example (44).

Certain species have a greater effect on productive processes than is indicated by their position in a food web (figure 2-1). Earthworms,

for instance, improve the mixing of soil, increase the amount of mineralized nitrogen

available for plant growth, aerate the soil, and

improve its water-holding capacity (98). Ants

also contribute to soil formation in temperate

regions and the tropics. They contribute to the

aeration, drainage, humidification, and enrichment of both forest and grassland soils (99).

In East Africa, species diversity increases the

productivity of grasslands. For example, grazing by wildebeest promotes the lush regrowth

eaten by gazelles (59,60). Similar interactions

have been observed in North American grasslands between prairie dogs and bison. Although

the standing crop of grass in prairie dog towns

 A Se / /o 

 Cave National Park, South Dakota, contains a variety of wildlife elk, prairie dogs, prong horn. and

deer Interactions between species such as dogs and bison increase the productivity of grasslands,
42 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure The Linchpin to the Antarctic Foodweb

Antarctic waters are among the most product ive in t he world. The main link in this food web is the small 11, shrimp-like ures

that feed on plankton. in turn, support seabirds, fish, and squid, which are the mainstay of seals and whales.
is half that of grass outside, protein levels and

digestibility are significantly higher. In Wind

Cave National Park, prairie dog towns occupy

less than 5 percent of the area, but bison spend

65 percent of their time per unit area in the

towns, mostly feeding (28).

Some species have an unusually prominent

position in food webs, being major predators

of species on lower levels of the food chain and

major prey of species on higher levels. Arctic

cod, for example, feed on herbivorous and carnivorous zooplankton (amphipods, copepods,

and decapods). Cod, in turn, is an important

food of many bird and marine mammal species including gulls, narwhals, belugas, and

harp seals (25),

Genetic Diversity

Intraspecific genetic diversity allows species

to adapt to changing conditions, thus sustaining ecosystem and species diversity; it also

helps produce plants and animals that will support more productive agriculture and forestry,

Genetic diversity is distributed unevenly among

Ch. Z—Importance of Biological

and within species. Some

pear to be more variable

Diversity ● 4 3

groups of species apthan others: reptile,

bird, and mammal species have less than half

the genetic variation found in invertebrate species and less than a quarter of that found in

many insects and marine invertebrates (34),

The greater the amount of genetic variation

in a population, the faster its potential rate of

evolution (7). Certain genes are directly important for survival (e. g., genes conferring disease

resistance), In addition, genetic diversity enables species to adapt to a wide range of physical, climatic, and soil conditions and to changes

in those conditions. Genetic diversity is positively correlated with fitness, vigor, and reproductive success (7,85).

Among marine animals, and probably among

terrestrial animals as well, high genetic variability is associated with high species diversity,

which in turn is associated with a number of

spatially different microhabitats (e. g., tropical

and deep sea environments). It seems likely that

the high genetic variability y provides the flexibility to make finely tuned adjustments to microhabitats.

BENEFITS TO RESEARCH

Research may hold answers to many of the

questions facing this complex world. The results of research on the patterns and processes

of temperate forests have provided methods for

sustainable management of those ecosystems,

Knowledge of tropical rain forests will result

in similar strategies. Without diversity of species, researchers would not have the needed

plant material to develop many vaccines, intravenous fluid, or other medicines, The potential for further advancement has not been fully

realized, yet a loss of species diversity will adversely affect future research. Protection of

genetic diversity is equally essential, because

materials from plants and animals have provided valuable knowledge on viruses, immunology, and disease resistance.

Ecosystem Diversity

Many contributions of ecosystem diversity

to global ecological processes, e.g., the role of

wetlands in the Earth’s oxygen balance, have

yet to be demonstrated quantitatively, But the

research required to develop and test these hypotheses depends on the full range of diversity.

By studying natural ecosystems, scientists are

better able to understand how the Earth works.

Knowledge of the role of ecosystem diversity

in ecological processes is substantial and growing, largely because of the availability of natural research areas such as the Olympic National

Park and the H.J, Andrews Experimental Ecological Reserve in Willamette National Forest

(42,81). Relatively undisturbed grasslands in the
44 ● Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

Serengeti National Park (Tanzania) and Wind

Cave National Park (South Dakota) provide research significant for range management. Research includes, for example, studies of the extent to which grazing intensity increases

primary production and the protein content and

digestibility of grasses (28). Research on species and natural gene pools also requires ecosystem maintenance.

Representative examples of major ecosystems

are used as reference sites for baseline monitoring on productivity, regeneration, and adaptation to environmental change. In addition,

evaluation of development projects to ensure

they are both economical and sustainable calls

for assessment of, among other things, their

environmental effects measured against unaltered sites with similar vegetation, soils, and

climate.

The Zambezi Teak Forest ecosystem, for example, which yields Zambia’s most valuable

timber, is declining rapidly, due to excessive

logging, fire, and shifting cultivation. If present

trends continue, this forest would effectively

disappear in 50 years. Attempts at artificial

regeneration have met with little success. To

improve understanding of natural regeneration,

an undisturbed tract of the forest in Kafue National Park is being studied. Continued monitoring of the Kafue tract will provide data

needed for assessing costs and benefits of any

silviculture system for the Zambezi Teak Forest (72,74).

Ecosystems are also living classrooms. The

University of California’s Natural Land and

Water Reserves System includes 26 reserves

representing 106 of the 178 habitat types identified for the State. The reserves are used for

instruction and research in botany, geology,

ecology, archeology, ethology, paleontology,

wildlife management, genetics, zoology, population biology, and entomology (52). Enabling

children and adults to experience different ecosystems is an effective way to teach ecological

processes, genetic variation, community composition and dynamics, and human relations

with the natural world.

Species Diversity

Species diversity is the basis for many fields

of scientific research and education. The array of invertebrates used in research illustrates

the importance of diversity to the advancement

of science. The 100 or so species of Hawaiian

picture-winged fruit flies are the organisms of

choice for basic research on genetics, evolutionary biology, and medicine. Tree snails of

Hawaii and the Society Islands provide ideal

material for research on evolution and genetic

variation and differentiation (57).

Bristlecone pines, the oldest known living

organisms and found only in the U.S. Southwest, are used to calibrate radiocarbon dates

and hence, are important for archeology, prehistory, and climatology (62). Contributions of

plant and animal species to biomedical research

and drug synthesis abound (63,71). Examples

include:

Desert pupfishes, found only in the Southwest, tolerate salinity twice that of saltwater and are valuable models for research

on human kidney disease (63).

Sea urchin eggs are used extensively in experimental embryology, in studies of cell

structure and fertilization, and in tests on

the teratological effects of drugs (98).

Medicinal leeches are important in neurophysiology and research on blood clotting (98).

An extract of horseshoe crabs provides the

quickest and most sensitive test of vaccines

and intravenous fluids for contamination

with bacterial endotoxins (98).

Butterfly species are used in research on

cancers, anemias, and viral diseases (82).

The study of sponges is making substantial contributions to structural chemistry,

pharmaceutical chemistry, and developmental biology and has also resulted in the

discovery of novel chemical compounds

and activities. D-arabinosyl cytosine, an important synthetic antiviral agent, owes its

development to the discovery of spongouridine, which was isolated from a Jamaican
Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity ● 45

 Cohen Zoo

The armadillo is one of only two animal species known to contract leprosy.

These animals now serve as research models to find a cure.

sponge. Three derivatives of this compound have been patented as antiviral and

anticancer drugs (10).

Genetic Diversity

Genetic variability is one of the characteristics of fruit flies, tree snails, and butterflies that

makes them so useful for research. The unusual

range of diversity among the races, varieties,

and lines of corn contributes to its enormous

value for basic biological research. One example is the discovery and analysis of regulatory

systems that control gene expression, which

added a new dimension to the study of inheritance (21).

The genus Nicotiana has also been used

widely in genetic and botanical research largely

because of the great variation among its species (84). The varied reactions to specific viruses

characteristic of many Nicotiana species provide a potential tool for separating and identifying viruses, Nicotiana species have been

involved in numerous discoveries of virus research (e. g., virus transmissibility, purification,

and mutability) (35),

Special genetic stocks are essential research

tools. For example, inbred lines of chickens developed at the University of California at Davis

are used worldwide for research on immunology and disease resistance of chickens. Mutant

stocks of chickens also serve as genetic models

for scoliosis (lateral curvature of the spine) and

muscular dystrophy in humans (58).
46 ● Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

BENEFITS TO CULTURAL HERITA6E

Throughout history, societies have put great

value on physical features of their environment.

In developed and developing countries, a diversity of ecosystems is a source of esthetic, historic, religious, and ritualistic values. Species

diversity assures people of national and state

symbols, and many such symbols are protected.

Genetic diversity continues in part because of

the cultural value of plants and animals. Gardeners around the world share seed material

ensuring genetic survival.

Ecosystem Diversity

Natural ecosystems have great cultural (including religious, esthetic, and historic) importance for many people. Mountains are the focus

of religious celebrations and rituals throughout the world: Mount Kenya, Mount Everest,

Mount Fuji, Mount Taishan in China, and Black

Mesa in Arizona. Forests also have great spiritual value: probably the only surviving examples of primary forest in southwestern India

are sacred groves—ancient natural sanctuaries

where all living creatures are protected by the

deity to which the grove is dedicated. Removing even a twig from the grove is taboo (36).

People who lead subsistence-based lives identify closely with the ecosystems on which they

depend. Two examples are the Guarao people

in the mangrove swamps and savannas of Venezuela’s Orinoco Delta (39) and the Inuit people

in the tundra of the North American Arctic

(9,24). The economic, social, and spiritual elements of the relationship between such peoples

and the ecosystems that support them are inseparable.

Ecosystems define and symbolize relationships between human beings and the natural

world and express cultural and national identity, In the United States, the landscapes protected in wilderness areas, national parks, monuments, and preserves are full of historical

meaning and show the close ties between America the nation and America the land. Examples

of these are pre-Columbian Indian habitations

at Mesa Verde in Colorado; symbols of the

opening of the Midwest and West at Voyageurs

Park in Minnesota; and combinations of wilderness preservation and human occupation including current subsistence-use at Kobuk Valley in Alaska (66,94).

Species Diversity

Whereas the Continenta] Congress in 1782

adopted the bald eagle as a national symbol; and

Whereas the bald eagle thus became the symbolic representation of a new nation under a

new government in a new world; and

Whereas by that act of Congress and by tradition and custom during the life of this Nation, the bald eagle is no longer a mere bird of

biological interest but a symbol of the American ideals of freedom . . .

–Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940

.

 National Federation

Cultural value of species is exemplified by the bald

eagle, adopted by the Continental Congress as a

symbol of the United States.
Ch. 2—lmporfance of Biological Diversity ● 47

When Congress adopted the bald eagle as a

national symbol, it was responding to an ancient human need to identify with other species, All over the world and throughout history,

people have adopted animals and plants as emblems, icons, symbols, and totems and invested

them with ideals and values, adopted them as

representations of particular characteristics of

their culture and society, sought the power and

authority they stand for, or venerated them as

embodiments of fruitfulness and life itself.

The endangered bowhead whale plays a pivotal cultural role in several Yupik and Inupiat

Eskimo villages in northern Alaska, Bowhead

whale hunting is the first and most important

activity in the subsistence cycle. It is a major

social unifier, providing community identity

and continuity with the past, The division, distribution, and sharing of bowhead whale meat

and skin involve the entire community, strengthening kinship and communal bonds. Important

ceremonies, celebrations, and feasts accompany the harvest of a bowhead whale and the

distribution and sharing of its meat (4,5).

Port Or ford Cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniance), prized for its cultural and economic

values, has become the focus of a recent controversy. It grows only in a small area of southern Oregon and northern California, where it

produces some of the area’s highest priced timber. Top quality may cost as much as $3,000

per 1,000 board-feet. This price reflects demand

from Japan, where it is used in homes and temples as a substitute for the no longer available

Japanese Hinoki cypress. It also has great cultural importance for Native Americans of the

Hupa, Yurok, and Karok tribes in northwestern

California, who regard it as sacred and use the

wood in homes and religious ceremonies, Management of remaining stands of the cedar has

become controversial, because mature trees are

in short supply and threatened by a tree-killing

root-rot disease, spread partly by logging operations (22).

Native Americans seek to reserve all the Port

Orford Cedar growing on formal tribal land–

now administered by the U.S. Forest Service—

for ceremonial purposes. Other citizens’ groups

seek a management plan that would control logging operations and restrict loggers’ access to

some areas to reduce the spread of the fungus.

Scientists at the Forest Service and Oregon

State University are exploring the genetic diversity of the species in an effort to develop strains

resistant to the fungus (22),

In South and Southeast Asia, trees, Asian

elephants, monkeys, cobras, and birds figure

prominently in tribal religions and have been

taken into the pantheons of Hinduism and Buddhism. Certain tree species, such as Ficus

religiosa, are sacrosanct and may not be cut

down (2,20); political authorities often invoke

the sanction of animals to win popular support

(61). Interspecific loyalties persist; the hornbill,

central figure of the Gawai Kenya-lang or Hornbill Festival of the Iban people in Sarawak,

Malaysia, is also the official emblem of the state

(50).

In urban North America, species also express

community identity. Inwood, Manitoba, proclaims itself the garter snake capital of the

world (after the mass matings of red-sided garter snakes that occur nearby) (67], and Pacific

Grove, California, dubs itself Butterfly Town,

USA (after the spectacular colonies of Monarch

butterflies that overwinter there) (98). These

actions are partly commercial acumen—the

phenomena are tourist attractions—but they

also reflect civic pride and perhaps something

deeper as well,

Many crop varieties and livestock breeds persist because they are culturally valuable to

different societies, This group includes plants

and animals with religious and ceremonial significance—such as the festival rices of Nepal

and Mithan cattle in northern Burma and northeastern India (40)—as well as varieties valued

for their contribution to the traditional diet.

Farmers in the Peruvian Andes commonly

plant their potato fields with many varieties

(often 30 or more), producing a mixture of

colors, shapes, textures, and flavors to enhance

the diet (14), In northwestern Spain, a mosaic
48 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

.

 credit. G. 

of local varieties of beans and other legumes

is grown, each variety intended for a particular dish in the traditional cuisine (3).

A growing number of Americans value traditional cuhivars and breeds for their history and

for their esthetic and culinary qualities. Native

Americans, helped by grassroots organizations,

continue to grow traditional varieties of corn,

chiles, beans, and squash (91). Hispanic-American farmers in the Southwest prefer native corn

for its texture, flavor, and color, even though

its yield is only one-third to one-fourth of hybrid corn (64), The cultural value of rare livestock breeds is exemplified by Texas Longhorn

cattle (which have a prominent place in American history) and Navaho sheep (whose fleece

is important to Navaho weaving).

Gardeners have organized national and regional networks to conserve some plant varieties because they have better taste, have links

with national, local, and ethnic history; are suitable for the home garden; and because of the

abundance of colors and forms found among

old and local varieties of potatoes, corn, beans,

and other crops (33,43,47,64,91).

Hopi Indian garden of mixed crops illustrates ancient

horticultural traditions that persist on this continent.

BENEFITS TO RECREATION AND TOURISM

Millions of people worldwide derive benefits Ecosystem Diversity from recreation and tourism provided by biological diversity. Without diverse ecosystems, State and National parks in the United States

countries would lose tremendous amounts of attract 700 to 800 million visitors per year

foreign exchange. Without wilderness areas, (73,74), and National Forests receive some 200

national parks, or national forests, city dwellers million visitors per year (93). One reason for

would have no place to “escape” the daily pres- these visits—indeed, some surveys suggest the

sures. Species diversity is essential to the mil- main reason—is to enjoy the variety of landIions of wildlife photographers, bird lovers, and scapes the parks and forests protect (83), Sightplant and animal watchers. And without ge- seeing accounts for more recreation-visitor

netic diversity, horticulturists, gardeners, ani- days (52 million) in National Forests than any

mal breeders, and anglers would find little en- other recreation activity except camping (60

joyment in their avocations. million) (93).
Ecosystem diversity is a significant recreational asset in developing countries as well. In

Venezuela, the mangrove forests of Morrocoy

National Park attract 250,000 to 500,000 visitors per year (39); in Nepal, mountain landscapes, rhododendron forests, and fauna bring

in foreign exchange (55),

Species Diversity

About 95 million Americans a year participate in nonconsumptive recreational uses of

wildlife (observing, feeding, or photographing

wild plants and animals); each year 54 million

Americans fish and 19 million Americans hunt

for sport. In the process they spend $32.4 billion per year (95).

Surveys of American recreational uses of

wildlife reveal that a number of different species interest people. Recreational hunters in

North America pursue some 90 species (73,74).

Millions of Americans take time to observe not

only birds and mammals, but also amphibians,

reptiles, butterflies, spiders, beetles, and other

arthropods (95),

Ch. Z—Importance of Biological Diversity “ 49

Little data exist on wildlife recreational use

by people in developing countries, but for several nations wildlife-based tourism is big business. The spectacular wild animals of east and

southern Africa are the resource base of a tourist industry that brings millions of dollars in

foreign exchange. In 1985, Kenya netted about

$300 million from almost 500,000 visitors, making wildlife tourism the country’s biggest earner

of foreign exchange (l).

Genetic Diversity

Millions of home gardeners and members of

horticultural and animal breed associations derive recreational benefit from genetic diversity.

So, too, do millions of anglers who take advantage of stocking and enhancement programs.

Tourism associated with genetic diversity involves fewer people, although the Rare Breeds

Survival Trust in the United Kingdom receives

100,000 visitors a year. In North America, at

least 10 million people visit the some 200 living historical farms—open-air museums that recreate and interpret agricultural and other

activities of a particular point in history (91).

BENEFITS TO AGRICULTURE AND HARVESTED RESOURCES

In agriculture, a diversity of ecosystems, species, and genetic material provides increased

amounts and quality of yields. In a world where

population is rapidly increasing, assuring a continued increase in harvested resources is essential. Diversity in an agroecosystem provides

habitat for predators of crop pests and breeding sites for pollinators. Diversity of species can

be a buffer against economic failure and can

also play an important role in pest management.

Further, the use of genetic materials by breeders has attributed to at least 50 percent of the

increase in agriculture yields and quality.

Ecosystem Diversity

Both diversity and isolation affect the ability

of pests to invade a crop. They also affect the

supply of pests’ enemies, Uncultivated habitats

next to croplands contain wildflowers, which

contain important nutrients for the adult stages

of predatory and parasitic insects (37). Wildflowers also support essential alternate hosts

for parasites, especially in seasons when pests

they prey on are not present, In California, for

instance, wild brambles (Rubus) provide an offseason reservoir of prey for wasps, which control a major grape pest, This arrangement saves

grape growers $40 to $60 per acre in reduced

pesticide costs (6,54).

A variety of wild habitats also provides food,

cover, and breeding sites for pollinators. Wild

pollinators (chiefly insects) make major contributions to the production of at least 34 crops

grown or imported by the United States, with

a combined annual average value of more than

$1 billion. They are the main pollinating agents

in the production of cranberry and cacao, the

propagation of red clover, and the production
50 Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity

and propagation of cashew and squash. They

are also significant pollinators for such crops

as coconut, apple, sunflower, and carrot. The

abundance of wild pollinators is largely determined by the availability of ecosystem diversity (woods, scrub, bare ground, moist areas,

patches of flowers) within flight range of the

crops to be pollinated (73,74).

permanent pastures and rangelands occupy

one-fourth of the Earth’s land surface (31). Because they support most of the world’s 3 billion head of domesticated grazing animals (45),

rangelands can be considered harvested ecosystems, where the nutrients and solar energy

of marginal lands are converted into meat, milk,

wood, and other goods,

In the United States, 34 rangelands are involved and include plains, prairie, mountain

grassland, and Texas savanna (93). Pastoral

nomadism and migrations by wild herbivores

are traditional ways of using these resources.

Modern ways include hauling sheep between

summer and winter ranges, which may be 300

to 400 kilometers apart in the intermountain

region (12).

Species Diversity

Diversity of harvestable species acts as a

buffer that allows people in fluctuating environments to cope with extremes. For instance,

in Botswana, five wild plant species are extensively used by pastoralists and river people, but

an additional 50 or more species are resorted

to in times of drought (17).

Harvested species provide much of the subsistence of indigenous peoples and rural communities throughout the world. Wild bearded

pig and deer contribute about 36,000 tons of

meat a year to rural diets in Sarawak, Malaysia. This amount of meat from domestic animals would cost about $138 million. (15). Per

capita consumption of harvested food by Inuit

in the North American Arctic averages annually from 229 kg (504 lb) to 346 kg (761 lb). The

per capita cost of buying substitute food (usually of lower nutritional and cultural value) was

estimated to be $2,1OO per year (1981 figures)

(4,101).

The commercial timber, fishery, and fur industries obtain most of their resources by harvesting wild species, Harvested resources are

also major contributors to the pharmaceutical

industry, and to many other industries as well.

The average annual value of the wild resources

produced and imported by the United States

between 1976 and 1980 was about $27,4 billion,

of which $23 billion was timber (73,74).

Many species are involved, but most of them

are economically significant only to the tradesmen involved. Even so, the number of harvested

species might run up to more than a hundred.

For example, it takes on average 70 species to

make up 90 percent of the annual value of U.S.

commercial fishery landings (74).

In agriculture, two types of diversity are useful in pest management programs: crop diversity and pest enemy diversity, Crop diversity

(multiple cropping) can promote the activity of

beneficial insects. For example, to attract

Lycosa wolf spiders, the main predators of corn

borers in Indonesia, farmers interplant the corn

with peanuts (46). In California, lygus bugs, one

of the main pests of cotton, are controlled somewhat by strip-planting alfalfa, which the bugs

prefer to cotton (11). Pest enemy diversity includes introduced as well as native enemies.

The Florida citrus industry saves $35 million

per year by using three parasitic insect species

that were imported and established at a cost

of $35,000. Some 200 foreign insect pests in the

United States are controlled by introduced parasites and predators (63).

A long-standing use of wild species diversity

is as a source of new domesticates. In the

United States, the combined farm sales and import value of domesticated wild species is well

over $1 billion per year. The domestication of

two major groups of resources—timber trees

and aquatic animals—has only begun and is at

about the same stage that agricultural domestications were some 5,000 years ago. But agricultural and horticultural domestications are

still occurring.

Among the successful new food crops developed this century are kiwifruit, highbush blueberry, and wild rice (most of the wild rice
Ch. 2—lmportnce of Biological Diversity ● 5 1

Two intercropping systems —fava beans and sprouts, and wild mustard and sprouts—demonstrate

the benefits of diversity to agriculture. Both systems benefit the sprouts crop: wild mustard acts as a trap crop

of flea beetles, and fava beans fix nitrogen with possible benefits to sprouts yields.

produced in the United States is domesticated).

New and incipient forage crops include Bahia

grass, desmodium, and several of the wheatgrasses, Red deer and aquiculture species such

as catfish, hardshell clam, and the giant freshwater prawn, are among the newly domesticated livestock. Loblolly pine, slash pine,

parana pine, and balsa are some of the new timber domesticates (73,74).

Domestication of wild species increases the

economic benefits of wild species by improving

product quality and by raising yields. It can also

make a valuable contribution to rural development in areas that are marginal for conventional crops and livestock. Nepal’s Department

of Medicinal Plants has organized the farming

of two native species IRauvolfia serpentine and

VaZeriana wallichii) for example, and it is investigating propagation of several other wild

species that are sources of drugs, perfumes, and

flavors for export, Scientists in Zambia and Botswana are working on the domestication of

mungongo tree, whose fruits are used for food

and oil and whose wood is valued for carvings

(74),

Genetic Diversity

Health and long-term productivity of wild resource species—from game animals to timber

trees to food and sport fish—depend on genetic

diversity within and among the harvested populations, If the best individuals (biggest animals,

tallest trees) are harvested before they repro-
52 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

 credit M 

Medicine from nature: sp., known as “sangre

de grade” in the Peruvian Amazon. This tree produces

a sap used for a variety of medicinal purposes.

duce, then the productivity and adaptability of

the population will progressively decline.

In addition, certain populations are better

adapted to particular locations than others. For

example, chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon

from different rivers are genetically distinct;

these distinctions reflect differences in the

physical and chemical characteristics of the

streams in which they originated (69,70). Diversity needs to be maintained so that any restocking to compensate for overharvesting or habitat degradation can use populations that are

adapted to the specific environmental conditions.

In agriculture, genetic diversity in the form

of readily available genes reduces a crop’s vulnerability to pests and pathogens. Resistance

genes can be introduced as long as a high degree of genetic diversity is maintained in offsite collections, onsite reserves, and agroecosystems. U.S. plant breeders keep a substantial

supply of diversity in cultivars, parental lines,

synthetic populations, and other breeders’ stocks

ready for use (13,26),

The genetic variation in domesticated plants

and animals and in their wild relatives is the

raw material with which breeders increase

yields and improve the quality of crops and livestock. Use of genetic resources during this century has revolutionized agricultural productivity. In the United States from 1930 to 1980,

yields per unit area of rice, barley, and soybeans

doubled; wheat, cotton, and sugarcane yields

more than doubled; fresh-market tomato yields

tripled; corn, sorghum, and potato yields more

than quadrupled; and processing-tomato yields

quintupled (65,92).

At least half of these increases have been attributed to plant breeders’ use of genetic diversity. The gain due to breeding is estimated to

be 1 percent per year for corn, sorghum, wheat,

and soybeans, due mainly to improvements in

grain-to-straw ratio, standability, drought resistance, tolerance of environmentaI stress, and

 Nat/ens—/d 

Plant breeders’ use of genetic diversity has significantly

increased the productivity of crops such as wheat.
Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity ● 5 3

pest and disease resistance (18,27,79). Similarly,

the average milk yield of cows in the United

States has more than doubled during the past

30 years; about one-fourth of this increase is

due to genetic improvement (89).

Developing countries have also achieved increased production of major crops. The Green

Revolution that has transformed heavily populated Asian countries is founded on use of particular genes. High-yielding varieties of rice,

for example, rely on a gene from a traditional

variety for the “dwarf” stature that enables the

plant to channel nutrients from fertilizers into

grain production without getting top-heavy and

falling over before harvest time. Although the

dwarfing trait is effective in many locations,

the high-yielding varieties need other genetic

characteristics from many different varieties,

The rice variety IR36, used in many countries

to sustain yield gains, was derived by crossbreeding 13 parents from 6 countries (19,87).

progress in tomato improvement in the United

States has followed the use of exotic germplasm

(traditional cultivars, wild forms of the domesticated species, and exclusively wild species).

Fruit quality (color, sugar content, solids content); adaptations for mechanized harvesting;

and resistance to 15 serious diseases have been

transferred to the tomato from its wild relatives.

One researcher noted:

Resistance to some of these diseases is mandatory for economic production of the crop in

California, and it is doubtful whether the State’s

tomato industry would exist without these and

other desired traits derived from exotics (77).

Rice and tomato illustrate the importance of

maintaining as much of the genetic variation

remaining within the domesticates and their

wild relatives as possible, because both crops

have benefited from genes occurring in a single population and nowhere else, Asian rice cultivars get their resistance to grassy stunt virus,

a disease that in one year destroyed 116,000

hectares (287,000 acres), from one collection

of Oryza nivara (53). The gene for a jointless

fruit-stalk (a trait that assists mechanized harvesting and is worth millions of dollars per year)

in tomato is found in a single population of a

wild relative (Lycopersicon cheesmanii) unique

to the Galapagos Islands (78),

A variety of genetic resources is being used

in the breeding of livestock, particularly cattle

and sheep. Crossbreeding Brahman cattle with

Hereford, Angus, Charolais, and Shorthorn

breeds has had a major impact on commercial

beef production in North America (30). A number of African cattle breeds are notable sources

of disease and pest resistance (West African

Shorthorn to trypanosomiasis, N’dama and Baole to dermatitis, Zebu to ticks) (34), The Finnish landrace of sheep was almost lost before

its high level of reproductive efficiency was discovered, It has now been incorporated into

commercial mating lines in the United Kingdom and North America (30).

Yield and quality improvements can continue

to be made and defended against pests and pathogens, provided plant and animal breeding continues to be supported and the genetic diversity

that breeders draw on is maintained, Indeed,

there is no option but to go on improving crops

and livestock if world agriculture is to respond

successfully to economic and environmental

changes and to the new strains of pests and diseases that evolve to overcome existing resistance.

VALUES AND EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Biological diversity benefits everyone, is valued by many (in a variety of ways), but is owned

by no one. Thus, its evaluation is fraught with

complexity. There are two broad classes of

value: economic and intrinsic.

Economic Value

Economic evaluation potentially covers all

functional benefits described in this chapter,

ranging from tangible benefits from harvested
54 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

resources and breeding materials to spiritual

and other cultural benefits. The ability to calculate these values varies, however. In the cases

where markets exist, calculations are easily determined (at least $27,4 billion per year in the

United States for commercially harvested wild

species, as noted earlier). In other cases, values

are more difficult to calculate, and “shadow

prices” may be used to approximate values for

such benefits as ecological processes and recreation, For cultural and esthetic values, economic valuation may be impossible,

If humans interacted in a system with limited

resources, then markets would allow equilibrium prices to emerge for all commodities, services, amenities and resources. These prices

would reflect the relative values (including social values) of each item. The essential premises for economic valuation are utility and scarcity (75).

But for most benefits of biological diversity,

free market principles do not apply. Maintenance of biological diversity is a “nonrival”

good (it benefits everybody), and it is a “nonexclusive” good (no person can be excluded from

the satisfaction of knowing a species exists),

as are many of its benefits (research and education, cultural heritage, nonconsumptive recreation, use of genetic resources). And it is not

clear that market-oriented logic is adequate to

deal with two cardinal features of biological

diversity: its potential for indefinite renewability (long-time horizon) and for extinction (irreversibility) (75).

CONSTITUENCIES

Biological diversity benefits a variety of interest groups, so its constituency is enormous

but fragmented by the interests of particular

groups. Each group may appear small compared with the Nation as a whole. Collectively,

however, these groups and their combined concern amount to the national interest in maintaining biological diversity.

Intrinsic Value

Intrinsic evaluation acknowledges that other

creatures have value independent of human

recognition and estimation of their worth. The

concept is both ancient and universal. A

spokesperson of the San people of Botswana

put it this way:

Once upon a time, humans, animals, plants,

and the wind, sun, and stars were all able to

talk together. God changed this, but we are still

a part of a wider community. we have the right

to live, as do the plants, animals, wind, sun,

and stars; but we have no right to jeopardize

their existence (16).

This preceding statement might be supported

by Americans who believe in “existence values”

—values that are defined independently of human uses (68). This belief implies a human obligation not to eradicate species or habitats, even

if doing so harms no human. A 3-year study

of American attitudes toward wildlife found

that the majority seemed willing to make substantial social and economic sacrifices to protect wildlife and its habitats (51). Advocates of

wildlife protection maintain that “it makes me

feel better to know there are bears in the area,

even though I’d just as soon never run into one”

(76). Proponents of biological diversity argue

that even if diversity is functionally redundant

or has no utilitarian worth, it should be maintained just “because it is there. ”

OF

A

DIVERSITY

Public Awareness

major obstacle to promoting effective and

long-term maintenance of biological diversity

is the lack of awareness on the part of the general public of the importance of diversity (in

the broader sense). It is easy to understand why

the loss of biological diversity has difficulty cap-
turing public attention. First, the concept is

complex to grasp. For this reason, efforts to solicit support have appealed to emotionalism

associated with the loss of particularly appealing species or spectacular habitats (86), Although effective in many cases, this approach

has the effect of limiting the constituency and

the boundaries of the problem. A second reason

is that the more pervasive threats to diversity,

such as habitat loss or narrowing of agricultural crop genetic bases, are not dramatic events

that occur quickly. The difficulty is one of responding to a potentially critical problem that,

for the average person, seems to lack immediacy.

Finally, promoting the case for biological

diversity maintenance is also difficult because

of the proliferation of environmental problems

brought to public attention in the last decade

or two, including acid rain, ozone depletion,

the greenhouse effect, and loss of topsoil. “All

these environmental problems have the apocalyptic potential to destroy, yet in every case the

cause, imminence, and scope of that power are

subject to polarizing (and eventually paralyzing) interpretation” (29).

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the environmental movement of the 1970s elevated

environmental quality to a major public policy

concern. Although the momentum of public attention may have slowed in the 1980s, it is clear

that concern for the environment remains

firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the American public. A 1985 Harris poll,

for example, indicated that 63 percent of Americans place greater priority on environmental

cleanup than on economic growth (41).

Ch. 2—importance of Biological Diversity 55

Balancing Interests and

Perspectives

In assessing the level of public resources to

be directed toward maintaining biological

diversity, it is important to maintain a frame

of reference of how, when, and for whom biological diversity is important. Such a perspective should consider:

1. varying perceptions on the value of biological diversity and threats to it;

2. an awareness that only some diversity can

be or probably will be saved; and

3. a recognition that resources available to

address efforts are limited.

As mentioned earlier, biological diversity is

not at present a pervasive concern for many

people, or at least there is no consensus that

as much diversity must be conserved as possible. While earlier sections of this chapter identified large constituencies that value biological diversity, some elements of society remain

apathetic to the issue, and others support efforts to eliminate various components of diversity. For example, considerable resources are

directed to reducing populations or even eliminating entire species of pests, pathogens, or

predators that threaten agriculture and human

health. In terms of public policy, such efforts

imply a need to recognize that in some cases

diversity maintenance and other human interests can conflict. It should be noted, however,

that conflicts stem less from the existence of

diversity than from the altered abundance of

particular species.

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES

1. Achiron, M., and Wilkinson, R., “Africa: The

Last Safari?” Newsweek, Aug. 18, 1986,

2. Agrawal, S, R., “Trees, Flowers and Fruits in

Indian Folk Songs, Folk Proverbs, and Folk

Tales, ” Glimpses of Indian Ethnobotany, S.K.

Jain (cd.) (New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, India:

Oxford and IBH Publishing Co,, 1981).

3. Alaman Castro, M. C., Casanova Pena, C., and

Bueno Perez, M. A., “La Recognida de Germoplasma por el Noroeste de Espana, ” Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 53:41-43, 1983.

4. Alaska Consultants and Stephen Braund &

Associates, Subsistence Study of Alaska Eskimo WhaZing ViZZages (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, 1984).

5. Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, Alaska

Eskimo Whaling (Barrow, AK: 1985).

6. AliNiazee, M. T., and Oatman, E. R., “Pest Man-
56 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

agement Programs, ” Biological Control and Insect Pest Management, D.W. Davis, et al. (eds.)

(Oakland, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, 1979).

7. Ayala, F. J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution, ”

Scientific American 239(3):56-69, 1978.

8. Basson, P. W., Burchard, Jr., J. E., Hardy, J. T,,

and Price, A. R. G., Biotopes of the Western Arabian Gulf.” Marine Life and Environments of

Saudi Arabia, Aramco Department of Loss Prevention and Environmental Affairs (Dhahran:

1977).

9. Berger, T. R., Village Journey: The Report of

the Alaska Native Review Commission (New

York: Hill & Wang, 1985).

10. Berquist, P. R., “Sponge Chemistry—A Review, Colloques Internationaux du CNR S

291:383-392, 1978,

11. Bishop, G. W., Davis, D. W., and Watson, T. F.,

“Cultural Practices in Pest Control,” Biological Control and Insect Pest Management, D.W.

Davis, et al, (eds.) (Oakland, CA: University of

California, Division of Agricultural Sciences,

1979).

12. Box, T. W., “Potential of Arid and Semi-Arid

Rangelands,” Potential of the WorZd’s Forages

for Ruminant Animal Production, 2d cd., R.D.

Child and E.K. Byington (eds.) (Morrilton, AR:

Winrock International Livestock Research and

Training Center, 1981).

13, Brown, W. L., “Genetic Diversity and Genetic

Vulnerability—An Appraisal, ” Economic Botany 37(1):4-12, 1983.

14, Brush, S. B., Carney, H. J., and Huaman, Z.,

“Dynamics of Andean Potato Agriculture, ”

Economic Botany 35(1):70-88, 1981,

15. Caldecott, J., and Nyaoi, A., “Hunting in

Sarawak,” report prepared for the Ad hoc Subcommittee on Mammals and Birds of the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly Special Select

Committee on Flora and Fauna, Sarawak Forest Department, Kuching, Malaysia, 1985.

16. Campbell, A. C., “Traditional Wildlife Populations and Their Utilization, ” Which Way Botswana WiZdZife? proceedings of the Symposium of the Kalahari Conservation Society,

Gaborone, Botswana, Apr. 15-16, 1983.

17. Campbell, A. C., The Use of Wild Food Plants

and Drought in Botswana (Gaborone, Botswana: National Museum, no date).

18, Castleberry, R, M,, Crum, C. W., and Krull, C. F.,

“Genetic Yield Improvement of U.S. Maize

Cultivars Under Varying Fertility and Climatic

Environments,” Crop Science 24(1):33-36,

1984.

19, Chang, T, T., Adair, C. R., and Johnston, T. H,,

“The Conservation and Use of Rice Genetic Resources,” Advances in Agronomy 35:37-9I,

1982.

20. Chaudhuri, R. H. N., and Pal, D. C., “Plants in

Folk Religion and Mythology, ” GZimpses of Indian Etlmobotany, S.K. Jain (cd.) (New Delhi,

Bombay, Calcutta, India: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., 1981),

21. Coe, E, H., and Neuffer, M. G., “The Genetics

of Corn, ” Corn and Corn Improvement, 2d cd.,

Monograph 18, G.F. Sprague (cd.) (Madison,

WI: American Society of Agronomy, 1977).

22. Cohn, L., “The Port Orford Cedar, ” American

Forests, July 1986, pp. 16-19.

23. Cooke, H. J., “The Kalahari Today: A Case of

Conflict Over Resource Use, ” The Geographical Journal 151(1):75-85, 1985.

24. Damas, D. (cd.), Arctic, Volume 5: Handbook

of North American Indians (Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution, 1984).

25. Davis, R. A., Finley, K. J., and Richardson, W. J,,

The Present Status and Future Management

of Arctic Marine Mammals in Canada (Government of Northwest Territories, Yellowknife:

Science Advisory Board, 1980).

26. Duvick, D. N., “Genetic Diversity in Major

Farm Crops on the Farm and in Reserve,” Economic Botany 38(2):161-178, 1984.

27, Duvick, D. N., “Plant Breeding: Past Achievements and Expectations for the Future, ” Economic Botany 40(3):289-297’, 1986.

28, Dyer, M. I., Detling, J. K., Coleman, D. C., and

Hilbert, D. W., “The Role of Herbivores in

Grasslands,” Grasses and Grasslands: Systematic and Ecology, J,R. Estes, R.J. Tyrl, and

J.N. Brunken (eds,) (Norman, OK: University

of Oklahoma Press, 1982).

29, Ebisch, R., “A Layman’s Guide to Modern

Menaces, ” TWA Ambassador, 18(10):49-58,

October 1985.

30, Fitzhugh, H. A., Getz, W,, and Baker, F. H., “Status and Trends of Domesticated Animals, ”

OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

31. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of

the United Nations, 1984 FAO Production

Yearbook, FAO Statistics Series 38 (Rome:

1985).

32. Foster, R. B,, “Heterogeneity and Disturbance

in Tropical Forest Vegetation, ” Conservation

Biolog: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective, M.E. Soulb and B.A. Wilcox (eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1980).

33. Fowler, G., “Report on Grassroots Genetic

Conservation Efforts,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

34, Frankel, O. H., and SOU16, M, E., Conservation
35

36<

37.

38

39.

40.

41

42.

43.

44,

45.

and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press, 1981).

Fulton, R. W., “Nicotianas as Experimental Virus IIosts, ” ,\’icotiana: Procedures for Experimental Use, Technical Bulletin 1586, R.D. Durbin (cd. ) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 1979).

Gadgil, M., and Vartak, V. D., “Sacred Gro\res

of Maharashtra: An Inventory, Glimpses of

[ndian Ethnobotan~, S.K. Jain (cd.) (IXew Delhi,

Bombay, Calcutta, India: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co,, 1981).

Hagen, K. S., and Bishop, G. W., “Use of Supplemental Foods and Behavioral Chemicals to

Increase the Effectiveness of Natural Enemies, ” l?io]ogica] control and Insect Pest .Vlanagement, D,W, []avis, et a], (eds) (Oakland, CA:

University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, 1979).

Hamilton, L. S., and King, P. N., Tropical~orested Watersheds: HtiVdrologic and Soils Response to Major Uses or Conversions (Boulder,

CO: Westview Press, 1983),

Hamilton, 1.. S., and Snedaker, S.C. (eds.),

Handbook for ,blangro~~e Area Management

(Honolulu, HI: East-West Center, 1984).

Harlan, J, R., crops and Man (Madison, WI:

American Society of Agronomy, 1975),

Harris, I.., “Current Public Perceptions, Attitudes, and Desires on Natural Resources Management, ’ Transactions of the 50th North

American Wild]ife and Natura] Resources Conference [Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1985), pp. 68-71.

Harris, 1,. D., The Fragmented Forest: Island

Biogeographic Theory and the Preser~’ation of

Biotic Di~ersit~ (Chicago, IL, and London:

Universit~r of Chicago Press, 1984).

Henson, E. L., “An Assessment of the Conser-

\’ation of Animal Genetic Diversity at the

Grassroots Level, ” OTA commissioned paper,

1985.

Illinois Natural History Survey, “Slow Growth

and Short I,ife Spans of Illinois River Carp, ”

The Illinois .%ratural History Survey Reports

257, 1986.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN], World

Conser~ation Strateg~: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development (Gland

and Nairobi: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources-United

Nations Environmental Program-World Wildlife Fund, 1980).

46.

47.

48.

49

50

51.

52.

53.

54.

55

56.

Ch. 2—importance of Biological Diversify ● 5 7

IRRI Cropping Systems Program, 1973 Annual

Report (Los Banes, Philippines: The International Rice Research Institute, 1973),

Jabs, C., The Heirloom Gardener (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1984).

Janzen, D. H., “Guanacaste National Park:

Tropical Ecological and Cultural Restoration, ”

project report to Servicio de Parques Nacionales de Costa Rica, Fundacion de Parques Nacionales de Costa Rica, Fundacion N’eotropica,

Nature Conservancy International Program.

Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1986,

Kaplan, E. H., A Field Guide to Coral Reefs of

the Caribbean and Florida Including Bermuda

and the Bahamas (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1982).

Kavanagh, M., “Planning Considerations for

a System of ~National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in Sarawak, ” Sara~ak Gazet/e 61 :15-

29, 1985.

Kellert, S. R., “Americans’ Attitudes and

Knowledge of Animals, ” Transactions of the

45th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 1980 (Washington, DC:

Wildlife Management Institute, 1980].

Kennedy, J. A., “Protected Areas for Teaching

and Research: The Universit~’ of California Experience, ” National Parks, Conservation, and

De\’elopment: The Role of Protected Areas in

Sustaining Society, J.A. McNeely and K.R.

Miller (eds.) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984).

Khush, G, S., Ling, K. C., Aquino, R.(; ., and

Aguiero, V. M., “Breeding for Resistance to

Grassy Stunt in Rice, Plant Breeding Papers

l(4b):3-9, 1977.

Kido, H., Flaherty, D, L,, Bosch, D. F., and

Valero, K. A., “Biological Control of Grape

Leafhopper, California Agriculture 37:4-6,

1983,

Lucas, P. H. C., “How Protected Areas Can Help

Meet Society’s Evolving Needs, ” National

Parks, Conservation, and De~elopment: 7’he

Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Societ~’,

J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller (eds.] (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984).

Maser, C,, and Trappe, J.M. (eds. ), The Seen

and Unseen World of the Fa]]en Tree, General

Technical Report PNW-164 (portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station, 1984).

57. ,Ntayr, E., The Gro\~’th of Biological Thought:
58 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

—

Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance (Cambridge, MA, and London: Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press, 1982).

58, McGuire, P. E., and Qualset, C.O. (eds.), Proceedings of a Symposium and Workshop on

Genetic Resources Conservation for California,

Napa, Apr. 5-7, 1984.

59. McNaughton, S. J., “Serengeti Migratory Wildebeest: Facilitation of Energy Flow by Grazing, ” Science 191:92-94, 1976.

60. McNaughton, S. J., “Grazing as an Optimization Process: Grass-Ungulate Relationships in

the Serengeti, ” American Naturalist 113:691-

703, 1979.

61. McNeely, J. A., and Wachtel, P. S., Power, Politics, Religion, Nature, and Animals: How the

Coalition Has Worked in Southeast Asia

(Gland, Switzerland: International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

and World Wildlife Fund, 1986).

62, Mirov, N. T., and Hasbrouck, J., The Story of

Pines (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University

Press, 1976].

63. Myers, N,, A Wealth of Wild Species: Storehouse for Human Welfare (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983).

64. Nabhan, G., and Dahl, K., “Role of Grassroots

Activities in the Maintenance of Biological

Diversity: Living Plant Collections of North

American Genetic Resources, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

65. National Plant Genetic Resources Board, Plant

Genetic Resources: Conservation and Use

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979).

66. The Nature Conservancy, Preserving Our Natural Heritage, Volume I: Federal Activities

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1977).

67, Nikiforuk, A., “Secrets in a Snake Pit, ” A4ac-

]ean’s, May 28, 1984.

68, Norton, B., “Value and Biological Diversity, ”

OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

69, Okazaki, T., “Genetic Study on Population

Structure in Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus

Keta), ” Bulletin of Far Seas Fisheries Research

Laboratory 19:25-116, 1982.

70. Okazaki, T., “Genetic Structure of Chum

Salmon (Oncorhynchus Keta) River Populations,” BuZZetin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries 49(2):189-196, 1983.

71. Oldfield, M, L., The VaZue of Conserving Genetic Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

1984).

72, Piearce, G. D., “The Zambezi Teak Forests: A

Case Study of the Decline and Rehabilitation

of a Tropical Forest Ecosystem, ” prepared for

the 12th Commonwealth Forestry Conference,

Victoria, BC, Canada, Division of Forest Research, Kitwe, September 1985.

73. Prescott-Allen, C., and Prescott-Allen, R., The

First Resource: Wild Species in the North

American Economy (New Haven, CT, and

London: Yale University Press, 1986).

74. Prescott-Allen, R., “National Conservation

Strategies and Biological Diversity, ” a report

to International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Conservation for

Development Centre (Gland, Switzerland: September 1986),

75, Randall, A,, “An Economic Perspective on the

Valuation of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

76. Randall, A., “Human Preference, Economics,

and the Preservation of Species, ” The Preservation of Species, B. Norton (cd. ) (Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986].

77. Rick, C. M., “Collection, Preservation, and Use

of Exotic Tomato Genetic Resources, ” Proceedings of a Symposium and Workshop on

Genetic Resources Conservation for California,

Napa, P.E, McGuire and C,O, Qualset (eds.],

Apr. 5-7, 1984.

78. Rick, C. M,, and Fobes, J. F., “Allozymes of Galapagos Tomatoes: Polymorphism, Geographic

Distribution, and Affinities, ” Evolution 29:443-

457, 1975.

79. Russell, W. A,, “Dedication: George F. Sprague,

Corn Breeder and Geneticist ,“ PZant Breeding

Reviews. Volume Z, J. Janick [cd.) (Westport,

CT: AVI Publishing Co., 1984).

80. Saenger, P., Hegerl, E. J,, and Davie, J. D. S.,

Global Status of Mangrove Ecosystems, Commission on Ecology Papers 3 (Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of

Nature and Natural Resources, 1983).

81, Sedell, J. R., Bisson, P. A., June, J. A., and

Speaker, R. W., “Ecology and Habitat Requirements of Fish Populations in South Fork Hoh

River, Olympic National Park, ” EcoZogicaZ Research in National Parks of the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings, Zd Conference on Scientific

Research in the NationaZ Parks, 1979, E.E. Starkey, J,F, Franklin, and J.W. Matthews (eds.),

Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, 1982.

82. Smart, P., The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the

Butterfly World (London: Salamander Books,

1976).
83. Smith, G. C., and Alderdice, D., “Public Responses to National Park Environmental Policy, ” Envjronrnent and ~ehat~or 11(3)329-350,

1979.

84, Smith, H. H., “The Genus as a Genetic Re85<

86,

87.

88.

89

90.

91.

92.

source, Nicotiana: Procedures for Experimental Use, Technical Bulletin 1586, R.D. Durbin (cd.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 1979).

Soul;, M. E., “Thresholds for Survival: Maintaining Fitness and Evolutionary Potential, ”

Conser~ation Biolog: An Evolutionary-Ecologica] Perspective, M. E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox

(eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates,

1980).

Stanfield, R. L., “In the Same Boat, ” National

~ourna~, Aug. 16, 1986, pp. 1992-1997.

Swaminathan, M. S., “Rice, Scientific American January 1984, pp. 81-93.

Tiner, R. W., Wetlands of the United States:

Current Status and Recent Trends (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, 1984].

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Impacts of Applied Genetics: Microorganisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, April 1981).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation,

OTA-O-206 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1984).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological

Diversit~ in the United States—Background Paper ,#1, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, February 1986).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Statistics 1981 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981).

Ch. 2—/mportance of Biological Diversity ● 5 9

93<

94,

95,

96.

97

98

99,

100.

101

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Assessment of the Forest and Range

Land Situation in the United States, Forest Resource Report 22 (Washington, DC: 1981).

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, Index: National Park System and Related Areas as ofJune 1, 1982 (Washington, DC:

1982).

U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the Census,

1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Washington,

DC: 1982).

Vartak, V. D., and Gadgil, M., “Studies on Sacred Groves Along the Western Ghats From

Maharashtra to Goa: Role of Beliefs and Folklores, ” Glimpses of Indian Ethnobotan~r, S.K.

Jain (cd.) (New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, India:

Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., 1981).

Webb, M,, Environmental Affairs Office,

World Bank, Washington, DC, personal communication, June 1986.

Wells, S. M., Pyle, R. M., and Collins, N. M., The

IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book (Gland,

Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1983).

Wilson, E. O., The Insect Societies (Cambridge,

MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University

Press, 1971].

World Resources Institute/International Institute for Environment and Development, World

Resources 1986 (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,

1986).

Worrall, D., A Baffin Region Economic Baseline Study: Economic De~’elopment and Tourism (Yellowknife: Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Economic

Development and Tourism, 1984).
Chapter 3

Status of Biological Diversity
CONTENTS

Page

Highlights, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Diversity Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Ecosystem Diversity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Causes of Diversity Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Development and Degradation. ....,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Exploitation of Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Vulnerability of Isolated Species, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Complex Causes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Circumstantial Evidence ...,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Data for Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter 3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Tables

Table No. Page

3-1. Status of Animal Species unselected Industrial Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3-2. Summary of Data From Endangered Plant Species Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

3-3. Data unthreatened Plant Species of Selected Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . 73

3-4. Endangered African Cattle Breeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

3-5. Crops Grown or Imported by the United States With a Combined

Average Annual Value of $l00 Million or More. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

3-6. Oceanic Islands With More Than 50 Endemic Plant Species. . . . . . . . . . 81

Figures

Figure No. Page

3-1. Currently Described Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3-2. Changes in Wetlands Since the 1950s. ....,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3-3. Past and Projected World Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Box -

BOX NO, Page

3-A. Biological Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3-B. Typical Excerpts From Development Assistance Agency Reports

Addressing Environmental Constraints to Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3-C, Definitions of Threatened Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Chapter 3

Status of Biological Diversity

●

●

●

A general consensus exists that biological diversity is being lost or degraded

in most regions of the world, but acute threats are largely localized. Despite

a weak knowledge base and lack of precise measurements, enough is now known

to direct activities to critical areas.

Concern over the loss of 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 the various interests concerned and may misdirect how concerns should be addressed.

The immediate causes of diversity loss usually relate to unsustainable resource

development, but the root causes for such development are complex issues

of population growth, economic and political organization, and human attitudes. The complexity of the causes implies a need for multi-faceted approaches

that deal with both the immediate and the root causes of diversity loss.

Since life began, extinction has always been

a part of evolution. Mass extinctions occurred

during a few periods, apparently the results of

relatively abrupt geological or climatic changes.

But in most periods, the rate of species formation has been greater than the rate of extinctions, and biological diversity has gradually increased. Recently in evolutionary history, the

human species has derived great economic

value from ecosystem, species, and genetic

diversity and recognized the intrinsic values

of diversity. But now that the values are being

recognized, there is evidence that the world

may be entering another period of massive reduction in diversity. This time, humans are the

cause, and it appears that the consequence will

be loss of a substantial share of the Earth’s valuable resources.

Diversity is abundant at a global level. About

1.7 million species of plants and animals have

been named, classified, and described (57). (Descriptions are only superficial for most of these.)

The remainder are still unidentified (figure 3-I).

It is estimated that the world contains 5 to 10

million species, and many of these have hundreds or even thousands of distinct genetic

types. A recent inventory of insect species in

the canopy of a tropical forest suggests that

many more insect species may exist than previously thought, pushing the estimate for the

total of all species to as high as 30 million (14).

Understanding of biological diversity issues

has improved in recent years, in terms of knowing the extent of diversity and understanding

the causes and consequences of changes. Enough

information is available in all regions of the

world to intervene in the processes that cause

diversity loss.

Drastic reductions in populations of wild animals and plants are not new and have long been

recognized as consequences of over-intensive

hunting, fishing, and gathering. For example,

great bison herds of North America were depleted in the 19th century, as were stocks of

various whales and bird species (52). The now

barren hills of southern China’s coasts and is63
64 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 3-1 .—Currently Described Species

3°/0 Vertebrates 2°/0 Bacteria

and protozoa

8°\0 Other /

invertebrates

fungi, &Id ferns

140/0 F

plants

Of the currently described species, insects make up more

than half the total. The number of flowering plants described

are less than one-third of the percentage of insects.

NOTE” Percentages rounded to nearest whole number

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 19S6.

lands were deforested 1,000 years ago (22). Erosion from the deforested and overgrazed Armenian hills, which eventually led to the demise

of productive agriculture in Mesopotamia, apparently began over 2000 years ago (21). These

kinds of changes undoubtedly caused local and

regional losses of diversity,

What is new today is the scale on which resource degradation is occurring and thus the

rate at which diversity is apparently being reduced. Fishing, hunting, and gathering beyond

the capacity of ecosystems continues today, but

the effects are being greatly exacerbated by

degradation of ecosystems and significant reductions in natural areas. The decline of fisheries and sharp reduction of diversity in the

Chesapeake Bay over the past two decades is

an example well known to Congress, which has

supported several initiatives to improve understanding of the complex syndrome of overfishing, pollution, and hydrologic changes related

to the region’s development.

Acceleration of resource degradation and

diversity loss is partly a consequence of population growth, especially in rural areas of developing countries, where compound growth

rates are often more than 1 percent per year.

It is also a consequence of technologies developed over the past century that have enabled

humans to devastate natural ecosystems even

where population densities or growth rates are

moderate. For example, modern drainage techniques and market conditions make accelerated

wetland drainage possible in the United States,

and veterinary drugs and modern well-drilling

machinery enable African farmers to build livestock herds above the natural carrying capacity of their rangelands,

Accelerated loss of diversity is also caused

by modern transportation, which reduces the

effect of geographic barriers important in the

evolution of diversity. Exotic species, diseases,

and pests were for centuries carried across

oceans, mountains, and deserts by hundreds

of people traveling in ships and on foot, but now

they are carried by hundreds of thousands of

people traveling in trucks and airplanes.

Biologists and agriculturalists have thus become alarmed about the scale of plant and animal resource degradation during the last two

to three decades. The alarm stems from observations of extensive reductions in habitat, coupled with a growing understanding of how such

changes adversely affect diversity. (Key concepts that have aided this understanding are

described in box 3-A.)

DIVERSITY

The problem of diversity loss is broader than

extinction of species because diversity occurs

at each level of biological organization.

Loss

● Ecosystem diversity: A landscape interspersed with agricultural fields, grasslands,

and woodlands has more diversity than the
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity 65

Box 3-A.-Biological Concepts

Trends in changing biological diversity cannot be eqsured directly; so many species exist that

costs of inventories would be too high. Rather, trends.~~ be inferred by applying biological concepts

●

●

●

●

●

●

and by observing changes in habitats. Several biological concepts ‘are relevant: -

Species-area relationship: Large sites tend to have more species than smail sites. [So] When

the areas of diverse natural ecosystems are reduced by land development or by degradation,

diversity is reduced. From analysis of many sets of empirical data, scientists have derived a

mathematical equation that can be used to predict the decrease in number of species that can

be expected following a reduction in habitat area (5).

Provinciality effect: Diversity of species and populations separated by geographic barriers, usually

increases over time. But when species or varieties are carried across these barriers, as with

the introduction of an exotic organiwn, provinciality is abruptly lost. Rapid loss of diversity

can follow if native species have no defense against a exotic pathogen or pest, or if the exotic

organism competes more aggressively for habitat (44) Examples include the introductions of

Dutch elm disease to the United States, of cattle to California, of the paperbark tree to Florida,

and of goats to many oceanic islands.

Narrow endemism: Some species recur only within very restricted geographic ranges. This

group includes many species that have evolved on islands, in mountaintop forests, in isolated

lakes or other aquatic zones such as coral reefs, in areas with Mediterranean climates, including California, Western Australia, the Cape of South Africa, Chile, and the Mediterranean Basin countries. Areas with a high proportion of narrow endemic species contribute to global

diversity more than other areas with similar numbers of species but less endemism. Thus, biological degradation in such areas reduces diversity more than it would elsewhere.

Species richness: Some ecosystems have many more species than others. Generaily, species

richness is greatest in equatorial regions, and it decreases toward the poles. It is generaliy greater

in warmer or wetter places than in colder or drier places. Thus, the hot, wet tropical forests,

which cover only 7 percent of the Earth’s land area may have about half of the Earth’s terrestrial plants and animals (30).

Species interdependence: Interdependence can take a variety of forms. Symbiosis occurs when

one or both of two species benefit from association. Mutualism occurs when neither species

can survive without the other under natural conditions. Commensalism refers to associations

in which one benefits and the other is unaffectad.

Natural vulnerability: Vulnerability to extinction varies with several factors. Narrow endemics

are perhaps most vulnerable. Rare-species maybe less susceptible to catastrophe if widely dispersed, but dispersion may lessen their chances for successful mating. Other species relatively

vulnerable to extinction include the following: top-level carnivores, species with poor colonizing ability, those with colonial nesting habits; migratory species, those that depend on unreliable resources, and species with little evolutionary experience with perturbations.

same landscape after most of the woodlands are converted to grassland and

cropland.

Species diversity: A rangeland with 100

species of annual and perennial grasses

and shrubs has more diversity than the

same land after 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, the wild ancestral plants contain many genes not found in today’s crop
55 . Technologles TO Ma!ntaln Blologlcal D\versity

plants, A global agricultural environment

that includes domestic varieties of a crop

(such as corn) and the crop’s wild ancestors has more diversity than the same environment after the wild ancestors are eliminated to make space for more domestic

crops.

The quality of information used to assess the

loss of biological diversity varies greatly for

different ecosystems and different parts of the

world. In general, both data and theories are

better developed for temperate than for tropical biology; better for birds, mammals, and

flowering and coniferous plants than for other

classes of organisms; and better for the few major crop and livestock species used in modern

agriculture than for the many species used in

traditional agriculture.

Ecosystem Diversity

Natural ecosystem diversity has declined in

the United States historically (26), and no evidence suggests that this long-term trend has

been arrested. By comparing a nationwide evaluation of potential natural vegetation (PNV)

with data on existing land uses from the 1967

Conservation Needs Inventory, scientists estimate what portion of land in the United States

is still occupied by natural vegetation (26). This

study estimates a percent change in area for

each ecosystem type (each PNV) since presettlement times.

The greatest area reduction was 89 percent

for the Tule Marsh PNV in California, Nevada,

and Utah, mainly due to agricultural development. Twenty-three ecosystem types that once

covered about half the conterminous United

States now cover only about 7 percent. The agricultural States of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana

have lost the highest proportions of their natural terrestrial ecosystems (92, 89, and 82 percent, respectively),

States with the lowest losses were Nevada,

Arizona, and New Hampshire (4, 7, and 12 percent, respectively), This assessment does not

imply that 96 percent of Nevada is in the same

condition that it was 400 years ago, The study

did not assess degradation of areas still occupied by natural vegetation; rather, it indicated

the areas whose uses remain unchanged. Also,

the study was unable to consider some important ecosystem types, such as riparian and wetland areas, which are not included in the PNV

categories (26).

Wetlands inventories are conducted by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The estimated

total wetland area in the conterminous States

in presettlement times was 87 million hectares.

This amount was reduced to 44 million by the

mid-1950s and to 40 million by the mid-1970s

(figure 3-2), Thus, half the Nation’s wetland area

was lost in about 400 years, and another 5 percent was lost in the following two decades.

Drainage for agricultural development has been

the main cause of wetland ecosystem loss (48).

Riparian ecosystems are generally too small

to be included as PNV types in major analyses.

However, riparian areas contribute disproportionately to biological diversity, especially in

the Western States, where they provide luxurious habitats compared with the adjacent uplands (9). Further, their maintenance is important to biological diversity in the streams and

lakes they border. Natural riparian (mostly

streamside) vegetation in the United States has

Figure 3-2.—Changes in Wetlands Since the 1950s

(percentage of total)

Wetlands lost

14 ”/0

\

New wetlands

3.4 ”/0

\

SOURCE: Data from Fish and Wlldllfe Service’s National Wetland Trends Study,

1982.
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity 67

been reduced some 70 to 90 percent during the

last two centuries (46,54). In the Sacramento

Valley of California, for instance, the estimated

loss of riparian vegetation areas is 98.5 percent;

for Arizona, the estimate is 95 percent (45).

The diversity of agricultural ecosystems, or

agroecosy stems, is also being reduced. System

diversity is high in regions where agricultural

land is divided into relatively small holdings

and each farm uses a variety of crop and livestock species. As indicated in the preceding

chapter, such landscapes support natural enemies of crop pests and are likely to contain

species and varieties that can resist disease

outbreaks and survive abnormal weather. However, on the fertile land of temperate-zone farming regions, where modern machinery and agricultural chemicals are used with crop varieties

and where livestock are bred to maximize production, farmers can achieve substantial economies of scale on large holdings that specialize in relatively few crops or breeds. These less

diverse agroecosy stems are more productive

and more profitable than the older systems (36).

As yet, relatively little scientific effort is being

made to determine how biologically diverse

farming could be made more profitable. Thus,

the continuing loss of agroecosy stem diversity

in the United States and throughout the world

seems to be a function of both economic development and research priorities (10).

Time-series measurements of agroecosy stem

diversity are lacking, as is an understanding

of the advantages and disadvantages of diversity. There is also a delay between the loss of

diversity and consequent increased or decreased profits. Therefore, it seems likely that

agricultural system uniformity may continue

to increase beyond its economic optimum.

Then, a period of restoring some diversity may

occur. This process may be underway in some

areas of the United States, where multiple cropping, crop rotations, and restoration of shelterbelts are becoming more popular practices (51).

Attempts to increase farm profits by methods that reduce diversity may fail where severe

droughts or soil erosion are common and where

hot temperatures and high rainfall have resulted

in soils with little capacity to hold nutrients.

Where such development failures occur, restoration of more diverse farming systems can

be difficult, because topsoil, water resources,

germplasm, or knowledge of traditional farming methods have been lost (11,25).

Most countries do not have detailed information on changes in ecosystem diversity. The

greatest concern on a global scale is for reduction of natural areas in the tropical regions,

where ecosystems are least able to recover from

degradation. Data on deforestation from many

tropical countries indicate that the closedcanopy tropical forests are being reduced by

about 11 million hectares each year. (The

deforestation rates are discussed in some detail in ref. 54.)

Few data are available for the developing

countries on degradation of biological diversity and other resources within the areas that

remain classified as forest. Nor are data available on changes in area or quality of grasslands,

wetlands, open-canopy forests, riparian and

coastal zones, or aquatic ecosystems. Nevertheless, compelling anecdotal evidence indicates widespread degradation of all types of

ecosystems in developing countries. In Sri

Lanka, for example, removal of coral reefs for

production of lime has had several consequences:

the disappearance of lagoons important as

nursery areas for fish,

the collapse of a fishery,

reduction of mangrove areas,

erosion of cultivated coconut land, and

salivation of wells and soil within half a

mile of the shore (41).

Documents from development assistance

agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), the World Bank, the

United Nations Development Programme, and

the U.N, Food and Agriculture Organization

abound with observations of resource degradation in developing countries. Evidence of

ecosystem degradation is found in the environmental profile series that AID has been preparing since 1979, Usually the evidence is a

description of problems caused by resource

degradation rather than a report from careful
68 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

monitoring of resource changes. At present,

reports are available on about 67 developing

countries, and nearly all describe ecosystem

degradation. In some places the problems are

the longstanding effects of unsustainable resource development; in others, the degradation

has increased dramatically over the last decade and is constraining economic development

(see box 3-B).

$pecies Diversity

Data to document changes in numbers and

distribution of species are scarce. To document

an extinction, the species must be named and

described taxonomically and accurately observed at least once, then the loss must be

recorded, Most documented extinctions have

been of large terrestrial birds, mammals, and

conspicuous flowering plants in the temperate

zone and on tropical islands.

Modern taxonomic description goes back to

1753, but most recognized species were described much more recently, and the majority

of species have yet to be described and named.

For most of the estimated 385,000 living plant

species, not much more is known than can be

discerned from one or a few pressed, dried herbarium specimens. Nevertheless, personnel and

financial support for the taxonomic work done

in museums, herbarium, universities, and

wildlife agencies around the world are being

reduced (8).

Biologists estimate that at least two-thirds of

all species live in the tropics. For example, a

single tree in the Peruvian Amazon rain forest

was found to harbor 43 species of ant belonging to 26 genera, That is a species richness about

equal to the ant fauna of the entire British Isles

(27). But two-thirds of the named species are

in the temperate zone. This disparity reflects

the historical distribution of taxonomists. In the

United States, for example, about 500 plant taxonomists work with 18,000 species—a ratio of

36 species to 1 taxonomist. Tropical vascular

plant species number about 190,000; about 1,500

taxonomists worldwide have expertise in tropical plants, yielding a ratio of 125 to 1 (8).

Even for conspicuous species that have been

named, a considerable delay is involved in

recording an extinction. For example, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a status

review in 1985 for the ivory-billed woodpecker,

whose last accepted sighting had been in the

early 1950s, Had extinction been confirmed,

then the lag between extinction and confirmation of loss could have been 30 years (16). The

status of this species remains in doubt, however, because a sighting was reported in 1986

(2),

Indirect methods must be used to estimate

changes in species diversity, because complete

inventories of ecosystems would be too expensive, and because little is known of many species and the genetic attributes of populations.

Methods include:

“ preparing lists of species threatened with

extinction and monitoring those species;

● monitoring populations of relatively wellknown “indicator species” where habitats

are being changed and inferring that other

species in the same ecosystem are experiencing similar changes (indicator species

are commonly trees, birds, large mammals,

butterflies, or flowering plants); and

● using mathematical models of species-area

relationships to project extinction numbers

likely to result from various levels of habitat reduction.

Lists of Threatened Species

Lists of threatened animal species are prepared by the Species Conservation Monitoring

Unit (SC MU) of the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

For the United States, endangered animal lists

are prepared by the Endangered Species Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS/ESO). For both the SCMU and the

FWS/ESO, the information is better for temperate than for tropical species; better for terrestrial than for aquatic species; and better for

birds and mammals than for reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates (16). Terms used

in describing the status of threatened species

are defined in box 3-C.
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity “ 69

.1

Box 30B.-Typicd Exmwpts From llwekp~f ‘%$abt#nce Agency Reports Addressing

l!hmironmmtul Oev@loPm@nt ; , ~ : ~.

India/Pakistan IJorder Zumds in tk [24]

TIM predmninant natural tamatrhd in tie region ~ppears to be a low, open-type o f

drytropicaithmm fo~ interspersed Due to thelong and pervading influenc e

of man arid grazing stock, the present is ,Sently a highly degraded form of low and

S~HW xerophytic scrub. } ‘t

. ,.

The Indus delta ia a cAtical area and productivity. Mangrove zone

creeks and mudflats hold crustaeeans,ara populations, and are a fisheries center

of locaI and international sigti-ficam%. b subject to reduced freshwater input,

increased salinity, overfisbin~, and en

Honduras (49) .

~ . .

Deforestation by shifting @is dmmatic and well publicized. The

human tragedy is even more serious% fwnilies living on degraded

lmds in tie chol~t~a Vldky %$@dw&N!. The forest cover has been peeled

back leaving a qmw pat

Mechanized farming adversely affaatttwl the cmvirc&&mt through encouraging soil erosion and

dwmtification, especially in areas & itwdm$,ia~

The P1’e$811t

,,

million hectares

ofenvironnmtal —. .2%-’ !* ;,~. ..,.. ? Y ~ ~ . .-

The SCMU data are gathered from an inter- 3-I summarizes some of the data on threatened

national network of correspondents identified animals.

from research papers. For example, the person

compiling data on mammals has about 5,000 Since the mid-1970s, numerous lists of threatinformants and contacts worldwide (16), The ened plant species have been prepared. Because

lists, organized by classes of animals in geo- these are so new and most tropical regions do

graphic regions (e.g., New World mammals), not have such lists, the data cannot yet indiare revised on roughly a lo-year cycle, Table cate rates of extinction. For the temperate zone,
70 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Box 3-C.-Definitions of Threatened Status

Two sets of definitions are used to classify the status of threatened species. Definitions based

on the Endangered Species Act of 1973 are used in the United States. All other countries’ lists of

endangered species follow the definitions promulgated by the International Union for Conservation

of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). The two sets of definitions are technically not compatible

mainly because of differences in the concept of extinction and the IUCN inclusion of taxa rather

than species.

Three technical definitions are used for classification of status in the United States:

1. An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its

range.

2. A threatened species is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future

throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

3. Critical habitats are areas essential for the conservation of endangered or threatened species.

The term may be used to designate portions of habitat areas, entire areas, or even areas outside

the current range of the species.

The IUCN categories include five definitions:

1. Extinct taxa are species, or other taxa such as distinct subspecies, that are no longer known

to exist in the wild after repeated search of their type localities and other locations where they

were known or were likely to have occurred.

2. Endangered taxa are in danger of extinction and their survival is unlikely if the factors causing their vulnerability or decline continue operating.

3. Vulnerable taxa are declining and will become endangered if no action is taken to intervene.

4. Rare taxa are so rare that they could be eliminated easily but are under no immediate threat

at present and have populations that are more or less stable.

5. Intermediate taxa belong in one of the above categories, but information is not sufficient to

determine exactly which one (47).

SOURCES: M.L Been. The Evolution of NationaJ Wiklfife Law [New York: Prawer Publishers, 19S3): H. %mze, “Status and Trends of Wild

Pl&t Species,” OTA commissioned paper, 1WH5. -

however, the numbers of threatened species do

give some indication of the scope of the

problem.

Nearly all industrial countries now have lists

of threatened plant species. In Europe, all but

five countries have such lists, and four of those

five will have them soon (47), In the United

States, many lists and reports cover both the

Nation and individual States. Table 3-2 summarizes some information from the endangered

plant species lists.

In North America, about 10 percent of the

plant species are listed as rare or threatened.

Many are plants endemic to small areas in California. A higher proportion of species are listed

in Europe because of extensive threats to vegetation in the northern countries and the narrow endemism of many species in the Mediterranean countries. Data from the Soviet

Union emphasize horticultural plants and are

less complete than for Europe. For temperatezone Southern Hemisphere countries, the lists

are also dominated by narrow endemic plants

from the Mediterranean climate regions (47).

Oceanic islands, because of geographic isolation during the millennia of evolution, typically have a very high proportion of endemic

species. These areas are particularly vulnerable,

because they are not adapted to animals and

aggressive weeds that may be introduced by

humans, Lists of threatened plants have been

prepared for many such islands, Table 3-3 indicates how severe the threats are for islands

with 50 to 1,000 endemic species.
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity ● 7 1

 George Laboratory 

The ivory-billed woodpecker is presumed extinct in the

United States (last sighting occurred in 1971)

and was thought to be extinct worldwide until the

discovery of at least two specimens in the

spring of 1986 i n eastern Cuba.

Among tropical countries, Brazil has a listing project under way. Lists covering parts of

India have been prepared and indicate about

900 threatened plant species. The Malayan Nature Society is preparing a database on threatened plants for the Malaysian peninsula. Listing projects are also complete or under way in

some nontropical developing countries, such

as Chile, Pakistan, and Nepal (47).

Monitoring Indicator Species

and Habitats

Inferring trends in biological diversity from

changes in the status of indicator species is a

method that relies on time-series data assembled for management of economically significant species or species of special esthetic interest. For example, striped bass (known locally

as rockfish) has been a highly valued species

since precolonial times on the east coast of the

United States, and commercial harvest data

have been tabulated for areas like the Chesapeake Bay since 1924,

For 50 years, the trend in striped bass commercial harvest was upward, from around 2

million pounds landed in 1924 to 14.7 million

pounds in 1973. Then, the trend reversed. B}T

1983, the catch had plummeted by 90 percent

to 1.7 million pounds. The decline was believed

to be due to a combination of overfishing and

chemical contamination of the species’ hahitat (18]. Thus, a reduction in populations of

other species could be inferred from the striped

bass trend.

Inference from this indicator species was

confirmed in 1982 when a 7-year Environmental

protection Agency study indicated the extent

of the decline in the bay. Subaquatic vegetation had declined 84 percent since 1971. Areas

suffering from lack of dissolved oxygen had increased fifteenfold since 1950, and in Baltimore

Harbor at least 450 organic compounds, mostly

toxins, were identified. Corresponding dramatic

declines were documented in native animal species of the bay, including oysters, shad, and yellow perch (53).

The spotted owl is an indicator species for

diversity in old-growth forests of the Pacific

Northwest. The owl feeds primarily on flying

squirrels and other rodents of old-growth habitat. Its decline in a region is considered a sigW

*

- .

. —

- . . “ ,

 credit Chesapeake Bay f/on

 once abundant the Chesapeake, have been

exploited and are now endangered in many areas of the

estuary. The in population of this highly valued

species has been attributed to overfishing and pollution.
72 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

.

..0 & -K

.rm cum

Cclh

Coco.mf= l--

mim”m-

. .

C9mcomm V3*

m l-n

al

—
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity ● 7 3

Table 3-2.—Summary of Data From Endangered Plant Species Lists

Rare and

Country/region Species threatened species Extinct taxa Endangered taxa

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,000 1,716 117 215

Europe a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,300 1,927 20 117

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 186 4 42

South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,000 2,122 39 107

U.S.S.R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,100 653 =20 =160

United Statesb 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,000 2,050 90 7

aExclydes European U.SSR , Azores, Canary islands, and Madeira

bExcludes Hawall, Alaska and puerto RICO

SOURCE S Davis et al Plants in Danger What Do We Know~(forthcomlng) as clted in H Synge, “Status and Trends of Wild Plants “ OTA commissioned paper 1985

Table 3-3.— Data on Threatened Plant Species

of Selected Oceanic islands

Number of endemic Number listed as

Island speciesa rare or threatened

Azores ... . 55 30 (55”/0)

Canary Islands ... 569 383 (670/o)

Galapagos . . . 229 150 (66”/0)

Juan Fernandez ... 118 95 (81 0

/0)

Lord Howe Island . . 75 73 (97”/0)

Madeira ... . . ... 131 86 (66”/0)

Mauritius ., ... . 280 172 (61 0

/0)

Seychelles . . 90 73 (81 0/, )

Socotra. ... ... . . 215 132 (61 0/0)

aEndemlc means the species occurs only On the Island

SOURCE S Davis, et al P/ants In Danger What Do We KrIow7 (forthcoming),

as cited In H Synge ‘Status and Trends of Wtld Plant s,” OTA com

m!ssloned paper, 1985

nal that its prey and other species associated

with the habitat are also in decline (3).

Diversity losses due to pollution may be indicated by animals’ food chains, such as the

bald eagle and other fish-eating birds. Plants

susceptible to air pollution, such as lichens, may

also be useful indicators. Extensive records of

observations on smaller animals of long-standing interest to professional and amateur biologists can also gauge diversity change, The

decline of Bay Checkerspot butterflies, for example, is taken as an indication of decline of

many associated organisms in the San Francisco Peninsula area (13).

Models of Species-Area Relationships

The scale of diversity reduction can be estimated for most tropical countries only by inferences from the reduction of habitat. Nearly

all attempts to estimate global extinction rates

focus on the tropical moist forests, These ecosystems are exceedingly species-rich, contain

areas of narrow endemism, and are undergoing extensive and rapid conversion to other

uses, Because they typically have erosion-prone

soils incapable of holding many plant nutrients

and occur where rain and heat are especially

intense, these forest ecosystems are highly susceptible to degradation. In fact, the undeveloped forests are so diverse, and the deforested,

degraded landscapes to which they are often

converted support so few species, that the

models used to estimate extinction rates generally treat the diversity of deforested landscapes in the moist tropics as negligible (43).

A recent projection of bird and floweringplant extinctions that could be caused by continued deforestation in tropical America is

based on a mathematical model of the speciesarea relationship (see box 3-A). About 92,000

flowering plant species have been described for

regions where the forested area for recent

human-caused deforestation was about 6.9 million square kilometers (43). Over the next 15

to 20 years, the forested area will be reduced

to about 3,6 million square kilometers if the rate

of deforestation remains at the level of the

1970s. The mathematical relationship between

area and species numbers, derived by analysis

of some 100 empirical data sets (5), indicates

that this reduced forest could be expected to

support about 79,000 species. Thus, a 15-percent reduction in numbers of species is projected for the near future.

Deforestation is expected to continue for

more than 20 years, however, and it seems likely

that it will accelerate as the rapidly growing

human populations of tropical American coun-
74 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

 U S and Service

Northern spotted owl requires large tracts of Pacific

Northwest old-growth forest as habitat. If harvesting

of old-growth continues at current rate, the habitat for

this species could disappear within the next

two decades.

tries need more rapid resource development.

A “worst-case” calculation indicates that if the

forests were reduced until they covered only

National Parks and their equivalents that had

been established by 1979 (about 97,000 square

kilometers), then the final effect could be as high

as a 66-percent reduction (43).

About 704 species of land birds have been

described in the Amazon region of tropical

America. Using the same mathematical relationship as used for plants, a 60-percent reduction of the original forest area over the next 15

to 20 years could be expected to cause eventual extinctions of 86 bird species. The worstcase calculation, with reduction of the Amazon forest to the area of already established national parks, projected that 487 types of birds,

or about 70 percent of the species, could become extinct (43).

Several assumptions tend to underestimate

extinction rates. For example, extinctions resulting from reduced provinciality are ignored

in the calculations, as are effects of the narrow

endemism that occurs in several parts of tropical American forests. On the other hand, the

assumption that none of the plant and bird species will find habitats they need after deforestation seems an exaggeration. Such projections

may be helpful in stimulating institutional responses to prevent the worst cases from occurring. Many nations’ governments have begun

to take steps in the past decade to protect endangered habitats. The worst-case calculations

are thus not predictions, but indications of the

direction and scale of the projected trend.

Distracting Numbers Game

Projections of alarming losses in species

diversity have attracted attention to this issue,

But discrepancies among the estimated extinction rates have called into question the credibility of all such estimates. In one sense, the

numbers themselves have become an issue, confusing policy makers and the general public and

possibly detracting from efforts to deal with the

causes and consequences of diversity loss (28),

This numbers game also has defined the problem of loss mainly in terms of species extinction, which may be the most dramatic aspect

of the diversity question, but it is only part of

the problem. Further, global and national data

and projections may mask the localized nature

of resource degradation, diversity loss, and the

consequences of both. Large inaccessible areas

of forest, for example, may make the global

deforestation rate seem moderate, but destruction of especially diverse forests in local areas

of Australia, Bangladesh, India, the Philippines,
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity ● 7 5 —

Brazil, Colombia, Madagascar, Tanzania, and

West Africa proceeds at catastrophic rates (32).

Genetic Diversity

Ideally, concern about loss of biological diversity should be focused on genetically distinct

populations, rather than on species (13,16,34).

But with so little information available about

the majority of wild species, this seems impractical.

For agricultural species, on the other hand,

the concern is mainly about genetic diversity.

The species do not seem to be in danger of extinction, but the variety of genes in many crops

and livestock breeds is being reduced (39).

Many distinct types are being eliminated as improved breeds and varieties that are genetically

similar are gaining more widespread use. Ironically, success in exploiting genetic resources

for agriculture threatens the genetic diversity

on which future achievements depend.

With livestock, the principal diversity loss involves developing-countries’ breeds being

replaced by imported ones, The threat seems

greatest for those species in which artificial insemination is widely used, and it is particularly

a problem with cattle, for which over 270 distinct breeds exist. For farmers with only a few

cows, artificial insemination is cheaper than

keeping a bull. But developing countries lack

facilities to collect and freeze semen from locally adapted breeds, so semen is usually imported from commercial studs in industrial

countries. Threatened breeds include the criO11O of Latin America and the Sahiwal and several others from Africa (see table 3-4) (15).

Llama and alpaca—as well as vicuna and

guanaco, their wild relatives—are South American species used for meat, as beasts of burden, and for their hair and pelts. Numbers of

all four species have declined sharply since the

Spanish conquest of the Incan empire, and loss

of genetic diversity has almost surely occurred,

though it is unmeasured (15).

Poultry and swine breeds are also moving

toward genetic homogeneity, because controlled breeding has been rapid and intensive

to produce varieties suitable for modern commercial production. Poultry breeding has been

Table 3-4.—Endangered African Cattle Breeds

—

Breed Location Purpose

Mutura ., ., Nlgerla ‘- Meat, draft

Lagune ... . Benin, Meat

Ivory Coast

Brunede I’Atlas, Morocco, Meat

Algeria,

Tunisia

Mpwapwa ., .Tanzani a Milk

Baria, ., . . . . Madagascar Milk, meat

Creole . . . Mauritius Milk, meat,

draft

Kuri ., . ., Chad Milk, meat

Kenana. ., . Sudan Milk

Butana . Sudan Milk

—

Reasons for decline in number

Civil war, crossbreeding, lack of

interest by farmers as tractors

become available

Crossbreeding, lack of interest by

farmers because of small mature

size (125 kg) and low milk yields

Crossbreeding to imported breeds

Lack of sustained effort to develop

and maintain new breed

Crossbreeding

Crossbreeding

Political instability, numbers

reduced by rinderpest and

drought

Crossbreeding (artificial

insemination) to imported dairy

breeds, loss of major habitat to

development scheme

Crossbreeding

Advantages

Trypanotolerant ,a

hardy, good draft

animal, low mortality

Trypanotolerant, adapted to humid

environment

Adapted to arid zones

Adapted, dual-purpose

Adapted, dual-purpose

Adapted, multiple-purpose

High milk production, ability to float

and swim in Lake Chad, tolerant

of heat and humidity

High milk potential; adapted to hot,

dry environment

High milk potential; adapted to hot,

semiarid environment

aAblllty to survive Trypanosome In feet Ion (spread by tsetse fly), which normally causes African slee Ping sickness In cattle

SOURCE Adapled from K O Adenlj[ Prospects and Plans for Data Banks on Animal Genetic Resources, An/ma/ Genetfc Resources Conservation (Rome Food and

Agriculture Orgamzatlon, 1984) as cited In H Fltzhugh et al “Status and Trends of Domesticated Antmals, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985
dominated by a few companies (probably fewer

than 20 worldwide) (15). These firms typically

retain a number of breeds from which to make

selections and crosses, but they do not find it

cost-effective to retain stocks that might prove

useful more than 10 years in the future (7). Meanwhile, breeds adapted to traditional farm conditions are becoming rare in industrial countries, because fewer farmers want them and the

number of small hatcheries producing them has

declined sharply. Poultry breeds from industrial countries are being exported to urban markets in many developing countries, but no evidence exists that these have affected the genetic

diversity of poultry in rural areas of developing countries.

Hundreds of plant species have been domesticated, and traditional farming systems continue to use many species. But modern agriculture produces most human sustenance,

plant-derived fibers, and industrial materials

from only a few species, Three-quarters of human nutrition is provided by just seven species:

wheat, rice, maize, potato, barley, sweet potato,

and cassava (31). Within the United States, the

top 30 crops account for $57.7 billion in farm

sales and imports annually, which is 60 percent of the combined value of all U.S. agricultural plant resources (see table 3-5) (39).

Within these 30 crops, modern varieties have

replaced traditional ones, reducing diversity

between and within agricultural sites and genetic populations. The narrow species and genetic base of modern agriculture generates two

distinct concerns: 1) the extinction of genes,

which reduces opportunities to produce new
Table 3-5.—Crops reported by the

United States With a Combined Annual Value of

Grown or

$100 Million or More (average 1976 to 1980)

Average annual value ‘-

(U.S. $ millions) Crop

11,278

10,412

6,475

4,233

3,925

2,851

1,723

1,525

1,206

1,163

1,150

1,147

1,054

1,051

1,016

815

760

747

706

672

527

517

393

368

365

355

349

314

304

287

252

219

198

192

189

186

179

167

164

158

156

155

148

146

144

143

142

142

136

130

128

116

116

110

102

100

Soybean

Corn

Wheat

Cotton

Coffee

Tobacco

Sugarcane

Grape

Potato

Rice

Sweet orange

Sorghum

Alfalfa

Tomato

Cacao

Apple

Beet crops

Peanut

Rubber

Barley

Lettuce

Common bean

Sunflower

Banana

Cole crops

Almond

Peach

Coconut

Oats

Onion

Strawberry

Grapefruit

Chrysanthemum

Cucumber

Melon

Pineapple

Roses

Celery

Walnut

Peppers/c hilis

Jute

Plum/prune

Sweet cherrylsour cherry

Pear

Olive

Oil palm

Carrot

Pea

Lemon

Bermudagrass

Tea

Watermelon

Cashew

Sweet potato

Pecan

Azalea/rhododendron

SOURCE C Prescott-Allen and A Prescott-Allen, The Ffrsf Resources W//d Spec~es IrI the North Arner/can Economy (New Haven, CT, and London

Yale Unlverslty Press, 1986)

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity ● 7 7

varieties better suited for production at particular sites; and 2) the increased uniformity of

crops, which makes them more vulnerable to

pests and pathogens. Of these two, extinction

of genes is the greater problem. For annual

crops, uniform genetic vulnerability can be

quickly corrected as long as a high degree of

genetic diversity is maintained for the crop

somewhere. Gene extinction, however, cannot

be reversed.

Published information on status and trends

of crop diversity usually consists of impressions

by plant breeders and others on the loss of cultivated varieties or threats to wild relatives of

crops, such as: “it may not be long before landraces are irretrievably lost” or “many locally

adapted varieties have been replaced by modern varieties” (39). Such reports have been collected and evaluated by the International Board

on Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR). IBPGR’s

information has stimulated conservation action

and has helped to determine general collecting priorities for protection of genetic resources.

Plant breeders and germplasm collectors generally concur that crop genes have been lost

and that losses are still occurring rapidly and

widely in many crops (39), in spite of progress

with collection and offsite maintenance programs (see ch. 6). Three problem areas include:

1, crops that have low priority for IBPGR but

are of major economic importance to the

United States (e.g., grape, alfalfa, lettuce,

sunflower, oats, and tobacco);

2. crops that despite being a high international priority still lack adequate provision

for long-term conservation (including those

maintained as living collections rather than

as seeds, such as cacao, rubber, coconut,

coffee, sugarcane, citrus, banana); and

3. wild relatives of major crops, which, except for sugarcane and tomato, are represented in collections by extremely small

samples.

Detailed assessments of the status and trends

of genetic diversity are lacking, even for crops

whose collection is well advanced, such as rice,
78 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

-—

maize, potato, tomato, and bean. Such assessments are needed to understand the dynamics

of crop genetic change and its relationship to

social and economic change (39).

The status of diversity conservation for economically important timber trees lies between

that of wild plants gathered for economic use

and that of agricultural plants. Some commercial tree species are protected by parks and

other protected natural areas, and the diversity of some is at least partially captured in

offsite seed collections. In many extensively

managed forests, commercial tree species regenerate naturally after logging, fire, or other

disturbances, and local genetic diversity is

maintained. However, replanting with stock

propagated from selected parents and from

tree-breeding programs is a common practice

with some trees, such as Douglas fir, and gene

pools for these species are being gradually

altered (19).

The genetic resources of commercial trees

and other economic plants and animals in developing countries are being eroded by conversion of forest areas to agriculture or grazing

use. An international panel recently identified

some 300 tree species or important tree populations (presumably with unique genetic characteristics) that are endangered (17), Thus, in

the United States and developing countries

where U.S. agencies provide assistance, protection of natural gene pools of commercial

trees and other nondomesticated economic species could become an objective in development

planning (see ch. 11). At present, economic species not used in agriculture or horticulture are

poorly represented in genetic conservation

programs.

CAUSES OF DIVERSITY LOSS

Forces that contribute to the worldwide loss

of biological diversity are varied and complex,

and stem from both direct and indirect pressures. Historically, concern has focused on the

commercial exploitation of specific threatened

or endangered species. But now attention is also

being focused on indirect threats more sweeping in scope (30).

Development and Degradation

Economic development usually entails making sites more favorable for a manageable number of economic activities. Consequently, the

changed landscape has fewer habitats and supports fewer species. Habitats may be affected

by offsite development too—by pollution, for

example, or changed hydrology. Some development, such as logging in a mosaic pattern

through a large forested area, mimics natural

processes and may result in a temporary increase in diversity.

But poorly planned or badly implemented development, such as agricultural expansion without investment in soil conservation, can severely disrupt biological productivity, and it can

start a self-reinforcing cycle of degradation, For

example, soil erosion reduces soil fertility,

which in turn can reduce growth of plants for

cover, leading to more soil erosion and to rapid

depletion of diversity as the site becomes suitable, for fewer and fewer species (51). Other

causes of site degradation include grazing pressures, unnatural frequency or severity of fires,

and excessive populations of herbivores (such

as rabbits) where predators are eliminated. Arid

and semiarid sites are especially susceptible to

degradation from such pressures. Species may

be reduced by one-half to two-thirds without

outright conversion of the land use (33).

Modernization of farming systems is also a

cause of diversity loss. Such systems often include many species of crops and livestock;

genetic diversity is typically high, because cultivars and breeds adapted to the vagaries of sitespecific conditions are used. To achieve productivity gains, however, traditional systems

are being replaced with modern methods. Capital inputs, such as manufactured fertilizers and

feeds, are used to compensate for site-specific

differences, Thus, it is possible to replace traditional crops and livestock with fewer varieties
+

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity 79

,

P -*A A a

hi ‘. ‘ . \ ‘ . .

Photo credff U N Phofo 152 843’/( Muldoon

Overgrazing In Burkina Faso—one major cause of diversity loss.

bred to give high yields under more artificial

conditions.

The loss of traditional agroecosystems is not

restricted to developing countries. Native

American farming systems that interplant corn

with squash, numerous types of beans, sunflowers, and many semidomesticated species

are reduced to isolated areas now and continue

to be abandoned. These systems and crop varieties have been described in anthropological

literature, but they are lost before being

scrutinized by agricultural scientists.

Agricultural development may cause abrupt

disappearance of traditional varieties, as with

the replacement of traditional wheat in the Punjab region of India, or it may be gradual, as with

fruit and vegetable varieties in the united States

and livestock breeds in Europe, Locally adapted

varieties may become extinct in a single year

if germplasm for a traditional variety is lost because of a catastrophe or is destroyed to control a disease. Examples include traditional

grain varieties that were replaced with modern ones in Africa when seed was eaten during the recent famine, and local swine populations that were exterminated in Haiti and the

Dominican Republic to control a disease and

then replaced with modern breeds (15).

Exploitation of Species

As noted earlier, concern with loss of biological diversity historically focused on extinctions

or population losses that resulted from excessive hunting and gathering. whales, cheetahs,

passenger pigeons, bison, the North Atlantic

herring, the dodo, and various orchids are all

examples of organisms hunted or gathered in

excess (30).

Today the direct threat to wildlife remains.

Numerous monkeys and apes are endangered

by overhunting, mainly to supply the demand
80 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

 credit: D. 

The green turtle is an example of a species threatened

by direct factors, such as exploitation of adults and

eggs, and by indirect factors, including nesting beach

destruction, ocean pollution, and incidental catch in

shrimp trawls.

from medical research institutions. Some 108

primate species are hunted for an international

trade worth about $4 million annually (30). For

many, perhaps most of these, the capturing

process is very destructive. Apes such as the

gibbon are captured by shooting mother animals from the treetops and taking any infants

that survive the fall. Many of the infants die

while passing through the market system. Thus,

the 30,000 primates sold in 1982 (30) actually

compose a much higher number killed to support the trade.

The rhinoceros has declined more rapidly

over the past 15 years than any other large mammal. From 1970 to 1985 there was an almost

80-percent decrease in the numbers of rhinos,

from 71,000 to only about 13,500 today. The

most spectacular decline has been that of the

black rhino–from 65,000 to 7,000 in the past

15 years. Whole populations of black rhino have

been almost totally eliminated over the past 10

years in Mozambique, Chad, Central African

Republic, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Angola. In the past 2 years, Mozambique has lost

the white rhinoceros for the second time in this

century—a dubious achievement indeed (29),

The main reason for this catastrophic decline

since 1975 is due to the illegal killing of the animal, mostly for its horn. In the early 1980s about

one-half of the horn put onto the world market

went to North Yemen where it is used for the

making of attractive dagger handles, while the

remaining half went to eastern Asia where it

is used mostly to lower fever, not—as often

supposed—as an aphrodisiac (6).

Plant species are also subject to overharvest.

A cycad plant species was reported eliminated

in Mexico during just one year when 1,200 specimens were exported to the United States (55).

Vulnerability of Isolated Species

If the range of species is restricted to a relatively small area, such as an island or a mountaintop forest, a single development project or

the introduction of competing or exotic species

can lead to loss of diversity. Many recorded extinctions have been animals and plants from

oceanic islands (see table 3-6) (52). Some of these

areas, such as Haiti, are infamous for deforestation and rapid rates of soil erosion. It may be

inferred that diversity loss has been and probably continues to be especially severe on such

islands.

Complex Causes

Most losses of diversity are unintended consequences of human activity, and the species

and population affected are usually not even

recognized (30). Air and water pollution, for

example, can cause diversity loss far from the

pollution’s source, Substantial gains in reducing these pressures have been achieved in industrial countries, particularly in the United
Table 3.6.—Oceanic Islands a

With More Than 50 Endemic Plant Species

.—

Percentage

Island Endemics endemism

Madagascar ... ... .. .

Cuba . . ... . . . . . . . . . .

New Caledonia . . . . . . . .

Hispaniola b

. ..., . . .

New Zealand ..., . . . . . .

Sti Lanka. . . . . . . . . . . .

Taiwan. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . ..., ..., ..., .

Jamaica. . ..., ..., ..., .

Figi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Canary Islands .,.....,..

Puerto Rico . . . . .

Caroline Islands. ,...,.. .,

Trinidad and Tobago, ...,,

Galapagos. . ..., . . . . . .

Mauritius. . . ..., ..., ...,

Ogasawara-Gunto ... ,

Reunion. ..., ..., ..., .

Vanuatu. . . . . . . . ..., . . .

Tubuai ..., ..., ..., ..., . .

Comoro Islands ..., ...,

Socotra ..., ..., ..., .

Bahamas, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sao Tome . . . . . . . . .

Marquesas Islands . . . . . . .

Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Juan Fernandez ..., ...,

Cape Verde. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Madeira. . ..., ..., ..., .

Mariana Islands ..., . .

Lord How Island . . ..., ,.

Seychelles . . . . . . . . . . .

—

=9,000

2,700

2,474

1,800

1,618

=900

=900C

883

735

=700

383

332

293C

215

175

172

151C

=150

=150

S140

136

132

121

108

103

>100

95

92

86

81C

73

73

46

76

36

81

91

23

12

25

aExcludes Australia, New Zealand, Borneo, New Gutnea, and Aldabra

bHlspanlola comprises the natlonsof Haltl and the Domtnlcan Republlc

comlts monocoyledons

SOURCE AdaptedfromA H Gentry, ‘Endemism tnTroptcal Versus Temperate

Plant Communltles;’ Conservation f3/o/ogy, M. Soule(ed )(Sunderland,

MA Slnauer Associates, lnc 1988), andH Synge, ’’Status and Trends

of Wdd Plants’ OTA commissioned pape~ 1985

States, since passage of the National Environmental Policy Act,

Yet pollution remains a major threat to bioIogical diversity, because abatement is often expensive and is sometimes a very complex organizational task, especially when it depends

on international cooperation. Acid rain is an

example. In Scandinavia, several fish species

have declined in numbers because of acidification of lakes; in eastern Canada, a trout species has been placed in the severely threatened

category (37), International pollution by acid

rain has recently been reported to extend far

from industrial regions into Zambia, Malaysia,

and Venezuela, for example.

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity . 81

Climate change is apparently being caused

by increased carbon dioxide and atmospheric

dust, which result from fossil-fuel burning and

from the release of carbon stored in vegetation

when extensive areas are converted from forest to cropland or sparsely vegetated grassland.

The expected consequences include significant

changes in temperature and rainfall patterns,

Temperature rises seem likely to occur rapidly,

at least in evolutionary terms, so diversity will

probably incur a net loss during the next century (38).

In both industrial and developing countries,

diversity is lost as land is converted from forest, grasslands, and savanna to cropland or pasture. If the land being converted will support

permanent agriculture with relatively high

yields, the effect on diversity is contained, Moderate areas of such land can support substantial populations. But much of the newly cleared

land is marginal or totally unsuitable for the

cultivation or grazing practices being applied.

As a result, extensive areas must be cleared,

especially where the land is so poor that it degrades to wasteland and is abandoned after a

few years, which is typical in the moist tropical forest regions and in semiarid areas of both

the temperate and tropical zones (30).

The underlying causes of inappropriate land

clearing are many and exceedingly complex.

Population growth, poverty, inappropriate agricultural technologies, and lack of alternative

employment opportunities are all problems far

too complex for biologists and conservationists

alone to resolve.

Population growth in itself may not seem intrinsically threatening to biological diversity.

In some industrial countries, such as the United

States and Japan, disruption of ecosystems has

been mitigated by urbanization, establishment

of parks, and land use regulation (30). But the

connections between affluent populations and

their impacts on biological diversity are obscured by the complexity of commerce. The Japanese, for example, carefully protect the diversity of their own remaining forests, but they

use large quantities of timber from forests in

other countries where controls are lax. Much

has been written about the “hamburger con-
82 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 3-3.— Past and Projected World Population

10

9

8

Ri

5

n

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

.

* I

AD ;E

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2100

Year

If the current growth in population continues, by the year 2000

more than 6 billion people will inhabit the world. With this

growth, irreversible environmental degradation and loss of

biological diversity can be expected.

SOURCE World Resources Institute and International Institute for Environment

and Development, World Resources 1986 (New York: Basic Books,

1986)

nection” by which U.S. and European beef consumers are said to be causing loss of diversity

in tropical countries where forests are converted to pasture. The very difficult task of identifying, measuring, and mitigating such negative economic-ecologic links between nations

is increasingly important as the world economy

becomes more and more international (30).

The causal link between human population

size and diversity loss is clearer in developing

countries where population growth in rural

areas continues to be rapid, and land-use regulations do not exist or are poorly enforced. Between 1980 and 2000, rural populations are expected to increase by 500 million in the

developing world (57) (figure 3-3). where these

people continue to rely on extensive agriculture, resource degradation and diversity loss

can be expected to accelerate. The harmful impacts of population growth are also likely to

be exacerbated by development programs that

encourage large resettlements of landless people into deserts or tropical lowlands without

providing the means to sustain agricultural

productivity in such difficult sites (42).

CONCLUSION

Circumstantial Evidence The circumstantial case is based on the

knowledge that each wild species and populaBiological diversity is abundant for the world tion depends on the habitat to which it is

as a whole. More than 10 million species may adapted. Diverse natural habitats are being conexist, but after more than 2oo years of study, verted to less diverse and degraded landscapes.

scientists have only named and described some On those sites, diversity has been reduced. The

1.7 million. Many of these species contain nu- sites that remain in a natural or nearly natural

merous genetically distinct populations, each condition are often fragmented patches that will

with a different potential for survival and utility. not support the diversity of larger areas.

The abundance and complexity of ecosys- For domesticated agricultural plants and anitems, species, and genetic types have defied reals, the concern is genetic diversity, which

complete inventory or direct assessment of must be maintained by active husbandry. Farmchanges. But from events and circumstances ing systems with high genetic diversity are bethat can be measured, it can be inferred that ing replaced by new systems with much lower

the rate of diversity loss is now far greater than diversity, so husbandry of many genetic types

the rate at which diversity is created. is abandoned. Thus, gene combinations that re-
—

produce particular characteristics and took decades to develop may be lost in a single year.

The rapid rate and large scale of agricultural

modernization imply that genetic diversity

losses are great, though quantitative estimates

have not been made.

Data for Decisionmaking

In recent decades, inventories and monitoring of ecosystems, species, and genetic types

have improved, and the knowledge of what exists has greatly enhanced abilities to maintain

diversity. Biologists, resource managers, and

conservationists concur that information available now is adequate in virtually every country to guide programs to maintain diversity.

The circumstantial case for diversity loss in

the United States and other industrial countries

is bolstered by abundant site-specific data as

well as by regional survey data on ecosystems

and species. This information has moved public and private organizations to allocate substantial resources to the establishment and management of nature reserves, abatement of

1.

2.

3.

4,

5,

6.

7.

8.

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity ● 8 3

pollution, and other programs that sustain biological diversity. Opportunities to improve the

use of these data are discussed in chapter 5.

The situation is quite different in developing

countries. Circumstantial evidence of diversity

loss is compelling, and many countries have

designated parks and natural areas in recent

years. But the available data are not adequate

to support policy decisions to allocate enough

funds and other resources to maintain diversity. Both money and trained personnel are

needed to develop the necessary information.

Public and private funds that might be used

for conservation are extremely scarce. Therefore, a great need exists for good data and comprehensive planning, so that whatever funds

can be allocated will be used effectively. Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and

the IUCN are working to develop the data and

local planning expertise needed to adequately

assess the status of biological diversity and

prospects for its conservation. More concerted

support from public institutions is needed, however, both in the United States and abroad.

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

Adeniji, K. O., “Prospects and Plans for Data

Banks on Animal Genetic Resources, ” Animal

Genetic Resources Conservation by 44/1 (Rome:

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United

Nations, 1984). In: Fitzhugh, et al., 1985.

Anonymous, “Ivory-billed Woodpecker Found, ”

Bioscience 36(10):703, 1986.

Barton, K., “Wildlife on Bureau of Land Management Lands, ” Audubon Wildlife Report,

1985 (New York: National Audubon Society,

1985).

Bean, M. J., The Evolution of National Wildlife

Law (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1983).

Connor, E. F., and McCoy, E. D., “The Statistics

and Biology of the Species-Area Relationship, ”

American Naturalist 113:791-883, 1979.

Crawford, M., “Rhinos Pushed to the Brink for

Trinkets and Medicines,” Science 234:147, Oct.

10, 1986.

Crawford, R. D., “Assessment of Poultry Genetic

Resources,” Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64:235-251, 1984. In: Fitzhugh, et al., 1986.

Crosbv. M, R.. and Raven, P., “Diversitv and Dis9,

10

11

tribution of Wild Plants, ” OTA commissioned

paper, 1985.

Crumpacker, D, W., “Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems in the United States, ” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985.

Dahlberg, K.A. (cd.), New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research: Neglected

Dimensions and Emerging Alternatit’es (Totowa,

NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1986].

Dasmann, R. F., Milton, J. P., and Freeman, P. H.,

Ecological Principles for Economic Development (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1973).

12. Davis, S., et al., Plants in Danger: What Do We

Know? (Gland, Switzerland: International

Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, forthcoming). In: Synge, 1985.

13. Ehrlich, P., and Ehrlich, A., Extinction (New

York: Ballantine, 1981).

14, Erwin, T, L,, “Tropical Forest Canopies: The

Last Biotic Frontier, ” Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 29(1):14-19, 1983. In;

Myers, 1985.

15. Fitzhugh, H. A., Getz, W., and Baker, F. H., “Bio-
g4 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

logical Diversity: Status and Trends for Agricultural Domesticated Animals, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

16. Flesness, N., “Status and Trends of Wild Animal Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper,

1985.

17. Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations, Report of the Fifth Session of

the FAO Panel of Experts on Forest Gene Resources (Rome: 1984).

18, Fosburgh, W., “The Striped Bass, ” Audubon

WiZdlife Report, 1985 (New York: National Audubon Society, 1985).

19. Franklin, J. F,, Chief Plant Ecologist, U.S. Forest Service, personal communication, May 26,

1986.

20. Gentry, A. H., “Endemism in Tropical Versus

Temperate Plant Communities,” Conservation

Biology, M,E. SOU16 and B.A. Wilcox (eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1986).

21, Gill, V. G., and Dale, T,, Topsoil and Civilization

(Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press,

1974),

22. Grant, C, J., The Soils and Agriculture of Hong

Kong (Hong Kong: The Government Printer at

the Government Press, 1960),

23. Institute of Environmental Studies, Preassessmen t of Natural Resources Issues in Sudan,

University of Khartoum and the Program for International Development, Clark University,

Worcester, MA, 1983,

24, International Union for Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources, A Preliminary Environmental Profile of the India/Pakistan Border

Lands in the Sind-Kutch Region, a report for the

World Bank prepared at the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Center, October 1983.

25, Klee, G.A. (cd,), World Systems of Traditional

Resource Management (New York: John Wiley

& Sons, Inc., 1980),

26. Klopatek, J, M., et al., Land-Use Conflict With

Natural Vegetation in the United States, Publication No, 1333 (Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

Environmental Services Division, 1979). In:

Crumpacker, 1985.

27. Lewin, R., “Damage to TropicaI Forests, or Why

Were There So Many Kinds of Animals?” Science 234:149-150, Oct. 10, 1986,

28. Mares, M. A., “Conservation in South America:

Problems, Consequences, and Solutions, ” Science 233:734-739, Aug. 15, 1986,

29, Maruska, E. J., Executive Director, Zoological

Society of Cincinnati, presentation to the House

Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture

Research, and Environment, Sept. 25, 1980.

30. Myers, N., “Causes of Loss of Biological Diversity,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

31. Myers, N. (cd.), GAIA: An Atlas for Planet Management (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co.,

1984).

32. Myers, N., Conversion of Tropical Moist Forests

(Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1980).

33. Nabhan, G,, Assistant Director, Desert Botanical Garden, Phoenix, AZ, personal communication, May 16, 1986,

34. Namkoong, G., “Conservation of Biological

Diversity by In-Situ and Ex-Situ Methods,” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985,

35. National Research Council, Staff Report: Environmental Degradation in Mauritania, Board on

Science and Technology for International Development, Commission on International Relations,

National Research Council, National Academy

Press, Washington, DC, 1981.

36. Oldfield, M. L., The Value of Conserving Genetic

Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service, 1984).

37. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development, Report on the State of the Environment (Paris: 1985).

38. Peters, R. L., and Darling, J. D. S., “Greenhouse

Effect and Nature Reserves, ” Bioscience 35(1 1):

707-717, 1985.

39, Prescott-Allen, C., “Status and Trends of Agricultural Crop Species, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

40. Prescott-Allen, C., and Prescott-Allen, A., The

First Resources: Wild Species in the North

American Economy (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 1986).

41. Salam, R. V., CoastaZ Resources in Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan: Description, Use, and Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, International Affairs Office, Washington, DC, 1981.

42. Saunier, R, E., and Meganck, R, A., “Compatibility of Development and the In-situ Maintenance of Biotic Diversity in Developing Countries,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

43. Simberloff, D,, “Are We On the Verge of a Mass

Extinction in Tropical Rain Forests?” Dynamics

of Extinction, D.K. Elliot (cd,) (New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1986).

44, Simberloff, D., “Community Effects of Introduced Species,” Biotic Crises in Ecological and

Evolutionary Time, M.H. Nitecki (cd.) (New

York: Academic Press, 1981).

45, Smith, F. E., “A Short Review of the Status of
—.

Riparian Forests in California, ” Proceedings:

Riparian Forests in California—Their Ecologuy

and Conservation S3~mposium, A. Sands (cd.),

University of California, Davis, Division of Agricultural Sciences, May 14, 1977 (Berkeley, CA:

1980). In: Crumpacker, 1985.

46. Smift, B. L., and Barclay, J. S., “Status of Riparian Ecosystems in the United States, ” presented

at 1980 American Water Resources Association

~National Conference, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Eastern Energy and Land Use Team,

1980.

47. Synge, H., “Status and Trends of Wild Plants, ”

OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

48. Tiner, R. W., ]r., Wetlands of the United States:

49

50.

Current Status and Recent Trends (Newton Corner, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984). In: Crumpacker 1985.

U.S. Agency for International Development,

Honduras Countr~~ Environmental Profile: A

Field Study, AID Contract No. AID/SOD/PDCC-O247 (Arlington, VA: JRB Associates, August

1982).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest

Resources, OTA-F-214 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1984).

S1. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

Ch. 3—Status of Biologica/ Diversity ● 8 5

ment, Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland

and Rangeland Productivity, PB 83-125 013

(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1982).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery Plan for the Endangered

and Threatened Species of the California Channel Islands (Portland, OR: 1984).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The

Chesapeake Ba~~ Program: Findings and Recommendations, September 1983. In: Fosburgh,

1985.

Warner, R,E. [recorder), Proceedings; Fish and

Wildlife Resource Needs in Riparian Ecosystems Workshop, Harpers Ferry, WV, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Eastern Energy and Land

Use Team, Resources Analysis Group, May 30-

31, 1979. In: Crumpacker 1985,

Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, A Perception

of the Issue of High-Trade Volume (Cambridge,

UK: Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1984).

World Bank, Sudan Forestry Sector Ret’iew, Report No. 5911-SU, 1986.

World Resources Institute and International

Institute for Environment and Development,

World Resources 1986 (New York: Basic Bo~ks,

1986),
Chapter 4

Interventions To Maintain

Biological Diversity
CONTENTS

Pag e

Highlightts . . .***, ,* **,**.**.**.***. .** *.**,*."*****...*.,**,  89

Management Systems To Conserve Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....89

Onsite Ecosystem Maintenance ● e** ***...,*******.**,*,,.,.*.,.*,,*, , 89

OnSite Species Maintenance ● **. ,****** **. ,..   ** . **** *,*, ,* *m.**. 90

Offsite Maintenance in Living Collections. . ..*. @**? OOo. .o. ***. ***, e..* 90

Offsite Maintenance in Germplasm Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....91

Deciding Which Management System To Apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...91

Complementariness of Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......92

Biological Linkages ● **0. .*. * * * 0 * . . * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * .**.**.** 92

Technological Linkages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..94

Institutional Linkages ● *.*, .**. **** *.** ***,   .** . b*******..**..*.* 94

Chapter 4 References ● .*. ,.. **** ***. ***. *****v********.*****.,**.**.. 96

Tables

Table NO. Page

4-1. Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity ., . . . . . . ... , , . 90

42. Management Systems and Conservation Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Figure

Figure No. Page

4-I. Transfers of Biotic Material Between Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . 93
Chapter 4

Interventions To Maintain

Biological Diversity

●

●

✼

●

HIGHLIGHTS

Four management systems are used to conserve diversity: 1) managing ecosystems, 2) managing populations and species in natural or seminatural habitats,

3) maintaining and propagating living organisms offsite as in zoos or botanic

gardens, and 4) storing seeds or other germplasm, usually with refrigeration

or freezing.

The four systems for maintaining diversity are complementary, but linkages

between the strategies (e.g., between zoos and nature reserves) are less well

developed than they could be to maximize conservation efforts.

Biological, political, and socioeconomic factors must be evaluated to choose

the best mix of management interventions. Because the importance of maintaining diversity has only recently begun to attract widespread recognition,

scientific methods for evaluating trade-offs are at an early stage of development. Methods for evaluating socioeconomic factors seem to la~ behind development of biological methods.

The majority of plants, animals, and microbes

survive without any specific human interventions to maintain them, However, as natural

areas continue to be modified—through fragmentation of habitats, for example—their survival

and, in turn, maintaining biological diversity

will increasingly depend on active management. A spectrum of technologies—broadly defined to include management systems and other

means by which knowledge is applied—can be

used to maintain diversity,

Two general approaches are followed in

maintaining diversity: 1) onsite maintenance,

which conserves the organism in its natural setting; and 2) offsite maintenance, which conserves it outside its natural setting, Onsite maintenance can focus either on an entire ecosystem

or on a particular species or population. And

offsite maintenance can focus on living collections or on stored germplasm. These four broad

management systems are necessary components

of an overall strategy to conserve diversity, Conservation objectives can be enhanced by any

combination of the four systems and by improving the linkages between them to take advantage of their potential complementariness.

Table 4-1 lists some technology programs

associated with each management system.

general, the technologies on the right side

the table entail more human intervention,

Onsite Ecosystem Maintenance

[n

of

Where the conservation objective is to maintain as much biological diversity as possible,

the only practical and cost-effective approach

89
90 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 4“1 .—Examples of Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity

Onsite Off site

Ecosystem maintenance Species management Living collections Germplasm storage

National parks Agroecosystems Zoological parks Seed and pollen banks

Research natural areas Wildlife refuges Botanic gardens Semen, ova, and embryo banks

Marine sanctuaries /n-situ genebanks Field collections Microbial culture collections

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

planning

Increasing human intervention *

- Increasing natural processes

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1986

is to maintain ecosystem diversity. Offsite maintenance cannot accomplish this objective because many species cannot live outside their

natural habitats, An ecosystem approach allows

processes, such as natural selection, to continue. Survival, for some species, depends on

complex interactions with other species in their

habitats. Maintaining diverse ecosystems also

continues ecological processes, such as nutrient cycling, that typically depend on the interaction of numerous species (5).

programs to maintain a diversity of ecosystems usually identify different ecosystem types

and then attempt to preserve a sample of each

type (see ch. 5). Some types, such as cloud

forests, are rare and confined to small areas.

These are especially vulnerable and receive special emphasis in some conservation programs.

The ecosystem approach is used not only for

natural areas but also for traditional agricultural ecosystems, Pressures to modernize these

“agroecosystems” threaten the characteristically high levels of crop and livestock genetic

diversity these systems represent—and upon

which modern agricultural systems continue

to depend.

Onsite Species Maintenance

When the objective is to maximize direct benefits from diversity, such as production of an

optimal mixture of game, fish, timber, and scenic values, then the preferred approach is often

to manage particular species and their habitats.

Managing at the population level is preferred

when the objective is to avert extinction of a

rare or threatened species or subspecies.

Because managing all species would be impossible, biological, political, and economic factors determine which species will receive direct attention. Preference is given to species

with recognized economic value, for example.

Noncommercial species that are rare and endangered also are given management attention

to ensure survival of wild populations. Similarly, species that provide important indirect

benefits, such as pollination or pest control,

may receive attention. Ideally, management

should also focus on keystone species, i.e., those

with important ecosystem support or regulatory functions.

Offsite Maintenance in

Living Collections

Zoological parks, botanic gardens, arboretums, and field collections are common homes

for living collections. Living collections serve

several conservation objectives, Zoos and botanic gardens can propagate species threatened

with extinction in the wild, sometimes enabling the repopulation of a newly protected or

restored habitat. Arboretums and living collections kept at places like agricultural research

stations maintain the genetic diversity of plants

not amenable for germplasm storage as well

as numerous livestock varieties that are not

commercial y popular but are culturally significant or are needed for research and breeding

programs.

The number of species maintained in living

collections is limited by the size of the facilities and the relatively high maintenance cost
Ch. 4—interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity 91

per species. Managers of offsite collections face

the dilemma of maintaining populations large

enough to ensure viability and at the same time

providing refuge to as many species as possible.

Historically, the primary objectives of living

collections have been research and display,

However, growing concern over the loss of biological diversity is leading to greater efforts to

develop collections for their conservation potential. Offsite facilities are also used to breed

and propagate organisms, so they no longer rely

solely on collecting from the wild to replenish

their stocks. Instead, they can make a positive,

direct contribution to species’ survival.

Offsite Maintenance in

Germplasm Storage

Storage of dormant seeds, embryos, and clonal

materials, or germplasm storage, is the most

cost-effective method to preserve the genetic

diversity of the thousands of agricultural varieties and their wild relatives when biological

factors allow (5). As farmers increasingly abandon the traditional varieties in favor of genetically uniform, modern ones, the preservation

of diverse, locally adapted crops will depend

heavily on offsite storage (l).

The need to maintain a convenient source

of germplasm for breeding purposes and the

ability to draw on germplasm from different

geographic areas are important objectives met

by the offsite storage systems (see ch. 7). Germplasm storage is also the principal method for

maintaining identified strains of microbes (see

ch. 8), And it is increasingly used to store wild

plant species and a few wild animal species.

The efficacy of onsite and offsite technologies

depends on biological, political, and economic

factors. The following four chapters in this report examine how these various considerations

determine which technologies are applied. General observations on how these factors help

match management systems to conservation objectives are considered here. (See table 4-2 for

a summary of objectives, )

Biological considerations are central to the

objectives and choice of systems. Because not

all diversity is threatened, the task of maintaining it can focus on the elements that need special attention, Biological uniqueness is important in setting priorities for conservation

programs. A unique species—one that is the

only representative of an entire genus or family, for example, or a species with high esthetic

appeal—may be the focus of intensive conservation management either onsite, offsite, o r

both.

Biological uniqueness can present problems

in applying conservation technologies, because

species-specific research is often required to

develop management or recovery plans (ch, 5).

Species with unique reproductive physiology,

for example, often cannot be maintained offsite until a considerable investment has been

made in developing propagation techniques (ch.

6).

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, in the

United States a disproportionate share of resources is devoted to conservation programs

for a select few of the many endangered species. Substantial sums have been spent in llthhour efforts to save the California condor and

the black-footed ferret, while other endangered

organisms such as invertebrate species receive

little notice.

National instability may also threaten biological resources either directly in the cases of civil

strife or warfare or indirectly through encouraging neglect. Such cases warrant special efforts
92 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 4-2.—Management Systems and Conservation Objectives

Onsite Off site

Ecosystem maintenance Species maintenance Living collections Germplasm storage

Maintain: Maintain:

● a reservoir or “1 i brary ” of . genetic interaction begenetic resources tween semidomesticated

species and wild relatives

● evolutionary potential s wi Id populations for sustainable exploitation

● functioning of various Q viable populations of

ecological processes threatened species

● vast majority of known ● species that provide im -

and unknown species portant indirect benefits

(for pollination or pest

control)

● representatives of unique ● “keystone” species with

natural ecosystems important ecosystem support or regulating function

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

to collect an endangered species or germplasm

and maintain it outside the country to ensure

survival and to facilitate access.

The applicable management systems and

technologies also depend largely 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

diversity. For example, the benefits of breeding programs compared with the cost of seed

COMPLEMENTARYNES$ OF

Each of the four management systems serves

different objectives. Historically, the two offsite approaches have developed independently

from onsite approaches, However, some links

have developed between the different management programs (see figure 4-1). Improvement

of such links will contribute substantially to the

cost-effectiveness of each management system

and will help to achieve the overall goal of maintaining biological diversity.

Biological Linkages

Transfers of biotic material among the four

management systems can enhance diversity.

Maintain: Maintain:

●

●

●

●

●

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 disr.)lav

● convenient source of

germplasm for breeding

programs

● col Iections of germ plasm

from uncertain or threatened sources

● reference or type col Iections

as standard for research

and patenting purposes

● access to germ plasm from

wide geographic areas

● genetic materials from critically endangered species

, .

maintenance easily justify germplasm storage

technologies (see ch. 7). However, cost-benefit

analysis is more difficult when benefits are diffuse and accrue over a long period (7), This

problem is particularly acute for onsite maintenance programs where competition for land

exists. Current threats to biologically rich tropical forests by land seeking peasant agriculturalists illustrate these conflicting interests,

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Exchanges between onsite systems occur, for

example, when genetic material from wild

plants becomes incorporated into locally cultivated varieties. Exchanges between offsite systems occur, for example, when seeds and clones

of agricultural varieties are taken from storage

and grown out in living collections for use in

breeding programs. Similarly, a zoo may collect animal semen from its living collection and

place it in cryogenic storage to expand the number of individuals it can maintain—in a sense

creating a “frozen zoo. ”

Exchanges of species or germplasm between

wild areas and living collections are most evident when wild specimens are taken for zoos,
Ch. 4—Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . 93

Figure 4-1 .—Transfers of Biotic Material Between Management Systems

\ )

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

botanic gardens, or private collections. Taking

wild specimens for living collections may provide material for research and public education,

may prevent captive populations from inbreeding, and may even enhance wild populations

through later reintroduction. However, these

activities can—and have—threatened wild populations of a number of species.

It is often possible to take only germplasm—

seeds, cuttings, and semen—rather than entire

organisms. This approach has the advantage

of being less destructive to rare or endangered

populations (6), In the interest of preserving endangered populations, mammal germplasm collection is increasingly being attempted. Semen

has been collected from wild populations of
94 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

cheetahs, rhinoceroses, and elephants (10), But

collecting mammal germplasm, without keeping the animal in captivity, is more difficult and

costly, And many of the wildlife specimens

maintained in zoos are the survivors of destructive capturing procedures.

Efforts increasingly are being made through

captive breeding to produce stocks for reintroduction into the wild. The golden lion tamarin program in Brazil (11) has been successful

for example, Less attention has been focused

on reintroducing threatened plant species, but

the recent reintroduction of a wild olive tree

species on the island of St. Helena suggests that

this approach is possible (6).

Perhaps the most important transfer of genetic material occurs between agroecosystems

and germplasm storage: Landraces produced

in traditional farmers’ fields are the result of

thousands of years of natural and human selection from thousands of different crop varieties.

Many varieties can no longer be maintained

by the farmers, who abandon them to plant

higher yielding crop varieties. But the genetic

diversity of traditional varieties is needed to

create improved varieties. Thus, collecting expeditions to transfer these varieties into offsite

storage are critically important to maintenance

of the world’s agriculture, Germplasm flows

from storage back to agroecosystems, via research and breeding programs, as new varieties

are introduced into agricultural systems.

Transfers are not always beneficial, however.

Livestock that escape captivity can become feral

animals with populations so high that they

threaten native wild plants and animals. Feral

goats on Pacific islands and feral horses on

some rangelands of the United States are wellknown examples. Similarly, exotic plants introduced as ornamental or agricultural crops

sometimes escape to become weeds that crowd

out native species. Efforts to capture specimens

for living collections can also be destructive,

The challenge is to manage the transfers among

sites and programs to enhance the positive contributions to diversity maintenance and minimize the negatives ones,

Technological Linkages

Research and technology transfers between

diversity management programs can increase

the efficiency, effectiveness, and capacity for

maintaining biological diversity. Some technologies developed for domesticated species can

be adapted for use with wild species. For example, technologies for offsite maintenance of

wild species—particularly germplasm storage

and captive breeding—have benefited substantially from the research and experience in agriculture. Perhaps the most dramatic linkage is

embryo transfer technologies developed for

livestock that are now being adapted to endangered species (ch, 6). Similarly, storage technologies developed for agricultural varieties,

such as cryogenics and tissue culture, may become valuable tools for maintaining collections

of rare or threatened wild plant species.

Like biological linkages, technological linkages work both ways. For example, research

on living collections has provided information

that can be applied to maintaining populations

in the wild (2). Likewise, research on wild populations supplied information on a number of

species’ special reproduction requirements,

which led to successful results with breeding

in captivity.

Technological linkages among institutions

engaged in researching, developing, and applying technologies have been limited. Researchers and resource managers in this area have

historically worked in relative isolation, dealing almost exclusively with others in their fields

of activity. The few interactions that have

occurred have had a positive impact. Thus, the

potential for benefits from increased cooperative work seems apparent, but institutions are

slow to make such changes.

Institiutional Linkages

Exchanges of organisms and technologies

have occurred because they have been considered necessary for success of the different programs. However, most programs focus on relatively narrow subsets of diversity. Some groups
Ch. 4—Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . 95

devote their attention exclusively to maintaining certain agricultural crops, while others focus on specific wild species—e. g,, whales or

migratory waterfowl, The result is that much

of the work is done in isolation, and the scope

and effectiveness of overall diversity maintenance effort becomes difficult to monitor. And

while particular concerns may be well-addressed,

other concerns receive little or no attention.

Institutional problems that impede overall

maintenance of biological diversity include:

● overlap and inter institutional or intrainstitutional competition,

c gaps between goals and the human and

financial resources available to achieve

them, and

● lack of complementariness or cooperation

between initiatives (4).

Institutional links can identify common interests, strengths, and weaknesses of various

organizations as well as gaps and opportunities to address overall concerns. Not all activities should be operationally linked, however.

A diversity of approaches in conservation activities is beneficial, and interaction should occur principally with those programs closest in

purpose and approach (4).

Useful technologies emerge through a series

of steps, Basic research provides an understanding of the nature of biological systems.

Drawing on this knowledge, researchers define

requirements and develop techniques to manage ecosystems, species, or genetic resources,

Once the techniques are developed, however,

researchers must synthesize techniques into

technologies, then transfer and apply the technologies to site-specific circumstances.

In practice, the process of technology development is impeded by institutional constraints.

Research is undertaken by scientists in many

institutions, including universities, botanic

gardens, zoological institutions, and government agencies responsible for natural resources. These scientists commonly emphasize

the theoretical. At the other end of the spectrum are resource managers who apply particular techniques. Although the transfer of basic

research to applied research is a problem in

developing useful technologies, the principal

weakness seems to be the failure of institutions

to support synthesis of scientific information

into useful management tools.

The problem of technology development is

more pronounced for onsite than for offsite

maintenance. This difference perhaps reflects

the more pragmatic nature of offsite maintenance, where institutions (most with agricultural interests) emphasize research and development. Focus on technology development is

commonly lacking in onsite maintenance. Institutions may deter scientists from translating

research into practical techniques (8). To apply ecological studies to onsite maintenance,

greater emphasis needs to be placed on comparative and predictive science, which implies

less emphasis on descriptive studies (4).

Forces working against diversity are largely

social and economic. Therefore, human dimensions need to be included in the scientific investigations, and natural and social sciences

must be involved in conservation initiatives.

There is, however, a paucity of social science

research for the development of technologies

to conserve biological diversity. This lack is

partly because of the complexity and difficulty

of such work, and partly because the potential

for social science to make important contributions has been overbooked.

Greater support is needed for inventory and

monitoring of diversity in natural systems and

in agricultural systems. Some of this information is already available, but most of it has not

been assimilated or made available to decisionmakers,

Finally, science needs to be applied to provide policy makers and the general public with

better information on the scope and ramifications of diversity loss. Such information needs

to be accurate, compelling, and digestible by

a lay audience, To produce such information,

scientists and scientific institutions need to become more directly involved and accommodating within the public policymaking process (9).

At the same time, the information they provide
96 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

should meet the four criteria for effective public policy:

1. Adequacy—meets the accepted standards

of objectivity, completeness, reproducibility, and accuracy, and is appropriate to the

subject and the application.

2. Value—addresses a worthwhile problem;

neither too narrow nor too broad.

CHAPTER 4

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Arnold, M. H., “Plant Gene Conservation,” Nature 39:615, Feb. 20, 1986.

Benvischke, K., “The Impact of Research on the

Propagation of Endangered Species in Zoos. ”

Genetics and Conservation, C. Schonewald-Cox,

et al. (eds. ) (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., 1983).

Clark, W. C., and Majone, G., “The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries With Policy Implacations, ” Science, Technology, and Human

Values, forthcoming.

diCastri, F,, “Twenty Years of International

Programmed on Ecosystems and the Biosphere:

An Overview of Achievements, Shortcomings,

and Possible New Perspectives, ” Global Change,

T.F, Malone and J.G. Roederer (eds.) (New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1985).

Frankel, O. H., and Soul&, M. E., Conservation

and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press, 1981).

3.

4.

Effectiveness—able to influence policy in

a constructive way and linked with the network of decisionmakers responsible for the

issue,

Legitimacy—carries a widely-accepted presumption of correctness and authority (3),

REFERENCES

6.

7,

8.

9,

10,

11.

Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,

Botanical Gardens and Similar Institutions in

the Maintenance of Biological Diversity,” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985.

Randall, A., “Human Preferences, Economics,

and the Preservation of Species, ” The Value of

Z3ioZogical Diversity, B.G. Norton (cd.) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).

Salwasser, H., U.S. Forest Service, personal

communication, September 1986.

Shapiro, H. T., et al., “A National Research Strategy, ” Issues in Science and Technology, spring

1986, pp. 116-125.

Wildt, D. E,, National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, personal communication, July 1986.

World Wildlife Fund—U.S., Annual Report 1984

(Washington, DC: 1984),
Part II
Chapter s

Maintaining Biological

Diversity Onsite
CONTENTS

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Classifying and Designing Protected Areas.. . . . . . . .

Classification Systems for Protected Areas . . . . . . .

Design of Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . .

Establishment of Protected Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acquisition and Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Criteria for Selection of Areas To Protect . . . . . . . .

Planning and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Planning Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ecosystem Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Outside Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Genetic Resources for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conservational A Type of Development . . . . . . . .

Data for Onsite Maintenance of Biological Diversity

Uneven Quality of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Databases ..*.*** ● *..*.,. ● *.***** .******* . . . . .

Data for Management of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Social and Economic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

An Ecosystem Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Innovative Technologies for Developing Countries

Long-Term Multidisciplinary Research . . . . . . . . . .

Personnel Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data To Facilitate Onsite Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tables

Table No.

Page

● .***.. ...*.*.. .*.* * 101

● .**,. . ● *,*.,* ● **.* * 101

...***, ...*..,. . . . . . 102

. . . . . . ,...0.. .*..**, 102

..***.. ● .....*. ..** . 105

.*..*.. ● *..*.*. ● **. . 109

.**,..* .,...6.. .s,. , 109

*,**... . . . ● ****** ● ** 111

● . . . . . . ● ,*****, .*.** 113

● ..0,., .*. * , ........11 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,.,.,. 116

.*.*,*. .*,.**.* . . . . . 119

....0,, ● ...,*.. ..0. , 121

...**. ..,,*** ,.....s 121

.122

:::::::::::::::: :::.12 3

. ...................12 3

.***..* . . . . . . . . .**.. 124

. .............12 4

: : : : : : . . . . . . . . . .. ...126

..,.,.s .**.,*** ..00s 127

..0..0. ● .**.*,. .0.0 . 128

..8.,.. ● *.*.**. ..** * 128

....12 9

::::::::::::::: :., ..12 9

● *.**.. **...*** ● *** * 130

******** ● ******O* ● 4* 130

,. .. .. .. .. ... ,., ...’131

Page

5-1. Categories and Management Objectives of Protected Areas . ..........110

5-2. Coverageof Protected Areas by Biogeographic Provinces . ...........112

Figure No. Page

5-1. Growth of the Global Network of Protected Areas, 1890-1985 . ........110

5-2, National Conservation Strategy Development Around the World,

July 1985 .....0 . . . . . ● ,.*”.* . . . . . . . . .0,,.... ● *O..... ● *.***.. ● * O * 116

5-3. Design of a Coastal or Marine Protected Area . .....................119

5-4. Representation of a Geographic InformationSystem Function

Overlaying Several Types of Enviromnental Data . ..................126

Boxes

BOXNO. Page

5-A. Differences Between Terrestrial and CoastaLMarine Systems . . . . . . . . .I05

5-IL The Edge Effect

5-C. Cluster Concept

******.* .********  

for Biosphere Reserves

** .**,* .******* ● ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ ● S * * 107

.***.** ..*.**.* .*,***** ● . . * 118
Chapter 5

Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite

 Maintaining plant, animal, and microbial diversity in their natural environment (onsite) is the most effective way to conserve maximum biological diversity over the long term.

● Strategies to maintain diversity onsite have evolved from strict preservation

to multiple use. More recently, attention is being given to integrating conservation with development in areas outside protected zones.

● Guidelines for optimum biological design of protected areas are improving.

But decisions on design are determined more often by socioeconomic and political factors than by scientific principles.

● Techniques for restoring diversity on degraded sites are being improved as

knowledge of natural plant and animal succession increases. However, complete restoration is often not feasible, and partial restoration is usually slow

and expensive.

● Opportunities for improving national and global conservation of diversity onsite

include 1) promoting an ecosystem approach to protected area establishment

and management, 2) encouraging innovative resource development methods

that treat conservation as a form of development, 3) supporting multidisciplinary research on the many factors to consider when designing nature reserves,

and 4) developing training and job opportunities for experts in all these areas.

INTRODUCTION

Plants and animals can be maintained where

they are found, that is, onsite, either by protecting certain sites from change or by managing change to support some portion of the natural biota. Most biological diversity can only

be maintained in a natural condition for three

reasons:

1. For most species,

been developed to

bers of individuals

technologies have not

keep substantial numalive outside their natural environments.

2. For species that can be kept alive in artificial conditions, preserving genetic diversity usually entails maintaining numerous

individuals from genetically distinct populations. Such preservation is financially

and logistically feasible for only a few of

3.

the hundreds or thousands of species of

many ecosystems.

Species survive gradual changes in their

natural environments by continuous evolution and adaptation—processes that are

arrested in offsite collections.

Strategies for maintaining biological diversity onsite range from single-species management to protection of complete ecosystems in

designated natural areas. The various approaches are complementary. For example, a

European nature reserve system established

with broad conservation objectives contains

some 10,000 sites of plant species that also are

useful for breeding and for research into the

chemistry of natural substances.

101
102 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

CLASSIFYING AND DESIGNING PROTECTED AREAS

Maintenance of biological diversity per se has

often not been the primary objective of protected natural areas, Instead, many such areas

have been set aside and managed for other conservation values, such as preservation of scenic

landscapes or protection of watersheds (11).

More recently, however, the U.S. Congress and

other policy makers have begun to authorize actions to address the maintenance of biological

diversity directly. With this new mandate, biologists, agricultural scientists, and conservation

program managers have started to develop new

ways to apply science to the problem of maintaining biological diversity onsite.

The development of techniques for onsite

maintenance of biological diversity has so far

focused mainly on protected areas. This section is concerned, therefore, largely with where

these protected areas should be established and

how biological principles can be used in the

design and management of protected areas. The

technologies appear to be scientifically sound,

yet too little implementation has occurred thus

far for a conclusive assessment of effect.

Even if the biological techniques are demonstrated to be correct, the actual location, design, and management objectives for protected

areas will be determined mainly by social (including economic and political) factors. For example, costs will usually be a stronger consideration than biological criteria in choosing

whether to have one large reserve or several

small ones, Boundaries usually reflect what

area has been made available rather than what

would provide the best habitat for flora and

fauna,

Development activities other than conservation may also take precedence in decisions to

change the boundaries of protected areas. In

tropical countries, where diversity is most

threatened, many natural areas are occupied

by farmers, hunters, gatherers, and fishermen

(see ch. 11). Strategies to safeguard biological

diversity must recognize that development of

natural resources is imperative and must incorporate socioeconomic and political considerations. However, conservationists and resource

developers should also view conservation as

a necessary component of economic development.

In spite of the powerful influence of social

factors, social sciences are applied less often

than natural sciences in efforts to maintain biological diversity. Development planning techniques that do use social science data and principles have been proposed, however, and used

occasionally to integrate natural resource conservation with other forms of economic, cultural, and social development. Resource development planning is discussed in some detail

in the OTA report, Technologies To Sustain

Tropical Forest Resources (83), A variation of

resource development planning, integrated development planning, is described briefly later

in this chapter.

Classification Systems

Protected Areas

for

Strategies to develop a system of protected

areas typically begin by classifying and mapping types of ecosystems using data on plant

and animal distributions and on climate and

soil parameters. This information is compared

with the locations of already-protected areas

to approximate priorities for allocating the resources available for site protection,

Descriptions of threatened ecosystems are

now adequate in every country to undertake

effective programs for conserving biological

diversity. In nearly all regions, however, continued improvements in ecosystem classification and assessment would facilitate better decisions on where protection is most needed.

Preservation priorities need to be based on

knowledge of which ecosystems:

have high diversity,

have high endemism (a high proportion of

the species having a limited natural range),

are threatened by resource development

or degradation patterns,
● are located where social and economic

conditions are conducive to conservation,

and

● are not adequately represented in existing

protected areas.

The major patterns of nature can be described

for most terrestrial areas with existing data. Several biogeographic systems have been developed that relate data on distribution of plant

and animal species to factors such as climate

and natural barriers like oceans, deserts, and

mountain ranges. These systems classify the

Earth into zones, with each zone containing

distinctive ecosystems and life forms.

Much less information is available on aquatic

sites, such as lakes and streams, Aquatic ecosystems are difficult to map on a large scale,

and the way to integrate them into land classifications is poorly understood. The same is

true of riparian vegetation, mountain meadows,

and other azonal ecosystems,

Classification systems take two broad approaches. “Taxonomic” methods establish land

units by grouping resources or sites with similar properties. “Regionalization” methods subdivide land into natural units on the basis of

spatial patterns that affect natural processes

and the use of resources (1), The two approaches

can be integrated to identify ecosystem diversity in considerable detail.

The taxonomic approach is typified by the

Society of American Foresters (SAF) Cover

Type Classification system, which aggregates

similar stands of forest trees on the basis of the

kind, number, and distribution of plant species

and the dominance by tree species (19). The

basic taxonomic units—forest cover types—are

named after the predominant tree species. The

Renewable Resources Evaluation of the U.S.

Forest Service further aggregates many of the

SAF categories into 20 “major forest types, ”

which are the basis for the only map of forest

cover types available for the United States as

a whole.

The regionalization approach, on the other

hand, begins with a nation or continent and

subdivides it into progressively smaller, more

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 1 0 3

closely related units. An example of this is the

ecoregions classification system, used extensively by U.S. Federal land-managing agencies

(l). Ecosystem regions for North America are

defined as domains on the basis of climate. The

domains are subdivided into divisions, which

are subdivided into provinces on the basis of

what plant communities can be expected to develop if the natural succession of species is not

interrupted by human activity. Provinces are

subdivided into sections on the basis of the composition of the vegetation types that eventually

would prevail. Extending this ecoregion classification system to cover the world on a scale

of 1:25 million is being considered.

A recently developed system for classification of the world’s marine and coastal environments combines physical processes with biotic

characteristics (34). This classification system

will be used as a basis for selecting U.S. coastal

biosphere reserves (13),

Each classification system has advantages

and disadvantages for programs to maintain

biological diversity. The taxonomic approach

identifies and classifies each component, For

example, separate taxonomies are used to identify flora, fauna, and soils. This separation

facilitates location of natural areas that will

conserve concentrations of high-priority components, such as a vegetation type or animal

species. The regionalization approach allows

scientists to determine whether the same type

of ecosystem in distinct biogeographic regions

actually represents two different ecosystems (2),

Biogeographic classification maps indicate

what ecosystems would be found under natural conditions, but the discrepancy between expected and actual features is often great because

of human intervention, Sparse grasslands may

occur where climate, physical features, and species distribution records suggest tropical moist

forest should grow, Furthermore, the major

classification systems cover only broad zonal

features of the environment. Azonal features—

e.g., wetlands, riparian areas, and coral reefs—

cannot be included. So conservation strategies

must take a different approach to identify priorities for these ecosystems. Typically, plans
104 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

 credit’ Forest 

The Society of American Foresters Cover Type Map, an example of an ecosystem classification system, aggregates

similar stands of forest trees on the basis of the kind, number, and distribution of plant species

and the dominance by tree species.

for conservation of azonal ecosystems are based

on surveys that cut across the biogeographic

zones.

Biogeographic classification systems also

need to be supplemented with information on

endemism. Patterns of endemism vary among

taxa and among regions. Some species with restricted distribution are quite common locally,

whereas others are extremely rare (26). On the

broadest scale, taxa may be endemic to a continent or subcontinent; on a narrow scale, many

plant species seem to be restricted naturally to

areas as small as a few square kilometers.

Identifying centers of endemism has been an

ongoing effort of conservationists, especially

tropical ecologists. An area such as an island

or a mountain forest may not have an unusually

high number of species present, but it may have

a high proportion of species not found elsewhere (i.e., high endemism). Such areas are considered valuable for maintaining biological

diversity, because they contribute substantially

to diversity on a global scaIe,

In sum, a variety of ecosystem classification

systems are currently being used by many organizations with different objectives. Although

these maps do not indicate the extent of existing ecosystems (e. g., how much forest actually

remains), they do correspond roughly to the

boundaries of species distributions. Thus, they

can be compared with maps of natural areas

already protected, and planners can then choose

which sites to focus on for more detailed assess-
Ch. 5—Maintaining Bio/ogical Diversity Onsite 105

ment of an ecosystem’s contribution to diversity, its vulnerability, and its social and economic significance.

Design of Protected Areas

The sizes and locations of protected areas are

determined first by political and financial constraints. Within those limits, the designs of nature reserves have usually been based on natural history characteristics of the particular

species of greatest interest. Recently, however,

scientists have begun to develop theories for

designing nature reserves to optimize protection of biological diversity rather than protection of particular species. These theories are

still based mainly on inferences from general

scientific principles and are largely untested,

Thus, they are the subject of much academic

debate among scientists (53),

Criteria for optimum size and shape for protected areas have been based on information

from insular ecology (e.g., refs, 15,16,74,90).

These criteria, however, are widely viewed as

too simplistic, and the theories are being further developed with information from ecological-evolutionary genetics (24,70,73,79) and

from theoretical population dynamics (28,74,

80). These theories focus mainly on terrestrial

protected areas and probably have limited use

for the design of coastal-marine reserves, The

great dispersive abilities of marine organisms

and the interconnections of adjacent communities thus complicate decisions concerning the

proper size and spacing of reserves. (See box

5-A for discussion contrasting terrestrial and

coastal-marine systems,)

Information on the occurrence and natural

distribution of species on islands has been used

to formulate theoretical size and location criteria for protected areas intended to maintain

diversity. The equilibrium theory of island biogeography (52) maintains that greater numbers

of species are found on larger islands because

Box 5-A.—Differences Between

Terrestrial and Coastal~Marine Systems

It is difficult to gauge the relative differences

in biological diversity in terrestrial and

coastal-marine environments. Dry land contains approximately four times the number of

species found in the sea; on that consideration alone, terrestrial ecosystems seem inherently more diverse. Differences in faunal

diversity between marine and terrestrial environments are primarily due to insects. Without them, marine fauna would be more diverse

than terrestrial fauna. However, terrestrial

flora clearly exhibit greater diversity than marine flora (51).

Viewed from a different perspective, in

which the number of higher taxa (particularly

animal) indicate degree of diversity, the sea

would appear more diverse because many

higher taxa (i.e., phyla, classes, orders) are exclusively marine. Implicit in this view is the

notion that higher levels reflect greater genetic

differences–i.e., a single species maybe the

sole representative of an order, class, or phylum, and the loss of one of these species might

cause afar greater genetic loss than would the

loss of a species in a taxon made up of several

hundred or thousand members (51).

Another difference is that many fish and invertebrates that make up the bulk of marine

species pass through several life stages from

egg to adult. In many of the life stages, the

organisms seem unrelated to that of the adult

form. These different forms can live in different ecosystems or in distinctly different niches

within the same ecosystem. Maintaining one

species may therefore require maintenance of

several different ecosystems (51).

Movement of organisms and materials between different community types—seagrass,

coral reef, and mangrove—means that terrestrial and marine communities sometimes cannot be defined simply by their physical boundaries. Effectiveness of efforts to protect one

community type may be diminished by failure to protect neighboring communities as

well as adjacent watersheds (40).
106 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

the populations on smaller islands are more vulnerable to extinction. That vulnerability is due

to probabilistic nature of individual births,

deaths, occurrences of disease, and changes in

habitats. Also, islands farther from continents

have fewer species, because colonists from

large land masses are less likely to reach them.

This theory was extended from true islands to

their terrestrial analogs (e.g., forest patches in

agricultural or suburban areas), and the field

of study become known as “insular ecology”

to reflect this broader perspective. Scientists

do not concur that the theory accurately explains natural patterns of species diversity, and

research has been initiated to test the theory.

(See Gilbert (27) and Simberloff (76) for reviews

of studies that confirm or refute the equilibrium

theory.) In any case, the island analogy—that

much of the natural diversity is being reduced

and confined to small, often isolated areas—is

not in dispute,

Nature reserves serve as islands for species

incapable of surviving in human-dominated

habitats. Isolated natural areas are likely to

experience declining numbers of species when

their size is reduced by deforestation or similar

habitat changes. The analogy between islands

and nature reserves was reinforced by findings

from some of the early tests of equilibrium theory. These findings led to proposed design criteria for nature reserves intended to minimize

the loss of species over time (53). The designs

called for large nature reserves near each other,

to reduce the effects of small areas and distances on species survival. Other design elements not explicitly derived from equilibrium

theory but thought to maintain a greater number of species at equilibrium also exist. However, these are rather academic “all other things

being equal” principles, and on the ground,

complex habitat differences among areas should

weigh more heavily in pragmatic choices of

which sites to conserve.

The applicability of insular ecology to conservation is being tested by the World Wildlife

Fund’s Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems

Project (49). Biologists took inventories of plant

and animal life in an Amazon forest area before it was fragmented by development. Various-sized patches of forest were kept intact

through coordination with the deforestation

and development program, and biologists now

monitor plant and animal populations in each

patch. Although the project is only 20 years old,

changes in the biota are already evident (47,48).

The guidelines for optimum biological design

still have many limitations (72). Most of the relevant research has focused on animals, particularly forest-dwelling birds; too little research

has been conducted on plants or on other types
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 107

of habitats. Also, the occurrence and persistence of a species on any particular site may

be governed not only by the populations on that

site but also by whether groups of loosely connected populations can survive in the region

(46,71). This sort of scientific question requires

long-term study, which is only beginning to be

conducted.

As the Earth increasingly becomes a patchwork of natural and developed areas, the effects of activities on or near the boundaries of

protected areas are becoming more important.

Small areas and those with angular boundaries

have a higher proportion of boundary-to-interior than larger or more circular areas. Nature

reserves seldom have sharply defined natural

boundaries like oceanic islands. Instead they

have political boundaries that can do only so

much to prevent movements in and out. Many

species can migrate across nature reserve

boundaries, and the results of human activities

(e.g., pollution) may enter by air, water, or land.

Consequently, another theory on the optimum

design of protected areas, “the boundary model,” has been proposed. It accounts for the

boundary effects, including the effects of human activities (69).

Designated protected areas include both political and biological boundaries. Some of the

biological boundaries are the natural edges between ecosystems; others result from human

activities, most of which originate outside political boundaries. Those biological boundaries

that fit the ecological definition of an “edge”

(box 5-B) may increase local diversity as edgeadapted species prosper. Over time, however,

survival of species in the interior may be reduced if edges are enlarged, because the habitat for species adapted to less-disturbed conditions is reduced. Poor protection at the political

boundaries generally shifts the biological

boundaries toward an area’s interior.

Zones where resource-conserving development activities are encouraged have been tested

to buffer the boundary effect (e.g., the united

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization’s (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Program). Such buffer zones can help

reserves by increasing the habitat area and minBox 5-B.-The Edge Effect

Natural boundaries between ecosystems,

or edges, are considered to be ecologically

diverse areas. Edges can be created by

human manipulation of vegetation in an attempt to encourage maximum local diversity (14). Along an edge, animals from each

of the abutting vegetation types may be

found, together with animals that make frequent use of more than one vegetation type

and those that specialize on the edge itself

(41). Game animals commonly are edgeadapted, as are animals of many urban, suburban, and agricultural areas (e.g., birds) (8).

imizing the potential exposure to harm. The

idea of buffer zones is not new, but implementation has been slow; few evaluations have been

done yet to develop guidelines about the necessary character and width of the zones or the

shifting nature of boundaries.

Corridors of habitat to connect nature reserves have been proposed for sites where reserve sizes are below-optimum. These corridors

should facilitate gene flow and the dispersal

of individuals between protected areas, which

should, in turn, increase the effective size of

populations and thus raise the chance of survival for semi-isolated groups (6). Also, corridors could increase the recolonization rate

if species are eliminated locally (78). Corridors,

however, are another theoretical concept, and

they may not be appropriate for all sites. As

noted earlier, geographic isolation is a cause

of genetic diversity. Thus, corridors where none

previously existed might cause locally adapted

genotypes to be lost due to gene flow. The applicability of corridors is another aspect of design theory now being actively researched.

The use of corridors and boundary zones has

been proposed for protected areas in the Western Cascades region of the United States, This

area contains the largest tract of uncut forest

in the conterminous United States as well as

natural riparian habitats (32). The proposal suggests surrounding islands of old-growth forest

with zones of low-intensity, long-rotation tim-
108 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

ber harvesting and then linking the islands by

corridors of old-growth vegetation. This design

would presumably provide mobility for species

like the cougar and bobcat—far-ranging carnivores that would have populations too small

for survival and continued evolution if confined

to a single habitat island. Proposals like this

must be considered planning hypotheses, suggested by general theory; and as such must be

subjected to close, case-by-case scrutiny before

implementation.

Genetcs

Genetic considerations are another dominant

concern in the literature on population viability and conservation. Attempts are being made

to determine the smallest number of interbreeding individuals that will enable a species to

survive indefinitely—adapting to changing environmental conditions without suffering the negative effects of a small population size (population instability, erosion of genetic variability,

inbreeding). Because each individual carries

only part of the genetic variation characteristic of its species, the size of a population—and

thus, the amount of genetic variation—may determine how much and how fast a population

can evolve.

Application of genetics to the issue of population size and viability has led to theoretical

estimates of minimum populations for successful conservation of birds and mammals. One

such estimate, known as the 50/500 rule, is that

effective population size (in genetics sense) of

50 breeding adults is the minimum needed to

sustain captive breeding programs over decades or a century (e. g., as in zoos), but a population 10 times as large is needed to sustain a

species in its natural habitat as it evolves over

millennia to survive changing environmental

stresses (25,45),

The 50/500 rule is an approximation based

on studies of only a few species. But the effect

of population size depends on several factors

that differ for various species, such as sex ratio, age structure, mating behavior, and b e -

haviors such as feeding. Thus the rule, when

applied to a particular species, could project

a need for populations larger than 50/500—

perhaps orders of magnitude larger. Empirical

or experimental evidence is lacking to determine how resilient a “genetically viable” population would be when confronted with other

pressures (e.g., demographic, environmental,

or catastrophic uncertainty) (72),

Population Dynamics

Scientists have long recognized that, in general, smaller populations are more susceptible

to extinction than larger ones, because death

for individual organisms is an event determined

largely by change, and populations are collections of individuals. Models of the impact of

change on individual births and deaths were

developed decades ago (e.g., ref. 21), and these

have been applied to estimate the extinction

time for particular species under various circumstances. Models also have been developed

to evaluate the effect of chance environmental

variations and chance population-wide catastrophes.

Recently, more sophisticated models of stochastic population dynamics have been formulated specifically to investigate questions o f

population viability. These models do not give

specific prescriptions for minimum population

size to assure survival, but they are leading to

a better understanding of the role of chance in

populations. They indicate that to avoid extinction resulting from the impact of chance on individual births and deaths may require only a

few hundred breeding individuals. But larger,

perhaps much larger, population sizes are necessary if the condition of the species’ environment varies, and still larger populations a r e

needed for species that are susceptible to catastrophes (72).

The modeling approach is useful but has significant limitations. First, data for population

models encompassing both environmental and

genetic factors exist for only a few species. Also,

species experience the effects of chance at individual, environmental, population, and genetic levels. But models that could simultaneously simulate all these factors would be too

complex for existing analytical capabilities,
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 109

Even if such models were developed, they could

prove very costly to use (72).

The theoretical population models are yielding other plausible hypotheses, some of which

have important implications for conservation.

Extinction probabilities depend critically on

population growth rates, on environmentally

induced variability in this rate, and on particular catastrophic scenarios to which the species

are subject. One recent analysis employs a stochastic population model and the general relationships between body-size and population

growth rates and between body-size and population density to estimate the sizes of populations and habitats necessary for mammals to

have a 95 percent probability of persistence for

1,000 years.

The preliminary results from this analysis are

startling. For larger animals, the viable popuSince the world’s first two national parks

were established in the 1870s, some 3,500 protected areas have been set aside for conservation, covering some 4.25 million square kilometers (1,050 million acres) (35). (See figure 5-1

for rate of growth.)

Growth in the number and size of protected

areas was slow at first. It accelerated during

the 1920s and 1930s, halted during world War

II, and regained momentum by the early 1950s.

The number doubled during the 1970s, but

growth has slowed over the past few years (33).

Before 1970, most protected areas were located

in industrial countries. But for the past 15 years,

the Third World has led in both numbers added

and rates of establishment.

Designation as a protected area does not necessarily mean that protection is effective, of

course. The extent of actual protection in the

3,500 areas has not been determined, but anecdotal evidence indicates that illegal or unmanaged hunting, fishing, gathering, logging,

farming, and livestock grazing are common

problems (83). Thus, data on designated areas

lation size is smaller, but the necessary habitat

must be larger to support the requisite populations. Thus, smaller mammals can have a viable population size of a million individuals but

a habitat requiring only tens of square kilometers. The largest mammals, on the other hand,

may have a viable population with only hundreds of individuals but may need a million

square kilometers of habitat (3).

These are preliminary analyses, But even if

subsequent work reduces the estimates by two

orders of magnitude, larger mammals may need

contiguous habitats of tens of thousands of

square kilometers to survive indefinitely, Few

protected natural areas are that large, implying that conservation strategies for certain species should not depend as much on protected

reserves as on monitoring and managing larger

areas (24).

PROTECTED AREAS

exaggerate the scope of conservation actually

being achieved.

Acquisition and Designation

Most protected areas are established by

cial acts designating that uses of particular

of fisites

will be restricted to those compatible with natural ecological conditions. At the Federal level

in the united States, designating a land area

or water body for conservation involves making a formal declaration of intent to assign a

certain category of protection and then providing an opportunity for extensive public comment on the proposed action. Other governments use similar processes, although the

extent of public participation varies.

The degree of protection depends partly on

the objectives of the acquisition or designation.

There are many different types of designations.

Kenya, for example, has national parks, national reserves, nature reserves, and forest reserves. The wildlife sanctuaries in Kiribati in

the South Pacific are very different in conser-
110 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 5-l.—Growth of the Global Network of

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Protected Areas, 1890.1985

Number of areas

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1985

Year

400

300

200

100

0

Extent of areas

t

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1985

Year

SOURCE: International Union for the Consewation of Nature and Natural Resources, The United Nafiorrs List of National Parks and Protected Areas

(Gland, Switzerland: 1985).

vation terms from wildlife sanctuaries in India. Designated national parks of the united

Kingdom are quite different from national parks

in the united States. And in Spain, national

parks, nature parks, and national hunting reserves indicate different types of protection.

To clarify this situation and to promote the

full range of protected area options, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources (IUCN) provides a series

of 10 management categories (37,38). Protected

areas are categorized according to their management objectives, rather than by the name

used in their official designations (see table 5-

1). Thus, the national parks of the United Kingdom are placed under category V (protected

landscape or seascape), rather than under category II (national parks). Standardization of the

categories also facilitates international comparable 5.1.—Categories and Management Objectives

of Protected Areas

1. Scientific reserve/strict nature reserve: To protect and

maintain natural processes in an undisturbed state for

scientific study, environmental monitoring, education,

and maintenance of genetic resources.

Il. Nationa/ park; To protect areas of national or international significance for scientific, educational, and recreational use.

Ill. /Vatural rnonurnent/natura/ /andrnar/c To protect and preserve nationally significant features because of their special interest or unique characteristics.

IV, Managed nature reserve/wildli~e sanctuary: To assure the

conditions necessa~ to protect species, groups of species, biotic communities, or physical features of the environment that require specific human manipulation for

their perpetuation.

V. Protected /andscape or seascape: To maintain nationally significant landscapes characteristic of the harmonious interaction of humans and land, while allowing recreation and tourism within the normal lifestyles and

economic activities of these areas.

V1. Resource reserve: To protect the natural resources of

the area for future use and prevent or contain development activities that could affect the resource, pending

the establishment of objectives based on knowledge and

planning.

V1l. Natura/ biotic area/anthropological reserve: To allow the

way of life of societies living in harmony with the environment to continue.

Vlll. Mu/tip/e-use management area/managed resource area.’

To provide for the sustained production of water, timber, wildlife, pasture, and outdoor recreation, with conservation oriented to the support of the economic activities (although specific zones may also be designed

within these areas to achieve specific conservation objectives).

IX. Biosphere reserve: To conserve an ecologically representative landscape in areas that range from complete

protection to intensive production; to promote ecological monitoring, research and education; and to facilitate

local, regional, and international cooperation.

X. Wor/d heritage site.’ To protect the natural features for

which the area was considered to be of world heritage

quality, and to provide information for worldwide public enlightenment.

SOURCE: J.W. Thorsell, “The Role of Protected Areas in Maintaining Biological

Diversity in Tropical Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 111

isons and provides a framework for all protected areas.

Criteria for SeIection of

Areas To Protect

Protected areas can be located and managed

to protect biological diversity at three levels:

1.

2,

3.

at the ecosystem level: by protecting unique

ecosystems, representative areas for each

main type of ecosystem in a nation or region, and species-rich ecosystems and centers of endemism;

at the species level: by giving priority to

the genetically most distinct species (e. g.,

families with few species or genera with

only one species), and to culturally important species and endemic genera and species; and

at the gene level: by giving priority to plant

and animal types that have been or are being domesticated, to populations of wild

relatives of domesticated species, and to

wild resource species (those used for food,

fuel, fiber, medicine, construction material, ornament, etc.).

Ecosystem Approach

Conserving ecosystem diversity maintains

not only a variety of landscapes but also broad

species and genetic diversity. Indeed, it may

be the only approach to conserving the many

types of organisms still unknown to science.

A strategy to maintain ecosystem diversity

generally begins with the biogeographic classification system described earlier, The system

can be used to identify which ecosystem types

need to be acquired or designated to achieve

more complete protection of biological diversity.

The extent to which diverse U.S. ecosystems

are represented within protected areas is being assessed on a State-by-State basis by the natural heritage inventory programs of the different States (see ch, 9). Recent estimates of the

proportion of major terrestrial ecosystem types

that are not protected in the Federal domain

vary from 21 to 51 percent, depending on the

size and number of each type thought to be

needed for adequate protection (13),

The extent to which the world’s terrestrial

ecosystems are included in protected areas has

been crudely estimated using the Udvardy biogeographic classification system, which divides

the world’s land into 193 biogeographical provinces, Since each province typically contains

many distinct types of ecosystems, the degree

to which province locations correlate to protected area locations gives only an approximation of where greater protection is needed. The

3,514 protected areas listed by IUCN are located

in 178 provinces. The coverage is patchy: several provinces have few protected areas, which

implies that numerous unique ecosystems have

yet to be included in the worldwide network

of protected areas (see table 5-2) (33). An estimate of the cost of completing this network is

$1 billion (17).

Ten provinces have fewer than 1,000 square

kilometers protected but more than five protected areas, while another 29 have more than

1,000 square kilometers but only five or fewer

separate protected areas, Determining the extent of the patchiness requires better figures

for analysis, such as accurate estimates of province sizes. In addition, aquatic and azonal ecosystems (e. g., wetlands and coral reefs) do not

fall easily within this system.

A U.S. effort that helps maintain representative aquatic ecosystems is the Marine Sanctuary

Program conducted by the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. Potential marine sanctuary

sites were listed after consultation with scientific teams familiar with the different ecological values of sections of the coastal zone (86).

All current and future designations into the marine sanctuaries will be made from the siteevaluation list, Maintenance of community or

ecosystem diversity is not a specific objective

of the Marine Sanctuaries Program, but if all

sites on the list were designated sanctuaries,

coastal ecosystem diversity would be significantly protected.

An international effort that contributes to conserving representative ecosystems is UNESCO’s
112 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 5-2.—Coverage of Protected Areas

by Biogeographic Provinces

Provinces lacking any protected areas:

Arctic Archipelago, Arctic Ocean

Argentinean Pampas, Argentina

Ascension/St. Helena, South Atlantic Ocean

Baikha, U.S.S.R.

Burman Rainforest, Burma

Greenland Tundra, Greenland

Laccadive Islands, Laccadive Sea

Lake Ladoga, U.S.S.R.

Lake Tanganuika, Africa

Lake Titicaca, Peru

Lake Turkana, Kenya

Maldives/Chagos Archipelago, Indian Ocean

Pacific Desert

Revillagigedo Island, Alaska

South Trinidad

Provinces with five or fewer protected areas and a total

protected area of less than 1,000 km2 (247,000 acres):

Aldabra, Seychelles

Amirante Isles, Seychelles

Aral Sea, U.S.S.R.

Araucania Forest, Chile

Atlas Saharien Steppe, Algeria-Morocco

Cayo Coco, Cuba

Central Polynesia, Pacific Ocean

Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island, Australia

Comoros, Indian Ocean

East Melanesia, South Pacific Ocean

Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, Brazil

Guerrero, Mexico

Hindu Kush Highlands, Afghanistan-Pakistan

Insulantarct ica

Kampuchea

Lake Malawi, Africa

Lake Ukerewe (Victoria), Africa

Malagasy Thorn Forest, Indian Ocean

Mascarene Islands, Indian Ocean

Micronesia, North Pacific Ocean

Patagonia, Argentina

Planaltina, Brazil

Ryukyu Islands, Japan

Sichuan Highlands, China

Sri Lankan Rainforest, Sri Lanka

Taiwan, ROC

Tamaulipas, Mexico

West Anatolia, Turkey

SOURCE J. Harrison, “Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems Worldwide, ”

OTA commissioned paper, 1985

Man in the Biosphere (MAB) Program. MAB

has established a network of biosphere reserves

in a global system of protected areas (see ch.

10). The objective is to have a comprehensive

system covering all 193 biogeographic provinces, The MAB program exists in 66 countries,

and approximately 256 biosphere reserves have

been designated thus far (61).

Species Approach

Natural areas are also selected to conserve

the habitats of rare or endangered species or

to protect areas with high species endemism.

using species presence as the criteria for protected area location and management is useful

for several reasons (62,82):

●

●

●

Certain species can be used to indicate the

effectiveness of management. If the more

conspicuous rare species cannot survive,

then the design and management of the reserve should be changed.

Species provide a focal point or objective

that people can readily understand.

Some species have an appeal that wins

sympathy, an important factor in raising

funds and public awareness.

Protection of an area to conserve a rare or

endangered species should be based on the best

existing evidence on its location and habitat

needs. The United States has accumulated a

great deal of such information as a result of the

Endangered Species Act and the work of The

Nature Conservancy. For other regions of the

world, information on endangered species

ranges from precise (in northwestern Europe)

to nonexistent (in the Amazon Basin). At the

international level, the IUCN’S Conservation

Monitoring Center tracks the status of species

and publishes its findings in the Red Data Books

(10).

Genetic Resources

Genetic variation within species needs to be

conserved because it enables species to adapt

to changing conditions and provides the raw

material for domestication of plants and animals and the continued improvement of already

domesticated crops and livestock.

Protected areas designated specifically to protect genetic variability of particular species are

often called in-situ genebanks. They may be

established as separate areas for particular crop

relatives, timber trees, animal species, and so

on. Or, the maintenance of genetic diversity of

important species may be one of several objectives of a protected area (63).
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 113

India and the Soviet Union have expressed

commitment to in-situ conservation of the wild

relatives of crop species (63). India has designated the first gene sanctuary, for citrus, and

some Indian biosphere reserve areas are expected to have genetic conservation as a major objective. For example, a reserve area has

been proposed for the Nilgiri Hills area, which

is rich in wild forms of ginger, tumeric, cardamom, black pepper, mango, jackfruit, plantain,

rice, and millets, The Soviet Union has reportly

designated 127 reserves for protection of wild

relatives of crops and has proposed an additional 20 areas for protection. Expeditions to

a region known as the Central Asian gene center have found 249 species of wild crop relatives (63).

In East Germany, an inventory is being made

of important genetic resources within the country’s nature reserves, including 24 forage crop

species, 51 medicinal plants, and 27 fruit species, As noted earlier, the inventory is expected

to identify about 10,000 places within the country’s reserve system where protection is afforded for plants relevant to breeding, breeding research, and study of the chemistry of

natural substances (68).

Trade-Offs

In selecting areas for onsite maintenance of

biological diversity, trade-offs occur when any

of the above criteria are given priority. If the

strategy is to protect areas where rare and endangered species are found, then the diversity

of ecosystems that exists may not be maintained

adequately because only certain types include

identified rare species. Concentrating on biogeographic categories for broad coverage of

ecosystem types may not protect habitats for

rare or endangered species sufficiently or for

centers of endemism. The third criterion, protecting genetic variability, includes consideration of economic and social factors that may

contribute less to the objective of maintaining

maximum diversity but aid the larger goal of

conserving resource opportunities for human

welfare.

In practice, other objectives and various social and economic constraints prevail in the decisions on where to locate protected areas.

Other objectives include preservation of scenic

resources, provision of recreation opportunities, and protection of watersheds, Constraints

include budgetary feasibility, competing demands for use of the area, and opportunity for

local support of protected status.

The literature on conservation strategies contains few objective methods to evaluate these

trade-offs, except to note that the three biological approaches—ecosystem, species, and gene

pool—are both complementary and necessary.

Decisions are often initially made by the intuitive judgment of conservationists but ultimately

by the political processes that lead to the official protected area designation.

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Planning and management strategies for onsite maintenance seek to conserve either the

species and genetic diversity within a given

area or the diversity of ecosystems across a geographic region. Planning tools range from

mathematical models that simulate how an

area’s biological resources are likely to respond

given different management options to written

plans for natural area management. Management is concerned both with managing external pressures affecting a protected area and

with managing the natural succession of plant

and animal communities within the area, Management activities range from no intervention

to active manipulation of an ecosystem,

Planning Techniques

Planning for protected areas can begin before designation is finalized, Biologists generally agree that plans to maintain diversity need

to begin with site surveys to determine the following information (65):

 the number, abundance, and distribution

of species, and the interactions between

species and community types;
114 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity 774

●

●

●

●

the types, extent, locations, and effects of

human uses, the degree of dependence of

local inhabitants on these uses, and the possible alternatives for activities that are

harmful to the site;

the present and potential threats from

activities outside the immediate area of

concern;

the opportunities for making the site more

useful to local inhabitants; and

the best approach for law enforcement on

the site.

Agency budgets and policies for management

planning often omit some of these surveys, considering them fundamental research rather than

pragmatic planning activities, For example, the

U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Resource

Management Plan process does not include collection of detailed site data if no deleterious human impact or other problem is known. Biologists argue, however, that the problems cannot

be fully identified without the surveys.

Historically, the specific plans to conserve

biological diversity were left to the area manager to devise and implement. This approach

still prevails in many regions of the world, In

the United States, conflicts in land and water

management and the increasing need to justify

all management activities to a governing institution have resulted in specialized tools for

planning the conservation of biological resources, Much of this development of planning

techniques has occurred in the Federal land

management agencies.

Modeling

A recent innovation in planning techniques

is the use of mathematical models, The models

are highly simplified versions of natural environments. Biological data are used to develop

equations that represent assumptions about

cause-and-effect interactions between plant and

animal populations and their habitats, Numerous equations interact, and the outcome projects responses of the biological resources to

different management options. The accuracy

of the projections depends on how well the

equations and the data reflect the situation in

the natural environment,

Various kinds of wildlife-habitat models have

been used, and recently, the population simulation models described earlier have begun to

be used widely. These population models predict how management activities would affect

population size, structure, and recovery rate.

They can describe, for example, the probable

size of a fish population before and at various

times after a specified fishing season.

Wildlife-habitat models are built from natural history data on species distribution and

abundance in various habitats, from which

cause-and-effect relationships are deduced to

predict how wildlife populations will change

as a result of changed habitat conditions. Indicator Species Models, for instance, focus on

one or a few species known to reflect broader

ecosystem qualities. Another example is the

Habitat Evaluation Procedure used by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to describe the responses of vegetation and, hence, wildlife habitats to certain management options such as timber harvesting (75),

Geographic Information System models also

account for the changes in vegetation or wildlife habitats that result from different management options, but the output is presented on

maps, which facilitates evaluation of cumulative impacts by area. A complementary technique being developed by U.S. National Park

Service personnel, the Boundary Model, is intended to assess not only management activities but also the effects of human actions outside the protected areas (69).

Biologists warn that the accuracy of models

is constrained by the need to reduce complex,

often poorly understood interactions to assumptions simple enough to be represented with

mathematical equations. Often, data are too

limited to test all the assumptions. None of the

natural area models can predict all the possible ways that biological resources might respond to habitat changes. Thus, models are best

used to make the assumptions and logic of scientists, managers, and natural-area users explicit, so that final plans and management decisions can be based on clear, thorough, and

objective understanding of all perspectives,
Management Plans

Management plans can help avoid typical

protected area problems, such as inappropriate development; sporadic, inconsistent, and

ad hoc management; and lack of clearly defined

management objectives. Management planning

also serves to review existing databases, to encourage resource inventories, and to identify

other needed research and monitoring activities. Unfortunately, such plans do not exist for

many of the world’s protected areas, which constitutes a major constraint on maintaining diversity (82).

Species-specific management plans identify

actions for maintaining healthy, reproductive

populations of a particular species, Often, the

species are either economically valuable or are

rare, endangered, or sensitive to certain lander water-management practices. The Office of

Endangered Species of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead agency for recovery plans

to restore populations listed on the Federal

Threatened and Endangered Species List, For

example, two Federal agencies, two State agencies, one university, and two agencies from British Columbia cooperated in development of the

Selkirk Mountain Caribou Management Plard

Recovery Plan, This plan provides details o n

caribou population dynamics, behavior, and

habitat in Idaho, Washington, and British Columbia, It describes past and present caribou

management activities, specifies management

goals and objectives to recover the species, indicates priorities for action, and assigns these

to specific agencies (87).

Site-specific management plans outline the

options for maintaining biological resources

within given locations, commonly parts of natural areas. For example, the Bureau of Land

Management developed a plan to maintain resources within the Burro Creek Section of the

Kingman Resource Area in Arizona (88). The

plan has clearly stated management objectives.

It describes the resources of the site, presents

the management issues pertaining to the area,

details the management practices that will be

used on the site, and indicates what other resource activities will be allowed (e. g., mining)

(88),

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite . 115

Large-area planning documents can include

maintaining diversity as one objective to be balanced with others, but they generally do not

recommend site-specific actions. Examples include the plans prepared by the U.S. Forest

Service for national forest management, plans

by the Bureau of Land Management for resource area management, and plans by the National Marine Sanctuary Program for the management of marine sanctuaries. These planning

processes generally involve numerous experts

from various disciplines who identify and

weigh management options. The planning document then describes resources, the options

available for managing those resources for various uses, the trade-offs that would be made in

various resource-use scenarios, and finally, the

proposed management strategy.

National and subnational conservation strategies (NCSS) tend to be generic documents that

may include but are not limited to conserving

biological diversity. Some 30 countries had begun to develop national conservation strategies

by the end of 1985 (62) (see figure 5-2). To date,

only a few NCSS have been completed. The

United States, for example, does not have a plan

for conservation of biological diversity,

One example of a completed countrywide

plan is the Zambia National Conservation Strategy, which identifies the major environmental

issues and ecological zones that need immediate attention in that country (29). Objectives of

the strategy are to maintain the essential life

support systems, maintain genetic diversity of

both domestic and wild species, promote wise

use of natural resources, and maintain suitable

environmental quality and standard of living,

To accomplish these objectives, plans and policies for sustainable management of natural resources are to be integrated with all aspects of

the country’s social and economic development. The strategy outlines schedules of action

for the major agencies and identifies necessary

interagency linkages to assure cooperation, The

official status of this plan and the extent to

which it is being implemented is not clear.

Management plans vary in geographic scale

and levels of specificity. Plans at the more general levels require less detailed information on
116 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 5-2.—National Conservation Strategy Development Around the World, July 1985

SOURCE (Gland, Switzerland: 1985)

the characteristics of species but greater understanding of larger cause-and-effect relationships and of social, economic, and political

factors,

Management Strategies

Increasingly active management of factors

affecting biological diversity will be needed to

overcome the effects of human activity and the

gradual fragmentation of natural areas (89). Natural areas change over time, as various plant

and animal communities succeed one another,

and gradual change in the components and

quantity of biological diversity occurs. To sustain particular components, such as game animals or songbirds, protected-area managers

therefore need to intervene in the natural processes. The interventions vary with objectives,

and conflicts may occur. For example, developing optimum habitat for a particular species

may not be compatible with maximizing the

diversity of community types.

Manipulating habitats to manage particular

species sometimes involves controlling populations of certain animals—removing an exotic

fish from a lake, for example. More often, the

intervention involves modifying vegetation. If

the target species are grazing or browsing animals such as deer, intervention might mean cutting trees to prevent woodlands from evolving

to the climax stage; for prairie birds such as

cranes, it could mean burning grasslands to prevent encroachment by woody plants. Certain

plants may be propagated for food or cover for

the target species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service uses such management techniques in

national wildlife refuges, which are the only

extensive federally owned lands managed chiefly

for conserving wildlife,

Management to maximize the diversity of

community types involves similar interventions. Again, a basic consideration is the variety of plant succession stages to be maintained

within an ecosystem. Manipulation management is likely to be needed to preserve com-
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite . 117

munities representing early stages of succession. For example, savanna ecosystems are

maintained by fire, wildlife, and human influence. Management techniques to conserve savanna systems include regulating animal numbers and species and using controlled burning.

Rain forests in a mature successional stage require little intervention, but they are likely to

need active protection because they are not generally resilient if cleared in large areas (82).

Where the U.S. Forest Service manages land

with wildlife diversity as a goal, it attempts to

provide an appropriate mix of successional

stages within each plant community (84). The

approach of the U.S. National Park Service is

to maintain natural processes to the extent possible, including catastrophic changes such as

localized fire, to allow a relatively natural mix

of succession stages to occur.

Management strategies have evolved from

strict preservation and protection to multipleuse approaches and, more recently, to integrated approaches. Strict preservation strategy

entails setting aside large blocks of natural areas

where designation and protection alone would

be expected to achieve conservation objectives.

Protection would mean severely restricting the

uses of, and the changes within, an area to ensure the continued natural condition of its biological resources and regular policing of boundaries to prevent trespassing or poaching. Where

possible, fences would be erected to restrict access by humans and livestock.

Moderate versions of this strategy maybe effective in some locations, particularly where

the land is owned by an individual or nongovernmental organization. In many areas, strict

controls are impractical. It has not been very

successful in developing countries. Moreover,

neither fences nor patrols can prevent all external influences from damaging a protected

area. Regular patrols of a marine sanctuary

could not stop the effects of water pollution,

for example.

Strict preservation of biological diversity is

not an explicit objective of any federally protected area in the United States. The objective

closest to it is protection of “biological resources” or “ecological processes” on lands in

the National Wilderness Preservation System,

which is an evolving system of public lands relatively undisturbed by humans and large enough

to have potential for wilderness recreation.

(Most wilderness areas contain at least 5,000

acres, although some in the Eastern United

States are smaller.)

Other countries also have extensive areas set

aside for preservation while allowing some human access. Examples include large segments

of Antarctica and isolated parts of the Amazonian forest. Some natural areas, such as Wood

Buffalo National park in Canada and Salonga

National Park in Zaire, have wardens to guard

the boundaries and prevent trespassing (61), But

increasingly, countries cannot afford to designate large areas for strict preservation. Particularly in developing countries, adequate fences,

patrols, or other means to deny access to designated areas are seldom logistically, economically, or socially possible. In addition, preservation strategies have exacerbated perceived

conflicts between conservation and development,

Another strategy for protected areas is to incorporate multiple uses or objectives. This strategy is usually based on one or two approaches:

developing an optimum mix of several uses on

a local parcel of land or water; or creating a

mosaic of land or water parcels, each with a

designated use, within a 1arger geographic area.

Developing an optimum mix of uses in an

area requires careful incorporation of each objective so that all can be met, This approach

is used by the U.S. Forest Service on national

forest lands and by most States on wildIife areas

and State forests. In national forests, the potential of each subsection is evaluated for recreation, grazing, timber production, wildlife or

fisheries habitat, mineral development, and

other uses. Management objectives for each site

usually include more than one use. Thus, an

area that is managed for timber production may

also provide sites for grazing livestock or foraging wildlife. Sometimes, mining or another use

will be exclusive, at least temporarily.

The California Desert Conservation Area,

managed by the Bureau of Land Management,
118 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

is an example of the second approach to multiple use, in which protected areas are managed

primarily as distinct parcels with different primary uses. The conservation area is broken into

different land units and classified according

to the level of human activity allowed in each.

Research areas, wilderness areas, areas of critical environmental concern, areas of geologic

or archeologic significance, and critical habitats

of endangered or sensitive plant or animal species are mapped and sometimes identified by

markers posted at the sites. The rest of the land

is classified for various levels of use ranging

from restricted to extensive human use and alteration. Management of the area evolves as

human needs for resources of the California

Desert change.

The biosphere reserve concept is another example of multiple-use based on buffer zones that

would moderate the extent that activities affect

the core. The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere

Program (see also ch. 10) champions this idea.

An idealized scheme includes three areas:

1,

2.

3.

The core areas strictly protect ecological

samples of natural ecosystems that can

serve as benchmarks for measuring longterm changes in ecosystems.

The buffer zones have land-use controls,

which allow only activities compatible

with protection of the core area, such as

research, environmental education, recreation, and tourism.

The transition areas surround the core and

buffer zone and are usually not strictly delineated. In these areas, researchers, managers, and the local population are to cooperate in rehabilitation, traditional use,

development, and experimental research

on natural resources (30).

The areas should facilitate management by reducing conflicts, because the more incompatible uses would be physically distant from one

another. And effectiveness of protection should

be enhanced, because conflicting uses could

be detected before they spread into the core (see

box 5-C).

This approach has not yet been implemented

sufficiently to assess its worldwide effect, but

Box 5-C Cluster Conceprt for

Biosphere Reserves

In the United States, a promising development of biosphere reserves is the cluster concept. The approach is intetidad to link complementary areas administered by different

agencies so they can cooperate in monitoring

research, educational, and management activities.

A particularly promising multiple-unit biosphere reserve is emerging in the Southern Appalachians. Efforts are underway to link the

existing Great Smoky Mountains National

Park, the Forest Service’s Cowaeta Hydrological Station, the Department of Energy’s Oak

Ridge National Environmental Research Park,

and other nearby State and Federal agencies

managing natural resources to forma Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve. The existence of a permanent association of Federal

agencies and regional universities has served

as a useful mechanism to help coordinate regional resaarch and management activities involving the biosphere reserve.

Another promising example is on St. John,

the Virgin Islands, where the National Park

Service manages VS. National Park, A cooperative effort involving agencies and

 institutions from Puerto Rico, the U.S.

Virgin Islands, and the British Virgin Islands

has coordinated a major research program focused on developing a biosphre reserve on

St. John. As the only U.S. national park in a

developing region, the area provides opportunities in the transfer of research and resource management technologies suitable for

small islands of the region.

plans for such development now exist and await

political commitment and implementation in

several nations. One example is the development plan for the San Lorenzo Canyon area in

Mexico (60). Multiple-use development is indicated for a 225,()()()-acre chaparral and desert area where watershed protection is a primary objective, The plan delineates four zones:

1, a core scientific area to be used for research

and watershed protection,
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite 119

Figure 5-3.— Design of a Coastal or Marine Protected Area

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

aHabltat~ adjacent and linked to habitats of interest by species movements or flows of nutrients

bHeadqua~ers, ranger stations; and traditionalfishing, recreational, research, and education ZOneS

CwaterShedS, agricultural lands, urban and Industrial developrnerlts, riVE?K3, and eSt UaHf3S

dshipplng lanes, commercial fishing grounds, and Intensive use zones

SOURCE R V Salm, kfar~ne and Coasta/ Protected Areas A Guide for Planners and Managers (Gland. Switzerland International Unton

for the Conserwatlon of Nature and Natural Resources, 1984)

2. a primitive area to be used for watershed

protection and recreation,

3. an extensive use area for recreation and

education, and

4. a natural recovery area eventually for agricultural and commercial use.

Zoned development seems an especially important concept for marine and coastal areas,

which are particularly vulnerable to events outside their boundaries even when they are protected. Figure 5-3 is an idealized design for a

coastal- or marine-protected area.

A more recently developed integrated approach holds potential for resolving many of

the problems that arise in onsite maintenance

of biological diversity. An example is the integrated regional development planning, which

is discussed later in this chapter.

Ecosystem Restoration

As degraded ecosystems become more common, restoration will play an increasing role

in conserving biological diversity. Underlying

most of the discussion in this chapter has been

the assumption that protected areas are designated where ecosystems are in a relatively natural condition. Another important approach,

however, is to protect and sometimes manipulate degraded ecosystems in order to restore

some degree of biological diversity. Restoration

techniques are being used by conservation organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy and

the Audubon Society, and by government agencies, such as the National Park Service to enlarge or adjust the shape of reserves (43).

Reclamation is action intended to restore

damaged ecosystems to productive use (43).

Restoration is the re-creation of entire communities of organisms, closely modeled on communities that occur naturally. Reclamation

gradually becomes restoration as more and

more naturally occurring species are used and

as natural plant and animal succession occurs.

Restoration technologies, which depend heavily on the knowledge gained from reclamation

experience, attempt to accelerate natural succession processes while assuring that indigenous rather than exotic species dominate.

Restoration is an onsite method that provides

links with offsite activities to preserve species.

Zoos and botanic gardens conserve rare species

offsite for reintroduction onsite (see ch. 6),

Nurseries and seed facilities provide plants and

seeds for a variety of revegetation efforts, although materials for most native plants still

must be gathered from the wild (42,44). Reintroductions of animals from captive populations

are few but include the Arabian oryx, the golden

lion tamarin (a recent effort), and plans to reintroduce Przewalski’s horse in Mongolia (see ch.

6, box 6-E). A few plant reintroductions from

offsite collections also exist. The Knowlton’s

cactus (Pedlocactus knowltonii) has been

returned to the natural environment from cuttings by the Fish and Wildlife Service (55).

Some States, such as Florida, require the use

of native species in reclamation, but reclama-
120 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

tion work generally falls short of restoration.

Reclamation is generally task-oriented, and the

objective is usually to establish productive plant

cover, such as pasture or stands of trees. Relatively little attention is given to species not

directly related to the objective, and relatively

few species are used. Consequently, efforts to

reclaim land have largely focused on the use

of common plant and animal species that are

easily propagated and multiply rapidly. Often

these are nonnative species; rare or difficultto-establish species are seldom used. It is easiest and most cost-effective to use those few species that have been shown to be adequate for

particular uses, such as for stabilizing beaches.

Tree planting is one of the most frequently

used techniques for reclaiming degraded lands,

and a wealth of literature on various forms of

reforestation exists (23,84). The potential for

reforesting degraded forest land is especially

great in the tropics (83), But restoring forests

with diverse native species is seldom attempted.

Instead, most programs use one or a few exotic

species, partly because of a lack of seeds and

techniques to propagate native trees and partly

because of the cost-effectiveness of planting

fast-growing tree species known to have commercial value,

The Santa Rosa National Park in Costa Rica

is one of the few forest restorations that has

been undertaken. The area was a cattle ranch

for 400 years, but since designation as a protected area, a dry forest ecosystem of native

species has been reestablished from seed

sources on nearby mountain slopes, The principal management technique has been to stop

the human-caused fires, allowing woody species to reinvade the pure grass pastures. The

restorative effect has now been proved and is

to be used in the proposed Guanacaste National

Park (39).

Prairie restoration offers a kind of prototype

for the development and use of ecosystem restoration. Restoration of prairies began early,

motivated by concerns such as diversity and

community authenticity (43). Techniques developed to restore prairies to moderately high

levels of native plant diversity borrow exten-

.4

 credit” D 

Planting prairie plants in a restoration project at the

University of Wisconsin-Madison Arboretum. The

purpose of the experiment is to study competition

between species by planting various combinations.

The results will be useful in developing techniques for

introducing ‘(difficult” species into prairies as they

are being restored and managed.

sively from agriculture techniques used in

prairies. One approach to restoring 2 to 40 hectares recommends plowing, followed by disking at intervals of a year to reduce weeds, followed by seeding with a mixture of prairie

species (56). In Crex Meadows, WI, restoration

of prairie plants and animals was possible with

little intervention other than protection and

controlled burning, because many native prairie species had apparently continued to grow,

unobserved, for decades while the site was forested, Little information on the cost of prairie

restoration is available. Up to now, much of

the effort that has gone into restoring the highest quality prairies has depended heavily on

dedicated volunteers (4).

Although the technology of reclamation has

developed rapidly in recent years, partly as a

result of legislation such as the Surface Mine

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, restoration has not yet become an established discipline. Restoration research and technology

development vary tremendously from one natural community to the next.

The availability of seed and plant stock for

varieties adapted to local conditions is a problem. Use of local seeds is not required by law,
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 121

and the high cost of small, special seed collections often precludes use of local seeds in favor of cheaper, nonlocal ones of relatively few

species (3 I ,54). Western nurseries and the Soil

Conservation Service’s Plant Material Centers

have responded to the demand for more native

plants, but many species still are not available

commercially. For many that are available,

germplasm is limited to specialized ecotypes

or registered cultivars with limited value for

restoration.

The cost of reclamation varies greatly, depending on the extent of disturbance, the extent of restoration, and the type of ecosystem.

The average cost of seeding for reclamation of

surface mines in seven Western States has been

estimated at $620 per hectare (in 1977 dollars)

(59). This estimate included fertilization, mulching, and irrigation (the most expensive component), The cost of earth-moving brought the

total bill to $10,000 per hectare. Mechanical

planting of shrubs costs from $5OO to $2,OOO

per hectare in Utah, depending on whether

bareroot or containerized stock was used (20).

Hand-planting to simulate natural vegetation

patterns would further increase costs.

Establishing the same community that occurred on a site prior to disturbance is often

not feasible because of the high cost and a lack

of information regarding, for example, necessary conditions for seed germination and other

aspects of survival and reproduction of native

species. Although restoration technologies cannot quickly restore the diversity that existed before degradation, they can be used to break the

cycle of resource degradation and to reestablish a community of indigenous organisms.

Normal plant and animal succession may eventually lead to a self-sustaining and relatively natural ecosystem that provides most of the values

of biological diversity.

OUTSIDE PROTECTED AREAS

Most of the discussion thus far has dealt with

protected areas where maintaining biological

diversity is a management objective. But the

majority of biological resources are found outside these areas. Few strategies have been designed yet for conserving diversity in nondesignated areas. Various resource conservation

techniques with other objectives serve to enhance biological diversity, however.

Genetic Resources for Agriculture

Conservation of genetic variability outside

protected areas is especially important because

so many crop varieties and livestock species

and many of their wild relatives are not found

in areas designated for protection, In addition,

evolutionary processes, such as crop-pest and

crop-pathogen interactions, can continue. This

type of conservation occurs when farmers have

chosen to maintain traditional crop varieties

and livestock breeds.

Crop varieties with a broad genetic base and

wild relatives of crop plants are mainly located

where traditional farming practices prevail.

Large proportions of these resources (5o percent or more for many species) have not yet

been evaluated or collected for preservation offsite (5o). Germplasm collection programs focus

on the world’s major staple crops, so many species that are not yet widely grown are unlikely

to be preserved offsite. Both these and local varieties of major crops are threatened with extinction as they are replaced by modern varieties, which the economics of agriculture favor.

A diverse mix of local varieties theoretically

protects traditional farmers from catastrophic

crop losses. And, with locally adapted varieties,

farmers depend less on subsidized inputs, such

as pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation equipment,

and processed animal feed. In many countries,

traditional farmers appear to be motivated more

by avoiding risk than by maximizing profit.

Nevertheless, as agricultural development occurs, farmers are shifting to fewer varieties,

modern methods, and higher profits.

One response to this trend is the recently

established program to monitor the remaining
122 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

collections of teosinte, a wild relative of maize

found only in Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras,

The habitats for teosinte include some of Mexico’s best agricultural land, where it survives

in narrow strips of untilled soil along stone

fences bordering maize fields. As land use intensifies, these strips are brought into cultivation, And isolated stands of teosinte that interbreed with maize can be genetically “swamped”

by the maize and lose their ability to disperse

seed. Thus, teosinte populations with unique

genetic characteristics of potential value for

maize breeding are threatened with extinction.

Fortunately, the international agricultural research institute that focuses on maize, Centro

International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo

(CIMMYT), is located near many of the sites

where teosinte still grows, The CIMMYT maize

staff and colleagues in the Mexican and Guatemala national maize research programs have

begun a monitoring program, The status of each

teosinte population is checked annually. The

intention is to take preservation action whenever a recognized population is placed in immediate danger of extinction (9).

Another way to safeguard genetic resources

outside protected areas would be to preserve

traditional agriculture systems in selected regions. To do this, farming systems must become

more productive and produce more cash income. Presumably, higher productivity means

applying scientific methods for crop production and genetic development but keeping the

local varieties and livestock breeds. Some farming systems research does attempt this. For example, the Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigaciones y Ensenanza has consulted with

the Kuna people of northeastern Panama about

agricultural development of their 60,000-hectare,

indigenous-reserve area in the context of a park

project (91). Similarly, the International Council for Research in Agroforestry in Africa trains

researchers to identify opportunities for marginal improvements in traditional farming systems. But such work is outside the mainstream

of agricultural development and is at best a

modest and poorly funded effort.

A complementary approach is for modern

farmers to maintain diverse varieties while relying on other income sources. They generally

must turn to off-farm income or other, more

modern areas of their farms. In developing

countries, where traditional farming is still extensive and crop and livestock diversity are

greatest, continued planting of nonprofitable

traditional varieties would probably have to be

subsidized.

Such an approach is not without precedent.

Native American farmers are paid to produce

seed of traditional cultivars in Arizona by a nonprofit organization, Native Seeds/SEARCH (58),

In developing countries, similar programs

might be administered by some of the same agricultural research organizations that maintain

offsite germplasm collections. But the agricultural research community has not identified this

as a priority for their limited funds. At best,

only a very small sample of diversity could be

maintained on subsidized traditional farms. It

seems that such subsidies would be as costeffective as marginal improvements in offsite

collections.

Conservation As A Type

of Development

Maintaining biological diversity by establishing parks is becoming increasingly difficult because of demographic, economic, and political pressures. The preservation approach to

conservation may become less common in the

future, especially in tropical developing countries

where diversity seems to be most threatened.

As a consequence, conservation organizations

and conservationists within development organizations, such as the Agency for International

Development (AID), the World Bank, and the

Organization of American States (OAS), have

begun to promote the concept that biological

diversity can be conserved where natural resources are being developed if conservation is

considered a development activity.

A recently published paper of the IUCN Commission on Ecology (64) supports this concept:

The idea of basing conservation on the fate

of particular species or even on the maintenance of a natural diversity of species will

become even less tenable as the number of
threatened species increases and their refuges

disappear. Natural areas will have to be designed in conjunction with the goals of regional

development and justified on the basis of ecological processes operating within the entire

developed region and not just within natural

areas.

Conservation has long been a criterion in

carefully planned development of agriculture,

forestry, fisheries, grazing land, and other

primary-industry development. But maintenance of biological diversity is relatively new

as an explicit development objective. Some

innovative approaches are beginning to be implemented, including the use of conflict resolution and systems analysis techniques in resource development planning.

Integrated Regional Development Planning

(IRDP), being used by the OAS (60,66), subdivides a region into small spatial units and analyzes the sectoral interactions in each, in contrast to approaches that subdivide issues into

sectoral components. IRDP addresses interactions, like competition for the same goods or

services by two or more interest groups, and

analyzes changes that occur in the mix of available goods and services as a result of activities

in one sector that are detrimental to another

sector.

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 123

IRDP uses systems analysis and conflict resolution methods to distribute the costs and benefits of development activities throughout affected populations or sectors. Integration of all

the sectors—including maintenance of biological diversity—is necessary because individual

sectoral activities may help, but often hinder,

activities of other sectors aimed at appropriating goods and services from the same or allied

ecosystems. Decisions about which activities

are appropriate or how each can be adjusted

to reduce conflict are made through negotiation by parties representing all the sectors that

are involved (67).

A major constraint to considering diversity

maintenance as a development activity is that

the benefits of diversity are hard to calculate.

No economic valuation techniques exist that

can capture its full value. Thus, biological diversity has not fared well under the standard costbenefit analyses applied to development activities, Although some efforts have been made

to better account for biological diversity values,

the results have been unsatisfactory and not

widely applied. (See ch. 11 for further discuss on of this topic. )

DATA FOR ONSITE MAINTENANCE OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

To set priorities and to allocate funds and

other resources, decisionmakers need to know

how various ecosystems contribute to biological diversity, how vulnerable they are to degradation, how well protected they are by existing

programs, and what the social and economic

prospects are for local cooperation. Management programs need details on the nutrition,

space, and reproductive requirements of organisms. Most such information comes from taxonomy, biogeography, natural history, ecology,

anthropology, and sociology. For agricultural

species, information is also needed on genetics,

microbiology, seed technology, and physiology.

Generally, enough is known to improve substantially the programs for maintaining diversity, But more and better data on many aspects

of this subject are badly needed, and funding

for conservation falls far short of the needs implied by the apparent rates and consequences

of diversity loss (see ch. 3). So investments must

be concentrated on the most cost-effective approaches possible, which implies the need to

thoroughly understand the ecological, social,

and economic aspects of biological diversity

(77).

Uneven Quality of Information

The quality of data on biological diversity is

uneven for different ecosystems and different

parts of the world, For some places, such as
124 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

tropical South America, data are rudimentary

and theories are very tentative. For others, such

as temperate North America, information is

well developed and theories have been extensively tested. The unevenness is in part due to

data being collected for different purposes,

stored in different forms, and scattered among

different institutions.

In general, both data and theories regarding

biological diversity are better for temperate than

for tropical biology; better for terrestrial than

for aquatic sites; better for birds, mammals, and

vascular plants than for the lower classes of

organisms; and better for the few major crop

and livestock species used in modern agriculture than for the many species used in traditional agriculture. Taxonomic coverage is increasing, but the pace is slow relative to the

quantity of unknown organisms. Each year

about 3 species of birds, 11 mammals, up to

100 fish, and dozens of amphibians and reptiles are identified for the first time (22,57). Insects are the largest order of organisms, and

hundreds of species are newly identified annually (57); nevertheless, estimates of the number of insect species not yet identified range

from 1 to 30 million (18).

Information needed to maintain diversity is

even more limited on the ecosystem and community levels, partly because ecology is a younger discipline than taxonomy. Moreover, species interactions within ecosystems are so

subtle that laborious, time-consuming field research is necessary to understand them. For

example, the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Dezzdrocopus borealis) requires oldgrowth longleaf and loblolly pine trees for nesting. These pines persist in forest communities

where occasional fires destroy the seedlings of

other, more competitive species (5). Such fires

require accumulation of appropriate fuel to

carry the kinds of fires that favor the two pine

seedlings. Conservation of red-cockaded woodpeckers, therefore, entails conserving appropriate species to generate the right kind of vegetation and litter on the forest floor.

Efforts to collect biological information have

increased during the last two decades as a result of growing awareness of the importance

of services provided by natural ecosystems and

of the need for better use and management of

natural resources. Biological data are now collected and analyzed at the international, national, and local levels. Databases—the collections of data that are organized for further

analyses—can be used to make onsite diversity

maintenance efforts substantially more effective.

International databases provide overviews

that can identify potential gaps, status, and

trends of biological diversity worldwide. The

main international organizations involved in

collecting biological data are the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); the

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO);

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and

Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the Conservation Monitoring Center (C MC) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources (I UCN); the World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation; The Nature Conservancy International (TNCI); and the

International Council for Bird Preservation (10).

(See ch. 10 for further discussion of international databases.)

The utility of international databases has been

limited because they are not readily available

to resource planners and other analysts who

might use them to advise development decisionmakers. To resolve this problem, the UNEP’S

Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS)

program is establishing a computerized Global

Resource Information Database (GRID). This

program will centralize access to numerous

environmental databases and will include training in data analysis for developing-country participants.

DaTa for Management of Diversity

Biological data needed to plan management

of diversity and other natural resources at the
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 125

national level are collected by government

agencies, academic institutions, and research

centers. Completeness of the information varies

from country to country. Several countries,

such as Australia and Sweden, have compiled

comprehensive biological surveys of their flora

and fauna. Other countries, such as the Soviet

Union and China, and some international regions, such as North, East, and West Africa,

have completed or have made significant progress toward completing surveys of their flora.

North America is the only part of the north temperate zone that has neither synthesized the

data on its plant and animaI resources nor created a national biological database (81).

In fact, the United States has abundant information on its biota at a regional or broad

ecosystem level. But data acquisition is designed to serve the specific objectives of various organizations. As a result, many of the databases relevant to biological diversity are widely

scattered, are often incompatible, and are i n

effect inaccessible to numerous potential users.

The objective of maintaining biological diversity has been only a tangential consideration

in most data-collection efforts. However, files

on endangered species assembled by the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service do address an important aspect of

species diversity directly.

The only comprehensive nationwide information system dealing directly with both species and ecosystem diversity is the national

aggregation of State Natural Heritage Program

data. This system is extensively used for decisionmaking on acquisition, designation, and

management of protected areas.

The heritage program inventories are continually updated through a system of information

gathering and ranking. They begin with a broad

information search of secondary sources for

rare species and ecosystems. These are then

ranked, and further search, including field

work, takes place for the rarest ones. The inventory is made up of a series of manual and

computer files containing the species and ecosystem’s classification, location, site where it

occurs, land ownership of the site, and sites

located on already protected land, Inventory

data are plotted on U.S. Geological Survey maps

to analyze which lands are most important to

protect and what impacts specific development

projects will have on diversity,

In recent years a great deal of attention has

been given to the use of computers for managing biological data. Data management is facilitated by the flexibility of the hardware and by

the many types of software on the market today,

For example, Geographic Information Systems

(GIS) are being used by the Forest Service and

the National Park Service to integrate databases

with spatial information. This technique produces overlay maps that have great potential

to aid efforts to maintain biological diversity

(figure s-q). At present such overlay maps are

used to assess the extent to which ecosystem

diversity is being protected by combining details on ecosystem and species distribution with

information on boundaries of various types of

protected areas. International and nongovernment agencies are also finding the technique

useful: GIS are a basic tool for GRID, The Nature Conservancy (TNC] has recently begun

using GIS in its international program, and

IUCN’S Conservation Monitoring Center plans

to acquire a system, once funding is secured

(33).

The data on biological diversity generated at

the State level are being aggregated at the national level by TNC. The quality and quantity

of information varies from State to State, a few

States do not yet have programs, and inventory

of species and communities that are not threatened is just beginning. In spite of these limitations, this is the most comprehensive national

database on biological diversity, In many geographic areas, TNC is the only institution collecting data on rare, sensitive, or endemic resources that may require special management

to maintain their integrity as populations. In

these areas, the heritage programs help to fill

an important gap in biological data needed for

the onsite maintenance of biological diversity.

Selection among such data management technologies as the GIS depends on the financial

resources and the objectives of the organiza-
126 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 5-4.—Representation of a Geographic

Information System Function Overlavina Several

Types of Environmental Data -

Human

settlements

Animal

populations

Vegetation

cover

Water

resources

Soil

types

Base

map

SOURCE. United Nations Environmental Environment Monitoring Systems, Resource Databases (Nairobi:

GEMS Publication, 1985).

tion sponsoring the data collection. If the objective is to provide an overview of the status

and trends of biological diversity in large areas,

then remote sensing with sample surveys on

the ground for verification and analysis with

GIS maybe the most cost-effective approach.

If the objective is to design a management plan

for a particular area, detailed field surveys are

necessary, but tools such as GIS may still prove

valuable.

For implementation of resource development, information on biological diversity at a

local, site-specific level is most important. Yet

this is the level at which the quality of biological information is most variable. For some heavily studied areas, detailed field inventories and

analyses of ecosystem interactions have been

completed, whereas for others, especially the

remote areas, often little detail of biological

diversity is known. Development of needed sitespecific diversity data is constrained by the

common attitude of land managers that diversity assessment is fundamental research that

should be limited mainly to land areas where

research is the designated major use. This is

a problem even for agencies that are sensitive

to the issue of biological diversity, such as the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Coordination

The quantity of biological data may increase

as information becomes easier to handle and

less costly to acquire and maintain. Linking

databases developed for different purposes can

greatly increase their utility and thus their costeffectiveness. Data incompatibility hinders

such linking, however, making it necessary to

reenter data manually at great cost, or more

often to forgo the improved analysis that linked

databases would allow. Data sharing in the

United States among and within Federal agencies frequently is constrained by a lack of standards. For example, different agencies generally

use different terminology to define ecosystem

types, This problem also exists at the international level, especially where classification

schemes used to aggregate data are not standardized.
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 127

Coordination of data-collection efforts can reduce incompatibilities, lessen duplications, and

identify gaps in collection. For example, CMC

and UNESCO plan to feed information into the

GRID system. TNC’S regional databank has incorporated the classification system used by

CMC to improve compatibility between the two

data systems (33).

Coordination efforts at the U.S. Federal level

have involved formal interagency cooperative

agreements. (See OTA Background Paper #2,

Assessing Biological Diversity in the United

States: Data Considerations, for a description

of these Federal interagency efforts to coordinate data collection and maintenance.) These

efforts have resulted in recommendations and

guidelines for standardization of databases.

Most agencies would have to invest some personnel and funding to make their databases

compatible with those of other agencies, however, which may not occur without specific congressional mandates.

Social and Economic Data

Human activities are the main cause of the

accelerated loss of biological diversity, and successful implementation of onsite maintenance

methods described in this chapter depends on

cooperation of people living on and near the

land that is affected. Collection and analysis

of social and economic data, therefore, are essential to understanding the changing patterns

of biological diversity and to planning and implementing conservation strategies (7).

The complexity of natural ecosystems rivals

the complexity of social and economic processes that affect them. Thus, socioeconomic research should be no less rigorous than the biological research. Unfortunately, social and

economic data are often the weak link in conservation planning.

Demography is a well-established social science with reliable data sources, theories, and

methods to describe population patterns. Theories on how population growth under various

circumstances affects biological diversity are

lacking, however.

The status of biological diversity is greatly

affected by the supply and demand of raw materials, agricultural commodities, and natural

products. Natural-resource economic data and

analytical methods have been developed for

other fields of resource management, such as

forestry, fisheries, and agriculture, but application of economics to issues of biological

diversity has hardly begun. Some biologists and

geographers have started to do economic analyses, but few professional economists are interested in biological diversity.

Data on technological change, especially in

agriculture and pollution-causation and abatement, are sometimes assessed as part of the

environmental-impact assessment process required when Federal funding is involved in resource development in the United States. Improved methods for such assessment have

developed in the years since the National Environmental Policy Act became law. But methods for technology-impact assessment are sorely

lacking for other parts of the world, especially

for the tropical regions where diversity is most

threatened.

Social and political processes influencing

how biological diversity is perceived and valued are probably the least well-understood and,

in the long run, the most important factors

affecting success of onsite diversity maintenance. Geographers, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, and biologists who have ventured outside their field of technical expertise

have developed important descriptions of social factors affecting diversity maintenance at

specific sites. But the analysis needed to develop a broader understanding and theories

from which to generalize has yet to be undertaken,
128 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Onsite management of natural areas has usually been focused on limiting the impacts of outside pressures. In multiple-use protected areas,

the technologies used to maintain biological

diversity are mainly based on manipulation of

habitats or populations to favor particular species, These methods, many of which derive

from the fields of natural history and wildlife

management, are effective for the target species. Biologists generally agree, however, that

broad biological diversity values are not adequately served by species management alone.

This approach necessarily concentrates on species with immediate commercial or recreational

value and lets too many others, with less obvious values, perish if they do not happen to live

in the type of environment maintained for the

target species. Thus, technologies are needed

to maintain diversity at the ecosystem level,

Onsite maintenance technologies commonly

have been developed in relatively well-known

temperate zone ecosystems. Plant and animal

communities in these ecosystems generally can

recover from moderate human disturbances if

they are protected for years or decades. But biologists are not sanguine about adapting these

technologies to tropical and other ecosystems,

such as coral reefs, that are poorly known and

that have much less natural ability to recover

from disturbances,

Although most existing onsite technologies

are focused on natural areas where development is restricted, attention is beginning to be

directed beyond simple protected area programs. Resource development planning methods that treat conservation as an integral part

of economic and social development have been

devised and tested. These strategies hold promise, but they need to be taken from the conceptual stage to practical implementation.

The remainder of this chapter addresses these

and other opportunities to improve the research, development, and application of onsite

technologies to maintain biological diversity.

An Ecosystem Approach

An ecosystem approach is necessary to maintain biological diversity onsite for many reasons: 1) because the numbers of threatened species and genetically distinct populations is so

high, 2) because so little is known about life histories or even the identity of many species, and

3) because many species are interdependent.

Yet attempts to develop and implement ecosystem approaches are few,

In the United States, development of onsite

maintenance technologies is largely the task of

Federal land-managing agencies, such as the

National Park Service, the Forest Service, the

Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of

Land Management. The mandates of these

agencies emphasize species- and habitat-oriented technologies. A shift toward more ecosystem-oriented management would require

policy changes within the agencies. Most, for

example, consider an inventory of an area’s biological diversity and the investigation of species interactions to be appropriate activities for

basic research programs but not appropriate

as pragmatic resource management activities.

Changes in policies to encourage an ecosystem

approach to protected areas may not occur

without a congressional mandate directing

agencies to manage lands and bodies of water

in a way that maintains ecosystem diversity.

An important strategy for maintaining diversity is to safeguard representative samples of

ecosystems from changes that would reduce

their diversity. The United States lacks a comprehensive program for ecosystem diversity

maintenance, although some efforts are being

made through existing programs. The U. S.-

MAB program is attempting to establish samples of ecosystems in the United States. Because

the areas are identified on the basis of ecological criteria rather than political boundaries,

various Federal, State, and private organizations must cooperate to implement the program

successfully, which may explain the sluggish
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 129

.— — . — .

pace. Federal agencies could be directed to give

more support to interagency and Federal, State,

and private initiatives to support the MAB

agenda.

The number and size of additional protected

areas required for ecosystem diversity maintenance are unknown. Extensive inventory programs (e.g., the State heritage inventories of The

Nature Conservancy) have been initiated to determine how to enhance coverage. But support

has been sporadic and progress is slow. TNC’S

State-level approach and mobilization of private sector support has been effective, so the

Federal Government could continue to support

this and similar programs.

International organizations, led by IUCN and

the World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation, are promoting conservation of samples

of the world’s ecosystems. The coverage of ecosystems, indicated by comparing protected

areas to Udvardy’s biogeographical classification system, is encouraging but still incomplete.

The next major step will be to survey the degree of actual protection in the designated natural areas. Such surveys could also identify gaps

in ecosystem protection at a finer biogeographic

level than Udvardy’s classifications, Better information is needed, especially on aquatic ecosystem types such as coral reefs, to develop and

implement strategies for international ecosystem conservation efforts. A U.S. Government

interagency task force could identify personnel for this task and ways in which their work

might serve the objectives of international conservat ion,

Innovative Technologies for

Developing Countries

Many onsite technologies have been developed in industrialized, temperate zone countries, and thus, they may not be appropriate for

developing countries’ ecosystems, which are

mostly tropical and where the biological, sociopolitical, and economic situations are fundamentally different, Hence, innovative technologies are especially needed in these areas.

The biosphere reserves concept is one such

approach that appears to merit scrutiny and

support. Continued U.S. Government support

of UNESCO’s MAB program and ways to increase support for MAB in developing countries could be explored in congressional committee hearings.

Integrated land management that includes

conservation in development activities is

another approach that should be encouraged.

The OAS Integrated Regional Development

planning could provide a model for other development assistance agencies, such as AID or

the World Bank.

Long-Term Multidisciplinary

Research

The most important problems affecting implementation of biological diversity maintenance efforts are not amenable to resolution

by any one field of biology, or indeed by the

natural sciences alone. Biological diversity is

so broad that its maintenance requires methods from numerous disciplines, such as natural history, population biology, genetics, and

ecology. In addition, many other factors—economic, political, and social—contribute to decisions about the sizes, shapes, and locations

of protected areas, Application of social sciences to diversity maintenance, for instance,

to help communicate the issue’s importance to

decisionmakers at all levels, is probably the

most needed research area,

The formation of a discipline called conservation biology is an encouraging sign of the scientific community’s effort to start breaking

down traditional barriers among disciplines

and in ways of approaching problems. The goal

is to provide principles and tools for maintaining biological diversity, Signs that the new discipline is gaining momentum include establishment of a Center for Conservation Biology at

Stanford University, the creation of a department of conservation biology at Chicago’s Brookfield Zoo, and the development of programs of

study at the University of Florida and at Montana State University. More recently, a professional Society for Conservation Biology with

its own journal, conservation Bioiogy, has been

established.
130 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

As yet, the National Science Foundation and

other research funding organizations have not

recognized the status of conservation biology

as a discipline by according it a separate funding category. Its impact on resource management should increase as it gradually becomes

recognized, encouraged, supported, and broadened to include professional social scientists.

Personnel Development

A major constraint to maintaining diversity

onsite is the shortage of personnel—taxonomists, social scientists, resource managers, and

technicians with adequate training, motivation,

and work experience. These individuals are

needed to plan, manage, and explain the need

to maintain biological diversity to decisionmakers. Training and institutional development

to provide employment opportunities for these

kinds of experts are sorely needed, particularly

in developing countries.

The number of plant taxonomists working in

the world today is estimated at 3,000, for example; but twice as many would probably be

needed for an adequate study of the world’s

flora (12). Moreover, most taxonomists reside

in the temperate zone and only study species

there.

Even if money were available to train new

taxonomists, job opportunities would have to

be provided to attract people to the field. The

number of taxonomic positions in museums,

herbaria, universities, and resource-managing

agencies currently is low and may be falling,

as research funds are directed at more popular disciplines (e.g., molecular biology). It may

be time for the museums and botanic gardens

to explore innovative ways to promote the field

of systematic biology. These institutions could

help by defining systematic biology’s role in the

maintenance of biological diversity as a way

of making the discipline more appealing to potential specialists.

Data To Facilitate Onsite Protection

Decisions on where and how to apply various methods for onsite maintenance of diversity need to be based on accurate data and correct theories on the interactions among

numerous biological and human factors. Abundant data exist, especially for the temperate

zone regions of the world. The data are being

used both to develop and improve theories regarding biological diversity and to make specific decisions regarding resource management. However, use of the existing information

is inefficient when data are not collected into

readily accessible databases at the scale on

which decisionmakers operate.

Thus, a significant opportunity to improve

onsite maintenance of diversity, both within

and outside protected areas, is to support accelerated development of comprehensive databases, which would include, for example,

TNC’S State Natural Heritage Programs and its

international conservation data center program. It could also include development of a

nationwide description and evaluation of all

flora and fauna species in the United States,

possibly under the auspices of TNC.

Large gaps in knowledge of tropical species

and ecosystems constrain the effectiveness of

diversity maintenance efforts in developing

countries. Opportunities include increased development assistance support to build institutions and train scientists capable of accelerating progress in the fundamental sciences of

taxonomy, natural history, and ecology.

Possibly the most severe information deficiencies relate to the poor understanding of

how social, political, and economic factors interact with biological diversity. A great need

exists for social scientists trained and employed

to develop information on how social and economic conditions can be made conducive to

onsite maintenance of biological diversity. Unfortunately, this is a need difficult for biologists

and natural resource managers to address. It

requires new levels of interest and commitment

from social science institutions.
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 131

CHAPTER 5

1.

2.

3.

4.

5,

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

15.

Bailey, R.G. (compiler), Description of the Ecoregions of the United States (Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Region, 1978). In: Crumpacker,

1985.

Bailey, R. G., Pfister, R. D,, and Henderson, J. A.,

“Nature of Land and Resource Classification—A

Review,” ]ourna] of Forestry 76(10):650-655,

1978,

Belovsky, G., “Extinction Models and Mammalian Persistence, ” Viable Populations for

Conservation, M. Soul: (cd.] (Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).

Betz, R., Northeastern Illinois University, personal communications, 1985. In: Jordan, et al.,

1986.

Bonner, F., U.S. Forest Service, Starkville, MS,

letter to OTA, May 1986.

Brown, J. H., and Kodric-Brown, A., “Turnover

Rates in Insular Biogeography: Effect of Immigration on Extinction, ” Ecology 58:445-449,

1977, In: Soul~ and Simberloff, 1986.

Brush, S., International Agricultural Development Program, University of California, Davis,

letter to OTA, June 1986.

Butcher, G. S., Niering, W. A., Barry, W, J., and

Goodwin, R. H., “Equilibrium Biogeography and

the Size of Nature Reserves: An Avian Case

Study,” Oeco]ogia (Berl.) 49:29-37, 1981. In:

NOSS, 1983.

Centro International de Mejoramiento de Mafz

y Trigo (CIMMYT), “Conservation of the Wild

Relatives of Maize, ” CIMMYT Research Highlights, 1985 (El Batan, Mexico: 1986).

Collins, M., “International Inventory and Monitoring for the Maintenance of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Conservation Foundation, National Parks for a

New Generation: Visions, Realities, Prospects

(Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation,

1985).

Crosby, M., and Raven, P., “Diversity and Distribution of Wild Plants, ” OTA commissioned

paper, 1985.

Crumpacker, D. W., “Status and Trends of the

U.S. Natural Ecosystems, ” OTA commissioned

paper, 1985.

Dasmann, R., Wildlife Biology (New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964).

Diamond, J. M., “Normal Extinctions of Isolated

Populations, ” Extinctions, M.H. Nitecki (cd.)

16.

17,

18,

19,

20,

21,

22,

23,

24.

25,

26,

27,

(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984).

ln: Shaffer, 1985.

Diamond, J. M., “The Island Dilemma: Lessons

of Modern Biogeographic Studies for the Design

of Natural Reserves, ” Biological Conservation

7:129-146, 1975. In: Shaffer, 1985.

Eidsvik, H., Director of Parks, Canada, personal

communications, June 1986.

Erwin, T, L., “Tropical Forests: Their Richness

in Coleoptera and Other Arthropod Species, ”

Co]eopterists’ Bulletin 36(1):74-75, 1982.

Eyre, F.H. (cd.), Forest Cover Types of the

United States and Canada (Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters, 1980).

Fairchild, J., Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT, personal communication, 1985. In: Jordan, et al., 1986.

Feller, W., “Die Grundlagen der Volterraschen

Theorie des Kampfes urns Dasein in Warscheinlichkeistheoretischer Behandlung, ” Acta Biotheoretica 5:11-40, 1939. In: Shaffer, 1985.

Flesness, N., “Status and Trends of Wild Animal Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper,

1985,

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the

United Nations, Tree Growing by Rural People,

FAO Forestry Paper No. 64 (Rome: 1986).

Frankel, O. H., and Soul~, M, E., Conservation

and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press, 1981).

Franklin, J. A., “Evolutional Change in Small

Populations,” Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective M.E. SOU16 and

B.A. Wilcox (eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer

Associates, 1980].

Gentry, A. H., “Chapter 8: Endemism in Tropical versus Temperate Plant Communities, ” Conservation Biology, M. Soul& (cd.) (Sunderland,

MA: Sinauer Associates, 1986].

Gilbert, F, S,, “The Equilibrium Theory of Island

Biogeography: Fact or Fiction?” Journal of Biogeography 7:209-235, 1980. In: Shaffer, 1985.

28. Ginsburg, L., Slobodkin, L. B., Johnson, K,, and

Bindman, A. G,, “Quasi-extinction Probabilities

as a Measure of Impact on Population Growth, ”

Risk Analysis 2:171-181, 1982. In: Shaffer, 1985.

29. Government of Zambia and IUCN, National

Conservation Strategy for Zambia (Gland, Switzerland: 1985).

30. Gregg, B., U.S. National Park Service, Washington, DC, letter to OTA, Sept. 19, 1986.
132 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

31. Barrington, J,, University of Wisconsin, personal communications, 1985. In: Jordan, et a].,

1986,

32. Harris, L,, The Fragmented Forest (Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press, 1984).

33. Harrison, J., “Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems Worldwide, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

34, Hayden, B. P., Ray, G. C., and Dolan, R., “Classification of Coastal and Marine Environments,” Environmental Conservation 11(3):199-

207, 1984.

35. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, The United Nations

List of National Parks and Protected Areas

(Gland, Switzerland: 1985).

36. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, National Conservation Strategies: A Framework for Sustainable

Development (Gland, Switzerland: 1985).

37. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, “Categories, Objectives, and Criteria for Protected Areas, ” National Parks, Conservation, and Development:

The Role of Protected Area in Sustaining Society, Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, Oct. 11-22, 1982,

J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller (eds.) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984).

38. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Categories, Objectives, and Criteria for Protected Areas (Merges,

Switzerland: 1978).

39, Janzen, D. H,, “Guanacaste National Park: Tropical Ecological and Cultural Restoration, ” a report to Servico de Parques Nacionales de Costa

Rica from Department of Biology, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1986.

40. Johannes, R. E., and Hatcher, B. G., “Chapter 17:

Shallow Tropical Marine Environments, ” Conservation Biology, M. Soul& and B. Wilcox (eds.)

(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1986).

41. Johnston, V. R., “Breeding Birds of the Forest

Edge in East-Central Illinois, ” Condor 49:45-53,

1947. In: Ness, R,, “A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity,” Bioscience

33(11):700-706, 1983.

42. Jones, J. O., Espey, Houston & Associates, Inc.,

Austin, TX, personal communications, 1985. In:

Jordan, et al., 1986.

43, Jordan, W., Peters, R,, and Allen, E., “Ecological Restoration as a Strategy for Conserving Biodiversity,” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.

44. Kollar, S. A., Jr., Hartford Community College,

Bel Air, MD, personal communication, 1985. In:

Jordan, et al,, 1986.

45. Lande, R,, and Barrowclough, G. F., “Effective

Population Size, Genetic Variation and Their

Use in Population Management, ” Viable Populations for Conservation, M,E, Soulb (cd.) (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).

46, Levins, R., “Extinction,” Some Mathematical

Questions in Biology, Lectures of Mathematics

in the Life Sciences, vol. 2, M. Gerstenhaber (cd.)

(Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1970). Jn: Shaffer, 1985.

47. Love joy, T. E., Bierregaard, R. O., Jr., Rankin,

J, M., and Schubert, H. O. R., “Ecological Dynamics of Forest Fragments, ” Tropical Rain

Forests: Ecology and Management, S.L. Sutton,

T,(;. Whitman, and A.C. Chadwick (eds.) (Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications,

1983). In: Shaffer, 1985.

48. Love joy, T. E., Rankin, J. M., Bierregaard, R. O.,

Jr., Brown, K. S., Jr., Emmons, L. H., and Van der

Voort, M. E,, “Ecosystem Decay of Amazon Forest Remnants, ” Extinctions, M.H. Nitecki (cd.)

(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984).

In: Shaffer, 1985,

49. Love joy, T. E,, and Oren, D. C., “The Minimum

Critical Size of Ecosystems, ” Forest IsZand Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes, R.L.

Burgess and D.M. Sharp (eds.) (New York:

Springer-Verlag, 1981). In: Shaffer, 1985.

50. Lyman, T. M., “Progress and Planning for Germplasm Conservation of Major Food Crops,”

Plant Genetics Resources Newsletter 60:3-19,

1984.

51. Lynch, M. and Rey, C., “Diversity of Marine/

Coastal Ecosystems,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

52. MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O., The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1967).

53. Margules, C., Higgs, A. J., and Rafe, R. W,, “Modern Biogeographic Theory: Are There Any Lessons for Nature Reserve Design?” Biological

Conservation 24:115-128, 1982.

54. Matthiae, P., Assistant Coordinator of Natural

Areas, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, 1985. In: Jordan, et al., 1986.

55. McMahan, J. A., Nothing Succeeds Like Succession: Ecology and the Human Lot, 67th Faculty

Honor Lecture (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1983). In: Jordan, et al., 1986.

56. Morrison, D. G., Use of Prairie Vegetation on
57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63,

64

65.

66.

67,

68.

69.

Disturbed Sites, Transportation Research Record 822 Landscape and Environmental Design

(Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1981).

Myers, N., “Causes of Loss of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Nabhan, G. P., “Native Crop Diversity in Aridoamerica: Conservation of Regional Gene Pools, ”

Economic Botany 39:387-399, 1985.

National Research Council, Surface Mining:

Soil, Coal, and Society (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981).

Organization of American States (OAS), OAS

General Secretariat, Integrated Regional Development Planning: Guidelines and Case Studies

From OAS Experience (Washington, DC: 1984).

Peine, J., Proceedings of Conference on the

Management of Biosphere Reserves, Nov. 27-

29, 1984, Great Smoky Mountains National

Park, Gatlinburg, TN.

Prescott-Allen, R., “National Conservation Strategies and Biological Diversity, ” a report to the

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Conservation for

Development Center, draft, February 1986.

Prescott-Allen, R., and Prescott-Allen, C., “Park

Your Genes: Protected Areas as In-Situ Genebanks for the Maintenance of Wild Genetic Resources, ” National Parks, Conservation, and De-

~~elopmen t: The Role of Protected Areas in

Sustaining Societ~r, Proceedings of the World

Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia,

Oct. 11-22, 1982, J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller

(eds.) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution

Press, 1984).

Ricklefs, R. E., Naveh, Z., and Turner, R. E.,

“Conservation of Ecological Processes, ” The

Environmentalist 4(8), 1984.

Salm, R. V., Marine and Coastal Protected Areas:

A Guide for Planners and Managers (Gland,

Switzerland: International Union for the Conser~’ation of Nature and Natural Resources,

1984].

Saunier, R., “Environment and Development

A Future Together?” Development Forum

11 (8), 1983.

Saunier, R., and Meganck, R., “Compatibility

of Development and the In-Situ Maintenance of

Biological Diversity in Developing Countries, ”

OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Schlosser, S., “The Use of Nature Reserves for

in Situ Conser\’ation, ” Plant Genetic Rt;SOUIT;CS

,%reJ%’slctter 61 ;23-24, 1 g85.

Schonewald-Cox, C. M., and 13ayless, J. W., “The

Boundary Approach: A Geographic Analysis of

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite “ 133

Design and Conservation of Nature Reserves, ”

Biological Conservation (forthcoming).

70. Schonewald-Cox, C. M., Chambers, S. M., Mac71

Bryde, B., and Thomas, W. L., Genetics and Conservation: A Reference for Managing Wildlife

Animal and Plant Populations (Menlo Park, CA:

Benjamin Cummings Co., 1983).

Shaffer, M., “The Minimum Viable Population

Problem” Viable Populations for Conservation,

M. SOU16 (cd.) (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press, forthcoming).

72. Shaffer, M., “Assessment of Application of Species Viability Theories, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985,

73, Shaffer, M., “Determining Minimum Viable

74

75

76

77

Population Sizes for the Grizzly Bear, ” International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:1 33-139, 1983.

Shaffer, M., “Minimum Population Sizes for

Species Conservation, ” Bioscience 31:1 31-134,

1981.

Shugart, H., “Planning and Management Techniques for Natural System s,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Simberloff, D., “Biogeography: The Unification

and Maturation of a Science, ’ Perspectives in

Ornithology, A.H. Brash and G.A. Clark, Jr.

(eds.) (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni~ersity

Press, 1983). In: Shaffer, 1985.

Simon, J., and Wildavsky, A., “On Species Loss,

the Absence of Data, and Risks to Humanity, ”

The Resourceful Earth J. Simon and H. Khan

(eds.) (New York: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1984).

78, Soul~, M, E., and Simberloff, D,, “What Do

79

80

Genetics and Ecology Tell Us About the Design

of Nature Reserves?’ Biological Conser\’ation

35:19-40, 1986.

SOU16, M. E., and Wilcox, B. A., Conservation Biology: An Ecological-E\ ’olutionary Perspectit’e

(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1980).

Stenseth, N, C., “Where Have All the Species

Gone? on the Nature of Extinction arid the Red

Queen Hypothesis,” Oikos 33:196-227, 1979. In:

Shaffer, 1985,

81. Synge, H. “Status and Trends of Wild Plants, ”

82

83

84

OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Thorsell, J. W,, “The Role of Protected Areas in

Maintaining Biological Diversity in Tropical Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper,

1985.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest

Resources, OTA-F214 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, March, 1984).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
134 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

An Annotated Bibliography of Surface-Mined

Area Reclamation Research (Washington, DC:

1985),

85. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue

Mountains of Oregon and Washington, USDA

Pub. No. 5531979 (Washington, DC: 1979).

86. U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program: Program Development PZan (Washington, DC: 1982).

87. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “Selkirk Mountain Caribou Management Plan” (Washington, DC: 1985).

88. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “Burro Creek Riparian Management Plan” (Washington, DC: May 1983).

89. Wilcove, D. S., McLellan, C. H., and Dobson,

A. P., “Chapter 11: Habitat Fragmentation in the

Temperate Zone,” Conservation Biology, M.

Soule (cd.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1986).

90. Wilcox, B. A., “Insular Ecology and Conservation,” Conservation Biology: An EvolutionaryEcological Perspective, M,E. Soul& and B.A.

Wilcox (eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1980).

91. Wright, R, M., Houseal, B., and De Leon, C.,

“Kuna Yala: Indigenous Biosphere Reserves in

the Making?” Parks 10(3):25-27, 1984.
Chapter 6

Maintaining

Animal Diversity

Offsite
CONTENTS

Page

Highlights . . . . **. **** .*. .*. .*** .*** .*** . *e****....*...*****..*****. 137

overview ● ● ● ● ● ● ● $ ● ● ● ● ● ● * . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . . ****...**...**.****************** 137

Objectives of Offsite Maintenance Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......137

Breeding Programs v. Long-Term Cryogenic Storage . .................138

Sampling Strategies .*** **. ****, *.** **** .*. ***. ... *.** *.** .. *******0. 142

Identification of Candidates for Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..142

Preservation and Collection Considerations ● **,,*,.*..****.***,*,*** . 144

The Movement of Germplasm—I)isease and Quarantine Issues . ..........145

Maintenance Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Storage Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...148

Breeding Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..149

Development and Utilization Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......156

Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........157

Wild Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................157

Domestic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............159

Chapter preferences . . ..*.**. ● *****,* ..*****. ● .****** ● *..***. .*.*.. 163

Tables

Table No. Page

6-1. General Guidelines for Intervention To Conserve

Natural Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............143

6-2. Criteria for Classifying Domestic Breedsas Endangered .***.*. ● ..*. * 143

6-3. Captive Animals Required for a Fixed Proportion of Genetic Diversity

Over a Number of Generations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...149

6-4. Successful Artificial Insemination in Nondomestic Mammals . . . . . . . ..154

Figures

Figure No. Page

6-1. Transcontinental Embryo Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..154

6-2. Embryo Transfer Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..155

Boxes

BoxNo. Page

6-A. Breeds .*$*?** ......00 ● ,**.*,. ● ..**?*. . . . . . . . . ,.,. . ............13 8

6-B. Replacement and Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’. . . . . . . . .139

6-C. Genetic Drift and Inbreeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....150

6-D. Embryo Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................153

6-E. Captive Breeding and Przewalski’s Horse . . . . . . . . . . . ...............156
Chapter 6

Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite

Offsite maintenance of animal diversity includes selective breeding of wild

or domestic species and safeguarding genetic diversity through cryopreservation. For wild animals, the programs reinforce rather than replace efforts to

maintain diversity onsite. For domestic animals, programs try to maximize

usefulness of the animals while preserving their ability to adapt to changing

human needs.

Cryogenic storage could make a considerable contribution to the maintenance

of animal diversity. Properly frozen and maintained, sperm and embryos have

an expected shelf-life of hundreds of years. Although initial collection and preservation costs are relatively high, subsequent storage costs and space requirements are low.

The number of individual animals required to start a captive population or

a cryogenic store depends on a host of factors. Retaining 99 percent of a source

population’s genetic diversity for 1,000 generations could require up to 50,000

animals, far too many to be practical under captive management. At a minimum, however, several hundred individual animals are required for captive

breeding programs.

Breeding programs require the international transfer of animals, which risks

spreading pests and diseases. For most wild species, regulatory controls are

virtually nonexistent. Stringent controls are in place, however, for importing

domestic animals. Advances in diagnostic procedures and germplasm transfer technologies are expected to’ facilitate the international movement of animals.

No organized program exists, either in the United States or Internationally,

to sam-pie, evaluate maintain, and use available sources of animal germplasrn

.

Such a program is needed, in addition to programs to understand the reproductive processes of wild animals, to develop local expertise in reproductive

biology and quantitative genetics, and to increase the number of captive maintenance and breeding facilities.

OVERVIEW

Objectives Offsite

Maintenance Efforts

extent of control can vary considerably, but the

decision to remove individual animals from a

Offsite maintenance of animal diversity is de- natural habitat implies a major increase in hufined as propagation or preservation of animals man involvement in propagation of a population. outside their natural habitat. The programs involve control by humans of the animals cho- Captive maintenance of wild species has besen to constitute a population and of the mat- come progressively more important as increasing choices made within that population. The ing numbers of species are threatened or en137
138 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

dangered in their natural habitats. These

programs can be considered holding actions

designed to reinforce rather than replace wild

populations. If a natural population is decimated or lost, captive maintenance programs

provide a reservoir of individuals to allow reintroduction.

The genetic diversity of the original population must not be lost or seriously reduced during captive maintenance if animals are expected to be able to readapt to life in the wild.

Likewise, genetic changes that may be induced

during captive maintenance must be minimized. Reciprocal transfers of individuals between wild and captive populations can help

reduce genetic pressures. Such exchanges,

however, involve the capture of wild animals,

and they risk the accidental death of some of

them. Therefore, risks should be evaluated carefully before beginning a program of genetic exchanges between wild and captive populations.

For domestic species, all populations are by

definition maintained offsite. Most of these animals have existed in association with humans

for centuries, and their current genetic diversity is a reflection of this long interaction. Their

genes have been manipulated through generations of selective breeding to meet the diverse

needs of humans, and this manipulation has

led to a wealth of specialized breeds (boxes 6-

A and 6-B). Some wild progenitors of domestic species still differ so much from domestic

populations that they exist as a reservoir of

genetic diversity, but these natural populations

are unlikely to contribute much to current commercial stocks through traditional breeding

methods.

The aim of programs to maintain genetic

diversity in livestock differs somewhat from

that for wild animals. In domestic populations,

the challenge is to maximize current utility and

preserve sufficient diversity to ensure livestock’s continued adaptability to changing—

and often unforeseen—human needs. In fact,

efforts to raise current rates of food production may constitute the greatest threat to future

flexibility by concentrating unduly on shortterm production goals with attendant losses in

genetic diversity that may be important to future generations.

Brooding Programs v. Long-Term

Cryogonic Storage

Using captive breeding programs to retain

a considerable proportion of the genetic diversity of endangered species or rare breeds for
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 139

Box MI.”mpkwnfatad Gaasatk ~ *

Tmditiondly, breed rephwxnent has pmceedd OXl an evoktionmytime male, with fp’adud *e$

inbreed composition and provision for~ca of % Wdth Of kd -tkma. WXitiy, however, the pace of breed repiacemen * has aixmkatad, with the of multinational breedin g

companies in poultry and swine, the use of artificia l and intensifiwi sire

selection in dairy cattle, and enhanced for Qfgempiasm throughout the

world. Aiso, greater standardization of production, marketing, and remrding procedures for j=dtry,

swim, and dairy cattle in industrial Gantries be increasingly prmnotad repkement of local breeds.

In domestic species, the greatest threat to genetic diversity involves extensive and sometimes

indiscriminate crossing of indigenous @ocks in developing countries with breeds from North America and Western Europe [3). This crossing stmna from needs to !nct~se world food production and

from a belief that this goal is best met using poesible genetic merit for individ -

ual traits (such as milk or egg production). But breeds developed in @n~te-zone industrial countries are often not suited to the more restrictive r@Kkmai,m~mt, and disease conditions of

developing countries and may be less efficiant than indigenous #ocka in wing available resources.

Only recently has the need for comprehaneive evaluation td!timtotal of imported breeds

begun to be recognized in developing countries. Unf@tun@ely, serious dilution of original breeds

may have already occurred. ~us, it is not the process of breed repkmnmt mr se ~at iS a problem

but the rate of replacement and the dangw that useful breeds maybe discarded before they can be

fairly evaluated.

Regional strains of established breeds are especiallyvuhmrablato lose through intercrossing with

more popuIar strains. Extensive use of Hokdnbuils fkorn North Amwica in European Friesian populations threatens serioua dilutiori of the gewtic material of theae strains. The percentage of Holstein

genes in young Friesian bulls entering European artificial inaemin@ion programs in 1982 ranged

from 8 percent in Ireland to 91 percent in Switzerland and weqpl 54 percent for 10 European

countries (4).

Genetic diversity can sometimes be reduced in commercial stocks even if population numbers

remain large. These losses can occur when selection is intense and control of breeding stock is concentrated in a few large breeding farms (as in the commercial pouhry industries] or when artificial

insemination allows extensive use of a few seiected sires throughout the population (as in the dairy

industry). In both cases, the resuk is increased genetic uniformity within the stock despite the large

numbers. Several studies (3,25) have concluded that important kwms may ba occurring in commercial poultry breeds. Comparable losses have apparently not yet happened in dairy Mttie populations.

No imminent losses of genetic diversity within major comnwrcial tweeds are foreseen for mvine, sheep,

goats, or beef cattle. Several populations of chickens are currently being maintained without selection

and at dficient population sizes to substantially retard losses in genetic diversity (42). And some

artificial insemina tion organizations retain semen from bulls that have been removed from service.

However, these programs do not represent industry or public policy, and parallel programs do not

exist for other domestic species.

The Ioss of endangered species and ram breeds is of particubw ooncarn in light of likely fiture

advances in molecular biology and geneticti. The abiiity @ mtfraet dedrabla genes from different qMcies or less productive_ ad inM@ th~~ hto &mastic animals could have important implications for designing superior mbals fb~ a~ifk amdromrmnt “ al ao~ Unfortunately, knowiedge of the @metic material of_ av!$d @ @ rudinwrttary. For instance, it i s

unclear if adaptive f&t@l’s -**“ are controlled by many o r

a few g-,@= Wd# m - to ~.. aflocal braeda and

endangered _. - +

.

.,
140 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

a substantial period of time requires relatively

large numbers of animals. Under the most

favorable assumptions, maintenance of 90 to

95 percent of the genetic diversity within a population for 100 to 200 generations would require

a captive population of at least several hundred

individuals sampled from throughout the range

of the species (15,27).

Until relatively recently, zoos have not been

concerned with keeping representative levels

of genetic diversity within their exhibition

stock. Problems in fertility and juvenile survival

that often accompany exhaustion of genetic

diversity were simply accommodated by obtaining new specimens from the wild. As this became difficult, and in some cases impossible,

zoos began to reevaluate their role. The result

has been establishment of programs to maintain pedigree information on zoo animals

through the International Species Inventory

System (ISIS) and to facilitate transfer of individuals among zoos. These efforts help maintain genetic diversity, but existing zoos can support at most 1,000 kinds of terrestrial

vertebrates at a minimum population of 250 (2),

whereas an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 kinds will

be in danger of extinction by the year 2050 (43).

The magnitude of the problem will thus outrun currently available facilities for captive

breeding.

Recent advances in reproductive biology and

cryopreservation may facilitate efforts to preserve genetic diversity. Cryopreservation refers

to storage below – 1300 C: water is absent,

molecular kinetic energy is low, and diffusion

is virtually nil. Thus, storage potential is expected to be extremely long. Storage in liquid

nitrogen ( — 1960 C) or in the vapor above it (ea.

– 1500 C) is a useful technique: Liquid nitrogen is relatively inexpensive, inert, and safer

than comparable refrigerants (e.g., liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen, or freon).

Storage and eventual production of live offspring from frozen semen or embryos have become common for cattle, sheep, goat, buffalo,

and horse. The semen of pigs can also be frozen. In 1982, an estimated 10.5 million cattle

were produced through artificial insemination

with frozen semen. Similarly, bovine embryo

Photo credit. American Breeders Serwce

This calf, born in 1984, was conceived with semen that

had been frozen for 30 years.

transfer has become commercially viable and

increasingly involves the use of frozen embryos.

Commercial use of frozen semen and embryos

is less common in other livestock species, but

acceptable results can be achieved. Frozen semen is also regularly used with poultry and with

some species of fish (18).

Cryopreservation of sperm and embryos of

wild species has been much more limited. To

date, blackbuck, giant panda, fox, wolf, chimpanzee, and gorilla have been produced from

frozen semen (7,9,38); baboon (37) and eland

(8), as well as mice, rats, and rabbits, have been

produced from frozen embryos. Procedures differ among species, but in theory, semen and

embryos from a range of mammalian species

can now be successfully frozen.

The contribution of cryopreservation to the

maintenance of animal diversity could be

tremendous. Properly frozen and maintained,

sperm and embryos have an expected shelf-life

of hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Although initial collection and preservation costs

may be relatively high, subsequent storage costs

and space requirements are low, allowing for

long-term maintenance of large numbers of individuals and gametes.

These individuals represent a frozen snapshot of the population at the time of collection.

If the initial sampling of individuals is done
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 141

I .

 of San 

The frozen zoo: Cryogenic storage of cell strains, gametes, and embryos is being undertaken

as part of the conservation activities of zoos.

properly, the procedures should allow regeneration of the original population without the

genetic changes inherent in the maintenance

of captive breeding populations.

The long-term genetic stability of frozen embryos and sperm is a matter of some concern.

Freezing and thawing does not appear to increase the mutation rate in these tissues, but

long-term exposure to low levels of radiation

could be a problem, especially because DNA

repair mechanisms would be inoperative at

– 1960 C (l). Mouse embryos and semen have

been kept frozen for at most 10 and 30 years,

respectively. However, frozen mouse embryos

also have been exposed to augmented levels of

radiation equivalent to that experienced in

2,000 years of normal storage without apparent ill effects (16). Normal progeny were

produced. Thus, risks of genetic damage from

background radiation appear negligible.

Just as captive breeding programs reinforce

rather than replace natural populations, cryopreservation efforts reinforce rather than replace captive breeding programs. In wild species, females must still be available to gestate

frozen embryos or to provide female gametes

in matings involving frozen semen. In domestic species, breeding populations selected for

biologically or economically important traits

may still be required, but cryogenic storage of

individuals from the original population provides a valuable measure of insurance. Periodic
142 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

sampling and preservation of gametes or embryos from rare breeds allow a repository of

genetic diversity to be maintained.

Two caveats must be kept in mind regarding

the role of cryopreservation of gametes and embryos. First, considerable development work

is required to extend the techniques to cover

the full range of endangered populations. For

wild animals, reliable procedures for collecting, freezing, and using semen and embryos

have to be developed further and validated for

each species or group of species to ensure that

sufficient levels of genetic diversity can be

regenerated from the frozen store. Preservation

technologies for embryos are well developed

only in certain domestic mammals. Similar

techniques are needed for birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates.

Second, cryopreservation of gametes and embryos should not bean llth-hour effort to protect seriously endangered species. Restraining

wild animals to collect semen or embryos is

risky. Some animals die, which entails an unacceptable risk if the species is already rare.

Therefore, research and the collection of gametes

and embryos from many sources should begin

before the populations become endangered.

SAMPLING STRATEGIES

Efficient programs for offsite maintenance

of animal genetic diversity require a mechanism for monitoring existing populations—to

identify when and if intervention is required—

and procedures for sampling threatened populations in a way that ensures desired levels

of genetic diversity within the conserved population.

Identification of Candidates

for Conservation

Three criteria are generally considered when

selecting wild species for captive propagation

or preservation (35):

10

2.

Endangerment in the Wild: Information on

the status of wild animals is probably best

obtained from the Species Conservation

Monitoring Unit (SCMU) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources at Cambridge

University in England. Funding constraints tend to limit the scope and timeliness of SCMU information, however. Local and regional organizations may also

provide useful information, but their effectiveness varies widely.

Feasibility in captivity: Lack of facilities

and expertise may preclude captive breeding or cryogenic storage of some species.

3.

The blue whale is an example of a species

that cannot be maintained in captivity.

Uniqueness: Given limited facilities for

captive propagation, programs must try to

represent as much available taxonomic

diversity as possible. Thus, endangered

species that are the only representative of

their genus, family, or order would receive

high priority.

Subspecies present a special problem. Most

wild species have several distinct forms or

races, analogous to the breeds found in domestic animals. These subspecies usually cannot

all be maintained as discrete breeding populations. Instead, captive propagation programs

need to concentrate on one or two representative subspecies or amalgamate several of them

into a single interbreeding population. Cryogenic preservation of semen or embryos would

facilitate conservation of these identifiable subspecies.

Table 6-1 provides some general guidelines

for monitoring and intervention to conserve a

natural population. Such an approach has three

important advantages:

1, a sample of the source population can be

obtained before substantial loss of genetic

diversity has occurred;

2, conflict over capture and restraint of rare
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 143

Table 6-1 .—General Guidelines for intervention

To Conserve Natural Populations

Likelihood Number of

of extinction animals Action

Possible fewer than At least, serious surveillance

100,000 of status and trends should

be initiated

Probable fewer than Well-managed captive propa10,000 gation programs should be

establ i shed; reproductive

technology research should

be vigorously conducted;

and germinal tissues should

be collected for storage

while there are an adequate

number of animals to use as

founders, subjects, and

donors

Certain fewer than Off site programs should be

1,000 intensified while onsite efforts are fortified for a “last

stand”; off site programs are

imperative

Imminent fewer than Off site programs become as

500 important as onsite efforts

sOIJRcE D R Netter and T J Foose, “Concepts and Strategies To Maintain

Domestic and Wild Animal Germ Plasm,” OTA commissioned paper,

1985

individuals, e.g., the California condor, can

be avoided by taking action before extinction is imminent; and

3, if techniques for semen and embryo preservation are not well developed, material

can be made available for experimentation,

For the rare breed of a domestic species, identifying candidates for conservation involves

assessment of uniqueness, potential economic

contribution, and degree of endangerment,

Monitoring the status of domestic animal

breeds used for food and fiber production is

somewhat coordinated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, Regional efforts are

directed by the European Association for Animal Production, the Society for the Advancement of Breeding Researchers in Asia and

Oceania, the InterAfrican Bureau for Animal

Resources, the International Livestock Centre

for Africa, and the Asociacion Latinoamericana

de Production Animal (12). Comparable efforts

in North America have been less comprehensive and limited to private organizations such

as the American Minor Breeds Conservancy.

At least 700 unique strains of cattle, sheep,

pigs, and horses have been identified in Europe alone, and 241 of these are considered endangered, under the criteria detailed in table

6-2 (30). public support for maintenance of all

these breeds is not feasible, and choices will

have to be made. Two considerations have been

suggested for choosing among competing domestic breeds (39):

1.

2.

the breed exists as a closed population, and

a similar population does not exist elsewhere; or

the breed exhibits a specific genetic value,

such as superiority in some production

trait, the existence of a major gene (i.e., a

gene with a known effect on some physiological characteristic), or the expression of

a unique characteristic of potential importance.

In the selection of threatened breeds, characterization and evaluation are critical first steps

(35), Ideally, breeds would be assessed in their

native environments and would be evaluated

as both pure breeds and as crosses with other

indigenous and improved breeds. This evaluaTable 6-2.—Criteria for Classifying Domestic Breeds as Endangered

Number of active femalesa

Species Number of active males Stable population Decreasing population

Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fewer than 20 fewer than 1,000 1,000 to 5,000

Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fewer than 20 fewer than 500 500 to 1,000

Goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fewer than 20 fewer than 500 500 to 1,000

Pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fewer than 20 fewer than 200 200 to 500

aThe risks associated with a decreasing population were deemed to be greater than those associated with a stable population Therefore, larger numbers were suggested

for a decreasing population

SOURCE Adapted from K Maijala, A V Cherekaez, J,M. Dewllard, Z. Reklewskl, G Rognoni, D,L Simon, and D E. Steane, “Cons ewat!on of Animal Genetic Resources

In Europe, Final Report of an E A A P Working Party, ” Lj~esfOck PfOdUCf/0~ Sc/erIce 11 :3..22, 1984
144 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

tion, often lacking for threatened breeds within

developing countries, can be extremely important. In the absence of a formal evaluation, bibliographic databases may provide some needed

information (12). Following the evaluation,

breeds can be put in one of four categories:

1,

2.

3,

4.

Useful under current economic conditions.

Such stocks should be integrated into the

production system in a way that uses their

genetic material in pure lines, crosses, or

selected gene pools. Pure lines should be

maintained with selection for net merit in

production systems that are characteristic of commercial production within the

country of origin or preserved cryogenically if maintenance as a pure line is impossible.

Viable under current economic conditions

in relation to other indigenous types, but

inferior (in pure lines or in crosses) to improved types; no obvious biological extreme or major gene. Germplasm preservation in such populations could have two

rationales: preservation of frozen semen

or embryos to prevent total loss of the germplasm and as insurance during a period of

breed replacement with the improved

types, or maintenance as pure lines for

their cultural-historical value at the option

of local governments and producers. A

dual philosophy exists here–a unique population should not be discarded until its

inferiority is documented, but preservation

should not hinder use of improved breeds.

Not competitive under current economic

conditions; possesses an extreme phenotype for one or more traits or carries a majorgene. Such breeds should be conserved

cryogenically or as pure lines. Research use

should be encouraged, and selection to intensify the extreme phenotype should be

considered.

Not competitive with existing adapted

types; not a biological extreme; no major

genes for production traits. No particular

efforts should be made to conserve such

breeds unless they can be documented as

unique in their genetic origin. Stocks could

move from the second category to this one

as more productive breeds prove themselves.

Preservation and Collection

Considerations

The number of individual animals required

to initiate a captive population or a cryogenic

store will depend on the nature and extent of

the genetic diversity to be maintained, on the

population structure in nature, and on the rate

at which the captive population reproduces.

The Natural Extent o f

The Genetic Diversity

Both natural and artificial selection reflect

different fitness or reproductive success for individuals carrying different genes and lead to

changes in the frequencies of those genes in

a population. The diversity of genes in a large,

interbreeding population may be quite extensive, with different individuals possessing a

somewhat different genetic composition. It is

this diversity that enables populations to adapt

to environmental changes. Indeed, preserving

the evolutionary potential of the species requires the maintenance of these possibly useful genes.

The objective in sampling a source population, then, should be to obtain a group that represents the bulk of its genetic diversity. Fewer

animals are required to obtain an adequate initial sample of a population’s diversity than are

required to ensure continued maintenance of

that diversity over time. Thus, 20 to 30 founder

animals should provide an adequate sample of

the genetic diversity in most interbreeding populations (6,43), but much larger subsequent population sizes are required to prevent erosion

of this diversity over time.

In terms of cryopreservation, enough frozen

semen to produce 10 live offspring from each

of 25 sires, which would require 50 to 100 units

of semen per sire, would constitute a good sample of an interbreeding source population (40).

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology recommends production of 40 to 80 offspring from frozen embryos representing 20 or
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite 145

more unrelated parents (3). Assuming a pregnancy rate of 30 percent and a subsequent survival rate of 80 percent, 167 to 333 frozen embryos would be required for each breed.

For particularly rare breeds, too few individuals may be available to comply with these recommendations. Although a viable population

can be established with as few as 4 to 10 animals, such a population may differ considerably in genetic composition from the unendangered source population, and it may have an

impaired ability to respond to future changes

in environment. Initiation of a captive population with only a few founders could be justified if a reasonable likelihood exists of obtaining additional individuals from the wild at some

future point.

Population Structure in Nature

Most domestic and wild populations

groups of semi-isolated subpopulations.

tent of this subdivision differs among

exist as

The exspecies

and influences the sampling process in developing a captive population. If the population

is strongly subdivided, genes present in one subpopulation may be absent in others, and sampling must attempt to include individuals from

all major subgroups. According to one calculation, the recommended 20 to 30 founder animals can be decreased by about one-third if the

population exists as a small number (2 to 10)

of very distinct subpopulations, but it should

be increased by about one-third if 50 to 100 distinct subgroups exist (35).

Current assessment of genetic diversity

among subpopulations must be based on biochemical, historical, morphological, and ecological criteria. For genes that produce an identifiable protein molecule, genetic differences

can be identified by the behavior of the proteins on an electrically charged (electrophoretic) gel. Electrophoretic testing procedures

help identify the existence and distribution

of various genes in different subpopulations.

Rapid advances in molecular biology also hold

promise of DNA probes that would directly assess the similarity of DNA molecules among

subpopulations. In domestic animals, however,

differential selection pressures may result in

considerable genetic variation among breeds

with similar evolutionary origins.

Roproductive Rate

Reductions in diversity are cumulative over

generations in small populations, so the losses

associated with a single sampling event are

much lower than those that would accumulate

over time if the population size remained at the

founder number. As soon as a captive breeding population is started, therefore, it should

be expanded to a size consistent with continued

maintenance of the available genetic diversity.

If the reproductive rate is high, maintenance

can be achieved rapidly and with only a few

founders, If the reproductive rate is low, several intervening generations at limited population size will be required to reach eventual

target numbers, and more founders will b e

needed to assure retention of genetic diversity

during this period. Sample sizes for cattle have

been suggested to be twice those required for

pigs, sheep, and goats, for example (3). O ne

advantage of cryogenic preservation would be

that the period of population expansion can be

deferred until appropriate facilities and habitat are available,

MOVEMENT OF GERMPLASM-DISEASE AND

QUARANTINE ISSUES

For many reasons, effective programs for insufficient to allow endangered species to be

conservation of endangered populations will conserved onsite, and animals may have to be

require extensive international transfer of transferred to countries better equipped to supgermplasm. First, facilities, funds, and institu- port captive breeding programs. Second, with

tional stability in developing countries maybe wild animals, effective maintenance of genetic
146 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

diversity within captive populations will require the international transfer of animals for

breeding purposes. And third, the optimum use

of domestic animal germplasm for food production depends on the international movement of desirable breeds and strains to countries where they may be useful.

International transport of animal germplasm

is accompanied, however, by the risk of introducing and spreading disease agents and vectors, many of which could have an enormous

impact on animal productivity. Indeed, transporting animal germplasm without appropriate safeguards could jeopardize the conservation programs for which the germplasm is

required. Thus, technologies to facilitate germplasm transfer must also limit the risk of disease transmission.

Many infectious diseases are caused by

organisms that do not naturally occur in the

United States, and their introduction could

have serious effects on U.S. animals. Those

causing most concern are foot-and-mouth disease, African swine fever, rinderpest, foreign

bluetongue strains, scrapie, fowl plague, velogenic viscerotropic Newcastle disease, and

Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (20). Current programs to exclude entry of pathogenic

organisms vary with the species, disease, and

country of origin.

For most wild species (including nonungulate mammals, most birds, reptiles, amphibians,

and most fish), regulatory controls to prevent

introduction and transfer of hazardous diseases

are virtually nonexistent. Except for inspection

at the time of entry, movement of such individuals is not restricted. In contrast, entry requirements for domesticated livestock species

are quite stringent, especially for those coming from countries that harbor foot-and-mouth

disease, rinderpest, scrapie, or velogenic

viscerotropic Newcastle disease.

All imported domestic animals are subjected

to a variety of diagnostic tests and to varying

periods of quarantine in both the country of

origin and the United States. Greater control

reflects the wide potential dissemination of

these animals throughout the livestock industry. Wild ungulates (hoofed mammals) can carry

diseases transmissible to livestock and have

importation requirements similar to those of

domesticated livestock, but also must remain

in permanent post-entry quarantine in U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-approved facilities. They can be moved from one USDAapproved zoo to another, however, and their

offspring can be transferred to nonregulated

facilities.

Current efforts to control introduction of foreign diseases center on combined strategies of

blood (serological) testing and quarantine. Some

tests are designed to detect antibodies to specific disease organisms and can thereby identify individuals that have been exposed to the

disease at some time; other tests maybe used

to detect the presence of a specific pathogen.

Periods of quarantine support these procedures

by allowing an incubation period for animals

that may have been infected recently. The tests

are conservative, because individuals that have

been exposed to a disease but no longer retain

the organism still carry antibodies and react

positively. However, the procedures also facilitate identification of asymptomatic carriers of

the various diseases.

Some serological procedures, such as the

complement fixation and the viral neutralization tests, are at times unable to adequately discriminate between pathogenic and nonpathogenie organisms. These limitations have made

it very difficult to obtain negative test results

for some diseases. Recent advances in diagnostic procedures have yielded tests with much

greater accuracy and specificity. Three of the

most important are the following:

1.

2.

Indirect Immunofluorescence: This procedure can provide very rapid screening of

samples for a variety of infectious agents.

Although it lacks specificity for some diseases, it greatly facilitates the initial screening process.

Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay

(ELISA): The compounds that are produced by a disease organism and that elicit

the production of antibodies by the infected

individual are called antigens, This test

uses carefully selected and purified anti-
Ch, 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 147

3.

In

gens unique to a given strain of an infectious agent to identify circulating antibodies. It is rapid and can be highly specific.

Continued developments in selection and

purification of limited amounts of specific

antigens using recombinant DNA technology may ultimately make ELISA the preferred serologic testing method for most

infectious agents,

Complementary DNA Probes: These probes

are derived from cloned DNA or RNA of

specific infectious agents and can confirm

the existence of the infectious agent in tissue samples. The tests would distinguish

between animals carrying only antibodies

and those that actually carry the infectious

agent, The tests would also be of great value

in identifying asymptomatic carriers of infectious agents that infect circulating white

blood cells without eliciting antibody formation.

addition to movement of entire animals,

increased interest in the international transfer

of semen and embryos has produced both opportunities and concerns about disease control.

For semen, the risk of disease transmission is

usually equated to that associated with the male

that produced the semen. When semen is being moved, it undergoes the same tests the

donor would undergo if he were being moved.

In addition, samples of the semen are usually

subjected to various diagnostic tests (44,45),

The risk via either fresh or frozen embryos

is less clear, In many cases, infectious agents

are attached to the surface of the embryo or

found in the associated uterine fluids. Although

standard methods of embryo-washing free the

embryo of most such organisms (19), it does not

remove all of them (e. g., African swine fever)

(1 1). Research is thus needed on the feasibility

of’ purging embryos of undesirable disease

agents. Even if the disease organism cannot be

disassociated from the embryo, the contaminated germplasm may be rendered noninfectious by highly specific monoclinal antibodies, new antiviral agents, chemical detergents,

or immunization of surrogate mothers.

To date, the suitability of embryos for international movement has been equated to the

suitability of both parents for such movement,

But considerable interest exists in developing

procedures that would allow the status of the

embryo to be evaluated independently. Such

an assessment is likely to become feasible in

the future. Indeed, transfer of embryos of wild

and domestic animals may ultimately provide

the safest means of exchanging germplasm,

Advances in diagnostic procedures and transfer technology should facilitate the international movement of germplasm. For domestic

species and wild ungulates, these developments

should make foreign breeds more accessible

without increasing the risk of introducing disease. Improved serological testing may allow

relaxation of the permanent post-entry quarantine now imposed on wild ungulates. For unregulated species, a mechanism for monitoring disease status is needed and should be

facilitated by new technologies. These efforts

will be particularly important as captive breeding programs enlarge, thereby increasing contact between exotic and indigenous species.

Returning individuals from zoos to the wild will

also place a premium on ensuring the health

status of released individuals.

For improved diagnostic and transfer technologies to be most effective, they must be applied both in the united States and in the countries of origin, Currently, USDA-approved

quarantine facilities do not exist in Asia and

have only recently been developed in Latin

America. To set up such facilities and equip

them requires capital inputs—costs that are

likely to be borne largely by industrial countries. This approach is reasonable in terms of

the ultimate benefits that are expected from

global maintenance of animal diversity. The

costs of importing animals and semen are currently absorbed by the U.S. importer. Yet this

approach ignores societal benefits that accrue

from access to foreign domestic animal germplasm and from maintenance of animal diversity as a whole, which argue for a greater U.S.

Government role. If widespread maintenance

of genetic diversity is the goal, then increased

public support for importation, conservation,

and use of foreign germplasm is essential.
148 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Storage TechnoIogies

Cryogenic storage of gametes and embryos

introduces a new level of complexity to the procedures already discussed, but it also holds the

promise of greatly facilitating conservation of

genetic diversity. For both semen and embryos,

a critical element for cryopreservation involves

development of media to protect cells when

they are frozen in liquid nitrogen at – 196° C.

Likewise, procedures must be developed to regulate the rate of freezing and thawing of this

material in a way that will maintain the integrity

of the cells. .

 credit: Zoological Society 

In a vial, frozen cells may be stored in suspended

animation and later resuscitated. Technologies for

storing sperm, ova, and embryos are being developed

for domestic and non-domestic species.

The ability to freeze semen successfully resulted from the accidental discovery in 1949

of the cryoprotective action of glycerol. To date,

semen has been frozen from at least 200 different species, but little has actually been thawed

and tested, Commercial use of artificial insemination with frozen semen is a reality today only

for domestic species. Current media for freezing of semen usually include buffering agents,

a cryoprotectant such as glycerol, antibiotics,

and either egg yolk or milk. Many variations

of these media exist, and a somewhat different

mix usually must be developed for different

species.

The first successful freezing of mammalian

embryos with a subsequent live birth was reported in 1972 with mice (50,51). Since then,

embryos of 10 mammalian species have been

successfully frozen, and the procedure has become routine with the mouse, cow, and rabbit.

As with semen, a variety of freezing media and

of freezing and thawing procedures are available and are being evaluated. Rapid increases

in efficiency have occurred in the bovine embryo transfer industry, and frozen embryos can

now be transferred in a manner analogous to

artificial insemination. As in the freezing of semen, specific procedures and media appear to

be required for each species. Yet the procedure

in general rests on a firm mechanistic understanding of the processes responsible for cell

injury during freezing, thawing, and dilution.

Previous detailed work with mice and primates

can act as a model for extension of these techniques to other mammals, Thus, given appropriate research, cryogenic storage of embryos

could be developed for a range of species,

Cryopreservation is probably the most promising area of reproduction research today. The

potential exists to hold a well-constructed sample of the genetic diversity of a population in

suspended animation indefinitely, In practice,

frozen semen or embryo storage would probably be used with living populations for a number of reasons: to augment the genetic variation within breeding populations, to allow

periodic comparisons between original and current populations, and to validate the viability
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 149

 credit Breeders Service

Liquid nitrogen storage vessels (above) contain enough frozen bull semen to inseminate 4.5 million cows.

Liquid nitrogen maintains the temperature at –196C C (–320 

of the frozen material. Samples from current

populations would likewise periodically be

added to the frozen store to retain new variants produced by natural selection or mutation.

This process would be particularly important

in domestic populations, in which selection

could make preserved individuals economically

obsolete.

Breeding Technologies

The goals of a propagation program can be

defined in terms of how much genetic diversity is to be maintained and for how long. Table 6-3 shows the number of animals required

to ensure retention of various proportions of

genetic diversity for subsequent generations.

Ideally, all of the genetic diversity present in

the source population would be maintained indefinitely in the captive population. Table 6-3

Table 6-3.—Captive Animals Required for a

Fixed Proportion of Genetic Diversity

Over a Number of Generations

Percentage of

aenetic diversitv Number of generations

~aintained ‘ 50 100 200 1,000

50 . . . . . . . . . . 36 72 145 722

75 . . . . . . . . . . 87 174 348 1,738

90 . . . . . . . . . . 238 475 949 4,746

95 . . . . . . . . . . 488 975 1,950 9,748

99 . . . . . . . . . . 2,488 4,975 9,950 49,750

SOURCE Adapted from Netter and Foose, “Concepts and Strategies

TO Maintain Domestic and Wild Animal Germ Plasm, ” OTA 

stoned paper, 1985

suggests that this goal (i. e., retention of 99 percent for 1,000 generations) would require up

to 50,000 animals. These numbers are consistent with the guidelines in table 6-1, which suggests natural populations of fewer than 100,000

should be carefully monitored.
150 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Genetic drift accumulates generation by generation, not year by year, and animal species

differ considerably in this regard (box 6-C). For

example, 200 years covers perhaps 100 generations of chickens but only 7 to 8 generations

of elephants. Yet in most cases, breeding populations should not experience inbreeding rates

in excess of 1 percent per generation; to meet

this constraint, at least 50 breeding individuals

per generation are required.

Manipulation of the breeding structure of a

population can have a significant impact on its

genetic characteristics. For example, an appropriate level of subdivision of a population can

retard the overall rate of genetic loss in the population as a whole: Subdivision increases the

rate of loss within each subgroup, but the specific genes that are lost through random drift

vary among subpopulations. And the number

of genes that can be maintained within the subdivided population will exceed the number that

could be maintained in a random-mating population of comparable size. In practice, the minimum size of the subpopulation will depend on

the tolerance of the species to the inbreeding

rates. Still, some degree of subdivision should

be practiced, and the movement of individuals

among subpopulations should be fewer than

one per generation unless effects of inbreeding become evident. Subdivision also protects

the population against disease outbreaks or

other disasters that might annihilate any one

subpopulation.

The loss of genes from a captive population

can also be retarded by controlling mating. In

contrast to selection, which presupposes a
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite 151

differential contribution of different individuals to the next generation, programs that attempt to equalize the contribution of each individual can greatly lower initial rates of genetic

loss (21). Likewise, if pedigrees of available individuals are known, matings can be planned

in an attempt to equalize the contribution of

different lineages. This approach has been used

to stabilize founder contributions in a captive

population of Speke’s gazelle (46). Thus, efforts

to record and publish pedigrees of individuals

in endangered species (such as the records of

ISIS) assume great importance.

For domesticated animals, several population

structures and mating systems can be used in

conservation programs that are generally not

appropriate for wild animals. In many domestic species, the large number of existing breeds

(30) precludes conservation of all endangered

breeds as pure breeds. One possibility in such

cases is to preserve a single breed representative of a group of similar breeds. A better strategy, however, may be to amalgamate into a gene

pool individuals from related breeds or from

several breeds that excel in a certain characteristic.

Gene-pool populations are designed to conserve genes rather than individual breeds. Thus,

several breeds noted for a certain characteristic such as heat tolerance or proliferation might

be interbred to provide a single large reservoir

of genes for this trait. Although the identity of

individual breeds is lost, many genes present

in the breeds are retained. Selection to intensify the trait maybe appropriate, depending on

the potential or current economic importance

of the population. Maintenance of a single interbreeding gene pool is less desirable than of

a subdivided population for long-term gene conservation. For domestic species, however, the

larger population sizes that are possible in a

single gene-pool population are expected to facilitate selection for economically important

characters within the population. Simmental

cattle representing at least five regional or national strains from Europe were imported into

North America in the 1970's, and the current

American Simmental population represents a

gene pool constituted from these breeds. A

gene-pool population of pigs was developed in

the early 1970s in Nebraska and used in efforts

to increase ovulation rate (53).

A program to not only maintain but also generate genetic diversity in domestic breeds has

been suggested (26). In this effort, populations

would be selected to generate extreme levels

of performance in specific traits. These populations could serve as reservoirs of genetic variation and their characteristics would be well

known.

Efficient maintenance of captive populations

requires a thorough understanding of the reproductive processes of the species. Optimal

use of breeding stock is often facilitated by an

ability to manipulate and control these processes. In domestic animals, control of the estrous cycle and ovulation through administration of exogenous hormones has become

commonplace, greatly assisting programs of

controlled mating, artificial insemination, and

embryo transfer. In wild species, however,

knowledge of basic reproduction remains

limited. Efforts to expand knowledge in this

area are largely funded by the private sector

and are insufficient.

Infertility is a major problem in many species of zoo animals. It reduces the effective

breeding size of captive populations and exacerbates genetic losses. Infertility can often be

traced to environmental factors such as light,

temperature, nutrition, disease, or social influences. Such problems would be more easily

overcome if more were known about basic reproductive processes in wild animals.

General principles underlying control of reproduction are relatively uniform across species, yet the particular hormone levels observed

and the release patterns of these hormones are

species-specific. A practical, reasonably simple, relatively inexpensive kit for monitoring

urine hormone levels has recently been developed (29). This test helps confirm ovulation,

predict optimal times for insemination, diagnose reproductive dysfunction, and detect pregnancy. Because the test is based on urine sam-
152 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Photo Zoological Society of San 

New technologies in reproductive physiology offer

possibilities of producing large numbers of offspring

from many vertebrate species. Above, an osmotic pump

filled with gonadotropin-releasing hormone is prepared

for insertion under the skin of a female iguana. The

iguana subsequently entered and ovulated.

pies, it also avoids problems restraining and

anesthetizing rare animals.

Although reproductive problems in wild animals can often be solved through management

changes, hormone therapy can also be used for

infertility arising from age or unknown environmental factors. In particular, gonadotropinreleasing hormone has been used to initiate and

maintain estrous cycles and ovulation in monkeys, sheep, and cattle. It is administered

through a small osmotic pump implanted beneath the skin and appears to have facilitated

the birth of two cubs to a previously subfertile

cheetah (28). Similarly, a human fertility drug,

clomid, is being considered to support ovulation in female gorillas (9).

Growing pressure for the international movement of animal germplasm will also place an

increasing premium on knowledge of reproductive biology. In terms of animal safety, convenience, and disease control, movement of semen

and embryos (either fresh or frozen) would be

preferable to the movement of animals. Although the techniques to allow collection, preservation, transport, and use of these tissues are

relatively well developed in domestic animals,

comparable methods do not exist for wild

species.

Artificial insemination (A. I.) is the introduction of semen into the female reproductive tract

by artificial means. It requires technologies to

allow collection of semen from the male, storage of semen until it can be used, identification of females in the proper stage of the estrous cycle, and deposition of semen at the

appropriate location in the female reproductive tract. Collection of semen from wild species is usually accomplished by electroejaculation, which involves stimulation of ejaculation

by application of a mild, pulsating electrical

current through a lubricated rectal probe. The

process requires restraint and anesthesia of the

male, and semen obtained with this procedure

is often less fertile than that obtained in a natural ejaculate. Use of A.I. likewise requires the

ability to assess the reproductive status of the

female quite accurately, and insemination procedures must be developed that are consistent

with the biochemical and physical characteristics of the female reproductive tract.

Although artificial insemination has been attempted in many species of wild animals, it has

only been successful in a Iimited number and,

in most cases, with one animal in most species.

A.I. with frozen semen has been successful with

even fewer wild species (see table 6-4) such as

the wolf, gorilla, chimpanzee, and giant panda.

Effective use of embryo transfer requires even

greater control of an animal’s reproductive

processes (box 6-D and figure 6-l). Fertilized

ova and early embryos are recovered from the
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite . 153

Box 6-D.-Embryo Transfer

Embryo transfer is a well-established practice in the beef and dairy cattle industries. More than

200,000 transfers are performed annually throughout the world, mainly in the United States and Canada. Although the technique was first used with beef cattle, half the transfers are now in dairy cattle.

The objective is to increase the number of offspring of cows with valuable genetic traits, such as

rapid rates of growth and high levels of milk production. Using this procedure, one valuable cow

can produce on average 12 offspring a year.

The procedure involves inducing superovdation in a donor cow using gonadotrophin hormones,

so that she will produce six to eight eggs rather than one. The cow is artificially inseminated with

semen from a valuable, high-performance bull, and the embryos are collected by nonsurgically flushing the uterus after 6 to 8 days. Embryos that appear viable and healthy by microscopic examination

are transferred to recipient cows that are also at the sixth to eighth day of their estrous cycle. Normally one embryo is transferred to each recipient.

Several new technologies hold promise of making the process more efficient and increasing its

usefulness to animal agriculture. Among these is the ability to freeze bovine embryos. This procedure

is currently used by most embryo transfer companies, and 25 percent of the transfers in the United

States are with frozen embryos. Survival of the embryos is not perfect, however: Transfer of unfrozen

embryos average a 60-percent pregnancy rate, while frozen and thawed embryos can be expected

to yield pregnancy rates of 40 to 50 percent.

Another interesting development in this industry involves cloning bovine embryos. Once developed, this technique would allow the multiplication of large numbers of calves from one valuable

embryo. The cloned embryos could be frozen while other embryos from some clonal lines are tested

to determine if the line is of high value; valuable ones could be replicated using the frozen clones,

providing a powerful tool for livestock improvement. Several research stations are also experimenting with inserting genes for specific productivity traits, such as growth, into embryos before transfer.

The application of these new biotechnologies is expected to expand the size and usefulness of the

cattle embryo transfer industry.

Although embryo transfer could also be a useful tool in swine production, much of the technology

and the industry are not yet well developed. In swine, embryos must be collected and transferred

surgically. And the embryos do not survive freezing with present techniques. This procedure therefore has received little use in the swine industry. In addition, the cost of surgically recovering embryos is likely to preclude wide-scale use of this technology in the near future.

Based on the use of embryo transfer in cattle, research on the applicability of this technology

for wild species was begun in 1981. Although the nonsurgical collection techniques are similar, working with exotic species entails several unique problems, such as, the need to administer drugs by dart

or pole syringe and the need for anesthesia to perform even the simplest procedures. The ultimate

goal was to develop methods for using a common wild species (e.g., the eland antelope) as a surrogate

mother for a less common species (e.g., the bongo antelope).

In 1983, an eland calf was born to a surrogate eland mother, becoming the first non-domestic

issue of a nonsurgical embryo transfer. A transfer involving a frozen embryo was accomplished soon

thereafter. These successes were followed by attempts at interspecies transfer (i.e., a donor and surrogate of different species). Initial efforts for an eland-to-cow transfer were unsuccessful. The eland,

however, proved to be a suitable surrogate mother for an embryo collected from a bongo. This first

documented nonsurgical embryo transfer between two different species of wild animals indicates

that embryos can be gestated by surrogates of differmt species, offering hope for the future of endangered wildlife (figure 6-1).

SOURCE: Adapted from materiala provided by Dr. Neal Firet University of Wbxmsin and Dr. May Dreaaer, Cincinnati Wildlife Research

Federation.
I154 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 6-4.-Successful Artificial Insemination in

Non-domestic Mammals

Guanaco

Llama

Black buck

Bighorn sheep

Brown brocket deer

Reindeer

Red deer

Speke’s gazelle

Giant panda

Chimpanzee

Gorilla

Ferret

Fox

wolf

Persian leopard

Puma

Macaca monkey

Papio baboon

Squirrel monkey

SOURCE: B.L. Dresser, Cincinnati Wildllfe Research Federation, personal communications, Septemtw 19S6.

Photo credit: Zoological of San Diego

Collection of sperm samples for artificial insemination

and cryogenic storage from non-domestic species is part

of many off site conservation programs. Above, an African antelope, the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx gazella

dairnrnah) is tranquilized and undergoing semen

collection by electroejaculation.

reproductive tract of a donor female (the genetic

mother) and transferred into the tract of a recipient female (the foster mother), in whom the

embryos develop into full-term individuals. Successful embryo transfer requires synchronization of the estrous cycles of donor and recipient animals (figure 6-2). In domestic animals

this synchrony is usually achieved through exogenous hormone treatment. Donors are induced to produce an excess of eggs (superovulated) by injection of fertility hormones.

Superovulation has been fairly successful with

hoofed mammals, although the results vary considerably. Optimal drugs and dosages have yet
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite . 155

Figure 6-2.— Embryo Transfer Flowchart

Necessary steps in preparing donor and recipient animals

for embryo collection and transfer.

 Betsy Dresser, Director of Research, Cincinnati Wildlife Research 1 

to be identified in most other species. Donors

are mated naturally or by artificial insemination, and fertilized eggs are collected from the

female tract (surgically and nonsurgically) and

transferred (surgically or nonsurgically) to the

recipient female.

Development of embryo transfer techniques

is important to maintenance of genetic diversity within captive populations, given the considerations of transfer and disease control previously discussed. In addition, surrogate

mothers confer passive immunity to offspring

developed from transferred embryos. Thus, animals moved into new environments or reintroduced to the wild may benefit from being

carried by mothers acclimated to the new environment,

Several more-advanced techniques, studied

primarily in domestic animals, hold considerable potential for all species:

● Embryo Culture: This technique involves

maintenance of fertilized eggs outside the

body during the early stages of embryonic

development. The appropriate culture media for development differ among species,

but reliable techniques to culture embryos

for up to 24 hours exist for cattle, rabbits,

mice, sheep, and humans. Successful embryo culture is usually prerequisite to more

sophisticated in vitro embryo manipulation.

Embryo Storage: This technology involves

holding embryos in arrested development

for up to several days, Again, specific storage media must be developed for each

species. Embryo storage procedures can

greatly facilitate transfer of embryos over

long distances and in vitro embryo manipulation.

In Vitro Egg Maturation: This technique

involves the culturing of immature eggs to

maturity. Coupled with in vitro fertilization, this technique could dramatically increase the number of offspring that a given

female might produce. The reproductive

lifetime of the female is also lengthened because ova suitable for culturing can be obtained prior to sexual maturity as well as

after a female is no longer able to conceive

naturally.

In Vitro Fertilization: In a few species, it

is possible to remove unfertilized ova from

a female, mix them with semen in vitro,

and produce fertilized ova that will develop

normally when transferred back into a female, In cases of unexpected death of genetically valuable animals, ova can even

be collected from ovaries shortly after

death.

Embryo Splitting: A single embryo can,

under the proper conditions, be split into

two or four, and each part can subsequently

develop into a live offspring, Although the

offspring are genetically identical, this

process allows a much larger number of

offspring to be produced from each embryo

collection,

Interspecific Embryo Transfer: This involves transfer of embryos between related

species. Thus, embryos of a rare species

could be carried to term by a female of a

more common species. This technology

has enjoyed some success, but much more

research is needed. To date, successful in-
156 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Przewalski% homes can interbreed withthdr domestic relative, andtlm hybrids producad by such

cross8s were tiegedy incxwpmtad into the R%uwbE ‘axar’s oavdry ~d.

The disappearance d!theqeoka ww pm#M&ly duatu hunting and, mom important, to restricted

access to limited watm suppliti tlmt wam nwncqmlizd by nonmds tifheir MM& ofdonmstic animals.

The homes’ habitat remab, and plans exist to retire th~ spedaa to ite fornwr range in Mongolia.

This restoration effort invoivas tha cuop@rative activities of zmbgical parka in the United States,

the Soviet Union, the United l&tgdo~ and West and East Germany. Animaia will be provided by

zoological parks ftam their expanding populations.

The offsite comervatkm ofspeciw and preservation Ofgenstic diveisitythattkwe efforts reprment

may play an increasing rob in strategies to pravent ektinatimk. The interaction throtqjh movement

of individuals from offdte to onske ciwwrvation fhcilitks mkmea tlm chance of extinction and

simultaneously provides access to mm $pecias for wh.wationai and research purposes.

SOURCE: I)r. oliver Ryder, Research -rtment,*Die$o ZOO.

terspecific embryo transfers have occurred to horse, and Przewalski’s horse to pony

from mouflon (wild sheep) to domestic (see box 6-E) (9).

sheep, gaur to cattle, bongo to eland, zebra

The objectives of developing and using fiber production on an international scale is

genetic diversity differ between wild and al- oof paramount importance. In this context, the

mestic animals. For domestic animals, the po- most pertinent technologies are those that fatential contribution of rare breeds to food and cilitate the international movement and evalu-
ation of these breeds. Thus, the previously discussed technologies of disease control, artificial

insemination, embryo transfer, and cryopreservation of embryos and gametes are extremely

important. In particular, aggressive application

of state-of-the-art technologies for the control

of disease transmission would greatly facilitate

use of foreign germplasm.

Equally important, however, is the fact that

no organized program exists, either in the

United States or elsewhere, to sample, evaluate, preserve, and use available sources of germplasm (3). Current research organizations do

not have the resources to evaluate the many

unique breeds that exist worldwide. Evaluations of animal germplasm could, however, focus on the present and foreseeable U.S. and

world animal production and marketing environments and on the breeds that seem to have

the greatest potential for improving animal food

and fiber production systems (3).

For wild species, programs of development

and utilization are much less clear, The rationale for preservation of such species largely reflects the need to maintain the Earth’s ecological structure and, to many individuals,

utilization of wild species is inconsistent with

this goal. Yet products and processes observed

in wild species have been and will continue to

be of value to society. Armadillos, for example, provide a unique model of human leprosy.

As the understanding of molecular genetics and

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite 157

cellular biology expands, the unique physiological and metabolic processes found in many

wild animals are likely to have progressively

more important research and development applications.

The domestication of wild animals is an emotional issue. It implies imposition of human control of the mating and husbandry of a previously wild species. To many people, this step

is also inconsistent with the preservation of ecological diversity. However, the potential gains

from developing adapted populations of previously wild animals to produce food and fiber in harsh or severely restricted environments

may be too great to ignore. Thus, populations

of red deer in Europe and New Zealand are rapidly becoming domesticated (10), and different

species of deer are being crossed to improve

production characteristics (32), Eland and oryx

in Africa (47), capybara in South America (17),

and crocodiles and butterflies in Papua New

Guinea (33,34) are also being harvested in semicontrolled programs that may entail domestication of segments of these populations. In such

a situation, domestication should not be

avoided. Instead, great care must be taken to

ensure that protected, viable wild populations

are also maintained free of contamination from

domesticated subpopulations. Such an approach, though difficult, is necessary to meet

the joint goals of food production and maintenance of genetic diversity.

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Needs and opportunities for maintaining ani- movement will probably assist in maintaining

mal diversity offsite involve both application diversity. Mechanisms to monitor genetic diverof available technologies and development of sity in domestic populations are also badly

new technologies, Needs differ considerably be- needed,

tween wild and domestic animals, and these

two groups will be considered separately. For

wild animals, many of the needs involve adap- Wild Animals

tation of techniques that are currently available

for domestic animals, In some cases, these Expertise in Relevant Areas

adaptations are straightforward. In others, con- Maintenance of captive breeding populations

siderable basic research will be required. In al- oof wild animals requires that breeding promestic animals, efforts to assess and evaluate grams be based on principles of quantitative

global genetic resources and facilitate their genetic management to avoid losses in genetic
158 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

diversity. Likewise, a knowledge of the reproductive biology of the species is required to ensure efficient propagation of the animals in captivity. The need for expertise in these areas has

increased dramatically as offsite programs have

become more common and more complex. Efficient use of animals for genetic purposes requires extensive movement of germplasm

among institutions. These efforts are likely to

increasingly rely on transfer of semen or embryos, especially at the international level, placing a premium on scientific expertise.

To date, development of expertise in the application of reproductive biology and quantitative genetics management has largely occurred

through the initiatives of individual students

within traditional reproductive physiology or

quantitative genetics programs. In reproductive physiology, programs are usually directed

primarily toward domestic animals; efforts to

obtain skills applicable to wild species maybe

met at best with tolerance or at worst with active discouragement. Still, substantial interest

in the reproductive biology of wild animals has

been noted, and students of this field are increasingly tolerated. In quantitative genetics,

training programs tend to emphasize either the

theoretical aspects of quantitative genetics in

natural populations or the applied aspects of

breeding domestic animals. More opportunities to tailor courses to study of wild populations exist in this area than in reproductive

physiology, however.

Fellowships and traineeships in areas that

support maintenance of wild animal genetic

diversity could be provided on a competitive

basis to students in reproductive biology, cryobiology, population genetics, and animal behavior for studies applicable to the genetic and

reproductive management of captive populations of wild animals. The program could be

administered by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Emphasis would be placed on applying knowledge and theory to managed populations. One advantage of such a program

would be sensitization of faculty members to

the needs and opportunities in this area.

A grants program to allow selected educational institutions to expand their expertise in

supporting maintenance of genetic diversity

could be initiated. Grants could be awarded on

a competitive basis and could support extension of applied programs to captive wild species. Such a program would be relatively expensive, however, and would tend to concentrate

expertise instead of encouraging broad access

to needed training.

Facilities for Offsite Maintenance

In recent years, zoo administrators and others

have become aware of the need for wellplanned breeding programs to ensure maintenance of genetic diversity within captive populations. Substantial theoretical work has gone

into developing plans for existing or likely future facilities. The results suggest that today’s

facilities will not be sufficient to maintain

desired levels of diversity. However, zoo personnel appear to have developed mechanisms

to make choices (albeit not unanimous choices)

among competing possibilities. Still, without

additional facilities, losses of diversity appear

likely.

Development of captive maintenance and

breeding facilities could benefit from additional

funding. Such a program would enhance capabilities to preserve biological diversity offsite. Modest levels of funding could have a considerable impact, although substantial funds

would be required to address the total problem.

Funds could be channeled through the National

Zoo in Washington, DC, or through competitive grants to nonprofit zoological parks, Emphasis could be given to species that have

limited captive facilities.

Reproductive Biology and

Cryopreservatio n

The reproductive processes of most wild animals are not sufficiently understood to allow

optimum rates of reproduction under captive

management. This lack of information becomes

especially acute in light of increasing interest

in artificial insemination and embryo transfer

because these technologies require much greater

control of the reproductive process. Although

the critical elements that control reproduction

and cryopreservation in wild species are anal-
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite 159

ogous to those in domestic animals, important

differences exist. Thus, extending available

knowledge about domestic animals to wild animals will require accumulation of information

unique to each species or group of species. Optimum use of available individuals in programs

of captive breeding or cryopreservation will

depend on collecting this unique information.

Progress is being made in understanding the

reproductive processes of wild animals, but not

as quickly as it is needed or as it could be used.

Without additional research, many available

captive animals will continue to experience

suboptimal fertility, and fewer total individuals

of all species will be maintained at acceptable

population sizes in available facilities. Semen

from a number of wild species has already been

frozen and exhibits near-normal motility and

morphology when thawed, but its ability to result in conception is largely untested. Likewise,

successful use of frozen embryos has occurred

in only a few species.

A program of competitive grants to support

research on the reproductive biology and

cryopreservation of wild animals could be initiated. This program could be administered

through NSF and would channel funds to both

basic studies on the reproductive biology and

cryobiology of wild animals and to applied

studies of control of reproduction, artificial insemination and embryo transfer. preference

could be given to existing programs that emphasize the integration of programs for wild

and domestic animals.

Another approach could be establishing a few

centers for study of the reproductive biology

of wild animals. These centers could serve as

focuses for programs of basic and applied research. They should be sufficiently well funded

to allow broad programs of research onsite as

well as extramural research with cooperating

institutions, The centers could likewise serve

as repositories for frozen gametes and embryos

from endangered populations as techniques are

perfected.

Basic Research in Population Biology

and Genetics

Much of the basic theory of population

genetics was derived in the first half of the 20th

century and was adapted to applications in domestic animal breeding in the 1940s and 1950s.

Current interest in developing breeding programs to maintain representative levels of

genetic diversity within populations of minimum size has introduced several new programdesign questions. These questions relate to such

things as the amount and nature of genetic

diversity that can be lost without compromising the long-term evolutionary potential of the

species, the importance to evolutionary potential of rare genes (which are easily lost by

genetic drift), the long-term importance of mutation to maintenance of diversity (22), and the

importance of genetic diversity (both among

and within species) to maintenance of the integrity of entire ecosystems. In many cases,

these questions deal with validation of longterm quantitative genetics theory; answering

them will require imaginative syntheses of the

disciplines of genetics and ecology.

Some of the needed research is currently being done or has been planned. Without direction, however, it will occur in a piecemeal way,

with no assurance that issues of the highest priority will be addressed. A program of competitive grants to support development, extension,

and validation of quantitative genetic theory

related to questions of maintaining biological

diversity could be developed. This program

could be administered through NSF and would

require less funding (because of fewer equipment needs) than programs in reproductive

biology or cryopreservation. Such a program

could provide a focus for needed efforts in this

area and a mechanism for screening competing proposals to identify those that address

areas of highest priority.

Objective Assessment of Global

Genetic Resources

The potential contributions of indigenous

stocks of animal agriculture both in their coun-
160 Technologies to Maintain Biologic Diversity

try of origin and internationally needs to b e

assessed. Experience with the prolific Finnish

Landrace and Booroola Merino sheep (31,36)

and with Sahiwal cattle (24,48) has shown that

local, specialized stocks can often have wide

utility outside their country of origin. Likewise,

comprehensive performance evaluations of

crosses of indigenous and imported breeds suggest that local animals may make important

contributions to final performance of the crossbreed (5). The use in West Africa of native cattle resistant to trypanosomiasis (23) is an important example. To assess the contributions

of such breeds, objective information must be

available to potential users. In many cases,

some details exist but they are fragmented and

difficult to locate and gain access to. In other

cases, only anecdotal information is available.

Considerable international awareness of the

need for such assessments exists. Efforts to at

least list and broadly categorize breed resources

have been initiated in Europe (30), Latin America (13), and Eastern Asia and Oceania (41),

These efforts have been coordinated by the

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of

the United Nations (14). Efforts in most of the

developing countries have, however, been hampered by insufficient funding to develop electronic databases and library reference facilities.

On balance, efforts to date deserve credit and

have achieved some successes but are still insufficient.

No comparable assessment of breed resources has been undertaken for North America yet, so commissioning one would indicate

support for efforts elsewhere and represent a

minimal contribution by North American countries to a global accounting. The assessment

could be coordinated by the National Academy

of Sciences (NAS) or the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) with technical support

from relevant professional societies (American

Society of Animal Science, American Dairy Science Association, Poultry Science Association,

and Canadian Society of Animal Science) and

private agencies (e.g., American Minor Breeds

Conservancy). A recently initiated NAS project

on global genetic resources could address domestic animal genetic resources and develop

options for improving the present efforts.

Limited additional financial and technical

support for development of databases and library reference facilities in existing foreign

centers could be provided (14). In many cases,

funds for microcomputers, software, and reference materials could provide a major improvement in the capabilities of existing institutions

at limited cost. Necessary funds and consulting personnel could be channeled through

USDA, FAO, or the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID).

Another approach could be the development

of an international center for animal genetic

resources that would be charged with maintenance of a comprehensive base of information

on domestic animal germplasm resources. The

center could maintain and update files on the

status, trends, and characteristics of domestic

breeds worldwide and provide information to

potential users of this germplasm. Charges

would be made to clients requesting information, but to function properly, considerable public subsidization would probably be required.

The center could be a branch of USDA or a part

of the National Agricultural Library. This plan

has the potential disadvantage of moving responsibility for maintenance of the necessary

databases out of national and regional institutions, or at least deemphasizing the roles of such

institutions. Such an approach would tend to

reduce the emphasis on breed evaluation and

preservation at the grassroots level in the countries of origin.

Major new funding to support breed evaluation and characterization efforts could be provided, Even though considerable information

already exists on many foreign breeds, the material is often fragmented and limited to only

descriptive characteristics. The initiation and

support of several major projects to objectively

evaluate and compare indigenous breeds to potential imported breeds for the full array of

productive traits in the country or region of origin would be a tremendous asset in terms of

knowledge of global genetic resources. Funding could be channeled through USDA or AID.
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversify Offsite 161

Such a project would require major new funding, incIuding support for development of necessary foreign facilities.

Facilitation of International Movement

of GermpIasm

Effective use of global germplasm requires

that mechanisms exist to facilitate the movement of such resources, This is especially important for specialized breeds in developing

countries, such as prolific Chinese pigs (52),

which may have utility in crossbreeding programs in industrial countries. The international

movement of germplasm is often difficult because of different countries’ health-related

import-export requirements. This area involves

both technologies for actual movement of germplasm (embryo transfer, semen and embryo collection, etc.) and technologies for prevention

of disease transmission.

The United States currently maintains facilities for quarantine and disease-testing at Plum

Island, NY, and Flemming Key, FL, These stations provide U.S. breeders access to foreign

breeds. The approach taken has usually been

to provide use of these facilities to importers

in the private sector and to require that the cost

of importation be borne completely by the importer, Importation of some breeds of sheep and

swine has been supported by public (USDA)

funds, but these cases are the exceptions.

Assessing private sector importers for importation costs does allow the expense to be borne

by those likely to receive economic benefit from

the sale of imported animals, but it ignores the

public benefits likely to accrue from access to

foreign germplasm. When the decision to import a breed lies solely within the private sector, preference will be given to more traditional

breeds judged to have the most speculative potential while unique breeds of undocumented

value will usually be ignored,

USDA and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) could be directed to

pursue an aggressive program of screening, importation, and evaluation of promising foreign

breeds. Such a program would involve both a

redirection of existing funds and appropriation

of modest new funds. Such a program would

recognize the existence of promising foreign

breeds and likewise acknowledge that the

procurement of these breeds is a matter of public interest. A considerable improvement i n

U.S. access to foreign germplasm could be accomplished through such a program with existing technology.

New funding for research and development

on the diagnosis and neutralization of foreign

diseases could be provided to APHIS and other

research laboratories through a system of competitive grants. This new funding could be accompanied by a mandate to aggressively pursue importation of promising foreign

germplasm into the United States. Objectives

of the program would be, first, to validate and

apply recently developed technologies for disease diagnosis (ELISA, DNA probes, etc.) and,

second, to improve on and extend these technologies. Such a program should be able to

accelerate access to foreign germplasm.

The training of foreign professionals in areas

that support germplasm transfer could be supported. These areas would include veterinary

pathology, reproductive biology, with emphasis on techniques for gamete and embryo collection and transfer, and cryobiology. In many

cases, germplasm transfer is limited by insufficient expertise and facilities in the country of

origin. An expanded training program for foreign students and professionals would increase

the chances that the needed expertise existed

onsite. Considerable opportunities for foreign

professionals to receive this kind of training

already exist, however. A major problem is that

students receive sophisticated training in highly

technical areas but have insufficient facilities

and equipment to put their training to use when

they return home.

The development and improvement of foreign centers for transfer of germplasm could

be supported. This improvement would require

new funding to allow development of centers

in major geographical areas of the world. These

centers could serve as focuses for a fui[ range

of considerations relating to maintenance of

biological diversity. In particular, equipment
162 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

and expertise for collection, preparation for

shipment, and preservation of gametes and embryos could be concentrated in such institutions. Facilities for quarantine and diagnostic

testing using advanced technologies would

greatly facilitate germplasm transfer. To be effective, these centers would have to be well

funded and equipped on a continuing basis.

Ideally, they would address a range of biological

diversity issues, for wild as well as domestic

animals, including maintenance of information

centers and repositories for cryopreservation

of frozen semen and embryos of rare native

breeds.

Losses Of Genetic Diversity

Among and Within Broods

Indiscriminate crossbreeding of so-called improved breeds from industrial nations coupled

with increasing intensification within the poultry, swine, and dairy industries have resulted

in reductions in global breed diversity and may

lead to substantial losses of rare breeds. Within

some of the major commercial breeds of livestock, losses in genetic diversity may also be

occurring because of narrow selection goals

and intensified use of individual sires and their

sons through artificial insemination.

A National Board for Domestic Animal Resources could be established, composed of representatives from USDA, universities, private

foundations, and industry. The board could provide a mechanism to coordinate animal germplasm conservation activities. The program

could be established through a directive to a

lead agency such as USDA and would not require additional legislation. Such aboard would

identify potential sources of foreign germplasm

for import and monitor the status of genetic

diversity within commercial breeds. It could

also monitor the status of rare breeds within

the United States and make recommendations

for their preservation and use. The board could

act as a liaison with institutions in other countries and show a U.S. commitment to maintenance of domestic animal biological diversity.

It would be primarily advisory in nature but

should possess some funding to implement its

recommendations to function effectively.

An International Board on Domestic Animal

Resources could also be established. This board

could provide international coordination of

programs, set standards and coordinate the exchange and storage of germplasm, and provide

funds to support activities in developing countries, probably at the regional level. Some efforts have already been made in this direction,

and the United States could support and expand these efforts.

A program to identify, conserve, and use endangered breeds of potential value worldwide

could be developed. It could identify rare breeds

of potential value worldwide, with subsequent

negotiation of procedures to protect and maintain the genetic integrity of these populations

within the country of origin. If maintenance

of such populations within the country of origin could not be assured, the United States

could support collection and cryogenic storage

of gametes and embryos. Semen of all mammalian livestock can be successfully frozen, as

can embryos of all mammalian livestock species except the pig. Such storage could be located in this country to ensure maximum safet y

of the preserved material, and it would include

material that could not be imported as live animals under current animal health regulations.

Efforts such as these would require close cooperation with the countries of origin of the

various breeds to avoid the perception of exploitation of foreign resources for the sole benefit of the United States.

A program like this could also monitor the

status of genetic diversity within commercial

populations in the United States. This monitoring would involve interacting with industry to ensure maintenance of genetically diverse

poultry control strains, retaining semen from

a wide sample of dairy bulls as a reservoir of

genetic diversity, and monitoring the status of

other species.
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 163

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

CHAPTER 6

Ashwood-Smith, M, J., and Grant, E., “Genetic

Stability in Cellular Systems Stored in the Frozen State, ” The Freezing of Mammalian Embryos, K, Elliott and J. Whelan (eds.) (Amsterdam: Elsevier, lgpi’).

Conway, W, G,, “The Practical Difficulties and

Financial Implications of Endangered Species

Breeding Programs, ” International Zoo Yearbook, 1986.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, “Animal Germ Plasm Preservation and Utilization in Agriculture, ” Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Report No. 101,

1984 .

Cunningham, E. P., “European Friesians—The

Canadian and American Invasion, ” Animal

Genetic Resources Information, January 1983,

pp. 21-23.

DeAlba, J., and Kennedy, B. W., “Criollo and

Temperate Dairy Cattle and Their Crosses in a

Humid Tropical Environment,” Animal Genetic

Resources Conservation by Management, Data

Banks and Training, FAO Animal Production

and Health Paper 44/1, 1984, pp. 102-104.

Denniston, C., “Small Population Size and

Genetic Diversity Implications for Endangered

Species,” Endangered Birds, S. Temple (cd,)

(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press,

1977), Pp. 281-289.

Douglass, E. M., and Gould, K, G., “Artificial Insemination in Lowland Gorilla (GoriJla gorilla), ”

Proceedings of the American Association of Zoo

Veterinarians, 1981, pp. 128-130.

Dresser, B. L., Kramer, L,, Dahlhausen, R. D.,

Pope, C. E., and Baker, R. D., “Cryopreservation

Followed by Successful Transfer of African

Eland Antelope (Tragelaphus oryx) Embryos, ”

Proceedings of the Ioth International Congress

on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, 1984, pp. 191-193.

Dresser, B. L., and Leibo, S. P., “Technologies To

Maintain Animal Germ Plasm in Domestic and

Wild Species, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.

Drew, K.R. (cd.), Advances in Deer Farming

(Wellington, New Zealand: Editorial Services,

Ltd., 1978).

Eaglesome, M. D., Hare, W. C. D., and Singh,

E. L., “Embryo Transfer: A Discussion of Its Potential for Infectious Disease Control Based on

a Review of Studies on Infection of Gametes and

Early Embryos by Various Agents, ” Canadian

Veterinary Journal 21:106-112, 1980.

Fitzhueh. H. A.. Getz. W.. and Baker. F. H.. “Bio13.

14.

15.

16,

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

logical Diversity: Status and Trends for Agricultural Domesticated Animals, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the

United Nations, “Recursos Geneticos Animales

en Americana Latina, ” FAO Animal Production

and Health Paper 22, 1981.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the

United Nations, “Animal Genetic Resources

Conservation by Management, Data Banks and

Training, “ FAO Animal Production and Health

Paper 44/1, 1984.

Franklin, I. R., “Evolutionary Change in Small

Population,” Conservation Biology, M.E. Soul~

and B.A. Wilcox (eds. ) (Sunderland, MA:

Sinauer Associates), 1980, pp. 135-149.

Glenister, P. H., Whittingham, D. G,, and Lyon,

M. F,, “Further Studies on the Effect of Radiation During the Storage of Frozen 8-Cell Mouse

Embryos at – 1960 C,” Journal of Reproduction

and Fertility 70:229-234, 1984.

Gonzalez-Jeminez, E., “The Capybara: An Indigenous Source of Meat in Tropical America, ”

World Animal Review 21:24-30, 1977.

Graham, E, F., Schmehl, M. R., and Deyo,

R, C. M., “Cryopreservation and Fertility of Fish,

Poultry and Mammalian Spermatozoa, ” Proceedings of the Iuth Technical Conference on

Artificial Insemination and Reproduction, National Association of Animal Breeders, 1984, pp.

4-29,

Hare, W, C, D., and Singh, E. L., “Control of Infectious Agents in Bovine Embryos, ” Proceedings of an International Symposium on Microbiological Tests for the International Exchange of

Animal Genetic Material, 1984, pp. 80-85.

Heuschele, W. P., “Management of Animal Disease Agents and Vectors Potentially Hazardous

for Animal Germ Plasm Resources, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985,

Hill, W. G., “Estimation of Genetic Change, I:

General Theory and Design of Control Populations, ” Animal Breeding Abstracts 40:1-15,

1972.

Hill, W. G., “Predictions of Response to Artificial Selection From New Mutations, ’ Genetical Research 40:255-278, 1982.

International Livestock Centre for Africa, “Trypanotolerant Livestock in West and Central

Africa, Volume I: General Study,” International

Livestock Centre for Africa Monograph z, Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia, l!lTg.

International Livestock Centre for Africa, “Sa-
164 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

hiwal Cattle: An Evaluation of Their Potential

Contribution to Milk and Beef Production in

Africa, ” International Livestock Centre for

Africa Monograph 3, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,

1981.

25. King, J. W. B., “Genetic Exhaustion in SinglePurpose Breeds,” Proceedings of the FAO/UNEP

Technical Consultation on Animal Genetic Resources Conservation and Management, FAO

Animal Production and Health Paper 24, 1981,

Pp. 230-242.

26. Land, R. B., “An Alternate Philosophy for Livestock Breeding, ” Livestock Production Science

8:95-99, 1981.

27. Lande, R,, and Barrowclough, G. F., “Effective

Population Size, Genetic Variation and Their

Use in Population Management,” Viable Populations, M.E. Soul~ (cd.) (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Co., 1986).

28. Lasley, B. L., and Wing, A., “Stimulating Ovarian Function in Exotic Carnivores With Pulses

of GnRH, ” Proceedings of the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians, 1983, p. 14,

29. Loskutoff, N. M., Ott, J. E., and Lasley, B. L.,

“Monitoring the Reproductive Status of the

Okapi (Okapia johnstoni],” Proceedings of the

American Association of Zoo Veterinarians,

1981, P. 149.

30. Maijala, K,, Cherekaev, A. V., Devillard, J. M.,

Reklewski, Z., Rognoni, G., Simon, D. L., and

Steane, D. E., “Conservation of Animal Genetic

Resources in Europe, Final Report of an E. A,A.P,

Working Party, ” Livestock Production Science

11:3-22, 1984,

31. Maijala, K., and Osterberg, S., “Productivity of

Pure Finnsheep in Finland and Abroad,” Livestock Production Science 4:355-377, 1977.

32. Moore, G. H., “Deer Imports,” New Zealand

Agricultural Science 18:19-24, 1984.

33. National Research Council, “Butterfly Farming

in Papua New Guinea” (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983).

34. National Research Council, “Crocodiles as a Resource for the Tropics” (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983).

3s. Netter, D. R., and Foose, T. J., “Concepts and

Strategies To Maintain Domestic and Wild Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commissioned paper,

1985.

36. Piper, L. R,, Bindon, B. M., and Nethery, R.D.

(eds.), The Booroola Merino (Melbourne, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research Organization, 1980),

37. Pope, C. E., Pope, V. Z., and Beck, L. R., “Live

Birth Following Cryopreservation and Transfer

of a Baboon Embryo, ” Fertility and Sterility

42:143-145, 1984.

38, Seiger, S. W. J., “A Review of Artificial Methods

of Breeding in Captive Wild Species, ” The

Dodo, journal of the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust 18:79-93, 1981.

39. Simon, D. L., “Conservation of Animal Genetic

Resources—A Review, ” Livestock Production

Science 11:23-36, 1984.

40. Smith, C., “Genetic Aspects of Conservation in

Farm Livestock, ” Livestock Production Science

11:3-48, 1984.

41. Society for the Advancement of Breeding Researchers in Asia and Oceania, “Evaluation of

Animal Genetic Resources in Asia and Oceania)” Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1981.

42. Somes, R. G., “International Registry of Poultry

Genetic Stocks, ” Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 469, 1984.

43. Soul&, M. E,, Gilpin, M., Conway, W., and Foose,

T., “The Millennium Ark: How Long the Voyage, How Many Staterooms, How Many Passengers?” Zoobio]ogy 5:101-114, 1986.

44. Stalheim, O.H.V. (cd.), “Proceedings of an International Symposium on Microbiological

Tests for the International Exchange of Animal

Genetic Material” (Madison, WI: American

Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, 1984).

45, Stalheim, O. H. V., Bartlett, D. E., Carbrey, E. H.,

Knutson, W. W., Landford, E. V., and Seigfried,

L., “Recommended Procedures for the Microbiologic Examination of Semen” (Madison, WI:

American Association of Veterinary Laboratory

Diagnosticians, 1979).

46. Templeton, A. R., and Read, B., “The Elimination of Inbreeding Depression in a Captive Herd

of Speke’s Gazelle, ” Genetics and Conservation,

C.M. Schonewald-Cox, S.M. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and L. Thomas (eds,) (Menlo Park, CA:

Benjamin/Cummings, 1983).

47. Thresher, P., “The Economics of Domesticated

Oryx Compared With That of Cattle,” World

Animal Review 36:37-43, 1980,

48, Trail, J. C. M., “Cattle Breed Evaluation Studies

by the International Livestock Centre for

Africa,” Animal Genetic Resources Information, January 1983, pp. 17-20.

49, Wallace, B,, and Vetukhiv, M,, “Adaptive Organization of the Gene Pools of Drosophila Populations,” Gold Spring Harbor Symposium on

Quantitative Biology 20:303-309, 1955.

50, VVhittingham, D. G., Leibo, S. Y., and Mazar, P.,
“Survival of Mouse Embryos Frozen to – 1960

and – 260° C,” Science 178:411-414, 1972.

51. Wilmut, I., “Effect of Cooling Rate, Warming

Rate, Cryoprotection Agent, and Stage of Development on Survival of Mouse Embryos During

Cooling and Thawing, ” Life Science 11, Part

2:1071-1079, 1972.

52, Zhang, W., Wu, J. S., and Rempel, W. E., “Some

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 165

Performance Characteristics of Prolific Breeds

of Pigs in China, ” Livestock Production Science

10:59-68, 1983.

53. Zimmerman, D.R. and Cunningham, P. J., “Selection for Ovulation Rate in Swine: Population,

Procedures and Ovulation Response, ” Journal

of Animal Science 40:61-69, 1975.
Chapter 7

Maintaining

Plant Diversity

Offsite
CONTENTS

Page

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................,.169

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*..*,* ● .*..... . . 169

Objectives of Offsite Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....169

Considerations in Selecting Technologies . .................,....,.,..171

Collecting Samples .. .., O.. .. O....., . ...............,,,..,......,...17 3

Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............,.....,173

Selecting Sites for Collecting .. ., D O, . . . . . . . . . . ,, ...................173

Quarantine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,..,......175

Quarantine and Plant Importation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..,......,.177

Safeguards for Reducing Risk in Imported Germplasm. . ............,..177

Storing Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................,178

Conventional Seed Storage, . . . . . . . . . ...................,.......,...180

Cryogenic Storage of Seeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......,183

Field Maintenance and Controlled Environments . ....................184

pollen Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................184

Biotechnology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.,,.,.,,,...,....185

Management of Stored Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....187

Using Plants Stored Offsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., ... ..190

Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ... ...,l90

Traditional Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,.,..........,..,...191

Biotechnological Improvement ● O..**. , . . . . . . . . . ● ***..* . 191

Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, ...........194

Develop a Standard Operating Procedure . .................,...,..,.,194

Improve Movement of Germplasm Through Quarantine . ..,...........196

Promote Basic Research on Maintenance and Use of Plant Germplasm ..196

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................197

Tables

Table No. Page

7-1. Crops and Trees Commonly Prohibited Entry by Quarantine

Regulations in 125 Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,178

7-2. Technologies and Practices To Detect Pests and Diseases of

Quarantine Significance and the Pathogens to Which They Are Most

Frequently Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........,.179

7-3. Storage Technologies for Germplasm of Different Plants . .......,....179

7-4. Estimated Costs of Conventional and Cryogenic Storage . ........,,..184

7-!5. Somaclonal Variationin Economically Important Plant Species . ......193

Figures

Figure No. Page

7-1. Regions of the World Where Major Food Crops Were Domesticated ..,176

7-2. Maintenance Process of a P1ant Seed Bank . ...............,,.,.,...180

Boxes

Box N o. Page3

7-A. Definitions Relevant to Offsite Plant Collections . ...............,...170

7-B. The History of Plant Collection ..*.**. ● .**.,** ,..,.0.. . . . . . . . . . . . 174

7-C. Breeding and the Development of Gaines Wheat. . .................,192
Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite

HIGHLIGHTS

. Seed storage techniques are being used to conserve the genetic diversity of

cereals, legumes, and many other important crop species. Some plants, however, do not produce seeds that can be stored. Eventually, this problem may

be resolved with techniques for in vitro storage of plant tissue, from which

whole plants can be regenerated. At present, the main alternative to seed storage is to grow entire specimens in the field.

● New technologies, including cryogenic storage of seeds and clones, use of biochemical methods to characterize accessions, and improved methods to detect

pathogens in plant materials transferred internationally, have the potential to

increase the cost-effectiveness of maintaining plant diversity offsite. Progress,

however, is constrained by a lack of fundamental research on plant physiology, reproductive processes, and the mechanisms of genetic and cellular change.

● Priorities and protocols for collecting and maintaining germplasm of major

crop plants are internationaIIy coordinated. However, they are not wellorganized for minor crops or for wild plants that are endangered or have economic potential.

● Long-term public and private support for germplasm storage facilities depends

on whether the stored materials prove to be valuable. The use of offsite collections can be improved by characterizing the genetic diversity contained in the

collections and evaluating collections for important traits.

 Major breakthroughs in biotechnologies might eventually lead to fundamental

changes in how biological diversity is maintained. Even so, a large portion

of public resources for technology development should be used in improving

the application of existing technologies, such as cryogenic storage of germplasm, that are important to society but are not attractive to the private sector

to support.

OVERVIEW

One approach to maintaining plant diversity

involves collecting samples of agricultural and

wild species and storing them in offsite collections, Such collections can assemble agriculturally, geographically, and ecologically diverse

plants for use in crop improvement, genetic research, or plant conservation. This chapter assesses technologies of collecting, storing, and

using plants offsite,

Objectives Offsite Collections

Offsite collections of agricultural crops bring

together varieties and related species from

widely dispersed areas (box 7-A). These collections conserve plant genetic resources threatened with loss or extinction. They also serve

as a convenient source of new genes for public

and private plant improvement. The highly suc169
170 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
cessful rice variety 1R36 developed by the International Rice Research Institute resulted

from the crossbreeding of 13 accessions in their

collections of rice from the United States and

several Asian countries (Pg). wild plant collections help to preserve endangered species, supply materials to restore degraded lands, and

provide material for genetic improvement of

crops.

Botanic gardens and arboretums aretheprimary repositories for wild plant species (69,

112). Arboretums have been particularly important for maintaining individual trees and shrubs

that may have little commercial significance

(69). These facilities may also have commitments to public education and display that can

result in selecting plants with special or unusual

characteristics rather than those representing

the genetic diversity within the species. However, many such institutions are now giving

greater attention to the potential contributions

they can make to maintaining plant diversity

(12,34),

Considerations in SeIecting

Technologies

No single technology is appropriate for all

the plants stored in offsite collections. Several

Ch. 7—Maintaining P/ant Diversity Offsite 171

considerations affect the selection of appropriate technologies such as biological limitations

of the species, reliability of the technology, and

cost.

Biological Limitations

Seeds are the most commonly and easily

stored propagules of plants. When placed in

conditions that reduce their moisture content

to approximately 5 to 6 percent, seeds of many

species will remain viable for years. Lowered

temperatures can further extend storage life.

Seeds able to withstand reduction in moisture

and temperature are called orthodox seeds.

Most of the major food crops (e.g., cereals and

legumes) have orthodox seeds, and many, when

properly dried, withstand cooling to – 196° C,

the temperature used in cryopreservation (58,

85,89,100,108).

Seeds that cannot survive a reduction in moisture content are called recalcitrant seeds. Recalcitrant seeds are found in many important tropical species, a few temperate tree species, and

some aquatic plants (8,42,83,100,108,118).

Reducing the water content of recalcitrant

seeds severely shortens their life span. Thus,

they cannot be stored like orthodox seeds: cooling to subfreezing temperatures would lead to

 Board for Genetic Resources

Many temperate and tropical species such as coffee and oil palm have seeds that cannot be stored for long periods;

for this reason, collection of woody cuttings is preferred.
172 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

formation of ice, resulting in damaged cells and

death of seeds. Instead, plants with recalcitrant

seeds are commonly stored as field collections.

Research on the physiology of recalcitrant seeds

may lead to methods for long-term seed maintenance of these species. In vitro plantlet or embryo culture, coupled with cryogenic storage,

may also eventually become useful for these

species.

Two other biological limitations may restrict

the maintenance of some plants. First, the qualities that distinguish a particular variety (e.g.,

flower color and shape in roses; or the color,

flavor, and texture of a peach) may not be preserved in plants grown from seeds, For many

fruit and nut varieties, retention of these specific qualities is only possible through clonal

propagation, which entails producing plants

from cuttings or by grafting. Second, some

plants do not produce seeds readily because of

inappropriate environmental conditions, physiological barriers, or genetic inabilities, In some

cases, such as many varieties of banana or the

tropical yams (Dioscorea), plants are sterile and

seeds cannot be obtained. Basic studies of physiology are needed to improve understanding

of the processes controlling flowering and seed

production for both cultivated and wild plant

species.

Reliability

The reliability of technology refers to both

the potential for loss (by natural causes, accident, or equipment failure) and the likelihood

of genetic alteration during storage.

The potential for loss by natural causes is

higher in field collections than in seed collections. Pests, diseases, and environmental conditions can decimate field collections. Therefore,

collections should be duplicated in different

locations to ensure against loss. Greenhouses

or other controlled environments may reduce

the potential for loss by reducing environmental

exposure. Research of in vitro culture may lead

to alternatives to field collections that are free

from disease and environmental uncertainties.

Collections are also subject to equipment failure. As a backup measure, mechanical refrigeration compressors should have alternative

power systems to prevent warming, which may

adversely affect the viability of stored seeds

(100). Cryogenic techniques do not rely on external power sources or mechanical cooling systems. And though containers may develop

leaks, the risks to security are considered much

less than for mechanical refrigeration (100,101).

Some novel approaches to reducing dependence on mechanical cooling systems are being tested. The Nordic Gene Bank in Sweden

recently established a long-term storage facility in old mines dug into the permafrost (125).

The Polish Government proposed establishing

a world seed collection in Antarctic ice caves,

but this approach raises questions about storage temperatures and about ease of access and

political control (55). An approach being developed in Argentina is to use the cold nights

of mountain environments to cool a specially

constructed storage vault (55). These options,

while interesting, are suitable for only certain

countries and are still experimental.

Genetic stability of plants can be affected in

several ways. Mutations in orthodox seeds may

increase as samples lose their ability to germinate (84,108). Growing out samples subjects

them to conditions that will select against certain individuals and thus reduce genetic diversity in the sample (88). Cryogenic storage can

improve genetic stability by slowing viability

loss and lengthening the time needed between

regenerations. For in vitro cultures, genetic mutation becomes a concern when the tissues are

growing as unorganized calli. Cryogenic storage of such cultures could suppress mutation

by arresting growth, but more research on plant

development and cryopreservation of in vitro

cultures is still needed (90,108).

Costs

A final consideration in the selection of technologies is cost. In seed storage facilities, expenses are incurred with monitoring viability

and regenerating samples. Mechanical refrigeration systems can be expensive because of

continuous energy costs. Cryogenic storage can

lower long-term costs by reducing the fre-
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 173

quency of viability monitoring and regeneration. However, cryogenic storage is economical for only certain plant species; larger seeds,

such as beans, may be stored more economically under mechanical refrigeration (102).

In vitro cultures may be more economical

than extensive field collections, particularly if

the cultures are stored cryogenically. However,

further research and development is needed on

both in vitro culture and cryogenic storage,

COLLECTING SAMPLES

Collecting samples involves the development

of strategies as well as the actual collection of

plants. Developing strategies can be facilitated

by analyzing plants already in storage, Ideally,

a strategy would provide for the collection of

all genetic variants of a species without redundancy (37) (box 7-B).

Strategies

Considerations of economic or esthetic importance, rarity, degree of endangerment, access, genetic diversity, and similarity to plants

already stored offsite can all influence the setting of strategies.

For the major agricultural species, collection

strategies have been established by considering the data on plants already collected, geographic distribution of crop species, particular needs of breeders, and the economic or

social importance of the crop (117). The International Board for Plant Genetic Resources has

established a system of priority ratings to guide

collectors: priority 1 crops are those with most

urgent global collection needs; Priorities 2, 3,

and 4 indicate descending orders of urgency

(51,73),

Strategies are less clearly established for the

collection of most wild species (66), In general,

those threatened in their natural environment

or of display value have received greater attention (69,1 12). A formal system for coordinating conservation activities has only recently

been established (34,112). Botanic gardens,

commercial institutions, and private collections

have been growing and propagating rare plants

for years but without concern for obtaining a

range of genetic diversity (69). organizations

such as the Botanic Gardens Conservation Coordinating Body of the International Union for

the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the Center for Plant Conservation at the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard

University are beginning to focus the expertise

and resources of botanic gardens, arboretums,

and private collectors to improve offsite maintenance of wild plants.

Selecting Sites for Collecting

Studies of the geographic distribution of

plants, the experiences of scientists and plant

collectors, computer-based models, and rePhoto credit M O’Grady

Collecting natural rubber in the Amazon forest.

Natural rubber still has many industrial uses for which

synthetic rubber cannot be employed.
174 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

search on the origins of plants have enabled

scientists to locate regions rich in diversity of

crop species. The regions where most of the

major crop species were originally domesticated and developed are known as centers of

diversity, after a scheme first proposed by botanist N.I. Vavilov of the Soviet Union (45,57).

At least 12 centers of diversity are now recognized (figure 7-1). Primitive varieties and related

wild species that are able to survive in diverse

habitats and resist a variety of crop-specific diseases can be located in these areas.

Some guidelines are available for collecting

a genetically diverse sample (12,47). For instance, plants growing in areas of different soil,

water, or light conditions may represent types

that have genetic adaptations and could prove

to be valuable sources of particular genetic

traits. But guidelines for collecting seeds or
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 175

 de Papa (C/P)

Collecting wild potato species in South America,

a center of potato diversity.

other propagation materials (cuttings, tubers,

etc.) are only general and may be altered by specific conditions in the field. For example, the

Central America and Mexico Coniferous Resources Cooperative (CAMCORE) has established guidelines for environmental and geographic factors to consider, depending on the

number of trees to collect from, and the amount

of seed to be collected (25,26). But if collectors

encounter small populations of tree species, collection is made from any tree with seed (26).

Thus, the guidelines for a collecting expedition

depend heavily on the expertise and judgment

of the individual collector.

Scientists and experienced collectors also

provide helpful information on collecting sites.

Several of the large so-called genetic stock collections of crop germplasm in the United States,

such as the one for tomato at the University

of California-Davis, are overseen by a few individuals with special interests in that crop. The

knowledge these people have about origins and

distribution of a crop is frequently the result

of extensive observations and field collecting

experiences.

Computer-based modeling is another potentially useful tool for predicting the location of

sites appropriate for collecting. Data from a few

key locations may provide information on the

distribution of a particular crop trait, such as

drought tolerance. A map can then be constructed by computer-based extrapolation of

neighboring regions. Areas likely to contain

plants with similar characteristics could be

selected (2). However, this technology has its

limitations. This kind of analysis requires precise data on latitude, longitude, and elevation

for collected plants, for example—information

that is not currently available in most crop databases (2). And because overall geographic information comes from satellite imagery, it can

be prohibitively expensive (2). Political or other

(e.g., geographic) restrictions on collecting in

some areas may also make acquisition of plant

samples difficult. Finally, data for the initial

profile are obtained from sites chosen by statistical analysis, and plant distribution may not

parallel these mathematically chosen sites. Refinements in existing databases, collection information, and artificial intelligence systems

may someday allow such models to assist in

collecting. However, it seems the importance

of using existing data for such tasks has been

overlooked (46).

Quarantine

After samples have been collected, complications may arise in transporting them. Movement of plants from one region to another always carries some risk that pests (nematodes,

snails, insects, etc.) or pathogens (viruses, bacteria, or fungi) will also be transported (14,59,
176 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

I

.,
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite . 177

60). Plants destined for offsite collections, particularly those from centers of diversity, can

present particular quarantine concerns. These

centers possess not only considerable crop

diversity but also widely adapted crop pests and

pathogens. An area where coffee and the disease coffee-rust coexist, for example, would be

a likely place to obtain plants with rust resistance genes, but it could also have pathogens

that have adapted to coffee plants (60).

The presence of most exotic pests can be determined by inspection or by treatment of plants

upon entry, but some imported plants may be

detained while tested for obscure pathogens.

Such testing requires well-equipped laboratories and personnel as well as considerable

time. This last constraint—5 or more years for

the detection of certain viruses and virus-like

organisms in woody plants—can profoundly affect importation of some plants (60).

Quarantine and plant Importation

Establishing quarantine policies and practices for a particular plant species depends on

both knowledge of its risk of carrying pests or

pathogens and availability of technologies to

detect such pathogens (table 7-I). Most plant

species, when imported according to regulations (e. g., clean and free of soil, and subject

to inspection at an authorized port of entry),

are considered unlikely to be carrying harmful organisms and thus to be of low risk (60).

Some agricultural crops, such as rice, sorghum, or sugarcane and their related wild species, require greater attention because they

might contain pathogens not easily detected by

current technologies.

Certain agricultural plants or plant parts used

for vegetative propagation (e.g., sugarcane

stems or potato tubers) represent the greatest

risk to agriculture because they maybe infected

with undetected pathogens (60). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) allows small

quantities of these plants to be imported for scientific use only. Permits typically require that

plants be grown under the supervision of a

knowledgeable specialist and may require diagnostic testing for pathogens as well as specialized growing practices (60). Once plants have

cleared safeguard restrictions, they may be distributed to the general public.

In the United States, some plants (e.g., apples, pears, and potatoes) are held at one of the

Agricultural Research Service’s Plant Protection and Quarantine facilities until they are considered free of any pests or pathogens (60).

Plants in this group face the most constraints

because the hazards associated with importing

them are highest (60). These plants may be held

for several years after their original importation.

In developing countries, plant quarantine systems may lack scientific expertise, facilities, or

appropriate governmental infrastructures to

support them (14). Therefore, they depend heavily on such regulatory constraints as import refusal, lengthy quarantine, or treatment for pests

or pathogens, These restrictions can result in

considerable delay in importation of plants to

facilities in these areas.

Safeguards for Reducing Risk in

Imported Germplasm

A number of actions and regulations, either

at the place of origin or at the port of entry,

reduce the risks associated with plant importation.

Inspection, certification, testing, or treatment

of plants before export can reduce potential

quarantine delays (60). Most plants require little more than inspection to move quickly through

quarantine. In vitro plantlet cultures can, in

some cases, be imported with fewer restrictions

than the plants from which they originate, Such

cultures, though, are not considered free of disease without diagnostic testing (60).

Upon entry, plants likely to contain pathogens can be tested with a variety of technologies (table 7-2) (59,60). However, procedures

vary in reliability and in the resources they require. Indexing, which uses highly sensitive indicator plants, is the most reliable and wideIy

used method, but it requires considerable greenhouse space to maintain the plants necessary

for this test (60). Serologic methods that use an-
178 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 7-1 .—Crops and Trees Commonly Prohibited Entry by Quarantine Regulations in 125 Countries

Number of countries Percentages of countries

Percentages of

countries prohibiting:

in which crops/genera that name one or more Plants Plants Seeds

Crops and trees are prohibited pests or pathogens only a

and seeds only

Forest crops.’

Maple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 43 100 0 0

Chestnut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 23 76 24 0

Conifers b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 26 100 0 0

Hawthorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 86 100 0 0

Walnut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 48 100 0 0

Poplar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 44 93 7 0

Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 47 92 8 0

Willow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 45 100 0 0

Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 58 96 4 0

Elm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 47 94 16 0

Fruit crops:

Citrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 45 55 45 0

Coconut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 32 29 64 7

Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 55 65 35 0

Banana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 39 54 46 0

Pome fruitsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 68 85 15 0

Prunus (cherry, plum, etc) . . . . . . 37 68 85 15 0

Currant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 38 69 31 0

Grapevine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 41 90 10 0

Vegetable crops:

Sweet potato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 35 61 39 0

Potato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 41 90 10 0

Other crops:

Coffee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 31 24 57 18

Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 23 25 61 14

Sunflower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 40 20 80 0

Rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 50 29 71 0

Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 31 35 58 7

Oil palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 38 56 44 0

Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 42 21 61 18

Rose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 41 100 0 0

Cacao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 42 19 79 2

Tea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 45 45 55 0

Sugarcane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 10 63 37 0

alncludes plants as well as any parts for vegetative Propagation

bspeclflcauy the genera P/cea, Larix, Pinus, andAb@

Clncludes the generac~aeno~e/es, Cydonia, Ma/us, and ~YrfJs

SOURCE R.P Kahn, “Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity” Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices,” OTAcommlssioned papeh 1985.

tibodies to pathogens provide rapid results but

may not detect all forms of a particular pathogen (60), Molecular techniques to detect the

genetic material of pathogens are available,but

these may require better-equipped laboratories

and greater expertise than is available in many

quarantine programs, Identifying the presence

of a pathogen can thus be difficult because a

STORING

Storage technologies aim to preserve an adequate amount of plant germplasm, sustain its

viability, and preserve its original genetic connegative result maybe due to inadequate technology. It is essential, therefore, that the limits

of any technology be understood. Basic research on the biology of pathogenic organisms

and the technologies used to detect them is

needed to improvetesting procedures, develop

them for other pests and pathogens, and understand the limits.

SAMPLES

stitution (81). Plants can be maintained offsite

in a numberofforms and with a number of technologies (table 7-3). They may be maintained
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 179

Table 7“2.—Technologies and Practices To Detect Pests and Diseases of Quarantine Significance

and the Pathogens To Which They Are Most Frequently Applied

Technology/practice:

Description

Physical examination:

Physical manifestations of disease-producing agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seed health testing:

Germinating seed in culture conditions that allow growth of fungi or bacteria. Microscopic

examination of seed for pathogens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grow-out testing:

Growing plants under controlled conditions until diseases are no longer detected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

/ndexing:

Attempted transfer of pathogens from a plant under examination to another species that is highly

sensitive to infection by them. Can involve transfer by mechanical abrasion with extracts

or by grafting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electron microscopy:

Examination of extracts or tissues for the presence of pathogens or their spores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inclusion bodies:

Light microscopic examination of tissues for structures characteristic of pathogen infection. . . . . . . . . .

Serologic testing:

An array of procedures utilizing the ability of test animals to produce antibodies that are highly

specific for a particular pathogen. Important variations include enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,

radioimmunosorbent assay, and immunosorbent electron microscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Polyactylamide gel electrophoresis:

Detects ribonucleic acid (RNA) of pathogens in small amounts of tissue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nucleic acid hybridization:

New technology that uses recombinant DNA procedures to locate the genetic material of a pathogen

in DNA extracted from tissue samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

aA = Most pests and pathogens, B = bacteria; F = fungi, V = wruses, O = others (0 g , ffIYCOPlaSmaS, vlrolds)

Rangea

A

B,F

B, F,V,O

B,F,V

B,V

B,F,V

B,V,O

B,V,O

B,V,O

SOURCE Based on data from R P Kahn, “Technologies To Ma!ntaln Biological Dlvers!ty Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985

Table 7-3.—Storage Technologies for Germplasm of Different Plants

Storage technology

Storage Field In vitro cool Liquid

Plant group formb

collections culture temperature nit rogen Collection c

Cereals and grain legumes seeds x R

(wheat, corn, barley, rice, soybean)

Forage legumes and grasses seeds x R

(alfalfa, orchardgrass, bromegrass, clover) plants x X,R x

Vegetables seeds x R

(tomato, bean, onion, carrot, lettuce) plants x R R R

Forest trees seeds x R

(pines, firs, hardwoods) plants x R R

Roots and tubers seeds x

(potato, sweet potato, tropical yam, aroids) plants x X,R R R

Temperate fruit and nuts seeds x R

(apple, grape, peach, strawberry, raspberry) plants x X,R R R

Tropical fruit and nuts seeds x R

(avocado, banana, date, citrus, papaya, cashew) plants x R R R

Ornamental seeds x R

(carnation, zinnia, lilac, rhododendron) plants x X,R

Oilseeds seeds x R

(soybean, sunflower, peanut, oilpalm, rape) plants x R R

New crops seeds x R

(jojoba, amaranth, guayule) plants x X,R

ax ~ currently in use, R = under research and development.

bRefers to source of materlafs for storage (e,g , plants are the source of materlais for initiating tissue Cultures

CB ~ base Collections available, A = active COllOCtlOnS available

SOURCE Adapted from L Towill, E Roos, and P C Stanwood, “Plant Germplasm Storage Technologies,” OTA comm!ssloned paper, 1985

B,A

B,A

A

B,A

A

B,A

B,A

B,A

A

B(?),A

A

A

A

A

A

B,A

A

B,A

A
180 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 702.— Maintenance Process of a

Plant Seed Bank

I

number 4

I

I

1 I

I I

● Cleaning

● Drying

counting

I

I

I

I

STORAGE I

i

 Ambient to cryogenic

temperatures

1

I

J

1

REGENERATION

t

Unacceptable

bll{ty

I I

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.

as seeds, in fields, or in greenhouse collections.

Pollen storage and in vitro plantlet cultures may

supplement storage of many of these species.

Finally, cryogenic storage (in liquid nitrogen)

and emerging DNA technologies may hold potential for improving maintenance of plants.

Conventional Seed Storage

Most agricultural crops held by the National

Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), international

centers, national programs, and private collections are maintained as seeds. The process of

conventional seed storage can be divided into

several steps: registration, processing, storage,

viability testing, and regeneration (figure 7-2).

Registration

When seeds arrive at a storage facility, passport information must be recorded and a number assigned to facilitate recordkeeping. Passport data may include information on the origin

of the sample, its source (if acquired from

another facility), and any pertinent physiological details that would aid storage. Data of interest to potential users, such as disease resistance, also may be included.

The information accumulated may reflect the

focus of a particular collection. The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, England, requires details on the location and habitat in which a wild

plant species was collected, an estimate of the

total number of plants represented by the sample, a taxonomic classification, and the location of a reference herbarium specimen. The

more detailed this preliminary information is,

the more useful the accession is for crop development or conservation.

Collections may receive the accessions of

another collection, thus duplicating materials.

Although such duplication does provide security against loss, the number of accessions held

by all collections does not reflect duplicates.

In barley, for example, the total of more than

280,000 accessions in storage is considerably

greater than the estimated 50,000 distinct accessions worldwide (70).

Processing

Once registered, other data such as estimates

of the number of seeds received, viability in

terms of percentage of germination, and taxonomic identification must be obtained. In addition, seeds may require preparation, like cleaning and drying for storage.

Seeds are tested for germinating ability to determine if the sample is of high viability or

whether it must be planted to produce fresh

seed before storing (29,30,31,43).

To reduce moisture in seeds, procedures

using chemical desiccants have been developed

and are widely applied (111). Facilities with

large amounts of seeds to process, such as the

U.S. Plant Introduction Stations or the National
—

Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL), use dehumidified rooms to reduce moisture.

Storage

Four factors affect seed storage: 1) moisture

content, 2) storage temperature, 3) storage

atmosphere, and 4) genetic composition of the

sample (4,87,88,89), Reduced moisture content

is considered the most crucial to maintaining

viability. In general, each l-percent decrease

in seed moisture between the 5- and 14-percent

range will double the lifespan of a seed sample.

Reduction of storage temperature also increases

seed longevity. A 50 decrease in temperature

between 0° and 50° C doubles longevity (89).

Control of storage atmosphere generally does

not provide significant advantages over manipulation of moisture and temperature, particularly when the latter is below freezing.

Genetics relate to differences between individual accessions or between individuals in a

mixed sample and cannot be altered to increase

longevity.

Viability Testing

Seeds must be tested periodically for viability. This information helps determine when an

accession needs to be grown-out to produce a

fresh sample of seeds. The most obvious test

is to germinate a portion of the seeds to estimate the viable percentage.

Viability testing involves placing seeds in

appropriate conditions (damp blotter paper,

agar medium, etc.] and counting the number

of seeds that germinate over a period of time.

However, if seeds are dormant, obtaining viability estimates can be difficult. Citrus species,

for example, were thought to have died when

prepared for conventional storage but were

shown instead to be dormant (82). Heating, cooling, lighting, and treatments (e. g., removal or

cracking of the seed coat) may be required to

overcome dormancy in some species.

Typically, 200 to 400 seeds are required for

viability testing (43). However, a sequential approach reduces the number needed for testing.

Forty seeds can be tested to determine whether

the accession should be regenerated, stored, or

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite . 181 —

whether another 40 seeds are needed (30,42).

But a small sample of seeds may need to undergo numerous tests before an answer is reached,

which may take longer than testing a single

large sample.

Other tests–involving dyes, physiological

tests, or biochemical assays—have been developed to determine seed viability (89). The validity of such tests relies on the ability to demonstrate a correlation with actual germination

rates. These tests can be useful to determine

if dormancy or inappropriate storage conditions are producing misleading results (30).

Some, such as the tetrazolium dye test for a

range of seeds, or X-ray contrast with heavy

metals in tree seeds, have been widely used

(30,89). others, such as enzyme tests, provide

information useful for the study of seed physiology but are more expensive and difficult to

perform than standard germination tests.

Preserving the genetic variability in seed accessions is a major concern in offsite collections, Many accessions, particularly those of

primitive landraces and wild species, are genetically diverse populations and display considerable genetic variation between individuals

in a sample. Genetic differences in storage lifespan can mean that the genetics of a population could be altered by decline in viability

(86,87,88,108).

Although seeds generally should be regenerated when germination drops 15 percent, practical considerations of labor, space, and time

can delay this step (32,43,83,108), One recent

report stated that NSSL does not regenerate

samples until viability has dropped 40 percent

(113). This practice, however, may be based

more on lack of resources than on scientific

considerations.

Regeneration

Variations in growth requirements for species and even for varieties within a species complicate the growing-out of seed. In beans, for

example, different accessions may require

different conditions, e.g., daylength, for growing out. Thus, both subtropical and temperate

sites must be used to grow-out a range of bean
182 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

 credit: OTA 

Conventional seed storage. Seeds are stored in airtight containers (top photo), then placed in drawers (bottom left) in

refrigerated rooms (bottom right). Many storage facilities increasingly use laminated foil envelopes instead of cans.
Ch. 7–Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 183

varieties, Other factors such as control of pollination can also be important for regenerating certain crops (95,108). Wind-pollinated accessions can readily cross with others, and thus,

individual accessions must be grown in widely

separated fields to ensure that they are not genetically mixed.

Genetic loss by natural selection during growout may be undetected in regenerated seed. At

NSSL, the designated grower is responsible for

ensuring that the sample returned is from plants

grown under conditions that would minimize

genetic loss. No testing beyond visual examination and a viability test of the returned sample is conducted.

Grow-outs are expensive in terms of facilities

and personnel, and they subject stored materials to damage from pests, pathogens, and environmental conditions, which may reduce

genetic diversity in an accession. But the most

effective and least expensive way to maintain

diversity is to reduce the frequency of regeneration through technologies that extend storage.

Cryogenic Storage of Seeds

A critical factor in cryogenic storage is the

amount of water in the tissue to be frozen. Most

orthodox seeds can be easily stored at cryogenic

temperatures because their water content is low

enough to avoid damage associated with freezing (99,100,102,108),

Cryogenic technologies may be able to extend

the storage life of orthodox seeds to more than

a century, which would greatly reduce the need

for viability testing and regeneration (100,102,

121,122).

However, limitations on cryogenic storage

exist for some species depending on a plant’s

seed coat, oil or moisture content, and seed size

(108). Some plants, such as plums and coffee,

have orthodox seeds that tolerate low moisture

levels but are sensitive to cooling below –4OO

C (100). If cooled or warmed incorrectly, many

seeds can crack (100). Seeds as big as cotton

seeds (about eight seeds per gram) are appropriate for cryogenic storage (99,100,102). Larger

seeds, such as beans, can also be frozen, but increased costs, due in part to the greater amount

of space required, may reduce or eliminate potential cost-savings over mechanical refrigeration (102).

This method could hold considerable cost advantages with regard to operating a seed bank

and regenerating seed (table 7-4) (102). Cryogenic storage facilities will cost about the same

to establish, but operation over time would be

cheaper, in part due to reduced need for viability testing and grow-out. Investment in a

facility to produce liquid nitrogen might be necessary in some areas, but the operational savings in the seed bank could allow recovery of

costs in 6 to 14 years (99).

Major obstacles to this technology are the lack

of appropriate facilities and scientific exper-
184 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 7-4.—Estimated Costsa of Conventional

and Cryogenic Storage

Storage for 100 years

Source Conventional b Cryogenic

Storage:

Includes equipment, supplies,

and replacement of

equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5.30 $5.00

Operations:

Includes utilities, equipment

maintenance, liquid nitrogen

coolant, and monitoring of

viability (every 5 years for

mechanical; every 50 years

for cryogenic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.00 11.80

Seed replacement:

From regenerating when

viability or sample size

declines (four times for

mechanical; one time for

cryogenic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 25.00

Total 100-year cost $165.30 $41.80

Average yearly cost $ 1.65 $0.42

%osts for accession of onion (a species that survives poorly under conventional

storage). Savings for other crop species-particularly those with large seeds—

may be less dramatic or nonexistent,

bAssumes storage conditions of – 18° C and seed moisture of 4 to 7 Percent,

under which storage life of onion seed is approximately 25 years.

SOURCE: P.C. Stanwood and L.N. Bass, “Seed Germplasm Preservation Using

Liquid Nitrogen,” Seed Science and Technology 9:423-437, 1981.

tise at many locations, particularly in developing countries, and the lack of scientific data

on genetic stability of seeds stored cryogenically. Certainly the capacity to use cryogenic

technologies should be part of any newly constructed facility for seed storage.

FieId Maintenanence and Controlled

Environmomts

Accessions may also be stored as vegetative

plants in field collections or controlled environments e.g., greenhouses (108). This approach

may be necessitated by physiological restrictions on storing seed, by the need to preserve

particular combinations of characters or by inabilities to obtain satisfactory seed samples

(81,108). Field collections can preserve the

genetic diversity of many aquatic plants; tropical species (e.g., coconut, cacao, mango, or rubber trees); tropical forest trees; and some temperate trees (e.g., oaks) —which all have

recalcitrant seeds (28,42,63,64,84).

Botanic gardens and arboretums maintain diverse field collections, though many institutes

focus on a narrow taxonomic group, as mentioned earlier. Arboretums conserve limited

samples of tree and shrub species with very

small natural gene pools that are under pressure of destruction, or plants with distinctive

characteristics (34,69,80). In the United States,

establishing a network among botanic gardens

and arboretums, facilitated by the newly formed

Center for Plant Conservation at the Arnold Arboretum at Harvard University, could allow a

division of labor and sharing of expertise that

would enable more species and more genetic

diversity within species to be maintained (34,

106).

Trees in field collections, however, may have

been selected for economically important traits

and thus may only represent a narrow range

of the total diversity available for a species.

CAMCORE, for example, collects seeds only

from coniferous trees with commercially valuable trunk characteristics (i.e., tall and straight)

(25). Trees in field collections, nonetheless, can

be useful sources of seeds for restoration and

reforestation projects (8).

Many clonally propagated crops are maintained in field collections. Clonally propagated

crops include fruit and nut species; many ornamental, such as roses; and some root and

tuber crops important to developing countries

(e.g., sweet potato, cassava, and tare). Seeds

may be available for many varieties. However,

most of these crops are genetically heterogeneous, and clones grown from their seeds

may not retain the particular qualities of the

parent plants (e.g., the seeds of a Macintosh

apple do not produce Macintosh apple trees,

but rather a range of trees that result from

recombination of the genes in the Macintosh

apple). The Centro International de la Papa

(CIP) in Peru, for instance, maintains an active

field collection of potato landraces but also has

abase collection of seeds from these accessions

(50).

Pollen Storage

Pollen is not a conventional form of germplasm storage, but information is available on

preserving pollen for breeding purposes for
many species, particularly for crossing materials that flower at different times (107,108). A

population of pollen grains collected from genetically different individuals would contain

the nuclear genes; cytoplasmic (nonnuclear)

genetic factors would not be transmitted, however, because these are not inherited through

the pollen (108).

Pollen can be separated into types that are

tolerant or intolerant of drying (81,107,108).

Tolerant types store best when dried and maintained at low temperatures, much like orthodox seeds. But the pollen of many species does

not survive low moisture or freezing temperatures. Some intolerant types, notably maize,

have been successfully preserved in liquid nitrogen, but data on success are sparse (3,107,

108).

Considerable information is still needed on

stability and longevity of storing pollen, however, before its use in storage will be possible

(108). Pollen is undesirable as the sole propagule

for base collection storage because whole plants

cannot generally be obtained from it (81,108).

In addition, pollen storage does not circumvent

potential plant health problems because some

pathogens are pollen-borne,

Biotechnology

Biotechnology provides additional opportunities to improve offsite maintenance of plants.

Of particular relevance are in vitro cultures of

plants that are now maintained in field collections. And developments in genetic engineering may make the storage of isolated DNA practical in the future.
186 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

In Vitro Culture

In vitro cultures of plants have been advocated for a variety of species, especially those

that are clonally propagated (20,53,56). Although this technology can be adapted to many

species (16,33,93), it is generally unnecessary

for those that have orthodox seeds. However,

the methods may be necessary if there is a need

to maintain specific genetic types, if seed

progeny are highly variable, if plants have long

juvenile stages (e.g., many tree species), or if

seeds are lacking (e.g., clonal crops such as

banana, tare, and sugarcane) (20).

In vitro maintenance is defined as the growing of cells, tissues, organs, or plantlets in glass

or plastic vessels under sterile conditions (108).

when plants originate from intact isolated

meristems, the cultures may be free of pathogens (108). The media for growing in vitro cultures may vary among species and among individuals within a species. By altering the

balance of nutrients and growth regulators in

the media, in vitro cultures can be made to develop unorganized growth (termed callus), produce multiple shoots or plantlets, form structures similar to the embryo in a seed, or develop

roots to enable transfer to field conditions. Not

all plants, however, are amenable to growth or

manipulation by in vitro culture (108).

One aspect of in vitro technology of particular concern for plant germplasm conservation

is the occurrence of genetic modification (somaclonal variation) in plants derived from

callus cultures (67,90). Such variation is considered useful in the development of new varietal characteristics but is unacceptable when

preservation of specific genotypes is the objective. Although it is known that certain types

of cultures and conditions, such as callus cultures, can produce higher frequencies of somaclonal variation, the cellular processes that produce them are not well understood (90,120).

Furthermore, growing cultured plants to maturity remains the only satisfactory way to examine the consequences of such changes. Consequently, each method of culture must be carefully

evaluated before it is applied. For germplasm

preservation, in vitro plants directly derived

 Board Genetic Resources

 vitro culture could become an important method of

long-term maintenance for plants with seeds that cannot

be stored under dry, cold conditions and for plants that

can only be maintained in field collections.

from buds or shoot-tips are considered most

suitable.

No in vitro long-term base collections of agricultural crops exist at present, although some

active collections are being developed: potato

at CIP, cassava at the International Center for

Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Colombia, and

yam and sweet potato at the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria (122,

123). The NPGS Clonal Repositories are investigating in vitro cultures as backup to field collections of some crops (108).

In vitro cultures can be stored under normal

growth conditions, in reduced temperatures or
in a medium that inhibits growth (53,56,119,

120,122), Cultures can thus be maintained for

weeks to months without subculture (i.e., transfer to fresh medium). However, all treatments

that retard growth put additional stress on the

culture, which may increase the potential for

somaclonal variants.

In vitro culture techniques could be important for the long-term maintenance of plants

with recalcitrant seeds. One recent proposal

has been to excise the embryo from the seed

and store it under cryogenic conditions. The

embryo could be thawed and then grown and

multiplied in vitro (40). Research in cooperation with the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew,

England, has demonstrated the feasibility of this

procedure for two tree species (Araucaria

husteinii and Quercus robur). Further research

is needed to apply it to other plants with recalcitrant seeds (4o).

Cryogenic storage may help avoid the stresses

of continuous in vitro culture (49,62,90,121,122,

123), Considerably greater attention would be

needed in preparation, freezing, storing, thawing, and subsequent culturing than is the case

for orthodox seeds. Although some generalizations can be made, methods acceptable to one

species or variety may not be satisfactory for

others. However, research has demonstrated

that in vitro-cultured shoot-tips from some herbaceous plants (e.g., potato, carnation, and cassava); berries (e. g., strawberry, raspberry, and

blueberry); and buds of some woody species

(e.g., apple) can survive cryogenic storage (108).

Many questions remain before cryogenic

storage of in vitro cultures is widely applied.

Among these is whether a single procedure can

be developed that works well for an array of

plants. Further, it is not yet understood how

the process of freezing and thawing affects

regeneration of cultures or their genetic constitution (108,121). Additional investigation for

individual crops is needed, and current technologies have not yet been adapted for handling

the large numbers of specimens that might be

expected in an offsite facility.

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 187

DNA Storage

Future storage technologies may include, as

a supplemental strategy, the preservation of the

isolated genetic information (DNA and RNA)

of plants. Existing technologies can locate, excise, and reinsert genes. In some cases, these

genes retain nearly normal function (75,108).

A much better understanding of gene structure,

function, and regulation is needed, however,

before isolated DNA can be used for germplasm

storage (76,108).

Management of Stored Materials

Offsite collections of plants must be well managed to guard against loss of materials and to

use financial and technological resources most

efficiently. Some duplication between collections can prevent catastrophic loss, but excessive redundancy can waste resources. Disease

organisms that might be brought into a collection by new accessions need to be managed.

Finally, information on the accessions must be

easily available both to managers and users.

Duplication of Collections

Duplication of collections provides the best

insurance against natural catastrophes, pests,

diseases, mechanical failures, or abandonment

(81,108), CIP protects its collection of landrace

potatoes with field plantings at other locations,

with seed storage, and with in vitro culture (50).

At the NPGS Clonal Repositories (see ch, 9),

greenhouse collections back-up field-maintained

collections of fruit and nut species. Duplication is equally critical for seed banks, where

malfunctioning of a mechanical compressor

can result in loss of cooling.

Plants in an offsite collection also can be lost

if institutional priorities change, or if the person responsible for the species or collection

leaves (108). The situation is particularly critical for older varieties of fruits, berries, and

vegetables that may be held only by private individuals or groups (112). For wild species, too,

a large collection is frequently the result of the
188 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

interest of one person or a few individuals.

when these efforts cease, a valuable collection

can rapidly deteriorate. Information on the focus and extent of various collections can aid

coordination of duplication and minimize the

potential for loss (34,112).

Assessing Diversity in a Collection

The diversity of a collection can be assessed

by collecting morphologic, biochemical, or

phytochemical information, frequently called

characterization data.

Most characterization data can help distinguish one accession from another but not assess potentially useful traits. This is particularly

true for assays of proteins or DNA, which give

little indication of such traits as crop yield, disease, or stress resistance.

Morphological Assessment.—Assessing the

morphology of an accession is the first step to

developing accurate characterization, Morphological information for wild species is important for taxonomic identification and forms the

essential baseline from which all other data are

related (68). The information on agricultural

crops can be used to distinguish individual accessions, as well as identify them taxonomically

(114). However, data are on gross appearance

and do not reflect the full genetic composition

of an accession.

Care must be taken to ensure reliable results

when plants are grown-out for morphological

assessment (10). Spacing of plants must be adequate to ensure that results do not reflect overcrowding, for example. Samples thought to be

duplicates are frequently grown side by side

for comparison (13). Biological factors, such as

the potential for cross-pollination among accessions, must be taken into consideration.

The major constraints to assessing morphology are adequate space, funds, and trained personnel. Though not technically difficult, such

assessments require attention to possible environmental effects and may take a significant

amount of time to perform, analyze, and record,

Biochemical Analysis.—Analysis of proteins

or DNA using electrophoretic techniques is

another way to assess diversity (94). Isoenzymes,

the protein products of individual genes, can

change in number or chemical structure when

the genes for them are altered, and these

changes can be detected by an electrophoretic

assay, Examination of DNA can allow comparison of the entire genetic composition of accessions.

Isoenzyme analysis on either starch or polyacrylamide gels has probably been the most

popular technique for assessing genetic diversity. Surveys of isoenzyme polymorphism have

been performed for maize, wheat, tomato, pea,

and barley (94,114). In addition, surveys have

been done on hundreds of other cultivars and

wild species (94,104, 105,114).

A potential application of this technology is

the development of isoenzyme “fingerprints”

to permit reliable identification of specific plant

varieties to certify breeding materials, to isolate genetically similar cultivars, or to monitor

otherwise undetected genetic changes in accessions. Electrophoretic analysis has been used

to detect duplication in some offsite collections,

such as the CIP collection of potato germplasm

(50) and is increasing in application at NPGS

facilities (19). However, since the data are generally restricted to a few biochemical characteristics and do not reflect performance data

or the full genetic composition of an accession,

such analysis has been considered risky (39).

Two-dimensional electrophoresis is used to

separate complex protein mixtures such as

those found in seed or leaf extracts so that several hundred proteins can be distinguished in

a single gel (9,17,114). The results can be difficult to reproduce, however. The technique requires specialized equipment and may be too

lengthy for routine use because only one sample can be evaluated at a time. Managers of offsite collections are unlikely to have the time,

expertise, or resources to use this technique routinely.

Restriction fragment length polymorphisms

(RFLPs) have been used to directly examine
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite 189

DNA. DNA is “cut” enzymatically (using restriction endonuclease enzymes) into pieces or

restriction fragments that can be separated on

electrophoretic gels. Because RFLPs represent

the whole genetic composition of the sample,

comparing individual analyses within a sample or among accessions would indicate the

variability that exists. The techniques, however,

are expensive and require technicaI expertise

to execute and interpret. Thus, use of RFLPs

appears limited at present to appropriately

equipped laboratories (114). RFLPs have been

useful in developing detailed genetic maps for

use in breeding programs (48) but are not routinely applied to characterization of germplasm.

Phytochemical Analysis.—Phytochernical

analysis deals with the distribution and chemistry of organic compounds synthesized by plants

(114).

Analysis involves three general processes: extraction, isolation, and identification (44,114).

plant materials are homogenized in aqueous

alcohol, then purified by evaporation of the alcohol and chemical partitioning to remove contaminating substances and isolate the chemicals of interest (114). Chemicals can then be

identified by chromatographic or spectroscopic

techniques (114).

During the past 10 years, the major technological advance in separation and purification

of organic chemical mixtures has been the development of high-performance liquid chromatography (H PLC). HPLC is more rapid than

other chromatographic procedures and can isolate a range of plant chemicals. Developing

appropriate HPLC procedures, however, requires considerable investment of funds and

time. Some facilities of NPGS, however, are

using techniques such as HPLC to help characterize germplasm (19).

Recent advances in microcomputers have

provided sophisticated, low-cost spectrophotometers that can identify plant chemicals (114).

Other techniques, such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and mass spectrometry,

also can determine chemical structure but they

require considerable technical expertise and expensive instrumentation. These technologies

have been used extensively, however, by scientists studying the taxonomy and systematic

of plants (114) and by university and industry

scientists interested in developing potential

uses for wild plants in medicine and industry.

Controlling Pests and Pathogens

in Collections

Managing stored samples requires efforts to

ensure that seeds or plants are not lost to pests

or pathogens. Because a collection may distribute seeds to other regions, precautions must

be taken to reduce the possibility of sending

pests or pathogens as well (61).

Stored seed can be severely damaged by rodents, insects, or fungus (58). With rodents, the

major damage is not from consumption but

rather from the pests scattering and mixing up

different accessions (58). Many insect, fungal,

and bacterial contaminants can be controlled

with the use of chemical fumigants, although

such treatments might also harm the seeds (58,

59,81). Sanitary storage facilities that obviate

the need for such treatment are therefore preferable (81). when dried seeds are kept at subfreezing temperatures, the potential risk is minimal

(58,101),

The risk of disseminating pathogens is considerably greater for crops maintained through

clonal propagation (59,61). Some facilities with

a specific focus may have greater expertise with

a crop and its diseases than a national quarantine facility concerned with all potential introductions. Cooperation between scientists and

quarantine officials can improve control of

pathogens and aid technology development.

lmformation Management

Offsite collections are repositories not only

of germplasm but also of information, This

information can aid collection management,

can provide more efficient access to specific

accessions, and might help develop collection

strategies.

The current focus has been on standardization of terminology in order to facilitate exchange between collections and to provide
190 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

more consistent information to users (117). Development of uniform crop descriptors that include information about the storage history of

an accession as well as data on the original

collector, collection site, vegetative and reproductive characteristics, disease or pest susceptibility, and biochemical characteristics (e.g.,

isoenzyme profiles) is important for consistent

and accurate information (7,98,117). This task

for NPGS has been assigned to crop advisory

committees (see ch. 9).

Several data storage and retrieval methods

are now used (65). A collection of only a few

hundred accessions might use file cards or

books. As the collection grows, a computerbased system may be more appropriate. Large

collections, such as the Royal Botanic Gardens

in England, have developed systems adapted

to their specific needs (97). The nature of the

data in computer-based information management systems depends on whether the materials being stored are agricultural crops (1,125)

or wild species (34,97).

USING PLANTS

Collections are used for crop development

as well as conservation. Plant breeders and scientists who may depend on the genetic diversity in such collections require specific information about accessions to select appropriate

plants. Genes in selected accessions are incorporated into improved crop varieties using

traditional plant breeding practices. In addition, biotechnology may provide methods that

could enable development of improved crop varieties or more efficient use of genes in plants.

Evaluation of plant germplasm involves the

examination of accessions for the presence and

quality of particular traits that may be of use

to crop breeders.

In general, evaluation examines traits that

may be genetically quantitative (i.e., controlled

by many genes) and subject to environmental

influence, such as drought tolerance or earliThe Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) of NPGS is an example of a large

information system designed to coordinate data

from multiple collections in the United States.

GRIN, once fully established, is expected to provide information on all accessions held by

NPGS. Although the capacity of the system is

more than adequate, entering information is,

after several years, still in the preliminary stages.

OTA has found GRIN praised by managers of

NPGS facilities for its recordkeeping operations

but criticized by potential users because detailed information is unavailable on individual

accessions and obtaining results of searches can

take considerable time. GRIN at present does

not collect information on privately held collections of agricultural plants, such as those coordinated by the Seed Savers Exchange or the

North American Fruit Explorers, nor does it

hold information on wild species.

STORED OFFSITE

ness of maturity in a fruiting crop. This assessment can be complicated in a genetically variable accession because all individuals may not

express the trait equally (81). Further, changes

in conditions (e.g., appearance of a new disease) can require further evaluation for new

traits. In addition, new accessions must be

evaluated. Thus, evaluation may be considered

a never-ending task (81).

Evaluations vary according to the species or

trait being examined and may be both lengthy

and complex (37). A test for yield potential, for

example, would require different growing conditions than a test for genes that enable plants

to grow in acid soils. And sufficient space to

grow plants to maturity is needed, along with

trained personnel to design the tests and to analyze results (81). The time required too can be

considerable. Testing the wheat held by the U.S.

National Small Grains Collection for resistance

to stem and leaf rust, for example, is expected

to require more than 10 years (96). Evaluation
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 191

of some traits may require repeating tests over

several years and in different regions (81).

Evaluation has been perceived as a serious

deficiency in the overall effort to maintain crop

germplasm (23,37,78,108,117). Insufficient information has meant accessions have been underused. However, the situation has been improving (81,108). International Agricultural

Research Centers have evaluated many of their

accessions for important traits, chiefly disease

and pest resistance, yield, and quality factors

(13,50,108). In the United States, the four regional plant introduction stations (see ch. 9)

have included examination for several agriculturally important traits in their preliminary

characterizations. This is not, however, sufficient to meet all the needs of users, and more

extensive efforts are necessary (108).

Although the usefulness of a collection may

depend on its evaluations, questions remain as

to who has responsibility for this task. Collection managers might be able to gather morphological data, but they may not be able to perform the lengthy and detailed trials needed to

evaluate traits. Further, it has been argued that

such evaluations are best done under the conditions in which they will be used because expression may be altered by environmental differences (36). It would seem, therefore, that

evaluation trials for specific traits are best performed by the breeders who require those traits.

Duplicating efforts could be minimized by putting results into centralized database systems—

a proposed function of the GRIN system in the

United States,

Traditional Breeding

Traditional breeding typically involves identifying particular genes or characteristics and

incorporating them into existing varieties. Crop

development through breeding, a major contributor to modern gains in agricultural production, is a time-consuming process: It may

take 10 to 15 years to develop a single new variety (box 7-C).

Traditional breeding has provided as much

as 60 percent of the production increases of

many agricultural crops (22,24,35,77,124). Nevertheless, the process must continue in order to

sustain agricultural yields—pests and diseases

adapt to new varieties, and the needs of growers

and consumers constantly change (77).

Traditional breeding involves several basic

steps: 1) locate a genetically stable trait (e.g.,

yield, pest resistance, or stress tolerance); 2) isolate plants with the most desired expression of

the trait; 3) breed genes into breeding lines of

plants similar to those that will be improved

to provide more usable material; and 4) cross

these plants with other breeding lines to produce plants from which improved crop varieties can be selected (41,81).

The third step, called developmental breeding, is important because the desired trait may

be located in a wild species or variety that is

difficult to cross with domesticated ones. This

is the case, for example, with genetic resistance

to some 27 serious diseases of the tomato (81).

wild species or landraces may have different

growth requirements that make crossing them

with other varieties difficult. Developmental

breeding overcomes such differences but may

require growing plants at multiple locations.

Incorporation of genes from over 500 exotic

sorghums, for example, required growth in two

locations because the exotics required shorter

days to flower than commercial U.S. varieties.

A cooperative effort, therefore, was established

between the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the USDA Federal Station in Mayaguez,

Puerto Rico, to perform the crosses and test the

progeny (48,81).

The major constraint to traditional breeding

is its dependence on the sexual process of

plants. Multiple crossings and testing of offspring may take years. Molecular biological

techniques to locate and map genes in plants

may greatly shorten the time needed for breeding improved varieties (6).

Biotechnological Improvement

Biotechnology provides greater precision and

speed in the manipulation of genes by avoiding the sexual reproductive process (24,41,75).

Three general areas have potential impact on

the use of stored plant diversity: 1) somaclonal

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 193

Table 7-5.—Somaclonal Variation in Economically Important Plant Species

Plant Source of tissue Characters Transmissiona

Oats (Avena sativa)

Wheat (Trificurn aesfivurn)

Rice (Oryza sativa)

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinale)

Corn (Zea rnays)

Potato (Solanurn tuberuosurri)

Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum)

Alfalfa (A4edicago sativa)

Brassicas (Brassica spp.)

Immature embryo,

apical meristem

Immature embryo

Seed embryo

Various

Immature embryo

Protoplasm leaf callus

Anthers, protoplasts,

leaf callus

Immature ovaries

Anthers, embryos,

meristems

Plant height, heading date, leaf striping

Plant height, spike shape, maturity

tillering, leaf wax giliadins, amylase

Tiller number, panicle size, seed fertility,

flowering date, plant height

Disease resistance, auricle length,

isoenzyme alterations, sugar yield

Endosperm and seedling mutants,

pathogen toxin resistance, DNA

sequence, changes in mitochondria

Tuber shape, yield, maturity date, plant

form, stem, leaf, and flower structure,

disease resistance

Plant height, leaf size, yield grade index,

alkaloids, reducing sugars, leaf

chlorophyll

Leaves, petiole length, plant form and

height, dry matter yield

Flowering time, growth form, waxiness,

— glucosinolates, disease tolerance

Seed

Seed

Seed

Vegetable

Seed

Vegetable

Seed

Vegetable

Seed

aseed = lnherlted in seeds of variant plants: vegetable = transmitted to CiOfldly reproduced Plants

SOURCE W R Scowcroft, S A. Ryan, R I S Brettel, and P J Larkin, “Somaclonal Vanatlon A ‘New’ Genettc Resource,” Crop Genet(c Resources” Conservation and

Eva/uat(on, J H W Holden and J T Wlll!ams (eds ) (London” George Allen & Unwin, 1964)

and tissues may not regenerate into whole

plants or may produce abnormal or sterile

plants (75).

Progress in developing somaclonal variation

for plant improvement has been promising for

a few plant species (5,90,92). However, its general application remains unproven. Further, it

is not yet possible to select through in vitro culture many valuable traits, such as yield or quality characters. This inability reflects a basic lack

of knowledge of the genetic mechanisms controlling many such traits (38).

Somatic Hybridization

A report conducted more than a decade ago

on the fusion of leaf protoplasts (cells from

which the ceil walls have been enzymatically

removed) from two species of tobacco heralded

exciting possibilities (11). The process, termed

somatic hybridization, held promise of bridging many barriers to hybridization. Questions

of whether “impossible hybrids” could be obtained were partially answered with reports of

a successful protoplasm fusion from a tomato

and potato (72). Unfortunately, as with a hybrid sexually produced 50 years earlier by crossing radish and cabbage, the resulting plant exhibited the least desirable characteristics of

each parent and was sterile (75).

Research on irradiation and protoplasm fusion

shows promise. By irradiating one set of protoplasts, the genetic material is broken into

short sequences, some of which will make its

way into the fusion partner. The technique,

with considerable development, may eventually enable transfer of genes between sexually

incompatible species.

Recent studies show the potential for transferring cellular organelles with their genetic information (chloroplasts and mitochondria) to

other species (15,41,75). This technique may be

useful in the transfer of genes for the limited

number of traits (e.g., photosynthetic efficiency,

herbicide tolerance, cytoplasmic male sterility)

found in these organelles.

Application of somatic hybridization has

been limited to plants from three families:

Solonaceae (e.g., potato, tomato, tobacco);

Cruciferaceae (e.g., cabbage, rape); and Umbelliferaceae (e.g., carrots) (75). Regeneration of

whole plants from protoplasts often remains

an obstacle because little is known about the

culture conditions needed to cause protoplasts
194 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

or undifferentiated tissue to regenerate into

whole plants (41,75,111).

Recombinant DNA Technologies

The technologies associated with recombinant DNA allow insertion of specific genetic

information into plants to produce altered characteristics. Basic principles of the technologies

have been discussed in earlier OTA studies

(109,111). Current constraints relate largely to

inabilities to culture and regenerate isolated

cells of most plant species (41,75).

Genetic engineering techniques may allow

scientists to develop, by gene transfer, new agricultural varieties (75), but considerable scientific development is needed before such technologies can become routine. Further, genetic

engineering technologies face legal, social, and

political questions in light of warnings that potential products might cause health, environmental, or economic problems. With continued

research, genetic engineering could augment,

but not substantially replace, standard breeding practices.

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

In the past 10 years, new technologies for

germplasm collection, maintenance, and use

have been developed (108). Improved germplasm maintenance in the United States will

require not only the addition of new technologies, but careful planning for facilities and

resources to support them. Determining the appropriateness of a particular technology involves consideration of the biology of the species, the reliability of the technology, the effect

of the technology on a collection’s composition,

and costs. This section discusses several areas

of offsite maintenance that need attention and

the opportunities for doing so.

Develop a Standard Operating

procedure

Studies have only recently begun to systematically address problems of records maintenance, regeneration procedures, seed-drying

techniques, storage, liability testing conditions,

or improper management (21,30,31,43). This

assessment has highlighted numerous appropriate procedures. Implementation of these

technologies in the United States and internationally could provide a basis for improving

maintenance in offsite collections and developing appropriate avenues for training personnel.

Standard operating procedures for maintaining offsite collections of plants could be developed that include newly developed technologies

and incorporate additional procedures as they

are developed. Such procedures could be developed by a task force composed of representatives of government, industry, and academia.

The task force could specifically consider the

use of technologies by the National Plant Germplasm System.

Development of recommendations will not

assure improvement of germplasm maintenance in existing U.S. collections. Issues such

as the need for additional storage space at NSSL

and implementation of better viability testing

and regeneration protocols must be addressed

by increased funds if necessary. A plan to improve storage and maintenance in NPGS collections should be drawn up, therefore, that

would address both the needs for new facilities

and support of basic operations. Such a plan

could be developed by USDA with or without

the suggested task force, or by a separate committee drawn from sectors served by NPGS.

Storage

Cryogenic techniques could greatly extend

the storage time of seeds and could reduce costs

associated with monitoring seed viability and

regenerating samples. USDA funding of research on the effects of cryogenic storage could

increase the number of species that can be

maintained and allow investigation of concerns

about genetic stability.
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 195

In vitro plants can be used for a range of species with recalcitrant seeds or for those that

must be maintained as clones. However, the

techniques are not now used extensively for

germplasm storage, and uncertainties about

genetic stability in the in vitro environment

have been noted. Cryogenic technologies could

be particularly important, but they require further development.

Funds to develop technologies for maintaining plants in offsite collections are already provided through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to NPGS researchers. These efforts

could be enhanced by making funds available

to researchers outside USDA on a competitive

basis. As an alternative, the USDA/Competitive

Research Grants Office could develop a program that would focus on germplasm maintenance and the application of technology.

Characterization and evaluation of

Offsite Collections

Characterization and evaluation data are not

available for most plants held by NPGS, but the

development of descriptors by crop advisory

committees (CACS) (see ch. 9) will provide guidelines for preliminary characterizations of many

crops. Technologies for biochemical characterization exist, and consideration should be given

to ones that are appropriate for particular crops.

Further, careful consideration of the agronomic

traits to be evaluated will be necessary.

Improving characterization and evaluation

data will require additional funding and personnel. A 10-year NPGS program to provide

detailed evaluations of the genetic diversity and

potentially useful agronomic characters in cultivated species and their relatives might cost

$5 million annually. Such a program would

probably require increased collaboration between NPGS facilities and scientists to expand

the available expertise, develop a computerized

file for each accession, and increase involvement of CACS and breeders in determining

which agronomic traits to evaluate.

By examining analyses of the roles of CAC,

NPGS facilities, and users of NPGS in recording evaluation data, different ways to improve

present efforts might be revealed. Such an examination could be performed by an expert

committee appointed by USDA. Recommendations could include specific roles for components of NPGS and mechanisms for accomplishing those goals.

Grant funds could be made available through

ARS to researchers and breeders screening for

particular traits. Such funds could encourage

greater use of germplasm collections as well

as increase the information about accessions.

Data from evaluations could then become part

of the permanent GRIN record.

Maitenance of Endangered

wild Species

The efforts of botanic gardens and arboretums to obtain and store seeds or plants of endangered wild species have only recently been

coordinated. Additional funding for facilities

and personnel to develop and maintain such

collections will be needed. Further, each species presents a potentially unique set of requirements for maintenance and regeneration that

must be taken into account.

Funds have come in part from the Institute

for Museum Services (34). They have been used

for daily operations as well as to establish storage facilities. Continued funding could provide

for the maintenance of many endangered wild

plants, However, it has been estimated that

maintaining the 3,000 or so rare and endangered plant taxa will cost at least $1.2 million

annually (71).

One possibility is to expand the scope of

NPGS activities to include endangered wild

species. NPGS personnel have considerable expertise in offsite maintenance of plants, and

including endangered wild plants as a responsibility would take advantage of this expertise.

However, an enlargement of NPGS’S scope

would require additional funding for personnel and facilities. And because responsibilities

are currently divided among various parts of

NPGS on a crop-by-crop basis, an administrative mechanism for assigning responsibility for

a particular species would be needed.
I% . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

As an alternative, an existing private organization, such as the Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), could become the mechanism

within NPGS for coordinating maintenance of

endangered wild plants. Funds could be designated through USDA/ARS for this purpose, and

CPC could be responsible for coordinating efforts and administering funds to cooperating

botanic gardens and arboretums.

Improve Movement of Germplasm

Through Quarantine

Technologies that identify viruses in imported plants could reduce delays associated

with the testing of a few plant species. Although

many potentially useful technologies exist, few

are applied routinely to quarantine testing, because USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) lacks sufficient trained

personnel, facilities, or operating funds needed

to implement a particular technology. Cooperation between APHIS and NPGS facilities could

enhance the technical expertise applied to

quarantine-testing and other solutions to improve quarantine efforts.

A panel representing APHIS, the research

community, and NPGS could be convened to

assess the adequacy of facilities and programs

relating to quarantine. It could make recommendations for implementing newer technologies, improving present facilities, constructing new facilities, and mechanisms for

promoting cooperation with NPGS facilities.

The panel could also redirect existing budgets

within USDA to address specific problems and,

if necessary, develop legislation for increasing

USDA appropriations to meet quarantine

needs. The panel might also consider mechanisms for incorporating new technologies and

the appropriateness of facilities and personnel

for performing them.

Promote Basic Research on

Maintenance and Use of Plant

Germplasm

Although technologies to maintain plants offsite have advanced considerably in recent

years, several fundamental questions still need

to be addressed.

In the past, storage has essentially referred

to orthodox seed storage. It is increasingly

apparent that new techniques for storage of

nontraditional forms of germplasm (e. g., recalcitrant seeds, pollen, and in vitro cultures) are

needed. Although cryogenic storage has been

used for several years on animals, its use with

plants has only recently been investigated.

Questions about the nature of genetic control

and the mechanisms involved in somaclonal

variation are as yet unresolved. These new storage technologies all require better understanding of developmental processes, of cell and seed

physiology, and of mechanisms of cellular deterioration and repair.

New methods for storage of naked DNA and

RNA and possible recovery of DNA from dead

cells could lead to a new concept in germplasm

conservation. Caution must be exercised, however, to ensure that limited funds are not disproportionately channeled into this high-technology area. If genetic conservation is a goal,

then existing technologies and those showing

promise should receive adequate funding before more speculative approaches are pursued.

Improved understanding of the biochemical,

genetic, and physiological control of development may lead to techniques for characterizing

and evaluating germplasm. The genetic control

of most important traits is not yet understood.

Additional research on the basic structure and

function of genes can also improve the biological knowledge necessary for genetic manipulation of plants.

Funding for research on germplasm has come

from several agencies. But research priorities

at the National Science Foundation (NSF) or

USDA’s Competitive Research Grants Office

(CRGO), however, generally do not encompass

projects that focus on germplasm maintenance.

Perhaps a new program within USDA/CRGO

or NSF could be created to address research

appropriate to germplasm maintenance and

use.
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 197

REFERENCES

1. Astley, D., “Management Systems at the National Vegetable Research Station Gene Bank, ”

Documentation of Genetic Resources: Information Handling Systems for Genebank Management, J. Konopka and J. Hanson (eds,) AGPG:

IBpGI?/85/76 (Rome: International Board for

Plant Genetic Resources, 1985),

2. Atchley, A. A., USDA/ARS Germplasm Resources

Laboratory, personal communications, May

23, 1986.

3. Barnabas, B., and Rajiki, E., “Storage of Maize

(Zea mays L.) Pollen in Liquid Nitrogen,” Euphytica 25:747-753, 1976.

4. Bass, L., “Seed Viability During Long-Term

Storage,” Horticultural Reviews, J. Janick (cd.)

(Westport: Avi Publishing Co,, 1980).

5. Berlin, J., and Sasse, “Selection and Screening Techniques for Plant Cell Culture, ” Piant

Cell Culture 31:99-131 (Berlin: Springer-Verlag,

1985).

6. Bishop, J. E., “New Genetic Technology Shortens

Time Required To Breed Food-Plant Varieties, ”

Wa]] Street Journal, May 17, 1986.

7. Blixt, S., and Williams, J.T. (eds.) Documentation of Genetic Resources: A Model (Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

1982).

8. Bonner, F. T., “Technologies To Maintain Tree

Germplasm Diversity, ” OTA commissioned

paper, 1985.

9. Brown, J, W. S., and Flavell, R, B., “Fractionation of Wheat Giliadin and Glutenin Subunits

by Two-Dimensional Electrophoresis and the

Role of Group 6 and Group 2 Chromosomes

in Giliadin Synthesis, Theoretical and Applied Genetics 59:349-359, 1981. In: Weeden

and Young, 1985,

10. Burton and Davies, “Handling Germplasm of

Cross-pollinated Forage, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J,H, W.

Holden and J.T. Williams (eds,) (London: George

Allen & Unwin, 1984].

11. Carlson, P. S., Smith, H. H., and Dearing, R. D.,

“Parasexual Interspecific Plant Hybridization,”

Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences,

U.S.A. 69:2292-2294, 1972. In: Orton, 1985.

12. Center for Plant Conservation, Recommendations for the Collection and Ex Situ Management of Germplasm Resources From Rare Wild

P/ants (Boston: CPC, 1986).

13, Chang, T. T., “The Role and Experience of an

International Crop-Specific Genetic Resources

Center, ” Conservation of Crop Germplasm: An

International Perspective (Madison, WI: Crop

Science Society of America, 1984).

14, Chiarappa, L., and Karpati, J. F., “Plant Quarantine and Genetic Resources, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H, W.

Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.) (Boston: George

Allen & Unwin, 1984),

15. Cocking, E. C., “Use of Protoplasts: Potentials

and Progress, ” Gene Manipulation in Plant Improvement, J,P, Gustafson (cd.) (New York: Plenum Press, 1984). In: Orton, 1985.

16. Conger, B,V, (cd,), Cloning Agricultural Plants

Via In-Vitro Culture (Boca Raton, FL: CRC

Press, 1981).

17, Cremer, F., and Van de Wane, C., “Method for

Extraction of Proteins From Green Plant Tissue for Two-Dimensional Polyacrylamide Gel

Electrophoresis, ” Analytical Biochemistry

147:22-26, 1985. In: Weeden and Young, 1985.

18. de Bakker, I. G., “The Gene Bank, A New Concept, An Old Cause, ” Zaadlelangen 37:7-25,

1983,

19. Deitz, S. M,, director, Western Regional Plant

Introduction Station, personal communication, August 1986.

20. de Langhe, E. A, L., “The Role of In-vitro Techniques in Germplasm Conservation, ” Crop

Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J,T. Williams (eds,)

(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).

21. Dickie, J, B,, Linington, S., and Williams, J. T.,

Seed Management Techniques for Genebanks.

AGPG:IBPGR/84/68 (Rome: International Board

for Plant Genetic Resources, 1984).

22, Duvick, D. N., “Genetic Rates of Gain in Hybrid Maize Yields During the Past 40 Years, ”

Maydica 22:187-196, 1977.

23. Duvick, D, N., “Genetic Diversity in Major

Farm Crops on the Farm and in Reserve, ” Economic Botany 38:161-178, 1984.

24. Duvick, D. N., “Plant Breeding: Past Achievements and Expectations for the Future, ” Economic Botany 40(3):289-297, 1986,

25, Dvorak, W. S., “Strategy for the Development

of Conservation Banks and Breeding Programs

for Coniferous Species from Central America

and Mexico, ” Proceedings of the Southern

Forests Tree Improvement Conference, 1983.

26. Dvorak, W, S,, director, Central America and

Mexico Coniferous Resources Cooperative

(CAMCORE), personal communication, May

1986.

27. Dvorak, W, S., and Laarman, J. G,, “Conserving
Igg . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

the Genes of Tropical Conifers,” Journal of Forestry 84:43-45, 1983.

28. Ellis, R. H., “Revised Table of Seed Storage

Characteristics,” Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 58:16-33, 1984.

29. Ellis, R. H., “Information Required Within

Genetic Resources Centres To Maintain and

Distribute Seed Accessions, ” Documentation

of Genetic Resources: Information Handling

Systems for Genebank Management, J. Konopka

and J. Hanson (eds.) AGPG:IBpGR/85/76 (Rome:

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

1985).

30. Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D., and Roberts, E. H.,

Handbook of Seed Technology for Gene Banks,

Volume I: Principles and Methodology, Handbooks for Gene Banks No. 2 (Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

1985).

31. Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D., and Roberts, E. H.,

Handbook of Seed Technology for Gene Banks,

Volume II: Compendium of Specific Germination Information and Test Recommendations,

Handbooks for Gene Banks No. 3 (Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

1985).

32. Ellis, R. H., and Roberts, E. H., “Procedures for

Monitoring the Viability of Accessions During

Storage,” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T.

Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).

33. Evans, D. A., Sharp, W. R., Ammirato, P. W., Yamada, Y. (eds.), Handbook of Plant Cell Cu)-

ture, Volume I (New York: Macmillan Press,

1983).

34. Falk, D. A., and Walter, K. S., “Networking To

Save Imperiled Plants,” Garden, January/February 1986.

35. Fehr, W.R. (cd.), “Genetic Contributions To

Yield Gains of Five Major Crop Plants, ” Crop

Science Society of America, Spec. Pub. No. 7,

1984.

36. Frankel, O. H., and Brown, A. D, H., “Plant

Genetic Resources Today: A Critical Appraisal,”

Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and

Evaluation J.H.W. Holden and J.T. Williams

(eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin, 1984).

37. Frey, K. J., Meredith, C. P., and Long, S. R.,

“Genetic Improvement,” Crop Productivity—

Research Imperatives Revisited, M. Gibbs and

C. Carlson (eds.), an international conference

held at Boyne Highlands Inn, MI, Oct. 13-18,

1985 and Airlie House, VA, Dec. 11-13, 1985.

38. Gibbs, M., and Carlson, C. (eds,), Crop Productivity–Research Imperatives Revisited, an

international conference held at Boyne Highlands Inn, MI, Oct. 13-18, 1985 and Airlie

House, VA, Dec. 11-13, 1985.

39, Goodman, M. M., Department of Crop Science,

University of North Carolina, Raleigh, personal communication, May 1986.

40. Grout, B. W. W., “Embryo Culture and Cryopreservation for the Conservation of Genetic

Resources of Species With Recalcitrant Seed,”

Plant Tissue Culture and Its Agricultural Applications, L.A. Withers and P.G. Alderson

(eds.) (London: Butterworths, 1986).

41. Hansen, M., Busch, L., Burkhardt, W. B., and

Lacy, L. R., “Plant Breeding and Biotechnology,” Bioscience 36:29-39, 1986.

42. Hanson, J., “The Storage of Seeds of Tropical

Tree Fruits,” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J,H.W. Holden and J.T.

Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin,

1984).

43. Hanson, J,, “Practical Manuals for Genebanks:

No. l,” Procedures for Handling Seeds in

Genebanks (Rome: International Board for

Plant Genetic Resources, 1985).

44. Harborne, J. B., Phytochemical Methods (London: Chapman & Hall, 1973).

45. Hartmann, H. T., Flocker, W. J., and Kofranek,

A. M., “Plant Science,” Growth, Development

and Utilization of Cultivated Plants (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981).

46. Hawkes, J., Plant Genetic Resources: The Impact of the International Agricultural Research

Centers (Washington, DC: Consultative Group

on International Agricultural Research, World

Bank, 1985).

47. Hawkes, J. G., Crop Genetic Resources Field

Collection Manual (Rome: International Board

for Plant Genetic Resources and European

Association for Research on Plant Breeding,

1980).

48. Helentjaris, T., King, G., Slocum, M., Siedenstrang, C., and Wegman, S., “Restriction Fragment Polymorphisms as Probes for Plant Diversity and Their Development as Tools for Applied

Plant Breeding,” Plant Molecular Biology 5:109-

118, 1985,

49. Henshaw, G. G., Keefe, P. D., and O’Hara, J. F.,

“Cryopreservation of Potato Meristems, ” In

Vitro Techniques: Propagation and Long Term

Storage, A. Schafer-Menuhr (cd.) (Boston: Martinus Nijoff/ Dr. W. Junk Publication, 1985).

50. Huaman, Z., “The Evaluation of Potato Germ-
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Of fsite ● 199

51.

52.

53,

54.

55,

56.

57.

58,

59.

60.

61

62,

63,

plasm at the International Potato Center,” Crop

Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.)

(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

Revised Priorities Among Crops and Regions,

AGP:IBPGR/81/34 (Rome: 1981].

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

Practical Constraints Affecting the Collection

and Exchange of Wild Species and Primitive

Cu]tivars, AGpG:1J3pGR/83/49 (Rome: 1983).

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

“IBPGR Advisory Committee on In Vitro Storage, ” First Meeting, Aug. 16-20, 1982 (Rome:

1983).

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

IBPGR Advisory Committee on Seed Storage,

Report of the Second Meeting, Sept. 19-20,

1983, AGPG:IBPGR/83/116 (Rome: 1984).

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

Cost-Effective Long-Term Seed Stores (Rome:

1985).

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

“IBPGR Advisory Committee on In-Vitro Storage, ” Report of the Second Meeting (Rome:

1985).

Janick, J., Schery, R. W., Woods, F. W., and Ruttan, V. W., Plant Science. An Introduction to

World Crops, 2d ed. (San Francisco: W .H. Freeman & Co., 1974).

Justice, O. L., and Bass, L., Principles and Practices of Seed Storage, Agriculture Handbook

No. 506 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 1978).

Kahn, R. P., “Plant Quarantine: Principles,

Methodology, and Suggested Approaches, ”

Plant Health and Quarantine in International

Transfer of Plant Genetic Resources, W.B.

Hewitt and L. Chiarappa (eds.) (Cleveland, OH:

CRC Press, 1977). In: Kahn, 1985.

Kahn, R. P., “Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity: Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices, ” OTA commissioned paper,

1985,

Kaiser, W, J., “Plant Introduction and Related

Seed Pathology Research in the United States,”

Seed Science and Technology 11:197-212,

1983.

Kartha, K. K., “Meristem Culture and Germplasm Preservation, ” Cryopreservation of Plant

Cells and Organs, K.K. Kartha (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1985). In: Towill, et al,,

1985.

King, M. W., and Roberts, E. H., The Storage

of Recalcitrant Seeds—Achievements and Possible Approaches (Rome: International Board

for Plant Genetic Resources, 1979).

64. King, M. W., and Roberts, E. H., “The Desicca65.

66!

67,

68,

69.

70,

71.

72,

73,

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

tion Response of Seeds of Citrus limon L., ” Annals of Botany 45:489-492, 1980. In: Towill, et

al., 1985.

Konopka, J., and Hanson, J. (eds, ), Documentation of Genetic Resources: Information Handling Systems for Genebank Management (Rome:

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

1985),

Koopowitz, H., Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, personal

communication, August 1986.

Larkin, P. J., and Scowcroft, W. R., “Somaclonal

Variation: A Novel Source of Variability From

Cell Cultures for Plant Improvement,” Theroet.

Appl. Genet, 60:197-214, 1981,

Lucas, G., Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, England, personal communication, May 1986,

Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,

Botanical Gardens and Similar Institutions in

the Maintenance of Biological Diversity,” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985,

Lyman, J. M,, “Progress and Planning for Germplasm Conservation of Major Food Crops,” Plant

Genetic Resources Newsletter 60:3-21, 1984,

McMahan, L., Center for Plant Conservation,

Boston, personal communication, August 1986.

Melchers, G,, Saeristan, M,, and Holder, A, A.,

“Somatic Hybrid Plants of Potato and Tomato

Regenerated From Fused Protoplasts, ” Carlsberg Res. Comm. 43:203-218, 1978.

Oldfield, M. L., The Value of Conserving Genetic Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1984).

Orton, T. J., “Somaclonal Variation: Theoretical and Practical Consideration, ” Gene Manipulation in Plant Improvement, J, P. Gustafson

(cd.) (New York: Plenum Press, 1984). In: Orton, 1985.

Orton, T. J., “New Technologies and the Enhancement of Plant Germplasm Diversity,”

OTA commissioned paper, 1985,

Peacock, W. J,, “The Impact of Molecular Biology on Genetic Resources, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H. W,

Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: George

Allen & Unwin, 1984).

Plucknett, D. L., and Smith, N. H., “Sustaining

Agricultural Yields,” Bioscience 36:40-45,

1983.

Plucknett, D. L., Smith, N. J. H., Williams, J. T.,
200 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

79.

80.

81

82.

83.

84(

85

86.

87.

88.

89.

and Anishetty, N. M., “Crop Germplasm Conservation and Developing Countries, ” Science

220:163-169, 1986.

Plucknett, D., Smith, N., Williams J. T., and

Anishetty, N. M., Gene Banks and The World’s

Food (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, in press).

Richardson, S. D., “Gene Pools in Forestry, ”

Genetic Resources in Plants—Their Exploration and Conservation, O.H. Frankel and E.

Bennet (eds.) IBP Handbook No. 11:353-365

(Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications,

1970).

Rick, C. M., “Plant Germplasm Resources,”

Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, P.V, Ammirato, D.A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, and Y. Yamada

(eds.), vol. 3:9-36 (New York: Macmillan Press,

1984).

Roberts, E, H., “Loss of Seed Viability During

Storage,” Advances in Research and Technology of Seeds, Part 8, J.R. Thompson (cd.)

(Wageningen: Pudoc, 1983).

Roberts, E. H., “Monitoring Seed Viability in

Genebanks,” Seed Management Techniques

for Genebanks, J.B. Dickie, S. Linington, and

J.T. Williams (eds.) AGPG:IBPGR/84/68 (Rome:

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

1984).

Roberts, E. H., and Ellis, R. H., “The Implications of the Deterioration of Orthodox Seeds

During Storage for Genetic Resources Conservation, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T.

Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin,

1984).

Roberts, E. H., King, M. W., and Ellis, R. H.,

“Recalcitrant Seeds: Their Recognition and

Storage, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T.

Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin,

1984).

Roos, E. E., “Induced Genetic Changes in Seed

Germplasm During Storage, ” The Physiology

and Biochemistry of Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination, A.A. Kahn (cd.) (New

York: Elsevier Biomedical Press, 1982).

Roos, E. E., “Genetic Shifts in Mixed Bean Populations, Part I: Storage Effects,” Crop Science

24:240-244, 1984.

Roos, E. E., “Genetic Shifts in Mixed Bean Populations, Part II: Effects of Regeneration, ” Crop

Science 24:711-715, 1984.

Roos, E. E., “Precepts of Successful Seed Storage, ” Physiology of Seed Deterioration, Spec.

Pub. No. 11:1-25 (Madison, WI: Crop Science

SocietV of America, 1986).

90. Scowcroft, W. R.. Genetic Variabi]itv in Tissue

91

92.

93!

94,

95

96.

Culture: Impact ‘on Germplasm Conservation

and Utilization, AGpG:lBPGR/84/152 (Rome:

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

1984).

Scowcroft, W. R., and Larkin, P. J., “Somaclonal

Variation, Cell Selection and Genotype Culture,” Comprehensive Biotechnology, vol. 3,

C.W. Robinson and H.J. Howells (eds.) (Sydney: Academic Press, 1984). In: Scowcroft, et

al., 1984.

Scowcroft, W. R., Ryan, S. A., Brettel, R. I. S.,

and Larkin, P. J., “Somaclonal Variation: A

‘New’ Genetic Resource, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H. W.

Holden and J,T, Williams (eds.) (London: George

Allen & Unwin, 1984).

Sharp, W. R., Evans, D. A., Ammirato, P. V., and

Yamada, Y, (eds.), Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, vol. 2 (New York: Macmillan Press, 1984).

Simpson, M. J. A., and Withers, L. A., Characterization of Plant Genetic Resources Using

Isozyme Electrophoresis: A Guide to the Literature (Rome: International Board for Plant

Genetic Resources, 1986).

Singh, R. B., and Williams, J. T., “Maintenance

and Multiplication of Plant Genetic Resources, ”

Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and

Evaluation, J,H.W. Holden and J.T. Williams

(eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin, 1984].

Smith, D. H., curator, U.S. National Small

Grains Collection, personal communications,

Jan. 19, 1986.

97. Smith, R. D., Linin~ton, S. H., and Fox, D. T.,

98

“The Role of the C;mputer in the Day to Day

Running of the Kew Seed Bank,” Documentation of Genetic Resources: Information Handling Systems for Genebank Management, J.

Konopka and J. Hanson (eds.), AGPG:IBPGR/

85/76 (Rome: International Board for Plant

Genetic Resources, 1985).

Sprague, G. F., “Germplasm Resources of Plants:

Their Preservation a“nd Use,” Annual Review

of Phytopathology 18:147-165, 1980.

99. Stanwood, P. C., “Cryopreservation of Seeds,”

Report Second Meeting, IBPGR Advisory Committee on Seed Storage, App. III (Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

1984).

100. Stanwood, P. C., “Cryopreservation of Seed

Germplasm for Genetic Conservation,” Cryopreservation of Plant Cells and Organs, K.K.

Kartha (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1985).

101. Stanwood, P. C., USDA-ARS National Seed

Storage Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO, personal

communication, May 1986.
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite “ 201

102.

103.

104.

105.

106,

107,

108,

109.

110,

111

112.

113.

Stanwood, P. C., and Bass, L, N,, “Seed Germplasm Preservation Using Liquid Nitrogen, ”

Seed Science and Technology 9:423-437, 1981.

Strauss, M. S., “Technology and Plant Gene

Banking in Developing Countries, ” OTA staff

paper, 1986.

Tanksley, S. D., and Orton, T. J., lsozymes in

Plant Genetics and Breeding, Part A (New

York: Elsevier Biomedical Press, 1983),

Tanksley, S. D., and Orton, T. J,, Isozymes in

Plant Genetics and Breeding, Part B (New

York: Elsevier Biomedical Press, 1983).

Thibodeau, F., and Falk, D,, “The Center for

Plant Conservation: A New Response to Endangerment, ” The Public Garden, January

1986.

Towill, L. E,, “Low Temperature and FreezeVacuum-Drying Preservation of Pollen,” Cryopreservation of Plant Cells and Organs, K,K.

Kartha (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1985).

Towill, L., Roos, E., and Stanwood, P. C., “Plant

Germplasm Storage Technologies, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Impacts of Applied Genetics: MicroOrganisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, April 1981),

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Plants: The Potentials for Extracting Protein, Medicines, and Other Useful Chemicals—

Workshop Proceedings, OTA-BP-F-23 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

September 1983).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis, OTA-BA-218 (Springfield, VA:

National Technical Information Service, January 1984).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological

Diversity in the United States—Background

Paper#l, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S

Government Printing Office, February 1986).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Research Service, Research Progress in 1985,

A Report of the Agricultural Research Service

(Washington, DC: 1986).

Weeden, N., and Young, D. A., “Technologies

To Evaluate and Characterize Plant GermD]asm.” OTA commissioned DaDer. 1985.

114.

‘ 11,

115.

116,

117.

118.

119,

120.

121

122,

123.

124.

125,

Wilkes, G,, “Current Status of Crop Plant

Germplasm, ” CRC Critical Reviews in Plant

Science 1:133-181, 1983.

Wilkes, G., “Germplasm Conservation Toward

the Year 2000: Potential for New Crops and

Enhancement of Present Crops,” Plant Genetic

Resources, A Conservation Imperative, AAAS

Selected Symposium 87:131-164, 1984.

Williams, J. T,, “A Decade of Crop Genetic Resources Research, ” Crop Genetic Resources:

Conservation and Evaluation, J,H.W. Holden

and J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).

Williams, J. T., and Damania, A. B., Directory

of Germplasm Collections, 5: Industrial Crops,

I: Cacao, Coconut, Pepper, Sugarcane, and Tea

(Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic

Resources, 1981).

Withers, L. A., “Germplasm Storage in Plant

Biotechnology, ” Plant Biotechnology, S.H,

Mantell and H. Smith (eds.] (Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press, 1983),

Withers, L, A,, “Germplasm Conservation In

Vitro: Present State of Research and Its Application, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation

and Evaluation, J,H,W, Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen & Unwin,

1984).

Withers, L, A,, “Cryopreservation of Cultured

Cells and Meristems, ” Cell Culture and Somatic Cell Genetics of P]ants, 2:253-3 16 (New

York: Academic Press, 1985].

Withers, L. A., “Cryopreservation and Genebanks, ” Plant Cell Culture Technology, ” M.M,

Yeoman (cd.), Botanical Monographs, 23:96-

140 (Oxford, U. K.: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1986).

Withers, L. A., and Williams, J. T,, “Research

on Long-Term Storage and Exchange of In

Vitro Plant Germplasm, ” Biotechnology in international Agricultural Research (Manila,

Philippines: International Rice Research Institute, 1985).

Witt, S., Briefbook: Biotechnology and Genetic

Diversity, California Agricultural Lands Project, 1985.

Yndgaard, F,, “Genebank Security Storage in

Permafrost, ” Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 62:2-7, 1985.
Chapter 8

Maintaining Microbial Diversity
P8ge

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........? .. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C205

Overview. ....D .@. ... .. a....... .. ... ... ... .O O O

. .. e g t. ... ....o.. ....20 5

What Is Microbial Diversity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........205

Status of Microbial Diversity Onsite. . . . . . . . . ..*.+*.,. ........~..~,..zoy

Microbial Diversity Offsite. ... ....o. . . . . . . . .!....... . .....,........208

Maintenance Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S .......208

Isolation and Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........208

Microbial Identification ..***,* ● **9*.** ● ****..* ● ******* 9*.9.*** ● *** 209

Storage of Micro-Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~...,......... ... .+..209

Needs and Opportunities . . ..** ***** . . . . . . .+....... .. .. ... ... ...+212

Catalog Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...

00 .0 0

. 9..s. 

Develop Methods for Isolation and Culture ..***.* ..***..* ● ******* .** 213

Study of Microbial Ecology ,,,... . ● .*.*** ● ****99* ● ******, 9******* 9 213

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● *214

Table.

Table No. Page

8-1. Summary of the Characteristics, problems, and Uses of

Micro-Organisms .. ... ... s...... . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . .. a t . . . . . . . . . . . ..207

BoXNO.

8-A,The

Box

Page

Importance of Microbial Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....206
Chapter 8

Maintaining Microbial Diversity

Micro-organisms provide benefits and harbor danger. But safeguarding a diversity of these organisms remains important, for few have been cataloged and

the potential contribution to agriculture, industry, and medicine is therefore

unknown.

The most cost-effective way to preserve economically important micro-organisms today is through offsite collections. Micro-organisms that are isolated

and identified can be stored from a few days to as long as 30 years.

Technologies used are freeze-drying (the most common method), ultra-freezing

(which costs more in labor and materials), immersion in mineral oil, lowtemperature freezing, and desiccation. The last three methods are suitable for

short-term storage only.

A high priority in efforts to maintain a diversity of micro-organisms is the need

for an integrated database of current collections. Also needed is research on

microbial ecology, to better understand the extent to which plants and animals

depend. on bacteria and fungi to survive.

OVERVIEW

Micro-organisms constitute a vast, though

largely unseen, part of the biotic world. Although most frequently discussed in terms of

their harmful effects on humans, they are essential to the proper functioning of ecosystems

as well as to the survival of many species of

plants and animals (19,25) (see box 8-A). The

public is less concerned, however, about potential losses of microbial diversity than about

plant, animal, or ecosystem diversity (19).

What Is Microbial Diversity?

The wide range of micro-organisms not typically classed as plants or animals includes bacteria, cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), fungi (including yeasts), protozoa, and viruses (see table

8-l). Although the microscopic, single-celled

bacteria are generally considered synonymous

with the term micro-organism, the field includes such different things as the large marine algae of ocean kelp beds and the submicroscopic viruses that infect humans,

animals, plants, and other micro-organisms,

Even smaller than viruses are those infective

agents, such as viroids, that have been found

to be nothing more than pieces of genetic material, lacking even the typical protein coats of

a virus. Thus, the diversity of micro-organisms

is immense, with only a relatively small fraction of micro-organisms having been identified

(19,25),

The concept of a species, borrowed from animal and plant biology, cannot be easily applied

to all micro-organisms (5,19,25,29). Research

frequently focuses on populations of microbial

cells that share common nutritional, chemical,

or biochemical characteristics. Such populations, each typically descended from a single

205
[page omitted]

This page was originally printed on a dark gray background.

The scanned version of the page was almost entirely black and not usable.
Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity ● 207

——

Table 8“1 .—Summary of the Characteristics, Problems, and Uses of Micro-Organisms

— — .-

Organisms Characteristics —

Bacteria Single-cells; spherical rod and

spiral forms. Most are saprophytes (use dead matter for

food), although some bacteria

are photosynthetic.

Fung i

Algae

Protozoa

Viruses

Variety of forms; microscopic

molds, mildews, rusts, and

smuts; larger mushrooms and

puffballs,

Single cells, colonies, or filaments containing chlorophyll

and other characteristic pigments; no true roots, stems, or

leaves; aquatic.

Single cells, or groups of similar

cells, found in fresh and sea

water, in soil, and as symbi -

onts or parasites in man,

animals, and some plants.

Infective agents; capable of multiplying only in living cells;

composed of proteins and

Problems Uses

.——. —

Some cause disease in humans,

animals, and plants,

Rot textiles, leather, harvested

foods, and other products;

cause important plant and

animal diseases.

Cover pond surfaces, producing

scum and unpleasant odor and

taste (in drinking water); absorb 0, from ponds and some

produce toxins.

Responsible for serious human

and animal disease (e. g.,

malaria, sleeping sickness,

dysentery).

Cause variety of human, animal,

and plant diseases (e. g., influenza, AIDS, rabies,

mosaics).

Break down organic matter

and assist soil fertility,

waste disposal, and biogas

production; source of antibiotics and other

chemicals,

Assist in recycling complex

plant constituents such as

cel Iulose; mushrooms and

yeasts important as foods;

many used in chemical and

pharmaceutical industries.

Red and brown seaweeds are

important foods in Asia and

Polynesia; red algae

produce agar; important

food source for many ocean

fish.

Assist in breakdown of organic matter such as cellulose

in ruminant nutrition,

Important as carriers of genetic information; some infecting pests can be used as

nucleic acids. biological control aaents.

;OURCE National Academy of Sciences, M/crob/a/ Processes Promls)ng Techfrolog(es for Developing Countr(es (Washington DC National Academy Press, 1979)

Photo credtt” G.E Pierce and M K Mulks

Pseudomonas putida, a bacterium capable of degrading

hydrocarbons, is one type of micro-organism.

cell, are termed strains (7). Individually identifiable strains of micro-organisms are thus

often regarded as the basic units of microbial

diversity.

Micro-organisms are found in nearly all environments (8). Bacteria, for example, have been

found living in deep-sea steam vents at temperatures of 3500 C (22). Although some micro-organisms are widely distributed, others may be

restricted to a narrow ecological range, Most

micro-organisms are found as parts of complex

microbial communities or as integral parts of

larger ecosystems. Many of these micro-organisms cannot be isolated and grown under controlled laboratory conditions (25).

Status of Microbial Diversity Onsite

Assessing the status and changes in microbial

diversity onsite can be difficult. As noted

earlier, few micro-organisms have been isolated
208 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

and described or identified (25). Therefore, any

changes that occur cannot be determined as

temporary or permanent.

For example, the composition of microbial

populations within environments can be dramatically altered by pollutants (18,19,32).

Studies of microbial populations at a pharmaceutical dump site in the Atlantic Ocean indicate that the survival and growth of certain

marine micro-organisms over others in the population occur as a result of pollution (27), Although it is clear that pollution or environmental disturbance can produce quantitative

changes, definitive evidence of extinction of

micro-organisms, as is seen in plants and animals, is rare. But it would seem likely that where

micro-organisms are highly adapted to a specific environment, loss of that environment

could result in extinction of the micro-organisms (10).

one group of micro-organisms for which the

potential for loss has been a particular concern

is the macrofungi—more specifically, the edible wild mushrooms. Morels, chanterelles, and

other mushrooms have long been collected by

fanciers, particularly in the Northwest United

States (33). However, increased collection to

serve a growing commercial demand for wild

mushrooms has raised fears that the most

sought-after species could become rare or extinct (1,33). Scientists currently disagree about

whether this is possible, for it is not even known

if wild mushrooms can be overharvested (33).

In the absence of information, some efforts have

been made to limit collection (33). Research on

the biology and ecology of these mushrooms

and their distribution is needed.

Microbial Diversity Offsite

The principal repositories for those few

micro-organisms that have been isolated are offsite collections. Offsite collections of microorganisms provide easier and quicker access

to specific strains than repeatedly returning to

onsite sources to obtain them. In addition, it

may not always be possible to obtain the same

micro-organism from the same place. The

fungus from which penicillin was derived, for

example, could not again be isolated from air

or dust samples in the laboratory where it was

first found as a culture contaminant. Offsite collections also are used as reference standards for

taxonomic and comparative studies. In microbiology, a “type” strain of a micro-organism

is maintained for use as a reference and as a

source for subsequent studies (17). It would be

impossible to isolate type-strains from natural

environments each time comparative studies

were initiated (19,21).

Current offsite collections of micro-organisms are actively used as resources by industry and by the scientific community. Yet such

collections are rarely established or maintained

for preserving microbial diversity (26).

MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGIES

Onsite maintenance is the only feasible longterm method for maintaining the major portion

of microbial diversity, because most of the

micro-organisms in any single environment

have yet to be identified (19). But existing programs to maintain animal and plant diversity

will likely cover all but a few specialized environments (e. g., deep-sea steam vents), so establishing reserves specifically for maintaining

micro-organisms should not be necessary,

The most cost-effective approach to providing ready access to the many economically,

medically, agriculturally, or scientifically important micro-organisms today is to preserve

them in offsite collections (19). The following

sections assess the techniques required to maintain micro-organisms offsite.

lsolation and Sampling

Isolation of micro-organisms and their incorporation into a collection generally reflects a

particular set of goals. Laboratory applications,

such as those involved in genetic engineering,

require specific strains of micro-organisms that,
Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity ● 209

once obtained, are kept as pure cultures. Microorganisms have been isolated to study their interrelationships and the way the dynamics between populations influence the entire biological food chain. Some collections represent

sampling of specific taxonomic classes of

micro-organisms of economic or agricultural

importance. The actinomycete collection of the

Battelle-Kettering Laboratory (Yellow Springs,

OH) and the many collections of varying sizes

of Rhizobiurn, the nitrogen-fixing bacteria of

legumes, are examples of goal-directed collections. The pathogenic characteristics of a

micro-organism, as in the case of a diseaseproducing virus, can also merit spending funds,

time, and expertise to isolate it.

Isolated pure cultures of micro-organisms are

necessary for detailed study (7). For some, such

as the fungi, a sterile culture of spores on a specially prepared medium may be all that is necessary to obtain a pure culture. Nutritional requirements for various fungi can, however, be

specific and difficult to determine. Most bacteria must be cultured on a variety of media

that will stimulate growth of possible contaminants, from which pure culture can then be obtained. Viruses are frequently isolated from infected cells or tissues by centrifugation or

filtration techniques that separate them from

other cellular components. For micro-organisms

that consist only of a small piece of genetic material, such as viroids, the newly developed

technologies for isolating, multiplying, and

characterizing DNA and RNA have been important. The critical determination that an isolated

micro-organism is pure can be a lengthy process of repeated culture or separation under

varying conditions and can be a research problem in itself (7).

Studies of microbial ecology and microbial

diversity are limited by the inability of scientists at the present time to isolate many microorganisms (19). Identification, for example, generally requires growth in pure culture to allow

for nutritional and physiological testing, It is

not currently possible to acquire a knowledge

of the total microbial diversity in any one environment in a readily definable time period because of this inability to isolate, culture, and

characterize every (or even most) micro-organism present. Thus, sampling of diversity is

limited to those micro-organisms for which isolation and culture technologies are available.

Identification of isolated micro-organisms

can be a lengthy and complex task (for details

of the principles and procedures, see ref. 15),

Preliminary identification involves standard

staining procedures and microscopic examination. Analysis of the results of these initial examinations requires extensive knowledge of

micro-organisms and the general characteristics of various taxonomic groups, Information

regarding the source of the isolate can also play

an important role at this stage,

Following preliminary identification, the

micro-organism is subjected to more detailed

analysis, frequently consisting of examination

of growth characteristics on varying substrates

and under varying environmental conditions,

These tests establish specific physiological

characteristics that aid identification. The general protocol is to work with a pure culture and,

using selected tests, narrow the range of possibilities. Once identified, the isolate is then compared to a reference sample using selected diagnostic tests (24),

Biochemical analysis of proteins and DNA,

as described for plants (see ch. 7), has been used

for identification of many strains of microorganisms (7’), Although these technologies routinely identify the micro-organisms used in research laboratories, they are not generally applied in offsite collections. As the field of

genetic engineering has developed, however,

the capacity to study, compare, and identify the

genomes of micro-organisms has improved

(10,31). Such techniques could greatly enhance

assessment of diversity and facilitate identification of micro-organisms in offsite collections.

Storage of Micro-Orgonisms

The purpose of preserving micro-organisms

is to maintain a strain for an indefinite period

in a viable state. The continuous culture of a
210 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

micro-organism is one way to present it, but

it is expensive both in materials and in labor

and does not ensure that the genetic stability

of the micro-organism will be maintained. Continuously subculture organisms can adapt to

the specialized conditions of the laboratory and

take on characteristics different from those for

which they were originally isolated. Long-term

storage techniques that minimize such effects

have been developed,

Storage of micro-organisms involves reducing metabolic rates and, thus, the rate at which

micro-organisms multiply and use nutrients

(19). All methods that reduce metabolic rates

cause loss of a certain percentage of the sample. Methods need to be developed, therefore,

that not only reduce metabolic rates but also

prevent decline in viability in order to prevent

loss of the strain.

An additional time-consuming but crucial

task associated with storage technologies is

authentication (19). This task involves the maintenance of accurate records about the culture

history and diagnostic characteristics of the

strains in a collection. It also involves periodically recovering and culturing stored organisms

to determine their viability and to confirm purity and genetic stability.

The majority of micro-organisms currently

preserved in culture collections are held by

freeze-drying or by ultra-freezing (cryogenic

storage) (16,19). These two methods permit storage for extremely long periods of time (currently

as long as 30 years) (16). Other special methods for storage of micro-organisms are immersion in mineral oil, low-temperature freezing,

and desiccation (16),

Freeze-Drying

Freeze-drying, or lyophilization, is now the

most commonly used storage technique for culture collections. Healthy microbial cells, grown

under optimal conditions, are dispensed in

small, sterile vials or ampules at a relatively high

concentration (e. g., 1 0

6 to 107 cells per milliliter of solution). The vials are then quickly

frozen in a super-cooled liquid solvent bath or

in a mechanical ultra-freezer (at – 60° C), and

these frozen suspensions are placed under

vacuum to remove the water in them. The vials

are then heat-sealed under vacuum by melting

the glass tops with an air-gas torch and stored

at temperatures lower than 50 C. Lower storage temperatures (– 30° to – 70° C) may result

in lengthened viability.

Chemical agents (cryoprotectants) that protect cells from damage caused by ice-crystal formation during the initial freezing are commonly

added to cells before freeze-drying. The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) routinely

uses 10 percent skim milk or 12 percent sucrose

for such purposes. Curators at the Northern Regional Research Laboratory of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, in contrast, prefer

bovine or equine serum as a cryoprotectant for

all microbial species (19).

Recovery of the lyophilized cells is simple and

straightforward. The sealed vial is opened by

scoring, and a small amount of liquid-nutrient

medium is added to rehydrate the cells. The

contents, once rehydrated, are transferred to

a culture vessel containing a medium appropriate for growth.

The initial cost of equipping a laboratory to

undertake lyophilization is as much as $25,000

(11). The expense of actually preparing lyophilized cultures, however, is low, The long-term

viability of such materials is excellent, and this

procedure is thus probably the most cost-effective means of microbial preservation in use

today (19). Unfortunately, some microbial species do not fare well under these techniques,

and other storage methods must be used,

Ulfra-Freezing

Fastidious microbial species (i.e., those with

complex nutritional requirements) that do not

retain viability under other preservation methods (e.g., plant pathogenic fungi) frequently can

be preserved by ultra-freezing (2,19). In this procedure, cells sealed in vials or ampules are frozen at a slow cooling rate (1° C per minute) until they reach – 1500 C, The vials are then stored

at — 1500 to — 196° C using liquid nitrogen

freezers.
Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity . 211

 W 

Cells being dispensed into ampules to be frozen and

stored in liquid nitrogen ( – 196 C). The cabinet contains

only sterile, air to lessen the chances of

contamination of the freeze preparation.

 credit 

Ampules of freeze-dried or frozen living strains can be

stored in mechanical refrigerators at –60” C (–76- F),

in walk-in cold rooms at 5 C (40 F), or in vacuum-insulated

refrigerators (above) automatically supplied

with liquid nitrogen at – 196 C ( – 320 F).

The cryoprotective agents necessary for this

procedure differ from the ones used in lyophilization. ATCC routinely uses a mixture of

glycerol (10 percent), dimethylsulfoxide (5 percent), and nutrient medium for most bacterial

strains. These chemicals are taken into the cells

and protect the internal membranes from injury caused by freezing.

Cells stored at cryogenic temperatures must

be handled carefully when being recovered, Ice

crystals can form as vials are warmed and can

kill cells that would otherwise survive the technique. Loss of viability is minimal when the

sample is thawed rapidly, Sealed vials are thus

put in water at 37’o C until all ice melts. Then

they are opened and the contents transferred

to nutrient medium.

Ultra-frozen cultures must be maintained at

very low temperatures at all times during storage. Liquid nitrogen freezers are therefore

needed, Proper precautions are important to

ensure that such freezers operate properly and

have sufficient supplies of liquid nitrogen coolant over long periods of time. Thus, the technique can cost more than freeze-drying, both

in labor and in materials necessary to maintain storage temperatures, Ultra-freezing is reserved for microbial species that are not amenable to other, less costly procedures.

Other Methods

Microbial cell cultures can be stored for short

periods of time if the culture is overlaid with

sterile mineral oil. The oil prevents dehydration and reduces the metabolic rate of the organisms (16). Cells are grown on either nutrient

gels or in broth cultures, After incubation and

growth, mineral oil is added to the culture to

a depth of about 2 centimeters. The cultures

are then stored at approximately 40 C. Recovery

is by procedures similar to those used for routine subculture. Although cultures preserved

in this way have remained viable for as long

as 3 years, the method is not considered appropriate for long-term storage of micro-organisms,

because cultures have to be recovered, authenticated, and restored every few years (19),

A few micro-organisms, like some of the actinomycetes and some soil-borne spore-forming

bacteria, can withstand normal freezing processes and retain both viability and genetic stability. Cultures are stored on a nutrient medium

at 0° to — 20° C, Cells may remain viable for

as long as 2 years, but damage by ice crystal

formation is thought to be extensive (19). For
212 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

certain microbial cells, low-temperature freezing is inexpensive and useful for a short period.

Like immersion in mineral oil, however, repetitive recovery, authentication, and restorage

make this technique too labor-intensive for longterm maintenance of micro-organisms.

The majority of microbial cells die if they are

dried at ambient temperatures (16). But a few

can withstand dehydration and remain viable

for moderate periods of time. Spore-forming

bacteria are particularly suited to this method

of storage. Microbial cells are usually transferred to a sterile, solid material, and then dehydrated under vacuum. A soil, paper, or ceramic bead medium is frequently used. Cells

also may be suspended in gelatin solution and

then drops of the gelatin dried under vacuum.

Once dehydrated, the cells must be stored in

desiccators but will remain viable longer if

refrigerated. Recovery of the cells is by dehydration with nutrient medium and subculture. This

method is relatively inexpensive and routinely

used for some important bacterial genera (e. g.,

Rhizobiurn). However, other techniques, if

available, are preferred for long-term storage

(19).

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

No major technical constraints limit the storage and use of micro-organisms in the United

States and most other industrial nations, although developing countries lag behind in the

application, use, and technological knowledge

of micro-organisms (28). The most satisfactory

long-term storage techniques for micro-organisms are also those that are technologically

the most sophisticated. In the case of cryogenic

storage, the technique requires a dependable

source of liquid nitrogen. Lyophilization of cultures in sealed, evacuated glass-ampules creates culture units with excellent longevity, even

when stored at room temperature. The attraction of this method for developing countries

is diminished slightly by the relatively high initial cost of equipment and problems keeping

such equipment operational (19).

Improvisation in the laboratories of developing-country scientists has resulted in a wide array of variations of standard preservation methods (19). These modified methods are, in many

cases, satisfactory to the individual collection

curators, though most require micro-organisms

to be regularly subculture. This requirement

makes these methods suitable only for relatively

small collections, and it increases the likelihood

of strains becoming genetically adapted to culture and losing their original characteristics.

Maintaining and distributing a current catalog is the goal of virtually every collection curator, Without such a compilation to provide

potential users with ready access to its contents,

the value of a collection is greatly diminished.

That very few collections are adequately cataloged is a reflection of just how onerous this

task can be. In a sense, this aspect of collection management has been constrained by lack

of an appropriate technology (19). The advent

of microcomputers and highly adaptable, user-

-friendly database management systems software heralds a new era enabling a curator to

compile, print, and update a catalog inexpensively and with relative ease [9). Such electronic

catalogs would make current collections more

accessible and improve their management (4).

One way to catalog the contents of various

collections is through creation of a National

Microbial Resource Network. Two main obstacles

1.

2.

can be anticipated to such a network:

the differences in history, traditions, and

independence of existing collections; and

the difficulty of standardizing technical

and informational protocols to assure meaningful interchange of germplasm and data

among participating network institutions.
Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity . 213

One network of microbiological resource

centers (MIRCENs) has been addressing these

obstacles for almost a decade (12) (see ch. 10).

In practice, however, this endeavor has been

frustrated by an inability to come up with standardized data sets that reconcile the different

orientations of individual collections worldwide and by financial resources that fall far

short of the level required (12).

A more focused attempt to achieve an integrated microbial resource database was initiated in 1984 by UNESCO, This MIRCEN project is still being developed and provides for

standardization of a minimum data set for characterized strains of Rhizobium (the bacteria involved in nitrogen fixation in soybeans, alfalfa,

beans, and other legumes); adoption of compatible database management systems; and

periodic publication of an integrated catalog

of the collections held at Beltsville, Maryland

(USA), Porto Alegre (Brazil), Nairobi (Kenya),

and Maui, Hawaii (USA).

An appraisal of the lessons learned in the international MIRCEN effort could greatly benefit

establishment of a National Microbial Research

Network. Reservations may be expressed about

whether the institution-building rationale for

the MIRCEN program will mean the collections

are of less-than-optimal quality; nevertheless,

with limited financial resources, the MIRCEN

program has achieved a high degree of network

effectiveness, including regular global and regional newsletters, electronic data exchange,

and computer conferences,

Develop Methods for Isolation

and Culture

An important challenge to maintaining

micro-organisms offsite is the development of

methods for culture of those organisms that

have not yet been isolated in the laboratory (19).

Basic research into the isolation and cultivation of these fastidious micro-organisms is essential to further applications of the world’s

microbial diversity. Research on microbial culture would allow better characterization of

diversity in natural environments as well as enable more efficient handling of difficult microorganisms in existing collections. Efforts to isolate the Legionella micro-organism or the

retrovirus (human T-cell leukemia-lymphoma

virus) associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) illustrate both the difficulty and importance of such research.

An appreciation of the complexity of the technical barriers faced by microbiologists trying

to isolate and culture many micro-organisms

is necessary to support research. Basic studies

of microbial physiology, through grant programs and in-house research by such agencies

as the National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), can improve present

abilities to isolate and culture micro-organisms.

Study of Microbial Ecology

Another research priority is that of microbial

interactions that permit efficient functioning

of the microbial flora of an environment and,

ultimately, support higher organisms in that

environment, Research into microbial ecology

is an integral part of any strategy to preserve

micro-organisms. Present understanding of

microbial ecology and the extent of microbial

diversity in ecosystems is, however, inadequate

(19,25). Many plants and animals depend on

bacteria and fungi in the environment to survive (25), In some cases, such as digestion in

the termite or dairy cattle, microbes are important parts of the organism’s basic physiology.

Study of the soil micro-organisms that are active in nutrient recycling, such as those associated with nitrogen fixation, are of great potential importance to agriculture.

Grant programs and in-house research at

agencies such as NIH, USDA, the Department

of Energy, and the Environmental Protection

Agency could focus on improved understanding of microbial ecology, Present efforts are

spread over several agencies with little coordination. Examination of the overall efforts relating to microbial ecology and diversity could

lead to better coordination of research and development of a specific funding program within

one agency that would address microbial ecology research.
214 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

1.

2.

3.

4.

5,

6.

7.

8,

9,

10,

11.

12

13

14.

15,

16(

Allen, E. B,, research assistant professor, Utah

State University, Logan, UT, personal communication, May 14, 1986.

“ATCC Collection Emphasizes Living Plant

Pathogenic Fungi,” ATCC Quarterly Newsletter

3(1):5, 1983.

Baird, J. K., Sandford, P. A., and Cottrell, I. W.,

“Industrial Applications of Some New Microbial Polysaccharides,” Biotechnology, November 1983, pp. 778-783.

Baker, D., research scientist, Battelle Kettering

Laboratory, Yellow Springs, OH, personal communication, Feb. 10, 1986.

Brenner, D,]., “Impact of Modern Taxonomy on

Clinical Microbiology, ” ASM News 49:58-63,

1983.

Brill, W. J., “Agricultural Microbiology, ” Scientific American 245:198-215, 1981.

Brock, T. D., Biology of Micro-Organisms (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979).

Clarke, P. H., “Microbial Physiology and Biotechnology,” Endeavour, New Series 9:144-148,

1985.

Colwell, R. R., “Computer Science and Technology in a Modern Culture Collection, ” The Role

of Culture Collections in the Era of Molecular

Biology, R.R. Colwell, (cd.) (Washington, DC:

American Society for Microbiology, 1976).

Colwell, R. R., vice president for academic affairs and professor of microbiology, University

of Maryland, Adelphi, personal communication,

July 7, 1986.

Colwell, R. R., vice president for academic affairs and professor of microbiology, University

of Maryland, Adelphi, personal communication,

Aug. 26, 1986.

Colwell, R, R., “Microbiological Resource Centers,” Science 233:4762, 1986.

Demain, A. L., “Industrial Aspects of Maintaining Germplasm and Genetic Diversity, ” The

Role of Culture Collections in the Era of Molecular Biology, R.R, Colwell (cd.) (Washington, DC:

American Society for Microbiology, 1976).

Dixon, B., Invisible Allies: Microbes and Man

Future (London: Temple Smith, 1976).

Gerhardt, P., Murray, R. G. E., Costilow, R. N.,

Nester, E. N., Wood, W. A., Krieg, N. R., and Phillips, G.B. (eds.), Manual of Methods for General

Bacteriology (Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1981).

Gherna, R. L., “Preservation,” Manual of Methods for Genera] Bacteriology, P. Gerhardt, et al.

174

18,

19

20

21

22

23,

24.

25

26

27

(eds.) (Washington, DC: American Society for

Microbiology, 1981).

Gibbons, N. E., “Reference Collections of Bacteria—The Need and Requirements for Type

Strains, ” Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, N.R. Krieg and J,G. Holt (eds.) (Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1984).

Grimes, D. J., Singleton, F. L., and Colwell, R. R,,

“Allogenic Succession of Marine Bacterial Communities in Response to Pharmaceutical

Waste,” Journal of Applied Bacteriology 57:247-

261, 1984.

Halliday, J., and Baker, D., “Technologies To

Maintain Microbial Diversity,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Henahan, J., “Feisty Gram-Negative Aerobes

Succumb to New Antibiotic Group, ” Journal of

the American Medical Association 248:2085-

2086, 1982.

Holmes, B., and Owen, R. J., “Proposal That

Flavobacterium breve Be Substituted as the

Type Species of the Genus in Place of Flavobacterium aqua tile and Amended Description of the

Genus Flavobacterium: Status of the Named

Species of Flavobacterium, ” International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 29:416-426, 1979.

In: Halliday and Baker, 1985.

Klausner, A., “Bacteria Living at 350° May Have

Industrial Uses,” Biotechnology, 1983, pp.

640-641.

Klausner, A., “Microbial Insect Control, ”

Biotechnology, May 1984, pp. 408-419.

Krieg, N. R., “Enrichment and Isolation,” Manual of Methods for General Bacteriology, P.

Gerhardt, et al. (eds.) (Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1981).

Margulis, L., Chase, D., and Guerrero, R., “Microbial Communities, ” Bioscience 36:160-170,

1986.

National Academy of Sciences, Microbial Processes: Promising Technologies for Developing

Countries (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1979).

Peele, E. R., Singleton, F, L., Deming, J. W.,

Cavari, B., and C~lwell, R. R., “Effects ~f Pharmaceutical Wastes on Microbial Populations in

Surface Waters at the Puerto Rico Dump Site

in the Atlantic Ocean, ” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 41:873-879, 1981.

28. Pramer, D,, “Microbiology Needs of Developing

Countries: Environmental and Applied Problems,” ASM News 50(5):207-209, 1984,
Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity ● 215

29. Sonea, S., and Panisset, M., A New Bacteriology (Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers,

1983).

30. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Impacts of Applied Genetics. MicroOrganisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1981).

31. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis, PB #84-173 608 (Springfield, VA:

National Technical Information Service, 1984),

32. Walker, J. D., and Colwell, R, R., “Some Effects

of Petroleum on Estuarine and Marine MicroOrganisms, ” Canadian Journal of Botany

21:305-313, 1975.

33. White, P., “No Fungus Among Us?” Sierra, January/February 1986.
Part III

Institutions
Chapter 9

Maintaining Biological Diversity

in the United States
Highlights ● .*** *. **98*******..*************

Overview ● *.** . ******0**..******.********.*

Federal Mandates Affecting Biological Diversity

Onsite Biological Diversity-Maintenance

Ecosystem Diversity Maintenance. . . .

Species Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . .

Onsite Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page?

. ***..**,********.**.**. 221

. *..****.*.*.*...*.*.*** 221

Conservation. . ..........222

Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224

● 0**. **0* *.** **. ********0*.*, . 224

● *.*****. .,** .***********. 228

.b, ..v. .e. ... ... ... b e . . . . . . . . . 231

Offsite Diversity Maintenance Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......232

PIant Programs .*** **** *.**   . ** 0**************..*************** 232

Animal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . ● *,**,,**. ...** **,*************,*, 238

Microbial Resource Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . t . ............242

Quarantine *0** *.**   .** * ****   ** 0* **0* *0**   ** ** *o ***+0*** 244

Needs and Opportunities . . . *********O**.******.*..*************.**** 245

Chapter 9 References . . . . ● *.*********.********.****.*.**.*********** 246

Tables

Tabh No.

9“1.

9-2.

9“3.

9-4.

9“5.

9-6*

Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity

Page

Maintenance. . .........223

Examples of Federal Ecosystem Conservation Programs . ............225

Number of U.S. Species at Various Stages of Listing and Recovery

as of 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . *************..*******.*.**************** 229

Existing and Proposed Crop Advisory Committees of the

National Plant Germplasm System . . . . ● *,*****..*..***********.*** 235

Active Breed Associations in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239

Microbial Culture Collections in the United States With

More Than 1,000 Accessions . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9-1. Principle

Figures

of the National Plant

● ☛☛☛✎☛☛☛☛☛☛☛✎☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ ☛ 243

Page

System .. ....234
Chapter 9

Maintaining Biological Diversity

in the United States

●

●

●

Many U.S. public laws and programs addressing the use of natural resources

and the activities of private groups contribute significantly to the conservation

of biological diversity. However, diversity is seldom an explicit objective, and

where it is mentioned, it is not well-defined. The resulting ad hoc coverage

is too disjunct to address the full range of concerns over the loss of diversity.

Existing laws and programs focus on either onsite or offsite conservation, which

impedes establishment of effective linkages between the two general approaches

to maintaining diversity. Links help define common interests and areas of potential cooperation between various institutions—important steps in defining

areas of redundancy, neglect, and opportunity.

Personnel of federally mandated programs that deal directly with maintenance

of biological diversity, such as the National Plant Germplasm System and the

Endangered Species program, have stretched budgets to meet their mandated

responsibilities. It appears, however, that these programs will be unable to continue to meet their mandates without significant increases in funding and

staffing.

Federal legislation authorizes onsite conservation of species and communities and offsite

collection and development of plant and animal species of economic importance. The Federal Government consequently supports programs for agricultural plant and animal

conservation and for onsite conservation of

selected species, but little consideration is given

to a myriad of other diversity maintenance objectives. The numerous Federal onsite programs are not well-coordinated to promote a

comprehensive approach. State and private efforts fill some gaps, but in many cases, maintaining diversity is not a specific objective,

merely a result.

Many organizations or programs discussed

in this chapter focus on one aspect of diversity

maintenance: plant seeds, rare animal breeds,

or onsite conservation of endangered species.

This chapter considers Federal mandates related to diversity conservation, onsite conservation, offsite plant and animal conservation,

and microbial conservation. In each case, Federal, State, and private activities are assessed,

although these categories are arbitrary and, in

fact, biological diversity maintenance programs

frequently fall into more than one category,

221
222 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

FEDERAL MANDATES AFFECTING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

CONSERVATION

No Federal law specifically mandates the

maintenance of biological diversity, either offsite or onsite, as a national goal. The term itself is used only in Title VII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1983 (discussed in ch. 11). A

number of Federal laws require the conservation of resources on Federal lands, however,

or require that consideration be given to resources in Federal agency activities. Offsite

maintenance of agricultural plant germplasm

diversity is mandated indirectly through legislation authorizing the National Plant Germplasm System (discussed later in this chapter).

But offsite maintenance of wild plants, wild animals, and microbial resources is not explicitly

mandated by Federal legislation.

The lack of a comprehensive Federal onsite

policy leads to uncoordinated programs, frequently leaving important gaps in conservation.

Generally, Federal agencies coordinate conservation activities onsite for species that are specifically mentioned in Federal protection laws,

but this coordination frequently does not extend to nonlegislated species. For example, onsite conservation can be coordinated among

Federal agencies for threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205). But no formal

institutional mechanism exists to coordinate

conservation of thousands of plant, animal, and

microbial species not recognized as threatened

or endangered.

offsite germplasm conservation mandates

are equally vague. For example, the Agricultural 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 to mean domesticated plant

species and varieties. Little consideration has

been given to conservation of wild plant

species,

Federal mandates give even less attention to

offsite conservation of domesticated and wild

animals. Legislative authority is vague and provides little direction to the Agricultural Research Service.

Table 9-1 lists the major Federal mandates

pertinent to diversity maintenance. Species protection laws authorize Federal agencies to manage specific animal populations and their habitats onsite. Legislation on the protection of

natural areas authorizes the acquisition or designation of habitats and communities that help

maintain a diversity of natural areas under Federal stewardship, Federal laws for offsite maintenance of plants authorize conservation and

development (or enhancement) primarily of

plant species that demonstrate potential economic value, Offsite maintenance of domestic

animal germplasm is authorized indirectly by

the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The

Endangered Species Act of 1973 is in both categories of table 9-1 because it authorizes wild

plant and animal species protection, habitat

protection, and offsite conservation for those

species considered threatened or endangered

in the United States,

Although the National Forest Management

Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-588) is the only Federal legislation that includes in its mandate the

onsite conservation of a “diversity of plant and

animal communities, ” it offers no explicit congressional direction on the meaning and scope

of onsite maintenance of biological diversity.

Interpretation of this provision has been a difficult process and has involved lengthy consultation with scientists and managers around the

country (50). The U.S. Forest Service ultimately

decided the law gave them a mandate to maintain terrestrial vertebrate species diversity and

the structural timber stands on all Forest Service lands in conjunction with planning and

management processes (44 F.R. 53967-53779),

Whether this interpretation fulfills the congressional intent on conserving diversity has not

been challenged.

Such terms as biological resources, wildlife,

animals, and natural resources can and have

been interpreted differently by Federal agen-
Ch, 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 223

Table 9-1 .—Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance

Common name --

Onsife diversity mandates:

Lacey Act of 190 0

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

Migratory B!rd Conservation Act of 1929, . . . ., ...

Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (Plttman-Robertson Act) . ,

Bald Eagle Protection Act of 194 0

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

Fmh Restoration and Management Act of 1950

(Dingell-Johnson Act) ,. .,, ., ,

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 (Publlc 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

(Public Law 94-532). ... .., .., .., .,, ... .,,.,,.,,

Whale Conservation and Protection Study Act of 1976

(Public Law 94-532) ... .,, . .

Fish and Wildllfe Conservation Act of 1980 (Publtc Law W-366). .

Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act of 1980

(Publlc Law 96-561).. ., ..,

Fish and Wlldllfe Coordination Act of 1934 . .

Flshand Game Sanctuary Act of 1934 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hlstorlc Sites, Buildings, and Antlqultles Act of 1935 . . . . . .

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

Wilderness Act of 1964 (Publlc Law 88-577) ., ., ., .,

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966

(Public Law 91-135) . . . . . . . ,, . . . . . . . . .

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-542) ,,, . .

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

(Public Law 92-532) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resource affected

wtld animals

wtld birds

wild birds

wild animals

wild birds

wild animals

flshenes

flshenes

wild animals

wild animals

wild plants and

animals

flsherles

wild animals

wild animals

ftsherles

terrestrial/aquatic

habitats

sanctuaries

natural landmarks

wildlife sanctuaries

wilderness areas

refuges

river segments

coastal areas

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

(Publlc Law 94-579) . . . . . . . public domain lands

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Publlc Law 94-588) national forest lands

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Publlc Law 95-514) public domain lands

Of fsite diversity mandates:

Agricultural Markettng Act of 1946 (Research and Marketing Act) agricultural plants

and animals

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

animals

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978

(Publlc Law 95-307), . . ., . . . . . . . . tree germplasm

NOTE Laws enacted prior to 1957 are cited by Chapter and not”Publlc Law number

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

US Code

16 U.S.C 667, 701

16 U S.C 703 et seq.

16 U.S.C 715 et seq.

16 U. SC. 669 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.

16 U SC 916 et seq.

16 U.S. C. 777 et seq

16 U S.C 757a-f

16 U SC 1151 et seq.

16 U SC 1361 et seq.

7 U S C. 136

16 USC, 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372,

1402, 1531 et seq

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

16 USC 915 et seq

16 U S.C 2901 et seq

16 U.S.C 1823 et seq

16 US.C 694

16 USC 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

16 U S.C. 1271-1287

16 U.S.C. 1431-1434

33 U.S.C. 1401, 1402, 1411-1421, 1441-1444

7 USC. 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 SC 1739, 1751- 1753, 1901-1908

5 U.s.c, 5315

7 U.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 USC, 1641-1647
224 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

cies. Wildlife, for example, has been defined all animals, both vertebrates and inverin a number of ways, including the following: tebrates, including fish (65).

● mammals that are hunted or trapped These definitional differences are further evi-

(game); dence of the lack of a comprehensive Federal

 all mammals—the word animal is some- approach to these issues.

times used interchangeably with mammal;

● all animals, both vertebrates and invertebrates, excluding fish; and

ONSITE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS

U.S. onsite programs seem to have one of

three main objectives: 1) maintenance of diverse

habitats or ecosystems, 2) preservation of individual species through habitats’ protection, and

3) restoration of habitats to their natural condition. These objectives are not necessarily exclusive. Safeguarding communities and ecosystems could help protect rare species. Protecting

the habitat of a species may conserve an ecosystem or community. And restoring habitats

could enhance the diversity of species within

an ecosystem.

Ecosystem Diversity Maintenance

Maintaining ecosystems is the only way to

ensure the continued viability and evolutionary processes of the organisms within these

areas (see ch. 5). Numerous mechanisms exist

at the Federal, State, and local level to manage

land and water areas for their maintenance. The

net result is the continued existence of a diversity of ecosystems in the United States.

Ecosystem diversity maintenance within Federal, State, and private holdings depends on the

degree of protection given to the area, its size,

and the impact of external influences. Protection of ecosystem diversity within land and

water designations ranges from scant to strict.

The use of land and waters in the National

Wilderness Preservation System is greatly restricted—generally, motorized vehicles and

long-term human activities are prohibited.

Some wilderness areas are regularly patrolled

and violators cited. Others receive little regulatory attention. At the other extreme, estuarine sanctuaries are not required to have any

Federal protection; jurisdiction over any use

is determined exclusively by the States. One

preliminary assessment concluded that privately owned, legally secured, single-purpose

nature reserves offer the greatest protection to

biological diversity (10),

The size of a designated area and proximity

to other land designations also influence its contribution to onsite diversity (10). Some Research

Natural Areas (RNAs), for example, are wellprotected but may be very small (the smallest

is only 2 acres), Numerous vertebrates and

larger plants would not be able to survive and

reproduce successfully in a small “island” habitat; therefore, small RNAs contribute little to

community diversity maintenance.

Natural areas are influenced by human activities on surrounding land that reduce the area’s

ability to sustain natural biological communities. The National Park Service has reported

that 55 percent of the threats to park natural

resources come from influences outside park

boundaries (64). The National Wildlife Refuge

System also noted that influences from adjacent areas were harming the fish and wildlife

within refuges (63). Concern over such threats

has prompted introduction of legislation to minimize negative effects of activities conducted

in adjacent areas,

Table 9-2 provides a summary of the Federal

ecosystem conservation programs in which

designated areas are maintained in a relatively

natural condition, The land designations included are only some of more than 100 categories used by Federal agencies, Some programs

involve more than one agency, such as the Re-
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 225

Table 9-2.—Examples of Federal Ecosystem Conservation Programs

Program title and responsible Number

Federal agency or agencies of units

Nationa/ Natural Landmarks

National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bureau of Land Management. .

Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . .

Federal Aviation Administration

Department of Energy . . . . . .

Department of Defense. . . . . . . . . .

Department of Transportation . . .

Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . .

Research Natural Areas

National Park Service ... . . . .

U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . .

Bureau of Land Management. .

Department of Defense. . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee Valley Authority .

Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . .

Wild and Scenic Rivers

National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . .

Bureau of Land Management. . .

U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Service ... .

Biosphere Reservesa (Man and the

Biosphere)

National Park Service . . . . . . . .

U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Service .

Bureau of Land Management, .

Agriculture Research Service . . .

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administratio n

Wilderness Areas

U.S. Forest Service ... . . . . . .

Bureau of Land Management.

National Park Service . .

Fish and Wildlife Service . .

Nat\onal Parks

National Park Service . . . . . . . . . .

10

48

45

3.15

1

1

16

3

1

66

151

2

194

18

4

4

1

23

15

23

7

25

18

4

1

2

3

332

22

38

65

337

Acres

(millions)

0.95

0.69

1056

0.003

0.13

0.19

0.014

0.032

2,3

0.184

0.75

1,94

0.048

0.006

0.0001

00009

1,927

miles

1,367

m i Ies

2,098

m i Ies

1,043

m i Ies

25.09

1.63

2.81

0034

0.209

0.633

31,84

0.37

36.78

19,33

79,44.

Program title and responsible Number

Federal agency or agencies of units

National Monuments

National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . .

National Preserves

National Park Service . . . . . . . . .

Nat/onal Rivers

National Park Service . . . . . . . .

National Forests

U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . .

Experimental Forests, Ranges,

and Watersheds

U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . .

Experimental Ecological Reserves

U.S. Forest Service . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . .

Bureau of Land Management. . . .

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administratio n

Agriculture Research Servtce . . .

National Park Service . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee Valley Authority . . . .

Smithsonian Institution . .

National Wildlife Refuges

Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . .

Outstanding Natural Areas

Management

Bureau of Land Management. . . .

Areas of Critica/ Environmental

Concern

Bureau of Land Management. . . . .

Marine Sanctuaries

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration . .

Estuarine Sanctuaries

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

National Environmental Research

Parks

Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . .

77

12

4

152

88

27

2

2

1

4

1

1

1

424

37

236

7

17

5

A-c res

(millions)

4.72

21.10

0.359

190,4

0.240

0.219

0.057

0.022

0.006

0.100

0.093

0.069

0,001

89.9

0.377

1.94

2,322 (sq.

nautical

miles)

268,762 (sq.

nautical

m i Ies)

1.15

NOTE When more than one aaency has res~onslblltty for an area acreaqe has been dlwded eWJall Y and each a9enc Y receives credit for an area

a Because biosphere reserves ;re managed by severa~ agenc!es slmul tan eously the total number (53) I n the table exceeds [he actual n u m ber of reserves (43)

SOURCE Adapted from W D Crumpacker Status and Trends of U S Natural Ecosystems OTA commissioned paper. 1985, M Bean. ‘Federal Laws and Pollcles

Perta(wng to the Maintenance of Blolog{cal Dlverslty on Federal and Pr!vate Lands, OTA commissioned paper. 1985

search Natural Area Program. Other programs the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and

are under the jurisdiction of just one agency, Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which consuch as the National Forest System. siders the onsite maintenance of biological

diversity a major goal (17). The U.S. network

Few programs are designed specifically to of 43 biosphere reserves provides a framework

maintain biological diversity, even though some for linking complementary protected areas in

programs may indirectly have this as one of particular biogeographical regions and for contheir objectives. One exception is the Man and ducting research on strategies for managing

the Biosphere Program, coordinated through ecosystems to conserve diversity (22). The U.S.
program, unlike programs in other countries,

is strictly voluntary; designation is used mainly

to encourage cooperation and increase use for

scientific and educational purposes,

Research Natural Areas and Experimental

Ecological Areas are designated by appropriate Federal agencies and the National Science

Foundation, respectively, to conserve natural

ecological communities for research in natural community manipulation. A Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves was established

in 1974 to coordinate designation of these sites,

in part to ensure that each community type was

included in the system (4). The coordinating

committee still exists nominally, but it no longer

provides an advisory function. Designations of

Research Natural Areas are currently determined independently by each Federal agency.

A variety of management options exist within

programs that consider diversity an objective,

For example, national forests are directed by

law (National Forest Management Act) to be

managed in a way that sustains plant and animal diversity, At the individual forest level, supervisors have flexibility in determining how

and to what extent vertebrate species diversity

will be considered in forest operations.

Similarly, National Wildlife Refuges and National Parks consider maintaining diversity an

objective, although this attitude is not supported

by specific mandate. National Wildlife Refuge

managers may try to maintain a diversity of species with the existing habitat or may manipulate areas to create a diversity of habitats, In

some cases, refuges are managed exclusively

for a single species. National Parks have to bal-
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 227 .- —

Contributions of these Federal programs to

maintaining diversity depends on the degree

of protection offered for each designation (10).

For example, National Natural Landmarks are

designated to identify and conserve unique,

rare, or representative communities in the

United States. Designation of these sites does

not, however, include protecting the site from

human alteration. Approximately half the National Natural Landmarks exist on private

lands, where conservation depends on the good

will of the individual landowner. National Natural Landmarks on Federal- or State-controlled

lands require the cooperation of the authorized

agency to ensure that protection is considered

in the area’s management.

An attempt has been made to identify the

amount of potential ecosystem diversity that

is protected in Federal landholdings. Potential

ecosystem diversity is that which would be expected to develop on a site under natural conditions. According to an assessment that considered areas of approximatey 23,000 acres or

larger, lands of four agencies failed to include

22 percent of the recognized ecosystem types

(i.e., 69 out of 315), These four agencies were

the National Park Service, Forest Service, Fish

and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Another 29 percent of these ecosystem types were only minimally included (9).

Since this analysis assessed only potential diversity, it probably underestimates existing ecosystem diversity in the landholdings (9). The

largest number of unrepresented types were in

Texas and Oklahoma, which have relatively

large amounts of ecosystem diversity but relatively few Federal lands.

Another analysis of the same Federal holdings, using a different classification scheme for

potential ecosystem diversity, obtained similar results (12). These two studies indicate that

any attempt to include all ecosystem types

within Federal programs would require considerable expansion of existing holdings. For

the national wilderness preservation system,

however, almost half the unrepresented types

in that system could be added from existing

Federal agency holdings (12).

Natural area management programs also occur at the State level. State parks, forests, and

protected sites may be managed for one or a

few resources, but they help preserve some remnants of diversity, particularly when they are

managed in conjunction with private or Federal reserves. State designations could also be

wildlife areas, fishing areas, university research

stations, botanic sites, school and other public

lands, or special districts (e. g., a water management district) (10).
228 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Private holdings also contribute to maintaining diversity, especially through the protection

of remnant areas. Many of the remaining tall

grass prairies in the Midwest, for example, are

privately owned by individuals or as railroad

right-of-ways. private land trusts lease parcels

of land for biological or historical significance,

which may contribute to onsite diversity maintenance. (For further details, see ref. 55.) Many

of the land parcels are small and isolated, with

little attention given expressly to diversity maintenance, but they do contribute to the patchwork of natural areas in the United States. An

assessment of the protection associated with

all these Federal, State, local, and private land

designations is under way (11).

One private institution with an explicit goal

of natural area preservation is The Nature Conservancy (TNC), TNC is a nonprofit organization with chapters in most States. Its objectives

are to identify species and community diversity onsite, purchase areas or work with landholders to protect the species or community,

and manage areas to ensure the continued existence of the species or community.

TNC, through State Natural Heritage Programs (discussed in ch, 5 and in the next section), conducts field investigations of rare,

threatened, or endangered organisms and communities across the Nation. The information

generated from these surveys helps identify

organisms that should be given Federal or State

protected status, as well as habitats and communities where special attention is necessary.

TNC, one of the largest private landholders

in the United States, owns 895 preserves (39).

In addition, it works with Federal, State, and

local governments to designate protected areas.

Thus, the organization, through a grassroots

approach, is effectively identifying and maintaining a diversity of rare species or community types in the United States.

Species Habitat Prosection

The most comprehensive national program

for the protection of species diversity and their

habitats is the Endangered Species Program,

authorized under the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, The program authorizes the Secretary

of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Secretary of

Commerce, through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to protect endangered

and threatened species of plants and animals

in the United States and elsewhere.

The program, administered by the Office of

Endangered Species, has several phases: listing species, developing recovery plans, and

managing species’ habitats. Species are listed

as threatened or endangered when sufficient

information on the status and distribution of

the species suggests significant declines in population or range or both and when an extensive

public review has been completed. In general,

a species is considered a candidate between the

time a petition to propose a species is received

and the listing process is completed. In addition, many candidate lists are put together

through expert review by the regional and

Washington offices of the FWS,

Lists of candidates are published periodically

in the Federal Register. (The most recent lists

were published in September 1985 for vertebrates and plants and in May 1984 for invertebrates.) To date, approximately 3,9oo species

and subspecies of plants, vertebrates, and invertebrates are candidates compared with approximately 385 species already listed (18).

When a species is listed, the next step is development of a formal recovery plan outlining

the responsibilities of all parties with jurisdiction over the species’ habitat and their management roles. Recovery plans are advisory documents to the Secretary of the Interior, not

binding agreements. Recovery plans are approved or awaiting approval for approximately

two-thirds of the species listed (see table 9-3),

Implementation of recovery activities, however,

has been slow (13).

The thrust of the Endangered Species Program is protection through proper management

of a species’ habitat. Most management activities are carried out by Federal and State agencies with jurisdiction over the habitats, not by

FWS (unless the species occur on National
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States “ 229 —. .-

Table 9-3.— Number of U.S. Species at Various

Stages of Listing and Recovery as of 1985

Species Identified as candidates for listing 3,90 8

Candidates with completed status researc h 964

Species Ilsted as threatened or endangered . 383

Species with approved recovery plans . . . 223

Species recovering ... 22

SOURCE J Fttzgeralc-and G M Meese Sawng Endangered Spec/es (Wash, n g

(on DC Defenders of Wlldl!fe 1986I

Wildlife Refuges]. These habitats, often called

critical habitats—because the species depend

on these areas for survi~ral or reproduction—

are designated either in conjunction with, or

subsequent to, the listing of a species. To date,

critical-habitat designations have been made

for only about 70 listed species (13),

A federally listed threatened or endangered

species is protected from any federally authorized activity that may jeopardize its continued

existence, even when the activity occurs entirely on private land (4), Any Federal agency

undertaking or authorizing a project in the

range of an endangered species must consult

with FWS or NMFS to ensure that the impacts

on a listed species tvill be minimal. The consultation requirement is one of the most effective parts of the program in protecting threatened or endangered species (4). It is one of the

least well-funded areas of the Endangered Species Program, however.

To a limited degree, efforts to manage a

threatened or endangered species involve offsite techniques, such as artificial propagation

of plants and captive breeding programs for animals. Efforts to recover several species of large

birds (e.g., the peregrine falcon and whooping

crane) demonstrate the success of such techniques, In some cases, captive breeding programs provided the opportunity for species to

be reintroduced into their historic range.

In addition to Federal activities, State agencies may receive Federal funding to implement

species-specific recovery and management efforts. To date, 41 States have approved programs for animals, and 17 have programs for

plants (4).

Overall, the Endangered Species Program effectively maintains species already listed and

— —

protected under the law, but it provides insufficient protection for those that are candidates,

The program is criticized for the slow pace of

candidate review in the listing process. Some

animals and plants may have become extinct

between the time they were proposed as candidates and their review by FWS (4,18). The

Texas Henslow’s sparrow and the Schweinitz’s

Waterweed are two such examples (31). This

delay underscores the need to list species or

take other action in time to prevent their loss,

By publishing lists of candidates in the Federal Register, the Endangered Species Office

has succeeded in bringing public attention to

these candidates. Now the office is working

with other Federal agencies to promote consideration of candidate species in agency planning.

However, no legislative authority currently protects candidates from adverse impacts of Federal agency actions.

Underfunding and understaffing of the Office of Endangered Species hampers its ability

to implement listing, recovery, and consultation objectives (18). With an increased budget,

resources would be applied initially to develop

recovery plans for all listed species. Consultation among agencies is also severely underfunded. Any funding increase to the Endangered Species Program could be gradual, over

5 years perhaps, so the office could expand existing program efforts. Program growth might

involve annual increases of $2 million for State

grant programs, $500,000 for species listing,

$1.5 million for consultation, and $4 million

for recovery plans (54).

Other programs identify and protect selected

species, sometimes known as public trust resources, designated in Federal mandates, Examples include migratory bird management

and anadromous fish hatchery programs, The

programs provide little protection for overall

species diversity. The Fish and Wildlife Service, the major Federal agency with authority

to manage biological resources, is currently

focusing its limited personnel and budget al locat ions primarily on pubIic trust resources.

One Federal program focusing on public trust

resources is the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-
230 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

tern, administered by FWS (3). Many of the refuges have been created by revenues from annual waterfowl hunting permits. Consequently,

most refuges are purchased to protect habitats

for migratory birds. Refuges may also protect

habitats of threatened or endangered species

(e.g., Atwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge in Texas) or large mammals (National Bison Range in Montana), with funding

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,

a land trust funded by the sales of grazing

leases, offshore oil, mineral rights, and other

sources on Federal lands. The Land and Water

Conservation Fund is the principal source of

money for land purchases by Federal agencies.

Refuges may provide habitats for a diversity

of species, but the designation of the refuge is

to benefit one or a few species of special interest, Woodland habitats along some east coast

refuges, for example, have been converted to

grassland-wetland habitats to enhance waterfowl at the expense of overall diversity.

State programs also tend to focus on selected

species of fish, wildlife, and plants, although

the emphasis differs somewhat from Federal

programs. States generally receive revenues

from hunters, fishermen, and Federal grants,

for management and conservation of harvested

species. Interest in nongame species is increasing, however. State agencies, through referendums, are expanding their fish and wildlife programs to a wider array of species’ conservation

efforts. Public pressure to conserve and manage

nongame populations and increased budgets

to implement programs (62) are increasing State

efforts. However, State nongame programs are

funded by add-on monies from tax checkoffs,

which hampers the ability of most States to adequately fund or maintain personnel for their

nongame programs. In addition, this type of

funding severely hampers long-range planning

and implementation of nongame projects. An

alternative to this type of funding is to provide

monies from the State’s general fund, as is being done by the Florida Fresh Water Game and

Fish Commission (31).

Another State activity is the Natural Heritage

program, a set of public and private programs

to protect diversity in each State (46), Each program develops an inventory of the State’s rare

species and ecosystems and identifies priority

actions. The Nature Conservancy establishes

and initially supports the programs. In some

instances, States will take over the program devised by TNC and incorporate activities into

the State government. In other instances, States

and TNC share responsibilities.

State Natural Heritage Programs and databases are designed to be compatible so national

information on species diversity can be collated, As of February 1986,44 States had contracted for the program and 26 of these had assumed administration of the program from TNC

(30), The Conservancy also maintains four noncontracted programs and has separate contracts

with the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Navaho Nation, and Puerto Rico,

Programs’ abilities to protect diversity are

limited by their resources and the degree of influence they have in the State governments. The

Rhode Island program, for instance, although

part of the State government, receives its funding from the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, Thus, its inventory is primarily limited to

species identified by the Endangered Species

Act, A lack of resources and influence hamper

this program’s ability to comment on State and

Federal developments and State land-acquisitions. The South Carolina program, also part

of the State government, is supported by a

$400,000 State grant fund and income-tax

checkoff (21). with these resources, the program

maintains a larger inventory, buys and manages

land, and comments on all relevant State and

Federal developments.

programs that are not part of a State government have fewer resources and opportunities

to affect Federal and State decisions. Two further constraints are the limited information that

programs are able to collect and the lack of a

national classification system for natural ecosystems.

Nevertheless, State Natural Heritage Programs perform a function unfulfilled by existing institutions. The continuing inventory of

rare species and ecosystems enables the pro-
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States “ 231

tection of the most important biologically diverse lands and the early identification and

modification of potentially destructive development plans.

A variety of private conservation organizations work to protect species of particular interest. The National Audubon Society, for example, maintains some 60 refuges to protect

the habitat of endangered species. Many of the

first refuges were designated to protect marine

and coastal waterbird colonies (I 5). More recently, sanctuaries are being acquired to protect inland habitats and to restrict development.

These areas provide refuge for an array of species, in addition to the key species for which

the sanctuary was purchased.

Conservation organizations such as Izaak

Walton League of America help maintain diversity through an advocacy role. These groups

work with the U.S. Congress and Federal and

State agencies to develop laws and programs

that reflect the importance of maintaining species. Like Federal programs, diversity conservation is not a stated objective of most nonprofit

organizations (except TNC), but their efforts aid

in maintaining species and habitat diversity

on site.

Additional groups working for species preservation include single-species organizations

or foundations, such as the Carolina Bird Club,

Desert Fishes Council, or Trout Unlimited (47).

These offices work to promote habitat protection for these organisms, manage habitats for

particular species, and advocate survival of

these species through Federal and State agencies. The net result is species maintenance and

conservation of particular components of biological diversity.

A multitude of nonprofit organizations also

function at the local and State level. These

groups tend to be small, poorly financed, and

focused on a particular area or species of concern. (For further discussion, see ref. 59. ) Such

organizations generally do not have biological

diversity as an exclusive objective, but they contribute to the maintenance of biological diversity through their achievernents of preserving

a specific species o f concern or its habitat.

Onsite Restoration

Another facet of maintaining biological diversity is the restoration of degraded sites. The field

is relatively new, few institutions have welldeveloped programs, and complete restoration

has been difficult to achieve. (See ch. 5 for discussion of restoration technologies. )

A key Federal legislation that directly provides for revegetation after a disturbance is the

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

of 1977, also known as S MC RA (Public Law

95-87). Section 515(b)( 19) states that mining

operations shall:

. . . establish . . . a diverse, effective, permanent

vegetation cover of the same seasonal variety

native to the area of land to be affected.

The number and composition of species is often

suggested by past management practices. The

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service, and Soil Conservation Service have each

developed vegetative mixtures for various types

of disturbances that can be economically managed and are likely to succeed. There is a problem, however, with the definition of “native.”

BLM, for instance, interprets native to include

introduced exotics that have been established

within the area before the project was assessed.

Section 515(b)(2) states that the mine operation shall:

. . . restore the land affected to a condition capable of supporting the use which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining, or higher

or better uses.

Thus, SMCRA provides an incentive to develop

techniques for establishing native plant species.

The natural diversity aspect of SMCRA could

be strengthened at the State level by requiring

the use of native species in revegetat ion

mixtures.

A few Federal agencies are initiating restoration efforts. The Forest Service is mandated

by the National Forest Management Act of 1976

to replant all lands in the National Forest System that do not regenerate naturally after timber harvesting. Tree monoculture are most

1ikely to be planted, thus reducing diversity in-
232 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

stead of restoring the area’s original diversity.

The National Park Service (NPS) has instituted

small-scale restoration projects, mainly for areas

affected by past tourist use or other disturbances (32). An exception to the typical smallscale NPS restoration project is the legislatively

mandated (Public Law 95-250) Redwood Creek

rehabilitation project in Redwood National

Park. The project is developing rehabilitation

techniques for 36,000 acres of previously logged

and seriously eroded slopes in the redwoodmixed conifer ecosystem.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency identify water bodies polluted by chemicals or acid rain that are

suitable for restoration. In lakes damaged by

acid rain in the Northeast, for example, FWS

has spent $5 million in a liming effort to reduce

lake acidity and restore aquatic life (32). The

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is researching

wetland restoration techniques to mitigate development projects in wetlands,

One future opportunity to restore diversity

is by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

(USDA) implementation of the conservation reserve provision of the Food Security Act of 1985

(Public Law 99-198). The conservation reserve:

. . . authorizes USDA to contract with farmers

to remove 40 million acres of erodible land from

row crop production. . . , The retired acres

would be planted to grasses, legumes, and trees

to reduce erosion and enhance wildlife (66).

This provision could be strengthened if restoration of vegetation in riparian areas were included in the legislation, The reconstruction

of debt portion of this bill may be more beneficial to diversity. It allows the farmer to offer

up land for not less than 50 years to be used

to lower the debt.

Private efforts may be the leading contributors to restoring biological diversity. Although

much reclamation is being carried out by industries and consulting firms in compliance

with regulations, work is also being done by

small organizations and individuals motivated

by esthetic and environmental interests.

Universities also are conducting research to develop techniques for restoring different ecosystems, Recently, restoration has been identified

as a focus of research at the Cary Arboretum

in New York and at the Center for Restoration

Ecology at the University of Wisconsin (32),

OFFSITE DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS

Federal programs to maintain diversity offsite generally involve germplasm of agriculturally or economically important plants and animals, Less attention is given to wild plants and

animals at the Federal level than at the State

or private level. State efforts to conserve a diversity of plants, animals, or micro-organisms offsite are poorly documented and tend to be

widely dispersed. Private institutions conduct

numerous activities directly related to the maintenance of biological diversity offsite. Consequently, offsite conservation of many biological resources occurs only as a result of private

efforts. For ease in discussion, offsite maintenance of biological diversity is divided into

plant, animal, and micro-organism programs,

although programs overlap considerably.

Plans Programs

Historically, responsibilities for maintaining

plant resources at the Federal level included

only domesticated plants under the jurisdiction

of USDA. Although recent legislation has included some wild plant species (e. g., Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act,

Rural Development Act), the focus of USDA

is still reflected in programs to maintain croprelated germplasm,

Agricultural Plants

The most significant program is the National

Plant Germplasm System (NPGS)—a diffuse

network of USDA, State, and private institutions, private industry, and individuals. NPGS
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 233

activities include acquiring, maintaining, and

improving plant germplasm. Various components of the system also conduct research that

supports preservation of genetic diversity, acquisition of new materials, and use of stored

germplasm (see figure 9-l).

Work done by NPGS is in response to specific national needs. Agricultural plant exploration and development of new crop species

led to a formal Federal program (Section of Seed

and Plant Introduction) in 1898 within USDA

(28). Recognizing that germplasm resources

were being lost due to inadequate maintenance

facilities, Congress enacted the Agricultural

Marketing Act in 1946, authorizing regional

centers to maintain and develop plant germplasm (27).

Federal contributions to NPGS currently are

administered through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Cooperative State

Research Service (CSRS). The ARS National

Program Staff in Beltsville, MD, coordinates

these various activities and facilities:

●

●

Advisory Committees: The National Plant

Germplasm Committee and individual

crop advisory committees provide both policy and technical advice to administrators

and curators of NPGS. The National Plant

Genetic Resources Board advises the Secretary of Agriculture on resource issues

and serves as liaison between NPGS and

the International Board for Plant Genetic

Resources.

Plant Genetics and Germplasm Institute:

This USDA/ARS facility includes the following:

—the Plant Introduction Office that coordinates the acquisition of new materials,

assignment of introduction numbers,

and distribution to appropriate facilities;

—the Plant Molecular Genetics Laboratory,

devoted to developing methods for using

germplasm to improve crops;

—the Germplasm Resources Information

Network (GRIN) Database Management

Unit, responsible for developing and

maintaining the computer-based system

that is intended to contain passport,

●

●

evaluation, and inventory information on

NPGS germplasm; and

—the National Small Grains Collection.

National Seed Storage Laborator~: The National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) in

Ft. Collins, CO, is designed to be the principal storage facility for agricultural crop

seeds in the NPGS, Ideally, all plant varieties are stored at NSSL as base collections.

NSSL is responsible for monitoring the viability of seeds within its collections as well

as seeds stored in active collections. The

laboratory does not evaluate its samples,

however, and depends on other facilities

in the network to regenerate samples when

germination declines,

Germplasm Collections: National responsibility for maintaining major crops is

divided among four Regional Plant Introduction Stations (RPISS). Many important

collections are not associated with an RPIS,

such as those for soybeans, cotton, sugar

crops, and small grains. Germplasm that

must be clonally maintained is the responsibility of the five newly established and

four developing national clonal repositories. Several collections of genetic or mutant stocks that possess specific traits exist, Although not generally used in

breeding, such stocks have been important

resources for research on cytogenetics,

physiology, biochemistry, and molecular

genetics of crops.

The mission of NPGS is to acquire, maintain,

evaluate, and make accessible as wide a range

of genetic diversity as possible in the form of

seed and clonal materials to crop breeders and

plant scientists (60), The scientific expertise on

germplasm maintenance is among the best

available,

Assessments of NPGS during the past 5 years

have highlighted shortcomings in coordination,

communication, storage facilities, maintenance

of seed viability, and staffing levels (7,56,57,60).

Facilities such as NSSL, for example, have been

criticized for inadequately maintaining seed

stocks and for storage limitations. A 1981 study

by the General Accounting Office (GAO) found

that NPGS curators sent only half the seeds
234 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

a

n

a ~--

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

6

2

c

—

I

I

I

I

I

i

● ☛ ● ☛☛☛

.—— — --——- 1

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 235

from active collections to the NSSL (56). And

the study determined that approximately 63 percent of the active germplasm collections were

stored in inadequate containers or in undesirable climates, The result, GAO concluded, may

be the loss of at least one-fourth of the germplasm resources held by NPGS.

Efforts have been made to address some of

these deficiencies through reallocation of resources, construction of new facilities, and centralization of responsibilities, but the need to

improve germplasm maintenance remains,

Recommendations to improve NPGS have been

hampered by the diffuse nature of the network

and by inadequate resources.

The system has been cited as needing a

clearer division of responsibility y for maintaining and evaluating germplasm collections (7),

Because it is a cooperative network, lines of

authority are frequently unclear, and there may

be too many levels of authority to adequately

administer a national program on germplasm

(60). The result is a general lack of understanding of how decisions concerning NPGS are

made by ARS. Such decisions can be further

complicated by the competing interests and

concerns of other cooperative Federal (i. e.,

CSRS] or State agencies that may provide program support.

The ARS staff has recently increased its input into budget allocations for Federal facilities

and has attempted to centralize program responsibilities into one office (42). Further

centralization could provide increased coordination of the system’s collections, improved

communication on available germplasm diversity (especially through the GRIN database), and

more effective identification of funding priorities.

One area that has received insufficient funds

is regeneration of seeds with reduced viability. Although NSSL monitors seed viability, it

sends seeds that germinate poorly to another

facility for growing-out. If viability is found to

be low, it may be difficult to obtain a regenerated sample. If NPGS does not have specific

responsibility for a sample, NSSL must locate

a willing donor, but it does not have funds to

pay for grow-outs. A comprehensive system to

support regeneration of stored seed has been

hampered by competing interests for available

resources.

The crop advisory committees {CACS) in

NPGS were developed to improve communication about crop-specific needs (see table 9-4).

CACS are comprised of scientists from NPGS,

private industry, and the academic community.

They provide technical expertise to the NationaI

Plant Genetic Resources Board, the National

Plant Germplasm Committee, ARS staff, and

NPGS curators. In some cases, such as the pear

collection at the national clonal repository in

Corvallis, OR, CACS advise the facility in charge

of a particular crop (7].

CACS are growing in importance and influence within NPGS (45). Committees have been

Table 9.4.—Existing and Proposed Crop Advisory

Committees of the National Plant Germplasm System

Existing committees Proposed committees

Alfalfa Asparagus

Barley Florist crops

Carya Leafy vegetables

Citrus Tropical fruit and nuts

Clover Woody ornaments

Cotton

Crucifer

Grass

Juglans

Maize

Malus

Oats

Pea

Peanut

Phaseolus

Potato

Prunus

Pyrus

Rice

Root and bulb

Small fruits

Sorghum

Soybean

Sugar beet

Sugarcane

Sunflower

Sweet potato

Tomato

Vigna

Vine crops

Vitis

Wheat

SOURCE U S Department of Agrlcultu~e, Agricultural Research Serv~ce Pla~t

Genetics and Germplasm Inst!tute Germplasm Resources Information

Network, Progress Update, February 1986
236 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

asked to identify gaps in the diversity of crop

species, coordinate collection and maintenance

needs, develop priorities for crops, and assess

the data available on accessions. However, no

provision exists within NPGS to ensure that the

necessary meetings of a CAC will be held or

reports developed. To date, NPGS has relied

on the dedication and commitment of the scientists involved to accomplish these tasks, Although some CACS have achieved a great deal,

others have been slow to organize and develop

their activities. ARS has argued that funding

or other support for CACS is unnecessary, but

OTA has found the committees feel they would

be more effective if funds for frequent and regular meetings were available.

The diverse nature of NPGS can also be seen

in its different roles of providing service functions of maintaining germplasm and undertaking research programs. Functions such as growing out seeds, evaluating accessions, assessing

viability, and managing information are service-oriented, Many Federal and State scientists

within NPGS, however, are evaluated on a system that can provide disincentives for such

activities. The problem can become acute when

decreased funding means that research staff

must handle service functions.

The need for more personnel and funding has

increased with the amount of germplasm held

by NPGS facilities, Concern about characterization and evaluation of accessions has created

additional burdens for many facilities. Therefore, proposed changes should consider improved support of the basic operations along

with plans for new construction.

The National Seed Storage Laboratory continues to need improvement (7,56,57,58,60).

Within 2 years, the existing facility will exceed

its storage capacity. Collections at the RPISS

and other facilities are witholding some accessions from NSSL. But keeping them creates an

additional burden for facilities not equipped

for long-term storage. Without expanded space,

NSSL cannot provide the necessary backup

storage for NPGS germplasm collections.

In addition, NSSL storage rooms were built

before the use of subfreezing and cryogenic

storage. OTA found that the NSSL collections

require upgraded facilities with access to modern storage technologies and backup refrigeration systems. One proposed NSSL facility

would quadruple present storage capacity and

enable use of modern technologies. Funds for

construction, however, are not available in the

Administration’s current budget (4.5).

Although many long-standing deficiencies

have been addressed by administrative changes

such as creation of the crop advisory committees, future improvements of NPGS will require

additional funds for facilities, as well as personnel, equipment, and supplies to support

basic operations.

Most States do not formally fund offsite germplasm maintenance activities independent of

NPGS, California, an exception, began a program in 1980 to conserve the genetic diversity

of important plant and animal species within

the State (33). The California Gene Resources

Conservation Program, which is currently inactive, raised awareness of the need to conserve

germplasm resources, A program at the University of California at Davis will conduct research

on germplasm resources in the State and provide funds for orphan collections, those that

may be vulnerable due to the death or retirement of principal curators (49).

Private individuals and grassroots organizations are preserving a significant amount of

agricultural crop diversity not found in governmental collections (20,44,59), The Seed Savers

Exchange, for example, helps preserve heirloom vegetable varieties and other vegetable

seeds not available from the Federal Government or commercial producers. The exchange

of seeds among its 450 members helps ensure

the survival of some 3,500 plant varieties, most

of which can be found only within the organization. (For further discussion of Seed Savers

Exchange and other grassroots efforts to preserve agricultural plant germplasm, see ref. 59.)

Private industry also maintains plant germplasm in conjunction with developmental programs for new crop varieties or as marketed

seed varieties, United Brands, for instance,

maintains the most extensive collection of
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 237

banana germplasm (23). Although the objective

in most cases is not the maintenance of genetic

diversity, industries could maintain germplasm

resources that contribute to the overall plant

diversity in the United States.

Support can be provided by private industry

by granting funds, equipment, facilities, or land.

The Rhododendron Species Foundation, for example, maintains an extensive collection o f

wild rhododendrons at a facility donated by the

Weyerhaeuser Co. (59), A grant to NPGS by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., of $1.5 million over 5 years will support the evaluation

of Latin American corn varieties (2)—work not

possible under present NPGS budgets.

Wild Plants

No Federal equivalent to NPGS exists for wild

plant species. Although NPGS maintains some

wild plant germplasm, this is clearly a secondary function and generally involves relatives

of cultivated crops or species economically

valuable, such as ornamental or florist crops.

Most wild plant diversity is stored in living

collections such as botanic gardens and arboretums.

Federal programs that make some contribution to maintaining wild plant diversity do not

cover the majority of plant diversity, USDA’s

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) maintains some

wild species (those with known or suspected

value to soil or water conservation) in its Plant

Materials Centers. Species not being used in

plant development programs are sent to NSSL

(52).

The Forest Service maintains germplasm of

tree species with known or potential commercial value (5). The Smithsonian Institution maintains an extensive collection of North American

wild plant species. The Office of Endangered

Species provides some funding for offsite maintenance and propagation of threatened or endangered plant species.

The contributions of current State efforts are

unclear. Generally, State programs are coordinated through the State Department of Agriculture and focus on species with some economic importance to the State—e. g., timber

varieties, shrubs, and grasses useful in land

reclamation, along with important wildlife

foods.

The most significant offsite programs for

germplasm are financed and managed in the

private sector (59). One such effort, the Center

for Plant Conservation (CPC), is beginning a

network of botanic gardens and arboretums to

conserve all threatened and endangered wild

plant species. CPC, located at the Arnold Arboretum in Massachusetts, has solicited the participation of 14 major botanic institutions

across the country to act as regional centers

for wild plant diversity. By establishing a data

network, CPC hopes to identify plant species
238 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Photo credit L McMahan

Greenhouses of the Berry Botanic Garden, Portland, OR,

Botanic gardens are becoming increasingly important to

the effort to diversity.

for inclusion into the national program (16).

CPC also has agreements with NSSL for longterm storage of selected wild species (40).

Arboretums and botanic gardens historically

have not considered the maintenance of wild

plant diversity a goal (37). They have generally

provided display gardens—areas where showy

flowers or unique plants are presented–with

a secondary objective of preserving wild plant

species. Interest in maintaining diversity is increasing, however (37,59). In some cases, reproductive individuals of rare plant species may

be found only in arboretums or botanic gardens.

Yet, aquatic plants are underrepresented in botanic institutions, and few aquatic gardens exist to conserve such species.

Regardless of their objectives, these botanic

institutions and the individuals who run them

contribute to the maintenance of plant diversity. However, no coordination exists for information exchange or evaluation of contributions, Although it is too early to assess results,

the Center for Plant Conservation may provide

significant coordination of such efforts.

One possible way to improve offsite wild

plant maintenance is to expand NPGS to include nonagricultural varieties. The objective

is to take advantage of existing Federal, State,

and private cooperation. Crop advisory committees could be established for species that are

important but have little market value. NSSL

could be expanded to serve as a repository for

wild species’ seeds that may have future economic or ecological significance. Existing plant

centers and scientists could play a larger role

in propagation and reintroduction programs

for wild plant species, particularly threatened

or endangered species.

The underlying responsibilities of NPGS

would need to be changed to accommodate

nonagricultural species. Biological differences

between agricultural and wild species, such as

dormancy and seed production barriers, would

increase the need for research to prepare plans

for storage, germination, and regeneration.

Expanding the role of the system to include

wild plant species could reduce already insufficient funding for existing programs, however.

The Agricultural Research Service budgeted

nearly $16 million (gross) for germplasm work

in 1986, but one report has estimated that by

the 1990s, annual allocations of almost $40 million (1981 dollars) will be needed to support programs (43,60). Adding approximately 20,000

new plant species (perhaps millions of accessions to represent the diversity of each species)

would severely strain an already underfunded

program,

Animal Programs

The United States has no organized program

for maintaining diversity in agricultural animals (6). Federal activities to conserve genetic
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 239

resources are minimal, and private efforts,

though more substantial, are so disperse that

it is difficult to assess gaps or overlaps.

Neither the Federal Government nor State

governments have programs designed to maintain wild animal diversity offsite, It is minimally

supported by Federal contributions to private

sector programs, but no overall Federal plan

exists and funding is erratic, Thus, the private

sector is currently making the most significant

contributions to maintaining domestic and wild

animal diversity.

Domestic Animals

USDA was authorized to collect, maintain,

and develop animal genetic resources under the

same legislation that provides authority for the

National Plant Germplasm System’s components (Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946).

However, USDA contributions to domestic animals did not evolve along with its agricultural

plant activities.

The department has concentrated on identifying foreign germplasm of potential importance

in U.S. livestock production. Beginning in the

mid-1960s, a substantial number of foreign

breeds were introduced into the United States

(6). The importation of cattle was emphasized,

but several breeds of sheep and swine were also

introduced. Breeds were chosen for their likely

contribution to U.S. agriculture and without

particular attention to the degree of endangerment in their country of origin. Several of these

stocks have since become firmly established

within the United States.

USDA evaluated the breeds and in some cases

(especially for sheep and swine) initiated their

importation. A key group in this effort was the

Germplasm Evaluation Program of the Roman

L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center

(MARC) in Nebraska, which compared more

than 20 foreign and domestic cattle breeds (61).

Current efforts at MARC deal with development of composite gene-pool stocks for new and

more productive breeds of sheep and swine.

Within the private sector, breed associations

—loose unions of individuals who produce a

particular livestock breed—have been formed

for common species (e.g., cattle, pigs, sheep,

goats, and horses) to record pedigrees and production of individuals within livestock breeds

available in the United States (see table 9-5).

These groups do not consider maintenance of

biological diversity as a goal, although they may

contribute to maintenance of animal genetic

resources (25,59). A diversity of livestock breeds

will be maintained only if an association exists for each breed.

Most programs that deal with germplasm

conservation as such (i. e., separate from efforts

to use that diversity within the livestock industry) are undertaken and funded by the private

sector, Many minor livestock breeds in the

United States are maintained by one person or

a few individuals, working relatively independently (25,59).

The American Minor Breeds Conservancie

(AMBC), a nonprofit organization, is currently

seeking to identify these people and open lines

of communication among them, (For further

discussion of AMBC and the contributions of

individuals and breed associations to domestic animal genetic diversity, see ref. 59.) AMBC

recently completed a census of North American livestock that identifies some 80 breeds,

including cattle, pigs, sheep, donkeys and

Table 9-5.—Active Breed Associations in the United States

Number of – —- - Number of reg~strationsa

Species associations Minimum Maximum Average

Beef cattle .-. ..-.., . . . . . . 18 297 195,267 43,976

Dairy cattle . . . . . . . . 6 4,085 425,385 89,382

Sheep . ... ... . 8 4<568 58,994 18,675

Swine ., . . ... . . 10 382 245,423 61,050

Horses . . . . 15 631 68,346 22.260

a

For fiscal fear 1983

SOURCE National Soc(ety of Ltvestock Record Assoclattons 1983
240 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

mules, and goats, needing special attention to

ensure their survival (26).

private companies also make significant contributions to animal germplasm maintenance.

For example, the majority of poultry germplasm

is maintained by firms that operate both domestically and internationally (6). Several maintain

unselected, random-bred control lines that

serve as reservoirs of genetic diversity. These

lines, however, are vulnerable to changes in

economic conditions, and their maintenance

does not currently represent public or industry policy.

Artificial insemination (A. I.) firms control

and distribute the majority of U.S. dairy cattle

germplasm. These companies have formed

pools of individual breeders involved in

planned matings, testing progeny of specific

germplasm strains, and development of improved breeding lines (6). Companies focus

almost entirely on Holstein cattle because the

market is so large. Increased emphases on

planned matings among superior individuals

have been required to maximize genetic improvement within the dairy industry because

of intense competition among A.I. organizations,

As a result, new bulls for use in artificial insemination often represent the offspring of a

small sample of bulls from the previous generation. For example, of the 6 to 7 million dairy

cows bred each year in the United States, about

65 percent are impregnated by only 400 to 500

A.I. sires, In addition, of the approximately

1,000 performance-tested dairy bulls in a given

year, nearly half are sons of the 10 best bulls

of the previous generation (67). This process

tends to maximize rates of genetic improvement

and almost certainly will result in an excessive

narrowing of the genetic base.

Researchers affiliated with universities and

Agricultural Experiment Stations help identify

genetic resources or help maintain and develop

germplasm resources, although not as much as

breed associations or private industries do, For

example, one researcher at the University of

Connecticut has produced an international

registry of poultry genetic stocks that is annually updated and acts as an important catalog

of existing poultry resources (53). University

animal or veterinary science departments may

maintain small breeding populations of livestock for experimental and educational purposes (26).

U.S. universities with programs for domestic animal research and utilization also play a

role at the international level. The International

Sheep and Goat Institute associated with Utah

State University, for example, works with researchers and livestock operators in other countries to identify and propagate genotypes of

sheep and goats. Although the focus of the institute is to assist countries in the production

of sheep and goats best-suited to local environments, its members are also involved in training international institutions in the storage and

management of sheep and goat genetic resources (29).

Even with these various efforts, the overall

diversity within many domestic animal breeds

is declining (6). In summary:

Storage facilities do not exist for in vitro

maintenance of sheep, swine, or poultry

genetic stocks.

Breed associations report that although a

few breeds of sheep in the United States

have declined to very small numbers, global

diversity of sheep germplasm remains

adequate.

Genetic diversity in dairy and meat goats

does not appear to be changing significantly.

Because relatively few competitive strains

of highly specialized egg and meat chickens,

turkeys, and waterfowl account for much

of the world poultry populations, there is

concern about maintaining adequate genetic diversity for future needs.

The increasing emphasis on whole-milk

production dairy cattle favors the adoption

of Holstein breeds among milk producers,

causing the decline of other minor dairy

breeds,

Genetic diversity appears to be stabilized

or increasing slightly in beef cattle in the

United States.
\Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 241

Public awareness of the potential problems

associated with loss of genetic diversity and institutional concern about the issue are not as

evident for domestic animal species as they are

for agricultural crop species. Concern about

loss of agricultural animal diversity is increasing, however, at the international level, where

a perception exists that a significant amount

of genetic diversity is disappearing (see ch. 10).

Insufficient information exists on the status and

trends of domestic animal breeds at the global

level to substantiate this belief (19), But it is the

unregistered and unrecognized breeds that are

in the greatest danger of becoming extinct.

Wild Animals

Federal efforts to maintain wild animals offsite occur only through the captive breeding

programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Individual specimens of critically endangered species may be selected for captive breeding programs at the Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center in Patuxent, MD. The center has been

responsible for the captive breeding and reintroduction of more than 60 species of birds,

mammals, and reptiles native to the United

States (37).

Endangered fish species have been propagated at the Fish and Wildlife Service’s National

Fish Hatchery in Dexter, NH, Additionally,

FWS provides nominal funding for captive

breeding and reintroduction programs for endangered animal species to the private sector,

and in one case, to the State of Wyoming to recover the black-footed ferret. Overall, however,

programs for the offsite maintenance of diversit y in wild animals are controlled and financed

primarily by universities and institutions in the

private sector (37).

zoos are well-known storehouses for wild animal species, although historically they made

few contributions to maintaining biological

diversity. But their role in this area is becoming significant, especially in terms of public

education. More institutions are identifying the

need for expanded activity in research and technology development to maintain genetic diversit}r of zoo animals.

In one case, zoos are working together to

maintain viable populations of wild animals

bred in captivity. The American Association

of Zoological Parks and Aquariums coordinates

breeding programs for selected endangered

wild species. These programs, known as Species Survival Plans (SSPS), are being implemented for some 30 species that are critically

endangered in the wild, that have sufficient

numbers at various zoos to ensure genetic viability within a captive breeding program, and

that have a sufficient nucleus of professionals

at the cooperating institutions to carry out the

plan (l). (For a discussion of captive breeding

techniques, see ch, 6.)

Breeding programs are designed by experts

with knowledge of the species and carried out

by scientists within the zoological community

(l). Since more animal species meet the SSP

criteria than zoos realistically have resources

to implement, further criteria exist for determining which species to include:

1, a high probability’ of successful implementation of the plan,

2. a high relative degree of endangerment,

and

3, a high relative degree of uniqueness within

the animal kingdom.

Species Survival Plans are designed to overcome the space and population limitations of

most zoos. For many institutions, adequate facilities to maintain a viable breeding population of at least 250 animals simply do not exist.

The SSP outlines agreements between participants in the program for the translocation of

breeding adults or their reproductive products

(e.g., eggs, sperm, or embryos) among zoos to

simulate a much larger breeding population

than could exist at and one facility, Information on the breeding programs must be carefully recorded and entered into a master database, the International Species inventory

System (ISIS). These programs are too new to

assess their effectiveness in maintaining genetic

diversity.

ISIS was developed at the Minnesota Zoo to

catalog information about the genetic makeup

of individual animals from more than 200 zoo-
242 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

logical institutions worldwide. One goal in the

database development was to address the problem of inbreeding among species within zoos.

ISIS acts as a computerized matching service,

helping zoos around the world identify other

institutions that have distinct bloodlines in

breeding populations of a particular wild animal (14), Other goals include identifying captive management problems, monitoring the captive status of some 2,500 species, and providing

information to managers. It appears that ISIS

is widely used by zoological institutions and

therefore makes important contributions to

maintaining genetic diversity.

A large number of zoos are not involved with

the SSP or ISIS, yet still provide offsite maintenance of selected wild animal species. These

institutions may support populations of locally

endemic wild animals or include individuals

of internationally rare species. Maintenance of

a diversity of species or of individuals within

a species is generally not an objective at these

institutions, however.

Much of the work undertaken by zoos to preserve species involves internationally endangered ones, with less attention given to threatened and endangered species found in the

United States. The focus on species from elsewhere in the world or exotic animals is due,

in part, to the degree of endangerment of these

animals. Those that are critically endangered

in the United States, such as the California condor or the black-footed ferret, are also the focus of active captive breeding programs at U.S.

zoos (8,36). Compared with zoos, most aquariums accord the maintenance of aquatic species diversity a low priority. Almost no work

has been done at U.S. aquariums to maintain

the diversity of species found in U.S. waters

(38). When they need specimens, they generally collect them from the wild (37).

Fairly large collections of breeding wild animals are maintained by individuals, In many

cases, these people establish societies around

a particular species or group of species to exchange information and breeding stock among

society members. Their efforts range from the

small-scale activities of individuals that breed

exotic birds or reptiles to the management of

large herds of Asian and African antelope species by Texas game ranchers. (For further discussion, see ref. 59.)

Microbial Resource Programs

No U.S. institution or institutional mechanism addresses the preservation of microbial

diversity. Numerous collections of microorganisms exist in the United States in both the

public and private sectors. Most were established to study a particular taxonomic group

of micro-organisms, and they represent detailed

sampling within that group. Several hundred

specialized working collections of microbial

germplasm are part of the basic and applied

research programs of scientists working in both

the public and private sectors (7).

The largest public microbial culture collection in the United States is the Northern Regional Research Laboratory (NRRL) collection

held by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. It is an archival collection with a taxonomically broad range of micro-organisms stored

for long-term preservation, NRRL does not publish a catalog of its holdings and does not encourage general distribution of the germplasm

it holds, in part because of the high cost of

distribution. No moderately sized collections

(3,000 to 10,000 accessions) of micro-organisms

function as national repositories or resource

collections for a range of microbial classes (24).

Several collections supported by the U.S. Government are devoted to assembling microbial

strains within a particular taxonomic group.

The largest of these is held by the Neisseria

Reference Laboratory of the U.S. Public Health

Service. Similar taxonomically specific collections supported by USDA, such as the cereal

rust collections at the Universities of Minnesota

and Kansas, distribute microbial germplasm on

request, but they generally do not catalog their

holdings (24).

Like many scientific institutions, organizations holding culture collections are currently
Ch, 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States s 243

suffering from financial cutbacks (24). Funding from USDA has been reduced or redirected

to other areas at the expense of the network

of archival collections (table 9-6). The result is

a diminished capacity to maintain the recordkeeping, authentication, and taxonomic characterization necessary for a collection. Expansion

of existing collections is restricted by such financial constraints.

State Collections

No organized State efforts to collect and

maintain microbial diversity, apart from specialized collections, seem to exist. The many

specialized collections that exist at State universities and colleges are typically the responsibility of individual scientists. Some have gained

institutional support and achieved national significance. Pennsylvania State University supports the major U.S. collection of Fusarium species, a plant fungus of major interest to breeders

(7). Such efforts commonly depend on the continued interests and abilities of individuals who

initiated them.

Unless sources of support and personnel are

available, institutional commitments to microbial collections, where they exist, may not continue after key individuals leave, retire, or die—

a problem noted earlier with regard to agricultural plant germplasm collections, When the

curator of an extensive collection of Rhizobium

germplasm died in 1975, his university was unable to provide future management for the extensive collection—at that time considered the

richest collection in the world of soil bacteria

in this group (24), It would have been lost had

it not been acquired by the University of Hawaii as part of a U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID) research project in 1976.

It was not until 1981 that the university agreed

to accept responsibility to maintain the collection in perpetuity as part of an international

Table 9-6.—Microbial Culture Collections in the United States

With More Than 1,000 Accessions

Number of

Collection Sponsor cu It u res

Living re;ource:

American type culture collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Private 27,630

(Rockville, MD)

Reference and archival:

Northern Regional Research Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government 63,000

(Peoria, IL)

USDA Rhizobium Culture Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government 1,200

(Beltsville, MD)

Neisseria Repository, School of Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . Government 1,700

(Berkeley, CA)

Neisseria Reference Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government 30,000

(Seattle, WA)

NiFTAL Rhizobium Germplasm Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government and 2,000

(Paia, Hi) university

Plasmid Reference Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government and 2,000

(Stanford, CA) u n iversity

Education and research:

Fungal Genetics Stock Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government 7,755

(Arcata, CA)

L.L. Collection Waksman Institute of Microbiology. . . . . . . .

(Piscataway, NJ) University 3,070

Industry:

Microbial and Fermentation Products Research . . . . . . . . . . . Industry 66,060

(Indianapolis, IN)

Upjohn Culture Collection . . . . . . . . ... ... ... . . . . . Industry 7,755

(Kalamazoo, Ml)

SOURCE V F McGowen and V B D Skerman, World Drec(ory of Co//ect/ons of Cu/;ures of A4/;roorganwms (Brisbane Austra.

Ila World Data Center, 1982)
244 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

agreement designating them as an international

Microbiological Resource Center, under the

auspices of UNESCO and the United Nations

Environment Programme / International Cell

Research Organization Panel on Microbiology

(see ch. 10). Such an agreement would not have

been possible if the University of Hawaii had

not obtained USAID funding.

Private Collections

The best microbial resource reference collection in the United States is maintained by the

American Type Culture Collection (ATCC).

ATCC is a national nonprofit repository for

medical, industrial, and agricultural microbial

germplasm, as well as a national and international repository for patented microbes. Its collection of approximately 36,000 strains includes

bacteria, fungi, clamydiae, rickettsiae, protozoans, algae, cell lines, and viruses. Although

its holdings are smaller and it charges for each

culture sent, actual distributions from ATCC

far exceed those of the government-sponsored

NRRL (24). Of the U.S. collections of more than

30,000 accessions, only ATCC distributes a

catalog.

Many collections are also held for specific

purposes by U.S. corporations or universities.

These are usually personal collections of individual scientists and may receive little or no

direct financial support. Private specialized

microbial collections, like their counterparts

in universities, usually begin as personal collections accumulated and maintained over a

career. Although typically holding a limited

number of microbial genera, they are unequaled

for taxonomic detail and are an important facet

of the total microbial diversity conservation

effort.

The Frankia culture collection, for example,

held at the Battelle-Kettering Laboratory in Yellow Springs, OH, began as a personal commitment by one scientist to isolate and culture

frankiae, the symbiotic actinomycetes of some

nitrogen-fixing plants (24). This internationally

respected collection is not supported by an institutional commitment or extramural funding

and thus depends on the dedication and resourcefulness of its curator. When a curator

leaves a company, or when business considerations force redirection of that person’s efforts,

a specialized collection like this can be lost.

The costs of maintaining a collection pose

significant constraints for commercial collections, In fact, recordkeeping and distribution

expenses are important factors in many corporate decisions not to make materials from

their collections generally available (24). Specialized collections are vulnerable to deterioration if funding cannot be obtained for their

upkeep. For commercial collections such as

ATCC, cultures must be maintained on a no10SS basis. Accessions that are not requested

or used frequently and have no current intrinsic value may be discarded.

Quarantine

Maintaining biological diversity frequently

involves the importation of foreign materials

to increase the available genetic base for crop

and livestock species or for offsite maintenance

in zoos, botanic gardens, or arboretums. Quarantine regulations are designed to prevent accidental introduction by imports of exotic pests

and diseases that could be harmful to U.S. agriculture, For both plants and animals, quarantine procedures are a combination of regulatory requirements controlling importation and

distribution of germplasm and inspection or

testing procedures designed to detect pests and

diseases (for specific testing methods, see chs.

6 and 7). Regulations, administered by the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) of USDA, have been viewed by some

as restrictive with regard to importation of new

genetic diversity (34,45).

Quarantine regulations classify both plant

and animal germplasm ranging from materials considered to be of low risk of carrying disease organisms to those prohibited entry due

to the extreme hazard they pose of introducing disease. Rice is prohibited from all countries and sorghum from many countries—

except for germplasm that may enter under a

USDA permit specifying the safeguard conditions, which often result in extensive delays.
Ch. — — .— — —

Likewise, limited numbers of cloven-footed animals can be imported with heavy restrictions

from areas known to harbor foot-and-mouth disease (41). For most materials, some degree of

restriction is required and the plants or animals

must enter through a designated port of entry

for inspection. Most plants, for example, must

enter the United States through one of 14

APHIS Plant Inspection Stations, where they

are inspected, treated if necessary, and released

within 1 to 3 days (35).

Some materials enter under conditions of

post-entry quarantine, whereby they are inspected at an appropriate facility and released

to the importer under an agreement that regulates their maintenance and release. Such agreements exist for some zoo animals, including

most ungulates, Animals subject to post-entry

quarantine are permanently consigned to the

designated facilities, and only their offspring

can be distributed or moved to other institutions. Plant materials are generally exempt from

restriction if no pests or diseases are detected

during the normal detention period of 2 years

(35),

Importation of wild animal species posing

threats to agricultural livestock can be length},

9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States c 245

expensive, and difficult. For example, most bird

species are very difficult to import due to

APHIS concerns over the introduction of Newcastle’s disease, a serious threat to domestic

poultry stocks.

State programs regulating movement of plants

and animals vary and are most stringent for

States with economies based heavily on agricultural crops (e.g., California and Florida). Efforts to prevent the spread of pests and diseases

can include restrictions on the carrying of fruits

and vegetables into a State or requirements for

treatment of potentially infected materials before entry, For importation of germplasm from

outside the country, States cannot place restrictions on materials that are greater than those

imposed by the Federal Government (35).

Biological diversity maintenance has not been

a concern in the establishment of quarantine

regulations. Although such regulations and procedures can be important to protecting agricultural diversity, they also, paradoxically, inhibit the development of new \arieties by

restricting or slowing the flow of new materials into the country.

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

A variety of activities in the United States address the maintenance of some aspect of biological diversity. These efforts are carried out

by both government and the private sector. Benefits from maintaining diversity, such as improvements in agriculture and the ecological

processes that support life, accrue to all individuals though they seldom pay for them. The

public nature of these benefits makes it the

major responsibility of the public sector to

maintain.

Private sector activities, nonetheless, complement government efforts in important ways.

Activities of some groups and individuals may

back up national programs. In other cases, private actii’ities maintain diversity in ways that

the public sector does not, cannot, or will not.

A number of private groups supplement the National Plant Germplasm System by maintaining

heirloom and endangered commercial varieties

of vegetables, for example, including many that

are not contained in existing national collections, Private crop breeders have been influential in elevating the issue of genetic diversity

loss to a national concern and have been providing increasing input in public germplasm

maintenance activities. To date, these private

activities have received little recognition, and

minimal effort has been made to encourage and

support private initiatives. Increased cooperation between public and private efforts could

not only strengthen the latter but also improve

maintenance of diversity.
246 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

The various laws and programs of Federal,

State, and private organizations provide an

elaborate framework on which a concerted biological diversity effort could be built. But because few of these activities cite the maintenance of biological diversity as an explicit

objective, the goal is not considered in a comprehensive or coherent manner. Duplication

of effort, conflicts in goals, and gaps in geographic and taxonomic coverage consequently

exist.

One means of addressing biological diversity

maintenance in a comprehensive way is to develop a national strategy, The process of developing a plan would help pinpoint areas

where activities overlap or are lacking. At the

least, such a process would initiate coordination of Federal agencies’ activities. Those administering programs related to biological

diversity would have to provide detailed reports

on how programs are being implemented to

conserve diversity. In particular, they would

need to identify measures being undertaken to

reduce program overlap, minimize jurisdictional problems, and identify areas for new initiatives. The latter is most evident in the lack

of a national animal genetic resources program

and of a system of protected representative ecosystems in the United States.

Any strategy, no matter how good it appears

on paper, cannot be effectively implemented

without adequate resources. Sustained longterm funding, in turn, requires consistent commitment to the process, The inconsistent funding and staffing of many existing programs

illustrate the complexity and accompanying

uncertainty of the political process.

1.

2.

3.

4.

CHAPTER 9

American Association of Zoological Parks and

Aquariums, Species Sur\ri\al Pliin (Wheeling,

WV: undated).

Anonymous, “Block Announces Pioneer Grant, ”

Ili\rersitLV7:9-10, fall 1985.

Bean, ~M. J., The Evolution of’ A’atiunal Wildlife

Lan~ (New York: Prae,ger Publishers, 1983).

Bean, M., “ Federal Laws and Policies PertainAn examination of trends in Federal budget

allocations for natural resource conservation—

including pollution control, water resources,

public lands, recreation, and soil conservation—reveals a considerable decline over the

last decade. This decline stands in contrast with

real spending increases between 1978 and 1986

for defense (5o percent), payments to individuals—e. g., social security, Medicare, veterans’

benefits, food stamps, and so on–and a tripling

of interest payments on the national debt (51).

The proportion of U.S. Government research

and development (R&D) expenditures devoted

to environmental R&D has also declined in recent years and assumes a smaller proportion

of total government R&D funding compared

with other industrial countries (48),

Programs of particular relevance to biological diversity maintenance, namely the Endangered Species Program and the National Plant

Germplasm System, have been stretched to the

point of being unable to adequately meet their

objectives. These programs are able to prevail,

in light of the constraints, mainly because of

the dedication and ingenuity of the individuals

working in them. The National Plant Germplasm System, for instance, has been underfunded for years. Within 2 years, the National

Seed Storage Laboratory’s storage facilities will

be full, and aging equipment and buildings at

NSSL and other facilities require major repair,

upgrading, or replacement. Similarly, the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Program

in preventing extinctions has been hindered by

a shortage of resources.

REFERENCES

5

6

ing to the Maintenance of 13iological Diversity

on Federal and Private l,ands, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Bonner, F., “Technologies TO Maintain Tree

Germplasm Divers ity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Animal Germplasm Presert’ation and [Jti-
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 247

7.

8.

9.

10,

11

12

13

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Iization in Agriculture, Report No. 101 (Ames,

1A: 1984).

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Plant Gcrmplasm Prescr\ration and Utilization in U.S. Agriculture, Report No. 106

(Ames, 1A: 1985).

Crawford, M., “condor Reco~er} Effect 1 lurt

by Strateg}r Debate,’” ,$(;ience 23 1:2 13-214, Jan.

17, 1986.

Crumpacker, W. D., Potentia] Di[rersitJr and ~uJ=

rent Protection Status of hlajor Aratural Eco.~J’stems in the LJnited States: A PrelinlinarJ Report

to the Heritage Conscr\’ation and Recreation

Ser~ice (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

the Interior, Heritage [;onst:ri’at ion anci Recreation Ser\’ice, 1979).

Crumpacker, W. D., ‘‘Stat us and Trends of U.S.

Natural Ecosystems, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Crumpacker, W. D., University of Colorado, personal communication, June 1986.

Davis, G. D., “Natural Ditersity for Future Generations: The Role of Wilderness, “ Proceedings

A’atura] DitcrsitJr in Forest Eco.sjstem.s Workshop, J. L. Cooley and J. H. Coole~’ (eds. ) (Athens,

GA: Uni\rersity of Georgia, 1984). Zn: Crumpacker, 1985.

13rabelle, D., “The Endangered Species Program, ” Audubon 11’i]d]ifc Report, 1985 (Netv

York: h’ational Audubon Society, 1985).

Dresser, B., and I,eibo, S., “Te(:hnologies To

Maintain Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.

Dunstan, F., assistant director, Sanctuarjr Program, National Audubon Societj, personal communication, May 18, 1984.

Falk, D., and Walker, K., “Networking To Save

Imperiled Plants, ” Garden, January-February

1986, Pp. 2-6.

Fernald, E. A., et al., Guidelines for identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Biosphere Reserves in the LJnited States, OES/ENR, U.S. Man

and the Biosphere Report No. 1 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of State, 1983). In: Crumpacker, 1985.

Fitzgerald, J., and Meese, G. M., Saving Endangered Species (Washington, DC: Defenders of

Wildlife, 1986).

Fitzhugh, H., Getz, W., and Baker, F., “Status

and Trends of Domesticated Animals, ” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985.

Fom]er, C,, *’Report on Grassroots Genetic Conservation Efforts, ’ OTA commissioned paper,

1985.

21.

22.

23.

24,

25,

26.

27,

28

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34

Greeter, S., South Carolina State Heritage Trust,

personal communication, Apr. 7. 1985.

Gregg, W. P., and Fretz, P. R., “Biosphere Reserves: A Background Paper for the Task Force

on Conserving Gene Pools, ” unpublished U.S.

National Park Ser\ice report, 1986.

Gulick, P., and \an Sloten, D. H., Directory of

Germplasm Collections: Tropical and Subtropic] Fruits and Tree IVuts (Rome: International

Board for Plant Genetic Resources, 1984).

Halliday, J,, and Baker, D., “Technologies To

Maintain Microbial Di\ersit~,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Henson, E., “An Assessment of the Conservation of Animal Genetic Di\rersit}’ at the Grassroots Level, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Henson, E., 198.5 North American Litestock

Census (Pittsboro, NC: American Minor Breeds

Conservancy, 1985).

Hougas, R. W., “Plant Germplasrn Policy, ” Plant

Genetic Resources: A Conser~ration Imperative,

C.W. Yeatman, D. Kafton, and G. Wilkes (eds.),

AAAS Selected Symposium 87:15-30 (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1984).

Hyland, H. L., “Histor~’ of Plant Introduction in

the United States, ” C.W. Yeatman, D. Kafton,

and G. Wilkes (eds. ), AAAS Selected Symposium

87: 5-14 (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1984).

International Sheep and Goat Institute, untitled pamphlet (Logan: Utah State University,

undated).

Jenkins, R,, science director, The Nature Conservancy’s State Natural Conservancy Program,

personal communication, Feb. 6, 1987.

Jones, B., Office of Endangered Species, Fish

and Wildlife Ser\’ice, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, personal communications, August 1986.

Jordan, W., Peters, R., and Allen, E., “Ecological Restoration as a Strategy for Conserving B iodiversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.

Kafton, D., “The California Gene Resource Conservation Program, ” C.W. Yeatman, D. Kafton,

and G. Wilkes (eds. ) AAAS Selected Symposium

87:55-62 (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1984).

Kahn, R, P,, “Plant Quarantine: Principles, Methodology, and Suggested Approaches, ” P~ant

Health and Quarantine in International Transfer of Plant Genetic Resources, W .B. Hewitt and

L. Chiarappa (eds.) (Cleveland, OH: CRC Press,

1977).
248 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

35,

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

Kahn, R. P., “Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity: Assessment of Plant Quarantine

Practices, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Kline, L., Office of Endangered Species, Fish

and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, personal communication, 1986.

Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S,, “Living Collections

(Plants and Animals),” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Lynch, M. P., and Ray, C., “Preserving the Diversity of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems, ” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985.

Matia, W, T., director of stewardship, “Public

Information Flyer on Stewardship Program, ”

The Nature Conservancy, 1986.

McMahan, L., “Participating Gardens Vital to

Center’s Work, ” The Center for Plant Conservation 1:1, summer 1986.

Moulton, W. M., “Constraints to International

Exchange of Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985,

Murphy, C., National Germplasm Program Coordinator (acting), Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal

communication, Dec. 16, 1985,

Murphy, C., National Program Staff, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, personal communication, Aug. 11,

1986.

Nabhan, G., and Dahl, K., “Role of Grassroots

Activities in the Maintenance of Biological Diversity: Living Plants Collection of North American Genetic Resources, ” OTA commissioned

paper, 1985,

National Plant Genetic Resources Board, Minutes of the Meeting of the National Plant Genetic

Resources Board, Washington, DC, May 14-15,

1986.

The Nature Conservancy, Preserving Our Natural Heritage (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977).

Norse, E. A., “Grassroots Groups Concerned

With Zn-Situ Preservation of Biological Diversity in the United States, ” OTA commissioned

paper, 1985.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development, The State of the Environment

1985 (Paris: 1985).

Qualset, C., Agriculture Department, University

of California at Davis, personal communication,

1986.

Salwasser, H,, Thomas, J. W., and Samson, F,,

“Applying the Diversity Concept to National

Forest Mana~ement. ” In: I.L, Coolev, 1.H.

51,

52,

53,

54.

55.

56

57.

58.

59.

60,

61,

Cooley (eds), Naturaj Diversity in Forest EcosJ’sten]s: Proceedings of the Workshop, NOV. 29-

Dec. 1, 1982, Institute of Ecology, Athens, GA,

1984.

Sampson, N., “Natural Resources Get the Axe, ”

American Forests 92:10-1 1, 58-59, 1986.

Sharp, C., National Plant Materials Specialist,

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, personal communications, Jan. 7,

1986.

Somes, R. G., Jr., International Registry of Poultr~ Genetic Stocks, Bulletin 469, Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station (Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, 1984). In: Henson (OTA

commissioned paper), 1985.

Spinks, J., Office of Endangered Species, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of

the Interior, personal communication, January

1986.

Stone, P., 1985-1986 National Directory of Local and Regional Land Conservation Organizations (Bar Harbor, ME: Land Trust Exchange,

1985),

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Better Collection and Maintenance Procedures

Needed To Help Protect Agriculture’s Germplasm Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981),

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,

Comptroller General, The Department of Agriculture Can Minimize the Risk of Potential Crop

Failures (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1981).

U.S. Congress, National Seed Protection Act of

1985, H,R, 3973, Dec. 17, 1985.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological

Diversity in the United States—Background Paper #l, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, March 1986).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “The National

Plant Germplasm System—Current Status,

Strengths and Weaknesses, Long-Range Plans”

(Washington, DC: 1981).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Germplasm

Evaluation Program, ” Progress Report No. 11,

USDA/ARS-1, 1984.

62. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980 National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982).

63. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Management,
6 4

6 5

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 249

“Preliminary Sur~ey of Contaminant Issues of

Concern on National Wildlife Refuges, ” (Washington, DC: 1986).

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 66.

Service, Office of Science and Technology, State

of the Parks 1980: A Report to the Congress

[Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of- 67.

fice, 1980).

U.S. I.ibrary of Congress, Congressional Research Scrv ice, “.Mandates To Federal Agencies

To Conduct Biological Inventories,” OTA commiss ioned paper, 1985.

Williamson, 1,.1,. (cd.), *’Senate Approves Farm

Bill, ” out[ioor ,\’CItrS Bu]]etin 39(29):1, No\. 29,

1985.

}’oung, C. W., “Inbreeding and the Gene Pool, ”

[ourna] of llairjr Science 67:472-477, 1984.
Chapter 10

Maintaining Biological
CONTENTS

Page

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................,.253

Overview ● .***** ● *****.. .8.***** ● *..**** ● ****,*, ..**,*** ..****** ,,* 253

International Law ● .**,.. .*.***** *******. ● *..**.* ● .**.** .. !. ........254

International Laws Relating to Onsite Maintenance . ..................255

International Laws Relating to Offsite Maintenance . ..................259

International Programs and Networks .,. . .............................262

Onsite Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................264

Offsite programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................269

Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● **.**. ● ....*.* ● ****,** ● *.*. 275

Onsite Activities ● ****.. ● **,***. *,**,*** ● ***,*.* ● **..*,* ● **.  ,,, 275

Offsite Activities. . . . . ...** ** ● *****.* ● **.*.** ● ****,*. . .............27 7

Integration. . ,..,.,. ● ******. ...***** .******* .**,*.*. ● *****,. ..,*,, 278

Chapter l0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............278

Tables

TableNo. Page

10-1. International Treaties and Conventions for Onsite Maintenance. . . . ..258

lo-2. Countries Where National Conservation Strategies

Are Being Developed .,..*.* ● ,*..*.. ● .*.**.* ● ******, ....0.,. ● * * * 259

10-3. International Agricultura Research Centers Supported bythe

Consultative Group on Internationid Agricultura lResearch . .........270

10-4.International Agricultura Research Centers Designated as

Base Seed Conservation Centers for Particdar Crops . . . . . . . . . . . ....271

Figure No.

10-1. Distribution

BoxNo.

10-A. Patent Law

Figure

Page

of Biosphere Reserves Worldwide . ....................265

8 0 X

Page

And Biological Diversity ● ****** ● **...*. ,******* ,...., 261
Chapter 10

Maintaining Biological Diversity

Internationally

HIGHLIGHTS

 Existing international laws and programs to maintain biological diversity are

too disconnected to address the full range of concerns over the loss of biological diversity. As a result, redundancies and gaps exist.

● Concerns over free flow of genetic resources have led to heated political controversy in international fora. However, debates have been largely counterproductive and could benefit from a more informed and less impassioned analysis of the issues.

● Intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations are making significant

contributions to maintaining biological diversity worldwide. These organizations, however, have different strengths and weaknesses; those of nongovernmental groups are largely the converse of intergovernmental groups.

OVERVIEW

International laws and programs relevant to

maintaining biological diversity have evolved

on an ad hoc basis. Efforts tend to be focused

on particular species or habitat types and undertaken in relative isolation from other conservation and development activities. Consequently,

overall efforts fail to deal comprehensively with

diversity maintenance concerns. Redundancy

and gaps in coverage result, and benefits of interactions between different activities go unrealized.

As a relatively new platform, biological diversity maintenance has yet to achieve prominence

on international agendas. Increasingly, however, international conservation and development organizations, both public and private,

are redefining their activities around the concept of diversity maintenance. What remains

to be accomplished is an overall accounting of

the scope and effectiveness of this increased

activity to determine gaps in the current system and methods to fill them.

Onsite laws and programs have their roots

in early 19th century Europe and a narrow

constituency concerned with the protection of

certain bird species (10). Since World War II,

however, the number of organizations, legal instruments, and scope of activities in the international arena has increased dramatically.

There has also been a shift in focus from protecting particular species to recognizing the importance of habitat in species maintenance. Programs for maintaining genetic resources offsite

are barely a decade old, and increased attention has led to efforts to define national obligations to maintain and provide access to genetic

resources. Growing realization of the threats

to diversity has also focused attention on the

importance of cooperation between onsite and

offsite programs. Efforts to control trade in endangered species on an international scale and

253
254 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

— — .

initiatives to link conservation activities of zoos

and botanic gardens with onsite conservation

programs highlight these potentials.

The diversity of international institutions and

programs dealing with conservation defies

complete enumeration or simple categorization. In general, however, their principal functions encompass one or more of the following:

problem identification, monitoring and evaluation, data gathering, risk estimation and impact assessment, information exchange and dissemination, national and international program

coordination, standard setting and rulemaking,

standards and rules supervision, and operational activities (62).

This chapter outlines the major international

laws and programs with particular bearing on

maintaining biological diversity. International

laws are described by the breadth of diversity

they cover, ranging from global conventions

on ecosystems to treaties concerned with particular species. International conservation programs and institutional networks are also highlighted. Onsite and offsite program activities

are addressed separately because of the distinctness of their operations.

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Public international law governs relations between countries, compared with private international law, which governs relations between

individuals, Public international law provides

a variety of direct and indirect tools for maintaining onsite biological diversity. Most are part

of broader conservation objectives, commonly

focused on protection of single species, groups

of species, or habitats.

The instruments of international law dealing

with conservation have varying levels of binding obligation. The terms “hard” and “soft” law

are used to distinguish levels of legal significance (52). “Hard” law refers to binding obligations reflected either in treaties or customary international law. “Soft” law refers to

instruments that have little legally binding force

but may carry persuasive influence and policy

guidance for state conduct (e.g., international

declarations and resolutions from international

conferences or intergovernmental organizations).

The effectiveness of international law depends on the support, implementation, and enforcement at the national level. The uneven distribution of diversity creates major complexities

in promulgating binding international law in

this area. The difficulty is compounded because

regions with the greatest diversity are often

those with the most limited financial and technical capacities to devote to these efforts.

In international law, a state has authority over

all natural resources within its territory. When

a state ratifies a treaty, however, it voluntarily

restricts some of its rights and assumes certain

obligations. The early development of international conservation law was inspired by interests in protecting Iarge game mammals and

birds. Less attention has been paid to onsite conservation of wild plants, unless they are indirectly protected by international traffic controls to protect commercial and agricultural

plants from pests or pathogens, An exception

is the convention to control trade in endangered

wild species of fauna and flora (discussed later

in this chapter).

The extensive array of international laws that

deal with various aspects of biological diversity maintenance should not be interpreted as

evidence that concerns for diversity loss have

been adequately addressed. As noted previously, many laws deal with specific species or

habitat types. Comprehensive coverage is lacking. Further, it is important to consider the degree of obligation (e.g., hard v. soft law) and

effectiveness of legal instruments (e. g., existence or adequacy of a secretariat or other operational support).

The following discussion of international law

examines onsite and offsite maintenance, the

former being the focus of the majority of legal

instruments. The onsite discussion examines
various hard-law treaties and several soft-law

documents. Although international laws related

to off site maintenance are scant, several softlaw agreements exist. Relevant hard-law agreements deal with tangential issues of international patenting and quarantine,

International Laws Relating to

Onsite Maintenance

The existence of an internationally recognized and established obligation to conservation can be of substantial importance to maintaining biological diversity onsite at national

and international levels, Increasingly, international obligations are providing national conservation authorities with the extra justification

needed to strengthen their own conservation

programs. Particularly because of this growing role, international conservation conventions and soft-law documents are important

legal and policy tools to be used with other technical, administrative, and financial measures.

Global and regional treaties are also important tools for long-term conservation, although

many are not effectively implemented. For

some treaties, lack of institutional machinery,

such as a secretariat and a budget, is a major

drawback. Many are difficult to enforce because incentives are weak and early signs of

success are hard to identify, making retaliation

difficult if a party chooses to ignore the treaty

or fails in its obligations. Some global conventions have too few non-European parties. Finally, in many developing countries in particular, technical and financial resources for

implementation are scarce (47).

Global Conventions

Of the five conventions discussed here, the

first four are commonly referred to as the “big

four” wildlife conventions and are the most important for protection of flora, fauna, and their

habitats (47). The Law of the Sea Convention

is also included because of its global scope, (For

texts of these international and regional treaties, see ref. 11; for summaries of major environmental treaties, see ref. 73, )

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Divers[ty Internationally ● 255

The Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

[CITES), established in 1973, controls international trade in wild species of plants and animals listed in the convention appendices as endangered or threatened. with 91 countries now

party to it (48), CITES has been called the most

successful international treaty concerned with

wildlife conservation (52).

The convention has been reinforced by U.S.

legislation. U.S. importation of wildlife taken

or exported in violation of another country’s

laws was prohibited by amendments in 1981

(Public Law 97-79) to the Lacey Act of 1900.

This legislation supports other nations’ efforts

to conserve their wildlife resources and the international controls under CITES. It provides

a Powerful tool for wildlife conservation

throughout the world because of the significant

amount of wildlife imported by the United

States.

The Convention on Wetlands of International

Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat

(commonly known as Ramsar, after the town

in Iran where the convention was signed),

passed in 1971, established a wetlands network

and promotes the wise use of all wetlands with

special protection for those on the List of Wetlands of International Importance, As of mid1985, there were 40 contracting parties to the

convention and about 300 wetland sites, covering some 20 million hectares, on the List of

Wetlands of International Importance (47). Once

a site is on the list, the party concerned has a

legal obligation to conserve the site (article 3(1)),

The Convention Concerning the Protection

of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,

signed in 1972, established a network of protected areas and provides a permanent legal,

administrative, and financial framework for

identification and conservation of areas of outstanding cultural and natural importance. It

organized a world Heritage Committee, a

world Heritage List, a List of World Heritage

in Danger, and a World Heritage Fund to help

achieve convention goals. (The World Heritage

program is discussed later in this chapter.)
256 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

The Convention on the Conservation of

Migratory Species of Wild Animals (commonly

cited as the Bonn Convention), passed in 1979,

provides strict protection for migratory species

in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of their range, and encourages

range states to conclude agreements for management of species that would benefit from international cooperation. Fifteen states were

party to the convention as of 1984, and the first

meeting of the parties in October 1985 established machinery for implementing the convention,

Marine conservation also has received increased attention, particularly in the past two

decades, The Convention on the Law of the Sea,

adopted in 1982 at Montego Bay and yet to

come into force, identifies a number of general

obligations relevant to conservation. Article 192

imposes an obligation on states to protect and

preserve the marine environment. Coastal

states are obliged to ensure through proper conservation and management measures that living resources in their exclusive economic zones

are not endangered by exploitation (article

61(2)). Activities outside national jurisdiction

are to be undertaken “in accordance with sound

principles of conservation” (article 15(b)).

Regional Conventions

Other regional treaties have emphasized conservation of habitat through creation of protected areas and other programs. The major

conventions in force are the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the

Western Hemisphere from 1940; the African

Convention on the Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources from 1968; the Convention

on the Conservation of European Wildlife and

Natural Habitats from 1979; and the ASEAN

Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources from 1985. With habitat destruction being a principal threat to biological

diversity, treaties that call for protection of flora

and fauna through habitat protection are particularly important and need long-term support.

The Western Hemisphere and African conventions, however, have had difficulties with implementation and enforcement at the national

level, largely due to financial and technical

limitations. The more recently developed Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Convention involved regional consultations to

incorporate management and conservation

techniques and therefore elicits greater hopes

for success.

The regional seas programs developed by the

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

in cooperation with other agencies, particularly

the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the

United Nations (FAO) and the International

Meteorological Organization, involve 10 regions encompassing about 120 of the 130 or so

coastal states in the world. (The 10 regions are

the Caribbean, Mediterranean, Persian Gulf,

West and Central Africa, East Africa, East Asia,

Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, South Pacific, SouthEast Pacific, and South-West Atlantic.) The objective is to reduce pollution and conserve biological resources through cooperative management efforts. The legal mechanisms include

action plans and regional conventions. The regional seas conventions include articles on pollution from ships, aircraft, and land-based

sources; pollution monitoring; and scientific

and technological cooperation. Protocols are

authorized in each convention text and address

specific approaches to certain problems. Technical annexes provide standards for regulatory

or cooperative activity.

protocols are also being explored for protection of easily disrupted marine ecosystems and

for habitats of depleted or endangered marine

life through the creation of protected areas. The

Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider

Caribbean Region, signed in Cartagena, Colombia in 1983, is generating government discussion on protected areas and wildlife in this region, Resolutions adopted call for preparation

of draft protocols (19). U.S. technical support

could be a key factor in the ratification and implementation of such protocols (2o).

The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, passed in 1980,

contains important innovations on the conservation of biotic resources. It obliges parties to

adopt an ecosystem approach to exploitation
Ch, 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally ● 257

of Antarctic resources, thus requiring consideration of impacts on interdependent species

and the marine system as a whole when setting harvest limits. Article I(2) of the convention defines marine living resources to include

all species of living organisms, including birds,

found south of the Antarctic convergence

(where the warm and cold waters of the Antarctic Ocean meet).

Species-Oriented Treaties

A group of species-oriented treaties focus on

controlling exploitation of specific wildlife,

such as polar bears, vicka, northern fur seals,

whales, and Antarctic seals (52). Although these

treaties are concerned primarily with controlling harvesting, attention to specific species

commonly extends to concerns for their habitat, thus potentially serving biological diversity

more broadly, The major species-oriented treaties are listed in table 10-1.

Declarations and Resolutions

The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, Sweden

in 1972, adopted a Declaration on the Human

Environment that remains a key soft-law document on international environmental issues.

The Stockholm Declaration contained 26 principles to guide the international effort to protect the environment, Principle 2 addresses conservation of the Earth’s biological resources:

The natural resources of the earth including

the air, water, land, flora and fauna, and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems must be safeguarded for the benefit of

present and future generations through careful planning or management as appropriate,

Another important soft-law is the World Conservation Strategy (WCS), a comprehensive document prepared by the International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

(IUCN). Advice, cooperation, and financial

assistance for the preparation of WCS were provided by UNEP and the World Wildlife Fund,

with collaboration from FAO and the United

Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO).

The strategy was launched worldwide in 1980

in some 30 countries. It provides broad policy

guidelines for determining development priorities to secure sustainable use of renewable resources, and it links conservation and development, The world Conservation Strategy has

three principal objectives: 1) maintenance of

essential ecological processes and life-support

systems, 2) preservation of genetic diversity,

and 3) sustainable use of species and ecosystems.

Introductory sections of the WCS define conservation as:

. . . the management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and

aspirations of future generations (43).

Development is defined as:

. . . the modification of the biosphere and the

application of human, financial, living, and

non-living resources to satisfy human needs

and improve the quality of human life.

As defined and used in the WCS, conservation

and sustainable development are mutually dependent processes.

A key WCS priority is the promotion of national conservation strategies. These conservation planning tools are now completed or in

preparation in 29 countries (see table 10-2),

Their long-term purpose is to integrate conservation and development planning and provide

an important tool for all stages of development.

The World Charter for Nature offers a third

example of soft law that is becoming increasingly influential in development. This document, the result of 7 years of effort by international organizations and the United Nations,

proclaims 24 principles of conservation by

which all human conduct affecting nature is

to be guided and judged. In 1982, the United

Nations General Assembly, by a vote of 111 to

1, adopted the charter sponsored by the Government of Zaire and 35 other nations,

The United States, the only dissenting vote,

objected to the mandatory language contained

in the supposedly nonbinding document (14).
258 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 10-1 .—International Treaties and Conventions for Onsite Maintenance

Title Established U.S. signed

Global conventions

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat . . . . . ... , ,

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention on the Law of the Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regional conventions

Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Presentation in the Western Hemisphere . . . . . . . .

African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , .

Convention for the Protection of Mediterranean Seas Against Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kuwait Regional Convention for Cooperation on Protection of Marine Environment and Pollution

Convention for Cooperation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal

Environment of the West and Central African Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention for the Protection of Marine Environment and Coastal Areas of Southeast Pacific . . .

Convention for the Conservation of Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention for Protection and Development of Marine Resources of the Wider Caribbean

Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention for Protection and Development of the Natural Resources and Environment of the

South Pacific Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Species-oriented treaties

Birds:

Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture (Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Canada/U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Animals (Mexico/U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . .

International Convention for the Protection of Birds (Europe). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Benelux Convention on the Hunting and Protection of Birds (Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and Their

Environment (Japan/U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds Under Threat of Extinction and on

the Means of Protecting Them (U.S.S.R./Japan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agreement for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and Their

Environment (Japan/Australia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment

(U. S. S. R./U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Directive of the Council of the European Economic Community on the Conservation of Wild

Birds (EEC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Polar bears

Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seals

Interim Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agreement on Measures To Regulate Sealing and To Protect Seal Stocks in the Northeastern

Part of the Atlantic Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agreement on Sealing and the Conservation of Seal Stock in the Northwest Atlantic. . . . . . . . . . .

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vicuna:

Convention for the Conservation of Vicufia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convention on the Conservation and Management of Vicuria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agreement Between the Bolivian and Argentinean Governments for the Protection and

Conservation of Vicufia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Whale:

Convention for the Regulation of Whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

International Convention for the Regulation of Whalina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1971

1972

1973

1979

1982

1940

1968

1979

1980

1985

1976

1978

1981

1981

1982

1983

1985

1905

1916

1936

1950

1972

1972

1973

1974

1976

1979

1973

1957

1957

1971

1972

1969

1979

1981

1931

1946

pending

1973

1975

not signed

1942

NA

NA

1982

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1983

pending

NA

1916

1936

NA

NA

1972

NA

NA

1976

NA

1976

1957

1978

NA

NA

NA

1935

1948

SOURCES Simon Lyster, lnterrrat~onal kViM/lfe Law (Cambrldae, Enaland ” Grotlus Publ!catlons Ltd , 1985); Barbara Lausche, “lnternatlonal Laws and Associated Pro.

grams for /n-Situ Conservation of Wild Species, ” O

-

TA co;mlss!oned paper, 1985, Federal Interagency Global Issues Work Group, U S Goverrrrnerrt /Jart/c/-

paffon in /nternaf/ona/ Treaties, Agreements, Organizations and Programs, In the F/eIds of Environment, Natural Resources and Popu/af/err, 1984, United

Nations Environment Programme, Reg/ona/ Seas Ach/evernenf and Planned Development of UNEP’S Regional Seas Prograrnrnes and Cornparab/e Programrnes

Sponsored by Other Bed/es, UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No 1, 1982, and M Wecker, Council on Ocean Law, personal communication 1986
Table 10-2.—Countries Where National Conservation

Strategies Are Being Developed

Australia Madagascar Sierra Leone

Bangladesh Malawi Spain

Belize Malaysia Sri Lanka

Botswana Mauritania St. Lucia

Great Britain Nepal Switzerland

Canada Netherlands Togo

Costa Rica New Zealand Uganda

Fiji Norway Vanuatu

Guinea Bissau Oma n Venezuela

Honduras Pakistan Zambia

Indonesia Panama Zimbabwe

Italy Philippines

Jordon Senegal

SOURCE Mark Halle, deputy director, Conservation for Development Center, international Un!on for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Gland, Switzerland, personal communication Oct 17, 1986

That is, the document used “shall” rather than

“should,” despite a general recognition that “by

its very nature, the charter could not have any

binding force, nor have a regime of sanctions

attached to it” [83).

The charter includes several principles relevant to biological diversity:

●

●

●

●

The genetic viability on the Earth shall not

be compromised; the population levels of

all life forms, wild and domesticated, must

beat least sufficient for their survival, and

to this end, necessary habitats shall be safeguarded.

The allocation of areas of the Earth to various uses shall be planned, and account

shall be taken of the physical constraints,

the biological productivity and diversity,

and the natural beauty of the areas concerned.

The principles set forth in the present charter shall be reflected in the law and practice of each State, as well as at the international level.

All planning shall include among its essential elements the formulation of strategies

for the conservation of nature, the establishment of inventories of ecosystems, and

assessments of the effects on nature of proposed policies and activities; all of these

elements shall be disclosed to the public

by appropriate means in time to permit effective consultation and participation.

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally 259

Other documents include action plans and

recommendations from international organizations, such as the UNESCO Action Plan for

Biosphere Reserves (discussed later in this

chapter), the IUCN Bali Action Plan and Recommendations (resulting from the 1982 World

National Parks Congress), and IUCN General

Assembly Resolutions. A recently developed

tropical forests action plan (84) has also been

receiving increased recognition by various

countries and intergovernmental and international nongovernmental agencies.

lnternational Laws Relating to

Offsite Maintenance

The scope of international law addressing offsite maintenance of diversity is far more limited

than that for onsite maintenance. Growing international concern over loss of genetic resources and recognition of the increased importance of offsite maintenance in supporting

national and international conservation initiatives have focused attention on this gap in international law (21,47).

To date, attention has been largely focused

on defining national responsibilities with regard to crop germplasm maintenance and exchange between countries. Tangentially related

international legal instruments deal with international patent protection of biological material and processes, as well as international

quarantine as it relates to the flow of plants,

animals, and microbes between countries.

Germplasm Maintenance and Exchange

Issues of offsite germplasm maintenance,

control, and exchange have assumed a prominent, if controversial, position in international

debates in recent years. Declarations of the importance of genetic diversity can be traced to

the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human

Environment. In addition to the Stockholm

Declaration mentioned earlier, the conference

produced 106 recommendations as tasks and

guidelines that should be adopted by governments and international organizations (76). Rec-
260 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

—

ommendation 39 called on governments to agree

to an international program to preserve genetic

resources. This recommendation has been implemented most actively with offsite conservation of cultivated and domesticated materials,

particularly crop germplasm. In fact, the creation of the international plant germplasm system that now exists has been credited, in large

part, to the Stockholm conference (63).

The only other international agreement dealing specifically with offsite maintenance of

germplasm is the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. This initiative

to establish, among other things, an international convention dealing with the maintenance

and free flow of plant germplasm has been controversial since its inception in 1981. Although

initiated as a binding convention, for political

expediency it emerged as a nonbinding agreement in 1983, although efforts to make it binding continue (3). As outlined in article 1 of the

resolution (26):

The objective of this undertaking is to ensure

that plant genetic resources of economic and/or

social interest, particularly for agriculture, will

be explored, preserved, evaluated, and made

available for plant breeding and scientific purposes. This undertaking is based on the universally accepted principle that plant genetic

resources are a heritage of mankind and consequently should be available without restriction.

Subscription to the FAO undertaking has

been polarized along industrial and developingcountry lines, with some exceptions on both

sides (68,82). Developing-country charges that

industrialized countries have been capitalizing

on Third World genetic resources without remuneration is central to the debate (53). The

most hotly contested aspect, however, is free

access to private breeders’ germlines. Industrial countries with plant breeders’ rights legislation (discussed later in this chapter), which

include the United States, are unable, if not unwilling, to subscribe to the undertaking without major reservations.

The issues of control and free flow of genetic

resources are likely to be debated further in international fora. A closer examination of the

U.S. position and options is needed. (Further

consideration of this issue is provided in the

following discussion of international offsite

programs.)

International Patent Law

International patent law is tangentially relevant to genetic resource maintenance because

the proprietary status that patenting living organisms provides is central to the debate on

international access to germplasm. Current debate focuses on plant patenting, although it

could well extend to microbial patenting, for

example, in the future. Advances in biotechnology have brought increased attention to

patenting living organisms because of the lucrative possibilities the technology offers and because of the likelihood that these advances will

accelerate trends toward patenting (e.g., through

the ability to establish genetic “signatures” on

human-altered organisms). The ability of legislation to keep pace with rapidly evolving biotechnologies is uncertain and raises serious

questions for policymakers (67). Effects of patenting on genetic diversity in agricultural crops

raise further concerns (see box 1O-A).

The expansion of plant patenting into international law occurred with the establishment

in 1961 of the International Union for the Protection of Nevv Varieties of Plants (I UPOV), consisting of countries party to the international

convention on this issue. The convention itself

does not provide global patent protection. However, the parties to the convention—almost exclusively industrial countries—agreed to enact

plant breeders’ rights (PBR) legislation and to

guarantee citizens the right to obtain protection under their respective national patent systems (6).

The system does not affect the free flow of

germplasm as such. It typically permits protected material to be used for research and

breeding by nations that have obtained the

rights. Further, there is currently no legal obstacle in using the same material in other countries (6).

Critics charge that since the inception of

IUPOV, there has been a concerted effort to
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally ● 261

Box 10-A.—Patent Law And Biological Diversity

Patent law essentially entitles inventors to profit from their inventions for a specified period in

return for disclosing the secrets of the invention in the public domain, presumably to allow others

to build on it. Although the patent system has engendered much controversy since it was formalized,

legislation enabling the patenting of living organisms has become one of its most controversial aspects

(8,81).

The U.S. Congress passed the Plant Patent Act of 1930 covering asexually propagated plant species.

Coverage was extended to sexually propagated species with the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act

(PVPA). With the Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980, microbes became patentable products under the basic patent act (Section 101}. A recent decision by the Board of Patent Appeals of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has now extended patentability under Section 101

of the Patent Act to included plant material, a reversal of an earlier decision [4).

European countries have a similar system of plant varietal protection, commonly referred to as

plant breeders’ rights (PBR). In addition to providing patent protection, however, the European system establishes a system of seed control using common catalog requirements to establish legitimate

cultivars that can be grown legally (5,61). The European control system is cited as having greater

detrimental implications for biological diversity, by increasing uniformity and reducing crop genetic

variability, than the basic legislative protection that exists in the United States (9).

Since the emergence of PBR, concerns have been expressed that the proprietary controls it provides

may create undesirable trends in the agricultural economy, including several of consequence to biological diversity. Specifically, concerns exist that such legislation is contributing to a consolidation

in the seed industry, a reduction of sharing of germplasm and information among researchers, and

the loss of genetic diversity.

A review of studies on these linkages (12,49,50,56) reveals different interpretations of their magnitudes, with most analysts agreeing that a strong link is not apparent or at least is difficult to determine. Most pronounced is the degree of consolidation in the seed industry, but separating the specific

impact of PBR from other factors is difficult. Studies do, however, reveal that plant patents tend to

be concentrated among larger companies and for certain types of crops. Some of these companies

have petrochemical interests, which has raised concerns that their research will be directed by efforts

to promote agrochemical sales (e.g., emphasizing development of pesticide-tolerant or fertilizerdependent plant varieties). With regard to the other concerns (reduced exchange of germplasm and

research information, or loss of genetic diversity), evaluation is hampered by a lack of objective measures. The conclusion is that careful monitoring in each of these areas seems warranted (8,9).

Perhaps more important is the finding that plant breeding by public agencies plays a critical role

in countering the potential negative consequences of the patent system by contributing to competition in the seed industry, to the flow of information and germplasm, and to crop diversity (12). This

finding suggests that continued support of national and international (e.g., International Agricultural

Research Centers) plant breeding programs is important for maintaining and enhancing genetic diversity. Their contributions should be considered in the context of concerns that interest in biotechnology has detracted from emphasis on traditional breeding and cultivar development (9).

encourage developing countries to adopt plant velop varieties suited to conditions in each

breeders’ rights laws and become members of country and that private firms would be less

the union (56). The trade-offs for a developing reluctant to export seeds to countries having

country enacting a plant patent system, how- such legislation (2,5). Without adopting PBR,

ever, are different from those for industrial however, a country would still be able to take

countries (5). The arguments for adoption are advantage of publicly developed varieties, which

that it would encourage private breeders to re- constitute the most important source of im-
262 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

— -.

proved seeds for most crops (81). In addition,

developing countries are not restricted from

using seeds protected under IUPOV.

The extent to which private investment would

be encouraged by instituting PBR, given that

markets and infrastructures in many developing countries are weak and thus unattractive

to many private seed companies, is not clear

(5), Concerns also are expressed over the impact that PBR would have on research activities at international agricultural research centers. In the final analysis, whether a country

decides to adopt PBR will depend on how governments perceive their own best interests

given these and other considerations,

Microbes are patentable (at least for specific

process applications) in most industrial nations.

The Treaty on the International Recognition

of Deposit of Micro-organisms for the Purposes

of Patent Protection (known as the Budapest

Treaty), however, supports a degree of internationalization of the microbial patenting system. This treaty, established in 1977, was instituted in part as a means to provide “enabling

disclosure” (as required under patent law) that

permits third parties to understand an invention and presumably build on it. It establishes

an agreement among participants to recognize

deposit of a micro-organism in another country as adequate for patenting purposes. The

Budapest Treaty also sets standards and procedures for such depositories (6). This system

has engendered much less controversy than the

IUPOV system, which may reflect the current

limited concern among developing countries

over microbe patenting, although this may

change in the future (5).

International Quarantine Restrictions

Plant and animal quarantine rules, actions,

or procedures are established by governments

to prevent entry of pests or pathogens in or on

articles imported along pathways created by

humans. Regulated articles include plants, animals, propagative material (e.g., seeds, cuttings,

cultures, sperm, and embryos), commodities,

soil, packing materials, nonagricultural cargo,

and used vehicles and farm equipment, as well

as their containers and means of conveyance.

The legal umbrella under which international

plant quarantine activities are covered is the

International Plant Protection Convention

(IPPC) of 1951 (known as the Rome Convention). The IPPC provided the international

model for the phytosanitary certificate that accompanies certain articles in transit (45) and

proposed creation of inspection services (6),

However, the program seems to have suffered

from lack of funds and attention (13,35). Since

the mid-1970's, FAO has explored the possibility of establishing a special phytosanitary certificate for the international transfer of germplasm (6).

Though no equivalent to IPPC exists for animals, many countries have signed bilateral

agreements on import health requirements of

animals, including the establishment of protocols. In general, these international treaties

or commissions between governments deal

with the movement of live animals or specific

animal products such as meat or semen. Restrictive requirements for commerce are generally under the jurisdiction of the respective

veterinary services because of hazards related

to disease prevention and control (57).

Policies on international commerce in live

animals have generally been established and

accepted. Research has been considerable and

will likely continue, and relaxation of current

health-related constraints is anticipated. Policies on international shipment of animal semen are still largely based on the health status

of the donors. The technology of embryo transfer is now at the point where research could

facilitate international transfer of animal germplasm (57).

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS AND NETWORKS

There are so many different organizations in- about their effectiveness. Nonetheless, the

volved in international programs to maintain strengths and weaknesses of two basic categobiological diversity, it is difficult to generalize ries of organizations—intergovernmental and
nongovernmental—are evident. Three intergovernmental organizations, all part of the United

Nations, are most prominent:

1,

2,

3.

FAO, by virtue of its interest in crops, livestock, forestry, and wildlife (the latter primarily in terms of exploitable resources);

UNESCO, whose involvement in biological diversity emphasizes a more scientific

and cultural approach (reflected in the Man

in the Biosphere concept, outlined below);

and

UNEP, which extends intergovernmental

involvement into more traditional conservation activities (10).

Perhaps the greatest asset of intergovernmental organizations is their ability to elevate issues to international prominence, based largely

on the organizations’ access to top-level authorities. They may also be able to influence national agendas in various ways. Funding to support activities is central to the influence of these

organizations. In recent years, however, the

functions and effectiveness of certain offices

have been questioned, particularly in the case

of UNESCO. Of concern have been the costs

of programs in relation to their accomplishments and the politicization of activities and

rhetoric, reflecting the dominance of a number of developing countries with an anti-Western bias (62). In general, however, there has

been less political volatility and controversy

where scientific activity and personnel are central elements of particular intergovernmental

initiatives. In fact, UNESCO’s most important

program dealing with onsite maintenance of

biological diversity, Man in the Biosphere, has

been singled out for its integrity,

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOS) are

most effective as catalysts of international conservation activities, The early work of institutions such as the International Council for Bird

Preservation (ICBP) and the International Council of Scientific Unions influenced the evolution of international environmental organizations (10). Considerable activity on maintaining

diversity has also resulted from extending national programs to the global arena, a trend that

continues and that supports the maxim “environmentalism breeds globalism” (10).

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally 263

—

The strengths and weaknesses of NGOs are

largely the obverse of those of intergovernmental organizations (62). Their major advantage

is the ability to adopt a problem-oriented approach outside a governmental framework,

thus minimizing problems associated with political interests and conflicts. This is not to imply that such activities should ignore the political nature of conservation activities. As one

analyst has noted:

For the conservationist to argue that nature

is apolitical can be a useful strategy. For him

actually to believe this is a recipe for ineffectiveness (10).

Lack of financial resources is the major limiting factor of international NGOs. Yet, limited

funds are likely to be applied in a more flexible

and responsive way than in intergovernmental institutions, and NGOs often benefit from

the voluntarism and enthusiasm characteristic of such groups. However, what is lacking

is the ability to influence national governments

directly. International NGOs must be cautious

to avoid the impression that they are meddling

in the affairs of state or impinging on national

sovereignty.

The emergence of the International Union

for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources marked a departure from the traditional

dichotomy. IUCN is unique not only because

of its emphasis on biological diversity but because of a membership arrangement that combines a number of state and government agencies with an array of national and international

conservation groups and scientific organizations. In a sense, it reflects a hybrid institution.

The linkages IUCN has cultivated with FAO,

UNESCO, and UNEP reinforce its dual nature.

Certain advantages are evident in such an arrangement:

The combination of the two types of organizations provides two approaches to the resolution of problems: the individual scientists working in the non-governmental organization are

able to provide a problem-oriented approach

with an analysis of the studies being undertaken that is independent and has a minimum

of political bias, while the intergovernmental

organization can provide political and finan-
264 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

cial support for programmed and can make

available the time of scientists working in the

national research councils and national institutes (23).

Cooperation between intergovernmental organizations and NGOs has not been without

conflict, however, especially over how to treat

conservation concerns within the context of development, The rapid increase in U.N. membership that occurred in the 1960s, as many developing countries became independent, led to

an increasing emphasis on development issues.

The landmark 1972 U. N.-sponsored Conference

on the Human Environment emphasized the

need to incorporate economic development

concerns in conservation activities. IUCN responded gradually at first but today the integration of conservation and development has

emerged as a central theme of IUCN activity

as reflected in its development of such documents as the World Conservation Strategy and

the emergence of its Conservation for Development Center.

Although IUCN and the affiliated World

Wildlife Fund represent the central international NGOS, a large number of actors are

present in the international conservation arena.

These organizations vary greatly in size, function, constituency, approach, and focus. Although the contributions of these many groups

is acknowledged, the following discussion is necessarily restricted to the largest and most prominent international organizations.

Onsite Programs

Ecosystem and Species Maintenance

Among the array of international programs

dealing with onsite diversity maintenance, several stand out for their breadth of coverage. Under the umbrella of UNESCO are two independent programs involved in protection of specific

sites, partially chosen for and indirectly concerned with protection of biological diversity.

The Man in the Biosphere Program (MAB) supports conservation of sites representing the

Earth’s different ecosystems, based on the Udvardy system described in chapter 5. The World

Heritage Convention mentioned earlier promotes preservation of sites that have outstanding examples of nature.

The Man and the Biosphere Program is an

international scientific cooperative program

supporting research, training, and field investigation. Research focuses on understanding

the structure and function of ecosystems and

the environmental impacts of different types

of human intervention. The program involves

disciplines from the social, biological, and physical sciences; it is supervised by an International Coordination Council and is tied to the

field through national-level scientific MAB

committees.

Launched in 1971, MAB took as one of its

themes the “conservation of natural areas and

the genetic material they contain. ” The concept of biosphere reserve was introduced as a

series of protected areas linked through a global

network that could demonstrate the relationship between conservation and development.

Building this network has formed a focus for

implementing the program through nationalIevel scientific committees. The first biosphere

reserves were designated in 1976. At present,

the network consists of 252 reserves in 66 countries (see figure 10-1) (30).

In view ‘of their joint interests, UNESCO,

FAO, UNEP, and IUCN convened the First International Biosphere Reserve Congress in 1983

to review experiences and lessons and to develop general guidance for future action. One

result of the congress was the preparation of

an Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves, which

has

1.

2.

.

three main thrusts:

improving and expanding the biosphere reserves network;

developing basic knowledge for conserving ecosystems and biological diversity;

and

making biosphere reserves more effective

in linking conservation and development,

as envisioned by the World Conservation

Strategy (71).

The biosphere reserve concept is being applied in a number of cases, but evaluation of
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversify Internationally ● 265
266 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

success is premature. Full application of the

concept, essentially as a conservation and development tool, presents complex problems

both legally and administratively. The program

has not required special legislation, which

leaves each country to adapt existing laws,

which are often too weak and too segmented

for the kind of integrated multiple-use planning

and conservation required (ranging from core

areas receiving strict protection to buffer zones

in agricultural or other compatible uses).

Moreover, because large areas are involved,

generally with some human settlement, application of such a concept necessarily involves

many levels of government as well as several

technical agencies. Most government administrations tend to be sector-oriented and inexperienced in coordinating jurisdiction and program reponsibilities in such areas as public

health, agriculture, forestry, wildlife conservation, and public works—all of which may be

required for an effective long-term biosphere

reserve program. Special councils or committees of governmental and nongovernmental representatives may need to be formed to play this

coordinating role.

Notwithstanding the program’s practical

problems, the planning and management principles in the biosphere reserves concept reflect

what an international conservation program

needs to endorse—’’conservation as an open

system, ” where areas of undisturbed natural

ecosystems can be surrounded by areas of “synthetic and compatible use, ” and where people

are considered part of the system (71).

A number of more recent developments suggest that the MAB program will become an increasingly important investment opportunity

for biological diversity maintenance. First, the

concept and purpose of biosphere reserves has

been sharpened and clarified to reflect pragmatic lessons learned over the 10 years since

the first biosphere reserve was established (7).

The establishment of the Scientific Advisory

Panel for Biosphere Reserves in 1985 promises

a more informed, consistent, and structured approach to the MAB system. Current directions

also suggest that MAB will continue to stress

the important work in research on human needs

and impacts within its conservation approach

as reflected in its four recently approved research areas (72):

1. ecosystem functioning under different intensities of human impact,

2. management and restoration of resources

affected by humans,

3. human investment and resource use, and

4. human response to environmental stress.

Critical review of the existing system has

prompted greater attention to ensuring that all

three basic elements of biosphere reserves are

incorporated into existing and future reserves.

These basic elements are the following:

1. Conservation Role: conservation of genetic

material and ecosystems.

2. Development Role: association of environment with development.

3. Logistic Role: international network for research and monitoring (7).

Placing greater emphasis on the last two roles,

as opposed to the first role which has been predominant to date, will likely contribute increased

opportunities and benefits to the biosphere reserve system. Finally, the MAB program may

be able to provide important contributions and

cooperation within the most recently launched

international environmental program, the International Geosphere/Biosphere Program, being formulated by the International Council of

Scientific Unions (54).

The United States withdrawal from UNESCO

has had a number of implications for U.S. participation in MAB (59). An evaluation of the

impacts of this withdrawal suggests that, because MAB activities are largely undertaken

as national projects or bilateral arrangements,

the short-term impacts on MAB are not very

significant. Long-term impacts, however, could

seriously compromise the effectiveness and potential of international MAB unless alternatives

can be found to provide U.S. scientific and financial participation (59).

The Convention Concerning the Protection

of the world Cultural and Natural Heritage began in 1975 and at present has 85 member states
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversify Internationa//y ● 267

and 52 natural sites—8 in the United States.

Sites are selected by domestic committees, technically reviewed by IUCN, and then evaluated

and described by the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. Approved sites are placed on

the World Heritage List.

Site-selection criteria do not specifically mention biological diversity but include areas of ongoing biological evolution, areas of superlative

natural phenomena, and habitats of endangered

species important to science and conservation.

Only exceptional sites are chosen, and the focus is on well-known animals, especially mammals. Sites must have domestic protection in

place before being listed. Most nations select

already protected sites, such as national parks,

rather than new ones. Managers of such sites

may have different priorities than those of the

convention. The impact of becoming a World

Heritage Site on management practices is not

fully known.

In signing the convention, members agree to

protect their properties and those of other nations, Although the language in agreement is

strong, its legal strength has not been established and member governments often ignore

provisions, Members are assigned a fee or voluntarily contribute to a World Heritage Fund.

Resources are used for training, equipment purchases for members with few resources, and

assistance in identifying candidate sites. This

support, though small, can be crucial to identifying and protecting sites especially in less

well-off nations.

The convention’s annual budget averages $1

million, The United States, one of the forces

behind the convention’s founding, normally

contributes at least one-fourth of the budget.

In fiscal years 1977 and from 1979 through

1982, U.S. voluntary contributions averaged

$300,000. No contributions were made the following two years. The United States contribution in fiscal year 1985 was $238,903. In fiscal

year 1986, $250,000 was appropriated (cut to

$239,000 under budget-reduction legislation),

but no money has yet been contributed. Unless

Congress agrees to an Office of Management

and Budget request for recision of the entire

amount, the contribution will be made, which

means the United States, having contributed

for two consecutive years, can run for a seat

on the World Heritage Committee.

IUCN, is the central nongovernmental organization dealing with onsite diversity maintenance on a global scale, As noted earlier, IUCN

is actually a network of governments, nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and other

conservationists, organized to promote the protection and sustainable use of living resources.

Founded in 1948, IUCN’S membership now includes 57 governments, 123 government agencies, 292 national NGOS, 23 international NGOS,

and 6 affiliates in at least 100 countries. Developing-country representation has become a

more visible component of the network in recent years, although limited active participation by African, Asian, and Latin American

countries remains a problem.

Establishment of IUCN resulted from a desire to open up channels of communication between different countries and to serve as an

umbrella for various organizations and individuals active in international conservation. Early

initiatives focused on research and education

activities, in part reflecting the initial funding

provided through UNESCO. With the establishment of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961

(largely to serve as a fund-raising initiative for

IUCN and ICBP) and of UNEP in 1972 (which

provided contract work for IUCN), the emphasis shifted back to species and habitat conservation. Today, IUCN and WWF have emerged

as central actors in international environmental

policy, with influence in both intergovernmental and national conservation work (10). IUCN

support for national programs includes the following:

●

●

●

provision of aid and technical assistance

to countries and organizations;

development of a series of poIicy aids, particularly in relation to the creation and

management of national parks and other

protected areas, the framing of legislative

instruments, and the making of development policy; and

preparation, on request from governments,
268 Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversit y

of specific policy recommendations pertaining to conservation and development

plans (10).

Several components of IUCN are particularly

relevant to international conservation efforts.

These include the three centers that form part

of the IUCN network—the Conservation for Development Center (Gland, Switzerland), the

Conservation Monitoring Center (Cambridge,

England), and the Environmental Law Center

(Bonn, West Germany). Central to IUCN prominence and legitimacy in international conservation are its six commissions of experts on

threatened species, protected areas, ecology,

environmental planning, environmental policy,

law and administration, and environmental

education.

The Conservation for Development Center

has emerged as one of IUCN’S most successful

components. In particular, its role in assisting

countries in the development of national conservation strategies has received growing support. The growth in the program reflects not

only the importance of integrating conservation and development interests but IUCN’S

growing commitment to following this approach.

The Environmental Law Center has been indexing national and international environmental

legislation since the early 1960s, Some 20,000

titles are now part of the center’s Environmental Law Information System. The center

has recently developed a species law index that

codes protected species of wild fauna to the corresponding national legislation. This index is

computerized, allowing manipulation by species, region, or country, and it is becoming a

valuable databank for program and policy planning by governments and NGOS when used in

conjunction with scientific information about

endangered species, ranges, and protection

needs.

Ecosystem and Species Monitoring

Information on the status and trends in loss

of the world’s fauna and flora is a critical element in defining strategies and priorities, For

this reason, a number of international organizations are involved in the inventory and monitoring of biological diversity. Most prominent

are the efforts of UNEP, FAO, UNESCO, IUCN,

WWF, and ICBP.

UNEP has an assessment arm, Earthwatch,

whose function has been to acquire, monitor,

and assess global environmental data. At the

heart of Earthwatch is the Global Environment

Monitoring System (GEMS), an international

effort to collect data needed for environmental

management. GEMS current activities are

divided into monitoring renewable natural resources, climates, health, oceans, and longrange transport of pollutants, These activities

are coordinated from the GEMS Programme

Activity Center in Nairobi which, like UNEP,

works mainly through the intermediary of the

specialized agencies of the United Nations—

notably FAO, the International Labour Organization, UNESCO, the World Health Organization, and the World Meteorological Organization

—together with appropriate intergovernmental organizations such as IUCN (15).

To provide access to the databanks, UNEPGEMS has begun a 2-year pilot project to set

up a computerized Global Resource Information Database (GRID) (74), If successful, GRID

may prove to be a powerful tool for international inventory and monitoring, not only of

biological diversity but of other areas too (15),

GRID will provide a centralized data-management service within the U.N. system, designed

to convert environmental data into information

usable by decisionmakers. The main data-processing facility will be in Geneva, Switzerland,

but it will be controlled from UNEP headquarters in Nairobi.

The pilot phase of GRID is to result in an operational system with preliminary results and the

training of some personnel. An initial evaluation could be expected by the end of UNEP’S

1986/87 biennium, A full assessment of the system is unlikely before several more years of

operations (74).

Inventory and monitoring activities at the

species level are also undertaken by the Conservation Monitoring Center (CMC), one of several centers operating under the auspices of the
Ch. 10—Maintaining Bio/ogical Diversity Internationa//y 269

—

IUCN. Its mandate is to analyze and disseminate information on conservation worldwide

and provide services to governments and the

conservation and development communities.

CMC supplies information in the form of books,

specialist publications, and reports. Major output includes Red Data Books on endangered

species, protected-area directories, conservation site directories and reports, threatened

plant and animal lists, U.N. Lists of National

Parks and Equivalent Reserves, preliminary

environmental profiles of individual areas (by

request), comparative tabulations of transactions under CITES, and analyses of wildlife

trade data for individual countries and taxonomic groups (15).

The International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) takes responsibility for ornithological aspects of IUCN’S activities and shares the

IUCN database at CMC, ICBP is also in the

process of establishing an oceanic-islands database to identify areas where action is required

for numerous threatened endemic bird species.

The initial target is to collect details about some

160 islands that support endemic species of

birds, especially islands smaller than 20,000

square kilometers (15).

An important supplement to these initiatives

is the growing number of national organizations taking an international perspective in their

data collection efforts. Of particular importance

is The Nature Conservancy International (TNCI),

based in the United States. TNCI has developed

a regional database on distribution of fauna and

flora in the neotropics that is the most comprehensive of its kind and is promoting establishment of country-level conservation data centers

(see ch. 11).

International Network

The emergence of IUCN as a recognized network of conservation specialists has both galvanized international conservation activities

and established conservation programs as scientific initiatives. It also established two major functions of the organization:

1. promoting contacts among institutes and individuals, primarily by acting as a device for

the exchange of information; and

2. setting up some kind of procedure whereby

common platforms and goals could be articulated and, ultimately, a measure of influence exerted on public policy (10).

The Ecosystem Conservation Group (ECG),

consisting of FAO, UNEP, UNESCO, and IUCN,

was established in 1975 to advise on planning

and execution of international conservation

activities by the four organizations (75). ECG

has recently begun to take a more active role

in conservation, ECG agreed at its 1 lth General Meeting, held in Rome in February 1984,

to institute an ad hoc Working Group on Onsite Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources

(40). The working group consists of FAO (lead

agency), UNESCO, UNEP, IUCN, and the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources

(IBPGR). The first meeting of the working group

was held at IUCN headquarters in April 1985,

during the 12th General Meeting of ECG. The

charge to the working group was twofold:

1. review ongoing and planned activities in

onsite conservation in light of recommendations of the First Session of the FAO

Commission of Plant Genetic Resources,

UNESCO’s Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves (see earlier discussion), and the

IUCN Bali Action Plan; and

2. identify ways to strengthen action and cooperation in response to these recommendations, with particular attention to improving information flow and promoting

pilot demonstration activities (40).

Six major goals for coordination and action

were recognized at the first meeting of the ECG

working group and activities were identified

within the framework of these goals. This development signifies an important step among

involved organizations to focus their programs

on plant genetic resources within a common

framework, and, as reflected by the addition

of IBPGR, begin to build a mechanism to integrate onsite and offsite efforts.

Offsite Programs

International institutions dealing with offsite

maintenance are most easily considered under

the separate headings of plant, animal, and

microbial genetic resources. The level of exist-
270 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity —

ing international activity between and within

these categories of organisms varies considerably. Major factors determining the level of attention devoted to offsite maintenance include

economic importance, threat of loss, and ability to maintain viable collections offsite,

Plant Diversity

International programs and networks are

differentiated by the types of plants they deal

with. By far, the most developed institutions

are those concerned with major agricultural

plants. For the most part, these offsite collections are maintained in association with agricultural research institutions. Concern over loss

of wild species of nonagricultural plants in their

natural habitats has prompted the establishment of an international network of botanic institutions for preserving rare and endangered

species in living collections,

The focus, extent, and effectiveness of international genebank efforts in recent years have

been largely shaped by International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCS) supported by

the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). This organization

was founded in 1971 and consists of donors that

fund a network of centers doing research on

increasing agricultural productivity, primarily

in developing countries (see table 1o-3). Impetus to form the group stemmed from early successes of two institutes (later to become the first

members of the CGIAR system), the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

(better known by its Spanish acronym CIMMYT), and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). Both programs were the outgrowth of research centers supported by the

Rockefeller and Ford Foundations.

Financial obligations soon became too great

for the two U.S. foundations as budget costs

grew with the establishment of two more centers. The desire on the part of several international development institutions, including FAO,

UNEP, and the World Bank, to expand the system into a network of international centers led

to the formation of the CGIAR, supported by

a group of government and international donor

agencies.

Table 10-3.—lnternational Agricultural Research

Centers Supported by the Consultative Group

on International Agricultural Research

CIAT —Centro International de Agricultural Tropical

Cali, Columbia

CIMMYT—Centro International de Mejoramiento

de Maiz y Trigo

Mexico City, Mexico

CIP —Centro International de la Papa

Lima, Peru

IBPGR —International Board for Plant Genetic Resources

Rome, Italy

ICARDA —International Center for Agricultural Research

in the Dry Areas

Aleppo, Syria

ICRISAT—lnternational Crops Research Institute for the

Semi-Arid Tropics

Hyderabad, India

IFPRI —International Food Policy Research Institute

Washington, DC, U.S.A.

IITA —International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

Ibadan, Nigeria

ILCA —International Livestock Centre for Africa

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

ILRAD —International Laboratory for Research on

Animal Diseases

Nairobi, Kenya

IRRI —International Rice Research Institute

Manila, Philippines

ISNAR —International Service for National Agricultural

Research

The Hague, Netherlands

WARDA —West Africa Rice Development Association

Monrovia. Liberia

SOURCE” Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Summary

of lnternat~ortal Agricultural Research Centers” A Study of Achievemerrts and Potentia/ (Washington, DC 1985).

Today, most CGIAR centers have specific

responsibilities in crop varietal development

and germplasm conservation, and in certain

cases serve as international base and active collections for specific crops (see table 1o-4). A

number of IARCs also operate outside the

CGIAR system, including several with responsibilities for germplasm maintenance. This

group includes the International Soybean Program in Urbana, Illinois and the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center in Shanhua, Taiwan (18),

The most prominent international institution

dealing with offsite conservation of plant genetic diversity is IBPGR. Established in 1974

by CGIAR, it serves as a focal point for governments, foundations, international organizations, and individual researchers with interests

in maintaining genetic diversity of crop spe-
Ch. 10–Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally . 271

Table 10-4.— International Agricultural Research

Centers Designated as Base Seed Conservation

Centers for Particular Crops

Center

AVRDC

CIAT

CIP

ICARDA

ICRISAT

IITA

IRRI

Crop

mung bean (Vfgna radlata )

sweet potato (seed) ... ...

beans (Phaseo/us): cultivated

species . .

cassava (seed) . . . . . . . . . ...

potato (seed) ... ... . .

barley . . . ... ... .

chickpea . .

faba bean (Vicia faba) . .

sorghum . .

pearl mi!let . . ... . . . .

minor millets (E/eusine, Se(aria,

Panicurn) ... . . ... . . ...

pigeon pea ..., ..., . . . . . . . . .

groundnut . . . . . . . .

chickpea . . .

rice . . . . . . .

cowpea (Vigna unguicu/ata) .

cassava (Manihot escu/enta; seed).

tropical rtce (wild species and

cultivated varieties) . . . .

Nature of

collection

global

Asia

global

global

global

global

global

global

global

global

global

global

global

global

Africa

global

Africa

global

SOURCE Consultative Group on international Agricultural Research, Summary

of /nternal/ona/ Agr/cu/fura/ Research Centers A Study of Actr/evernents and Potent~a/ (Washington DC 1985)

cies. IBPGR is a small group; part of the secretariat is provided by FAO Its mission has been

a coordinating one, of setting priorities and creating a network of national programs and regional centers for the conservation of plant

germplasm. It has provided training facilities,

supported research in techniques of plant germplasm conservation, sponsored numerous collection missions, and provided limited financial assistance for conservation facilities (see

ch. 11). It does not operate any germplasm storage facilities itself, however.

As envisioned by IBPGR, collection efforts

were to focus on crop plants, based on priorities set by the board and reflecting the economic

importance of the crop, the quality of existing

collections, and the threat that diversity would

disappear. The collected materials were to be

kept in national programs and duplicated outside the nation in which they were collected.

A global base collection was to be established

for major crops, and there were hopes of creating regional programs,

The achievements of IBPGR are impressive,

measured in its own terms and against the list

of objectives. Ten years after IBPGR was established, the network for base collection storage

included 35 institutions in 28 countries. Regional maize collections exist in Japan, Portugal, Thailand, and the United States, for example, and one in the Soviet Union is under

negotiation. For rice, a global collection has

been established in Japan and the Philippines,

and regional collections are found in Nigeria

and the United States (27). National programs

were created during IBPGR’s first 10 years in

about 50 countries, and by 1986 some 50 base

collection centers had been designated for

about 40 crops of major importance (38,79). The

program has limited itself to a particular group

of plants and has been successful in coordination, in encouragement of national programs,

and in scientific and educational assistance (33).

In all, IBPGR has links with more than 500 institutes in 106 countries (79).

In part, due to the success of IBPGR in focusing attention on the need to conserve genetic

diversity, the issue has become embroiled in

political controversy. IBPGR regards itself as

a technical and scientific organization. But a

number of critics regard the issue of plant

genetic resources as much more politicaI. They

maintain that IBPGR is implicitly working for

the corporate and agribusiness interests of the

industrial world, particularly the United States

(36,56). Critics also argue that the current genetic material exchange system is inadequate

to ensure that material will continue to be available, particularly to developing countries. The

debate has become quite acrimonious, with

proponents of IBPGR emphasizing their scientific and pragmatic approach to the issue, and

critics emphasizing their fear that multinational

corporations will gain control over plant germplasm. Plant patenting and access to plant genetic resources are also important elements in

the current controversy (see earlier section) (6).

This entire controversy helped catalyze a

move toward deeper FAO involvement in the

germplasm area and toward a new international approach (70). FAO argued that it should

be taking the lead in plant genetic conserva-
272 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

IBPGR Network

The International Board for Plant Genetic Resources has had a catalytic effect on efforts to conserve

dwindling plant genetic resources.

tion; it could provide the framework for developing nations to obtain a greater political voice

in the international conservation structure. It

was further argued that IBPGR was not a formal organization, and it would therefore have

only limited legal ability to enforce any commitment to make germplasm available (26). This

legal status argument is questionable, however

(6). IBPGR proponents responded that the

board’s technical emphasis works effectively,

and it is in fact an asset in surmounting political problems and dealing with nations outside

FAO.

The alternative approach that evolved consisted of an undertaking and a new commission. The International undertaking on Plant

Genetic Resources was negotiated within the

framework of the FAO. (The United States and

a number of other developed countries reserved

their positions.) The undertaking was nonbinding, probably to increase participation in such

a controversial area. It called for an international germplasm conservation network under

the auspices of the FAO, stated a duty of each

nation to make all plant genetic material—

including advanced breeding material—freely

available, and called for development of a procedure under which a germplasm conservation

center could be placed under the auspices of

FAO. IBPGR was to continue its current work,

but it would be monitored by FAO (6).

The other part of the new FAO system is the

Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, a

group established to meet biannually to review

progress in germplasm conservation. The commission held its first meeting in March 1985,

with the United States present as an observer,

Much of the discussion focused on concerns

expressed in the FAO undertaking and on issues that had regularly been dealt with by

IBPGR, such as base collections, training, and

information systems. In addition, discussions

and resolutions paid significant attention to onsite conservation and emphasized the impor-
tance of this area, which has received little attention from IBPGR.

It is not yet clear whether a practical and cooperative division of responsibilities between

the two entities can be developed. One approach

that has been suggested is to have each entity

assume different responsibilities, such as giving IBPGR responsibility for offsite maintenance and letting FAO focus on onsite genebanks. An alternative would be to have IBPGR

assume responsibility for technical aspects of

germplasm collection and maintenance and

give FAO responsibility for legal and political

factors (28).

Botanic gardens and arboretums are increasingly viewed as important for conservation of

wild plant species. Efforts to establish an international network of botanic gardens for the

purpose of conserving threatened plant species

were formalized in an international conference

at the Royal Botanical Garden at Kew (United

Kingdom) in 1978. IUCN’S Species Survival

Commission set up a Botanical Gardens Conservation Coordinating Body (BGCCB). This

body, established in 1979, is coordinated by the

Threatened Plants Unit of IUCN’S Conservation Monitoring Center and now has 136 members, In addition, the Moscow Botanic Garden

coordinates for BGCCB the response of 116

gardens in the Soviet Union (51). The function

of such a network was reviewed at an IUCN

conference in Las Palmas in 1985. Representatives of the botanic gardens meetings recommended a new conservation secretariat with

IUCN support to coordinate their conservation

activities and the establishment of a Botanic

Garden Conservation Strategy (39).

Representation of developing nations is poor

in BGCCB. The Montevideo Botanic Garden

is the only South American member, for example, Efforts are being made to involve more

developing-country institutions and to encourage twinning arrangements between institutions, whereby expertise in seed maintenance,

curation, and fund raising could be promoted.

Mechanisms to fund such activities, however,

are not well established (39).

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity /internationally ● 273

The planning of conservation collections by

collaborating botanic gardens is encouraged by

BGCCB by drawing attention to rare and threatened species that are poorly represented or not

in cultivation at all. This is done through the

provision of reports and an annual computer

printout for each member garden, detailing the

conservation plans IUCN has been provided

by the garden. The printouts allow an analysis

of the garden’s holdings in relation to other

gardens. Members are encouraged to propagate

and distribute species that are represented,

especially if they are endangered or extinct in

the wild. BGCCB also has circulated lists of

threatened plants to its members and stores the

information on holdings in the CMC database

(51),

IUCN has located 3,948 threatened plant species in cultivation by members of BGCCB,

which is at least one-quarter of the known

threatened plants in the CMC computerized

database (78). However, these collections constitute only a tiny proportion of the genetic

range of threatened species, They also represent only a small proportion of the biological

diversity maintained by botanic gardens, which

implies that greater emphasis on cultivation of

rare and threatened species could be undertaken (51). Although it maybe theoretically possible for the botanic gardens of the world to

grow the estimated 25,000 to 40,000 threatened

species of flowering plants, cultivating sufficient populations to maintain diversity is unrealistic. Consequently, protecting a diversity

of wild species will rest on maintaining them

in the wild.

AnimaI Diversity

Just as institutions split offsite maintenance

of plants into agricultural and nonagricultural

species, offsite maintenance of animals is broken down into categories of domesticated and

wild species. The former category has fallen

under international agricultural institutions,

such as FAO or regional institutions, such as

the International Livestock Centre for Africa.

Responsibility for offsite maintenance of wild

species has been almost exclusively assumed

by an international network of zoos.
274 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Concern over loss of genetic diversity in agricultural animals has been much less pronounced

than that for agricultural plants. Consequently,

no analog to IBPGR currently exists. Growing

concern over the loss of potentially valuable

genetic diversity for livestock, however, has

prompted limited efforts in this area.

FAO and UNEP launched a pilot project in

1973 to conserve animal genetic resources. Initial efforts focused on developing a preliminary

list of endangered breeds and of those with

economic potential, especially for developing

countries. A 1980 FAO/UNEP Technical Consultation extended this work by defining requirements for creating “supranational infrastructure resources for animal breeding and

genetics” (37). These covered a range of efforts

to develop animal genetic resources. of particular significance were guidelines in the following areas (37):

●

●

●

databanks for animal genetic resources,

which would also identify endangered

breeds;

genebanks to store semen and embryos of

endangered breeds; and

training of scientists and administrators in

genetic- resources conservation and use,

Endangered livestock breeds can be maintained either in living collections or through

cryogenic storage of semen or embryos (see ch.

6). Although the former option has proved viable in certain European countries (34), widespread success is unlikely. Thus, cryogenic storage will become increasingly important as

threats to livestock increase. Concern over loss

of livestock diversity is greatest for developing

countries, but creating cryogenic genebanks in

many countries would be very difficult. Thus,

the value of establishing supranational storage

facilities becomes apparent.

International networking for conservation of

living collections of wild animals is largely restricted to the zoological community, although

IUCN’S Species Survival Commission has been

involved in formulating conservation plans that

include captive breeding (51), Zoos have traditionally been established for public education

and entertainment, But in recent years, a number of larger zoos have concentrated on breeding rare or endangered species, usually birds

and mammals. These efforts have also extended

to the creation of regional and international networks to enhance the effectiveness and collective conservation potential of the zoological

community.

An International Species Inventory System

(ISIS) was created in 1974 in response to major problems of inbreeding in zoo populations

and in recognition of the fact that, for an increasing number of wild animals, captive populations held the best hope for survival of the

species. Coverage has grown from 55 facilities

to 211 as of 1985. About 65,000 1iving specimens of 2,300 species are included. Information currently comes from facilities in 14 countries, but coverage is best for U.S. and Canadian

institutions (see ch, 9). The system is not restricted to endangered species (25),

ISIS publishes biannual survey reports. These

include information on the sex ratio and age

distribution; the proportion of captive-bred; and

the birth, death, and import trends for all mammals and birds held in captivity by the members. The system has also recently begun to incorporate information on holdings of reptiles

and amphibians (25).

The American Association of Zoological

Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) setup the Species Survival Plan (29) in September 1980,

AAZPA has identified certain species in need

of immediate attention and has established a

committee for each, consisting of a species

coordinator and propagation group. A major

committee function is to provide direction for

maintenance of studbooks.

A studbook is an international register that

lists and records all captive individuals of species that are rare or endangered in the wild.

The concept, initially developed for the selective breeding of domesticated animals, was first

used on a wild species (the European bison) in

1932. Studbooks are now kept for about 40 endangered species and are a valuable tool in international cooperation in captive breeding,

permitting intelligent recommendations to zoos

around the world concerning such things as
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally ● 275

optimal pairings, trades, and management (24).

Official studbooks are those recognized and endorsed by IUCN’S Survival Commission and

the International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens, and they are coordinated by the

editor of the International Zoo Yearbook.

Microbial Diversity

A directory of institutions maintaining microbial culture collections was published in 1972,

under the sponsorship of UNESCO, the World

Health Organization, and the Commonwealth

Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. The directory was revised and updated

in 1982 [55) and remains the primary comprehensive source of information on international

culture collections. In addition, the American

Phytopathological Society convened a panel of

scientists to discuss the importance and future

of microbial culture collections (l). Information from these sources indicates that probably

1,200 to 1,550 collections exist throughout the

world. A brief history of several of the more

important collections is available (64).

In 1985, UNEP, the International Cell Research Organization, and UNESCO recognized

the need for moderately sized culture collections. Each collection as envisioned would have

a special purpose and together they would form

a network of collections around the world (6).

The establishment of these microbiological resource centers (M IRCENS) began at that time

and the specialized collections are now located

in 15 locations (17): including Brisbane, Australia; Stockholm, Sweden; Bangkok, Thailand;

Nairobi, Kenya; Porto Alegre, Brazil; Guatemala

City, Guatemala; Cairo, Egypt; Paia, Hawaii,

United States; and Dakar, Senegal (32).

MIRCENS were established to develop and

enhance an infrastructure for a world network

of regional and interregional laboratories. This

network provides a base of knowledge in microbiology and biotechnology to support the biotechnology industry in developed and developing countries. Activities of MI RCENS include

collection, maintenance, testing and distribution of Rhizobium, and training of personnel

(46). Training has perhaps been the most important activity towards developing research

capabilities and diffusion of technology, especially in developing countries (16). Though each

MIRCEN works according to its own set of priorities, they share a common goal of working

together to strengthen the network and advance

the knowledge in microbiology and biotechnology. In doing so, MI RCENS provide incentives

to develop and maintain offsite microbial collections in support of national programs. They

also offer a framework that could provide a secure custodial system for national and international microbial resources.

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The United States has historically played an A number of opportunities exist whereby the

important leadership role in international con- United States could reestablish itself as a leadservation initiatives. The establishment of Yel- ing actor in international efforts to promote the

lowstone Park in 1872 heralded the international maintenance of biological diversity.

movement to create national parks worldwide.

The United States also was a central actor in Onsite Activities the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human

Environment, in the creation of the United Na- A major problem in developing a coherent

tions Environment Programme, the World Her- strategy to address concerns over loss of bioitage Convention, and numerous other initia- logical diversity is the uncertainty that surtives (see previous sections). In recent years, rounds the issue. Estimates of the scope of speU.S. leadership in international conservation cies diversity vary by orders of magnitude,

has waned, which is reflected in funding and which illustrates obvious impediments to definpersonnel support for international programs. ing and addressing the problem. Further, lim-
276 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

—

ited and unreliable data on the rates and impacts of habitat conversion exacerbate the

problem of refining a strategy and determining the level of resources that should be directed

to address concerns. Clearly, biological diversity in certain regions is acutely threatened and

deserves priority attention. However, attention

is also needed on gaining a better grasp on

defining the scope of diversity and the degree

to which it is threatened.

Many questions remain even as understanding of the magnitude of threats to diversity continues to improve. Critics suggest that a better

grasp of the situation is needed before large

amounts of resources are devoted to the problem (66). It should be noted, however, that funds

currently spent on diversity maintenance are

relatively small and are not likely to increase

dramatically. More important perhaps is the

realization that funding, both public and private, continues to be directed to well-defined

threats. That is, the situation as it currently exists is essentially reactionary—responding to

acute threats that have already materialized.

Recognition of the importance of biological

diversity has yet to assume the prominence that

would make most national governments take

systematic and preemptive approaches to threatened diversity, which in the long run might

prove less costly. Increased attention and recognition of national and regional conservation

strategies as important elements of integrated

development planning may represent movement to adopt this approach.

Considerable discussion among international

conservation organizations has been directed

toward the need to develop an international network of protected areas that would include representative and unique ecosystems. To date,

however, organizing, implementing, and supporting such a system remains difficult. Efforts

to establish such a system have not suffered

from lack of creativity, as reflected in two largescale proposals: one to create a major international program to finance the preservation of

10 percent of the remaining tropical forests (65)

and another to establish a world conservation

bank (69).

It maybe possible to establish an international

network of protected areas within the framework

of existing programs, specifically UNESCO’s

Man in the Biosphere and World Heritage programs. To do so, however, would require adopting a more organized and strategic policy, further invigorating both programs, and providing

increased resources. This would require a more

concerted effort on the part of national governments, intergovernmental agencies, and the

participation of specific international nongovernmental groups (especially IUCN).

Two other issues are prominent with respect

to the effectiveness of international laws and

programs (47). First, there is debate over the

value of a global treaty to fill what some perceive as a serious gap in hard law. Second, alternatives to conventional protected areas need

to be considered to provide protection beyond

such areas or at sites where the conventional

approach is not feasible.

The notion of a world treaty to conserve

genetic resources of wild species was proposed

at the IUCN World National Parks Congress

in 1982. A similar recommendation by the

World Resources Institute was proposed for the

U.S. Government to develop an international

convention. However, one key question that

needs to be addressed before implementation

is whether a new global treaty could be adopted

and enforced in time to address the problem.

In addition, consideration must be given to financial and technical resources still needed for

treaties that currently play a role in resource

conservation.

Existing treaties have been difficult to implement because of a lack of administrative

machinery (e. g., well-funded and staffed secretariats); lack of financial support for on-theground programs (e.g., equipment, training, and

staff); and lack of reciprocal obligations that

serve as incentives to comply (21), A possible

exception is CITES, which has mechanisms to

facilitate reciprocal trade controls and a technical secretariat, although inadequately funded.

Creating protected areas is the conventional

approach in most international conservation
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally w 277

programs. The modern interpretation of protected areas includes the full range of conservation uses, from strict protection to multiple

use (44). The question of alternatives and supportive measures outside protected areas has

also become a growing concern. The 1984 State

of the Environment Report of the Organisation

for Economic Cooperation and Development

(O EC D), for example, urges that protected areas

are not enough. Environmentally sensitive policies for nondesignated lands are also needed

(60). This conclusion is reinforced by IUCN’S

Commission on Ecology:

The idea of basing conservation on the fate

of particular species or even on the maintenance

of a natural diversity of species will become

even less tenable as the number of threatened

species increases and their refuges disappear.

Natural areas will have to be designed in conduction with the goals of regional development

and justified on the basis of ecological processes operating within the entire developed region and not just within natural areas.

Land-use planning may help integrate environmentally sensitive policies in nondesignated

areas. Control options to safeguard genetic

diversity outside protected areas could also be

explored (21,22). Where private land is involved,

general controls could be enforced by imposing restrictions on land use or by instituting

a permit system. These practices are commonly

used for nature conservation and environmental

protection in many western countries, particularly Europe. Permits could be required for all

activities likely to harm certain natural habitats

or ecosystems. This approach requires legislation to authorize the requirement, procedures,

decisions on the conditions to be imposed, and

activities excluded from the permit requirement.

Nonstatutory protection of specific sites

could be achieved through voluntary agreements between the landowner and conservation authorities. Such agreements are more attractive when the landowner is offered certain

incentives, such as tax subsidies or deductions,

for preserving sites. In the United States, such

“conservation easements” are valuable mechanisms for conserving private lands (77).

Zoning ordinances could become a powerful conservation tool if extended not only to

construction but to all changes in land use, including agriculture. Programs to preserve areas

where only small natural or seminatural sites

remain within cultivated fields, for example,

are also important. Such efforts can help maintain at least a minimum amount of natural vegetation in hedgerows, tree groves, riparian, and

other areas. Giving conservation advice to

farmers about the value of protected lands

would be an important component of such

controls.

In many countries, however, land management agencies have little or no authority to oversee activities of other agencies or to veto actions that would be detrimental to maintaining

the land’s natural condition. Although a variety of land-use planning tools are being considered, two prerequisites exist for using them:

1. to strengthen the technical capacity to

identify, inventory, and monitor valuable

natural areas; and

2. to provide the legal authority to protect

such areas.

Offsite Activities

Offsite maintenance of biological diversity

is assuming increased prominence due to concern over 10SS of genetic resources. Its prominence is also the result of a greater appreciation

of the important role that offsite maintenance

of wild species can play in conserving species

diversity, especially when linked to onsite programs. However, a number of major resources

remain unprotected in the existing framework,

These include medicinal plants; some industrial plants, such as rubber; a number of animals, including wild and domesticated varieties

and possibly some marine species, for which

commercial breeding techniques are evolving

(58).

To cover existing gaps in maintaining plant

genetic resources, efforts could be made to extend IBPGR’s mandate to assume responsibilities for medicinal plants, industrial plants, and
278 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

minor crops. IBPGR has already expressed

reluctance to assume principal responsibility

for these areas, noting that in many cases, such

efforts should be relegated to national programs

(79). Another option, however, is creation of

a new group to cover these particular interests.

Such an effort should try to establish some organizational affiliation capitalizing on the expertise already acquired by IBPGR.

Perhaps the most blatant gap, however, is in

the area of animal genetic resources. Although

FAO and UNEP have initiated investigations

in this area, no national, regional, or international programs have yet emerged. An international board on animal resources could be

established, with a mandate and approach similar to IBPGR’s, But instead of establishing a

network of national programs, a more reasonable approach might include creating a network

of regional programs, promoting conservation

of animal germplasm and monitoring endangered livestock breeds.

Additional international exchange of information is also needed, particularly with respect

1

2.

3.

4.

5,

6.

7.

to what is conserved in smaller collections, such

as those maintained by university faculty or private breeders. This exchange often occurs informally through working networks of researchers. In some cases, however, improved data

management systems may be appropriate.

integration

Diversity maintenance programs require complementary efforts between onsite and offsite

conservation, and finding the balance of emphasis is key. The first session of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources discussed

building this integration by establishing national plant genetic resource centers that would

be closely linked to offsite genebanks and protected area management (41). Such efforts will

require improved cooperation at international

and national levels, along with creative use of

existing laws and programs to meet emerging

management and scientific needs.

CHAPTER 10 REFERENCES

American Phytopathological Society, National

Work Conference on Microbial Collections of

Major Importance to Agriculture (St. Paul, MN:

APS, 1981), In: Halliday and Baker, 1985,

American Seed Trade Association, “Position Paper of the American Seed Trade Association on

FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources,” May 1984.

Anonymous, “European Parliament Votes To

Adopt FAO Undertaking, ” Diversity (9):24-25,

1986a.

Anonymous, “New Patent Policy Stirs Seed Industry, ” Diversity (9):6, winter 1986b.

Barton, J. H,, “The International Breeder’s Rights

System and Crop Plant Innovation, ” Science

216:1070-1075, June 4, 1982,

Barton, J. H., “international/Legal Framework

for Ex-Situ Conservation of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Batisse, M,, “Developing and Focusing the Biosphere Concept, ” Nature and Resources (in

press).

8, Berlan, J. P,, and Lewontin, R., “Breeders’ Rights

and Patenting Life Forms, ” Nature 322: 785-788,

Aug. 28, 1986.

9, Bliss, F. A., “Market and Institutional Factors

Affecting the Plant Breeding System, ” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985.

10. Boardman, R., International Organization and

the Conservation of Nature (Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University Press, 1981).

11. Burhenne, W. E,, International Environmental

L a w

r

–Multilateral Treaties Series, vols. I-IV

(Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany: Erich

Schmidt Verlag, 1984). In: Lausche, 1985.

12. Butler, L. J., and Marion, B. W., “The Plant Variety Protection Act and the Importance of Public Plant Breeders and Competition in the Seed

Industry,” Journal of Agronomic Education

14(1), 1985,

13. Chiarappa, L., and Karpati, J. F., “Plant Quarantine and Genetic Resources, ” In: 1984, per 11-

23 J.H.W. Holden, and J,T. Williams (eds,) London.

14. Cleary, S., Bureau of Oceans and International
Ch. 10—Maintaining Bio/ogica/ Diversity /nternationa//y “ 279

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21

22<

23

24.

25.

Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, personal

communication, 1986.

Collins, N., “International Inventory and Monitoring for the Maintenance of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Colwell, R. R., “A World Network of Environmental, Applied, and Biotechnological Research, ”

ASM News 49(2] :72-73, 1983.

Colwell, R. R., notes pertaining to MIRCEN Director’s Council, personal communication, July

1, 1986.

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), 1984 Report on the

Consultative Group and the International Agricultura~ Research It Supports (Washington, DC:

October 1984).

Convention for the Protection and Development

of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, “Message From the President of

the United States to the 98th Congress, ” 2d sess.,

Treaty Iloc. No. 98-13 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1984). In: Lausche,

1985.

Curtis, C., president, The Oceanic Society,

Washington, DC, personal communication, September 1985. In: Lausche, 1985.

de Klemm, C., “Conservation of Wetlands, Legal and Planning Mechanism s,” Proceedings of

the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Gland,

Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,

1984). In: Lausche, 1985.

de Klemm, C., “Protecting Wild Genetic Resources for the Future: The Need for a World

Treaty, ” National Parks, Conservation, and

Development—The Role of Protected Areas in

Sustaining Societ~’, Proceedings of the World

Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, October 11-22, 1982 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian

Institution Press, 1984). In: Lausche, 1985.

Dooge, J. C. I., and Baker, F. W. G., “International

Governmental and Non-Governmental Scientific Cooperation, ” Ecology in Practice, Part II:

The SociaZ Response, F. D. Castro, F.W.G. Baker,

and M. Hadley (eds. ) (Dublin: Tycooly International Publishing, 1984).

Dresser, B., and Liebo, S., “Technologies TO

Maintain Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.

Flesness. N.. “Status and Trends of wild Ani26.

27.

28

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34,

35

36.

37.

38.

39

mal Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper,

1985.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the

United Nations, Report of the Conference of

FAO, zzd sess., Rome, Nov. 5-23, 1983, c83/REP

(Rome: 1983).

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO] of the

United Nations, Commission on Plant Genetic

Resources, Base Collections of Plant Genetic Resources, CPGR: 85/4 (Rome: 1984).

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the

United Nations, First Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Mar.

11-15, 1985 (Rome: 1985).

Foose, T. S., “The Relevance of Captive Populations to the Conservation of Biotic Diversity. ”

In: C.M. Schonewald-Cox, et al. Genetics and

Conservation (Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/

Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., 1983).

Gregg, W. P., MAB coordinator, U.S. National

Park Service, personal communication, 1986.

Halle, M., deputy director of Conservation for

Development Center, IUCN, personal communication, Gland, Switzerland, 1986.

Halliday, J., and Baker, D., “Technologies To

Maintain Microbial Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Hawkes, J. G., Plant Genetic Resources: The Impact of International Agriculture Research Centers, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Study paper No. 3

(Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1985).

Henson, E. L., “An Assessment of the Conservation of Animal Genetic Diversity at the Grassroots Level, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Hewitt, W. B., and Chiarappa, 1,., Plant Health

and Quarantine in International Transfer of

Genetic Resources (Cleveland, OH: Chemical

Rubber Co. Press, 1977).

Hobbilink, H., “Home-Grown Solutions, ” South,

January 1986, p. 112.

Hodges, J., “Animal Genetic Resources in the

Developing World: Goals, Strategies, Management and Current Status, ” Proceedings of Third

World Congress on Genetics Applied to Li\estock Production, Lincoln, NE, vol. 10, July 16-

22, 1986.

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

A Global Network of Genebanks (Rome: 1983).

International Union for Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources, and World Wildlife

Fund, Plant AdvisorJ’ Group: Minutes of Third

Meeting, Quetame, Colombia July 6-7, 1986.
280 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

40. International Union for Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources, 1985 United Nations

List of National Parks and Protected Areas

(Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, England:

1985).

41, International Union for Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources, “Report of the First

Meeting of the ECG Working Group on In Situ

Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources,” Apr.

11-12, 1985 (Gland, Switzerland: 1985), In:

Lausche, 1985.

42. International Union for Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources, “Report on IUCN’S Participation in the First Session of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, ” Rome,

Mar. 11-15, 1985 (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN,

1985), In: Lausche, 1985.

43. International Union for Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources, World Conservation

Strategy (Gland, Switzerland: 1980).

44. International Union for Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources, Categories, Objectives,

and Criteria for Protected Areas (Gland, Switzerland: 1978).

45. Kahn, R., “Assessment of Plant Quarantine

Practices,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

46, Keya, S.0., Freire, J,, and DaSilva, E. J., “MIRCENS: Catalytic Tools in Agricultural Training

and Development, ” Impact of Science on Society 142:142-151, 1986.

47. Lausche, B., “International Laws and Associated Programs for In-Situ Conservation of Wild

Species,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

48. Lausche, B,, World Wildlife Fund, ~ersonal

communication, June 1986.

49, Lesser, W, H., and Masson, R, T., An Economic

Analysis of the Plant Variety Protection Act

(Washington, DC: American Seed Trade Association, 1983).

50, Loyns, R. M. A., and Begleiter, A, J., “An Examination of Potential Economic Effects of Plant

Breeder Rights on Canada, ” Working Paper,

Policy Coordination Bureau, Consumer and

Corporate Affairs Canada, no date.

51, Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,

Botanical Gardens, and Similar Institutions in

the Maintenance of Biological Diversity, ” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985.

52. Lyster, S., International Wildlife Law (Cambridge, England: Grotius Publications, Ltd.,

1985).

53. MacFadyen, J. T,, “United Nations: A Battle

Over Seeds,” The Atlantic 256(5):36-44, November 1985.

54. Malone, T. F,, and Roederer, J.G. (eds.), Global

Change, The Proceeding of a Symposium sponsored by the International Council of Scientific

Unions (ICSU) during its 20th General Assembly in Ottawa, Canada on Dec. 25, 1984 (New

York: Cambridge University Press, 1985),

55. McGowan, V, F., and Skerman, V.B. D. (eds.),

World Directory of Collections of Micro-organisms (Brisbane, Australia: World Data Center,

1982).

56. Mooney, P. R., “The Law of the Seed, ” Development Dialogue 1(2), 1983.

57. Moulton, W., “Constraints to International Exchange of Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

58, National Council on Gene Resources, Anadromous Salmonid Genetic Resources: An Assessment and Plan for California, prepared for California Gene Resources Program, 1982.

59. National Research Council, UNESCO Science

Program: Impacts of U.S. Withdrawal and Suggestions for Alternative Interim Arrangements,

A Preliminary Assessment (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1984).

60. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD), 1984 State of the Environment Report (Paris: 1985),

61. Perrin, R. K., Kunnings, K. A., and Ihnen, L, A,,

Some Effects of the U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, Economics Research Report

No. 46 (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Department of Economics and Business,

1983). In: Bliss, 1985.

62. Perry, J, S,, “Managing the World Environment, ”

Environment 28(1):10-15, 37-40, January/February 1986.

63. Plucknett, et al,, “Crop Germplasm Conservation and Developing Countries, ” Science 22o:

163-169, Apr. 8, 1983.

64. Porter, J. R,, “The World View of Culture Collections,” The Role of Culture Collections in the

Era of Molecu)ar Biology, R.R. Colwell (cd.)

(Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1976]. In: Halliday and Baker, 1985.

65. Rubinoff, I., “The Preservation of Tropical

Moist Forests: A Plan for the South, ” unpublished, 1984.

66. Simon, J., “Disappearing Species, Deforestation,

and Data,” New Scientist, May 15, 1986, pp.

60-63.

67. Stiles, S., “Biotechnology: Revolution or Evolution for Agriculture?” Diversity 8:29-30, winter 1986.

68, Sun, M,, “The Global Fight Over Plant Genes, ”

Science 231:445-447, Jan. 31, 1986.

69. Sweatman, I. M,, “The World Conservation
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally ● 2 8 1

Bank, ” Project of the International Wilderness

I,eadership Foundation, 1986.

70. Tooze, W., “S~~dS of Dis[;ord, ” ~arron ‘s, July

30, 1984.

71. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cul72

tural Organization, “Action Plan for Biosphere

Reserves, IVat[lre and Resources XX(4):1 1-22,

1984.

IJnitd N’ations Educational Scientific, and Cultural Organization, International Co-ordinating

Council for the Programme on Man and the Biosphere, Ninth Session, MAB/Icc-9/coNF.4,

Paris, Oct. 23, 1986.

73. United Nations Environment Programme, Register of International Treaties and Other Agreements in the Field of the Environment (Nairobi,

Kenya: 1984), In: Lausche, 1985,

74. United Nations Environment Programme, Glohal Resources Information Database (Nairobi:

UNEP/GEMS, 1985].

75. United Nations Environment Pro,qramme, “UNEP

and Protected Areas—Review of Joint Activities

76,

Carried Out by CJNEP and FAO, IUCN and the

UNESCO MAB Program me 1973 -1982,” paper

presented at the World National Parks Congress,

Bali, Indonesia, Oct. 11-22, 1982 (Nairobi: 1982).

. United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, “Declaration on the Human Environmerit, ” Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, Sept.

16-23, 1972, pp. 25476-25479. In: Lausche, 1985.

77. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological

78

DiversitJ in the united States, OTA-BP-F-38

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1986).

Walter, S. M., and Birks, H., “Botanic Gardens

and Conservation, ” WWF Plants CampaignPlant pac No. 5 (Gland, Switzerland: World

Wildlife Fund, 1984).

79. Williams, J. T., “A Decade of Crop Genetic Resources Research. ” In: J.H. W. Holden and I.T.

Williams, Crop Genetic Resources: Conseri~ation and Et~aluation (Boston: George Allen & Unwin, 1984),

80, Williams, S. B,, “Protection of Plant Varieties

and Parts as Intellectual Property, ” Science

225:18-23,July 6, 1984.

81. Witt, S. C,, Biotechnology and Genetic Di~~ersit}~

82<

83<

84,

(San Francisco: California Agricultural Lan(fs

Project, 1985).

Witt, S. C., “FAO Still Debating Germplasm Issues, ” Di~ersitJ (8):24w25, winter 1986.

Wood, H. W., Jr., “The United Nations World

Charter for Nature: The Developing Nations’

Initiative To Establish Protections for the Environment ,“ Environmental Lawr Quarter]J 12(4):

977-998, 1985.

World Resources Institute, Tropical Forests; A

CaZl for Action, Report of an International Task

Force convened by the World Resources Institute, The World Bank, and the United Nations

Development Programme (Washington DC:

1985).
Chapter 11

Biological Diversity and

Development Assistance
CONTENTS

Page

Highlights .o. Q*a***, *o** .*oo*** **ee*o* o*. *@*************e********** 285

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● ***,*..,**********.******************.*** 285

Integration of Economic Development and Biological Diversity

Maintenance *., ***. *o*. .#. c*o*.O* **** .*** ***o *a** O*@o****. ****a0 * 287

U.S. Response ● .*.,,**.*.**************.* ● ***.*,**,**************** 289

Implementation of U.S. Initiatives: The Agency for International

Development *.** .*** 6*. *.** o#e***. *.. **. **. ***@ *.. **o* . ********* a 291

The Role of Multilateral Development Banks b e************************* 294

Promotion of Capacity and Initiatives in Developing Countries . ..........296 ~ÿ

Building Public Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Establishing an Information Base . . . . . . . . . .

Building Institutional Support . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Promoting Planning and Management. . . . . .

Increasing Technical Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Increasing Direct Economic Benefits of Wild

Chapter

Table No.

11 ‘References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..$ ● ● . ● * ● , . * ● ● ● ● ● . . . ● ● ● ● .296

● .* , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .298

● * * ● ● ● ● .0 ● ● * , ● ● . ● . ● . . . ● ..299

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● . ● ● ● ● ● ● 300

. ..0....,,.,,......,0.0. . 302

Species Q * 4. * ● s ● ● . ● . ● ● . ● . ● 303

. . . ., . . * . . . . . . * * *.*,**.** 305

11-1. Country Environmental Profiles Undertaken or Supported by

the Agency for International Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..293

Boxe s

Box NO. Page

11-A. U.S. Stake in Maintaining Biological Diversity in Developing

Countries *., *o. **69 **o* 0*. ..*. .. ***@Q*.***********"***'""*"** 286

11-B, Amendments to Foreign Assistance Act Concerning International

Environmental Protection ● ..**,..**************@*************** 290
Chapter 11

Biological Diversity and

Development Assistance

HIGHLIGHTS

The United States has a stake in maintaining biological diversity in developing

countries. Many of these nations are in regions where biological systems are

highly diverse, pressures that degrade diversity are most pronounced, and the

ability to forestall a reduction in diversity is least well developed.

With recent amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act and earmarking of finds,

the United States has defined maintaining biological diversity as an important

objective in U.S. development assistance. It is unclear, however, whether the

Agency for International Development (the principle U.S. development assistance agency) can effectively promote conservation of biological diversity.

Development assistance can help improve the capacity of developing countries to maintain diversity by 1) building public support; 2) establishing an information base; 3) building institutional support; 4) promoting planning and

management; 5) increasing technical capacity; and 6) increasing the direct economic benefits from sustainable use of biological resources.

Multilateral development banks strongly influence the nature of resource development in developing countries. Recent congressional pressures to encourage

these banks to place greater emphasis on environmental implications of their

activities, including threats to biological diversity, have met with some success. Continued monitoring of progress in this area is necessary to enhance

progress made to date.

INTRODUCTION

Concern about the loss of biological diver- The United States has a stake in maintaining

sity is acute for developing countries for sev- biological diversity, particularly in developing

eral reasons. First, the level of diversity is countries, The rationale for assisting developgreater in developing countries particularly in ing

tropical locations, than it is in industrial countries. Second, biological diversity is less well- 1.

documented in developing countries. Third,

conversions of natural ecosystems to humanmodified landscapes are more pronounced and 2.

likely to accelerate in developing countries due

to the combined pressures of population growth

and poverty. Fina]]y, developing countries 3.

characteristically lack both the technical and

financial resources to address these issues.

countries rests on the following:

recognition of the substantial benefits of

a diversity of plants, animals, and microorganisms;

evidence that degradation of ecosystems

can undermine U.S. support of economic

development efforts; and

esthetic and ethical motivations to avoid

irreversible loss of unique life forms (see

box 11-A).

285
. .—

.
Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 287

INTEGRATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE

Interests and activities of development agencies and conservation organizations have

merged in recent years, in light of the changing perspectives of these two groups, Historically, conservation organizations and development agencies planned their efforts

independently in developing countries (64).

Conservation groups focused almost exclusively on natural areas, promoting protection

from human exploitation and preservation of

particular wild species and their habitats. In

contrast, development organizations focused

on raising the standard of living in both rural

and urban areas and concentrated on the major agricultural species.

Increasingly, development assistance agencies and developing country governments are

establishing policies that recognize the importance of environmental factors in development

strategies. These policies stem from a growing

awareness in development planning of the costs

of ignoring environmental factors. The greater

reliance of developing-country economies on

their natural resource base—soils, fisheries, and

forests—underlies this growing appreciation for

sustainability in development initiatives.

Planning began to include environmental

considerations in cost-benefit and similar analyses during the 1970s. The emphasis was on

mitigating side effects, such as pollution and

salinization. By the late 1970s, development

agencies began to include components to sustain the resource base that affected a project.

Watershed protection above irrigation systems

received funding, for instance, Development

assistance in the early 1980s supported projects

to deal directly with the problems associated

with natural resource degradation, such as fuelwood shortages in arid regions.

Although maintaining biological diversity has

not become an objective of assistance projects,

these steps led toward development that generally caused less resource degradation and

thus generally benefited diversity maintenance,

In the 1983 Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act (described in the next section), Congress directed the Agency for International Development (AID) to support projects that have

maintenance of biological diversity as a specific objective, such as establishing protected

areas and controlling poaching.

Conservation organizations, in turn, realized

that their traditional emphasis on establishing

parks and protected areas would be insufficient

to protect biological diversity and began to

broaden their approach. These groups have increasingly realized that failure to account for

the needs of rural people jeopardizes the longterm success of conservation projects.

A clear manifestation of conservationists’ efforts to reorient their activities is the development of the World Conservation Strategy

(WCS). This document links conservation with

development and provides policy guidelines for

determining development priorities that secure

sustainable use of resources (20). The WCS has

three principal objectives: 1) the maintenance

of essential ecological processes, 2) the preservation of genetic diversity, and 3) the sustainable use of species and ecosystems. The document is used to increase dialog on the interests

and approaches of the development and conservation communities. It has been only partially successful, however. The WCS has been

effective in narrowing the gap of conservation

and development interests in policy documents,

but on a practical basis this gap remains.

Part of the problem with linking development

and conservation lies in the failure to identify

common criteria and benefits. Conservation

activities generally justify projects by biological and esthetic criteria. For example, conservation organizations would draw attention to

the Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus) of New

Zealand because it is the last remaining species of an entire order of reptiles (32). Unique

or spectacular habitats are also given special

attention. Conservation organizations also focus on spectacular species of birds or mammals,

largely in response to the esthetic interests of

contributors,
288 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Development initiatives, on the other hand,

are directed by economic criteria. Internal rates

of return and similar economic analyses, for

example, are important steps in justifying particular projects. This emphasis can be detrimental for biological diversity because many values

associated with maintaining diversity are difficult to measure (see ch. 2) and thus are undervalued in development project decisions

(28). The standard economic approach may be

unable to account for the loss of biological

diversity, where time horizons are long, benefits are diffuse, and losses are irreversible (37),

The problem is particularly acute for weakened

economies where overexploiting renewable resources to meet immediate needs often undermines the chances for long-term sustainability

of resources.

Lack of institutional overlap also presents

problems in defining common ground among

development and conservation interests.

Responsibilities for natural resources are generally split among agencies (e. g., agriculture,

forestry, and wildlife). Despite efforts by developing countries to establish offices responsible for broader environmental issues, the agencies are frequently unable to add conservation

components to development activities, let alone

to compete with other agencies for financial

or administrative support.

Another management problem that can hinder efforts to protect a particular habitat or species is the imbalance between the means

devoted to conservation enforcement and the

market value of the protected resource. The salaries of officials assigned to enforce conservation measures can be extremely low compared

to the worth of the resources they are guarding. Perhaps a more difficult dilemma is trying to dissuade local populations from exploiting or degrading protected areas when

subsistence requirements and lack of alternatives compel them to do so.

This problem raises a central question in

defining the role of development assistance in

maintaining biological diversity. Should development assistance support diversity maintenance if such initiatives have adverse impacts

on the people it is intended to help? Current

legislation (discussed later in this chapter)

stresses the beneficial aspects of maintaining

diversity in overall development. But some

diversity maintenance projects can conflict

with local development interests. For instance,

conflict can arise by denying access to resources on protected lands. Wildlife conservation efforts in proximity to agricultural lands

may also threaten crops, domestic livestock,

and even humans (9).

In examining the issue of possible conflicts

between development and diversity maintenance, it is perhaps useful to define two approaches to maintaining diversity. First is the

symptomatic approach. This is the approach

typically undertaken by environmental groups

and is often directed at protecting a particular

species and its habitat. Because of the focused

nature of this approach, needed interventions,

usually involving strict protective measures, are

often easy to define. However, such a program

can be costly and difficult to implement, especially if initiated only after threats reach a critical point. Problematic from a development perspective is the case where strict protective

measures impinge on the interests of local populations.

Alternatively, there is a curative approach to

threats to diversity. This approach attempts to

address the root causes of the threats to diversity. It generally involves a much broader array of initiatives and is less focused on diversity per se. It emphasizes the human element

of the conservation equation.

The greatest threats to diversity in developing countries stems less from the impacts of

development than from a lack of development.

Addressing the root causes of threats to diversity will therefore need to emphasize the availability of opportunities for individuals in developing countries to enhance their quality of

life. This is the approach generally taken by development assistance agencies in their efforts

to elevate standards of living by creating employment opportunities and increasing access

to education, health care, and family planning.
Both approaches will be necessary in meeting the challenges of diversity maintenance,

Within the context of U.S. interests to promote

diversity maintenance through the channels of

development assistance, it is important to stress

areas of overlap between these two approaches,

That is, emphasis should be placed on promoting the type of projects that, on the one hand,

promote opportunities for local populations

and, on the other hand, maintain the diversity

within biological systems.

This approach is based on the proposition

that the best way to maintain diversity within

a development initiative is to use that diversity,

Examples abound of efforts to capitalize on

diversity maintenance in areas ranging from

tourism to biological resource development (9).

This utilitarian approach should be approached

with caution, however. It is important to ensure that initiatives will be environmentally,

economically, and institutionally sustainable

over the long term. Identifying possibilities for

multiple uses of an area or biological resource

should be stressed. Further, it is important to

ensure that the benefits of such interventions

actually accrue to the people affected,

A consensus exists that long-term conservation must have a base of support at the national

level and account for the interests and par-

Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . 289

ticipation of local populations. It seems reasonable, therefore, to stress these criteria in development assistance projects supporting

biological diversity. These criteria provide consistency in U.S. interests in conservation and

development and promote projects most likely

to succeed. Cases will arise in which the particular focus of protection inevitably conflicts

with local demands. Resolving such conflicts

is the responsibility of local or national governments, although foreign assistance can be

useful, especially in providing resources to facilitate or compensate for a particular intervention. Whether such support should be considered under particular development assistance

or through other channels is not clear,

The greatest opportunities, however, lie in

taking a more forward-looking and anticipatory

approach by helping countries define strategies

and policies to preempt such conflicts. Support

for planning, management, and inventory of

diversity, promoting in-country expertise, and

constituencies to support diversity maintenance initiatives help reduce the incidence of

conflict between development and diversity

maintenance. In the final analysis, the success

of U.S. support for maintaining diversity in developing countries will depend on success in

promoting the capacity in the developing countries themselves.

After nearly a decade of legislative and ●

administrative concern about the role of U.S.

foreign assistance in environmental protection

(see box 11-B), the case for U.S. action to conserve diversity in developing countries was recognized in Section 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), added by Congress as part of

the International Environment Protection Act ●

of 1983 (Public Law 180-64). This amendment

includes the following:

directs the Administrator of AID, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate government agencies, to deveIop a U.S.

strategy including specific policies and

programs to protect and conserve biological diversity in developing countries (Sec.

119(c)); and

requires the President to report annually

to Congress on the implementation of Section 119 (Sec. l19(d)).

authorizes the President to furnish assis- Section 119 signals Congress’ belief that U.S.

tance to countries in protecting and main- development assistance should specifically initaining wildlife habitats and in developing tiate projects traditionally undertaken by consound wildlife management and plant con- servation organizations. In effect, AID has been

servation programs (Sec. l19(b)); directed to deal not only with the foundations
290 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Box 11-Ih-Amamdmamm w I%m#gn AtMstamca Am Cwmming

fkmgreasionalcmmern wit htal proteetim has Wmmwd markedly over

the last decade. U.% foreign aasi~tqnco @qpmns bqym iwmgpomting mwkmmental concerns in

the lata 1970a when a mriaa of to b Foreign Assistance Aat defined the Agency fbr

International Dtwekqmwnt% [AID) mandate in the area of emdronment and natural reimurcas, ‘I%esa

arnendmentd gave sptwific emphasis to promoting efforts to hah tropical deforestation, a major threat

to conserving biokgical diversity.

● 1977:

● 1978:

● 1078/7$:

● 1$81:

● 1988:

addrwm

Added rww Section 118 on “R@ronrnent and Natural Resources,” authorizing AID

to fortify “the capacity of less dtwdqed countries to protect and manage their environment and natural resources” and to “maintain and where possible restore the land,

vegetation, water, wildlife, and other resourcw upon which depend economic growth

and well-being, especially that of the poor.” ~ Amended Section 118, requiring AID to carry out country studies in the developing

world to identifi natural resource problems and institutional mechanisms to solve them.

Amended Section 103 to emphasiza formtry assistance, acknowledging that deforestation, with its attendant specias loss, constituted an impediment to meeting basic human naeds in devekqh~ cmmtrif3s.

Amended Section 118, maktng AID’s environmental review regulations part of the act,

and added a mbmctkm [d], #xpressing that “CQngrms is particularly concerned about

the continuiq and aecsbating alteration, destruction, and loss of tropical forests in

developing countries.” Instructs the Presickmt to take them concerns into account in

formulating policies and programs r&ting to bilatwal and multilateral assistance and

to private sector activities in the developing world.

Added Section 119, directing AID in consultation with other Federal agencies to develop a U.S. strat~gy on conserving biological diversity in developing countries.

Redesignated Se&on 11$ as Section 117 with the new Section 118 addressing tropical

forest issues.

Amended Section 119, whi~h among other things earmarked money for biological diversity projects.

SOURCE: Adapted from B. Rich and S. Schwartzmani ‘The Role of Development Assistance in Maintaining Biological Diversity k$ftu in

Developing Countries,” (3TA commissioned paper, 19S5.

of the threats but also with some of the consequences.

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 Section 119.

This report was followed by an annual report,

Progress in Conserving Biological Diversity in

Developing Countries FY1985, which outlines

implementation of Section 119 a year later.

The strategy has been criticized for lack of

commitment to action, even though it contains

67 recommendations. Its most concrete aspect

is allocation of responsibilities among agencies,

but this is done without any indication of funding mechanisms. Some critics have questioned

whether the strategy advances a cohesive plan

and whether U.S. Government agencies are significantly increasing their allocation of resources to address this issue (54,58). Severe budget constraints undoubtedly limit the degree to

which new programs can be put forward. It is

therefore critical for agencies to establish clear

priorities and to indicate which actions need

to be taken and how much they will cost.

AID drafted an Action Plan on Conserving

Biological Diversity in Developing Countries,

to apply the general recommendations to specific agency programs and policies (51). It pro-
Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . 291

poses specific actions based on strategy recommendations and assigns them a priority of

near-term (within the next two fiscal years) or

long-term (requiring additional or redirected

resources). However, it is clear that initiatives

are determined by funding restrictions rather

than by critical needs.

Another difficult y with the draft action plan

is reflected in responses from various AID missions. Reviews of the draft express skepticism

that specific initiatives can be implemented at

the mission level, based solely on the broad,

generalized directions it contains. Recent congressional earmarking of the AID budget to

support diversity projects further emphasizes

the need to develop a more refined strategy for

identifying priority projects.

Despite the criticisms of AID’s draft action

plan, it represents the agency’s effort to identify its responsibilities for about half of the 67

recommendations contained in the strategy.

Other Interagency Task Force members have

yet to identify how their resources and expertise could be applied to the strategy. Development of action plans by other Federal agencies

may be a useful way to identify strengths and

opportunities within each agency, to identify

areas for cooperation, and to provide a way to

examine agency commitments more effectively.

IMPLEMENTATION OF U.S. INITIATIVES: THE AGENCY FOR

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Overall, AID has developed an extensive set

of guidelines and procedures for programs to

incorporate concerns for the environment. To

this extent, it deserves high marks compared

with other development assistance agencies,

both bilateral and multilateral. Less evident,

however, are indications that these procedures

are being consistently implemented, Critics

question AID’s incorporation of environmental

assessments of project development at a stage

when modifications can be easily made (67),

Several factors limit AID’s implementation

of biological diversity initiatives in developing

countries, including a belief by the agency that

it is adequately addressing biological diversity,

declining budgets and staff to initiate projects,

and an inadequate number of trained personnel to address conservation issues.

Defining the maintenance of biological diversity as a priority is viewed with some trepidation at the highest levels of AID (27), The issue

is seen as one among many priorities (e. g.,

women in development, child welfare, and so

on) identified in the Foreign Assistance Act,

Although such mandates have been partially

effective, their numbers, the frequency of

changes, and the lack of priority among them

may hamper efficient management of agency

resources (16,53,60).

AID has been forced to allocate declining resources in response to various congressional

mandates. It is unlikely that programs to safeguard diversity can compete successfully for

an increased share of the AID budget. Reviews

of AID’s implementation of environmental

projects provide reason to be skeptical (16,41).

Because diversity conservation is related to

many factors (e. g., poverty, population pressure, pollution, and agricultural policies), AID

believes its obligations are largely addressed

by conventional assistance projects (41), For instance, the February 1985 task force report to

Congress identified 253 projects as having a

conservation component (62). Few of these,

however, are the types of projects identified in

Section 119. Most involve more indirect contributions, such as reducing destructive pressures on habitats.

These indirect initiatives are critical, of

course. Without them, the long-term prospects

for biological diversity would be dismal. perhaps projects identified in Section 119 should

be viewed as supplemental measures or as attempts to designate important conservation
292 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

areas while they can still be easily protected.

One concern, however, is that Section 119, as

the central piece of legislation addressing concerns for maintaining diversity in developing

countries, may define biological diversity, and

the initiatives to conserve it too narrowly.

Congress has expressed dissatisfaction with

the level of funding AID has directed to meeting the provisions of Section 119 by earmarking $2.5 million for diversity projects in fiscal

year 1987. This amount represents the only

specified funding for environmental projects

contained in the FAA. That this appropriation

is intended to account for diversity on three

continents, however, stresses the need to allocate this funding judiciously. Also of concern

is the impact of this earmarking on support for

other conservation initiatives, such as those in

Sections 117 and 118 of FAA that lack any specific funding provisions.

Yet simply allocating new funds for diversity

projects may not be an adequate response. If

projects are proposed to meet a spending target without allocations based on an established

set of priorities, efforts may be inefficient or

even counterproductive.

The agency’s commitments to biological

diversity projects and to acting on environmental concerns have been eroded by the

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act (70). Overall, 4.3

percent of AID’s 1986 budget was sequestered,

but the Office of Forestry, Natural Resources,

and the Environment (FNR) had its budget cut

25 percent (26). Such reductions indicate where

agency priorities lie and add credence to claims

that despite a commitment to environmental

concerns, commitment in the form of resource

allocation lags.

It should also be noted, however, that the two

major funding sources (the Agricultural, Rural Development, and Nutrition account and

the Selected Development Activities account)

that support most environmental projects also

suffered disproportionate cuts—15.5 and 20.6

percent (50). These reductions reflect congressional, not AID, appropriations.

One proposed way to increase the emphasis

and visibility of environmentally related issues

is to elevate FNR to a bureau (10). Because many

of the funding allocation decisions are made

at the bureau level, this change in status may

increase the share of resources devoted to diversity projects. Such an action, on the other hand,

could isolate a newly established bureau.

An alternative is to establish a separate funding source, such as a Forestry, Natural Resources, and Environment account, for various bureaus and offices as well as overseas

missions to draw on, Several functional accounts (e. g., Agriculture, Rural Development,

and Nutrition; and Population and Health) already exist. Establishing an additional account

will likely be seen as further constraining AID’s

flexibility. It would, however, place resources

behind congressional concerns for biological

diversity and the environment and natural resources generally, as outlined in Section 119

as well as Sections 117 and 118.

Another 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 more strategic efforts at

the regional bureau and missions levels. AID

could prepare a policy determination (PD) document on biological diversity that would serve

as a general statement that maintaining diversity is an explicit objective of the agency.

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 would probably not be well

received within AID.

The three regional bureaus (i.e., Africa, Asia

and Near East, and Latin America and the

Caribbean) could also prepare documents that
Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 293

identify important biological diversity initiatives in their regions. The Asia and Near East

Bureau, in fact, has already prepared such a

document. But the lack of agency commitment

and the hesitancy of the bureau to redirect

scarce funds have reduced the document’s utility thus far. The Africa Bureau is currently completing a natural resources management plan

that includes an assessment of regional priorities for biological diversity maintenance.

The development of such reports for each regional bureau is considered an effective way

to identify priorities for projects, especially

given the earmarking of funds. A network of

specialists and information sources already exists to help identify priority areas. For example, committees of the International Union for

the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (I UC N), and especially its Conservation Monitoring Center in Cambridge, England,

are major sources of such information.

AID country-level environmental profiles can

also identify priorities for diversity projects.

The agency has completed 50 preliminary

Phase I profiles and 17 in-depth Phase II profiles (see table 11-1), AID has also supported

“state of the environment” reports in five countries, which are similar to environmental profiles but generally prepared within the country by a local group (18).

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

Table 11-1 .—Count~ Environmental Profiles

Undertaken or Supported by the Agency

for International Development

State of the

Phase I Phase II environment

Areas with ~rofiles profile profile report

AsidNear East/North

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1 2

Latin America/Caribbean . 14 14 2

Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . 21 2 1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . 50 17 5

SOURCE International Institute for Enwronment and Development, Environmental Planning and Management Project, “Country Environmental Proftles, Natural Resource Assessments and Other Reports on the State

of the Environment “ Washington, DC, May 1986

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.

AID has recently developed a concept paper

to explore the desirability of establishing a

diversity project within AID’s Bureau of Science and Technology. Benefits of such a project

include centralizing access to funding and perhaps expertise on biological diversity. The preliminary nature of the concept paper, however,

makes more critical assessment premature.

In response to AID funding cuts, staff cuts,

and a move to cut management units, conservation groups have proposed several ways to

loosen up money for biological diversity projects (2,6). Of particular interest are calls for

greater use of Public Law 480 funds for conservation projects. This option has both precedence (52) and the potential to increase activities in this area. It would enable a relatively

small dollar amount to be supplemented with

larger amounts of foreign currency. The use

of excess foreign currencies by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (discussed later in this

chapter) provides further opportunities.

Matching grants provided to conservation

organizations offers another cost-effective way

to promote projects. AID matching grants to

World Wildlife Fund-U.S. for its Wildlands and

Human Needs Projects and to The Nature Conservancy International for its network of Conservation Data Centers are good examples of

such public/private cost-sharing initiatives.

Another constraint to implementing Section

119 is the lack of adequately trained personnel

in environmental sciences within AID (6,10,67).

Although AID designates an environmental officer at each mission, the person may have little background in environmentally related issues. The duties of an environmental officer

are included with numerous other duties; few

AID personnel are full-time environmental

officers.

The agency could recruit personnel with environmental science backgrounds and provide
294 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

further training to officers to address this problem. Developing-country professionals could

also be enlisted as environmental officers

within the missions. This action would be consistent with recent agency emphasis on reducing the U.S. presence in AID missions for economic as well as security reasons.

Taking advantage of expertise that exists

within other U.S. agencies (e.g., National Park

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Smithsonian Institution, and Peace Corps)

could also significantly enhance the effectiveness of development assistance. The agency already has a Resource Services Support Agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture

to provide forestry expertise and services. Such

mechanisms can be used to establish a formal

agreement with agencies such as the Department of the Interior to provide AID missions

with access to conservation expertise, In addition, other agencies such as the Peace Corps

are already supporting some projects in the field

that focus on biological diversity, Increased collaboration between AID and the Peace Corps

can be mutually beneficial.

Section 119 states the following:

. . . 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 INGOs]

that are active in the region or country where

the project is located.

A number of NGOs are already working with

AID in developing 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.

Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are

the largest providers of development assistance

and have considerable influence on development policy and financing. In this capacity,

they are uniquely situated to influence environmental aspects of development (40). In 1983,

the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the African Development Bank, and

the Asian Development Bank in 1983 loaned

at least $20 billion to fund projects in developing countries—nearly three times the amount

committed by the U.S. Agency for International

Development, the largest bilateral agency.

Funds loaned by MDBs are supplemented by

larger amounts from governments of recipient

countries, and many projects receive cofinancing from other development agencies and private banks. For every dollar loaned by the

World Bank, for example, more than 2 additional dollars are raised from other sources (41).

Many countries modify their development

policies in response to MDB suggestions and

pressures. An important element is the developing-country sector work of the MDBs-policy

documents produced as background material

to help identify priorities in lending.

MDB’s influence on policy can be the single

most important influence in many countries on

the development model adopted (41). Because

agricultural, rural development, and energy policies can have profound effects on habitats,

diversity in developing countries can be significantly affected by MDB policies.

The most immediate effect of MDBs on maintaining biological diversity may be support for

creating protected areas. The World Bank has

been the leader among development banks in

this area—the bank has financed the protection

of 59,000 square kilometers in 17 countries. It

has funded entire conservation projects—for

instance, a wildlife reserve and tourism project

in Kenya. More often, it has included conservation components in larger projects—for in-
Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 295

.

stance, a protected area in conjunction with

an irrigation project in Indonesia. In this case,

the designated area protects tropical forest and

wildlife while providing key watershed management services. Even conservation components that represent a small fraction of a

project’s total cost can play a substantial role

in preserving diversity.

The performance of MDBs in preserving diversity depends on their more general environmental policies and the degree to which these

policies are implemented. In this regard, the

banks have issued statements emphasizing the

need for sound environmental management

projects.

The World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank,

and six other multilateral in 1980 signed a

“Declaration of Environmental Policies and

Procedures Relating to Economic Developmerit. ” As a result, these organizations formed

the Committee of International Development

Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE), under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). CIDIE has met

five times since 1980 to exchange information

on progress and plans of MDBs for improving

their environmental performance. Under the

terms of agreement, the agencies will perform

systematic environmental analyses of activities,

fund programs and projects designed to solve

environmental problems, manage resources

sustainably, and provide support for improving

environmental policymaking institutions and

their capacity to implement environmental controls in developing countries.

A study prepared by the International Institute for Environment and Development for the

fourth CIDIE meeting found, however, that the

commitment of MDBs to sound environmental

management in development projects was not

effectively translated into action. The study

came to the following conclusions:

The fact that we found so little evidence of

the application of existing guidelines suggests

that either they have been tried and found useless, or that agencies have not made sufficient

resources and incentives available to sustain

their use. We suggest that some agencies never

put some guidelines into operation because

their function is to improve public relations.

. . . In many cases, staff do not use guidelines

because agencies do not require their use, nor

provide appropriate training and resources,

nor establish any institutional penalties for failing to use them (16).

A number of congressional hearings have

brought to light evidence of serious ecological

problems resulting from projects supported by

MDBs (54,55,56,57). Through testimony presented at these hearings, several categories of

projects were identified that may directly contribute to large-scale environmental destruction. Categories cited as problematic included

large-scale cattle ranching (especially in the

tropics), hydroelectric power projects and irrigation systems, and resettlement projects (41).

Evidence of low economic returns and high

environmental costs associated with a number

of these projects suggest that greater scrutiny

of environmental impacts should be applied before MDBs provide financing.

Following these hearings, the House Subcommittee on International Development Institutions and Finance issued a series of recommendations to the U.S. Treasury Department, in

effect proposing a U.S. environmental policy

for MDBs (41). These recommendations were

largely supported by the Treasury Department,

the lead Federal agency for U.S. participation

in these organizations. Included were calls for

increased environmental staffing and mandatory procedures for project review, and for the

U.S. executive directors of the MDBs to try to

modify or oppose projects that would erode the

natural resource base. Recommendations also

emphasized the needs for institution-building

and training in conservation, improved management of protected areas, involvement of indigenous peoples in development planning, and

withdrawal of support from projects that cause

extensive damage to habitats in species-rich

areas.

Because U.S. influence in MDBs has traditionally been strong, a concerted effort from

the U.S. executive directors no doubt could improve MDB environmental performance and
296 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

make significant contributions to maintaining

biological diversity. Emergence of a Wildlands

Management Policy at the World Bank may,

in part, reflect congressional and public attention on the subject. The recently approved policy sets guidelines for the management of natural areas in bank projects. These include

avoiding conversion of wildlands of special

concern, giving preference to using already

converted lands, compensating for the loss of

wildlands by setting aside similar areas, and

preserving relevant wildland areas.

executive directors is likely to be needed, such

as in efforts to enlist greater environmental expertise within the banks. Language contained

in the fiscal year 1986 appropriations bill clearly

reflects congressional interest on this subject

(21).

Consideration could also be given to promoting the approach to diversity maintenance embodied in the recent World Bank policy. To this

end, U.S. representatives could be encouraged

to establish a similar approach within CIDIE.

To maintain momentum, however, continued

congressional oversight and input from U.S.

PROMOTION OF CAPACITY AND INITIATIVES IN

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

A large number of initiatives at the international level have addressed various aspects of

diversity maintenance in developing countries

(see ch. 10). These range from international

meetings to treaties and conventions such as

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.

Such initiatives can be important in raising

awareness of the issue and of national responsibilities. They can effectively set standards,

monitor progress, serve as promotional work,

and establish legal norms (8). An international

perspective also enables interested parties to

define global priorities. However, translating

these initiatives into concrete activities requires

that they be implemented and supported at the

national and local levels, underlining the importance of developing national capacities and

constituencies to address loss of diversity.

The responsibility for maintaining biological

diversity within a country’s borders ultimately

falls on national governments. Yet it can be argued that national governments have responsibilities to the international community. Avoiding loss of genetic resources that may meet the

needs of future generations and maintaining

diversity because it represents the biological

heritage of the planet are commonly heard arguments in this regard,

These arguments may be insufficient or unconvincing for many developing countries,

especially when national resources would have

to be devoted to maintaining diversity, yet the

benefits would accrue outside their borders. In

other cases, a country may acknowledge its national interests in maintaining diversity but lack

the resources—both financial and technical—

to stem the loss,

Six priority areas where U.S. bilateral assistance could promote abilities and initiatives in

developing countries have been identified:

building public support, establishing an information base, building institutional support,

promoting planning and management, increasing technical capacity, and increasing economic benefits derived from wild species, Although described separately, these areas are

mutually reinforcing.

Building Public Support

Creating a favorable climate of public opinion is critical to the success of conservation programs, Developing countries commonly lack

an organized base of citizen support; in the few

cases where support has existed, in Ecuador

for example, it has been a key element in efforts to launch programs.
Ch. 11-Biologica/ Diversity and Development Assistance 297

A study of poor farmers in Costa Rica found

that:

. . . farmers could not comprehend the concept

of “untouchable” forest reserves, The values

of outdoor recreation, wildlife, and biological

diversity may be seen by wealthy policy makers

but they are generally alien to poor farmers

struggling for survival (45).

Consequently, efforts to protect habitats may

depend on demonstrating to rural populations

that they will benefit from such activities and

on soliciting their support in project design and

implementation (36).

Benefits to those in rural areas can be in the

form of actual financial compensation, as in

the Amboseli game reserve in Kenya. Here,

Masai pastoralists participated in designing a

conservation program, and they now benefit

financially from the arrangement through tourist revenues and through employment opportunities (63). Alternatively, local support can

be solicited by convincing people of the importance of maintaining diversity. In Malaysia, for

example, public support was marshaled to protect the Batu caves from quarrying by pointing

out that the durian, a highly valued fruit crop,

depends on cave-nesting bats for pollination

(36),

The opening of the Kuna Indian Udirbi Tropical Forest Reserve, a 5,000-acre park on Panama’s Atlantic coast, resulted from integrating

local peoples’ desire to protect a forested area

of cultural and religious importance with the

establishment of income-generating facilities

for visiting scientists and naturalists. The

project is unusual because it was initiated by

the Kuna themselves and had unanimous support. A number of organizations (including the

Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigation

y Ensenanze, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, AID, the Inter-American Foundation, and the World wildlife Fund-U. S.) have

provided technical and financial support, although both the benefits and management

responsibilities are being directed toward the

Kuna (41,69),

Emphasis on environmental education is

another strategy for building public support

(36). A major constraint at all school levels is

the shortage of appropriate teaching materials

in local languages (67). Furthermore, most textbooks use examples drawn from temperate

zone ecosystems, which can be difficult for students in the tropics to understand. Development

of teaching materials could help remedy this.

In Costa Rica, the World Wildlife Fund’s conservation and education program, working with

the Ministry of Education and educators and

conservationists from local universities, developed educational material in Spanish for elementary school ecology courses. The material

was tested by 70 teachers in 11 schools, reaching 2,000 students in 1982. The success of the

program led to its adoption by the Ministry of

Education and to the distribution of materials

to all public elementary schools in the country

in 1984. World Wildlife Fund expanded the program into Colombia and Honduras in 1984 and

to Brazil and Guatemala in 1985 (4).

Mobilizing public support through mass information campaigns has also been successful

in developing countries. In Malaysia, for example, numerous private voluntary and nongovernmental organizations, such as the

 credit G 

An education project in Costa Rica funded by the World

Wildlife Fund allows elementary school students to study

ecology with textbooks in their native language. Above, sixth

graders study relationships between different plant species

The program, begun in 1982, has been expanded to Colombia,

Honduras, Guatemala, and Brazil.
298 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Malayan Nature Society, the Friends of the

Earth, and the Consumers’ Association of

Penang, conduct information programs to develop public understanding (1),

In a number of campaigns, flagship species

are identified. These are species with high esthetic appeal that are often endemic to a country, and consequently capable of generating

public interest and pride in the nation’s biota.

For instance, the yellow-tailed woolly monkey

—Peru’s largest and most endangered primate—

is the centerpiece of a campaign to protect its

cloud forest habitat in a project begun in 1984

by the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. in conjunction with the Natural History Museum of Lima

and the Peruvian Conservation Foundation (69).

Although this approach has been criticized for

focusing inordinate attention on large mammals at the expense of other endangered taxa,

it has been effective in rallying public support

around certain species, promoting public

awareness and in the process protecting other

endangered species through habitat preservation.

Support for indigenous private and voluntary

organizations has also been identified as an important component of building public support.

Bolstering such organizations can create reliable recipients and managers of conservation

funding with the potential of becoming selfsupporting, a national constituency for exerting pressure on decisionmakers, public awareness for biological diversity, and a grassroots

capacity to respond quickly and flexibly where

governments cannot or will not (13,59). Monitoring development projects for undesirable

environmental impacts is another important

role for these groups.

Experience has shown, however, that this approach has certain constraints (18,59,60). These

include saturating particular groups with funding and distorting the natural growth of these

small organizations. AID, as a large agency usually dealing with large amounts of money, may

be reluctant to initiate contact with many small

organizations to promote small-scale projects.

These concerns can be addressed by working

more closely with umbrella nongovernmental

organizations (e. g., the Environmental Liaison

Centre in Nairobi) or through American groups

that have local counterparts or affiliates in developing countries. Another option is to have

agencies with more experience working at the

grassroots level (e.g., the Peace Corps or the

Inter-American Foundation) take a lead in this

area.

Establishing an Information Base

Conducting an inventory and monitoring the

biota are two key steps that facilitate corrective action in situations where human activity

threatens diversity (5). An inventory can combine a traditional biological survey with the

most modern technology such as remote sensing. It might also simply involve pulling together information on the status, distribution,

and threats to major ecosystems and species

to determine conservation priorities and affect

land-use decisions.

Monitoring biological diversity refers to surveillance of the distribution and abundance of

flora and fauna. The purpose is to detect adverse impacts on species or habitats, assess the

extent to which human activities are responsible, and then promote corrective measures

wherever possible (5).

Although nationally instituted programs to

conduct inventories and monitor biological

diversity are rare, a few examples do serve as

models. The Mexican National Research Institute for Biological Resources (INIREB, from the

full title in Spanish), for instance, prepares an

inventory of plant and animal resources, studies

threatened and endangered species, establishes

reserves and protects habitats of ecological importance, develops alternative land-use strategies, and trains professionals in conservationoriented fields. The range of activities undertaken by INIREB indicates the balanced approach of this organization.

Promoting national or regional databases to

monitor biological diversity is an effective way

to synthesize information and help define research and conservation priorities, A number

of international organizations have developed
Ch. 11-Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . 299

databases of use to governments, assistance

agencies, and conservation organizations, Still,

promoting in-country capacity for such activities is an important goal, First, these databases

can provide a finer evacuation (i. e., of higher

resolution), defining local priorities within a

regional context, than is possible with information covering larger areas. Second, the process can foster in-country expertise and bolster

environmental effectiveness.

A major initiative to develop country-level

Conservation Data Centers (CDCS) in Latin

America and the Caribbean is currently being

undertaken by The Nature Conservancy International (TNCI). CDCS are modeled on the State

Heritage Programs begun 15 years ago in the

United States. To date, six CDCS have been

established in partnership with local institutions, with plans to expand this to 35 programs

by the end of the decade, In terms of bolstering national capacity, the strengths of CDC programs lie in their employment of scientists (a

zoologist, a botanist, an ecologist, and a data

handler); their emphasis on institutionalizing

the system; and their pressure to have local collaborating agencies adopt operational funding

after 3 to 5 years [13).

The CDC programs devote little attention,

however, to public education components. Furthermore, although the programs assemble existing information difficult for foreign institutions (e.g., from world museums and herbaria),

they do little to provide new information in a

region where at least five-sixths of the organisms are unknown (38). Overall these programs

are very useful in identifying areas of conservation interest. Accordingly, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service has contracted with TNC1 to

develop databases on distribution of natural

plant communities and to identify areas of high

endemism and diversity in Latin America (25).

In lieu of formal CDCS, which could take considerable time, resources, and effort to disseminate broadly, some developing countries could

benefit from more modest systems (35). A simple computer in the office in a ministry or

university could record existing studies and

represent a major improvement in national capacity,

Inventorying and monitoring biological resources are also important in maintaining

genetic diversity among domesticated species.

The rate at which farmers are replacing traditional, genetically diverse crop varieties with

more uniform, high-yielding varieties is the subject of much concern in industrial and developing countries. Considerable effort to collect

and store germplasm has already been made

for major crop varieties, with less done for minor crops and wild relatives.

Efforts have been made to collect data, including prototypes for national databases, on

threatened breeds of livestock in developing

countries (12). But, information on genotype

loss is inadequate to focus initiatives, USDA

could provide assistance in this area through

increased support to the FAO and the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, for

example, to heIp develop abilities to monitor

losses of livestock and crop genetic resources,

BuildIng lnstitutional Support

The greatest obstacles to addressing the loss

of diversity are less technical than economic

and political. Consequently, building institutional capacity—in both the public and private

sectors—is of paramount importance. However,

institution-building through development assistance is a difficult process that requires both

long-term commitment and a stronp appreciation of national sovereignty.

Concern about the environment is a relatively

new addition to the political agendas of developing countries—for many, it dates to the 1972

U.N. Conference on the Human Environment

held in Stockholm, Sweden. At that time, much

of the attention on environmental problems in

developing count ries was generated from outside, notably from industrial countries. Most

lacked a national constituency among government agencies, scientists, environmental

groups, or the general public that perceived a

threat stemming from degradation of the environment {17),

A great deal has changed since then. The

Stockholm Conference accentuated pollution

problems and the need for industrial standard
300 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

setting—concerns most developing country

governments felt were industrial country problems (23). Since then, environmental concerns

have broadened to emphasize conservation of

natural resources. Developing countries are on

average six times more dependent on a productive resource base—soils, fisheries, and

forests—which provides rationale for greater

developing country concerns in this area (43).

Discussions on environmental issues are now

being initiated by developing countries. The

number of environmental agencies has increased since 1972 from about one dozen to 110

(43). However, most agencies have been ineffective in addressing environmental concerns.

This ineffectiveness is due to the constraints

discussed earlier, including a lack of personnel, training, and resources; an inability to compete with established interests; and a lack of

legal authority.

Encouraging the development of institutional

capacity is not easy, but U.S. development assistance agencies have the experience and the legal mandate to help in the process. Initiatives

to enhance the stature, effectiveness, and resources of agencies responsible for conservation have been identified (10). These initiatives

include requiring developing country officials

to submit comments on environmental and natural resource aspects of U.S. development assistance projects and soliciting greater input from

ministries in AID’s development of country

environmental profiles and natural resource

assessments (10).

The process of infusing an awareness of biological resources in overall development planning was an objective in an AID-supported natural resources profile undertaken by the Thai

Development Research Institute—a national

policy analysis group (22). The process is important because it involves identification of

needs and responsibilities of the 24 agencies

in Thailand responsible for natural resources.

Ultimately, the profile should be incorporated

into the country’s 5-year development plan.

An environmental profile of Paraguay illustrates the importance of the process, as much

as the product, for infusing awareness of biological diversity throughout a country’s institutions (66). This AID-supported project, carried out by the National Planning Secretariat

of the Presidency, involved some two dozen

Paraguayan scientists, technicians, and other

specialists. The emphases on increasing reliance on national scientists and policy makers,

on a broad intersectoral approach, and on support from the highest levels of government are

keys to meeting the objectives of building institutions.

Promoting Planning and

Management f

As pressures on natural resources in developing countries increase, the need to integrate

conservation and development interests will become more critical. Planning and management

strategies should be included in resource development initiatives—from habitat protection

onsite to germplasm storage offsite—and these

initiatives should consider wild species as well

as domesticates.

Developing a national strategy to conserve

biological diversity should account for the

mixed objectives for maintaining the array of

species, and the mixed status of these groups

(29). A biological continuum of ecosystems, species, populations, and varieties fills various

needs, and various management programs and

techniques are appropriate. Consequently,

management objectives and technologies and

the links between them should be taken into

account, as well as the most urgent problems

to address (29).

One activity that addresses this problem is

the development of national conservation strategies (NCSS), which are general policy statements on the role of conservation in development planning (19). AID began support of an

NCS for Nepal in fiscal year 1985 through the

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), and it is

continuing to assist in the preparation or implementation of similar strategies for Sri Lanka,

the Philippines, and Zimbabwe (52). Although

the general nature of these documents may limit

their usefulness in implementing specific proj-
Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 301

ects, they can be important vehicles for presenting the case for maintaining biological diversity (evidenced by the NCS for Zambia) (44).

The lack of management plans for specific

protected areas has been identified as a major

problem in almost all developing countries.

without them, most areas suffer from inappropriate development, sporadic and inconsistent management, and lack of clearly defined

management objectives, ways to develop such

plans have been proposed and are being applied

to six major protected areas: Amboseli, Kenya;

Simen Mountains, Ethiopia; Sapo, Liberia;

Khao, Thailand; Sinharaja, Sri Lanka; and Amboro, Bolivia (44). A country may also analyze

its existing parks and protected areas to develop

plans for an orderly allocation of natural areas

(44). Although few examples of such plans exist, methods for doing this analysis have also

been developed. Systems are currently in place

in Brazil, Indonesia, and Dominica (44).

In situ genebanks have received some attention as a way to conserve gene pools of wild

economic plants (see ch. 5). The strategy has

particular relevance for developing countries,

where most of the ancestral stock of current

economic species occurs. General guidelines

for managing such units have been developed

(34). Sri Lanka (for wild medicinal plants), India (for citrus and sugarcane), and Mexico (for

teosinte) have either prepared or are developing plans for in situ genebanks. Efforts are under way to expand this strategy to tropical South

America (35).

Maintaining diversity through traditional

parks and protected areas is becoming difficult

for some nations for economic and political reasons, and it is likely to become less common

in the future. Setting aside land for a single use

can often be an economic impossibility. Some

nations, particularly small countries and islands, do not have the large, undisturbed tracts

of land. The trend is toward integrating reserves

as part of overall development plans, rather

than adding them later as areas separate from

development.

Few approaches, however, have considered

the role of human activities in ecological processes affecting protected areas (see ch. 5 for further discussion). Strategies for conserving

diversity are starting to consider this, Conservationists are beginning to promote strategies

that surround protected areas with zones of

compatible land use (such as the UNESCO biosphere reserve program) and to encourage the

use of regional plans to manage resources (such

as the Organization of American States’ integrated regional development planning).

The potential of botanic gardens and zoological gardens as a management tool in developing countries is unclear, but it could be enhanced through links with other institutions

and with existing international networks (see

ch. 10) (24). These institutions occupy a unique

position because of their links between onsite

and offsite efforts. One example proving successful is the Rio de Janeiro Primate Center that

is involved with the captive breeding and reintroduction of the golden lion tamarin (69).

Concern over loss of agriculturally important

resources suggests a need to devote more attention to better management of germplasm collection, storage, and use in developing countries, preliminary studies have been conducted

on the feasibility of enhancing national programs in animal germplasm maintenance. A

number of obstacles have been identified: technical constraints, problems of isolation of

breeds, disease control, funding sources for

long-term facilities, and political concerns, such

as where to locate genebanks and who owns

them (15).

As mentioned earlier, several regional institutions have already identified threatened

breeds of livestock and maintained data on

them. This work is also a starting point for enhancing regional capacities to develop offsite

storage facilities. These institutions, which

could benefit from financial or technical support, include the Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources in Nairobi, Kenya; International

Livestock Centre for Africa in Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia; Asociacion Latinoamericana de

Production Animal in Maracay, Venezuela;

and the Society for the Advancement of Breeding Research in Asia and Oceania in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia (39).
302 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

— .—

The number of crop genetic resource programs in developing countries has increased

dramatically over the last decade. In part, this

increase reflects an awareness of the importance of collecting, maintaining, and evaluating plant germplasm as a prerequisite to meeting future food requirements. Much of the

change is also credited to the International

Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR),

which has played a catalytic role in encouraging and supporting national genebanks.

Ten years ago, only a handful of genebank

collections existed, primarily in industrial countries. As of 1985, 72 countries—45 of them in

the developing world—had long- or mediumterm germplasm storage facilities in operation

or under construction (33). IBPGR currently has

agreements with 31 countries (25 of them developing ones) to serve as international base

collections for long-term storage of plant germplasm, As the network of long-term collections

approaches its goal of 50, covering 40 major

crops before the end of the century, greater attention will be focused on bolstering mediumterm collections, 100 of which have already

been identified. Facilitating medium-term collections is particularly important for those developing countries where the costs and technical requirements make the establishment of

long-term facilities impractical.

The operation and effectiveness of various

national plant germplasm programs is uneven.

Particularly disconcerting has been the failure

of some national programs to respond to an

IBPGR Seed Storage Advisory Committee

recommendation to rectify inadequacies and

improve scientific standards at existing facilities (65).

Increasing TechnicaI Capacity

The availability of trained personnel is

another constraint to conservation. The problem has been studied intensively in the Latin

American region and in Africa since the mid1970s (11,31,46,47,48,68). However, neither governments nor international or bilateral development assistance agencies have come forward

with sufficient funding to meet the needs outlined in these studies.

For a total of 50 developing countries, there

are only six technical colleges established to

meet regional training needs for protected area

managers: at Bariloche in Argentina, the Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigation y Ensenanze in Costa Rica, the Ecole de Fauna in

Cameroon, the College of African Wildlife Management in Tanzania, the Wildlife Institute of

India in Dehra Dun, and the School of Conservation Management in Indonesia at Bogor (44).

Most of these colleges need external support,

and all could be encouraged to augment biological diversity concerns in their curricula.

The efforts of several U.S. Federal agencies

to provide training, technical assistance, and

distribution of technical information hold potential for increasing technical capacity in developing countries. Those involved include the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National

Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service, the

Smithsonian Institution, and National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, Activities

have been outlined in several documents (e.g.,

ref. 61). For example, congressional legislation

to implement the Western Hemisphere Convention directs FWS to devote attention to personnel development in Latin America. This development has been accomplished through several

initiatives, with special emphasis on training

wildlife biologists, where possible, through incountry workshops. The Foreign Service Currency Program allows FWS to provide training in Egypt, India, and Pakistan, Authorized

in Section 8(a) of the Endangered Species Act,

this program allows excess foreign currencies

to be used toward conserving threatened or endangered species in those countries (25).

AID and other government agencies have developed cooperative arrangements with several

U.S. universities, other scientific institutions

(e.g., botanic and zoological institutions), and

private conservation organizations. These arrangements provide avenues to direct assistance funding toward increasing technical capacity and training of country personnel.

The University of Michigan, through funding from Federal agencies (e. g., NPS), has international seminars that provide training in

areas such as park management, forest man-
Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance w 303

agement, and coastal-marine management.

FWS has undertaken several projects with

World Wildlife Fund-U.S. to promote expertise

in species and habitat conservation. The

University of Florida, in conjunction with a program offered by the National Zoo’s Conservation and Research Center in Front Royal, VA,

provides hands-on research and training to

developing-country students (4).

U.S. development assistance could promote

technical training through national and regional germplasm conservation and storage

programs. Although most of the support for

training currently comes from international

organizations, principally the IBPGR and the

Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO), USDA could enhance

its activities in this area through the National

Plant Germplasm System and the Forest Service, The thrust of these U.S. agency efforts, however, may be better directed at identifying areas

where assistance could be channeled through

existing training programs.

Specific training on conserving animal resources has been organized through FAO and

UNEP. A 2-week course (taught in English) is

offered through the University of Veterinary

Science in Budapest, Hungary. The primary

goal of this course is to provide developingcountry participants with an overview of the

present state of theory and practice (3). Although this type of training usefully draws attention to the importance of animal genetic resources, conservation strategies will depend on

a commitment by national governments to

avoid haphazard crossing of indigenous breeds

and to monitor the most endangered ones (15).

Training and management are also critical

for operating plant germplasm storage facilities,

A l-year graduate program in conservation and

use of plant resources at the University of Birmingham in England has provided training to

more than 100 developing-country scientists

(14). Some graduates now direct genetic resources programs in their home countries,

IBPGR has also established a training program

(taught in French) at Gembloux, Belgium, and

a training program to be taught in Spanish is

under consideration (14). Some 500 developingPhoto ” Board Resources

Genetic resources conservation requires a cadre of qualified

personnel. The University of Birmingham in England has an

international postgraduate program In genetic conservation.

country scientists have benefited from IBPGRsupported courses on plant genetic resource

management and from internship programs at

international agricultural research centers. In

addition, IBPGR has helped incorporate relevant courses in universities in several developing countries (65). Despite these advances,

training in genetic resource conservation and

use still needs increased attention.

Increasing Direct Econmic Benefits

Of Wild Species

One of the most forceful arguments for the

need to maintain biological diversity has been

the potential that wild species hold to improve

the ‘quality of human life. The examples of
304 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

perennial corn and rosy periwinkle (an antiIeukemia drug) are commonly cited in the literature on this subject. For the most part, however, this rationale has been expounded by scientific, conservation, and political groups in

industrial countries, where motivations as well

as technologies to exploit genetic resources are

comparatively well-developed.

The point has been less forcefully argued or

acted on in developing countries. The reason

may be because these countries have been unable to capitalize on their biological resources;

the products and profits from them—for man y

reasons, including differences in levels of technology, research facilities, and interest—accrue

elsewhere. Given that the greatest diversity of

potentially important organisms is located in

developing countries (e.g., centers of diversity

of crop species and moist tropical forests as

sources of medicinal products), enhancing the

incentives for developing countries is critically

important.

Various mechanisms exist to promote identification and development of biological resources in developing countries. Supporting research by developing-country scientists, such

as through the AID Program in Science and

Technology Cooperation (49), offers opportunities not only to promote development of indigenous biological resources but also to cultivate scientific expertise and supporting

 credit: Nations/photo by S Stokes

Crocodile farm in Papua New Guinea has potential to provide

direct economic benefits and encourages protection

of biological resources.

Ptrofo credit: 154002, S 

To reduce dependence on tea, rubber, and coconut exports,

 Lanka is promoting the of

minor export crops such as citronella.
Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 305

institutions as well. Ethnobotanical surveys and

research represent another promising avenue

for encouraging greater recognition of the importance and opportunities of maintaining biological diversity. Wildlife-based tourism and

other wildlife utilization enterprises offer further possibilities. However, these should be approached with some caution to ensure that benefits actually accrue to the country and account

for the interests of local populations (9).

Loss of agricultural genetic resources in developing countries is a pronounced concern.

Addressing it will depend on enhancing capacity in national agricultural programs and increasing awareness of the potential of germplasm to contribute to development needs.

Continued U.S. support for International Agricultural Research Centers, especially the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,

serves an important role in this regard. Bilateral

programs through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, such as the one that currently exists

with Mexico, could also be promoted, Accounting for the unique contributions of traditional

agricultural systems will also need special attention, Ongoing research provides strong evidence on the importance and potential of these

high diversity, low input systems in addressing the particular needs and limitations of most

developing-country agriculturalists (42),

Greater support for research in investigating

CHAPTER 1

1. Aiken, S, R., and Leigh, C. H,, “On the Declin2,

3

4.

ing Fauna of Peninsular Malaysia in the PostColonial Period,” Arnbio 14(1):15-22, 1985.

Baldi, P., Spivy-Weber, F., and Chapnick, B.,

Foreign Assistance Funding Alternatives

(Washington, DC: National Audubon Society,

1986).

Bodo, I., “Report on the FAO/UNEP Training

Courses on Animal Genetic Resources Conservation and Management, ” Animal Genetic Resources Conservation by Management, Data

Banks, and Training (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,

1984).

Cohn, J., “Creating a Conservation Ethic, ”

Americas, November-December 1985.

and improving indigenous agricultural systems

is seen as a high priority for development assistance. Increasing attention is also being addressed at incorporating traditional agroecosystems within biosphere reserves programs

(30).

The prospects and promises of biotechnology have prompted a few developing countries

to place a premium on developing their capacities in this field. Although biotechnology’s contributions to biological diversity maintenance

is mixed, the incentives it may provide developing countries to protect and develop their

genetic resources argues for supporting developing-country expertise. Access to technical

procedures, however, is generally restricted to

countries with well-developed capabilities. A

large number of developing countries could apply these technologies to exploit genetic resources if access to information, training, and

technology were improved. Microbiological Research Centers, otherwise known as MIRCENS

(see ch. 10), place a strong emphasis on training developing-country scientists, The recently

created International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, established by the

United Nations Industrial Development Organization, also has as its main function the dissemination of these technologies to developing

countries.

REFERENCE$

5.

6,

7.

8.

9.

Collins, M., “International Inventory and Monitoring for the Maintenance of Biological

Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Conservation Foundation, “Third World Progress Is Painfully Slow, ” Conservation Foundation Letter (Washington, DC: 1986).

Dasmann, R. F., “Ecological Principles for Economic Development: Ten Years Later, ” paper

presented to IUCN 16th technical meeting, Madrid, Spain, Nov. 5-14. 1984.

Dias, C., president, International Center for

Law in Development, New York, personal

communications, May 1986.

Eltringham, S. K., VViZdlife Resources and Economic Development (New York: John Wiley &

Sons, 1984).
306 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

10. Environment and EnergV StudV Institute Task

11

Force, “A Congressional”Agenda for Improved

Resource and Environmental Management in

the Third World: Helping Developing Countries Help Themselves, ” Washington, DC,

1985.

Fahrenkrog, E., Fired Report: Study for the

Establishm-ent of an Inter-_American -Training

Center for Management and Operations Personnel of National Parks and Similar Areas

(Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund, 1978).

In: Saunier and Meganck, 1985.

12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations, Animal Genetic Resources

Conservation by Management, Data Banks,

and Training (Rome: FAO, 1984).

13. Goebel, M., The Nature Conservancy International, Arlington, VA, personal communications, June 1986.

14. Hawkes, J. G,, Plant Genetic Resources, CGIAR

Study Paper No. 3 (Washington, DC: World

Bank, 1985).

15. Hodges, J., “Annual Genetics Resources in the

Developing World: Goals, Strategies, Management and Current Status, ” Proceedings of

Third World Congress on Genetics Applied to

Livestock Production, Lincoln, NE, vol. 10, July

16-22, 1986,

16. Horberry, J., “Accountability of Development

Assistance Agencies: The Case of Environmental Policy,” Eco]ogy Law Quarter]y 23:817-

869, 1986.

17. Howard-Clinton, E. G., “The Emerging Con18

19.

cepts of Environmental Issues in Africa, n Environmental Management 8(3):187-190, 1984.

International Institute for Environment and

Development, “Environmental Planning and

Management Project, Country Environmental

Profiles, Natural Resource Assessment and

Other Reports on the State of the Environment,” Washington, DC, May 1986,

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Conservation for

Development Center, National Conservation

Strategies: A Framework for Sustainable Development (Gland, Switzerland: 1984).

20. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources/United Nations

Environment Programme/WorId Wildlife

Fund, World Conservation Strategy (Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN, 1980).

21. Kasten, Sen. R. W,, “Development Banks: Subsidizing Third World Pollution, ” The Washington Quarterly, summer 1986, pp. 109-114.

22,

23,

24.

25.

26,

27.

28.

29.

300

31.

32.

33.

34.

Kux, M., U.S. Agency for International Development, Rosslyn, VA, personal communications, June 1986.

Lausche, B., World Wildlife Fund-U. S., Washington, DC, personaI communications, June

1986,

Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,

Botanical Gardens, and Similar Institutions in

the Maintenance of Biological Diversity,” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985.

Mason, L., “InternationaI Assistance Programs

of the Department of the Interior, Forest Service, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,” U.S. Congress, House Committee on

Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on

Public Lands, Hearings, Oct. 8, 1985.

McPherson, M. P,, administrator of Agency for

International Development, letter to Congressman Gus Yatron, chairman, U.S. Congress,

House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Human Rights and International

Organizations, Mar. 21, 1986a.

McPherson, M. P., Agency for International

Development Oversight Hearing, Apr. 21,

1986, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,

Washington, DC, 1986b,

Mueller-Dombois, D., Karawinata, K., and

Handley, L. L., “Conservation of Species and

Habitats: A Major Responsibility in Development Planning. ” In: Carpenter, R. (cd.), Natural Systems for Development: What Planners

Need to Know (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1983).

Namkoong, G., “Conservation of Biological

Diversity by In-situ and Ex-situ Methods,”

OTA commissioned paper, 1986.

Oldfield, M. L., and Alcorn, J. B,, “Conservation

of Traditional Agroecosystems: A Reevaluation,” Bioscience, March 1987.

Organization of American States, Final Report:

Technical Meeting on Education and Training for the Administration of National Parks,

Wildlife Reserves and Other Protected Areas,

Regional Scientific Technological, Development Program, Sept. 25-29, 1978, Merida, Venezuela, 1978. In: Saunier and Meganck, 1985.

Orians, G., and Kunin, W., “An Ecological Perspective on the Valuation of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Plucknett, D,, Smith, N., Williams, J. T., and

Anishetty, N. M., Gene Banks and The World’s

Food (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, forthcoming).

Prescott-Allen, R., “Management of In Situ
Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 307

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

42a.

43.

44

45,

46.

47.

——

Gene Banks, ” Proceedings of the 24th Working Session of CNPRA, Madrid, Spain, 1984.

In: Thorsell, 1985.

Prescott-Allen, R., consultant, British Columbia, Canada, personal communications, May

1986,

Rambo, T., “Socioeconomic Considerations

for the In-Situ Maintenance of Biological

Diversity in Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Randall, A., “Human Preferences, Economics,

and Preservation of Species, ” The Preservation of Species: The Value of Biological Diversity, B .G. Norton (cd. ) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).

Raven, P., Missouri Botanical Gardens, St,

Louis, MO, personal communications, June

1986.

Rendel, J., Animal Genetic Resources Data

Banks (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1984).

Rich, B., “The Multilateral Development

Banks, Environmental Policy and the United

States, ” Eco]ogy Law Quarterly, spring 1985.

Rich, B., and Schwartzman, S., “The Role of

Development Assistance in Maintaining Biological Diversity In-Situ in Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985,

Richards, P., Indigenous Agricultural Revolution (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985).

Saunier, R., and Meganck, R., “Compatibility

of Development and the In-Situ Maintenance

of Biological Diversity in Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Talbot, L., “Helping Developing Countries

Help Themselves: Toward a Congressional

Agenda for Improved Resource and Environmental Management in the Third World, ”

working paper (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1985).

Thorsell, J., “The Role of Protected Areas in

Maintaining Biological Diversity in Tropical

Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned

paper, 1985,

Thrupp, A,, “The Peasant View of Conservation, ” Ceres 14(4):31-34, 1981.

United Nations Environment Programme, Projet de Programme d’Action pour l’Education

et la Formation en Matiere d’Environnement

en Afrique, UN EP/W. G. 87/2., 1983. In: Saunier and Meganck, 1985.

United Nations Environment Programme, Red

Regional de Instituciones para la Formaci6n

Ambiental, Informe de Actividades de 1982-

48

49.

50.

51%

52<

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

1983 y Sugerencias de Programaci6n para

1984, UNEP/I.G, 47/4, 1984. In: Saunier and

Meganck, 1985.

United Nations Environment Programme, Final Report, Fourth Inter-Governmental Regional Meeting on the Environment in Latin

America and the Caribbean, Cancb, Mexico,

UN EP/l. G. 57/8, 1985. In: Saunier and

Meganck, 1985.

U.S. Agency for International Development,

The Office of the Science Advisor, Development Through Innovative Research (Washington, DC: 1985).

U.S. Agency for International Development,

Congressional Presentation Fiscal Year 1987:

Main Volume (Washington, DC: 1986).

U.S. Agency for International Development,

“Draft AID Action Plan on Conserving Biological Diversity in Developing Countries, ” prepared by Bureau of Science and Technology,

Office of Forestry, Environment, and Natural

Resources, Washington, DC, January 1986.

U.S. Agency for International Development,

“Progress in Conserving Biological Diversity

in Developing Countries FY1985, ” Washington, DC, February 1986.

U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Foreign Assistance in an Era of

Declining Resources: Issues for Congress in

1986, ” prepared by L,Q. Newels, CRS Rpt. No.

86-95F, Washington, DC, 1986.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on

Human Rights and International Organizations, U.S. Policy on Biological Diversity (hearings on June 6, 1985) (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1985).

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Environmental Impact of Multilateral Development

Bank-Funded Projects: Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Development Institutions and Finance of the House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs,

98th Cong., 1st sess,, 1983.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Draft

Recommendations on the Multilateral Development Banks and the Environment: Hearing

before the Subcommittee on International Development Institutions and Finance of the

House Committee on Banking, Finance, and

Urban Affairs, 98th Cong., Zd sess., 1984.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,

Tropical Forest Development Projects—Status

of En vironmen tal and Amicultural Research:
308 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Hearing before the Subcommittee on Natural

Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment of the House Committee on Science and

Technology, 98th Cong., 2d sess., 1984.

58. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign

Relations, Hearings: Issues on Biological

Diversity and Tropical Deforestation, Mar. 19,

1986 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986).

59, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess60,

61,

62,

63,

ment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological

Diversity in the United States—Background Paper #1, OTA-13P-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, February 1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Continuing the Commitment: A Special

Report on the Sahel, OTA-F-308 [Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August

1986).

U.S. Department of State, Conserving International Wildlife Resources: The United States

Response (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1984),

U.S. Interagency Task Force, U.S. Strategy on

the Conservation of Biological Diversity: An

Interagency Task Force Report to Congress

(Washington, DC: Agency for International Development, 1985).

Western, D., “Amboseli National Park: Human

Values and the Conservation of a Savanna Ecosystem,” National Parks, Conservation, and

Deve]oDment. Droceedines of the World Con64.

65.

66,

67,

68.

69,

70.

gress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, Oct.

11-22, 1982, J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller (eds.)

(Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution

Press, 1984),

Western, D., “Conservation-Based Rural Development, ” Sustaining Tomorrow: A Strategy

for World Conservation and Development, F.R.

Thibodeau and H.H. Field (eds.) (Hanover, NH:

University Press of New England, 1984).

Williams, J. T,, “A Decade of Crop Genetic Resources Research, ” Crop Genetic Resources:

Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden

and J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).

Winterbottom, R., International Institute for

Environment and Development, Washington,

DC, personal communications, June 1986.

World Resources Institute, Recommendations

for a United States Strategy To Conserve Biological Diversity in Developing Countries

(Washington, DC: 1984).

World Wildlife Fund, Strategy for Training in

Natural Resources and Environment (Washington, DC: 1980).

World Wildlife Fund-U. S., Annual Report 1984

[Washington, DC: WWF, 1984),

Yatron, G., chairman, U.S. Congress, House

Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee

on Human Rights and International Organizations, letter to M. Peter McPherson, administrator, Agency for International Development,

lan. 29. 1986.
Appendixes
Appendix A

Glossary of Acronyms

AAZPA —American Association of Zoological

Parks and Aquariums

AID —U.S. Agency for International Development

AIDS —acquired immune deficiency syndrome

AMBC —American Minor Breeds Conservancy

APHIS —Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (USDA)

ARS –Agricultural Research Service (USDA)

ATCC —American Type Culture Collection

BGCCB —Botanical Gardens Conservation Coordinating Body

CACS –Crop Advisory Committees (USDA]

CAMCORE—The Central America and Mexico

CAST

CDCs

CDSS

CEQ

CGIAR

CIAT

CIDIE

CIMMYT

CIP

CITES

CMC

CPC

CRGO

CSRS

DNA

DOE

ECG

ELISA

EPA

ESF

Coniferous Resources Cooperative

—Council for Agricultural Science and

Technology

–Conservation Data Centers (TNCI)

—Country Development Strategy

Statements

—Council for Environmental Quality

—Consultative Group on International

Agricultural Research

—Centro International de Agricultural

Tropical (CGIAR, Colombia)

—Committee of International Development Institutions on the Environment

—Centro International de Mejoramiento

de Maiz y Trigo (CGIAR, Mexico)

—Centro International de la Papa

(CGIAR, Peru)

—Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Flora

and Fauna

—Conservation Monitoring Center

(IUCN)

—Center for Plant Conservation

—Competitive Research Grants Office

(USDA)

—Cooperative State Research Service

(USDA)

–deoxyribonucleic acid

—U.S. Department of Energy

–Ecosystem Conservation Group (FAO,

UNEP, UNESCO, and IUCN)

—enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

–Economic Support Funds (AID)

FAA —Foreign Assistance Act

FAO —Food and Agriculture Organisation

(UN.)

FNR —Forestry, Natural Resources, and the

Environment Office (AID)

FWS —Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior)

FWS/ESO —Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered

GAO

GEMS

GIS

GRID

GRIN

HPLC

IARCs

IBPGR

ICBP

IITA

IMS

IPPC

IRDP

IRRI

ISIS

IUCN

IUPOV

MAB

MARC

MDBs

Species Office (Department of the Interior)

–General Accounting Office (U.S.

Congress)

–Global Environment Monitoring System (UNEP)

—Geographic Information Systems

—Global Resources Information Database (GEMS, UNEP)

—Germplasm Resources Information

Network (NPGS,USDA)

—high-performance liquid chromatography

—International Agricultural Research

Centers

—International Board for Plant Genetic

Resources

—International Council for Bird Preservation

—International Institute of Tropical

Agriculture (CGIAR, Nigeria)

—Institute of Museum Services

—International Plant Protection Convention

—Integrated Regional Development

Planning (OAS)

—International Rice Research Institute

(CGIAR, Philippines)

—International Species Inventory System

—International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

—International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants

—Man in the Biosphere Program

(UNESCO)

–Meat Animal Research Center [USDA]

—Multilateral Development Banks

MI RCENS —Microbiological Resource Centers

NAS —National Academy of Sciences

NCS —National Conservation Strategy

311
312 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

NGO

NMFS

NMR

NOAA

NPGS

NPS

NRRL

NSF

NSSL

OAS

OECD

OTA

PASA

PBR

PD

PNV

—nongovernmental organization

—National Marine Fisheries Service

(Department of Commerce)

—nuclear magnetic resonance

—National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (Department of

Commerce)

—National Plant Germplasm System

(USDA)

—National Park Service (Department of

the Interior)

—Northern Regional Research Laboratory (USDA)

—National Science Foundation

—National Seed Storage Laboratory

(NPGS, USDA)

—Organization of American States

—Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

—Office of Technology Assessment

(U.S. Congress)

—Participating Agency Service

Agreement

—plant breeders’ rights

–Policy Determination (USAID)

—potential natural vegetation

PVPA

R&D

RFLP

RNA

RNA

RPIS

RSSA

SAF

SCMU

SCS

SMCRA

SSPS

TNC

TNCI

UN

UNEP

UNESCO

USDA

W c s

—Plant Variety Protection Act

—Research and Development

—restriction fragment length polymorphisms

—Research Natural Area

—ribonucleic acid

—Regional Plant Introduction Station

(USDA)

—Resource Services Support Agreements

—Society of American Foresters

—Species Conservation Monitoring Unit

(IUCN)

–Soil Conservation Service (USDA)

—Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

–Species Survival Plans (AAZPA)

—The Nature Conservancy

—The Nature Conservancy International

—United Nations

—United Nations Environment

Programme

—United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

—U.S. Department of Agriculture

—World Conservation Strategy
Appendix B

Glossary of Terms

Artificial insemination: A breeding technique,

commonly used in domestic animals, in which

semen is introduced into the female reproductive tract by artificial means.

Biochemical analysis: The analysis of proteins or

DNA using various techniques, including electrophoretic testing and restriction fragment length

polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. These techniques

are useful methods for assessing plant diversity

and have also been used to identify many strains

of micro-organisms.

Biogeography: A branch of geography that deals

with the geographical distribution of animals and

plants.

Biological diversity: The variety and variability

among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur.

Biologically unique species: A species that is the

only representative of an entire genus or family,

Biosphere reserves: Established under UNESCO’s

Man in the Biosphere (MAB) Program, biosphere

reserves are a series of protected areas linked

through a global network, intended to demonstrate the relationship between conservation and

development,

Biota: The living organisms of a region.

Biotechnology: Techniques that use living organisms or substances from organisms to make or

modify a product, The most recent advances in

biotechnology involve the use of recombinant

DNA techniques and other sophisticated tools to

harness and manipulate genetic materials.

Breed: A group of animals or plants related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characteristics. Taxonomically, a species can have numerous breeds.

Breeding line: Genetic lines of particular significance to plant or animal breeders that provide

the basis for modern varieties,

Buffer zones: Areas on the edge of protected areas

that have land use controls and allow only activities compatible with protection of the core area,

such as research, environmental education, recreation, and tourism.

Captive breeding: The propagation or preservation

of animals outside their natural habitat, involving control by humans of the animals chosen to

constitute a population and of mating choices

within that population.

Centers of diversity: The regions where most of

the major crop species were originally domesticated and developed. These regions may coincide with centers of origin.

Chromatography: A chemical analysis technique

whereby an extract of compounds is separated

by allowing it to migrate over or through an

adsorbent (such as clay or paper) so that the compounds are distinguished as separate layers.

Clonal propagation: The multiplication of an organism by asexual means such that all progeny are

genetically identical. In plants, it is commonly

achieved through use of cuttings or in vitro culture. For animals, embryo splitting is a method

of clonal propagation.

Community: A group of ecologically related populations of various species of organisms occurring

in a particular place and time.

Critical habitats: A technical classification of areas

in the United States that refers to habitats essential for the conservation of endangered or threatened species. The term may be used to designate

portions of habitat areas, the entire area, or even

areas outside the current range of the species.

Cryogenic storage: The preservation of seeds, semen, embryos, or micro-organisms at extremely

low temperatures, below – 130

0 C. At these temperatures, water is absent, molecular kinetic

energy is low, diffusion is virtually nil, and storage potential is expected to be extremely long.

Cryopreservation: See cryogenic storage.

Cultivar: International term denoting certain cultivated plants that are clearly distinguishable

from others by one or more characteristics and

that when reproduced retain their distinguishing characteristics, In the United States, “variety” is considered to be synonymous with cultivar (derived from “cultivated variety”).

Cutting: A plant piece (stem, leaf, or root) removed

from a parent plant that is capable of developing

into a new plant.

Cycad: Any of an order of gymnosperm of the family cycadaceae. Cycads are tropical plants that

resemble palms but reproduce by means of spermatozoids.

Database: An organized collection of data that can

be used for analysis.

DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid. The nucleic acid in

chromosomes that codes for genetic information.

313
314 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

The molecule is double stranded, with an external “backbone” formed by a chain of alternating

phosphate and sugar (deoxyribose) units and an

internal ladder-like structure formed by nucleotide base-pairs held together by hydrogen bonds.

Domestication: The adaptation of an animal or

plant to life in intimate association with and to

the advantage of man.

Ecology: A branch of science concerned with the

interrelationship of organisms and their environment.

Ecosystem: An ecological community together with

its physical environment, considered as a unit.

Ecosystem diversity: The variety of ecosystems that

occurs within a larger landscape, ranging from

biome (the largest ecological unit) to microhabitat.

Electrophoresis: Application of an electric field to

a mixture of charged particles in a solution for

the purpose of separating (e. g., mixture of proteins) as they migrate through a porous supporting medium of filter paper, cellulose acetate, or

gel.

Embryo transfer: An animal breeding technique

in which viable and healthy embryos are artificially transferred to recipient animals for normal gestation and delivery.

Endangered species: A technical definition used

for classification in the United States referring

to a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) definition,

used outside the United States, defines species

as endangered if the factors causing their vulnerability or decline continue to operate.

Endemism: The occurrence of a species in a particular locality or region.

Equilibrium theory: A theory of island biogeography maintaining that greater numbers of species

are found on larger islands because the populations on smaller islands are more vulnerable to

extinction. This theory can also be applied to terrestrial analogs such as forest patches in agricultural or suburban areas or nature reserves where

it has become known as “insular ecology. ”

Exotic species: An organism that exists in the free

state in an area but is not native to that area. Also

refers to animals from outside the country in

which they are held in captive or free-ranging

populations.

Ex-situ: Pertaining to study or maintenance of an

organism or groups of organisms away from the

place where they naturally occur. Commonly

associated with collections of plants and animals

in storage facilities, botanic gardens, or zoos.

Extinct species: As defined by the IUCN, extinct

taxa are species or other taxa that are no longer

known to exist in the wild after repeated search

of their type of locality and other locations where

they were known or likely to have occurred.

Extinction: Disappearance of a taxonomic group

of organisms from existence in all regions.

Fauna: Organisms of the animal kingdom.

Feral: A domesticated species that has adapted to

existence in the wild state but remains distinct

from other wild species. Examples are the wild

horses and burros of the West and the wild goats

and pigs of Hawaii.

Flora: Organisms of the plant kingdom.

Gamete: The sperm or unfertilized egg of animals

that transmit the parental genetic information to

offspring. In plants, functionally equivalent structures are found in pollen and ovules.

Gene: A chemical unit of hereditary information

that can be passed from one generation to another.

Gene-pool: The collection of genes in an interbreeding population.

Genetic diversity: The variety of genes within a particular species, variety, or breed.

Genetic drift: A cumulative process involving the

chance loss of some genes and the disproportionate replication of others over successive generations in a small population, so that the frequencies of genes in the population is altered. The

process can lead to a population that differs genetically and in appearance from the original

population.

Genotype: The genetic constitution of an organism,

as distinguished from its physical appearance.

Genus: A category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual

differentiation.

Germplasm: Imprecise term generally used to refer to the genetic information of an organism or

group of organisms.

Grow-out (growing-out): The process of growing

a plant for the purpose of producing fresh viable

seed to evaluate its varietal characteristics.

Habitat: The place or type of site where an organism naturally occurs.

Hybrid: An offspring of a cross between two genetically unlike individuals,

Inbreeding: Mating of close relatives resulting in

increased genetic uniformity in the offspring.
App. B—Glossary of Terms 315

— .

In-situ: Maintenance or study of organisms within

an organism’s native environment.

In-situ gene banks: Protected areas designated specifically to protect genetic variability of particular species.

Interspecies: Between different species.

Intrinsic value: The value of creatures and plants

independent of human recognition and estimation of their worth,

Inventory: onsite collection of data on natural resources and their properties.

In vitro: (Literally “in glass”). The growing of cells,

tissues, or organs in plastic vessels under sterile

conditions on an artificially prepared medium.

Isoenzyme (Isozyne): The protein product of an individual gene and one of a group of such products with differing chemical structures but similar enzymatic function.

Landrace: Primitive or antique varieties usually

associated with traditional agriculture. Often

highly adapted to local conditions.

Living collections: A management system involving the use of off site methods such as zoological

parks, botanic gardens, arboretums, and captive

breeding programs to protect and maintain biological diversity in plants, animals, and microorganisms.

Micro-organisms: In practice, a diverse classification of all those organisms not classed as plants

or animals, usually minute microscopic or submicroscopic and found in nearly all environments, Examples are bacteria, cyanobacteria

(blue-green algae), mycoplasma, protozoa, fungi

(including yeasts), and viruses.

Minor breed: A livestock breed not generally found

in commercial production.

Modeling: The use of mathematical and computerbased simulations as a planning technique in the

development of protected areas.

Morphology: A branch of biology that deals with

form and structure of organisms.

Multiple use: An onsite management strategy that

encourages an optimum mix of several uses on

a parcel of land or water or by creating a mosaic

of land or water parcels, each with a designated

use within a larger geographic area.

Native: A plant or animal indigenous to a particular locality.

Offsite: Propagation and preservation of plant, animal, and micro-organism species outside their

natural habitat.

Onsite: Preservation of species in their natural environment.

Open-pollinated: Plants that are pollinated by physical or biological agents (e.g., wind, insects) and

without human intervention or control.

Orthodox seeds: Seeds that are able to withstand

the reductions in moisture and temperature necessary for long-term storage and remain viable.

Pathogen: A specific causative agent of disease.

Phenotype: The observable appearance of an organism, as determined by environmental and genetic

influences (in contrast to genotype).

Phytochemical: Chemicals found naturally in

plants.

Population: A group consisting of individuals of

one species that are found in a distinct portion

of the species range and that interbreed with

some regularity and therefore have a common

set of genetic characteristics.

Predator: An animal that obtains its food primarily by killing and consuming other animals.

Protected areas: Areas usually established by official acts designating that the uses of these particular sites will be restricted to those compatible with natural ecological conditions, in order

to conserve ecosystem diversity and to protect

and study species or areas of special cultural or

biological significance.

Provinciality effect: Increased diversity of species

because of geographical isolation.

Recalcitrant seeds: Seeds that cannot survive the

reductions in moisture content or lowering of

temperature necessary for long-term storage.

Recombinant DNA technology: Techniques involving modifications of an organism by incorporation of DNA fragments from other organisms

using molecular biology techniques.

Restoration: The re-creation of entire communities

of organisms closely modeled on communities

that occur naturally. It is closely linked to reclamation.

Riparian: Related to, living, or located on the bank

of a natural watercourse, usually a river, sometimes a lake or tidewater.

Serological testing: Immunologic testing of blood

serum for the presence of infectious foreign disease agents.

Somaclonal variations: Structural, physiological,

or biochemical changes in a tissue, organ, or

plant that arise during the process of in vitro

culture.

Species: A taxonomic category ranking immediately below genus and including closely related,

morphologically similar individuals that actually

or potentially interbreed.
316 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Species diversity: The number and variety of species found in a given area in a region.

Species richness: Areas with many species, especially the equatorial regions.

Spectroscopy: Any of several methods of chemical

analysis that identify or classify compounds

based on examination of their spectral properties.

Stochastic: Models, processes, or procedures that

are based on elements of chance or probability.

Subspecies: A distinct form or race of a species.

Taxon: A taxonomic group or entity (pi. taxa).

Taxonomy: A hierarchical system of classification

of organisms that reflects the totality of similarities and differences.

Threatened species: A U.S. technical classification

referring to a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its range. These

species are defined as vulnerable taxa outside the

United States by the IUCN.

Tissue culture: A technique in which portions of

a plant or animal are grown on an artificial culture medium in an organized (e.g., as plantlets)

or unorganized (e. g., as callus) state. (See also in

vitro culture.)

Variety: See cultivar.

Wild relative: Plant species that are taxonomically

related to crop species and serve as potential

sources for genes in breeding of new varieties

of those crops.

Wild species: Organisms captive or living in the

wild that have not been subject to breeding to

alter them from their native state.

Wildlife: Living, nondomesticated animals.
Appendix C

Participants of Technical Workgroup

Five technical workgroups comprised of preeminent biological, physical, and social scientists from

the public and private sectors provided input and reviewed much of the technical information for this

study. OTA greatly appreciates the time and effort of each member of these workgroups.

Gardner M. Brown, Jr. Margery L. Oldfield

Department of Economics Department of Zoology

University of Washington University of Texas

Seattle, WA Austin, TX

Holmes Rolston, 111

Malcolm McPherson Department of Philosophy

Harvard Institute for International Development Colorado State University

Cambridge, MA Fort Collins, CO

Robert Hanneman

Department of Horticulture

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Thomas Orton

DNA Plant Technology Corp.

Watsonville, CA

Robert Stevenson

American Type Culture Collection

Rockville, MD

Jack Kloppenburg

Department of Rural Sociology

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Jake Halliday

Battelle-Kettering Research Lab

Yellow Springs, OH

Gary Nabhan

Desert Botanical Garden

Phoenix, AZ

Betsy Dresser

Director of Research

Cincinnati Wildlife Research Federation

Cincinnati, OH

Keith Gregory

USDA/ARS

U.S. Meat Animal Research Center

Clay Center, NE

David Netter

Department of Animal Science

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Blacksburg, VA

Warren Foote

International Sheep and Goat Institute

Utah State University

Logan, UT

Ulysses Seal

VA Medical Center

Minneapolis, MN

Dale Schwindaman

USDA/APHIS

Veterinary Services

Hyattsville, MD

377
318 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Robert Jenkins Hal Salwasser

The Nature Conservancy US Forest Service

ArIington, VA Washington, DC

Bruce Jones Dan TarIock

USDI/FWS Chicago Kent College of Law

Office of Endangered Species Chicago, IL

Arlington, VA Nancy Foster

Orie Loucks NOAA/Marine Sanctuaries

Holcomb Research Institute Washington, DC

Butler University

Indianapolis, IN

NATURA L

Raymond Dasmann

ECOSYSTEMS- INTERNATIONAL

Kathy Parker

Department of Environmental Studies Office of Technology Assessment

University of California Washington, DC

Santa Cruz, CA Daniel Simberloff

Barbara Lausche Department of Zoology

World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation Florida State University

Washington, DC Tallahassee, FL

Gene Namkoong

Department of Genetics

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC
Appendix D

Grassroots Workshop Participants

George Fell

Natural Lands Institute

Rockford, IL

Elizabeth Henson

American Minor Breeds Conservancy

Pittsboro, NC

Hans Neuhauser

The Georgia Conservancy, Inc.

Savannah, GA

Edward Schmitt

Brookfield Zoo

Brookfield, IL

Jonathan A. Shaw

Bok Tower Gardens

Lake Wales, FL

Kent Wheally

Seed Savers Exchange

Decorah, IA

319
Appendix E

Commissioned Papers and Authors

This report was possible because of the valuable information and analyses contained in the background

reports commissioned by OTA. These papers were reviewed and critiqued by the advisory panel, workgroups, and outside reviewers. The papers are available in a separate six-part volume through the National

Technical Information Service,l

VALUES

Papers Author(s)

An Economic Perspective of the Valuation of Alan Randall

Biological Diversity University of Kentucky

Values and Biological Diversity

An Ecological Perspective on the Valuation of

Biological Diversity

Impact of Changing Technologies on the

Valuation of Genetic Resources (Ist draft only)

Critical Assessment of the Value of and

Concern for the Maintenance of Biological

Diversity

Bryan G, Norton

New College of the University of South Florida

Gordon Orians and William Kunin

University of Washington

Lawrence A. Riggs

Genrec

Malcolm F. McPherson

Harvard Institute for International Development

Status and Trends of Wild Plants

Status and Trends of Agricultural Crop Species

Diversity and Distribution of Wild Plants

New Technologies and the Enhancement of

Plant Germ Plasm Diversity

Plant Germplasm Storage Technologies

Technologies To Evaluate and Characterize

Plant Germplasm

Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices

Assessment of Market Institutional Factors

Affecting the Plant Breeding System

Historical Analysis of Genetic Resources

Valuation

Technologies To Maintain Microbial Diversity

Hugh Synge

Conservation Monitoring Center

Christine Prescott-Allen

PADATA, Inc.

Marshall Crosby and Peter H. Raven

Missouri Botanical Garden

Tom J. Orton

DNA Plant Technology Corp.

Leigh Towill, Eric E, Roos,

and Phillip C. Stanwood

National Seed Storage Laboratory

Norm F. Weeden and David A. Young

Cornell University

Robert P. Kahn

USDA-APHIS-PPQ

Frederick A. Bliss

University of Wisconsin

Jean Pierre Ber]an-University Daix Marsaille

Richard Lowentin-Harvard University

Jake Halliday and Dwight D. Baker

Battelle-Kettering

IThe National Technical information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., ATTN: Sales Department, Springfield VA 22161 (703) 487-4650.

320
App. E—Commissioned Papers and Authors . 321

Status and Trends of Wild Animal Diversity

Status and Trends of Domesticated Animals

Technologies To Maintain Animal Germplasm

(draft form)

Concepts and Strategies To Maintain Domestic

and Wild Animal Germplasm

Management of Animal Disease Agents and

Vectors Potentially Hazardous for Animal

Germplasm Resources

Constraints to International Exchange of

Animal Germplasm

Nate Flesness

ISIS—Minnesota Zoo

Hank A. Fitzhugh, WiIl Getz, and F.H. Baker

Winrock International

Betsy Dresser—Cincinatti Wildlife Federation

Stan Liebo—Real Vista International

David R. Notter—Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Thorn J. Foose—Minneapolis Zoo

Werner P. Heuschele

San Diego Zoo

William M. Moulton

Consultant

Status and Trends of U.S. Natural Ecosystems

Geographic Information Systems As A Tool To

Assist in the Preservation of Biological

Diversity

Planning and Management Techniques for

NTatural Systems

A Science of Refuge Design and Management

Assessment of Application of Species Viability

Theories

Diversity of Marine/Coastal Ecosystems

Federal Laws and Policies Pertaining to the

Maintenance of Biological Diversity on

Federal and Private Lands

Mandates to Federal Agencies To Conduct

Biological Inventories

Ecological Restoration As A Strategy for

Conserving Biological Diversity

David Crumpacker

University of Colorado

Duane Marble

SUNY–Buffalo

Herman H. Shugart

University of Virginia

Daniel Simberloff

Florida State University

Mark L. Shaffer

U.S. Agency for International Development

Maurice P. Lynch and Carleton Ray

Coastal Environment Associates, Inc,

Michael Bean

Environmental Defense Fund

Lynn Corn

Congressional Research Service

Bill Jordan—University of Wisconsin Arboretum

Edith Allen—Utah State University

Rob Peters—WWF/Conservation Foundation

Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems Jeremy Harrison

Worldwide Conservation Monitoring Center

International Inventory and Monitoring for the N, Mark Collins

Maintenance of Biological Diversity Conservation Monitoring Center

The Role of protected Areas in Maintaining James W. Thorsell

Biological Diversity in Tropical Developing IUCN

Countries
322 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Role of Traditional Agriculture in Preserving

Biological Diversity

Compatibility of Development and the In-Situ

Maintenance of Biological Diversity in

Developing Countries

The Role of Development Assistance in

Maintaining Biological Diversity In-Situ in

Developing Countries

Socioeconomic Considerations for the In-Situ

Maintenance of Biological Diversity in

Developing Countries

Conservation of Biological Diversity by In-Situ

and Ex-Situ Methods

International Institutional/Legal Frameworks for

Ex-Situ Conservation of Biological Diversity

International Laws and Associated Programs

for In-Situ Conservation of Wild Species

International Laws and Associated Programs

for Conservation of Biological Diversity—

Joint Options for Congress

Living Collections (Plants and Animals)

Technologies to Maintain Tree Germplasm

Diversity

Causes of Loss of Biological Diversity

Gene Wilken

Colorado State University

Richard Saunier and Richard Meganck

Organization of American States

Bruce Rich and Stephen Schwartzman

Environmental Defense Fund

Terry Rambo

East-West Center

Gene Namkoong

North Carolina State University

John Barton

International Technology Development

Barbara Lausche

World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation

Barton/Lausche

Grenville Lucas and S. Oldfield

Kew Gardens

Frank T. Bonner

US Forest Service

Norman Myers

Consultant

GRASSROOTS

Role of Grassroots Activities in the Maintenance

of Biological Diversity: Living Plants Collection

of North American Genetic Resources

Report on Grass Roots Genetic Conservation

Efforts

An Assessment of the Conservation of Animal

Genetic Diversity at the Grassroots level

Grassroots Groups Concerned with In-Situ

Preservation of Biological Diversity in the U.S.

Gary Nabhan and Kevin Dahl

Native Seeds Search

Cary Fowler

Rural Advancement Fund

Elizabeth Henson

American Minor Breeds Conservancy

Elliott A. Norse

Ecological Society of America
Index
Index

Action Plan on Conservin,g Biological Diversity’ in

Developing Countries, 29, 290-291

Africa, 2.5, 125, 302

agricultural development in, 122

biological diversity in, 39, 41, 49

diversity loss in, 75, 79

NGOs in, 14

threatened species in, 75

African Development Bank, 294

Agency for International Development, U.S. (AID],

27, 243-244

Action Plan on Conserving Biological Diversity in

Developing Countries, 29, 290-291

Biden-Pell grants’ use by, 15

biological diversity funding for, 27, 28-29, 31-32

breed resource assessment by, 160

Bureau of Program and Policy Coordination, 29,

292

Bureau of Science and Technology, 29, 293

development assistance and, 289-294, 297, 298, 302,

304, 290

environmental expertise in, 29-31, 293-294

natural resource assessments development by, 300

Office of Forestry, Natural Resources, and the Environment of, 292

preservation approach to conservation and, 122,

129

resource degradation observations by, 67-68

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 222, 233

Agricultural Research Service (ARS), 222, 233, 235,

242

budget of, 238

funding by, 16, 195, 196, 236

germplasm conservation by, 19

interpretation of Research and Marketing Act by,

10-11

Plant Protection and Quarantine facilities of, 177

Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act

of 1954, proposed amending of, 31-32

Agriculture

breeding, 52-53, 138-139, 144, 149-156, 229, 156

diversity loss caused by, 5, 66, 75-77, 78-79, 82-83,

94

diversity loss’ effect on, 4, 67, 76-78, 94

diversity maintenance’s value to, 4, 37, 47-48, 49-53

economics of biological diversity to, 49-50, 76

genetic diversity for, 121-122, 159-161, 305

micro-organisms’ use in, 206

offsite maintenance progams for, 169-171, 186,

232-241, 174

preservation approach to conservation in, 123

research for, 187, 192-195, 196, 305

agroecosystems, 67, 79

maintaining, 90, 94

Alaska, 46, 47

Amboseli game reserve (Kenya), 297

American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA], 241, 274

American Minor Breeds Conservanc\r (Ahl13C), 143,

239

American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), 210, 211,

244

Angola, 80

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (A PHI S),

146, 147, 161, 196, 244-245

Antarctica, 117, 172

Arctic, 46, 50

Argentina

personnel training in, 302

seed storage in, 172

Arizona, 46

agricultural diversity in, 122

diversity loss in, 66, 67

protected area in, 115

Army Corps of Engineers, U. S., 232

wetlands value estimate by, 5, 40-41

Arnold Arboretum (Harvard University), 173, 184,

237

artificial insemination (A. I.), 152

organizations, 240

Asia, 25, 47, 80

agricultural breeding in, 53, 160

domestic animal monitoring in, 143

quarantine facilities in, 147

Asian Development Bank, 24

development assistance funding by, 294-295

Assessing Biological Diversiy in the United States:

Data Considerations, 127

Association Latinoamericana de Production Animal

(Venezuela), 143, 301

Audubon Society, 119

Australia, 74, 125

azonal ecosystems, 103, 111

Bangladesh, 74

Battelle-Kettering Laboratory (Ohio), 209, 244

Belgium, 303

Biden-Pell matching grants, 15

biological resources, components of diveristy in, 38

biosphere reserves, cluster concept for, 225-226, 118

biotechnology, 4

in developing countries, 305

micro-organisms’ use in, 209, 206

plant improvement through, 191-194, 196

seed collection and, 185-187

Birmingham, University of (UK], 303

Black Mesa (Arizona), 46

Bolivia, 301

Bonn Convention, 256

Borlaug, Norman, 292

Botanical Gardens Conservation Coordinating 130dy

(BGCCB), 173, 273

Botanic Garden Conservation Strategy, 273

Botswana, 50, 51, 54

Brazil

conservation education in, 297

N()’[’}1 f)dge numtwrs dpi)f,drl IIH I n Ifall[ \ arc r(~frrri n~ to i nformdt it)]) mcnt ](Irl(Yl ]11 thf, boke~

325
326 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

deforestation in, 75, 106

management technology in, 94

threatened species list in, 71

breeding

funding technologies for, 158, 159, 160-162, 235,

236

programs for animal diversity, 52-53, 138-139, 144,

149-156, 229, 156

programs for plants, 191-194, 235, 236, 192

species criteria for, 241

breeds, report’s definition of, 139

Brookfield Zoo (Chicago), 129

Budapest Treaty, 262

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. (BLM)

onsite maintenance and, 115, 117-118, 128, 227

onsite restoration by, 231

Resource Management Plan of, 114

Bureau of Program and Policy Coordination, 29, 292

Bureau of Science and Technology, 293

Burma, 47

California, 47

agricultural breeding in, 53

biological diversity in, 49, 50

diversity loss in, 66, 67

threatened species in, 70

California at Davis, University of, 45, 175, 236

California Desert Conservation Area, 117-118

California Gene Resources Conservation Program,

236

California, University of, 44

Canada, 12, 47

diversity loss in, 5, 81

diversity management strategy in, 117

onsite management plans in, 115

Carolina Bird Club, 231

Cary Arboretum (New York), 232

Center for Environmental Education, 14

Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), 173, 184

data collection by, 238

NSSI. and, 19

offsite maintenance by, 196

wild plant maintenance by, 237-238

Center for Restoration Ecology (Wisconsin), 232

Central African Republic, 80

Central America, 25

Central America and Mexico Coniferous Resources

Cooperative (CAMCORE), 175, 184

Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigaciones y Ensenanza (Costa Rica), 122, 297, 302

Centro International de Mejoramiento de Ma{z y

Trigo (CIMMYT), 122

Centro International de la Papa (CIP), 184, 186, 187,

188

Chad, 80

Charles River (Massachusetts), 5, 40-41

Chesapeake Bay, 64, 71

Chile, 71

China, 125

diversity loss in, 63-64, 156

College of African Wildlife Management (Tanzania),

302

Colombia, 75

conservation education in, 297

plant collection in, 186

Colorado, 46

Commission on Ecology, 122-23

Committee on International Development Institutions

on the Environment (CIDIE), 24, 295, 296

Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, 25, 26

Competitive Research Grants Office (CRGO), 17, 195,

196

Connecticut, University of, 240

Conservation Biology, 129

Conservation Data Centers (CDCS)

for developing countries, 299

development assistance projects by, 293

Conservation Monitoring Center (CMC), 112, 268-69,

273

data collection by, 124, 125, 127, 293

Conservation Needs Inventory, 66

Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research (CGIAR), 270

Consumers’ Association of Penang (Malaysia), 298

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World

Cultural and Natural Heritage, 255, 266-68

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species

of Wild Animals, 256

Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES], 22,

23, 255, 296, 286

Convention on the Law of the Sea, 256

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance

Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 255

conventions

global, 255-56, 258

regional, 256, 258

Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS), 233, 235

Costa Rica

conservation education in, 297

ecosystem restoration in, 120

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology,

144-45

Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), 12

Coweeta Hydrological Station, 118

crop advisory committees (CACs), 195, 235-36

cryogenic storage

for animal diversity maintenance, 139-42, 144-45,

148-49, 158-59, 274

of micro-organisms, 210-11

for plant collections, 171-73, 182-84, 187, 194-95

of seeds, 169, 171-72, 172-73

cryopreservation. See cryogenic storage

data collection

biogeographic systems of, 103, 104, 111

for breed assessment, 160

coordinating, 15, 20-22, 95-96, 126-127

for diversity maintenance, 124, 268-269, 298-299

enhancing, 19-22, 95-96
for

for

for

for

for

for

for

—

microbial diversity, 212-213

onsite maintenance programs, 115, 123-127, 130

plant collecting, 175

plant storage technologies, 180, 189-190

policy formation, 95-96

population models, 108-109

reproductive biology, 158-159

socioeconomic, 127

on threatened species, 68-75, 77-78, 83

for wild plant species, 237-238

Declaration on the Human Environment, 2,57

deforest at ion

causes of, 8 1

of developing countries, 3-5, 27-28, 67, 73-75, 80,

106

diversity loss caused by, 73-74

historically, 63-64

Department of Agriculture, [J, S. (USDA), 294, 299

Agricultural Research Servrice, 10-11, 16, 19, 177,

195, 196, 210, 222, 233, 236, 238, 242

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of,

146, 147, 161, 196, 244-245

bilateral programs and, 305

breed resource assessment by, 160

Competitive Research Grants Office, 17, 195, 196

development assistance and, 303

funding plant storage technology by, 194-195

germplasm maintenance by, 239

germp]asm quarantine and, 146, 147

germp]asm transfer and, 146, 147, 161, 162

microbial research by, 239

National Plant Germplasm System, 8

onsite restoration by, 232

plant diversity maintenance by, 191, 232, 233

plant importation and, 177, 196

RSSA between AID and, 30

Soil Conservation Service of, 121, 231, 237

Department of Commerce, 111

Department of Education, U. S., 14

Department of Energy, U.S. (DOE), 213, 118

Department of the Interior, 30, 294

Desert Fishes Council, 231

desertification, 69

developing countries, 12

agricultural breeding in, 53

biotechnology’s use in, 305

data collection for biological diversity in, 298-299

deforestation in, 3-5, 27-28, 67, 73-75, 80, 81, 306

diversity loss in, 27-32, 285

economic benefits of wild species in, 303-305

genetic resources of, 260-262, 305

MDBs and, 294-296

onsite technology for, 129

preservation approach to conservation in, 122

promotion of biological diversity projects in,

296-305

protected areas in, 109

U.S. state in maintaining biological diversity in,

2 8 6

Index ● 3 2 7

development

agricultural, 121-122

conservation as, 122-123, 264

effect of, on diversity maintenance systems, 78-7{],

102

insular ecology and, 106

development assistance, 31-32

diversitl maintenance and, 287-289

funding, 291-293, 294-296, 298, 302

genetic conservation and, 78

multilateral development banks and, 294-296

reports of constraints on, 69

diversity loss, 67

biological concepts involving, 65

causes of, 3-5, 63-64, 71, 73-74, 75-82, 127

through crossbreeding, 162

in domestic animals, 240-241

extent of, 3-5, 82-83

historically, 63-64, 66, 68, 75

diversity maintenance, 273-275

breed replacement for, 139

conserving, 8-22, 221-246, 253-278

esthetic and ethical Values of, 37, 46-49, 54

federal mandates affecting, 222-224

funding, 29, 31-32

improvements needed for, 245-246, 275-278

integration of economic development and, 287-289

international initiatives for, 22-26

interventions encouraging, 6-8, 89-96

linkages of management systerns for, 8-13, 18-19,

30-32, 92-96

management systems for, 6-8, 89-96

micro-organism, 205-213

patent law and, 260-262, 261

personnel training for, 302-303

private sector’s contribution to, 16, 17, 30-31, 227,

228, 230-232, 236-238, 239-240, 245

program coordination for, 8-13, 18-19, 30-32, 89,

92-96, 115, 120, 278

promoting planning and management for, 300-302

public support for, 13, 54-55, 230, 241, 296-298

value of maintaining, 4-5, 37-54

for wild plants, 237-238

Dominican Republic, 79

Earthwatch, 268

East Germany, 113, 156

Ecole de Fauna [Cameroon), 302

economics

of biological diversity, 4-5, 8, 39-41, 48, 49, 50,

53-54

data on, 127

of diversity loss, 76, 80, 81-82

of diversity maintenance systems, 4-5, 102, 105,

111, 114

of diversity management systems, 7, 89-90, 90-91,

92

of ecosystem restoration, 120, 121

of microbial diversity, 208, 210, 211, 212, 244

N()”l’li Page numbers appearing In ]t,il]( s ,ir(, referrl ng tI) I nf(]rnl~tlon n)ent]oned In th(> I)(]\[>\
328 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

of offsite animal maintenance, 144

of offsite plant collection technologies, 172-173, 195

of offsite seed storage technologies, 183, 195

of onsite maintenance programs, 229, 232

of preservation conservation, 123

of U.S. development assistance, 288, 291-292

of worldwide network of protected areas, 111

ecosystem

approach for protected areas, 111-112

azonal, 103, 111

benefits from, diversity, 37, 38, 39-41, 43-44, 46,

48-49, 49-50, 53-54

diversity loss, 64-65

diversity maintenance, 3, 19, 224-228

onsite, maintenance, 89-90

restoration, 119-121

scales of, diversity, 39

status of, diversity, 66-68

Ecosystem Conservation Group (ECG), 269

Ecuador, 296

edge effect, 107

embryo transfer, 7, 15, 94, 152-155, 153

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 11, 228-229, 286,

302

coordinating onsite maintenance under, 10, 11, 112,

222

proposed amending of, 18-19

threatened species definition of, 7’o

Endangered Species Office (ESO), 68, 115, 228-229

Endangered Species Program, 11, 246

funding for, 18

habitat protection and, 228-229

endemism, 104, 112, 299

England, See United Kingdom

Environmental Education Act of 1974, 14

Environmental Law Center, 268

Environmental Liaison Center (Kenya), 298

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 71

microbial research by, 213

onsite restoration by, 232

enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (E LISA), 146-147

Ethiopia, 25, 80, 301

Europe, 151

breed resource categorization in, 160

captive breeding in, 156

diversity loss in, 79

threatened species lists in, 70

Export Administration Act, proposed amending of,

26

Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves, 226

Federal Register, 228, 229

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List, 68,

115

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. (FWS), 68, 228-229,

241, 294, 299, 303

data collection by, 125, 126

diversity management strategy of, 116

ecosystem diversity protection by, 227

Endangered Species Office, 68, 115, 228-229

Endangered Species Program of, 11, 18

endangered species protection and, 228-229, 230

Foreign Service Currency Program and, 293, 302

Habitat Evaluation Procedure of, 114

National Fish Hatchery of, 241

onsite maintenance technology and, 128

onsite restoration by, 232

RSSA between AID and, 30

species documentation by, 68

wetlands inventories by, 66

Florida, 50, 119-120, 129

Florida, University of, 129, 303

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 25, 67-68,

124, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263, 264, 269, 274, 278

breed resource assessment by, 160

data collection by, 299

development assistance and, 303

domestic animal breed monitoring by, 143

Food for Peace Program, 31-32

Food Security Act of 1985, 232

Ford Foundation, 270

Foreign Assistance Act of 1983 (FAA), 27, 222, 289

amendment to, 287, 289, 291, 292, 290

proposed restructuring of, 28

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research

Act, 232

Forest Service, U. S., 117, 222, 302

database integration and, 125

development assistance and, 303

diversity management strategy by, 117, 118

ecosystem diversity protection by, 227

germplasm maintenance by, 237

onsite maintenance technology and, 115, 128

onsite restoration by, 231

Renewable Resources Evaluation of, 103

species protection by, 47

Frankia culture collection, 244

freeze drying. See lyophilization

Fresh Water Game and Fish Commission (Florida),

230

Friends of the Earth, 298

Gaines wheat, 192

Galapagos Islands, 53

General Accounting Office (GAO), 32, 233-235

genetic drift

inbreeding and, 150

preventing, 150-156

genetics

benefits of diversity in, 37-38, 41, 45, 47-48, 49,

51-54

diversity in, for agriculture, 121-122

diversity loss and, 65-66

diversity of, in protected areas, 108, 112-113

ecological-evolutionary, 105

evolution and diversity in, 41

status of diversity and, 75-78

Geographic Information Systems (GIS), 125

germplasm

collection programs, 121-122
—

Index ● 3 2 9

constraints on international exchange of, 24-26

international] transfer of, 145-147, 152, 161-162,

177-178, 244-245

storage, 7, !31, 94

Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN),

190, 191

Database Management Unit, 233, 235

Glacier National Park, 227

Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS),

124, 268

Global Resource Information Database (GRID), 124,

125, 127, 268

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, 23, 292

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 118

Green Revolution, 53, 192

Guanacaste National Park (Costa Rica), 120

Guatemala

conservation education in, 297

teosinte habitat in, 122

Haiti, 79, 80

Harris Poll, 13, 55

Hawaii

biological diversity in, 44

Hawaii, University of, 243-244

H.J. Andrews Experimental Ecological Reserve, 43

Honduras, 69

conservation education in, 297

teosinte habitat in, 122

Idaho, 115

Illinois, 66

Illinois River, 41

Imperial Zoological Museum (Soviet Union), 156

India, 47

deforestation in, 74

in-situ conservation in, 113

protected areas in, 110

resource degradation in, 79, 69

threatened species lists in, 71

Indiana, 66

Indonesia, 295

industry

as constituency for diversity maintenance, 13

diversity loss’ effect on, 4

diversity maintenance importance to, 37

germplasm maintenance by, 236-238

micro-organisms’ use in, 206

in-situ genebanks, 112-113, 301

Institute of Museum Services ([MS)

diversity maintenance research by, 16-17

funding seed storage facilities by, 195

institutions

diversity maintenance by, 7-8, 94-96

linkages between, 8-13, 18-19, 30-32, 94-96, 225-226,

293-294, 297-298, 299-300

insular ecology, 105-106

Integrated Regional Development Planning (IRPD],

123

Inter-African Bureau of Animal Resources (Kenya),

143, 301

Inter-American Development Bank, 24, 294-295

Inter-American Foundation, 297

International Agricultural Research Centers (IA RCS),

191, 270, 305

International Board for Animal Genetic Resources

(IBAGR), proposed establishment of, 19

International Board on Domestic Animal Resour(;es,

proposal for, 162

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources

(IBPGR), 19, 23, 233, 235, 269-273, 277-278

conservation training program by, 303

crop diversity reports by, 77

data collection by, 299

germplasm exchange and, 25

national genebanks and, 302, 303

plant collection strategies by, 173

U.S. support of, 305

International Cell Research Organization, 275

International Center for Genetic Engineering and

Biotechnology, 305

International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT),

186

International Council for Bird Preser\ration (ICBP),

124, 263, 267, 269

International Council for Research in Agroforestry’,

122

International Council for Scientific Unions, 263, 266

International Environment Protection Act of 1983,

289

International Institute for Environment and Development, 295

International Institute for Tropical Agriculture

(IITA), 186

International Livestock Centre for Africa, 143, 273,

301

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

(CIMMYT), 270

International Meteorological organization, 256

International Plant Protection Convention (I PPC), 262

International Rice Research Institute (I RRI), 270

IR36 development by, 53, 169-171

International Security and Development Cooperation

Act of 1980, 14-15

International Sheep and Goat Institute, 240

International Species Inventory System (ISIS), 140,

151, 241-242, 274

International Union for the Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources (I UCN), 257, 263, 264,

267-269, 273-277, 300

Botanic Gardens Conservation Coordinating Body,

173

Commission on Ecology, 122-123

Conservation for Development Center, 268

Conservation Monitoring Center, 112, 268, 293

data collection by, 21, 83, 124, 125, 293

ecosystem conservation by, 129

protected area categorization by, 110-111, 112

Species Conservation Monitoring Unit, 68, 69, 142

threatened species definition of, 70

N’()’I’E: Page numhcrs appearing III ltall(, s arc referring to i nform~tlon mentinnc(] in the hexes.
330 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (IUPOV), 260-262

in-vitro culture, 7, 15, 94

for animal diversity maintenance, 155

for offsite plant collections, 172, 172, 177, 186,

192-193, 194

Iowa, 66

Ireland, 139

Izaak Walton League of America, 231

Japan, 15, 47

Kafue National Park (Zambia), 44

Kansas, University of, 242

Kenya, 46, 49, 301

diversity project, in, 294

protected areas in, 109

Keystone Center

germplasm exchange and, 26

Kingman Resource Area (Arizona), 115

Kiribati, 109

Kobuk Valley (Alaska), 46

Kuna Indian Udirbi Tropical Forest Reserve (Panama), 297

Lacey Act of 1900, amendments to, 23, 255

Land and Water Conservation Fund

data collection and, 2I

refuges funded by, 230

Latin America, 22, 25, 302

biological diversity in, 75

breed resource categorization in, 160

Conservation Data Centers in, 299

quarantine facilities in, 147

legislation

diversity maintenance, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 23, 26, 27-28,

31-32, 254-262, 223, 258

international, 254-262, 258

plant patenting, 25

U. S., 222, 228, 230,233, 223, 261

Liberia, 301

Longleaf-Slash Pine Forest, 41

lyophilization, 210, 212

Madagascar, 71

Malayan Nature Society, 71, 298

Malaysia, 47, 50, 71, 81

development assistance to, 297, 298

Man in the Biosphere Program (MAB), 30, 128-129,

225, 264-266

database of, 21

diversity maintenance strategy of, 118

onsite maintenance as goal of, 225

protected areas and, 107, 112

U.S. support for, 22, 23

Marine Sanctuary Program, 111

Massachusetts, 5, 40-41

Mauritania, 69

Meat Animal Research Center (MARC), 239

Mesa Verde (Colorado), 46

Mexican National Research Institute for Biological

Resources (INIREB), 298

Mexico

bilateral program in, 305

diversity loss in, 80

diversity management strategy in, 118-119

in situ genebank for, 301

teosinte habitat in, 122

Michigan, University of, 302

Microbiological Resource Center (Hawaii), 244

Microbiological Resource Centers, 213, 275, 305

micro-organisms

collections of, 242-244

cultures of, 211-212, 213

diversity maintenance for, 205-213, 275, 206

identification of, 209

isolation of, 7, 91, 208-209, 213

storage methods for, 209-212

Minnesota, 14, 46, 200, 241

Minnesota, University of, 242

modeling

data collection for, 108-109

for plant collecting, 173-175

for protected areas, 107, 108-109, 114

of species-area relationships, 71-74

Mongolia, 119, 156

Montana State University, 129

Montevideo Botanic Gardens, 273

Morrocoy National Park (Venezuela), 49

Moscow Botanic Gardens, 273

Mount Everest, 46

Mount Kenya, 46

Mount Taishan (China), 46

Mozambique, 80

multilateral development banks (MDBs), 23-24,

294-296

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 26, 160

National Agricultural Library, 160

National Audubon Society, 231

National Biological Diversity Act, proposal for, 11-12

National Board for Domestic Animal Resources,

proposal for, 162

national clonal repository (Oregon), 235

National Conservation Education Act, proposal for,

14

National Conservation Strategy (NCS), 12, 115, 300

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 12, 80-81,

127

National Forest Management Act of 1976, 11, 222,

226, 231-232

National Forest System, 225, 231-232

National Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act of

1965, 17

National Heritage Data Centers, 21

National Institutes of Health (NIH], 213

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 228-229

National Microbial Resource Network, proposed creation of, 212-213

National Natural Landmarks, 227
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

111, 294, 302

National Park Service (NPS], U. S., 30, 302

Boundary Model of, 114

database integration by, 125

diversity maintenance as objective in, 226-227

diversity management strategy of, 117, 118

ecosystem restoration by, 119

environmental expertise in, 294

onsite maintenance technology by, 128

onsite restoration by, 232

threats from areas adjacent to, 224

National Plant Genetic Resources Board, 233, 235

National Plant Germplasm Committee, 233, 235

National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), 8, 18, 19,

222, 232-237, 246, 303

clonal repositories, 186, 187, 188

diversity assessment by, 188, 189

evolution of, 174

Germplasm Resources Information Network, 190,

191

seed storage by, 180

technology development by, 195

National Sanctuaries Program, 115

National Science Foundation [NSF), 16

Division of Biotic Systems and Resources, 16

experimental ecological areas and, 226

offsite maintenance research and, 159

offsite management training by, 158

research and, 16, 129-130, 196, 213

National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL), 19, 233,

246

facilities of, 236

funding for, 18

storage practices of, 180-181, 183

National Small Grains collection, U. S., 190, 233

National Water Commission, 12

National Wilderness Preservation System, 224

management strategy for, 117

National Wildlife Refuge System, 224, 229-230

National Wildlife Refuges, 226

National Zoo (Washington, D.C.), 158

National Zoo Conservation and Research Center [Virginia), 303

Native Seeds/SEARCH, 122

Natural History Museum of Lima, 298

Navaho Nation, 230

Nebraska, 151

Neisseria Reference I.aboratory, 242

Nepal, 47, 49

Department of Medicinal Plants in, 51

national conservation strategy for, 300

threatened species list in, 71

Nevada, 66

New Hampshire, 66

New Zealand, 287

nongovernmental organizations (NGOS], 263-264,

267-268

diversity maintenance programs of, 16, 17, 30-31

international conservation operations of, 14-15

Index “ 331

linkages with AID by, 294, 298

Nordic Gene Bank (Sweden, 172

North America, 25, 41, 125, 151

agricultural breeding in, 52-53

captive breeding in, 156

data collection in, 124

diversity loss in, 63

threatened species in, 70

North American Fruit Explorers, 190

Northern Regional Research Laboratory (NRRI,), 242,

244

North Yemen, 80

Oak Ridge National Environmental Research Park,

118

Oceania

breed resource categorization in, 160

diversity loss in, 80

domestic animal monitoring in, 143

threatened species lists in, 70

Office of Endangered Species, 237

Office of Forestry, Natural Resources, and the Environment (FNR), 292

Office of Management and Budget, 267

off site diversity maintenance

animal programs for, 238-242

choosing strategies for, 138-142

classification of plant collections for, 170-171

facilities for, 1 5 8

funding for, 158, 159, 160-162, 235-238, 242-244,

246

improvements needed for, 157-162, 194-196

international laws relating to, 259-262

international programs for, 259-275

micro-organism, 208, 213, 242-244

objectives of, 137-138, 169-171

plant programs for, 90-91, 173-178, 232-238

population sampling strategies for, 142-145

storing samples for, 91, 178-190, 194-195

technology for, 6-8, 15-16, 90-91, 95, 137-162,

169-196

using plants stored for, 190-194

Oklahoma, 227

Olympic National Park, 43

onsite diversity maintenance

data collection for, 123-127, 130

for ecosystems, 89-90, 111-112, 128-129

funding programs for, 229

improvements needed for, 128-130

international laws for, 255-259

international programs for, 264-268

management, 115-119

micro-organism, 207-208, 206

personnel development for, 130

planning techniques, 113-116

restoring, 231-232

for species, 90

technology for, 6, 15, 89-90, 95, 103-130, 224

trade-offs involving, 113

Oregon, 47
332 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Oregon State University, 47

Organization of American States (OAS), 122, 123,

129, 301

orthodox seeds, 171, 183

Pakistan, 71, 69

Panama, 122

Paraguay, 300

Participating Agency Service Agreements (PASAS), 30

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (Maryland), 241

Peace Corps, 30-31, 294, 298

Pennsylvania State University, 243

Peru, 47, 298

plant collection in, 184

species diversity in, 4, 68

Peruvian Conservation Foundation, 298

pharmacology, 4

diversity maintenance’s value to, 37, 44-45

micro-organisms’ use in, 206

Philippines

deforestation in, 74

national conservation strategy for, 300

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 237

plant breeders’ rights (PBR) legislation, 260-262, 261

plant collection

definitions relevant to offsite, 170-171

for diversity maintenance, 7, 90-91

of endangered wild species, 195-196

funding, 270

history of, I74

importing samples for, 177-178, 196

international, 270-273

in vitro culture use in, 186, 192-193, 194

objectives of, 169-171

quarantine policies for, 175-178, 244-245, 262

technologies for, 169, 171-173, 178-190, 194-195

Plant Genetics and Germplasm Institute, 233

Plant Introduction Office, 233

Plant Molecular Genetics Laboratory, 233

Plant Patent Act of 1930, 261

Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), 261

policy

bases for forming biological diversity, 55

data collection for, formation, 20, 95-96

MDBs’ influence on developing countries, 294-295

options available to Congress, 8-32

quarantine, 175-178, 244-245, 262

U. S., for diversity maintenance, 8-13, 222-224

politics

effect of, on diversity maintenance systems, 102,

105, 107, 114

effect of, on diversity management systems, 7, 90,

91-92, 127

potential natural vegetation (PNV), 66

programs, diversity maintenance

animal, 238-242

coordination for, 8-13, 18-19, 30-32, 89, 92-96

funding, 229, 263

international, 262-275

linkages in, 278

offsite, 232-245

onsite, U. S., 224-232

protected areas

classifying, 102-105, 111

for coastal-marine ecosystems, 111, 115, 118-119,

224, 105

criteria for selection of, 111-113

designing, 102, 105-109

“edge effect” on, 107

establishing, 109-113

genetic considerations for, 108

models for, 107, 108-109, 114

population dynamics in, 108-109

restoration of, 119-121

Przewalski, N. M., 156

Public Health Service, U. S., 242

Public Land Law Review Commission, 12

Puerto Rico, 230, 128

quarantine, of germplasm, 146-147, 152, 244-245

RAMSAR, 255

Rare Breeds Survival Trust (United Kingdom), 49

recalcitrant seeds, 171, 187, 195

Redwood National Park, 232

Regional Plant Introduction Stations (RPISS), 233

research, 4, 305

biological diversity’s benefit to, 43-45

ecosystem diversity maintenance, 225, 226, 266

ecosystem restoration, 232

funding, 16-17

genetic diversity, 122, 185-187, 191-194, 196

goal-oriented, 15-16, 95

micro-organism, 208-209, 213, 242, 206

multidisciplinary, 129-130

plant germplasm, 187, 192-195, 196

in population genetics, 159

problems impeding, 15-16, 95-96

on protected area design, 106-107

resource management, 118

socioeconomic, 127

Research and Marketing Act of 1946, 10

Research Natural Area Program, 224-225

Research Natural Areas (RNAs), 19

diversity maintenance coordination by, 226

size of, 224

Resource Management Plan, 114

Resource Services Support Agreements (RSSA), 30

Rhode Island, 230

Rhododendron Species Foundation, 237

Rio de Janeiro Primate Center, 301

Rockefeller Foundation, 270

Royal Botanic Gardens (U.K.), 180, 273, 174

data collection by, 190

in vitro storage by, 187

St. Helena (island), 94

St. John (Virgin Islands), 118

Salonga National Park (Zaire), 117

San Lorenzo Canyon (Mexico), 118
Index ● 3 3 3

—

Santa Rosa National Park (Costa Rica), 120

School of Conservation Management (Indonesia), 302

seed

collections, 188-189, 190-191

storage, 7, 15, 94, 169, 171-172, 173

Seed Savers Exchange, 190, 236

Selkirk Mountain Caribou Management Plan/Recovery Plan, 115

Serengeti national Park (Tanzania), 44

serological procedures, 146-147, 177-178

Smithsonian Institution, 302

Biological Diversity Program of, 30-31

data collection by, 125

environmental expertise in, 294

wild plant maintenance by, 237

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, 297

Society for the Advancement of Breeding Research in

Asia and Oceania (Malaysia], 301

Society for the Advancement of Breeding Researchers, 143

Society of American Foresters (SAF), 103

Society for Conservation Biology, 16, 129

Society Islands, 44

Soil Conservation Service (SCS]

onsite restoration by, 231

Plant Material Centers of, 121, 237

somaclonal variation, 192-193

Somalia, 80

somatic hybridization, 193-194

South America

data collection ia, 123-124

in situ genebanks in, 301

threatened species in, 75

South Carolina, 230

Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve, 118

Soviet Union, 125

in-situ conservation in, 113

threatened species list in, 70

Spain, 47, 110

species

benefits of, diversity, 37, 38, 41, 44-45, 46-47, 49,

50-51, 53-54

definitions of threatened, 70

diversity maintenance, 90, 112, 228-231

habitat protection, 228-231

loss of, diversity, 41, 65

oriental treaties, 257, 258

status of, diversity, 68-75

Species Conservation Monitoring Unit (SCMU), 68,

69, 142

Spucies Survival Plans (SSPS), 241, 242

Sri I.anka, 67, 300, 301

Stanford University, Center for Conservation Biology,

129

State National Heritage Programs, 299

data collection by, 125, 228, 230

workings of, 230-231

Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment,

22, 257, 259-260, 264, 299

Sudan, 80, 69

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

(SMCRA), 120, 231

Sweden, 125

Switzerland. 139

Tanzania, 75

Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources,

102

technology

developing, for biological diversity, 5, 15-16, 94-96

for microbial diversity maintenance, 208-212

off site maintenance, 6-8, 15-16, 90-91, 95, 137-162,

169-196

onsite maintenance, 6, 15, 89-90, 95, 101-130, 224

plant storage, 189-190

recombinant DNA, 195

Tennessee Valley Authority, 230

Texas, 227

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 191

Thai Development Research Institute, 300

Thailand, 301

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), 228

data collection by, 83

ecosystem restoration by’, 119

National Heritage Data Centers, 21, 22, 127

objectives of, 228

onsite maintenance and, 129

species management and, 112

State Natural Heritage Programs of, 125, 130, 228,

230

The Nature Conservancy International (TNC1), 269

Conservation Data Centers of, 293, 299

database of, 21, 124

Treasury Department, U. S., 295

Trout Unlimited, 231

Udvardy biogeographic classification system, 111,

129, 264

United Brands, 236-237

United Kingdom, 12, 49, 68

agricultural breeding in, 53

protected areas in, 110

restoration project by, 156

United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. See Stockholm Conference on the Human

Environment

United Nations Development Program me. 67-68

United Nations Educational, S(; ientific, and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO], 244. 257, 263-270,

275-276

biosphere reserve program of, 301

database of, 124

data coordination by, 127

Man and the Biosphere Program of, 21, 22, 23, 30,

107, 112, 118, 128-129, 225, 264-266

microbial database and, 213

[Jnited Nations Environment Programme (U N13P), 22,

\’( )’1 1., I](IRI, II(I III I)[,ri ,l[)[)[’(iring III Ildl I( s ,1 I t’ I offII I I IIg III III [I II 11)(1 t II )fl Illt’lltll)ll(’(i I [1 ttlt’ llo\l’\
334 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

23, 24, 143, 244, 256, 257, 263-264, 267-270,

274-275, 295

conservation training by, 303

database of, 124

Global Environment Monitoring System of (GEMS),

124

United Nations Food and Agricultural Organizations

(FAO), 124, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263, 264, 269,

274, 278

germplasm conservation and, 25

resource degradation observations by, 67-68

United Nations Industrial Development Organizations, 305

United States

agricultural breeding in, 52-53

animal breed monitoring in, 162

assessing plant germplasm in, 191

biological diversity in, 49-51

data collection in, 125, 127

data sharing in, 126, 127

development assistance by, 289-294, 296-298

diversity loss in, 66-67, 79, 94

diversity maintenance in, 8-22, 114, 157, 221-246

diversity management in, 117-118, 125

ecosystem diversity program for, 128-129

embryo transfer in, 153

endangered species protection in, 7, 8, 11

genetic diversity in, 4

germplasm quarantine in, 146-147, 161, 244-245

influence on MDBs, 24, 295-296

National Parks and Forests in, 46, 48

plant breeders’ rights legislation in, 260

plant breeding in, 191, 192

plant collections in, 184

plant importation into, 177

protected area design in, 107-108, 109, 110

restoration project by, 156

species diversity in, 68

support for international conservation efforts, 22-24

threatened species lists in, 70

wetlands in, 40

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See Army Corps of

Engineers, U.S.

U.S. Geological Survey, 125

U.S. Plant Introduction Stations, 180

U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of Biological

Diversity, 14, 29, 290

University of Veterinary Science (Hungary), 303

Utah, 66, 121

Utah State University, 240

Vavilov, N. I., 174

Venezuela, 46, 49, 81

Virgin Islands, 118

V.I. National Park, 118

Voyageurs Park (Minnesota), 46

Washington State, 115

West Germany, 156

wetlands

restoration of, 232

value of, 4-5, 40

Weyerhaeuser Company, 237

Wildlife Institute of India, 302

Willamette National Forest, 43

Wind Cave National Park (South Dakota), 41, 44

Wisconsin, 14, 20, 232

Wisconsin, University of, 232

Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada), 117

World Bank, 270

development assistance funding by, 294-296

preservation approach to conservation and, 122,

129

resource degradation observations by, 67-68

wildland policy of, 24, 29

Wildlife Management Policy of, 296

World Charter for Nature, 257-259

World Conservation Strategy (WCS), 28, 257, 264, 287

World Health Organization (WHO), 268, 275

World Heritage Convention, 22, 23, 264

World Heritage Program, 22, 255, 266-268, 276

World Meteorological Organization, 268

World Resources Institute, 276

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) /U.S., 30, 257, 264, 267

conservation training by, 303

database of, 124

development assistance projects by, 293, 297-298

ecosystem conservation and, 129

Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems Project of,

106

World Wildlife Fund/The Conservation Foundation.

See World Wildlife Fund/U.S

Wyoming, 241

Zaire, 117

Zambezi Teak Forest, 41, 44

Zambia, 41, 44, 51, 81

National Conservation Strategy of, 115, 301

Zimbabwe, 300