■^jv; ^^ ^^ ^^TKtESc.,^^ CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 3 tlS^I^ „; - Office of Technologv Assessment \^N^*?llr*^' / Washington. DC 20510-8025 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity •K^ DOCUMENT LIBRARY Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. ^> 'a Office of Technology Assessment Congressional Board of the 100th Congress MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman Senate ORRIN G. HATCH Utah EDWARD M. KENNEDY Massachusetts ERNEST F. ROLLINGS South Carolina CLAIBORNE PELL Rhode Island CHARLES E. GRASSLEY Iowa JOHN H. GIBBONS (Nonvoting) Advisory Council House GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. California JOHN D. DINGELL Michigan CLARENCE E. Ohio MILLER DON SUNDQUIST Tennessee AMORY HOUGHTON, JR. New York WILLIAM J. PERRY, Chairman H&Q Technology Partners DAVID S. POTTER, Vice Chairman General Motors Corp. (Ret.) EARL BEISTLINE Consultant CHARLES A. BOWSHER General Accounting Office CLAIRE T. DEDRICK California Land Commission S. DAVID FREEMAN Lower Colorado River Authority MICHEL T. HALBOUTY Michel T. Halbouty Energy Co. CARL N. HODGES University of Arizona RACHEL McCULLOCH University of Wisconsin CHASE N. PETERSON University of Utah JOSEPH E. ROSS Congressional Research Service LEWIS THOMAS Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Director JOHN H. GIBBONS The Technology Assessment Board approves the release of this report. The views expressed in this report are not X" necessarily those of the Board, OTA Advisory Council, or individual members thereof. >3 cor 2? ■ r- • >- i-> •ft K ti 3 6- 1 •3 4 DOCUMENT LIBRARY V^ods Hole Oceanojjraphic Institution Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity DOCUMENT LIBRARY Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution .-.*' ^lATEs ro^ CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES :; ; Office o( Technology Assessment Washington. DC 20510-8025 '^"AOUlt-"' Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies To Maintain Biologi- cal 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 Foreword The reduction of the Earth's biological diversity has emerged as a public policy issue in the last several years. Growing awareness of this planetary problem has prompted increased study of the subject and has led to calls to increase public and private initiatives to address the problem. 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 eco- system 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 agricul- ture, medicine, and industry. Concerns also exist that loss of diversity undermines the potential of populations and species to respond or adapt to changing environ- mental conditions. Because humans ultimately depend on environmental support functions, special caution should be taken to ensure that diversity losses do not disrupt these functions. Finally, esthetic and ethical motivation to avoid the irre- versible loss of unique life forms has played an increasingly major role in promot- ing 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. Requestors 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 con- cerns. 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 Conser- vation of Biological Diversity in the United States and Maintaining Biological Diver- sity in the United States: Data Considerations) and a staff paper (The Role of U.S. Development Assistance in Maintaining Biological Diversity in Developing Coun- tries) were also prepared in conjunction with this study. OTA is grateful for the valuable assistance of the study's advisory panel, work- groups, workshop participants, authors of background papers, and the many other reviewers from the public and private sectors who provided advice and informa- tion throughout the course of this assessment. As with all OTA studies, the content of this report is the sole responsibility of OTA. TT, ■^C''^^^*<**-..^ JOHN H. GIBBONS Director Advisory Panel Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity Kenneth Dahlberg, Chair Department of Political Science Western Michigan University Stephen Brush International Agricultural Development University of California, Davis Peter Carlson Director Crop Genetics International Rita Colwell Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs University of Maryland, Adelphi Raymond Dasmann Department of Environmental Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Clarence Dias President International Center for Law in Development Donald Duvick Senior Vice President of Research Pioneer Hi-Bred International David Ehrenfeld Cook College Rutgers University Major Goodman Department of Crop Science North Carolina State University Grenville Lucas The Herbarium Kew Royal Botanic Gardens Richard Norgaard Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Berkeley Robert Prescott-Allen Partner PADATA, Inc. Paul Risser Vice President for Research University of New Mexico Oliver Ryder Research Department San Diego Zoo Michael Soule Adjunct Professor School of Natural Resources University of Michigan John Sullivan Vice President of Production American Breeders Service NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents. OTA Prelect Staff Technelegies Te Maintain Bieiegicai 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 Grossmann,- Analyst Allen Ruby,^ Research Assistant Contractors James L. Chamberlain David Notter 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, Secretary 'Through January 1986. 'Through August 1985. ^Summer 1985. 'Through August 1986. ^After August 1986. ^Through July 1985. 'Through October 1986. »From Dec. 15, 1986. CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. 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 15 Option: Direct the National Science Foundation To Establish a Conservation Biology Program 16 Option: Establish a National Endowment for Biological Diversity 17 Option: Provide Sufficient Funding to Existing Programs 18 Option: Amend Legislation To Improve Onsite and Offsite Program Links 18 Option: Establish New Programs To Fill Specific Gaps 19 Enhance the Knowledge Base 19 Option: Establish a Small Clearinghouse for Biological Data 20 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: Restructure Conservation-Related Sections of the Foreign Assistance Act 28 Option: Direct AID To Adopt Strategic Approach 29 Option: Direct AID To Acquire Greater Access to Conservation Expertise 30 Option: Establish a New Funding Account for Conservation Initiatives 31 Option: Apply More Public Law 480 Funds To Promote Diversity Conservation 31 Tables Table No. Page 1-1. Examples of Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity. . . 6 1-2. Management Systems and Conservation Objectives 6 1-3. Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance 9 1-4. Summary of Policy Issues and Options for Congressional Action Related to Biological Diversity Maintenance 10 Bex Box No. Page 1-A. What Is Biological Diversity? 3 Chapter 1 Summary and Options for Congress Most biological diversity survives without hu- man interventions to maintain it. But as natural areas become progressively modified by human activities, maintaining a diversity of ecosytems, species, and genes will increasingly depend on intervention by applying specific technologies. A spectrum of technologies are available to sup- port maintenance of biological diversity (de- fined in box 1-A). Box 1-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 re- duced the frequency of the perennial grass species. • Genetic diversity: Economically useful crops are developed from wild plants by selecting valu- able 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 ances- tors 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 ad- dressed. THE PROBLEM The Earth's biological diversity is being re- duced at a rate that is likely to increase over the next several decades. This loss of diversity — measured at the ecosystem, species, and ge- netic levels — is occurring in most regions of the world, although it is most pronounced in par- ticular areas, most notably in the tropics. The principal cause is the increasing conversion of natural ecosystems to human-modified land- scapes. Such alterations can provide consid- erable benefits when the land's capability to sus- tain development is preserved, but compelling evidence indicates that rapid and unintended reductions in biological diversity are under- mining 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, 4 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity although a few remain skeptical and maintain that this level of concern is based on exagger- ated or insufficient data. The abundance and complexity of ecosys- tems, species, and genetic types have defied complete inventory and thus the direct assess- ment of changes. As a result, an accurate esti- mate of the rate of loss is not currently possi- ble. Determining the number of species that exist,' for example, is a major obstacle in assess- ing the rate of species extinction. But use of biological principles and data on land use con- versions 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 conse- quences for civilization. It may eliminate op- tions to use untapped resources for agricultural, industrial, and medicinal development. Crop genetic resources have accounted for about 50 percent of productivity increases and for an- nual 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 bil- lions of dollars in potential plant-derived phar- maceutical 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 tropi- cal 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. Mil- lions more, however, have yet to be discovered. Recent research indicates that species of tropical insects alone could number 30 million. Photo credit: H litis A foggy, moss- and epiphyte-enshrouded tropical forest In Ecuador is about to be cleared for local agriculture, a main cause of loss of diversity. successful treatment of several forms of can- cer, 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 com- binations. Loss of diversity, therefore, may un- dermine societies' realization of the technol- ogy's potential. Another threatening aspect of diversity loss is the disruption of environmental regulatory Ch. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 5 Pholo credit: H litis A dense stand of Zea diploperennis 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 interac- tions of ecosystems and the species that sup- port them. Diverse wetlands provide productive and pro- tective processes of economic benefit. Millions of waterfowl and other birds of economic value depend on North American wetlands for breed- ing, feeding, migrating, and overwintering. About two-thirds of the major U.S. commer- cial fish, crustacean, and mollusk species de- pend on estuaries and salt marshes for spawn- ing and nursery habitat. Wetlands temporarily store flood waters, reducing flow rates and pro- tecting 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 Massachu- setts) for its role in controlling floods at $17 mil- Hon 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 ini- tiatives 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. Histori- cally, concern for diversity loss focused on com- mercial exploitation of threatened or endan- gered 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 con- sequences of human activity. Air and water pol- lution, for example, can cause diversity loss far from the pollution's source. The decline of sev- eral fish species in Scandinavia and the near extinction of a salmon species in Canada have been attributed to acidification of lakes due to acid rain. Population growth in itself may not be intrinsically threatening to biological di- versity. A populous country like Japan is an example of how a high standard of living, ap- propriate government policies, and a predom- inantly urbanized population can limit the rate of ecosystem disruption. However, when pop- ulation growth is compounded by poverty, a negative impact is characteristic. In many trop- ical developing countries, high population grovvrth and the practice of shifting agriculture employed by peasant farmers are considered the great- est threats to diversity. This report assesses the potential of diversity- maintenance technologies and the institutions developing and applying these technologies. But maintaining biological diversity will de- pend on more than applying technologies. Tech- nologies 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 foresee- able future. Therefore, efforts to maintain diver- sity must also address the socioeconomic, po- litical, and cultural factors involved. 6 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity INTERVENTIONS TO MAINTAIN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY There are two general approaches to main- taining biological diversity. It may be main- tained where it is found naturally (onsite), or it may be removed from the site and kept else- where (offsite). Onsite maintenance can focus on a particular species or population or, alter- natively, on an entire ecosystem. Offsite main- tenance can focus on organisms preserved as germplasm or on organisms preserved as liv- ing collections. Table 1-1 lists examples of man- agement systems. These management systems have somewhat different objectives, but all four are necessary components of an overall strat- egy to conserve diversity. Conservation objec- tives can be enhanced by investing in any com- bination of the four systems and by improving links to take advantage of their potential com- plementariness. The objectives of the manage- ment 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 fo- cus on establishing an area to protect ecosys- tems or species and on regulating species har- vest. 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 Onsite Offsite Ecosystem maintenance Species management Living collections Germplasm storage National parks Research natural areas Marine sanctuaries Resource development planning Agroecosystems Wildlife refuges In-situ genebanks Game parks and reserves Zoological parks Botanic gardens Field collections Seed and pollen banks Semen, ova, and embryo banks Microbial culture collections Captive breeding programs Tissue culture collections Increasing hiuman intervention- ■ Increasing emphasis on natural processes SOURCE: Office of Tecfinology Assessment, 1986. Table 1-2.— Management Systems and Conservation Objectives Onsite Offsite Ecosystem maintenance Species maintenance Living collections Germplasm storage Maintain: • a reservoir or "library" of genetic resources • evolutionary potential • functioning of various ecological processes ' vast majority of known and unknov\/n species representatives of unique natural ecosystems Maintain: • genetic interaction be- tween semidomesticated species and wild relatives • wild populations for sus- tainable exploitation • viable populations of threatened species • species that provide im- portant indirect benefits (for pollination or pest control) • "keystone" species with important ecosystem sup- port or regulating function Maintain: • breeding material that can- not be stored in genebanks • field research and develop- ment on new varieties and breeds • offsite cultivation and propagation • captive breeding stock of populations threatened in the wild • ready access to wild spe- cies for research, educa- tion, and display Maintain: • convenient source of germplasm for breeding programs • collections of germplasm from uncertain or threat- ened sources • reference or type collections as standard for research and patenting purposes • access to germplasm from wide geographic areas ' genetic materials from criti- cally endangered species SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986 Ch. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 7 the total diversity. Technologies for plants in- clude seed storage, in vitro culture, and living collections. Most animals are commonly main- tained 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, mi- crobes (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 vac- cines or for treating wastes. Scientists are hampered in their storage, use, and study of microbial diversity by their in- ability 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 effi- ciency and effectiveness of efforts to maintain diversity. Some technologies developed for do- mesticated species, for instance, can be adapted to wild species. Embryo transfer technologies developed for livestock are now being adapted for endangered wild animals. redit: 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 collection 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. Determining the efficacy and appropriateness of technologies depends on biological, sociopo- litical, and economic factors. Taken together, these factors influence decisionmaking and must be considered in defining objectives for maintaining diversity and for identifying strat- egies 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 conserva- tion management. Political factors also influence conservation objectives and management systems. Commit- ments of government resources, policies, and programs determine the focus of attention, and to a large extent, such commitments reflect pub- lic interests and support. For example, a dis- proportionate share of U.S. resources is devoted to programs for a few of the many endangered species. Substantial sums have been spent in llth-hour efforts to save the California condor and the black-footed ferret, while other endan- gered organisms such as invertebrate species receive little attention. The applicability of management systems also depends on economic factors. Costs of alter- native management systems and the value of resources to be conserved may be relatively clear in the case of genetic resources. For ex- ample, the benefits of plant breeding programs compared with the cost of seed maintenance justify germplasm storage technologies. How- ever, cost-benefit analysis is more difficult when benefits are diffuse and accrue over a long period. And onsite maintenance programs com- pete with other interests for land, personnel, and funds. Success in maintaining biological diversity depends largely on institutions that develop and apply the various technologies. Within the United States, a variety of laws in addition to public and private programs address various aspects of diversity conservation. But while 8 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity some aspects of diversity are covered, other aspects are ignored. Table 1-3 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 con- servation lavifs and supports programs through bilateral and multilateral assistance channels. However, many of these programs have too lit- tle support to be effective in resolving interna- tionally important problems. Both domestic and international institutions deal with aspects of diversity. Some focus at- tention exclusively on maintaining certain agri- cultural crops, such as wheat, and others fo- cus on certain wild species, such as whales and migratory waterfowl. A shift has occurred in recent years from the traditional species pro- tection approach to a more encompassing eco- system maintenance approach. Much of the work important to diversity main- tenance is done in isolation and is too disjunct to address the full range of concerns. And some concerns receive little or no attention. For ex- ample, the objectives of the USDA's National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) place primary emphasis on economic plants and little empha- sis on non-crop species. Similarly, programs to protect endangered wild species direct at- tention away from species that are threatened but not listed as endangered. The lack of con- nections between programs is another institu- tional 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 na- ture of biological extinction, policymakers must continue to address the problem of diminish- ing biological diversity. A significant increase in attention and funding in this area seems con- sistent with U.S. interests, in view of the bene- fits the United States currently derives from biological diversity and the advances that bio- technology might achieve given a diversity of genetic resources. In addition, enough infor- mation exists to define priorities for diversity maintenance and to provide a rationale for tak- ing 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 Con- gress. These options are discussed under five major issues: 1. strengthening the national commitment, 2. increasing the Nation's ability to maintain biological diversity, 3. enhancing the knowledge base, 4. supporting international initiatives, and 5. addressing loss of biological diversity in developing countries. For each issue, alternative or complementary options are presented. These range from legis- lative initiatives to programmatic changes within Federal agencies. Options also define opportunities to cultivate or support private sec- tor 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. Strengthen the National Commitment To Maintain Biological Diversity The national commitment to maintain bio- logical diversity could be strengthened. Despite society's reliance on biological resources for sustenance and economic development, loss of diversity has yet to emerge as a major concern among decisionmakers. About 2 percent of the national budget is spent on natural resources- related programs, which include diversity-con- servation programs as one subset. A number of government and private pro- grams address maintenance of biological diver- sity, but most programs have objectives too nar- Ch. 1 —Summary and Options for Congress • 9 Table 1-3.— Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance Common name Resource affected U.S. Code Onsile diversity mandates: Lacey Act of 1900 wild animals 16 U.S.C. 667, 701 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 wild birds 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 wild birds 16 U.S.C. 715 et seq. Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (Pittman-Robertson Act) wild animals 16 U.S.C. 669 et seq. Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 wild birds 16 U.S.C. 668 et seq. Wfialing Convention Act of 1949 wild animals 16 U.S.C. 916 et seq. Fisti Restoration and Management Act of 1950 (Dingell-Johnson Act) fisfieries 16 U.S.C. 777 et seq. Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-304) fisfieries 16 U.S.C. 757a-f Fur Seal Act of 1966 {Public Law 89-702) wild animals 16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 wild animals 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) wild plants and 7 U.S.C. 136 animals 16 U.S.C. 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372, 1402, 1531 et seq. Magnuson FIsfiery Conservation and Management Act of 1977 (Public Law 94-532) fistieries 16 U.S.C. 971, 1362, 1801 et seq. Wtiale Conservation and Protection Study Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-532) wild animals 16 U.S.C. 915 et seq. Fisfi and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-366) wild animals 16 U.S.C, 2901 et seq. Salmon and Steelfiead Conservation and Enhancement Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-561) fisheries 16 U.S.C. 1823 et seq. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 terrestrial/aquatic 16 U.S.C. 694 habitats Fish and Game Sanctuary Act of 1934 sanctuaries 16 U.S.C. 694 Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act of 1935 natural landmarks 16 U.S.C. 461-467 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 wildlife sanctuaries 15 U.S.C. 713 et seq. 16 U.S.C. 742 et seq. Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) wilderness areas 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Public Law 91-135) refuges 16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-542) river segments 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-532) coastal areas 16 U.S.C. 1431-1434 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1402, 1411-1421, 1441-1444 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579) public domain lands 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012 16 U.S.C. 5, 79, 420, 460, 478, 522, 523, 551, 1339 30 U.S.C. 50, 51, 191 40 U.S.C. 319 43 use. 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 National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-588) national forest lands 16 U.S.C. 472, 500, 513, 515, 516, 518, 521, 576, 581, 1600, 1601-1614 Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-514) .... public domain lands 16 U.S.C. 1332, 1333 43 use. 1739, 1751- 1753, 1901-1908 Offsite diversity mandates: Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (Research and Marketing Act) .... agricultural plants 5 U.S.C. 5315 and animals 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 use. 3122 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) wild plants and 7 U.S.C. 136 animals 16 U.S.C. 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372, 1402, 1531 et seq. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-307) tree germplasm 16 U.S.C, 1641-1647 NOTE; Laws enacted prior to 1957 are cited by Chapter and not Public Law number. SOURCE: Office of Tectinology Assessment, 1986 10 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity Table 1-4.— Summary of Policy Issues for Congressional Action Related to Biological Diversity Maintenance Issue Finding Options Strengthen national commitment Increase ability to maintain biological diversity Enhance knowledge base Support international initiatives Address loss in developing countries Adopt a comprehensive approach to maintaining biological diversity Increase public awareness of biological diversity issues Improve research, technology development and application Fill gaps and inadequacies in existing programs Improve data collection, maintenance, and use Provide greater leadership in the international arena Promote the exchange of genetic resources Amend Foreign Assistance Act Enhance capability of the Agency for International Development Establish alternative funding sources for biological diversity projects 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 offsite 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 germplasm 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 SOURCE; Office of Tecfinology Assessment, 1987. 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 Fed- eral programs, but they do not provide a com- prehensive national commitment and thus leave many aspects of the problem uncovered. Federal agencies, for example, coordinate the onsite conservation activities mentioned spe- cifically in Federal species protection laws, such as those under the authority of the En- dangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93- 205), but no formal institutional mechanism ex- ists 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 prod- ucts of the soil" (7 U.S.C.A. 427), but it is inter- preted 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. 1— 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 di- versity. Significant gaps in existing pro- grams could be identified with such an ap- proach, and the resources of organizations concerned with the issue could be better al- located. Improved coordination could create opportunities to enhance effectiveness and efficiency of Federal, State, and private pro- grams 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 pri- vate organizations already provide the frame- work 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 re- source management programs. Some of them, such as the Endangered Species Program, ad- dress diversity more directly but are concerned with only one facet of the problem. Duplica- tion of efforts, conflicts in goals, and gaps in geographic and taxonomic coverage are con- sequences. To resolve this institutional problem, a com- prehensive 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 organiza- tions. Programs and organizations would there- by 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 respon- sibilities for which they are best suited. More- over, financial support for diversity maintenance could be more effectively distributed. A step in this direction has been taken in recent ini- tiatives, but congressional commitment to such an endeavor is necessary to ensure that efforts will be made to achieve a comprehensive ap- proach to maintaining biological diversity. Option 1.1: Enact legislation that recognizes the importance of maintaining biological diver- sity as a national objective. Current legislation addressing the loss of bio- logical diversity in the United States is largely piecemeal. Although many Federal laws affect conservation of diversity, few refer to it spe- cifically. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 is the only legislation that mandates the conservation of a "diversity of plant and ani- mal communities," but it offers no explicit direction on the meaning and scope of diver- sity maintenance. Consequently, existing Federal programs fo- cus on sustaining specific ecosystems, species, or gene pools, or on protecting endangered wildlife. Species protection laws authorize Fed- eral agencies to manage specific animal popu- lations and their habitats. Habitat protection laws authorize the acquisition or designation of habitats under Federal stewardship. Federal laws for offsite maintenance of plants author- ize the collection and genetic development of plant species that demonstrate potential eco- nomic value. The Endangered Species Act authorizes pro- tection of species considered threatened or en- dangered in the United States. However, list- ing 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 comprehen- sive approach. Such an act could explicitly state maintenance of diversity as a national goal, establish mechanisms for coordinating activi- ties, and set priorities for diversity conserva- tion. A national policy could bring about co- operation 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 diver- sity is the desirable goal. Finally, to be effec- tive, 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 address- ing diversity maintenance is to develop a Na- tional Conservation Strategy (NCS). This strat- egy 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 ad- ministrators could identify measures to reduce overlap and duplication, to minimize jurisdic- tional 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 coun- tries, but also including Canada and the United Kingdom) have initiated concrete steps to pre- pare 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 adminis- trative 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 com- mission could do the following: • assess the adequacy of existing programs to conserve biological diversity; • formulate a national policy on mainte- nance 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 main- tenance relates to other conservation and development interests; and • include a public consultation and informa- tion 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. Cre- ated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, CEQ already prepares annual reports for the President on the state of the environ- ment. In doing so, it uses the services of public and private agencies, organizations, and indi- viduals and hence has the experience and au- thority to bring together various interest groups and expertise. On the other hand, CEQ, though fully staffed in the 1970s with a range of envi- ronmental experts, now has only a small staff of administrators. Coordinating and guiding the substantive development of an NCS is thus be- yond 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 imple- mentation 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. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 13 nance of biological diversity an explicit con- sideration of Federal agencies' activities. A number of Federal programs affecting biologi- cal 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 crea- tion of new programs, or they could lead to modified objectives for existing programs. In either case, the amendments should redirect certain policies, consolidate conservation ef- forts, and provide criteria for settling conflicts. An amendment for Federal land managing agen- cies, for example, could require that these agen- cies make diversity conservation a priority in decisions relating to land acquisition, disposal, and exchange. Such amendments virould probably be resisted by individual Federal agencies, which could ar- gue 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 sys- tematic review of all Federal resource legisla- tion will be needed to determine how existing statutory mandates and programs affect the conservation of diversity and how they comple- ment or contradict one another, and to desig- nate which programs are most in need of revi- sion. Such a complex review will take time and money and is likely to be opposed by agencies. FINDING 2: Because maintenance of biologi- cal 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 ac- cepted by the public, or they will be replaced or overshadowed by shorter term concerns. Conveying the importance of biological diver- sity requires formulating the issue in terms that are technically correct yet understand- able and convincing to the general public. To undertake the initiative will require not only biologists but also social scientists and edu- cators working together. Diversity loss has not captured public atten- tion for three reasons. First, it is a complex con- cept 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 spec- tacular 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 agri- cultural crops, are gradual processes rather than dramatic events. Third, most benefits of maintaining diversity are often diffuse, un- priced, and reaped over the long-term, result- ing in relatively low economic values being as- signed to the goods and services provided. The benefits of diversity, therefore, are not pre- sented concretely and competitively with other issues. Consequently, the public and policy- makers generally lack an appreciation of pos- sible consequences of diversity loss. Notwithstanding these difficulties, environ- mental quality has been a major public policy concern since the 1970s, and it remains firmly entrenched in the consciousness of the Amer- ican 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 diver- sity, this predisposition of Americans could be built on to develop support for diversity main- tenance programs. Biological diversity benefits a variety of spe- cial 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, ani- mal breeders, recreational hunters, indigenous peoples, wilderness enthusiasts, tourists, and all those who enjoy nature. The combined in- terests of all these groups could cultivate a na- tional commitment to maintaining biological diversity, if properly orchestrated. 14 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity Option 2.1: Promote public education about bio- logical diversity by establishing a National Conservation Education Act. Just as sustaining support to enhance envi- ronmental quality required public education programs, so too will a concerted national ef- fort to conserve biological diversity require a strong public education effort. A National Con- servation Education Act could be patterned af- ter the Environmental Education Act of 1971 (Public Law 91-516), which authorized the U.S. Commissioner of Education to establish edu- cation programs that would encourage under- standing of environmental policies.^ A new act could support programs and cur- ricula 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 ma- terials for mass media programs. The act could support interaction among existing State envi- ronmental education programs, such as those in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and encourage the establishment of new programs in other States. The Department of Education could pro- vide consulting services to school districts to develop education programs. An attempt to establish additional environ- mental education legislation might be opposed because of the trend to reduce the Federal Gov- ernment's role in education and to rely more on State and private sector initiatives. There- fore, it could be argued that private organiza- tions, such as the Center for Environmental Education, are the appropriate agents to in- crease public awareness. It could also be ar- gued that Federal agencies are already educat- ing 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 Law 97-35 in 1981, and the Department of Education has requested no funds for environ- mental education in its 1987 budget. legislation would require additional appropri- ations, 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 in- ternational diversity conservation issues that affect the United States. Even more difficult than increasing the pub- lic's awareness of domestic issues in biologi- cal diversity is increasing their awareness of the relevance of diversity loss in other coun- tries. In addition to humanitarian and ethical reasons, maintaining diversity in other coun- tries benefits the United States by sustaining biological resources needed for American agri- culture, pharmacology, and biotechnology in- dustries, and by sustaining natural resources necessary for commerce and economic devel- opment. Maintaining biological diversity for security and quality of life enhancement, and the wis- dom of incorporating such issues into U.S. for- eign assistance efforts, are justification for Con- gress 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 organi- zations (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 Di- versity in Developing Countries. As a group, they have identified public education as a ma- jor role for NGOs. The grassroots approach of NGOs is con- ducive to heightening public awareness, as il- lustrated by the support for programs to allevi- ate famine in Africa. Recognizing the potential of NGOs to stimulate public awareness and dis- cussion 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. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 15 1980 with Title III, Section 316, to further the goals of Section 103.^ This amendment provides NGOs with Biden- Pell matching grants to support programs that educate U.S. citizens about the Hnks between American progress and progress in develop- ing countries. The Agency for International De- velopment (AID] has used these grants mainly to promote American understanding of the problems faced by farmers in developing coun- tries and how resolution of those problems ben- efits 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 fur- ther 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 tech- nologies 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 re- quire 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 bio- logical resources. The problem of diversity loss has been recognized relatively recendy, and sci- entists have just begun to focus attention on =Sec. 103, entitled "Agriculture. Rural Development and Nu- trition," recognizes that the majority of people in developing countries live in rural areas and close to subsistence. It author- izes the President to furnish assistance to alleviate hunger and malnutrition, enhance the capacity of rural people, and to help create productive on- and off-farm employment. Sec. 316 en- courages private and voluntary organizations to facilitate vifide- spread public discussion, analysis, and review of the issues of world hunger. It especially calls for increased public awareness of the political, economic, technical, and social factors affect- ing hunger and poverty. it. Progress is slow partly because basic re- search 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 im- plies 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 re- ward systems and prestige factors deter many scientists from engaging in work that translates basic science into practical tools. Several Fed- eral agencies support basic biology and ecol- ogy research, but too little support exists for synthesis of the research into technologies. Improved links between research and man- agement systems, that is, technology transfer, can increase efficiency, effectiveness, and abil- ity for maintaining diversity. For example, un- derstanding 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 agri- cultural varieties, such as cryogenics and tis- sue culture, may be valuable tools for maintain- ing rare or threatened wild plant species, even if only as backup collections. FINDING 3: Current technologies are insuffi- cient to prevent further erosion of biological resources. Thus, increasing the Nation's abil- ity to maintain biological diversity will re- quire acceleration of basic research as well as research in development and implemen- tation 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 re- stricted focus of basic research and technol- ogy 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 em- phasis is necessary in research funding. Agen- cies 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 ori- ented toward supporting basic research. For example, research funds are available for de- scriptive 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 re- search results in academic journals. These in- centives discourage broad, long-term studies and neglect analyzing research results to de- velop 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 conserva- tion per se, activities to conserve aspects of diversity (i.e., ecosystems, wild species, agri- cultural crops, and livestock) have had signifi- cant impact. These efforts are not likely to re- place public or national programs, but they could be an integral part of the Nation's attempt to maintain its biological heritage. Option 3.1: Direct the National Science Foun- dation to establish a program for conserva- tion biology. The field of conservation biology seeks to de- velop scientific principles and then apply those principles to developing technologies for diver- sity 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 aca- demic 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 negli- gible, in large part because NSF considers it to be too applied, while other government agen- cies consider it to be too theoretical. Congress could encourage scientists to specialize in con- servation biology by establishing within NSF a separate conservation biology research pro- gram that would support the broad spectrum of basic and applied research directed at de- veloping and applying science and technology to biological diversity conservation. To enhance interprogram links, this program could fund studies that integrate onsite and off- site 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 accel- erate its acceptance and growth within the sci- entific community and the development of new principles and technology. Current statutory authority of NSF would cover such a program. NSF programs are sup- posed to support both basic and applied scien- tific research relevant to national problems in- volving 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. Further- more, NSF might argue that a new research pro- gram is not needed because its Division of Bi- otic Systems and Resources already supports about 60 basic research projects that address biological diversity issues. These projects, how- ever, largely ignore the social, economic, po- litical, and management aspects of biological diversity, and conservation is usually of sec- ondary importance to the projects. An alternative to establishing an NSF pro- gram could be to enhance or redirect existing programs in other agencies to promote research in diversity maintenance. The Institute of Ch. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 17 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 un- related to biological research. Thus, IMS would be unable, with its current funding, to take greater responsibility for technology develop- ment; new appropriations would be necessary. Development and application of diversity- conserving technologies could also be funded through other Federal agencies' research pro- grams. Congress could encourage appropriate agencies to increase emphasis on development of diversity technology. One source of funding is through the USDA Competitive Research Grants Office (CRGO). At present, the only re- search related to genetic resources funded by USDA-CRGO is in the area of molecular ge- netics. As a result, little funding is available for scientists seeking to conduct research in germ- plasm preservation, maintenance, evaluation, and use. Option 3.2: Establish a National Endowment for Biological Diversity. Congress could establish a National Endow- ment 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 orga- nizations and individuals are currently mak- ing significant contributions to the mainte- nance of the Nation's diversity. Frequently, they undertake activities that Federal and State agen- cies 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 genetic resources.^ Funding, however, is a major constraint for nearly all these private activities. A program of small grants with a ceil- ing of perhaps $25,000 per grant (similar to the grants awarded by IMS) could make a substan- tial contribution to the shoestring budgets of these small organizations and thus enhance na- tional efforts to maintain biological diversity at relatively little cost. A National Endowment for Biological Diver- sity could provide funds to private organiza- tions to carry out the following: • support research and application of meth- ods to conserve biological diversity, • award fellowships and grants for training, • foster and support education programs to increase public understanding and appre- ciation 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 Human- ities 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 endow- ment is the availability of funds during this period of severe budget cutbacks. However, even a small program could significantly en- courage 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 Gov- ernment and raise the remainder of the endow- ment from private sector contributions. "For further discussion, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technol- ogy Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diver- sity 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 fund- ing and personnel, lack of links to other pro- grams, or lack of complementary programs in related fields. Much is already being done to maintain cer- tain aspects of diversity in the United States, but efforts are constrained by shrinking budgets and personnel. And as noted earlier, the pro- grams addressing biological diversity are piece- meal rather than comprehensive or strategic. Whether or not Congress chooses to promote a comprehensive strategy for diversity main- tenance, specific attention is needed to remedy the major gaps and inadequacies in existing programs. Option 4. 1 : Provide increased funding to exist- ing programs for maintenance of diversity. A number of governmental programs for di- versity maintenance already exist, some be- cause 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 ben- efit from higher levels of funding. The NPGS of the Agricultural Research Serv- ice 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 capac- ity in 2 years. At the same time, NSSL is being pressured to increase collection and mainte- nance of wild plant germplasm. NPGS is at- tempting 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 ap- proximately $16 million, but to support current programs adequately would cost about $40 mil- lion (1981 dollars] annually. Similarly underfunded and understaffed is the Endangered Species Program of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A review of this program shows a substantial and growing backlog of im- portant 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 await- ing 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 re- sult, increase the viability of stored germplasm through more frequent testing and regenera- tion of accessions. NSSL could increase its effi- ciency by expanding storage capacity and adopting new technologies. For example, cryo- genic storage could be used to reduce mainte- nance cost and space, thereby enabling a larger collection of germplasm. Likewise, the Endan- gered Species Program would be able to assess candidate species faster and to develop and im- plement 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 pro- grams is inadequate. By amending appropri- ate legislation, Congress could encourage the complementary use of onsite and offsite tech- nologies. For example, the Endangered Species Act could be amended to encourage use of cap- tive 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 cap- tive breeding and propagation are outside the Ch. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 19 scope of natural resource management agen- cies; rather, they are in the province of zoos, botanic gardens, arboretums, and agricultural research stations. By mandating that recovery plans give spe- cific consideration to captive breeding and propagation. Congress could encourage links between separate programs. The approach could be broadened to encourage cooperative efforts betw/een public and private organiza- tions working offsite and onsite to conserve eco- system and genetic diversity. A model for such efforts exists in the emerging cooperation be- tween the Center for Plant Conservation (net- work 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 pro- grams is the lack of a formal national program to maintain domestic animal genetic resources. Congress could establish a program to coordi- nate activities for animal germplasm conser- vation, thereby reducing duplication and en- couraging complementary actions. Such a program could be established through clarifi- cation of the Agricultural Research Service mandate. An animal program could parallel the National Plant Germplasm System, but other structures should be explored as well. Alter- natively, 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 ani- mal germplasm program and to discuss alter- native structures and scope of such a program. Coordination of international efforts is also needed to preserve the diversity of agricultur- ally important animals. Some efforts have al- ready been made, and the concept of an inter- national program is gaining support. Congress could encourage the establishment of an Inter- national Board for Animal Genetic Resources (IBAGR). This program could parallel the In- ternational Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR). An IBAGR could set standards and coordinate the exchange and storage of germ- plasm 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. eco- system diversity. Numerous types of ecosys- tems, 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 eco- systems 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 agen- cies 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 mecha- nism to acquire land not already in the Fed- eral domain, possibly through land exchanges. Nevertheless, Congress could recognize the RNA system as a mechanism and direct agen- cies 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. In- formation on the status and trends in biologi- cal systems is also needed for public policy. The first step in developing such information is fun- damental descriptions of the various compo- nents — species, communities, and ecosystems. Data can then be analyzed to determine how best to maintain biological diversity. More spe- cifically, baseline data are needed for the fol- lowing activities: • assessing the abundance, condition, and distribution of species, communities, and ecosystems; • disclosing changes that may be taking place; 20 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity • monitoring the effectiveness of resource management plans once they are imple- mented; 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 mitiga- tive 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 with- out 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 sup- plied without improvements in data collec- tion, maintenance, and synthesis. Policymakers need comprehensive informa- tion on the ramifications and scope of diver- sity loss. Information provided by the scientific community should be a basis for resource pol- icy and management decisions. To serve in the context of public policy, data should satisfy four criteria: 1. The data must be oi high quality, that is, it must meet accepted standards of objec- tivity, completeness, reproducibility, and accuracy. 2. The data must have value; that is, it must address a worthwhile problem. 3. The data must be apphcable; 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 ac- curacy and authority. Much information is already available but not in an assimilated form useful to decision- makers. Data on the status and trends of bio- logical diversity are scattered among Federal, State, and foreign agencies and private orga- nizations. Consolidation of these data is nec- essary to identify gaps, to provide a compre- hensive understanding of the status of the Earth's biota, and especially to define priori- ties 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 dis- semination efforts. It could serve government agencies, private organizations, corporations, and individuals. The clearinghouse could per- form the following functions: • survey and catalog existing Federal, State, private, and international databases on bio- logical resources; • evaluate the quality of databases; • provide small grants and personnel sup- port services to strengthen existing data- bases; 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. setting of priorities for conservation action; 2. monitoring trends; 3. developing an alert system for adverse trends; 4. identifying gaps and reviewing needs to fill them; 5. facilitating development of environmental impact assessments; and 6. evaluating options, actions, and successes and failures. As a data-coordinating body, the clearing- house could guide efforts to collect data on bio- logical diversity, which will provide a compre- Ch. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 21 hensive perspective that Federal agencies cannot supply because of their varied man- dates. Access to previously inaccessible data would be facilitated, which should reduce duplication of efforts. By evaluating the qual- ity of information, the clearinghouse could help eliminate a general distrust among users of other databases. Access to a diversity of data- bases means that no standardized system is forced on data users, which has been a formida- ble obstacle to database integration and use. The clearinghouse would not necessarily maintain its own primary database. Commer- cial databases in the public domain could be included in the system, and proprietary and other limited-access databases could be re- viewed regularly, with permission. Database enhancements to cover gaps could be funded by small grants. The clearinghouse's informa- tion 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 infor- mation on biological diversity in international databases. It could provide a small amount of financial and personnel aid to help interna- tional 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 Educa- tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB), and The Nature Conservancy Interna- tional. 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 agen- cies' databases would be politically sensitive. Questions such as the size, administrative struc- ture, and cost of a clearinghouse program must be answered as well. Because it would not main- tain its own primary database, however, such a clearinghouse would not need to be a large- scale operation. Option 5.2: Provide funding to enhance the ex- isting network of natural heritage conserva- tion data centers. A number of State governments, aided by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), have already estab- lished 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 con- servation. All centers use a standardized for- mat to collect and synthesize data. The result has been a vehicle to exchange and to aggregate information about what is happening to bio- logical 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 (in- cluding 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 Fed- eral-State-private partnership, the action by Congress could reinforce the application of standard methods, enhance interagency com- patibility, improve the efficiency of biological data collection and management, and facilitate the free exchange of useful information. More- over, 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, documen- tation, 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. Al- though this fund is used mainly for land acqui- sition, it could also support preacquisition ac- tivities 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 f o Maintain Biological Diversity Most biological resources belong to individ- ual nations. However, many benefits from di- versity accrue internationally. American ag- riculture, 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 interna- tional political and technical cooperation. Ex- amples of such problems include the interna- tional 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 politi- cal prestige needed to initiate international co- operation, and it leads the world in much of the technical expertise needed, such as funda- mental 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 conser- vation initiatives, and precedence exists for ex- tending this leadership to an international or global approach for conserving biological diver- sity. 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 tech- nical, administrative, and financial measures to encourage programs for conserving diver- sity. 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 ab- dicate leadership in international conserva- tion efforts, with the result that international initiatives are weakened or stalled in the trop- ical regions where diversity losses are most severe. Renewed U.S. commitment could ac- celerate the pace of international achieve- ments in conservation. The United States has been a model and an active leader in international conservation activ- ity. The movement toward establishment of na- tional parks worldwide grew out of the United States. In the early 1970s, the United States was a leader in international environmental and re- source deliberations, notably in the 1972 UN- sponsored Stockholm Conference on the Hu- man Environment. U.S. leadership, for exam- ple, played an important role in establishing the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and in securing the Convention on In- ternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the World Heritage Convention, all important foundations of current international efforts to support main- tenance of biological diversity. However, U.S. support for these kinds of ini- tiatives has declined. The retrenchment in sup- port reflects austerity measures as well as dis- satisfaction with the performance of specific international organizations. Effective interna- tional projects, such as UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program, have suffered by asso- ciation. U.S. support of international conservation ef- forts is pivotal in that the United States has greater resources and stronger technical abili- ties than most other countries to address the complex issue of diversity loss. Without greater initiative and access to resources, many coun- tries 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. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 23 resources to address the problem, even though benefits commonly extend beyond their coun- tries. It would seem equitable for those coun- tries that benefit, including the United States, to share more fully in efforts to conserve diver- sity in countries otherwise unable to do so. Option 6.1: Sustain or increase support of in- ternational organizations and conventions. International conservation initiatives are im- portant tools for long-term conservation of bio- logical diversity. Yet, existing international agreements are often poorly implemented be- cause of lack of adequate administrative ma- chinery (e.g., adequately funded and staffed sec- retariats), lack of financial support for on-the- ground programs (e.g., equipment, training, and staff), and lack of reciprocal obligations that could serve as incentives to comply. An exception is CITES, which has mecha- nisms to facilitate reciprocal trade controls and a technical secretariat. The existence of this ma- chinery 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 con- serve their wildlife resources. This law has been a powerful tool for wildlife conservation through- out the world because the United States is a ma- jor importer of wildlife specimens and products. U.S. contributions to international conserva- tion programs have been diminishing recently. The appropriation cycle for funding such pro- grams 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, usu- ally contributes at least one-fourth of the bud- get. In the fiscal years of 1979 to 1982, U.S. con- tributions 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-HoUings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Con- trol Act. Congress could maintain or increase U.S. support of international organizations and pro- grams in several ways. Congress could ensure that these organizations receive adequate an- nual appropriations and could conduct over- sight hearings to encourage the Administration to carry out the intent of Congress. One possible drawback associated with con- tributions 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 in- tergovernmental organizations. Also, objec- tivity 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 pro- vides objectivity in directing resources. Congress could also encourage or direct Fed- eral agencies to assign technical personnel to international organizations or to the secretari- ats of the various conventions. This option could be difficuh to implement without legis- lating 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: 1) press for more specific and 24 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity systematic MDB efforts to promote sound en- vironmental and resource policies akin to the World Bank's wildland policy, 2) work to make projects consistent with international and recipient country environmental policies and regulations, and 3) seek to involve recip- ient country environmental officials and non- governmental organizations in project formu- lation processes. A significant part of all international devel- opment assistance efforts are funded by the World Bank and regional MDBs. Thus, these organizations are uniquely situated to influence environmental aspects of development, includ- ing the maintenance of biological diversity. In fact, the MDBs' priorities and policies can be the single most important influence on the de- velopment model adopted by developing coun- tries. 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 devel- opment projects. The bank recognizes that al- though 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 environ- mental services or essential habitats to endan- gered species. To prevent the loss of these wild- land values, the policy specifies that the Bank will normally decline to finance projects in these areas and instead prefer projects on al- ready converted lands. Conversion of less im- portant wildlands must be justified and com- pensated 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 guid- ance 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 De- velopment Bank, Asian Development Bank, and six other multilaterals signed a "Declaration of Environmental Policies and Procedures Re- lating to Economic Development," and formed the Committee on International Development Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE), un- der the auspices of the United Nations Envi- ronment Programme. The agencies agreed to systematic environmental analysis of activities funded for environmental programs and proj- ects. 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 pol- icies remain strong. And it is too soon to deter- mine the effectiveness of the World Bank's wild- land 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 con- siderable influence on bank poHcies, which are determined by boards of directors. The primary way Congress affects policies of these banks is by requesting that the U.S. ex- ecutive directors — who are responsible to the Secretary of the Treasury— carry out congres- sionally 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 Re- port stated guidelines for the U.S. executive di- rectors (Sec. 539), which included the addition of relevant staff, development of management plans, and commitment to increase the propor- tion of programs supporting environmentally beneficial projects. To continue this guidance, Congress could require the U.S. executive di- rectors of MDBs to encourage the adoption of a policy similar to the World Bank's wildlands policy statement. FINDING 7: Constraints on international ex- change of genetic resources could jeopardize future agricultural production and progress in biotechnologies. Such constraints are be- coming more likely because developing coun- tries with sovereignty over most such re- sources believe that the industrial nations have benefited at their expense. Debates on Ch. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 25 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 cur- rently grown in various countries have origi- nated elsewhere. Coffee, for example, is native to the highlands of Ethiopia. Yet, today, it rep- resents an important source of income for farmers in other parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Maize, originally from Central Amer- ica, is grown as a staple crop in North Amer- ica and Africa. Countries continue to depend on access to germplasm from outside their borders to maintain or enhance agricultural productivity. Political and economic consider- ations, however, are now prompting national governments to restrict access to their germ- plasm. Behind these efforts is an implicit de- sire by some countries to obtain greater com- pensation for the genetic resources that are currently made freely available. The International Board for Plant Genetic Re- sources (IBPGR] is the main international in- stitution dealing with the offsite conservation of plant genetic diversity. Established in 1974, it promotes the establishment of national pro- grams and regional centers for the conserva- tion of plant germplasm. It has provided train- ing facilities, carried out research in techniques of plant germplasm conservation, supported numerous collection missions, and provided limited financial assistance for conservation fa- cilities. However, it does not operate any germ- plasm storage facilities itself. Due in part to the success of IBPGR in focus- ing 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 in- dustrial nations which, in turn, have profited at their expense. This controversy led the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) to spon- sor an International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. The undertaking proposed an international germplasm conservation net- work under the auspices of FAO. It declared that each nation has a duty to make all plant genetic materials— including advanced breed- ing materials— freely available. IBPGR was to continue its current work, but it would be mon- itored 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 in- ternational collections for political and eco- nomic reasons. Also of concern to some par- ties 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 va- rieties 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. Neverthe- less, the perception of inequity in the current situation is real, and it could result in increas- ing national restrictions on access to and ex- port of germplasm. Further, the issue of con- trol over genetic resources could become a significant stumbling block to establishing in- ternational commitment and cooperation in the maintenance of overall biological diversity. Option 7.1: Closely examine the actions avail- able to the United States regarding the issue of international exchange of genetic resources. Efforts to address the conservation and ex- change of plant genetic resources in the FAO forum have been controversial. It is not yet ap- parent how the United States should act in this regard. Congress could give increased atten- tion 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 is- sue. In fact, NAS has already indicated inter- est 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 in- dividuals with interest and expertise in this area to define several general actions the United States might take in regard to international ex- change of genetic resources and the conse- quences associated with it. Another option is to favor the status quo, ig- noring the criticisms and avoiding the risk that new political actions might disrupt effective sci- entific working arrangements. A practical in- ternational flow of germplasm is likely to con- tinue 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 na- tions into conflicts over breeders' rights or ac- cess 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 under- taking without major reservations. Such a change in domestic law seems politically un- likely, given domestic benefits provided by plant breeders' rights and the effective lobby- ing 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 inter- nationally supported commitment to help coun- tries conserve and develop their genetic re- sources. Parallel agreements also might be developed for domestic animal, marine, and microbial resources. Such agreements could also define national and international obliga- tions to collect and conserve the germplasm that is being displaced by new varieties or by chang- ing patterns of agricultural developments. Finally, U.S. representatives could consider promoting a discussion of genetic resource ex- changes outside formal channels in an effort to separate the technical issues from emotional ones. The Keystone Center, an environmental mediation organization, is exploring the pos- sibility 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 amend- ment to the Export Administration Act. Specific allegations have been made that the United States has restricted the access to germ- plasm in national collections (at the National Plant Germplasm System) for political reasons. The government, however, maintains that it ad- heres to the principles of free exchange. To reinforce recent executive affirmations of the free flow of germplasm, Congress could ex- empt the export of germplasm contained in na- tional 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 al- 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 interna- tional situation counter to U.S. interests. In such a case, no action would be preferable to an amendment. Ch. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 27 Address Less ef Bielegical Diversity in Developing Countries The United States has a stake in promoting the maintenance of biological diversity in de- veloping 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 assist- ing developing countries rests on: 1] recogni- tion of the substantial existing and potential benefits of maintaining a diversity of plants, animals, and microbes; 2) evidence that degra- dation 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 inter- ests, passed Section 119 of the Foreign Assis- tance 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 assis- tance, 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 wild- life 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 meas- ures; and to identify, study, and catalog ani- mal and plant species, especially in tropical environments. A review of AID initiatives since 1983 sug- gests 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, includ- ing: 1] a belief that the agency is already ad- dressing biological diversity to the extent it should, 2] reduced levels of budgets and staff to initiate projects, and 3) an inadequate num- ber of trained personnel to address conserva- tion concerns generally. Several questions arise in relation to the ca- pacity and the appropriateness of U.S. commit- ments to support diversity conservation efforts through bilateral development assistance. First, it is unclear whether Section 119, as the prin- cipal legislation dealing with concerns over diversity loss outside the United States, defines U.S. interests too narrowly. Second, it is un- certain how Section 119 relates to the principal goals of foreign assistance, as specified in sec- tion 101. Finally, questions remain concerning the commitment of resources and personnel to address U.S. interests in maintaining diversity in developing countries. FINDING 8: Existing legislation may be inade- quate and inappropriate to address U.S. in- terests in maintaining biological diversity in developing countries. Maintaining diversity will depend primarily on onsite maintenance. The "special effort" ini- tiatives 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. bi- lateral development assistance. That is, estab- lishing protected areas and supporting anti- poaching measures can have adverse impacts on populations that derive benefits from exploit- ing 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 popula- tions (e.g., for fuelwood or agricultural land) may threaten diversity and even the sustain- ability of the resource base on which they de- pend. It does, however, raise questions on the appropriateness of supporting activities that could place increased stress on these popu- lations. Second, existing legislation identifies con- cern over diversity loss separately from con- version 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 con- text of conservation— that is, as a wise use of natural resources, as elaborated in the World Conservation Strategy. In doing so, the objec- tives of diversity maintenance and development interests could be made more compatible. Finally, although Section 119 speaks of bio- logical diversity, the thrust of the legislation ad- dresses a narrower set of concerns — that of spe- cies extinction. While certainly a prominent concern, and perhaps even the central motiva- tion 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, ap- proach. This is particularly important with re- gard to preserving genetic resources of poten- tial benefit to agriculture or industry, which is the most strongly argued rationale for con- serving 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 bio- logical diversity in developing countries. The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) comes up for reauthorization in 1987. Major restruc- turing of the act is already being considered. Revamping could provide an opportunity to re- cast certain provisions of the legislation to bet- ter account for U.S. interests in maintaining diversity in developing countries. Providing for conservation of natural re- sources 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 poach- ing controls without specific reference to im- pacts on indigenous populations. Congress could correct this potential conflict by adding language to Section 119 such as, "Support for biological diversity projects should be consist- ent with the interests, particular needs, and par- ticipation of local populations. " It is widely rec- ognized that the viability of protected areas is largely contingent on these provisions. Adding such language would thus provide greater con- sistency within the objectives of FAA as well as specify criteria that heighten chances of project success. In addition. Congress could recast the lan- guage of existing legislation to provide a fuller accounting of U.S. interests in maintaining di- versity in developing countries. Such changes could expand from a focus on endangered spe- cies to the loss of biological systems, includ- ing ecosystems and genetic resources. Such an effort might also emphasize practical aspects of conservation initiatives of particular inter- est to developing countries and stress the goal of promoting ability and initiatives of the coun- tries themselves. Finally, Congress could combine those sec- tions of FAA that deal with natural resources and environmental issues to reflect the inter- relatedness 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 im- portant. 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. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 29 projects are not well established, however. Be- cause funding is minimal, it is all the more im- portant 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 increas- ing the number of AID staff with environmental training and an increased reliance on exper- tise 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 strate- gic approach in promoting initiatives for maintenance of biological diversity. The U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of Bio- logical 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 docu- ment was that although it contained 67 recom- mendations, it lacked any sense of priority or indication of funding sources to undertake these recommendations. In an attempt to ap- ply the recommendations to specific agency programs, AID drafted an Acton Plan on Con- serving Biological Diversity in Developing Countries (January 1986]. Comments received from AID overseas suggest that problems exist in translating the general principles and rec- ommendations of an agency plan into specific initiatives at the country level. A more refined approach to addressing diver- sity interests within the agency may be re- quired. Such an approach would seek to incor- porate 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 gen- eral 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 consider- ation of diversity concerns would, where appro- priate, become an integral part of sectoral pro- gramming and project design. Further, it would require that projects be reviewed and evaluated by the Bureau of Program and Policy Coordi- nation 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 doc- ument. As conceived, the concept paper exam- ines 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 techni- cal assistance, research, training, and institu- tional development would make it the appro- priate bureau for such a program. A constraint to this approach is that biological diversity proj- ects may continue to be separate rather than an integral part of development programs. The three regional bureaus of AID (i.e., Af- rica, Asia and Near East, and Latin America and the Caribbean] could also prepare docu- ments that identify important biological diver- sity initiatives in their regions. The Asia and Near East Bureau, in fact, has already prepared such a document that could be used in high- lighting regional priorities. A reluctance to di- rect scarce funds to diversity projects, at the expense of more traditional development proj- ects, 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 exist- ing diversity projects, especially given the ear- marking of funds. The most important focus of biological diver- sity 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 con- servation expertise in support of biological diversity initiatives. The ability of AID to promote biological diver- sity in developing countries is seriously under- mined by its lack of personnel trained in envi- ronmental sciences. While true at the agency headquarters, the problem is particularly acute in its overseas missions. Although AID desig- nates an environmental officer at each mission, the person usually has litde professional experi- ence or training in the area. Often environmen- tal duties are combined with numerous other duties; few AID personnel are full-time envi- ronmental officers. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to envision how AID can effec- tively promote biological diversity maintenance. Congress could direct AID to recruit and hire additional personnel with environmental sci- ence backgrounds or at a minimum provide in- creased training for existing staff. The near- term prospects for AID, however, point to a re- duction in an already overworked staff. It seems unlikely, therefore, that significant in-house conservation expertise will be developed. Con- sequently, addressing biological diversity within AID will depend on providing access to conservation expertise within other govern- ment 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 Agree- ments (PASA) and Resource Services Support Agreements (RSSA) allow interagency ex- changes of experts and services. AID currently has a RSSA with Fish and Wildlife Service for the services of a technical advisor to handle bio- logical diversity issues. These mechanisms could be used to facilitate further access to con- servation experts in other government agencies. A biological diversity program could be estab- lished within the existing Forestry Support Pro- gram, for example. The Forestry Support Pro- gram is an RSSA between AID and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide technical assistance to AID in the area of for- estry and natural resources. A diversity pro- gram 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 sup- porting AID projects, expertise within the pri- vate sector will also be needed to address AID's requirements. The Peace Corps is also seen as having spe- cial potential to support biological diversity projects. Cooperative agreements with the Na- tional 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 train- ing in this area. Another area of potential col- laboration 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 Pro- gram, which was terminated in the late 1970s. With the emergence of special interests in diver- sity maintenance. Congress could direct both Ch. 1— Summary and Options for Congress • 31 agencies to investigate re-establishing a simi- lar initiative focused on biological diversity projects. Section 119 of FAA states: . . . whenever feasible, the objectives of this sec- tion shall be accomplished through projects managed by appropriate private and voluntary organizations, or international, regional, or na- tional 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 de- veloping capacity to maintain diversity in de- veloping 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 manage- ment experts. Such partnership could continue to be encouraged by Congress through over- sight 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 proj- ects in developing countries is the shortage of funds. Present funding levels are insuffi- cient to address the scope of the problem ade- quately. Recently passed legislation earmarked $2.5 million of AID's 1987 funds for biological diver- sity 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 com- position 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 main- tenance could be derived. Option 10.1: Establish a new account within the AID budget to support biological diversity ini- tiatives identified in the Foreign Assistance Act. Sections 117, 118, and 119 of FAA all define congressional interest in conservation as an in- tegral aspect of development. With the excep- tion of the 1987 earmarking of funds for bio- logical diversity, no formal funding source has been attached to these sections. The result is that support for conservation initiatives gen- erally has been weak. Support has been further eroded recently because those functional ac- counts used for conservation projects— Agri- culture, Rural Development, and Nutrition; and Energy, Private Voluntary Organization, and Selected Development Activities— have re- ceived disproportionate funding cuts. Congress could define its support for the im- portance 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 estab- lished, however, an Environment and Natural Resources account could be used to define con- gressional concerns in this area. Specific ear- marking for biological diversity could be con- sidered within this new functional account. Option 10.2: Amend the Agricultural Trade De- velopment and Assistance Act of 1 954 speci- fying that funds from the Food for Peace Pro- gram (Public Law 480) could be used for projects that directly promote the conserva- tion 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 commodi- ties available at concessional rates with long- term, low-interest financing for debts incurred. Recipient countries resell the U.S. commodi- ties 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 de- velopment projects. Title II provides U.S. com- modities 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 manage- ment 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 eco- nomic 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 mainte- nance of biological diversity. Part I Introduction and Background Chapter 2 Importance of Biological Diversity CONTENTS Page Highlights 37 Definition 37 Benefits to Ecological Processes 39 Ecosystem Diversity 39 Species Diversity 41 Genetic Diversity 43 Benefits to Research 43 Ecosystem Diversity 43 Species Diversity 44 Genetic Diversity 45 Benefits to Cultural Heritage 46 Ecosystem Diversity 46 Species Diversity 46 Genetic Diversity 47 Benefits to Recreation and Tourism 48 Ecosystem Diversity 48 Species Diversity 49 Genetic Diversity 49 Benefits to Agriculture and Harvested Resources 49 Ecosystem Diversity 49 Species Diversity 50 Genetic Diversity 51 Values and Evaluation of Biological Diversity 53 Economic Value 53 Intrinsic Value 54 Constituencies of Diversity 54 Public Awareness 54 Balancing Interests and Perspectives 55 Chapter 2 References 55 Table Table No. Page 2-1. Examples of Benefits From Ecosystem, Species, and Genetic Diversity 38 Figure Figure No. Page 2-1. Krill: The Linchpin to the Antarctic Foodv^reb 42 Boxes Box No. Page 2-A. Components of Biological Diversity 38 2-B. Scales of Ecosystem Diversity 39 Chapter 2 Importance of Biological Diversity HIGHLIGHTS Biological diversity benefits human welfare directly, as various organisms are used to satisfy basic human needs, and indirectly, as diversity supports many processes essential to human survival and progress. The constituency for maintaining biological diversity is large but fragmented because many groups focus on various aspects of biological resources rather than on diversity per se. Constituents w^ho are politically articulate in support of diversity are usually motivated by its intrinsic values rather than its sub- stantial economic values. 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 innova- tions, and 3) to preserve choices for address- ing unpredictable problems and opportunities of future generations. Actual and potential eco- nomic uses range from subsistence foraging to genetic engineering. The essential services of ecosystems, such as moderating climate; con- centrating, fixing, and recycling nutrients; pro- ducing and preserving soils; and controlling pests and diseases are also dependent on bio- logical diversity. Finally, diversity has esthetic and ethical values. DEFINITION Biological diversity refers to the variety and variability among living organisms and the eco- logical complexes in which they occur. Diver- sity 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 chem- ical structures that are the molecular basis of heredity. Thus, the term encompasses the num- bers and relative abundance of different eco- systems, 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 re- duced or when the same number exists but a few become more abundant while others be- come 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 proc- esses. It contributes to research and education, cultural heritage, recreation and tourism, the development of new and existing plant and ani- mal 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 con- stituencies of diversity are discussed in the fi- nal sections. 37 38 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity Box 2- A. — Components of Biological Diversity Genetic characteristics are the features of plants and animals that are passed from one generation to the next through the mecha- nism of genes. Genes control the chemistry and structure of whole organisms; there- fore, the greater the diversity of genes, the greater the chance of having some individ- uals that can survive gradual environmental changes and a greater chance of having po- tential direct utility for people. Species is a taxonomic category ranking im- mediately below genus and including closely related, morphologically similar individuals that actually or potentially interbreed. Habitat is the place where a species finds the required combination of food, cover, water, and other resources to meet its bio- logical needs. Each species is adapted gen- erally to a specific arrangement and amount of essential resources. A population is a subset of all the individ- uals of one species. It consists of individ- uals that are found in a distinct portion of the species range that interbreed with some regularity. Thus, the members of a popula- tion share a common set of genetic charac- teristics. Populations can have some char- acteristics not found in other populations of the same species, in which case such terms as subspecies, variety, or breed are used to describe them. A community is a collection of species present in one place at one time. Most com- munities contain groups of species that in- teract in a variety of ways. There are usu- ally two consequences of these interactions: 1) certain species cannot be maintained without other interacting species; and 2) some species so strongly affect other spe- cies that the community changes signifi- cantly if that species is removed. Communities are part of a higher level of organization called ecosystems. An ecosys- tem is a dynamic complex of plant and ani- mal communities, which along with their abiotic environment, constitutes one func- tioning whole. An understanding of eco- system functioning can greatly influence the kinds of conservation and management applied. Table 2-1.— Examples of Benefits From Ecosystem, Species, and Genetic Diversity Ecological processes Research Cultural heritage Recreation and tourism Agriculture and harvested resources Ecosystem diversity Maintenance of produc- tivity; buffering environ- nnentai 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 monitor- ing (e.g., Serengetl National Park, Zambesi Teak Forest) Models for research on hu- man diseases and drug synthesis (e.g., bristlecone pine, desert pupfish, me- dicinal leeches) Fruit flies in genetics, corn in inheritance, and Nico- tiana in virus studies Sacred mountains and 700 to 800 million visitors groves; historic landmarks per year to U.S. State and and landscapes (e.g., national parks; 250,000 to Mount Fuji; Voyageurs Park, 500,000 visitors per year to Minnesota) mangrove forests in Ven- ezuela National symbols (bald ea- gles); totems; objects of civic pride (e.g., port orford cedar, bowhead whale, Fi- cus religiosa) Breeds and cultivars of ceremonial, historic, es- thetic, or culinary value (e.g., Texas longhorn cattle, rice festivals (Nepal)) 95 million people feed, ob- serve, and/or photograph wildlife each year; 54 mil- lion fish; 19 million hunt 100,000 visitors per year to Rare Breeds Survival Trust in the United Kingdom Rangelands for livestock pro- duction (e.g., 34 in the U.S.); habitats for wild pollinators and pest enemies (e.g., sav- ing $40 to $60 per acre for grape growers) Commercial logging, fishing, and other harvesting indus- tries ($27 billion/year in U.S.); new crops (e.g., kiwi fruit, red deer, catfish, and loblolly pine) Required to avoid negative selection and enhancement programs; pest and disease resistance alleles SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986. Ch. 2— Importance of Biological Diversity • 39 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 di- versity and ecological processes is fragmentary, but it is clear that diversity is crucial to the func- tioning of all major life processes, for diversity helps maintain productivity and buffers eco- systems 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 non- living components of their environment (45). It can be recognized on many scales, from biome— the largest ecological unit— to micro- habitat (box 2-B). Ecosystem diversity refers to the variety that occurs within a larger land- scape. 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, ele- phant, and zebra to survive long cycles of wet and dry years (16,23). On the American conti- nent, many animal species cope with oscilla- tions in weather and climate by migrating be- tween biomes— spending the rainy season in Box 2-B. — Scales of Ecosystem 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 2. Zone: western hemlock — Coho salmon —Oregon slender salamander 3. Habitat: old growth forest — Vaux's swift — Spotted owl 4. 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 sum- mer 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 nu- trients to the regenerating forest. For exam- ple, the rotten wood provides habitat for truf- fles, 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-pol- linating 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 asso- ciated with protective and productive processes of direct economic benefit. Cloud forests, for 40 * Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity example, increase precipitation, often substan- tially (38). Watershed forests generally reduce soil erosion and thereby help protect down- stream 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 pro- tect coastlines. Wetlands are another example of an ecosys- tem with protective processes linked to eco- nomic output. Millions of waterfowl and other birds of great economic value depend on the diverse North American wetlands — coastal tun- dra wetlands, inland freshwater marshes, prai- rie potholes, coastal saltwater marshes, and mangrove swamps — for breeding, feeding, mi- grating, and overwintering. These wetlands also support most commer- cial and recreational fisheries in the United States. About two-thirds of the major U.S. commercial fish, crustacean, and mollusk spe- cies 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, reduc- ing flow rates and protecting people and prop- erty downstream from flood and storm damage. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers chose protection of 8,500 acres of wet- lands over construction of a reservoir or ex- tensive walls and dikes as the least-cost solution to flooding problems in the Charles River ba- sin in Massachusetts. It was estimated that loss ,-,•;„,„ ^,t,ji( US. Fish and Wildlife Service— L. Childers Ecosystems such as these wetlands have protective and productive functions linked to economic output. Ch. 2— Importance of Biological Diversity • 41 of the Charles River wetlands would have re- sulted in an average of $17 million per year in flood damage (80,88,90). (Data on wetlands eco- system 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 domi- nant species often depend on other species. For example, elephants and buffaloes make a cru- cial 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 fin- gernail clams, mayfly larvae, and other river- bottom macro-invertebrates. These macro-inver- tebrates are still scarce, for river-bottom sedi- ment is slow to recover from pollution, much slower than water quality, for example (44). Certain species have a greater effect on pro- ductive processes than is indicated by their po- sition in a food web (figure 2-1). Earthworms, for instance, improve the mixing of soil, in- crease 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 enrich- ment of both forest and grassland soils (99). In East Africa, species diversity increases the productivity of grasslands. For example, graz- ing by wildebeest promotes the lush regrowth eaten by gazelles (59,60). Similar interactions have been observed in North American grass- lands between prairie dogs and bison. Although the standing crop of grass in prairie dog towns hi. Photo credit: National Park Service. Department at ttie Interior Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota, contains a variety of w/ildlife including bison, elk, prairie dogs, pronghorn, and deer. Interactions betvi^een species such as prairie dogs and bison increase the productivity of grasslands. 42 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity Figure 2-1. — Krill: The Linchpin to the Antarctic Foodweb Krill Antarctic waters are among the most productive in the world. The main link in this foodweb is the small krill, shrimp-like creatures that feed on plankton. Krill, in turn, support seabirds, fish, and squid, which are the mainstay of seals and whales. Ch. 2— Importance of Biological Diversity • 43 is half that of grass outside, protein levels and digestibility are significantly higher. In Wind Cave National Park, prairie dog tow^ns 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 car- nivorous zooplankton (amphipods, copepods, and decapods). Cod, in turn, is an important food of many bird and marine mammal spe- cies including gulls, narwhals, belugas, and harp seals (25). Genetic Diversity Intraspecific genetic diversity allows species to adapt to changing conditions, thus sustain- ing ecosystem and species diversity; it also helps produce plants and animals that will sup- port more productive agriculture and forestry. Genetic diversity is distributed unevenly among and within species. Some groups of species ap- pear to be more variable than others: reptile, bird, and mammal species have less than half the genetic variation found in invertebrate spe- cies 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 impor- tant for survival (e.g., genes conferring disease resistance). In addition, genetic diversity ena- bles species to adapt to a wide range of physi- cal, climatic, and soil conditions and to changes in those conditions. Genetic diversity is posi- tively correlated with fitness, vigor, and repro- ductive success (7,85). Among marine animals, and probably among terrestrial animals as well, high genetic varia- bility 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 provides the flexibil- ity to make finely tuned adjustments to micro- habitats. BENEFITS TO RESEARCH Research may hold answers to many of the questions facing this complex world. The re- sults 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 spe- cies, researchers would not have the needed plant material to develop many vaccines, in- travenous fluid, or other medicines. The poten- tial for further advancement has not been fully realized, yet a loss of species diversity will ad- versely affect future research. Protection of genetic diversity is equally essential, because materials from plants and animals have pro- vided valuable knowledge on viruses, immu- nology, 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 hy- potheses 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 grow- ing, largely because of the availability of natu- ral research areas such as the Olympic National Park and the H.J. Andrews Experimental Eco- logical 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 re- search significant for range management. Re- search includes, for example, studies of the ex- tent to which grazing intensity increases primary production and the protein content and digestibility of grasses (28). Research on spe- cies and natural gene pools also requires eco- system maintenance. Representative examples of major ecosystems are used as reference sites for baseline moni- toring on productivity, regeneration, and adap- tation 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 un- altered sites w^ith similar vegetation, soils, and climate. The Zambezi Teak Forest ecosystem, for ex- ample, 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 Na- tional Park is being studied. Continued moni- toring of the Kafue tract will provide data needed for assessing costs and benefits of any silviculture system for the Zambezi Teak For- est (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 1 78 habitat types iden- tified for the State. The reserves are used for instruction and research in botany, geology, ecology, archeology, ethology, paleontology, wildlife management, genetics, zoology, pop- ulation biology, and entomology (52). Enabling children and adults to experience different eco- systems is an effective way to teach ecological processes, genetic variation, community com- position 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 ar- ray 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, evolu- tionary 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. South- west, are used to calibrate radiocarbon dates and hence, are important for archeology, pre- history, 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 South- west, tolerate salinity twice that of salt- water and are valuable models for research on human kidney disease (63). • Sea urchin eggs are used extensively in ex- perimental embryology, in studies of cell structure and fertilization, and in tests on the teratological effects of drugs (98). • Medicinal leeches are important in neu- rophysiology and research on blood clot- ting (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 substan- tial contributions to structural chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry, and develop- mental biology and has also resulted in the discovery of novel chemical compounds and activities. D-arabinosyl cytosine, an im- portant synthetic antiviral agent, owes its development to the discovery of spongouri- dine, which was isolated from a Jamaican Ch. 2— Importance of Biological Diversity • 45 Photo credit: J. Cohen, National Zoo The armadillo is one of only two animal species known to contract leprosy. Ttiese animals now serve as research: models to find a cure. sponge. Three derivatives of this com- pound have been patented as antiviral and anticancer drugs (10). Genetic Diversity Genetic variabihty is one of the characteris- tics 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 exam- ple is the discovery and analysis of regulatory systems that control gene expression, wrhich added a new dimension to the study of in- heritance (21). The genus Nicotiana has also been used widely in genetic and botanical research largely because of the great variation among its spe- cies (84). The varied reactions to specific viruses characteristic of many Nicotiana species pro- vide a potential tool for separating and iden- tifying viruses. Nicotiana species have been involved in numerous discoveries of virus re- search (e.g., virus transmissibility, purification, and mutability) (35). Special genetic stocks are essential research tools. For example, inbred lines of chickens de- veloped at the University of California at Davis are used worldwide for research on immunol- ogy 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 HERITAGE Throughout history, societies have put great value on physical features of their environment. In developed and developing countries, a diver- sity of ecosystems is a source of esthetic, his- toric, 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. Gar- deners around the world share seed material ensuring genetic survival. Ecosystem Diversity Natural ecosystems have great cultural (in- cluding religious, esthetic, and historic) impor- tance for many people. Mountains are the focus of religious celebrations and rituals through- out the world: Mount Kenya, Mount Everest, Mount Fuji, Mount Taishan in China, and Black Mesa in Arizona. Forests also have great spir- itual value: probably the only surviving exam- ples 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. Remov- ing even a twig from the grove is taboo (36). People who lead subsistence-based lives iden- tify closely with the ecosystems on which they depend. Two examples are the Guarao people in the mangrove swamps and savannas of Vene- zuela's Orinoco Delta (39) and the Inuit people in the tundra of the North American Arctic (9,24). The economic, social, and spiritual ele- ments of the relationship between such peoples and the ecosystems that support them are in- separable. Ecosystems define and symbolize relation- ships between human beings and the natural world and express cultural and national iden- tity. In the United States, the landscapes pro- tected in wilderness areas, national parks, mon- uments, and preserves are full of historical meaning and show the close ties between Amer- ica 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 wilder- ness preservation and human occupation in- cluding current subsistence-use at Kobuk Val- ley in Alaska (66,94). Species Diversity Whereas the Continental Congress in 1782 adopted the bald eagle as a national symbol; and Whereas the bald eagle thus became the sym- bolic representation of a new nation under a new government in a new world; and Whereas by that act of Congress and by tra- dition and custom during the life of this Na- tion, the bald eagle is no longer a mere bird of biological interest but a symbol of the Amer- ican ideals of freedom . . . —Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 Photo credit: National Wildlife Federation Cultural value of species is exemplified by the bald eagle, adopted by ttie Continental Congress as a symbol of the United States. Ch. 2— Importance of Biological Diversity • 47 When Congress adopted the bald eagle as a national symbol, it was responding to an an- cient human need to identify with other spe- cies. All over the world and throughout history, people have adopted animals and plants as em- blems, 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 piv- otal 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, dis- tribution, and sharing of bowhead whale meat and skin involve the entire community, strength- ening kinship and communal bonds. Important ceremonies, celebrations, and feasts accom- pany the harvest of a bowhead whale and the distribution and sharing of its meat (4,5). Port Orford Cedar [Chamaecyparis lawsoni- ance], prized for its cultural and economic values, has become the focus of a recent con- troversy. It grows only in a small area of south- ern Oregon and northern California, where it produces some of the area's highest priced tim- ber. 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 tem- ples as a substitute for the no longer available Japanese Hinoki cypress. It also has great cul- tural 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. Man- agement 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 oper- ations (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 log- ging 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 diver- sity 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 Bud- dhism. 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 Horn- bill 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, pro- claims itself the garter snake capital of the world (after the mass matings of red-sided gar- ter 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. Genetic Diversity Many crop varieties and livestock breeds per- sist because they are culturally valuable to different societies. This group includes plants and animals with religious and ceremonial sig- nificance — such as the festival rices of Nepal and Mithan cattle in northern Burma and north- eastern 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 Photo credit: G. Nabhan Hopi Indian garden of mixed crops illustrates ancient horticultural traditions that persist on this continent. of local varieties of beans and other legumes is grown, each variety intended for a particu- lar dish in the traditional cuisine (3). A groviring number of Americans value tradi- tional cultivars 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-Ameri- can 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 hy- brid corn (64). The cultural value of rare live- stock breeds is exemplified by Texas Longhorn cattle (which have a prominent place in Amer- ican history) and Navaho sheep (whose fleece is important to Navaho weaving). Gardeners have organized national and re- gional networks to conserve some plant vari- eties because they have better taste, have links with national, local, and ethnic history; are suit- able 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). BENEFITS TO RECREATION AND TOURISM Millions of people worldwide derive benefits from recreation and tourism provided by bio- logical diversity. Without diverse ecosystems, countries would lose tremendous amounts of foreign exchange. Without wilderness areas, national parks, or national forests, city dwellers would have no place to "escape" the daily pres- sures. Species diversity is essential to the mil- lions of wildlife photographers, bird lovers, and plant and animal watchers. And without ge- netic diversity, horticulturists, gardeners, ani- mal breeders, and anglers would find little en- joyment in their avocations. Ecosystem Diversity State and National Parks in the United States attract 700 to 800 million visitors per year (73,74), and National Forests receive some 200 million visitors per year (93). One reason for these visits— indeed, some surveys suggest the main reason— is to enjoy the variety of land- scapes the parks and forests protect (83). Sight- seeing accounts for more recreation-visitor days (52 million) in National Forests than any other recreation activity except camping (60 million) (93). Ch. 2— Importance of Biological Diversity • 49 Ecosystem diversity is a significant recrea- tional asset in developing countries as vi^ell. In Venezuela, the mangrove forests of Morrocoy National Park attract 250,000 to 500,000 visi- tors per year (39); in Nepal, mountain land- scapes, rhododendron forests, and fauna bring in foreign exchange (55). Species Diversity About 95 million Americans a year partici- pate 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 bil- lion per year (95). Surveys of American recreational uses of wildlife reveal that a number of different spe- cies 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). Little data exist on wildlife recreational use by people in developing countries, but for sev- eral nations wildlife-based tourism is big busi- ness. The spectacular wild animals of east and southern Africa are the resource base of a tour- ist industry that brings millions of dollars in foreign exchange. In 1985, Kenya netted about $300 million from almost 500,000 visitors, mak- ing wildlife tourism the country's biggest earner of foreign exchange (1). Genetic Diversity Millions of home gardeners and members of horticultural and animal breed associations de- rive recreational benefit from genetic diversity. So, too, do millions of anglers who take advan- tage of stocking and enhancement programs. Tourism associated with genetic diversity in- volves 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 liv- ing historical farms — open-air museums that re- create and interpret agricultural and other activities of a particular point in history (91). BENiFITS TO AGRICULTURE AND HARVESTED RESOURCES In agriculture, a diversity of ecosystems, spe- cies, and genetic material provides increased amounts and quality of yields. In a world where population is rapidly increasing, assuring a con- tinued increase in harvested resources is es- sential. Diversity in an agroecosystem provides habitat for predators of crop pests and breed- ing 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 breed- ers 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). Wild- flowers 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 off- season reservoir of prey for wasps, which con- trol 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 contri- butions 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 deter- mined by the availability of ecosystem diver- sity (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). Be- cause they support most of the world's 3 bil- lion head of domesticated grazing animals (45), rangelands can be considered harvested eco- systems, 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 in- volved 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 envi- ronments to cope with extremes. For instance, in Botswana, five wild plant species are exten- sively 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 sub- sistence of indigenous peoples and rural com- munities throughout the world. Wild bearded pig and deer contribute about 36,000 tons of meat a year to rural diets in Sarawak, Malay- sia. This amount of meat from domestic ani- mals would cost about $138 million. (15). Per capita consumption of harvested food by Inuit in the North American Arctic averages annu- ally from 229 kg (504 lb) to 346 kg (761 lb). The per capita cost of buying substitute food (usu- ally of lower nutritional and cultural value) was estimated to be $2,100 per year (1981 figures) (4,101). The commercial timber, fishery, and fur in- dustries obtain most of their resources by har- vesting 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 trades- men 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 use- ful in pest management programs: crop diver- sity 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 some- what by strip-planting alfalfa, which the bugs prefer to cotton (11). Pest enemy diversity in- cludes 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 par- asites 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 im- port 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 domes- tications were some 5,000 years ago. But agri- cultural and horticultural domestications are still occurring. Among the successful new food crops devel- oped this century are kiwifruit, highbush blue- berry, and wild rice (most of the wild rice Ch. 2— Importance of Biological Diversity • 51 Photo credit: M.A. Altieri Two intercropping systems — fava beans and brussels sprouts, and wild mustard and brussels sprouts — demonstrate the benefits of diversity to agriculture. Botti systems benefit the brussels sprouts crop: wild mustard acts as a trap crop of flea beetles, and fava beans fix nitrogen with possible benefits to brussels sprouts yields. produced in the United States is domesticated). New and incipient forage crops include Bahia grass, desmodium, and several of the wheat- grasses. Red deer and aquaculture species such as catfish, hardshell clam, and the giant fresh- water prawn, are among the newly domesti- cated livestock. Loblolly pine, slash pine, Parana pine, and balsa are some of the new tim- ber 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 develop- ment in areas that are marginal for conven- tional crops and livestock. Nepal's Department of Medicinal Plants has organized the farming of two native species [Rauvolfia serpentina and Valeriana wallichii] for example, and it is in- vestigating propagation of several other wild species that are sources of drugs, perfumes, and flavors for export. Scientists in Zambia and Bot- swana 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 re- source species— from game animals to timber trees to food and sport fish— depend on genetic diversity within and among the harvested pop- ulations. If the best individuals (biggest animals, tallest trees) are harvested before they repro- 52 * Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity Photo credit: M. Plotkin Medicine from nature: Croton sp., l'— om ^OtDr--CNJC\Ji— CMCNJ^OJCMCOCOCNJi— CSJCM'^ ■^Lncvj'^tooocDaicO'^ro-.— XOLnxLDioco ■^CDco^oocoCTJCvjr-r^^i— ct>^cocdt— f— -^ oicococsjcDoo-^cD^o^cor — r — ^cdoocoloct) ■^ 1- CO 1- -,— t5 "O TO eg 'i= E .CiJ roCcTj=3a3^(D.E '0^-3> TO TO C3T^ 03 ^ i,, w 5 ^ E "O ^J ^ S -^ Q_ CO CO CO I— :d ^ J ,i^cn to Ch. 3— Status of Biological Diversity • 73 Table 3-2.— Summary of Data From Endangered Plant Species Lists Rare and Country/region Species threatened species Extinct taxa Endangered taxa Australia SsioOO 1J16 iT? 215 Europe^ 11,300 1,927 20 117 New Zealand 2,000 186 4 42 South Africa 23,000 2,122 39 107 USSR 21,100 653 =20 =160 United States" 20,000 2^050 90 ? ^Excludes European U S.S.R,. Azores, Canary Islands, and Madeira. ''Excludes Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. SOURCE: S. Davis, et al.. Plants in Danger: What Do We Know? (forthcoming), as cited 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 species^ rare or threatened Azores 55 30 (55%) Canary Islands 569 383 (67%) Galapagos 229 150 (66%) Juan Fernandez ... . 118 95(81%) Lord Howe Island ... 75 73 (97%) Madeira 131 86 (66%) Mauritius 280 172 (61%) Seychelles 90 73 (81%) Socotra 215 132 (61%) ^Endemic means tfie species occurs only on tfie island. SOURCE; 8. Davis, el al.. Plants in Danger: What Do We Know? (forthcoming), as cited in H, Synge, "Status and Trends of Wild Plants," OTA com- missioned 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 in- dicated 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-stand- ing interest to professional and amateur biolo- gists can also gauge diversity change. The decline of Bay Checkerspot butterflies, for ex- ample, is taken as an indication of decline of many associated organisms in the San Fran- cisco Peninsula area (13). Models off Species-Area Relationships The scale of diversity reduction can be esti- mated for most tropical countries only by in- ferences from the reduction of habitat. Nearly all attempts to estimate global extinction rates focus on the tropical moist forests. These eco- systems are exceedingly species-rich, contain areas of narrow endemism, and are undergo- ing 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 sus- ceptible to degradation. In fact, the undevel- oped 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 gen- erally treat the diversity of deforested land- scapes in the moist tropics as negligible (43). A recent projection of bird and flowering- plant extinctions that could be caused by con- tinued deforestation in tropical America is based on a mathematical model of the species- area 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 mil- lion 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-per- cent reduction in numbers of species is pro- jected 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 Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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 rela- tionship as used for plants, a 60-percent reduc- tion of the original forest area over the next 15 to 20 years could be expected to cause even- tual extinctions of 86 bird species. The worst- case calculation, with reduction of the Ama- zon forest to the area of already established na- tional parks, projected that 487 types of birds, or about 70 percent of the species, could be- come extinct (43). Several assumptions tend to underestimate extinction rates. For example, extinctions re- sulting from reduced provinciality are ignored in the calculations, as are effects of the narrow endemism that occurs in several parts of tropi- cal American forests. On the other hand, the assumption that none of the plant and bird spe- cies will find habitats they need after deforesta- tion seems an exaggeration. Such projections may be helpful in stimulating institutional re- sponses to prevent the worst cases from occur- ring. Many nations' governments have begun to take steps in the past decade to protect en- dangered 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 extinc- tion rates have called into question the credi- bility of all such estimates. In one sense, the numbers themselves have become an issue, con- fusing policymakers 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 prob- lem of loss mainly in terms of species extinc- tion, 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 destruc- tion of especially diverse forests in local areas of Australia, Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, Ch. 3— Status of Biological Diversity • 75 Brazil, Colombia, Madagascar, Tanzania, and West Africa proceeds at catastrophic rates (32). Genetic Diversity Ideally, concern about loss of biological diver- sity 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 im- practical. For agricultural species, on the other hand, the concern is mainly about genetic diversity. The species do not seem to be in danger of ex- tinction, but the variety of genes in many crops and livestock breeds is being reduced (39). Many distinct types are being eliminated as im- proved breeds and varieties that are genetically similar are gaining more widespread use. Iron- ically, success in exploiting genetic resources for agriculture threatens the genetic diversity on which future achievements depend. With livestock, the principal diversity loss in- volves developing-countries' breeds being replaced by imported ones. The threat seems greatest for those species in which artificial in- semination is widely used, and it is particularly a problem with cattle, for which over 270 dis- tinct 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 lo- cally adapted breeds, so semen is usually im- ported from commercial studs in industrial countries. Threatened breeds include the cri- oUo of Latin America and the Sahiwal and sev- eral others from Africa (see table 3-4) (15). Llama and alpaca— as well as vicuna and guanaco, their wild relatives — are South Amer- ican species used for meat, as beasts of bur- den, 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 con- trolled breeding has been rapid and intensive to produce varieties suitable for modern com- mercial production. Poultry breeding has been Table 3-4.— Endangered African Cattle Breeds Breed Location Purpose Reasons for decline in number Advantages Mutura Nigeria Meat, draft Civil w/ar, crossbreeding, lack of Trypanotolerant,^ hardy, good draft interest by farmers as tractors animal, low mortality become available Lagune Benin, Meat Crossbreeding, lack of interest by Trypanotolerant, adapted to humid Ivory Coast farmers because of small mature environment size (125 kg) and \q\n milk yields Brunede I'Atlas. .. Morocco, Meat Crossbreeding to imported breeds Adapted to arid zones Algeria, Tunisia Mpwapwa Tanzania Milk Lack of sustained effort to develop Adapted, dual-purpose and maintain new breed Baria Madagascar Milk, meat Crossbreeding Adapted, dual-purpose Creole Mauritius Milk, meat, Crossbreeding Adapted, multiple-purpose draft Kuri Chad Milk, meat Political instability, numbers High milk production, ability to float reduced by rinderpest and and swim in Lake Chad, tolerant drought of heat and humidity Kenana Sudan Milk Crrssbreeding (artificial High milk potential; adapted to hot, insemination) to imported dairy dry environment breeds, loss of major habitat to development scheme Butana Sudan Milk Crossbreeding High milk potential; adapted to hot, semiarid environment ^Ability to survive Trypanosome infection (spread by tsetse fly), whicti normally causes African sleeping sickness in cattle, SOURCE: Adapted from K.O. Adeniji, "Prospects and Plans for Data Banks on Animal Genetic Resources," Animal Genetic Resources Conservation (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. 1984). as cited in H. Fitzhugh. et al., "Status and Trends of Domesticated Animals," OTA commissioned paper. 1985. 76 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity Photo credit: H. Fitzhugh Two Sahiwal cows on a government farm in Kenya. Sahiwal were originally developed in Pakistan and then imported to Kenya as an all-purpose breed (e.g., milk, meat). There is concern that inbreeding has sharply reduced the genetic variation in this breed, both in Pakistan and Kenya. 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). Mean- while, breeds adapted to traditional farm con- ditions are becoming rare in industrial coun- tries, because fewer farmers want them and the number of small hatcheries producing them has declined sharply. Poultry breeds from indus- trial countries are being exported to urban mar- kets in many developing countries, but no evi- dence exists that these have affected the genetic diversity of poultry in rural areas of develop- ing countries. Hundreds of plant species have been domes- ticated, and traditional farming systems con- tinue to use many species. But modern agri- culture produces most human sustenance, plant-derived fibers, and industrial materials from only a few species. Three-quarters of hu- man 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 per- cent of the combined value of all U.S. agricul- tural 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 ge- netic populations. The narrow species and ge- netic base of modern agriculture generates two distinct concerns: 1) the extinction of genes, which reduces opportunities to produce new Ch. 3— Status of Biological Diversity • 77 Table 3-5.— Crops Grown or Imported by the United States With a Combined Annual Value of $100 Million or More (average 1976 to 1980) Average annual value (U.S. $ millions) Crop 11,278 Soybean 10,412 Corn 6,475 Wheat 4,233 Cotton 3,925 Coffee 2,851 Tobacco 1,723 Sugarcane 1,525 Grape 1,206 Potato 1,163 Rice 1,150 Sweet orange 1,147 Sorghum 1,054 Alfalfa 1,051 Tomato 1,016 Cacao 815 Apple 760 Beet crops 747 Peanut 706 Rubber 672 Barley 527 Lettuce 517 Common bean 393 Sunflower 368 Banana 365 Cole crops 355 Almond 349 Peach 314 Coconut 304 Oats 287 Onion 252 Strawberry 219 Grapefruit 198 Chrysanthemum 192 Cucumber 189 Melon 186 Pineapple 179 Roses 167 Celery 164 Walnut 158 Peppers/chilis 156 Jute 155 Plum/prune 148 Sweet cherry/sour cherry 146 Pear 144 Olive 143 Oil palm 142 Carrot 142 Pea 136 Lemon 130 Bermudagrass 128 Tea 116 Watermelon 116 Cashew 110 Sweet potato 102 Pecan 100 Azalea/rhododendron SOURCE: C, Prescolt-Allen and A. Prescott-Allen, The First Resources: Wild Spe- cies in f/7e North American Economy (New Haven, CT. and London: Yale University Press, 1986). varieties better suited for production at particu- lar 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 cul- tivated varieties or threats to wild relatives of crops, such as: "it may not be long before land- races are irretrievably lost" or "many locally adapted varieties have been replaced by mod- ern varieties" (39). Such reports have been col- lected and evaluated by the International Board on Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR). IBPGR's information has stimulated conservation action and has helped to determine general collect- ing priorities for protection of genetic re- sources. Plant breeders and germplasm collectors gen- erally 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 pro- grams (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 interna- tional 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, ex- cept for sugarcane and tomato, are repre- sented 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 assess- ments 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 eco- nomically important timber trees lies between that of wild plants gathered for economic use and that of agricultural plants. Some commer- cial tree species are protected by parks and other protected natural areas, and the diver- sity of some is at least partially captured in offsite seed collections. In many extensively managed forests, commercial tree species re- generate 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 de- veloping countries are being eroded by conver- sion of forest areas to agriculture or grazing use. An international panel recently identified some 300 tree species or important tree popu- lations (presumably with unique genetic char- acteristics) that are endangered (17). Thus, in the United States and developing countries where U.S. agencies provide assistance, pro- tection of natural gene pools of commercial trees and other nondomesticated economic spe- cies could become an objective in development planning (see ch. 11). At present, economic spe- cies 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 pres- sures. 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 sweep- ing in scope (30). Development and Degradation Economic development usually entails mak- ing sites more favorable for a manageable num- ber of economic activities. Consequently, the changed landscape has fewer habitats and sup- ports fewer species. Habitats may be affected by offsite development too — by pollution, for example, or changed hydrology. Some devel- opment, such as logging in a mosaic pattern through a large forested area, mimics natural processes and may result in a temporary in- crease in diversity. But poorly planned or badly implemented de- velopment, such as agricultural expansion with- out investment in soil conservation, can se- verely 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 suit- able, for fewer and fewer species (51). Other causes of site degradation include grazing pres- sures, 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 in- clude many species of crops and livestock; genetic diversity is typically high, because cul- tivars and breeds adapted to the vagaries of site- specific conditions are used. To achieve pro- ductivity gains, however, traditional systems are being replaced with modern methods. Cap- ital inputs, such as manufactured fertilizers and feeds, are used to compensate for site-specific differences. Thus, it is possible to replace tradi- tional crops and livestock with fewer varieties Ch. 3— Status of Biological Diversity • 79 Photo credit: U.N. Photo 152.843/K. Muldoon Overgrazing in Burl ?r. iTKW/sSv'i'tS'a s.^ 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 Can- ada. 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 growrth and high levels of milk production. Using this procedure, one valuable cow can produce on average 12 offspring a year. The procedure involves inducing superovulation in a donor cow using gonadotrophic 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 flush- ing 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. Nor- mally 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 devel- oped, 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 hues 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 Hvestock improvement. Several research stations are also experiment- ing with inserting genes for specific productivity traits, such as growth, into embryos before transfer. The apphcation 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 there- fore has received little use in the swine industry. In addition, the cost of surgically recovering em- bryos 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, work- ing 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 nondomestic issue of a nonsurgical embryo transfer. A transfer involving a frozen embryo was accomphshed soon thereafter. These successes were followed by attempts at interspecies transfer (i.e., a donor and sur- rogate 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 different species, offering hope for the future of endan- gered wildlife (figure 6-1). SOURCE: Adapted from materials provided by Dr. Neal First, University of Wisconsin and Dr. Betsy Dresser, Cincinnati Wildlife Research Federation. 154 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity Figure 6-1.— Transcontinental Embryo Transfer Bongo embryos were collected from animals at the Los An- geles Zoo by the research team of the Cincinnati Wildlife Re- search Federation and immediately transported by air to the Cincinnati Zoo. The embryos were transferred into a bongo and into a common eland. These embryo transfers resulted in the successful production of offspring from both bongo and eland surrogates. SOURCE: Betsy Dresser, Director of Research, Cincinnati Wildlife Research Fed- eration. 1986. Tabie 6-4.— Successful Artificial Insemination in Nondomestic 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 Wlldilfe Research Federation, personal com- munications, September 1986. Photo credit: Zoological Society of San Diego Collection of sperm samples for artificial insemination and cryogenic storage from nondomestic species is part of many offsite conservation programs. Above, an African antelope, the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx gazella daimmah) is tranquilized and undergoing semen collection by electroejaculation. reproductive tract of a donor female (the genetic mother) and transferred into the tract of a re- cipient female (the foster mother), in whom the embryos develop into full-term individuals. Suc- cessful embryo transfer requires synchroniza- tion of the estrous cycles of donor and recipi- ent animals (figure 6-2). In domestic animals this synchrony is usually achieved through ex- ogenous hormone treatment. Donors are in- duced to produce an excess of eggs (super- ovulated) by injection of fertility hormones. Superovulation has been fairly successful with hoofed mammals, although the results vary con- siderably. Optimal drugs and dosages have yet Ch. 6— Maintaining Animal Diversity Off site • 755 Figure 6-2.— Embryo Transfer Flowchart Recipient Synchronizalion of Estrous Cycles I'i ^ 1 Superovulation ' ♦ /->i Estrus 1 Estrus ^ \ m Mtf^ Recovery^ S* ■■i^ransfer "^ ^ Estrus Pregnancy ] Young # Necessary steps in preparing donor and recipient animals for embryo collection and transfer. SOURCE: Betsy Dresser, Director of Researcti, Cincinnati Wildlife Researcfi Fed- eration, 1986. to be identified in most other species. Donors are mated naturally or by artificial insemina- tion, 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 diver- sity within captive populations, given the con- siderations of transfer and disease control pre- viously discussed. In addition, surrogate mothers confer passive immunity to offspring developed from transferred embryos. Thus, ani- mals moved into new environments or re- introduced to the wild may benefit from being carried by mothers acclimated to the new envi- ronment. Several more-advanced techniques, studied primarily in domestic animals, hold consider- able 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 me- dia 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 em- bryo culture is usually prerequisite to more sophisticated in vitro embryo manipu- lation. Embryo Storage: This technology involves holding embryos in arrested development for up to several days. Again, specific stor- age media must be developed for each species. Embryo storage procedures can greatly facilitate transfer of embryos over long distances and in vitro embryo manipu- lation. In Vitro Egg Maturation: This technique involves the culturing of immature eggs to maturity. Coupled with in vitro fertiliza- tion, this technique could dramatically in- crease the number of offspring that a given female might produce. The reproductive lifetime of the female is also lengthened be- cause ova suitable for culturing can be ob- tained 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 fe- male. In cases of unexpected death of ge- netically 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 in- volves 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 Box 6-E.— Captive Breeding and Przewalski's Horse Offsite conservation through captive breeding has prevented the extinction of such animal species as the European bison, Pere David's deer, Arabian oryx, and the wild species of horse most closely related to all domestic horse breeds. This latter species, known as Przewalski's horse, has never been dome