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). 



