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. 



