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 



