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 



