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 



