Ch. 11— Biological Diversity and Development Assistance • 291 



poses specific actions based on strategy rec- 

 ommendations and assigns them a priority of 

 near-term (within the next two fiscal years) or 

 long-term (requiring additional or redirected 

 resources]. However, it is clear that initiatives 

 are determined by funding restrictions rather 

 than by critical needs. 



Another difficuhy with the draft action plan 

 is reflected in responses from various AID mis- 

 sions. Reviews of the draft express skepticism 

 that specific initiatives can be implemented at 

 the mission level, based solely on the broad, 

 generalized directions it contains. Recent con- 

 gressional earmarkings of the AID budget to 

 support diversity projects further emphasizes 



the need to develop a more refined strategy for 

 identifying priority projects. 



Despite the criticisms of AID's draft action 

 plan, it represents the agency's effort to iden- 

 tify its responsibilities for about half of the 67 

 recommendations contained in the strategy. 

 Other Interagency Task Force members have 

 yet to identify how their resources and exper- 

 tise could be applied to the strategy. Develop- 

 ment of action plans by other Federal agencies 

 may be a useful way to identify strengths and 

 opportunities within each agency, to identify 

 areas for cooperation, and to provide a way to 

 examine agency commitments more effectively. 



IMPLEMENTATION OF U.S. INITIATIVES: THE AGENCY FOR 

 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 



Overall, AID has developed an extensive set 

 of guidelines and procedures for programs to 

 incorporate concerns for the environment. To 

 this extent, it deserves high marks compared 

 with other development assistance agencies, 

 both bilateral and multilateral. Less evident, 

 however, are indications that these procedures 

 are being consistently implemented. Critics 

 question AID's incorporation of environmental 

 assessments of project development at a stage 

 when modifications can be easily made (67). 



Several factors limit AID's implementation 

 of biological diversity initiatives in developing 

 countries, including a belief by the agency that 

 it is adequately addressing biological diversity, 

 declining budgets and staff to initiate projects, 

 and an inadequate number of trained person- 

 nel to address conservation issues. 



Defining the maintenance of biological diver- 

 sity as a priority is viewed with some trepida- 

 tion at the highest levels of AID (27). The issue 

 is seen as one among many priorities (e.g., 

 women in development, child welfare, and so 

 on) identified in the Foreign Assistance Act. 

 Although such mandates have been partially 

 effective, their numbers, the frequency of 

 changes, and the lack of priority among them 



may hamper efficient management of agency 

 resources (16,53,60). 



AID has been forced to allocate declining re- 

 sources in response to various congressional 

 mandates. It is unlikely that programs to safe- 

 guard diversity can compete successfully for 

 an increased share of the AID budget. Reviews 

 of aid's implementation of environmental 

 projects provide reason to be skeptical (16,41). 



Because diversity conservation is related to 

 many factors (e.g., poverty, population pres- 

 sure, pollution, and agricultural policies), AID 

 believes its obligations are largely addressed 

 by conventional assistance projects (41). For in- 

 stance, the February 1985 task force report to 

 Congress identified 253 projects as having a 

 conservation component (62). Few of these, 

 however, are the types of projects identified in 

 Section 119. Most involve more indirect con- 

 tributions, such as reducing destructive pres- 

 sures on habitats. 



These indirect initiatives are critical, of 

 course. Without them, the long-term prospects 

 for biological diversity would be dismal. Per- 

 haps projects identified in Section 119 should 

 be viewed as supplemental measures or as at- 

 tempts to designate important conservation 



