Ch. 10— Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally • 263 



nongovernmental— are evident. Three intergov- 

 ernmental organizations, all part of the United 

 Nations, are most prominent: 



1. FAO, by virtue of its interest in crops, live- 

 stock, forestry, and wildlife (the latter pri- 

 marily in terms of exploitable resources); 



2. UNESCO, whose involvement in biologi- 

 cal diversity emphasizes a more scientific 

 and cultural approach (reflected in the Man 

 in the Biosphere concept, outlined below); 

 and 



3. UNEP, which extends intergovernmental 

 involvement into more traditional conser- 

 vation activities (10). 



Perhaps the greatest asset of intergovernmen- 

 tal organizations is their ability to elevate is- 

 sues to international prominence, based largely 

 on the organizations' access to top-level author- 

 ities. They may also be able to influence na- 

 tional agendas in various ways. Funding to sup- 

 port activities is central to the influence of these 

 organizations. In recent years, however, the 

 functions and effectiveness of certain offices 

 have been questioned, particularly in the case 

 of UNESCO. Of concern have been the costs 

 of programs in relation to their accomplish- 

 ments and the politicization of activities and 

 rhetoric, reflecting the dominance of a num- 

 ber of developing countries with an anti-Wes- 

 tern bias (62). In general, however, there has 

 been less political volatility and controversy 

 where scientific activity and personnel are cen- 

 tral elements of particular intergovernmental 

 initiatives. In fact, UNESCO's most important 

 program dealing with onsite maintenance of 

 biological diversity, Man in the Biosphere, has 

 been singled out for its integrity. 



Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are 

 most effective as catalysts of international con- 

 servation activities. The early work of institu- 

 tions such as the International Council for Bird 

 Preservation (ICBP) and the International Coun- 

 cil of Scientific Unions influenced the evolu- 

 tion of international environmental organiza- 

 tions (10). Considerable activity on maintaining 

 diversity has also resulted from extending na- 

 tional programs to the global arena, a trend that 

 continues and that supports the maxim "envi- 

 ronmentalism breeds globalism" (10). 



The strengths and weaknesses of NGOs are 

 largely the obverse of those of intergovernmen- 

 tal organizations (62). Their major advantage 

 is the ability to adopt a problem-oriented ap- 

 proach outside a governmental framework, 

 thus minimizing problems associated with po- 

 litical interests and conflicts. This is not to im- 

 ply that such activities should ignore the polit- 

 ical nature of conservation activities. As one 

 analyst has noted: 



For the conservationist to argue that nature 

 is apolitical can be a useful strategy. For him 

 actually to believe this is a recipe for ineffec- 

 tiveness (10). 



Lack of financial resources is the major limit- 

 ing factor of international NGOs. Yet, limited 

 funds are likely to be applied in a more flexible 

 and responsive way than in intergovernmen- 

 tal institutions, and NGOs often benefit from 

 the voluntarism and enthusiasm characteris- 

 tic of such groups. However, what is lacking 

 is the ability to influence national governments 

 directly. International NGOs must be cautious 

 to avoid the impression that they are meddling 

 in the affairs of state or impinging on national 

 sovereignty. 



The emergence of the International Union 

 for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Re- 

 sources marked a departure from the traditional 

 dichotomy. lUCN is unique not only because 

 of its emphasis on biological diversity but be- 

 cause of a membership arrangement that com- 

 bines a number of state and government agen- 

 cies with an array of national and international 

 conservation groups and scientific organiza- 

 tions. In a sense, it reflects a hybrid institution. 

 The linkages lUCN has cultivated with FAO, 

 UNESCO, and UNEP reinforce its dual nature. 

 Certain advantages are evident in such an ar- 

 rangement: 



The combination of the two types of organi- 

 zations provides two approaches to the resolu- 

 tion of problems: the individual scientists work- 

 ing in the non-governmental organization are 

 able to provide a problem-oriented approach 

 with an analysis of the studies being under- 

 taken that is independent and has a minimum 

 of political bias, while the intergovernmental 

 organization can provide political and finan- 



