292 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity 



areas while they can still be easily protected. 

 One concern, however, is that Section 119, as 

 the central piece of legislation addressing con- 

 cerns for maintaining diversity in developing 

 countries, may define biological diversity, and 

 the initiatives to conserve it too narrowly. 



Congress has expressed dissatisfaction with 

 the level of funding AID has directed to meet- 

 ing the provisions of Section 119 by earmark- 

 ing $2.5 million for diversity projects in fiscal 

 year 1987. This amount represents the only 

 specified funding for environmental projects 

 contained in the FAA. That this appropriation 

 is intended to account for diversity on three 

 continents, however, stresses the need to allo- 

 cate this funding judiciously. Also of concern 

 is the impact of this earmarking on support for 

 other conservation initiatives, such as those in 

 Sections 117 and 118of FAA that lack any spe- 

 cific funding provisions. 



Yet simply allocating new funds for diversity 

 projects may not be an adequate response. If 

 projects are proposed to meet a spending tar- 

 get without allocations based on an established 

 set of priorities, efforts may be inefficient or 

 even counterproductive. 



The agency's commitments to biological 

 diversity projects and to acting on environ- 

 mental concerns have been eroded by the 

 Gramm-Rudman-HoUings Act (70). Overall, 4.3 

 percent of AID's 1986 budget was sequestered, 

 but the Office of Forestry, Natural Resources, 

 and the Environment (FNR) had its budget cut 

 25 percent (26). Such reductions indicate where 

 agency priorities lie and add credence to claims 

 that despite a commitment to environmental 

 concerns, commitment in the form of resource 

 allocation lags. 



It should also be noted, however, that the two 

 major funding sources (the Agricultural, Ru- 

 ral Development, and Nutrition account and 

 the Selected Development Activities account) 

 that support most environmental projects also 

 suffered disproportionate cuts — 15.5 and 20.6 

 percent (50). These reductions reflect congres- 

 sional, not AID, appropriations. 



One proposed way to increase the emphasis 

 and visibility of environmentally related issues 

 is to elevate FNR to a bureau (10). Because many 

 of the funding allocation decisions are made 

 at the bureau level, this change in status may 

 increase the share of resources devoted to diver- 

 sity projects. Such an action, on the other hand, 

 could isolate a newly established bureau. 



An alternative is to establish a separate fund- 

 ing source, such as a Forestry, Natural Re- 

 sources, and Environment account, for vari- 

 ous bureaus and offices as well as overseas 

 missions to draw on. Several functional ac- 

 counts (e.g., Agriculture, Rural Development, 

 and Nutrition; and Population and Health) al- 

 ready exist. Establishing an additional account 

 will likely be seen as further constraining AID's 

 flexibility. It would, however, place resources 

 behind congressional concerns for biological 

 diversity and the environment and natural re- 

 sources generally, as outlined in Section 119 

 as well as Sections 117 and 118. 



Another approach would seek to incorporate 

 biological diversity concerns into AID devel- 

 opment activities at different levels of the 

 agency ranging from general policy documents 

 at the agency level to more strategic efforts at 

 the regional bureau and missions levels. AID 

 could prepare a policy determination (PD) doc- 

 ument on biological diversity that would serve 

 as a general statement that maintaining diver- 

 sity is an explicit objective of the agency. 



Existence of a PD could mean that consider- 

 ation of diversity concerns would, where appro- 

 priate, become an integral part of sectoral pro- 

 gramming and project design. Further, it would 

 require that projects be reviewed and evaluated 

 by the Bureau of Program and Policy Coordi- 

 nation for consistency with the objectives of 

 the PD. Because of the increase in bureaucratic 

 provisions this would create, the formulation 

 of a PD on diversity would probably not be well 

 received within AID. 



The three regional bureaus (i.e., Africa, Asia 

 and Near East, and Latin America and the 

 Caribbean) could also prepare documents that 



