980 



national focal point would be necessary to provide oversight and 

 guidance. A total U.S. contribution of $1.5 million is suggested. 



Alternative Option 3 ; Provide the totality of funds (about $1.5 mil- 

 lion) to a U.S. government agent, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, 

 possibly with advice from the U.S. National Committee on Geology (the 

 parent body of the U.S. national committee for the IGCP) , for appro- 

 priate utilization in multilateral governmental and nongovernmental 

 forums. A portion of the funds would be required for management 

 purposes. 



X.1.1 Spatio-temporal Geological Correlation 



X. 1.1.1 International Geological Correlation Program Coordination 



$103,150 1 - a 



IGCP coordination? IGCP annual board meeting; cooperation with 

 other organizations such as ICL, Geological Congress; publica- 

 tion of progress reports in the "Geological Correlation" series 

 and the IGCP catalogue and indexes. 



X. 1.1.2 IGCP Program and New Projects 



$14 7,9 50 1 - a 



Support of IGCP working groups for meetings and publication of 

 results of their work; selection of new IGCP projects (15) . 



X. 1.1.3 Interregional Cooperation and Information Exchange 



$8 3,2 50 1 - a 



Dissemination of IGCP project results; promotion of regional 

 and interregional cooperation. 

 SUBTOTAL : $334,350 



Comment ; This subprogram provides support for the IGCP which is 

 conducted jointly with the lUGS. The purpose of the program is to 

 encourage international research on basic geological problems, the 

 identification and assessment of natural resources, and the improvement 

 of the environment. The program is of high interest to members of the 

 U.S. earth sciences community many of whom actively participate in 

 implementing projects and in setting policy directions. Because of the 

 joint character of IGCP sponsorship, U.S. scientists will be able to 

 continue to participate through the lUGS although the United States 

 does expect to continue to be represented on the IGCP Board and its 

 Scientific Advisory Committee. Support for IGCP accounts for only 30% 

 of the program budget despite its high merit. The resources allocated 

 for IGCP project support, in particular, are woefully inadequate (about 

 $150,000 annually) and should be at least three times that amount to be 

 truly meaningful. At a minimum, the 25% of the program costs that may 

 be lost by U.S. withdrawal (about $200,000) should be provided via one 

 of the alternative arrangements. 



