Technologies To Maintain BiologicalDiversity

March 1987

NTIS order #PB87-207494

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies To Maintain Biologi-cal Diversity, OTA-F-330 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March1987].

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619803

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

The reduction of the Earth’s biological diversity has emerged as a public policyissue in the last several years. Growing awareness of this planetary problem hasprompted increased study of the subject and has led to calls to increase public andprivate initiatives to address the problem, This interest in maintaining biologicaldiversity has created a common ground for a variety of groups concerned withimplications of a reduction or ultimate loss of the planet’s genetic, species, or eco-system diversity,

One major concern is that loss of plant, animal, and microbial resources mayimpair future options to develop new important products and processes in agricul-ture, medicine, and industry. Concerns also exist that loss of diversity underminesthe potential of populations and species to respond or adapt to changing environ-mental conditions. Because humans ultimately depend on environmental supportfunctions, special caution should be taken to ensure that diversity 1osses do notdisrupt these functions. Finally, esthetic and ethical motivation to avoid the irre-versible loss of unique life forms has played an increasingly major role in promot-ing public and private programs to conserve particular species or habitats,

The broad implications of loss of biological diversity are also reflected in thedifferent concerns and jurisdictions of congressional committees that requestedor supported this study. Requesters include the House Committee on Science, Space,and Technology; Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; and Senate Committeeon Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs;House Committee on Agriculture; and House Committee on Merchant Marine andFisheries endorsed the requested study.

The task presented to OTA by these committees was to clarify for Congressthe nature of the problems of reduction of the Earth’s biological diversity and toset forth a range of policy options available to Congress to respond to various con-cerns. The principal aim of this report is to identify and assess the technologicaland institutional opportunities and constraints to maintaining biological diversityin the united States and worldwide. Two background papers (Grassroots Conser-vation of Biological Diversity in the United States and Maintaining Biological Diver-sity in the United States: Data Considerations) and a staff paper (The Role of U.S.Development Assistance in Maintaining Bio]ogical Diversity in Developing Coun-tries) were also prepared in conjunction with this study.

OTA is grateful for the valuable assistance of the study’s advisory panel, work-groups, workshop participants, authors of background papers, and the many otherreviewers from the public and private sectors who provided advice and informa-tion throughout the course of this assessment. As with all OTA studies, the contentof this report is the sole responsibility of OTA.

Director

. . .{11

Advisory PanelTechnologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Kenneth Dahlberg, ChairDepartment of Political ScienceWestern Michigan University

Stephen BrushInternational Agricultural DevelopmentUniversity of California, Davis

Peter CarlsonDirectorCrop Genetics International

Rita ColwellOffice of the Vice President for Academic

AffairsUniversity of Maryland, Adelphi

Raymond DasmannDepartment of Environmental StudiesUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

Clarence DiasPresidentInternational Center for Law in

Development

Donald DuvickSenior Vice President of ResearchPioneer Hi-Bred International

David EhrenfeldCook CollegeRutgers University

Major GoodmanDepartment of Crop ScienceNorth Carolina State University

Grenville LucasThe HerbariumKew Royal Botanic Gardens

Richard NorgaardDepartment of Agricultural and Resource

EconomicsUniversity of California, Berkeley

Robert Prescott-AllenPartnerPADATA, Inc.

Paul RisserVice President for ResearchUniversity of New Mexico

Oliver RyderResearch DepartmentSan Diego Zoo

Michael Soul&Adjunct ProfessorSchool of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Michigan

John SullivanVice President of productionAmerican Breeders Service

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisorypanel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTAassumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv

OTA Project StaffTechnologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTAHealth and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager

Analytical Staff

Susan Shen, Project Director and Analyst

Edward F, MacDonald, Analyst

Michael S. Strauss, Analyst

Catherine Carlson, ’ Research Assistant

Robert Grossman,’ Anal~wt

Allen Ruby, Research Assistant

Contractors

James L. Chamberlain

David Netter

Robert Prescott-Allen

Bruce Ross-Sheriff

Linda Starke’ and Lisa Olson, ’ Editors

Administrative Staff

Patricia Durana,” Beckie Erickson,’ and Sally Shaforth,” Administrative Assistants

Nellie Hammond, Secretary

Carolyn Swann, Secretar&y

1 Th rough January 1986,2’1’hrough August I $)8s,3Summer 1985.4Through August 1986.5After August 1986,~’17h rough July I !385,7Thruugh Cktober 1 !]86,8F’rom [)[1(:. 15, 1986,

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

l. Summary and Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Part I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2. Importance of Biological Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3. Status of Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4. Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 89

Part II: TECHNOLOGIES

5. Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............101

6. Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,., ., . . . .137

7. Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........169

8. Maintaining Microbial Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........205

Part III: INSTITUTIONS

9. Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States . . . . . . . . . . .. ....221

10. Maintaining Biological Diversi ty Internationally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .253

11. Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ..,285

APPENDIXES:

A. Glossary of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............311

B. Glossary of Terms . . . ., ., ., ., ., , ., ..., . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . ...313

C. Participants of Technical Workgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............317’

D. Grassroots Workshop Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . ....319

E, Commiss ioned Papers and Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .320

Chapter 1

Summary andOptions for Congress

.

CONTENTSPage

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6The Role of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Strengthen the National Commitment To MaintainBiological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Option: Establish a National Biological Diversity Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Option: Develop a National Conservation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Option: Amend Legislation of Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Option: Establish a National Conservation Education Act...... . . . . . . . 14Option: Amend the International Security and Development Act . . . . . . 14

Increase the Nation’s Ability to Maintain Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I!iOption:

Option:Option:Option:

Option:

Direct the National Science Foundation-To Establish aConservation Biology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Establish a National Endowment for Biological Diversity . . . . . . 17Provide Sufficient Funding to Existing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8Amend Legislation To Improve Onsite and OffsiteProgram Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Establish New Programs To Fill Specific Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Enhance the Knowledge Base . . . . . . . .....;... . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Option: Establish a Small Clearinghouse for Biological Data . . . . . . . . . . 2oOption: Fund Existing Network of Natural Heritage Conservation Data

Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......+.. 21Support International Initiatives to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . 22

Option: Increase Support of International Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Option: Continue To Encourage Multilateral Development Banks to

Develop and Implement Environmental Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Option: Examine U.S. Options on the Issue of International

Exchange of Genetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Option: Amend the Export Administration Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Address Loss of Biological Diversity in Developing Countries. . . . . . . . . . . 27Option:

Option:Option:

Option:

Option:

Table No.

Restructure Conservation~Related Sections of the ForeignAssistance Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Direct AID To Adopt Strategic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Direct AID To Acquire Greater Access to ConservationExpertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Establish a New Funding Account for ConservationInitiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Apply More Public Law 480 Funds To Promote DiversityConservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

TablesPage

l-1. Examples of Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity . . . 6l-2. Management Systems and Conservation Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6l-3. Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . 9l-4. Summary of Policy Issues and Options for Congressional Action

Related to Biological Diversity Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

BoxBox No. Page

l-A. What Is Biological Diversity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 1

Summary and Options for Congress

Most biological diversity survives without hu- intervention by applying specific technologies.man interventions to maintain it. But as natural A spectrum of technologies are available to sup-areas become progressively modified by human port maintenance of biological diversity (de-activities, maintaining a diversity of ecosytems, fined in box l-A),species, and genes will increasingly depend on

Box I-A.—What Is Biological Diversity?

Biological diversity refers to the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecologicalcomplexes in which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different items and theirrelative frequency. For biological diversity, these items are organized at many levels, ranging fromcomplete ecosystems to the chemical structures that are the molecular basis of heredity. Thus, theterm encompasses different ecosystems, species, genes, and their relative abundance.

How does diversity vary within ecosystem, species, and genetic levels? For example,● Ecosystem diversity: A landscape interspersed with croplands, grasslands, and woodlands has

more diversity than a landscape with most of the woodlands converted to grasslands andcroplands.

● Species diversity: A rangeland with 100 species of annual and perennial grasses and shrubshas more diversity than the same rangeland after heavy grazing has eliminated or greatly re-duced the frequency of the perennial grass species.

c Genetic diversity: Economically useful crops are developed from wild plants by selecting valu-able inheritable characteristics. Thus, many wild ancestor plants contain genes not found intoday’s crop plants. An environment that includes both the domestic varieties of a crop (suchas corn) and the crop’s wild ancestors has more diversity than an environment with wild ances-tors eliminated to make way for domestic crops.

Concerns over the loss of biological diversity to date have been defined almost exclusively interms of species extinction. Although extinction is perhaps the most dramatic aspect of the problem,it is by no means the whole problem. The consequence is a distorted definition of the problem, whichfails to account for many of the interests concerned and may misdirect how concerns should be ad-dressed.

THE PROBLEM

The Earth’s biological diversity is being re-duced at a rate that is likely to increase overthe next several decades. This loss of diversity—measured at the ecosystem, species, and ge-netic levels—is occurring in most regions of theworld, although it is most pronounced in par-ticular areas, most notably in the tropics, Theprincipal cause is the increasing conversion ofnatural ecosystems to human-modified land-

scapes. Such alterations can provide consid-erable benefits when the land’s capability to sus-tain development is preserved, but compellingevidence indicates that rapid and unintendedreductions in biological diversity are under-mining society’s capability to respond to futureopportunities and needs. Most scientists andconservationists working in this area believethat the problem has reached crisis proportions,

3

4 ● Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

although a few remain skeptical and maintainthat this level of concern is based on exagger-ated or insufficient data.

The abundance and complexity of ecosys-tems, species, and genetic types have defiedcomplete inventory and thus the direct assess-ment of changes, As a result, an accurate esti-mate of the rate of loss is not currently possi-ble. Determining the number of species thatexist, ] for example, is a major obstacle in assess-ing the rate of species extinction. But use ofbiological principles and data on land use con-versions have allowed biologists to deduce thatthe rate of loss is greater than the rate at whichnew species evolve.

Reduced diversity may have serious conse-quences for civilization. It may eliminate op-tions to use untapped resources for agricultural,industrial, and medicinal development. Cropgenetic resources have accounted for about 50percent of productivity increases and for an-nual contributions of about $1 billion to U.S.agriculture, For instance, two species of wildgreen tomatoes discovered in an isolated areaof the Peruvian highlands in the early 1960shave contributed genes for marked increase infruit pigmentation and soluble-solids contentcurrently worth nearly $5 million per year tothe tomato-processing industry. Future gainswill depend on use of genetic diversity.

Loss of plant species could mean loss of bil-lions of dollars in potential plant-derived phar-maceutical products. About 25 percent of thenumber of prescription drugs in the UnitedStates are derived from plants. In 1980, theirtotal market value was $8 billion. Loss of tropi-cal rain forests, which harbor an extraordinarydiversity of species, and loss of deserts, whichharbor genetically diverse vegetation, are ofparticular concern. Consequences to humansof loss of potential medicines have impacts thatgo beyond economic benefits. Alkaloids fromthe rosy periwinkle flower (Catharantus roseus),a tropical plant, for example, are used in the

‘Approximately 1.7 million species have been identified. Mil-lions more, however, have yet to be discovered. Recent researchindicates that species of tropical insects alone could number 30million.

H.

A foggy, moss- and epiphyte-enshrouded tropical foresti n Ecuador is about to be cleared for local agriculture,

a main cause of loss of diversity.

successful treatment of several forms of can-cer, including Hodgkin’s disease and childhoodleukemia.

Although research in biotechnology suggestsexciting prospects, scientists will continue torely on genetic resources crafted by nature. Forexample, new methods of manipulating geneticmaterial enable the isolation and extraction ofa desired gene from one plant or organism andits insertion into another, Nature provides thebasic materials; science enables the mergingof desired properties into new forms or com-binations. Loss of diversity, therefore, may un-dermine societies’ realization of the technol-ogy’s potential.

Another threatening aspect of diversity lossis the disruption of environmental regulatory

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 5

” H

A dense stand of Zea dip/operennis in Sierra de Manantalan,Jalisco, Mexico. This ancient wild relative of corn couldbe worth billions of dollars to corn growers around theworld because of its resistance to seven major diseases

plaguing domesticated corn.

functions that depend on the complex interac-tions of ecosystems and the species that sup-port them.

Diverse wetlands provide productive and pro-tective processes of economic benefit. Millionsof waterfowl and other birds of economic valuedepend on North American wetlands for breed-ing, feeding, migrating, and overwintering.About two-thirds of the major U.S. commer-cial fish, crustacean, and mollusk species de-pend on estuaries and salt marshes for spawn-ing and nursery habitat. Wetlands temporarilystore flood waters, reducing flow rates and pro-tecting people and property downstream fromflood and storm damage, One U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers’ estimate places the present valueof the Charles River wetlands (in Massachu-setts) for its role in controlling floods at $17 mil-lion per year. Although placing dollar valueson such ecosystem services is problematic andreflects rough approximations, the magnitudeof the economic benefit stresses the importanceof these often overlooked values.

Humans also value diversity for reasons otherthan the utility it provides. Esthetic motivationshave played important parts in promoting ini-

tiatives to maintain diversity. Cultural factors,as reflected in the way Americans identify withthe bald eagle or the American bison or howplants and animals form a fundamental aspectof human artistic expression, illustrate thesevalues,

Forces that contribute to the worldwide lossof diversity are varied and complex. Histori-cally, concern for diversity loss focused on com-mercial exploitation of threatened or endan-gered species. Increasingly, however, attentionhas been focused more on indirect threats thatare nonselective and more fundamental andsweeping in scope.

Most losses of diversity are unintended con-sequences of human activity. Air and water pol-lution, for example, can cause diversity loss farfrom the pollution’s source, The decline of sev-eral fish species in Scandinavia and the nearextinction of a salmon species in Canada havebeen attributed to acidification of lakes due toacid rain. Population growth in itseIf may notbe intrinsically threatening to biological di-versity. A populous country like Japan is anexample of how a high standard of living, ap-propriate government policies, and a predom-inantly urbanized population can limit the rateof ecosystem disruption. However, when pop-ulation growth is compounded by poverty, anegative impact is characteristic. In many trop-ical developing countries, high population growthand the practice of shifting agriculture employedby peasant farmers are considered the great-est threats to diversity,

This report assesses the potential of diversity-maintenance technologies and the institutionsdeveloping and applying these technologies.But maintaining biological diversity will de-pend on more than applying technologies. Tech-nologies do not exist to re-create the vastmajority of ecosystems, species, and genes thatare being lost, and there is little hope that suchtechnologies will be developed in the foresee-able future. Therefore, efforts to maintain diver-sity must also address the socioeconomic, po-litical, and cultural factors involved.

6 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

INTERVENTION$ TO MAINTAIN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSiTY

There are two general approaches to main-taining biological diversity. It may be main-tained where it is found naturally (onsite), orit may be removed from the site and kept else-where (offsite). Onsite maintenance can focuson a particular species or population or, alter-natively, on an entire ecosystem. Offsite main-tenance can focus on organisms preserved asgermplasm or on organisms preserved as liv-ing collections. Table 1-1 lists examples of man-agement systems. These management systemshave somewhat different objectives, but all fourare necessary components of an overall strat-egy to conserve diversity. Conservation objec-tives can be enhanced by investing in any com-

bination of the four systems and by improvinglinks to take advantage of their potential com-plementariness. The objectives of the manage-ment systems are summarized in table 1-2.

Maintaining plants, animals, and microbesonsite—in their natural environments—is themost effective way to conserve a broad rangeof diversity. Onsite technologies primarily fo-cus on establishing an area to protect ecosys-tems or species and on regulating species har-vest. To date, the guidelines for optimal designof protected areas are limited, however.

Offsite maintenance technologies are appliedto conserving a small but often critical part of

Table 1-1 .—Examples of Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity

On site Off site

Ecosystem maintenance Species management Living collections Germplasm storage

National parks Agroecosystems Zoological parks Seed and pol=n banks

Research natural areas Wildlife refuges Botanic gardens Semen, ova, and embryo banks

Marine sanctl]aries /n-situ genebanks Field collections Microbial culture collections

Resource development Game parks and reserves Captive breeding programs Tissue culture collectionsplanning

Increasing human intervention *~ — Increasing emphasis on natural processesSOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1986

Table 1-2. —Management Systems and Conservation Objectives--

— O n s i t e Off site .—Ecosystem maintenance Species maintenance Living collections Germplasm storage— —

Maintain: Maintain: Maintain: Maintain:●

●

●

●

●

a reservoir or “1 ibrary ” ofgenetic resources

evolutionary potential

functioning of variousecological processes

vast majority of knownand unknown species

representatives of uniquenatural ecosystems

● genetic interaction be-tween semidomesticatedspecies and wild relatives

. wi Id popu Iations for sus-tainable exploitation

. viable populations ofthreatened species

. species that provide i m-portant indirect benefits(for pollination or pestcent rol)

c “keystone” species withimportant ecosystem sup-port or regulating function

s breeding material that can-not be stored ingenebanks

. field research and develop-ment on new varieties andbreeds

s off site cultivation andpropagation

● captive breeding stock ofpopulations threatened inthe wild

● ready access to wild spe-cies for research, educa-tion, and display

. convenient source ofgermplasm for breedingprograms

● CO I Iections of germ plasmfrom uncertain or threat-ened sources

● reference or type collectionsas standard for researchand patenting purposes

● access to germ plasm fromwide geographic areas

“ genetic materials from criti-cally endangered species

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

Ch. 1—Summary and Options for Congress ● 7—

the total diversity. Technologies for plants in-clude seed storage, in vitro culture, and livingcollections. Most animals are commonly main-tained offsite as captive populations. Cryogenicstorage of seeds, in vitro cultures, semen, orembryos can improve the efficiency of offsitemaintenance and reduce costs.

Microbial diversity is important for both itsbeneficial and its harmful effects, That is, mi-crobes (e. g., bacteria and viruses) can presentserious threats to human health. By the sametoken, these organisms are used in a range ofbeneficial activities, such as for developing vac-cines or for treating wastes.

Scientists are hampered in their storage, use,and stud~’ of microbial diversity by their in-ability to isolate most micro-organisms. Forthose micro-organisms that have been isolatedand identified, offsite maintenance is the mostcost-effective technique.

Links between onsite and offsite managementsystems are important to increasing the effi-ciency and effectiveness of efforts to maintaindiversity. Some technologies developed for do-mesticated species, for instance, can be adaptedto wild species. Embryo transfer technologiesdeveloped for livestock are now being adaptedfor endangered wild animals.

Determining the efficacy and appropriatenessof technologies depends on biological, sociopo-litical, and economic factors. Taken together,these factors influence decisionmaking andmust be considered in defining objectives formaintaining diversity and for identifying strat-egies to meet these objectives.

Biological considerations are central to theobjectives and choice of systems. Only somediversity is threatened; therefore, the task ofmaintaining it can focus on elements that needspecial attention. A biologically unique species(one that is the only representative of an entiregenus or family) or a species with high estheticappeal may be the focus of intensive conserva-tion management.

Political factors also influence conservationobjectives and management systems. Commit-ments of government resources, policies, andprograms determine the focus of attention, andto a large extent, such commitments reflect pub-lic interests and support. For example, a dis-proportionate share of U.S. resources is devotedto programs for a few of the many endangeredspecies. Substantial sums have been spent in1 lth-hour efforts to save the California condorand the black-footed ferret, while other endan-gered organisms such as invertebrate speciesreceive little attention.

The applicability of management systems alsodepends on economic factors. Costs of alter-native management systems and the value ofresources to be conserved may be relativelyclear in the case of genetic resources. For ex-ample, the benefits of plant breeding programscompared with the cost of seed maintenancejustify germplasm storage technologies, How-ever, cost-benefit analysis is more difficultwhen benefits are diffuse and accrue over a longperiod, And onsite maintenance programs com-pete with other interests for land, personnel,and funds.

Photo credit B Dresser

Staff of the Cincinnati Wildlife Research Federationworking on an anesthetized white rhinoceros in an effortto develop embryo transfer techniques. Proper equipmentmust be developed for COI Iect ion of embryos from themore common white rhino before it is tested on theendangered black rhino. The white rhino would thenbe used as a surrogate for embryos from black rhinos.

Success in maintaining biological diversitydepends largely on institutions that develop andapply the various technologies, Within theUnited States, a variety of laws in addition topublic and private programs address variousaspects of diversity conservation, But while

8 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

some aspects of diversity are covered, otheraspects are ignored. Table I-3 lists major Federalmandates pertinent to diversity maintenance.

Because U.S. interest in biological diversityextends beyond its borders, the United Statessubscribes to a number of international con-servation laws and supports programs throughbilateral and multilateral assistance channels.However, many of these programs have too lit-tle support to be effective in resolving interna-tionally important problems.

Both domestic and international institutionsdeal with aspects of diversity. Some focus at-tention exclusively on maintaining certain agri-cultural crops, such as wheat, and others fo-cus on certain wild species, such as whales andmigratory waterfowl, A shift has occurred inrecent years from the traditional species pro-

tection approach to a more encompassing eco-system maintenance approach.

Much of the work important to diversity main-tenance is done in isolation and is too disjunctto address the full range of concerns. And someconcerns receive little or no attention. For ex-ample, the objectives of the USDA’s NationalPlant Germplasm System (NPGS) place primaryemphasis on economic plants and little empha-sis on non-crop species. Similarly, programsto protect endangered wild species direct at-tention away from species that are threatenedbut not listed as endangered. The lack of con-nections between programs is another institu-tional constraint. Linkages help define commoninterests and areas of potential cooperation—important steps in defining areas of redundancy,neglect, and opportunity.

THE ROLE OF CONGRESS

Given the implications and irreversible na-ture of biological extinction, policymakers mustcontinue to address the problem of diminish-ing biological diversity. A significant increasein attention and funding in this area seems con-sistent with U.S. interests, in view of the bene-fits the United States currently derives frombiological diversity and the advances that bio-technology might achieve given a diversity ofgenetic resources. In addition, enough infor-mation exists to define priorities for diversitymaintenance and to provide a rationale for tak-ing initiatives now, although further researchand critical review of the nature and extent ofdiversity loss are also warranted,

OTA has identified options available to Con-gress. These options are discussed under fivemajor issues:

1.2.

3.4.5.

strengthening the national commitment,increasing the Nation’s ability to maintainbiological diversity,enhancing the knowledge base,supporting international initiatives, andaddressing loss of biological diversity indeveloping countries.

For each issue, alternative or complementaryoptions are presented. These range from legis-lative initiatives to programmatic changeswithin Federal agencies. Options also defineopportunities to cultivate or support private sec-tor initiatives. In a number of areas, however,success will depend on increased or redirectedcommitments of resources. Table 1-4 providesa summary of policy issues and options.

Strongthon the National CommitmentTo Maintain Biological Diversity

The national commitment to maintain bio-logical diversity could be strengthened. Despitesociety’s reliance on biological resources forsustenance and economic development, loss ofdiversity has yet to emerge as a major concernamong decisionmakers. About 2 percent of thenational budget is spent on natural resources-related programs, which include diversity-con-servation programs as one subset.

A number of government and private pro-grams address maintenance of biological diver-sity, but most programs have objectives too nar-

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress . 9

Table l-3.— Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance

C o m m o n n a m e Resource affected

Onsite diversity mandates:Lacey Act of 1900 ., ., ... ... ... . . . . ., .

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, ., ., ., .,

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, , .,, , .,..,,.,. . . . . .

Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (Pittman-Robertson Act) ., ... .

Bald Eagle ProtectIon Act of 1940 . . . . . . . . . ... ., ...

Whaling ConventIon Act of 1949 .., . ., . . . .

Fish Restoration and Management Act of 1950(Dingell-Johnson Act) ... ., . . . . ., . . .

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-304) ...

Fur Seal Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-702). . . . . . . . ...

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 .., ., ., .

Endangered Spec ies Ac t o f 1973 (Pub l i c Law 93 -205 )

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1977(Public Law 94-532). . . . . . . . .,, ..,,.,, ,, .,, ,, ,, .., ,,

Whale Conservation and ProtectIon Study Act of 1976(Public Law 94-532) ., ., . . ., ... ., ., .,

Fish and Wlldllfe Conservation Act of 1980 (Publtc Law 96-366) .,, ,.

Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act of 1980(Publlc Law 96-561 ),. .,, ,, ,,,

Fish and Wildllfe Coordination Act of 1934 ., ...

F i s h a n d G a m e S a n c t u a r y A c t o f 1 9 3 4 . . , . , . ,

H i s to r i c S i t es , Bu i l d i ngs , and An t i qu i t i es Ac t o f 1935

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 . . . . . . . . . . ,,

Wi lderness Act of 1964 (Publ lc Law 88-577) . , , , , , . , , . . , ,

National Wlldllfe Refuge System Admlnistratlon Act of 1966(Public Law 91-135) .,, ,, .., ,, .,, . . . . . . . . .

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Publlc Law 90-542) . . . . . .

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972(Publlc Law 92-532) .. ...,, .,, .,, .., ,..

wild animals

wild birds

wild birds

wild animals

wild birds

wild animals

fisheries

fisheries

wild animals

wild animals

wild plants andanimals

fisherles

wild animals

wild animals

fisheries

terrestrlal/aquatichabitats

sanctuarles

natural landmarks

wildllfe sanctuaries

wilderness areas

refuges

river segments

coastal areas

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976(Publlc Law 94-579) ., ., ., . . . . . . . public domain lands

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-588) . . . . national forest lands

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-514) . . public domain lands

Of/site diversity mandates:Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (Research and Marketing Act) ., agricultural plants

and an finals

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) ., ., wild plants andanimals

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978(Public Law 95-307), ., ., ., ... . . . . . . . . . tree germplasm

NOTE Laws enacted prior to 1957 are cited by Chapter and not Publ!c Law number

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

U S, Code

16 USC, 667, 701

16 U.S,C 703 et seq.

16 USC 715 et seq.

16 U SC 669 et seq.

16 U S.C 668 et seq.

16 U.S C. 916 et seq

16 U S.C 777 et seq

16 U.S. C, 757a-f

16 U.S.C, 1151 et seq.

16 U S.C, 1361 et seq

7 U SC, 13616 U.S.C. 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372,

1402, 1531 et seq.

16 U.S C. 971. 1362, 1801 et seq.

16 USC 915 et seq

16 U S.C 2901 et seq.

16 U.S C 1823 et seq

16 U SC, 694

16 U.S.C 694

16 USC 461-467

15 U S C, 713 et seq 16 U S.C 742 et seq

16 U S C. 1131 et seq

16 U.S C 668dd et seq

16 U.S, C, 1271-1287

16 U,S.C 1431-143433 U,S.C. 1401, 1402, 1411-1421. 14411444

7 U.s.c 1010-101216 U S.C. 5, 79, 420, 460, 478, 522, 523, 551,

133930 us c. 50, 51, 19140 u s c. 31943 U.S C, 315, 661, 664, 665, 687, 869, 931,

934-939, 942-944, 946-959, 961-970, 1701,1702, 1711- 1722, 1731-1748, 1753,1761.1771, 1781, 1782

16 U.S.C 472, 500, 513, 515, 516, 518, 521,576, 581, 1600, 1601-1614

16 U S C 1332, 133343 US C. 1739, 1751-1753. 1901-1908

5 U,s.c 53157 U,S.C. 1006, 1010, 1011, 1924-1927, 1929,

1939-1933, 1941-1943, 1947, 1981, 1983,1985, 1991, 1992, 2201, 2204, 2212, 2651-2654, 2661-2668

16 U.S.C, 590, 1001-100542 U.S.C, 3122

7 U SC 13616 US C. 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372,

1402, 1531 et seq

16 U.S.C 1641-1647

10 ● Techno/ogjes TO Maintain Biological Diversity— ———

Table l-4.—Summary of Policy Issues for Congressional Action Related to Biological Diversity Maintenance

Issue Finding Options

Strengthen national commitment Adopt a comprehensive approachto maintaining bio/ogica/ diversity

Increase public awareness ofbiological diversity issues

Increase ability to maintainbiological diversity

/reprove research, technologydevelopment and application

Fill gaps and inadequacies inexisting programs

Enhance knowledge base /reprove data co//ection,maintenance, and use

Support international initiatives Provide greater leadership in theinternational/ arena

Promote the exchange of geneticresources

Address loss in developingcountries

Amend Foreign Assistance Act

Enhance capability of the Agencyfor /nternationa/ Development

Estab/ish alternative fundingsources for biological diversity~roiects, .

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987—

Establish a national biological diversity actPrepare a national conservation strategyAmend appropriate legislation of Federal

agencies

Establish a national conservation education actAmend the International Security and

Development Cooperation Act

Direct National Science Foundation to establisha conservation biology program

Establish a national endowment for biologicaldiversity

Provide sufficient funding for existingmaintenance programs

Improve link between onsite and off siteprograms

Establish new programs to fill specific gaps incurrent efforts

Establish a clearinghouse for biological dataEnhance existing natural heritage network of

conservation data centers

Increase support of existing internationalprograms

Continue oversight hearings of multilateraldevelopment banks’ activities

Examine U.S. options on international exchangeof germplasm

Amend the Export Administration Act to affirmU.S. commitment to free exchange ofgerm plasm

Adopt broader definition of biological diversityin Foreign Assistance Act

Direct AID to adopt strategic approach todiversity conservation

Increase AID staffing of personnel withenvironmental training

Create special account for natural resourcesand the environment

Apply more Public Law 480 funds to effort— --—.. —

rowly defined to address the broad scope ofbiological diversity concerns. Nor do the ad hocprograms use coordination and cooperation tobuild a systematic approach to tackle the issue,State and private efforts fill some gaps in Fed-eral programs, but they do not provide a com-prehensive national commitment and thus leavemany aspects of the problem uncovered.

Federal agencies, for example, coordinate theonsite conservation activities mentioned spe-cifically in Federal species protection laws,such as those under the authority of the En-dangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-

205), but no formal institutional mechanism ex-ists for the thousands of plant, animal, andmicrobial species not listed as threatened orendangered. Mandates for offsite conservationare equally vague about which species they areto consider. For example, the Research andMarketing Act of 1946 is intended to “promotethe efficient production and utilization of prod-ucts of the soil” (7 U. S.C.A. 427), but it is inter-preted narrowly by the Agricultural ResearchService (ARS) to mean economic plant speciesand varieties. Thus, little government attentionhas been given to conserving the multitude ofwild plant species offsite, Even less attention

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress “ 11-—

is given to offsite conservation of domesticatedand wild animals.

FINDING 1: A comprehensive approach isneeded to arrest the loss of biological di-versity. Significant gaps in existing pro-grams could be identified with such an ap-proach, and the resources of organizationsconcerned with the issue could be better al-located. Improved coordination could createopportunities to enhance effectiveness andefficiency of Federal, State, and private pro-grams without interfering with achievementof the programs’ goals.

The broad scale of the problem of diversityloss necessitates innovative solutions. Variouslaws and programs of Federal, State, and pri-vate organizations already provide the frame-work for a concerted comprehensive approach.At this time, however, few of these programsstate maintenance of biological diversity as anexplicit objective. As a result, diversity is givencursory attention in most conservation and re-source management programs. Some of them,such as the Endangered Species Program, ad-dress diversity more directly but are concernedwith only one facet of the problem. Duplica-tion of efforts, conflicts in goals, and gaps ingeographic and taxonomic coverage are con-sequences.

To resolve this institutional problem, a com-prehensive approach to maintaining biologicaldiversity is needed. The implication is not thatall programs should address the full range ofapproaches; rather, organizations should viewtheir own programs within the broader contextof maintaining diversity and should coordinatetheir programs with those of other organiza-tions. Programs and organizations would there-by benefit from one another. Gaps could beidentified and eventually filled, and duplicateefforts could be reduced. And organizationscould improve efficiency by taking the respon-sibilities for which they are best suited. More-over, financial support for diversity maintenancecould be more effectively distributed. A stepin this direction has been taken in recent ini-tiatives, but congressional commitment to suchan endeavor is necessary to ensure that efforts

will be made to achieve a comprehensive ap-proach to maintaining biological diversity.

Option 1.1: Enact legislation that recognizes theimportance of maintaining biological diver-sity as a national objective.

Current legislation addressing the loss of bio-logical diversity in the United States is largelypiecemeal. Although many Federal laws affectconservation of diversity, few refer to it spe-cifically. The National Forest Management Actof 1976 is the only legislation that mandates theconservation of a “diversity of plant and ani-mal communities, ” but it offers no explicitdirection on the meaning and scope of diver-sity maintenance.

Consequently, existing Federal programs fo-cus on sustaining specific ecosystems, species,or gene pools, or on protecting endangeredwildlife. Species protection laws authorize Fed-eral agencies to manage specific animal popu-lations and their habitats. Habitat protectionlaws authorize the acquisition or designationof habitats under Federal stewardship. Federallaws for offsite maintenance of plants author-ize the collection and genetic development ofplant species that demonstrate potential eco-nomic value.

The Endangered Species Act authorizes pro-tection of species considered threatened or en-dangered in the United States, However, list-ing endangered species does not eliminate theproblem; efforts are hampered by slow listingprocedures, by emphasis on vertebrate animalsat the expense of plants and invertebrates, andby concerns about conflicts that endangeredstatus might create.

Congress could pass a National BiologicalDiversity Act to endorse the importance of theissue and to provide guidance for a comprehen-sive approach. Such an act could explicitly statemaintenance of diversity as a national goal,establish mechanisms for coordinating activi-ties, and set priorities for diversity conserva-tion. A national policy could bring about co-operation among Federal, State, and privateefforts, help reduce conflicting activities, andimprove efficiency and cost-effectiveness ofprograms,

12 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

To be effective, a new act would require asuccinct definition of biological diversity andexplicit goals for its maintenance. Otherwise,ambiguities would lead to misinterpretationand confusion. Diversity, for example, couldbe interpreted broadly when authorities andfunding are being sought and narrowly whenresponsibilities are assigned. Identifying goalsis likely to be a long and politically sensitiveprocess. Decisionmakers and the public willhave to determine if conserving maximum diver-sity is the desirable goal. Finally, to be effec-tive, the law must have both public support andadequate resources, or it would simply providea false reassurance that something is beingdone.

Option 1.2: Develop a National ConservationStrategy for U.S. biological resources.

Another means of comprehensively address-ing diversity maintenance is to develop a Na-tional Conservation Strategy (NCS). This strat-egy could be developed in conjunction with,or in lieu of, a mandate as suggested in thepreceding option. The process would initiatecoordination of Federal programs. Program ad-ministrators could identify measures to reduceoverlap and duplication, to minimize jurisdic-tional problems, and to develop new initiatives.

A national strategy could minimize potentialcompetition, conflict, and duplication amongprograms in the private and public sectors. Inaddition, preparation of an NCS would strengthenefforts to promote NCSS in other countries.Some 30 countries (mostly developing coun-tries, but also including Canada and the UnitedKingdom) have initiated concrete steps to pre-pare an NCS. U.S. action might reinforce themomentum for NCSs in other countries.

Congress could establish an independentcommission to prepare the NCS. Members ofthe commission could serve part-time and beprovided a budget for meetings and adminis-trative support. The commission could includerepresentatives from government, academia,and the private sector. The Public Land LawReview Commission and the National WaterCommission are potential models.

In developing a national strategy, such a com-mission could do the following:

●

●

●

●

assess the adequacy of existing programsto conserve biological diversity;formulate a national policy on mainte-nance of biological diversity;identify measures required to implementthe policy, any obstacles to such measures,and the means to overcome those obstacles;determine how biological diversity main-tenance relates to other conservation anddevelopment interests; andinclude a public consultation and informa-tion program to build a consensus on thecontent of the national conservation strategy.

Another way to prepare a strategy is to tapthe resources of an established governmentagency. An appropriate body could be theCouncil for Environmental Quality (CEQ),which is part of the Office of the President. Cre-ated by the National Environmental Policy Actof 1969, CEQ already prepares annual reportsfor the President on the state of the environ-ment. In doing so, it uses the services of publicand private agencies, organizations, and indi-viduals and hence has the experience and au-thority to bring together various interest groupsand expertise. On the other hand, CEQ, thoughfully staffed in the 1970s with a range of envi-ronmental experts, now has only a small staffof administrators. Coordinating and guiding thesubstantive development of an NCS is thus be-yond the council’s current capacity exceptthrough use of consultants.

Because the success of an NCS depends onparticipation of a broad spectrum of interestgroups, its preparation could be a dauntingprospect. The number, size, and nature of U.S.Government agencies and the different sectorsinvolved could make preparation and imple-mentation of a strategy difficult.

Option 1.3: Amend the Legislation of Federalagencies to make maintenance of biologicaldiversity an explicit consideration in theiractivities.

Yet another means for Congress to encouragea comprehensive approach is to make mainte-

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 1 3

nance of biological diversity an explicit con-sideration of Federal agencies’ activities. Anumber of Federal programs affecting biologi-cal diversity are scattered throughout differentagencies, but the lack of coordination resultsin inefficient and inadequate coverage of theproblem.

These amendments could involve the crea-tion of new programs, or they could lead tomodified objectives for existing programs. Ineither case, the amendments should redirectcertain policies, consolidate conservation ef-forts, and provide criteria for settling conflicts.An amendment for Federal land managing agen-cies, for example, could require that these agen-cies make diversity conservation a priority indecisions relating to land acquisition, disposal,and exchange,

Such amendments would probably be resistedby individual Federal agencies, which could ar-gue that they are already maintaining diversityand do not need more explicit direction fromCongress, In addition, agencies could argue thatthey could not increase their activities withoutnew appropriations; otherwise, the quality ofexisting work could be compromised.

Before such amendments are written, a sys-tematic review of all Federal resource legisla-tion will be needed to determine how existingstatutory mandates and programs affect theconservation of diversity and how they comple-ment or contradict one another, and to desig-nate which programs are most in need of revi-sion. Such a complex review will take time andmoney and is likely to be opposed by agencies.

FINDING 2: Because maintenance of biologi-cal diversity is a long-term problem, policychanges and management programs must belong lasting to be effective. But, such policiesand programs must be understood and ac-cepted by the public, or they will be replacedor overshadowed by shorter term concerns.Conveying the importance of biological diver-sity requires formulating the issue in termsthat are technically correct yet understand-able and convincing to the general public. Toundertake the initiative will require not only

biologists but also social scientists and edu-cators working together.

Diversity loss has not captured public atten-tion for three reasons, First, it is a complex con-cept to grasp. Rather than attempt to improveunderstanding of the broad issue, organizationssoliciting support have made emotional appealsto save particular appealing species or spec-tacular habitats. This approach is effective inthe short-term, but it keeps the constituency andthe scope of the problem narrow. Second, themore pervasive threats to diversity, such as lossof habitat or diminished genetic bases for agri-cultural crops, are gradual processes ratherthan dramatic events. Third, most benefits ofmaintaining diversity are often diffuse, un-priced, and reaped over the long-term, result-ing in relatively low economic values being as-signed to the goods and services provided. Thebenefits of diversity, therefore, are not pre-sented concretely and competitively with otherissues. Consequently, the public and policy-makers generally lack an appreciation of pos-sible consequences of diversity loss.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, environ-mental quality has been a major public policyconcern since the 1970s, and it remains firmlyentrenched in the consciousness of the Amer-ican public. A 1985 Harris poll, for example,indicated that 63 percent of Americans placegreater priority on environmental clean-up thanon economic growth. And because stewardshipof the environment includes maintaining diver-sity, this predisposition of Americans could bebuilt onto develop support for diversity main-tenance programs.

Biological diversity benefits a variety of spe-cial interest groups; its potential constituencyis enormous but fragmented. It includes, forexample, the timber and fishing industries aswell as farmers, gardeners, plant breeders, ani-mal breeders, recreational hunters, indigenouspeoples, wilderness enthusiasts, tourists, andall those who enjoy nature. The combined in-terests of all these groups could cuItivate a na-tional commitment to maintaining biologicaldiversity, if properly orchestrated.

14 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity—

Option 2.1: Promote public education about bio-logical diversity by establishing a NationalConservation Education Act.

Just as sustaining support to enhance envi-ronmental quality required public educationprograms, so too will a concerted national ef-fort to conserve biological diversity require astrong public education effort. A National Con-servation Education Act could be patterned af-ter the Environmental Education Act of 1971(Public Law 91-516), which authorized the U.S.Commissioner of Education to establish edu-cation programs that would encourage under-standing of environmental policies. z

A new act could support programs and cur-ricula that promote, inter alia, the importanceof biological diversity to human welfare. Asmall grants program could support researchand pilot public education projects. Fundscould be made available to evaluate methodsfor curricula development, dissemination ofcurricula, teacher training, ecological studycenter design, community education, and ma-terials for mass media programs, The act couldsupport interaction among existing State envi-ronmental education programs, such as thosein Wisconsin and Minnesota, and encouragethe establishment of new programs in otherStates. The Department of Education could pro-vide consulting services to school districts todevelop education programs.

An attempt to establish additional environ-mental education legislation might be opposedbecause of the trend to reduce the Federal Gov-ernment’s role in education and to rely moreon State and private sector initiatives. There-fore, it could be argued that private organiza-tions, such as the Center for EnvironmentalEducation, are the appropriate agents to in-crease public awareness. It could also be ar-gued that Federal agencies are already educat-ing the public about environmental issues andcould easily include biological diversity in theirprograms without new legislation. Besides, new

This act was repealed by Public Lawr 97-35 in 1981, and theI)epartment of Education has requested no funds for environ-mental education in its 1987 budget.

legislation would require additional appropri-ations, and in a time of budgetary constraints,funding requests for conservation educationprograms would probably be opposed.

Option 2.2: Amend the International Securityand Development Act of 1980 to increase theawareness of the American public about in-ternational diversity conservation issues thataffect the United States.

Even more difficult than increasing the pub-lic’s awareness of domestic issues in biologi-cal diversity is increasing their awareness ofthe relevance of diversity loss in other coun-tries. In addition to humanitarian and ethicalreasons, maintaining diversity in other coun-tries benefits the United States by sustainingbiological resources needed for American agri-culture, pharmacology, and biotechnology in-dustries, and by sustaining natural resourcesnecessary for commerce and economic devel-opment.

Maintaining biological diversity for securityand quality of life enhancement, and the wis-dom of incorporating such issues into U.S. for-eign assistance efforts, are justification for Con-gress to promote public awareness of the globalnature of the problem.

Mechanisms for educating the public aboutsuch international issues are already in place.Specifically, several nongovernmental organi-zations (NGOS) have international conservationoperations. A coalition of these groups activelyparticipated in the U.S. Interagency Task Forceon biological diversity that formulated the U.S.Strategy on the Conservation of Biological Di-versity in Developing Countries. As a group,they have identified public education as a ma-jor role for NGOs.

The grassroots approach of NGOs is con-ducive to heightening public awareness, as il-lustrated by the support for programs to allevi-ate famine in Africa. Recognizing the potentialof NGOs to stimulate public awareness and dis-cussion of the political, economic, technical,and social factors relating to world hunger andpoverty, Congress amended the InternationalSecurity and Development Cooperation Act of

Ch. I—Summary and Options for Congress 15

1980 with Title III, Section 316, to further thegoals of Section 103.3

This amendment provides NGOs with Biden-Pell matching grants to support programs thateducate U.S. citizens about the links betweenAmerican progress and progress in develop-ing countries. The Agency for International De-velopment (AID) has used these grants mainlyto promote American understanding of theproblems faced by farmers in developing coun-tries and how resolution of those problems ben-efits Americans. Recently, use of the grants hasbeen broadened to include public education oninternational environmental issues, Congresscould encourage this action by expressing itsapproval during oversight hearings or by fur-ther amending the International Security andDevelopment Cooperation Act specifically toauthorize support for education programs onenvironmental issues, especially on biologicaldiversity.

Increase the Nation’s Ability ToMaintain Biological Diversity

The ability to maintain biological diversitydepends on the availability of applicable tech-nologies that are useful and affordable and onprograms designed to apply these technologiesto clearly identified needs. Thus, increasing theNation’s ability to maintain diversity will re-quire an improved system for identifying needsand for developing or adapting technologiesand programs to address these needs.

At present, technologies and programs arenot sufficient to prevent further erosion of bio-logical resources. The problem of diversity losshas been recognized relatively recently, and sci-entists have just begun to focus attention on

‘Sm. 103, entitled ‘‘Agriculture, Rural De\’elopment and NLI-

t ri t ion, re[;ognizes that the majority of people in de~’eloping(,ou nt rles 1 i~fe in rural areas and close to subsisten(;e. It author-iz(:s the I)resident to furnish assistance to alleviate hunger andmal nut rit ion, enharr(:e the capacity of rural people, and to he] p(. reate [) rod u(, t it’e on- and off-farm ern plojment. Sec, 315 en-(:ourages pri i’at e a n[l k’ol LI n ta rk’ or~a n izat ions to fac I 1 i tate ti ] (1 [;-~i)rea(l ~)uh] i{, (1 i s(; ussion, a nal}~ is, and re~’ie~~ of th[> issl}(;~ ofwor](] hunger, It espec ial]j’ (:a]]s for Increased pub] ic a~~’arenessof th (; pol it i(, a 1, fx, ono rn 1(,, te(. hnl(:al, and so(:ial factors aff(!(,t-] ng h u ngt; r a n(l peter-t}.

it. Progress is slow partly because basic re-search is poorly funded, and institutions arenot organized to follow-up basic research withsynthesis of results, technology development,and technology transfer. The last reason im-plies a need for goal-oriented research.

All too often, the Nation’s current researchprograms related to biological diversity do nothave a goal-oriented approach. Institutional re-ward systems and prestige factors deter manyscientists from engaging in work that translatesbasic science into practical tools. Several Fed-eral agencies support basic biology and ecol-ogy research, but too little support exists forsynthesis of the research into technologies.

Improved links between research and man-agement systems, that is, technology transfer,can increase efficiency, effectiveness, and abil-ity for maintaining diversity, For example, un-derstanding how to maintain and propagatewild endangered species has been preceded byefforts to maintain domestic species. Perhapsthe most dramatic linkage is embryo transfertechnology developed for livestock now beingadapted for endangered wildlife, Similarly,plant storage technologies developed for agri-cultural varieties, such as cryogenics and tis-sue culture, may be valuable tools for maintain-ing rare or threatened wild plant species, evenif only as backup collections.

FINDING 3: Current technologies are insuffi-cient to prevent further erosion of biologicalresources. Thus, increasing the Nation’s abil-ity to maintain biological diversity will re-quire acceleration of basic research as wellas research in development and implemen-tation of resource management technologies.

Most resource management technologieswere developed to meet narrow needs. Onsitetechnologies are generally directed toward aparticular population or species, and offsitetechnologies are generally directed towardorganisms of economic importance. This re-stricted focus of basic research and technol-ogy development is not sufficient to meet thebroad goal of maintaining diversity, given thenumber of species involved and the time andfunds available.

16 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

To accelerate research and application ofdiversity-conserving technologies, a shift of em-phasis is necessary in research funding. Agen-cies that fund or conduct research (e.g., theNational Science Foundation (NSF) and theAgricultural Research Service of the USDA)generally do not focus on applying research totechnology development; they usually are ori-ented toward supporting basic research. Forexample, research funds are available for de-scriptive studies of population genetics but notfor studies on applications of genetic theory toonsite population management. Scientists arerewarded for research that tests hypothesesrelatively quickly and for publication of re-search results in academic journals. These in-centives discourage broad, long-term studiesand neglect analyzing research results to de-velop technology systems.

Another avenue to increasing the ability tomaintain diversity is to encourage developmentand implementation of programs by privateorganizations, Although many private effortsare not defined in terms of diversity conserva-tion per se, activities to conserve aspects ofdiversity (i.e., ecosystems, wild species, agri-cultural crops, and livestock) have had signifi-cant impact. These efforts are not likely to re-place public or national programs, but theycould bean integral part of the Nation’s attemptto maintain its biological heritage.

Option 3.I: Direct the National Science Foun-dation to establish a program for conserva-tion biology.

The field of conservation biology seeks to de-velop scientific principles and then apply thoseprinciples to developing technologies for diver-sity maintenance, Recently, the development ofthis discipline has gained momentum throughthe establishment of study programs at someuniversities and the formation of a Society ofConservation Biology, with its own professionaljournal. Nevertheless, conservation biology isonly beginning to be recognized by the aca-demic community as a legitimate discipline. Noresearch funds support it explicitly. Therefore,few scientists can afford to conduct innovativeconservation biology research,

Current funding for research and technologydevelopment in conservation biology is negli-gible, in large part because NSF considers itto be too applied, while other government agen-cies consider it to be too theoretical. Congresscould encourage scientists to specialize in con-servation biology by establishing within NSFa separate conservation biology research pro-gram that would support the broad spectrumof basic and applied research directed at de-veloping and applying science and technologyto biological diversity conservation.

To enhance interprogram links, this programcould fund studies that integrate onsite and off-site methods—at the ecosystem, species, andgenetic levels. Such a program would also bringmuch needed national recognition, researchfunding, and scientific expertise to the field ofconservation biology. This support would accel-erate its acceptance and growth within the sci-entific community and the development of newprinciples and technology,

Current statutory authority of NSF wouldcover such a program, NSF programs are sup-posed to support both basic and applied scien-tific research relevant to national problems in-volving public interest; the maintenance ofbiological diversity is such a problem.

NSF might resist establishing such a program,because NSF views conservation biology as amission-oriented activity. Since conservationbiology includes technology development, NSFmight view a diversity program as a potentiallydangerous precedent to its role as the Nation’smajor supporter of basic research. Further-more, NSF might argue that a new research pro-gram is not needed because its Division of Bi-otic Systems and Resources already supportsabout 60 basic research projects that addressbiological diversity issues. These projects, how-ever, largely ignore the social, economic, po-litical, and management aspects of biologicaldiversity, and conservation is usually of sec-ondary importance to the projects,

An alternative to establishing an NSF pro-gram could be to enhance or redirect existingprograms in other agencies to promote researchin diversity maintenance. The Institute of

Museum Services (IMS), a federally sponsoredprogram, already provides a small amount offunding for research on both onsite and offsitediversity maintenance. IMS supports activitiesfrom ecosystem surveys to captive breeding.However, the principal focus of IMS is publiceducation, and its small budget is spread overa wide range of programs (e. g., art museumsand historic collections), many of which are un-related to biological research. Thus, IMS wouldbe unable, with its current funding, to takegreater responsibility for technology develop-ment; new appropriations would be necessary.

Development and application of diversity-conserving technologies could also be fundedthrough other Federal agencies’ research pro-grams. Congress could encourage appropriateagencies to increase emphasis on developmentof diversity technology. One source of fundingis through the USDA Competitive ResearchGrants Office (C RGO). At present, the only re-search related to genetic resources funded byUSDA-CRGO is in the area of molecular ge-netics. As a result, little funding is available forscientists seeking to conduct research in germ-plasm preservation, maintenance, evaluation,and use.

Option 3.2: Establish a National Endowmentfor Biological Diversity.

Congress could establish a National Endow-ment for Biological Diversity to fund privateorganizations in research, education, training,and maintenance programs that support theconservation of biological diversity, Currently,no central institution funds such efforts.

Efforts, however piecemeal, of private orga-nizations and individuals are currently mak-ing significant contributions to the mainte-nance of the Nation’s diversity. Frequently, theyundertake activities that Federal and State agen-cies cannot or do not address. Through theirspecial interests, these groups as a whole alsoplay a major role in raising public awarenessand concern about the loss of diversity. In thisway, they increase the constituency backinggovernment programs that maintain naturalareas as well as those that collect and safeguard

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress 17

genetic resources.’ Funding, however, is amajor constraint for nearly all these privateactivities. A program of small grants with a ceil-ing of perhaps $25,000 per grant (similar to thegrants awarded by IMS) could make a substan-tial contribution to the shoestring budgets ofthese small organizations and thus enhance na-tional efforts to maintain biological diversityat relatively little cost.

A National Endowment for Biological Diver-sity could provide funds to private organiza-tions to carry out the following:

support research and application of meth-ods to conserve biological diversity,award fellowships and grants for training,foster and support education programs toincrease public understanding and appre-ciation of biological diversity, andbuy necessary equipment such as smallcomputers.

This national endowment could be created byamending the act that authorizes other nationalendowment (of arts and humanities) programs.The National Foundation on Arts and Human-ities Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-209) declaresthat the encouragement and support of nationalprogress is of Federal concern and supportsscholarships, research, the improvement ofeducation facilities, and encouragement ofgreater public awareness,

A major constraint to establishing an endow-ment is the availability of funds during thisperiod of severe budget cutbacks. However,even a small program could significantly en-courage private sector initiatives in diversitymaintenance. Thus, the total amount neededfor such an endowment could be modest, andit might be feasible to use only startup fundsand a partial contribution from the Federal Gov-ernment and raise the remainder of the endow-ment from private sector contributions,

4For further discussion, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technol-ogy Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diver-sity in the United States, Background Paper #1, OTA-BP-F-38(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February1986].

18 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity. —

FINDING 4: Many Federal agencies sponsordiversity maintenance programs that are welldesigned but not fully effective in achievingtheir objectives because of inadequate fund-ing and personnel, lack of links to other pro-grams, or lack of complementary programsin related fields.

Much is already being done to maintain cer-tain aspects of diversity in the United States,but efforts are constrained by shrinking budgetsand personnel. And as noted earlier, the pro-grams addressing biological diversity are piece-meal rather than comprehensive or strategic.Whether or not Congress chooses to promotea comprehensive strategy for diversity main-tenance, specific attention is needed to remedythe major gaps and inadequacies in existingprograms.

Option 4.1: Provide increased funding to exist-ing programs for maintenance of diversity.

A number of governmental programs for di-versity maintenance already exist, some be-cause of congressional mandates. Yet the fullpotential of some of those programs has notbeen realized because funding is insufficient.Two such programs are the National PlantGermplasm System (NPGS) and the EndangeredSpecies Program, though others would also ben-efit from higher levels of funding.

The NPGS of the Agricultural Research Serv-ice has functioned for years on severely limitedfunds and, consequently, is in danger of losingsome of the storehouse of plant germplasm.This desperate situation is best illustrated bythe National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL],which is expected to exceed its storage capac-ity in 2 years. At the same time, NSSL is beingpressured to increase collection and mainte-nance of wild plant germplasm. NPGS is at-tempting to respond to various criticisms aboutits effectiveness, but progress has been slowbecause of lack of funds and personnel. The1986 appropriation for germplasm work is ap-proximately $16 million, but to support currentprograms adequately would cost about $40 mil-lion (1981 dollars) annua]ly.

Similarly underfunded and understaffed isthe Endangered Species Program of the Fishand Wildlife Service. A review of this programshows a substantial and growing backlog of im-portant work. The rate of proposing species forthe threatened and endangered list is so slowthat a few candidates (e.g., Texas Henslow’ssparrow) may have become extinct while await-ing listing. Critical habitat has been determinedfor only one-fourth of the listed species, andrecovery plans have been approved for onlysome of the listed species.

Congress could provide adequate funding forthese and other programs to achieve their goalsin maintaining diversity. NPGS could, as a re-sult, increase the viability of stored germplasmthrough more frequent testing and regenera-tion of accessions. NSSL could increase its effi-ciency by expanding storage capacity andadopting new technologies. For example, cryo-genic storage could be used to reduce mainte-nance cost and space, thereby enabling a largercollection of germplasm. Likewise, the Endan-gered Species Program would be able to assesscandidate species faster and to develop and im-plement recovery plans for those already listedspecies.

Option 4.2: Amend appropriate legislation toimprove the link between onsite and offsitemaintenance programs.

Coordination between onsite and offsite pro-grams is inadequate. By amending appropri-ate legislation, Congress could encourage thecomplementary use of onsite and offsite tech-nologies. For example, the Endangered SpeciesAct could be amended to encourage use of cap-tive breeding and propagation techniques, Suchmethods have been used with some endangeredspecies, such as the red wolf, whooping crane,and grizzly bear. But for other species, suchas the California condor, black-footed ferret,and dusky seaside sparrow, recovery plans donot exist or were too long delayed, Recoveryplans for endangered species seldom includethe use of offsite techniques, partly because cap-tive breeding and propagation are outside the

scope of natural resource management agen-cies; rather, they are in the province of zoos,botanic gardens, arboretums, and agriculturalresearch stations.

By mandating that recovery plans give spe-cific consideration to captive breeding andpropagation, Congress could encourage linksbetween separate programs. The approachcould be broadened to encourage cooperativeefforts between public and private organiza-tions working offsite and onsite to conserve eco-system and genetic diversity. A model for suchefforts exists in the emerging cooperation be-tween the Center for plant Conservation (net-work of regional botanic institutions) and NSSL,

Option 4.3: Establish programs to fill gaps incurrent efforts to maintain biological diversity.

One of the most obvious gaps in domestic pro-grams is the lack of a formal national programto maintain domestic animal genetic resources.Congress could establish a program to coordi-nate activities for animal germplasm conser-vation, thereby reducing duplication and en-couraging complementary actions. Such aprogram could be established through clarifi-cation of the Agricultural Research Servicemandate. An animal program could parallel theNational Plant Germplasm System, but otherstructures should be explored as well. Alter-natively, a separate program established to besemi-independent from government agenciesmight serve a greater variety of interests. Thebest structure for such a program is at presentunclear.

A congressional hearing could be held toidentify the main issues in establishing an ani-mal germplasm program and to discuss alter-native structures and scope of such a program,

Coordination of international efforts is alsoneeded to preserve the diversity of agricultur-ally important animals. Some efforts have al-ready been made, and the concept of an inter-national program is gaining support, Congresscould encourage the establishment of an Inter-national Board for Animal Genetic Resources(IBAGR). This program could parallel the In-ternational Board for Plant Genetic Resources

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress 19

(IBPGR). An IBAGR could set standards andcoordinate the exchange and storage of germ-plasm between countries and address relatedissues such as quarantine regulations. It couldfoster onsite management of genetic resourcesfor both minor and major breeds.

Another major gap is protection of U.S. eco-system diversity. Numerous types of ecosys-tems, such as tall grass prairie, are not includedin the Federal public lands system. Congresscould direct Federal land-managing agenciesto include representative areas of major eco-systems in protected areas.

One vehicle for this is the Research NaturalArea (RNA) system. Since 1927, the RNA system,with the cooperation of multiple Federal agen-cies and private groups, has developed the mostcomprehensive coverage of natural ecosystemtypes in the United States. RNAs, however, aresmall scale and are mainly established on landalready in public ownership. Therefore, theRNA system, may not be able to cover the majorecosystems without some additional mecha-nism to acquire land not already in the Fed-eral domain, possibly through land exchanges.Nevertheless, Congress could recognize theRNA system as a mechanism and direct agen-cies to work toward filling the program gaps.

Enhance the Knowledge Base

Developing effective strategies to maintaindiversity depends on knowing the componentsof biological systems and how’ they interact. In-formation on the status and trends in biologi-cal systems is also needed for public policy. Thefirst step in developing such information is fun-damental descriptions of the \arious compo-nents—species, communities, and ecosystems.Data can then be analyzed to determine howbest to maintain biological diversity. More spe-cifically, baseline data are needed for the fol-lowing activities:

●

●

assessing the abundance, condition, anddistribution of species, communities, andecosystems;disclosing changes that may be takingplace;

20 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversify

●

●

monitoring the effectiveness of resourcemanagement plans once they are imple-mented; anddetermining priorities for areas that meritspecial efforts to manage natural diversitythat would benefit from protection, andthat deserve particular attention to avoidbiological disruption or to initiate mitiga-tive actions.

To be effective and efficient, the acquisition,dissemination, and use of data must proceedwithin the context of defined objectives. Forthe most part, biological data used in diversitymaintenance programs has been acquired with-out the direction of a coordinating goal. Notsurprisingly, these data are widely scatteredand generally incompatible. Geographical andtaxonomical data gaps exist. Some taxonomicgroups are ignored in field inventories, whileothers, particularly plants and animals witheconomic or recreational value, are monitoredextensively. Finally, there is little data on thesocial, economic, and institutional pressureson biological diversity. Consequently, availabledata cannot be used easily in decisionmakingdirected at maintaining biological diversity.

FINDING 5: Congress and other policymakersneed improved information on biologicaldiversity. Such information cannot be sup-plied without improvements in data collec-tion, maintenance, and synthesis.

Policy makers need comprehensive informa-tion on the ramifications and scope of diver-sity loss. Information provided by the scientificcommunity should be a basis for resource pol-icy and management decisions. To serve in thecontext of public policy, data should satisfy fourcriteria:

1. The data must be of high quality; that is,it must meet accepted standards of objec-tivity, completeness, reproducibility, andaccuracy.

2. The data must have value; that is, it mustaddress a worthwhile problem.

3. The data must be applicable; that is, it mustbe useful to decisionmakers responsible formaking policy,

4. The data must be legitimate; that is, it mustcarry a widely accepted presumption of ac-curacy and authority.

Much information is already available but notin an assimilated form useful to decision-makers. Data on the status and trends of bio-logical diversity are scattered among Federal,State, and foreign agencies and private orga-nizations. Consolidation of these data is nec-essary to identify gaps, to provide a compre-hensive understanding of the status of theEarth’s biota, and especially to define priori-ties for action.

Option 5.1: Establish a small clearinghouse fordata on biological diversity.

The purpose of a clearinghouse would be tocoordinate data collection, synthesis, and dis-semination efforts. It could serve governmentagencies, private organizations, corporations,and individuals, The clearinghouse could per-form the following functions:

●

●

●

●

survey and catalog existing Federal, State,private, and international databases on bio-logical resources;evaluate the quality of databases;provide small grants and personnel sup-port services to strengthen existing data-bases; andPublish annual reports on the status andneeds of the biological data system.

Success in these endeavors would accelerateprogress toward several objectives:

1.2.3.

4.

5,

6.

setting of priorities for conservation action;monitoring trends;developing an alert system for adversetrends;identifying gaps and reviewing needs tofill them;facilitating development of environmentalimpact assessments; andevaluating options, actions, and successesand failures.

As a data-coordinating body, the clearing-house could guide efforts to collect data on bio-logical diversity, which will provide a compre-

—

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress c 21

hensive perspective that Federal agenciescannot supply because of their varied man-dates. Access to previously inaccessible datawould be facilitated, which should reduceduplication of efforts. By evaluating the qual-it y of information, the clearinghouse could helpeliminate a general distrust among users ofother databases. Access to a diversity of data-bases means that no standardized system isforced on data users, which has been a formida-ble obstacle to database integration and use.

The clearinghouse would not necessarilymaintain its own primary database. Commer-cial databases in the public domain could beincluded in the system, and proprietary andother limited-access databases could be re-viewed regularly, with permission. Databaseenhancements to cover gaps could be fundedby small grants. The clearinghouse’s informa-tion systems could be made available througha library service and special searches. It couldcharge appropriate fees for all its services.

The same clearinghouse could assess infor-mation on biological diversity in internationaldatabases. It could provide a small amount offinancial and personnel aid to help interna-tional organizations improve their databases.In addition, it could work with developmentassistance agencies to support the participationof other countries’ national databases in suchinternational and regional networks as theInternational Union for the Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources ConservationMonitoring Center, the United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s(UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Program(MAB), and The Nature Conservancy Interna-tional.

Possible objections to such a clearinghouseinclude the following: 1) that lack of a uniformsystem of data collection for the United Stateswould hinder national data analysis and use,and 2) that evaluating the quality of other agen-cies’ databases would be politically sensitive.Questions such as the size, administrative struc-ture, and cost of a clearinghouse program mustbe answered as well. Because it would not main-tain its own primary database, however, sucha clearinghouse would not need to be a large-scale operation.

Option 5.2: Provide funding to enhance the ex-isting network of natural heritage conserva-tion data centers.

A number of State governments, aided by TheNature Conservancy (TNC), have already estab-lished a network of Natural Heritage DataCenters in many States and in some foreigncountries. These centers collect and organizebiological data specifically for diversity con-servation. All centers use a standardized for-mat to collect and synthesize data. The resulthas been a vehicle to exchange and to aggregateinformation about what is happening to bio-logical resources at State and local levels and,more recently, around the Nation and acrossthe Western Hemisphere.

Funding for these data centers comes froma combination of Federal, State, and private (in-cluding corporate) sources. Progress has beenlimited, however, by the amount of availablefunds. Congress could enhance these efforts byproviding a consistent source of additionalfunding. By increasing support for the Fed-eral-State-private partnership, the action byCongress could reinforce the application ofstandard methods, enhance interagency com-patibility, improve the efficiency of biologicaldata collection and management, and facilitatethe free exchange of useful information, More-over, the partnership could accelerate the rateat which data centers spread to the remainingStates and nations.

An appropriation of $10 million per year, forexample, could be divided among several datacenter functions: supporting central officeactivities in research, development, documen-tation, and training; conducting taxonomicwork; and matching grants from States andother participants, One source of funding couldbe the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Al-though this fund is used mainly for land acqui-sition, it could also support preacquisition ac-tivities such as identification of lands to beacquired. Data centers are key to such activities.

This option does not necessarily replace theneed for an information clearinghouse becausediverse databases and information systems will

22 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

continue to operate. The two options could becomplementary. Some clearinghouse functionsmight be handled by TNC, but others, such asfacilitating improvement of and access to datasources, could be best handled by a separateentity that functions much like a library.

Support International InitiativesTo Maintain Biological Diversity

Most biological resources belong to individ-ual nations. However, many benefits from di-versity accrue internationally. American ag-riculture, for example, depends on foreignsources for genetic diversity to keep ahead ofconstantly evolving pests and pathogens. Andmany bird populations important to controllingpests in the United States overwinter in theforests of Latin America.

Solutions to problems that cause diversity lossmust be implemented locally, but many of thesewill be effective only if supported by interna-tional political and technical cooperation. Ex-amples of such problems include the interna-tional trade in rare wildlife, the greenhouseeffect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere, theeffects of acid rain on freshwater lakes andforests, and damage to oceans by pollution andoverfishing. The United States has the politi-cal prestige needed to initiate international co-operation, and it leads the world in much ofthe technical expertise needed, such as funda-mental biology and information processing.Thus, the United States has both motive andability to participate and to provide leadershipin international conservation efforts.

The United States has historically played aleading role in promoting international conser-vation initiatives, and precedence exists for ex-tending this leadership to an international orglobal approach for conserving biological diver-sity. A variety of international conventions andmultilateral programs already specify biologicaldiversity as an aspect of broader conservationobjectives (e. g., biosphere reserve program).Such internationally recognized obligations canbe important policy tools in concert with tech-nical, administrative, and financial measuresto encourage programs for conserving diver-

sity. Obligations confirmed by internationalconventions provide conservation authoritieswith the justification frequently needed tostrengthen their national programs.

FINDING 6: The United States has begun to ab-dicate leadership in international conserva-tion efforts, with the result that internationalinitiatives are weakened or stalled in the trop-ical regions where diversity losses are mostsevere. Renewed U.S. commitment could ac-celerate the pace of international achieve-ments in conservation.

The United States has been a model and anactive leader in international conservation activ-ity. The movement toward establishment of na-tional parks worldwide grew out of the UnitedStates. In the early 1970s, the United States wasa leader in international environmental and re-source deliberations, notably in the 1972 UN-sponsored Stockholm Conference on the Hu-man Environment. U.S. leadership, for exam-ple, played an important role in establishingthe United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP), and in securing the Convention on In-ternational Trade in Endangered Species ofWild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the WorldHeritage Convention, all important foundationsof current international efforts to support main-tenance of biological diversity.

However, U.S. support for these kinds of ini-tiatives has declined. The retrenchment in sup-port reflects austerity measures as well as dis-satisfaction with the performance of specificinternational organizations. Effective interna-tional projects, such as UNESCO’s Man andthe Biosphere Program, have suffered by asso-ciation.

U.S. support of international conservation ef-forts is pivotal in that the United States hasgreater resources and stronger technical abili-ties than most other countries to address thecomplex issue of diversity loss. Without greaterinitiative and access to resources, many coun-tries will be unable to arrest loss of diversitywithin their borders. Under existing conditions,countries that harbor the greatest diversity areexpected to devote a large part of their national

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 2 3

resources to address the problem, even thoughbenefits commonly extend beyond their coun-tries. It would seem equitable for those coun-tries that benefit, including the United States,to share more fully in efforts to conserve diver-sity in countries otherwise unable to do so,

Option 6.1: Sustain or increase support of in-ternational organizations and conventions.

International conservation initiatives are im-portant tools for long-term conservation of bio-logical diversity. Yet, existing internationalagreements are often poorly implemented be-cause of lack of adequate administrative ma-chinery (e. g., adequately funded and staffed sec-retariats), lack of financial support for on-the-ground programs (e.g., equipment, training, andstaf~, and lack of reciprocal obligations thatcould serve as incentives to comply.

An exception is CITES, which has mecha-nisms to facilitate reciprocal trade controls anda technical secretariat. The existence of this ma-chinery in large part accounts for the relativesuccess of this convention. The United Stateshas been globally influential in supportingCITES and has reinforced it through nationallegislation that prohibits import into the UnitedStates of wildlife taken or exported in violationof another country’s laws. The amendment tothe Lacey Act of 1900 (Public Law 97-79) in 1981backs efforts of other nations seeking to con-serve their wildlife resources, This law has beena powerful tool for wildlife conservation through-out the world because the United States is a ma-jor importer of wildlife specimens and products.

U.S. contributions to international conserva-tion programs have been diminishing recently.The appropriation cycle for funding such pro-grams has been an annual tug-of-war betweenCongress and the Administration. The budgetof the World Heritage Convention in 1985 was$824,000. The United States, one of the majorforces behind the Convention’s founding, usu-ally contributes at least one-fourth of the bud-get. In the fiscal years of 1979 to 1982, U.S. con-tributions averaged $300,000. But from fiscalyear 1982 to 1984, the United States made nocontributions. But in fiscal year 1985, $238,903

was contributed. In fiscal year 1986, $250,000had been appropriated, but the amount was cutto $239,000 under Gramm-Rudman-HollingsBalanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Con-trol Act.

Congress could maintain or increase U.S.support of international organizations and pro-grams in several ways. Congress could ensurethat these organizations receive adequate an-nual appropriations and could conduct over-sight hearings to encourage the Administrationto carry out the intent of Congress.

One possible drawback associated with con-tributions to international intergovernmentalorganizations is their lack of accountability.Relative to bilateral assistance channels, theUnited States has little control over how or towhom intergovernmental organizations directtheir resources. The consequence is that U.S.funds go to countries that are unfriendly or evenadversarial to the United States and its policies.

It should be recognized, however, that manyinternational activities specific to maintenanceof biological diversity, especially activities ofUNEP, UNESCO-MAB, and IBPGR, operatelargely within scientific channels, which tendsto reduce the political overtones inherent in in-tergovernmental organizations. Also, objec-tivity can be enhanced in programs willing toestablish protocols. For example, establishingcriteria to determine which areas qualify forbiosphere reserve status or which unique areaswarrant (natural] World Heritage status pro-vides objectivity in directing resources.

Congress could also encourage or direct Fed-eral agencies to assign technical personnel tointernational organizations or to the secretari-ats of the various conventions. This optioncould be difficult to implement without legis-lating special allowances for agency personnelceilings and budgets. Otherwise, agencies willbe reluctant to assign personnel overseas inlight of a shrinking Federal work force andbudget.

Option 6.2: Continue to direct U.S. directors ofmultilateral development banks (MDBs) to dothe following: l) press for more specific and

24 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

systematic MDB efforts to promote sound en-vironmental and resource policies akin to theWorld Bank’s wildland policy, Z) work tomake projects consistent with internationaland recipient country environmental policiesand regulations, and 3) seek to involve recip-ient country environmental officials and non-governmental organizations in project formu-lation processes.

A significant part of all international devel-opment assistance efforts are funded by theWorld Bank and regional MDBs. Thus, theseorganizations are uniquely situated to influenceenvironmental aspects of development, includ-ing the maintenance of biological diversity. Infact, the MDBs’ priorities and policies can bethe single most important influence on the de-velopment model adopted by developing coun-tries. MDB agricultural, rural development, andenergy programs all have profound effects onbiological resources in developing countries.

In 1986, the World Bank promulgated a newpolicy on the treatment of wildlands in devel-opment projects. The bank recognizes that al-though further conversion of some natural landand water areas to more intensive uses will benecessary to meet development objectives,other pristine areas may yield benefits topresent and future generations if maintainedin their natural state. These are areas that, forexample, may provide important environ-mental services or essential habitats to endan-gered species. To prevent the loss of these wild-land values, the policy specifies that the Bankwill normally decline to finance projects inthese areas and instead prefer projects on al-ready converted lands. Conversion of less im-portant wildlands must be justified and com-pensated by financing the preservation of anecologically similar area in a national park ornature reserve, or by some other mitigativemeasures. The policy provides systematic guid-ance and criteria for deciding which wildlandsare in need of protection, which projects mayneed wildland measures, and what types ofwildland measures should be provided.

In 1980, the World Bank, Inter-American De-velopment Bank, Asian Development Bank, andsix other multilateral signed a “Declaration

of Environmental Policies and Procedures Re-lating to Economic Development,” and formedthe Committee on International DevelopmentInstitutions on the Environment (CIDIE), un-der the auspices of the United Nations Envi-ronment Programme. The agencies agreed tosystematic environmental analysis of activitiesfunded for environmental programs and proj-ects. However, a subsequent study found thatthese policy statements by the MDBs were noteffectively translated into action. Criticisms ofhow well MDBs implement environmental pol-icies remain strong. And it is too soon to deter-mine the effectiveness of the World Bank’s wild-land policy.

The United States is limited in its ability toeffect change at MDBs because the banks areinternational institutions run collectively bymember nations. Since the United States is alarge contributor, however, it does have con-siderable influence on bank policies, which aredetermined by boards of directors,

The primary way Congress affects policiesof these banks is by requesting that the U.S. ex-ecutive directors—who are responsible to theSecretary of the Treasury—carry out congres-sionally approved policies. These requests maybe made at oversight hearings or in the languageof appropriation legislation, For instance, the1986 House Committee on Appropriations Re-port stated guidelines for the U.S. executive di-rectors (Sec. 539), which included the additionof relevant staff, development of managementplans, and commitment to increase the propor-tion of programs supporting environmentallybeneficial projects. To continue this guidance,Congress could require the U.S. executive di-rectors of MDBs to encourage the adoption ofa policy similar to the World Bank’s wildlandspolicy statement.

FINDING 7: Constraints on international ex-change of genetic resources could jeopardizefuture agricultural production and progressin biotechnologies. Such constraints are be-coming more likely because developing coun-tries with sovereignty over most such re-sources believe that the industrial nationshave benefited at their expense. Debates on

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 2 5—

the issue could benefit from a more informedand less impassioned approach.

All countries benefit from the exchange ofgenetic resources, Many of the major crops cur-rently grown in various countries have origi-nated elsewhere. Coffee, for example, is nativeto the highlands of Ethiopia. Yet, today, it rep-resents an important source of income forfarmers in other parts of Africa, Asia, and LatinAmerica. Maize, originally from Central Amer-ica, is grown as a staple crop in North Amer-ica and Africa, Countries continue to dependon access to germplasm from outside theirborders to maintain or enhance agriculturalproductivity. Political and economic consider-ations, however, are now prompting nationalgovernments to restrict access to their germ-plasm, Behind these efforts is an implicit de-sire by some countries to obtain greater com-pensation for the genetic resources that arecurrently made freely available.

The International Board for Plant Genetic Re-sources (IBPGR) is the main international in-stitution dealing with the offsite conservationof plant genetic diversity. Established in 1974,it promotes the establishment of national pro-grams and regional centers for the conserva-tion of plant germplasm, It has provided train-ing facilities, carried out research in techniquesof plant germplasm conservation, supportednumerous collection missions, and providedlimited financial assistance for conservation fa-cilities. However, it does not operate any germ-plasm storage facilities itself.

Due in part to the success of IBPGR in focus-ing attention on the need to conserve geneticdiversity, the issue of germplasm exchange hasbecome embroiled in political controversy.Some critics regard the IBPGR as implicitlyworking for agribusiness interests of industrialnations, Central to the issue is a perception onthe part of many developing countries that theyhave been freely giving genetic resources to in-dustrial nations which, in turn, have profitedat their expense.

This controversy led the United Nations Foodand Agricultural Organization (FAO] to spon-sor an International Undertaking on Plant

Genetic Resources. The undertaking proposedan international germplasm conservation net-work under the auspices of FAO. It declaredthat each nation has a duty to make all plantgenetic materials—including advanced breed-ing materials—freely available, IBPGR was tocontinue its current work, but it would be mon-itored by FAO.

FAO then established the Commission onPlant Genetic Resources to review progress ingermplasm conservation. The commission heldits first meeting in March 1985, with the UnitedStates present only as an observer. Much of thediscussion focused on the concerns expressedin the undertaking and on onsite conservation.

The continuing controversy includes chargesthat the current international system enablescountries to restrict access to germplasm in in-ternational collections for political and eco-nomic reasons. Also of concern to some par-ties is the impact of plant patenting legislation.

Current charges and arguments in the FAOforum tend to oversimplify the complexity ofhow germplasm is incorporated into plant va-rieties and to distort the actual nature of geneticexchange between and among industrial anddeveloping countries. Restrictions on export ofgermplasm, for example, appear to be morecommon for developing countries. Neverthe-less, the perception of inequity in the currentsituation is real, and it could result in increas-ing national restrictions on access to and ex-port of germplasm. Further, the issue of con-trol over genetic resources could become asignificant stumbling block to establishing in-ternational commitment and cooperation in themaintenance of overall biological diversity.

Option 7.1: Closely examine the actions avail-able to the United States regarding the issueof international exchange of genetic resources.

Efforts to address the conservation and ex-change of plant genetic resources in the FAOforum have been controversial. It is not yet ap-parent how the United States should act in thisregard. Congress could give increased atten-tion to determining what options are available.

26 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

One possible action is for Congress to requestthat an independent organization, such as theNational Academy of Sciences, study this is-sue. In fact, NAS has already indicated inter-est in investigating this as a part of its current3-year study of global genetic resources. Sucha study could draw on other agencies and in-dividuals with interest and expertise in this areato define several general actions the UnitedStates might take in regard to international ex-change of genetic resources and the conse-quences associated with it.

Another option is to favor the status quo, ig-noring the criticisms and avoiding the risk thatnew political actions might disrupt effective sci-entific working arrangements. A practical in-ternational flow of germplasm is likely to con-tinue in the future, with or without the formalinternational arrangements envisioned by theFAO undertaking. In time, the political issuesmay be resolved equitably without pushing na-tions into conflicts over breeders’ rights or ac-cess to genetic materials.

Another possibility would be for the UnitedStates to associate with the FAO Commissionon Plant Genetic Resources. U.S. influencemight strengthen the international commitmentto free flow of germplasm and reduce the riskthat germplasm will increasingly be withheldfor political or economic reasons.

Unless Congress chooses to restrict plantbreeders’ rights in the United States, the U.S.Government will be unable to join the under-taking without major reservations. Such achange in domestic law seems politically un-likely, given domestic benefits provided byplant breeders’ rights and the effective lobby-ing efforts of the seed industry. However, theUnited States could consider renegotiating theFAO undertaking to require a commitment togrant global access to genetic resources—withappropriate exceptions for certain privatelyheld materials—within the context of an inter-nationally supported commitment to help coun-tries conserve and develop their genetic re-sources. Parallel agreements also might bedeveloped for domestic animal, marine, and

microbial resources. Such agreements couldalso define national and international obliga-tions to collect and conserve the germplasm thatis being displaced by new varieties or by chang-ing patterns of agricultural developments.

Finally, U.S. representatives could considerpromoting a discussion of genetic resource ex-changes outside formal channels in an effortto separate the technical issues from emotionalones, The Keystone Center, an environmentalmediation organization, is exploring the pos-sibility of conducting a policy dialog on thistopic in the near future.

Option 7.2: Affirm the U.S. commitment to thefree flow of germplasm through an amend-ment to the Export Administration Act.

Specific allegations have been made that theUnited States has restricted the access to germ-plasm in national collections (at the NationalPlant Germplasm System) for political reasons.The government, however, maintains that it ad-heres to the principles of free exchange. ,

To reinforce recent executive affirmations ofthe free flow of germ plasm, Congress could ex-empt the export of germplasm contained in na-tional collections from Export AdministrationAct restrictions or political embargoes imposedfor other reasons. Comparable provisions arealready included in this act with respect tomedicine and medical supplies (50 U.S. C. app.sec. 2405 (g), as amended by Public Law 99-64,July 12, 1985). Because this germplasm is a]-ready accessible through existing mechanisms,such a provision would only reaffirm the U.S.position and remove from the current debatethe allegations of U.S. restrictions of access togermplasm.

On the other hand, the process of amendingthe act may generate support for restrictinggermplasm—by excluding certain countriesfrom such an exemption. Restricting access insuch a manner would likely lead to an interna-tional situation counter to U.S. interests. Insuch a case, no action would be preferable toan amendment.

Ch, l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 2 7

Address Loss of Biological Diversityin Developing Countries

The United States has a stake in promotingthe maintenance of biological diversity in de-veloping countries. Many of these nations arein regions where biological systems are highlydiverse, where pressures that degrade diversityare generally most pronounced, and where thecapacity to forestall a reduction in diversity isleast well-developed, The rationale for assist-ing developing countries rests on: 1) recogni-tion of the substantial existing and potentialbenefits of maintaining a diversity of plants,animals, and microbes; 2) evidence that degra-dation of specific ecosystems is underminingthe potential for economic development in anumber of regions; and 3) esthetic and ethicalmotivations to avoid irreversible loss of uniquelife forms.

The U.S. Congress, recognizing these inter-ests, passed Section 119 of the Foreign Assis-tance Act of 1983, specifying conservation ofbiological diversity as a specific objective ofU.S. development assistance. The U.S. Agencyfor International Development (AID), as theprincipal agency providing development assis-tance, was given a mandate to implement thispolicy, which reads in part:

In order to preserve biological diversity, thePresident is authorized to furnish assistance tocountries in protecting and maintaining wild-life habitats and in developing sound wildlifemanagement and plant conservation programs.Special effort should be taken to establish andmaintain wildlife sanctuaries, reserves, andparks; to enact and enforce anti-poaching meas-ures; and to identify, study, and catalog ani-mal and plant species, especially in tropicalenvironments.

A review of AID initiatives since 1983 sug-gests that despite the formulation of a numberof policy documents, the agency lacks a strongcommitment to implementing the specific typesof projects identified in Section 119, This lackof commitment is due to several factors, includ-ing: 1) a belief that the agency is already ad-dressing biological diversity to the extent itshould, 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 effortsthrough bilateral development assistance. First,it is unclear whether Section 119, as the prin-cipal legislation dealing with concerns overdiversity loss outside the United States, definesU.S. interests too narrowly. Second, it is un-certain how Section 119 relates to the principalgoals of foreign assistance, as specified in sec-tion 101. Finally, questions remain concerningthe commitment of resources and personnel toaddress U.S. interests in maintaining diversityin developing countries,

FINDING 8: Existing legislation maybe inade-quate and inappropriate to address U.S. in-terests in maintaining biological diversity indeveloping countries.

Maintaining diversity will depend primarilyon onsite maintenance. The “special effort” ini-tiatives identified in Section 119 are importantcomponents of a comprehensive program. Whatis not clear, however, is whether the emphasisis 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 impactson populations that derive benefits from exploit-ing resources within a designated area. Thesepopulations are characteristically among the“poorest majority” intended to be the principalbeneficiaries 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 theappropriateness of supporting activities thatcould 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 ofenvironment and natural resources (Sec. 118

28 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

and 117, respectively). Clearly, these concernsare interrelated, although not synonymous. Itis questionable whether such a distinction isappropriate within the context of developmentassistance legislation. An argument can bemade that U.S. development assistance shouldapproach diversity maintenance within the con-text of conservation—that is, as a wise use ofnatural resources, as elaborated in the WorldConservation Strategy. In doing so, the objec-tives of diversity maintenance and developmentinterests could be made more compatible.

Finally, although Section 119 speaks of bio-logical diversity, the thrust of the legislation ad-dresses a narrower set of concerns–that of spe-cies extinction. While certainly a prominentconcern, and perhaps even the central motiva-tion behind the legislation, it fails to addressthe broader set of U.S. concerns over diversityloss in developing countries. As noted earlier,a focus on unique populations would be a moreappropriate, though more problematic, ap-proach. This is particularly important with re-gard to preserving genetic resources of poten-tial benefit to agriculture or industry, whichis the most strongly argued rationale for con-serving biological diversity. Existing legislationdoes not specifically identify these interests.

Option 8.1: Restructure existing sections of theForeign Assistance Act to reflect the fullscope of U.S. interests in maintaining bio-logical diversity in developing countries.

The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) comesup for reauthorization in 1987. Major restruc-turing of the act is already being considered.Revamping could provide an opportunity to re-cast certain provisions of the legislation to bet-ter account for U.S. interests in maintainingdiversity in developing countries.

Providing for conservation of natural re-sources and the environment in general, andof biological diversity and tropical forests inparticular, are important considerations in arestructuring of FAA. Less clear, however, iswhether the language and disaggregation ofthese interests is appropriate in the context ofbilateral development assistance.

One specific consideration could be to resolvepotential conflicts of interests that exist in thelanguage of Section 119—that of emphasizingthe need to establish protected areas and poach-ing controls without specific reference to im-pacts on indigenous populations. Congresscould correct this potential conflict by addinglanguage to Section 119 such as, “Support forbiological diversity projects should be consist-ent with the interests, particular needs, and par-ticipation of local populations.” It is widely rec-ognized that the viability of protected areas islargely contingent on these provisions. Addingsuch language would thus provide greater con-sistency within the objectives of FAA as wellas specify criteria that heighten chances ofproject success.

In addition, Congress could recast the Zan-guage of existing legislation to provide a fulleraccounting of U.S. interests in maintaining di-versity in developing countries. Such changescould expand from a focus on endangered spe-cies to the loss of biological systems, includ-ing ecosystems and genetic resources. Such aneffort might also emphasize practical aspectsof conservation initiatives of particular inter-est to developing countries and stress the goalof promoting ability and initiatives of the coun-tries themselves.

Finally, Congress could combine those sec-tions of FAA that deal with natural resourcesand environmental issues to reflect the inter-relatedness of these amendments. Provisionscould be made to account for specific concernsover species extinctions currently emphasizedin Section 119. But approaches and concernsreflected in these amendments are probablybest considered together, Provision of fundingwithin such a restructuring would also be im-portant.

FINDING 9: AID could benefit from additionalstrategic planning and conservation expertisein promoting biological diversity projects.

Congress has already taken steps to earmarkfunds for biological diversity projects withinAID’s budget. The existing mechanisms withinthe agency to identify and promote diversity

— . — —

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 29

projects are not well established, however. Be-cause funding is minimal, it is all the more im-portant to devise a strategy that allows priorityinitiatives to be defined,

Environmental expertise within AID is slim.In recent years, in-house expertise in this areahas declined, and that which does exist has beenseverely overextended. Addressing biologicaldiversity will, therefore, require both increas-ing the number of AID staff with environmentaltraining and an increased reliance on exper-tise outside AID, in other government agenciesand in the private sector. AID has already takensteps to cultivate this environmental expertise,but further actions could be taken.

Option 9.1: Direct AID to adopt a more strate-gic approach in promoting initiatives formaintenance of biological diversity.

The U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of Bio-logical Diversity: An Interagency Task ForceReport to Congress was delivered to Congressin February 1985, in response to provisions inSection 119. A general criticism of the docu-ment was that although it contained 67 recom-mendations, it lacked any sense of priority orindication of funding sources to undertakethese recommendations. In an attempt to ap-ply the recommendations to specific agencyprograms, AID drafted an Action Plan on Con-serving Biological Diversity in DevelopingCountries (January 1986). Comments receivedfrom AID overseas suggest that problems existin translating the general principles and rec-ommendations of an agency plan into specificinitiatives at the country level,

A more refined approach to addressing diver-sity interests within the agency may be re-quired. Such an approach would seek to incor-porate biological diversity concerns into AIDdevelopment activities at different levels of theagency, ranging from general policy documentsat the agency level to more strategic efforts atthe regional bureau and mission levels,

At least two efforts could be considered atthe agency level. First, Congress could directAID to prepare a policy determination [PD) on

biological diversity. A PD would serve as a gen-eral statement that maintaining diversity is anexplicit objective of the agency, In developinga PD, AID should review provisions containedin the recent World Bank wildlands policystatement.

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 wouldrequire that projects be reviewed and evaluatedby the Bureau of Program and Policy Coordi-nation for consistency with the objectives ofthe PD. Because of the increase in bureaucraticprovisions this would create, the formulationof a PD on diversity probably would not be wellreceived within AID.

A second effort is to establish a centrallyfunded project within AID’s Bureau of Scienceand Technology. AID has already developeda concept paper along these lines as a preludeto a more concrete project identification doc-ument, As conceived, the concept paper exam-ines the possibility of establishing a biologicaldiversity project, One major benefit of such aproject would be the establishment of a focalpoint for coordinating funding and technicalassistance on biological diversity. The Scienceand Technology Bureau’s emphasis on techni-cal assistance, research, training, and institu-tional development would make it the appro-priate bureau for such a program. A constraintto this approach is that biological diversity proj-ects may continue to be separate rather thanan integral part of development programs.

The three regional bureaus of AID (i.e., Af-rica, Asia and Near East, and Latin Americaand the Caribbean) could also prepare docu-ments that identify important biological diver-sity initiatives in their regions, The Asia andNear East Bureau, in fact, has already preparedsuch a document that could be used in high-lighting regional priorities, A reluctance to di-rect scarce funds to diversity projects, at theexpense of more traditional development proj-ects, has limited the utility of the document todate, Nevertheless, the development of suchreports for each regional bureau is considered

30 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

an effective way to identify priorities for exist-ing diversity projects, especially given the ear-marking of funds,

The most important focus of biological diver-sity strategies is at the mission level, whereprojects are implemented. Congress has alreadymandated that Country Development StrategyStatements and other country-level documentsprepared by AID address diversity concerns.Most missions, however, lack the expertise oradequate access to expertise needed to addressthis provision of Section 119 as amended.

Option 9.2: Direct AID to acquire increased con-servation expertise in support of biologicaldiversity initiatives.

The ability of AID to promote biological diver-sity in developing countries is seriously under-mined by its lack of personnel trained in envi-ronmental sciences. While true at the agencyheadquarters, the problem is particularly acutein its overseas missions. Although AID desig-nates an environmental officer at each mission,the person usually has little professional experi-ence or training in the area, Often environmen-tal duties are combined with numerous otherduties; few AID personnel are full-time envi-ronmental officers. Under these circumstances,it is difficult to envision how AID can effec-tively promote biological diversity maintenance.

Congress could direct AID to recruit and hireadditional personnel with environmental sci-ence backgrounds or at a minimum provide in-creased training for existing staff The near-term prospects for AID, however, point to a re-duction in an already overworked staff, It seemsunlikely, therefore, that significant in-houseconservation expertise will be developed. Con-sequently, addressing biological diversitywithin AID will depend on providing accessto conservation expertise within other govern-ment agencies and in the private sector. Evendrawing on outside expertise, AID will needsome increase in environmental officers tomanage and coordinate projects.

AID already draws on other governmentagencies to participate in projects supportingbiological diversity maintenance. Mechanisms

such as Participating Agency Service Agree-ments (PASA) and Resource Services SupportAgreements (RSSA) allow interagency ex-changes of experts and services. AID currentlyhas a RSSA with Fish and Wildlife Service forthe services of a technical advisor to handle bio-logical diversity issues. These mechanismscould be used to facilitate further access to con-servation experts in other government agencies.

A biological diversity program could be estab-lished within the existing Forestry Support Pro-gram, for example. The Forestry Support Pro-gram is an RSSA between AID and the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) to providetechnical assistance to AID in the area of for-estry and natural resources. A diversity pro-gram would likely be an RSSA between AID,the Department of the Interior, and USDA.Such a program would provide AID missionswith access to conservation expertise withinthe Department of the Interior, the USDA, andthrough a roster of consultants.

A constraint to the RSSA and PASA is agencypersonnel ceilings and the limited number ofpersonnel with international experience, Inlight of a reduction of the Federal work force,agencies may be reluctant to devote their staffto nonagency projects. Although some Federalprograms have been successfully used in sup-porting AID projects, expertise within the pri-vate sector will also be needed to address AID’srequirements.

The Peace Corps is also seen as having spe-cial potential to support biological diversityprojects. Cooperative agreements with the Na-tional park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,The Man in the Biosphere Program, and WorldWildlife Fund/U.S. have increased the PeaceCorps’ capacity and access to talent and train-ing in this area. Another area of potential col-laboration is between the Peace Corps and theSmithsonian Institution, especially given theSmithsonian’s newly established BiologicalDiversity Program. Precedence exists for sucha cooperative relationship, in the form of theSmithsonian-Peace Corps Environmental Pro-gram, which was terminated in the late 1970s,With the emergence of special interests in diver-sity maintenance, Congress could direct both

Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress ● 3 1

agencies to investigate re-establishing a simi-lar initiative focused on biological diversityprojects.

Section 119 of FAA states:

whenever feasible, the objectives of this sec-tion shall be accomplished through projectsmanaged by appropriate private and voluntaryorganizations, or international, regional, or na-tional nongovernmental organizations whichare active in the region or country where theproject is located.

A number of nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) are already working with AID in de-veloping capacity to maintain diversity in de-veloping countries. These include importantinitiatives in the areas of conservation datacenters, of supporting development of nationalconservation strategies, and of implementingfield projects, AID is also using a private NGOto maintain a listing of environmental manage-ment experts. Such partnership could continueto be encouraged by Congress through over-sight hearings, for instance. Encouraging jointpublic-private initiatives through matching grantsshould also be stressed.

FINDING 10: A major constraint to developingand implementing diversity-conserving proj-ects in developing countries is the shortageof funds. Present funding levels are insuffi-cient to address the scope of the problem ade-quately.

Recently passed legislation earmarked $2.5million of AID’s 1987 funds for biological diver-sity projects. Given that this amount is intendedto be used to address diversity loss over threecontinents and is guaranteed for only 1 year,its adequacy can be questioned. Faced withprospects of further cuts in an already reducedforeign assistance budget and a shift in the com-position of this budget to proportionally lessdevelopment and food aid in favor of militaryaid and economic support funds, it is difficultto see where further funding for diversity main-tenance could be derived.

Option 10.1: Establish a new account within theAID budget to support biological diversity ini-tiatives identified in the Foreign AssistanceAct.

Sections 117, 118, and 119 of FAA all definecongressional interest in conservation as an in-tegral aspect of development. With the excep-tion of the 1987 earmarking of funds for bio-logical diversity, no formal funding source hasbeen attached to these sections. The result isthat support for conservation initiatives gen-erally has been weak, Support has been furthereroded recently because those functional ac-counts used for conservation projects—Agri-culture, Rural Development, and Nutrition; andEnergy, Private Voluntary Organization, andSelected Development Activities—have re-ceived disproportionate funding cuts,

Congress could define its support for the im-portance of conservation to development byestablishing a separate fund, perhaps called anEnvironment and Natural Resources Account,that could be used by AID to support diversitymaintenance activities. Concerns exist thatfunctional accounts generally tend to reduceAID’s flexibility, and consideration has evenbeen given to eliminating them entirely. If estab-lished, however, an Environment and NaturalResources account could be used to define con-gressional concerns in this area. Specific ear-marking for biological diversity could be con-sidered within this new functional account.

Option 10.2: Amend the Agricultural Trade De-velopment and Assistance Act of 1954 speci-fying that funds from the Food for Peace Pro-gram (Public Law 480) could be used forprojects that directly promote the conserva-tion of biological diversity.

An existing source of funds for biologicaldiversity projects is Public Law 480 Food forPeace program. Titles I and III make commodi-ties available at confessional rates with long-term, low-interest financing for debts incurred.Recipient countries resell the U.S. commodi-ties and are required by contract to apply partof the currency to self-help projects agreed onbetween the country and the AID mission. Thecountry can eventually cancel some of its debtby applying equivalent funds to long-term de-velopment projects. Title II provides U.S. com-modities to developing countries in cases ofemergency or for nutrition and development

32 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

programs. This Food for Work program hasconducted reforestation and resource manage-ment projects in which laborers are paid withfood and with wages generated from the resaleof U.S. commodities. Hence, Public Law 480funds are already being used to finance projectsthat promote diversity maintenance. Morecould be done if Congress amends Public Law480 specifying that funds could be used fordiversity conservation projects.

Other existing funding mechanisms could beredirected to include funding of diversityprojects. In response to funding cuts at AID,

conservation groups have proposed certainways to provide money for biological diversityprojects. One such mechanism is the use of eco-nomic support funds for additional developmentassistance programs. Though primarily usedfor other purposes, economic support funds arethe most flexible of AID’s funds, with the fewestrestrictions on their use. Therefore, Congresscould direct the General Accounting Office toexamine such funding mechanisms and assesstheir feasibility as funding sources for mainte-nance of biological diversity.

Part I

Introduction and Background

Chapter 2

Importance ofBiological Diversity

CONTENTS

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benefits to Ecological Processes

Ecosystem Diversity, .. ...,.,Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . .Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . .

Benefits to Research . . . . . . . . . .Ecosystem Diversity. . . . . . . . .Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . .

● ✌ ☛ ✎ ✎ ✎ ☛ ● ☛ ☛ ✎ ☛ ☛ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ☛ ✎ ✎ ☛ ✎ ✎ ☛ ✎ ☛ ☛ ✌ ✎ ✎ ✎

● ✌ ✎ ✎ ✎ ☛ ✌ ● 4 . . . . . . ● * . * , * * . . * , . ● . * * * * * . * . *

, * . * ● * * * * * . , ● * * * * * O ● . * * . * . * . . . . * * * * ● * ,

* , . * * * * ● * * * . * * , * * * , . , , . . . . . ● . * * * * * ● * , *

. * * . * * . ● . . * . , * * ● * * * . 6 * * , * * , ● , * . , . . , , * ,

, , , . , . . ● * . * * . * . . , * * . * , . . , . * . , * . * . , * * * *

* * * * . . * ● * * * * * * . * . * * * * * * * * ● . . * * * * * * ● * . *

,,..,., ● *,**,.* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,*,**

, * * * . * * * * * , * * . * ● * * . * * . * ● * . . . . * . ● . . * * * ,

Gknetic Diversi~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benefits to Cultural Heritage ● ****** ,***.*** ● ******* ...,*,*, ,.,,..., . .

Ecosystem Diversity. . .**.*** ● ******* 9******* ***.**** ● ****,** ● *.,..Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● ***,9* ● **,**.* ● .****** ● ..*..*Genetic Diversity . . ● .*.*,, .*.**..* ..*,.*.. ● . . ***** . .* ,* . .* O** ,** . .

Benefits to Recreation and Tourism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ecosystem Diversity. . . . . . . , * * . . * ● . * * * * . . ● . . , , ,** . .** .** , , , , . . . . . . ,Species Diversity ● **,*.. . . . . . .4. ● * .** .** , . , , . . . . . . . . * .** .****** . , .Genetic Diversity . . . . . ● **,*** ● *,.**.. ● ******* ..****** ● *,**.*. ● .**,

Benefits to Agriculture and Harvested Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ecosystem Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Species Diversity ● ****** ..,.**** ● ****.** ***.*..* ● .****** ● *..*.** . .Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . ● ****** ● .*.*.** .,..*.** ● ****.** ..**,*., .*

Values and Evaluation of Biological Diversity .**,**. ● ***,.*. ● *****.* ● , *Economic Value . . . . . . .....;... . . . . . . .Intrinsic Value . . ;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Constituencies of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Public Awareness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Balancing Interests and Perspectives . . . .

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TableTabie No.2-1. Examples of Benefits From Ecosystem,

and Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

figure

Figure No.

● ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ● * * * * ’ * . ● * * * * * . * * . * * .

. * * * * * * ● ****O*. . . . . . , , , . , , . .

● . * * . * * . * . . . * * * . , . . . , 0 0 . . 0 . 0

● * * * * * . . * . . * * * * ● * . * , * * * . . . . .

● * * * . * . . * * * . * * * ● * * * . * . . ● * * * .

. . . . . . . ● . * * * * * * . . , . . , . . . . * * *

3737393941434343444546464647484849494949505153535454545555

Page

Species,, . . .0 . . ● . . * . * * , ● * . * , . * , ● * , , . 38

Page2-1. Krill:The Linchpin to the Antarctic Foodweb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

B o x e sBOXNO. Page20A. Components of Biological Diversity ● ****** ● .****** ● ****.** ● .***.*. 38z-B. Scales of Ecosystem Diversity ● ● , . ● ● . . ● ● . ● . . . ● “* * # , ● , ● . . ● ● . , , , , , , ● ● 39

Chapter 2

Importance of Biological Diversity

Human welfare is inextricably linked to, anddependent on, biological diversity. Diversity isnecessary for several reasons: 1] to sustain andimprove agriculture, 2) to provide opportunitiesfor medical discoveries and industrial innova-tions, and 3) to preserve choices for address-ing unpredictable problems and opportunitiesof future generations. Actual and potential eco-

nomic uses range from subsistence foraging togenetic engineering. The essential services ofecosystems, such as moderating climate; con-centrating, fixing, and recycling nutrients; pro-ducing and preserving soils; and controllingpests and diseases are also dependent on bio-logical diversity. Finally, diversity has estheticand ethical vaIues.

Biological diversity refers to the variety andvariability among 1iving organisms and the eco-logical complexes in which they occur. Diver-sity can be defined as the number of differentkinds of items and their relative frequency ina set (97). Items are organized at many levels,ranging from complete ecosystems to the chem-ical structures that are the molecular basis ofheredity, Thus, the term encompasses the num-bers and relative abundance of different eco-systems, species, and genes. (Box 2-A describesmajor components of biological diversity.)

Species diversity, for example, decreaseswhen the number of species in an area is re-duced or when the same number exists but afew become more abundant while others be-come scarce. When a species no longer existsin an area, it is said to be locally eliminated.

The extreme effect of species diversity loss isextinction—when a species no longer existsanywhere.

Biological diversity is the basis of adaptationand evolution and is basic to all ecological proc-esses. It contributes to research and education,cultural heritage, recreation and tourism, thedevelopment of new and existing plant and ani-mal domesticates, and the supply of harvestedresources (table 2-1). The intrinsic importanceof biological diversity lies in the uniqueness ofall forms of life: each individual is different,as is each population, each species, and eachassociation of species. Major functional andutilitarian benefits of ecosystem, species, andgenetic diversity are described in the next fivesections; evaluation of diversity and the con-stituencies of diversity are discussed in the fi-nal sections.

37

38 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 2.1 .—Examples of Benefits From Ecosystem, Species, and Genetic Diversity

Agriculture andEcological Drocesses Research Cultural heritaae Recreation and tourism harvested resources

Ecosystem diversityMaintenance of produc-tivity; buffering environ-mental changes; watershedand coastal protection

Species diversityRole of plants and animalsin forest regenerat ion,grassland production, andmarine nutrient cycling;mobile links; natural fuelstations

Genetic diversityRaw material of evolutionrequired for survival andadaptation of species andpopulations

Natural research areas;sites for baseline monitor-ing (e.g., Serengeti NationalPark, Zambesi Teak Forest)

Models for research on hu-man diseases and drugsynthesis (e.g., bristleconepine, desert pupfish, me-dicinal leeches)

Fruit flies in genetics, cornin inheritance, and Nico-tiana in virus studies

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S6.

Sacred mountains andgroves; historic landmarksand landscapes (e. g.,Mount Fuji; Voyageurs Park,Minnesota)

National symbols (bald ea-gles); totems; objects ofcivic pride (e.g., port orfordcedar, bowhead whale, Fi-cus religiosa)

Breeds and cultivars ofceremonial, historic, es-thetic, or culinary value(e.g., Texas longhorn cattle,rice festivals (Nepal))

700 to 800 million visitorsper year to US. State andnational parks; 250,000 to500,000 visitors per year tomangrove forests in Ven-ezuela

95 million people feed, ob-serve, andlor photographwildlife each year; 54 mil-lion fish; 19 million hunt

100,000 visitors per year toRare Breeds Survival Trustin the United Kingdom

Rangeiands for livestock pro-duction (e.g., 34 in the U.S.);habitats for wild pollinatorsand pest enemies (e.g., sav-ing $40 to $80 per acre forgrape growers)

Commercial logging, fishing,and other harvesting indus-tries ($27 billion/year in U.S.);new crops (e.g., kiwi fruit, reddeer, catfish, and Ioblollypine)

Required to avoid negativeselection and enhancementprograms; pest and diseaseresistance alleles

Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity ● 3 9

BENEFITS TO ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES

Ecological processes include—

●

●

●

●

●

●

regulation: monitoring the chemistry andclimate of the planet so it remains habitable;production: conversion of solar energy andnutrients into plant matter;consumption: conversion of plant matterinto animal matter;decomposition: breakdown of organicwastes and recycling of nutrients;protection processes: protection of soil bygrasslands and forests and protection ofcoastlines by coral reefs and mangroves,for example; andcontinuation of life: processes of feeding,breeding, and migrating.

Knowledge of the relationship between di-versity and ecological processes is fragmentary,but it is clear that diversity is crucial to the func-tioning of all major life processes, for diversityhelps maintain productivity and buffers eco-systems against environmental change. Diversitywithin ecosystems is essential for protective,productive, and economic benefits. Speciesdiversity is necessary for a stable food web. Anddiversity of genetic material allows species toadapt to changing environmental conditions.

Ecosystem Diversity

Ecosystems are systems of plants, animals,and micro-organisms, together with the non-living components of their environment (45).It can be recognized on many scales, frombiome—the largest ecological unit—to micro-habitat (box 2-B). Ecosystem diversity refers tothe variety that occurs within a larger land-scape. Loss of ecosystem diversity can resultin both the loss of species and genetic resourcesand in the impairment of ecological processes.

In eastern and southern Africa, for instance,the mosaic of ephemeral ponds, flood plains,and riparian woodlands enable antelope, ele-phant, and zebra to survive long cycles of wetand dry years (16,23). On the American conti-nent, many animal species cope with oscilla-tions in weather and climate by migrating be-tween biomes—spending the rainy season in

Box 2-B.—Scales of Ecosytem Diversity

Several ways exist to classify the manyscales of ecosystem diversity. An exampleusing the Pacific Northwest to illustrate fourlevels of ecosystems is shown below. Animalspecies characteristic of each level are noted.

1. Biome: temperate coniferous forest–Rufous hummingbird-Mountain beaver

Z. Zone: western hemlock-Coho salmon–Oregon slender salamander

3. Habitat: old growth forest–Vaux’s swift–Spotted owl

~. Microhabitat: fallen tree–Clouded salamander—California red-backed vole

The fallen tree component of old growth andmature forests illustrates the contribution ofecosystem diversity to ecological processes.Fallen trees provide a rooting medium forwestern hemlock and other plants that is moistenough for growth to continue during the sum-mer drought, a reserve of nitrogen and othernutrients, and a source of food and shelter foranimals and micro-organisms that play keyroles in redistributing and returning the nti-trients to the regenerating forest. For exam-ple, the rotten wood provides habitat for truf-fles, and the truffles are eaten by the Californiared-backed vole, which spreads the trufflespores, so helping the growth of Douglas firtrees, which require mycorrhizal fungi (suchas truffles) for uptake of nutrients (56).

the tropical dry forest and the dry season inthe rain forest, that is, summer in temperateforest and winter in tropical forest. Others usedifferent habitats within the same biome; forexample, leaf-eating primates and flower-pol-linating bats move from dry sites in the rainyseason to evergreen riparian trees in the dryseason (32,48).

Several types of ecosystems are closely asso-ciated with protective and productive processesof direct economic benefit. Cloud forests, for

40 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

example, increase precipitation, often substan-tially (38). Watershed forests generally reducesoil erosion and thereby help protect down-stream reservoirs, irrigation systems, harbors,and waterways from siltation (45). Coral reefsare productive oases in otherwise unproductivetropical waters. Algae living inside coral polypsenable the corals to build the reefs (8,49). Thereefs, in turn, support local fisheries and pro-tect coastlines.

Wetlands are another example of an ecosys-tem with protective processes linked to eco-nomic output. Millions of waterfowl and otherbirds of great economic value depend on thediverse North American wetlands—coastal tun-dra wetlands, inland freshwater marshes, prai-rie potholes, coastal saltwater marshes, andmangrove swamps—for breeding, feeding, mi-grating, and overwintering.

These wetlands also support most commer-cial and recreational fisheries in the UnitedStates. About two-thirds of the major U.S.commercial fish, crustacean, and mollusk spe-cies depend on estuaries and salt marshes forspawning and nursery habitat (88,90). Otherwetland services include water purification (byremoving nutrients, processing organic wastes,and reducing sediment loads), riverbank andshoreline protection, and flood assimilation,Wetlands temporarily store flood waters, reduc-ing flow rates and protecting people and prop-erty downstream from flood and storm damage.

For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers chose protection of 8,500 acres of wet-lands over construction of a reservoir or ex-tensive walls and dikes as the least-cost solutionto flooding problems in the Charles River ba-sin in Massachusetts, It was estimated that loss

Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity ● 4 1

of the Charles River wetlands would have re-sulted in an average of $17 million per year inflood damage (80,88,90), (Data on wetlands eco-system losses are given in chapter 3.)

Species Diversity

Some species play such an important role inparticular ecosystems that the ecosystems arenamed after them. Zambezi Teak Forest andLongleaf-Slash Pine Forest are examples. Butthe ecological processes that maintain domi-nant species often depend on other species. Forexample, elephants and buffaloes make a cru-cial contribution to regeneration of Zambeziteak by burying seeds, providing manure, anddestroying competing thicket species (72),

Depletion of species can have a devastatingimpact higher up the food chain. For example,catches of common carp in the Illinois Riverare one-tenth of what they were in the early1950s. This decrease appears to be the resultof pollution-caused die-off in the 1950s of fin-

gernail clams, may fly larvae, and other river-bottom macro-invertebrates. These macro-inver-tebrates are still scarce, for river-bottom sedi-ment is slow to recover from pollution, muchslower than water quality, for example (44).

Certain species have a greater effect on pro-ductive processes than is indicated by their po-sition in a food web (figure 2-1). Earthworms,for instance, improve the mixing of soil, in-crease the amount of mineralized nitrogenavailable for plant growth, aerate the soil, andimprove its water-holding capacity (98). Antsalso contribute to soil formation in temperateregions and the tropics. They contribute to theaeration, drainage, humidification, and enrich-ment of both forest and grassland soils (99).

In East Africa, species diversity increases theproductivity of grasslands. For example, graz-ing by wildebeest promotes the lush regrowtheaten by gazelles (59,60). Similar interactionshave been observed in North American grass-lands between prairie dogs and bison. Althoughthe standing crop of grass in prairie dog towns

A Se / /o

Cave National Park, South Dakota, contains a variety of wildlife elk, prairie dogs, prong horn. anddeer Interactions between species such as dogs and bison increase the productivity of grasslands,

42 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure The Linchpin to the Antarctic Foodweb

Antarctic waters are among the most product ive in t he world. The main link in this food web is the small 11, shrimp-like uresthat feed on plankton. in turn, support seabirds, fish, and squid, which are the mainstay of seals and whales.

is half that of grass outside, protein levels anddigestibility are significantly higher. In WindCave National Park, prairie dog towns occupyless than 5 percent of the area, but bison spend65 percent of their time per unit area in thetowns, mostly feeding (28).

Some species have an unusually prominentposition in food webs, being major predatorsof species on lower levels of the food chain andmajor prey of species on higher levels. Arcticcod, for example, feed on herbivorous and car-nivorous zooplankton (amphipods, copepods,and decapods). Cod, in turn, is an importantfood of many bird and marine mammal spe-cies including gulls, narwhals, belugas, andharp seals (25),

Genetic Diversity

Intraspecific genetic diversity allows speciesto adapt to changing conditions, thus sustain-ing ecosystem and species diversity; it alsohelps produce plants and animals that will sup-port more productive agriculture and forestry,Genetic diversity is distributed unevenly among

Ch. Z—Importance of Biological

and within species. Somepear to be more variable

Diversity ● 4 3

groups of species ap-than others: reptile,

bird, and mammal species have less than halfthe genetic variation found in invertebrate spe-cies and less than a quarter of that found inmany insects and marine invertebrates (34),

The greater the amount of genetic variationin a population, the faster its potential rate ofevolution (7). Certain genes are directly impor-tant for survival (e. g., genes conferring diseaseresistance), In addition, genetic diversity ena-bles species to adapt to a wide range of physi-cal, climatic, and soil conditions and to changesin those conditions. Genetic diversity is posi-tively correlated with fitness, vigor, and repro-ductive success (7,85).

Among marine animals, and probably amongterrestrial animals as well, high genetic varia-bility is associated with high species diversity,which in turn is associated with a number ofspatially different microhabitats (e. g., tropicaland deep sea environments). It seems likely thatthe high genetic variability y provides the flexibil-ity to make finely tuned adjustments to micro-habitats.

BENEFITS TO RESEARCH

Research may hold answers to many of thequestions facing this complex world. The re-sults of research on the patterns and processesof temperate forests have provided methods forsustainable management of those ecosystems,Knowledge of tropical rain forests will resultin similar strategies. Without diversity of spe-cies, researchers would not have the neededplant material to develop many vaccines, in-travenous fluid, or other medicines, The poten-tial for further advancement has not been fullyrealized, yet a loss of species diversity will ad-versely affect future research. Protection ofgenetic diversity is equally essential, becausematerials from plants and animals have pro-vided valuable knowledge on viruses, immu-nology, and disease resistance.

Ecosystem Diversity

Many contributions of ecosystem diversityto global ecological processes, e.g., the role ofwetlands in the Earth’s oxygen balance, haveyet to be demonstrated quantitatively, But theresearch required to develop and test these hy-potheses depends on the full range of diversity.By studying natural ecosystems, scientists arebetter able to understand how the Earth works.

Knowledge of the role of ecosystem diversityin ecological processes is substantial and grow-ing, largely because of the availability of natu-ral research areas such as the Olympic NationalPark and the H.J, Andrews Experimental Eco-logical Reserve in Willamette National Forest(42,81). Relatively undisturbed grasslands in the

44 ● Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

Serengeti National Park (Tanzania) and WindCave National Park (South Dakota) provide re-search significant for range management. Re-search includes, for example, studies of the ex-tent to which grazing intensity increasesprimary production and the protein content anddigestibility of grasses (28). Research on spe-cies and natural gene pools also requires eco-system maintenance.

Representative examples of major ecosystemsare used as reference sites for baseline moni-toring on productivity, regeneration, and adap-tation to environmental change. In addition,evaluation of development projects to ensurethey are both economical and sustainable callsfor assessment of, among other things, theirenvironmental effects measured against un-altered sites with similar vegetation, soils, andclimate.

The Zambezi Teak Forest ecosystem, for ex-ample, which yields Zambia’s most valuabletimber, is declining rapidly, due to excessivelogging, fire, and shifting cultivation. If presenttrends continue, this forest would effectivelydisappear in 50 years. Attempts at artificialregeneration have met with little success. Toimprove understanding of natural regeneration,an undisturbed tract of the forest in Kafue Na-tional Park is being studied. Continued moni-toring of the Kafue tract will provide dataneeded for assessing costs and benefits of anysilviculture system for the Zambezi Teak For-est (72,74).

Ecosystems are also living classrooms. TheUniversity of California’s Natural Land andWater Reserves System includes 26 reservesrepresenting 106 of the 178 habitat types iden-tified for the State. The reserves are used forinstruction and research in botany, geology,ecology, archeology, ethology, paleontology,wildlife management, genetics, zoology, pop-ulation biology, and entomology (52). Enablingchildren and adults to experience different eco-systems is an effective way to teach ecologicalprocesses, genetic variation, community com-position and dynamics, and human relationswith the natural world.

Species Diversity

Species diversity is the basis for many fieldsof scientific research and education. The ar-ray of invertebrates used in research illustratesthe importance of diversity to the advancementof science. The 100 or so species of Hawaiianpicture-winged fruit flies are the organisms ofchoice for basic research on genetics, evolu-tionary biology, and medicine. Tree snails ofHawaii and the Society Islands provide idealmaterial for research on evolution and geneticvariation and differentiation (57).

Bristlecone pines, the oldest known livingorganisms and found only in the U.S. South-west, are used to calibrate radiocarbon datesand hence, are important for archeology, pre-history, and climatology (62). Contributions ofplant and animal species to biomedical researchand drug synthesis abound (63,71). Examplesinclude:

Desert pupfishes, found only in the South-west, tolerate salinity twice that of salt-water and are valuable models for researchon human kidney disease (63).Sea urchin eggs are used extensively in ex-perimental embryology, in studies of cellstructure and fertilization, and in tests onthe teratological effects of drugs (98).Medicinal leeches are important in neu-rophysiology and research on blood clot-ting (98).An extract of horseshoe crabs provides thequickest and most sensitive test of vaccinesand intravenous fluids for contaminationwith bacterial endotoxins (98).Butterfly species are used in research oncancers, anemias, and viral diseases (82).The study of sponges is making substan-tial contributions to structural chemistry,pharmaceutical chemistry, and develop-mental biology and has also resulted in thediscovery of novel chemical compoundsand activities. D-arabinosyl cytosine, an im-portant synthetic antiviral agent, owes itsdevelopment to the discovery of spongouri-dine, which was isolated from a Jamaican

Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity ● 45

Cohen Z o o

The armadillo is one of only two animal species known to contract leprosy.These animals now serve as research models to find a cure.

sponge. Three derivatives of this com-pound have been patented as antiviral andanticancer drugs (10).

Genetic Diversity

Genetic variability is one of the characteris-tics of fruit flies, tree snails, and butterflies thatmakes them so useful for research. The unusualrange of diversity among the races, varieties,and lines of corn contributes to its enormousvalue for basic biological research. One exam-ple is the discovery and analysis of regulatorysystems that control gene expression, whichadded a new dimension to the study of in-heritance (21).

The genus Nicotiana has also been usedwidely in genetic and botanical research largely

because of the great variation among its spe-cies (84). The varied reactions to specific virusescharacteristic of many Nicotiana species pro-vide a potential tool for separating and iden-tifying viruses, Nicotiana species have beeninvolved in numerous discoveries of virus re-search (e. g., virus transmissibility, purification,and mutability) (35),

Special genetic stocks are essential researchtools. For example, inbred lines of chickens de-veloped at the University of California at Davisare used worldwide for research on immunol-ogy and disease resistance of chickens. Mutantstocks of chickens also serve as genetic modelsfor scoliosis (lateral curvature of the spine) andmuscular dystrophy in humans (58).

46 ● Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

BENEFITS TO CULTURAL HERITA6E

Throughout history, societies have put greatvalue on physical features of their environment.In developed and developing countries, a diver-sity of ecosystems is a source of esthetic, his-toric, religious, and ritualistic values. Speciesdiversity assures people of national and statesymbols, and many such symbols are protected.Genetic diversity continues in part because ofthe cultural value of plants and animals. Gar-deners around the world share seed materialensuring genetic survival.

Ecosystem Diversity

Natural ecosystems have great cultural (in-cluding religious, esthetic, and historic) impor-tance for many people. Mountains are the focusof religious celebrations and rituals through-out the world: Mount Kenya, Mount Everest,Mount Fuji, Mount Taishan in China, and BlackMesa in Arizona. Forests also have great spir-itual value: probably the only surviving exam-ples of primary forest in southwestern Indiaare sacred groves—ancient natural sanctuarieswhere all living creatures are protected by thedeity to which the grove is dedicated. Remov-ing even a twig from the grove is taboo (36).

People who lead subsistence-based lives iden-tify closely with the ecosystems on which theydepend. Two examples are the Guarao peoplein the mangrove swamps and savannas of Vene-zuela’s Orinoco Delta (39) and the Inuit peoplein the tundra of the North American Arctic(9,24). The economic, social, and spiritual ele-ments of the relationship between such peoplesand the ecosystems that support them are in-separable.

Ecosystems define and symbolize relation-ships between human beings and the naturalworld and express cultural and national iden-tity, In the United States, the landscapes pro-tected in wilderness areas, national parks, mon-uments, and preserves are full of historicalmeaning and show the close ties between Amer-ica the nation and America the land. Examplesof these are pre-Columbian Indian habitationsat Mesa Verde in Colorado; symbols of the

opening of the Midwest and West at VoyageursPark in Minnesota; and combinations of wilder-ness preservation and human occupation in-cluding current subsistence-use at Kobuk Val-ley in Alaska (66,94).

Species Diversity

Whereas the Continenta] Congress in 1782adopted the bald eagle as a national symbol; and

Whereas the bald eagle thus became the sym-bolic representation of a new nation under anew government in a new world; and

Whereas by that act of Congress and by tra-dition and custom during the life of this Na-tion, the bald eagle is no longer a mere bird ofbiological interest but a symbol of the Amer-ican ideals of freedom . . .

–Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940

.

National Federation

Cultural value of species is exemplified by the baldeagle, adopted by the Continental Congress as a

symbol of the United States.

Ch. 2—lmporfance of Biological Diversity ● 47

When Congress adopted the bald eagle as anational symbol, it was responding to an an-cient human need to identify with other spe-cies, All over the world and throughout history,people have adopted animals and plants as em-blems, icons, symbols, and totems and investedthem with ideals and values, adopted them asrepresentations of particular characteristics oftheir culture and society, sought the power andauthority they stand for, or venerated them asembodiments of fruitfulness and life itself.

The endangered bowhead whale plays a piv-otal cultural role in several Yupik and InupiatEskimo villages in northern Alaska, Bowheadwhale hunting is the first and most importantactivity in the subsistence cycle. It is a majorsocial unifier, providing community identityand continuity with the past, The division, dis-tribution, and sharing of bowhead whale meatand skin involve the entire community, strength-ening kinship and communal bonds. Importantceremonies, celebrations, and feasts accom-pany the harvest of a bowhead whale and thedistribution and sharing of its meat (4,5).

Port Or ford Cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoni-ance), prized for its cultural and economicvalues, has become the focus of a recent con-troversy. It grows only in a small area of south-ern Oregon and northern California, where itproduces some of the area’s highest priced tim-ber. Top quality may cost as much as $3,000per 1,000 board-feet. This price reflects demandfrom Japan, where it is used in homes and tem-ples as a substitute for the no longer availableJapanese Hinoki cypress. It also has great cul-tural importance for Native Americans of theHupa, Yurok, and Karok tribes in northwesternCalifornia, who regard it as sacred and use thewood in homes and religious ceremonies, Man-agement of remaining stands of the cedar hasbecome controversial, because mature trees arein short supply and threatened by a tree-killingroot-rot disease, spread partly by logging oper-ations (22).

Native Americans seek to reserve all the PortOrford Cedar growing on formal tribal land–now administered by the U.S. Forest Service—for ceremonial purposes. Other citizens’ groups

seek a management plan that would control log-ging operations and restrict loggers’ access tosome areas to reduce the spread of the fungus.Scientists at the Forest Service and OregonState University are exploring the genetic diver-sity of the species in an effort to develop strainsresistant to the fungus (22),

In South and Southeast Asia, trees, Asianelephants, monkeys, cobras, and birds figureprominently in tribal religions and have beentaken into the pantheons of Hinduism and Bud-dhism. Certain tree species, such as F i cusreligiosa, are sacrosanct and may not be cutdown (2,20); political authorities often invokethe sanction of animals to win popular support(61). Interspecific loyalties persist; the hornbill,central figure of the Gawai Kenya-lang or Horn-bill Festival of the Iban people in Sarawak,Malaysia, is also the official emblem of the state(50).

In urban North America, species also expresscommunity identity. Inwood, Manitoba, pro-claims itself the garter snake capital of theworld (after the mass matings of red-sided gar-ter snakes that occur nearby) (67], and PacificGrove, California, dubs itself Butterfly Town,USA (after the spectacular colonies of Monarchbutterflies that overwinter there) (98). Theseactions are partly commercial acumen—thephenomena are tourist attractions—but theyalso reflect civic pride and perhaps somethingdeeper as well,

Many crop varieties and livestock breeds per-sist because they are culturally valuable todifferent societies, This group includes plantsand animals with religious and ceremonial sig-nificance—such as the festival rices of Nepaland Mithan cattle in northern Burma and north-eastern India (40)—as well as varieties valuedfor their contribution to the traditional diet.Farmers in the Peruvian Andes commonlyplant their potato fields with many varieties(often 30 or more), producing a mixture ofcolors, shapes, textures, and flavors to enhancethe diet (14), In northwestern Spain, a mosaic

48 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

.

credit. G.

of local varieties of beans and other legumesis grown, each variety intended for a particu-lar dish in the traditional cuisine (3).

A growing number of Americans value tradi-tional cuhivars and breeds for their history andfor their esthetic and culinary qualities. NativeAmericans, helped by grassroots organizations,continue to grow traditional varieties of corn,chiles, beans, and squash (91). Hispanic-Ameri-can farmers in the Southwest prefer native cornfor its texture, flavor, and color, even thoughits yield is only one-third to one-fourth of hy-brid corn (64), The cultural value of rare live-stock breeds is exemplified by Texas Longhorncattle (which have a prominent place in Amer-ican history) and Navaho sheep (whose fleeceis important to Navaho weaving).

Gardeners have organized national and re-gional networks to conserve some plant vari-eties because they have better taste, have linkswith national, local, and ethnic history; are suit-able for the home garden; and because of theabundance of colors and forms found amongold and local varieties of potatoes, corn, beans,and other crops (33,43,47,64,91).

Hopi Indian garden of mixed crops illustrates ancienthorticultural traditions that persist on this continent.

BENEFITS TO RECREATION AND TOURISM

Millions of people worldwide derive benefits Ecosystem Diversityfrom recreation and tourism provided by bio-logical diversity. Without diverse ecosystems, State and National parks in the United Statescountries would lose tremendous amounts of attract 700 to 800 million visitors per yearforeign exchange. Without wilderness areas, (73,74), and National Forests receive some 200national parks, or national forests, city dwellers million visitors per year (93). One reason forwould have no place to “escape” the daily pres- these visits—indeed, some surveys suggest thesures. Species diversity is essential to the mil- main reason—is to enjoy the variety of land-Iions of wildlife photographers, bird lovers, and scapes the parks and forests protect (83), Sight-plant and animal watchers. And without ge- seeing accounts for more recreation-visitornetic diversity, horticulturists, gardeners, ani- days (52 million) in National Forests than anymal breeders, and anglers would find little en- other recreation activity except camping (60joyment in their avocations. million) (93).

———

Ecosystem diversity is a significant recrea-tional asset in developing countries as well. InVenezuela, the mangrove forests of MorrocoyNational Park attract 250,000 to 500,000 visi-tors per year (39); in Nepal, mountain land-scapes, rhododendron forests, and fauna bringin foreign exchange (55),

Species Diversity

About 95 million Americans a year partici-pate in nonconsumptive recreational uses ofwildlife (observing, feeding, or photographingwild plants and animals); each year 54 millionAmericans fish and 19 million Americans huntfor sport. In the process they spend $32.4 bil-lion per year (95).

Surveys of American recreational uses ofwildlife reveal that a number of different spe-cies interest people. Recreational hunters inNorth America pursue some 90 species (73,74).Millions of Americans take time to observe notonly birds and mammals, but also amphibians,reptiles, butterflies, spiders, beetles, and otherarthropods (95),

Ch. Z—Importance of Biological Diversity “ 49

Little data exist on wildlife recreational useby people in developing countries, but for sev-eral nations wildlife-based tourism is big busi-ness. The spectacular wild animals of east andsouthern Africa are the resource base of a tour-ist industry that brings millions of dollars inforeign exchange. In 1985, Kenya netted about$300 million from almost 500,000 visitors, mak-ing wildlife tourism the country’s biggest earnerof foreign exchange (l).

Genetic Diversity

Millions of home gardeners and members ofhorticultural and animal breed associations de-rive recreational benefit from genetic diversity.So, too, do millions of anglers who take advan-tage of stocking and enhancement programs.Tourism associated with genetic diversity in-volves fewer people, although the Rare BreedsSurvival Trust in the United Kingdom receives100,000 visitors a year. In North America, atleast 10 million people visit the some 200 liv-ing historical farms—open-air museums that re-create and interpret agricultural and otheractivities of a particular point in history (91).

BENEFITS TO AGRICULTURE AND HARVESTED RESOURCES

In agriculture, a diversity of ecosystems, spe-cies, and genetic material provides increasedamounts and quality of yields. In a world wherepopulation is rapidly increasing, assuring a con-tinued increase in harvested resources is es-sential. Diversity in an agroecosystem provideshabitat for predators of crop pests and breed-ing sites for pollinators. Diversity of species canbe a buffer against economic failure and canalso play an important role in pest management.Further, the use of genetic materials by breed-ers has attributed to at least 50 percent of theincrease in agriculture yields and quality.

Ecosystem Diversity

Both diversity and isolation affect the abilityof pests to invade a crop. They also affect thesupply of pests’ enemies, Uncultivated habitatsnext to croplands contain wildflowers, which

contain important nutrients for the adult stagesof predatory and parasitic insects (37). Wild-flowers also support essential alternate hostsfor parasites, especially in seasons when peststhey prey on are not present, In California, forinstance, wild brambles (Rubus) provide an off-season reservoir of prey for wasps, which con-trol a major grape pest, This arrangement savesgrape growers $40 to $60 per acre in reducedpesticide costs (6,54).

A variety of wild habitats also provides food,cover, and breeding sites for pollinators. Wildpollinators (chiefly insects) make major contri-butions to the production of at least 34 cropsgrown or imported by the United States, witha combined annual average value of more than$1 billion. They are the main pollinating agentsin the production of cranberry and cacao, thepropagation of red clover, and the production

50 Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity

and propagation of cashew and squash. Theyare also significant pollinators for such cropsas coconut, apple, sunflower, and carrot. Theabundance of wild pollinators is largely deter-mined by the availability of ecosystem diver-sity (woods, scrub, bare ground, moist areas,patches of flowers) within flight range of thecrops to be pollinated (73,74).

permanent pastures and rangelands occupyone-fourth of the Earth’s land surface (31). Be-cause they support most of the world’s 3 bil-lion head of domesticated grazing animals (45),rangelands can be considered harvested eco-systems, where the nutrients and solar energyof marginal lands are converted into meat, milk,wood, and other goods,

In the United States, 34 rangelands are in-volved and include plains, prairie, mountaingrassland, and Texas savanna (93). Pastoralnomadism and migrations by wild herbivoresare traditional ways of using these resources.Modern ways include hauling sheep betweensummer and winter ranges, which may be 300to 400 kilometers apart in the intermountainregion (12).

Species Diversity

Diversity of harvestable species acts as abuffer that allows people in fluctuating envi-ronments to cope with extremes. For instance,in Botswana, five wild plant species are exten-sively used by pastoralists and river people, butan additional 50 or more species are resortedto in times of drought (17).

Harvested species provide much of the sub-sistence of indigenous peoples and rural com-munities throughout the world. Wild beardedpig and deer contribute about 36,000 tons ofmeat a year to rural diets in Sarawak, Malay-sia. This amount of meat from domestic ani-mals would cost about $138 million. (15). Percapita consumption of harvested food by Inuitin the North American Arctic averages annu-ally from 229 kg (504 lb) to 346 kg (761 lb). Theper capita cost of buying substitute food (usu-ally of lower nutritional and cultural value) wasestimated to be $2,1OO per year (1981 figures)(4,101).

The commercial timber, fishery, and fur in-dustries obtain most of their resources by har-vesting wild species, Harvested resources arealso major contributors to the pharmaceuticalindustry, and to many other industries as well.The average annual value of the wild resourcesproduced and imported by the United Statesbetween 1976 and 1980 was about $27,4 billion,of which $23 billion was timber (73,74).

Many species are involved, but most of themare economically significant only to the trades-men involved. Even so, the number of harvestedspecies might run up to more than a hundred.For example, it takes on average 70 species tomake up 90 percent of the annual value of U.S.commercial fishery landings (74).

In agriculture, two types of diversity are use-ful in pest management programs: crop diver-sity and pest enemy diversity, Crop diversity(multiple cropping) can promote the activity ofbeneficial insects. For example, to attractLycosa wolf spiders, the main predators of cornborers in Indonesia, farmers interplant the cornwith peanuts (46). In California, lygus bugs, oneof the main pests of cotton, are controlled some-what by strip-planting alfalfa, which the bugsprefer to cotton (11). Pest enemy diversity in-cludes introduced as well as native enemies.The Florida citrus industry saves $35 millionper year by using three parasitic insect speciesthat were imported and established at a costof $35,000. Some 200 foreign insect pests in theUnited States are controlled by introduced par-asites and predators (63).

A long-standing use of wild species diversityis as a source of new domesticates. In theUnited States, the combined farm sales and im-port value of domesticated wild species is wellover $1 billion per year. The domestication oftwo major groups of resources—timber treesand aquatic animals—has only begun and is atabout the same stage that agricultural domes-tications were some 5,000 years ago. But agri-cultural and horticultural domestications arestill occurring.

Among the successful new food crops devel-oped this century are kiwifruit, highbush blue-berry, and wild rice (most of the wild rice

Ch. 2—lmportnce of Biological Diversity ● 5 1

Two intercropping systems —fava beans and sprouts, and wild mustard and sprouts—demonstratethe benefits of diversity to agriculture. Both systems benefit the sprouts crop: wild mustard acts as a trap c r o p

of flea beetles, and fava beans fix nitrogen with possible benefits to sprouts yields.

produced in the United States is domesticated).New and incipient forage crops include Bahiagrass, desmodium, and several of the wheat-grasses, Red deer and aquiculture species suchas catfish, hardshell clam, and the giant fresh-water prawn, are among the newly domesti-cated livestock. Loblolly pine, slash pine,parana pine, and balsa are some of the new tim-ber domesticates (73,74).

Domestication of wild species increases theeconomic benefits of wild species by improvingproduct quality and by raising yields. It can alsomake a valuable contribution to rural develop-ment in areas that are marginal for conven-tional crops and livestock. Nepal’s Departmentof Medicinal Plants has organized the farmingof two native species IRauvolfia serpentine and

VaZeriana wallichii) for example, and it is in-vestigating propagation of several other wildspecies that are sources of drugs, perfumes, andflavors for export, Scientists in Zambia and Bot-swana are working on the domestication ofmungongo tree, whose fruits are used for foodand oil and whose wood is valued for carvings(74),

Genetic Diversity

Health and long-term productivity of wild re-source species—from game animals to timbertrees to food and sport fish—depend on geneticdiversity within and among the harvested pop-ulations, If the best individuals (biggest animals,tallest trees) are harvested before they repro-

52 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

credit M

Medicine from nature: sp., known as “sangrede grade” in the Peruvian Amazon. This tree produces

a sap used for a variety of medicinal purposes.

duce, then the productivity and adaptability ofthe population will progressively decline.

In addition, certain populations are betteradapted to particular locations than others. Forexample, chinook, coho, and sockeye salmonfrom different rivers are genetically distinct;these distinctions reflect differences in thephysical and chemical characteristics of thestreams in which they originated (69,70). Diver-sity needs to be maintained so that any restock-ing to compensate for overharvesting or habi-tat degradation can use populations that areadapted to the specific environmental con-ditions.

In agriculture, genetic diversity in the formof readily available genes reduces a crop’s vul-nerability to pests and pathogens. Resistancegenes can be introduced as long as a high de-gree of genetic diversity is maintained in off-site collections, onsite reserves, and agroeco-systems. U.S. plant breeders keep a substantialsupply of diversity in cultivars, parental lines,synthetic populations, and other breeders’ stocksready for use (13,26),

The genetic variation in domesticated plantsand animals and in their wild relatives is theraw material with which breeders increaseyields and improve the quality of crops and live-

stock. Use of genetic resources during this cen-tury has revolutionized agricultural produc-tivity. In the United States from 1930 to 1980,yields per unit area of rice, barley, and soybeansdoubled; wheat, cotton, and sugarcane yieldsmore than doubled; fresh-market tomato yieldstripled; corn, sorghum, and potato yields morethan quadrupled; and processing-tomato yieldsquintupled (65,92).

At least half of these increases have been at-tributed to plant breeders’ use of genetic diver-sity. The gain due to breeding is estimated tobe 1 percent per year for corn, sorghum, wheat,and soybeans, due mainly to improvements ingrain-to-straw ratio, standability, drought re-sistance, tolerance of environmentaI stress, and

Nat/ens—/d

Plant breeders’ use of genetic diversity has significantlyincreased the productivity of crops such as wheat.

Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity ● 5 3

pest and disease resistance (18,27,79). Similarly,the average milk yield of cows in the UnitedStates has more than doubled during the past30 years; about one-fourth of this increase isdue to genetic improvement (89).

Developing countries have also achieved in-creased production of major crops. The GreenRevolution that has transformed heavily popu-lated Asian countries is founded on use of par-ticular genes. High-yielding varieties of rice,for example, rely on a gene from a traditionalvariety for the “dwarf” stature that enables theplant to channel nutrients from fertilizers intograin production without getting top-heavy andfalling over before harvest time. Although thedwarfing trait is effective in many locations,the high-yielding varieties need other geneticcharacteristics from many different varieties,The rice variety IR36, used in many countriesto sustain yield gains, was derived by cross-breeding 13 parents from 6 countries (19,87).

progress in tomato improvement in the UnitedStates has followed the use of exotic germplasm(traditional cultivars, wild forms of the domes-ticated species, and exclusively wild species).Fruit quality (color, sugar content, solids con-tent); adaptations for mechanized harvesting;and resistance to 15 serious diseases have beentransferred to the tomato from its wild relatives.One researcher noted:

Resistance to some of these diseases is man-datory for economic production of the crop inCalifornia, and it is doubtful whether the State’stomato industry would exist without these andother desired traits derived from exotics (77).

Rice and tomato illustrate the importance ofmaintaining as much of the genetic variationremaining within the domesticates and their

wild relatives as possible, because both cropshave benefited from genes occurring in a sin-gle population and nowhere else, Asian rice cul-tivars get their resistance to grassy stunt virus,a disease that in one year destroyed 116,000hectares (287,000 acres), from one collectionof Oryza nivara (53). The gene for a jointlessfruit-stalk (a trait that assists mechanized har-vesting and is worth millions of dollars per year)in tomato is found in a single population of awild relative (Lycopersicon cheesmanii) uniqueto the Galapagos Islands (78),

A variety of genetic resources is being usedin the breeding of livestock, particularly cattleand sheep. Crossbreeding Brahman cattle withHereford, Angus, Charolais, and Shorthornbreeds has had a major impact on commercialbeef production in North America (30). A num-ber of African cattle breeds are notable sourcesof disease and pest resistance (West AfricanShorthorn to trypanosomiasis, N’dama and Ba-ole to dermatitis, Zebu to ticks) (34), The Finn-ish landrace of sheep was almost lost beforeits high level of reproductive efficiency was dis-covered, It has now been incorporated intocommercial mating lines in the United King-dom and North America (30).

Yield and quality improvements can continueto be made and defended against pests and path-ogens, provided plant and animal breeding con-tinues to be supported and the genetic diversitythat breeders draw on is maintained, Indeed,there is no option but to go on improving cropsand livestock if world agriculture is to respondsuccessfully to economic and environmentalchanges and to the new strains of pests and dis-eases that evolve to overcome existing re-sistance.

VALUES AND EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Biological diversity benefits everyone, is val-ued by many (in a variety of ways), but is ownedby no one. Thus, its evaluation is fraught withcomplexity. There are two broad classes ofvalue: economic and intrinsic.

Economic Value

Economic evaluation potentially covers allfunctional benefits described in this chapter,ranging from tangible benefits from harvested

54 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

resources and breeding materials to spiritualand other cultural benefits. The ability to cal-culate these values varies, however. In the caseswhere markets exist, calculations are easily de-termined (at least $27,4 billion per year in theUnited States for commercially harvested wildspecies, as noted earlier). In other cases, valuesare more difficult to calculate, and “shadowprices” may be used to approximate values forsuch benefits as ecological processes and recre-ation, For cultural and esthetic values, eco-nomic valuation may be impossible,

If humans interacted in a system with limitedresources, then markets would allow equilib-rium prices to emerge for all commodities, serv-ices, amenities and resources. These priceswould reflect the relative values (including so-cial values) of each item. The essential prem-ises for economic valuation are utility and scar-city (75).

But for most benefits of biological diversity,free market principles do not apply. Mainte-nance of biological diversity is a “nonrival”good (it benefits everybody), and it is a “nonex-clusive” good (no person can be excluded fromthe satisfaction of knowing a species exists),as are many of its benefits (research and edu-cation, cultural heritage, nonconsumptive rec-reation, use of genetic resources). And it is notclear that market-oriented logic is adequate todeal with two cardinal features of biologicaldiversity: its potential for indefinite renewabil-ity (long-time horizon) and for extinction (ir-reversibility) (75).

CONSTITUENCIES

Biological diversity benefits a variety of in-terest groups, so its constituency is enormousbut fragmented by the interests of particulargroups. Each group may appear small com-pared with the Nation as a whole. Collectively,however, these groups and their combined con-cern amount to the national interest in main-taining biological diversity.

Intrinsic Value

Intrinsic evaluation acknowledges that othercreatures have value independent of humanrecognition and estimation of their worth. Theconcept is both ancient and universal. Aspokesperson of the San people of Botswanaput it this way:

Once upon a time, humans, animals, plants,and the wind, sun, and stars were all able totalk together. God changed this, but we are stilla part of a wider community. we have the rightto live, as do the plants, animals, wind, sun,and stars; but we have no right to jeopardizetheir existence (16).

This preceding statement might be supportedby Americans who believe in “existence values”—values that are defined independently of hu-man uses (68). This belief implies a human obli-gation not to eradicate species or habitats, evenif doing so harms no human. A 3-year studyof American attitudes toward wildlife foundthat the majority seemed willing to make sub-stantial social and economic sacrifices to pro-tect wildlife and its habitats (51). Advocates ofwildlife protection maintain that “it makes mefeel better to know there are bears in the area,even though I’d just as soon never run into one”(76). Proponents of biological diversity arguethat even if diversity is functionally redundantor has no utilitarian worth, it should be main-tained just “because it is there. ”

OF

A

DIVERSITY

Public Awareness

major obstacle to promoting effective andlong-term maintenance of biological diversityis the lack of awareness on the part of the gen-eral public of the importance of diversity (inthe broader sense). It is easy to understand whythe loss of biological diversity has difficulty cap-

turing public attention. First, the concept iscomplex to grasp. For this reason, efforts to so-licit support have appealed to emotionalismassociated with the loss of particularly appeal-ing species or spectacular habitats (86), Al-though effective in many cases, this approachhas the effect of limiting the constituency andthe boundaries of the problem. A second reasonis that the more pervasive threats to diversity,such as habitat loss or narrowing of agricul-tural crop genetic bases, are not dramatic eventsthat occur quickly. The difficulty is one of re-sponding to a potentially critical problem that,for the average person, seems to lack immediacy.

Finally, promoting the case for biologicaldiversity maintenance is also difficult becauseof the proliferation of environmental problemsbrought to public attention in the last decadeor two, including acid rain, ozone depletion,the greenhouse effect, and loss of topsoil. “Allthese environmental problems have the apoca-lyptic potential to destroy, yet in every case thecause, imminence, and scope of that power aresubject to polarizing (and eventually paralyz-ing) interpretation” (29).

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the envi-ronmental movement of the 1970s elevatedenvironmental quality to a major public policyconcern. Although the momentum of public at-tention may have slowed in the 1980s, it is clearthat concern for the environment remainsfirmly entrenched in the collective conscious-ness of the American public. A 1985 Harris poll,for example, indicated that 63 percent of Ameri-cans place greater priority on environmentalcleanup than on economic growth (41).

Ch. 2—importance of Biological Diversity 55

Balancing Interests andPerspectives

In assessing the level of public resources tobe directed toward maintaining biologicaldiversity, it is important to maintain a frameof reference of how, when, and for whom bio-logical diversity is important. Such a perspec-tive should consider:

1. varying perceptions on the value of biologi-cal diversity and threats to it;

2. an awareness that only some diversity canbe or probably will be saved; and

3. a recognition that resources available toaddress efforts are limited.

As mentioned earlier, biological diversity isnot at present a pervasive concern for manypeople, or at least there is no consensus thatas much diversity must be conserved as possi-ble. While earlier sections of this chapter iden-tified large constituencies that value biologi-cal diversity, some elements of society remainapathetic to the issue, and others support ef-forts to eliminate various components of diver-sity. For example, considerable resources aredirected to reducing populations or even elim-inating entire species of pests, pathogens, orpredators that threaten agriculture and humanhealth. In terms of public policy, such effortsimply a need to recognize that in some casesdiversity maintenance and other human inter-ests can conflict. It should be noted, however,that conflicts stem less from the existence ofdiversity than from the altered abundance ofparticular species.

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES

1. Achiron, M., and Wilkinson, R., “Africa: TheLast Safari?” Newsweek, Aug. 18, 1986,

2. Agrawal, S, R., “Trees, Flowers and Fruits inIndian Folk Songs, Folk Proverbs, and FolkTales, ” Glimpses of Indian Ethnobotany, S.K.Jain (cd.) (New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, India:Oxford and IBH Publishing Co,, 1981).

3. Alaman Castro, M. C., Casanova Pena, C., andBueno Perez, M. A., “La Recognida de Germo-

plasma por el Noroeste de Espana, ” Plant Ge-netic Resources Newsletter 53:41-43, 1983.

4. Alaska Consultants and Stephen Braund &Associates, Subsistence Study of Alaska Es-kimo WhaZing ViZZages (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, 1984).

5. Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, AlaskaEskimo Whaling (Barrow, AK: 1985).

6. AliNiazee, M. T., and Oatman, E. R., “Pest Man-

56 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

agement Programs, ” Biological Control and In-sect Pest Management, D.W. Davis, et al. (eds.)(Oakland, CA: University of California, Divi-sion of Agricultural Sciences, 1979).

7. Ayala, F. J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution, ”Scientific American 239(3):56-69, 1978.

8. Basson, P. W., Burchard, Jr., J. E., Hardy, J. T,,and Price, A. R. G., Biotopes of the Western Ara-bian Gulf.” Marine Life and Environments ofSaudi Arabia, Aramco Department of Loss Pre-vention and Environmental Affairs (Dhahran:1977).

9. Berger, T. R., Village Journey: The Report ofthe Alaska Native Review Commission (NewYork: Hill & Wang, 1985).

10. Berquist, P. R., “Sponge Chemistry—A Re-v iew, Colloques Internationaux du C N R S291:383-392, 1978,

11. Bishop, G. W., Davis, D. W., and Watson, T. F.,“Cultural Practices in Pest Control,” Biologi-cal Control and Insect Pest Management, D.W.Davis, et al, (eds.) (Oakland, CA: University ofCalifornia, Division of Agricultural Sciences,1979).

12. Box, T. W., “Potential of Arid and Semi-AridRangelands,” Potential of the WorZd’s Foragesfor Ruminant Animal Production, 2d cd., R.D.Child and E.K. Byington (eds.) (Morrilton, AR:Winrock International Livestock Research andTraining Center, 1981).

13, Brown, W. L., “Genetic Diversity and GeneticVulnerability—An Appraisal, ” Economic Bot-any 37(1):4-12, 1983.

14, Brush, S. B., Carney, H. J., and Huaman, Z.,“Dynamics of Andean Potato Agriculture, ”Economic Botany 35(1):70-88, 1981,

15. Caldecott, J., and Nyaoi, A., “Hunting inSarawak,” report prepared for the Ad hoc Sub-committee on Mammals and Birds of the Sara-wak State Legislative Assembly Special SelectCommittee on Flora and Fauna, Sarawak For-est Department, Kuching, Malaysia, 1985.

16. Campbell, A. C., “Traditional Wildlife Popula-tions and Their Utilization, ” Which Way Bot-swana WiZdZife? proceedings of the Sympo-sium of the Kalahari Conservation Society,Gaborone, Botswana, Apr. 15-16, 1983.

17. Campbell, A. C., The Use of Wild Food Plantsand Drought in Botswana (Gaborone, Bot-swana: National Museum, no date).

18, Castleberry, R, M,, Crum, C. W., and Krull, C. F.,“Genetic Yield Improvement of U.S. MaizeCultivars Under Varying Fertility and ClimaticEnvironments,” Crop Science 24(1):33-36,1984.

19, Chang, T, T., Adair, C. R., and Johnston, T. H,,

“The Conservation and Use of Rice Genetic Re-sources,” Advances in Agronomy 35:37-9I,1982.

20. Chaudhuri, R. H. N., and Pal, D. C., “Plants inFolk Religion and Mythology, ” GZimpses of In-dian Etlmobotany, S.K. Jain (cd.) (New Delhi,Bombay, Calcutta, India: Oxford and IBH Pub-lishing Co., 1981),

21. Coe, E, H., and Neuffer, M. G., “The Geneticsof Corn, ” Corn and Corn Improvement, 2d cd.,Monograph 18, G.F. Sprague (cd.) (Madison,WI: American Society of Agronomy, 1977).

22. Cohn, L., “The Port Orford Cedar, ” AmericanForests, July 1986, pp. 16-19.

23. Cooke, H. J., “The Kalahari Today: A Case ofConflict Over Resource Use, ” The Geographi-cal Journal 151(1):75-85, 1985.

24. Damas, D. (cd.), Arctic, Volume 5: Handbookof North American Indians (Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution, 1984).

25. Davis, R. A., Finley, K. J., and Richardson, W. J,,The Present Status and Future Managementof Arctic Marine Mammals in Canada (Govern-ment of Northwest Territories, Yellowknife:Science Advisory Board, 1980).

26. Duvick, D. N., “Genetic Diversity in MajorFarm Crops on the Farm and in Reserve,” Eco-nomic Botany 38(2):161-178, 1984.

27, Duvick, D. N., “Plant Breeding: Past Achieve-ments and Expectations for the Future, ” Eco-nomic Botany 40(3):289-297’, 1986.

28, Dyer, M. I., Detling, J. K., Coleman, D. C., andHilbert, D. W., “The Role of Herbivores inGrasslands,” Grasses and Grasslands: Sys-tematic and Ecology, J,R. Estes, R.J. Tyrl, andJ.N. Brunken (eds,) (Norman, OK: Universityof Oklahoma Press, 1982).

29, Ebisch, R., “A Layman’s Guide to ModernMenaces, ” TWA Ambassador, 18(10):49-58,October 1985.

30, Fitzhugh, H. A., Getz, W,, and Baker, F. H., “Sta-tus and Trends of Domesticated Animals, ”OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

31. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) ofthe United Nations, 1984 FAO ProductionYearbook, FAO Statistics Series 38 (Rome:1985).

32. Foster, R. B,, “Heterogeneity and Disturbancein Tropical Forest Vegetation, ” ConservationBiolog: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspec-tive, M.E. Soulb and B.A. Wilcox (eds.) (Sunder-land, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1980).

33. Fowler, G., “Report on Grassroots GeneticConservation Efforts,” OTA commissioned pa-per, 1985.

34, Frankel, O. H., and SOU16, M, E., Conservation

35

36<

37.

38

39.

40.

41

42.

43.

44,

45.

and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1981).Fulton, R. W., “Nicotianas as Experimental Vi-rus IIosts, ” ,\’icotiana: Procedures for Experi-mental Use, Technical Bulletin 1586, R.D. Dur-bin (cd. ) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, 1979).Gadgil, M., and Vartak, V. D., “Sacred Gro\resof Maharashtra: An Inventory, Glimpses of[ndian Ethnobotan~, S.K. Jain (cd.) (IXew Delhi,Bombay, Calcutta, India: Oxford and IBH Pub-lishing Co,, 1981).Hagen, K. S., and Bishop, G. W., “Use of Sup-plemental Foods and Behavioral Chemicals toIncrease the Effectiveness of Natural Ene-mies, ” l?io]ogica] control and Insect Pest .Vlan-agement, D,W, []avis, et a], (eds) (Oakland, CA:University of California, Division of Agricul-tural Sciences, 1979).Hamilton, L. S., and King, P. N., Tropical ~or-ested Watersheds: HtiVdrologic and Soils Re-sponse to Major Uses or Conversions (Boulder,CO: Westview Press, 1983),Hamilton, 1.. S., and Snedaker, S.C. (eds.),Handbook for ,blangro~~e Area Management(Honolulu, HI: East-West Center, 1984).Harlan, J, R., crops and Man (Madison, WI:American Society of Agronomy, 1975),Harris, I.., “Current Public Perceptions, Atti-tudes, and Desires on Natural Resources Man-agement, ’ Transactions of the 50th NorthAmerican Wild]ife and Natura] Resources Con-ference [Washington, DC: Wildlife Manage-ment Institute, 1985), pp. 68-71.Harris, 1,. D., The Fragmented Forest: IslandBiogeographic Theory and the Preser~’ation ofBiotic Di~ersit~ (Chicago, IL, and London:Universit~r of Chicago Press, 1984).Henson, E. L., “An Assessment of the Conser-\’ation of Animal Genetic Diversity at theGrassroots Level, ” OTA commissioned paper,1985.Illinois Natural History Survey, “Slow Growthand Short I,ife Spans of Illinois River Carp, ”The Illinois .%ratural History Survey Reports257, 1986.International Union for Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources (IUCN], WorldConser~ation Strateg~: Living Resource Con-servation for Sustainable Development (Glandand Nairobi: International Union for Conser-vation of Nature and Natural Resources-UnitedNations Environmental Program-World Wild-life Fund, 1980).

46.

47.

48.

49

50

51.

52.

53.

54.

55

56.

Ch. 2—importance of Biological Diversify ● 5 7

IRRI Cropping Systems Program, 1973 AnnualReport (Los Banes, Philippines: The Interna-tional Rice Research Institute, 1973),Jabs, C., The Heirloom Gardener (San Fran-cisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1984).Janzen, D. H., “Guanacaste National Park:Tropical Ecological and Cultural Restoration, ”project report to Servicio de Parques Nacion-ales de Costa Rica, Fundacion de Parques Na-cionales de Costa Rica, Fundacion N’eotropica,Nature Conservancy International Program.Department of Biology, University of Pennsyl-vania, Philadelphia, 1986,Kaplan, E. H., A Field Guide to Coral Reefs ofthe Caribbean and Florida Including Bermudaand the Bahamas (Boston, MA: Houghton Mif-flin, 1982).Kavanagh, M., “Planning Considerations fora System of ~National Parks and Wildlife Sanc-tuaries in Sarawak, ” Sara~ak Gazet/e 61 :15-29, 1985.Kellert, S. R., “Americans’ Attitudes andKnowledge of Animals, ” Transactions of the45th North American Wildlife and Natural Re-sources Conference, 1980 (Washington, DC:Wildlife Management Institute, 1980].Kennedy, J. A., “Protected Areas for Teachingand Research: The Universit~’ of California Ex-perience, ” National Parks, Conservation, andDe\’elopment: The Role of Protected Areas inSustaining Society, J.A. McNeely and K.R.Miller (eds.) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian In-stitution Press, 1984).Khush, G, S., Ling, K. C., Aquino, R.(; ., andAguiero, V. M., “Breeding for Resistance toGrassy Stunt in Rice, Plant Breeding Papersl(4b):3-9, 1977.Kido, H., Flaherty, D, L,, Bosch, D. F., andValero, K. A., “Biological Control of GrapeLeafhopper, California Agriculture 37:4-6,1983,Lucas, P. H. C., “How Protected Areas Can HelpMeet Society’s Evolving Needs, ” NationalParks, Conservation, and De~elopment: 7’heRole of Protected Areas in Sustaining Societ~’,J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller (eds.] (Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984).Maser, C,, and Trappe, J.M. (eds. ), The Seenand Unseen World of the Fa]]en Tree, GeneralTechnical Report PNW-164 (portland, OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pa-cific Northwest Forest and Range ExperimentStation, 1984).

57. ,Ntayr, E., The Gro\~’th of Biological Thought:

58 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity—

Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance (Cam-bridge, MA, and London: Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press, 1982).

58, McGuire, P. E., and Qualset, C.O. (eds.), Pro-ceedings of a Symposium and Workshop onGenetic Resources Conservation for California,Napa, Apr. 5-7, 1984.

59. McNaughton, S. J., “Serengeti Migratory Wilde-beest: Facilitation of Energy Flow by Graz-ing, ” Science 191:92-94, 1976.

60. McNaughton, S. J., “Grazing as an Optimiza-tion Process: Grass-Ungulate Relationships inthe Serengeti, ” American Naturalist 113:691-703, 1979.

61. McNeely, J. A., and Wachtel, P. S., Power, Pol-itics, Religion, Nature, and Animals: How theCoalition Has Worked in Southeast Asia(Gland, Switzerland: International Union forConservation of Nature and Natural Resourcesand World Wildlife Fund, 1986).

62, Mirov, N. T., and Hasbrouck, J., The Story ofPines (Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress, 1976].

63. Myers, N,, A Wealth of Wild Species: Store-house for Human Welfare (Boulder, CO: West-view Press, 1983).

64. Nabhan, G., and Dahl, K., “Role of GrassrootsActivities in the Maintenance of BiologicalDiversity: Living Plant Collections of NorthAmerican Genetic Resources, ” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1985.

65. National Plant Genetic Resources Board, PlantGenetic Resources: Conservation and Use(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, 1979).

66. The Nature Conservancy, Preserving Our Nat-ural Heritage, Volume I: Federal Activities(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the In-terior, National Park Service, 1977).

67, Nikiforuk, A., “Secrets in a Snake Pit, ” A4ac-]ean’s, May 28, 1984.

68, Norton, B., “Value and Biological Diversity, ”OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

69, Okazaki, T., “Genetic Study on PopulationStructure in Chum Salmon (OncorhynchusKeta), ” Bulletin of Far Seas Fisheries ResearchLaboratory 19:25-116, 1982.

70. Okazaki, T., “Genetic Structure of ChumSalmon (Oncorhynchus Keta) River Popula-tions,” BuZZetin of the Japanese Society of Sci-entific Fisheries 49(2):189-196, 1983.

71. Oldfield, M, L., The VaZue of Conserving Ge-netic Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, National Park Service,1984).

72, Piearce, G. D., “The Zambezi Teak Forests: ACase Study of the Decline and Rehabilitationof a Tropical Forest Ecosystem, ” prepared forthe 12th Commonwealth Forestry Conference,Victoria, BC, Canada, Division of Forest Re-search, Kitwe, September 1985.

73. Prescott-Allen, C., and Prescott-Allen, R., TheFirst Resource: Wild Species in the NorthAmerican Economy (New Haven, CT, andLondon: Yale University Press, 1986).

74. Prescott-Allen, R., “National ConservationStrategies and Biological Diversity, ” a reportto International Union of Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources, Conservation forDevelopment Centre (Gland, Switzerland: Sep-tember 1986),

75, Randall, A,, “An Economic Perspective on theValuation of Biological Diversity, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1985.

76. Randall, A., “Human Preference, Economics,and the Preservation of Species, ” The Preser-vation of Species, B. Norton (cd. ) (Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986].

77. Rick, C. M., “Collection, Preservation, and Useof Exotic Tomato Genetic Resources, ” Pro-ceedings of a Symposium and Workshop onGenetic Resources Conservation for California,Napa, P.E, McGuire and C,O, Qualset (eds.],Apr. 5-7, 1984.

78. Rick, C. M,, and Fobes, J. F., “Allozymes of Ga-lapagos Tomatoes: Polymorphism, GeographicDistribution, and Affinities, ” Evolution 29:443-457, 1975.

79. Russell, W. A,, “Dedication: George F. Sprague,Corn Breeder and Geneticist ,“ PZant BreedingReviews. Volume Z, J. Janick [cd.) (Westport,CT: AVI Publishing Co., 1984).

80. Saenger, P., Hegerl, E. J,, and Davie, J. D. S.,Global Status of Mangrove Ecosystems, Com-mission on Ecology Papers 3 (Gland, Switzer-land: International Union for Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources, 1983).

81, Sedell, J. R., Bisson, P. A., June, J. A., andSpeaker, R. W., “Ecology and Habitat Require-ments of Fish Populations in South Fork HohRiver, Olympic National Park, ” EcoZogicaZ Re-search in National Parks of the Pacific North-west: Proceedings, Zd Conference on ScientificResearch in the NationaZ Parks, 1979, E.E. Star-key, J,F, Franklin, and J.W. Matthews (eds.),Oregon State University, Forest Research Lab-oratory, Corvallis, 1982.

82. Smart, P., The Illustrated Encyclopedia of theButterfly World (London: Salamander Books,1976).

83. Smith, G. C., and Alderdice, D., “Public Re-sponses to National Park Environmental Pol-icy, ” Envjronrnent and ~ehat~or 11(3)329-350,1979.

84, Smith, H. H., “The Genus as a Genetic Re-

85<

86,

87.

88.

89

90.

91.

92.

source, Nicotiana: Procedures for Experi-mental Use, Technical Bulletin 1586, R.D. Dur-bin (cd.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, 1979).Soul;, M. E., “Thresholds for Survival: Main-taining Fitness and Evolutionary Potential, ”Conser~ation Biolog: An Evolutionary-Ecolog-ica] Perspective, M. E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox(eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates,1980).Stanfield, R. L., “In the Same Boat, ” National~ourna~, Aug. 16, 1986, pp. 1992-1997.Swaminathan, M. S., “Rice, Scientific Amer-ican January 1984, pp. 81-93.Tiner, R. W., Wetlands of the United States:Current Status and Recent Trends (Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fishand Wildlife Service, 1984].U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Impacts of Applied Genetics: Micro-organisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132(Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, April 1981).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation,OTA-O-206 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, March 1984).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Grassroots Conservation of BiologicalDiversit~ in the United States—Background Pa-per ,#1, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, February 1986).U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalStatistics 1981 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, 1981).

Ch. 2—/mportance of Biological Diversity ● 5 9

93<

94,

95,

96.

97

98

99,

100.

101

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv-ice, An Assessment of the Forest and RangeLand Situation in the United States, Forest Re-source Report 22 (Washington, DC: 1981).U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService, Index: National Park System and Re-lated Areas as ofJune 1, 1982 (Washington, DC:1982).U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. De-partment of Commerce, U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service and U.S. Bureau of the Census,1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, andWildlife-Associated Recreation (Washington,DC: 1982).Vartak, V. D., and Gadgil, M., “Studies on Sa-cred Groves Along the Western Ghats FromMaharashtra to Goa: Role of Beliefs and Folk-lores, ” Glimpses of Indian Ethnobotan~r, S.K.Jain (cd.) (New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, India:Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., 1981).Webb, M,, Environmental Affairs Office,World Bank, Washington, DC, personal com-munication, June 1986.Wells, S. M., Pyle, R. M., and Collins, N. M., TheIUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book (Gland,Switzerland: International Union for Conser-vation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1983).Wilson, E. O., The Insect Societies (Cambridge,MA: Belknap Press of Harvard UniversityPress, 1971].World Resources Institute/International Insti-tute for Environment and Development, WorldResources 1986 (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,1986).Worrall, D., A Baffin Region Economic Base-line Study: Economic De~’elopment and Tour-ism (Yellowknife: Government of the North-west Territories, Department of EconomicDevelopment and Tourism, 1984).

Chapter 3

Status of Biological Diversity

CONTENTS

PageHighlights, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Diversity Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Ecosystem Diversity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Causes of Diversity Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Development and Degradation. ....,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Exploitation of Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Vulnerability of Isolated Species, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Complex Causes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Circumstantial Evidence ...,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Data for Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter 3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

TablesTable No. Page3-1. Status of Animal Species unselected Industrial Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . 723-2. Summary of Data From Endangered Plant Species Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733-3. Data unthreatened Plant Species of Selected Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . 733-4. Endangered African Cattle Breeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753-5. Crops Grown or Imported by the United States With a Combined

Average Annual Value of $l00 Million or More. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773-6. Oceanic Islands With More Than 50 Endemic Plant Species. . . . . . . . . . 81

FiguresFigure No. Page

3-1. Currently Described Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643-2. Changes in Wetlands Since the 1950s. ....,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663-3. Past and Projected World Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

B o x -BOX NO, Page3-A. Biological Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653-B. Typical Excerpts From Development Assistance Agency Reports

Addressing Environmental Constraints to Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693-C, Definitions of Threatened Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Chapter 3

Status of Biological Diversity

●

●

●

A general consensus exists that biological diversity is being lost or degradedin most regions of the world, but acute threats are largely localized. Despitea weak knowledge base and lack of precise measurements, enough is now knownto direct activities to critical areas.Concern over the loss of diversity have been defined almost exclusively in termsof species extinction. Although extinction is perhaps the most dramatic aspectof the problem, it is by no means the whole problem. The consequence is adistorted definition of the problem, which fails to account for the various inter-ests concerned and may misdirect how concerns should be addressed.

The immediate causes of diversity loss usually relate to unsustainable resourcedevelopment, but the root causes for such development are complex issuesof population growth, economic and political organization, and human atti-tudes. The complexity of the causes implies a need for multi-faceted approachesthat deal with both the immediate and the root causes of diversity loss.

Since life began, extinction has always beena part of evolution. Mass extinctions occurredduring a few periods, apparently the results ofrelatively abrupt geological or climatic changes.But in most periods, the rate of species forma-tion has been greater than the rate of extinc-tions, and biological diversity has gradually in-creased. Recently in evolutionary history, thehuman species has derived great economicvalue from ecosystem, species, and geneticdiversity and recognized the intrinsic valuesof diversity. But now that the values are beingrecognized, there is evidence that the worldmay be entering another period of massive re-duction in diversity. This time, humans are thecause, and it appears that the consequence willbe loss of a substantial share of the Earth’s val-uable resources.

Diversity is abundant at a global level. About1.7 million species of plants and animals havebeen named, classified, and described (57). (De-scriptions are only superficial for most of these.)The remainder are still unidentified (figure 3-I).

It is estimated that the world contains 5 to 10million species, and many of these have hun-dreds or even thousands of distinct genetictypes. A recent inventory of insect species inthe canopy of a tropical forest suggests thatmany more insect species may exist than pre-viously thought, pushing the estimate for thetotal of all species to as high as 30 million (14).

Understanding of biological diversity issueshas improved in recent years, in terms of know-ing the extent of diversity and understandingthe causes and consequences of changes. Enoughinformation is available in all regions of theworld to intervene in the processes that causediversity loss.

Drastic reductions in populations of wild ani-mals and plants are not new and have long beenrecognized as consequences of over-intensivehunting, fishing, and gathering. For example,great bison herds of North America were de-pleted in the 19th century, as were stocks ofvarious whales and bird species (52). The nowbarren hills of southern China’s coasts and is-

63

64 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 3-1 .—Currently Described Species

3°/0 Vertebrates 2°/0 Bacteriaand protozoa

8°\0 Other /invertebrates

fungi, &Id ferns

140/0 Fplants

Of the currently described species, insects make up morethan half the total. The number of flowering plants describedare less than one-third of the percentage of insects.

NOTE” Percentages rounded to nearest whole number

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 19S6.

lands were deforested 1,000 years ago (22). Ero-sion from the deforested and overgrazed Arme-nian hills, which eventually led to the demiseof productive agriculture in Mesopotamia, ap-parently began over 2000 years ago (21). Thesekinds of changes undoubtedly caused local andregional losses of diversity,

What is new today is the scale on which re-source degradation is occurring and thus therate at which diversity is apparently being re-duced. Fishing, hunting, and gathering beyondthe capacity of ecosystems continues today, butthe effects are being greatly exacerbated bydegradation of ecosystems and significant re-ductions in natural areas. The decline of fish-eries and sharp reduction of diversity in the

Chesapeake Bay over the past two decades isan example well known to Congress, which hassupported several initiatives to improve under-standing of the complex syndrome of overfish-ing, pollution, and hydrologic changes relatedto the region’s development.

Acceleration of resource degradation anddiversity loss is partly a consequence of popu-lation growth, especially in rural areas of de-veloping countries, where compound growthrates are often more than 1 percent per year.It is also a consequence of technologies devel-oped over the past century that have enabledhumans to devastate natural ecosystems evenwhere population densities or growth rates aremoderate. For example, modern drainage tech-niques and market conditions make acceleratedwetland drainage possible in the United States,and veterinary drugs and modern well-drillingmachinery enable African farmers to build live-stock herds above the natural carrying capac-ity of their rangelands,

Accelerated loss of diversity is also causedby modern transportation, which reduces theeffect of geographic barriers important in theevolution of diversity. Exotic species, diseases,and pests were for centuries carried acrossoceans, mountains, and deserts by hundredsof people traveling in ships and on foot, but nowthey are carried by hundreds of thousands ofpeople traveling in trucks and airplanes.

Biologists and agriculturalists have thus be-come alarmed about the scale of plant and ani-mal resource degradation during the last twoto three decades. The alarm stems from obser-vations of extensive reductions in habitat, cou-pled with a growing understanding of how suchchanges adversely affect diversity. (Key con-cepts that have aided this understanding aredescribed in box 3-A.)

DIVERSITY

The problem of diversity loss is broader thanextinction of species because diversity occursat each level of biological organization.

Loss

● Ecosystem diversity: A landscape inter-spersed with agricultural fields, grasslands,and woodlands has more diversity than the

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity 65

Box 3-A.-Biological Concepts

Trends in changing biological diversity cannot be eqsured directly; so many species exist thatcosts of inventories would be too high. Rather, trends.~~ be inferred by applying biological con-cepts

●

●

●

●

●

●

and by observing changes in habitats. Several biological concepts ‘are relevant: -

Species-area relationship: Large sites tend to have more species than smail sites. [So] Whenthe areas of diverse natural ecosystems are reduced by land development or by degradation,diversity is reduced. From analysis of many sets of empirical data, scientists have derived amathematical equation that can be used to predict the decrease in number of species that canbe expected following a reduction in habitat area (5).Provinciality effect: Diversity of species and populations separated by geographic barriers, usuallyincreases over time. But when species or varieties are carried across these barriers, as withthe introduction of an exotic organiwn, provinciality is abruptly lost. Rapid loss of diversitycan follow if native species have no defense against a exotic pathogen or pest, or if the exoticorganism competes more aggressively for habitat (44) Examples include the introductions ofDutch elm disease to the United States, of cattle to California, of the paperbark tree to Florida,and of goats to many oceanic islands.Narrow endemism: Some species recur only within very restricted geographic ranges. Thisgroup includes many species that have evolved on islands, in mountaintop forests, in isolatedlakes or other aquatic zones such as coral reefs, in areas with Mediterranean climates, includ-ing California, Western Australia, the Cape of South Africa, Chile, and the Mediterranean Ba-sin countries. Areas with a high proportion of narrow endemic species contribute to globaldiversity more than other areas with similar numbers of species but less endemism. Thus, bio-logical degradation in such areas reduces diversity more than it would elsewhere.Species richness: Some ecosystems have many more species than others. Generaily, speciesrichness is greatest in equatorial regions, and it decreases toward the poles. It is generaliy greaterin warmer or wetter places than in colder or drier places. Thus, the hot, wet tropical forests,which cover only 7 percent of the Earth’s land area may have about half of the Earth’s terres-trial plants and animals (30).Species interdependence: Interdependence can take a variety of forms. Symbiosis occurs whenone or both of two species benefit from association. Mutualism occurs when neither speciescan survive without the other under natural conditions. Commensalism refers to associationsin which one benefits and the other is unaffectad.Natural vulnerability: Vulnerability to extinction varies with several factors. Narrow endemicsare perhaps most vulnerable. Rare-species maybe less susceptible to catastrophe if widely dis-persed, but dispersion may lessen their chances for successful mating. Other species relativelyvulnerable to extinction include the following: top-level carnivores, species with poor coloniz-ing ability, those with colonial nesting habits; migratory species, those that depend on unrelia-ble resources, and species with little evolutionary experience with perturbations.

same landscape after most of the wood-lands are converted to grassland andcropland.Species diversity: A rangeland with 100species of annual and perennial grassesand shrubs has more diversity than thesame land after grazing has eliminated or

●

greatly reduced the frequency of the peren-nial grass species.Genetic diversity: Economically usefulcrops are developed from wild plants byselecting valuable inheritable characteris-tics. Thus, the wild ancestral plants con-tain many genes not found in today’s crop

55 . Technologles TO Ma!ntaln Blologlcal D\versity

plants, A global agricultural environmentthat includes domestic varieties of a crop(such as corn) and the crop’s wild ances-tors has more diversity than the same envi-ronment after the wild ancestors are elim-inated to make space for more domesticcrops.

The quality of information used to assess theloss of biological diversity varies greatly fordifferent ecosystems and different parts of theworld. In general, both data and theories arebetter developed for temperate than for tropi-cal biology; better for birds, mammals, andflowering and coniferous plants than for otherclasses of organisms; and better for the few ma-jor crop and livestock species used in modernagriculture than for the many species used intraditional agriculture.

Ecosystem Diversity

Natural ecosystem diversity has declined inthe United States historically (26), and no evi-dence suggests that this long-term trend hasbeen arrested. By comparing a nationwide eval-uation of potential natural vegetation (PNV)with data on existing land uses from the 1967Conservation Needs Inventory, scientists esti-mate what portion of land in the United Statesis still occupied by natural vegetation (26). Thisstudy estimates a percent change in area foreach ecosystem type (each PNV) since presettle-ment times.

The greatest area reduction was 89 percentfor the Tule Marsh PNV in California, Nevada,and Utah, mainly due to agricultural develop-ment. Twenty-three ecosystem types that oncecovered about half the conterminous UnitedStates now cover only about 7 percent. The agri-cultural States of Iowa, Illinois, and Indianahave lost the highest proportions of their natu-ral terrestrial ecosystems (92, 89, and 82 per-cent, respectively),

States with the lowest losses were Nevada,Arizona, and New Hampshire (4, 7, and 12 per-cent, respectively), This assessment does notimply that 96 percent of Nevada is in the samecondition that it was 400 years ago, The studydid not assess degradation of areas still oc-

cupied by natural vegetation; rather, it indicatedthe areas whose uses remain unchanged. Also,the study was unable to consider some impor-tant ecosystem types, such as riparian and wet-land areas, which are not included in the PNVcategories (26).

Wetlands inventories are conducted by theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The estimatedtotal wetland area in the conterminous Statesin presettlement times was 87 million hectares.This amount was reduced to 44 million by themid-1950s and to 40 million by the mid-1970s(figure 3-2), Thus, half the Nation’s wetland areawas lost in about 400 years, and another 5 per-cent was lost in the following two decades.Drainage for agricultural development has beenthe main cause of wetland ecosystem loss (48).

Riparian ecosystems are generally too smallto be included as PNV types in major analyses.However, riparian areas contribute dispropor-tionately to biological diversity, especially inthe Western States, where they provide luxuri-ous habitats compared with the adjacent up-lands (9). Further, their maintenance is impor-tant to biological diversity in the streams andlakes they border. Natural riparian (mostlystreamside) vegetation in the United States has

Figure 3-2.—Changes in Wetlands Since the 1950s(percentage of total)

Wetlands lost14 ”/0

\New wetlands

3.4 ”/0\

SOURCE: Data from Fish and Wlldllfe Service’s National Wetland Trends Study,1982.

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity 67

been reduced some 70 to 90 percent during thelast two centuries (46,54). In the SacramentoValley of California, for instance, the estimatedloss of riparian vegetation areas is 98.5 percent;for Arizona, the estimate is 95 percent (45).

The diversity of agricultural ecosystems, oragroecosy stems, is also being reduced. Systemdiversity is high in regions where agriculturalland is divided into relatively small holdingsand each farm uses a variety of crop and live-stock species. As indicated in the precedingchapter, such landscapes support natural ene-mies of crop pests and are likely to containspecies and varieties that can resist diseaseoutbreaks and survive abnormal weather. How-ever, on the fertile land of temperate-zone farm-ing regions, where modern machinery and agri-cultural chemicals are used with crop varietiesand where livestock are bred to maximize pro-duction, farmers can achieve substantial econ-omies of scale on large holdings that special-ize in relatively few crops or breeds. These lessdiverse agroecosy stems are more productiveand more profitable than the older systems (36).As yet, relatively little scientific effort is beingmade to determine how biologically diversefarming could be made more profitable. Thus,the continuing loss of agroecosy stem diversityin the United States and throughout the worldseems to be a function of both economic devel-opment and research priorities (10).

Time-series measurements of agroecosy stemdiversity are lacking, as is an understandingof the advantages and disadvantages of diver-sity. There is also a delay between the loss ofdiversity and consequent increased or de-creased profits. Therefore, it seems likely thatagricultural system uniformity may continueto increase beyond its economic optimum.Then, a period of restoring some diversity mayoccur. This process may be underway in someareas of the United States, where multiple crop-ping, crop rotations, and restoration of shelter-belts are becoming more popular practices (51).

Attempts to increase farm profits by meth-ods that reduce diversity may fail where severedroughts or soil erosion are common and wherehot temperatures and high rainfall have resultedin soils with little capacity to hold nutrients.

Where such development failures occur, res-toration of more diverse farming systems canbe difficult, because topsoil, water resources,germplasm, or knowledge of traditional farm-ing methods have been lost (11,25).

Most countries do not have detailed informa-tion on changes in ecosystem diversity. Thegreatest concern on a global scale is for reduc-tion of natural areas in the tropical regions,where ecosystems are least able to recover fromdegradation. Data on deforestation from manytropical countries indicate that the closed-canopy tropical forests are being reduced byabout 11 million hectares each year. (Thedeforestation rates are discussed in some de-tail in ref. 54.)

Few data are available for the developingcountries on degradation of biological diver-sity and other resources within the areas thatremain classified as forest. Nor are data avail-able on changes in area or quality of grasslands,wetlands, open-canopy forests, riparian andcoastal zones, or aquatic ecosystems. Never-theless, compelling anecdotal evidence indi-cates widespread degradation of all types ofecosystems in developing countries. In SriLanka, for example, removal of coral reefs forproduction of lime has had several conse-quences:

the disappearance of lagoons important asnursery areas for fish,the collapse of a fishery,reduction of mangrove areas,erosion of cultivated coconut land, andsalivation of wells and soil within half amile of the shore (41).

Documents from development assistanceagencies, such as the U.S. Agency for Interna-tional Development (AID), the World Bank, theUnited Nations Development Programme, andthe U.N, Food and Agriculture Organizationabound with observations of resource degra-dation in developing countries. Evidence ofecosystem degradation is found in the environ-mental profile series that AID has been pre-paring since 1979, Usually the evidence is adescription of problems caused by resourcedegradation rather than a report from careful

68 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

monitoring of resource changes. At present,reports are available on about 67 developingcountries, and nearly all describe ecosystemdegradation. In some places the problems arethe longstanding effects of unsustainable re-source development; in others, the degradationhas increased dramatically over the last dec-ade and is constraining economic development(see box 3-B).

$pecies Diversity

Data to document changes in numbers anddistribution of species are scarce. To documentan extinction, the species must be named anddescribed taxonomically and accurately ob-served at least once, then the loss must berecorded, Most documented extinctions havebeen of large terrestrial birds, mammals, andconspicuous flowering plants in the temperatezone and on tropical islands.

Modern taxonomic description goes back to1753, but most recognized species were de-scribed much more recently, and the majorityof species have yet to be described and named.For most of the estimated 385,000 living plantspecies, not much more is known than can bediscerned from one or a few pressed, dried her-barium specimens. Nevertheless, personnel andfinancial support for the taxonomic work donein museums, herbarium, universities, andwildlife agencies around the world are beingreduced (8).

Biologists estimate that at least two-thirds ofall species live in the tropics. For example, asingle tree in the Peruvian Amazon rain forestwas found to harbor 43 species of ant belong-ing to 26 genera, That is a species richness aboutequal to the ant fauna of the entire British Isles(27). But two-thirds of the named species arein the temperate zone. This disparity reflectsthe historical distribution of taxonomists. In theUnited States, for example, about 500 plant tax-onomists work with 18,000 species—a ratio of36 species to 1 taxonomist. Tropical vascularplant species number about 190,000; about 1,500taxonomists worldwide have expertise in trop-ical plants, yielding a ratio of 125 to 1 (8).

Even for conspicuous species that have beennamed, a considerable delay is involved inrecording an extinction. For example, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a statusreview in 1985 for the ivory-billed woodpecker,whose last accepted sighting had been in theearly 1950s, Had extinction been confirmed,then the lag between extinction and confirma-tion of loss could have been 30 years (16). Thestatus of this species remains in doubt, how-ever, because a sighting was reported in 1986(2),

Indirect methods must be used to estimatechanges in species diversity, because completeinventories of ecosystems would be too expen-sive, and because little is known of many spe-cies and the genetic attributes of populations.Methods include:

“ preparing lists of species threatened withextinction and monitoring those species;

● monitoring populations of relatively well-known “indicator species” where habitatsare being changed and inferring that otherspecies in the same ecosystem are experi-encing similar changes (indicator speciesare commonly trees, birds, large mammals,butterflies, or flowering plants); and

● using mathematical models of species-arearelationships to project extinction numberslikely to result from various levels of habi-tat reduction.

Lists of Threatened Species

Lists of threatened animal species are pre-pared by the Species Conservation MonitoringUnit (SC MU) of the International Union for theConservation of Nature and Natural Resources.For the United States, endangered animal listsare prepared by the Endangered Species Of-fice of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS/ESO). For both the SCMU and theFWS/ESO, the information is better for temper-ate than for tropical species; better for terres-trial than for aquatic species; and better forbirds and mammals than for reptiles, amphib-ians, fish, and invertebrates (16). Terms usedin describing the status of threatened speciesare defined in box 3-C.

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity “ 69

.1

Box 30B.-Typicd Exmwpts From llwekp~f ‘%$abt#nce Agency Reports Addressingl!hmironmmtul Oev@loPm@nt; , ~ : ~.

India/Pakistan IJorder Zumds in tk [24]TIM predmninant natural tamatrhd in tie region ~ppears to b e a l o w , o p e n - t y p e o f

drytropicaithmm fo~ i n t e r s p e r s e d D u e t o thelong a n d p e r v a d i n g i n f l u e n c eof man arid grazing stock, the present is ,Sently a highly degraded form of low andS~HW xerophytic scrub. } ‘t. ,.

The Indus delta ia a cAtical area and productivity. Mangrove zonecreeks and mudflats hold crustaeeans,ara populations, and are a fisheries centerof locaI and international sigti-ficam%. b subject to reduced freshwater input,increased salinity, overfisbin~, and en

Honduras (49) .~ . .

Deforestation by shifting @is dmmatic and well publicized. Thehuman tragedy is even more serious% fwnilies living on degraded

%$@dw&N!. The forest cover has been peeledlmds in tie chol~t~a Vldkyback leaving a qmw pat

Mechanized farming adversely affaatttwl the cmvirc&&mt through encouraging soil erosion anddwmtification, e s p e c i a l l y i n areas & itwdm$,ia~

The P1’e$811t,,

million hectaresofenvironnmtal —..2%-’ !* ;,~...,.. ? Y ~ ~ . .-

The SCMU data are gathered from an inter- 3-I summarizes some of the data on threatenednational network of correspondents identified animals.from research papers. For example, the personcompiling data on mammals has about 5,000 Since the mid-1970s, numerous lists of threat-informants and contacts worldwide (16), The ened plant species have been prepared. Becauselists, organized by classes of animals in geo- these are so new and most tropical regions dographic regions (e.g., New World mammals), not have such lists, the data cannot yet indi-are revised on roughly a lo-year cycle, Table cate rates of extinction. For the temperate zone,

70 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Box 3-C.-Definitions of Threatened StatusTwo sets of definitions are used to classify the status of threatened species. Definitions based

on the Endangered Species Act of 1973 are used in the United States. All other countries’ lists ofendangered species follow the definitions promulgated by the International Union for Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). The two sets of definitions are technically not compatiblemainly because of differences in the concept of extinction and the IUCN inclusion of taxa ratherthan species.

Three technical definitions are used for classification of status in the United States:

1. An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of itsrange.

2. A threatened species is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable futurethroughout all or a significant portion of its range.

3. Critical habitats are areas essential for the conservation of endangered or threatened species.The term may be used to designate portions of habitat areas, entire areas, or even areas outsidethe current range of the species.

The IUCN categories include five definitions:

1. Extinct taxa are species, or other taxa such as distinct subspecies, that are no longer knownto exist in the wild after repeated search of their type localities and other locations where theywere known or were likely to have occurred.

2. Endangered taxa are in danger of extinction and their survival is unlikely if the factors caus-ing their vulnerability or decline continue operating.

3. Vulnerable taxa are declining and will become endangered if no action is taken to intervene.4. Rare taxa are so rare that they could be eliminated easily but are under no immediate threat

at present and have populations that are more or less stable.5. Intermediate taxa belong in one of the above categories, but information is not sufficient to

determine exactly which one (47).SOURCES: M.L Been. The Evolution of NationaJ Wiklfife Law [New York: Prawer Publishers, 19S3): H. %mze, “Status and Trends of Wild

Pl&t Species,” OTA commissioned paper, 1WH5. -

however, the numbers of threatened species dogive some indication of the scope of theproblem.

Nearly all industrial countries now have listsof threatened plant species. In Europe, all butfive countries have such lists, and four of thosefive will have them soon (47), In the UnitedStates, many lists and reports cover both theNation and individual States. Table 3-2 sum-marizes some information from the endangeredplant species lists.

In North America, about 10 percent of theplant species are listed as rare or threatened.Many are plants endemic to small areas in Cali-fornia. A higher proportion of species are listedin Europe because of extensive threats to vege-tation in the northern countries and the nar-

row endemism of many species in the Medi-terranean countries. Data from the SovietUnion emphasize horticultural plants and areless complete than for Europe. For temperate-zone Southern Hemisphere countries, the listsare also dominated by narrow endemic plantsfrom the Mediterranean climate regions (47).

Oceanic islands, because of geographic iso-lation during the millennia of evolution, typi-cally have a very high proportion of endemicspecies. These areas are particularly vulnerable,because they are not adapted to animals andaggressive weeds that may be introduced byhumans, Lists of threatened plants have beenprepared for many such islands, Table 3-3 in-dicates how severe the threats are for islandswith 50 to 1,000 endemic species.

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity ● 7 1

George Laboratory

The ivory-billed woodpecker is presumed extinct in theUnited States (last sighting occurred in 1971)and was thought to be extinct worldwide until the

discovery of at least two specimens in thespring of 1986 i n eastern Cuba.

Among tropical countries, Brazil has a list-ing project under way. Lists covering parts ofIndia have been prepared and indicate about900 threatened plant species. The Malayan Na-ture Society is preparing a database on threat-ened plants for the Malaysian peninsula. List-ing projects are also complete or under way insome nontropical developing countries, suchas Chile, Pakistan, and Nepal (47).

Monitoring Indicator Speciesand Habitats

Inferring trends in biological diversity fromchanges in the status of indicator species is amethod that relies on time-series data assem-bled for management of economically signifi-cant species or species of special esthetic in-terest. For example, striped bass (known locallyas rockfish) has been a highly valued speciessince precolonial times on the east coast of theUnited States, and commercial harvest datahave been tabulated for areas like the Chesa-peake Bay since 1924,

For 50 years, the trend in striped bass com-mercial harvest was upward, from around 2million pounds landed in 1924 to 14.7 millionpounds in 1973. Then, the trend reversed. B}T1983, the catch had plummeted by 90 percentto 1.7 million pounds. The decline was believedto be due to a combination of overfishing andchemical contamination of the species’ hahi-tat (18]. Thus, a reduction in populations ofother species could be inferred from the stripedbass trend.

Inference from this indicator species wasconfirmed in 1982 when a 7-year Environmentalprotection Agency study indicated the extentof the decline in the bay. Subaquatic vegeta-tion had declined 84 percent since 1971. Areassuffering from lack of dissolved oxygen had in-creased fifteenfold since 1950, and in BaltimoreHarbor at least 450 organic compounds, mostlytoxins, were identified. Corresponding dramaticdeclines were documented in native animal spe-cies of the bay, including oysters, shad, and yel-low perch (53).

The spotted owl is an indicator species fordiversity in old-growth forests of the PacificNorthwest. The owl feeds primarily on flyingsquirrels and other rodents of old-growth hab-itat. Its decline in a region is considered a sig-

W

*

- .

. —

- . . “ ,

credit Chesapeake Bay f/on

once abundant the Chesapeake, have beenexploited and are now endangered in many areas of theestuary. The in population of this highly valuedspecies has been attributed to overfishing and pollution.

72 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

...0 & -K

.rm cum

CclhCoco.mf= l--

mim”m-

. .

C9mcomm V3*m l-n

al

—

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity ● 7 3

Table 3-2.—Summary of Data From Endangered Plant Species Lists

Rare andCountry/region Species threatened species Extinct taxa Endangered taxa

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,000 1,716 117 215Europe a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,300 1,927 20 117New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 186 4 42South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,000 2,122 39 107U.S.S.R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,100 653 =20 =160United Statesb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,000 2,050 90 7aExclydes European U.SSR , Azores, Canary islands, and MadeirabExcludes Hawall, Alaska and puerto RICO

SOURCE S Davis et al Plants in Danger What Do We Know~(forthcomlng) as clted in H Synge, “Status and Trends of Wild Plants “ OTA commissioned paper 1985

Table 3-3.— Data on Threatened Plant Speciesof Selected Oceanic islands

Number of endemic Number listed asIsland speciesa rare or threatened

Azores ... . 55 30 (55”/0)Canary Islands ... 569 383 (670/o)Galapagos . . . 229 150 (66”/0)Juan Fernandez ... 118 95 (81 0/0)

Lord Howe Island . . 75 73 (97”/0)Madeira . . . . . . . . 131 86 (66”/0)M a u r i t i u s . , . . . . 280 172 (61 0/0)

Seychelles . . 90 73 (81 0/, )

Socotra. ... ... . . 215 132 (61 0/0)

a E n d e m l c means the species occurs only On the IslandSOURCE S Davis, et al P/ants In Danger What Do We KrIow7 (forthcoming),

as cited In H Synge ‘Status and Trends of Wtld Plant s,” OTA comm!ssloned paper, 1985

nal that its prey and other species associatedwith the habitat are also in decline (3).

Diversity losses due to pollution may be in-dicated by animals’ food chains, such as thebald eagle and other fish-eating birds. Plantssusceptible to air pollution, such as lichens, mayalso be useful indicators. Extensive records ofobservations on smaller animals of long-stand-ing interest to professional and amateur biolo-gists can also gauge diversity change, Thedecline of Bay Checkerspot butterflies, for ex-ample, is taken as an indication of decline ofmany associated organisms in the San Fran-cisco Peninsula area (13).

Models of Species-Area Relationships

The scale of diversity reduction can be esti-mated for most tropical countries only by in-ferences from the reduction of habitat. Nearlyall attempts to estimate global extinction ratesfocus on the tropical moist forests, These eco-

systems are exceedingly species-rich, containareas of narrow endemism, and are undergo-ing extensive and rapid conversion to otheruses, Because they typically have erosion-pronesoils incapable of holding many plant nutrientsand occur where rain and heat are especiallyintense, these forest ecosystems are highly sus-ceptible to degradation. In fact, the undevel-oped forests are so diverse, and the deforested,degraded landscapes to which they are oftenconverted support so few species, that themodels used to estimate extinction rates gen-erally treat the diversity of deforested land-scapes in the moist tropics as negligible (43).

A recent projection of bird and flowering-plant extinctions that could be caused by con-tinued deforestation in tropical America isbased on a mathematical model of the species-area relationship (see box 3-A). About 92,000flowering plant species have been described forregions where the forested area for recenthuman-caused deforestation was about 6.9 mil-lion square kilometers (43). Over the next 15to 20 years, the forested area will be reducedto about 3,6 million square kilometers if the rateof deforestation remains at the level of the1970s. The mathematical relationship betweenarea and species numbers, derived by analysisof some 100 empirical data sets (5), indicatesthat this reduced forest could be expected tosupport about 79,000 species. Thus, a 15-per-cent reduction in numbers of species is pro-jected for the near future.

Deforestation is expected to continue formore than 20 years, however, and it seems likelythat it will accelerate as the rapidly growinghuman populations of tropical American coun-

74 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

U S and Service

Northern spotted owl requires large tracts of PacificNorthwest old-growth forest as habitat. If harvestingof old-growth continues at current rate, the habitat for

this species could disappear within the nexttwo decades.

tries need more rapid resource development.A “worst-case” calculation indicates that if theforests were reduced until they covered onlyNational Parks and their equivalents that hadbeen established by 1979 (about 97,000 squarekilometers), then the final effect could be as highas a 66-percent reduction (43).

About 704 species of land birds have beendescribed in the Amazon region of tropicalAmerica. Using the same mathematical rela-

tionship as used for plants, a 60-percent reduc-tion of the original forest area over the next 15to 20 years could be expected to cause even-tual extinctions of 86 bird species. The worst-case calculation, with reduction of the Ama-zon forest to the area of already established na-tional parks, projected that 487 types of birds,or about 70 percent of the species, could be-come extinct (43).

Several assumptions tend to underestimateextinction rates. For example, extinctions re-sulting from reduced provinciality are ignoredin the calculations, as are effects of the narrowendemism that occurs in several parts of tropi-cal American forests. On the other hand, theassumption that none of the plant and bird spe-cies will find habitats they need after deforesta-tion seems an exaggeration. Such projectionsmay be helpful in stimulating institutional re-sponses to prevent the worst cases from occur-ring. Many nations’ governments have begunto take steps in the past decade to protect en-dangered habitats. The worst-case calculationsare thus not predictions, but indications of thedirection and scale of the projected trend.

Distracting Numbers Game

Projections of alarming losses in speciesdiversity have attracted attention to this issue,But discrepancies among the estimated extinc-tion rates have called into question the credi-bility of all such estimates. In one sense, thenumbers themselves have become an issue, con-fusing policy makers and the general public andpossibly detracting from efforts to deal with thecauses and consequences of diversity loss (28),This numbers game also has defined the prob-lem of loss mainly in terms of species extinc-tion, which may be the most dramatic aspectof the diversity question, but it is only part ofthe problem. Further, global and national dataand projections may mask the localized natureof resource degradation, diversity loss, and theconsequences of both. Large inaccessible areasof forest, for example, may make the globaldeforestation rate seem moderate, but destruc-tion of especially diverse forests in local areasof Australia, Bangladesh, India, the Philippines,

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity ● 7 5—

Brazil, Colombia, Madagascar, Tanzania, andWest Africa proceeds at catastrophic rates (32).

Genetic Diversity

Ideally, concern about loss of biological diver-sity should be focused on genetically distinctpopulations, rather than on species (13,16,34).But with so little information available aboutthe majority of wild species, this seems im-practical.

For agricultural species, on the other hand,the concern is mainly about genetic diversity.The species do not seem to be in danger of ex-tinction, but the variety of genes in many cropsand livestock breeds is being reduced (39).Many distinct types are being eliminated as im-proved breeds and varieties that are geneticallysimilar are gaining more widespread use. Iron-ically, success in exploiting genetic resourcesfor agriculture threatens the genetic diversityon which future achievements depend.

With livestock, the principal diversity loss in-volves developing-countries’ breeds beingreplaced by imported ones, The threat seems

greatest for those species in which artificial in-semination is widely used, and it is particularlya problem with cattle, for which over 270 dis-tinct breeds exist. For farmers with only a fewcows, artificial insemination is cheaper thankeeping a bull. But developing countries lackfacilities to collect and freeze semen from lo-cally adapted breeds, so semen is usually im-ported from commercial studs in industrialcountries. Threatened breeds include the cri-O11O of Latin America and the Sahiwal and sev-eral others from Africa (see table 3-4) (15).

Llama and alpaca—as well as vicuna andguanaco, their wild relatives—are South Amer-ican species used for meat, as beasts of bur-den, and for their hair and pelts. Numbers ofall four species have declined sharply since theSpanish conquest of the Incan empire, and lossof genetic diversity has almost surely occurred,though it is unmeasured (15).

Poultry and swine breeds are also movingtoward genetic homogeneity, because con-trolled breeding has been rapid and intensiveto produce varieties suitable for modern com-mercial production. Poultry breeding has been

Table 3-4.—Endangered African Cattle Breeds—

Breed Location Purpose

Mutura ., ., Nlgerla ‘- Meat, draft

Lagune ... . Benin, MeatIvory Coast

Brunede I’Atlas, Morocco, MeatAlgeria,Tunisia

M p w a p w a . , . T a n z a n i a Milk

Baria, ., . . . . Madagascar Milk, meatCreole . . . Mauritius Milk, meat,

draftKuri ., . ., Chad Milk, meat

Kenana. ., . Sudan Milk

Butana . Sudan Milk

—

Reasons for decline in number

Civil war, crossbreeding, lack ofinterest by farmers as tractorsbecome available

Crossbreeding, lack of interest byfarmers because of small maturesize (125 kg) and low milk yields

Crossbreeding to imported breeds

Lack of sustained effort to developand maintain new breed

CrossbreedingCrossbreeding

Political instability, numbersreduced by rinderpest anddrought

Crossbreeding (artificialinsemination) to imported dairybreeds, loss of major habitat todevelopment scheme

Crossbreeding

Advantages

Trypanotolerant ,a hardy, good draftanimal, low mortality

Trypanotolerant, adapted to humidenvironment

Adapted to arid zones

Adapted, dual-purpose

Adapted, dual-purposeAdapted, multiple-purpose

High milk production, ability to floatand swim in Lake Chad, tolerantof heat and humidity

High milk potential; adapted to hot,dry environment

High milk potential; adapted to hot,semiarid environment

aAblllty to survive Trypanosome In feet Ion (spread by tsetse fly), which normally causes African slee Ping sickness In cattle

SOURCE Adapled from K O Adenlj[ Prospects and Plans for Data Banks on Animal Genetic Resources, An/ma/ Genetfc Resources Conservation (Rome Food andAgriculture Orgamzatlon, 1984) as cited In H Fltzhugh et al “Status and Trends of Domesticated Antmals, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985

dominated by a few companies (probably fewerthan 20 worldwide) (15). These firms typicallyretain a number of breeds from which to makeselections and crosses, but they do not find itcost-effective to retain stocks that might proveuseful more than 10 years in the future (7). Mean-while, breeds adapted to traditional farm con-ditions are becoming rare in industrial coun-tries, because fewer farmers want them and thenumber of small hatcheries producing them hasdeclined sharply. Poultry breeds from indus-trial countries are being exported to urban mar-kets in many developing countries, but no evi-dence exists that these have affected the geneticdiversity of poultry in rural areas of develop-ing countries.

Hundreds of plant species have been domes-ticated, and traditional farming systems con-

tinue to use many species. But modern agri-culture produces most human sustenance,plant-derived fibers, and industrial materialsfrom only a few species, Three-quarters of hu-man nutrition is provided by just seven species:wheat, rice, maize, potato, barley, sweet potato,and cassava (31). Within the United States, thetop 30 crops account for $57.7 billion in farmsales and imports annually, which is 60 per-cent of the combined value of all U.S. agricul-tural plant resources (see table 3-5) (39).

Within these 30 crops, modern varieties havereplaced traditional ones, reducing diversitybetween and within agricultural sites and ge-netic populations. The narrow species and ge-netic base of modern agriculture generates twodistinct concerns: 1) the extinction of genes,which reduces opportunities to produce new

Table 3-5.—Crops reported by theUnited States With a Combined Annual Value of

Grown or

$100 Million or More (average 1976 to 1980)

Average annual value ‘ -

(U.S. $ millions) Crop

11,27810,4126,4754,2333,9252,8511,7231,5251,2061,1631,1501,1471,0541,0511,016

815760747706672527517393368365355349314304287252219198192189186179167164158156155148146144143142142136130128116116110102100

SoybeanCornWheatCottonCoffeeTobaccoSugarcaneGrapePotatoRiceSweet orangeSorghumAlfalfaTomatoCacaoAppleBeet cropsPeanutRubberBarleyLettuceCommon beanSunflowerBananaCole cropsAlmondPeachCoconutOatsOnionStrawberryGrapefruitChrysanthemumCucumberMelonPineappleRosesCeleryWalnutPeppers/c hilisJutePlum/pruneSweet cherrylsour cherryPearOliveOil palmCarrotPeaLemonBermudagrassTeaWatermelonCashewSweet potatoPecanAzalea/rhododendron

SOURCE C Prescott-Allen and A Prescott-Allen, The Ffrsf Resources W//d Spe-c~es IrI the North Arner/can Economy (New Haven, CT, and LondonYale Unlverslty Press, 1986)

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity ● 7 7

varieties better suited for production at particu-lar sites; and 2) the increased uniformity ofcrops, which makes them more vulnerable topests and pathogens. Of these two, extinctionof genes is the greater problem. For annualcrops, uniform genetic vulnerability can bequickly corrected as long as a high degree ofgenetic diversity is maintained for the cropsomewhere. Gene extinction, however, cannotbe reversed.

Published information on status and trendsof crop diversity usually consists of impressionsby plant breeders and others on the loss of cul-tivated varieties or threats to wild relatives ofcrops, such as: “it may not be long before land-races are irretrievably lost” or “many locallyadapted varieties have been replaced by mod-ern varieties” (39). Such reports have been col-lected and evaluated by the International Boardon Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR). IBPGR’sinformation has stimulated conservation actionand has helped to determine general collect-ing priorities for protection of genetic re-sources.

Plant breeders and germplasm collectors gen-erally concur that crop genes have been lostand that losses are still occurring rapidly andwidely in many crops (39), in spite of progresswith collection and offsite maintenance pro-grams (see ch. 6). Three problem areas include:

1, crops that have low priority for IBPGR butare of major economic importance to theUnited States (e.g., grape, alfalfa, lettuce,sunflower, oats, and tobacco);

2. crops that despite being a high interna-tional priority still lack adequate provisionfor long-term conservation (including thosemaintained as living collections rather thanas seeds, such as cacao, rubber, coconut,coffee, sugarcane, citrus, banana); and

3. wild relatives of major crops, which, ex-cept for sugarcane and tomato, are repre-sented in collections by extremely smallsamples.

Detailed assessments of the status and trendsof genetic diversity are lacking, even for cropswhose collection is well advanced, such as rice,

78 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity-—

maize, potato, tomato, and bean. Such assess-ments are needed to understand the dynamicsof crop genetic change and its relationship tosocial and economic change (39).

The status of diversity conservation for eco-nomically important timber trees lies betweenthat of wild plants gathered for economic useand that of agricultural plants. Some commer-cial tree species are protected by parks andother protected natural areas, and the diver-sity of some is at least partially captured inoffsite seed collections. In many extensivelymanaged forests, commercial tree species re-generate naturally after logging, fire, or otherdisturbances, and local genetic diversity ismaintained. However, replanting with stockpropagated from selected parents and fromtree-breeding programs is a common practicewith some trees, such as Douglas fir, and gene

pools for these species are being graduallyaltered (19).

The genetic resources of commercial treesand other economic plants and animals in de-veloping countries are being eroded by conver-sion of forest areas to agriculture or grazinguse. An international panel recently identifiedsome 300 tree species or important tree popu-lations (presumably with unique genetic char-acteristics) that are endangered (17), Thus, inthe United States and developing countrieswhere U.S. agencies provide assistance, pro-tection of natural gene pools of commercialtrees and other nondomesticated economic spe-cies could become an objective in developmentplanning (see ch. 11). At present, economic spe-cies not used in agriculture or horticulture arepoorly represented in genetic conservationprograms.

CAUSES OF DIVERSITY LOSS

Forces that contribute to the worldwide lossof biological diversity are varied and complex,and stem from both direct and indirect pres-sures. Historically, concern has focused on thecommercial exploitation of specific threatenedor endangered species. But now attention is alsobeing focused on indirect threats more sweep-ing in scope (30).

Development and Degradation

Economic development usually entails mak-ing sites more favorable for a manageable num-ber of economic activities. Consequently, thechanged landscape has fewer habitats and sup-ports fewer species. Habitats may be affectedby offsite development too—by pollution, forexample, or changed hydrology. Some devel-opment, such as logging in a mosaic patternthrough a large forested area, mimics naturalprocesses and may result in a temporary in-crease in diversity.

But poorly planned or badly implemented de-velopment, such as agricultural expansion with-out investment in soil conservation, can se-verely disrupt biological productivity, and it can

start a self-reinforcing cycle of degradation, Forexample, soil erosion reduces soil fertility,which in turn can reduce growth of plants forcover, leading to more soil erosion and to rapiddepletion of diversity as the site becomes suit-able, for fewer and fewer species (51). Othercauses of site degradation include grazing pres-sures, unnatural frequency or severity of fires,and excessive populations of herbivores (suchas rabbits) where predators are eliminated. Aridand semiarid sites are especially susceptible todegradation from such pressures. Species maybe reduced by one-half to two-thirds withoutoutright conversion of the land use (33).

Modernization of farming systems is also acause of diversity loss. Such systems often in-clude many species of crops and livestock;genetic diversity is typically high, because cul-tivars and breeds adapted to the vagaries of site-specific conditions are used. To achieve pro-ductivity gains, however, traditional systemsare being replaced with modern methods. Cap-ital inputs, such as manufactured fertilizers andfeeds, are used to compensate for site-specificdifferences, Thus, it is possible to replace tradi-tional crops and livestock with fewer varieties

+

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity 79

,P -*

A A a

hi ‘. ‘ . \ ‘ ..

Photo credff U N Phofo 152 843’/( Muldoon

Overgrazing In Burkina Faso—one major cause of diversity loss.

bred to give high yields under more artificialconditions.

The loss of traditional agroecosystems is notrestricted to developing countries. NativeAmerican farming systems that interplant cornwith squash, numerous types of beans, sun-flowers, and many semidomesticated speciesare reduced to isolated areas now and continueto be abandoned. These systems and crop va-rieties have been described in anthropologicalliterature, but they are lost before beingscrutinized by agricultural scientists.

Agricultural development may cause abruptdisappearance of traditional varieties, as withthe replacement of traditional wheat in the Pun-jab region of India, or it may be gradual, as withfruit and vegetable varieties in the united Statesand livestock breeds in Europe, Locally adaptedvarieties may become extinct in a single yearif germplasm for a traditional variety is lost be-cause of a catastrophe or is destroyed to con-

trol a disease. Examples include traditionalgrain varieties that were replaced with mod-ern ones in Africa when seed was eaten dur-ing the recent famine, and local swine popula-tions that were exterminated in Haiti and theDominican Republic to control a disease andthen replaced with modern breeds (15).

Exploitation of Species

As noted earlier, concern with loss of biologi-cal diversity historically focused on extinctionsor population losses that resulted from exces-sive hunting and gathering. whales, cheetahs,passenger pigeons, bison, the North Atlanticherring, the dodo, and various orchids are allexamples of organisms hunted or gathered inexcess (30).

Today the direct threat to wildlife remains.Numerous monkeys and apes are endangeredby overhunting, mainly to supply the demand

80 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity

credit: D.

The green turtle is an example of a species threatenedby direct factors, such as exploitation of adults andeggs, and by indirect factors, including nesting beachdestruction, ocean pollution, and incidental catch in

shrimp trawls.

from medical research institutions. Some 108primate species are hunted for an internationaltrade worth about $4 million annually (30). Formany, perhaps most of these, the capturingprocess is very destructive. Apes such as thegibbon are captured by shooting mother ani-mals from the treetops and taking any infantsthat survive the fall. Many of the infants diewhile passing through the market system. Thus,the 30,000 primates sold in 1982 (30) actuallycompose a much higher number killed to sup-port the trade.

The rhinoceros has declined more rapidlyover the past 15 years than any other large mam-mal. From 1970 to 1985 there was an almost80-percent decrease in the numbers of rhinos,

from 71,000 to only about 13,500 today. Themost spectacular decline has been that of theblack rhino–from 65,000 to 7,000 in the past15 years. Whole populations of black rhino havebeen almost totally eliminated over the past 10years in Mozambique, Chad, Central AfricanRepublic, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, and An-gola. In the past 2 years, Mozambique has lostthe white rhinoceros for the second time in thiscentury—a dubious achievement indeed (29),

The main reason for this catastrophic declinesince 1975 is due to the illegal killing of the ani-mal, mostly for its horn. In the early 1980s aboutone-half of the horn put onto the world marketwent to North Yemen where it is used for themaking of attractive dagger handles, while theremaining half went to eastern Asia where itis used mostly to lower fever, not—as oftensupposed—as an aphrodisiac (6).

Plant species are also subject to overharvest.A cycad plant species was reported eliminatedin Mexico during just one year when 1,200 spec-imens were exported to the United States (55).

Vulnerability of Isolated Species

If the range of species is restricted to a rela-tively small area, such as an island or a moun-taintop forest, a single development project orthe introduction of competing or exotic speciescan lead to loss of diversity. Many recorded ex-tinctions have been animals and plants fromoceanic islands (see table 3-6) (52). Some of theseareas, such as Haiti, are infamous for deforesta-tion and rapid rates of soil erosion. It may beinferred that diversity loss has been and prob-ably continues to be especially severe on suchislands.

Complex Causes

Most losses of diversity are unintended con-sequences of human activity, and the speciesand population affected are usually not evenrecognized (30). Air and water pollution, forexample, can cause diversity loss far from thepollution’s source, Substantial gains in reduc-ing these pressures have been achieved in in-dustrial countries, particularly in the United

Table 3.6.—Oceanic Islands a

With More Than 50 Endemic Plant Species.—

PercentageIsland Endemics endemismM a d a g a s c a r . . . . . . . . .Cuba . . ... . . . . . . . . . .New Caledonia . . . . . . . .Hispaniola b . ..., . . .New Zealand ..., . . . . . .Sti Lanka. . . . . . . . . . . .Taiwan. . . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii . . ..., ..., ..., .Jamaica. . ..., ..., ..., .Figi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Canary Is lands . , . . . . . , . .Puerto Rico . . . . .Caroline Islands. ,...,.. .,Trinidad and Tobago, ...,,Galapagos. . ..., . . . . . .Mauritius. . . ..., ..., ...,O g a s a w a r a - G u n t o . . . ,Reunion. . . . , . . . , . . . , .Vanuatu. . . . . . . . ..., . . .Tubuai ..., ..., ..., ..., . .Comoro Islands ..., ...,S o c o t r a . . . , . . . , . . . , .Bahamas, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sao Tome . . . . . . . . .Marquesas Islands . . . . . . .Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Juan Fernandez ..., ...,Cape Verde. . . . . . . . . . . . .Madeira. . ..., ..., ..., .Mariana Islands ..., . .Lord How Island . . ..., ,.Seychelles . . . . . . . . . . .

—

=9,0002,7002,4741,8001,618=900=900C

883735

=700383332293C

215175172151C

=150=150S140

136132121108103

>10095928681C

7373

46763681

9123

12

25

aExcludes Australia, New Zealand, Borneo, New Gutnea, and AldabrabHlspanlola comprises the natlonsof Haltl and the Domtnlcan Republlccomlts monocoyledons

SOURCE AdaptedfromA H Gentry, ‘Endemism tnTroptcal Versus TemperatePlant Communltles;’ Conservation f3/o/ogy, M. Soule(ed )(Sunderland,MA Slnauer Associates, lnc 1988), andH Synge, ’’Status and Trendsof Wdd Plants’ OTA commissioned pape~ 1985

States, since passage of the National Environ-mental Policy Act,

Yet pollution remains a major threat to bio-Iogical diversity, because abatement is often ex-pensive and is sometimes a very complex or-ganizational task, especially when it dependson international cooperation. Acid rain is anexample. In Scandinavia, several fish specieshave declined in numbers because of acidifi-cation of lakes; in eastern Canada, a trout spe-cies has been placed in the severely threatenedcategory (37), International pollution by acidrain has recently been reported to extend farfrom industrial regions into Zambia, Malaysia,and Venezuela, for example.

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity . 81

Climate change is apparently being causedby increased carbon dioxide and atmosphericdust, which result from fossil-fuel burning andfrom the release of carbon stored in vegetationwhen extensive areas are converted from for-est to cropland or sparsely vegetated grassland.The expected consequences include significantchanges in temperature and rainfall patterns,Temperature rises seem likely to occur rapidly,at least in evolutionary terms, so diversity willprobably incur a net loss during the next cen-tury (38).

In both industrial and developing countries,diversity is lost as land is converted from for-est, grasslands, and savanna to cropland or pas-ture. If the land being converted will supportpermanent agriculture with relatively highyields, the effect on diversity is contained, Mod-erate areas of such land can support substan-tial populations. But much of the newly clearedland is marginal or totally unsuitable for thecultivation or grazing practices being applied.As a result, extensive areas must be cleared,especially where the land is so poor that it de-grades to wasteland and is abandoned after afew years, which is typical in the moist tropi-cal forest regions and in semiarid areas of boththe temperate and tropical zones (30).

The underlying causes of inappropriate landclearing are many and exceedingly complex.Population growth, poverty, inappropriate agri-cultural technologies, and lack of alternativeemployment opportunities are all problems fartoo complex for biologists and conservationistsalone to resolve.

Population growth in itself may not seem in-trinsically threatening to biological diversity.In some industrial countries, such as the UnitedStates and Japan, disruption of ecosystems hasbeen mitigated by urbanization, establishmentof parks, and land use regulation (30). But theconnections between affluent populations andtheir impacts on biological diversity are ob-scured by the complexity of commerce. The Jap-anese, for example, carefully protect the diver-sity of their own remaining forests, but theyuse large quantities of timber from forests inother countries where controls are lax. Muchhas been written about the “hamburger con-

82 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 3-3.— Past and Projected World Population

10

9

8

Ri5n

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 .

* IAD ;E 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2100

YearIf the current growth in population continues, by the year 2000more than 6 billion people will inhabit the world. With thisgrowth, irreversible environmental degradation and loss ofbiological diversity can be expected.

SOURCE World Resources Institute and International Institute for Environmentand Development, World Resources 1986 (New York: Basic Books,1986)

nection” by which U.S. and European beef con-sumers are said to be causing loss of diversityin tropical countries where forests are con-verted to pasture. The very difficult task of iden-tifying, measuring, and mitigating such nega-tive economic-ecologic links between nationsis increasingly important as the world economybecomes more and more international (30).

The causal link between human populationsize and diversity loss is clearer in developingcountries where population growth in ruralareas continues to be rapid, and land-use regu-lations do not exist or are poorly enforced. Be-tween 1980 and 2000, rural populations are ex-pected to increase by 500 million in thedeveloping world (57) (figure 3-3). where thesepeople continue to rely on extensive agricul-ture, resource degradation and diversity losscan be expected to accelerate. The harmful im-pacts of population growth are also likely tobe exacerbated by development programs thatencourage large resettlements of landless peo-ple into deserts or tropical lowlands withoutproviding the means to sustain agriculturalproductivity in such difficult sites (42).

CONCLUSION

Circumstantial Evidence The circumstantial case is based on theknowledge that each wild species and popula-

Biological diversity is abundant for the world tion depends on the habitat to which it isas a whole. More than 10 million species may adapted. Diverse natural habitats are being con-exist, but after more than 2oo years of study, verted to less diverse and degraded landscapes.scientists have only named and described some On those sites, diversity has been reduced. The1.7 million. Many of these species contain nu- sites that remain in a natural or nearly naturalmerous genetically distinct populations, each condition are often fragmented patches that willwith a different potential for survival and utility. not support the diversity of larger areas.

The abundance and complexity of ecosys- For domesticated agricultural plants and ani-tems, species, and genetic types have defied reals, the concern is genetic diversity, whichcomplete inventory or direct assessment of must be maintained by active husbandry. Farm-changes. But from events and circumstances ing systems with high genetic diversity are be-that can be measured, it can be inferred that ing replaced by new systems with much lowerthe rate of diversity loss is now far greater than diversity, so husbandry of many genetic typesthe rate at which diversity is created. is abandoned. Thus, gene combinations that re-

—

produce particular characteristics and took dec-ades to develop may be lost in a single year.The rapid rate and large scale of agriculturalmodernization imply that genetic diversitylosses are great, though quantitative estimateshave not been made.

Data for Decisionmaking

In recent decades, inventories and monitor-ing of ecosystems, species, and genetic typeshave improved, and the knowledge of what ex-ists has greatly enhanced abilities to maintaindiversity. Biologists, resource managers, andconservationists concur that information avail-able now is adequate in virtually every coun-try to guide programs to maintain diversity.

The circumstantial case for diversity loss inthe United States and other industrial countriesis bolstered by abundant site-specific data aswell as by regional survey data on ecosystemsand species. This information has moved pub-lic and private organizations to allocate sub-stantial resources to the establishment and man-agement of nature reserves, abatement of

1.

2.

3.

4,

5,

6.

7.

8.

Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity ● 8 3

pollution, and other programs that sustain bio-logical diversity. Opportunities to improve theuse of these data are discussed in chapter 5.

The situation is quite different in developingcountries. Circumstantial evidence of diversityloss is compelling, and many countries havedesignated parks and natural areas in recentyears. But the available data are not adequateto support policy decisions to allocate enoughfunds and other resources to maintain diver-sity. Both money and trained personnel areneeded to develop the necessary information.

Public and private funds that might be usedfor conservation are extremely scarce. There-fore, a great need exists for good data and com-prehensive planning, so that whatever fundscan be allocated will be used effectively. Orga-nizations such as The Nature Conservancy andthe IUCN are working to develop the data andlocal planning expertise needed to adequatelyassess the status of biological diversity andprospects for its conservation. More concertedsupport from public institutions is needed, how-ever, both in the United States and abroad.

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

Adeniji, K. O., “Prospects and Plans for DataBanks on Animal Genetic Resources, ” AnimalGenetic Resources Conservation by 44/1 (Rome:Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UnitedNations, 1984). In: Fitzhugh, et al., 1985.Anonymous, “Ivory-billed Woodpecker Found, ”Bioscience 36(10):703, 1986.Barton, K., “Wildlife on Bureau of Land Man-agement Lands, ” Audubon Wildlife Report,1985 (New York: National Audubon Society,1985).Bean, M. J., The Evolution of National WildlifeLaw (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1983).Connor, E. F., and McCoy, E. D., “The Statisticsand Biology of the Species-Area Relationship, ”American Naturalist 113:791-883, 1979.Crawford, M., “Rhinos Pushed to the Brink forTrinkets and Medicines,” Science 234:147, Oct.10, 1986.Crawford, R. D., “Assessment of Poultry GeneticResources,” Canadian Journal of Animal Sci-ence 64:235-251, 1984. In: Fitzhugh, et al., 1986.Crosbv. M, R.. and Raven, P., “Diversitv and Dis-

9,

10

11

tribution of Wild Plants, ” OTA commissionedpaper, 1985.Crumpacker, D, W., “Status and Trends of Nat-ural Ecosystems in the United States, ” OTAcommissioned paper, 1985.Dahlberg, K.A. (cd.), New Directions for Agri-culture and Agricultural Research: NeglectedDimensions and Emerging Alternatit’es (Totowa,NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1986].Dasmann, R. F., Milton, J. P., and Freeman, P. H.,Ecological Principles for Economic Develop-ment (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1973).

12. Davis, S., et al., Plants in Danger: What Do WeKnow? (Gland, Switzerland: InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature and Nat-ural Resources, forthcoming). In: Synge, 1985.

13. Ehrlich, P., and Ehrlich, A., Extinction (NewYork: Ballantine, 1981).

14, Erwin, T, L,, “Tropical Forest Canopies: TheLast Biotic Frontier, ” Bulletin of the Entomo-logical Society of America 29(1):14-19, 1983. In;Myers, 1985.

15. Fitzhugh, H. A., Getz, W., and Baker, F. H., “Bio-

g4 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

logical Diversity: Status and Trends for Agri-cultural Domesticated Animals, ” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1985.

16. Flesness, N., “Status and Trends of Wild Ani-mal Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper,1985.

17. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Report of the Fifth Session ofthe FAO Panel of Experts on Forest Gene Re-sources (Rome: 1984).

18, Fosburgh, W., “The Striped Bass, ” AudubonWiZdlife Report, 1985 (New York: National Au-dubon Society, 1985).

19. Franklin, J. F,, Chief Plant Ecologist, U.S. For-est Service, personal communication, May 26,1986.

20. Gentry, A. H., “Endemism in Tropical VersusTemperate Plant Communities,” ConservationBiology, M,E. SOU16 and B.A. Wilcox (eds.) (Sun-derland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1986).

21, Gill, V. G., and Dale, T,, Topsoil and Civilization(Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press,1974),

22. Grant, C, J., The Soils and Agriculture of HongKong (Hong Kong: The Government Printer atthe Government Press, 1960),

23. Institute of Environmental Studies, Preassess-men t of Natural Resources Issues in Sudan,University of Khartoum and the Program for In-ternational Development, Clark University,Worcester, MA, 1983,

24, International Union for Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources, A Preliminary Environ-mental Profile of the India/Pakistan BorderLands in the Sind-Kutch Region, a report for theWorld Bank prepared at the IUCN Conserva-tion Monitoring Center, October 1983.

25, Klee, G.A. (cd,), World Systems of TraditionalResource Management (New York: John Wiley& Sons, Inc., 1980),

26. Klopatek, J, M., et al., Land-Use Conflict WithNatural Vegetation in the United States, Pub-lication No, 1333 (Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Depart-ment of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,Environmental Services Division, 1979). In:Crumpacker, 1985.

27. Lewin, R., “Damage to TropicaI Forests, or WhyWere There So Many Kinds of Animals?” Sci-ence 234:149-150, Oct. 10, 1986,

28. Mares, M. A., “Conservation in South America:Problems, Consequences, and Solutions, ” Sci-ence 233:734-739, Aug. 15, 1986,

29, Maruska, E. J., Executive Director, ZoologicalSociety of Cincinnati, presentation to the HouseCommittee on Science and Technology, Sub-

committee on Natural Resources, AgricultureResearch, and Environment, Sept. 25, 1980.

30. Myers, N., “Causes of Loss of Biological Diver-sity,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

31. Myers, N. (cd.), GAIA: An Atlas for Planet Man-agement (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co.,1984).

32. Myers, N., Conversion of Tropical Moist Forests(Washington, DC: National Academy of Sci-ences, 1980).

33. Nabhan, G,, Assistant Director, Desert Botani-cal Garden, Phoenix, AZ, personal communi-cation, May 16, 1986,

34. Namkoong, G., “Conservation of BiologicalDiversity by In-Situ and Ex-Situ Methods,” OTAcommissioned paper, 1985,

35. National Research Council, Staff Report: Envi-ronmental Degradation in Mauritania, Board onScience and Technology for International Devel-opment, Commission on International Relations,National Research Council, National AcademyPress, Washington, DC, 1981.

36. Oldfield, M. L., The Value of Conserving GeneticResources (Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National Park Service, 1984).

37. Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, Report on the State of the Envi-ronment (Paris: 1985).

38. Peters, R. L., and Darling, J. D. S., “GreenhouseEffect and Nature Reserves, ” Bioscience 35(1 1):707-717, 1985.

39, Prescott-Allen, C., “Status and Trends of Agri-cultural Crop Species, ” OTA commissioned pa-per, 1985.

40. Prescott-Allen, C., and Prescott-Allen, A., TheFirst Resources: Wild Species in the NorthAmerican Economy (New Haven, CT, and Lon-don: Yale University Press, 1986).

41. Salam, R. V., CoastaZ Resources in Sri Lanka, In-dia, and Pakistan: Description, Use, and Man-agement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inter-national Affairs Office, Washington, DC, 1981.

42. Saunier, R, E., and Meganck, R, A., “Compati-bility of Development and the In-situ Mainte-nance of Biotic Diversity in Developing Coun-tries,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

43. Simberloff, D,, “Are We On the Verge of a MassExtinction in Tropical Rain Forests?” Dynamicsof Extinction, D.K. Elliot (cd,) (New York: JohnWiley & Sons, Inc., 1986).

44, Simberloff, D., “Community Effects of Intro-duced Species,” Biotic Crises in Ecological andEvolutionary Time, M.H. Nitecki (cd.) (NewYork: Academic Press, 1981).

45, Smith, F. E., “A Short Review of the Status of

—.

Riparian Forests in California, ” Proceedings:Riparian Forests in California—Their Ecologuyand Conservation S3~mposium, A. Sands (cd.),University of California, Davis, Division of Agri-cultural Sciences, May 14, 1977 (Berkeley, CA:1980). In: Crumpacker, 1985.

46. Smift, B. L., and Barclay, J. S., “Status of Ripar-ian Ecosystems in the United States, ” presentedat 1980 American Water Resources Association~National Conference, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Eastern Energy and Land Use Team,1980.

47. Synge, H., “Status and Trends of Wild Plants, ”OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

48. Tiner, R. W., ]r., Wetlands of the United States:

49

50.

Current Status and Recent Trends (Newton Cor-ner, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habi-tat Resources, 1984). In: Crumpacker 1985.U.S. Agency for International Development,Honduras Countr~~ Environmental Profile: AField Study, AID Contract No. AID/SOD/PDC-C-O247 (Arlington, VA: JRB Associates, August1982).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Technologies To Sustain Tropical ForestResources, OTA-F-214 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1984).

S1. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

Ch. 3—Status of Biologica/ Diversity ● 8 5

ment, Impacts of Technology on U.S. Croplandand Rangeland Productivity, PB 83-125 013(Springfield, VA: National Technical Informa-tion Service, 1982).U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild-life Service, Recovery Plan for the Endangeredand Threatened Species of the California Chan-nel Islands (Portland, OR: 1984).U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TheChesapeake Ba~~ Program: Findings and Recom-mendations, September 1983. In: Fosburgh,1985.Warner, R,E. [recorder), Proceedings; Fish andWildlife Resource Needs in Riparian Ecosys-tems Workshop, Harpers Ferry, WV, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Eastern Energy and LandUse Team, Resources Analysis Group, May 30-31, 1979. In: Crumpacker 1985,Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, A Perceptionof the Issue of High-Trade Volume (Cambridge,UK: Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1984).World Bank, Sudan Forestry Sector Ret’iew, Re-port No. 5911-SU, 1986.World Resources Institute and InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development,World Resources 1986 (New York: Basic Bo~ks,1986),

Chapter 4

Interventions To MaintainBiological Diversity

CONTENTS

P a g e

Highlightts . . .***, ,* **,**.**.**.***.****.***.**,*."*****. . .*. ,**,**** 89Management Systems To Conserve Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....89

Onsite Ecosystem Maintenance ● e * * * * * . . . , * * * * * * * . * * , * , , . , . * . , . * , , * , , 89OnSite Species Maintenance ● **. ,****** **. ,.. **** **. **** *,*, ,* *m.**. 90Offsite Maintenance in Living Collections. . ..*. @**? OOo. .o. ***. ***, e..* 90Offsite Maintenance in Germplasm Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....91

Deciding Which Management System To Apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...91Complementariness of Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......92

Biological Linkages ● **0. .*. * * * 0 * . . * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * .**.**.** 92Technological Linkages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..94Institutional Linkages ● *.*, .**. **** *.** ***, **** .**. b*******..**..*.* 94

Chapter 4 References ● .*. ,.. **** ***. ***. *****v********.*****.,**.**.. 96

TablesTable NO. Page4-1. Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity ., . . . . . . ... , , . 9042. Management Systems and Conservation Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

FigureFigure No. Page4-I. Transfers of Biotic Material Between Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . 93

Chapter 4

Interventions To MaintainBiological Diversity

●

●

✼

●

HIGHLIGHTS

Four management systems are used to conserve diversity: 1) managing ecosys-tems, 2) managing populations and species in natural or seminatural habitats,3) maintaining and propagating living organisms offsite as in zoos or botanicgardens, and 4) storing seeds or other germplasm, usually with refrigerationor freezing.

The four systems for maintaining diversity are complementary, but linkagesbetween the strategies (e.g., between zoos and nature reserves) are less welldeveloped than they could be to maximize conservation efforts.Biological, political, and socioeconomic factors must be evaluated to choosethe best mix of management interventions. Because the importance of main-taining diversity has only recently begun to attract widespread recognition,scientific methods for evaluating trade-offs are at an early stage of develop-ment. Methods for evaluating socioeconomic factors seem to la~ behind devel-opment of biological methods.

The majority of plants, animals, and microbessurvive without any specific human interven-tions to maintain them, However, as naturalareas continue to be modified—through frag-mentation of habitats, for example—their survivaland, in turn, maintaining biological diversity

will increasingly depend on active manage-ment. A spectrum of technologies—broadly de-fined to include management systems and othermeans by which knowledge is applied—can beused to maintain diversity,

Two general approaches are followed inmaintaining diversity: 1) onsite maintenance,which conserves the organism in its natural set-ting; and 2) offsite maintenance, which con-serves it outside its natural setting, Onsite main-tenance can focus either on an entire ecosystemor on a particular species or population. Andoffsite maintenance can focus on living collec-tions or on stored germplasm. These four broadmanagement systems are necessary componentsof an overall strategy to conserve diversity, Con-servation objectives can be enhanced by anycombination of the four systems and by im-

proving the linkages between them to take advan-tage of their potential complementariness.

Table 4-1 lists some technology programsassociated with each management system.general, the technologies on the right sidethe table entail more human intervention,

Onsite Ecosystem Maintenance

[nof

Where the conservation objective is to main-tain as much biological diversity as possible,the only practical and cost-effective approach

89

90 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 4“1 .—Examples of Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity

Onsite Off siteEcosystem maintenance Species management Living collections Germplasm storage

National parks Agroecosystems Zoological parks Seed and pollen banks

Research natural areas Wildlife refuges Botanic gardens Semen, ova, and embryo banks

Marine sanctuaries /n-situ genebanks Field collections Microbial culture collections

Resource development Game parks and reserves Captive breeding programs Tissue culture collectionsplanning

Increasing human intervention *- Increasing natural processesSOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1986

is to maintain ecosystem diversity. Offsite main-tenance cannot accomplish this objective be-cause many species cannot live outside theirnatural habitats, An ecosystem approach allowsprocesses, such as natural selection, to con-tinue. Survival, for some species, depends oncomplex interactions with other species in theirhabitats. Maintaining diverse ecosystems alsocontinues ecological processes, such as nutri-ent cycling, that typically depend on the inter-action of numerous species (5).

programs to maintain a diversity of ecosys-tems usually identify different ecosystem typesand then attempt to preserve a sample of eachtype (see ch. 5). Some types, such as cloudforests, are rare and confined to small areas.These are especially vulnerable and receive spe-cial emphasis in some conservation programs.

The ecosystem approach is used not only fornatural areas but also for traditional agricul-tural ecosystems, Pressures to modernize these“agroecosystems” threaten the characteristi-cally high levels of crop and livestock geneticdiversity these systems represent—and uponwhich modern agricultural systems continueto depend.

Onsite Species Maintenance

When the objective is to maximize direct ben-efits from diversity, such as production of anoptimal mixture of game, fish, timber, and sce-nic values, then the preferred approach is oftento manage particular species and their habitats.Managing at the population level is preferredwhen the objective is to avert extinction of arare or threatened species or subspecies.

Because managing all species would be im-possible, biological, political, and economic fac-tors determine which species will receive di-rect attention. Preference is given to specieswith recognized economic value, for example.

Noncommercial species that are rare and en-dangered also are given management attentionto ensure survival of wild populations. Simi-larly, species that provide important indirectbenefits, such as pollination or pest control,may receive attention. Ideally, managementshould also focus on keystone species, i.e., thosewith important ecosystem support or regula-tory functions.

Offsite Maintenance inLiving Collections

Zoological parks, botanic gardens, arbore-tums, and field collections are common homesfor living collections. Living collections serveseveral conservation objectives, Zoos and bo-tanic gardens can propagate species threatenedwith extinction in the wild, sometimes enabl-ing the repopulation of a newly protected orrestored habitat. Arboretums and living collec-tions kept at places like agricultural researchstations maintain the genetic diversity of plantsnot amenable for germplasm storage as wellas numerous livestock varieties that are notcommercial y popular but are culturally signif-icant or are needed for research and breedingprograms.

The number of species maintained in livingcollections is limited by the size of the facil-ities and the relatively high maintenance cost

Ch. 4—interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity 91

per species. Managers of offsite collections facethe dilemma of maintaining populations largeenough to ensure viability and at the same timeproviding refuge to as many species as possible.

Historically, the primary objectives of livingcollections have been research and display,However, growing concern over the loss of bio-logical diversity is leading to greater efforts todevelop collections for their conservation po-tential. Offsite facilities are also used to breedand propagate organisms, so they no longer relysolely on collecting from the wild to replenishtheir stocks. Instead, they can make a positive,direct contribution to species’ survival.

Offsite Maintenance inGermplasm Storage

Storage of dormant seeds, embryos, and clonalmaterials, or germplasm storage, is the most

cost-effective method to preserve the geneticdiversity of the thousands of agricultural vari-eties and their wild relatives when biologicalfactors allow (5). As farmers increasingly aban-don the traditional varieties in favor of geneti-cally uniform, modern ones, the preservationof diverse, locally adapted crops will dependheavily on offsite storage (l).

The need to maintain a convenient sourceof germplasm for breeding purposes and theability to draw on germplasm from differentgeographic areas are important objectives metby the offsite storage systems (see ch. 7). Germ-plasm storage is also the principal method formaintaining identified strains of microbes (seech. 8), And it is increasingly used to store wildplant species and a few wild animal species.

The efficacy of onsite and offsite technologiesdepends on biological, political, and economicfactors. The following four chapters in this re-port examine how these various considerationsdetermine which technologies are applied. Gen-eral observations on how these factors helpmatch management systems to conservation ob-jectives are considered here. (See table 4-2 fora summary of objectives, )

Biological considerations are central to theobjectives and choice of systems. Because notall diversity is threatened, the task of maintain-ing it can focus on the elements that need spe-cial attention, Biological uniqueness is impor-tant in setting priorities for conservationprograms. A unique species—one that is theonly representative of an entire genus or fam-ily, for example, or a species with high estheticappeal—may be the focus of intensive conser-vation management either onsite, offsite, o rboth.

Biological uniqueness can present problemsin applying conservation technologies, becausespecies-specific research is often required to

develop management or recovery plans (ch, 5).Species with unique reproductive physiology,for example, often cannot be maintained off-site until a considerable investment has beenmade in developing propagation techniques (ch.6).

Political factors also influence conservationobjectives and management systems. Commit-ments of government resources, policies, andprograms determine the focus of attention and,to a large extent, such commitments reflect pub-lic interests and support. For example, in theUnited States a disproportionate share of re-sources is devoted to conservation programsfor a select few of the many endangered spe-cies. Substantial sums have been spent in llth-hour efforts to save the California condor andthe black-footed ferret, while other endangeredorganisms such as invertebrate species receivelittle notice.

National instability may also threaten biologi-cal resources either directly in the cases of civilstrife or warfare or indirectly through encourag-ing neglect. Such cases warrant special efforts

92 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 4-2.—Management Systems and Conservation Objectives

Onsite Off siteEcosystem maintenance Species maintenance Living collections Germplasm storage

Maintain: Maintain:

● a reservoir or “1 i brary ” of . genetic interaction be-genetic resources tween semidomesticated

species and wild relatives

● evolutionary potential s wi Id populations for sus-tainable exploitation

● functioning of various Q viable populations ofecological processes threatened species

● vast majority of known ● species that provide im -and unknown species portant indirect benefits

(for pollination or pestcontrol)

● representatives of unique ● “keystone” species withnatural ecosystems important ecosystem sup-

port or regulating functionSOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

to collect an endangered species or germplasmand maintain it outside the country to ensuresurvival and to facilitate access.

The applicable management systems andtechnologies also depend largely on economicfactors. Costs of alternative management sys-tems and the value of resources to be conservedmay be relatively clear in the case of geneticdiversity. For example, the benefits of breed-ing programs compared with the cost of seed

COMPLEMENTARYNES$ OF

Each of the four management systems servesdifferent objectives. Historically, the two off-site approaches have developed independentlyfrom onsite approaches, However, some linkshave developed between the different manage-ment programs (see figure 4-1). Improvementof such links will contribute substantially to thecost-effectiveness of each management systemand will help to achieve the overall goal of main-taining biological diversity.

Biological Linkages

Transfers of biotic material among the fourmanagement systems can enhance diversity.

Maintain: Maintain:●

●

●

●

●

�

breeding material that can-not be stored ingenebanksfield research and develop-ment on new varieties andbreeds

off site cultivation andpropagation

captive breeding stock ofpopulations threatened inthe wild

ready access to wild spe-cies for research, educa-tion. and disr.)lav

● convenient source ofgermplasm for breedingprograms

● col Iections of germ plasmfrom uncertain or threat-ened sources

● reference or type col Iectionsas standard for researchand patenting purposes

● access to germ plasm fromwide geographic areas

● genetic materials from criti-cally endangered species

, .

maintenance easily justify germplasm storagetechnologies (see ch. 7). However, cost-benefitanalysis is more difficult when benefits are dif-fuse and accrue over a long period (7), Thisproblem is particularly acute for onsite main-tenance programs where competition for landexists. Current threats to biologically rich trop-ical forests by land seeking peasant agricul-turalists illustrate these conflicting interests,

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Exchanges between onsite systems occur, forexample, when genetic material from wildplants becomes incorporated into locally cul-tivated varieties. Exchanges between offsite sys-tems occur, for example, when seeds and clonesof agricultural varieties are taken from storageand grown out in living collections for use inbreeding programs. Similarly, a zoo may col-lect animal semen from its living collection andplace it in cryogenic storage to expand the num-ber of individuals it can maintain—in a sensecreating a “frozen zoo. ”

Exchanges of species or germplasm betweenwild areas and living collections are most evi-dent when wild specimens are taken for zoos,

—

Ch. 4—Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . 93

Figure 4-1 .—Transfers of Biotic Material Between Management Systems

\ )SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

botanic gardens, or private collections. Takingwild specimens for living collections may pro-vide material for research and public education,may prevent captive populations from inbreed-ing, and may even enhance wild populationsthrough later reintroduction. However, theseactivities can—and have—threatened wild pop-ulations of a number of species.

It is often possible to take only germplasm—seeds, cuttings, and semen—rather than entireorganisms. This approach has the advantageof being less destructive to rare or endangeredpopulations (6), In the interest of preserving en-dangered populations, mammal germplasm col-lection is increasingly being attempted. Semenhas been collected from wild populations of

94 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

cheetahs, rhinoceroses, and elephants (10), Butcollecting mammal germplasm, without keep-ing the animal in captivity, is more difficult andcostly, And many of the wildlife specimensmaintained in zoos are the survivors of destruc-tive capturing procedures.

Efforts increasingly are being made throughcaptive breeding to produce stocks for rein-troduction into the wild. The golden lion tama-rin program in Brazil (11) has been successfulfor example, Less attention has been focusedon reintroducing threatened plant species, butthe recent reintroduction of a wild olive treespecies on the island of St. Helena suggests thatthis approach is possible (6).

Perhaps the most important transfer of ge-netic material occurs between agroecosystemsand germplasm storage: Landraces producedin traditional farmers’ fields are the result ofthousands of years of natural and human selec-tion from thousands of different crop varieties.Many varieties can no longer be maintainedby the farmers, who abandon them to planthigher yielding crop varieties. But the geneticdiversity of traditional varieties is needed tocreate improved varieties. Thus, collecting ex-peditions to transfer these varieties into offsitestorage are critically important to maintenanceof the world’s agriculture, Germplasm flowsfrom storage back to agroecosystems, via re-search and breeding programs, as new varietiesare introduced into agricultural systems.

Transfers are not always beneficial, however.Livestock that escape captivity can become feralanimals with populations so high that theythreaten native wild plants and animals. Feralgoats on Pacific islands and feral horses onsome rangelands of the United States are well-known examples. Similarly, exotic plants in-troduced as ornamental or agricultural cropssometimes escape to become weeds that crowdout native species. Efforts to capture specimensfor living collections can also be destructive,The challenge is to manage the transfers amongsites and programs to enhance the positive con-tributions to diversity maintenance and mini-mize the negatives ones,

Technological Linkages

Research and technology transfers betweendiversity management programs can increasethe efficiency, effectiveness, and capacity formaintaining biological diversity. Some technol-ogies developed for domesticated species canbe adapted for use with wild species. For ex-ample, technologies for offsite maintenance ofwild species—particularly germplasm storageand captive breeding—have benefited substan-tially from the research and experience in agri-culture. Perhaps the most dramatic linkage isembryo transfer technologies developed forlivestock that are now being adapted to endan-gered species (ch, 6). Similarly, storage tech-nologies developed for agricultural varieties,such as cryogenics and tissue culture, may be-come valuable tools for maintaining collectionsof rare or threatened wild plant species.

Like biological linkages, technological link-ages work both ways. For example, researchon living collections has provided informationthat can be applied to maintaining populationsin the wild (2). Likewise, research on wild pop-ulations supplied information on a number ofspecies’ special reproduction requirements,which led to successful results with breedingin captivity.

Technological linkages among institutionsengaged in researching, developing, and apply-ing technologies have been limited. Research-ers and resource managers in this area havehistorically worked in relative isolation, deal-ing almost exclusively with others in their fieldsof activity. The few interactions that haveoccurred have had a positive impact. Thus, thepotential for benefits from increased coopera-tive work seems apparent, but institutions areslow to make such changes.

Institiutional Linkages

Exchanges of organisms and technologieshave occurred because they have been consid-ered necessary for success of the different pro-grams. However, most programs focus on rela-tively narrow subsets of diversity. Some groups

—

Ch. 4—Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . 95

devote their attention exclusively to maintain-ing certain agricultural crops, while others fo-cus on specific wild species—e. g,, whales ormigratory waterfowl, The result is that muchof the work is done in isolation, and the scopeand effectiveness of overall diversity mainte-nance effort becomes difficult to monitor. Andwhile particular concerns may be well-addressed,other concerns receive little or no attention.

Institutional problems that impede overallmaintenance of biological diversity include:

● overlap and inter institutional or intra-institutional competition,

c gaps between goals and the human andfinancial resources available to achievethem, and

● lack of complementariness or cooperationbetween initiatives (4).

Institutional links can identify common in-terests, strengths, and weaknesses of variousorganizations as well as gaps and opportuni-ties to address overall concerns. Not all activi-ties should be operationally linked, however.A diversity of approaches in conservation activ-ities is beneficial, and interaction should oc-cur principally with those programs closest inpurpose and approach (4).

Useful technologies emerge through a seriesof steps, Basic research provides an under-standing of the nature of biological systems.Drawing on this knowledge, researchers definerequirements and develop techniques to man-age ecosystems, species, or genetic resources,Once the techniques are developed, however,researchers must synthesize techniques intotechnologies, then transfer and apply the tech-nologies to site-specific circumstances.

In practice, the process of technology devel-opment is impeded by institutional constraints.Research is undertaken by scientists in manyinstitutions, including universities, botanicgardens, zoological institutions, and govern-ment agencies responsible for natural re-sources. These scientists commonly emphasizethe theoretical. At the other end of the spec-trum are resource managers who apply particu-lar techniques. Although the transfer of basic

research to applied research is a problem indeveloping useful technologies, the principalweakness seems to be the failure of institutionsto support synthesis of scientific informationinto useful management tools.

The problem of technology development ismore pronounced for onsite than for offsitemaintenance. This difference perhaps reflectsthe more pragmatic nature of offsite mainte-nance, where institutions (most with agricul-tural interests) emphasize research and devel-opment. Focus on technology development iscommonly lacking in onsite maintenance. In-stitutions may deter scientists from translatingresearch into practical techniques (8). To ap-ply ecological studies to onsite maintenance,greater emphasis needs to be placed on com-parative and predictive science, which impliesless emphasis on descriptive studies (4).

Forces working against diversity are largelysocial and economic. Therefore, human dimen-sions need to be included in the scientific in-vestigations, and natural and social sciencesmust be involved in conservation initiatives.There is, however, a paucity of social scienceresearch for the development of technologiesto conserve biological diversity. This lack ispartly because of the complexity and difficultyof such work, and partly because the potentialfor social science to make important contribu-tions has been overbooked.

Greater support is needed for inventory andmonitoring of diversity in natural systems andin agricultural systems. Some of this informa-tion is already available, but most of it has notbeen assimilated or made available to decision-makers,

Finally, science needs to be applied to pro-vide policy makers and the general public withbetter information on the scope and ramifica-tions of diversity loss. Such information needsto be accurate, compelling, and digestible bya lay audience, To produce such information,scientists and scientific institutions need to be-come more directly involved and accommodat-ing within the public policymaking process (9).At the same time, the information they provide

96 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

should meet the four criteria for effective pub-lic policy:

1. Adequacy—meets the accepted standardsof objectivity, completeness, reproducibil-ity, and accuracy, and is appropriate to thesubject and the application.

2. Value—addresses a worthwhile problem;neither too narrow nor too broad.

CHAPTER 4

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Arnold, M. H., “Plant Gene Conservation,” Na-ture 39:615, Feb. 20, 1986.Benvischke, K., “The Impact of Research on thePropagation of Endangered Species in Zoos. ”Genetics and Conservation, C. Schonewald-Cox,et al. (eds. ) (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cum-mings Publishing Co., Inc., 1983).Clark, W. C., and Majone, G., “The Critical Ap-praisal of Scientific Inquiries With Policy Im-placations, ” Science, Technology, and HumanValues, forthcoming.diCastri, F,, “Twenty Years of InternationalProgrammed on Ecosystems and the Biosphere:An Overview of Achievements, Shortcomings,and Possible New Perspectives, ” Global Change,T.F, Malone and J.G. Roederer (eds.) (New York:Cambridge University Press, 1985).Frankel, O. H., and Soul&, M. E., Conservationand Evolution (Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1981).

3.

4.

Effectiveness—able to influence policy ina constructive way and linked with the net-work of decisionmakers responsible for theissue,Legitimacy—carries a widely-accepted pre-sumption of correctness and authority (3),

REFERENCES

6.

7,

8.

9,

10,

11.

Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,Botanical Gardens and Similar Institutions inthe Maintenance of Biological Diversity,” OTAcommissioned paper, 1985.Randall, A., “Human Preferences, Economics,and the Preservation of Species, ” The Value ofZ3ioZogical Diversity, B.G. Norton (cd.) (Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).Salwasser, H., U.S. Forest Service, personalcommunication, September 1986.Shapiro, H. T., et al., “A National Research Strat-egy, ” Issues in Science and Technology, spring1986, pp. 116-125.Wildt, D. E,, National Zoological Park, Smithso-nian Institution, Washington, DC, personal com-munication, July 1986.World Wildlife Fund—U.S., Annual Report 1984(Washington, DC: 1984),

Part II

Chapter sMaintaining Biological

Diversity Onsite

CONTENTS

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Classifying and Designing Protected Areas.. . . . . . . .

Classification Systems for Protected Areas . . . . . . .Design of Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . .

Establishment of Protected Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Acquisition and Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Criteria for Selection of Areas To Protect . . . . . . . .

Planning and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planning Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ecosystem Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Outside Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genetic Resources for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conservational A Type of Development . . . . . . . .

Data for Onsite Maintenance of Biological DiversityUneven Quality of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Databases ..*.*** ● *..*.,. ● *.***** .******* . . . . .Data for Management of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Social and Economic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .An Ecosystem Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Innovative Technologies for Developing CountriesLong-Term Multidisciplinary Research . . . . . . . . . .Personnel Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Data To Facilitate Onsite Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TablesTable No.

Page● . * * * . . . . . * . * . . . * . * * 101● . * * , . . ● *,*.,* ● * * . * * 101...***, ...*..,. . . . . . 102. . . . . . ,...0.. .*..**, 102. . * * * . . ● . . . . . * . . . * * . 105.* . .* . . ● * . .* .* . ● * * . . 109. * * , . . * . , . . . 6 . . . s , . , 109*,**... . . . ● ****** ● ** 111● . . . . . . ● ,*****, .*.** 113● . . 0 , . , . * . * , . . . . . . . . 1 1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,.,.,. 116.*.*,*. .*,.**.* . . . . . 119. . . . 0 , , ● . . . , * . . . . 0 . , 121. . . * * . . . , , * * * , . . . . . s 121

.122: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . 1 2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3.***..* . . . . . . . . .**.. 124

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 4: : : : : : . . . . . . . . . .. ...126.. , . , .s .**.,*** . .00s 127. .0 . .0 . ● . * * . * , . . 0 . 0 . 128..8.,.. ● * . * . * * . . . * * * 128

. . . . 1 2 9: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . , . . 1 2 9● *.**.. **...*** ● * * * * 130******** ● ******O* ● 4* 130,. .. .. .. .. ... ,., ...’131

Page5-1. Categories and Management Objectives of Protected Areas . ..........1105-2. Coverageof Protected Areas by Biogeographic Provinces . ...........112

Figure No. Page5-1. Growth of the Global Network of Protected Areas, 1890-1985 . ........1105-2, National Conservation Strategy Development Around the World,

July 1985 .....0 . . . . . ● ,.*”.* . . . . . . . . .0,,.... ● *O..... ● *.***. . ● * O * 1165-3. Design of a Coastal or Marine Protected Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1195-4. Representation of a Geographic InformationSystem Function

Overlaying Several Types of Enviromnental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

BoxesBOXNO. Page5-A. Differences Between Terrestrial and CoastaLMarine Systems . . . . . . . . .I055-IL The Edge Effect5-C. Cluster Concept

* * * * * * . * . * * * * * * * * * * * *for Biosphere Reserves

* * . * * , * . * * * * * * * ● ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ● S * * 107.***.** . .*.**.* .*,***** ● . . * 118

Chapter 5

Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite

Maintaining plant, animal, and microbial diversity in their natural environ-ment (onsite) is the most effective way to conserve maximum biological diver-sity over the long term.

● Strategies to maintain diversity onsite have evolved from strict preservationto multiple use. More recently, attention is being given to integrating conser-vation with development in areas outside protected zones.

● Guidelines for optimum biological design of protected areas are improving.But decisions on design are determined more often by socioeconomic and po-litical factors than by scientific principles.

● Techniques for restoring diversity on degraded sites are being improved asknowledge of natural plant and animal succession increases. However, com-plete restoration is often not feasible, and partial restoration is usually slowand expensive.

● Opportunities for improving national and global conservation of diversity onsiteinclude 1) promoting an ecosystem approach to protected area establishmentand management, 2) encouraging innovative resource development methodsthat treat conservation as a form of development, 3) supporting multidiscipli-nary research on the many factors to consider when designing nature reserves,and 4) developing training and job opportunities for experts in all these areas.

INTRODUCTION

Plants and animals can be maintained wherethey are found, that is, onsite, either by pro-tecting certain sites from change or by manag-ing change to support some portion of the nat-ural biota. Most biological diversity can onlybe maintained in a natural condition for threereasons:

1. For most species,been developed tobers of individuals

technologies have notkeep substantial num-alive outside their nat-

ural environments.2. For species that can be kept alive in artifi-

cial conditions, preserving genetic diver-sity usually entails maintaining numerousindividuals from genetically distinct pop-ulations. Such preservation is financiallyand logistically feasible for only a few of

3.

the hundreds or thousands of species ofmany ecosystems.

Species survive gradual changes in theirnatural environments by continuous evo-lution and adaptation—processes that arearrested in offsite collections.

Strategies for maintaining biological diver-sity onsite range from single-species manage-ment to protection of complete ecosystems indesignated natural areas. The various ap-proaches are complementary. For example, aEuropean nature reserve system establishedwith broad conservation objectives containssome 10,000 sites of plant species that also areuseful for breeding and for research into thechemistry of natural substances.

101

102 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

CLASSIFYING AND DESIGNING PROTECTED AREAS

Maintenance of biological diversity per se hasoften not been the primary objective of pro-tected natural areas, Instead, many such areashave been set aside and managed for other con-servation values, such as preservation of sceniclandscapes or protection of watersheds (11).More recently, however, the U.S. Congress andother policy makers have begun to authorize ac-tions to address the maintenance of biologicaldiversity directly. With this new mandate, biol-ogists, agricultural scientists, and conservationprogram managers have started to develop newways to apply science to the problem of main-taining biological diversity onsite.

The development of techniques for onsitemaintenance of biological diversity has so farfocused mainly on protected areas. This sec-tion is concerned, therefore, largely with wherethese protected areas should be established andhow biological principles can be used in thedesign and management of protected areas. Thetechnologies appear to be scientifically sound,yet too little implementation has occurred thusfar for a conclusive assessment of effect.

Even if the biological techniques are demon-strated to be correct, the actual location, de-sign, and management objectives for protectedareas will be determined mainly by social (in-cluding economic and political) factors. For ex-ample, costs will usually be a stronger consid-eration than biological criteria in choosingwhether to have one large reserve or severalsmall ones, Boundaries usually reflect whatarea has been made available rather than whatwould provide the best habitat for flora andfauna,

Development activities other than conserva-tion may also take precedence in decisions tochange the boundaries of protected areas. Intropical countries, where diversity is mostthreatened, many natural areas are occupiedby farmers, hunters, gatherers, and fishermen(see ch. 11). Strategies to safeguard biologicaldiversity must recognize that development ofnatural resources is imperative and must incor-porate socioeconomic and political considera-

tions. However, conservationists and resourcedevelopers should also view conservation asa necessary component of economic devel-opment.

In spite of the powerful influence of socialfactors, social sciences are applied less oftenthan natural sciences in efforts to maintain bio-logical diversity. Development planning tech-niques that do use social science data and prin-ciples have been proposed, however, and usedoccasionally to integrate natural resource con-servation with other forms of economic, cul-tural, and social development. Resource devel-opment planning is discussed in some detailin the OTA report, Technologies To SustainTropical Forest Resources (83), A variation ofresource development planning, integrated de-velopment planning, is described briefly laterin this chapter.

Classification SystemsProtected Areas

for

Strategies to develop a system of protectedareas typically begin by classifying and map-ping types of ecosystems using data on plantand animal distributions and on climate andsoil parameters. This information is comparedwith the locations of already-protected areasto approximate priorities for allocating the re-sources available for site protection,

Descriptions of threatened ecosystems arenow adequate in every country to undertakeeffective programs for conserving biologicaldiversity. In nearly all regions, however, con-tinued improvements in ecosystem classifica-tion and assessment would facilitate better de-cisions on where protection is most needed.Preservation priorities need to be based onknowledge of which ecosystems:

have high diversity,have high endemism (a high proportion ofthe species having a limited natural range),are threatened by resource developmentor degradation patterns,

● are located where social and economicconditions are conducive to conservation,and

● are not adequately represented in existingprotected areas.

The major patterns of nature can be describedfor most terrestrial areas with existing data. Sev-eral biogeographic systems have been devel-oped that relate data on distribution of plantand animal species to factors such as climateand natural barriers like oceans, deserts, andmountain ranges. These systems classify theEarth into zones, with each zone containingdistinctive ecosystems and life forms.

Much less information is available on aquaticsites, such as lakes and streams, Aquatic eco-systems are difficult to map on a large scale,and the way to integrate them into land clas-sifications is poorly understood. The same istrue of riparian vegetation, mountain meadows,and other azonal ecosystems,

Classification systems take two broad ap-proaches. “Taxonomic” methods establish landunits by grouping resources or sites with simi-lar properties. “Regionalization” methods sub-divide land into natural units on the basis ofspatial patterns that affect natural processesand the use of resources (1), The two approachescan be integrated to identify ecosystem diver-sity in considerable detail.

The taxonomic approach is typified by theSociety of American Foresters (SAF) CoverType Classification system, which aggregatessimilar stands of forest trees on the basis of thekind, number, and distribution of plant speciesand the dominance by tree species (19). Thebasic taxonomic units—forest cover types—arenamed after the predominant tree species. TheRenewable Resources Evaluation of the U.S.Forest Service further aggregates many of theSAF categories into 20 “major forest types, ”which are the basis for the only map of forestcover types available for the United States asa whole.

The regionalization approach, on the otherhand, begins with a nation or continent andsubdivides it into progressively smaller, more

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 1 0 3

closely related units. An example of this is theecoregions classification system, used exten-sively by U.S. Federal land-managing agencies(l). Ecosystem regions for North America aredefined as domains on the basis of climate. Thedomains are subdivided into divisions, whichare subdivided into provinces on the basis ofwhat plant communities can be expected to de-velop if the natural succession of species is notinterrupted by human activity. Provinces aresubdivided into sections on the basis of the com-position of the vegetation types that eventuallywould prevail. Extending this ecoregion clas-sification system to cover the world on a scaleof 1:25 million is being considered.

A recently developed system for classifica-tion of the world’s marine and coastal environ-ments combines physical processes with bioticcharacteristics (34). This classification systemwill be used as a basis for selecting U.S. coastalbiosphere reserves (13),

Each classification system has advantagesand disadvantages for programs to maintainbiological diversity. The taxonomic approachidentifies and classifies each component, Forexample, separate taxonomies are used to iden-tify flora, fauna, and soils. This separationfacilitates location of natural areas that willconserve concentrations of high-priority com-ponents, such as a vegetation type or animalspecies. The regionalization approach allowsscientists to determine whether the same typeof ecosystem in distinct biogeographic regionsactually represents two different ecosystems (2),

Biogeographic classification maps indicatewhat ecosystems would be found under natu-ral conditions, but the discrepancy between ex-pected and actual features is often great becauseof human intervention, Sparse grasslands mayoccur where climate, physical features, and spe-cies distribution records suggest tropical moistforest should grow, Furthermore, the majorclassification systems cover only broad zonalfeatures of the environment. Azonal features—e.g., wetlands, riparian areas, and coral reefs—cannot be included. So conservation strategiesmust take a different approach to identify pri-orities for these ecosystems. Typically, plans

104 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

credit’ Forest

The Society of American Foresters Cover Type Map, an example of an ecosystem classification system, aggregatessimilar stands of forest trees on the basis of the kind, number, and distribution of plant species

and the dominance by tree species.

for conservation of azonal ecosystems are basedon surveys that cut across the biogeographiczones.

Biogeographic classification systems alsoneed to be supplemented with information onendemism. Patterns of endemism vary amongtaxa and among regions. Some species with re-stricted distribution are quite common locally,whereas others are extremely rare (26). On thebroadest scale, taxa may be endemic to a con-tinent or subcontinent; on a narrow scale, manyplant species seem to be restricted naturally toareas as small as a few square kilometers.

Identifying centers of endemism has been anongoing effort of conservationists, especiallytropical ecologists. An area such as an island

or a mountain forest may not have an unusuallyhigh number of species present, but it may havea high proportion of species not found else-where (i.e., high endemism). Such areas are con-sidered valuable for maintaining biologicaldiversity, because they contribute substantiallyto diversity on a global scaIe,

In sum, a variety of ecosystem classificationsystems are currently being used by many orga-nizations with different objectives. Althoughthese maps do not indicate the extent of exist-ing ecosystems (e. g., how much forest actuallyremains), they do correspond roughly to theboundaries of species distributions. Thus, theycan be compared with maps of natural areasalready protected, and planners can then choosewhich sites to focus on for more detailed assess-

Ch. 5—Maintaining Bio/ogical Diversity Onsite 105

ment of an ecosystem’s contribution to diver-sity, its vulnerability, and its social and eco-nomic significance.

Design of Protected Areas

The sizes and locations of protected areas aredetermined first by political and financial con-straints. Within those limits, the designs of na-ture reserves have usually been based on natu-ral history characteristics of the particularspecies of greatest interest. Recently, however,scientists have begun to develop theories fordesigning nature reserves to optimize protec-tion of biological diversity rather than protec-tion of particular species. These theories arestill based mainly on inferences from generalscientific principles and are largely untested,Thus, they are the subject of much academicdebate among scientists (53),

Criteria for optimum size and shape for pro-tected areas have been based on informationfrom insular ecology (e.g., refs, 15,16,74,90).These criteria, however, are widely viewed astoo simplistic, and the theories are being fur-ther developed with information from ecolog-ical-evolutionary genetics (24,70,73,79) andfrom theoretical population dynamics (28,74,80). These theories focus mainly on terrestrialprotected areas and probably have limited usefor the design of coastal-marine reserves, Thegreat dispersive abilities of marine organismsand the interconnections of adjacent commu-nities thus complicate decisions concerning theproper size and spacing of reserves. (See box5-A for discussion contrasting terrestrial andcoastal-marine systems,)

Information on the occurrence and naturaldistribution of species on islands has been usedto formulate theoretical size and location cri-teria for protected areas intended to maintaindiversity. The equilibrium theory of island bio-geography (52) maintains that greater numbersof species are found on larger islands because

Box 5-A.—Differences BetweenTerrestrial and Coastal~Marine Systems

It is difficult to gauge the relative differencesin biological diversity in terrestrial andcoastal-marine environments. Dry land con-tains approximately four times the number ofspecies found in the sea; on that considera-tion alone, terrestrial ecosystems seem in-herently more diverse. Differences in faunaldiversity between marine and terrestrial envi-ronments are primarily due to insects. With-out them, marine fauna would be more diversethan terrestrial fauna. However, terrestrialflora clearly exhibit greater diversity than ma-rine flora (51).

Viewed from a different perspective, inwhich the number of higher taxa (particularlyanimal) indicate degree of diversity, the seawould appear more diverse because manyhigher taxa (i.e., phyla, classes, orders) are ex-clusively marine. Implicit in this view is thenotion that higher levels reflect greater geneticdifferences–i.e., a single species maybe thesole representative of an order, class, or phy-lum, and the loss of one of these species mightcause afar greater genetic loss than would theloss of a species in a taxon made up of severalhundred or thousand members (51).

Another difference is that many fish and in-vertebrates that make up the bulk of marinespecies pass through several life stages fromegg to adult. In many of the life stages, theorganisms seem unrelated to that of the adultform. These different forms can live in differ-ent ecosystems or in distinctly different nicheswithin the same ecosystem. Maintaining onespecies may therefore require maintenance ofseveral different ecosystems (51).

Movement of organisms and materials be-tween different community types—seagrass,coral reef, and mangrove—means that terres-trial and marine communities sometimes can-not be defined simply by their physical bound-aries. Effectiveness of efforts to protect onecommunity type may be diminished by fail-ure to protect neighboring communities aswell as adjacent watersheds (40).

106 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

the populations on smaller islands are more vul-nerable to extinction. That vulnerability is dueto probabilistic nature of individual births,deaths, occurrences of disease, and changes inhabitats. Also, islands farther from continentshave fewer species, because colonists fromlarge land masses are less likely to reach them.This theory was extended from true islands totheir terrestrial analogs (e.g., forest patches inagricultural or suburban areas), and the fieldof study become known as “insular ecology”to reflect this broader perspective. Scientistsdo not concur that the theory accurately ex-plains natural patterns of species diversity, andresearch has been initiated to test the theory.(See Gilbert (27) and Simberloff (76) for reviewsof studies that confirm or refute the equilibriumtheory.) In any case, the island analogy—thatmuch of the natural diversity is being reducedand confined to small, often isolated areas—isnot in dispute,

Nature reserves serve as islands for speciesincapable of surviving in human-dominatedhabitats. Isolated natural areas are likely toexperience declining numbers of species whentheir size is reduced by deforestation or similarhabitat changes. The analogy between islandsand nature reserves was reinforced by findingsfrom some of the early tests of equilibrium the-ory. These findings led to proposed design cri-teria for nature reserves intended to minimizethe loss of species over time (53). The designscalled for large nature reserves near each other,to reduce the effects of small areas and dis-tances on species survival. Other design ele-ments not explicitly derived from equilibriumtheory but thought to maintain a greater num-ber of species at equilibrium also exist. How-ever, these are rather academic “all other thingsbeing equal” principles, and on the ground,complex habitat differences among areas shouldweigh more heavily in pragmatic choices ofwhich sites to conserve.

The applicability of insular ecology to con-servation is being tested by the World WildlifeFund’s Minimum Critical Size of EcosystemsProject (49). Biologists took inventories of plantand animal life in an Amazon forest area be-fore it was fragmented by development. Vari-

ous-sized patches of forest were kept intactthrough coordination with the deforestationand development program, and biologists nowmonitor plant and animal populations in eachpatch. Although the project is only 20 years old,changes in the biota are already evident (47,48).

The guidelines for optimum biological designstill have many limitations (72). Most of the rele-vant research has focused on animals, particu-larly forest-dwelling birds; too little researchhas been conducted on plants or on other types

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 107

of habitats. Also, the occurrence and persist-ence of a species on any particular site maybe governed not only by the populations on thatsite but also by whether groups of loosely con-nected populations can survive in the region(46,71). This sort of scientific question requireslong-term study, which is only beginning to beconducted.

As the Earth increasingly becomes a patch-work of natural and developed areas, the ef-fects of activities on or near the boundaries ofprotected areas are becoming more important.Small areas and those with angular boundarieshave a higher proportion of boundary-to-inter-ior than larger or more circular areas. Naturereserves seldom have sharply defined naturalboundaries like oceanic islands. Instead theyhave political boundaries that can do only somuch to prevent movements in and out. Manyspecies can migrate across nature reserveboundaries, and the results of human activities(e.g., pollution) may enter by air, water, or land.Consequently, another theory on the optimumdesign of protected areas, “the boundary mod-el,” has been proposed. It accounts for theboundary effects, including the effects of hu-man activities (69).

Designated protected areas include both po-litical and biological boundaries. Some of thebiological boundaries are the natural edges be-tween ecosystems; others result from humanactivities, most of which originate outside po-litical boundaries. Those biological boundariesthat fit the ecological definition of an “edge”(box 5-B) may increase local diversity as edge-adapted species prosper. Over time, however,survival of species in the interior may be re-duced if edges are enlarged, because the habi-tat for species adapted to less-disturbed condi-tions is reduced. Poor protection at the politicalboundaries generally shifts the biologicalboundaries toward an area’s interior.

Zones where resource-conserving develop-ment activities are encouraged have been testedto buffer the boundary effect (e.g., the unitedNations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization’s (UNESCO) Man and the Bio-sphere Program). Such buffer zones can helpreserves by increasing the habitat area and min-

Box 5-B.-The Edge Effect

Natural boundaries between ecosystems,or edges, are considered to be ecologicallydiverse areas. Edges can be created byhuman manipulation of vegetation in an at-tempt to encourage maximum local diver-sity (14). Along an edge, animals from eachof the abutting vegetation types may befound, together with animals that make fre-quent use of more than one vegetation typeand those that specialize on the edge itself(41). Game animals commonly are edge-adapted, as are animals of many urban, sub-urban, and agricultural areas (e.g., birds) (8).

imizing the potential exposure to harm. Theidea of buffer zones is not new, but implemen-tation has been slow; few evaluations have beendone yet to develop guidelines about the nec-essary character and width of the zones or theshifting nature of boundaries.

Corridors of habitat to connect nature re-serves have been proposed for sites where re-serve sizes are below-optimum. These corridorsshould facilitate gene flow and the dispersalof individuals between protected areas, whichshould, in turn, increase the effective size ofpopulations and thus raise the chance of sur-vival for semi-isolated groups (6). Also, cor-ridors could increase the recolonization rateif species are eliminated locally (78). Corridors,however, are another theoretical concept, andthey may not be appropriate for all sites. Asnoted earlier, geographic isolation is a causeof genetic diversity. Thus, corridors where nonepreviously existed might cause locally adaptedgenotypes to be lost due to gene flow. The ap-plicability of corridors is another aspect of de-sign theory now being actively researched.

The use of corridors and boundary zones hasbeen proposed for protected areas in the West-ern Cascades region of the United States, Thisarea contains the largest tract of uncut forestin the conterminous United States as well asnatural riparian habitats (32). The proposal sug-gests surrounding islands of old-growth forestwith zones of low-intensity, long-rotation tim-

108 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

ber harvesting and then linking the islands bycorridors of old-growth vegetation. This designwould presumably provide mobility for specieslike the cougar and bobcat—far-ranging carni-vores that would have populations too smallfor survival and continued evolution if confinedto a single habitat island. Proposals like thismust be considered planning hypotheses, sug-gested by general theory; and as such must besubjected to close, case-by-case scrutiny beforeimplementation.

Genetcs

Genetic considerations are another dominantconcern in the literature on population viabil-ity and conservation. Attempts are being madeto determine the smallest number of interbreed-ing individuals that will enable a species tosurvive indefinitely—adapting to changing envi-ronmental conditions without suffering the neg-ative effects of a small population size (popu-lation instability, erosion of genetic variability,inbreeding). Because each individual carriesonly part of the genetic variation characteris-tic of its species, the size of a population—andthus, the amount of genetic variation—may de-termine how much and how fast a populationcan evolve.

Application of genetics to the issue of popu-lation size and viability has led to theoreticalestimates of minimum populations for success-ful conservation of birds and mammals. Onesuch estimate, known as the 50/500 rule, is thateffective population size (in genetics sense) of50 breeding adults is the minimum needed tosustain captive breeding programs over dec-ades or a century (e. g., as in zoos), but a popu-lation 10 times as large is needed to sustain aspecies in its natural habitat as it evolves overmillennia to survive changing environmentalstresses (25,45),

The 50/500 rule is an approximation basedon studies of only a few species. But the effectof population size depends on several factorsthat differ for various species, such as sex ra-tio, age structure, mating behavior, and b e -haviors such as feeding. Thus the rule, whenapplied to a particular species, could project

a need for populations larger than 50/500—perhaps orders of magnitude larger. Empiricalor experimental evidence is lacking to deter-mine how resilient a “genetically viable” pop-ulation would be when confronted with otherpressures (e.g., demographic, environmental,or catastrophic uncertainty) (72),

Population Dynamics

Scientists have long recognized that, in gen-eral, smaller populations are more susceptibleto extinction than larger ones, because deathfor individual organisms is an event determinedlargely by change, and populations are collec-tions of individuals. Models of the impact ofchange on individual births and deaths weredeveloped decades ago (e.g., ref. 21), and thesehave been applied to estimate the extinctiontime for particular species under various cir-cumstances. Models also have been developedto evaluate the effect of chance environmentalvariations and chance population-wide catas-trophes.

Recently, more sophisticated models of sto-chastic population dynamics have been formu-lated specifically to investigate questions o fpopulation viability. These models do not givespecific prescriptions for minimum populationsize to assure survival, but they are leading toa better understanding of the role of chance inpopulations. They indicate that to avoid extinc-tion resulting from the impact of chance on in-dividual births and deaths may require only afew hundred breeding individuals. But larger,perhaps much larger, population sizes are nec-essary if the condition of the species’ environ-ment varies, and still larger populations a r eneeded for species that are susceptible to catas-trophes (72).

The modeling approach is useful but has sig-nificant limitations. First, data for populationmodels encompassing both environmental andgenetic factors exist for only a few species. Also,species experience the effects of chance at in-dividual, environmental, population, and ge-netic levels. But models that could simultane-ously simulate all these factors would be toocomplex for existing analytical capabilities,

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 109

Even if such models were developed, they couldprove very costly to use (72).

The theoretical population models are yield-ing other plausible hypotheses, some of whichhave important implications for conservation.Extinction probabilities depend critically onpopulation growth rates, on environmentallyinduced variability in this rate, and on particu-lar catastrophic scenarios to which the speciesare subject. One recent analysis employs a sto-chastic population model and the general rela-tionships between body-size and populationgrowth rates and between body-size and pop-ulation density to estimate the sizes of popula-tions and habitats necessary for mammals tohave a 95 percent probability of persistence for1,000 years.

The preliminary results from this analysis arestartling. For larger animals, the viable popu-

Since the world’s first two national parkswere established in the 1870s, some 3,500 pro-tected areas have been set aside for conserva-tion, covering some 4.25 million square kilom-eters (1,050 million acres) (35). (See figure 5-1for rate of growth.)

Growth in the number and size of protectedareas was slow at first. It accelerated duringthe 1920s and 1930s, halted during world WarII, and regained momentum by the early 1950s.The number doubled during the 1970s, butgrowth has slowed over the past few years (33).Before 1970, most protected areas were locatedin industrial countries. But for the past 15 years,the Third World has led in both numbers addedand rates of establishment.

Designation as a protected area does not nec-essarily mean that protection is effective, ofcourse. The extent of actual protection in the3,500 areas has not been determined, but anec-dotal evidence indicates that illegal or un-managed hunting, fishing, gathering, logging,farming, and livestock grazing are commonproblems (83). Thus, data on designated areas

lation size is smaller, but the necessary habitatmust be larger to support the requisite popula-tions. Thus, smaller mammals can have a via-ble population size of a million individuals buta habitat requiring only tens of square kilome-ters. The largest mammals, on the other hand,may have a viable population with only hun-dreds of individuals but may need a millionsquare kilometers of habitat (3).

These are preliminary analyses, But even ifsubsequent work reduces the estimates by twoorders of magnitude, larger mammals may needcontiguous habitats of tens of thousands ofsquare kilometers to survive indefinitely, Fewprotected natural areas are that large, imply-ing that conservation strategies for certain spe-cies should not depend as much on protectedreserves as on monitoring and managing largerareas (24).

PROTECTED AREAS

exaggerate the scope of conservation actuallybeing achieved.

Acquisition and Designation

Most protected areas are established bycial acts designating that uses of particular

of fi-sites

will be restricted to those compatible with nat-ural ecological conditions. At the Federal levelin the united States, designating a land areaor water body for conservation involves mak-ing a formal declaration of intent to assign acertain category of protection and then provid-ing an opportunity for extensive public com-ment on the proposed action. Other govern-ments use similar processes, although theextent of public participation varies.

The degree of protection depends partly onthe objectives of the acquisition or designation.There are many different types of designations.Kenya, for example, has national parks, na-tional reserves, nature reserves, and forest re-serves. The wildlife sanctuaries in Kiribati inthe South Pacific are very different in conser-

110 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 5-l.— Growth of the Global Network of

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Protected Areas, 1890.1985

Number of areas

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1985

Year

400

300

200

100

0

Extent of areas

t1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1985

YearSOURCE: International Union for the Consewation of Nature and Natural Re-

sources, The United Nafiorrs List of National Parks and Protected Areas(Gland, Switzerland: 1985).

vation terms from wildlife sanctuaries in In-dia. Designated national parks of the unitedKingdom are quite different from national parksin the united States. And in Spain, nationalparks, nature parks, and national hunting re-serves indicate different types of protection.

To clarify this situation and to promote thefull range of protected area options, the Inter-

national Union for the Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources (IUCN) provides a seriesof 10 management categories (37,38). Protectedareas are categorized according to their man-agement objectives, rather than by the nameused in their official designations (see table 5-1). Thus, the national parks of the United King-dom are placed under category V (protectedlandscape or seascape), rather than under cat-egory II (national parks). Standardization of thecategories also facilitates international compar-

able 5.1.—Categories and Management Objectivesof Protected Areas

1. Scientific reserve/strict nature reserve: To protect andmaintain natural processes in an undisturbed state forscientific study, environmental monitoring, education,and maintenance of genetic resources.

Il. Nationa/ park; To protect areas of national or interna-tional significance for scientific, educational, and recrea-tional use.

Ill. /Vatural rnonurnent/natura/ /andrnar/c To protect and pre-serve nationally significant features because of their spe-cial interest or unique characteristics.

IV, Managed nature reserve/wildli~e sanctuary: To assure theconditions necessa~ to protect species, groups of spe-cies, biotic communities, or physical features of the envi-ronment that require specific human manipulation fortheir perpetuation.

V. Protected /andscape or seascape: To maintain nation-ally significant landscapes characteristic of the harmoni-ous interaction of humans and land, while allowing rec-reation and tourism within the normal lifestyles andeconomic activities of these areas.

V1. Resource reserve: To protect the natural resources ofthe area for future use and prevent or contain develop-ment activities that could affect the resource, pendingthe establishment of objectives based on knowledge andplanning.

V1l. Natura/ biotic area/anthropological reserve: To allow theway of life of societies living in harmony with the envi-ronment to continue.

Vlll. Mu/tip/e-use management area/managed resource area.’To provide for the sustained production of water, tim-ber, wildlife, pasture, and outdoor recreation, with con-servation oriented to the support of the economic activ-ities (although specific zones may also be designedwithin these areas to achieve specific conservation ob-jectives).

IX. Biosphere reserve: To conserve an ecologically repre-sentative landscape in areas that range from completeprotection to intensive production; to promote ecologi-cal monitoring, research and education; and to facilitatelocal, regional, and international cooperation.

X. Wor/d heritage site.’ To protect the natural features forwhich the area was considered to be of world heritagequality, and to provide information for worldwide pub-lic enlightenment.

SOURCE: J.W. Thorsell, “The Role of Protected Areas in Maintaining BiologicalDiversity in Tropical Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned pa-per, 1985

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 111

isons and provides a framework for all pro-tected areas.

Criteria for SeIection ofAreas To Protect

Protected areas can be located and managedto protect biological diversity at three levels:

1.

2,

3.

at the ecosystem level: by protecting uniqueecosystems, representative areas for eachmain type of ecosystem in a nation or re-gion, and species-rich ecosystems and cen-ters of endemism;at the species level: by giving priority tothe genetically most distinct species (e. g.,families with few species or genera withonly one species), and to culturally impor-tant species and endemic genera and spe-cies; andat the gene level: by giving priority to plantand animal types that have been or are be-ing domesticated, to populations of wildrelatives of domesticated species, and towild resource species (those used for food,fuel, fiber, medicine, construction mate-rial, ornament, etc.).

Ecosystem Approach

Conserving ecosystem diversity maintainsnot only a variety of landscapes but also broadspecies and genetic diversity. Indeed, it maybe the only approach to conserving the manytypes of organisms still unknown to science.

A strategy to maintain ecosystem diversitygenerally begins with the biogeographic classi-fication system described earlier, The systemcan be used to identify which ecosystem typesneed to be acquired or designated to achievemore complete protection of biological diversity.

The extent to which diverse U.S. ecosystemsare represented within protected areas is be-ing assessed on a State-by-State basis by the nat-ural heritage inventory programs of the differ-ent States (see ch, 9). Recent estimates of theproportion of major terrestrial ecosystem typesthat are not protected in the Federal domainvary from 21 to 51 percent, depending on the

size and number of each type thought to beneeded for adequate protection (13),

The extent to which the world’s terrestrialecosystems are included in protected areas hasbeen crudely estimated using the Udvardy bio-geographic classification system, which dividesthe world’s land into 193 biogeographical prov-inces, Since each province typically containsmany distinct types of ecosystems, the degreeto which province locations correlate to pro-tected area locations gives only an approxima-tion of where greater protection is needed. The3,514 protected areas listed by IUCN are locatedin 178 provinces. The coverage is patchy: sev-eral provinces have few protected areas, whichimplies that numerous unique ecosystems haveyet to be included in the worldwide networkof protected areas (see table 5-2) (33). An esti-mate of the cost of completing this network is$1 billion (17).

Ten provinces have fewer than 1,000 squarekilometers protected but more than five pro-tected areas, while another 29 have more than1,000 square kilometers but only five or fewerseparate protected areas, Determining the ex-tent of the patchiness requires better figuresfor analysis, such as accurate estimates of prov-ince sizes. In addition, aquatic and azonal eco-systems (e. g., wetlands and coral reefs) do notfall easily within this system.

A U.S. effort that helps maintain representa-tive aquatic ecosystems is the Marine SanctuaryProgram conducted by the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration of the Depart-ment of Commerce. Potential marine sanctuarysites were listed after consultation with scien-tific teams familiar with the different ecologi-cal values of sections of the coastal zone (86).All current and future designations into the ma-rine sanctuaries will be made from the site-evaluation list, Maintenance of community orecosystem diversity is not a specific objectiveof the Marine Sanctuaries Program, but if allsites on the list were designated sanctuaries,coastal ecosystem diversity would be signifi-cantly protected.

An international effort that contributes to con-serving representative ecosystems is UNESCO’s

112 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 5-2.—Coverage of Protected Areasby Biogeographic Provinces

Provinces lacking any protected areas:Arctic Archipelago, Arctic OceanArgentinean Pampas, ArgentinaAscension/St. Helena, South Atlantic OceanBaikha, U.S.S.R.Burman Rainforest, BurmaGreenland Tundra, GreenlandLaccadive Islands, Laccadive SeaLake Ladoga, U.S.S.R.Lake Tanganuika, AfricaLake Titicaca, PeruLake Turkana, KenyaMaldives/Chagos Archipelago, Indian OceanPacific DesertRevillagigedo Island, AlaskaSouth Trinidad

Provinces with five or fewer protected areas and a totalprotected area of less than 1,000 km2 (247,000 acres):

Aldabra, SeychellesAmirante Isles, SeychellesAral Sea, U.S.S.R.Araucania Forest, ChileAtlas Saharien Steppe, Algeria-MoroccoCayo Coco, CubaCentral Polynesia, Pacific OceanCocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island, AustraliaComoros, Indian OceanEast Melanesia, South Pacific OceanFernando de Noronha Archipelago, BrazilGuerrero, MexicoHindu Kush Highlands, Afghanistan-PakistanInsulantarct icaKampucheaLake Malawi, AfricaLake Ukerewe (Victoria), AfricaMalagasy Thorn Forest, Indian OceanMascarene Islands, Indian OceanMicronesia, North Pacific OceanPatagonia, ArgentinaPlanaltina, BrazilRyukyu Islands, JapanSichuan Highlands, ChinaSri Lankan Rainforest, Sri LankaTaiwan, ROCTamaulipas, MexicoWest Anatolia, Turkey

SOURCE J. Harrison, “Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems Worldwide, ”OTA commissioned paper, 1985

Man in the Biosphere (MAB) Program. MABhas established a network of biosphere reservesin a global system of protected areas (see ch.10). The objective is to have a comprehensivesystem covering all 193 biogeographic prov-inces, The MAB program exists in 66 countries,and approximately 256 biosphere reserves havebeen designated thus far (61).

Species Approach

Natural areas are also selected to conservethe habitats of rare or endangered species orto protect areas with high species endemism.using species presence as the criteria for pro-tected area location and management is usefulfor several reasons (62,82):

●

●

●

Certain species can be used to indicate theeffectiveness of management. If the moreconspicuous rare species cannot survive,then the design and management of the re-serve should be changed.Species provide a focal point or objectivethat people can readily understand.Some species have an appeal that winssympathy, an important factor in raisingfunds and public awareness.

Protection of an area to conserve a rare orendangered species should be based on the bestexisting evidence on its location and habitatneeds. The United States has accumulated agreat deal of such information as a result of theEndangered Species Act and the work of TheNature Conservancy. For other regions of theworld, information on endangered speciesranges from precise (in northwestern Europe)to nonexistent (in the Amazon Basin). At theinternational level, the IUCN’S ConservationMonitoring Center tracks the status of speciesand publishes its findings in the Red Data Books(10).

Genetic Resources

Genetic variation within species needs to beconserved because it enables species to adaptto changing conditions and provides the rawmaterial for domestication of plants and ani-mals and the continued improvement of alreadydomesticated crops and livestock.

Protected areas designated specifically to pro-tect genetic variability of particular species areoften called in-situ genebanks. They may beestablished as separate areas for particular croprelatives, timber trees, animal species, and soon. Or, the maintenance of genetic diversity ofimportant species may be one of several objec-tives of a protected area (63).

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 113

India and the Soviet Union have expressedcommitment to in-situ conservation of the wildrelatives of crop species (63). India has desig-nated the first gene sanctuary, for citrus, andsome Indian biosphere reserve areas are ex-pected to have genetic conservation as a ma-jor objective. For example, a reserve area hasbeen proposed for the Nilgiri Hills area, whichis rich in wild forms of ginger, tumeric, carda-mom, black pepper, mango, jackfruit, plantain,rice, and millets, The Soviet Union has reportlydesignated 127 reserves for protection of wildrelatives of crops and has proposed an addi-tional 20 areas for protection. Expeditions toa region known as the Central Asian gene cen-ter have found 249 species of wild crop rela-tives (63).

In East Germany, an inventory is being madeof important genetic resources within the coun-try’s nature reserves, including 24 forage cropspecies, 51 medicinal plants, and 27 fruit spe-cies, As noted earlier, the inventory is expectedto identify about 10,000 places within the coun-try’s reserve system where protection is af-forded for plants relevant to breeding, breed-ing research, and study of the chemistry ofnatural substances (68).

Trade-Offs

In selecting areas for onsite maintenance ofbiological diversity, trade-offs occur when anyof the above criteria are given priority. If the

strategy is to protect areas where rare and en-dangered species are found, then the diversityof ecosystems that exists may not be maintainedadequately because only certain types includeidentified rare species. Concentrating on bio-geographic categories for broad coverage ofecosystem types may not protect habitats forrare or endangered species sufficiently or forcenters of endemism. The third criterion, pro-tecting genetic variability, includes consider-ation of economic and social factors that maycontribute less to the objective of maintainingmaximum diversity but aid the larger goal ofconserving resource opportunities for humanwelfare.

In practice, other objectives and various so-cial and economic constraints prevail in the de-cisions on where to locate protected areas.Other objectives include preservation of scenicresources, provision of recreation opportuni-ties, and protection of watersheds, Constraintsinclude budgetary feasibility, competing de-mands for use of the area, and opportunity forlocal support of protected status.

The literature on conservation strategies con-tains few objective methods to evaluate thesetrade-offs, except to note that the three biologi-cal approaches—ecosystem, species, and genepool—are both complementary and necessary.Decisions are often initially made by the intui-tive judgment of conservationists but ultimatelyby the political processes that lead to the offi-cial protected area designation.

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Planning and management strategies for on-site maintenance seek to conserve either thespecies and genetic diversity within a givenarea or the diversity of ecosystems across a geo-graphic region. Planning tools range frommathematical models that simulate how anarea’s biological resources are likely to respondgiven different management options to writtenplans for natural area management. Manage-ment is concerned both with managing exter-nal pressures affecting a protected area andwith managing the natural succession of plantand animal communities within the area, Man-

agement activities range from no interventionto active manipulation of an ecosystem,

Planning Techniques

Planning for protected areas can begin be-fore designation is finalized, Biologists gener-ally agree that plans to maintain diversity needto begin with site surveys to determine the fol-lowing information (65):

the number, abundance, and distributionof species, and the interactions betweenspecies and community types;

114 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity774

●

●

●

●

the types, extent, locations, and effects ofhuman uses, the degree of dependence oflocal inhabitants on these uses, and the pos-sible alternatives for activities that areharmful to the site;the present and potential threats fromactivities outside the immediate area ofconcern;the opportunities for making the site moreuseful to local inhabitants; andthe best approach for law enforcement onthe site.

Agency budgets and policies for managementplanning often omit some of these surveys, con-sidering them fundamental research rather thanpragmatic planning activities, For example, theU.S. Bureau of Land Management’s ResourceManagement Plan process does not include col-lection of detailed site data if no deleterious hu-man impact or other problem is known. Biolo-gists argue, however, that the problems cannotbe fully identified without the surveys.

Historically, the specific plans to conservebiological diversity were left to the area man-ager to devise and implement. This approachstill prevails in many regions of the world, Inthe United States, conflicts in land and watermanagement and the increasing need to justifyall management activities to a governing insti-tution have resulted in specialized tools forplanning the conservation of biological re-sources, Much of this development of planningtechniques has occurred in the Federal landmanagement agencies.

Modeling

A recent innovation in planning techniquesis the use of mathematical models, The modelsare highly simplified versions of natural envi-ronments. Biological data are used to developequations that represent assumptions aboutcause-and-effect interactions between plant andanimal populations and their habitats, Numer-ous equations interact, and the outcome pro-jects responses of the biological resources todifferent management options. The accuracyof the projections depends on how well theequations and the data reflect the situation inthe natural environment,

Various kinds of wildlife-habitat models havebeen used, and recently, the population simu-lation models described earlier have begun tobe used widely. These population models pre-dict how management activities would affectpopulation size, structure, and recovery rate.They can describe, for example, the probablesize of a fish population before and at varioustimes after a specified fishing season.

Wildlife-habitat models are built from natu-ral history data on species distribution andabundance in various habitats, from whichcause-and-effect relationships are deduced topredict how wildlife populations will changeas a result of changed habitat conditions. Indi-cator Species Models, for instance, focus onone or a few species known to reflect broaderecosystem qualities. Another example is theHabitat Evaluation Procedure used by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service to describe the re-sponses of vegetation and, hence, wildlife habi-tats to certain management options such as tim-ber harvesting (75),

Geographic Information System models alsoaccount for the changes in vegetation or wild-life habitats that result from different manage-ment options, but the output is presented onmaps, which facilitates evaluation of cumula-tive impacts by area. A complementary tech-nique being developed by U.S. National ParkService personnel, the Boundary Model, is in-tended to assess not only management activi-ties but also the effects of human actions out-side the protected areas (69).

Biologists warn that the accuracy of modelsis constrained by the need to reduce complex,often poorly understood interactions to assump-tions simple enough to be represented withmathematical equations. Often, data are toolimited to test all the assumptions. None of thenatural area models can predict all the possi-ble ways that biological resources might re-spond to habitat changes. Thus, models are bestused to make the assumptions and logic of sci-entists, managers, and natural-area users ex-plicit, so that final plans and management de-cisions can be based on clear, thorough, andobjective understanding of all perspectives,

Management Plans

Management plans can help avoid typicalprotected area problems, such as inappropri-ate development; sporadic, inconsistent, andad hoc management; and lack of clearly definedmanagement objectives. Management planningalso serves to review existing databases, to en-courage resource inventories, and to identifyother needed research and monitoring activi-ties. Unfortunately, such plans do not exist formany of the world’s protected areas, which con-stitutes a major constraint on maintaining di-versity (82).

Species-specific management plans identifyactions for maintaining healthy, reproductivepopulations of a particular species, Often, thespecies are either economically valuable or arerare, endangered, or sensitive to certain land-er water-management practices. The Office ofEndangered Species of the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service is the lead agency for recovery plansto restore populations listed on the FederalThreatened and Endangered Species List, Forexample, two Federal agencies, two State agen-cies, one university, and two agencies from Brit-ish Columbia cooperated in development of theSelkirk Mountain Caribou Management PlardRecovery Plan, This plan provides details o ncaribou population dynamics, behavior, andhabitat in Idaho, Washington, and British Co-lumbia, It describes past and present cariboumanagement activities, specifies managementgoals and objectives to recover the species, in-dicates priorities for action, and assigns theseto specific agencies (87).

Site-specific management plans outline theoptions for maintaining biological resourceswithin given locations, commonly parts of nat-ural areas. For example, the Bureau of L a n dManagement developed a plan to maintain re-sources within the Burro Creek Section of theKingman Resource Area in Arizona (88). Theplan has clearly stated management objectives.It describes the resources of the site, presentsthe management issues pertaining to the area,details the management practices that will beused on the site, and indicates what other re-source activities will be allowed (e. g., mining)(88),

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite . 115

Large-area planning documents can includemaintaining diversity as one objective to be bal-anced with others, but they generally do notrecommend site-specific actions. Examples in-clude the plans prepared by the U.S. ForestService for national forest management, plansby the Bureau of Land Management for re-source area management, and plans by the Na-tional Marine Sanctuary Program for the man-agement of marine sanctuaries. These planningprocesses generally involve numerous expertsfrom various disciplines who identify andweigh management options. The planning doc-ument then describes resources, the optionsavailable for managing those resources for vari-ous uses, the trade-offs that would be made invarious resource-use scenarios, and finally, theproposed management strategy.

National and subnational conservation strat-egies (NCSS) tend to be generic documents thatmay include but are not limited to conservingbiological diversity. Some 30 countries had be-gun to develop national conservation strategiesby the end of 1985 (62) (see figure 5-2). To date,only a few NCSS have been completed. TheUnited States, for example, does not have a planfor conservation of biological diversity,

One example of a completed countrywideplan is the Zambia National Conservation Strat-egy, which identifies the major environmentalissues and ecological zones that need immedi-ate attention in that country (29). Objectives ofthe strategy are to maintain the essential lifesupport systems, maintain genetic diversity ofboth domestic and wild species, promote wiseuse of natural resources, and maintain suitableenvironmental quality and standard of living,To accomplish these objectives, plans and pol-icies for sustainable management of natural re-sources are to be integrated with all aspects ofthe country’s social and economic develop-ment. The strategy outlines schedules of actionfor the major agencies and identifies necessaryinteragency linkages to assure cooperation, Theofficial status of this plan and the extent towhich it is being implemented is not clear.

Management plans vary in geographic scaleand levels of specificity. Plans at the more gen-eral levels require less detailed information on

116 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 5-2.—National Conservation Strategy Development Around the World, July 1985

SOURCE (Gland, Switzerland: 1985)

the characteristics of species but greater under-standing of larger cause-and-effect relation-ships and of social, economic, and politicalfactors,

Management Strategies

Increasingly active management of factorsaffecting biological diversity will be needed toovercome the effects of human activity and thegradual fragmentation of natural areas (89). Nat-ural areas change over time, as various plantand animal communities succeed one another,and gradual change in the components andquantity of biological diversity occurs. To sus-tain particular components, such as game ani-mals or songbirds, protected-area managerstherefore need to intervene in the natural proc-esses. The interventions vary with objectives,and conflicts may occur. For example, devel-oping optimum habitat for a particular speciesmay not be compatible with maximizing thediversity of community types.

Manipulating habitats to manage particularspecies sometimes involves controlling popu-lations of certain animals—removing an exoticfish from a lake, for example. More often, theintervention involves modifying vegetation. Ifthe target species are grazing or browsing ani-mals such as deer, intervention might mean cut-ting trees to prevent woodlands from evolvingto the climax stage; for prairie birds such ascranes, it could mean burning grasslands to pre-vent encroachment by woody plants. Certainplants may be propagated for food or cover forthe target species. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService uses such management techniques innational wildlife refuges, which are the onlyextensive federally owned lands managed chieflyfor conserving wildlife,

Management to maximize the diversity ofcommunity types involves similar interven-tions. Again, a basic consideration is the vari-ety of plant succession stages to be maintainedwithin an ecosystem. Manipulation manage-ment is likely to be needed to preserve com-

—

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite . 117

munities representing early stages of succes-sion. For example, savanna ecosystems aremaintained by fire, wildlife, and human influ-ence. Management techniques to conserve sa-vanna systems include regulating animal num-bers and species and using controlled burning.Rain forests in a mature successional stage re-quire little intervention, but they are likely toneed active protection because they are not gen-erally resilient if cleared in large areas (82).

Where the U.S. Forest Service manages landwith wildlife diversity as a goal, it attempts toprovide an appropriate mix of successionalstages within each plant community (84). Theapproach of the U.S. National Park Service isto maintain natural processes to the extent pos-sible, including catastrophic changes such aslocalized fire, to allow a relatively natural mixof succession stages to occur.

Management strategies have evolved fromstrict preservation and protection to multiple-use approaches and, more recently, to inte-grated approaches. Strict preservation strategyentails setting aside large blocks of natural areaswhere designation and protection alone wouldbe expected to achieve conservation objectives.Protection would mean severely restricting theuses of, and the changes within, an area to en-sure the continued natural condition of its bio-logical resources and regular policing of bound-aries to prevent trespassing or poaching. Wherepossible, fences would be erected to restrict ac-cess by humans and livestock.

Moderate versions of this strategy maybe ef-fective in some locations, particularly wherethe land is owned by an individual or nongov-ernmental organization. In many areas, strictcontrols are impractical. It has not been verysuccessful in developing countries. Moreover,neither fences nor patrols can prevent all ex-ternal influences from damaging a protectedarea. Regular patrols of a marine sanctuarycould not stop the effects of water pollution,for example.

Strict preservation of biological diversity isnot an explicit objective of any federally pro-tected area in the United States. The objectiveclosest to it is protection of “biological re-

sources” or “ecological processes” on lands inthe National Wilderness Preservation System,which is an evolving system of public lands rela-tively undisturbed by humans and large enoughto have potential for wilderness recreation.(Most wilderness areas contain at least 5,000acres, although some in the Eastern UnitedStates are smaller.)

Other countries also have extensive areas setaside for preservation while allowing some hu-man access. Examples include large segmentsof Antarctica and isolated parts of the Amazo-nian forest. Some natural areas, such as WoodBuffalo National park in Canada and SalongaNational Park in Zaire, have wardens to guardthe boundaries and prevent trespassing (61), Butincreasingly, countries cannot afford to desig-nate large areas for strict preservation. Particu-larly in developing countries, adequate fences,patrols, or other means to deny access to desig-nated areas are seldom logistically, economi-cally, or socially possible. In addition, preserva-tion strategies have exacerbated perceivedconflicts between conservation and development,

Another strategy for protected areas is to in-corporate multiple uses or objectives. This strat-egy is usually based on one or two approaches:developing an optimum mix of several uses ona local parcel of land or water; or creating amosaic of land or water parcels, each with adesignated use, within a 1arger geographic area.

Developing an optimum mix of uses in anarea requires careful incorporation of each ob-jective so that all can be met, This approachis used by the U.S. Forest Service on nationalforest lands and by most States on wildIife areasand State forests. In national forests, the po-tential of each subsection is evaluated for recre-ation, grazing, timber production, wildlife orfisheries habitat, mineral development, andother uses. Management objectives for each siteusually include more than one use. Thus, anarea that is managed for timber production mayalso provide sites for grazing livestock or forag-ing wildlife. Sometimes, mining or another usewill be exclusive, at least temporarily.

The California Desert Conservation Area,managed by the Bureau of Land Management,

118 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

is an example of the second approach to multi-ple use, in which protected areas are managedprimarily as distinct parcels with different pri-mary uses. The conservation area is broken intodifferent land units and classified accordingto the level of human activity allowed in each.Research areas, wilderness areas, areas of crit-ical environmental concern, areas of geologicor archeologic significance, and critical habitatsof endangered or sensitive plant or animal spe-cies are mapped and sometimes identified bymarkers posted at the sites. The rest of the landis classified for various levels of use rangingfrom restricted to extensive human use and al-teration. Management of the area evolves ashuman needs for resources of the CaliforniaDesert change.

The biosphere reserve concept is another ex-ample of multiple-use based on buffer zones thatwould moderate the extent that activities affectthe core. The UNESCO Man and the BiosphereProgram (see also ch. 10) champions this idea.An idealized scheme includes three areas:

1,

2.

3.

The core areas strictly protect ecologicalsamples of natural ecosystems that canserve as benchmarks for measuring long-term changes in ecosystems.The buffer zones have land-use controls,which allow only activities compatiblewith protection of the core area, such asresearch, environmental education, recre-ation, and tourism.The transition areas surround the core andbuffer zone and are usually not strictly de-lineated. In these areas, researchers, man-agers, and the local population are to co-operate in rehabilitation, traditional use,development, and experimental researchon natural resources (30).

The areas should facilitate management by re-ducing conflicts, because the more incompati-ble uses would be physically distant from oneanother. And effectiveness of protection shouldbe enhanced, because conflicting uses couldbe detected before they spread into the core (seebox 5-C).

This approach has not yet been implementedsufficiently to assess its worldwide effect, but

Box 5-C Cluster Conceprt forBiosphere Reserves

In the United States, a promising develop-ment of biosphere reserves is the cluster con-cept. The approach is intetidad to link com-plementary areas administered by differentagencies so they can cooperate in monitoringresearch, educational, and management ac-tivities.

A particularly promising multiple-unit bio-sphere reserve is emerging in the Southern Ap-palachians. Efforts are underway to link theexisting Great Smoky Mountains NationalPark, the Forest Service’s Cowaeta Hydrologi-cal Station, the Department of Energy’s OakRidge National Environmental Research Park,and other nearby State and Federal agenciesmanaging natural resources to forma South-ern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve. The ex-istence of a permanent association of Federalagencies and regional universities has servedas a useful mechanism to help coordinate re-gional resaarch and management activities in-volving the biosphere reserve.

Another promising example is on St. John,the Virgin Islands, where the National ParkService manages VS. National Park, A co-operative effort involving agencies and institutions from Puerto Rico, the U.S.Virgin Islands, and the British Virgin Islandshas coordinated a major research program fo-cused on developing a biosphre reserve onSt. John. As the only U.S. national park in adeveloping region, the area provides oppor-tunities in the transfer of research and re-source management technologies suitable forsmall islands of the region.

plans for such development now exist and awaitpolitical commitment and implementation inseveral nations. One example is the develop-ment plan for the San Lorenzo Canyon area inMexico (60). Multiple-use development is in-dicated for a 225,()()()-acre chaparral and des-ert area where watershed protection is a pri-mary objective, The plan delineates four zones:

1, a core scientific area to be used for researchand watershed protection,

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite 119

Figure 5-3.— Design of a Coastal or Marine Protected Area

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

aHabltat~ adjacent and linked to habitats of interest by species movements or flows of nutrientsbHeadqua~ers, ranger stations; and traditional fishing, recreational, research, and education ZOneS

CwaterShedS, a g r i c u l t u r a l lands, urban and Industrial developrnerlts, riVE?K3, and eSt UaHf3S

dshipplng lanes, commercial fishing grounds, and Intensive use zones

SOURCE R V Salm, kfar~ne and Coasta/ Protected Areas A Guide for Planners and Managers (Gland. Switzerland International Untonfor the Conserwatlon of Nature and Natural Resources, 1984)

2. a primitive area to be used for watershedprotection and recreation,

3. an extensive use area for recreation andeducation, and

4. a natural recovery area eventually for agri-cultural and commercial use.

Zoned development seems an especially im-portant concept for marine and coastal areas,which are particularly vulnerable to events out-side their boundaries even when they are pro-tected. Figure 5-3 is an idealized design for acoastal- or marine-protected area.

A more recently developed integrated ap-proach holds potential for resolving many ofthe problems that arise in onsite maintenanceof biological diversity. An example is the in-tegrated regional development planning, whichis discussed later in this chapter.

Ecosystem Restoration

As degraded ecosystems become more com-mon, restoration will play an increasing rolein conserving biological diversity. Underlyingmost of the discussion in this chapter has beenthe assumption that protected areas are desig-nated where ecosystems are in a relatively nat-ural condition. Another important approach,however, is to protect and sometimes manipu-late degraded ecosystems in order to restoresome degree of biological diversity. Restorationtechniques are being used by conservation orga-nizations, such as The Nature Conservancy andthe Audubon Society, and by government agen-

cies, such as the National Park Service to en-large or adjust the shape of reserves (43).

Reclamation is action intended to restoredamaged ecosystems to productive use (43).Restoration is the re-creation of entire commu-nities of organisms, closely modeled on com-munities that occur naturally. Reclamationgradually becomes restoration as more andmore naturally occurring species are used andas natural plant and animal succession occurs.Restoration technologies, which depend heav-ily on the knowledge gained from reclamationexperience, attempt to accelerate natural suc-cession processes while assuring that indig-enous rather than exotic species dominate.

Restoration is an onsite method that provideslinks with offsite activities to preserve species.Zoos and botanic gardens conserve rare speciesoffsite for reintroduction onsite (see ch. 6),Nurseries and seed facilities provide plants andseeds for a variety of revegetation efforts, al-though materials for most native plants stillmust be gathered from the wild (42,44). Reintro-ductions of animals from captive populationsare few but include the Arabian oryx, the goldenlion tamarin (a recent effort), and plans to rein-troduce Przewalski’s horse in Mongolia (see ch.6, box 6-E). A few plant reintroductions fromoffsite collections also exist. The Knowlton’scactus (Pedlocactus knowltonii) has beenreturned to the natural environment from cut-tings by the Fish and Wildlife Service (55).

Some States, such as Florida, require the useof native species in reclamation, but reclama-

120 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

tion work generally falls short of restoration.Reclamation is generally task-oriented, and theobjective is usually to establish productive plantcover, such as pasture or stands of trees. Rela-tively little attention is given to species notdirectly related to the objective, and relativelyfew species are used. Consequently, efforts toreclaim land have largely focused on the useof common plant and animal species that areeasily propagated and multiply rapidly. Oftenthese are nonnative species; rare or difficult-to-establish species are seldom used. It is easi-est and most cost-effective to use those few spe-cies that have been shown to be adequate forparticular uses, such as for stabilizing beaches.

Tree planting is one of the most frequentlyused techniques for reclaiming degraded lands,and a wealth of literature on various forms ofreforestation exists (23,84). The potential forreforesting degraded forest land is especiallygreat in the tropics (83), But restoring forestswith diverse native species is seldom attempted.Instead, most programs use one or a few exoticspecies, partly because of a lack of seeds andtechniques to propagate native trees and partlybecause of the cost-effectiveness of plantingfast-growing tree species known to have com-mercial value,

The Santa Rosa National Park in Costa Ricais one of the few forest restorations that hasbeen undertaken. The area was a cattle ranchfor 400 years, but since designation as a pro-tected area, a dry forest ecosystem of nativespecies has been reestablished from seedsources on nearby mountain slopes, The prin-cipal management technique has been to stopthe human-caused fires, allowing woody spe-cies to reinvade the pure grass pastures. Therestorative effect has now been proved and isto be used in the proposed Guanacaste NationalPark (39).

Prairie restoration offers a kind of prototypefor the development and use of ecosystem res-toration. Restoration of prairies began early,motivated by concerns such as diversity andcommunity authenticity (43). Techniques de-veloped to restore prairies to moderately highlevels of native plant diversity borrow exten-

.4

credit” D

Planting prairie plants in a restoration project at theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Arboretum. Thepurpose of the experiment is to study competitionbetween species by planting various combinations.The results will be useful in developing techniques forintroducing ‘(difficult” species into prairies as they

are being restored and managed.

sively from agriculture techniques used inprairies. One approach to restoring 2 to 40 hec-tares recommends plowing, followed by disk-ing at intervals of a year to reduce weeds, fol-lowed by seeding with a mixture of prairiespecies (56). In Crex Meadows, WI, restorationof prairie plants and animals was possible withlittle intervention other than protection andcontrolled burning, because many native prai-rie species had apparently continued to grow,unobserved, for decades while the site was for-ested, Little information on the cost of prairierestoration is available. Up to now, much ofthe effort that has gone into restoring the high-est quality prairies has depended heavily ondedicated volunteers (4).

Although the technology of reclamation hasdeveloped rapidly in recent years, partly as aresult of legislation such as the Surface MineControl and Reclamation Act of 1977, restora-tion has not yet become an established dis-cipline. Restoration research and technologydevelopment vary tremendously from one nat-ural community to the next.

The availability of seed and plant stock forvarieties adapted to local conditions is a prob-lem. Use of local seeds is not required by law,

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 121

and the high cost of small, special seed collec-tions often precludes use of local seeds in fa-vor of cheaper, nonlocal ones of relatively fewspecies (3 I ,54). Western nurseries and the SoilConservation Service’s Plant Material Centershave responded to the demand for more nativeplants, but many species still are not availablecommercially. For many that are available,germplasm is limited to specialized ecotypesor registered cultivars with limited value forrestoration.

The cost of reclamation varies greatly, de-pending on the extent of disturbance, the ex-tent of restoration, and the type of ecosystem.The average cost of seeding for reclamation ofsurface mines in seven Western States has beenestimated at $620 per hectare (in 1977 dollars)(59). This estimate included fertilization, mulch-ing, and irrigation (the most expensive com-ponent), The cost of earth-moving brought thetotal bill to $10,000 per hectare. Mechanical

planting of shrubs costs from $5OO to $2,OOO

per hectare in Utah, depending on whetherbareroot or containerized stock was used (20).Hand-planting to simulate natural vegetationpatterns would further increase costs.

Establishing the same community that oc-curred on a site prior to disturbance is oftennot feasible because of the high cost and a lackof information regarding, for example, neces-sary conditions for seed germination and otheraspects of survival and reproduction of nativespecies. Although restoration technologies can-not quickly restore the diversity that existed be-fore degradation, they can be used to break thecycle of resource degradation and to reestab-lish a community of indigenous organisms.Normal plant and animal succession may even-tually lead to a self-sustaining and relatively nat-ural ecosystem that provides most of the valuesof biological diversity.

OUTSIDE PROTECTED AREAS

Most of the discussion thus far has dealt withprotected areas where maintaining biologicaldiversity is a management objective. But themajority of biological resources are found out-side these areas. Few strategies have been de-signed yet for conserving diversity in nondesig-nated areas. Various resource conservationtechniques with other objectives serve to en-hance biological diversity, however.

Genetic Resources for Agriculture

Conservation of genetic variability outsideprotected areas is especially important becauseso many crop varieties and livestock speciesand many of their wild relatives are not foundin areas designated for protection, In addition,evolutionary processes, such as crop-pest andcrop-pathogen interactions, can continue. Thistype of conservation occurs when farmers havechosen to maintain traditional crop varietiesand livestock breeds.

Crop varieties with a broad genetic base andwild relatives of crop plants are mainly located

where traditional farming practices prevail.Large proportions of these resources (5o per-cent or more for many species) have not yetbeen evaluated or collected for preservation off-site (5o). Germplasm collection programs focuson the world’s major staple crops, so many spe-cies that are not yet widely grown are unlikelyto be preserved offsite. Both these and local va-rieties of major crops are threatened with ex-tinction as they are replaced by modern vari-eties, which the economics of agriculture favor.

A diverse mix of local varieties theoreticallyprotects traditional farmers from catastrophiccrop losses. And, with locally adapted varieties,farmers depend less on subsidized inputs, suchas pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation equipment,and processed animal feed. In many countries,traditional farmers appear to be motivated moreby avoiding risk than by maximizing profit.Nevertheless, as agricultural development oc-curs, farmers are shifting to fewer varieties,modern methods, and higher profits.

One response to this trend is the recentlyestablished program to monitor the remaining

122 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

collections of teosinte, a wild relative of maizefound only in Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras,The habitats for teosinte include some of Mex-ico’s best agricultural land, where it survivesin narrow strips of untilled soil along stonefences bordering maize fields. As land use in-tensifies, these strips are brought into cultiva-tion, And isolated stands of teosinte that inter-breed with maize can be genetically “swamped”by the maize and lose their ability to disperseseed. Thus, teosinte populations with uniquegenetic characteristics of potential value formaize breeding are threatened with extinction.

Fortunately, the international agricultural re-search institute that focuses on maize, CentroInternational de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo(CIMMYT), is located near many of the siteswhere teosinte still grows, The CIMMYT maizestaff and colleagues in the Mexican and Guate-mala national maize research programs havebegun a monitoring program, The status of eachteosinte population is checked annually. Theintention is to take preservation action when-ever a recognized population is placed in im-mediate danger of extinction (9).

Another way to safeguard genetic resourcesoutside protected areas would be to preservetraditional agriculture systems in selected re-gions. To do this, farming systems must becomemore productive and produce more cash in-come. Presumably, higher productivity meansapplying scientific methods for crop produc-tion and genetic development but keeping thelocal varieties and livestock breeds. Some farm-ing systems research does attempt this. For ex-ample, the Centro Agronomic Tropical de In-vestigaciones y Ensenanza has consulted withthe Kuna people of northeastern Panama aboutagricultural development of their 60,000-hectare,indigenous-reserve area in the context of a parkproject (91). Similarly, the International Coun-cil for Research in Agroforestry in Africa trainsresearchers to identify opportunities for mar-ginal improvements in traditional farming sys-tems. But such work is outside the mainstreamof agricultural development and is at best amodest and poorly funded effort.

A complementary approach is for modernfarmers to maintain diverse varieties while rely-

ing on other income sources. They generallymust turn to off-farm income or other, moremodern areas of their farms. In developingcountries, where traditional farming is still ex-tensive and crop and livestock diversity aregreatest, continued planting of nonprofitabletraditional varieties would probably have to besubsidized.

Such an approach is not without precedent.Native American farmers are paid to produceseed of traditional cultivars in Arizona by a non-profit organization, Native Seeds/SEARCH (58),In developing countries, similar programsmight be administered by some of the same agri-cultural research organizations that maintainoffsite germplasm collections. But the agricul-tural research community has not identified thisas a priority for their limited funds. At best,only a very small sample of diversity could bemaintained on subsidized traditional farms. Itseems that such subsidies would be as cost-effective as marginal improvements in offsitecollections.

Conservation As A Typeof Development

Maintaining biological diversity by establish-ing parks is becoming increasingly difficult be-cause of demographic, economic, and politi-cal pressures. The preservation approach toconservation may become less common in thefuture, especially in tropical developing countrieswhere diversity seems to be most threatened.As a consequence, conservation organizationsand conservationists within development orga-nizations, such as the Agency for InternationalDevelopment (AID), the World Bank, and theOrganization of American States (OAS), havebegun to promote the concept that biologicaldiversity can be conserved where natural re-sources are being developed if conservation isconsidered a development activity.

A recently published paper of the IUCN Com-mission on Ecology (64) supports this concept:

The idea of basing conservation on the fateof particular species or even on the mainte-nance of a natural diversity of species willbecome even less tenable as the number of

threatened species increases and their refugesdisappear. Natural areas will have to be de-signed in conjunction with the goals of regionaldevelopment and justified on the basis of eco-logical processes operating within the entiredeveloped region and not just within naturalareas.

Conservation has long been a criterion incarefully planned development of agriculture,forestry, fisheries, grazing land, and otherprimary-industry development. But mainte-nance of biological diversity is relatively newas an explicit development objective. Someinnovative approaches are beginning to be im-plemented, including the use of conflict reso-lution and systems analysis techniques in re-source development planning.

Integrated Regional Development Planning(IRDP), being used by the OAS (60,66), subdi-vides a region into small spatial units and ana-lyzes the sectoral interactions in each, in con-trast to approaches that subdivide issues intosectoral components. IRDP addresses interac-tions, like competition for the same goods orservices by two or more interest groups, andanalyzes changes that occur in the mix of avail-able goods and services as a result of activitiesin one sector that are detrimental to anothersector.

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 123

IRDP uses systems analysis and conflict reso-lution methods to distribute the costs and ben-efits of development activities throughout af-fected populations or sectors. Integration of allthe sectors—including maintenance of biologi-cal diversity—is necessary because individualsectoral activities may help, but often hinder,activities of other sectors aimed at appropriat-ing goods and services from the same or alliedecosystems. Decisions about which activitiesare appropriate or how each can be adjustedto reduce conflict are made through negotia-tion by parties representing all the sectors thatare involved (67).

A major constraint to considering diversitymaintenance as a development activity is thatthe benefits of diversity are hard to calculate.No economic valuation techniques exist thatcan capture its full value. Thus, biological diver-sity has not fared well under the standard cost-benefit analyses applied to development activ-ities, Although some efforts have been madeto better account for biological diversity values,the results have been unsatisfactory and notwidely applied. (See ch. 11 for further discus-s on of this topic. )

DATA FOR ONSITE MAINTENANCE OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

To set priorities and to allocate funds andother resources, decisionmakers need to knowhow various ecosystems contribute to biologi-cal diversity, how vulnerable they are to degra-dation, how well protected they are by existingprograms, and what the social and economicprospects are for local cooperation. Manage-ment programs need details on the nutrition,space, and reproductive requirements of organ-isms. Most such information comes from tax-onomy, biogeography, natural history, ecology,anthropology, and sociology. For agriculturalspecies, information is also needed on genetics,microbiology, seed technology, and physiology.

Generally, enough is known to improve sub-stantially the programs for maintaining diver-

sity, But more and better data on many aspectsof this subject are badly needed, and fundingfor conservation falls far short of the needs im-plied by the apparent rates and consequencesof diversity loss (see ch. 3). So investments mustbe concentrated on the most cost-effective ap-proaches possible, which implies the need tothoroughly understand the ecological, social,and economic aspects of biological diversity(77).

Uneven Quality of Information

The quality of data on biological diversity isuneven for different ecosystems and differentparts of the world, For some places, such as

124 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

tropical South America, data are rudimentaryand theories are very tentative. For others, suchas temperate North America, information iswell developed and theories have been exten-sively tested. The unevenness is in part due todata being collected for different purposes,stored in different forms, and scattered amongdifferent institutions.

In general, both data and theories regardingbiological diversity are better for temperate thanfor tropical biology; better for terrestrial thanfor aquatic sites; better for birds, mammals, andvascular plants than for the lower classes oforganisms; and better for the few major cropand livestock species used in modern agricul-ture than for the many species used in tradi-tional agriculture. Taxonomic coverage is in-creasing, but the pace is slow relative to thequantity of unknown organisms. Each yearabout 3 species of birds, 11 mammals, up to100 fish, and dozens of amphibians and rep-tiles are identified for the first time (22,57). In-sects are the largest order of organisms, andhundreds of species are newly identified an-nually (57); nevertheless, estimates of the num-ber of insect species not yet identified rangefrom 1 to 30 million (18).

Information needed to maintain diversity iseven more limited on the ecosystem and com-munity levels, partly because ecology is a youn-ger discipline than taxonomy. Moreover, spe-cies interactions within ecosystems are sosubtle that laborious, time-consuming field re-search is necessary to understand them. Forexample, the endangered red-cockaded wood-pecker (Dezzdrocopus borealis) requires old-growth longleaf and loblolly pine trees for nest-ing. These pines persist in forest communitieswhere occasional fires destroy the seedlings ofother, more competitive species (5). Such firesrequire accumulation of appropriate fuel tocarry the kinds of fires that favor the two pineseedlings. Conservation of red-cockaded wood-peckers, therefore, entails conserving appro-priate species to generate the right kind of vege-tation and litter on the forest floor.

Efforts to collect biological information haveincreased during the last two decades as a re-sult of growing awareness of the importanceof services provided by natural ecosystems andof the need for better use and management ofnatural resources. Biological data are now col-lected and analyzed at the international, na-tional, and local levels. Databases—the collec-tions of data that are organized for furtheranalyses—can be used to make onsite diversitymaintenance efforts substantially more ef-fective.

International databases provide overviewsthat can identify potential gaps, status, andtrends of biological diversity worldwide. Themain international organizations involved incollecting biological data are the United Na-tions Environment Programme (UNEP); theFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO);United Nations Educational, Scientific, andCultural Organization (UNESCO); the Conser-vation Monitoring Center (C MC) of the Inter-national Union for the Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources (I UCN); the World Wild-life Fund/Conservation Foundation; The Na-ture Conservancy International (TNCI); and theInternational Council for Bird Preservation (10).(See ch. 10 for further discussion of interna-tional databases.)

The utility of international databases has beenlimited because they are not readily availableto resource planners and other analysts whomight use them to advise development decision-makers. To resolve this problem, the UNEP’SGlobal Environment Monitoring System (GEMS)program is establishing a computerized GlobalResource Information Database (GRID). Thisprogram will centralize access to numerousenvironmental databases and will include train-ing in data analysis for developing-country par-ticipants.

DaTa for Management of Diversity

Biological data needed to plan managementof diversity and other natural resources at the

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 125

national level are collected by governmentagencies, academic institutions, and researchcenters. Completeness of the information variesfrom country to country. Several countries,such as Australia and Sweden, have compiledcomprehensive biological surveys of their floraand fauna. Other countries, such as the SovietUnion and China, and some international re-gions, such as North, East, and West Africa,have completed or have made significant prog-ress toward completing surveys of their flora.North America is the only part of the north tem-perate zone that has neither synthesized thedata on its plant and animaI resources nor cre-ated a national biological database (81).

In fact, the United States has abundant in-formation on its biota at a regional or broadecosystem level. But data acquisition is de-signed to serve the specific objectives of vari-ous organizations. As a result, many of the data-bases relevant to biological diversity are widelyscattered, are often incompatible, and are i neffect inaccessible to numerous potential users.The objective of maintaining biological diver-sity has been only a tangential considerationin most data-collection efforts. However, fileson endangered species assembled by the Smith-sonian Institution and the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service do address an important aspect ofspecies diversity directly.

The only comprehensive nationwide infor-mation system dealing directly with both spe-cies and ecosystem diversity is the nationalaggregation of State Natural Heritage Programdata. This system is extensively used for deci-sionmaking on acquisition, designation, andmanagement of protected areas.

The heritage program inventories are contin-ually updated through a system of informationgathering and ranking. They begin with a broadinformation search of secondary sources forrare species and ecosystems. These are thenranked, and further search, including fieldwork, takes place for the rarest ones. The in-ventory is made up of a series of manual andcomputer files containing the species and eco-system’s classification, location, site where itoccurs, land ownership of the site, and sites

located on already protected land, Inventorydata are plotted on U.S. Geological Survey mapsto analyze which lands are most important toprotect and what impacts specific developmentprojects will have on diversity,

In recent years a great deal of attention hasbeen given to the use of computers for manag-ing biological data. Data management is facili-tated by the flexibility of the hardware and bythe many types of software on the market today,For example, Geographic Information Systems(GIS) are being used by the Forest Service andthe National Park Service to integrate databaseswith spatial information. This technique pro-duces overlay maps that have great potentialto aid efforts to maintain biological diversity(figure s-q). At present such overlay maps areused to assess the extent to which ecosystemdiversity is being protected by combining de-tails on ecosystem and species distribution withinformation on boundaries of various types ofprotected areas. International and nongovern-ment agencies are also finding the techniqueuseful: GIS are a basic tool for GRID, The Na-ture Conservancy (TNC] has recently begunusing GIS in its international program, andIUCN’S Conservation Monitoring Center plansto acquire a system, once funding is secured(33).

The data on biological diversity generated atthe State level are being aggregated at the na-tional level by TNC. The quality and quantityof information varies from State to State, a fewStates do not yet have programs, and inventoryof species and communities that are not threat-ened is just beginning. In spite of these limita-tions, this is the most comprehensive nationaldatabase on biological diversity, In many geo-graphic areas, TNC is the only institution col-lecting data on rare, sensitive, or endemic re-sources that may require special managementto maintain their integrity as populations. Inthese areas, the heritage programs help to fillan important gap in biological data needed forthe onsite maintenance of biological diversity.

Selection among such data management tech-nologies as the GIS depends on the financialresources and the objectives of the organiza-

126 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 5-4.—Representation of a GeographicInformation System Function Overlavina Several

Types of Environmental Data -

Humansettlements

Animalpopulations

Vegetationcover

Waterresources

Soiltypes

Basemap

SOURCE. United Nations Environmental Environment Mon-itoring Systems, Resource Databases (Nairobi:GEMS Publication, 1985).

tion sponsoring the data collection. If the ob-jective is to provide an overview of the statusand trends of biological diversity in large areas,then remote sensing with sample surveys onthe ground for verification and analysis withGIS maybe the most cost-effective approach.If the objective is to design a management planfor a particular area, detailed field surveys arenecessary, but tools such as GIS may still provevaluable.

For implementation of resource develop-ment, information on biological diversity at alocal, site-specific level is most important. Yetthis is the level at which the quality of biologi-cal information is most variable. For some heav-ily studied areas, detailed field inventories andanalyses of ecosystem interactions have beencompleted, whereas for others, especially theremote areas, often little detail of biologicaldiversity is known. Development of needed site-specific diversity data is constrained by thecommon attitude of land managers that diver-sity assessment is fundamental research thatshould be limited mainly to land areas whereresearch is the designated major use. This isa problem even for agencies that are sensitiveto the issue of biological diversity, such as theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Coordination

The quantity of biological data may increaseas information becomes easier to handle andless costly to acquire and maintain. Linkingdatabases developed for different purposes cangreatly increase their utility and thus their cost-effectiveness. Data incompatibility hinderssuch linking, however, making it necessary toreenter data manually at great cost, or moreoften to forgo the improved analysis that linkeddatabases would allow. Data sharing in theUnited States among and within Federal agen-cies frequently is constrained by a lack of stand-ards. For example, different agencies generallyuse different terminology to define ecosystemtypes, This problem also exists at the inter-national level, especially where classificationschemes used to aggregate data are not stand-ardized.

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 127

Coordination of data-collection efforts can re-duce incompatibilities, lessen duplications, andidentify gaps in collection. For example, CMCand UNESCO plan to feed information into theGRID system. TNC’S regional databank has in-corporated the classification system used byCMC to improve compatibility between the twodata systems (33).

Coordination efforts at the U.S. Federal levelhave involved formal interagency cooperativeagreements. (See OTA Background Paper #2,Assessing Biological Diversity in the UnitedStates: Data Considerations, for a descriptionof these Federal interagency efforts to coordi-nate data collection and maintenance.) Theseefforts have resulted in recommendations andguidelines for standardization of databases.Most agencies would have to invest some per-sonnel and funding to make their databasescompatible with those of other agencies, how-ever, which may not occur without specific con-gressional mandates.

Social and Economic Data

Human activities are the main cause of theaccelerated loss of biological diversity, and suc-cessful implementation of onsite maintenancemethods described in this chapter depends oncooperation of people living on and near theland that is affected. Collection and analysisof social and economic data, therefore, are es-sential to understanding the changing patternsof biological diversity and to planning and im-plementing conservation strategies (7).

The complexity of natural ecosystems rivalsthe complexity of social and economic proc-esses that affect them. Thus, socioeconomic re-search should be no less rigorous than the bio-logical research. Unfortunately, social andeconomic data are often the weak link in con-servation planning.

Demography is a well-established social sci-ence with reliable data sources, theories, and

methods to describe population patterns. The-ories on how population growth under variouscircumstances affects biological diversity arelacking, however.

The status of biological diversity is greatlyaffected by the supply and demand of raw ma-terials, agricultural commodities, and naturalproducts. Natural-resource economic data andanalytical methods have been developed forother fields of resource management, such asforestry, fisheries, and agriculture, but appli-cation of economics to issues of biologicaldiversity has hardly begun. Some biologists andgeographers have started to do economic anal-yses, but few professional economists are in-terested in biological diversity.

Data on technological change, especially inagriculture and pollution-causation and abate-ment, are sometimes assessed as part of theenvironmental-impact assessment process re-quired when Federal funding is involved in re-source development in the United States. Im-proved methods for such assessment havedeveloped in the years since the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act became law. But meth-ods for technology-impact assessment are sorelylacking for other parts of the world, especiallyfor the tropical regions where diversity is mostthreatened.

Social and political processes influencinghow biological diversity is perceived and val-ued are probably the least well-understood and,in the long run, the most important factorsaffecting success of onsite diversity mainte-nance. Geographers, sociologists, anthropolo-gists, historians, and biologists who have ven-tured outside their field of technical expertisehave developed important descriptions of so-cial factors affecting diversity maintenance atspecific sites. But the analysis needed to de-velop a broader understanding and theoriesfrom which to generalize has yet to be un-dertaken,

128 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Onsite management of natural areas has usu-ally been focused on limiting the impacts of out-side pressures. In multiple-use protected areas,the technologies used to maintain biologicaldiversity are mainly based on manipulation ofhabitats or populations to favor particular spe-cies, These methods, many of which derivefrom the fields of natural history and wildlifemanagement, are effective for the target spe-cies. Biologists generally agree, however, thatbroad biological diversity values are not ade-quately served by species management alone.This approach necessarily concentrates on spe-cies with immediate commercial or recreationalvalue and lets too many others, with less obvi-ous values, perish if they do not happen to livein the type of environment maintained for thetarget species. Thus, technologies are neededto maintain diversity at the ecosystem level,

Onsite maintenance technologies commonlyhave been developed in relatively well-knowntemperate zone ecosystems. Plant and animalcommunities in these ecosystems generally canrecover from moderate human disturbances ifthey are protected for years or decades. But bi-ologists are not sanguine about adapting thesetechnologies to tropical and other ecosystems,such as coral reefs, that are poorly known andthat have much less natural ability to recoverfrom disturbances,

Although most existing onsite technologiesare focused on natural areas where develop-ment is restricted, attention is beginning to bedirected beyond simple protected area pro-grams. Resource development planning meth-ods that treat conservation as an integral partof economic and social development have beendevised and tested. These strategies hold prom-ise, but they need to be taken from the concep-tual stage to practical implementation.

The remainder of this chapter addresses theseand other opportunities to improve the re-search, development, and application of onsitetechnologies to maintain biological diversity.

An Ecosystem Approach

An ecosystem approach is necessary to main-tain biological diversity onsite for many rea-sons: 1) because the numbers of threatened spe-cies and genetically distinct populations is sohigh, 2) because so little is known about life his-tories or even the identity of many species, and3) because many species are interdependent.Yet attempts to develop and implement ecosys-tem approaches are few,

In the United States, development of onsitemaintenance technologies is largely the task ofFederal land-managing agencies, such as theNational Park Service, the Forest Service, theFish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau ofLand Management. The mandates of theseagencies emphasize species- and habitat-ori-ented technologies. A shift toward more eco-system-oriented management would requirepolicy changes within the agencies. Most, forexample, consider an inventory of an area’s bio-logical diversity and the investigation of spe-cies interactions to be appropriate activities forbasic research programs but not appropriateas pragmatic resource management activities.Changes in policies to encourage an ecosystemapproach to protected areas may not occurwithout a congressional mandate directingagencies to manage lands and bodies of waterin a way that maintains ecosystem diversity.

An important strategy for maintaining diver-sity is to safeguard representative samples ofecosystems from changes that would reducetheir diversity. The United States lacks a com-prehensive program for ecosystem diversitymaintenance, although some efforts are beingmade through existing programs. The U. S.-MAB program is attempting to establish sam-ples of ecosystems in the United States. Becausethe areas are identified on the basis of ecologi-cal criteria rather than political boundaries,various Federal, State, and private organiza-tions must cooperate to implement the programsuccessfully, which may explain the sluggish

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 129.— — . — .

pace. Federal agencies could be directed to givemore support to interagency and Federal, State,and private initiatives to support the MABagenda.

The number and size of additional protectedareas required for ecosystem diversity mainte-nance are unknown. Extensive inventory pro-grams (e.g., the State heritage inventories of TheNature Conservancy) have been initiated to de-termine how to enhance coverage. But supporthas been sporadic and progress is slow. TNC’SState-level approach and mobilization of pri-vate sector support has been effective, so theFederal Government could continue to supportthis and similar programs.

International organizations, led by IUCN andthe World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foun-dation, are promoting conservation of samplesof the world’s ecosystems. The coverage of eco-systems, indicated by comparing protectedareas to Udvardy’s biogeographical classifica-tion system, is encouraging but still incomplete.The next major step will be to survey the de-gree of actual protection in the designated nat-ural areas. Such surveys could also identify gapsin ecosystem protection at a finer biogeographiclevel than Udvardy’s classifications, Better in-formation is needed, especially on aquatic eco-system types such as coral reefs, to develop andimplement strategies for international ecosys-tem conservation efforts. A U.S. Governmentinteragency task force could identify person-nel for this task and ways in which their workmight serve the objectives of international con-servat ion,

Innovative Technologies forDeveloping Countries

Many onsite technologies have been devel-oped in industrialized, temperate zone coun-tries, and thus, they may not be appropriate fordeveloping countries’ ecosystems, which aremostly tropical and where the biological, so-ciopolitical, and economic situations are fun-damentally different, Hence, innovative tech-nologies are especially needed in these areas.

The biosphere reserves concept is one suchapproach that appears to merit scrutiny and

support. Continued U.S. Government supportof UNESCO’s MAB program and ways to in-crease support for MAB in developing coun-tries could be explored in congressional com-mittee hearings.

Integrated land management that includesconservation in development activities isanother approach that should be encouraged.The OAS Integrated Regional Developmentplanning could provide a model for other de-velopment assistance agencies, such as AID orthe World Bank.

Long-Term MultidisciplinaryResearch

The most important problems affecting im-plementation of biological diversity mainte-nance efforts are not amenable to resolutionby any one field of biology, or indeed by thenatural sciences alone. Biological diversity isso broad that its maintenance requires meth-ods from numerous disciplines, such as natu-ral history, population biology, genetics, andecology. In addition, many other factors—eco-nomic, political, and social—contribute to de-cisions about the sizes, shapes, and locationsof protected areas, Application of social sci-ences to diversity maintenance, for instance,to help communicate the issue’s importance todecisionmakers at all levels, is probably themost needed research area,

The formation of a discipline called conser-vation biology is an encouraging sign of the sci-entific community’s effort to start breakingdown traditional barriers among disciplinesand in ways of approaching problems. The goalis to provide principles and tools for maintain-ing biological diversity, Signs that the new dis-cipline is gaining momentum include establish-ment of a Center for Conservation Biology atStanford University, the creation of a depart-ment of conservation biology at Chicago’s Brook-field Zoo, and the development of programs ofstudy at the University of Florida and at Mon-tana State University. More recently, a profes-sional Society for Conservation Biology withits own journal, conservation Bioiogy, has beenestablished.

130 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

As yet, the National Science Foundation andother research funding organizations have notrecognized the status of conservation biologyas a discipline by according it a separate fund-ing category. Its impact on resource manage-ment should increase as it gradually becomesrecognized, encouraged, supported, and broa-dened to include professional social scientists.

Personnel Development

A major constraint to maintaining diversityonsite is the shortage of personnel—taxono-mists, social scientists, resource managers, andtechnicians with adequate training, motivation,and work experience. These individuals areneeded to plan, manage, and explain the needto maintain biological diversity to decision-makers. Training and institutional developmentto provide employment opportunities for thesekinds of experts are sorely needed, particularlyin developing countries.

The number of plant taxonomists working inthe world today is estimated at 3,000, for ex-ample; but twice as many would probably beneeded for an adequate study of the world’sflora (12). Moreover, most taxonomists residein the temperate zone and only study speciesthere.

Even if money were available to train newtaxonomists, job opportunities would have tobe provided to attract people to the field. Thenumber of taxonomic positions in museums,herbaria, universities, and resource-managingagencies currently is low and may be falling,as research funds are directed at more popu-lar disciplines (e.g., molecular biology). It maybe time for the museums and botanic gardensto explore innovative ways to promote the fieldof systematic biology. These institutions couldhelp by defining systematic biology’s role in themaintenance of biological diversity as a wayof making the discipline more appealing to po-tential specialists.

Data To Facilitate Onsite Protection

Decisions on where and how to apply vari-ous methods for onsite maintenance of diver-

sity need to be based on accurate data and cor-rect theories on the interact ions amongnumerous biological and human factors. Abun-dant data exist, especially for the temperatezone regions of the world. The data are beingused both to develop and improve theories re-garding biological diversity and to make spe-cific decisions regarding resource manage-ment. However, use of the existing informationis inefficient when data are not collected intoreadily accessible databases at the scale onwhich decisionmakers operate.

Thus, a significant opportunity to improveonsite maintenance of diversity, both withinand outside protected areas, is to support ac-celerated development of comprehensive data-bases, which would include, for example,TNC’S State Natural Heritage Programs and itsinternational conservation data center pro-gram. It could also include development of anationwide description and evaluation of allflora and fauna species in the United States,possibly under the auspices of TNC.

Large gaps in knowledge of tropical speciesand ecosystems constrain the effectiveness ofdiversity maintenance efforts in developingcountries. Opportunities include increased de-velopment assistance support to build institu-tions and train scientists capable of accelerat-ing progress in the fundamental sciences oftaxonomy, natural history, and ecology.

Possibly the most severe information defi-ciencies relate to the poor understanding ofhow social, political, and economic factors in-teract with biological diversity. A great needexists for social scientists trained and employedto develop information on how social and eco-nomic conditions can be made conducive toonsite maintenance of biological diversity. Un-fortunately, this is a need difficult for biologistsand natural resource managers to address. Itrequires new levels of interest and commitmentfrom social science institutions.

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite ● 131

CHAPTER 5

1.

2.

3.

4.

5,

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

15.

Bailey, R.G. (compiler), Description of the Eco-regions of the United States (Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Region, 1978). In: Crumpacker,1985.Bailey, R. G., Pfister, R. D,, and Henderson, J. A.,“Nature of Land and Resource Classification—AReview,” ]ourna] of Forestry 76(10):650-655,1978,Belovsky, G., “Extinction Models and Mam-malian Persistence, ” Viable Populations forConservation, M. Soul: (cd.] (Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).Betz, R., Northeastern Illinois University, per-sonal communications, 1985. In: Jordan, et al.,1986.Bonner, F., U.S. Forest Service, Starkville, MS,letter to OTA, May 1986.Brown, J. H., and Kodric-Brown, A., “TurnoverRates in Insular Biogeography: Effect of Im-migration on Extinction, ” Ecology 58:445-449,1977, In: Soul~ and Simberloff, 1986.Brush, S., International Agricultural Develop-ment Program, University of California, Davis,letter to OTA, June 1986.Butcher, G. S., Niering, W. A., Barry, W, J., andGoodwin, R. H., “Equilibrium Biogeography andthe Size of Nature Reserves: An Avian CaseStudy,” Oeco]ogia (Berl.) 49:29-37, 1981. In :NOSS, 1983.Centro International de Mejoramiento de Mafzy Trigo (CIMMYT), “Conservation of the WildRelatives of Maize, ” CIMMYT Research High-lights, 1985 (El Batan, Mexico: 1986).Collins, M., “International Inventory and Mon-itoring for the Maintenance of Biological Diver-sity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Conservation Foundation, National Parks for aNew Generation: Visions, Realities, Prospects(Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation,1985).Crosby, M., and Raven, P., “Diversity and Dis-tribution of Wild Plants, ” OTA commissionedpaper, 1985.Crumpacker, D. W., “Status and Trends of theU.S. Natural Ecosystems, ” OTA commissionedpaper, 1985.Dasmann, R., Wildlife Biology (New York: JohnWiley & Sons, Inc., 1964).Diamond, J. M., “Normal Extinctions of IsolatedPopulations, ” Extinctions, M.H. Nitecki (cd.)

16.

17,

18,

19,

20,

21,

22,

23,

24.

25,

26,

27,

(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984).ln: Shaffer, 1985.Diamond, J. M., “The Island Dilemma: Lessonsof Modern Biogeographic Studies for the Designof Natural Reserves, ” Biological Conservation7:129-146, 1975. In: Shaffer, 1985.Eidsvik, H., Director of Parks, Canada, personalcommunications, June 1986.Erwin, T, L., “Tropical Forests: Their Richnessin Coleoptera and Other Arthropod Species, ”Co]eopterists’ Bulletin 36(1):74-75, 1982.Eyre, F.H. (cd.), Forest Cover Types of theUnited States and Canada (Washington, DC: So-ciety of American Foresters, 1980).Fairchild, J., Utah Division of Wildlife Re-sources, Salt Lake City, UT, personal commu-nication, 1985. In: Jordan, et al., 1986.Feller, W., “Die Grundlagen der VolterraschenTheorie des Kampfes urns Dasein in Warschein-lichkeistheoretischer Behandlung, ” Acta Bio-theoretica 5:11-40, 1939. In: Shaffer, 1985.Flesness, N., “Status and Trends of Wild Ani-mal Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper,1985,Food and Agriculture Organisation of theUnited Nations, Tree Growing by Rural People,FAO Forestry Paper No. 64 (Rome: 1986).Frankel, O. H., and Soul~, M, E., Conservationand Evolution (Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1981).Franklin, J. A., “Evolutional Change in SmallPopulations,” Conservation Biology: An Evolu-tionary-Ecological Perspective M.E. SOU16 andB.A. Wilcox (eds.) (Sunderland, MA: SinauerAssociates, 1980].Gentry, A. H., “Chapter 8: Endemism in Tropi-cal versus Temperate Plant Communities, ” Con-servation Biology, M. Soul& (cd.) (Sunderland,MA: Sinauer Associates, 1986].Gilbert, F, S,, “The Equilibrium Theory of IslandBiogeography: Fact or Fiction?” Journal of Bio-geography 7:209-235, 1980. In: Shaffer, 1985.

28. Ginsburg, L., Slobodkin, L. B., Johnson, K,, andBindman, A. G,, “Quasi-extinction Probabilitiesas a Measure of Impact on Population Growth, ”Risk Analysis 2:171-181, 1982. In: Shaffer, 1985.

29. Government of Zambia and IUCN, NationalConservation Strategy for Zambia (Gland, Swit-zerland: 1985).

30. Gregg, B., U.S. National Park Service, Washing-ton, DC, letter to OTA, Sept. 19, 1986.

132 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

31. Barrington, J,, University of Wisconsin, per-sonal communications, 1985. In: Jordan, et a].,1986,

32. Harris, L,, The Fragmented Forest (Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press, 1984).

33. Harrison, J., “Status and Trends of Natural Eco-systems Worldwide, ” OTA commissioned pa-per, 1985.

34, Hayden, B. P., Ray, G. C., and Dolan, R., “Clas-sification of Coastal and Marine Environ-ments,” Environmental Conservation 11(3):199-207, 1984.

35. International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources, The United NationsList of National Parks and Protected Areas(Gland, Switzerland: 1985).

36. International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources, National Conser-vation Strategies: A Framework for SustainableDevelopment (Gland, Switzerland: 1985).

37. International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources, “Categories, Objec-tives, and Criteria for Protected Areas, ” Na-tional Parks, Conservation, and Development:The Role of Protected Area in Sustaining Soci-ety, Proceedings of the World Congress on Na-tional Parks, Bali, Indonesia, Oct. 11-22, 1982,J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller (eds.) (Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984).

38. International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources, Categories, Objec-tives, and Criteria for Protected Areas (Merges,Switzerland: 1978).

39, Janzen, D. H,, “Guanacaste National Park: Trop-ical Ecological and Cultural Restoration, ” a re-port to Servico de Parques Nacionales de CostaRica from Department of Biology, University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1986.

40. Johannes, R. E., and Hatcher, B. G., “Chapter 17:Shallow Tropical Marine Environments, ” Con-servation Biology, M. Soul& and B. Wilcox (eds.)(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1986).

41. Johnston, V. R., “Breeding Birds of the ForestEdge in East-Central Illinois, ” Condor 49:45-53,1947. In: Ness, R,, “A Regional Landscape Ap-proach to Maintain Diversity,” Bioscience33(11):700-706, 1983.

42. Jones, J. O., Espey, Houston & Associates, Inc.,Austin, TX, personal communications, 1985. In:Jordan, et al., 1986.

43, Jordan, W., Peters, R,, and Allen, E., “Ecologi-cal Restoration as a Strategy for Conserving Bio-diversity,” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.

44. Kollar, S. A., Jr., Hartford Community College,

Bel Air, MD, personal communication, 1985. In:Jordan, et al,, 1986.

45. Lande, R,, and Barrowclough, G. F., “EffectivePopulation Size, Genetic Variation and TheirUse in Population Management, ” Viable Popu-lations for Conservation, M,E, Soulb (cd.) (Cam-bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, forth-coming).

46, Levins, R., “Extinction,” Some MathematicalQuestions in Biology, Lectures of Mathematicsin the Life Sciences, vol. 2, M. Gerstenhaber (cd.)(Providence, RI: American Mathematical Soci-ety, 1970). Jn: Shaffer, 1985.

47. Love joy, T. E., Bierregaard, R. O., Jr., Rankin,J, M., and Schubert, H. O. R., “Ecological Dy-namics of Forest Fragments, ” Tropical RainForests: Ecology and Management, S.L. Sutton,T,(;. Whitman, and A.C. Chadwick (eds.) (Ox-ford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications,1983). In: Shaffer, 1985.

48. Love joy, T. E., Rankin, J. M., Bierregaard, R. O.,Jr., Brown, K. S., Jr., Emmons, L. H., and Van derVoort, M. E,, “Ecosystem Decay of Amazon For-est Remnants, ” Extinctions, M.H. Nitecki (cd.)(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984).In: Shaffer, 1985,

49. Love joy, T. E,, and Oren, D. C., “The MinimumCritical Size of Ecosystems, ” Forest IsZand Dy-namics in Man-Dominated Landscapes, R.L.Burgess and D.M. Sharp (eds.) (New York:Springer-Verlag, 1981). In: Shaffer, 1985.

50. Lyman, T. M., “Progress and Planning for Germ-plasm Conservation of Major Food Crops,”Plant Genetics Resources Newsletter 60:3-19,1984.

51. Lynch, M. and Rey, C., “Diversity of Marine/Coastal Ecosystems,” OTA commissioned pa-per, 1985.

52. MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O., The The-ory of Island Biogeography (Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 1967).

53. Margules, C., Higgs, A. J., and Rafe, R. W,, “Mod-ern Biogeographic Theory: Are There Any Les-sons for Nature Reserve Design?” BiologicalConservation 24:115-128, 1982.

54. Matthiae, P., Assistant Coordinator of NaturalAreas, Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-sources, personal communication, 1985. In: Jor-dan, et al., 1986.

55. McMahan, J. A., Nothing Succeeds Like Succes-sion: Ecology and the Human Lot, 67th FacultyHonor Lecture (Logan, UT: Utah State Univer-sity Press, 1983). In: Jordan, et al., 1986.

56. Morrison, D. G., Use of Prairie Vegetation on

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63,

64

65.

66.

67,

68.

69.

Disturbed Sites, Transportation Research Rec-ord 822 Landscape and Environmental Design(Washington, DC: National Academy of Sci-ences, 1981).Myers, N., “Causes of Loss of Biological Diver-sity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Nabhan, G. P., “Native Crop Diversity in Arido-america: Conservation of Regional Gene Pools, ”Economic Botany 39:387-399, 1985.National Research Council, Surface Mining:Soil, Coal, and Society (Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press, 1981).Organization of American States (OAS), OASGeneral Secretariat, Integrated Regional Devel-opment Planning: Guidelines and Case StudiesFrom OAS Experience (Washington, DC: 1984).Peine, J., Proceedings of Conference on theManagement of Biosphere Reserves, Nov. 27-29, 1984, Great Smoky Mountains NationalPark, Gatlinburg, TN.Prescott-Allen, R., “National Conservation Strat-egies and Biological Diversity, ” a report to theInternational Union for the Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources, Conservation forDevelopment Center, draft, February 1986.Prescott-Allen, R., and Prescott-Allen, C., “ParkYour Genes: Protected Areas as In-Situ Gene-banks for the Maintenance of Wild Genetic Re-sources, ” National Parks, Conservation, and De-~~elopmen t: The Role of Protected Areas inSustaining Societ~r, Proceedings of the WorldCongress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia,Oct. 11-22, 1982, J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller(eds.) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress, 1984).Ricklefs, R. E., Naveh, Z., and Turner, R. E.,“Conservation of Ecological Processes, ” TheEnvironmentalist 4(8), 1984.Salm, R. V., Marine and Coastal Protected Areas:A Guide for Planners and Managers (Gland,Switzerland: International Union for the Con-ser~’ation of Nature and Natural Resources,1984].Saunier, R., “Environment and Development

A Future Together?” Development Forum11 (8), 1983.Saunier, R., and Meganck, R., “Compatibilityof Development and the In-Situ Maintenance ofBiological Diversity in Developing Countries, ”OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Schlosser, S., “The Use of Nature Reserves forin Situ Conser\’ation, ” Plant Genetic Rt;SOUIT;CS,%reJ%’slctter 61 ;23-24, 1 g85.Schonewald-Cox, C. M., and 13ayless, J. W., “TheBoundary Approach: A Geographic Analysis of

Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite “ 133

Design and Conservation of Nature Reserves, ”Biological Conservation (forthcoming).

70. Schonewald-Cox, C. M., Chambers, S. M., Mac-

71

Bryde, B., and Thomas, W. L., Genetics and Con-servation: A Reference for Managing WildlifeAnimal and Plant Populations (Menlo Park, CA:Benjamin Cummings Co., 1983).Shaffer, M., “The Minimum Viable PopulationProblem” Viable Populations for Conservation,M. SOU16 (cd.) (Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press, forthcoming).

72. Shaffer, M., “Assessment of Application of Spe-cies Viability Theories, ” OTA commissioned pa-per, 1985,

73, Shaffer, M., “Determining Minimum Viable

74

75

76

77

Population Sizes for the Grizzly Bear, ” Inter-national Conference on Bear Research and Man-agement 5:1 33-139, 1983.Shaffer, M., “Minimum Population Sizes forSpecies Conservation, ” Bioscience 31:1 31-134,1981.Shugart, H., “Planning and Management Tech-niques for Natural System s,” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1985.Simberloff, D., “Biogeography: The Unificationand Maturation of a Science, ’ Perspectives inOrnithology, A.H. Brash and G.A. Clark, Jr.(eds.) (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni~ersityPress, 1983). In: Shaffer, 1985.Simon, J., and Wildavsky, A., “On Species Loss,the Absence of Data, and Risks to Humanity, ”The Resourceful Earth J. Simon and H. Khan(eds.) (New York: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1984).

78, Soul~, M, E., and Simberloff, D,, “What Do

79

80

Genetics and Ecology Tell Us About the Designof Nature Reserves?’ Biological Conser\’ation35:19-40, 1986.SOU16, M. E., and Wilcox, B. A., Conservation Bi-ology: An Ecological-E\ ’olutionary Perspectit’e(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1980).Stenseth, N, C., “Where Have All the SpeciesGone? on the Nature of Extinction arid the RedQueen Hypothesis,” Oikos 33:196-227, 1979. In:Shaffer, 1985,

81. Synge, H. “Status and Trends of Wild Plants, ”

82

83

84

OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Thorsell, J. W,, “The Role of Protected Areas inMaintaining Biological Diversity in Tropical De-veloping Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper,1985.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Technologies To Sustain Tropical ForestResources, OTA-F214 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, March, 1984).U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

134 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

An Annotated Bibliography of Surface-MinedArea Reclamation Research (Washington, DC:1985),

85. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The BlueMountains of Oregon and Washington, USDAPub. No. 5531979 (Washington, DC: 1979).

86. U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Na-tional Marine Sanctuary Program: Program De-velopment PZan (Washington, DC: 1982).

87. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild-life Service, “Selkirk Mountain Caribou Man-agement Plan” (Washington, DC: 1985).

88. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “Burro Creek Riparian Manage-ment Plan” (Washington, DC: May 1983).

89. Wilcove, D. S., McLellan, C. H., and Dobson,A. P., “Chapter 11: Habitat Fragmentation in theTemperate Zone,” Conservation Biology, M.Soule (cd.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associ-ates, 1986).

90. Wilcox, B. A., “Insular Ecology and Conserva-tion,” Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective, M,E. Soul& and B.A.Wilcox (eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Asso-ciates, 1980).

91. Wright, R, M., Houseal, B., and De Leon, C.,“Kuna Yala: Indigenous Biosphere Reserves inthe Making?” Parks 10(3):25-27, 1984.

.

Chapter 6

MaintainingAnimal Diversity

Offsite

CONTENTS

PageHighlights . . . . **. **** .*. .*. .*** .*** .*** . *e****....*...*****..*****. 137overview ● ● ● ● ● ● ● $ ● ● ● ● ● ● * . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . . ****...**...**.****************** 137

Objectives of Offsite Maintenance Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......137Breeding Programs v. Long-Term Cryogenic Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138

Sampling Strategies .*** **. ****, *.** **** .*. ***. ... *.** *.** .. *******0. 142Identification of Candidates for Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..142Preservation and Collection Considerations ● * * , , * , . * . . * * * * . * * * , * , * * * . 144

The Movement of Germplasm—I)isease and Quarantine Issues . ..........145Maintenance Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Storage Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...148Breeding Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..149

Development and Utilization Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......156Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........157

Wild Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................157Domestic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............159

Chapter preferences . . ..*.**. ● *****,* ..*****. ● .****** ● *..***. .*.*.. 163

Tables

Table No. Page6-1. General Guidelines for Intervention To Conserve

Natural Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............1436-2. Criteria for Classifying Domestic Breedsas Endangered .***.*. ● . . * . * 1436-3. Captive Animals Required for a Fixed Proportion of Genetic Diversity

Over a Number of Generations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1496-4. Successful Artificial Insemination in Nondomestic Mammals . . . . . . . ..154

FiguresFigure No. Page6-1. Transcontinental Embryo Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1546-2. Embryo Transfer Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..155

Boxes

BoxNo. Page6-A. Breeds .*$*?** . . . . . .00 ● ,**.*,. ● ..**?*. . . . . . . . . ,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 86-B. Replacement and Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’. . . . . . . . .1396-C. Genetic Drift and Inbreeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....1506-D. Embryo Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................1536-E. Captive Breeding and Przewalski’s Horse . . . . . . . . . . . ...............156

—

Chapter 6

Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite

Offsite maintenance of animal diversity includes selective breeding of wildor domestic species and safeguarding genetic diversity through cryopreserva-tion. For wild animals, the programs reinforce rather than replace efforts tomaintain diversity onsite. For domestic animals, programs try to maximizeusefulness of the animals while preserving their ability to adapt to changinghuman needs.

Cryogenic storage could make a considerable contribution to the maintenanceof animal diversity. Properly frozen and maintained, sperm and embryos havean expected shelf-life of hundreds of years. Although initial collection and pres-ervation costs are relatively high, subsequent storage costs and space require-ments are low.The number of individual animals required to start a captive population ora cryogenic store depends on a host of factors. Retaining 99 percent of a sourcepopulation’s genetic diversity for 1,000 generations could require up to 50,000animals, far too many to be practical under captive management. At a mini-mum, however, several hundred individual animals are required for captivebreeding programs.Breeding programs require the international transfer of animals, which risksspreading pests and diseases. For most wild species, regulatory controls arevirtually nonexistent. Stringent controls are in place, however, for importingdomestic animals. Advances in diagnostic procedures and germplasm trans-fer technologies are expected to’ facilitate the international movement of animals.No organized program exists, either in the United States or Internationally,to sam-pie, evaluate maintain, and use available sources of animal germplasrn.Such a program is needed, in addition to programs to understand the repro-ductive processes of wild animals, to develop local expertise in reproductivebiology and quantitative genetics, and to increase the number of captive main-tenance and breeding facilities.

OVERVIEW

Objectives OffsiteMaintenance Efforts

extent of control can vary considerably, but thedecision to remove individual animals from a

Offsite maintenance of animal diversity is de- natural habitat implies a major increase in hu-

fined as propagation or preservation of animals man involvement in propagation of a popu-lation.outside their natural habitat. The programs in-

volve control by humans of the animals cho- Captive maintenance of wild species has be-sen to constitute a population and of the mat- come progressively more important as increas-ing choices made within that population. The ing numbers of species are threatened or en-

137

138 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

dangered in their natural habitats. Theseprograms can be considered holding actionsdesigned to reinforce rather than replace wildpopulations. If a natural population is deci-mated or lost, captive maintenance programsprovide a reservoir of individuals to allow re-introduction.

The genetic diversity of the original popula-tion must not be lost or seriously reduced dur-ing captive maintenance if animals are ex-pected to be able to readapt to life in the wild.Likewise, genetic changes that may be inducedduring captive maintenance must be mini-mized. Reciprocal transfers of individuals be-tween wild and captive populations can helpreduce genetic pressures. Such exchanges,however, involve the capture of wild animals,and they risk the accidental death of some ofthem. Therefore, risks should be evaluated care-fully before beginning a program of genetic ex-changes between wild and captive populations.

For domestic species, all populations are bydefinition maintained offsite. Most of these ani-mals have existed in association with humansfor centuries, and their current genetic diver-sity is a reflection of this long interaction. Theirgenes have been manipulated through genera-tions of selective breeding to meet the diverseneeds of humans, and this manipulation hasled to a wealth of specialized breeds (boxes 6-A and 6-B). Some wild progenitors of domes-tic species still differ so much from domesticpopulations that they exist as a reservoir ofgenetic diversity, but these natural populationsare unlikely to contribute much to current com-mercial stocks through traditional breedingmethods.

The aim of programs to maintain geneticdiversity in livestock differs somewhat fromthat for wild animals. In domestic populations,the challenge is to maximize current utility andpreserve sufficient diversity to ensure live-stock’s continued adaptability to changing—and often unforeseen—human needs. In fact,efforts to raise current rates of food produc-tion may constitute the greatest threat to futureflexibility by concentrating unduly on short-term production goals with attendant losses in

genetic diversity that may be important to fu-ture generations.

Brooding Programs v. Long-TermCryogonic Storage

Using captive breeding programs to retaina considerable proportion of the genetic diver-sity of endangered species or rare breeds for

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 139

Box MI.”mpkwnfatad Gaasatk ~ *Tmditiondly, breed rephwxnent has pmceedd OXl an evoktionmytime male, with fp’adud *e$

inbreed composition and provision for~ca of % Wdth Of kd -tkma. WXitiy, how-* has aixmkatad, with the of multinational b r e e d i n gever, the pace of breed repiacemen

c o m p a n i e s in p o u l t r y a n d s w i n e , t h e u s e of a r t i f i c i a l and intensifiwi sireselection i n dairy c a t t l e , a n d e n h a n c e d for Qfgempiasm throughout theworld. Aiso, greater standardization of production, marketing, and remrding procedures for j=dtry,swim, and dairy cattle in industrial Gantries be increasingly prmnotad repkement of local breeds.

In domestic species, the greatest threat to genetic diversity involves extensive and sometimesindiscriminate crossing of indigenous @ocks in developing countries with breeds from North Amer-ica and Western Europe [3). This crossing stmna from needs to !nct~se world food production andf rom a be l i e f tha t t h i s goa l i s bes t met using poesible genetic m e r i t f o r i n d i v i d -ual traits (such as milk or egg production). But breeds developed in @n~te-zone industrial coun-tries are often not suited to the more restrictive r@Kkmai, m~mt, and disease conditions ofdeveloping countries and may be less efficiant than indigenous #ocka in wing available resources.Only recently has the need for comprehaneive evaluat ion td!timtotal of imported breedsbegun to be recognized in developing countries. Unf@tun@ely, serious dilution of original breedsmay have already occurred. ~us, it is not the process of breed repkmnmt mr se ~at iS a problembut the rate of replacement and the dangw that useful breeds maybe discarded before they can befairly evaluated.

Regional strains of established breeds are especiallyvuhmrablato lose through intercrossing withmore popuIar strains. Extensive use of Hokdnbuils fkorn North Amwica in European Friesian pop-ulations threatens serioua dilutiori of the gewtic material of theae strains. The percentage of Holsteingenes in young Friesian bulls entering European artificial inaemin@ion programs in 1982 rangedfrom 8 percent in Ireland to 91 percent in Switzerland and weqpl 54 percent for 10 Europeancountries (4).

Genetic diversity can sometimes be reduced in commercial stocks even if population numbersremain large. These losses can occur when selection is intense and control of breeding stock is con-centrated in a few large breeding farms (as in the commercial pouhry industries] or when artificialinsemination allows extensive use of a few seiected sires throughout the population (as in the dairyindustry). In both cases, the resuk is increased genetic uniformity within the stock despite the largenumbers. Several studies (3,25) have concluded that important kwms may ba occurring in commer-cial poultry breeds. Comparable losses have apparently not yet happened in dairy Mttie populations.No imminent losses of genetic diversity within major comnwrcial tweeds are foreseen for mvine, sheep,goats, or beef cattle. Several populations of chickens are currently being maintained without selectionand at dficient population sizes to substantially retard losses in genetic diversity (42). And someartificial insemina tion organizations retain semen from bulls that have been removed from service.However, these programs do not represent industry or public policy, and parallel programs do notexist for other domestic species.

The Ioss of endangered species and ram breeds is of particubw ooncarn in light of likely fitureadvances in molecular biology and geneticti. The abiiity @ mtfraet dedrabla genes from different qM-cies or less productive_ ad inM@ th~~ hto &mastic animals could have important implica-tions for designing superior mbals fb~ a~ifk amdromrmnt“ al ao~ Unfortunately, knowi-e d g e o f t h e @metic material of_ av!$d @ @ rudinwrttary. For i n s t a n c e , i t i su n c l e a r i f a d a p t i v e f&t@l’s - **“ a r e controlled b y m a n y o ra few g - , @ = Wd# m - to ~.. aflocal braeda andendangered _. - + .

.,

140 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

a substantial period of time requires relativelylarge numbers of animals. Under the mostfavorable assumptions, maintenance of 90 to95 percent of the genetic diversity within a pop-ulation for 100 to 200 generations would requirea captive population of at least several hundredindividuals sampled from throughout the rangeof the species (15,27).

Until relatively recently, zoos have not beenconcerned with keeping representative levelsof genetic diversity within their exhibitionstock. Problems in fertility and juvenile survivalthat often accompany exhaustion of geneticdiversity were simply accommodated by obtain-ing new specimens from the wild. As this be-came difficult, and in some cases impossible,zoos began to reevaluate their role. The resulthas been establishment of programs to main-tain pedigree information on zoo animalsthrough the International Species InventorySystem (ISIS) and to facilitate transfer of indi-viduals among zoos. These efforts help main-tain genetic diversity, but existing zoos can sup-port at most 1,000 kinds of terrestr ialvertebrates at a minimum population of 250 (2),whereas an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 kinds willbe in danger of extinction by the year 2050 (43).The magnitude of the problem will thus out-run currently available facilities for captivebreeding.

Recent advances in reproductive biology andcryopreservation may facilitate efforts to pre-serve genetic diversity. Cryopreservation refersto storage below – 1300 C: water is absent,molecular kinetic energy is low, and diffusionis virtually nil. Thus, storage potential is ex-pected to be extremely long. Storage in liquidnitrogen ( — 1960 C) or in the vapor above it (ea.– 1500 C) is a useful technique: Liquid nitro-gen is relatively inexpensive, inert, and saferthan comparable refrigerants (e.g., liquid hydro-gen, liquid oxygen, or freon).

Storage and eventual production of live off-spring from frozen semen or embryos have be-come common for cattle, sheep, goat, buffalo,and horse. The semen of pigs can also be fro-zen. In 1982, an estimated 10.5 million cattlewere produced through artificial inseminationwith frozen semen. Similarly, bovine embryo

Photo credit. American Breeders Serwce

This calf, born in 1984, was conceived with semen thathad been frozen for 30 years.

transfer has become commercially viable andincreasingly involves the use of frozen embryos.Commercial use of frozen semen and embryosis less common in other livestock species, butacceptable results can be achieved. Frozen se-men is also regularly used with poultry and withsome species of fish (18).

Cryopreservation of sperm and embryos ofwild species has been much more limited. Todate, blackbuck, giant panda, fox, wolf, chim-panzee, and gorilla have been produced fromfrozen semen (7,9,38); baboon (37) and eland(8), as well as mice, rats, and rabbits, have beenproduced from frozen embryos. Procedures dif-fer among species, but in theory, semen andembryos from a range of mammalian speciescan now be successfully frozen.

The contribution of cryopreservation to themaintenance of animal diversity could betremendous. Properly frozen and maintained,sperm and embryos have an expected shelf-lifeof hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Al-though initial collection and preservation costsmay be relatively high, subsequent storage costsand space requirements are low, allowing forlong-term maintenance of large numbers of in-dividuals and gametes.

These individuals represent a frozen snap-shot of the population at the time of collection.If the initial sampling of individuals is done

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 141

I .

of San

The frozen zoo: Cryogenic storage of cell strains, gametes, and embryos is being undertakenas part of the conservation activities of zoos.

properly, the procedures should allow regener-ation of the original population without thegenetic changes inherent in the maintenanceof captive breeding populations.

The long-term genetic stability of frozen em-bryos and sperm is a matter of some concern.Freezing and thawing does not appear to in-crease the mutation rate in these tissues, butlong-term exposure to low levels of radiationcould be a problem, especially because DNArepair mechanisms would be inoperative at– 1960 C (l). Mouse embryos and semen havebeen kept frozen for at most 10 and 30 years,respectively. However, frozen mouse embryosalso have been exposed to augmented levels ofradiation equivalent to that experienced in

2,000 years of normal storage without appar-ent ill effects (16). Normal progeny wereproduced. Thus, risks of genetic damage frombackground radiation appear negligible.

Just as captive breeding programs reinforcerather than replace natural populations, cryo-preservation efforts reinforce rather than re-place captive breeding programs. In wild spe-cies, females must still be available to gestatefrozen embryos or to provide female gametesin matings involving frozen semen. In domes-tic species, breeding populations selected forbiologically or economically important traitsmay still be required, but cryogenic storage ofindividuals from the original population pro-vides a valuable measure of insurance. Periodic

142 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

sampling and preservation of gametes or em-bryos from rare breeds allow a repository ofgenetic diversity to be maintained.

Two caveats must be kept in mind regardingthe role of cryopreservation of gametes and em-bryos. First, considerable development workis required to extend the techniques to coverthe full range of endangered populations. Forwild animals, reliable procedures for collect-ing, freezing, and using semen and embryoshave to be developed further and validated foreach species or group of species to ensure thatsufficient levels of genetic diversity can beregenerated from the frozen store. Preservation

technologies for embryos are well developedonly in certain domestic mammals. Similartechniques are needed for birds, reptiles, am-phibians, fish, and invertebrates.

Second, cryopreservation of gametes and em-bryos should not bean llth-hour effort to pro-tect seriously endangered species. Restrainingwild animals to collect semen or embryos isrisky. Some animals die, which entails an un-acceptable risk if the species is already rare.Therefore, research and the collection of gametesand embryos from many sources should beginbefore the populations become endangered.

SAMPLING STRATEGIES

Efficient programs for offsite maintenanceof animal genetic diversity require a mecha-nism for monitoring existing populations—toidentify when and if intervention is required—and procedures for sampling threatened pop-ulations in a way that ensures desired levelsof genetic diversity within the conserved pop-ulation.

Identification of Candidatesfor Conservation

Three criteria are generally considered whenselecting wild species for captive propagationor preservation (35):

10

2.

Endangerment in the Wild: Information onthe status of wild animals is probably bestobtained from the Species ConservationMonitoring Unit (SCMU) of the Interna-tional Union for the Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources at CambridgeUniversity in England. Funding con-straints tend to limit the scope and timeli-ness of SCMU information, however. Lo-cal and regional organizations may alsoprovide useful information, but their effec-tiveness varies widely.Feasibility in captivity: Lack of facilitiesand expertise may preclude captive breed-ing or cryogenic storage of some species.

3.

The blue whale is an example of a speciesthat cannot be maintained in captivity.Uniqueness: Given limited facilities forcaptive propagation, programs must try torepresent as much available taxonomicdiversity as possible. Thus, endangeredspecies that are the only representative oftheir genus, family, or order would receivehigh priority.

Subspecies present a special problem. Mostwild species have several distinct forms orraces, analogous to the breeds found in domes-tic animals. These subspecies usually cannotall be maintained as discrete breeding popula-tions. Instead, captive propagation programsneed to concentrate on one or two representa-tive subspecies or amalgamate several of theminto a single interbreeding population. Cryo-genic preservation of semen or embryos wouldfacilitate conservation of these identifiable sub-species.

Table 6-1 provides some general guidelinesfor monitoring and intervention to conserve anatural population. Such an approach has threeimportant advantages:

1, a sample of the source population can beobtained before substantial loss of geneticdiversity has occurred;

2, conflict over capture and restraint of rare

—

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 143

Table 6-1 .—General Guidelines for interventionTo Conserve Natural Populations

Likelihood Number ofof extinction animals Action

Possible fewer than At least, serious surveillance100,000 of status and trends should

be initiated

Probable fewer than Well-managed captive propa-10,000 gation programs should be

establ i shed; reproductivetechnology research shouldbe vigorously conducted;and germinal tissues shouldbe collected for storagewhile there are an adequatenumber of animals to use asfounders, subjects, anddonors

Certain fewer than Off site programs should be1,000 intensified while onsite ef-

forts are fortified for a “laststand”; off site programs areimperative

Imminent fewer than Off site programs become as500 important as onsite efforts

sOIJRcE D R Netter and T J Foose, “Concepts and Strategies To MaintainDomestic and Wild Animal Germ Plasm,” OTA commissioned paper,1985

individuals, e.g., the California condor, canbe avoided by taking action before extinc-tion is imminent; and

3, if techniques for semen and embryo pres-ervation are not well developed, materialcan be made available for experimentation,

For the rare breed of a domestic species, iden-tifying candidates for conservation involvesassessment of uniqueness, potential economiccontribution, and degree of endangerment,Monitoring the status of domestic animalbreeds used for food and fiber production issomewhat coordinated by the Food and Agri-culture Organisation of the United Nations, un-

der the auspices of the United Nations Envi-ronment Programme, Regional efforts aredirected by the European Association for Ani-mal Production, the Society for the Advance-ment of Breeding Researchers in Asia andOceania, the InterAfrican Bureau for AnimalResources, the International Livestock Centrefor Africa, and the Asociacion Latinoamericanade Production Animal (12). Comparable effortsin North America have been less comprehen-sive and limited to private organizations suchas the American Minor Breeds Conservancy.

At least 700 unique strains of cattle, sheep,pigs, and horses have been identified in Eur-ope alone, and 241 of these are considered en-dangered, under the criteria detailed in table6-2 (30). public support for maintenance of allthese breeds is not feasible, and choices willhave to be made. Two considerations have beensuggested for choosing among competing do-mestic breeds (39):

1.

2.

the breed exists as a closed population, anda similar population does not exist else-where; orthe breed exhibits a specific genetic value,such as superiority in some productiontrait, the existence of a major gene (i.e., agene with a known effect on some physio-logical characteristic), or the expression ofa unique characteristic of potential im-portance.

In the selection of threatened breeds, charac-terization and evaluation are critical first steps(35), Ideally, breeds would be assessed in theirnative environments and would be evaluatedas both pure breeds and as crosses with otherindigenous and improved breeds. This evalua-

Table 6-2.—Criteria for Classifying Domestic Breeds as Endangered

Number of active femalesa

Species Number of active males Stable population Decreasing population

Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fewer than 20 fewer than 1,000 1,000 to 5,000Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fewer than 20 fewer than 500 500 to 1,000Goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fewer than 20 fewer than 500 500 to 1,000Pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fewer than 20 fewer than 200 200 to 500aThe risks associated with a decreasing population were deemed to be greater than those associated with a stable population Therefore, larger numbers were suggested

for a decreasing population

SOURCE Adapted from K Maijala, A V Cherekaez, J,M. Dewllard, Z. Reklewskl, G Rognoni, D,L Simon, and D E. Steane, “Cons ewat!on of Animal Genetic ResourcesIn Europe, Final Report of an E A A P Working Party, ” Lj~esfOck PfOdUCf/0~ Sc/erIce 11 :3..22, 1984

144 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

tion, often lacking for threatened breeds withindeveloping countries, can be extremely impor-tant. In the absence of a formal evaluation, bib-liographic databases may provide some neededinformation (12). Following the evaluation,breeds can be put in one of four categories:

1,

2.

3,

4.

Useful under current economic conditions.Such stocks should be integrated into theproduction system in a way that uses theirgenetic material in pure lines, crosses, orselected gene pools. Pure lines should bemaintained with selection for net merit inproduction systems that are characteris-tic of commercial production within thecountry of origin or preserved cryogeni-cally if maintenance as a pure line is im-possible.Viable under current economic conditionsin relation to other indigenous types, butinferior (in pure lines or in crosses) to im-proved types; no obvious biological ex-treme or major gene. Germplasm preser-vation in such populations could have tworationales: preservation of frozen semenor embryos to prevent total loss of the germ-plasm and as insurance during a period ofbreed replacement with the improvedtypes, or maintenance as pure lines fortheir cultural-historical value at the optionof local governments and producers. Adual philosophy exists here–a unique pop-ulation should not be discarded until itsinferiority is documented, but preservationshould not hinder use of improved breeds.Not competitive under current economicconditions; possesses an extreme pheno-type for one or more traits or carries a ma-jorgene. Such breeds should be conservedcryogenically or as pure lines. Research useshould be encouraged, and selection to in-tensify the extreme phenotype should beconsidered.Not competitive with existing adaptedtypes; not a biological extreme; no majorgenes for production traits. No particularefforts should be made to conserve suchbreeds unless they can be documented asunique in their genetic origin. Stocks couldmove from the second category to this one

as more productive breeds prove them-selves.

Preservation and CollectionConsiderations

The number of individual animals requiredto initiate a captive population or a cryogenicstore will depend on the nature and extent ofthe genetic diversity to be maintained, on thepopulation structure in nature, and on the rateat which the captive population reproduces.

T h e N a t u r a l E x t e n t o fThe Genetic Diversity

Both natural and artificial selection reflectdifferent fitness or reproductive success for in-dividuals carrying different genes and lead tochanges in the frequencies of those genes ina population. The diversity of genes in a large,interbreeding population may be quite exten-sive, with different individuals possessing asomewhat different genetic composition. It isthis diversity that enables populations to adaptto environmental changes. Indeed, preservingthe evolutionary potential of the species re-quires the maintenance of these possibly use-ful genes.

The objective in sampling a source popula-tion, then, should be to obtain a group that rep-resents the bulk of its genetic diversity. Feweranimals are required to obtain an adequate ini-tial sample of a population’s diversity than arerequired to ensure continued maintenance ofthat diversity over time. Thus, 20 to 30 founderanimals should provide an adequate sample ofthe genetic diversity in most interbreeding pop-ulations (6,43), but much larger subsequent pop-ulation sizes are required to prevent erosionof this diversity over time.

In terms of cryopreservation, enough frozensemen to produce 10 live offspring from eachof 25 sires, which would require 50 to 100 unitsof semen per sire, would constitute a good sam-ple of an interbreeding source population (40).The Council for Agricultural Science and Tech-nology recommends production of 40 to 80 off-spring from frozen embryos representing 20 or

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite 145

more unrelated parents (3). Assuming a preg-nancy rate of 30 percent and a subsequent sur-vival rate of 80 percent, 167 to 333 frozen em-bryos would be required for each breed.

For particularly rare breeds, too few individ-uals may be available to comply with these rec-ommendations. Although a viable populationcan be established with as few as 4 to 10 ani-mals, such a population may differ considera-bly in genetic composition from the unendan-gered source population, and it may have animpaired ability to respond to future changesin environment. Initiation of a captive popula-tion with only a few founders could be justi-fied if a reasonable likelihood exists of obtain-ing additional individuals from the wild at somefuture point.

Population Structure in Nature

Most domestic and wild populationsgroups of semi-isolated subpopulations.tent of this subdivision differs among

exist asThe ex-species

and influences the sampling process in devel-oping a captive population. If the populationis strongly subdivided, genes present in one sub-population may be absent in others, and sam-pling must attempt to include individuals fromall major subgroups. According to one calcu-lation, the recommended 20 to 30 founder ani-mals can be decreased by about one-third if thepopulation exists as a small number (2 to 10)of very distinct subpopulations, but it shouldbe increased by about one-third if 50 to 100 dis-tinct subgroups exist (35).

Current assessment of genetic diversi tyamong subpopulations must be based on bio-chemical, historical, morphological, and eco-logical criteria. For genes that produce an iden-

tifiable protein molecule, genetic differencescan be identified by the behavior of the pro-teins on an electrically charged (electropho-retic) gel. Electrophoretic testing procedureshelp identify the existence and distributionof various genes in different subpopulations.Rapid advances in molecular biology also holdpromise of DNA probes that would directly as-sess the similarity of DNA molecules amongsubpopulations. In domestic animals, however,differential selection pressures may result inconsiderable genetic variation among breedswith similar evolutionary origins.

Roproductive Rate

Reductions in diversity are cumulative overgenerations in small populations, so the lossesassociated with a single sampling event aremuch lower than those that would accumulateover time if the population size remained at thefounder number. As soon as a captive breed-ing population is started, therefore, it shouldbe expanded to a size consistent with continuedmaintenance of the available genetic diversity.If the reproductive rate is high, maintenancecan be achieved rapidly and with only a fewfounders, If the reproductive rate is low, sev-eral intervening generations at limited popu-lation size will be required to reach eventualtarget numbers, and more founders will b eneeded to assure retention of genetic diversityduring this period. Sample sizes for cattle havebeen suggested to be twice those required forpigs, sheep, and goats, for example (3). O n eadvantage of cryogenic preservation would b ethat the period of population expansion can bedeferred until appropriate facilities and habi-tat are available,

MOVEMENT OF GERMPLASM-DISEASE ANDQUARANTINE ISSUES

For many reasons, effective programs for insufficient to allow endangered species to beconservation of endangered populations will conserved onsite, and animals may have to berequire extensive international transfer of transferred to countries better equipped to sup-germplasm. First, facilities, funds, and institu- port captive breeding programs. Second, withtional stability in developing countries maybe wild animals, effective maintenance of genetic

146 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

diversity within captive populations will re-quire the international transfer of animals forbreeding purposes. And third, the optimum useof domestic animal germplasm for food pro-duction depends on the international move-ment of desirable breeds and strains to coun-tries where they may be useful.

International transport of animal germplasmis accompanied, however, by the risk of intro-ducing and spreading disease agents and vec-tors, many of which could have an enormousimpact on animal productivity. Indeed, trans-porting animal germplasm without appropri-ate safeguards could jeopardize the conserva-tion programs for which the germplasm isrequired. Thus, technologies to facilitate germ-plasm transfer must also limit the risk of dis-ease transmission.

Many infectious diseases are caused byorganisms that do not naturally occur in theUnited States, and their introduction couldhave serious effects on U.S. animals. Thosecausing most concern are foot-and-mouth dis-ease, African swine fever, rinderpest, foreignbluetongue strains, scrapie, fowl plague, velo-genic viscerotropic Newcastle disease, andVenezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (20). Cur-rent programs to exclude entry of pathogenicorganisms vary with the species, disease, andcountry of origin.

For most wild species (including nonungu-late mammals, most birds, reptiles, amphibians,and most fish), regulatory controls to preventintroduction and transfer of hazardous diseasesare virtually nonexistent. Except for inspectionat the time of entry, movement of such indi-viduals is not restricted. In contrast, entry re-quirements for domesticated livestock speciesare quite stringent, especially for those com-ing from countries that harbor foot-and-mouthdisease, rinderpest, scrapie, or velogenicviscerotropic Newcastle disease.

All imported domestic animals are subjectedto a variety of diagnostic tests and to varyingperiods of quarantine in both the country oforigin and the United States. Greater controlreflects the wide potential dissemination ofthese animals throughout the livestock indus-try. Wild ungulates (hoofed mammals) can carry

diseases transmissible to livestock and haveimportation requirements similar to those ofdomesticated livestock, but also must remainin permanent post-entry quarantine in U.S. De-partment of Agriculture (USDA)-approved fa-cilities. They can be moved from one USDA-approved zoo to another, however, and theiroffspring can be transferred to nonregulatedfacilities.

Current efforts to control introduction of for-eign diseases center on combined strategies ofblood (serological) testing and quarantine. Sometests are designed to detect antibodies to spe-cific disease organisms and can thereby iden-tify individuals that have been exposed to thedisease at some time; other tests maybe usedto detect the presence of a specific pathogen.Periods of quarantine support these proceduresby allowing an incubation period for animalsthat may have been infected recently. The testsare conservative, because individuals that havebeen exposed to a disease but no longer retainthe organism still carry antibodies and reactpositively. However, the procedures also facili-tate identification of asymptomatic carriers ofthe various diseases.

Some serological procedures, such as thecomplement fixation and the viral neutraliza-tion tests, are at times unable to adequately dis-criminate between pathogenic and nonpatho-genie organisms. These limitations have madeit very difficult to obtain negative test resultsfor some diseases. Recent advances in diagnos-tic procedures have yielded tests with muchgreater accuracy and specificity. Three of themost important are the following:

1.

2.

Indirect Immunofluorescence: This proce-dure can provide very rapid screening ofsamples for a variety of infectious agents.Although it lacks specificity for some dis-eases, it greatly facilitates the initial screen-ing process.

Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay(ELISA): The compounds that are pro-duced by a disease organism and that elicitthe production of antibodies by the infectedindividual are called antigens, This testuses carefully selected and purified anti-

. — — -.

Ch, 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 147

3.

In

gens unique to a given strain of an infec-tious agent to identify circulating antibod-ies. It is rapid and can be highly specific.Continued developments in selection andpurification of limited amounts of specificantigens using recombinant DNA technol-ogy may ultimately make ELISA the pre-ferred serologic testing method for mostinfectious agents,Complementary DNA Probes: These probesare derived from cloned DNA or RNA ofspecific infectious agents and can confirmthe existence of the infectious agent in tis-sue samples. The tests would distinguishbetween animals carrying only antibodiesand those that actually carry the infectiousagent, The tests would also be of great valuein identifying asymptomatic carriers of in-fectious agents that infect circulating whiteblood cells without eliciting antibody for-mation.

addition to movement of entire animals,increased interest in the international transferof semen and embryos has produced both op-portunities and concerns about disease control.For semen, the risk of disease transmission isusually equated to that associated with the malethat produced the semen. When semen is be-ing moved, it undergoes the same tests thedonor would undergo if he were being moved.In addition, samples of the semen are usuallysubjected to various diagnostic tests (44,45),

The risk via either fresh or frozen embryosis less clear, In many cases, infectious agentsare attached to the surface of the embryo orfound in the associated uterine fluids. Althoughstandard methods of embryo-washing free theembryo of most such organisms (19), it does notremove all of them (e. g., African swine fever)(1 1). Research is thus needed on the feasibilityof’ purging embryos of undesirable diseaseagents. Even if the disease organism cannot bedisassociated from the embryo, the contami-nated germplasm may be rendered noninfec-tious by highly specific monoclinal antibod-ies, new antiviral agents, chemical detergents,or immunization of surrogate mothers.

To date, the suitability of embryos for inter-national movement has been equated to the

suitability of both parents for such movement,But considerable interest exists in developingprocedures that would allow the status of theembryo to be evaluated independently. Suchan assessment is likely to become feasible inthe future. Indeed, transfer of embryos of wildand domestic animals may ultimately providethe safest means of exchanging germplasm,

Advances in diagnostic procedures and trans-fer technology should facilitate the interna-tional movement of germplasm. For domesticspecies and wild ungulates, these developmentsshould make foreign breeds more accessiblewithout increasing the risk of introducing dis-ease. Improved serological testing may allowrelaxation of the permanent post-entry quaran-tine now imposed on wild ungulates. For un-regulated species, a mechanism for monitor-ing disease status is needed and should befacilitated by new technologies. These effortswill be particularly important as captive breed-ing programs enlarge, thereby increasing con-tact between exotic and indigenous species.Returning individuals from zoos to the wild willalso place a premium on ensuring the healthstatus of released individuals.

For improved diagnostic and transfer tech-nologies to be most effective, they must be ap-plied both in the united States and in the coun-tries of origin, Currently, USDA-approvedquarantine facilities do not exist in Asia andhave only recently been developed in LatinAmerica. To set up such facilities and equipthem requires capital inputs—costs that arelikely to be borne largely by industrial coun-tries. This approach is reasonable in terms ofthe ultimate benefits that are expected fromglobal maintenance of animal diversity. Thecosts of importing animals and semen are cur-rently absorbed by the U.S. importer. Yet thisapproach ignores societal benefits that accruefrom access to foreign domestic animal germ-plasm and from maintenance of animal diver-sity as a whole, which argue for a greater U.S.Government role. If widespread maintenanceof genetic diversity is the goal, then increasedpublic support for importation, conservation,and use of foreign germplasm is essential.

148 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Storage TechnoIogies

Cryogenic storage of gametes and embryosintroduces a new level of complexity to the pro-cedures already discussed, but it also holds thepromise of greatly facilitating conservation ofgenetic diversity. For both semen and embryos,a critical element for cryopreservation involvesdevelopment of media to protect cells whenthey are frozen in liquid nitrogen at – 196° C.Likewise, procedures must be developed to reg-ulate the rate of freezing and thawing of thismaterial in a way that will maintain the integrityof the cells.

.

credit: Zoological Society

In a vial, frozen cells may be stored in suspendedanimation and later resuscitated. Technologies for

storing sperm, ova, and embryos are being developedfor domestic and non-domestic species.

The ability to freeze semen successfully re-sulted from the accidental discovery in 1949of the cryoprotective action of glycerol. To date,semen has been frozen from at least 200 differ-ent species, but little has actually been thawedand tested, Commercial use of artificial insemi-nation with frozen semen is a reality today onlyfor domestic species. Current media for freez-ing of semen usually include buffering agents,a cryoprotectant such as glycerol, antibiotics,and either egg yolk or milk. Many variationsof these media exist, and a somewhat differentmix usually must be developed for differentspecies.

The first successful freezing of mammalianembryos with a subsequent live birth was re-ported in 1972 with mice (50,51). Since then,embryos of 10 mammalian species have beensuccessfully frozen, and the procedure has be-come routine with the mouse, cow, and rabbit.As with semen, a variety of freezing media andof freezing and thawing procedures are avail-able and are being evaluated. Rapid increasesin efficiency have occurred in the bovine em-bryo transfer industry, and frozen embryos cannow be transferred in a manner analogous toartificial insemination. As in the freezing of se-men, specific procedures and media appear tobe required for each species. Yet the procedurein general rests on a firm mechanistic under-standing of the processes responsible for cellinjury during freezing, thawing, and dilution.Previous detailed work with mice and primatescan act as a model for extension of these tech-niques to other mammals, Thus, given appro-priate research, cryogenic storage of embryoscould be developed for a range of species,

Cryopreservation is probably the most prom-ising area of reproduction research today. Thepotential exists to hold a well-constructed sam-ple of the genetic diversity of a population insuspended animation indefinitely, In practice,frozen semen or embryo storage would prob-ably be used with living populations for a num-ber of reasons: to augment the genetic varia-tion within breeding populations, to allowperiodic comparisons between original and cur-rent populations, and to validate the viability

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 149

credit Breeders Service

Liquid nitrogen storage vessels (above) contain enough frozen bull semen to inseminate 4.5 million cows.Liquid nitrogen maintains the temperature at –196C C (–320

of the frozen material. Samples from currentpopulations would likewise periodically beadded to the frozen store to retain new vari-ants produced by natural selection or mutation.This process would be particularly importantin domestic populations, in which selectioncould make preserved individuals economicallyobsolete.

Breeding Technologies

The goals of a propagation program can bedefined in terms of how much genetic diver-sity is to be maintained and for how long. Ta-ble 6-3 shows the number of animals requiredto ensure retention of various proportions ofgenetic diversity for subsequent generations.Ideally, all of the genetic diversity present inthe source population would be maintained in-definitely in the captive population. Table 6-3

Table 6-3.—Captive Animals Required for aFixed Proportion of Genetic Diversity

Over a Number of Generations

Percentage ofaenetic diversitv Number of generations

~ a i n t a i n e d ‘ 50 100 200 1,000

50 . . . . . . . . . . 36 72 145 72275 . . . . . . . . . . 87 174 348 1,73890 . . . . . . . . . . 238 475 949 4,74695 . . . . . . . . . . 488 975 1,950 9,74899 . . . . . . . . . . 2,488 4,975 9,950 49,750

SOURCE Adapted from Netter and Foose, “Concepts and StrategiesTO Maintain Domestic and Wild Animal Germ Plasm, ” OTA stoned paper, 1985

suggests that this goal (i. e., retention of 99 per-cent for 1,000 generations) would require upto 50,000 animals. These numbers are consist-ent with the guidelines in table 6-1, which sug-gests natural populations of fewer than 100,000should be carefully monitored.

150 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Genetic drift accumulates generation by gen-eration, not year by year, and animal speciesdiffer considerably in this regard (box 6-C). Forexample, 200 years covers perhaps 100 gener-ations of chickens but only 7 to 8 generationsof elephants. Yet in most cases, breeding pop-ulations should not experience inbreeding ratesin excess of 1 percent per generation; to meetthis constraint, at least 50 breeding individualsper generation are required.

Manipulation of the breeding structure of apopulation can have a significant impact on itsgenetic characteristics. For example, an appro-priate level of subdivision of a population canretard the overall rate of genetic loss in the pop-ulation as a whole: Subdivision increases therate of loss within each subgroup, but the spe-cific genes that are lost through random drift

vary among subpopulations. And the numberof genes that can be maintained within the sub-divided population will exceed the number thatcould be maintained in a random-mating pop-ulation of comparable size. In practice, the min-imum size of the subpopulation will depend onthe tolerance of the species to the inbreedingrates. Still, some degree of subdivision shouldbe practiced, and the movement of individualsamong subpopulations should be fewer thanone per generation unless effects of inbreed-ing become evident. Subdivision also protectsthe population against disease outbreaks orother disasters that might annihilate any onesubpopulation.

The loss of genes from a captive populationcan also be retarded by controlling mating. Incontrast to selection, which presupposes a

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite 151

differential contribution of different individ-uals to the next generation, programs that at-tempt to equalize the contribution of each in-dividual can greatly lower initial rates of geneticloss (21). Likewise, if pedigrees of available in-dividuals are known, matings can be plannedin an attempt to equalize the contribution ofdifferent lineages. This approach has been usedto stabilize founder contributions in a captivepopulation of Speke’s gazelle (46). Thus, effortsto record and publish pedigrees of individualsin endangered species (such as the records ofISIS) assume great importance.

For domesticated animals, several populationstructures and mating systems can be used inconservation programs that are generally notappropriate for wild animals. In many domes-tic species, the large number of existing breeds(30) precludes conservation of all endangeredbreeds as pure breeds. One possibility in suchcases is to preserve a single breed representa-tive of a group of similar breeds. A better strat-egy, however, may be to amalgamate into a genepool individuals from related breeds or fromseveral breeds that excel in a certain charac-teristic.

Gene-pool populations are designed to con-serve genes rather than individual breeds. Thus,several breeds noted for a certain characteris-tic such as heat tolerance or proliferation mightbe interbred to provide a single large reservoirof genes for this trait. Although the identity ofindividual breeds is lost, many genes presentin the breeds are retained. Selection to inten-sify the trait maybe appropriate, depending onthe potential or current economic importanceof the population. Maintenance of a single in-terbreeding gene pool is less desirable than ofa subdivided population for long-term gene con-servation. For domestic species, however, thelarger population sizes that are possible in asingle gene-pool population are expected to fa-cilitate selection for economically importantcharacters within the population. Simmentalcattle representing at least five regional or na-tional strains from Europe were imported intoNorth America in the 1970's, and the currentAmerican Simmental population represents a

gene pool constituted from these breeds. Agene-pool population of pigs was developed inthe early 1970s in Nebraska and used in effortsto increase ovulation rate (53).

A program to not only maintain but also gen-erate genetic diversity in domestic breeds hasbeen suggested (26). In this effort, populationswould be selected to generate extreme levelsof performance in specific traits. These popu-lations could serve as reservoirs of genetic var-iation and their characteristics would be wellknown.

Efficient maintenance of captive populationsrequires a thorough understanding of the re-productive processes of the species. Optimaluse of breeding stock is often facilitated by anability to manipulate and control these proc-esses. In domestic animals, control of the es-trous cycle and ovulation through administra-tion of exogenous hormones has becomecommonplace, greatly assisting programs ofcontrolled mating, artificial insemination, andembryo transfer. In wild species, however,knowledge of basic reproduction remainslimited. Efforts to expand knowledge in thisarea are largely funded by the private sectorand are insufficient.

Infertility is a major problem in many spe-cies of zoo animals. It reduces the effectivebreeding size of captive populations and exacer-bates genetic losses. Infertility can often betraced to environmental factors such as light,temperature, nutrition, disease, or social influ-ences. Such problems would be more easilyovercome if more were known about basic re-productive processes in wild animals.

General principles underlying control of re-production are relatively uniform across spe-cies, yet the particular hormone levels observedand the release patterns of these hormones arespecies-specific. A practical, reasonably sim-ple, relatively inexpensive kit for monitoringurine hormone levels has recently been devel-oped (29). This test helps confirm ovulation,predict optimal times for insemination, diag-nose reproductive dysfunction, and detect preg-nancy. Because the test is based on urine sam-

152 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Photo Zoological Society of San

New technologies in reproductive physiology offerpossibilities of producing large numbers of offspringfrom many vertebrate species. Above, an osmotic pumpfilled with gonadotropin-releasing hormone is preparedfor insertion under the skin of a female iguana. Theiguana subsequently entered and ovulated.

pies, it also avoids problems restraining andanesthetizing rare animals.

Although reproductive problems in wild ani-mals can often be solved through managementchanges, hormone therapy can also be used forinfertility arising from age or unknown envi-ronmental factors. In particular, gonadotropin-releasing hormone has been used to initiate andmaintain estrous cycles and ovulation in mon-keys, sheep, and cattle. It is administeredthrough a small osmotic pump implanted be-neath the skin and appears to have facilitatedthe birth of two cubs to a previously subfertilecheetah (28). Similarly, a human fertility drug,

clomid, is being considered to support ovula-tion in female gorillas (9).

Growing pressure for the international move-ment of animal germplasm will also place anincreasing premium on knowledge of reproduc-tive biology. In terms of animal safety, conven-ience, and disease control, movement of semenand embryos (either fresh or frozen) would bepreferable to the movement of animals. Al-though the techniques to allow collection, pres-ervation, transport, and use of these tissues arerelatively well developed in domestic animals,comparable methods do not exist for wildspecies.

Artificial insemination (A. I.) is the introduc-tion of semen into the female reproductive tractby artificial means. It requires technologies toallow collection of semen from the male, stor-age of semen until it can be used, identifica-tion of females in the proper stage of the es-trous cycle, and deposition of semen at theappropriate location in the female reproduc-tive tract. Collection of semen from wild spe-cies is usually accomplished by electroejacu-lation, which involves stimulation of ejaculationby application of a mild, pulsating electricalcurrent through a lubricated rectal probe. Theprocess requires restraint and anesthesia of themale, and semen obtained with this procedureis often less fertile than that obtained in a nat-ural ejaculate. Use of A.I. likewise requires theability to assess the reproductive status of thefemale quite accurately, and insemination pro-cedures must be developed that are consistentwith the biochemical and physical character-istics of the female reproductive tract.

Although artificial insemination has been at-tempted in many species of wild animals, it hasonly been successful in a Iimited number and,in most cases, with one animal in most species.A.I. with frozen semen has been successful witheven fewer wild species (see table 6-4) such asthe wolf, gorilla, chimpanzee, and giant panda.

Effective use of embryo transfer requires evengreater control of an animal’s reproductiveprocesses (box 6-D and figure 6-l). Fertilizedova and early embryos are recovered from the

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite . 153

Box 6-D.-Embryo TransferEmbryo transfer is a well-established practice in the beef and dairy cattle industries. More than

200,000 transfers are performed annually throughout the world, mainly in the United States and Can-ada. Although the technique was first used with beef cattle, half the transfers are now in dairy cattle.The objective is to increase the number of offspring of cows with valuable genetic traits, such asrapid rates of growth and high levels of milk production. Using this procedure, one valuable cowcan produce on average 12 offspring a year.

The procedure involves inducing superovdation in a donor cow using gonadotrophin hormones,so that she will produce six to eight eggs rather than one. The cow is artificially inseminated withsemen from a valuable, high-performance bull, and the embryos are collected by nonsurgically flush-ing the uterus after 6 to 8 days. Embryos that appear viable and healthy by microscopic examinationare transferred to recipient cows that are also at the sixth to eighth day of their estrous cycle. Nor-mally one embryo is transferred to each recipient.

Several new technologies hold promise of making the process more efficient and increasing itsusefulness to animal agriculture. Among these is the ability to freeze bovine embryos. This procedureis currently used by most embryo transfer companies, and 25 percent of the transfers in the UnitedStates are with frozen embryos. Survival of the embryos is not perfect, however: Transfer of unfrozenembryos average a 60-percent pregnancy rate, while frozen and thawed embryos can be expectedto yield pregnancy rates of 40 to 50 percent.

Another interesting development in this industry involves cloning bovine embryos. Once devel-oped, this technique would allow the multiplication of large numbers of calves from one valuableembryo. The cloned embryos could be frozen while other embryos from some clonal lines are testedto determine if the line is of high value; valuable ones could be replicated using the frozen clones,providing a powerful tool for livestock improvement. Several research stations are also experiment-ing with inserting genes for specific productivity traits, such as growth, into embryos before transfer.The application of these new biotechnologies is expected to expand the size and usefulness of thecattle embryo transfer industry.

Although embryo transfer could also be a useful tool in swine production, much of the technologyand the industry are not yet well developed. In swine, embryos must be collected and transferredsurgically. And the embryos do not survive freezing with present techniques. This procedure there-fore has received little use in the swine industry. In addition, the cost of surgically recovering em-bryos is likely to preclude wide-scale use of this technology in the near future.

Based on the use of embryo transfer in cattle, research on the applicability of this technologyfor wild species was begun in 1981. Although the nonsurgical collection techniques are similar, work-ing with exotic species entails several unique problems, such as, the need to administer drugs by dartor pole syringe and the need for anesthesia to perform even the simplest procedures. The ultimategoal was to develop methods for using a common wild species (e.g., the eland antelope) as a surrogatemother for a less common species (e.g., the bongo antelope).

In 1983, an eland calf was born to a surrogate eland mother, becoming the first non-domesticissue of a nonsurgical embryo transfer. A transfer involving a frozen embryo was accomplished soonthereafter. These successes were followed by attempts at interspecies transfer (i.e., a donor and sur-rogate of different species). Initial efforts for an eland-to-cow transfer were unsuccessful. The eland,however, proved to be a suitable surrogate mother for an embryo collected from a bongo. This firstdocumented nonsurgical embryo transfer between two different species of wild animals indicatesthat embryos can be gestated by surrogates of differmt species, offering hope for the future of endan-gered wildlife (figure 6-1).SOURCE: Adapted from materiala provided by Dr. Neal Firet University of Wbxmsin and Dr. May Dreaaer, Cincinnati Wildlife Research

Federation.

I154 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 6-4.-Successful Artificial Insemination inNon-domestic Mammals

GuanacoLlamaBlack buckBighorn sheepBrown brocket deerReindeerRed deerSpeke’s gazelleGiant pandaChimpanzee

GorillaFerretFoxwolfPersian leopardPumaMacaca monkeyPapio baboonSquirrel monkey

SOURCE: B.L. Dresser, Cincinnati Wildllfe Research Federation, personal com-munications, Septemtw 19S6.

Photo credit: Zoological of San Diego

Collection of sperm samples for artificial inseminationand cryogenic storage from non-domestic species is partof many off site conservation programs. Above, an African

antelope, the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx gazelladairnrnah) is tranquilized and undergoing semen

collection by electroejaculation.

reproductive tract of a donor female (the geneticmother) and transferred into the tract of a re-cipient female (the foster mother), in whom theembryos develop into full-term individuals. Suc-cessful embryo transfer requires synchroniza-tion of the estrous cycles of donor and recipi-ent animals (figure 6-2). In domestic animalsthis synchrony is usually achieved through ex-ogenous hormone treatment. Donors are in-duced to produce an excess of eggs (super-ovulated) by injection of fertility hormones.Superovulation has been fairly successful withhoofed mammals, although the results vary con-siderably. Optimal drugs and dosages have yet

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite . 155

Figure 6-2.— Embryo Transfer Flowchart

Necessary steps in preparing donor and recipient animalsfor embryo collection and transfer.

Betsy Dresser, Director of Research, Cincinnati Wildlife Research 1

to be identified in most other species. Donorsare mated naturally or by artificial insemina-tion, and fertilized eggs are collected from thefemale tract (surgically and nonsurgically) andtransferred (surgically or nonsurgically) to therecipient female.

Development of embryo transfer techniquesis important to maintenance of genetic diver-sity within captive populations, given the con-siderations of transfer and disease control pre-viously discussed. In addition, surrogatemothers confer passive immunity to offspringdeveloped from transferred embryos. Thus, ani-mals moved into new environments or re-introduced to the wild may benefit from beingcarried by mothers acclimated to the new envi-ronment,

Several more-advanced techniques, studiedprimarily in domestic animals, hold consider-able potential for all species:

● Embryo Culture: This technique involvesmaintenance of fertilized eggs outside thebody during the early stages of embryonicdevelopment. The appropriate culture me-

dia for development differ among species,but reliable techniques to culture embryosfor up to 24 hours exist for cattle, rabbits,mice, sheep, and humans. Successful em-bryo culture is usually prerequisite to moresophisticated in vitro embryo manipu-lation.Embryo Storage: This technology involvesholding embryos in arrested developmentfor up to several days, Again, specific stor-age media must be developed for eachspecies. Embryo storage procedures cangreatly facilitate transfer of embryos overlong distances and in vitro embryo manipu-lation.In Vitro Egg Maturation: This techniqueinvolves the culturing of immature eggs tomaturity. Coupled with in vitro fertiliza-tion, this technique could dramatically in-crease the number of offspring that a givenfemale might produce. The reproductivelifetime of the female is also lengthened be-cause ova suitable for culturing can be ob-tained prior to sexual maturity as well asafter a female is no longer able to conceivenaturally.In Vitro Fertilization: In a few species, itis possible to remove unfertilized ova froma female, mix them with semen in vitro,and produce fertilized ova that will developnormally when transferred back into a fe-male, In cases of unexpected death of ge-netically valuable animals, ova can evenbe collected from ovaries shortly afterdeath.Embryo Splitting: A single embryo can,under the proper conditions, be split intotwo or four, and each part can subsequentlydevelop into a live offspring, Although theoffspring are genetically identical, thisprocess allows a much larger number ofoffspring to be produced from each embryocollection,Interspecific Embryo Transfer: This in-volves transfer of embryos between relatedspecies. Thus, embryos of a rare speciescould be carried to term by a female of amore common species. This technologyhas enjoyed some success, but much moreresearch is needed. To date, successful in-

156 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Przewalski% homes can interbreed withthdr domestic relative, andtlm hybrids producad by suchcross8s were tiegedy incxwpmtad into the R%uwbE ‘axar’s oavdry ~d.

The disappearance d!theqeoka ww pm#M&ly duatu hunting and, mom important, to restrictedaccess to limited watm suppliti tlmt wam nwncqmlizd by nonmds tifheir MM& ofdonmstic animals.The homes’ habitat remab, and plans exist to retire th~ spedaa to ite fornwr range in Mongolia.This restoration effort invoivas tha cuop@rative activities of zmbgical parka in the United States,the Soviet Union, the United l&tgdo~ and West and East Germany. Animaia will be provided byzoological parks ftam their expanding populations.

The offsite comervatkm ofspeciw and preservation Ofgenstic diveisitythattkwe efforts reprmentmay play an increasing rob in strategies to pravent ektinatimk. The interaction throtqjh movementof individuals from offdte to onske ciwwrvation fhcilitks mkmea tlm chance of extinction andsimultaneously provides access to mm $pecias for wh.wationai and research purposes.SOURCE: I)r. oliver Ryder, Research -rtment, * Die$o ZOO.

terspecific embryo transfers have occurred to horse, and Przewalski’s horse to ponyfrom mouflon (wild sheep) to domestic (see box 6-E) (9).sheep, gaur to cattle, bongo to eland, zebra

The objectives of developing and using fiber production on an international scale isgenetic diversity differ between wild and al- oof paramount importance. In this context, themestic animals. For domestic animals, the po- most pertinent technologies are those that fa-tential contribution of rare breeds to food and cilitate the international movement and evalu-

ation of these breeds. Thus, the previously dis-cussed technologies of disease control, artificialinsemination, embryo transfer, and cryopreser-vation of embryos and gametes are extremelyimportant. In particular, aggressive applicationof state-of-the-art technologies for the controlof disease transmission would greatly facilitateuse of foreign germplasm.

Equally important, however, is the fact thatno organized program exists, either in theUnited States or elsewhere, to sample, evalu-ate, preserve, and use available sources of germ-plasm (3). Current research organizations donot have the resources to evaluate the manyunique breeds that exist worldwide. Evalua-tions of animal germplasm could, however, fo-cus on the present and foreseeable U.S. andworld animal production and marketing envi-ronments and on the breeds that seem to havethe greatest potential for improving animal foodand fiber production systems (3).

For wild species, programs of developmentand utilization are much less clear, The ration-ale for preservation of such species largely re-flects the need to maintain the Earth’s ecologi-cal s tructure and, to many individuals ,utilization of wild species is inconsistent withthis goal. Yet products and processes observedin wild species have been and will continue tobe of value to society. Armadillos, for exam-ple, provide a unique model of human leprosy.As the understanding of molecular genetics and

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite 157

cellular biology expands, the unique physiolog-ical and metabolic processes found in manywild animals are likely to have progressivelymore important research and development ap-plications.

The domestication of wild animals is an emo-tional issue. It implies imposition of human con-trol of the mating and husbandry of a previ-ously wild species. To many people, this stepis also inconsistent with the preservation of eco-logical diversity. However, the potential gainsfrom developing adapted populations of pre-viously wild animals to produce food and fi-ber in harsh or severely restricted environmentsmay be too great to ignore. Thus, populationsof red deer in Europe and New Zealand are rap-idly becoming domesticated (10), and differentspecies of deer are being crossed to improveproduction characteristics (32), Eland and oryxin Africa (47), capybara in South America (17),and crocodiles and butterflies in Papua NewGuinea (33,34) are also being harvested in semi-controlled programs that may entail domesti-cation of segments of these populations. In sucha situation, domestication should not beavoided. Instead, great care must be taken toensure that protected, viable wild populationsare also maintained free of contamination fromdomesticated subpopulations. Such an ap-proach, though difficult, is necessary to meetthe joint goals of food production and mainte-nance of genetic diversity.

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Needs and opportunities for maintaining ani- movement will probably assist in maintainingmal diversity offsite involve both application diversity. Mechanisms to monitor genetic diver-of available technologies and development of sity in domestic populations are also badlynew technologies, Needs differ considerably be- needed,tween wild and domestic animals, and thesetwo groups will be considered separately. Forwild animals, many of the needs involve adap- Wild Animalstation of techniques that are currently availablefor domestic animals, In some cases, these

Expertise in Relevant Areas

adaptations are straightforward. In others, con- Maintenance of captive breeding populationssiderable basic research will be required. In al- oof wild animals requires that breeding pro-mestic animals, efforts to assess and evaluate grams be based on principles of quantitativeglobal genetic resources and facilitate their genetic management to avoid losses in genetic

158 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

diversity. Likewise, a knowledge of the repro-ductive biology of the species is required to en-sure efficient propagation of the animals in cap-tivity. The need for expertise in these areas hasincreased dramatically as offsite programs havebecome more common and more complex. Ef-ficient use of animals for genetic purposes re-quires extensive movement of germplasmamong institutions. These efforts are likely toincreasingly rely on transfer of semen or em-bryos, especially at the international level, plac-ing a premium on scientific expertise.

To date, development of expertise in the ap-plication of reproductive biology and quantita-tive genetics management has largely occurredthrough the initiatives of individual studentswithin traditional reproductive physiology orquantitative genetics programs. In reproduc-tive physiology, programs are usually directedprimarily toward domestic animals; efforts toobtain skills applicable to wild species maybemet at best with tolerance or at worst with ac-tive discouragement. Still, substantial interestin the reproductive biology of wild animals hasbeen noted, and students of this field are in-creasingly tolerated. In quantitative genetics,training programs tend to emphasize either thetheoretical aspects of quantitative genetics innatural populations or the applied aspects ofbreeding domestic animals. More opportuni-ties to tailor courses to study of wild popula-tions exist in this area than in reproductivephysiology, however.

Fellowships and traineeships in areas thatsupport maintenance of wild animal geneticdiversity could be provided on a competitivebasis to students in reproductive biology, cryo-biology, population genetics, and animal be-havior for studies applicable to the genetic andreproductive management of captive popula-tions of wild animals. The program could beadministered by the National Science Founda-tion (NSF). Emphasis would be placed on ap-plying knowledge and theory to managed pop-ulations. One advantage of such a programwould be sensitization of faculty members tothe needs and opportunities in this area.

A grants program to allow selected educa-tional institutions to expand their expertise in

supporting maintenance of genetic diversitycould be initiated. Grants could be awarded ona competitive basis and could support exten-sion of applied programs to captive wild spe-cies. Such a program would be relatively expen-sive, however, and would tend to concentrateexpertise instead of encouraging broad accessto needed training.

Facilities for Offsite Maintenance

In recent years, zoo administrators and othershave become aware of the need for well-planned breeding programs to ensure mainte-nance of genetic diversity within captive pop-ulations. Substantial theoretical work has goneinto developing plans for existing or likely fu-ture facilities. The results suggest that today’sfacilities will not be sufficient to maintaindesired levels of diversity. However, zoo per-sonnel appear to have developed mechanismsto make choices (albeit not unanimous choices)among competing possibilities. Still, withoutadditional facilities, losses of diversity appearlikely.

Development of captive maintenance andbreeding facilities could benefit from additionalfunding. Such a program would enhance ca-pabilities to preserve biological diversity off-site. Modest levels of funding could have a con-siderable impact, although substantial fundswould be required to address the total problem.Funds could be channeled through the NationalZoo in Washington, DC, or through competi-tive grants to nonprofit zoological parks, Em-phasis could be given to species that havelimited captive facilities.

Reproductive Biology andC r y o p r e s e r v a t i o n

The reproductive processes of most wild ani-mals are not sufficiently understood to allowoptimum rates of reproduction under captivemanagement. This lack of information becomesespecially acute in light of increasing interestin artificial insemination and embryo transferbecause these technologies require much greatercontrol of the reproductive process. Althoughthe critical elements that control reproductionand cryopreservation in wild species are anal-

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite 159

ogous to those in domestic animals, importantdifferences exist. Thus, extending availableknowledge about domestic animals to wild ani-mals will require accumulation of informationunique to each species or group of species. Op-timum use of available individuals in programsof captive breeding or cryopreservation willdepend on collecting this unique information.

Progress is being made in understanding thereproductive processes of wild animals, but notas quickly as it is needed or as it could be used.Without additional research, many availablecaptive animals will continue to experiencesuboptimal fertility, and fewer total individualsof all species will be maintained at acceptablepopulation sizes in available facilities. Semenfrom a number of wild species has already beenfrozen and exhibits near-normal motility andmorphology when thawed, but its ability to re-sult in conception is largely untested. Likewise,successful use of frozen embryos has occurredin only a few species.

A program of competitive grants to supportresearch on the reproductive biology andcryopreservation of wild animals could be ini-tiated. This program could be administeredthrough NSF and would channel funds to bothbasic studies on the reproductive biology andcryobiology of wild animals and to appliedstudies of control of reproduction, artificial in-semination and embryo transfer. preferencecould be given to existing programs that em-phasize the integration of programs for wildand domestic animals.

Another approach could be establishing a fewcenters for study of the reproductive biologyof wild animals. These centers could serve asfocuses for programs of basic and applied re-search. They should be sufficiently well fundedto allow broad programs of research onsite aswell as extramural research with cooperatinginstitutions, The centers could likewise serveas repositories for frozen gametes and embryosfrom endangered populations as techniques areperfected.

Basic Research in Population Biologyand Genetics

Much of the basic theory of populationgenetics was derived in the first half of the 20thcentury and was adapted to applications in do-mestic animal breeding in the 1940s and 1950s.Current interest in developing breeding pro-grams to maintain representative levels ofgenetic diversity within populations of mini-mum size has introduced several new program-design questions. These questions relate to suchthings as the amount and nature of geneticdiversity that can be lost without compromis-ing the long-term evolutionary potential of thespecies, the importance to evolutionary poten-tial of rare genes (which are easily lost bygenetic drift), the long-term importance of mu-tation to maintenance of diversity (22), and theimportance of genetic diversity (both amongand within species) to maintenance of the in-tegrity of entire ecosystems. In many cases,these questions deal with validation of long-term quantitative genetics theory; answeringthem will require imaginative syntheses of thedisciplines of genetics and ecology.

Some of the needed research is currently be-ing done or has been planned. Without direc-tion, however, it will occur in a piecemeal way,with no assurance that issues of the highest pri-ority will be addressed. A program of competi-tive grants to support development, extension,and validation of quantitative genetic theoryrelated to questions of maintaining biologicaldiversity could be developed. This programcould be administered through NSF and wouldrequire less funding (because of fewer equip-ment needs) than programs in reproductivebiology or cryopreservation. Such a programcould provide a focus for needed efforts in thisarea and a mechanism for screening compet-ing proposals to identify those that addressareas of highest priority.

Objective Assessment of GlobalGenetic Resources

The potential contributions of indigenousstocks of animal agriculture both in their coun-

160 Technologies to Maintain Biologic Diversity

try of origin and internationally needs to b eassessed. Experience with the prolific FinnishLandrace and Booroola Merino sheep (31,36)and with Sahiwal cattle (24,48) has shown thatlocal, specialized stocks can often have wideutility outside their country of origin. Likewise,comprehensive performance evaluations ofcrosses of indigenous and imported breeds sug-gest that local animals may make importantcontributions to final performance of the cross-breed (5). The use in West Africa of native cat-tle resistant to trypanosomiasis (23) is an im-portant example. To assess the contributionsof such breeds, objective information must beavailable to potential users. In many cases,some details exist but they are fragmented anddifficult to locate and gain access to. In othercases, only anecdotal information is available.

Considerable international awareness of theneed for such assessments exists. Efforts to atleast list and broadly categorize breed resourceshave been initiated in Europe (30), Latin Amer-ica (13), and Eastern Asia and Oceania (41),These efforts have been coordinated by theFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO) ofthe United Nations (14). Efforts in most of thedeveloping countries have, however, been ham-pered by insufficient funding to develop elec-tronic databases and library reference facilities.On balance, efforts to date deserve credit andhave achieved some successes but are still in-sufficient.

No comparable assessment of breed re-sources has been undertaken for North Amer-ica yet, so commissioning one would indicatesupport for efforts elsewhere and represent aminimal contribution by North American coun-tries to a global accounting. The assessmentcould be coordinated by the National Academyof Sciences (NAS) or the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) with technical supportfrom relevant professional societies (AmericanSociety of Animal Science, American Dairy Sci-ence Association, Poultry Science Association,and Canadian Society of Animal Science) andprivate agencies (e.g., American Minor BreedsConservancy). A recently initiated NAS projecton global genetic resources could address do-

mestic animal genetic resources and developoptions for improving the present efforts.

Limited additional financial and technicalsupport for development of databases and li-brary reference facilities in existing foreigncenters could be provided (14). In many cases,funds for microcomputers, software, and refer-ence materials could provide a major improve-ment in the capabilities of existing institutionsat limited cost. Necessary funds and consult-ing personnel could be channeled throughUSDA, FAO, or the U.S. Agency for Interna-tional Development (AID).

Another approach could be the developmentof an international center for animal geneticresources that would be charged with mainte-nance of a comprehensive base of informationon domestic animal germplasm resources. Thecenter could maintain and update files on thestatus, trends, and characteristics of domesticbreeds worldwide and provide information topotential users of this germplasm. Chargeswould be made to clients requesting informa-tion, but to function properly, considerable pub-lic subsidization would probably be required.The center could be a branch of USDA or a partof the National Agricultural Library. This planhas the potential disadvantage of moving re-sponsibility for maintenance of the necessarydatabases out of national and regional institu-tions, or at least deemphasizing the roles of suchinstitutions. Such an approach would tend toreduce the emphasis on breed evaluation andpreservation at the grassroots level in the coun-tries of origin.

Major new funding to support breed evalua-tion and characterization efforts could be pro-vided, Even though considerable informationalready exists on many foreign breeds, the ma-terial is often fragmented and limited to onlydescriptive characteristics. The initiation andsupport of several major projects to objectivelyevaluate and compare indigenous breeds to po-tential imported breeds for the full array ofproductive traits in the country or region of ori-gin would be a tremendous asset in terms ofknowledge of global genetic resources. Fund-ing could be channeled through USDA or AID.

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversify Offsite 161

Such a project would require major new fund-ing, incIuding support for development of nec-essary foreign facilities.

Facilitation of International Movementof GermpIasm

Effective use of global germplasm requiresthat mechanisms exist to facilitate the move-ment of such resources, This is especially im-portant for specialized breeds in developingcountries, such as prolific Chinese pigs (52),which may have utility in crossbreeding pro-grams in industrial countries. The internationalmovement of germplasm is often difficult be-cause of different countries’ health-relatedimport-export requirements. This area involvesboth technologies for actual movement of germ-plasm (embryo transfer, semen and embryo col-lection, etc.) and technologies for preventionof disease transmission.

The United States currently maintains facil-ities for quarantine and disease-testing at PlumIsland, NY, and Flemming Key, FL, These sta-tions provide U.S. breeders access to foreignbreeds. The approach taken has usually beento provide use of these facilities to importersin the private sector and to require that the costof importation be borne completely by the im-porter, Importation of some breeds of sheep andswine has been supported by public (USDA)funds, but these cases are the exceptions.Assessing private sector importers for impor-tation costs does allow the expense to be borneby those likely to receive economic benefit fromthe sale of imported animals, but it ignores thepublic benefits likely to accrue from access toforeign germplasm. When the decision to im-port a breed lies solely within the private sec-tor, preference will be given to more traditionalbreeds judged to have the most speculative po-tential while unique breeds of undocumentedvalue will usually be ignored,

USDA and the Animal and Plant Health In-spection Service (APHIS) could be directed topursue an aggressive program of screening, im-portation, and evaluation of promising foreignbreeds. Such a program would involve both aredirection of existing funds and appropriation

of modest new funds. Such a program wouldrecognize the existence of promising foreignbreeds and likewise acknowledge that theprocurement of these breeds is a matter of pub-lic interest. A considerable improvement i nU.S. access to foreign germplasm could be ac-complished through such a program with ex-isting technology.

New funding for research and developmenton the diagnosis and neutralization of foreigndiseases could be provided to APHIS and otherresearch laboratories through a system of com-petitive grants. This new funding could be ac-companied by a mandate to aggressively pur-sue impor ta t ion of p romis ing fo re igngermplasm into the United States. Objectivesof the program would be, first, to validate andapply recently developed technologies for dis-ease diagnosis (ELISA, DNA probes, etc.) and,second, to improve on and extend these tech-nologies. Such a program should be able toaccelerate access to foreign germplasm.

The training of foreign professionals in areasthat support germplasm transfer could be sup-ported. These areas would include veterinarypathology, reproductive biology, with empha-sis on techniques for gamete and embryo col-lection and transfer, and cryobiology. In manycases, germplasm transfer is limited by insuffi-cient expertise and facilities in the country oforigin. An expanded training program for for-eign students and professionals would increasethe chances that the needed expertise existedonsite. Considerable opportunities for foreignprofessionals to receive this kind of trainingalready exist, however. A major problem is thatstudents receive sophisticated training in highlytechnical areas but have insufficient facilitiesand equipment to put their training to use whenthey return home.

The development and improvement of for-eign centers for transfer of germplasm couldbe supported. This improvement would requirenew funding to allow development of centersin major geographical areas of the world. Thesecenters could serve as focuses for a fui[ rangeof considerations relating to maintenance ofbiological diversity. In particular, equipment

162 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

and expertise for collection, preparation forshipment, and preservation of gametes and em-bryos could be concentrated in such institu-tions. Facilities for quarantine and diagnostictesting using advanced technologies wouldgreatly facilitate germplasm transfer. To be ef-fective, these centers would have to be wellfunded and equipped on a continuing basis.Ideally, they would address a range of biologicaldiversity issues, for wild as well as domesticanimals, including maintenance of informationcenters and repositories for cryopreservationof frozen semen and embryos of rare nativebreeds.

Losses Of Genetic DiversityAmong and Within Broods

Indiscriminate crossbreeding of so-called im-proved breeds from industrial nations coupledwith increasing intensification within the poul-try, swine, and dairy industries have resultedin reductions in global breed diversity and maylead to substantial losses of rare breeds. Withinsome of the major commercial breeds of live-stock, losses in genetic diversity may also beoccurring because of narrow selection goalsand intensified use of individual sires and theirsons through artificial insemination.

A National Board for Domestic Animal Re-sources could be established, composed of rep-resentatives from USDA, universities, privatefoundations, and industry. The board could pro-vide a mechanism to coordinate animal germ-plasm conservation activities. The programcould be established through a directive to alead agency such as USDA and would not re-quire additional legislation. Such aboard wouldidentify potential sources of foreign germplasmfor import and monitor the status of geneticdiversity within commercial breeds. It couldalso monitor the status of rare breeds withinthe United States and make recommendationsfor their preservation and use. The board couldact as a liaison with institutions in other coun-tries and show a U.S. commitment to mainte-nance of domestic animal biological diversity.

It would be primarily advisory in nature butshould possess some funding to implement itsrecommendations to function effectively.

An International Board on Domestic AnimalResources could also be established. This boardcould provide international coordination ofprograms, set standards and coordinate the ex-change and storage of germplasm, and providefunds to support activities in developing coun-tries, probably at the regional level. Some ef-forts have already been made in this direction,and the United States could support and ex-pand these efforts.

A program to identify, conserve, and use en-dangered breeds of potential value worldwidecould be developed. It could identify rare breedsof potential value worldwide, with subsequentnegotiation of procedures to protect and main-tain the genetic integrity of these populationswithin the country of origin. If maintenanceof such populations within the country of ori-gin could not be assured, the United Statescould support collection and cryogenic storageof gametes and embryos. Semen of all mam-malian livestock can be successfully frozen, ascan embryos of all mammalian livestock spe-cies except the pig. Such storage could be lo-cated in this country to ensure maximum safet yof the preserved material, and it would includematerial that could not be imported as live ani-mals under current animal health regulations.Efforts such as these would require close co-operation with the countries of origin of thevarious breeds to avoid the perception of ex-ploitation of foreign resources for the sole ben-efit of the United States.

A program like this could also monitor thestatus of genetic diversity within commercialpopulations in the United States. This moni-toring would involve interacting with indus-try to ensure maintenance of genetically diversepoultry control strains, retaining semen froma wide sample of dairy bulls as a reservoir ofgenetic diversity, and monitoring the status ofother species.

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 163

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

CHAPTER 6

Ashwood-Smith, M, J., and Grant, E., “GeneticStability in Cellular Systems Stored in the Fro-zen State, ” The Freezing of Mammalian Em-bryos, K, Elliott and J. Whelan (eds.) (Amster-dam: Elsevier, lgpi’).Conway, W, G,, “The Practical Difficulties andFinancial Implications of Endangered SpeciesBreeding Programs, ” International Zoo Year-book, 1986.Council for Agricultural Science and Technol-ogy, “Animal Germ Plasm Preservation and Uti-lization in Agriculture, ” Council for Agricul-tural Science and Technology Report No. 101,1 9 8 4 .Cunningham, E. P., “European Friesians—TheCanadian and American Invasion, ” AnimalGenetic Resources Information, January 1983,pp. 21-23.DeAlba, J., and Kennedy, B. W., “Criollo andTemperate Dairy Cattle and Their Crosses in aHumid Tropical Environment,” Animal GeneticResources Conservation by Management, DataBanks and Training, FAO Animal Productionand Health Paper 44/1, 1984, pp. 102-104.Denniston, C., “Small Population Size andGenetic Diversity Implications for EndangeredSpecies,” Endangered Birds, S. Temple (cd,)(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press,1977), Pp. 281-289.Douglass, E. M., and Gould, K, G., “Artificial In-semination in Lowland Gorilla (GoriJla gorilla), ”Proceedings of the American Association of ZooVeterinarians, 1981, pp. 128-130.Dresser, B. L., Kramer, L,, Dahlhausen, R. D.,Pope, C. E., and Baker, R. D., “CryopreservationFollowed by Successful Transfer of AfricanEland Antelope (Tragelaphus oryx) Embryos, ”Proceedings of the Ioth International Congresson Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemi-nation, 1984, pp. 191-193.Dresser, B. L., and Leibo, S. P., “Technologies ToMaintain Animal Germ Plasm in Domestic andWild Species, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.Drew, K.R. (cd.), Advances in Deer Farming(Wellington, New Zealand: Editorial Services,Ltd., 1978).Eaglesome, M. D., Hare, W. C. D., and Singh,E. L., “Embryo Transfer: A Discussion of Its Po-tential for Infectious Disease Control Based ona Review of Studies on Infection of Gametes andEarly Embryos by Various Agents, ” CanadianVeterinary Journal 21:106-112, 1980.Fitzhueh. H. A.. Getz. W.. and Baker. F. H.. “Bio-

13.

14.

15.

16,

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

logical Diversity: Status and Trends for Agri-cultural Domesticated Animals, ” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1985.Food and Agriculture Organisation of theUnited Nations, “Recursos Geneticos Animalesen Americana Latina, ” FAO Animal Productionand Health Paper 22, 1981.Food and Agriculture Organisation of theUnited Nations, “Animal Genetic ResourcesConservation by Management, Data Banks andTraining, “ FAO Animal Production and HealthPaper 44/1, 1984.Franklin, I. R., “Evolutionary Change in SmallPopulation,” Conservation Biology, M.E. Soul~and B.A. Wilcox (eds. ) (Sunderland, MA:Sinauer Associates), 1980, pp. 135-149.Glenister, P. H., Whittingham, D. G,, and Lyon,M. F,, “Further Studies on the Effect of Radia-tion During the Storage of Frozen 8-Cell MouseEmbryos at – 1960 C,” Journal of Reproductionand Fertility 70:229-234, 1984.Gonzalez-Jeminez, E., “The Capybara: An In-digenous Source of Meat in Tropical America, ”World Animal Review 21:24-30, 1977.Graham, E, F., Schmehl, M. R., and Deyo,R, C. M., “Cryopreservation and Fertility of Fish,Poultry and Mammalian Spermatozoa, ” Pro-ceedings of the Iuth Technical Conference onArtificial Insemination and Reproduction, Na-tional Association of Animal Breeders, 1984, pp.4-29,Hare, W, C, D., and Singh, E. L., “Control of In-fectious Agents in Bovine Embryos, ” Proceed-ings of an International Symposium on Microbi-ological Tests for the International Exchange ofAnimal Genetic Material, 1984, pp. 80-85.Heuschele, W. P., “Management of Animal Dis-ease Agents and Vectors Potentially Hazardousfor Animal Germ Plasm Resources, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1985,Hill, W. G., “Estimation of Genetic Change, I:General Theory and Design of Control Popula-tions, ” Animal Breeding Abstracts 40:1-15,1972.Hill, W. G., “Predictions of Response to Artifi-cial Selection From New Mutations, ’ Geneti-cal Research 40:255-278, 1982.International Livestock Centre for Africa, “Try-panotolerant Livestock in West and CentralAfrica, Volume I: General Study,” InternationalLivestock Centre for Africa Monograph z, AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, l!lTg.International Livestock Centre for Africa, “Sa-

164 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

hiwal Cattle: An Evaluation of Their PotentialContribution to Milk and Beef Production inAfrica, ” International Livestock Centre forAfrica Monograph 3, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,1981.

25. King, J. W. B., “Genetic Exhaustion in Single-Purpose Breeds,” Proceedings of the FAO/UNEPTechnical Consultation on Animal Genetic Re-sources Conservation and Management, FAOAnimal Production and Health Paper 24, 1981,Pp. 230-242.

26. Land, R. B., “An Alternate Philosophy for Live-stock Breeding, ” Livestock Production Science8:95-99, 1981.

27. Lande, R,, and Barrowclough, G. F., “EffectivePopulation Size, Genetic Variation and TheirUse in Population Management,” Viable Popu-lations, M.E. Soul~ (cd.) (Oxford: Blackwell Pub-lishing Co., 1986).

28. Lasley, B. L., and Wing, A., “Stimulating Ovar-ian Function in Exotic Carnivores With Pulsesof GnRH, ” Proceedings of the American Asso-ciation of Zoo Veterinarians, 1983, p. 14,

29. Loskutoff, N. M., Ott, J. E., and Lasley, B. L.,“Monitoring the Reproductive Status of theOkapi (Okapia johnstoni],” Proceedings of theAmerican Association of Zoo Veterinarians,1981, P. 149.

30. Maijala, K,, Cherekaev, A. V., Devillard, J. M.,Reklewski, Z., Rognoni, G., Simon, D. L., andSteane, D. E., “Conservation of Animal GeneticResources in Europe, Final Report of an E. A,A.P,Working Party, ” Livestock Production Science11:3-22, 1984,

31. Maijala, K., and Osterberg, S., “Productivity ofPure Finnsheep in Finland and Abroad,” Live-stock Production Science 4:355-377, 1977.

32. Moore, G. H., “Deer Imports,” New ZealandAgricultural Science 18:19-24, 1984.

33. National Research Council, “Butterfly Farmingin Papua New Guinea” (Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press, 1983).

34. National Research Council, “Crocodiles as a Re-source for the Tropics” (Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press, 1983).

3s. Netter, D. R., and Foose, T. J., “Concepts andStrategies To Maintain Domestic and Wild Ani-mal Germplasm, ” OTA commissioned paper,1985.

36. Piper, L. R,, Bindon, B. M., and Nethery, R.D.(eds.), The Booroola Merino (Melbourne, Aus-tralia: Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organization, 1980),

37. Pope, C. E., Pope, V. Z., and Beck, L. R., “Live

Birth Following Cryopreservation and Transferof a Baboon Embryo, ” Fertility and Sterility42:143-145, 1984.

38, Seiger, S. W. J., “A Review of Artificial Methodsof Breeding in Captive Wild Species, ” TheDodo, journal of the Jersey Wildlife Preserva-tion Trust 18:79-93, 1981.

39. Simon, D. L., “Conservation of Animal GeneticResources—A Review, ” Livestock ProductionScience 11:23-36, 1984.

40. Smith, C., “Genetic Aspects of Conservation inFarm Livestock, ” Livestock Production Science11:3-48, 1984.

41. Society for the Advancement of Breeding Re-searchers in Asia and Oceania, “Evaluation ofAnimal Genetic Resources in Asia and Ocea-nia)” Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1981.

42. Somes, R. G., “International Registry of PoultryGenetic Stocks, ” Storrs Agricultural Experi-ment Station Bulletin 469, 1984.

43. Soul&, M. E,, Gilpin, M., Conway, W., and Foose,T., “The Millennium Ark: How Long the Voy-age, How Many Staterooms, How Many Passen-gers?” Zoobio]ogy 5:101-114, 1986.

44. Stalheim, O.H.V. (cd.), “Proceedings of an In-ternational Symposium on MicrobiologicalTests for the International Exchange of AnimalGenetic Material” (Madison, WI: AmericanAssociation of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosti-cians, 1984).

45, Stalheim, O. H. V., Bartlett, D. E., Carbrey, E. H.,Knutson, W. W., Landford, E. V., and Seigfried,L., “Recommended Procedures for the Microbi-ologic Examination of Semen” (Madison, WI:American Association of Veterinary LaboratoryDiagnosticians, 1979).

46. Templeton, A. R., and Read, B., “The Elimina-tion of Inbreeding Depression in a Captive Herdof Speke’s Gazelle, ” Genetics and Conservation,C.M. Schonewald-Cox, S.M. Chambers, B. Mac-Bryde, and L. Thomas (eds,) (Menlo Park, CA:Benjamin/Cummings, 1983).

47. Thresher, P., “The Economics of DomesticatedOryx Compared With That of Cattle,” WorldAnimal Review 36:37-43, 1980,

48, Trail, J. C. M., “Cattle Breed Evaluation Studiesby the International Livestock Centre forAfrica,” Animal Genetic Resources Informa-tion, January 1983, pp. 17-20.

49, Wallace, B,, and Vetukhiv, M,, “Adaptive Orga-nization of the Gene Pools of Drosophila Popu-lations,” Gold Spring Harbor Symposium onQuantitative Biology 20:303-309, 1955.

50, VVhittingham, D. G., Leibo, S. Y., and Mazar, P.,

“Survival of Mouse Embryos Frozen to – 1960and – 260° C,” Science 178:411-414, 1972.

51. Wilmut, I., “Effect of Cooling Rate, WarmingRate, Cryoprotection Agent, and Stage of Devel-opment on Survival of Mouse Embryos DuringCooling and Thawing, ” Life Science 11, Part2:1071-1079, 1972.

52, Zhang, W., Wu, J. S., and Rempel, W. E., “Some

Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite ● 165

Performance Characteristics of Prolific Breedsof Pigs in China, ” Livestock Production Science10:59-68, 1983.

53. Zimmerman, D.R. and Cunningham, P. J., “Se-lection for Ovulation Rate in Swine: Population,Procedures and Ovulation Response, ” Journalof Animal Science 40:61-69, 1975.

Chapter 7

MaintainingPlant Diversity

Offsite

CONTENTS

PageHighlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................,.169Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . * , * ● . * . . . . . . . 169

Objectives of Offsite Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....169Considerat ions in Select ing Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . , . .171

C o l l e c t i n g S a m p l e s . . . . , O . . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . , . . . . . . , . . . 1 7 3Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............,.....,173Selecting Sites for Collecting .. ., D O, . . . . . . . . . . ,, ...................173Quarantine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,..,......175Quarantine and Plant Importation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..,......,.177Safeguards for Reducing Risk in Imported Germplasm. . ............,..177

Storing Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................,178Conventional Seed Storage, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , . . .180Cryogenic Storage of Seeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......,183Field Maintenance and Controlled Environments . ....................184pollen Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................184Biotechnology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.,,.,.,,,...,....185Management of Stored Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....187

Using Plants Stored Offsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., ... ..190Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ... ...,l90Traditional Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,.,..........,..,...191Biotechnological Improvement ● O..**. , . . . . . . . . . ● * * * . . * . 191

Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, ...........194Develop a Standard Operating Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . , . ,194Improve Movement of Germplasm Through Quarantine . ..,...........196Promote Basic Research on Maintenance and Use of Plant Germplasm ..196

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................197

TablesTable No. Page7-1. Crops and Trees Commonly Prohibited Entry by Quarantine

Regulations in 125 Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,1787-2. Technologies and Practices To Detect Pests and Diseases of

Quarantine Significance and the Pathogens to Which They Are MostFrequently Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........,.179

7-3. Storage Technologies for Germplasm of Different Plants . .......,....1797-4. Estimated Costs of Conventional and Cryogenic Storage . ........,,..1847-!5. Somaclonal Variationin Economically Important Plant Species . ......193

FiguresFigure No. Page7-1. Regions of the World Where Major Food Crops Were Domesticated ..,1767-2. Maintenance Process of a P1ant Seed Bank . ...............,,.,.,...180

BoxesBox N o. Page37-A. Definitions Relevant to Offsite Plant Collections . ...............,...1707-B. The History of Plant Collection ..* .**. ● .**.,** ,..,.0.. . . . . . . . . . . . 1747-C. Breeding and the Development of Gaines Wheat. . .................,192

Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite

HIGHLIGHTS

. Seed storage techniques are being used to conserve the genetic diversity ofcereals, legumes, and many other important crop species. Some plants, how-ever, do not produce seeds that can be stored. Eventually, this problem maybe resolved with techniques for in vitro storage of plant tissue, from whichwhole plants can be regenerated. At present, the main alternative to seed stor-age is to grow entire specimens in the field.

● New technologies, including cryogenic storage of seeds and clones, use of bio-chemical methods to characterize accessions, and improved methods to detectpathogens in plant materials transferred internationally, have the potential toincrease the cost-effectiveness of maintaining plant diversity offsite. Progress,however, is constrained by a lack of fundamental research on plant physiol-ogy, reproductive processes, and the mechanisms of genetic and cellular change.

● Priorities and protocols for collecting and maintaining germplasm of majorcrop plants are internationaIIy coordinated. However, they are not well-organized for minor crops or for wild plants that are endangered or have eco-nomic potential.

● Long-term public and private support for germplasm storage facilities dependson whether the stored materials prove to be valuable. The use of offsite collec-tions can be improved by characterizing the genetic diversity contained in thecollections and evaluating collections for important traits.

Major breakthroughs in biotechnologies might eventually lead to fundamentalchanges in how biological diversity is maintained. Even so, a large portionof public resources for technology development should be used in improvingthe application of existing technologies, such as cryogenic storage of germ-plasm, that are important to society but are not attractive to the private sectorto support.

OVERVIEW

One approach to maintaining plant diversityinvolves collecting samples of agricultural andwild species and storing them in offsite collec-tions, Such collections can assemble agricul-turally, geographically, and ecologically diverseplants for use in crop improvement, genetic re-search, or plant conservation. This chapter as-sesses technologies of collecting, storing, andusing plants offsite,

Objectives Offsite Collections

Offsite collections of agricultural crops bringtogether varieties and related species fromwidely dispersed areas (box 7-A). These collec-tions conserve plant genetic resources threat-ened with loss or extinction. They also serveas a convenient source of new genes for publicand private plant improvement. The highly suc-

169

170 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

cessful rice variety 1R36 developed by the In-ternational Rice Research Institute resultedfrom the crossbreeding of 13 accessions in theircollections of rice from the United States andseveral Asian countries (Pg). wild plant collec-tions help to preserve endangered species, sup-ply materials to restore degraded lands, andprovide material for genetic improvement ofcrops.

Botanic gardens and arboretums arethepri-mary repositories for wild plant species (69,112). Arboretums have been particularly impor-tant for maintaining individual trees and shrubsthat may have little commercial significance(69). These facilities may also have commit-ments to public education and display that canresult in selecting plants with special or unusualcharacteristics rather than those representingthe genetic diversity within the species. How-ever, many such institutions are now givinggreater attention to the potential contributionsthey can make to maintaining plant diversity(12,34),

Considerations in SeIectingTechnologies

No single technology is appropriate for allthe plants stored in offsite collections. Several

Ch. 7—Maintaining P/ant Diversity Offsite 171

considerations affect the selection of appropri-ate technologies such as biological limitationsof the species, reliability of the technology, andcost.

Biological Limitations

Seeds are the most commonly and easilystored propagules of plants. When placed inconditions that reduce their moisture contentto approximately 5 to 6 percent, seeds of manyspecies will remain viable for years. Loweredtemperatures can further extend storage life.Seeds able to withstand reduction in moistureand temperature are called orthodox seeds.Most of the major food crops (e.g., cereals andlegumes) have orthodox seeds, and many, whenproperly dried, withstand cooling to – 196° C,the temperature used in cryopreservation (58,85,89,100,108).

Seeds that cannot survive a reduction in mois-ture content are called recalcitrant seeds. Recal-citrant seeds are found in many important trop-ical species, a few temperate tree species, andsome aquatic plants (8,42,83,100,108,118).

Reducing the water content of recalcitrantseeds severely shortens their life span. Thus,they cannot be stored like orthodox seeds: cool-ing to subfreezing temperatures would lead to

Board for Genetic Resources

Many temperate and tropical species such as coffee and oil palm have seeds that cannot be stored for long periods;for this reason, collection of woody cuttings is preferred.

172 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

formation of ice, resulting in damaged cells anddeath of seeds. Instead, plants with recalcitrantseeds are commonly stored as field collections.Research on the physiology of recalcitrant seedsmay lead to methods for long-term seed main-tenance of these species. In vitro plantlet or em-bryo culture, coupled with cryogenic storage,may also eventually become useful for thesespecies.

Two other biological limitations may restrictthe maintenance of some plants. First, the qual-ities that distinguish a particular variety (e.g.,flower color and shape in roses; or the color,flavor, and texture of a peach) may not be pre-served in plants grown from seeds, For manyfruit and nut varieties, retention of these spe-cific qualities is only possible through clonalpropagation, which entails producing plantsfrom cuttings or by grafting. Second, someplants do not produce seeds readily because ofinappropriate environmental conditions, phys-iological barriers, or genetic inabilities, In somecases, such as many varieties of banana or thetropical yams (Dioscorea), plants are sterile andseeds cannot be obtained. Basic studies of phys-iology are needed to improve understandingof the processes controlling flowering and seedproduction for both cultivated and wild plantspecies.

Reliability

The reliability of technology refers to boththe potential for loss (by natural causes, acci-dent, or equipment failure) and the likelihoodof genetic alteration during storage.

The potential for loss by natural causes ishigher in field collections than in seed collec-tions. Pests, diseases, and environmental con-ditions can decimate field collections. Therefore,collections should be duplicated in differentlocations to ensure against loss. Greenhousesor other controlled environments may reducethe potential for loss by reducing environmentalexposure. Research of in vitro culture may leadto alternatives to field collections that are freefrom disease and environmental uncertainties.

Collections are also subject to equipment fail-ure. As a backup measure, mechanical refrig-

eration compressors should have alternativepower systems to prevent warming, which mayadversely affect the viability of stored seeds(100). Cryogenic techniques do not rely on ex-ternal power sources or mechanical cooling sys-tems. And though containers may developleaks, the risks to security are considered muchless than for mechanical refrigeration (100,101).

Some novel approaches to reducing depen-dence on mechanical cooling systems are be-ing tested. The Nordic Gene Bank in Swedenrecently established a long-term storage facil-ity in old mines dug into the permafrost (125).The Polish Government proposed establishinga world seed collection in Antarctic ice caves,but this approach raises questions about stor-age temperatures and about ease of access andpolitical control (55). An approach being de-veloped in Argentina is to use the cold nightsof mountain environments to cool a speciallyconstructed storage vault (55). These options,while interesting, are suitable for only certaincountries and are still experimental.

Genetic stability of plants can be affected inseveral ways. Mutations in orthodox seeds mayincrease as samples lose their ability to ger-minate (84,108). Growing out samples subjectsthem to conditions that will select against cer-tain individuals and thus reduce genetic diver-sity in the sample (88). Cryogenic storage canimprove genetic stability by slowing viabilityloss and lengthening the time needed betweenregenerations. For in vitro cultures, genetic mu-tation becomes a concern when the tissues aregrowing as unorganized calli. Cryogenic stor-age of such cultures could suppress mutationby arresting growth, but more research on plantdevelopment and cryopreservation of in vitrocultures is still needed (90,108).

C o s t s

A final consideration in the selection of tech-nologies is cost. In seed storage facilities, ex-penses are incurred with monitoring viabilityand regenerating samples. Mechanical refrig-eration systems can be expensive because ofcontinuous energy costs. Cryogenic storage canlower long-term costs by reducing the fre-

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 173

quency of viability monitoring and regenera-tion. However, cryogenic storage is economi-cal for only certain plant species; larger seeds,such as beans, may be stored more economi-cally under mechanical refrigeration (102).

In vitro cultures may be more economicalthan extensive field collections, particularly ifthe cultures are stored cryogenically. However,further research and development is needed onboth in vitro culture and cryogenic storage,

COLLECTING SAMPLES

Collecting samples involves the developmentof strategies as well as the actual collection ofplants. Developing strategies can be facilitatedby analyzing plants already in storage, Ideally,a strategy would provide for the collection ofall genetic variants of a species without redun-dancy (37) (box 7-B).

Strategies

Considerations of economic or esthetic im-portance, rarity, degree of endangerment, ac-cess, genetic diversity, and similarity to plantsalready stored offsite can all influence the set-ting of strategies.

For the major agricultural species, collectionstrategies have been established by consider-ing the data on plants already collected, geo-graphic distribution of crop species, particu-lar needs of breeders, and the economic orsocial importance of the crop (117). The Inter-national Board for Plant Genetic Resources hasestablished a system of priority ratings to guidecollectors: priority 1 crops are those with mosturgent global collection needs; Priorities 2, 3,and 4 indicate descending orders of urgency(51,73),

Strategies are less clearly established for thecollection of most wild species (66), In general,those threatened in their natural environmentor of display value have received greater atten-tion (69,1 12). A formal system for coordinat-ing conservation activities has only recentlybeen established (34,112). Botanic gardens,commercial institutions, and private collectionshave been growing and propagating rare plantsfor years but without concern for obtaining arange of genetic diversity (69). organizationssuch as the Botanic Gardens Conservation Co-ordinating Body of the International Union forthe Conservation of Nature and Natural Re-

sources (IUCN) and the Center for Plant Con-servation at the Arnold Arboretum of HarvardUniversity are beginning to focus the expertiseand resources of botanic gardens, arboretums,and private collectors to improve offsite main-tenance of wild plants.

Selecting Sites for Collecting

Studies of the geographic distribution ofplants, the experiences of scientists and plantcollectors, computer-based models, and re-

Photo credit M O’Grady

Collecting natural rubber in the Amazon forest.Natural rubber still has many industrial uses for which

synthetic rubber cannot be employed.

174 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

search on the origins of plants have enabledscientists to locate regions rich in diversity ofcrop species. The regions where most of themajor crop species were originally domesti-cated and developed are known as centers ofdiversity, after a scheme first proposed by bot-anist N.I. Vavilov of the Soviet Union (45,57).At least 12 centers of diversity are now recog-nized (figure 7-1). Primitive varieties and relatedwild species that are able to survive in diverse

habitats and resist a variety of crop-specific dis-eases can be located in these areas.

Some guidelines are available for collectinga genetically diverse sample (12,47). For in-stance, plants growing in areas of different soil,water, or light conditions may represent typesthat have genetic adaptations and could proveto be valuable sources of particular genetictraits. But guidelines for collecting seeds or

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 175

de Papa (C/P)

Collecting wild potato species in South America,a center of potato diversity.

other propagation materials (cuttings, tubers,etc.) are only general and may be altered by spe-cific conditions in the field. For example, theCentral America and Mexico Coniferous Re-sources Cooperative (CAMCORE) has estab-lished guidelines for environmental and geo-graphic factors to consider, depending on thenumber of trees to collect from, and the amountof seed to be collected (25,26). But if collectorsencounter small populations of tree species, col-lection is made from any tree with seed (26).Thus, the guidelines for a collecting expeditiondepend heavily on the expertise and judgmentof the individual collector.

Scientists and experienced collectors alsoprovide helpful information on collecting sites.Several of the large so-called genetic stock col-lections of crop germplasm in the United States,such as the one for tomato at the Universityof California-Davis, are overseen by a few in-dividuals with special interests in that crop. Theknowledge these people have about origins anddistribution of a crop is frequently the resultof extensive observations and field collectingexperiences.

Computer-based modeling is another poten-tially useful tool for predicting the location ofsites appropriate for collecting. Data from a fewkey locations may provide information on thedistribution of a particular crop trait, such asdrought tolerance. A map can then be con-structed by computer-based extrapolation ofneighboring regions. Areas likely to containplants with similar characteristics could beselected (2). However, this technology has itslimitations. This kind of analysis requires pre-cise data on latitude, longitude, and elevationfor collected plants, for example—informationthat is not currently available in most crop data-bases (2). And because overall geographic in-formation comes from satellite imagery, it canbe prohibitively expensive (2). Political or other(e.g., geographic) restrictions on collecting insome areas may also make acquisition of plantsamples difficult. Finally, data for the initialprofile are obtained from sites chosen by sta-tistical analysis, and plant distribution may notparallel these mathematically chosen sites. Re-finements in existing databases, collection in-formation, and artificial intelligence systemsmay someday allow such models to assist incollecting. However, it seems the importanceof using existing data for such tasks has beenoverlooked (46).

Quarantine

After samples have been collected, compli-cations may arise in transporting them. Move-ment of plants from one region to another al-ways carries some risk that pests (nematodes,snails, insects, etc.) or pathogens (viruses, bac-teria, or fungi) will also be transported (14,59,

176 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

I

.,

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite . 177

60). Plants destined for offsite collections, par-ticularly those from centers of diversity, canpresent particular quarantine concerns. Thesecenters possess not only considerable cropdiversity but also widely adapted crop pests andpathogens. An area where coffee and the dis-ease coffee-rust coexist, for example, would bea likely place to obtain plants with rust resis-tance genes, but it could also have pathogensthat have adapted to coffee plants (60).

The presence of most exotic pests can be de-termined by inspection or by treatment of plantsupon entry, but some imported plants may bedetained while tested for obscure pathogens.Such testing requires well-equipped labora-tories and personnel as well as considerabletime. This last constraint—5 or more years forthe detection of certain viruses and virus-likeorganisms in woody plants—can profoundly af-fect importation of some plants (60).

Quarantine and plant Importation

Establishing quarantine policies and prac-tices for a particular plant species depends onboth knowledge of its risk of carrying pests orpathogens and availability of technologies todetect such pathogens (table 7-I). Most plantspecies, when imported according to regula-tions (e. g., clean and free of soil, and subjectto inspection at an authorized port of entry),are considered unlikely to be carrying harm-ful organisms and thus to be of low risk (60).

Some agricultural crops, such as rice, sor-ghum, or sugarcane and their related wild spe-cies, require greater attention because theymight contain pathogens not easily detected bycurrent technologies.

Certain agricultural plants or plant parts usedfor vegetative propagation (e.g., sugarcanestems or potato tubers) represent the greatestrisk to agriculture because they maybe infectedwith undetected pathogens (60). The U.S. De-partment of Agriculture (USDA) allows smallquantities of these plants to be imported for sci-entific use only. Permits typically require thatplants be grown under the supervision of aknowledgeable specialist and may require diag-nostic testing for pathogens as well as special-

ized growing practices (60). Once plants havecleared safeguard restrictions, they may be dis-tributed to the general public.

In the United States, some plants (e.g., ap-ples, pears, and potatoes) are held at one of theAgricultural Research Service’s Plant Protec-tion and Quarantine facilities until they are con-sidered free of any pests or pathogens (60).Plants in this group face the most constraintsbecause the hazards associated with importingthem are highest (60). These plants may be heldfor several years after their original impor-tation.

In developing countries, plant quarantine sys-tems may lack scientific expertise, facilities, orappropriate governmental infrastructures tosupport them (14). Therefore, they depend heav-ily on such regulatory constraints as import re-fusal, lengthy quarantine, or treatment for pestsor pathogens, These restrictions can result inconsiderable delay in importation of plants tofacilities in these areas.

Safeguards for Reducing Risk inImported Germplasm

A number of actions and regulations, eitherat the place of origin or at the port of entry,reduce the risks associated with plant impor-tation.

Inspection, certification, testing, or treatmentof plants before export can reduce potentialquarantine delays (60). Most plants require lit-tle more than inspection to move quickly throughquarantine. In vitro plantlet cultures can, insome cases, be imported with fewer restrictionsthan the plants from which they originate, Suchcultures, though, are not considered free of dis-ease without diagnostic testing (60).

Upon entry, plants likely to contain patho-gens can be tested with a variety of technol-ogies (table 7-2) (59,60). However, proceduresvary in reliability and in the resources they re-quire. Indexing, which uses highly sensitive in-dicator plants, is the most reliable and wideIyused method, but it requires considerable green-house space to maintain the plants necessaryfor this test (60). Serologic methods that use an-

178 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 7-1 .—Crops and Trees Commonly Prohibited Entry by Quarantine Regulations in 125 Countries

Number of countries Percentages of countries

Percentages ofcountries prohibiting:

in which crops/genera that name one or more Plants Plants SeedsCrops and trees are prohibited pests or pathogens only a and seeds only

Forest crops.’Maple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 43 100 0 0Chestnut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 23 76 24 0Conifers b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 26 100 0 0Hawthorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 86 100 0 0Walnut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 48 100 0 0Poplar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 44 93 7 0Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 47 92 8 0Willow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 45 100 0 0Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 58 96 4 0Elm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 47 94 16 0Fruit crops:Citrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 45 55 45 0Coconut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 32 29 64 7Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 55 65 35 0Banana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 39 54 46 0Pome fruitsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 68 85 15 0Prunus (cherry, plum, etc) . . . . . . 37 68 85 15 0Currant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 38 69 31 0Grapevine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 41 90 10 0Vegetable crops:Sweet potato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 35 61 39 0Potato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 41 90 10 0Other crops:Coffee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 31 24 57 18Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 23 25 61 14Sunflower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 40 20 80 0Rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 50 29 71 0Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 31 35 58 7Oil palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 38 56 44 0Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 42 21 61 18Rose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 41 100 0 0Cacao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 42 19 79 2Tea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 45 45 55 0Sugarcane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 10 63 37 0alncludes plants as well as any parts for vegetative Propagationbspeclflcauy the genera P/cea, Larix, Pinus, andAb@Clncludes the generac~aeno~e/es, Cydonia, Ma/us, and ~YrfJs

SOURCE R.P Kahn, “Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity” Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices,” OTAcommlssioned papeh 1985.

tibodies to pathogens provide rapid results butmay not detect all forms of a particular patho-gen (60), Molecular techniques to detect thegenetic material of pathogens are available,butthese may require better-equipped laboratoriesand greater expertise than is available in manyquarantine programs, Identifying the presenceof a pathogen can thus be difficult because a

STORING

Storage technologies aim to preserve an ade-quate amount of plant germplasm, sustain itsviability, and preserve its original genetic con-

negative result maybe due to inadequate tech-nology. It is essential, therefore, that the limitsof any technology be understood. Basic re-search on the biology of pathogenic organismsand the technologies used to detect them isneeded to improvetesting procedures, developthem for other pests and pathogens, and un-derstand the limits.

SAMPLES

stitution (81). Plants can be maintained offsitein a numberofforms and with a number of tech-nologies (table 7-3). They may be maintained

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 179

Table 7“2.—Technologies and Practices To Detect Pests and Diseases of Quarantine Significanceand the Pathogens To Which They Are Most Frequently Applied

Technology/practice:Description

Physical examination:Physical manifestations of disease-producing agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seed health testing:Germinating seed in culture conditions that allow growth of fungi or bacteria. Microscopic

examination of seed for pathogens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Grow-out testing:

Growing plants under controlled conditions until diseases are no longer detected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ndexing:

Attempted transfer of pathogens from a plant under examination to another species that is highlysensitive to infection by them. Can involve transfer by mechanical abrasion with extractsor by grafting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electron microscopy:Examination of extracts or tissues for the presence of pathogens or their spores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inclusion bodies:Light microscopic examination of tissues for structures characteristic of pathogen infection. . . . . . . . . .

Serologic testing:An array of procedures utilizing the ability of test animals to produce antibodies that are highly

specific for a particular pathogen. Important variations include enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,radioimmunosorbent assay, and immunosorbent electron microscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Polyactylamide gel electrophoresis:Detects ribonucleic acid (RNA) of pathogens in small amounts of tissue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nucleic acid hybridization:New technology that uses recombinant DNA procedures to locate the genetic material of a pathogen

in DNA extracted from tissue samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .aA = Most pests and pathogens, B = bacteria; F = fungi, V = wruses, O = others (0 g , ffIYCOPlaSmaS, vlrolds)

Range a

A

B,F

B, F,V,O

B,F,V

B,V

B,F,V

B,V,O

B,V,O

B,V,O

SOURCE Based on data from R P Kahn, “Technologies To Ma!ntaln Biological Dlvers!ty Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985

Table 7-3.—Storage Technologies for Germplasm of Different Plants

Storage technology

Storage Field In vitro cool LiquidPlant group form b collections culture temperature nit rogen Collection c

Cereals and grain legumes seeds x R(wheat, corn, barley, rice, soybean)

Forage legumes and grasses seeds x R(alfalfa, orchardgrass, bromegrass, clover) plants x X,R x

Vegetables seeds x R(tomato, bean, onion, carrot, lettuce) plants x R R R

Forest trees seeds x R(pines, firs, hardwoods) plants x R R

Roots and tubers seeds x(potato, sweet potato, tropical yam, aroids) plants x X,R R R

Temperate fruit and nuts seeds x R(apple, grape, peach, strawberry, raspberry) plants x X,R R R

Tropical fruit and nuts seeds x R(avocado, banana, date, citrus, papaya, cashew) plants x R R R

Ornamental seeds x R(carnation, zinnia, lilac, rhododendron) plants x X,R

Oilseeds seeds x R(soybean, sunflower, peanut, oilpalm, rape) plants x R R

New crops seeds x R(jojoba, amaranth, guayule) plants x X,R

ax ~ currently in use, R = under research and development.bRefers to source of materlafs for storage (e,g , plants are the source of materlais for initiating tissue CulturesCB ~ base Collections available, A = active COllOCtlOnS available

SOURCE Adapted from L Towill, E Roos, and P C Stanwood, “Plant Germplasm Storage Technologies,” OTA comm!ssloned paper, 1985

B,A

B,AA

B,AA

B,AB,AB,AA

B(?),AAAAAA

B,AA

B,AA

180 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Figure 702.— Maintenance Process of aPlant Seed Bank

I number 4

I

I1

II I

● Cleaning● Drying

counting

II

I

I STORAGEI

i

Ambient to cryogenictemperatures

1I

J

1

REGENERATION

t

Unacceptable

bll{ty

I ISOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.

as seeds, in fields, or in greenhouse collections.Pollen storage and in vitro plantlet cultures maysupplement storage of many of these species.Finally, cryogenic storage (in liquid nitrogen)and emerging DNA technologies may hold po-tential for improving maintenance of plants.

Conventional Seed Storage

Most agricultural crops held by the NationalPlant Germplasm System (NPGS), internationalcenters, national programs, and private collec-tions are maintained as seeds. The process ofconventional seed storage can be divided intoseveral steps: registration, processing, storage,viability testing, and regeneration (figure 7-2).

Registration

When seeds arrive at a storage facility, pass-port information must be recorded and a num-ber assigned to facilitate recordkeeping. Pass-port data may include information on the originof the sample, its source (if acquired fromanother facility), and any pertinent physiolog-ical details that would aid storage. Data of in-terest to potential users, such as disease resis-tance, also may be included.

The information accumulated may reflect thefocus of a particular collection. The Royal Bo-tanic Gardens at Kew, England, requires de-tails on the location and habitat in which a wildplant species was collected, an estimate of thetotal number of plants represented by the sam-ple, a taxonomic classification, and the loca-tion of a reference herbarium specimen. Themore detailed this preliminary information is,the more useful the accession is for crop de-velopment or conservation.

Collections may receive the accessions ofanother collection, thus duplicating materials.Although such duplication does provide secu-rity against loss, the number of accessions heldby all collections does not reflect duplicates.In barley, for example, the total of more than280,000 accessions in storage is considerablygreater than the estimated 50,000 distinct ac-cessions worldwide (70).

Processing

Once registered, other data such as estimatesof the number of seeds received, viability interms of percentage of germination, and taxo-nomic identification must be obtained. In addi-tion, seeds may require preparation, like clean-ing and drying for storage.

Seeds are tested for germinating ability to de-termine if the sample is of high viability orwhether it must be planted to produce freshseed before storing (29,30,31,43).

To reduce moisture in seeds, proceduresusing chemical desiccants have been developedand are widely applied (111). Facilities withlarge amounts of seeds to process, such as theU.S. Plant Introduction Stations or the National

—

Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL), use dehumid-ified rooms to reduce moisture.

Storage

Four factors affect seed storage: 1) moisturecontent, 2) storage temperature, 3) storageatmosphere, and 4) genetic composition of thesample (4,87,88,89), Reduced moisture contentis considered the most crucial to maintainingviability. In general, each l-percent decreasein seed moisture between the 5- and 14-percentrange will double the lifespan of a seed sample.Reduction of storage temperature also increasesseed longevity. A 50 decrease in temperaturebetween 0° and 50° C doubles longevity (89).Control of storage atmosphere generally doesnot provide significant advantages over ma-nipulation of moisture and temperature, par-ticularly when the latter is below freezing.Genetics relate to differences between individ-ual accessions or between individuals in amixed sample and cannot be altered to increaselongevity.

Viability Testing

Seeds must be tested periodically for viabil-ity. This information helps determine when anaccession needs to be grown-out to produce afresh sample of seeds. The most obvious testis to germinate a portion of the seeds to esti-mate the viable percentage.

Viability testing involves placing seeds inappropriate conditions (damp blotter paper,agar medium, etc.] and counting the numberof seeds that germinate over a period of time.However, if seeds are dormant, obtaining via-bility estimates can be difficult. Citrus species,for example, were thought to have died whenprepared for conventional storage but wereshown instead to be dormant (82). Heating, cool-ing, lighting, and treatments (e. g., removal orcracking of the seed coat) may be required toovercome dormancy in some species.

Typically, 200 to 400 seeds are required forviability testing (43). However, a sequential ap-proach reduces the number needed for testing.Forty seeds can be tested to determine whetherthe accession should be regenerated, stored, or

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite . 181—

whether another 40 seeds are needed (30,42).But a small sample of seeds may need to under-go numerous tests before an answer is reached,which may take longer than testing a singlelarge sample.

Other tests–involving dyes, physiologicaltests, or biochemical assays—have been devel-oped to determine seed viability (89). The va-lidity of such tests relies on the ability to dem-onstrate a correlation with actual germinationrates. These tests can be useful to determineif dormancy or inappropriate storage condi-tions are producing misleading results (30).Some, such as the tetrazolium dye test for arange of seeds, or X-ray contrast with heavymetals in tree seeds, have been widely used(30,89). others, such as enzyme tests, provideinformation useful for the study of seed physi-ology but are more expensive and difficult toperform than standard germination tests.

Preserving the genetic variability in seed ac-cessions is a major concern in offsite collec-tions, Many accessions, particularly those ofprimitive landraces and wild species, are ge-netically diverse populations and display con-siderable genetic variation between individualsin a sample. Genetic differences in storage life-span can mean that the genetics of a popula-tion could be altered by decline in viability(86,87,88,108).

Although seeds generally should be regener-ated when germination drops 15 percent, prac-tical considerations of labor, space, and timecan delay this step (32,43,83,108), One recentreport stated that NSSL does not regeneratesamples until viability has dropped 40 percent(113). This practice, however, may be basedmore on lack of resources than on scientificconsiderations.

Regeneration

Variations in growth requirements for spe-cies and even for varieties within a species com-plicate the growing-out of seed. In beans, forexample, different accessions may requiredifferent conditions, e.g., daylength, for grow-ing out. Thus, both subtropical and temperatesites must be used to grow-out a range of bean

182 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

credit: OTA

Conventional seed storage. Seeds are stored in airtight containers (top photo), then placed in drawers (bottom left) inrefrigerated rooms (bottom right). Many storage facilities increasingly use laminated foil envelopes instead of cans.

Ch. 7–Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 1 8 3

varieties, Other factors such as control of pol-lination can also be important for regenerat-ing certain crops (95,108). Wind-pollinated ac-cessions can readily cross with others, and thus,individual accessions must be grown in widelyseparated fields to ensure that they are not ge-netically mixed.

Genetic loss by natural selection during grow-out may be undetected in regenerated seed. AtNSSL, the designated grower is responsible forensuring that the sample returned is from plantsgrown under conditions that would minimizegenetic loss. No testing beyond visual exami-nation and a viability test of the returned sam-ple is conducted.

Grow-outs are expensive in terms of facilitiesand personnel, and they subject stored materi-als to damage from pests, pathogens, and en-vironmental conditions, which may reducegenetic diversity in an accession. But the mosteffective and least expensive way to maintaindiversity is to reduce the frequency of regener-ation through technologies that extend storage.

Cryogenic Storage of Seeds

A critical factor in cryogenic storage is theamount of water in the tissue to be frozen. Mostorthodox seeds can be easily stored at cryogenictemperatures because their water content is lowenough to avoid damage associated with freez-ing (99,100,102,108),

Cryogenic technologies may be able to extendthe storage life of orthodox seeds to more thana century, which would greatly reduce the needfor viability testing and regeneration (100,102,121,122).

However, limitations on cryogenic storageexist for some species depending on a plant’sseed coat, oil or moisture content, and seed size(108). Some plants, such as plums and coffee,have orthodox seeds that tolerate low moisturelevels but are sensitive to cooling below –4OO

C (100). If cooled or warmed incorrectly, manyseeds can crack (100). Seeds as big as cottonseeds (about eight seeds per gram) are appro-priate for cryogenic storage (99,100,102). Largerseeds, such as beans, can also be frozen, but in-

creased costs, due in part to the greater amountof space required, may reduce or eliminate po-tential cost-savings over mechanical refriger-ation (102).

This method could hold considerable cost ad-vantages with regard to operating a seed bankand regenerating seed (table 7-4) (102). Cryo-genic storage facilities will cost about the sameto establish, but operation over time would becheaper, in part due to reduced need for via-bility testing and grow-out. Investment in afacility to produce liquid nitrogen might be nec-essary in some areas, but the operational sav-ings in the seed bank could allow recovery ofcosts in 6 to 14 years (99).

Major obstacles to this technology are the lackof appropriate facilities and scientific exper-

184 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 7-4.—Estimated Costsa of Conventionaland Cryogenic Storage

Storage for 100 years

Source Conventional b Cryogenic

Storage:Includes equipment, supplies,and replacement ofequipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5.30 $5.00

Operations:Includes utilities, equipmentmaintenance, liquid nitrogencoolant, and monitoring ofviability (every 5 years formechanical; every 50 yearsfor cryogenic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.00 11.80

Seed replacement:From regenerating whenviability or sample sizedeclines (four times formechanical; one time forcryogenic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 25.00

Total 100-year cost $165.30 $41.80

Average yearly cost $ 1.65 $0.42%osts for accession of onion (a species that survives poorly under conventional

storage). Savings for other crop species-particularly those with large seeds—may be less dramatic or nonexistent,

bAssumes storage conditions of – 18° C and seed moisture of 4 to 7 Percent,under which storage life of onion seed is approximately 25 years.

SOURCE: P.C. Stanwood and L.N. Bass, “Seed Germplasm Preservation UsingLiquid Nitrogen,” Seed Science and Technology 9:423-437, 1981.

tise at many locations, particularly in develop-ing countries, and the lack of scientific dataon genetic stability of seeds stored cryogeni-cally. Certainly the capacity to use cryogenictechnologies should be part of any newly con-structed facility for seed storage.

FieId Maintenanence and ControlledEnvironmomts

Accessions may also be stored as vegetativeplants in field collections or controlled envi-ronments e.g., greenhouses (108). This approachmay be necessitated by physiological restric-tions on storing seed, by the need to preserveparticular combinations of characters or by in-abilities to obtain satisfactory seed samples(81,108). Field collections can preserve thegenetic diversity of many aquatic plants; trop-ical species (e.g., coconut, cacao, mango, or rub-ber trees); tropical forest trees; and some tem-perate trees (e.g., oaks) —which all haverecalcitrant seeds (28,42,63,64,84).

Botanic gardens and arboretums maintain di-verse field collections, though many institutes

focus on a narrow taxonomic group, as men-tioned earlier. Arboretums conserve limitedsamples of tree and shrub species with verysmall natural gene pools that are under pres-sure of destruction, or plants with distinctivecharacteristics (34,69,80). In the United States,establishing a network among botanic gardensand arboretums, facilitated by the newly formedCenter for Plant Conservation at the Arnold Ar-boretum at Harvard University, could allow adivision of labor and sharing of expertise thatwould enable more species and more geneticdiversity within species to be maintained (34,106).

Trees in field collections, however, may havebeen selected for economically important traitsand thus may only represent a narrow rangeof the total diversity available for a species.CAMCORE, for example, collects seeds onlyfrom coniferous trees with commercially val-uable trunk characteristics (i.e., tall and straight)(25). Trees in field collections, nonetheless, canbe useful sources of seeds for restoration andreforestation projects (8).

Many clonally propagated crops are main-tained in field collections. Clonally propagatedcrops include fruit and nut species; many or-namental, such as roses; and some root andtuber crops important to developing countries(e.g., sweet potato, cassava, and tare). Seedsmay be available for many varieties. However,most of these crops are genetically hetero-geneous, and clones grown from their seedsmay not retain the particular qualities of theparent plants (e.g., the seeds of a Macintoshapple do not produce Macintosh apple trees,but rather a range of trees that result fromrecombination of the genes in the Macintoshapple). The Centro International de la Papa(CIP) in Peru, for instance, maintains an activefield collection of potato landraces but also hasabase collection of seeds from these accessions(50).

Pollen Storage

Pollen is not a conventional form of germ-plasm storage, but information is available onpreserving pollen for breeding purposes for

many species, particularly for crossing mate-rials that flower at different times (107,108). Apopulation of pollen grains collected from ge-netically different individuals would containthe nuclear genes; cytoplasmic (nonnuclear)genetic factors would not be transmitted, how-ever, because these are not inherited throughthe pollen (108).

Pollen can be separated into types that aretolerant or intolerant of drying (81,107,108).Tolerant types store best when dried and main-tained at low temperatures, much like ortho-dox seeds. But the pollen of many species doesnot survive low moisture or freezing tempera-tures. Some intolerant types, notably maize,have been successfully preserved in liquid ni-trogen, but data on success are sparse (3,107,108).

Considerable information is still needed onstability and longevity of storing pollen, how-ever, before its use in storage will be possible(108). Pollen is undesirable as the sole propagulefor base collection storage because whole plantscannot generally be obtained from it (81,108).In addition, pollen storage does not circumventpotential plant health problems because somepathogens are pollen-borne,

Biotechnology

Biotechnology provides additional opportu-nities to improve offsite maintenance of plants.Of particular relevance are in vitro cultures ofplants that are now maintained in field collec-tions. And developments in genetic engineer-ing may make the storage of isolated DNA prac-tical in the future.

186 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

In Vitro Culture

In vitro cultures of plants have been advo-cated for a variety of species, especially thosethat are clonally propagated (20,53,56). Al-though this technology can be adapted to manyspecies (16,33,93), it is generally unnecessaryfor those that have orthodox seeds. However,the methods may be necessary if there is a needto maintain specific genetic types, if seedprogeny are highly variable, if plants have longjuvenile stages (e.g., many tree species), or ifseeds are lacking (e.g., clonal crops such asbanana, tare, and sugarcane) (20).

In vitro maintenance is defined as the grow-ing of cells, tissues, organs, or plantlets in glassor plastic vessels under sterile conditions (108).when plants originate from intact isolatedmeristems, the cultures may be free of patho-gens (108). The media for growing in vitro cul-tures may vary among species and among in-dividuals within a species. By altering thebalance of nutrients and growth regulators inthe media, in vitro cultures can be made to de-velop unorganized growth (termed callus), pro-duce multiple shoots or plantlets, form struc-tures similar to the embryo in a seed, or developroots to enable transfer to field conditions. Notall plants, however, are amenable to growth ormanipulation by in vitro culture (108).

One aspect of in vitro technology of particu-lar concern for plant germplasm conservationis the occurrence of genetic modification (so-maclonal variation) in plants derived fromcallus cultures (67,90). Such variation is con-sidered useful in the development of new varie-tal characteristics but is unacceptable whenpreservation of specific genotypes is the objec-tive. Although it is known that certain typesof cultures and conditions, such as callus cul-tures, can produce higher frequencies of soma-clonal variation, the cellular processes that pro-duce them are not well understood (90,120).Furthermore, growing cultured plants to matu-rity remains the only satisfactory way to exam-ine the consequences of such changes. Conse-quently, each method of culture must be carefullyevaluated before it is applied. For germplasmpreservation, in vitro plants directly derived

Board Genetic Resources

vitro culture could become an important method oflong-term maintenance for plants with seeds that cannotbe stored under dry, cold conditions and for plants that

can only be maintained in field collections.

from buds or shoot-tips are considered mostsuitable.

No in vitro long-term base collections of agri-cultural crops exist at present, although someactive collections are being developed: potatoat CIP, cassava at the International Center forTropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Colombia, andyam and sweet potato at the International In-stitute for Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria (122,123). The NPGS Clonal Repositories are inves-tigating in vitro cultures as backup to field col-lections of some crops (108).

In vitro cultures can be stored under normalgrowth conditions, in reduced temperatures or

in a medium that inhibits growth (53,56,119,120,122), Cultures can thus be maintained forweeks to months without subculture (i.e., trans-fer to fresh medium). However, all treatmentsthat retard growth put additional stress on theculture, which may increase the potential forsomaclonal variants.

In vitro culture techniques could be impor-tant for the long-term maintenance of plantswith recalcitrant seeds. One recent proposalhas been to excise the embryo from the seedand store it under cryogenic conditions. Theembryo could be thawed and then grown andmultiplied in vitro (40). Research in coopera-tion with the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew,England, has demonstrated the feasibility of thisprocedure for two tree species (Araucariahusteinii and Quercus robur). Further researchis needed to apply it to other plants with recal-citrant seeds (4o).

Cryogenic storage may help avoid the stressesof continuous in vitro culture (49,62,90,121,122,123), Considerably greater attention would beneeded in preparation, freezing, storing, thaw-ing, and subsequent culturing than is the casefor orthodox seeds. Although some generali-zations can be made, methods acceptable to onespecies or variety may not be satisfactory forothers. However, research has demonstratedthat in vitro-cultured shoot-tips from some her-baceous plants (e.g., potato, carnation, and cas-sava); berries (e. g., strawberry, raspberry, andblueberry); and buds of some woody species(e.g., apple) can survive cryogenic storage (108).

Many questions remain before cryogenicstorage of in vitro cultures is widely applied.Among these is whether a single procedure canbe developed that works well for an array ofplants. Further, it is not yet understood howthe process of freezing and thawing affectsregeneration of cultures or their genetic con-stitution (108,121). Additional investigation forindividual crops is needed, and current tech-nologies have not yet been adapted for handlingthe large numbers of specimens that might beexpected in an offsite facility.

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 187

DNA Storage

Future storage technologies may include, asa supplemental strategy, the preservation of theisolated genetic information (DNA and RNA)of plants. Existing technologies can locate, ex-cise, and reinsert genes. In some cases, thesegenes retain nearly normal function (75,108).A much better understanding of gene structure,function, and regulation is needed, however,before isolated DNA can be used for germplasmstorage (76,108).

Management of Stored Materials

Offsite collections of plants must be well man-aged to guard against loss of materials and touse financial and technological resources mostefficiently. Some duplication between collec-tions can prevent catastrophic loss, but exces-sive redundancy can waste resources. Diseaseorganisms that might be brought into a collec-tion by new accessions need to be managed.Finally, information on the accessions must beeasily available both to managers and users.

Duplication of Collections

Duplication of collections provides the bestinsurance against natural catastrophes, pests,diseases, mechanical failures, or abandonment(81,108), CIP protects its collection of landracepotatoes with field plantings at other locations,with seed storage, and with in vitro culture (50).At the NPGS Clonal Repositories (see ch, 9),greenhouse collections back-up field-maintainedcollections of fruit and nut species. Duplica-tion is equally critical for seed banks, wheremalfunctioning of a mechanical compressorcan result in loss of cooling.

Plants in an offsite collection also can be lostif institutional priorities change, or if the per-son responsible for the species or collectionleaves (108). The situation is particularly criti-cal for older varieties of fruits, berries, andvegetables that may be held only by private in-dividuals or groups (112). For wild species, too,a large collection is frequently the result of the

188 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

interest of one person or a few individuals.when these efforts cease, a valuable collectioncan rapidly deteriorate. Information on the fo-cus and extent of various collections can aidcoordination of duplication and minimize thepotential for loss (34,112).

Assessing Diversity in a Collection

The diversity of a collection can be assessedby collecting morphologic, biochemical, orphytochemical information, frequently calledcharacterization data.

Most characterization data can help distin-guish one accession from another but not as-sess potentially useful traits. This is particularlytrue for assays of proteins or DNA, which givelittle indication of such traits as crop yield, dis-ease, or stress resistance.

Morphological Assessment.—Assessing themorphology of an accession is the first step todeveloping accurate characterization, Morpho-logical information for wild species is impor-tant for taxonomic identification and forms theessential baseline from which all other data arerelated (68). The information on agriculturalcrops can be used to distinguish individual ac-cessions, as well as identify them taxonomically(114). However, data are on gross appearanceand do not reflect the full genetic compositionof an accession.

Care must be taken to ensure reliable resultswhen plants are grown-out for morphologicalassessment (10). Spacing of plants must be ade-quate to ensure that results do not reflect over-crowding, for example. Samples thought to beduplicates are frequently grown side by sidefor comparison (13). Biological factors, such asthe potential for cross-pollination among ac-cessions, must be taken into consideration.

The major constraints to assessing morphol-ogy are adequate space, funds, and trained per-sonnel. Though not technically difficult, suchassessments require attention to possible envi-ronmental effects and may take a significantamount of time to perform, analyze, and record,

Biochemical Analysis.—Analysis of proteinsor DNA using electrophoretic techniques isanother way to assess diversity (94). Isoenzymes,the protein products of individual genes, canchange in number or chemical structure whenthe genes for them are altered, and thesechanges can be detected by an electrophoreticassay, Examination of DNA can allow compar-ison of the entire genetic composition of ac-cessions.

Isoenzyme analysis on either starch or poly-acrylamide gels has probably been the mostpopular technique for assessing genetic diver-sity. Surveys of isoenzyme polymorphism havebeen performed for maize, wheat, tomato, pea,and barley (94,114). In addition, surveys havebeen done on hundreds of other cultivars andwild species (94,104, 105,114).

A potential application of this technology isthe development of isoenzyme “fingerprints”to permit reliable identification of specific plantvarieties to certify breeding materials, to iso-late genetically similar cultivars, or to monitorotherwise undetected genetic changes in acces-sions. Electrophoretic analysis has been usedto detect duplication in some offsite collections,such as the CIP collection of potato germplasm(50) and is increasing in application at NPGSfacilities (19). However, since the data are gen-erally restricted to a few biochemical charac-teristics and do not reflect performance dataor the full genetic composition of an accession,such analysis has been considered risky (39).

Two-dimensional electrophoresis is used toseparate complex protein mixtures such asthose found in seed or leaf extracts so that sev-eral hundred proteins can be distinguished ina single gel (9,17,114). The results can be diffi-cult to reproduce, however. The technique re-quires specialized equipment and may be toolengthy for routine use because only one sam-ple can be evaluated at a time. Managers of off-site collections are unlikely to have the time,expertise, or resources to use this technique rou-tinely.

Restriction fragment length polymorphisms(RFLPs) have been used to directly examine

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite 189

DNA. DNA is “cut” enzymatically (using re-striction endonuclease enzymes) into pieces orrestriction fragments that can be separated onelectrophoretic gels. Because RFLPs representthe whole genetic composition of the sample,comparing individual analyses within a sam-ple or among accessions would indicate thevariability that exists. The techniques, however,are expensive and require technicaI expertiseto execute and interpret. Thus, use of RFLPsappears limited at present to appropriatelyequipped laboratories (114). RFLPs have beenuseful in developing detailed genetic maps foruse in breeding programs (48) but are not rou-tinely applied to characterization of germplasm.

Phytochemical Analysis.—Phytochernicalanalysis deals with the distribution and chemis-try of organic compounds synthesized by plants(114).

Analysis involves three general processes: ex-traction, isolation, and identification (44,114).plant materials are homogenized in aqueousalcohol, then purified by evaporation of the al-cohol and chemical partitioning to remove con-taminating substances and isolate the chemi-cals of interest (114). Chemicals can then beidentified by chromatographic or spectroscopictechniques (114).

During the past 10 years, the major techno-logical advance in separation and purificationof organic chemical mixtures has been the de-velopment of high-performance liquid chro-matography (H PLC). HPLC is more rapid thanother chromatographic procedures and can iso-late a range of plant chemicals. Developingappropriate HPLC procedures, however, re-quires considerable investment of funds andtime. Some facilities of NPGS, however, areusing techniques such as HPLC to help char-acterize germplasm (19).

Recent advances in microcomputers haveprovided sophisticated, low-cost spectropho-tometers that can identify plant chemicals (114).Other techniques, such as nuclear magnetic res-onance spectroscopy and mass spectrometry,also can determine chemical structure but theyrequire considerable technical expertise and ex-

pensive instrumentation. These technologieshave been used extensively, however, by sci-entists studying the taxonomy and systematicof plants (114) and by university and industryscientists interested in developing potentialuses for wild plants in medicine and industry.

Controlling Pests and Pathogensin Collections

Managing stored samples requires efforts toensure that seeds or plants are not lost to pestsor pathogens. Because a collection may distrib-ute seeds to other regions, precautions mustbe taken to reduce the possibility of sendingpests or pathogens as well (61).

Stored seed can be severely damaged by ro-dents, insects, or fungus (58). With rodents, themajor damage is not from consumption butrather from the pests scattering and mixing updifferent accessions (58). Many insect, fungal,and bacterial contaminants can be controlledwith the use of chemical fumigants, althoughsuch treatments might also harm the seeds (58,59,81). Sanitary storage facilities that obviatethe need for such treatment are therefore prefer-able (81). when dried seeds are kept at subfreez-ing temperatures, the potential risk is minimal(58,101),

The risk of disseminating pathogens is con-siderably greater for crops maintained throughclonal propagation (59,61). Some facilities witha specific focus may have greater expertise witha crop and its diseases than a national quaran-tine facility concerned with all potential intro-ductions. Cooperation between scientists andquarantine officials can improve control ofpathogens and aid technology development.

lmformation Management

Offsite collections are repositories not onlyof germplasm but also of information, Thisinformation can aid collection management,can provide more efficient access to specificaccessions, and might help develop collectionstrategies.

The current focus has been on standardiza-tion of terminology in order to facilitate ex-change between collections and to provide

190 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

more consistent information to users (117). De-velopment of uniform crop descriptors that in-clude information about the storage history ofan accession as well as data on the originalcollector, collection site, vegetative and repro-ductive characteristics, disease or pest suscep-tibility, and biochemical characteristics (e.g.,isoenzyme profiles) is important for consistentand accurate information (7,98,117). This taskfor NPGS has been assigned to crop advisorycommittees (see ch. 9).

Several data storage and retrieval methodsare now used (65). A collection of only a fewhundred accessions might use file cards orbooks. As the collection grows, a computer-based system may be more appropriate. Largecollections, such as the Royal Botanic Gardensin England, have developed systems adaptedto their specific needs (97). The nature of thedata in computer-based information manage-ment systems depends on whether the materi-als being stored are agricultural crops (1,125)or wild species (34,97).

USING PLANTS

Collections are used for crop developmentas well as conservation. Plant breeders and sci-entists who may depend on the genetic diver-sity in such collections require specific infor-mation about accessions to select appropriateplants. Genes in selected accessions are incor-porated into improved crop varieties usingtraditional plant breeding practices. In addi-tion, biotechnology may provide methods thatcould enable development of improved crop va-rieties or more efficient use of genes in plants.

Evaluation of plant germplasm involves theexamination of accessions for the presence andquality of particular traits that may be of useto crop breeders.

In general, evaluation examines traits thatmay be genetically quantitative (i.e., controlledby many genes) and subject to environmentalinfluence, such as drought tolerance or earli-

The Germplasm Resources Information Net-work (GRIN) of NPGS is an example of a largeinformation system designed to coordinate datafrom multiple collections in the United States.GRIN, once fully established, is expected to pro-vide information on all accessions held byNPGS. Although the capacity of the system ismore than adequate, entering information is,after several years, still in the preliminary stages.OTA has found GRIN praised by managers ofNPGS facilities for its recordkeeping operationsbut criticized by potential users because de-tailed information is unavailable on individualaccessions and obtaining results of searches cantake considerable time. GRIN at present doesnot collect information on privately held col-lections of agricultural plants, such as those co-ordinated by the Seed Savers Exchange or theNorth American Fruit Explorers, nor does ithold information on wild species.

STORED OFFSITE

ness of maturity in a fruiting crop. This assess-ment can be complicated in a genetically vari-able accession because all individuals may notexpress the trait equally (81). Further, changesin conditions (e.g., appearance of a new dis-ease) can require further evaluation for newtraits. In addition, new accessions must beevaluated. Thus, evaluation may be considereda never-ending task (81).

Evaluations vary according to the species ortrait being examined and may be both lengthyand complex (37). A test for yield potential, forexample, would require different growing con-ditions than a test for genes that enable plantsto grow in acid soils. And sufficient space togrow plants to maturity is needed, along withtrained personnel to design the tests and to ana-lyze results (81). The time required too can beconsiderable. Testing the wheat held by the U.S.National Small Grains Collection for resistanceto stem and leaf rust, for example, is expectedto require more than 10 years (96). Evaluation

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 191

of some traits may require repeating tests overseveral years and in different regions (81).

Evaluation has been perceived as a seriousdeficiency in the overall effort to maintain cropgermplasm (23,37,78,108,117). Insufficient in-formation has meant accessions have been un-derused. However, the situation has been im-proving (81,108). International AgriculturalResearch Centers have evaluated many of theiraccessions for important traits, chiefly diseaseand pest resistance, yield, and quality factors(13,50,108). In the United States, the four re-gional plant introduction stations (see ch. 9)have included examination for several agricul-turally important traits in their preliminarycharacterizations. This is not, however, suffi-cient to meet all the needs of users, and moreextensive efforts are necessary (108).

Although the usefulness of a collection maydepend on its evaluations, questions remain asto who has responsibility for this task. Collec-tion managers might be able to gather morpho-logical data, but they may not be able to per-form the lengthy and detailed trials needed toevaluate traits. Further, it has been argued thatsuch evaluations are best done under the con-ditions in which they will be used because ex-pression may be altered by environmental dif-ferences (36). It would seem, therefore, thatevaluation trials for specific traits are best per-formed by the breeders who require those traits.Duplicating efforts could be minimized by put-ting results into centralized database systems—a proposed function of the GRIN system in theUnited States,

Traditional Breeding

Traditional breeding typically involves iden-tifying particular genes or characteristics andincorporating them into existing varieties. Cropdevelopment through breeding, a major con-tributor to modern gains in agricultural pro-duction, is a time-consuming process: It maytake 10 to 15 years to develop a single new va-riety (box 7-C).

Traditional breeding has provided as muchas 60 percent of the production increases ofmany agricultural crops (22,24,35,77,124). Never-

theless, the process must continue in order tosustain agricultural yields—pests and diseasesadapt to new varieties, and the needs of growersand consumers constantly change (77).

Traditional breeding involves several basicsteps: 1) locate a genetically stable trait (e.g.,yield, pest resistance, or stress tolerance); 2) iso-late plants with the most desired expression ofthe trait; 3) breed genes into breeding lines ofplants similar to those that will be improvedto provide more usable material; and 4) crossthese plants with other breeding lines to pro-duce plants from which improved crop vari-eties can be selected (41,81).

The third step, called developmental breed-ing, is important because the desired trait maybe located in a wild species or variety that isdifficult to cross with domesticated ones. Thisis the case, for example, with genetic resistanceto some 27 serious diseases of the tomato (81).wild species or landraces may have differentgrowth requirements that make crossing themwith other varieties difficult. Developmentalbreeding overcomes such differences but mayrequire growing plants at multiple locations.Incorporation of genes from over 500 exoticsorghums, for example, required growth in twolocations because the exotics required shorterdays to flower than commercial U.S. varieties.A cooperative effort, therefore, was establishedbetween the Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion and the USDA Federal Station in Mayaguez,Puerto Rico, to perform the crosses and test theprogeny (48,81).

The major constraint to traditional breedingis its dependence on the sexual process ofplants. Multiple crossings and testing of off-spring may take years. Molecular biologicaltechniques to locate and map genes in plantsmay greatly shorten the time needed for breed-ing improved varieties (6).

Biotechnological Improvement

Biotechnology provides greater precision andspeed in the manipulation of genes by avoid-ing the sexual reproductive process (24,41,75).Three general areas have potential impact onthe use of stored plant diversity: 1) somaclonal

—.

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 193

Table 7-5.—Somaclonal Variation in Economically Important Plant Species

Plant Source of tissue Characters Transmission a

Oats (Avena sativa)

Wheat (Trificurn aesfivurn)

Rice (Oryza sativa)

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinale)

Corn (Zea rnays)

Potato (Solanurn tuberuosurri)

Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum)

Alfalfa (A4edicago sativa)

Brassicas (Brassica spp.)

Immature embryo,apical meristem

Immature embryo

Seed embryo

Various

Immature embryo

Protoplasm leaf callus

Anthers, protoplasts,leaf callus

Immature ovaries

Anthers, embryos,meristems

Plant height, heading date, leaf striping

Plant height, spike shape, maturitytillering, leaf wax giliadins, amylase

Tiller number, panicle size, seed fertility,flowering date, plant height

Disease resistance, auricle length,isoenzyme alterations, sugar yield

Endosperm and seedling mutants,pathogen toxin resistance, DNAsequence, changes in mitochondria

Tuber shape, yield, maturity date, plantform, stem, leaf, and flower structure,disease resistance

Plant height, leaf size, yield grade index,alkaloids, reducing sugars, leafchlorophyll

Leaves, petiole length, plant form andheight, dry matter yield

Flowering time, growth form, waxiness,glucosinolates, disease tolerance—

Seed

Seed

Seed

Vegetable

Seed

Vegetable

Seed

Vegetable

Seed

aseed = lnherlted in seeds of variant plants: vegetable = transmitted to CiOfldly reproduced Plants

SOURCE W R Scowcroft, S A. Ryan, R I S Brettel, and P J Larkin, “Somaclonal Vanatlon A ‘New’ Genettc Resource,” Crop Genet(c Resources” Conservation andEva/uat(on, J H W Holden and J T Wlll!ams (eds ) (London” George Allen & Unwin, 1964)

and tissues may not regenerate into wholeplants or may produce abnormal or sterileplants (75).

Progress in developing somaclonal variationfor plant improvement has been promising fora few plant species (5,90,92). However, its gen-eral application remains unproven. Further, itis not yet possible to select through in vitro cul-ture many valuable traits, such as yield or qual-ity characters. This inability reflects a basic lackof knowledge of the genetic mechanisms con-trolling many such traits (38).

Somatic Hybridization

A report conducted more than a decade agoon the fusion of leaf protoplasts (cells fromwhich the ceil walls have been enzymaticallyremoved) from two species of tobacco heraldedexciting possibilities (11). The process, termedsomatic hybridization, held promise of bridg-ing many barriers to hybridization. Questionsof whether “impossible hybrids” could be ob-tained were partially answered with reports ofa successful protoplasm fusion from a tomatoand potato (72). Unfortunately, as with a hy-brid sexually produced 50 years earlier by cross-ing radish and cabbage, the resulting plant ex-

hibited the least desirable characteristics ofeach parent and was sterile (75).

Research on irradiation and protoplasm fusionshows promise. By irradiating one set of pro-toplasts, the genetic material is broken intoshort sequences, some of which will make itsway into the fusion partner. The technique,with considerable development, may eventu-ally enable transfer of genes between sexuallyincompatible species.

Recent studies show the potential for trans-ferring cellular organelles with their genetic in-formation (chloroplasts and mitochondria) toother species (15,41,75). This technique may beuseful in the transfer of genes for the limitednumber of traits (e.g., photosynthetic efficiency,herbicide tolerance, cytoplasmic male sterility)found in these organelles.

Application of somatic hybridization hasbeen limited to plants from three families:Solonaceae (e.g., potato, tomato, tobacco);Cruciferaceae (e.g., cabbage, rape); and Umbel-liferaceae (e.g., carrots) (75). Regeneration ofwhole plants from protoplasts often remainsan obstacle because little is known about theculture conditions needed to cause protoplasts

194 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

or undifferentiated tissue to regenerate intowhole plants (41,75,111).

Recombinant DNA Technologies

The technologies associated with recombi-nant DNA allow insertion of specific geneticinformation into plants to produce altered char-acteristics. Basic principles of the technologieshave been discussed in earlier OTA studies(109,111). Current constraints relate largely toinabilities to culture and regenerate isolatedcells of most plant species (41,75).

Genetic engineering techniques may allowscientists to develop, by gene transfer, new agri-cultural varieties (75), but considerable scien-tific development is needed before such tech-nologies can become routine. Further, geneticengineering technologies face legal, social, andpolitical questions in light of warnings that po-tential products might cause health, environ-mental, or economic problems. With continuedresearch, genetic engineering could augment,but not substantially replace, standard breed-ing practices.

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

In the past 10 years, new technologies forgermplasm collection, maintenance, and usehave been developed (108). Improved germ-plasm maintenance in the United States willrequire not only the addition of new technol-ogies, but careful planning for facilities andresources to support them. Determining the ap-propriateness of a particular technology in-volves consideration of the biology of the spe-cies, the reliability of the technology, the effectof the technology on a collection’s composition,and costs. This section discusses several areasof offsite maintenance that need attention andthe opportunities for doing so.

Develop a Standard Operatingprocedure

Studies have only recently begun to systemat-ically address problems of records mainte-nance, regeneration procedures, seed-dryingtechniques, storage, liability testing conditions,or improper management (21,30,31,43). Thisassessment has highlighted numerous appro-priate procedures. Implementation of thesetechnologies in the United States and interna-tionally could provide a basis for improvingmaintenance in offsite collections and devel-oping appropriate avenues for training per-sonnel.

Standard operating procedures for maintain-ing offsite collections of plants could be devel-

oped that include newly developed technologiesand incorporate additional procedures as theyare developed. Such procedures could be de-veloped by a task force composed of represent-atives of government, industry, and academia.The task force could specifically consider theuse of technologies by the National Plant Germ-plasm System.

Development of recommendations will notassure improvement of germplasm mainte-nance in existing U.S. collections. Issues suchas the need for additional storage space at NSSLand implementation of better viability testingand regeneration protocols must be addressedby increased funds if necessary. A plan to im-prove storage and maintenance in NPGS col-lections should be drawn up, therefore, thatwould address both the needs for new facilitiesand support of basic operations. Such a plancould be developed by USDA with or withoutthe suggested task force, or by a separate com-mittee drawn from sectors served by NPGS.

Storage

Cryogenic techniques could greatly extendthe storage time of seeds and could reduce costsassociated with monitoring seed viability andregenerating samples. USDA funding of re-search on the effects of cryogenic storage couldincrease the number of species that can bemaintained and allow investigation of concernsabout genetic stability.

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 195

In vitro plants can be used for a range of spe-cies with recalcitrant seeds or for those thatmust be maintained as clones. However, thetechniques are not now used extensively forgermplasm storage, and uncertainties aboutgenetic stability in the in vitro environmenthave been noted. Cryogenic technologies couldbe particularly important, but they require fur-ther development.

Funds to develop technologies for maintain-ing plants in offsite collections are already pro-vided through the Agricultural Research Serv-ice (ARS) to NPGS researchers. These effortscould be enhanced by making funds availableto researchers outside USDA on a competitivebasis. As an alternative, the USDA/CompetitiveResearch Grants Office could develop a pro-gram that would focus on germplasm mainte-nance and the application of technology.

Characterization and evaluation ofOffsite Collections

Characterization and evaluation data are notavailable for most plants held by NPGS, but thedevelopment of descriptors by crop advisorycommittees (CACS) (see ch. 9) will provide guide-lines for preliminary characterizations of manycrops. Technologies for biochemical characteri-zation exist, and consideration should be givento ones that are appropriate for particular crops.Further, careful consideration of the agronomictraits to be evaluated will be necessary.

Improving characterization and evaluationdata will require additional funding and per-sonnel. A 10-year NPGS program to providedetailed evaluations of the genetic diversity andpotentially useful agronomic characters in cul-tivated species and their relatives might cost$5 million annually. Such a program wouldprobably require increased collaboration be-tween NPGS facilities and scientists to expandthe available expertise, develop a computerizedfile for each accession, and increase involve-ment of CACS and breeders in determiningwhich agronomic traits to evaluate.

By examining analyses of the roles of CAC,NPGS facilities, and users of NPGS in record-ing evaluation data, different ways to improve

present efforts might be revealed. Such an ex-amination could be performed by an expertcommittee appointed by USDA. Recommenda-tions could include specific roles for compo-nents of NPGS and mechanisms for accom-plishing those goals.

Grant funds could be made available throughARS to researchers and breeders screening forparticular traits. Such funds could encouragegreater use of germplasm collections as wellas increase the information about accessions.Data from evaluations could then become partof the permanent GRIN record.

Maitenance of Endangeredwild Species

The efforts of botanic gardens and arbore-tums to obtain and store seeds or plants of en-dangered wild species have only recently beencoordinated. Additional funding for facilitiesand personnel to develop and maintain suchcollections will be needed. Further, each spe-cies presents a potentially unique set of require-ments for maintenance and regeneration thatmust be taken into account.

Funds have come in part from the Institutefor Museum Services (34). They have been usedfor daily operations as well as to establish stor-age facilities. Continued funding could providefor the maintenance of many endangered wildplants, However, it has been estimated thatmaintaining the 3,000 or so rare and endan-gered plant taxa will cost at least $1.2 millionannually (71).

One possibility is to expand the scope ofNPGS activities to include endangered wildspecies. NPGS personnel have considerable ex-pertise in offsite maintenance of plants, andincluding endangered wild plants as a respon-sibility would take advantage of this expertise.However, an enlargement of NPGS’S scopewould require additional funding for person-nel and facilities. And because responsibilitiesare currently divided among various parts ofNPGS on a crop-by-crop basis, an administra-tive mechanism for assigning responsibility fora particular species would be needed.

I% . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

As an alternative, an existing private orga-nization, such as the Center for Plant Conser-vation (CPC), could become the mechanismwithin NPGS for coordinating maintenance ofendangered wild plants. Funds could be desig-nated through USDA/ARS for this purpose, andCPC could be responsible for coordinating ef-forts and administering funds to cooperatingbotanic gardens and arboretums.

Improve Movement of GermplasmThrough Quarantine

Technologies that identify viruses in im-ported plants could reduce delays associatedwith the testing of a few plant species. Althoughmany potentially useful technologies exist, feware applied routinely to quarantine testing, be-cause USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspec-tion Service (APHIS) lacks sufficient trainedpersonnel, facilities, or operating funds neededto implement a particular technology. Cooper-ation between APHIS and NPGS facilities couldenhance the technical expertise applied toquarantine-testing and other solutions to im-prove quarantine efforts.

A panel representing APHIS, the researchcommunity, and NPGS could be convened toassess the adequacy of facilities and programsrelating to quarantine. It could make recom-mendations for implementing newer technol-ogies, improving present facilities, construct-ing new facilities, and mechanisms forpromoting cooperation with NPGS facilities.The panel could also redirect existing budgetswithin USDA to address specific problems and,if necessary, develop legislation for increasingUSDA appropriations to meet quarantineneeds. The panel might also consider mecha-nisms for incorporating new technologies andthe appropriateness of facilities and personnelfor performing them.

Promote Basic Research onMaintenance and Use of Plant

Germplasm

Although technologies to maintain plants off-site have advanced considerably in recent

years, several fundamental questions still needto be addressed.

In the past, storage has essentially referredto orthodox seed storage. It is increasinglyapparent that new techniques for storage ofnontraditional forms of germplasm (e. g., recal-citrant seeds, pollen, and in vitro cultures) areneeded. Although cryogenic storage has beenused for several years on animals, its use withplants has only recently been investigated.Questions about the nature of genetic controland the mechanisms involved in somaclonalvariation are as yet unresolved. These new stor-age technologies all require better understand-ing of developmental processes, of cell and seedphysiology, and of mechanisms of cellular de-terioration and repair.

New methods for storage of naked DNA andRNA and possible recovery of DNA from deadcells could lead to a new concept in germplasmconservation. Caution must be exercised, how-ever, to ensure that limited funds are not dis-proportionately channeled into this high-tech-nology area. If genetic conservation is a goal,then existing technologies and those showingpromise should receive adequate funding be-fore more speculative approaches are pursued.

Improved understanding of the biochemical,genetic, and physiological control of develop-ment may lead to techniques for characterizingand evaluating germplasm. The genetic controlof most important traits is not yet understood.Additional research on the basic structure andfunction of genes can also improve the biologi-cal knowledge necessary for genetic manipu-lation of plants.

Funding for research on germplasm has comefrom several agencies. But research prioritiesat the National Science Foundation (NSF) orUSDA’s Competitive Research Grants Office(CRGO), however, generally do not encompassprojects that focus on germplasm maintenance.Perhaps a new program within USDA/CRGOor NSF could be created to address researchappropriate to germplasm maintenance anduse.

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite ● 197

REFERENCES

1. Astley, D., “Management Systems at the Na-tional Vegetable Research Station Gene Bank, ”Documentation of Genetic Resources: Informa-tion Handling Systems for Genebank Manage-ment, J. Konopka and J. Hanson (eds,) AGPG:IBpGI?/85/76 (Rome: International Board forPlant Genetic Resources, 1985),

2. Atchley, A. A., USDA/ARS Germplasm ResourcesLaboratory, personal communications, May23, 1986.

3. Barnabas, B., and Rajiki, E., “Storage of Maize(Zea mays L.) Pollen in Liquid Nitrogen,” Eu-phytica 25:747-753, 1976.

4. Bass, L., “Seed Viability During Long-TermStorage,” Horticultural Reviews, J. Janick (cd.)(Westport: Avi Publishing Co,, 1980).

5. Berlin, J., and Sasse, “Selection and Screen-ing Techniques for Plant Cell Culture, ” PiantCell Culture 31:99-131 (Berlin: Springer-Verlag,1985).

6. Bishop, J. E., “New Genetic Technology ShortensTime Required To Breed Food-Plant Varieties, ”Wa]] Street Journal, May 17, 1986.

7. Blixt, S., and Williams, J.T. (eds.) Documenta-tion of Genetic Resources: A Model (Rome: In-ternational Board for Plant Genetic Resources,1982).

8. Bonner, F. T., “Technologies To Maintain TreeGermplasm Diversity, ” OTA commissionedpaper, 1985.

9. Brown, J, W. S., and Flavell, R, B., “Fractiona-tion of Wheat Giliadin and Glutenin Subunitsby Two-Dimensional Electrophoresis and theRole of Group 6 and Group 2 Chromosomesin Giliadin Synthesis, Theoretical and Ap-plied Genetics 59:349-359, 1981. In: Weedenand Young, 1985,

10. Burton and Davies, “Handling Germplasm ofCross-pollinated Forage, ” Crop Genetic Re-sources: Conservation and Evaluation, J,H, W.Holden and J.T. Williams (eds,) (London: GeorgeAllen & Unwin, 1984].

11. Carlson, P. S., Smith, H. H., and Dearing, R. D.,“Parasexual Interspecific Plant Hybridization,”Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences,U.S.A. 69:2292-2294, 1972. In: Orton, 1985.

12. Center for Plant Conservation, Recommenda-tions for the Collection and Ex Situ Manage-ment of Germplasm Resources From Rare WildP/ants (Boston: CPC, 1986).

13, Chang, T. T., “The Role and Experience of anInternational Crop-Specific Genetic ResourcesCenter, ” Conservation of Crop Germplasm: An

International Perspective (Madison, WI: CropScience Society of America, 1984).

14, Chiarappa, L., and Karpati, J. F., “Plant Quaran-tine and Genetic Resources, ” Crop Genetic Re-sources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H, W.Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.) (Boston: GeorgeAllen & Unwin, 1984),

15. Cocking, E. C., “Use of Protoplasts: Potentialsand Progress, ” Gene Manipulation in Plant Im-provement, J,P, Gustafson (cd.) (New York: Ple-num Press, 1984). In: Orton, 1985.

16. Conger, B,V, (cd,), Cloning Agricultural PlantsVia In-Vitro Culture (Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress, 1981).

17, Cremer, F., and Van de Wane, C., “Method forExtraction of Proteins From Green Plant Tis-sue for Two-Dimensional Polyacrylamide GelElectrophoresis, ” Analytical Biochemistry147:22-26, 1985. In: Weeden and Young, 1985.

18. de Bakker, I. G., “The Gene Bank, A New Con-cept, An Old Cause, ” Zaadlelangen 37:7-25,1983,

19. Deitz, S. M,, director, Western Regional PlantIntroduction Station, personal communica-tion, August 1986.

20. de Langhe, E. A, L., “The Role of In-vitro Tech-niques in Germplasm Conservation, ” CropGenetic Resources: Conservation and Evalua-tion, J.H.W. Holden and J,T. Williams (eds,)(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).

21. Dickie, J, B,, Linington, S., and Williams, J. T.,Seed Management Techniques for Genebanks.AGPG:IBPGR/84/68 (Rome: International Boardfor Plant Genetic Resources, 1984).

22, Duvick, D. N., “Genetic Rates of Gain in Hy-brid Maize Yields During the Past 40 Years, ”Maydica 22:187-196, 1977.

23. Duvick, D, N., “Genetic Diversity in MajorFarm Crops on the Farm and in Reserve, ” Eco-nomic Botany 38:161-178, 1984.

24. Duvick, D. N., “Plant Breeding: Past Achieve-ments and Expectations for the Future, ” Eco-nomic Botany 40(3):289-297, 1986,

25, Dvorak, W. S., “Strategy for the Developmentof Conservation Banks and Breeding Programsfor Coniferous Species from Central Americaand Mexico, ” Proceedings of the SouthernForests Tree Improvement Conference, 1983.

26. Dvorak, W, S,, director, Central America andMexico Coniferous Resources Cooperative(CAMCORE), personal communication, May1986.

27. Dvorak, W, S., and Laarman, J. G,, “Conserving

Igg . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

the Genes of Tropical Conifers,” Journal of For-estry 84:43-45, 1983.

28. Ellis, R. H., “Revised Table of Seed StorageCharacteristics,” Plant Genetic Resources News-letter 58:16-33, 1984.

29. Ellis, R. H., “Information Required WithinGenetic Resources Centres To Maintain andDistribute Seed Accessions, ” Documentationof Genetic Resources: Information HandlingSystems for Genebank Management, J. Konopkaand J. Hanson (eds.) AGPG:IBpGR/85/76 (Rome:International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,1985).

30. Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D., and Roberts, E. H.,Handbook of Seed Technology for Gene Banks,Volume I: Principles and Methodology, Hand-books for Gene Banks No. 2 (Rome: Interna-tional Board for Plant Genetic Resources,1985).

31. Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D., and Roberts, E. H.,Handbook of Seed Technology for Gene Banks,Volume II: Compendium of Specific Germina-tion Information and Test Recommendations,Handbooks for Gene Banks No. 3 (Rome: In-ternational Board for Plant Genetic Resources,1985).

32. Ellis, R. H., and Roberts, E. H., “Procedures forMonitoring the Viability of Accessions DuringStorage,” Crop Genetic Resources: Conserva-tion and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T.Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen & Un-win, 1984).

33. Evans, D. A., Sharp, W. R., Ammirato, P. W., Ya-mada, Y. (eds.), Handbook of Plant Cell Cu)-ture, Volume I (New York: Macmillan Press,1983).

34. Falk, D. A., and Walter, K. S., “Networking ToSave Imperiled Plants,” Garden, January/Feb-ruary 1986.

35. Fehr, W.R. (cd.), “Genetic Contributions ToYield Gains of Five Major Crop Plants, ” CropScience Society of America, Spec. Pub. No. 7,1984.

36. Frankel, O. H., and Brown, A. D, H., “PlantGenetic Resources Today: A Critical Appraisal,”Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation andEvaluation J.H.W. Holden and J.T. Williams(eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin, 1984).

37. Frey, K. J., Meredith, C. P., and Long, S. R.,“Genetic Improvement,” Crop Productivity—Research Imperatives Revisited, M. Gibbs andC. Carlson (eds.), an international conferenceheld at Boyne Highlands Inn, MI, Oct. 13-18,1985 and Airlie House, VA, Dec. 11-13, 1985.

38. Gibbs, M., and Carlson, C. (eds,), Crop Pro-ductivity–Research Imperatives Revisited, aninternational conference held at Boyne High-lands Inn, MI, Oct. 13-18, 1985 and AirlieHouse, VA, Dec. 11-13, 1985.

39, Goodman, M. M., Department of Crop Science,University of North Carolina, Raleigh, per-sonal communication, May 1986.

40. Grout, B. W. W., “Embryo Culture and Cryo-preservation for the Conservation of GeneticResources of Species With Recalcitrant Seed,”Plant Tissue Culture and Its Agricultural Ap-plications, L.A. Withers and P.G. Alderson(eds.) (London: Butterworths, 1986).

41. Hansen, M., Busch, L., Burkhardt, W. B., andLacy, L. R., “Plant Breeding and Biotechnol-ogy,” Bioscience 36:29-39, 1986.

42. Hanson, J., “The Storage of Seeds of TropicalTree Fruits,” Crop Genetic Resources: Conser-vation and Evaluation, J,H.W. Holden and J.T.Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin,1984).

43. Hanson, J,, “Practical Manuals for Genebanks:No. l,” Procedures for Handling Seeds inGenebanks (Rome: International Board forPlant Genetic Resources, 1985).

44. Harborne, J. B., Phytochemical Methods (Lon-don: Chapman & Hall, 1973).

45. Hartmann, H. T., Flocker, W. J., and Kofranek,A. M., “Plant Science,” Growth, Developmentand Utilization of Cultivated Plants (Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981).

46. Hawkes, J., Plant Genetic Resources: The Im-pact of the International Agricultural ResearchCenters (Washington, DC: Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research, WorldBank, 1985).

47. Hawkes, J. G., Crop Genetic Resources FieldCollection Manual (Rome: International Boardfor Plant Genetic Resources and EuropeanAssociation for Research on Plant Breeding,1980).

48. Helentjaris, T., King, G., Slocum, M., Sieden-strang, C., and Wegman, S., “Restriction Frag-ment Polymorphisms as Probes for Plant Diver-sity and Their Development as Tools for AppliedPlant Breeding,” Plant Molecular Biology 5:109-118, 1985,

49. Henshaw, G. G., Keefe, P. D., and O’Hara, J. F.,“Cryopreservation of Potato Meristems, ” InVitro Techniques: Propagation and Long TermStorage, A. Schafer-Menuhr (cd.) (Boston: Mar-tinus Nijoff/ Dr. W. Junk Publication, 1985).

50. Huaman, Z., “The Evaluation of Potato Germ-

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Of fsite ● 199

51.

52.

53,

54.

55,

56.

57.

58,

59.

60.

61

62,

63,

plasm at the International Potato Center,” CropGenetic Resources: Conservation and Evalua-tion, J.H.W. Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.)(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,Revised Priorities Among Crops and Regions,AGP:IBPGR/81/34 (Rome: 1981].International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,Practical Constraints Affecting the Collectionand Exchange of Wild Species and PrimitiveCu]tivars, AGpG:1J3pGR/83/49 (Rome: 1983).International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,“IBPGR Advisory Committee on In Vitro Stor-age, ” First Meeting, Aug. 16-20, 1982 (Rome:1983).International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,IBPGR Advisory Committee on Seed Storage,Report of the Second Meeting, Sept. 19-20,1983, AGPG:IBPGR/83/116 (Rome: 1984).International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,Cost-Effective Long-Term Seed Stores (Rome:1985).International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,“IBPGR Advisory Committee on In-Vitro Stor-age, ” Report of the Second Meeting (Rome:1985).Janick, J., Schery, R. W., Woods, F. W., and Rut-tan, V. W., Plant Science. An Introduction toWorld Crops, 2d ed. (San Francisco: W .H. Free-man & Co., 1974).Justice, O. L., and Bass, L., Principles and Prac-tices of Seed Storage, Agriculture HandbookNo. 506 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, 1978).Kahn, R. P., “Plant Quarantine: Principles,Methodology, and Suggested Approaches, ”Plant Health and Quarantine in InternationalTransfer of Plant Genetic Resources, W.B.Hewitt and L. Chiarappa (eds.) (Cleveland, OH:CRC Press, 1977). In: Kahn, 1985.Kahn, R. P., “Technologies To Maintain Bio-logical Diversity: Assessment of Plant Quaran-tine Practices, ” OTA commissioned paper,1985,Kaiser, W, J., “Plant Introduction and RelatedSeed Pathology Research in the United States,”Seed Science and Technology 11:197-212,1983.Kartha, K. K., “Meristem Culture and Germ-plasm Preservation, ” Cryopreservation of PlantCells and Organs, K.K. Kartha (cd.) (Boca Ra-ton, FL: CRC Press, 1985). In: Towill, et al,,1985.King, M. W., and Roberts, E. H., The Storage

of Recalcitrant Seeds—Achievements and Pos-sible Approaches (Rome: International Boardfor Plant Genetic Resources, 1979).

64. King, M. W., and Roberts, E. H., “The Desicca-

65.

66!

67,

68,

69.

70,

71.

72,

73,

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

tion Response of Seeds of Citrus limon L., ” An-nals of Botany 45:489-492, 1980. In: Towill, etal., 1985.Konopka, J., and Hanson, J. (eds, ), Documen-tation of Genetic Resources: Information Han-dling Systems for Genebank Management (Rome:International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,1985),Koopowitz, H., Developmental and Cell Biol-ogy, University of California, Irvine, personalcommunication, August 1986.Larkin, P. J., and Scowcroft, W. R., “SomaclonalVariation: A Novel Source of Variability FromCell Cultures for Plant Improvement,” Theroet.Appl. Genet, 60:197-214, 1981,Lucas, G., Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, Eng-land, personal communication, May 1986,Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,Botanical Gardens and Similar Institutions inthe Maintenance of Biological Diversity,” OTAcommissioned paper, 1985,Lyman, J. M,, “Progress and Planning for Germ-plasm Conservation of Major Food Crops,” PlantGenetic Resources Newsletter 60:3-21, 1984,McMahan, L., Center for Plant Conservation,Boston, personal communication, August 1986.Melchers, G,, Saeristan, M,, and Holder, A, A.,“Somatic Hybrid Plants of Potato and TomatoRegenerated From Fused Protoplasts, ” Carls-berg Res. Comm. 43:203-218, 1978.Oldfield, M. L., The Value of Conserving Ge-netic Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, 1984).Orton, T. J., “Somaclonal Variation: Theoreti-cal and Practical Consideration, ” Gene Manip-ulation in Plant Improvement, J, P. Gustafson(cd.) (New York: Plenum Press, 1984). In: Or-ton, 1985.Orton, T. J., “New Technologies and the En-hancement of Plant Germplasm Diversity,”OTA commissioned paper, 1985,Peacock, W. J,, “The Impact of Molecular Bi-ology on Genetic Resources, ” Crop Genetic Re-sources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H. W,Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: GeorgeAllen & Unwin, 1984).Plucknett, D. L., and Smith, N. H., “SustainingAgricultural Yields,” Bioscience 36:40-45,1983.Plucknett, D. L., Smith, N. J. H., Williams, J. T.,

200 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

79.

80.

81

82.

83.

84(

85

86.

87.

88.

89.

and Anishetty, N. M., “Crop Germplasm Con-servation and Developing Countries, ” Science220:163-169, 1986.Plucknett, D., Smith, N., Williams J. T., andAnishetty, N. M., Gene Banks and The World’sFood (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, in press).Richardson, S. D., “Gene Pools in Forestry, ”Genetic Resources in Plants—Their Explora-tion and Conservation, O.H. Frankel and E.Bennet (eds.) IBP Handbook No. 11:353-365(Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications,1970).Rick, C. M., “Plant Germplasm Resources,”Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, P.V, Am-mirato, D.A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, and Y. Yamada(eds.), vol. 3:9-36 (New York: Macmillan Press,1984).Roberts, E, H., “Loss of Seed Viability DuringStorage,” Advances in Research and Technol-ogy of Seeds, Part 8, J.R. Thompson (cd.)(Wageningen: Pudoc, 1983).Roberts, E. H., “Monitoring Seed Viability inGenebanks,” Seed Management Techniquesfor Genebanks, J.B. Dickie, S. Linington, andJ.T. Williams (eds.) AGPG:IBPGR/84/68 (Rome:International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,1984).Roberts, E. H., and Ellis, R. H., “The Implica-tions of the Deterioration of Orthodox SeedsDuring Storage for Genetic Resources Conser-vation, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conserva-tion and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T.Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin,1984).Roberts, E. H., King, M. W., and Ellis, R. H.,“Recalcitrant Seeds: Their Recognition andStorage, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conserva-tion and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T.Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin,1984).Roos, E. E., “Induced Genetic Changes in SeedGermplasm During Storage, ” The Physiologyand Biochemistry of Seed Development, Dor-mancy and Germination, A.A. Kahn (cd.) (NewYork: Elsevier Biomedical Press, 1982).Roos, E. E., “Genetic Shifts in Mixed Bean Pop-ulations, Part I: Storage Effects,” Crop Science24:240-244, 1984.Roos, E. E., “Genetic Shifts in Mixed Bean Pop-ulations, Part II: Effects of Regeneration, ” CropScience 24:711-715, 1984.Roos, E. E., “Precepts of Successful Seed Stor-age, ” Physiology of Seed Deterioration, Spec.Pub. No. 11:1-25 (Madison, WI: Crop ScienceSocietV of America, 1986).

90. Scowcroft, W. R.. Genetic Variabi]itv in Tissue

91

92.

93!

94,

95

96.

Culture: Impact ‘on Germplasm Conservationand Utilization, AGpG:lBPGR/84/152 (Rome:International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,1984).Scowcroft, W. R., and Larkin, P. J., “SomaclonalVariation, Cell Selection and Genotype Cul-ture,” Comprehensive Biotechnology, vol. 3,C.W. Robinson and H.J. Howells (eds.) (Syd-ney: Academic Press, 1984). In: Scowcroft, etal., 1984.Scowcroft, W. R., Ryan, S. A., Brettel, R. I. S.,and Larkin, P. J., “Somaclonal Variation: A‘New’ Genetic Resource, ” Crop Genetic Re-sources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H. W.Holden and J,T, Williams (eds.) (London: GeorgeAllen & Unwin, 1984).Sharp, W. R., Evans, D. A., Ammirato, P. V., andYamada, Y, (eds.), Handbook of Plant Cell Cul-ture, vol. 2 (New York: Macmillan Press, 1984).Simpson, M. J. A., and Withers, L. A., Charac-terization of Plant Genetic Resources UsingIsozyme Electrophoresis: A Guide to the Liter-ature (Rome: International Board for PlantGenetic Resources, 1986).Singh, R. B., and Williams, J. T., “Maintenanceand Multiplication of Plant Genetic Resources, ”Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation andEvaluation, J,H.W. Holden and J.T. Williams(eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin, 1984].Smith, D. H., curator, U.S. National SmallGrains Collection, personal communications,Jan. 19, 1986.

97. Smith, R. D., Linin~ton, S. H., and Fox, D. T.,

98

“The Role of the C;mputer in the Day to DayRunning of the Kew Seed Bank,” Documenta-tion of Genetic Resources: Information Han-dling Systems for Genebank Management, J.Konopka and J. Hanson (eds.), AGPG:IBPGR/85/76 (Rome: International Board for PlantGenetic Resources, 1985).Sprague, G. F., “Germplasm Resources of Plants:Their Preservation a“nd Use,” Annual Reviewof Phytopathology 18:147-165, 1980.

99. Stanwood, P. C., “Cryopreservation of Seeds,”Report Second Meeting, IBPGR Advisory Com-mittee on Seed Storage, App. III (Rome: Inter-national Board for Plant Genetic Resources,1984).

100. Stanwood, P. C., “Cryopreservation of SeedGermplasm for Genetic Conservation,” Cryo-preservation of Plant Cells and Organs, K.K.Kartha (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1985).

101. Stanwood, P. C., USDA-ARS National SeedStorage Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO, personalcommunication, May 1986.

Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite “ 201

102.

103.

104.

105.

106,

107,

108,

109.

110,

111

112.

113.

Stanwood, P. C., and Bass, L, N,, “Seed Germ-plasm Preservation Using Liquid Nitrogen, ”Seed Science and Technology 9:423-437, 1981.Strauss, M. S., “Technology and Plant GeneBanking in Developing Countries, ” OTA staffpaper, 1986.Tanksley, S. D., and Orton, T. J., lsozymes inPlant Genetics and Breeding, Part A (NewYork: Elsevier Biomedical Press, 1983),Tanksley, S. D., and Orton, T. J,, Isozymes inPlant Genetics and Breeding, Part B (NewYork: Elsevier Biomedical Press, 1983).Thibodeau, F., and Falk, D,, “The Center forPlant Conservation: A New Response to En-dangerment, ” The Public Garden, January1986.Towill, L. E,, “Low Temperature and Freeze-Vacuum-Drying Preservation of Pollen,” Cryo-preservation of Plant Cells and Organs, K,K.Kartha (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1985).Towill, L., Roos, E., and Stanwood, P. C., “PlantGermplasm Storage Technologies, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1985.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Impacts of Applied Genetics: Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132(Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, April 1981),U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Plants: The Potentials for Extracting Pro-tein, Medicines, and Other Useful Chemicals—Workshop Proceedings, OTA-BP-F-23 (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,September 1983).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Commercial Biotechnology: An Interna-tional Analysis, OTA-BA-218 (Springfield, VA:National Technical Information Service, Jan-uary 1984).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Grassroots Conservation of BiologicalDiversity in the United States—BackgroundPaper#l, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.SGovernment Printing Office, February 1986).U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalResearch Service, Research Progress in 1985,A Report of the Agricultural Research Service(Washington, DC: 1986).Weeden, N., and Young, D. A., “TechnologiesTo Evaluate and Characterize Plant Germ-D]asm.” OTA commissioned DaDer. 1985.

114.

‘ 11,

115.

116,

117.

118.

119,

120.

121

122,

123.

124.

125,

Wilkes, G,, “Current Status of Crop PlantGermplasm, ” CRC Critical Reviews in PlantScience 1:133-181, 1983.Wilkes, G., “Germplasm Conservation Towardthe Year 2000: Potential for New Crops andEnhancement of Present Crops,” Plant GeneticResources, A Conservation Imperative, AAASSelected Symposium 87:131-164, 1984.Williams, J. T,, “A Decade of Crop Genetic Re-sources Research, ” Crop Genetic Resources:Conservation and Evaluation, J,H.W. Holdenand J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: George Al-len & Unwin, 1984).Williams, J. T., and Damania, A. B., Directoryof Germplasm Collections, 5: Industrial Crops,I: Cacao, Coconut, Pepper, Sugarcane, and Tea(Rome: International Board for Plant GeneticResources, 1981).Withers, L. A., “Germplasm Storage in PlantBiotechnology, ” Plant Biotechnology, S.H,Mantell and H. Smith (eds.] (Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press, 1983),Withers, L, A,, “Germplasm Conservation InVitro: Present State of Research and Its Appli-cation, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservationand Evaluation, J,H,W, Holden and J.T. Wil-liams (eds.) (London: George Allen & Unwin,1984).Withers, L, A,, “Cryopreservation of CulturedCells and Meristems, ” Cell Culture and So-matic Cell Genetics of P]ants, 2:253-3 16 (NewYork: Academic Press, 1985].Withers, L. A., “Cryopreservation and Gene-banks, ” Plant Cell Culture Technology, ” M.M,Yeoman (cd.), Botanical Monographs, 23:96-140 (Oxford, U. K.: Blackwell Scientific Publica-tions, 1986).Withers, L. A., and Williams, J. T,, “Researchon Long-Term Storage and Exchange of InVitro Plant Germplasm, ” Biotechnology in in-ternational Agricultural Research (Manila,Philippines: International Rice Research Insti-tute, 1985).Witt, S., Briefbook: Biotechnology and GeneticDiversity, California Agricultural Lands Proj-ect, 1985.Yndgaard, F,, “Genebank Security Storage inPermafrost, ” Plant Genetic Resources News-letter 62:2-7, 1985.

Chapter 8Maintaining Microbial Diversity

P8geHighlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........? .. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C205Overv i ew . . . . .D .@. ... .. a....... .. ... ... ... .O O O. .. e g t. ... ....o .. . . . . 2 0 5

What Is Microbial Diversity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........205Status of Microbial Diversity Onsite. . . . . . . . . ..*.+*.,. ........~..~,..zoyMicrobial Diversity Offsite. ... ....o. . . . . . . . .!....... . .....,........208

Maintenance Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S .......208Isolation and Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........208Microbial Identification ..***,* ● **9*.** ● ****..* ● ******* 9*.9.*** ● *** 209Storage of Micro-Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~...,......... ... .+..209

Needs and Opportunities . .****..******* . . . . . . .+....... .. .. ... ... ...+212Catalog Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 0 . 0 0. 9 . . s . Develop Methods for Isolation and Culture ..***.* ..***..* ● ******* .** 213Study of Microbial Ecology , , , . . . . ● .*.*** ● ****99* ● ******, 9******* 9 213

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● *214

Table.Table No. Page

8-1. Summary of the Characteristics, problems, and Uses ofMicro-Organisms .. ... ... s...... . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . .. a t . . . . . . . . . . . ..207

BoXNO.8-A,The

BoxPage

Importance of Microbial Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....206

Chapter 8

Maintaining Microbial Diversity

Micro-organisms provide benefits and harbor danger. But safeguarding a diver-sity of these organisms remains important, for few have been cataloged andthe potential contribution to agriculture, industry, and medicine is thereforeunknown.The most cost-effective way to preserve economically important micro-orga-nisms today is through offsite collections. Micro-organisms that are isolatedand identified can be stored from a few days to as long as 30 years.Technologies used are freeze-drying (the most common method), ultra-freezing(which costs more in labor and materials), immersion in mineral oil, low-temperature freezing, and desiccation. The last three methods are suitable forshort-term storage only.A high priority in efforts to maintain a diversity of micro-organisms is the needfor an integrated database of current collections. Also needed is research onmicrobial ecology, to better understand the extent to which plants and animalsdepend. on bacteria and fungi to survive.

OVERVIEW

Micro-organisms constitute a vast, thoughlargely unseen, part of the biotic world. Al-though most frequently discussed in terms oftheir harmful effects on humans, they are es-sential to the proper functioning of ecosystemsas well as to the survival of many species ofplants and animals (19,25) (see box 8-A). Thepublic is less concerned, however, about po-tential losses of microbial diversity than aboutplant, animal, or ecosystem diversity (19).

What Is Microbial Diversity?

The wide range of micro-organisms not typi-cally classed as plants or animals includes bac-teria, cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), fungi (in-cluding yeasts), protozoa, and viruses (see table8-l). Although the microscopic, single-celledbacteria are generally considered synonymouswith the term micro-organism, the field in-

cludes such different things as the large ma-rine algae of ocean kelp beds and the sub-microscopic viruses that infect humans,animals, plants, and other micro-organisms,Even smaller than viruses are those infectiveagents, such as viroids, that have been foundto be nothing more than pieces of genetic ma-terial, lacking even the typical protein coats ofa virus. Thus, the diversity of micro-organismsis immense, with only a relatively small frac-tion of micro-organisms having been identified(19,25),

The concept of a species, borrowed from ani-mal and plant biology, cannot be easily appliedto all micro-organisms (5,19,25,29). Researchfrequently focuses on populations of microbialcells that share common nutritional, chemical,or biochemical characteristics. Such popula-tions, each typically descended from a single

205

[page omitted]This page was originally printed on a dark gray background.

The scanned version of the page was almost entirely black and not usable.

Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity ● 207——

Table 8“1 .—Summary of the Characteristics, Problems, and Uses of Micro-Organisms— — .-

Organisms Characteristics—

Bacteria Single-cells; spherical rod andspiral forms. Most are sapro-phytes (use dead matter forfood), although some bacteriaare photosynthetic.

F u n g i

Algae

Protozoa

Viruses

Variety of forms; microscopicmolds, mildews, rusts, andsmuts; larger mushrooms andpuffballs,

Single cells, colonies, or fila-ments containing chlorophylland other characteristic pig-ments; no true roots, stems, orleaves; aquatic.

Single cells, or groups of similarcells, found in fresh and seawater, in soil, and as symbi -onts or parasites in man,animals, and some plants.

Infective agents; capable of mul-tiplying only in living cells;composed of proteins and

Problems Uses.——. —Some cause disease in humans,

animals, and plants,

Rot textiles, leather, harvestedfoods, and other products;cause important plant andanimal diseases.

Cover pond surfaces, producingscum and unpleasant odor andtaste (in drinking water); ab-sorb 0, from ponds and someproduce toxins.

Responsible for serious humanand animal disease (e. g.,malaria, sleeping sickness,dysentery).

Cause variety of human, animal,and plant diseases (e. g., in-fluenza, AIDS, rabies,mosaics).

Break down organic matterand assist soil fertility,waste disposal, and biogasproduction; source of anti-biotics and otherchemicals,

Assist in recycling complexplant constituents such ascel Iulose; mushrooms andyeasts important as foods;many used in chemical andpharmaceutical industries.

Red and brown seaweeds areimportant foods in Asia andPolynesia; red algaeproduce agar; importantfood source for many oceanfish.

Assist in breakdown of organ-ic matter such as cellulosein ruminant nutrition,

Important as carriers of genet-ic information; some infect-ing pests can be used asbiological control aaents.nucleic acids.

;OURCE National Academy of Sciences, M/crob/a/ Processes Promls)ng Techfrolog(es for Developing Countr(es (Washington DC National Academy Press, 1979)

Photo credtt” G.E Pierce and M K Mulks

Pseudomonas putida, a bacterium capable of degradinghydrocarbons, is one type of micro-organism.

cell, are termed strains (7). Individually iden-tifiable strains of micro-organisms are thusoften regarded as the basic units of microbialdiversity.

Micro-organisms are found in nearly all envi-ronments (8). Bacteria, for example, have beenfound living in deep-sea steam vents at temper-atures of 3500 C (22). Although some micro-orga-nisms are widely distributed, others may berestricted to a narrow ecological range, Mostmicro-organisms are found as parts of complexmicrobial communities or as integral parts oflarger ecosystems. Many of these micro-orga-nisms cannot be isolated and grown under con-trolled laboratory conditions (25).

Status of Microbial Diversity Onsite

Assessing the status and changes in microbialdiversity onsite can be difficult. As notedearlier, few micro-organisms have been isolated

208 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

and described or identified (25). Therefore, anychanges that occur cannot be determined astemporary or permanent.

For example, the composition of microbialpopulations within environments can be dra-matically altered by pollutants (18,19,32).Studies of microbial populations at a pharma-ceutical dump site in the Atlantic Ocean indi-cate that the survival and growth of certainmarine micro-organisms over others in the pop-ulation occur as a result of pollution (27), Al-though it is clear that pollution or environ-mental disturbance can produce quantitativechanges, definitive evidence of extinction ofmicro-organisms, as is seen in plants and ani-mals, is rare. But it would seem likely that wheremicro-organisms are highly adapted to a spe-cific environment, loss of that environmentcould result in extinction of the micro-orga-nisms (10).

one group of micro-organisms for which thepotential for loss has been a particular concernis the macrofungi—more specifically, the edi-ble wild mushrooms. Morels, chanterelles, andother mushrooms have long been collected byfanciers, particularly in the Northwest UnitedStates (33). However, increased collection toserve a growing commercial demand for wildmushrooms has raised fears that the mostsought-after species could become rare or ex-tinct (1,33). Scientists currently disagree aboutwhether this is possible, for it is not even known

if wild mushrooms can be overharvested (33).In the absence of information, some efforts havebeen made to limit collection (33). Research onthe biology and ecology of these mushroomsand their distribution is needed.

Microbial Diversity Offsite

The principal repositories for those fewmicro-organisms that have been isolated are off-site collections. Offsite collections of micro-organisms provide easier and quicker accessto specific strains than repeatedly returning toonsite sources to obtain them. In addition, itmay not always be possible to obtain the samemicro-organism from the same place. Thefungus from which penicillin was derived, forexample, could not again be isolated from airor dust samples in the laboratory where it wasfirst found as a culture contaminant. Offsite col-lections also are used as reference standards fortaxonomic and comparative studies. In micro-biology, a “type” strain of a micro-organismis maintained for use as a reference and as asource for subsequent studies (17). It would beimpossible to isolate type-strains from naturalenvironments each time comparative studieswere initiated (19,21).

Current offsite collections of micro-orga-nisms are actively used as resources by indus-try and by the scientific community. Yet suchcollections are rarely established or maintainedfor preserving microbial diversity (26).

MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGIES

Onsite maintenance is the only feasible long-term method for maintaining the major portionof microbial diversity, because most of themicro-organisms in any single environmenthave yet to be identified (19). But existing pro-grams to maintain animal and plant diversitywill likely cover all but a few specialized envi-ronments (e. g., deep-sea steam vents), so estab-lishing reserves specifically for maintainingmicro-organisms should not be necessary,

The most cost-effective approach to provid-ing ready access to the many economically,

medically, agriculturally, or scientifically im-portant micro-organisms today is to preservethem in offsite collections (19). The followingsections assess the techniques required to main-tain micro-organisms offsite.

lsolation and Sampling

Isolation of micro-organisms and their incor-poration into a collection generally reflects aparticular set of goals. Laboratory applications,such as those involved in genetic engineering,require specific strains of micro-organisms that,

Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity ● 209

once obtained, are kept as pure cultures. Micro-organisms have been isolated to study their in-terrelationships and the way the dynamics be-tween populations influence the entire biologi-cal food chain. Some collections representsampling of specific taxonomic classes ofmicro-organisms of economic or agriculturalimportance. The actinomycete collection of theBattelle-Kettering Laboratory (Yellow Springs,OH) and the many collections of varying sizesof Rhizobiurn, the nitrogen-fixing bacteria oflegumes, are examples of goal-directed collec-tions. The pathogenic characteristics of amicro-organism, as in the case of a disease-producing virus, can also merit spending funds,time, and expertise to isolate it.

Isolated pure cultures of micro-organisms arenecessary for detailed study (7). For some, suchas the fungi, a sterile culture of spores on a spe-cially prepared medium may be all that is nec-essary to obtain a pure culture. Nutritional re-quirements for various fungi can, however, bespecific and difficult to determine. Most bac-teria must be cultured on a variety of mediathat will stimulate growth of possible contami-nants, from which pure culture can then be ob-tained. Viruses are frequently isolated from in-fected cells or tissues by centrifugation orfiltration techniques that separate them fromother cellular components. For micro-organismsthat consist only of a small piece of genetic ma-terial, such as viroids, the newly developedtechnologies for isolating, multiplying, andcharacterizing DNA and RNA have been impor-tant. The critical determination that an isolatedmicro-organism is pure can be a lengthy proc-ess of repeated culture or separation undervarying conditions and can be a research prob-lem in itself (7).

Studies of microbial ecology and microbialdiversity are limited by the inability of scien-tists at the present time to isolate many micro-organisms (19). Identification, for example, gen-erally requires growth in pure culture to allowfor nutritional and physiological testing, It isnot currently possible to acquire a knowledgeof the total microbial diversity in any one envi-ronment in a readily definable time period be-cause of this inability to isolate, culture, and

characterize every (or even most) micro-orga-nism present. Thus, sampling of diversity islimited to those micro-organisms for which iso-lation and culture technologies are available.

Identification of isolated micro-organismscan be a lengthy and complex task (for detailsof the principles and procedures, see ref. 15),Preliminary identification involves standardstaining procedures and microscopic examina-tion. Analysis of the results of these initial ex-aminations requires extensive knowledge ofmicro-organisms and the general characteris-tics of various taxonomic groups, Informationregarding the source of the isolate can also playan important role at this stage,

Following preliminary identification, themicro-organism is subjected to more detailedanalysis, frequently consisting of examinationof growth characteristics on varying substratesand under varying environmental conditions,These tests establish specific physiologicalcharacteristics that aid identification. The gen-eral protocol is to work with a pure culture and,using selected tests, narrow the range of possi-bilities. Once identified, the isolate is then com-pared to a reference sample using selected diag-nostic tests (24),

Biochemical analysis of proteins and DNA,as described for plants (see ch. 7), has been usedfor identification of many strains of micro-organisms (7’), Although these technologies rou-tinely identify the micro-organisms used in re-search laboratories, they are not generally ap-plied in offsite collections. As the field ofgenetic engineering has developed, however,the capacity to study, compare, and identify thegenomes of micro-organisms has improved(10,31). Such techniques could greatly enhanceassessment of diversity and facilitate identifi-cation of micro-organisms in offsite collections.

Storage of Micro-Orgonisms

The purpose of preserving micro-organismsis to maintain a strain for an indefinite periodin a viable state. The continuous culture of a

210 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

micro-organism is one way to present it, butit is expensive both in materials and in laborand does not ensure that the genetic stabilityof the micro-organism will be maintained. Con-tinuously subculture organisms can adapt tothe specialized conditions of the laboratory andtake on characteristics different from those forwhich they were originally isolated. Long-termstorage techniques that minimize such effectshave been developed,

Storage of micro-organisms involves reduc-ing metabolic rates and, thus, the rate at whichmicro-organisms multiply and use nutrients(19). All methods that reduce metabolic ratescause loss of a certain percentage of the sam-ple. Methods need to be developed, therefore,that not only reduce metabolic rates but alsoprevent decline in viability in order to preventloss of the strain.

An additional time-consuming but crucialtask associated with storage technologies isauthentication (19). This task involves the main-tenance of accurate records about the culturehistory and diagnostic characteristics of thestrains in a collection. It also involves periodi-cally recovering and culturing stored organismsto determine their viability and to confirm pu-rity and genetic stability.

The majority of micro-organisms currentlypreserved in culture collections are held byfreeze-drying or by ultra-freezing (cryogenicstorage) (16,19). These two methods permit stor-age for extremely long periods of time (currentlyas long as 30 years) (16). Other special meth-ods for storage of micro-organisms are immer-sion in mineral oil, low-temperature freezing,and desiccation (16),

Freeze-Drying

Freeze-drying, or lyophilization, is now themost commonly used storage technique for cul-ture collections. Healthy microbial cells, grownunder optimal conditions, are dispensed insmall, sterile vials or ampules at a relatively highconcentration (e. g., 1 06 to 107 cells per mil-liliter of solution). The vials are then quicklyfrozen in a super-cooled liquid solvent bath orin a mechanical ultra-freezer (at – 60° C), and

these frozen suspensions are placed undervacuum to remove the water in them. The vialsare then heat-sealed under vacuum by meltingthe glass tops with an air-gas torch and storedat temperatures lower than 50 C. Lower stor-age temperatures (– 30° to – 70° C) may resultin lengthened viability.

Chemical agents (cryoprotectants) that pro-tect cells from damage caused by ice-crystal for-mation during the initial freezing are commonlyadded to cells before freeze-drying. The Amer-ican Type Culture Collection (ATCC) routinelyuses 10 percent skim milk or 12 percent sucrosefor such purposes. Curators at the Northern Re-gional Research Laboratory of the USDA’s Agri-cultural Research Service, in contrast, preferbovine or equine serum as a cryoprotectant forall microbial species (19).

Recovery of the lyophilized cells is simple andstraightforward. The sealed vial is opened byscoring, and a small amount of liquid-nutrientmedium is added to rehydrate the cells. Thecontents, once rehydrated, are transferred toa culture vessel containing a medium appro-priate for growth.

The initial cost of equipping a laboratory toundertake lyophilization is as much as $25,000(11). The expense of actually preparing lyophi-lized cultures, however, is low, The long-termviability of such materials is excellent, and thisprocedure is thus probably the most cost-effec-tive means of microbial preservation in usetoday (19). Unfortunately, some microbial spe-cies do not fare well under these techniques,and other storage methods must be used,

Ulfra-Freezing

Fastidious microbial species (i.e., those withcomplex nutritional requirements) that do notretain viability under other preservation meth-ods (e.g., plant pathogenic fungi) frequently canbe preserved by ultra-freezing (2,19). In this pro-cedure, cells sealed in vials or ampules are fro-zen at a slow cooling rate (1° C per minute) un-til they reach – 1500 C, The vials are then storedat — 1500 to — 196° C using liquid nitrogenfreezers.

Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity . 211

W

Cells being dispensed into ampules to be frozen andstored in liquid nitrogen ( – 196 C). The cabinet contains

only sterile, air to lessen the chances ofcontamination of the freeze preparation.

credit

Ampules of freeze-dried or frozen living strains can bestored in mechanical refrigerators at –60” C (–76- F),in walk-in cold rooms at 5 C (40 F), or in vacuum-insulated

refrigerators (above) automatically suppliedwith liquid nitrogen at – 196 C ( – 320 F).

The cryoprotective agents necessary for thisprocedure differ from the ones used in lyophili-zation. ATCC routinely uses a mixture ofglycerol (10 percent), dimethylsulfoxide (5 per-cent), and nutrient medium for most bacterialstrains. These chemicals are taken into the cellsand protect the internal membranes from in-jury caused by freezing.

Cells stored at cryogenic temperatures mustbe handled carefully when being recovered, Icecrystals can form as vials are warmed and cankill cells that would otherwise survive the tech-nique. Loss of viability is minimal when thesample is thawed rapidly, Sealed vials are thusput in water at 37’o C until all ice melts. Thenthey are opened and the contents transferredto nutrient medium.

Ultra-frozen cultures must be maintained atvery low temperatures at all times during stor-age. Liquid nitrogen freezers are thereforeneeded, Proper precautions are important toensure that such freezers operate properly andhave sufficient supplies of liquid nitrogen cool-ant over long periods of time. Thus, the tech-nique can cost more than freeze-drying, bothin labor and in materials necessary to main-tain storage temperatures, Ultra-freezing is re-served for microbial species that are not amena-ble to other, less costly procedures.

Other Methods

Microbial cell cultures can be stored for shortperiods of time if the culture is overlaid withsterile mineral oil. The oil prevents dehydra-tion and reduces the metabolic rate of the organ-isms (16). Cells are grown on either nutrientgels or in broth cultures, After incubation andgrowth, mineral oil is added to the culture toa depth of about 2 centimeters. The culturesare then stored at approximately 40 C. Recoveryis by procedures similar to those used for rou-tine subculture. Although cultures preservedin this way have remained viable for as longas 3 years, the method is not considered appro-priate for long-term storage of micro-organisms,because cultures have to be recovered, authen-ticated, and restored every few years (19),

A few micro-organisms, like some of the ac-tinomycetes and some soil-borne spore-forming

bacteria, can withstand normal freezing proc-esses and retain both viability and genetic sta-bility. Cultures are stored on a nutrient mediumat 0° to — 20° C, Cells may remain viable foras long as 2 years, but damage by ice crystalformation is thought to be extensive (19). For

212 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

certain microbial cells, low-temperature freez-ing is inexpensive and useful for a short period.Like immersion in mineral oil, however, repeti-tive recovery, authentication, and restoragemake this technique too labor-intensive for long-term maintenance of micro-organisms.

The majority of microbial cells die if they aredried at ambient temperatures (16). But a fewcan withstand dehydration and remain viablefor moderate periods of time. Spore-formingbacteria are particularly suited to this methodof storage. Microbial cells are usually trans-ferred to a sterile, solid material, and then de-

hydrated under vacuum. A soil, paper, or ce-ramic bead medium is frequently used. Cellsalso may be suspended in gelatin solution andthen drops of the gelatin dried under vacuum.Once dehydrated, the cells must be stored indesiccators but will remain viable longer ifrefrigerated. Recovery of the cells is by dehydra-tion with nutrient medium and subculture. Thismethod is relatively inexpensive and routinelyused for some important bacterial genera (e. g.,Rhizobiurn). However, other techniques, ifavailable, are preferred for long-term storage(19).

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

No major technical constraints limit the stor-age and use of micro-organisms in the UnitedStates and most other industrial nations, al-though developing countries lag behind in theapplication, use, and technological knowledgeof micro-organisms (28). The most satisfactorylong-term storage techniques for micro-orga-nisms are also those that are technologicallythe most sophisticated. In the case of cryogenicstorage, the technique requires a dependablesource of liquid nitrogen. Lyophilization of cul-tures in sealed, evacuated glass-ampules cre-ates culture units with excellent longevity, evenwhen stored at room temperature. The attrac-tion of this method for developing countriesis diminished slightly by the relatively high ini-tial cost of equipment and problems keepingsuch equipment operational (19).

Improvisation in the laboratories of develop-ing-country scientists has resulted in a wide ar-ray of variations of standard preservation meth-ods (19). These modified methods are, in manycases, satisfactory to the individual collectioncurators, though most require micro-organismsto be regularly subculture. This requirementmakes these methods suitable only for relativelysmall collections, and it increases the likelihoodof strains becoming genetically adapted to cul-ture and losing their original characteristics.

Maintaining and distributing a current cata-log is the goal of virtually every collection cu-rator, Without such a compilation to providepotential users with ready access to its contents,the value of a collection is greatly diminished.That very few collections are adequately cata-loged is a reflection of just how onerous thistask can be. In a sense, this aspect of collec-tion management has been constrained by lackof an appropriate technology (19). The adventof microcomputers and highly adaptable, user--friendly database management systems soft-ware heralds a new era enabling a curator tocompile, print, and update a catalog inexpen-sively and with relative ease [9). Such electroniccatalogs would make current collections moreaccessible and improve their management (4).

One way to catalog the contents of variouscollections is through creation of a NationalMicrobial Resource Network. Two main obsta-cles

1.

2.

can be anticipated to such a network:

the differences in history, traditions, andindependence of existing collections; andthe difficulty of standardizing technicaland informational protocols to assure mean-ingful interchange of germplasm and dataamong participating network institutions.

Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity . 213

One network of microbiological resourcecenters (MIRCENs) has been addressing theseobstacles for almost a decade (12) (see ch. 10).In practice, however, this endeavor has beenfrustrated by an inability to come up with stand-ardized data sets that reconcile the differentorientations of individual collections world-wide and by financial resources that fall farshort of the level required (12).

A more focused attempt to achieve an in-tegrated microbial resource database was ini-tiated in 1984 by UNESCO, This MIRCEN proj-ect is still being developed and provides forstandardization of a minimum data set for char-acterized strains of Rhizobium (the bacteria in-volved in nitrogen fixation in soybeans, alfalfa,beans, and other legumes); adoption of com-patible database management systems; andperiodic publication of an integrated catalogof the collections held at Beltsville, Maryland(USA), Porto Alegre (Brazil), Nairobi (Kenya),and Maui, Hawaii (USA).

An appraisal of the lessons learned in the inter-national MIRCEN effort could greatly benefitestablishment of a National Microbial ResearchNetwork. Reservations may be expressed aboutwhether the institution-building rationale forthe MIRCEN program will mean the collectionsare of less-than-optimal quality; nevertheless,with limited financial resources, the MIRCENprogram has achieved a high degree of networkeffectiveness, including regular global and re-gional newsletters, electronic data exchange,and computer conferences,

Develop Methods for Isolationand Culture

An important challenge to maintainingmicro-organisms offsite is the development ofmethods for culture of those organisms thathave not yet been isolated in the laboratory (19).Basic research into the isolation and cultiva-tion of these fastidious micro-organisms is es-sential to further applications of the world’smicrobial diversity. Research on microbial cul-ture would allow better characterization ofdiversity in natural environments as well as en-able more efficient handling of difficult micro-

organisms in existing collections. Efforts to iso-late the Legionella micro-organism or theretrovirus (human T-cell leukemia-lymphomavirus) associated with acquired immune defi-ciency syndrome (AIDS) illustrate both the dif-ficulty and importance of such research.

An appreciation of the complexity of the tech-nical barriers faced by microbiologists tryingto isolate and culture many micro-organismsis necessary to support research. Basic studiesof microbial physiology, through grant pro-grams and in-house research by such agenciesas the National Science Foundation, U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, and the National In-stitutes of Health (NIH), can improve presentabilities to isolate and culture micro-organisms.

Study of Microbial Ecology

Another research priority is that of microbialinteractions that permit efficient functioningof the microbial flora of an environment and,ultimately, support higher organisms in thatenvironment, Research into microbial ecologyis an integral part of any strategy to preservemicro-organisms. Present understanding ofmicrobial ecology and the extent of microbialdiversity in ecosystems is, however, inadequate(19,25). Many plants and animals depend onbacteria and fungi in the environment to sur-vive (25), In some cases, such as digestion inthe termite or dairy cattle, microbes are impor-tant parts of the organism’s basic physiology.Study of the soil micro-organisms that are ac-tive in nutrient recycling, such as those asso-ciated with nitrogen fixation, are of great po-tential importance to agriculture.

Grant programs and in-house research atagencies such as NIH, USDA, the Departmentof Energy, and the Environmental ProtectionAgency could focus on improved understand-ing of microbial ecology, Present efforts arespread over several agencies with little coordi-nation. Examination of the overall efforts re-lating to microbial ecology and diversity couldlead to better coordination of research and de-velopment of a specific funding program withinone agency that would address microbial ecol-ogy research.

214 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

1.

2.

3.

4.

5,

6.

7.

8,

9,

10,

11.

12

13

14.

15,

16(

Allen, E. B,, research assistant professor, UtahState University, Logan, UT, personal commu-nication, May 14, 1986.“ATCC Collection Emphasizes Living PlantPathogenic Fungi,” ATCC Quarterly Newsletter3(1):5, 1983.Baird, J. K., Sandford, P. A., and Cottrell, I. W.,“Industrial Applications of Some New Micro-bial Polysaccharides,” Biotechnology, Novem-ber 1983, pp. 778-783.Baker, D., research scientist, Battelle KetteringLaboratory, Yellow Springs, OH, personal com-munication, Feb. 10, 1986.Brenner, D,]., “Impact of Modern Taxonomy onClinical Microbiology, ” ASM News 49:58-63,1983.Brill, W. J., “Agricultural Microbiology, ” Scien-tific American 245:198-215, 1981.Brock, T. D., Biology of Micro-Organisms (En-glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979).Clarke, P. H., “Microbial Physiology and Bio-technology,” Endeavour, New Series 9:144-148,1985.Colwell, R. R., “Computer Science and Technol-ogy in a Modern Culture Collection, ” The Roleof Culture Collections in the Era of MolecularBiology, R.R. Colwell, (cd.) (Washington, DC:American Society for Microbiology, 1976).Colwell, R. R., vice president for academic af-fairs and professor of microbiology, Universityof Maryland, Adelphi, personal communication,July 7, 1986.Colwell, R. R., vice president for academic af-fairs and professor of microbiology, Universityof Maryland, Adelphi, personal communication,Aug. 26, 1986.Colwell, R, R., “Microbiological Resource Cen-ters,” Science 233:4762, 1986.Demain, A. L., “Industrial Aspects of Maintain-ing Germplasm and Genetic Diversity, ” TheRole of Culture Collections in the Era of Molecu-lar Biology, R.R, Colwell (cd.) (Washington, DC:American Society for Microbiology, 1976).Dixon, B., Invisible Allies: Microbes and ManFuture (London: Temple Smith, 1976).Gerhardt, P., Murray, R. G. E., Costilow, R. N.,Nester, E. N., Wood, W. A., Krieg, N. R., and Phil-lips, G.B. (eds.), Manual of Methods for GeneralBacteriology (Washington, DC: American Soci-ety for Microbiology, 1981).Gherna, R. L., “Preservation,” Manual of Meth-ods for Genera] Bacteriology, P. Gerhardt, et al.

174

18,

19

20

21

22

23,

24.

25

26

27

(eds.) (Washington, DC: American Society forMicrobiology, 1981).Gibbons, N. E., “Reference Collections of Bac-teria—The Need and Requirements for TypeStrains, ” Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bac-teriology, N.R. Krieg and J,G. Holt (eds.) (Balti-more, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1984).Grimes, D. J., Singleton, F. L., and Colwell, R. R,,“Allogenic Succession of Marine Bacterial Com-munities in Response to PharmaceuticalWaste,” Journal of Applied Bacteriology 57:247-261, 1984.Halliday, J., and Baker, D., “Technologies ToMaintain Microbial Diversity,” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1985.Henahan, J., “Feisty Gram-Negative AerobesSuccumb to New Antibiotic Group, ” Journal ofthe American Medical Association 248:2085-2086, 1982.Holmes, B., and Owen, R. J., “Proposal ThatFlavobacterium breve Be Substituted as theType Species of the Genus in Place of Flavobac-terium aqua tile and Amended Description of theGenus Flavobacterium: Status of the NamedSpecies of Flavobacterium, ” International Jour-nal of Systematic Bacteriology 29:416-426, 1979.In: Halliday and Baker, 1985.Klausner, A., “Bacteria Living at 350° May HaveIndustrial Uses,” Biotechnology, 1983, pp.640-641.Klausner, A., “Microbial Insect Control, ”Biotechnology, May 1984, pp. 408-419.Krieg, N. R., “Enrichment and Isolation,” Man-ual of Methods for General Bacteriology, P.Gerhardt, et al. (eds.) (Washington, DC: Amer-ican Society for Microbiology, 1981).Margulis, L., Chase, D., and Guerrero, R., “Mi-crobial Communities, ” Bioscience 36:160-170,1986.National Academy of Sciences, Microbial Proc-esses: Promising Technologies for DevelopingCountries (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1979).Peele, E. R., Singleton, F, L., Deming, J. W.,Cavari, B., and C~lwell, R. R., “Effects ~f Phar-maceutical Wastes on Microbial Populations inSurface Waters at the Puerto Rico Dump Sitein the Atlantic Ocean, ” Applied and Environ-mental Microbiology 41:873-879, 1981.

28. Pramer, D,, “Microbiology Needs of DevelopingCountries: Environmental and Applied Prob-lems,” ASM News 50(5):207-209, 1984,

Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity ● 215

29. Sonea, S., and Panisset, M., A New Bacteriol-ogy (Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers,1983).

30. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Impacts of Applied Genetics. Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, April 1981).

31. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-

ment, Commercial Biotechnology: An Interna-tional Analysis, PB #84-173 608 (Springfield, VA:National Technical Information Service, 1984),

32. Walker, J. D., and Colwell, R, R., “Some Effectsof Petroleum on Estuarine and Marine Micro-Organisms, ” Canadian Journal of Botany21:305-313, 1975.

33. White, P., “No Fungus Among Us?” Sierra, Jan-uary/February 1986.

Part III

Institutions

Chapter 9

Maintaining Biological Diversityin the United States

Highlights ● .*** *. **98*******..*************Overview ● *.** . ******0**..******.********.*Federal Mandates Affecting Biological DiversityOnsite Biological Diversity-Maintenance

Ecosystem Diversity Maintenance. . . .Species Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . .Onsite Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page?. ***..**,********.**.**. 221. * . .****.* .* .* . . .* .* .*** 221Conservation. . ..........222

Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224● 0 * * . * * 0 * * . * * * * . * * * * * * * * 0 * . * , . 224● *.*****.****.,**.***********. 228.b, ..v. .e. ... ... ... b e . . . . . . . . . 231

Offsite Diversity Maintenance Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......232PIant Programs .*** **** *.** **** . **0**************..*************** 232Animal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . ● *,**,,**.****...****,*************,*, 238Microbial Resource Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . t . ............242Quarantine *0** *.** **** .*** **** **** **0* **0* *0** **** **** *o ***+0*** 244

Needs and Opportunities . . . *********O**.******.*..*************.**** 245Chapter 9 References . . . . ● *.*********.********.****.*.**.*********** 246

TablesTabh No.9“1.9-2.9“3.

9-4.

9“5.9-6*

Federal Laws Relating to Biological DiversityPage

Maintenance. . .........223Examples of Federal Ecosystem Conservation Programs . ............225Number of U.S. Species at Various Stages of Listing and Recoveryas of 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . *************..*******.*.**************** 229Existing and Proposed Crop Advisory Committees of theNational Plant Germplasm System . . . . ● *,*****..*..***********.*** 235Active Breed Associations in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239Microbial Culture Collections in the United States WithMore Than 1,000 Accessions . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9-1. Principle

Figures

of the National Plant

● ☛ ☛ ☛ ✎ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ✎ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ 243

PageSystem .. . . . .234

Chapter 9

Maintaining Biological Diversityin the United States

●

●

●

Many U.S. public laws and programs addressing the use of natural resourcesand the activities of private groups contribute significantly to the conservationof biological diversity. However, diversity is seldom an explicit objective, andwhere it is mentioned, it is not well-defined. The resulting ad hoc coverageis too disjunct to address the full range of concerns over the loss of diversity.Existing laws and programs focus on either onsite or offsite conservation, whichimpedes establishment of effective linkages between the two general approachesto maintaining diversity. Links help define common interests and areas of po-tential cooperation between various institutions—important steps in definingareas of redundancy, neglect, and opportunity.Personnel of federally mandated programs that deal directly with maintenanceof biological diversity, such as the National Plant Germplasm System and theEndangered Species program, have stretched budgets to meet their mandatedresponsibilities. It appears, however, that these programs will be unable to con-tinue to meet their mandates without significant increases in funding andstaffing.

Federal legislation authorizes onsite conser-vation of species and communities and offsitecollection and development of plant and ani-mal species of economic importance. The Fed-eral Government consequently supports pro-grams for agricultural plant and animalconservation and for onsite conservation ofselected species, but little consideration is givento a myriad of other diversity maintenance ob-jectives. The numerous Federal onsite pro-grams are not well-coordinated to promote acomprehensive approach. State and private ef-forts fill some gaps, but in many cases, main-taining diversity is not a specific objective,merely a result.

Many organizations or programs discussedin this chapter focus on one aspect of diversitymaintenance: plant seeds, rare animal breeds,or onsite conservation of endangered species.This chapter considers Federal mandates re-lated to diversity conservation, onsite conser-vation, offsite plant and animal conservation,and microbial conservation. In each case, Fed-eral, State, and private activities are assessed,although these categories are arbitrary and, infact, biological diversity maintenance programsfrequently fall into more than one category,

221

222 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

FEDERAL MANDATES AFFECTING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITYCONSERVATION

No Federal law specifically mandates themaintenance of biological diversity, either off-site or onsite, as a national goal. The term it-self is used only in Title VII of the Foreign Assis-tance Act of 1983 (discussed in ch. 11). Anumber of Federal laws require the conserva-tion of resources on Federal lands, however,or require that consideration be given to re-sources in Federal agency activities. Offsitemaintenance of agricultural plant germplasmdiversity is mandated indirectly through legis-lation authorizing the National Plant Germ-plasm System (discussed later in this chapter).But offsite maintenance of wild plants, wild ani-mals, and microbial resources is not explicitlymandated by Federal legislation.

The lack of a comprehensive Federal onsitepolicy leads to uncoordinated programs, fre-quently leaving important gaps in conservation.Generally, Federal agencies coordinate conser-vation activities onsite for species that are spe-cifically mentioned in Federal protection laws,but this coordination frequently does not ex-tend to nonlegislated species. For example, on-site conservation can be coordinated amongFederal agencies for threatened and endan-gered species under the Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973 (Public Law 93-205). But no formalinstitutional mechanism exists to coordinateconservation of thousands of plant, animal, andmicrobial species not recognized as threatenedor endangered.

offsite germplasm conservation mandatesare equally vague. For example, the Agricul-tural Marketing Act of 1946 is intended to “pro-mote the efficient production and utilizationof products of the soil” (7 U. S.C.A. 427), butit is interpreted narrowly by the AgriculturalResearch Service to mean domesticated plantspecies and varieties. Little consideration hasbeen given to conservation of wild plantspecies,

Federal mandates give even less attention tooffsite conservation of domesticated and wildanimals. Legislative authority is vague and pro-

vides little direction to the Agricultural Re-search Service.

Table 9-1 lists the major Federal mandatespertinent to diversity maintenance. Species pro-tection laws authorize Federal agencies to man-age specific animal populations and their habi-tats onsite. Legislation on the protection ofnatural areas authorizes the acquisition or des-ignation of habitats and communities that helpmaintain a diversity of natural areas under Fed-eral stewardship, Federal laws for offsite main-tenance of plants authorize conservation anddevelopment (or enhancement) primarily ofplant species that demonstrate potential eco-nomic value, Offsite maintenance of domesticanimal germplasm is authorized indirectly bythe Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. TheEndangered Species Act of 1973 is in both cat-egories of table 9-1 because it authorizes wildplant and animal species protection, habitatprotection, and offsite conservation for thosespecies considered threatened or endangeredin the United States,

Although the National Forest ManagementAct of 1976 (Public Law 94-588) is the only Fed-eral legislation that includes in its mandate theonsite conservation of a “diversity of plant andanimal communities, ” it offers no explicit con-gressional direction on the meaning and scopeof onsite maintenance of biological diversity.Interpretation of this provision has been a dif-ficult process and has involved lengthy consul-tation with scientists and managers around thecountry (50). The U.S. Forest Service ultimatelydecided the law gave them a mandate to main-tain terrestrial vertebrate species diversity andthe structural timber stands on all Forest Serv-ice lands in conjunction with planning andmanagement processes (44 F.R. 53967-53779),Whether this interpretation fulfills the congres-sional intent on conserving diversity has notbeen challenged.

Such terms as biological resources, wildlife,animals, and natural resources can and havebeen interpreted differently by Federal agen-

Ch, 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 223

Table 9-1 .—Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance

C o m m o n n a m e --

Onsife diversity mandates:L a c e y A c t o f 1 9 0 0M i g r a t o r y B i r d T r e a t y A c t o f 1 9 1 8 . . . , . ,

Migratory B!rd Conservation Act of 1929, . . . ., ...

W i l d l i f e R e s t o r a t i o n A c t o f 1 9 3 7 ( P l t t m a n - R o b e r t s o n A c t ) . ,

B a l d E a g l e P r o t e c t i o n A c t o f 1 9 4 0

W h a l i n g C o n v e n t i o n A c t o f 1 9 4 9 , . . . . . . . . .

Fmh Restoration and Management Act of 1950( D i n g e l l - J o h n s o n A c t ) , . . , , . , ,

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 (Publlc Law 89-304)Fur Seal Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-702) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, ,, . . ..,..,.,, ,, .,..,, ,,.Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205),, . . . .

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1977(Public Law 94-532). ... .., .., .., .,, ... .,,.,,.,,

Whale Conservation and Protection Study Act of 1976(Public Law 94-532) ... .,, . .

F ish and Wi ld l l fe Conservat ion Act o f 1980 (Pub l tc Law W-366) . .

Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act of 1980(Publlc Law 96-561).. ., ..,

F i s h a n d W l l d l l f e C o o r d i n a t i o n A c t o f 1 9 3 4 . .

Flshand Game Sanctuary Act of 1934 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hlstorlc Sites, Buildings, and Antlqultles Act of 1935 . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 . . . . . . .

W i l de rness Ac t o f 1964 (Pub l l c Law 88 -577 ) . , . , . , . ,

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966(Public Law 91-135) . . . . . . . ,, . . . . . . . . .

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-542) ,,, . .Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

(Public Law 92-532) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resource affected

wtld animalswtld birds

wild birds

wild animals

wild birdswild animals

flshenes

flshenes

wild animalswild animalswild plants and

animals

flsherles

wild animalswild animals

ftsherlesterrestrial/aquatic

habitats

sanctuariesnatural landmarks

wildlife sanctuaries

wilderness areas

refugesriver segments

coastal areas

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976(Publlc Law 94-579) . . . . . . . public domain lands

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Publlc Law 94-588) national forest lands

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Publlc Law 95-514) public domain lands

Of fsite diversity mandates:Agricultural Markettng Act of 1946 (Research and Marketing Act) agricultural plants

and animals

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Publ ic Law 93-205) wi ld plants andanimals

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978(Publlc Law 95-307), . . ., . . . . . . . . tree germplasm

NOTE Laws enacted prior to 1957 are cited by Chapter and not”Publlc Law number

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

US Code

16 U.S.C 667, 70116 U S.C 703 et seq.

16 U.S.C 715 et seq.

16 U. SC. 669 et seq.

16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.16 U SC 916 et seq.

16 U.S. C. 777 et seq

16 U S.C 757a-f16 U SC 1151 et seq.16 U SC 1361 et seq.7 U S C. 13616 USC, 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372,

1402, 1531 et seq

16 U,S.C. 971, 1362, 1801 et seq.

16 USC 915 et seq

16 U S.C 2901 et seq

16 U.S.C 1823 et seq16 US.C 694

16 USC 694

16 U.S.C. 461-46715 U.S.C. 713 et seq. 16 U.S.C. 742 et seq.

16 U S C. 1131 et seq

16 U S C, 668dd et seq16 U S.C. 1271-1287

16 U.S.C. 1431-143433 U.S.C. 1401, 1402, 1411-1421, 1441-1444

7 USC. 1010-101216 U.S.C. 5, 79, 420, 460, 478, 522, 523, 551,

133930 U.s.c. 50, 51, 19140 U.s.c. 31943 U.S.C. 315, 661, 664, 665, 687, 869, 931,

934-939, 942-944, 946-959, 961-970, 1701,1702, 1711-1722, 1731-1748, 1753,1761-1771, 1781, 1782

16 U.S.C. 472, 500, 513, 515, 516, 518, 521,576, 581, 1600, 1601-1614

16 U.S.C 1332, 133343 U SC 1739, 1751- 1753, 1901-1908

5 U.s.c, 53157 U.S C, 1006, 1010, 1011. 1924-1927, 1929,

1939-1933, 1941-1943, 1947, 1981, 1983,1985, 1991, 1992, 2201, 2204, 2212, 2651-2654, 2661-2668

16 U,S.C. 590, 1001-100542 U.S.C. 31227 U.S.C. 13616 U.S.C, 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372,

1402, 1531 et seq.

16 USC, 1641-1647

224 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

cies. Wildlife, for example, has been defined all animals, both vertebrates and inver-in a number of ways, including the following: tebrates, including fish (65).

● mammals that are hunted or trapped These definitional differences are further evi-(game); dence of the lack of a comprehensive Federal

all mammals—the word animal is some- approach to these issues.times used interchangeably with mammal;

● all animals, both vertebrates and inver-tebrates, excluding fish; and

ONSITE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS

U.S. onsite programs seem to have one ofthree main objectives: 1) maintenance of diversehabitats or ecosystems, 2) preservation of indi-vidual species through habitats’ protection, and3) restoration of habitats to their natural con-dition. These objectives are not necessarily ex-clusive. Safeguarding communities and ecosys-tems could help protect rare species. Protectingthe habitat of a species may conserve an eco-system or community. And restoring habitatscould enhance the diversity of species withinan ecosystem.

Ecosystem Diversity Maintenance

Maintaining ecosystems is the only way toensure the continued viability and evolution-ary processes of the organisms within theseareas (see ch. 5). Numerous mechanisms existat the Federal, State, and local level to manageland and water areas for their maintenance. Thenet result is the continued existence of a diver-sity of ecosystems in the United States.

Ecosystem diversity maintenance within Fed-eral, State, and private holdings depends on thedegree of protection given to the area, its size,and the impact of external influences. Protec-tion of ecosystem diversity within land andwater designations ranges from scant to strict.The use of land and waters in the NationalWilderness Preservation System is greatly re-stricted—generally, motorized vehicles andlong-term human activities are prohibited.Some wilderness areas are regularly patrolledand violators cited. Others receive little regu-latory attention. At the other extreme, estua-rine sanctuaries are not required to have any

Federal protection; jurisdiction over any useis determined exclusively by the States. Onepreliminary assessment concluded that pri-vately owned, legally secured, single-purposenature reserves offer the greatest protection tobiological diversity (10),

The size of a designated area and proximityto other land designations also influence its con-tribution to onsite diversity (10). Some ResearchNatural Areas (RNAs), for example, are well-protected but may be very small (the smallestis only 2 acres), Numerous vertebrates andlarger plants would not be able to survive andreproduce successfully in a small “island” hab-itat; therefore, small RNAs contribute little tocommunity diversity maintenance.

Natural areas are influenced by human activ-ities on surrounding land that reduce the area’sability to sustain natural biological communi-ties. The National Park Service has reportedthat 55 percent of the threats to park naturalresources come from influences outside parkboundaries (64). The National Wildlife RefugeSystem also noted that influences from adja-cent areas were harming the fish and wildlifewithin refuges (63). Concern over such threatshas prompted introduction of legislation to min-imize negative effects of activities conductedin adjacent areas,

Table 9-2 provides a summary of the Federalecosystem conservation programs in whichdesignated areas are maintained in a relativelynatural condition, The land designations in-cluded are only some of more than 100 catego-ries used by Federal agencies, Some programsinvolve more than one agency, such as the Re-

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 225

Table 9-2.—Examples of Federal Ecosystem Conservation Programs

Program title and responsible NumberFederal agency or agencies of units

Nationa/ Natural LandmarksNational Park Service . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bureau of Land Management. .Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . .Federal Aviation AdministrationDepartment of Energy . . . . . .Department of Defense. . . . . . . . . .Department of Transportation . . .Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . .

Research Natural AreasNational Park Service ... . . . .U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . .Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . .Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . .Bureau of Land Management. .Department of Defense. . . . . . . . . .Tennessee Va l ley Author i ty .Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . .

Wild and Scenic RiversNational Park Service . . . . . . . . . . .

Bureau of Land Management. . .

U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Service ... .

Biosphere Reservesa (Man and theBiosphere)

National Park Service . . . . . . . .U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . .F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e .Bureau of Land Management, .Agriculture Research Service . . .National Oceanic and

A t m o s p h e r i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

Wilderness AreasU.S. Forest Service ... . . . . . .Bureau of Land Management.National Park Service . .Fish and Wildlife Service . .

Nat\onal ParksNational Park Service . . . . . . . . . .

104845

3.1511

1631

66151

2194

18441

23

15

23

7

2518

412

3

332223865

337

Acres(millions)

0.950.69

1056

0.0030.130.190.0140.032

2,30.1840.751,940.0480.0060.000100009

1,927miles1,367m i Ies2,098m i Ies1,043m i Ies

25.091.632.8100340.209

0.633

31,840.37

36.7819,33

79,44.

Program title and responsible NumberFederal agency or agencies of units

National MonumentsNational Park Service . . . . . . . . . . .

National PreservesNational Park Service . . . . . . . . .

Nat/onal RiversNational Park Service . . . . . . . .

National ForestsU.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . .

Experimental Forests, Ranges,and Watersheds

U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . .

Experimental Ecological ReservesU.S. Forest Service . . . . .Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . .Bureau of Land Management. . . .National Oceanic and

A t m o s p h e r i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o nAgriculture Research Servtce . . .National Park Service . . . . . . . . .Tennessee Valley Authority . . . .S m i t h s o n i a n I n s t i t u t i o n . .

National Wildlife RefugesFish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . .

Outstanding Natural AreasManagement

Bureau of Land Management. . . .

Areas of Critica/ EnvironmentalConcern

Bureau of Land Management. . . . .

Marine SanctuariesNational Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration . .

Estuarine SanctuariesNational Oceanic and

Atmospher ic Admin is t ra t ion

National Environmental ResearchParks

Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . .

77

12

4

152

88

2722

14111

424

37

236

7

17

5

A-c res(millions)

4.72

21.10

0.359

190,4

0.240

0.2190.0570.022

0.0060.1000.0930.0690,001

89.9

0.377

1.94

2,322 (sq.nauticalmiles)

268,762 (sq.nauticalm i Ies)

1.15NOTE When more than one aaency has res~onslblltty for an area acreaqe has been dlwded eWJall Y and each a9enc Y receives credit for an areaa Because biosphere reserves ;re managed by severa~ agenc!es slmul tan eously the total number (53) I n the table exceeds [he actual n u m ber of reserves (43)

SOURCE Adapted from W D Crumpacker Status and Trends of U S Natural Ecosystems OTA commissioned paper. 1985, M Bean. ‘Federal Laws and PollclesPerta(wng to the Maintenance of Blolog{cal Dlverslty on Federal and Pr!vate Lands, OTA commissioned paper. 1985

search Natural Area Program. Other programs the United Nations Educational, Scientific, andare under the jurisdiction of just one agency, Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which con-such as the National Forest System. siders the onsite maintenance of biological

diversity a major goal (17). The U.S. networkFew programs are designed specifically to of 43 biosphere reserves provides a framework

maintain biological diversity, even though some for linking complementary protected areas inprograms may indirectly have this as one of particular biogeographical regions and for con-their objectives. One exception is the Man and ducting research on strategies for managingthe Biosphere Program, coordinated through ecosystems to conserve diversity (22). The U.S.

program, unlike programs in other countries,is strictly voluntary; designation is used mainlyto encourage cooperation and increase use forscientific and educational purposes,

Research Natural Areas and ExperimentalEcological Areas are designated by appropri-ate Federal agencies and the National ScienceFoundation, respectively, to conserve naturalecological communities for research in natu-ral community manipulation. A Federal Com-mittee on Ecological Reserves was establishedin 1974 to coordinate designation of these sites,in part to ensure that each community type wasincluded in the system (4). The coordinatingcommittee still exists nominally, but it no longerprovides an advisory function. Designations ofResearch Natural Areas are currently deter-mined independently by each Federal agency.

A variety of management options exist withinprograms that consider diversity an objective,For example, national forests are directed bylaw (National Forest Management Act) to bemanaged in a way that sustains plant and ani-mal diversity, At the individual forest level, su-pervisors have flexibility in determining howand to what extent vertebrate species diversitywill be considered in forest operations.

Similarly, National Wildlife Refuges and Na-tional Parks consider maintaining diversity anobjective, although this attitude is not supportedby specific mandate. National Wildlife Refugemanagers may try to maintain a diversity of spe-cies with the existing habitat or may manipu-late areas to create a diversity of habitats, Insome cases, refuges are managed exclusivelyfor a single species. National Parks have to bal-

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 227.- —

Contributions of these Federal programs tomaintaining diversity depends on the degreeof protection offered for each designation (10).For example, National Natural Landmarks aredesignated to identify and conserve unique,rare, or representative communities in theUnited States. Designation of these sites doesnot, however, include protecting the site fromhuman alteration. Approximately half the Na-tional Natural Landmarks exist on privatelands, where conservation depends on the good

will of the individual landowner. National Nat-ural Landmarks on Federal- or State-controlledlands require the cooperation of the authorizedagency to ensure that protection is consideredin the area’s management.

An attempt has been made to identify theamount of potential ecosystem diversity thatis protected in Federal landholdings. Potentialecosystem diversity is that which would be ex-pected to develop on a site under natural con-ditions. According to an assessment that con-sidered areas of approximatey 23,000 acres orlarger, lands of four agencies failed to include22 percent of the recognized ecosystem types(i.e., 69 out of 315), These four agencies werethe National Park Service, Forest Service, Fishand Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Man-agement. Another 29 percent of these ecosys-tem types were only minimally included (9).Since this analysis assessed only potential diver-sity, it probably underestimates existing eco-system diversity in the landholdings (9). Thelargest number of unrepresented types were inTexas and Oklahoma, which have relativelylarge amounts of ecosystem diversity but rela-tively few Federal lands.

Another analysis of the same Federal hold-ings, using a different classification scheme forpotential ecosystem diversity, obtained simi-lar results (12). These two studies indicate thatany attempt to include all ecosystem typeswithin Federal programs would require con-siderable expansion of existing holdings. Forthe national wilderness preservation system,however, almost half the unrepresented typesin that system could be added from existingFederal agency holdings (12).

Natural area management programs also oc-cur at the State level. State parks, forests, andprotected sites may be managed for one or afew resources, but they help preserve some rem-nants of diversity, particularly when they aremanaged in conjunction with private or Fed-eral reserves. State designations could also bewildlife areas, fishing areas, university researchstations, botanic sites, school and other publiclands, or special districts (e. g., a water man-agement district) (10).

228 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Private holdings also contribute to maintain-ing diversity, especially through the protectionof remnant areas. Many of the remaining tallgrass prairies in the Midwest, for example, areprivately owned by individuals or as railroadright-of-ways. private land trusts lease parcelsof land for biological or historical significance,which may contribute to onsite diversity main-tenance. (For further details, see ref. 55.) Manyof the land parcels are small and isolated, withlittle attention given expressly to diversity main-tenance, but they do contribute to the patch-work of natural areas in the United States. Anassessment of the protection associated withall these Federal, State, local, and private landdesignations is under way (11).

One private institution with an explicit goalof natural area preservation is The Nature Con-servancy (TNC), TNC is a nonprofit organiza-tion with chapters in most States. Its objectivesare to identify species and community diver-sity onsite, purchase areas or work with land-holders to protect the species or community,and manage areas to ensure the continued ex-istence of the species or community.

TNC, through State Natural Heritage Pro-grams (discussed in ch, 5 and in the next sec-tion), conducts field investigations of rare,threatened, or endangered organisms and com-munities across the Nation. The informationgenerated from these surveys helps identifyorganisms that should be given Federal or Stateprotected status, as well as habitats and com-munities where special attention is necessary.

TNC, one of the largest private landholdersin the United States, owns 895 preserves (39).In addition, it works with Federal, State, andlocal governments to designate protected areas.Thus, the organization, through a grassrootsapproach, is effectively identifying and main-taining a diversity of rare species or commu-nity types in the United States.

Species Habitat Prosection

The most comprehensive national programfor the protection of species diversity and theirhabitats is the Endangered Species Program,

authorized under the Endangered Species Actof 1973, The program authorizes the Secretaryof the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wild-l ife Service (FWS), and the Secretary ofCommerce, through the National Marine Fish-eries Service (NMFS), to protect endangeredand threatened species of plants and animalsin the United States and elsewhere.

The program, administered by the Office ofEndangered Species, has several phases: list-ing species, developing recovery plans, andmanaging species’ habitats. Species are listedas threatened or endangered when sufficientinformation on the status and distribution ofthe species suggests significant declines in pop-ulation or range or both and when an extensivepublic review has been completed. In general,a species is considered a candidate between thetime a petition to propose a species is receivedand the listing process is completed. In addi-tion, many candidate lists are put togetherthrough expert review by the regional andWashington offices of the FWS,

Lists of candidates are published periodicallyin the Federal Register. (The most recent listswere published in September 1985 for verte-brates and plants and in May 1984 for inver-tebrates.) To date, approximately 3,9oo speciesand subspecies of plants, vertebrates, and in-vertebrates are candidates compared with ap-proximately 385 species already listed (18).

When a species is listed, the next step is de-velopment of a formal recovery plan outliningthe responsibilities of all parties with jurisdic-tion over the species’ habitat and their man-agement roles. Recovery plans are advisory doc-uments to the Secretary of the Interior, notbinding agreements. Recovery plans are ap-proved or awaiting approval for approximatelytwo-thirds of the species listed (see table 9-3),Implementation of recovery activities, however,has been slow (13).

The thrust of the Endangered Species Pro-gram is protection through proper managementof a species’ habitat. Most management activi-ties are carried out by Federal and State agen-cies with jurisdiction over the habitats, not byFWS (unless the species occur on National

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States “ 229—. .-

Table 9-3.— Number of U.S. Species at VariousStages of Listing and Recovery as of 1985

S p e c i e s I d e n t i f i e d a s c a n d i d a t e s f o r l i s t i n g 3 , 9 0 8C a n d i d a t e s w i t h c o m p l e t e d s t a t u s r e s e a r c h 964Spec ies I l s t ed as t h rea tened o r endange red . 383Species with approved recovery plans . . . 223Species recovering ... 22SOURCE J Fttzgeralc-and G M Meese Sawng Endangered Spec/es (Wash, n g

(on DC Defenders of Wlldl!fe 1986I

Wildlife Refuges]. These habitats, often calledcritical habitats—because the species dependon these areas for survi~ral or reproduction—are designated either in conjunction with, orsubsequent to, the listing of a species. To date,critical-habitat designations have been madefor only about 70 listed species (13),

A federally listed threatened or endangeredspecies is protected from any federally author-ized activity that may jeopardize its continuedexistence, even when the activity occurs en-tirely on private land (4), Any Federal agencyundertaking or authorizing a project in therange of an endangered species must consultwith FWS or NMFS to ensure that the impactson a listed species tvill be minimal. The con-sultation requirement is one of the most effec-tive parts of the program in protecting threat-ened or endangered species (4). It is one of theleast well-funded areas of the Endangered Spe-cies Program, however.

To a limited degree, efforts to manage athreatened or endangered species involve off-site techniques, such as artificial propagationof plants and captive breeding programs for ani-mals. Efforts to recover several species of largebirds (e.g., the peregrine falcon and whoopingcrane) demonstrate the success of such tech-niques, In some cases, captive breeding pro-grams provided the opportunity for species tobe reintroduced into their historic range.

In addition to Federal activities, State agen-cies may receive Federal funding to implementspecies-specific recovery and management ef-forts. To date, 41 States have approved pro-grams for animals, and 17 have programs forplants (4).

Overall, the Endangered Species Program ef-fectively maintains species already listed and

— —

protected under the law, but it provides insuffi-cient protection for those that are candidates,The program is criticized for the slow pace ofcandidate review in the listing process. Someanimals and plants may have become extinctbetween the time they were proposed as can-didates and their review by FWS (4,18). TheTexas Henslow’s sparrow and the Schweinitz’sWaterweed are two such examples (31). Thisdelay underscores the need to list species ortake other action in time to prevent their loss,

By publishing lists of candidates in the Fed-eral Register, the Endangered Species Officehas succeeded in bringing public attention tothese candidates. Now the office is workingwith other Federal agencies to promote consid-eration of candidate species in agency planning.However, no legislative authority currently pro-tects candidates from adverse impacts of Fed-eral agency actions.

Underfunding and understaffing of the Of-fice of Endangered Species hampers its abilityto implement listing, recovery, and consulta-tion objectives (18). With an increased budget,resources would be applied initially to developrecovery plans for all listed species. Consulta-tion among agencies is also severely under-funded. Any funding increase to the Endan-gered Species Program could be gradual, over5 years perhaps, so the office could expand ex-isting program efforts. Program growth mightinvolve annual increases of $2 million for Stategrant programs, $500,000 for species listing,$1.5 million for consultation, and $4 millionfor recovery plans (54).

Other programs identify and protect selectedspecies, sometimes known as public trust re-sources, designated in Federal mandates, Ex-amples include migratory bird managementand anadromous fish hatchery programs, Theprograms provide little protection for overallspecies diversity. The Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice, the major Federal agency with authorityto manage biological resources, is currentlyfocusing its limited personnel and budget al lo-cat ions primarily on pubIic trust resources.

One Federal program focusing on public trustresources is the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-

230 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

tern, administered by FWS (3). Many of the ref-uges have been created by revenues from an-nual waterfowl hunting permits. Consequently,most refuges are purchased to protect habitatsfor migratory birds. Refuges may also protecthabitats of threatened or endangered species(e.g., Atwater Prairie Chicken National Wild-life Refuge in Texas) or large mammals (Na-tional Bison Range in Montana), with fundingfrom the Land and Water Conservation Fund,a land trust funded by the sales of grazingleases, offshore oil, mineral rights, and othersources on Federal lands. The Land and WaterConservation Fund is the principal source ofmoney for land purchases by Federal agencies.

Refuges may provide habitats for a diversityof species, but the designation of the refuge isto benefit one or a few species of special inter-est, Woodland habitats along some east coastrefuges, for example, have been converted tograssland-wetland habitats to enhance water-fowl at the expense of overall diversity.

State programs also tend to focus on selectedspecies of fish, wildlife, and plants, althoughthe emphasis differs somewhat from Federalprograms. States generally receive revenuesfrom hunters, fishermen, and Federal grants,for management and conservation of harvestedspecies. Interest in nongame species is increas-ing, however. State agencies, through referen-dums, are expanding their fish and wildlife pro-grams to a wider array of species’ conservationefforts. Public pressure to conserve and managenongame populations and increased budgetsto implement programs (62) are increasing Stateefforts. However, State nongame programs arefunded by add-on monies from tax checkoffs,which hampers the ability of most States to ade-quately fund or maintain personnel for theirnongame programs. In addition, this type offunding severely hampers long-range planningand implementation of nongame projects. Analternative to this type of funding is to providemonies from the State’s general fund, as is be-ing done by the Florida Fresh Water Game andFish Commission (31).

Another State activity is the Natural Heritageprogram, a set of public and private programs

to protect diversity in each State (46), Each pro-gram develops an inventory of the State’s rarespecies and ecosystems and identifies priorityactions. The Nature Conservancy establishesand initially supports the programs. In someinstances, States will take over the program de-vised by TNC and incorporate activities intothe State government. In other instances, Statesand TNC share responsibilities.

State Natural Heritage Programs and data-bases are designed to be compatible so nationalinformation on species diversity can be col-lated, As of February 1986,44 States had con-tracted for the program and 26 of these had as-sumed administration of the program from TNC(30), The Conservancy also maintains four non-contracted programs and has separate contractswith the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Na-vaho Nation, and Puerto Rico,

Programs’ abilities to protect diversity arelimited by their resources and the degree of in-fluence they have in the State governments. TheRhode Island program, for instance, althoughpart of the State government, receives its fund-ing from the Federal Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice, Thus, its inventory is primarily limited tospecies identified by the Endangered SpeciesAct, A lack of resources and influence hamperthis program’s ability to comment on State andFederal developments and State land-acquisi-tions. The South Carolina program, also partof the State government, is supported by a$400,000 State grant fund and income-taxcheckoff (21). with these resources, the programmaintains a larger inventory, buys and managesland, and comments on all relevant State andFederal developments.

programs that are not part of a State govern-ment have fewer resources and opportunitiesto affect Federal and State decisions. Two fur-ther constraints are the limited information thatprograms are able to collect and the lack of anational classification system for natural eco-systems.

Nevertheless, State Natural Heritage Pro-grams perform a function unfulfilled by exist-ing institutions. The continuing inventory ofrare species and ecosystems enables the pro-

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States “ 231

tection of the most important biologically di-verse lands and the early identification andmodification of potentially destructive devel-opment plans.

A variety of private conservation organiza-tions work to protect species of particular in-terest. The National Audubon Society, for ex-ample, maintains some 60 refuges to protectthe habitat of endangered species. Many of thefirst refuges were designated to protect marineand coastal waterbird colonies (I 5). More re-cently, sanctuaries are being acquired to pro-tect inland habitats and to restrict development.These areas provide refuge for an array of spe-cies, in addition to the key species for whichthe sanctuary was purchased.

Conservation organizations such as IzaakWalton League of America help maintain diver-sity through an advocacy role. These groupswork with the U.S. Congress and Federal andState agencies to develop laws and programsthat reflect the importance of maintaining spe-cies. Like Federal programs, diversity conser-vation is not a stated objective of most nonprofitorganizations (except TNC), but their efforts aidin maintaining species and habitat diversityon site.

Additional groups working for species pres-ervation include single-species organizationsor foundations, such as the Carolina Bird Club,Desert Fishes Council, or Trout Unlimited (47).These offices work to promote habitat protec-tion for these organisms, manage habitats forparticular species, and advocate survival ofthese species through Federal and State agen-cies. The net result is species maintenance andconservation of particular components of bio-logical diversity.

A multitude of nonprofit organizations alsofunction at the local and State level. Thesegroups tend to be small, poorly financed, andfocused on a particular area or species of con-cern. (For further discussion, see ref. 59. ) Suchorganizations generally do not have biologicaldiversity as an exclusive objective, but they con-tribute to the maintenance of biological diver-sity through their achievernents of preservinga specific species o f concern or its habitat.

Onsite Restoration

Another facet of maintaining biological diver-sity is the restoration of degraded sites. The fieldis relatively new, few institutions have well-developed programs, and complete restorationhas been difficult to achieve. (See ch. 5 for dis-cussion of restoration technologies. )

A key Federal legislation that directly pro-vides for revegetation after a disturbance is theSurface Mining Control and Reclamation Actof 1977, also known as S MC RA (Public Law95-87). Section 515(b)( 19) states that miningoperations shall:

establish . . . a diverse, effective, permanent. . .vegetation cover of the same seasonal varietynative to the area of land to be affected.

The number and composition of species is oftensuggested by past management practices. TheBureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Serv-ice, and Soil Conservation Service have eachdeveloped vegetative mixtures for various typesof disturbances that can be economically man-aged and are likely to succeed. There is a prob-lem, however, with the definition of “native.”BLM, for instance, interprets native to includeintroduced exotics that have been establishedwithin the area before the project was assessed.

Section 515(b)(2) states that the mine opera-tion shall:

. . . restore the land affected to a condition ca-pable of supporting the use which it was capa-ble of supporting prior to any mining, or higheror better uses.

Thus, SMCRA provides an incentive to developtechniques for establishing native plant species.The natural diversity aspect of SMCRA couldbe strengthened at the State level by requiringthe use of native species in revegetat ionmixtures.

A few Federal agencies are initiating resto-ration efforts. The Forest Service is mandatedby the National Forest Management Act of 1976to replant all lands in the National Forest Sys-tem that do not regenerate naturally after tim-ber harvesting. Tree monoculture are most1ikely to be planted, thus reducing diversity in-

232 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

stead of restoring the area’s original diversity.The National Park Service (NPS) has institutedsmall-scale restoration projects, mainly for areasaffected by past tourist use or other distur-bances (32). An exception to the typical small-scale NPS restoration project is the legislativelymandated (Public Law 95-250) Redwood Creekrehabilitation project in Redwood NationalPark. The project is developing rehabilitationtechniques for 36,000 acres of previously loggedand seriously eroded slopes in the redwood-mixed conifer ecosystem.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and Environ-mental Protection Agency identify water bod-ies polluted by chemicals or acid rain that aresuitable for restoration. In lakes damaged byacid rain in the Northeast, for example, FWShas spent $5 million in a liming effort to reducelake acidity and restore aquatic life (32). TheU.S. Army Corps of Engineers is researchingwetland restoration techniques to mitigate de-velopment projects in wetlands,

One future opportunity to restore diversityis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s(USDA) implementation of the conservation re-serve provision of the Food Security Act of 1985(Public Law 99-198). The conservation reserve:

. . . authorizes USDA to contract with farmersto remove 40 million acres of erodible land fromrow crop production. . . , The retired acreswould be planted to grasses, legumes, and treesto reduce erosion and enhance wildlife (66).

This provision could be strengthened if resto-ration of vegetation in riparian areas were in-cluded in the legislation, The reconstructionof debt portion of this bill may be more benefi-cial to diversity. It allows the farmer to offerup land for not less than 50 years to be usedto lower the debt.

Private efforts may be the leading contribu-tors to restoring biological diversity. Althoughmuch reclamation is being carried out by in-dustries and consulting firms in compliancewith regulations, work is also being done bysmall organizations and individuals motivatedby esthetic and environmental interests .Universities also are conducting research to de-velop techniques for restoring different ecosys-tems, Recently, restoration has been identifiedas a focus of research at the Cary Arboretumin New York and at the Center for RestorationEcology at the University of Wisconsin (32),

OFFSITE DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS

Federal programs to maintain diversity off-site generally involve germplasm of agricultur-ally or economically important plants and ani-mals, Less attention is given to wild plants andanimals at the Federal level than at the Stateor private level. State efforts to conserve a diver-sity of plants, animals, or micro-organisms off-site are poorly documented and tend to bewidely dispersed. Private institutions conductnumerous activities directly related to the main-tenance of biological diversity offsite. Conse-quently, offsite conservation of many biologi-cal resources occurs only as a result of privateefforts. For ease in discussion, offsite mainte-nance of biological diversity is divided intoplant, animal, and micro-organism programs,although programs overlap considerably.

Plans Programs

Historically, responsibilities for maintainingplant resources at the Federal level includedonly domesticated plants under the jurisdictionof USDA. Although recent legislation has in-cluded some wild plant species (e. g., Forest andRangeland Renewable Resources Research Act,Rural Development Act), the focus of USDAis still reflected in programs to maintain crop-related germplasm,

Agricultural Plants

The most significant program is the NationalPlant Germplasm System (NPGS)—a diffusenetwork of USDA, State, and private institu-tions, private industry, and individuals. NPGS

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 233

activities include acquiring, maintaining, andimproving plant germplasm. Various compo-nents of the system also conduct research thatsupports preservation of genetic diversity, ac-quisition of new materials, and use of storedgermplasm (see figure 9-l).

Work done by NPGS is in response to spe-cific national needs. Agricultural plant explo-ration and development of new crop speciesled to a formal Federal program (Section of Seedand Plant Introduction) in 1898 within USDA(28). Recognizing that germplasm resourceswere being lost due to inadequate maintenancefacilities, Congress enacted the AgriculturalMarketing Act in 1946, authorizing regionalcenters to maintain and develop plant germ-plasm (27).

Federal contributions to NPGS currently areadministered through the Agricultural Re-search Service (ARS) and the Cooperative StateResearch Service (CSRS). The ARS NationalProgram Staff in Beltsville, MD, coordinatesthese various activities and facilities:

●

●

Advisory Committees: The National PlantGermplasm Committee and individualcrop advisory committees provide both pol-icy and technical advice to administratorsand curators of NPGS. The National PlantGenetic Resources Board advises the Sec-retary of Agriculture on resource issuesand serves as liaison between NPGS andthe International Board for Plant GeneticResources.Plant Genetics and Germplasm Institute:This USDA/ARS facility includes the fol-lowing:—the Plant Introduction Office that coordi-

nates the acquisition of new materials,assignment of introduction numbers,and distribution to appropriate facilities;

—the Plant Molecular Genetics Laboratory,devoted to developing methods for usinggermplasm to improve crops;

—the Germplasm Resources InformationNetwork (GRIN) Database ManagementUnit, responsible for developing andmaintaining the computer-based systemthat is intended to contain passport,

●

●

evaluation, and inventory information onNPGS germplasm; and

—the National Small Grains Collection.National Seed Storage Laborator~: The Na-tional Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) inFt. Collins, CO, is designed to be the prin-cipal storage facility for agricultural cropseeds in the NPGS, Ideally, all plant vari-eties are stored at NSSL as base collections.NSSL is responsible for monitoring the via-bility of seeds within its collections as wellas seeds stored in active collections. Thelaboratory does not evaluate its samples,however, and depends on other facilitiesin the network to regenerate samples whengermination declines,Germplasm Collections: National respon-sibility for maintaining major crops isdivided among four Regional Plant Intro-duction Stations (RPISS). Many importantcollections are not associated with an RPIS,such as those for soybeans, cotton, sugarcrops, and small grains. Germplasm thatmust be clonally maintained is the respon-sibility of the five newly established andfour developing national clonal reposi-tories. Several collections of genetic or mu-tant stocks that possess specific traits ex-ist , Although not generally used inbreeding, such stocks have been importantresources for research on cytogenetics,physiology, biochemistry, and moleculargenetics of crops.

The mission of NPGS is to acquire, maintain,evaluate, and make accessible as wide a rangeof genetic diversity as possible in the form ofseed and clonal materials to crop breeders andplant scientists (60), The scientific expertise ongermplasm maintenance is among the bestavailable,

Assessments of NPGS during the past 5 yearshave highlighted shortcomings in coordination,communication, storage facilities, maintenanceof seed viability, and staffing levels (7,56,57,60).Facilities such as NSSL, for example, have beencriticized for inadequately maintaining seedstocks and for storage limitations. A 1981 studyby the General Accounting Office (GAO) foundthat NPGS curators sent only half the seeds

234 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

a

na~ - -

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIII

62c—

IIIII

i

● ☛ ● ☛ ☛ ☛

.—— — --——-1

iIIIIII1IIIIIIII

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 235

from active collections to the NSSL (56). Andthe study determined that approximately 63 per-cent of the active germplasm collections werestored in inadequate containers or in undesira-ble climates, The result, GAO concluded, maybe the loss of at least one-fourth of the germ-plasm resources held by NPGS.

Efforts have been made to address some ofthese deficiencies through reallocation of re-sources, construction of new facilities, and cen-tralization of responsibilities, but the need toimprove germplasm maintenance remains,Recommendations to improve NPGS have beenhampered by the diffuse nature of the networkand by inadequate resources.

The system has been cited as needing aclearer division of responsibility y for maintain-ing and evaluating germplasm collections (7),Because it is a cooperative network, lines ofauthority are frequently unclear, and there maybe too many levels of authority to adequatelyadminister a national program on germplasm(60). The result is a general lack of understand-ing of how decisions concerning NPGS aremade by ARS. Such decisions can be furthercomplicated by the competing interests andconcerns of other cooperative Federal (i. e.,CSRS] or State agencies that may provide pro-gram support.

The ARS staff has recently increased its in-put into budget allocations for Federal facilitiesand has attempted to centralize program re-sponsibilities into one office (42). Furthercentralization could provide increased coordi-nation of the system’s collections, improvedcommunication on available germplasm diver-sity (especially through the GRIN database), andmore effective identification of funding pri-orities.

One area that has received insufficient fundsis regeneration of seeds with reduced viabil-ity. Although NSSL monitors seed viability, itsends seeds that germinate poorly to anotherfacility for growing-out. If viability is found tobe low, it may be difficult to obtain a regener-ated sample. If NPGS does not have specificresponsibility for a sample, NSSL must locatea willing donor, but it does not have funds to

pay for grow-outs. A comprehensive system tosupport regeneration of stored seed has beenhampered by competing interests for availableresources.

The crop advisory committees {CACS) inNPGS were developed to improve communi-cation about crop-specific needs (see table 9-4).CACS are comprised of scientists from NPGS,private industry, and the academic community.They provide technical expertise to the NationaIPlant Genetic Resources Board, the NationalPlant Germplasm Committee, ARS staff, andNPGS curators. In some cases, such as the pearcollection at the national clonal repository inCorvallis, OR, CACS advise the facility in chargeof a particular crop (7].

CACS are growing in importance and influ-ence within NPGS (45). Committees have been

Table 9.4.—Existing and Proposed Crop AdvisoryCommittees of the National Plant Germplasm System

Existing committees Proposed committees

Alfalfa AsparagusBarley Florist cropsCarya Leafy vegetablesCitrus Tropical fruit and nutsClover Woody ornamentsCottonCruciferGrassJuglansMaizeMalusOatsPeaPeanutPhaseolusPotatoPrunusPyrusRiceRoot and bulbSmall fruitsSorghumSoybeanSugar beetSugarcaneSunflowerSweet potatoTomatoVignaVine cropsVitisWheat

SOURCE U S Department of Agrlcultu~e, Agricultural Research Serv~ce Pla~tGenetics and Germplasm Inst!tute Germplasm Resources InformationNetwork, Progress Update, February 1986

236 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

asked to identify gaps in the diversity of cropspecies, coordinate collection and maintenanceneeds, develop priorities for crops, and assessthe data available on accessions. However, noprovision exists within NPGS to ensure that thenecessary meetings of a CAC will be held orreports developed. To date, NPGS has reliedon the dedication and commitment of the sci-entists involved to accomplish these tasks, Al-though some CACS have achieved a great deal,others have been slow to organize and developtheir activities. ARS has argued that fundingor other support for CACS is unnecessary, butOTA has found the committees feel they wouldbe more effective if funds for frequent and regu-lar meetings were available.

The diverse nature of NPGS can also be seenin its different roles of providing service func-tions of maintaining germplasm and undertak-ing research programs. Functions such as grow-ing out seeds, evaluating accessions, assessingviability, and managing information are serv-ice-oriented, Many Federal and State scientistswithin NPGS, however, are evaluated on a sys-tem that can provide disincentives for suchactivities. The problem can become acute whendecreased funding means that research staffmust handle service functions.

The need for more personnel and funding hasincreased with the amount of germplasm heldby NPGS facilities, Concern about characteri-zation and evaluation of accessions has createdadditional burdens for many facilities. There-fore, proposed changes should consider im-proved support of the basic operations alongwith plans for new construction.

The National Seed Storage Laboratory con-tinues to need improvement (7,56,57,58,60).Within 2 years, the existing facility will exceedits storage capacity. Collections at the RPISSand other facilities are witholding some acces-sions from NSSL. But keeping them creates anadditional burden for facilities not equippedfor long-term storage. Without expanded space,NSSL cannot provide the necessary backupstorage for NPGS germplasm collections.

In addition, NSSL storage rooms were builtbefore the use of subfreezing and cryogenic

storage. OTA found that the NSSL collectionsrequire upgraded facilities with access to mod-ern storage technologies and backup refriger-ation systems. One proposed NSSL facilitywould quadruple present storage capacity andenable use of modern technologies. Funds forconstruction, however, are not available in theAdministration’s current budget (4.5).

Although many long-standing deficiencieshave been addressed by administrative changessuch as creation of the crop advisory commit-tees, future improvements of NPGS will requireadditional funds for facilities, as well as per-sonnel, equipment, and supplies to supportbasic operations.

Most States do not formally fund offsite germ-plasm maintenance activities independent ofNPGS, California, an exception, began a pro-gram in 1980 to conserve the genetic diversityof important plant and animal species withinthe State (33). The California Gene ResourcesConservation Program, which is currently in-active, raised awareness of the need to conservegermplasm resources, A program at the Univer-sity of California at Davis will conduct researchon germplasm resources in the State and pro-vide funds for orphan collections, those thatmay be vulnerable due to the death or retire-ment of principal curators (49).

Private individuals and grassroots organiza-tions are preserving a significant amount ofagricultural crop diversity not found in govern-mental collections (20,44,59), The Seed SaversExchange, for example, helps preserve heir-loom vegetable varieties and other vegetableseeds not available from the Federal Govern-ment or commercial producers. The exchangeof seeds among its 450 members helps ensurethe survival of some 3,500 plant varieties, mostof which can be found only within the orga-nization. (For further discussion of Seed SaversExchange and other grassroots efforts to pre-serve agricultural plant germplasm, see ref. 59.)

Private industry also maintains plant germ-plasm in conjunction with developmental pro-grams for new crop varieties or as marketedseed varieties, United Brands, for instance,maintains the most extensive collection of

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 237

banana germplasm (23). Although the objectivein most cases is not the maintenance of geneticdiversity, industries could maintain germplasmresources that contribute to the overall plantdiversity in the United States.

Support can be provided by private industryby granting funds, equipment, facilities, or land.The Rhododendron Species Foundation, for ex-ample, maintains an extensive collection o fwild rhododendrons at a facility donated by theWeyerhaeuser Co. (59), A grant to NPGS by Pi-oneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., of $1.5 mil-lion over 5 years will support the evaluationof Latin American corn varieties (2)—work notpossible under present NPGS budgets.

Wild Plants

No Federal equivalent to NPGS exists for wildplant species. Although NPGS maintains somewild plant germplasm, this is clearly a second-ary function and generally involves relativesof cultivated crops or species economicallyvaluable, such as ornamental or florist crops.Most wild plant diversity is stored in livingcollections such as botanic gardens and ar-boretums.

Federal programs that make some contribu-tion to maintaining wild plant diversity do notcover the majority of plant diversity, USDA’sSoil Conservation Service (SCS) maintains somewild species (those with known or suspectedvalue to soil or water conservation) in its PlantMaterials Centers. Species not being used inplant development programs are sent to NSSL(52).

The Forest Service maintains germplasm oftree species with known or potential commer-cial value (5). The Smithsonian Institution main-tains an extensive collection of North Americanwild plant species. The Office of EndangeredSpecies provides some funding for offsite main-tenance and propagation of threatened or en-dangered plant species.

The contributions of current State efforts areunclear. Generally, State programs are coordi-nated through the State Department of Agri-culture and focus on species with some eco-nomic importance to the State—e. g., timbervarieties, shrubs, and grasses useful in landreclamation, along with important wildlifefoods.

The most significant offsite programs forgermplasm are financed and managed in theprivate sector (59). One such effort, the Centerfor Plant Conservation (CPC), is beginning anetwork of botanic gardens and arboretums toconserve all threatened and endangered wildplant species. CPC, located at the Arnold Ar-boretum in Massachusetts, has solicited the par-ticipation of 14 major botanic institutionsacross the country to act as regional centersfor wild plant diversity. By establishing a datanetwork, CPC hopes to identify plant species

238 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Photo credit L McMahan

Greenhouses of the Berry Botanic Garden, Portland, OR,Botanic gardens are becoming increasingly important to

the effort to diversity.

for inclusion into the national program (16).CPC also has agreements with NSSL for long-term storage of selected wild species (40).

Arboretums and botanic gardens historicallyhave not considered the maintenance of wildplant diversity a goal (37). They have generallyprovided display gardens—areas where showyflowers or unique plants are presented–witha secondary objective of preserving wild plantspecies. Interest in maintaining diversity is in-creasing, however (37,59). In some cases, re-productive individuals of rare plant species maybe found only in arboretums or botanic gardens.Yet, aquatic plants are underrepresented in bo-tanic institutions, and few aquatic gardens ex-ist to conserve such species.

Regardless of their objectives, these botanicinstitutions and the individuals who run themcontribute to the maintenance of plant diver-sity. However, no coordination exists for in-formation exchange or evaluation of contribu-tions, Although it is too early to assess results,the Center for Plant Conservation may providesignificant coordination of such efforts.

One possible way to improve offsite wildplant maintenance is to expand NPGS to in-clude nonagricultural varieties. The objectiveis to take advantage of existing Federal, State,and private cooperation. Crop advisory com-mittees could be established for species that areimportant but have little market value. NSSLcould be expanded to serve as a repository forwild species’ seeds that may have future eco-nomic or ecological significance. Existing plantcenters and scientists could play a larger rolein propagation and reintroduction programsfor wild plant species, particularly threatenedor endangered species.

The underlying responsibilities of NPGSwould need to be changed to accommodatenonagricultural species. Biological differencesbetween agricultural and wild species, such asdormancy and seed production barriers, wouldincrease the need for research to prepare plansfor storage, germination, and regeneration.

Expanding the role of the system to includewild plant species could reduce already insuffi-cient funding for existing programs, however.The Agricultural Research Service budgetednearly $16 million (gross) for germplasm workin 1986, but one report has estimated that bythe 1990s, annual allocations of almost $40 mil-lion (1981 dollars) will be needed to support pro-grams (43,60). Adding approximately 20,000new plant species (perhaps millions of acces-sions to represent the diversity of each species)would severely strain an already underfundedprogram,

Animal Programs

The United States has no organized programfor maintaining diversity in agricultural ani-mals (6). Federal activities to conserve genetic

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 239

resources are minimal, and private efforts,though more substantial, are so disperse thatit is difficult to assess gaps or overlaps.

Neither the Federal Government nor Stategovernments have programs designed to main-tain wild animal diversity offsite, It is minimallysupported by Federal contributions to privatesector programs, but no overall Federal planexists and funding is erratic, Thus, the privatesector is currently making the most significantcontributions to maintaining domestic and wildanimal diversity.

Domestic Animals

USDA was authorized to collect, maintain,and develop animal genetic resources under thesame legislation that provides authority for theNational Plant Germplasm System’s compo-nents (Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946).However, USDA contributions to domestic ani-mals did not evolve along with its agriculturalplant activities.

The department has concentrated on identify-ing foreign germplasm of potential importancein U.S. livestock production. Beginning in themid-1960s, a substantial number of foreignbreeds were introduced into the United States(6). The importation of cattle was emphasized,but several breeds of sheep and swine were alsointroduced. Breeds were chosen for their likelycontribution to U.S. agriculture and withoutparticular attention to the degree of endanger-ment in their country of origin. Several of thesestocks have since become firmly establishedwithin the United States.

USDA evaluated the breeds and in some cases(especially for sheep and swine) initiated theirimportation. A key group in this effort was the

Germplasm Evaluation Program of the RomanL. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center(MARC) in Nebraska, which compared morethan 20 foreign and domestic cattle breeds (61).Current efforts at MARC deal with develop-ment of composite gene-pool stocks for new andmore productive breeds of sheep and swine.

Within the private sector, breed associations—loose unions of individuals who produce aparticular livestock breed—have been formedfor common species (e.g., cattle, pigs, sheep,goats, and horses) to record pedigrees and pro-duction of individuals within livestock breedsavailable in the United States (see table 9-5).These groups do not consider maintenance ofbiological diversity as a goal, although they maycontribute to maintenance of animal geneticresources (25,59). A diversity of livestock breedswill be maintained only if an association ex-ists for each breed.

Most programs that deal with germplasmconservation as such (i. e., separate from effortsto use that diversity within the livestock indus-try) are undertaken and funded by the privatesector, Many minor livestock breeds in theUnited States are maintained by one person ora few individuals, working relatively independ-ently (25,59).

The American Minor Breeds Conservancie(AMBC), a nonprofit organization, is currentlyseeking to identify these people and open linesof communication among them, (For furtherdiscussion of AMBC and the contributions ofindividuals and breed associations to domes-tic animal genetic diversity, see ref. 59.) AMBCrecently completed a census of North Amer-ican livestock that identifies some 80 breeds,including cattle, pigs, sheep, donkeys and

Table 9-5.—Active Breed Associations in the United States

Number of – —- - Number of reg~strationsaSpecies associations Minimum Maximum AverageBeef cattle .-. ..-.., . . . . . . 18 297 195,267 43,976Dairy cattle . . . . . . . . 6 4,085 425,385 89,382Sheep . ... ... . 8 4<568 58,994 18,675Swine ., . . ... . . 10 382 245,423 61,050Horses . . . . 15 631 68,346 22.260aFor fiscal fear 1983

SOURCE National Soc(ety of Ltvestock Record Assoclattons 1983

240 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

mules, and goats, needing special attention toensure their survival (26).

private companies also make significant con-tributions to animal germplasm maintenance.For example, the majority of poultry germplasmis maintained by firms that operate both domes-tically and internationally (6). Several maintainunselected, random-bred control lines thatserve as reservoirs of genetic diversity. Theselines, however, are vulnerable to changes ineconomic conditions, and their maintenancedoes not currently represent public or indus-try policy.

Artificial insemination (A. I.) firms controland distribute the majority of U.S. dairy cattlegermplasm. These companies have formedpools of individual breeders involved inplanned matings, testing progeny of specificgermplasm strains, and development of im-proved breeding lines (6). Companies focusalmost entirely on Holstein cattle because themarket is so large. Increased emphases onplanned matings among superior individualshave been required to maximize genetic im-provement within the dairy industry becauseof intense competition among A.I. organi-zations,

As a result, new bulls for use in artificial in-semination often represent the offspring of asmall sample of bulls from the previous gener-ation. For example, of the 6 to 7 million dairycows bred each year in the United States, about65 percent are impregnated by only 400 to 500A.I. sires, In addition, of the approximately1,000 performance-tested dairy bulls in a givenyear, nearly half are sons of the 10 best bullsof the previous generation (67). This processtends to maximize rates of genetic improvementand almost certainly will result in an excessivenarrowing of the genetic base.

Researchers affiliated with universities andAgricultural Experiment Stations help identifygenetic resources or help maintain and developgermplasm resources, although not as much asbreed associations or private industries do, Forexample, one researcher at the University ofConnecticut has produced an internationalregistry of poultry genetic stocks that is annu-

ally updated and acts as an important catalogof existing poultry resources (53). Universityanimal or veterinary science departments maymaintain small breeding populations of live-stock for experimental and educational pur-poses (26).

U.S. universities with programs for domes-tic animal research and utilization also play arole at the international level. The InternationalSheep and Goat Institute associated with UtahState University, for example, works with re-searchers and livestock operators in other coun-tries to identify and propagate genotypes ofsheep and goats. Although the focus of the in-stitute is to assist countries in the productionof sheep and goats best-suited to local environ-ments, its members are also involved in train-ing international institutions in the storage andmanagement of sheep and goat genetic re-sources (29).

Even with these various efforts, the overalldiversity within many domestic animal breedsis declining (6). In summary:

Storage facilities do not exist for in vitromaintenance of sheep, swine, or poultrygenetic stocks.Breed associations report that although afew breeds of sheep in the United Stateshave declined to very small numbers, globaldiversity of sheep germplasm remainsadequate.Genetic diversity in dairy and meat goatsdoes not appear to be changing signifi-cantly.Because relatively few competitive strainsof highly specialized egg and meat chickens,turkeys, and waterfowl account for muchof the world poultry populations, there isconcern about maintaining adequate ge-netic diversity for future needs.The increasing emphasis on whole-milkproduction dairy cattle favors the adoptionof Holstein breeds among milk producers,causing the decline of other minor dairybreeds,Genetic diversity appears to be stabilizedor increasing slightly in beef cattle in theUnited States.

\Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 241

Public awareness of the potential problemsassociated with loss of genetic diversity and in-stitutional concern about the issue are not asevident for domestic animal species as they arefor agricultural crop species. Concern aboutloss of agricultural animal diversity is increas-ing, however, at the international level, wherea perception exists that a significant amountof genetic diversity is disappearing (see ch. 10).Insufficient information exists on the status andtrends of domestic animal breeds at the globallevel to substantiate this belief (19), But it is theunregistered and unrecognized breeds that arein the greatest danger of becoming extinct.

Wild Animals

Federal efforts to maintain wild animals off-site occur only through the captive breedingprograms of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice, Individual specimens of critically endan-gered species may be selected for captive breed-ing programs at the Patuxent Wildlife ResearchCenter in Patuxent, MD. The center has beenresponsible for the captive breeding and rein-troduction of more than 60 species of birds,mammals, and reptiles native to the UnitedStates (37).

Endangered fish species have been propa-gated at the Fish and Wildlife Service’s NationalFish Hatchery in Dexter, NH, Additionally,FWS provides nominal funding for captivebreeding and reintroduction programs for en-dangered animal species to the private sector,and in one case, to the State of Wyoming to re-cover the black-footed ferret. Overall, however,programs for the offsite maintenance of diver-sit y in wild animals are controlled and financedprimarily by universities and institutions in theprivate sector (37).

zoos are well-known storehouses for wild ani-mal species, although historically they madefew contributions to maintaining biologicaldiversity. But their role in this area is becom-ing significant, especially in terms of publiceducation. More institutions are identifying theneed for expanded activity in research and tech-nology development to maintain genetic diver-sit}r of zoo animals.

In one case, zoos are working together tomaintain viable populations of wild animalsbred in captivity. The American Associationof Zoological Parks and Aquariums coordinatesbreeding programs for selected endangeredwild species. These programs, known as Spe-cies Survival Plans (SSPS), are being imple-mented for some 30 species that are criticallyendangered in the wild, that have sufficientnumbers at various zoos to ensure genetic via-bility within a captive breeding program, andthat have a sufficient nucleus of professionalsat the cooperating institutions to carry out theplan (l). (For a discussion of captive breedingtechniques, see ch, 6.)

Breeding programs are designed by expertswith knowledge of the species and carried outby scientists within the zoological community(l). Since more animal species meet the SSPcriteria than zoos realistically have resourcesto implement, further criteria exist for deter-mining which species to include:

1, a high probability’ of successful implemen-tation of the plan,

2. a high relative degree of endangerment,and

3, a high relative degree of uniqueness withinthe animal kingdom.

Species Survival Plans are designed to over-come the space and population limitations ofmost zoos. For many institutions, adequate fa-cilities to maintain a viable breeding popula-tion of at least 250 animals simply do not exist.The SSP outlines agreements between partici-pants in the program for the translocation ofbreeding adults or their reproductive products(e.g., eggs, sperm, or embryos) among zoos tosimulate a much larger breeding populationthan could exist at and one facility, Informa-tion on the breeding programs must be care-fully recorded and entered into a master data-base, the International Species inventorySystem (ISIS). These programs are too new toassess their effectiveness in maintaining geneticdiversity.

ISIS was developed at the Minnesota Zoo tocatalog information about the genetic makeupof individual animals from more than 200 zoo-

242 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

logical institutions worldwide. One goal in thedatabase development was to address the prob-lem of inbreeding among species within zoos.ISIS acts as a computerized matching service,helping zoos around the world identify otherinstitutions that have distinct bloodlines inbreeding populations of a particular wild ani-mal (14), Other goals include identifying cap-tive management problems, monitoring the cap-tive status of some 2,500 species, and providinginformation to managers. It appears that ISISis widely used by zoological institutions andtherefore makes important contributions tomaintaining genetic diversity.

A large number of zoos are not involved withthe SSP or ISIS, yet still provide offsite main-tenance of selected wild animal species. Theseinstitutions may support populations of locallyendemic wild animals or include individualsof internationally rare species. Maintenance ofa diversity of species or of individuals withina species is generally not an objective at theseinstitutions, however.

Much of the work undertaken by zoos to pre-serve species involves internationally endan-gered ones, with less attention given to threat-ened and endangered species found in theUnited States. The focus on species from else-where in the world or exotic animals is due,in part, to the degree of endangerment of theseanimals. Those that are critically endangeredin the United States, such as the California con-dor or the black-footed ferret, are also the fo-cus of active captive breeding programs at U.S.zoos (8,36). Compared with zoos, most aquar-iums accord the maintenance of aquatic spe-cies diversity a low priority. Almost no workhas been done at U.S. aquariums to maintainthe diversity of species found in U.S. waters(38). When they need specimens, they gener-ally collect them from the wild (37).

Fairly large collections of breeding wild ani-mals are maintained by individuals, In manycases, these people establish societies arounda particular species or group of species to ex-change information and breeding stock amongsociety members. Their efforts range from thesmall-scale activities of individuals that breed

exotic birds or reptiles to the management oflarge herds of Asian and African antelope spe-cies by Texas game ranchers. (For further dis-cussion, see ref. 59.)

Microbial Resource Programs

No U.S. institution or institutional mecha-nism addresses the preservation of microbialdiversity. Numerous collections of micro-organisms exist in the United States in both thepublic and private sectors. Most were estab-lished to study a particular taxonomic groupof micro-organisms, and they represent detailedsampling within that group. Several hundredspecialized working collections of microbialgermplasm are part of the basic and appliedresearch programs of scientists working in boththe public and private sectors (7).

The largest public microbial culture collec-tion in the United States is the Northern Re-gional Research Laboratory (NRRL) collectionheld by USDA’s Agricultural Research Serv-ice. It is an archival collection with a taxonom-ically broad range of micro-organisms storedfor long-term preservation, NRRL does not pub-lish a catalog of its holdings and does not en-courage general distribution of the germplasmit holds, in part because of the high cost ofdistribution. No moderately sized collections(3,000 to 10,000 accessions) of micro-organismsfunction as national repositories or resourcecollections for a range of microbial classes (24).

Several collections supported by the U.S. Gov-ernment are devoted to assembling microbialstrains within a particular taxonomic group.The largest of these is held by the NeisseriaReference Laboratory of the U.S. Public HealthService. Similar taxonomically specific collec-tions supported by USDA, such as the cerealrust collections at the Universities of Minnesotaand Kansas, distribute microbial germplasm onrequest, but they generally do not catalog theirholdings (24).

Like many scientific institutions, organiza-tions holding culture collections are currently

Ch, 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States s 243

suffering from financial cutbacks (24). Fund-ing from USDA has been reduced or redirectedto other areas at the expense of the networkof archival collections (table 9-6). The result isa diminished capacity to maintain the record-keeping, authentication, and taxonomic charac-terization necessary for a collection. Expansionof existing collections is restricted by such fi-nancial constraints.

State Collections

No organized State efforts to collect andmaintain microbial diversity, apart from spe-cialized collections, seem to exist. The manyspecialized collections that exist at State univer-sities and colleges are typically the responsi-bility of individual scientists. Some have gainedinstitutional support and achieved national sig-nificance. Pennsylvania State University sup-ports the major U.S. collection of Fusarium spe-cies, a plant fungus of major interest to breeders

(7). Such efforts commonly depend on the con-tinued interests and abilities of individuals whoinitiated them.

Unless sources of support and personnel areavailable, institutional commitments to micro-bial collections, where they exist, may not con-

tinue after key individuals leave, retire, or die—a problem noted earlier with regard to agricul-tural plant germplasm collections, When thecurator of an extensive collection of Rhizobiumgermplasm died in 1975, his university was un-able to provide future management for the ex-tensive collection—at that time considered therichest collection in the world of soil bacteriain this group (24), It would have been lost hadit not been acquired by the University of Ha-waii as part of a U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) research project in 1976.

It was not until 1981 that the university agreedto accept responsibility to maintain the collec-tion in perpetuity as part of an international

Table 9-6.—Microbial Culture Collections in the United StatesWith More Than 1,000 Accessions

Number ofCollection Sponsor cu It u res

Living re;ource:American type culture collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Private 27,630(Rockville, MD)

Reference and archival:Northern Regional Research Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government 63,000(Peoria, IL)USDA Rhizobium Culture Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government 1,200(Beltsville, MD)Neisseria Repository, School of Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . Government 1,700(Berkeley, CA)Neisseria Reference Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government 30,000(Seattle, WA)NiFTAL Rhizobium Germplasm Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government and 2,000(Paia, Hi) universityPlasmid Reference Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government and 2,000(Stanford, CA) u n iversity

Education and research:Fungal Genetics Stock Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government 7,755(Arcata, CA)L.L. Collection Waksman Institute of Microbiology. . . . . . . .(Piscataway, NJ) University 3,070

Industry:Microbial and Fermentation Products Research . . . . . . . . . . . Industry 66,060(Indianapolis, IN)Upjohn Culture Collection . . . . . . . . ... ... ... . . . . . Industry 7,755(Kalamazoo, Ml)SOURCE V F McGowen and V B D Skerman, World Drec(ory of Co//ect/ons of Cu/;ures of A4/;roorganwms (Brisbane Austra.

Ila World Data Center, 1982)

244 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

agreement designating them as an internationalMicrobiological Resource Center, under theauspices of UNESCO and the United NationsEnvironment Programme / International CellResearch Organization Panel on Microbiology(see ch. 10). Such an agreement would not havebeen possible if the University of Hawaii hadnot obtained USAID funding.

Private Collections

The best microbial resource reference collec-tion in the United States is maintained by theAmerican Type Culture Collection (ATCC).ATCC is a national nonprofit repository formedical, industrial, and agricultural microbialgermplasm, as well as a national and interna-tional repository for patented microbes. Its col-lection of approximately 36,000 strains includesbacteria, fungi, clamydiae, rickettsiae, pro-tozoans, algae, cell lines, and viruses. Althoughits holdings are smaller and it charges for eachculture sent, actual distributions from ATCCfar exceed those of the government-sponsoredNRRL (24). Of the U.S. collections of more than30,000 accessions, only ATCC distributes acatalog.

Many collections are also held for specificpurposes by U.S. corporations or universities.These are usually personal collections of indi-vidual scientists and may receive little or nodirect financial support. Private specializedmicrobial collections, like their counterpartsin universities, usually begin as personal col-lections accumulated and maintained over acareer. Although typically holding a limitednumber of microbial genera, they are unequaledfor taxonomic detail and are an important facetof the total microbial diversity conservationeffort.

The Frankia culture collection, for example,held at the Battelle-Kettering Laboratory in Yel-low Springs, OH, began as a personal commit-ment by one scientist to isolate and culturefrankiae, the symbiotic actinomycetes of somenitrogen-fixing plants (24). This internationallyrespected collection is not supported by an insti-tutional commitment or extramural fundingand thus depends on the dedication and re-

sourcefulness of its curator. When a curatorleaves a company, or when business consider-ations force redirection of that person’s efforts,a specialized collection like this can be lost.

The costs of maintaining a collection posesignificant constraints for commercial collec-tions, In fact, recordkeeping and distributionexpenses are important factors in many cor-porate decisions not to make materials fromtheir collections generally available (24). Spe-cialized collections are vulnerable to deterio-ration if funding cannot be obtained for theirupkeep. For commercial collections such asATCC, cultures must be maintained on a no-10SS basis. Accessions that are not requestedor used frequently and have no current intrin-sic value may be discarded.

Quarantine

Maintaining biological diversity frequentlyinvolves the importation of foreign materialsto increase the available genetic base for cropand livestock species or for offsite maintenancein zoos, botanic gardens, or arboretums. Quar-antine regulations are designed to prevent ac-cidental introduction by imports of exotic pestsand diseases that could be harmful to U.S. agri-culture, For both plants and animals, quaran-tine procedures are a combination of regula-tory requirements controlling importation anddistribution of germplasm and inspection ortesting procedures designed to detect pests anddiseases (for specific testing methods, see chs.6 and 7). Regulations, administered by theAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS) of USDA, have been viewed by someas restrictive with regard to importation of newgenetic diversity (34,45).

Quarantine regulations classify both plantand animal germplasm ranging from materi-als considered to be of low risk of carrying dis-ease organisms to those prohibited entry dueto the extreme hazard they pose of introduc-ing disease. Rice is prohibited from all coun-tries and sorghum from many countries—except for germplasm that may enter under aUSDA permit specifying the safeguard condi-tions, which often result in extensive delays.

Ch.— — .— — —

Likewise, limited numbers of cloven-footed ani-mals can be imported with heavy restrictionsfrom areas known to harbor foot-and-mouth dis-ease (41). For most materials, some degree ofrestriction is required and the plants or animalsmust enter through a designated port of entryfor inspection. Most plants, for example, mustenter the United States through one of 14APHIS Plant Inspection Stations, where theyare inspected, treated if necessary, and releasedwithin 1 to 3 days (35).

Some materials enter under conditions ofpost-entry quarantine, whereby they are in-spected at an appropriate facility and releasedto the importer under an agreement that regu-lates their maintenance and release. Such agree-ments exist for some zoo animals, includingmost ungulates, Animals subject to post-entryquarantine are permanently consigned to thedesignated facilities, and only their offspringcan be distributed or moved to other institu-tions. Plant materials are generally exempt fromrestriction if no pests or diseases are detectedduring the normal detention period of 2 years(35),

Importation of wild animal species posingthreats to agricultural livestock can be length},

9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States c 245

expensive, and difficult. For example, most birdspecies are very difficult to import due toAPHIS concerns over the introduction of New-castle’s disease, a serious threat to domesticpoultry stocks.

State programs regulating movement of plantsand animals vary and are most stringent forStates with economies based heavily on agri-cultural crops (e.g., California and Florida). Ef-forts to prevent the spread of pests and diseasescan include restrictions on the carrying of fruitsand vegetables into a State or requirements fortreatment of potentially infected materials be-fore entry, For importation of germplasm fromoutside the country, States cannot place restric-tions on materials that are greater than thoseimposed by the Federal Government (35).

Biological diversity maintenance has not beena concern in the establishment of quarantineregulations. Although such regulations and pro-cedures can be important to protecting agri-cultural diversity, they also, paradoxically, in-hibit the development of new \arieties byrestricting or slowing the flow of new materi-als into the country.

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

A variety of activities in the United States ad-dress the maintenance of some aspect of bio-logical diversity. These efforts are carried outby both government and the private sector. Ben-efits from maintaining diversity, such as im-provements in agriculture and the ecologicalprocesses that support life, accrue to all indi-viduals though they seldom pay for them. Thepublic nature of these benefits makes it themajor responsibility of the public sector tomaintain.

Private sector activities, nonetheless, comple-ment government efforts in important ways.Activities of some groups and individuals mayback up national programs. In other cases, pri-vate actii’ities maintain diversity in ways that

the public sector does not, cannot, or will not.A number of private groups supplement the Na-tional Plant Germplasm System by maintainingheirloom and endangered commercial varietiesof vegetables, for example, including many thatare not contained in existing national collec-tions, Private crop breeders have been influen-tial in elevating the issue of genetic diversityloss to a national concern and have been pro-viding increasing input in public germplasmmaintenance activities. To date, these privateactivities have received little recognition, andminimal effort has been made to encourage andsupport private initiatives. Increased coopera-tion between public and private efforts couldnot only strengthen the latter but also improvemaintenance of diversity.

246 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

The various laws and programs of Federal,State, and private organizations provide anelaborate framework on which a concerted bio-logical diversity effort could be built. But be-cause few of these activities cite the mainte-nance of biological diversity as an explicitobjective, the goal is not considered in a com-prehensive or coherent manner. Duplicationof effort, conflicts in goals, and gaps in geo-graphic and taxonomic coverage consequentlyexist.

One means of addressing biological diversitymaintenance in a comprehensive way is to de-velop a national strategy, The process of de-veloping a plan would help pinpoint areaswhere activities overlap or are lacking. At theleast, such a process would initiate coordina-tion of Federal agencies’ activities. Those ad-ministering programs related to biologicaldiversity would have to provide detailed reportson how programs are being implemented toconserve diversity. In particular, they wouldneed to identify measures being undertaken toreduce program overlap, minimize jurisdic-tional problems, and identify areas for new ini-tiatives. The latter is most evident in the lackof a national animal genetic resources programand of a system of protected representative eco-systems in the United States.

Any strategy, no matter how good it appearson paper, cannot be effectively implementedwithout adequate resources. Sustained long-term funding, in turn, requires consistent com-mitment to the process, The inconsistent fund-ing and staffing of many existing programsillustrate the complexity and accompanyinguncertainty of the political process.

1.

2.

3.

4.

CHAPTER 9

American Association of Zoological Parks andAquariums, Species Sur\ri\al Pliin (Wheeling,WV: undated).Anonymous, “Block Announces Pioneer Grant, ”Ili\rersitLV 7:9-10, fall 1985.Bean, ~M. J., The Evolution of’ A’atiunal WildlifeLan~ (New York: Prae,ger Publishers, 1983).Bean, M., “ Federal Laws and Policies Pertain-

An examination of trends in Federal budgetallocations for natural resource conservation—including pollution control, water resources,public lands, recreation, and soil conserva-tion—reveals a considerable decline over thelast decade. This decline stands in contrast withreal spending increases between 1978 and 1986for defense (5o percent), payments to individu-als—e. g., social security, Medicare, veterans’benefits, food stamps, and so on–and a triplingof interest payments on the national debt (51).The proportion of U.S. Government researchand development (R&D) expenditures devotedto environmental R&D has also declined in re-cent years and assumes a smaller proportionof total government R&D funding comparedwith other industrial countries (48),

Programs of particular relevance to biologi-cal diversity maintenance, namely the Endan-gered Species Program and the National PlantGermplasm System, have been stretched to thepoint of being unable to adequately meet theirobjectives. These programs are able to prevail,in light of the constraints, mainly because ofthe dedication and ingenuity of the individualsworking in them. The National Plant Germ-plasm System, for instance, has been under-funded for years. Within 2 years, the NationalSeed Storage Laboratory’s storage facilities willbe full, and aging equipment and buildings atNSSL and other facilities require major repair,upgrading, or replacement. Similarly, the ef-fectiveness of the Endangered Species Programin preventing extinctions has been hindered bya shortage of resources.

REFERENCES

5

6

ing to the Maintenance of 13iological Diversityon Federal and Private l,ands, ” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1985.Bonner, F., “Technologies TO Maintain TreeGermplasm Divers ity, ” OTA commissioned pa-per, 1985.Council for Agricultural Science and Technol-ogy, Animal Germplasm Presert’ation and [Jti-

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 247

7.

8.

9.

10,

11

12

13

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Iization in Agriculture, Report No. 101 (Ames,1A: 1984).Council for Agricultural Science and Technol-ogy, Plant Gcrmplasm Prescr\ration and Utili-zation in U.S. Agriculture, Report No. 106(Ames, 1A: 1985).Crawford, M., “condor Reco~er} Effect 1 lurtby Strateg}r Debate,’” ,$(;ience 23 1:2 13-214, Jan.17, 1986.Crumpacker, W. D., Potentia] Di[rersitJr and ~uJ=

rent Protection Status of hlajor Aratural Eco.~J’s-tems in the LJnited States: A PrelinlinarJ Reportto the Heritage Conscr\’ation and RecreationSer~ice (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Heritage [;onst:ri’at ion anci Recre-ation Ser\’ice, 1979).Crumpacker, W. D., ‘‘Stat us and Trends of U.S.Natural Ecosystems, ” OTA commissioned pa-per, 1985.Crumpacker, W. D., University of Colorado, per-sonal communication, June 1986.Davis, G. D., “Natural Ditersity for Future Gen-erations: The Role of Wilderness, “ ProceedingsA’atura] DitcrsitJr in Forest Eco.sjstem.s Work-shop, J. L. Cooley and J. H. Coole~’ (eds. ) (Athens,GA: Uni\rersity of Georgia, 1984). Zn: Crum-packer, 1985.13rabelle, D., “The Endangered Species Pro-gram, ” Audubon 11’i]d]ifc Report, 1985 (NetvYork: h’ational Audubon Society, 1985).Dresser, B., and I,eibo, S., “Te(:hnologies ToMaintain Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1986.Dunstan, F., assistant director, Sanctuarjr Pro-gram, National Audubon Societj, personal com-munication, May 18, 1984.Falk, D., and Walker, K., “Networking To SaveImperiled Plants, ” Garden, January-February1986, Pp. 2-6.Fernald, E. A., et al., Guidelines for identifica-tion, Evaluation, and Selection of Biosphere Re-serves in the LJnited States, OES/ENR, U.S. Manand the Biosphere Report No. 1 (Washington,DC: U.S. Department of State, 1983). In: Crum-packer, 1985.Fitzgerald, J., and Meese, G. M., Saving Endan-gered Species (Washington, DC: Defenders ofWildlife, 1986).Fitzhugh, H., Getz, W., and Baker, F., “Statusand Trends of Domesticated Animals, ” OTAcommissioned paper, 1985.Fom]er, C,, *’Report on Grassroots Genetic Con-servation Efforts, ’ OTA commissioned paper,1985.

21.

22.

23.

24,

25,

26.

27,

28

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34

Greeter, S., South Carolina State Heritage Trust,personal communication, Apr. 7. 1985.Gregg, W. P., and Fretz, P. R., “Biosphere Re-serves: A Background Paper for the Task Forceon Conserving Gene Pools, ” unpublished U.S.National Park Ser\ice report, 1986.Gulick, P., and \an Sloten, D. H., Directory ofGermplasm Collections: Tropical and Subtrop-ic] Fruits and Tree IVuts (Rome: InternationalBoard for Plant Genetic Resources, 1984).Halliday, J,, and Baker, D., “Technologies ToMaintain Microbial Di\ersit~,” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1985.Henson, E., “An Assessment of the Conserva-tion of Animal Genetic Di\rersit}’ at the Grass-roots Level, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Henson, E., 198.5 North American LitestockCensus (Pittsboro, NC: American Minor BreedsConservancy, 1985).Hougas, R. W., “Plant Germplasrn Policy, ” PlantGenetic Resources: A Conser~ration Imperative,C.W. Yeatman, D. Kafton, and G. Wilkes (eds.),AAAS Selected Symposium 87:15-30 (Washing-ton, DC: American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, 1984).Hyland, H. L., “Histor~’ of Plant Introduction inthe United States, ” C.W. Yeatman, D. Kafton,and G. Wilkes (eds. ), AAAS Selected Symposium87: 5-14 (Washington, DC: American Associa-tion for the Advancement of Science, 1984).International Sheep and Goat Institute, un-titled pamphlet (Logan: Utah State University,undated).Jenkins, R,, science director, The Nature Con-servancy’s State Natural Conservancy Program,personal communication, Feb. 6, 1987.Jones, B., Office of Endangered Species, Fishand Wildlife Ser\’ice, U.S. Department of the In-terior, Washington, DC, personal communica-tions, August 1986.Jordan, W., Peters, R., and Allen, E., “Ecologi-cal Restoration as a Strategy for Conserving B io-diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.Kafton, D., “The California Gene Resource Con-servation Program, ” C.W. Yeatman, D. Kafton,and G. Wilkes (eds. ) AAAS Selected Symposium87:55-62 (Washington, DC: American Associa-tion for the Advancement of Science, 1984).Kahn, R, P,, “Plant Quarantine: Principles, Meth-odology, and Suggested Approaches, ” P~antHealth and Quarantine in International Trans-fer of Plant Genetic Resources, W .B. Hewitt andL. Chiarappa (eds.) (Cleveland, OH: CRC Press,1977).

248 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

35,

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

Kahn, R. P., “Technologies To Maintain Biologi-cal Diversity: Assessment of Plant QuarantinePractices, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Kline, L., Office of Endangered Species, Fishand Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the In-terior, personal communication, 1986.Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S,, “Living Collections(Plants and Animals),” OTA commissioned pa-per, 1985.Lynch, M. P., and Ray, C., “Preserving the Diver-sity of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems, ” OTAcommissioned paper, 1985.Matia, W, T., director of stewardship, “PublicInformation Flyer on Stewardship Program, ”The Nature Conservancy, 1986.McMahan, L., “Participating Gardens Vital toCenter’s Work, ” The Center for Plant Conser-vation 1:1, summer 1986.Moulton, W. M., “Constraints to InternationalExchange of Animal Germplasm, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1985,Murphy, C., National Germplasm Program Co-ordinator (acting), Agricultural Research Serv-ice, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personalcommunication, Dec. 16, 1985,Murphy, C., National Program Staff, Agricul-tural Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, personal communication, Aug. 11,1986.Nabhan, G., and Dahl, K., “Role of GrassrootsActivities in the Maintenance of Biological Di-versity: Living Plants Collection of North Amer-ican Genetic Resources, ” OTA commissionedpaper, 1985,National Plant Genetic Resources Board, Min-utes of the Meeting of the National Plant GeneticResources Board, Washington, DC, May 14-15,1986.The Nature Conservancy, Preserving Our Nat-ural Heritage (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, 1977).Norse, E. A., “Grassroots Groups ConcernedWith Zn-Situ Preservation of Biological Diver-sity in the United States, ” OTA commissionedpaper, 1985.Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, The State of the Environment1985 (Paris: 1985).Qualset, C., Agriculture Department, Universityof California at Davis, personal communication,1986.Salwasser, H,, Thomas, J. W., and Samson, F,,“Applying the Diversity Concept to NationalF o r e s t Mana~ement. ” In: I.L, Coolev, 1.H.

51,

52,

53,

54.

55.

56

57.

58.

59.

60,

61,

Cooley (eds), Naturaj Diversity in Forest Eco-sJ’sten]s: Proceedings of the Workshop, NOV. 29-Dec. 1, 1982, Institute of Ecology, Athens, GA,1984.Sampson, N., “Natural Resources Get the Axe, ”American Forests 92:10-1 1, 58-59, 1986.Sharp, C., National Plant Materials Specialist,Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, personal communications, Jan. 7,1986.Somes, R. G., Jr., International Registry of Poul-tr~ Genetic Stocks, Bulletin 469, Storrs Agricul-tural Experiment Station (Storrs, CT: Univer-sity of Connecticut, 1984). In: Henson (OTAcommissioned paper), 1985.Spinks, J., Office of Endangered Species, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, personal communication, January1986.Stone, P., 1985-1986 National Directory of Lo-cal and Regional Land Conservation Organiza-tions (Bar Harbor, ME: Land Trust Exchange,1985),U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Bet-ter Collection and Maintenance ProceduresNeeded To Help Protect Agriculture’s Germ-plasm Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, 1981),U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,Comptroller General, The Department of Agri-culture Can Minimize the Risk of Potential CropFailures (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1981).U.S. Congress, National Seed Protection Act of1985, H,R, 3973, Dec. 17, 1985.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Grassroots Conservation of BiologicalDiversity in the United States—Background Pa-per #l, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, March 1986).U.S. Department of Agriculture, “The NationalPlant Germplasm System—Current Status,Strengths and Weaknesses, Long-Range Plans”(Washington, DC: 1981).U.S. Department of Agriculture, “GermplasmEvaluation Program, ” Progress Report No. 11,USDA/ARS-1, 1984.

62. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild-life Service, 1980 National Survey of Fishing,Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, 1982).

63. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild-life Service, Division of Refuge Management,

6 4

6 5

Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States ● 249

“Preliminary Sur~ey of Contaminant Issues ofConcern on National Wildlife Refuges, ” (Wash-ington, DC: 1986).U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 66.Service, Office of Science and Technology, Stateof the Parks 1980: A Report to the Congress[Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of- 67.fice, 1980).U.S. I.ibrary of Congress, Congressional Re-

search Scrv ice, “.Mandates To Federal AgenciesTo Conduct Biological Inventories,” OTA com-miss ioned paper, 1985.Williamson, 1,.1,. (cd.), *’Senate Approves FarmBill, ” out[ioor ,\’CItrS Bu]]etin 39(29):1, No\. 29,1985.}’oung, C. W., “Inbreeding and the Gene Pool, ”[ourna] of llairjr Science 67:472-477, 1984.

Chapter 10

Maintaining Biological

CONTENTSPage

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................,.253Overview ● .***** ● *****.. .8.***** ● *..**** ● ****,*, ..**,*** ..****** ,,* 253International Law ● .**,.. .*.***** *******. ● *..**.* ● .**.** . . ! . . . . . . . . .254

International Laws Relating to Onsite Maintenance . ..................255International Laws Relating to Offsite Maintenance . ..................259

International Programs and Networks ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262Onsite Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................264Offsite programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................269

Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● **.**. ● ....*.* ● ****,** ● *.*. 275Onsite Activities ● ****.. ● **,***. *,**,*** ● ***,*.* ● **..*,* ● **.**** ,,, 275Offsite Activities. . . . . ...**** ● *****.* ● **.*.** ● ****,*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 7Integration. . ,..,.,. ● ******. ...***** .******* .**,*.*. ● *****,. ..,*,, 278

Chapter l0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............278

TablesTableNo. Page

10-1. International Treaties and Conventions for Onsite Maintenance. . . . ..258lo-2. Countries Where National Conservation Strategies

Are Being Developed .,..*.* ● ,*..*.. ● .*.**.* ● ******, ....0.,. ● * * * 25910-3. International Agricultura Research Centers Supported bythe

Consultative Group on Internationid Agricultura lResearch . .........27010-4.International Agricultura Research Centers Designated as

Base Seed Conservation Centers for Particdar Crops . . . . . . . . . . . ....271

Figure No.10-1. Distribution

BoxNo.10-A. Patent Law

FigurePage

of Biosphere Reserves Worldwide . ....................265

8 0 XPage

And Biological Diversity ● ****** ● **...*. ,******* ,...., 261

Chapter 10

Maintaining Biological DiversityInternationally

HIGHLIGHTS

Existing international laws and programs to maintain biological diversity aretoo disconnected to address the full range of concerns over the loss of biologi-cal diversity. As a result, redundancies and gaps exist.

● Concerns over free flow of genetic resources have led to heated political con-troversy in international fora. However, debates have been largely counter-productive and could benefit from a more informed and less impassioned anal-ysis of the issues.

● Intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations are making significantcontributions to maintaining biological diversity worldwide. These organiza-tions, however, have different strengths and weaknesses; those of nongovern-mental groups are largely the converse of intergovernmental groups.

OVERVIEW

International laws and programs relevant tomaintaining biological diversity have evolvedon an ad hoc basis. Efforts tend to be focusedon particular species or habitat types and under-taken in relative isolation from other conserva-tion and development activities. Consequently,overall efforts fail to deal comprehensively withdiversity maintenance concerns. Redundancyand gaps in coverage result, and benefits of in-teractions between different activities go un-realized.

As a relatively new platform, biological diver-sity maintenance has yet to achieve prominenceon international agendas. Increasingly, how-ever, international conservation and develop-ment organizations, both public and private,are redefining their activities around the con-cept of diversity maintenance. What remainsto be accomplished is an overall accounting ofthe scope and effectiveness of this increased

activity to determine gaps in the current sys-tem and methods to fill them.

Onsite laws and programs have their rootsin early 19th century Europe and a narrowconstituency concerned with the protection ofcertain bird species (10). Since World War II,however, the number of organizations, legal in-struments, and scope of activities in the inter-national arena has increased dramatically.There has also been a shift in focus from pro-tecting particular species to recognizing the im-portance of habitat in species maintenance. Pro-grams for maintaining genetic resources offsiteare barely a decade old, and increased atten-tion has led to efforts to define national obliga-tions to maintain and provide access to geneticresources. Growing realization of the threatsto diversity has also focused attention on theimportance of cooperation between onsite andoffsite programs. Efforts to control trade in en-dangered species on an international scale and

253

254 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity— — .

initiatives to link conservation activities of zoosand botanic gardens with onsite conservationprograms highlight these potentials.

The diversity of international institutions andprograms dealing with conservation defiescomplete enumeration or simple categoriza-tion. In general, however, their principal func-tions encompass one or more of the following:problem identification, monitoring and evalu-ation, data gathering, risk estimation and im-pact assessment, information exchange and dis-semination, national and international programcoordination, standard setting and rulemaking,

standards and rules supervision, and opera-tional activities (62).

This chapter outlines the major internationallaws and programs with particular bearing onmaintaining biological diversity. Internationallaws are described by the breadth of diversitythey cover, ranging from global conventionson ecosystems to treaties concerned with par-ticular species. International conservation pro-grams and institutional networks are also high-lighted. Onsite and offsite program activitiesare addressed separately because of the distinct-ness of their operations.

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Public international law governs relations be-tween countries, compared with private inter-national law, which governs relations betweenindividuals, Public international law providesa variety of direct and indirect tools for main-taining onsite biological diversity. Most are partof broader conservation objectives, commonlyfocused on protection of single species, groupsof species, or habitats.

The instruments of international law dealingwith conservation have varying levels of bind-ing obligation. The terms “hard” and “soft” laware used to distinguish levels of legal signifi-cance (52). “Hard” law refers to binding obli-gations reflected either in treaties or custom-ary international law. “Soft” law refers toinstruments that have little legally binding forcebut may carry persuasive influence and policyguidance for state conduct (e.g., internationaldeclarations and resolutions from internationalconferences or intergovernmental organi-zations).

The effectiveness of international law de-pends on the support, implementation, and en-forcement at the national level. The uneven dis-tribution of diversity creates major complexitiesin promulgating binding international law inthis area. The difficulty is compounded becauseregions with the greatest diversity are oftenthose with the most limited financial and tech-nical capacities to devote to these efforts.

In international law, a state has authority overall natural resources within its territory. Whena state ratifies a treaty, however, it voluntarilyrestricts some of its rights and assumes certainobligations. The early development of interna-tional conservation law was inspired by inter-ests in protecting Iarge game mammals andbirds. Less attention has been paid to onsite con-servation of wild plants, unless they are in-directly protected by international traffic con-trols to protect commercial and agriculturalplants from pests or pathogens, An exceptionis the convention to control trade in endangeredwild species of fauna and flora (discussed laterin this chapter).

The extensive array of international laws thatdeal with various aspects of biological diver-sity maintenance should not be interpreted asevidence that concerns for diversity loss havebeen adequately addressed. As noted previ-ously, many laws deal with specific species orhabitat types. Comprehensive coverage is lack-ing. Further, it is important to consider the de-gree of obligation (e.g., hard v. soft law) andeffectiveness of legal instruments (e. g., exis-tence or adequacy of a secretariat or other oper-ational support).

The following discussion of international lawexamines onsite and offsite maintenance, theformer being the focus of the majority of legalinstruments. The onsite discussion examines

various hard-law treaties and several soft-lawdocuments. Although international laws relatedto off site maintenance are scant, several soft-law agreements exist. Relevant hard-law agree-ments deal with tangential issues of interna-tional patenting and quarantine,

International Laws Relating toOnsite Maintenance

The existence of an internationally recog-nized and established obligation to conserva-tion can be of substantial importance to main-taining biological diversity onsite at nationaland international levels, Increasingly, inter-national obligations are providing national con-servation authorities with the extra justificationneeded to strengthen their own conservationprograms. Particularly because of this grow-ing role, international conservation conven-tions and soft-law documents are importantlegal and policy tools to be used with other tech-nical, administrative, and financial measures.

Global and regional treaties are also impor-tant tools for long-term conservation, althoughmany are not effectively implemented. Forsome treaties, lack of institutional machinery,such as a secretariat and a budget, is a majordrawback. Many are difficult to enforce be-cause incentives are weak and early signs ofsuccess are hard to identify, making retaliationdifficult if a party chooses to ignore the treatyor fails in its obligations. Some global conven-tions have too few non-European parties. Fi-nally, in many developing countries in particu-lar, technical and financial resources forimplementation are scarce (47).

Global Conventions

Of the five conventions discussed here, thefirst four are commonly referred to as the “bigfour” wildlife conventions and are the most im-portant for protection of flora, fauna, and theirhabitats (47). The Law of the Sea Conventionis also included because of its global scope, (Fortexts of these international and regional trea-ties, see ref. 11; for summaries of major envi-ronmental treaties, see ref. 73, )

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Divers[ty Internationally ● 255

The Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora[CITES), established in 1973, controls interna-tional trade in wild species of plants and ani-mals listed in the convention appendices as en-dangered or threatened. with 91 countries nowparty to it (48), CITES has been called the mostsuccessful international treaty concerned withwildlife conservation (52).

The convention has been reinforced by U.S.legislation. U.S. importation of wildlife takenor exported in violation of another country’slaws was prohibited by amendments in 1981(Public Law 97-79) to the Lacey Act of 1900.This legislation supports other nations’ effortsto conserve their wildlife resources and the in-ternational controls under CITES. It providesa Powerful tool for wildlife conservationthroughout the world because of the significantamount of wildlife imported by the UnitedStates.

The Convention on Wetlands of InternationalImportance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat(commonly known as Ramsar, after the townin Iran where the convention was signed),passed in 1971, established a wetlands networkand promotes the wise use of all wetlands withspecial protection for those on the List of Wet-lands of International Importance, As of mid-1985, there were 40 contracting parties to theconvention and about 300 wetland sites, cov-ering some 20 million hectares, on the List ofWetlands of International Importance (47). Oncea site is on the list, the party concerned has alegal obligation to conserve the site (article 3(1)),

The Convention Concerning the Protectionof the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,signed in 1972, established a network of pro-tected areas and provides a permanent legal,administrative, and financial framework foridentification and conservation of areas of out-standing cultural and natural importance. Itorganized a world Heritage Committee, aworld Heritage List, a List of World Heritagein Danger, and a World Heritage Fund to helpachieve convention goals. (The World Heritageprogram is discussed later in this chapter.)

256 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

The Convention on the Conservation ofMigratory Species of Wild Animals (commonlycited as the Bonn Convention), passed in 1979,provides strict protection for migratory speciesin danger of extinction throughout all or a sig-nificant part of their range, and encouragesrange states to conclude agreements for man-agement of species that would benefit from in-ternational cooperation. Fifteen states wereparty to the convention as of 1984, and the firstmeeting of the parties in October 1985 estab-lished machinery for implementing the con-vention,

Marine conservation also has received in-creased attention, particularly in the past twodecades, The Convention on the Law of the Sea,adopted in 1982 at Montego Bay and yet tocome into force, identifies a number of generalobligations relevant to conservation. Article 192imposes an obligation on states to protect andpreserve the marine environment. Coastalstates are obliged to ensure through proper con-servation and management measures that liv-ing resources in their exclusive economic zonesare not endangered by exploitation (article61(2)). Activities outside national jurisdictionare to be undertaken “in accordance with soundprinciples of conservation” (article 15(b)).

Regional Conventions

Other regional treaties have emphasized con-servation of habitat through creation of pro-tected areas and other programs. The majorconventions in force are the Convention on Na-ture Protection and Wildlife Preservation in theWestern Hemisphere from 1940; the AfricanConvention on the Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources from 1968; the Conventionon the Conservation of European Wildlife andNatural Habitats from 1979; and the ASEANAgreement on the Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources from 1985. With habitat de-struction being a principal threat to biologicaldiversity, treaties that call for protection of floraand fauna through habitat protection are par-ticularly important and need long-term support.The Western Hemisphere and African conven-tions, however, have had difficulties with im-plementation and enforcement at the national

level, largely due to financial and technicallimitations. The more recently developed Asso-ciation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)Convention involved regional consultations toincorporate management and conservationtechniques and therefore elicits greater hopesfor success.

The regional seas programs developed by theUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)in cooperation with other agencies, particularlythe Food and Agriculture Organisation of theUnited Nations (FAO) and the InternationalMeteorological Organization, involve 10 re-gions encompassing about 120 of the 130 or socoastal states in the world. (The 10 regions arethe Caribbean, Mediterranean, Persian Gulf,West and Central Africa, East Africa, East Asia,Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, South Pacific, South-East Pacific, and South-West Atlantic.) The ob-jective is to reduce pollution and conserve bio-logical resources through cooperative manage-ment efforts. The legal mechanisms includeaction plans and regional conventions. The re-gional seas conventions include articles on pol-lution from ships, aircraft, and land-basedsources; pollution monitoring; and scientificand technological cooperation. Protocols areauthorized in each convention text and addressspecific approaches to certain problems. Tech-nical annexes provide standards for regulatoryor cooperative activity.

protocols are also being explored for protec-tion of easily disrupted marine ecosystems andfor habitats of depleted or endangered marinelife through the creation of protected areas. TheConvention for the Protection and Develop-ment of the Marine Environment of the WiderCaribbean Region, signed in Cartagena, Colom-bia in 1983, is generating government discus-sion on protected areas and wildlife in this re-gion, Resolutions adopted call for preparationof draft protocols (19). U.S. technical supportcould be a key factor in the ratification and im-plementation of such protocols (2o).

The Convention on the Conservation of Ant-arctic Marine Living Resources, passed in 1980,contains important innovations on the conser-vation of biotic resources. It obliges parties toadopt an ecosystem approach to exploitation

Ch, 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally ● 257

of Antarctic resources, thus requiring consid-eration of impacts on interdependent speciesand the marine system as a whole when set-ting harvest limits. Article I(2) of the conven-tion defines marine living resources to includeall species of living organisms, including birds,found south of the Antarctic convergence(where the warm and cold waters of the Ant-arctic Ocean meet).

Species-Oriented Treaties

A group of species-oriented treaties focus oncontrolling exploitation of specific wildlife,such as polar bears, vicka, northern fur seals,whales, and Antarctic seals (52). Although thesetreaties are concerned primarily with control-ling harvesting, attention to specific speciescommonly extends to concerns for their habi-tat, thus potentially serving biological diversitymore broadly, The major species-oriented trea-ties are listed in table 10-1.

Declarations and Resolutions

The United Nations Conference on the Hu-man Environment, held in Stockholm, Swedenin 1972, adopted a Declaration on the HumanEnvironment that remains a key soft-law doc-ument on international environmental issues.The Stockholm Declaration contained 26 prin-ciples to guide the international effort to pro-tect the environment, Principle 2 addresses con-servation of the Earth’s biological resources:

The natural resources of the earth includingthe air, water, land, flora and fauna, and espe-cially representative samples of natural ecosys-tems must be safeguarded for the benefit ofpresent and future generations through care-ful planning or management as appropriate,

Another important soft-law is the World Con-servation Strategy (WCS), a comprehensive doc-ument prepared by the International Union forConservation of Nature and Natural Resources(IUCN). Advice, cooperation, and financialassistance for the preparation of WCS were pro-vided by UNEP and the World Wildlife Fund,with collaboration from FAO and the UnitedNations Educational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO).

The strategy was launched worldwide in 1980in some 30 countries. It provides broad policyguidelines for determining development priori-ties to secure sustainable use of renewable re-sources, and it links conservation and devel-opment, The world Conservation Strategy hasthree principal objectives: 1) maintenance ofessential ecological processes and life-supportsystems, 2) preservation of genetic diversity,and 3) sustainable use of species and ecosystems.

Introductory sections of the WCS define con-servation as:

. . . the management of human use of the bio-sphere so that it may yield the greatest sustaina-ble benefit to present generations while main-taining its potential to meet the needs andaspirations of future generations (43).

Development is defined as:

. . . the modification of the biosphere and theapplication of human, financial, living, andnon-living resources to satisfy human needsand improve the quality of human life.

As defined and used in the WCS, conservationand sustainable development are mutually de-pendent processes.

A key WCS priority is the promotion of na-tional conservation strategies. These conserva-tion planning tools are now completed or inpreparation in 29 countries (see table 10-2),Their long-term purpose is to integrate conser-vation and development planning and providean important tool for all stages of development.

The World Charter for Nature offers a thirdexample of soft law that is becoming increas-ingly influential in development. This docu-ment, the result of 7 years of effort by interna-tional organizations and the United Nations,proclaims 24 principles of conservation bywhich all human conduct affecting nature isto be guided and judged. In 1982, the UnitedNations General Assembly, by a vote of 111 to1, adopted the charter sponsored by the Gov-ernment of Zaire and 35 other nations,

The United States, the only dissenting vote,objected to the mandatory language containedin the supposedly nonbinding document (14).

258 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Table 10-1 .—International Treaties and Conventions for Onsite Maintenance

Title Established U.S. signed

Global conventionsConvention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat . . . . . ... , ,Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention on the Law of the Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regional conventionsConvention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Presentation in the Western Hemisphere . . . . . . . .African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , .Convention for the Protection of Mediterranean Seas Against Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kuwait Regional Convention for Cooperation on Protection of Marine Environment and PollutionConvention for Cooperation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal

Environment of the West and Central African Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention for the Protection of Marine Environment and Coastal Areas of Southeast Pacific . . .Convention for the Conservation of Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention for Protection and Development of Marine Resources of the Wider Caribbean

Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention for Protection and Development of the Natural Resources and Environment of the

South Pacific Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Species-oriented treatiesBirds:Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture (Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Canada/U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Animals (Mexico/U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . .International Convention for the Protection of Birds (Europe). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benelux Convention on the Hunting and Protection of Birds (Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and Their

Environment (Japan/U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds Under Threat of Extinction and on

the Means of Protecting Them (U.S.S.R./Japan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agreement for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and Their

Environment (Japan/Australia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment

(U. S. S. R./U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Directive of the Council of the European Economic Community on the Conservation of Wild

Birds (EEC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Polar bearsAgreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SealsInterim Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agreement on Measures To Regulate Sealing and To Protect Seal Stocks in the Northeastern

Part of the Atlantic Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agreement on Sealing and the Conservation of Seal Stock in the Northwest Atlantic. . . . . . . . . . .Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vicuna:Convention for the Conservation of Vicufia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention on the Conservation and Management of Vicuria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agreement Between the Bolivian and Argentinean Governments for the Protection and

Conservation of Vicufia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Whale:Convention for the Regulation of Whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Convention for the Regulation of Whalina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19711972197319791982

1940196819791980198519761978

198119811982

1983

1985

19051916193619501972

1972

1973

1974

1976

1979

1973

1957

195719711972

19691979

1981

19311946

pending19731975

not signed

1942NANA

1982NANANA

NANA

1983

pending

NA19161936NANA

1972

NA

NA

1976

NA

1976

1957

1978

NANA

NA

19351948

SOURCES Simon Lyster, lnterrrat~onal kViM/lfe Law (Cambrldae, Enaland ” Grotlus Publ!catlons Ltd , 1985); Barbara Lausche, “lnternatlonal Laws and Associated Pro.grams for /n-Situ Conservation of Wild Species, ” O -TA co;mlss!oned paper, 1985, Federal Interagency Global Issues Work Group, U S Goverrrrnerrt /Jart/c/-paffon in /nternaf/ona/ Treaties, Agreements, Organizations and Programs, In the F/eIds of Environment, Natural Resources and Popu/af/err, 1984, UnitedNations Environment Programme, Reg/ona/ Seas Ach/evernenf and Planned Development of UNEP’S Regional Seas Prograrnrnes and Cornparab/e ProgramrnesSponsored by Other Bed/es, UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No 1, 1982, and M Wecker, Council on Ocean Law, personal communication 1986

Table 10-2.—Countries Where National ConservationStrategies Are Being Developed

Australia Madagascar Sierra LeoneBangladesh Malawi SpainBelize Malaysia Sri LankaBotswana Mauritania St. LuciaGreat Britain Nepal SwitzerlandCanada Netherlands TogoCosta Rica New Zealand UgandaFiji Norway VanuatuG u i n e a Bissau O m a n VenezuelaHonduras Pakistan ZambiaIndonesia Panama ZimbabweItaly PhilippinesJordon Senegal

SOURCE Mark Halle, deputy director, Conservation for Development Center, in-ternational Un!on for Conservation of Nature and Natural ResourcesGland, Switzerland, personal communication Oct 17, 1986

That is, the document used “shall” rather than“should,” despite a general recognition that “byits very nature, the charter could not have anybinding force, nor have a regime of sanctionsattached to it” [83).

The charter includes several principles rele-vant to biological diversity:

●

●

●

●

The genetic viability on the Earth shall notbe compromised; the population levels ofall life forms, wild and domesticated, mustbeat least sufficient for their survival, andto this end, necessary habitats shall be safe-guarded.The allocation of areas of the Earth to vari-ous uses shall be planned, and accountshall be taken of the physical constraints,the biological productivity and diversity,and the natural beauty of the areas con-cerned.The principles set forth in the present char-ter shall be reflected in the law and prac-tice of each State, as well as at the interna-tional level.All planning shall include among its essen-tial elements the formulation of strategiesfor the conservation of nature, the estab-lishment of inventories of ecosystems, andassessments of the effects on nature of pro-posed policies and activities; all of theseelements shall be disclosed to the publicby appropriate means in time to permit ef-fective consultation and participation.

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally 259

Other documents include action plans andrecommendations from international organi-zations, such as the UNESCO Action Plan forBiosphere Reserves (discussed later in thischapter), the IUCN Bali Action Plan and Rec-ommendations (resulting from the 1982 WorldNational Parks Congress), and IUCN GeneralAssembly Resolutions. A recently developedtropical forests action plan (84) has also beenreceiving increased recognition by variouscountries and intergovernmental and interna-tional nongovernmental agencies.

lnternational Laws Relating toOffsite Maintenance

The scope of international law addressing off-site maintenance of diversity is far more limitedthan that for onsite maintenance. Growing in-ternational concern over loss of genetic re-sources and recognition of the increased im-portance of offsite maintenance in supportingnational and international conservation initia-tives have focused attention on this gap in in-ternational law (21,47).

To date, attention has been largely focusedon defining national responsibilities with re-gard to crop germplasm maintenance and ex-change between countries. Tangentially relatedinternational legal instruments deal with inter-national patent protection of biological mate-rial and processes, as well as internationalquarantine as it relates to the flow of plants,animals, and microbes between countries.

Germplasm Maintenance and Exchange

Issues of offsite germplasm maintenance,control, and exchange have assumed a promi-nent, if controversial, position in internationaldebates in recent years. Declarations of the im-portance of genetic diversity can be traced tothe 1972 Stockholm Conference on the HumanEnvironment. In addition to the StockholmDeclaration mentioned earlier, the conferenceproduced 106 recommendations as tasks andguidelines that should be adopted by govern-ments and international organizations (76). Rec-

260 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity—

ommendation 39 called on governments to agreeto an international program to preserve geneticresources. This recommendation has been im-plemented most actively with offsite conserva-tion of cultivated and domesticated materials,particularly crop germplasm. In fact, the crea-tion of the international plant germplasm sys-tem that now exists has been credited, in largepart, to the Stockholm conference (63).

The only other international agreement deal-ing specifically with offsite maintenance ofgermplasm is the FAO International Undertak-ing on Plant Genetic Resources. This initiativeto establish, among other things, an interna-tional convention dealing with the maintenanceand free flow of plant germplasm has been con-troversial since its inception in 1981. Althoughinitiated as a binding convention, for politicalexpediency it emerged as a nonbinding agree-ment in 1983, although efforts to make it bind-ing continue (3). As outlined in article 1 of theresolution (26):

The objective of this undertaking is to ensurethat plant genetic resources of economic and/orsocial interest, particularly for agriculture, willbe explored, preserved, evaluated, and madeavailable for plant breeding and scientific pur-poses. This undertaking is based on the univer-sally accepted principle that plant geneticresources are a heritage of mankind and conse-quently should be available without restriction.

Subscription to the FAO undertaking hasbeen polarized along industrial and developing-country lines, with some exceptions on bothsides (68,82). Developing-country charges thatindustrialized countries have been capitalizingon Third World genetic resources without re-muneration is central to the debate (53). Themost hotly contested aspect, however, is freeaccess to private breeders’ germlines. Indus-trial countries with plant breeders’ rights leg-islation (discussed later in this chapter), whichinclude the United States, are unable, if not un-willing, to subscribe to the undertaking with-out major reservations.

The issues of control and free flow of geneticresources are likely to be debated further in in-ternational fora. A closer examination of the

U.S. position and options is needed. (Furtherconsideration of this issue is provided in thefollowing discussion of international offsiteprograms.)

International Patent Law

International patent law is tangentially rele-vant to genetic resource maintenance becausethe proprietary status that patenting living or-ganisms provides is central to the debate oninternational access to germplasm. Current de-bate focuses on plant patenting, although itcould well extend to microbial patenting, forexample, in the future. Advances in biotech-nology have brought increased attention topatenting living organisms because of the lucra-tive possibilities the technology offers and be-cause of the likelihood that these advances willaccelerate trends toward patenting (e.g., throughthe ability to establish genetic “signatures” onhuman-altered organisms). The ability of leg-islation to keep pace with rapidly evolving bio-technologies is uncertain and raises seriousquestions for policymakers (67). Effects of patent-ing on genetic diversity in agricultural cropsraise further concerns (see box 1O-A).

The expansion of plant patenting into inter-national law occurred with the establishmentin 1961 of the International Union for the Pro-tection of Nevv Varieties of Plants (I UPOV), con-sisting of countries party to the internationalconvention on this issue. The convention itselfdoes not provide global patent protection. How-ever, the parties to the convention—almost ex-clusively industrial countries—agreed to enactplant breeders’ rights (PBR) legislation and toguarantee citizens the right to obtain protec-tion under their respective national patent sys-tems (6).

The system does not affect the free flow ofgermplasm as such. It typically permits pro-tected material to be used for research andbreeding by nations that have obtained therights. Further, there is currently no legal ob-stacle in using the same material in other coun-tries (6).

Critics charge that since the inception ofIUPOV, there has been a concerted effort to

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally ● 261

Box 10-A.—Patent Law And Biological Diversity

Patent law essentially entitles inventors to profit from their inventions for a specified period inreturn for disclosing the secrets of the invention in the public domain, presumably to allow othersto build on it. Although the patent system has engendered much controversy since it was formalized,legislation enabling the patenting of living organisms has become one of its most controversial aspects(8,81).

The U.S. Congress passed the Plant Patent Act of 1930 covering asexually propagated plant species.Coverage was extended to sexually propagated species with the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act(PVPA). With the Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980, microbes became patent-able products under the basic patent act (Section 101}. A recent decision by the Board of Patent Ap-peals of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has now extended patentability under Section 101of the Patent Act to included plant material, a reversal of an earlier decision [4).

European countries have a similar system of plant varietal protection, commonly referred to asplant breeders’ rights (PBR). In addition to providing patent protection, however, the European sys-tem establishes a system of seed control using common catalog requirements to establish legitimatecultivars that can be grown legally (5,61). The European control system is cited as having greaterdetrimental implications for biological diversity, by increasing uniformity and reducing crop geneticvariability, than the basic legislative protection that exists in the United States (9).

Since the emergence of PBR, concerns have been expressed that the proprietary controls it providesmay create undesirable trends in the agricultural economy, including several of consequence to bio-logical diversity. Specifically, concerns exist that such legislation is contributing to a consolidationin the seed industry, a reduction of sharing of germplasm and information among researchers, andthe loss of genetic diversity.

A review of studies on these linkages (12,49,50,56) reveals different interpretations of their magni-tudes, with most analysts agreeing that a strong link is not apparent or at least is difficult to deter-mine. Most pronounced is the degree of consolidation in the seed industry, but separating the specificimpact of PBR from other factors is difficult. Studies do, however, reveal that plant patents tend tobe concentrated among larger companies and for certain types of crops. Some of these companieshave petrochemical interests, which has raised concerns that their research will be directed by effortsto promote agrochemical sales (e.g., emphasizing development of pesticide-tolerant or fertilizer-dependent plant varieties). With regard to the other concerns (reduced exchange of germplasm andresearch information, or loss of genetic diversity), evaluation is hampered by a lack of objective meas-ures. The conclusion is that careful monitoring in each of these areas seems warranted (8,9).

Perhaps more important is the finding that plant breeding by public agencies plays a critical rolein countering the potential negative consequences of the patent system by contributing to competi-tion in the seed industry, to the flow of information and germplasm, and to crop diversity (12). Thisfinding suggests that continued support of national and international (e.g., International AgriculturalResearch Centers) plant breeding programs is important for maintaining and enhancing genetic diver-sity. Their contributions should be considered in the context of concerns that interest in biotechnol-ogy has detracted from emphasis on traditional breeding and cultivar development (9).

encourage developing countries to adopt plant velop varieties suited to conditions in eachbreeders’ rights laws and become members of country and that private firms would be lessthe union (56). The trade-offs for a developing reluctant to export seeds to countries havingcountry enacting a plant patent system, how- such legislation (2,5). Without adopting PBR,ever, are different from those for industrial however, a country would still be able to takecountries (5). The arguments for adoption are advantage of publicly developed varieties, whichthat it would encourage private breeders to re- constitute the most important source of im-

262 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity— -.

proved seeds for most crops (81). In addition,developing countries are not restricted fromusing seeds protected under IUPOV.

The extent to which private investment wouldbe encouraged by instituting PBR, given thatmarkets and infrastructures in many develop-ing countries are weak and thus unattractiveto many private seed companies, is not clear(5), Concerns also are expressed over the im-pact that PBR would have on research activi-ties at international agricultural research cen-ters. In the final analysis, whether a countrydecides to adopt PBR will depend on how gov-ernments perceive their own best interestsgiven these and other considerations,

Microbes are patentable (at least for specificprocess applications) in most industrial nations.The Treaty on the International Recognitionof Deposit of Micro-organisms for the Purposesof Patent Protection (known as the BudapestTreaty), however, supports a degree of inter-nationalization of the microbial patenting sys-tem. This treaty, established in 1977, was in-stituted in part as a means to provide “enablingdisclosure” (as required under patent law) thatpermits third parties to understand an inven-tion and presumably build on it. It establishesan agreement among participants to recognizedeposit of a micro-organism in another coun-try as adequate for patenting purposes. TheBudapest Treaty also sets standards and pro-cedures for such depositories (6). This systemhas engendered much less controversy than theIUPOV system, which may reflect the currentlimited concern among developing countriesover microbe patenting, although this maychange in the future (5).

International Quarantine Restrictions

Plant and animal quarantine rules, actions,or procedures are established by governmentsto prevent entry of pests or pathogens in or onarticles imported along pathways created by

humans. Regulated articles include plants, ani-mals, propagative material (e.g., seeds, cuttings,cultures, sperm, and embryos), commodities,soil, packing materials, nonagricultural cargo,and used vehicles and farm equipment, as wellas their containers and means of conveyance.

The legal umbrella under which internationalplant quarantine activities are covered is theInternational Plant Protection Convention(IPPC) of 1951 (known as the Rome Conven-tion). The IPPC provided the internationalmodel for the phytosanitary certificate that ac-companies certain articles in transit (45) andproposed creation of inspection services (6),However, the program seems to have sufferedfrom lack of funds and attention (13,35). Sincethe mid-1970's, FAO has explored the possibil-ity of establishing a special phytosanitary cer-tificate for the international transfer of germ-plasm (6).

Though no equivalent to IPPC exists for ani-mals, many countries have signed bilateralagreements on import health requirements ofanimals, including the establishment of pro-tocols. In general, these international treatiesor commissions between governments dealwith the movement of live animals or specificanimal products such as meat or semen. Re-strictive requirements for commerce are gen-erally under the jurisdiction of the respectiveveterinary services because of hazards relatedto disease prevention and control (57).

Policies on international commerce in liveanimals have generally been established andaccepted. Research has been considerable andwill likely continue, and relaxation of currenthealth-related constraints is anticipated. Pol-icies on international shipment of animal se-men are still largely based on the health statusof the donors. The technology of embryo trans-fer is now at the point where research couldfacilitate international transfer of animal germ-plasm (57).

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS AND NETWORKS

There are so many different organizations in- about their effectiveness. Nonetheless, thevolved in international programs to maintain strengths and weaknesses of two basic catego-biological diversity, it is difficult to generalize ries of organizations—intergovernmental and

nongovernmental—are evident. Three intergov-ernmental organizations, all part of the UnitedNations, are most prominent:

1,

2,

3.

FAO, by virtue of its interest in crops, live-stock, forestry, and wildlife (the latter pri-marily in terms of exploitable resources);UNESCO, whose involvement in biologi-cal diversity emphasizes a more scientificand cultural approach (reflected in the Manin the Biosphere concept, outlined below);andUNEP, which extends intergovernmentalinvolvement 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 largelyon 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 theseorganizations. In recent years, however, thefunctions and effectiveness of certain officeshave been questioned, particularly in the caseof UNESCO. Of concern have been the costsof programs in relation to their accomplish-ments and the politicization of activities andrhetoric, reflecting the dominance of a num-ber of developing countries with an anti-Wes-tern bias (62). In general, however, there hasbeen less political volatility and controversywhere scientific activity and personnel are cen-tral elements of particular intergovernmentalinitiatives. In fact, UNESCO’s most importantprogram dealing with onsite maintenance ofbiological diversity, Man in the Biosphere, hasbeen singled out for its integrity,

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOS) aremost effective as catalysts of international con-servation activities, The early work of institu-tions such as the International Council for BirdPreservation (ICBP) and the International Coun-cil of Scientific Unions influenced the evolu-tion of international environmental organiza-tions (10). Considerable activity on maintainingdiversity has also resulted from extending na-tional programs to the global arena, a trend thatcontinues and that supports the maxim “envi-ronmentalism breeds globalism” (10).

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally 263—

The strengths and weaknesses of NGOs arelargely the obverse of those of intergovernmen-tal organizations (62). Their major advantageis 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 oneanalyst has noted:

For the conservationist to argue that natureis apolitical can be a useful strategy. For himactually to believe this is a recipe for ineffec-tiveness (10).

Lack of financial resources is the major limit-ing factor of international NGOs. Yet, limitedfunds are likely to be applied in a more flexibleand responsive way than in intergovernmen-tal institutions, and NGOs often benefit fromthe voluntarism and enthusiasm characteris-tic of such groups. However, what is lackingis the ability to influence national governmentsdirectly. International NGOs must be cautiousto avoid the impression that they are meddlingin the affairs of state or impinging on nationalsovereignty.

The emergence of the International Unionfor the Conservation of Nature and Natural Re-sources marked a departure from the traditionaldichotomy. IUCN is unique not only becauseof 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 internationalconservation groups and scientific organiza-tions. In a sense, it reflects a hybrid institution.The linkages IUCN 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 areable to provide a problem-oriented approachwith an analysis of the studies being under-taken that is independent and has a minimumof political bias, while the intergovernmentalorganization can provide political and finan-

264 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

cial support for programmed and can makeavailable the time of scientists working in thenational research councils and national insti-tutes (23).

Cooperation between intergovernmental or-ganizations and NGOs has not been withoutconflict, however, especially over how to treatconservation concerns within the context of de-velopment, The rapid increase in U.N. mem-bership that occurred in the 1960s, as many de-veloping countries became independent, led toan increasing emphasis on development issues.The landmark 1972 U. N.-sponsored Conferenceon the Human Environment emphasized theneed to incorporate economic developmentconcerns in conservation activities. IUCN re-sponded gradually at first but today the integra-tion of conservation and development hasemerged as a central theme of IUCN activityas reflected in its development of such docu-ments as the World Conservation Strategy andthe emergence of its Conservation for Devel-opment Center.

Although IUCN and the affiliated WorldWildlife Fund represent the central interna-tional NGOS, a large number of actors arepresent in the international conservation arena.These organizations vary greatly in size, func-tion, constituency, approach, and focus. Al-though the contributions of these many groupsis acknowledged, the following discussion is nec-essarily restricted to the largest and most prom-inent international organizations.

Onsite Programs

Ecosystem and Species Maintenance

Among the array of international programsdealing with onsite diversity maintenance, sev-eral stand out for their breadth of coverage. Un-der the umbrella of UNESCO are two independ-ent programs involved in protection of specificsites, partially chosen for and indirectly con-cerned with protection of biological diversity.The Man in the Biosphere Program (MAB) sup-ports conservation of sites representing theEarth’s different ecosystems, based on the Ud-vardy system described in chapter 5. The World

Heritage Convention mentioned earlier pro-motes preservation of sites that have outstand-ing examples of nature.

The Man and the Biosphere Program is aninternational scientific cooperative programsupporting research, training, and field inves-tigation. Research focuses on understandingthe structure and function of ecosystems andthe environmental impacts of different typesof human intervention. The program involvesdisciplines from the social, biological, and phys-ical sciences; it is supervised by an Interna-tional Coordination Council and is tied to thefield through national-level scientific MABcommittees.

Launched in 1971, MAB took as one of itsthemes the “conservation of natural areas andthe genetic material they contain. ” The con-cept of biosphere reserve was introduced as aseries of protected areas linked through a globalnetwork that could demonstrate the relation-ship between conservation and development.Building this network has formed a focus forimplementing the program through national-Ievel scientific committees. The first biospherereserves were designated in 1976. At present,the network consists of 252 reserves in 66 coun-tries (see figure 10-1) (30).

In view ‘of their joint interests, UNESCO,FAO, UNEP, and IUCN convened the First In-ternational Biosphere Reserve Congress in 1983to review experiences and lessons and to de-velop general guidance for future action. Oneresult of the congress was the preparation ofan Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves, whichhas

1.

2.

.

three main thrusts:

improving and expanding the biosphere re-serves network;developing basic knowledge for conserv-ing ecosystems and biological diversity;andmaking biosphere reserves more effectivein linking conservation and development,as envisioned by the World ConservationStrategy (71).

The biosphere reserve concept is being ap-plied in a number of cases, but evaluation of

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversify Internationally ● 265

266 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

success is premature. Full application of theconcept, essentially as a conservation and de-velopment tool, presents complex problemsboth legally and administratively. The programhas not required special legislation, whichleaves each country to adapt existing laws,which are often too weak and too segmentedfor the kind of integrated multiple-use planningand conservation required (ranging from coreareas receiving strict protection to buffer zonesin agricultural or other compatible uses).

Moreover, because large areas are involved,generally with some human settlement, appli-cation of such a concept necessarily involvesmany levels of government as well as severaltechnical agencies. Most government admin-istrations tend to be sector-oriented and inex-perienced in coordinating jurisdiction and pro-gram reponsibilities in such areas as publichealth, agriculture, forestry, wildlife conserva-tion, and public works—all of which may berequired for an effective long-term biospherereserve program. Special councils or commit-tees of governmental and nongovernmental rep-resentatives may need to be formed to play thiscoordinating role.

Notwithstanding the program’s practicalproblems, the planning and management prin-ciples in the biosphere reserves concept reflectwhat an international conservation programneeds to endorse—’’conservation as an opensystem, ” where areas of undisturbed naturalecosystems can be surrounded by areas of “syn-thetic and compatible use, ” and where peopleare considered part of the system (71).

A number of more recent developments sug-gest that the MAB program will become an in-creasingly important investment opportunityfor biological diversity maintenance. First, theconcept and purpose of biosphere reserves hasbeen sharpened and clarified to reflect prag-matic lessons learned over the 10 years sincethe first biosphere reserve was established (7).The establishment of the Scientific AdvisoryPanel for Biosphere Reserves in 1985 promisesa more informed, consistent, and structured ap-proach to the MAB system. Current directionsalso suggest that MAB will continue to stress

the important work in research on human needsand impacts within its conservation approachas reflected in its four recently approved re-search areas (72):

1. ecosystem functioning under different in-tensities of human impact,

2. management and restoration of resourcesaffected by humans,

3. human investment and resource use, and4. human response to environmental stress.

Critical review of the existing system hasprompted greater attention to ensuring that allthree basic elements of biosphere reserves areincorporated into existing and future reserves.These basic elements are the following:

1. Conservation Role: conservation of geneticmaterial and ecosystems.

2. Development Role: association of environ-ment with development.

3. Logistic Role: international network for re-search and monitoring (7).

Placing greater emphasis on the last two roles,as opposed to the first role which has been pre-dominant to date, will likely contribute increasedopportunities and benefits to the biosphere re-serve system. Finally, the MAB program maybe able to provide important contributions andcooperation within the most recently launchedinternational environmental program, the In-ternational Geosphere/Biosphere Program, be-ing formulated by the International Council ofScientific Unions (54).

The United States withdrawal from UNESCOhas had a number of implications for U.S. par-ticipation in MAB (59). An evaluation of theimpacts of this withdrawal suggests that, be-cause MAB activities are largely undertakenas national projects or bilateral arrangements,the short-term impacts on MAB are not verysignificant. Long-term impacts, however, couldseriously compromise the effectiveness and po-tential of international MAB unless alternativescan be found to provide U.S. scientific and fi-nancial participation (59).

The Convention Concerning the Protectionof the world Cultural and Natural Heritage be-gan in 1975 and at present has 85 member states

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversify Internationa//y ● 267

and 52 natural sites—8 in the United States.Sites are selected by domestic committees, tech-nically reviewed by IUCN, and then evaluatedand described by the Bureau of the World Her-itage Committee. Approved sites are placed onthe World Heritage List.

Site-selection criteria do not specifically men-tion biological diversity but include areas of on-going biological evolution, areas of superlativenatural phenomena, and habitats of endangeredspecies important to science and conservation.Only exceptional sites are chosen, and the fo-cus is on well-known animals, especially mam-mals. Sites must have domestic protection inplace before being listed. Most nations selectalready protected sites, such as national parks,rather than new ones. Managers of such sitesmay have different priorities than those of theconvention. The impact of becoming a WorldHeritage Site on management practices is notfully known.

In signing the convention, members agree toprotect their properties and those of other na-tions, Although the language in agreement isstrong, its legal strength has not been estab-lished and member governments often ignoreprovisions, Members are assigned a fee or vol-untarily contribute to a World Heritage Fund.Resources are used for training, equipment pur-chases for members with few resources, andassistance in identifying candidate sites. Thissupport, though small, can be crucial to iden-tifying and protecting sites especially in lesswell-off nations.

The convention’s annual budget averages $1million, The United States, one of the forcesbehind the convention’s founding, normallycontributes at least one-fourth of the budget.In fiscal years 1977 and from 1979 through1982, U.S. voluntary contributions averaged$300,000. No contributions were made the fol-lowing two years. The United States contribu-tion in fiscal year 1985 was $238,903. In fiscalyear 1986, $250,000 was appropriated (cut to$239,000 under budget-reduction legislation),but no money has yet been contributed. UnlessCongress agrees to an Office of Managementand Budget request for recision of the entire

amount, the contribution will be made, whichmeans the United States, having contributedfor two consecutive years, can run for a seaton the World Heritage Committee.

IUCN, is the central nongovernmental orga-nization dealing with onsite diversity mainte-nance on a global scale, As noted earlier, IUCNis actually a network of governments, nongov-ernmental organizations, scientists, and otherconservationists, organized to promote the pro-tection and sustainable use of living resources.Founded in 1948, IUCN’S membership now in-cludes 57 governments, 123 government agen-cies, 292 national NGOS, 23 international NGOS,and 6 affiliates in at least 100 countries. Dev-eloping-country representation has become amore visible component of the network in re-cent years, although limited active participa-tion by African, Asian, and Latin Americancountries remains a problem.

Establishment of IUCN resulted from a de-sire to open up channels of communication be-tween different countries and to serve as anumbrella for various organizations and individ-uals active in international conservation. Earlyinitiatives focused on research and educationactivities, in part reflecting the initial fundingprovided through UNESCO. With the establish-ment of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961(largely to serve as a fund-raising initiative forIUCN and ICBP) and of UNEP in 1972 (whichprovided contract work for IUCN), the empha-sis shifted back to species and habitat conser-vation. Today, IUCN and WWF have emergedas central actors in international environmentalpolicy, with influence in both intergovernmen-tal and national conservation work (10). IUCNsupport for national programs includes the fol-lowing:

●

●

●

provision of aid and technical assistanceto countries and organizations;development of a series of poIicy aids, par-ticularly in relation to the creation andmanagement of national parks and otherprotected areas, the framing of legislativeinstruments, and the making of develop-ment policy; andpreparation, on request from governments,

2 6 8 T e c h n o l o g i e s t o M a i n t a i n B i o l o g i c a l D i v e r s i t y

of specific policy recommendations per-taining to conservation and developmentplans (10).

Several components of IUCN are particularlyrelevant to international conservation efforts.These include the three centers that form partof the IUCN network—the Conservation for De-velopment Center (Gland, Switzerland), theConservation Monitoring Center (Cambridge,England), and the Environmental Law Center(Bonn, West Germany). Central to IUCN prom-inence and legitimacy in international conser-vation are its six commissions of experts onthreatened species, protected areas, ecology,environmental planning, environmental policy,law and administration, and environmentaleducation.

The Conservation for Development Centerhas emerged as one of IUCN’S most successfulcomponents. In particular, its role in assistingcountries in the development of national con-servation strategies has received growing sup-port. The growth in the program reflects notonly the importance of integrating conserva-tion and development interests but IUCN’Sgrowing commitment to following this ap-proach.

The Environmental Law Center has been in-dexing national and international environmentallegislation since the early 1960s, Some 20,000titles are now part of the center’s Environ-mental Law Information System. The centerhas recently developed a species law index thatcodes protected species of wild fauna to the cor-responding national legislation. This index iscomputerized, allowing manipulation by spe-cies, region, or country, and it is becoming avaluable databank for program and policy plan-ning by governments and NGOS when used inconjunction with scientific information aboutendangered species, ranges, and protectionneeds.

Ecosystem and Species Monitoring

Information on the status and trends in lossof the world’s fauna and flora is a critical ele-ment in defining strategies and priorities, Forthis reason, a number of international organi-

zations are involved in the inventory and mon-itoring of biological diversity. Most prominentare the efforts of UNEP, FAO, UNESCO, IUCN,WWF, and ICBP.

UNEP has an assessment arm, Earthwatch,whose function has been to acquire, monitor,and assess global environmental data. At theheart of Earthwatch is the Global EnvironmentMonitoring System (GEMS), an internationaleffort to collect data needed for environmentalmanagement. GEMS current activities aredivided into monitoring renewable natural re-sources, climates, health, oceans, and long-range transport of pollutants, These activitiesare coordinated from the GEMS ProgrammeActivity Center in Nairobi which, like UNEP,works mainly through the intermediary of thespecialized agencies of the United Nations—notably FAO, the International Labour Orga-nization, UNESCO, the World Health Organiza-tion, and the World Meteorological Organization—together with appropriate intergovernmen-tal organizations such as IUCN (15).

To provide access to the databanks, UNEP-GEMS has begun a 2-year pilot project to setup a computerized Global Resource Informa-tion Database (GRID) (74), If successful, GRIDmay prove to be a powerful tool for interna-tional inventory and monitoring, not only ofbiological diversity but of other areas too (15),GRID will provide a centralized data-manage-ment service within the U.N. system, designedto convert environmental data into informationusable by decisionmakers. The main data-proc-essing facility will be in Geneva, Switzerland,but it will be controlled from UNEP headquar-ters in Nairobi.

The pilot phase of GRID is to result in an oper-ational system with preliminary results and thetraining of some personnel. An initial evalua-tion could be expected by the end of UNEP’S1986/87 biennium, A full assessment of the sys-tem is unlikely before several more years ofoperations (74).

Inventory and monitoring activities at thespecies level are also undertaken by the Con-servation Monitoring Center (CMC), one of sev-eral centers operating under the auspices of the

Ch. 10—Maintaining Bio/ogical Diversity Internationa//y 269—

IUCN. Its mandate is to analyze and dissemi-nate information on conservation worldwideand provide services to governments and theconservation and development communities.CMC supplies information in the form of books,specialist publications, and reports. Major out-put includes Red Data Books on endangeredspecies, protected-area directories, conserva-tion site directories and reports, threatenedplant and animal lists, U.N. Lists of NationalParks and Equivalent Reserves, preliminaryenvironmental profiles of individual areas (byrequest), comparative tabulations of trans-actions under CITES, and analyses of wildlifetrade data for individual countries and taxo-nomic groups (15).

The International Council for Bird Preserva-tion (ICBP) takes responsibility for ornitholog-ical aspects of IUCN’S activities and shares theIUCN database at CMC, ICBP is also in theprocess of establishing an oceanic-islands data-base to identify areas where action is requiredfor numerous threatened endemic bird species.The initial target is to collect details about some160 islands that support endemic species ofbirds, especially islands smaller than 20,000square kilometers (15).

An important supplement to these initiativesis the growing number of national organiza-tions taking an international perspective in theirdata collection efforts. Of particular importanceis The Nature Conservancy International (TNCI),based in the United States. TNCI has developeda regional database on distribution of fauna andflora in the neotropics that is the most compre-hensive of its kind and is promoting establish-ment of country-level conservation data centers(see ch. 11).

International Network

The emergence of IUCN as a recognized net-work of conservation specialists has both gal-vanized international conservation activitiesand established conservation programs as sci-entific initiatives. It also established two ma-jor functions of the organization:

1. promoting contacts among institutes and in-dividuals, primarily by acting as a device forthe exchange of information; and

2. setting up some kind of procedure wherebycommon platforms and goals could be artic-ulated and, ultimately, a measure of influ-ence exerted on public policy (10).

The Ecosystem Conservation Group (ECG),consisting of FAO, UNEP, UNESCO, and IUCN,was established in 1975 to advise on planningand execution of international conservationactivities by the four organizations (75). ECGhas recently begun to take a more active rolein conservation, ECG agreed at its 1 lth Gen-eral Meeting, held in Rome in February 1984,to institute an ad hoc Working Group on On-site Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources(40). The working group consists of FAO (leadagency), UNESCO, UNEP, IUCN, and the In-ternational Board for Plant Genetic Resources(IBPGR). The first meeting of the working groupwas held at IUCN headquarters in April 1985,during the 12th General Meeting of ECG. Thecharge to the working group was twofold:

1. review ongoing and planned activities inonsite conservation in light of recommen-dations of the First Session of the FAOCommission of Plant Genetic Resources,UNESCO’s Action Plan for Biosphere Re-serves (see earlier discussion), and theIUCN Bali Action Plan; and

2. identify ways to strengthen action and co-operation in response to these recommen-dations, with particular attention to im-proving information flow and promotingpilot demonstration activities (40).

Six major goals for coordination and actionwere recognized at the first meeting of the ECGworking group and activities were identifiedwithin the framework of these goals. This de-velopment signifies an important step amonginvolved organizations to focus their programson plant genetic resources within a commonframework, and, as reflected by the additionof IBPGR, begin to build a mechanism to inte-grate onsite and offsite efforts.

Offsite Programs

International institutions dealing with offsitemaintenance are most easily considered underthe separate headings of plant, animal, andmicrobial genetic resources. The level of exist-

270 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity —

ing international activity between and withinthese categories of organisms varies consider-ably. Major factors determining the level of at-tention devoted to offsite maintenance includeeconomic importance, threat of loss, and abil-ity to maintain viable collections offsite,

Plant Diversity

International programs and networks aredifferentiated by the types of plants they dealwith. By far, the most developed institutionsare those concerned with major agriculturalplants. For the most part, these offsite collec-tions are maintained in association with agri-cultural research institutions. Concern over lossof wild species of nonagricultural plants in theirnatural habitats has prompted the establish-ment of an international network of botanic in-stitutions for preserving rare and endangeredspecies in living collections,

The focus, extent, and effectiveness of inter-national genebank efforts in recent years havebeen largely shaped by International Agricul-tural Research Centers (IARCS) supported bythe Consultative Group on International Agri-cultural Research (CGIAR). This organizationwas founded in 1971 and consists of donors thatfund a network of centers doing research onincreasing agricultural productivity, primarilyin developing countries (see table 1o-3). Impe-tus to form the group stemmed from early suc-cesses of two institutes (later to become the firstmembers of the CGIAR system), the Interna-tional Maize and Wheat Improvement Center(better known by its Spanish acronym CIM-MYT), and the International Rice Research In-stitute (IRRI). Both programs were the out-growth of research centers supported by theRockefeller and Ford Foundations.

Financial obligations soon became too greatfor the two U.S. foundations as budget costsgrew with the establishment of two more cen-ters. The desire on the part of several interna-tional development institutions, including FAO,UNEP, and the World Bank, to expand the sys-tem into a network of international centers ledto the formation of the CGIAR, supported bya group of government and international donoragencies.

Table 10-3.—lnternational Agricultural ResearchCenters Supported by the Consultative Group

on International Agricultural Research

CIAT —Centro International de Agricultural TropicalCali, Columbia

CIMMYT—Centro International de Mejoramientode Maiz y Trigo

Mexico City, MexicoCIP —Centro International de la Papa

Lima, PeruIBPGR —International Board for Plant Genetic Resources

Rome, ItalyICARDA —International Center for Agricultural Research

in the Dry AreasAleppo, Syria

ICRISAT—lnternational Crops Research Institute for theSemi-Arid Tropics

Hyderabad, IndiaIFPRI —International Food Policy Research Institute

Washington, DC, U.S.A.IITA —International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

Ibadan, NigeriaILCA —International Livestock Centre for Africa

Addis Ababa, EthiopiaILRAD —International Laboratory for Research on

Animal DiseasesNairobi, Kenya

IRRI —International Rice Research InstituteManila, Philippines

ISNAR —International Service for National AgriculturalResearch

The Hague, NetherlandsWARDA —West Africa Rice Development Association

Monrovia. LiberiaSOURCE” Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Summary

of lnternat~ortal Agricultural Research Centers” A Study of Achieve-merrts and Potentia/ (Washington, DC 1985).

Today, most CGIAR centers have specificresponsibilities in crop varietal developmentand germplasm conservation, and in certaincases serve as international base and active col-lections for specific crops (see table 1o-4). Anumber of IARCs also operate outside theCGIAR system, including several with respon-sibilities for germplasm maintenance. Thisgroup includes the International Soybean Pro-gram in Urbana, Illinois and the Asian Vegeta-ble Research and Development Center in Shan-hua, Taiwan (18),

The most prominent international institutiondealing with offsite conservation of plant ge-netic diversity is IBPGR. Established in 1974by CGIAR, it serves as a focal point for govern-ments, foundations, international organiza-tions, and individual researchers with interestsin maintaining genetic diversity of crop spe-

Ch. 10–Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally . 271

Table 10-4.— International Agricultural ResearchCenters Designated as Base Seed Conservation

Centers for Particular Crops

Center

AVRDC

CIAT

CIPICARDA

ICRISAT

IITA

IRRI

Crop

m u n g b e a n ( V f g n a r a d l a t a )sweet potato (seed) ... ...

beans (Phaseo/us): cultivatedspecies . .

cassava (seed) . . . . . . . . . ...

potato (seed) ... ... . .

barley . . . ... ... .chickpea . .faba bean (Vicia faba) . .

sorghum . .pearl mi!let . . ... . . . .minor millets (E/eusine, Se(aria,

Panicurn) ... . . ... . . ...pigeon pea ..., ..., . . . . . . . . .groundnut . . . . . . . .chickpea . . .

rice . . . . . . .c o w p e a (Vigna unguicu/ata) .cassava (Manihot escu/enta; seed).

tropical rtce (wild species andcultivated varieties) . . . .

Nature ofcollection

globalAsia

globalglobal

global

globalglobalglobal

globalglobal

globalglobalglobalglobal

AfricaglobalAfrica

globalSOURCE Consultative Group on international Agricultural Research, Summary

of /nternal/ona/ Agr/cu/fura/ Research Centers A Study of Actr/eve-rnents and Potent~a/ (Washington DC 1985)

cies. IBPGR is a small group; part of the secre-tariat is provided by FAO Its mission has beena coordinating one, of setting priorities and cre-ating a network of national programs and re-gional centers for the conservation of plantgermplasm. It has provided training facilities,supported research in techniques of plant germ-plasm conservation, sponsored numerous col-lection missions, and provided limited finan-cial assistance for conservation facilities (seech. 11). It does not operate any germplasm stor-age facilities itself, however.

As envisioned by IBPGR, collection effortswere to focus on crop plants, based on priori-ties set by the board and reflecting the economicimportance of the crop, the quality of existingcollections, and the threat that diversity woulddisappear. The collected materials were to bekept in national programs and duplicated out-side the nation in which they were collected.A global base collection was to be establishedfor major crops, and there were hopes of cre-ating regional programs,

The achievements of IBPGR are impressive,measured in its own terms and against the listof objectives. Ten years after IBPGR was estab-lished, the network for base collection storageincluded 35 institutions in 28 countries. Re-gional maize collections exist in Japan, Portu-gal, Thailand, and the United States, for ex-ample, and one in the Soviet Union is undernegotiation. For rice, a global collection hasbeen established in Japan and the Philippines,and regional collections are found in Nigeriaand the United States (27). National programswere created during IBPGR’s first 10 years inabout 50 countries, and by 1986 some 50 basecollection centers had been designated forabout 40 crops of major importance (38,79). Theprogram has limited itself to a particular groupof plants and has been successful in coordina-tion, in encouragement of national programs,and in scientific and educational assistance (33).In all, IBPGR has links with more than 500 in-stitutes in 106 countries (79).

In part, due to the success of IBPGR in focus-ing attention on the need to conserve geneticdiversity, the issue has become embroiled inpolitical controversy. IBPGR regards itself asa technical and scientific organization. But anumber of critics regard the issue of plantgenetic resources as much more politicaI. Theymaintain that IBPGR is implicitly working forthe corporate and agribusiness interests of theindustrial world, particularly the United States(36,56). Critics also argue that the current ge-netic material exchange system is inadequateto ensure that material will continue to be avail-able, particularly to developing countries. Thedebate has become quite acrimonious, withproponents of IBPGR emphasizing their scien-tific and pragmatic approach to the issue, andcritics emphasizing their fear that multinationalcorporations will gain control over plant germ-plasm. Plant patenting and access to plant ge-netic resources are also important elements inthe current controversy (see earlier section) (6).

This entire controversy helped catalyze amove toward deeper FAO involvement in thegermplasm area and toward a new interna-tional approach (70). FAO argued that it shouldbe taking the lead in plant genetic conserva-

272 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

IBPGR Network

The International Board for Plant Genetic Resources has had a catalytic effect on efforts to conservedwindling plant genetic resources.

tion; it could provide the framework for devel-oping nations to obtain a greater political voicein the international conservation structure. Itwas further argued that IBPGR was not a for-mal organization, and it would therefore haveonly limited legal ability to enforce any com-mitment to make germplasm available (26). Thislegal status argument is questionable, however(6). IBPGR proponents responded that theboard’s technical emphasis works effectively,and it is in fact an asset in surmounting politi-cal problems and dealing with nations outsideFAO.

The alternative approach that evolved con-sisted of an undertaking and a new commis-sion. The International undertaking on PlantGenetic Resources was negotiated within theframework of the FAO. (The United States anda number of other developed countries reservedtheir positions.) The undertaking was nonbind-ing, probably to increase participation in sucha controversial area. It called for an interna-

tional germplasm conservation network underthe auspices of the FAO, stated a duty of eachnation to make all plant genetic material—including advanced breeding material—freelyavailable, and called for development of a pro-cedure under which a germplasm conservationcenter could be placed under the auspices ofFAO. IBPGR was to continue its current work,but it would be monitored by FAO (6).

The other part of the new FAO system is theCommission on Plant Genetic Resources, agroup established to meet biannually to reviewprogress in germplasm conservation. The com-mission held its first meeting in March 1985,with the United States present as an observer,Much of the discussion focused on concernsexpressed in the FAO undertaking and on is-sues that had regularly been dealt with byIBPGR, such as base collections, training, andinformation systems. In addition, discussionsand resolutions paid significant attention to on-site conservation and emphasized the impor-

tance of this area, which has received little at-tention from IBPGR.

It is not yet clear whether a practical and co-operative division of responsibilities betweenthe two entities can be developed. One approachthat has been suggested is to have each entityassume different responsibilities, such as giv-ing IBPGR responsibility for offsite mainte-nance and letting FAO focus on onsite gene-banks. An alternative would be to have IBPGRassume responsibility for technical aspects ofgermplasm collection and maintenance andgive FAO responsibility for legal and politicalfactors (28).

Botanic gardens and arboretums are increas-ingly viewed as important for conservation ofwild plant species. Efforts to establish an in-ternational network of botanic gardens for thepurpose of conserving threatened plant specieswere formalized in an international conferenceat the Royal Botanical Garden at Kew (UnitedKingdom) in 1978. IUCN’S Species SurvivalCommission set up a Botanical Gardens Con-servation Coordinating Body (BGCCB). Thisbody, established in 1979, is coordinated by theThreatened Plants Unit of IUCN’S Conserva-tion Monitoring Center and now has 136 mem-bers, In addition, the Moscow Botanic Gardencoordinates for BGCCB the response of 116gardens in the Soviet Union (51). The functionof such a network was reviewed at an IUCNconference in Las Palmas in 1985. Represent-atives of the botanic gardens meetings recom-mended a new conservation secretariat withIUCN support to coordinate their conservationactivities and the establishment of a BotanicGarden Conservation Strategy (39).

Representation of developing nations is poorin BGCCB. The Montevideo Botanic Gardenis the only South American member, for exam-ple, Efforts are being made to involve moredeveloping-country institutions and to encour-age twinning arrangements between institu-tions, whereby expertise in seed maintenance,curation, and fund raising could be promoted.Mechanisms to fund such activities, however,are not well established (39).

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity /internationally ● 273

The planning of conservation collections bycollaborating botanic gardens is encouraged byBGCCB by drawing attention to rare and threat-ened species that are poorly represented or notin cultivation at all. This is done through theprovision of reports and an annual computerprintout for each member garden, detailing theconservation plans IUCN has been providedby the garden. The printouts allow an analysisof the garden’s holdings in relation to othergardens. Members are encouraged to propagateand distribute species that are represented,especially if they are endangered or extinct inthe wild. BGCCB also has circulated lists ofthreatened plants to its members and stores theinformation on holdings in the CMC database(51),

IUCN has located 3,948 threatened plant spe-cies in cultivation by members of BGCCB,which is at least one-quarter of the knownthreatened plants in the CMC computerizeddatabase (78). However, these collections con-stitute only a tiny proportion of the geneticrange of threatened species, They also repre-sent only a small proportion of the biologicaldiversity maintained by botanic gardens, whichimplies that greater emphasis on cultivation ofrare and threatened species could be under-taken (51). Although it maybe theoretically pos-sible for the botanic gardens of the world togrow the estimated 25,000 to 40,000 threatenedspecies of flowering plants, cultivating suffi-cient populations to maintain diversity is un-realistic. Consequently, protecting a diversityof wild species will rest on maintaining themin the wild.

AnimaI Diversity

Just as institutions split offsite maintenanceof plants into agricultural and nonagriculturalspecies, offsite maintenance of animals is bro-ken down into categories of domesticated andwild species. The former category has fallenunder international agricultural institutions,such as FAO or regional institutions, such asthe International Livestock Centre for Africa.Responsibility for offsite maintenance of wildspecies has been almost exclusively assumedby an international network of zoos.

274 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Concern over loss of genetic diversity in agri-cultural animals has been much less pronouncedthan that for agricultural plants. Consequently,no analog to IBPGR currently exists. Growingconcern over the loss of potentially valuablegenetic diversity for livestock, however, hasprompted limited efforts in this area.

FAO and UNEP launched a pilot project in1973 to conserve animal genetic resources. Ini-tial efforts focused on developing a preliminarylist of endangered breeds and of those witheconomic potential, especially for developingcountries. A 1980 FAO/UNEP Technical Con-sultation extended this work by defining re-quirements for creating “supranational infra-structure resources for animal breeding andgenetics” (37). These covered a range of effortsto develop animal genetic resources. of par-ticular significance were guidelines in the fol-lowing areas (37):

●

●

●

databanks for animal genetic resources,which would also identify endangeredbreeds;genebanks to store semen and embryos ofendangered breeds; andtraining of scientists and administrators ingenetic - resources conservation and use,

Endangered livestock breeds can be main-tained either in living collections or throughcryogenic storage of semen or embryos (see ch.6). Although the former option has proved via-ble in certain European countries (34), wide-spread success is unlikely. Thus, cryogenic stor-age will become increasingly important asthreats to livestock increase. Concern over lossof livestock diversity is greatest for developingcountries, but creating cryogenic genebanks inmany countries would be very difficult. Thus,the value of establishing supranational storagefacilities becomes apparent.

International networking for conservation ofliving collections of wild animals is largely re-stricted to the zoological community, althoughIUCN’S Species Survival Commission has beeninvolved in formulating conservation plans thatinclude captive breeding (51), Zoos have tradi-tionally been established for public educationand entertainment, But in recent years, a num-

ber of larger zoos have concentrated on breed-ing rare or endangered species, usually birdsand mammals. These efforts have also extendedto the creation of regional and international net-works to enhance the effectiveness and collec-tive conservation potential of the zoologicalcommunity.

An International Species Inventory System(ISIS) was created in 1974 in response to ma-jor problems of inbreeding in zoo populationsand in recognition of the fact that, for an in-creasing number of wild animals, captive pop-ulations held the best hope for survival of thespecies. Coverage has grown from 55 facilitiesto 211 as of 1985. About 65,000 1iving speci-mens of 2,300 species are included. Informa-tion currently comes from facilities in 14 coun-tries, but coverage is best for U.S. and Canadianinstitutions (see ch, 9). The system is not re-stricted to endangered species (25),

ISIS publishes biannual survey reports. Theseinclude information on the sex ratio and agedistribution; the proportion of captive-bred; andthe birth, death, and import trends for all mam-mals and birds held in captivity by the mem-bers. The system has also recently begun to in-corporate information on holdings of reptilesand amphibians (25).

The American Association of ZoologicalParks and Aquariums (AAZPA) setup the Spe-cies Survival Plan (29) in September 1980,AAZPA has identified certain species in needof immediate attention and has established acommittee for each, consisting of a speciescoordinator and propagation group. A majorcommittee function is to provide direction formaintenance of studbooks.

A studbook is an international register thatlists and records all captive individuals of spe-cies that are rare or endangered in the wild.The concept, initially developed for the selec-tive breeding of domesticated animals, was firstused on a wild species (the European bison) in1932. Studbooks are now kept for about 40 en-dangered species and are a valuable tool in in-ternational cooperation in captive breeding,permitting intelligent recommendations to zoosaround the world concerning such things as

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally ● 275

optimal pairings, trades, and management (24).Official studbooks are those recognized and en-dorsed by IUCN’S Survival Commission andthe International Union of Directors of Zoolog-ical Gardens, and they are coordinated by theeditor of the International Zoo Yearbook.

Microbial Diversity

A directory of institutions maintaining micro-bial culture collections was published in 1972,under the sponsorship of UNESCO, the WorldHealth Organization, and the CommonwealthScientific and Industrial Research Organiza-tion. The directory was revised and updatedin 1982 [55) and remains the primary compre-hensive source of information on internationalculture collections. In addition, the AmericanPhytopathological Society convened a panel ofscientists to discuss the importance and futureof microbial culture collections (l). Informa-tion from these sources indicates that probably1,200 to 1,550 collections exist throughout theworld. A brief history of several of the moreimportant collections is available (64).

In 1985, UNEP, the International Cell Re-search Organization, and UNESCO recognizedthe need for moderately sized culture collec-tions. Each collection as envisioned would havea special purpose and together they would forma network of collections around the world (6).

The establishment of these microbiological re-source centers (M IRCENS) began at that timeand the specialized collections are now locatedin 15 locations (17): including Brisbane, Aus-tralia; Stockholm, Sweden; Bangkok, Thailand;Nairobi, Kenya; Porto Alegre, Brazil; GuatemalaCity, Guatemala; Cairo, Egypt; Paia, Hawaii,United States; and Dakar, Senegal (32).

MIRCENS were established to develop andenhance an infrastructure for a world networkof regional and interregional laboratories. Thisnetwork provides a base of knowledge in micro-biology and biotechnology to support the bio-technology industry in developed and devel-oping countries. Activities of MI RCENS includecollection, maintenance, testing and distribu-tion of Rhizobium, and training of personnel(46). Training has perhaps been the most im-portant activity towards developing researchcapabilities and diffusion of technology, espe-cially in developing countries (16). Though eachMIRCEN works according to its own set of pri-orities, they share a common goal of workingtogether to strengthen the network and advancethe knowledge in microbiology and biotechnol-ogy. In doing so, MI RCENS provide incentivesto develop and maintain offsite microbial col-lections in support of national programs. Theyalso offer a framework that could provide a se-cure custodial system for national and inter-national microbial resources.

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The United States has historically played an A number of opportunities exist whereby theimportant leadership role in international con- United States could reestablish itself as a lead-servation initiatives. The establishment of Yel- ing actor in international efforts to promote thelowstone Park in 1872 heralded the international maintenance of biological diversity.movement to create national parks worldwide.The United States also was a central actor in Onsite Activitiesthe 1972 Stockholm Conference on the HumanEnvironment, in the creation of the United Na- A major problem in developing a coherenttions Environment Programme, the World Her- strategy to address concerns over loss of bio-itage Convention, and numerous other initia- logical diversity is the uncertainty that sur-tives (see previous sections). In recent years, rounds the issue. Estimates of the scope of spe-U.S. leadership in international conservation cies diversity vary by orders of magnitude,has waned, which is reflected in funding and which illustrates obvious impediments to defin-personnel support for international programs. ing and addressing the problem. Further, lim-

276 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity—

ited and unreliable data on the rates and im-pacts of habitat conversion exacerbate theproblem of refining a strategy and determin-ing the level of resources that should be directedto address concerns. Clearly, biological diver-sity in certain regions is acutely threatened anddeserves priority attention. However, attentionis also needed on gaining a better grasp ondefining the scope of diversity and the degreeto which it is threatened.

Many questions remain even as understand-ing of the magnitude of threats to diversity con-tinues to improve. Critics suggest that a bettergrasp of the situation is needed before largeamounts of resources are devoted to the prob-lem (66). It should be noted, however, that fundscurrently spent on diversity maintenance arerelatively small and are not likely to increasedramatically. More important perhaps is therealization that funding, both public and pri-vate, continues to be directed to well-definedthreats. That is, the situation as it currently ex-ists is essentially reactionary—responding toacute threats that have already materialized.Recognition of the importance of biologicaldiversity has yet to assume the prominence thatwould make most national governments takesystematic and preemptive approaches to threat-ened diversity, which in the long run mightprove less costly. Increased attention and rec-ognition of national and regional conservationstrategies as important elements of integrateddevelopment planning may represent move-ment to adopt this approach.

Considerable discussion among internationalconservation organizations has been directedtoward the need to develop an international net-work of protected areas that would include rep-resentative and unique ecosystems. To date,however, organizing, implementing, and sup-porting such a system remains difficult. Effortsto establish such a system have not sufferedfrom lack of creativity, as reflected in two large-scale proposals: one to create a major interna-tional program to finance the preservation of10 percent of the remaining tropical forests (65)and another to establish a world conservationbank (69).

It maybe possible to establish an internationalnetwork of protected areas within the frameworkof existing programs, specifically UNESCO’sMan in the Biosphere and World Heritage pro-grams. To do so, however, would require adopt-ing a more organized and strategic policy, fur-ther invigorating both programs, and providingincreased resources. This would require a moreconcerted effort on the part of national govern-ments, intergovernmental agencies, and theparticipation of specific international non-governmental groups (especially IUCN).

Two other issues are prominent with respectto the effectiveness of international laws andprograms (47). First, there is debate over thevalue of a global treaty to fill what some per-ceive as a serious gap in hard law. Second, alter-natives to conventional protected areas needto be considered to provide protection beyondsuch areas or at sites where the conventionalapproach is not feasible.

The notion of a world treaty to conservegenetic resources of wild species was proposedat the IUCN World National Parks Congressin 1982. A similar recommendation by theWorld Resources Institute was proposed for theU.S. Government to develop an internationalconvention. However, one key question thatneeds to be addressed before implementationis whether a new global treaty could be adoptedand enforced in time to address the problem.In addition, consideration must be given to fi-nancial and technical resources still needed fortreaties that currently play a role in resourceconservation.

Existing treaties have been difficult to im-plement because of a lack of administrativemachinery (e. g., well-funded and staffed sec-retariats); lack of financial support for on-the-ground programs (e.g., equipment, training, andstaff); and lack of reciprocal obligations thatserve as incentives to comply (21), A possibleexception is CITES, which has mechanisms tofacilitate reciprocal trade controls and a tech-nical secretariat, although inadequately funded.

Creating protected areas is the conventionalapproach in most international conservation

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally w 277

programs. The modern interpretation of pro-tected areas includes the full range of conser-vation uses, from strict protection to multipleuse (44). The question of alternatives and sup-portive measures outside protected areas hasalso become a growing concern. The 1984 Stateof the Environment Report of the Organisationfor Economic Cooperation and Development(O EC D), for example, urges that protected areasare not enough. Environmentally sensitive pol-icies for nondesignated lands are also needed(60). This conclusion is reinforced by IUCN’SCommission on Ecology:

The idea of basing conservation on the fateof particular species or even on the maintenanceof a natural diversity of species will becomeeven less tenable as the number of threatenedspecies increases and their refuges disappear.Natural areas will have to be designed in con-duction with the goals of regional developmentand justified on the basis of ecological proc-esses operating within the entire developed re-gion and not just within natural areas.

Land-use planning may help integrate envi-ronmentally sensitive policies in nondesignatedareas. Control options to safeguard geneticdiversity outside protected areas could also beexplored (21,22). Where private land is involved,general controls could be enforced by impos-ing restrictions on land use or by institutinga permit system. These practices are commonlyused for nature conservation and environmentalprotection in many western countries, particu-larly Europe. Permits could be required for allactivities likely to harm certain natural habitatsor ecosystems. This approach requires legisla-tion to authorize the requirement, procedures,decisions on the conditions to be imposed, andactivities excluded from the permit requirement.

Nonstatutory protection of specific sitescould be achieved through voluntary agree-ments between the landowner and conserva-tion authorities. Such agreements are more at-tractive when the landowner is offered certainincentives, such as tax subsidies or deductions,for preserving sites. In the United States, such“conservation easements” are valuable mech-anisms for conserving private lands (77).

Zoning ordinances could become a power-ful conservation tool if extended not only toconstruction but to all changes in land use, in-cluding agriculture. Programs to preserve areaswhere only small natural or seminatural sitesremain within cultivated fields, for example,are also important. Such efforts can help main-tain at least a minimum amount of natural vege-tation in hedgerows, tree groves, riparian, andother areas. Giving conservation advice tofarmers about the value of protected landswould be an important component of suchcontrols.

In many countries, however, land manage-ment agencies have little or no authority to over-see activities of other agencies or to veto ac-tions that would be detrimental to maintainingthe land’s natural condition. Although a vari-ety of land-use planning tools are being con-sidered, two prerequisites exist for using them:

1. to strengthen the technical capacity toidentify, inventory, and monitor valuablenatural areas; and

2. to provide the legal authority to protectsuch areas.

Offsite Activities

Offsite maintenance of biological diversityis assuming increased prominence due to con-cern over 10SS of genetic resources. Its promi-nence is also the result of a greater appreciationof the important role that offsite maintenanceof wild species can play in conserving speciesdiversity, especially when linked to onsite pro-grams. However, a number of major resourcesremain unprotected in the existing framework,These include medicinal plants; some indus-trial plants, such as rubber; a number of ani-mals, including wild and domesticated varietiesand possibly some marine species, for whichcommercial breeding techniques are evolving(58).

To cover existing gaps in maintaining plantgenetic resources, efforts could be made to ex-tend IBPGR’s mandate to assume responsibili-ties for medicinal plants, industrial plants, and

278 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

minor crops. IBPGR has already expressedreluctance to assume principal responsibilityfor these areas, noting that in many cases, suchefforts should be relegated to national programs(79). Another option, however, is creation ofa new group to cover these particular interests.Such an effort should try to establish some or-ganizational affiliation capitalizing on the ex-pertise already acquired by IBPGR.

Perhaps the most blatant gap, however, is inthe area of animal genetic resources. AlthoughFAO and UNEP have initiated investigationsin this area, no national, regional, or interna-tional programs have yet emerged. An inter-national board on animal resources could beestablished, with a mandate and approach sim-ilar to IBPGR’s, But instead of establishing anetwork of national programs, a more reason-able approach might include creating a networkof regional programs, promoting conservationof animal germplasm and monitoring endan-gered livestock breeds.

Additional international exchange of infor-mation is also needed, particularly with respect

1

2.

3.

4.

5,

6.

7.

to what is conserved in smaller collections, suchas those maintained by university faculty or pri-vate breeders. This exchange often occurs in-formally through working networks of research-ers. In some cases, however, improved datamanagement systems may be appropriate.

integration

Diversity maintenance programs require com-plementary efforts between onsite and offsiteconservation, and finding the balance of em-phasis is key. The first session of the FAO Com-mission on Plant Genetic Resources discussedbuilding this integration by establishing na-tional plant genetic resource centers that wouldbe closely linked to offsite genebanks and pro-tected area management (41). Such efforts willrequire improved cooperation at internationaland national levels, along with creative use ofexisting laws and programs to meet emergingmanagement and scientific needs.

CHAPTER 10 REFERENCES

American Phytopathological Society, NationalWork Conference on Microbial Collections ofMajor Importance to Agriculture (St. Paul, MN:APS, 1981), In: Halliday and Baker, 1985,American Seed Trade Association, “Position Pa-per of the American Seed Trade Association onFAO International Undertaking on Plant Ge-netic Resources,” May 1984.Anonymous, “European Parliament Votes ToAdopt FAO Undertaking, ” Diversity (9):24-25,1986a.Anonymous, “New Patent Policy Stirs Seed In-dustry, ” Diversity (9):6, winter 1986b.Barton, J. H,, “The International Breeder’s RightsSystem and Crop Plant Innovation, ” Science216:1070-1075, June 4, 1982,Barton, J. H., “international/Legal Frameworkfor Ex-Situ Conservation of Biological Diver-sity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Batisse, M,, “Developing and Focusing the Bio-sphere Concept, ” Nature and Resources (inpress).

8, Berlan, J. P,, and Lewontin, R., “Breeders’ Rightsand Patenting Life Forms, ” Nature 322: 785-788,Aug. 28, 1986.

9, Bliss, F. A., “Market and Institutional FactorsAffecting the Plant Breeding System, ” OTAcommissioned paper, 1985.

10. Boardman, R., International Organization andthe Conservation of Nature (Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press, 1981).

11. Burhenne, W. E,, International EnvironmentalL a wr–Multilateral Treaties Series, vols. I-IV(Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany: ErichSchmidt Verlag, 1984). In: Lausche, 1985.

12. Butler, L. J., and Marion, B. W., “The Plant Vari-ety Protection Act and the Importance of Pub-lic Plant Breeders and Competition in the SeedIndustry,” Journal of Agronomic Education14(1), 1985,

13. Chiarappa, L., and Karpati, J. F., “Plant Quaran-tine and Genetic Resources, ” In: 1984, per 11-23 J.H.W. Holden, and J,T. Williams (eds,) London.

14. Cleary, S., Bureau of Oceans and International

Ch. 10—Maintaining Bio/ogica/ Diversity /nternationa//y “ 279

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21

22<

23

24.

25.

Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. De-partment of State, Washington, DC, personalcommunication, 1986.Collins, N., “International Inventory and Mon-itoring for the Maintenance of Biological Diver-sity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Colwell, R. R., “A World Network of Environ-mental, Applied, and Biotechnological Research, ”ASM News 49(2] :72-73, 1983.Colwell, R. R., notes pertaining to MIRCEN Di-rector’s Council, personal communication, July1, 1986.Consultative Group on International Agricul-tural Research (CGIAR), 1984 Report on theConsultative Group and the International Agri-cultura~ Research It Supports (Washington, DC:October 1984).Convention for the Protection and Developmentof the Marine Environment of the Wider Carib-bean Region, “Message From the President ofthe United States to the 98th Congress, ” 2d sess.,Treaty Iloc. No. 98-13 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1984). In: Lausche,1985.Curtis, C., president, The Oceanic Society,Washington, DC, personal communication, Sep-tember 1985. In: Lausche, 1985.de Klemm, C., “Conservation of Wetlands, Le-gal and Planning Mechanism s,” Proceedings ofthe Conference of the Contracting Parties to theConvention on Wetlands of International Impor-tance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Gland,Switzerland: International Union for the Con-servation of Nature and Natural Resources,1984). In: Lausche, 1985.de Klemm, C., “Protecting Wild Genetic Re-sources for the Future: The Need for a WorldTreaty, ” National Parks, Conservation, andDevelopment—The Role of Protected Areas inSustaining Societ~’, Proceedings of the WorldCongress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, Oc-tober 11-22, 1982 (Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1984). In: Lausche, 1985.Dooge, J. C. I., and Baker, F. W. G., “InternationalGovernmental and Non-Governmental Scien-tific Cooperation, ” Ecology in Practice, Part II:The SociaZ Response, F. D. Castro, F.W.G. Baker,and M. Hadley (eds. ) (Dublin: Tycooly Interna-tional Publishing, 1984).Dresser, B., and Liebo, S., “Technologies TOMaintain Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1986.Flesness. N.. “Status and Trends of wild Ani-

26.

27.

28

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34,

35

36.

37.

38.

39

mal Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper,1985.Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of theUnited Nations, Report of the Conference ofFAO, zzd sess., Rome, Nov. 5-23, 1983, c83/REP(Rome: 1983).Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO] of theUnited Nations, Commission on Plant GeneticResources, Base Collections of Plant Genetic Re-sources, CPGR: 85/4 (Rome: 1984).Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of theUnited Nations, First Session of the Commis-sion on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Mar.11-15, 1985 (Rome: 1985).Foose, T. S., “The Relevance of Captive Popula-tions to the Conservation of Biotic Diversity. ”In: C.M. Schonewald-Cox, et al. Genetics andConservation (Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., 1983).Gregg, W. P., MAB coordinator, U.S. NationalPark Service, personal communication, 1986.Halle, M., deputy director of Conservation forDevelopment Center, IUCN, personal commu-nication, Gland, Switzerland, 1986.Halliday, J., and Baker, D., “Technologies ToMaintain Microbial Diversity, ” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1985.Hawkes, J. G., Plant Genetic Resources: The Im-pact of International Agriculture Research Cen-ters, Consultative Group on International Agri-cultural Research (CGIAR), Study paper No. 3(Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1985).Henson, E. L., “An Assessment of the Conser-vation of Animal Genetic Diversity at the Grass-roots Level, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Hewitt, W. B., and Chiarappa, 1,., Plant Healthand Quarantine in International Transfer ofGenetic Resources (Cleveland, OH: ChemicalRubber Co. Press, 1977).Hobbilink, H., “Home-Grown Solutions, ” South,January 1986, p. 112.Hodges, J., “Animal Genetic Resources in theDeveloping World: Goals, Strategies, Manage-ment and Current Status, ” Proceedings of ThirdWorld Congress on Genetics Applied to Li\e-stock Production, Lincoln, NE, vol. 10, July 16-22, 1986.International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,A Global Network of Genebanks (Rome: 1983).International Union for Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources, and World WildlifeFund, Plant AdvisorJ’ Group: Minutes of ThirdMeeting, Quetame, Colombia July 6-7, 1986.

280 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

40. International Union for Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources, 1985 United NationsList of National Parks and Protected Areas(Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, England:1985).

41, International Union for Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources, “Report of the FirstMeeting of the ECG Working Group on In SituConservation of Plant Genetic Resources,” Apr.11-12, 1985 (Gland, Switzerland: 1985), In:Lausche, 1985.

42. International Union for Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources, “Report on IUCN’S Par-ticipation in the First Session of the FAO Com-mission on Plant Genetic Resources, ” Rome,Mar. 11-15, 1985 (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN,1985), In: Lausche, 1985.

43. International Union for Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources, World ConservationStrategy (Gland, Switzerland: 1980).

44. International Union for Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources, Categories, Objectives,and Criteria for Protected Areas (Gland, Swit-zerland: 1978).

45. Kahn, R., “Assessment of Plant QuarantinePractices,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

46, Keya, S.0., Freire, J,, and DaSilva, E. J., “MIR-CENS: Catalytic Tools in Agricultural Trainingand Development, ” Impact of Science on Soci-ety 142:142-151, 1986.

47. Lausche, B., “International Laws and Associ-ated Programs for In-Situ Conservation of WildSpecies,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

48. Lausche, B,, World Wildlife Fund, ~ersonalcommunication, June 1986.

49, Lesser, W, H., and Masson, R, T., An EconomicAnalysis of the Plant Variety Protection Act(Washington, DC: American Seed Trade Asso-ciation, 1983).

50, Loyns, R. M. A., and Begleiter, A, J., “An Exami-nation of Potential Economic Effects of PlantBreeder Rights on Canada, ” Working Paper,Policy Coordination Bureau, Consumer andCorporate Affairs Canada, no date.

51, Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,Botanical Gardens, and Similar Institutions inthe Maintenance of Biological Diversity, ” OTAcommissioned paper, 1985.

52. Lyster, S., International Wildlife Law (Cam-bridge, England: Grotius Publications, Ltd.,1985).

53. MacFadyen, J. T,, “United Nations: A BattleOver Seeds,” The Atlantic 256(5):36-44, Novem-ber 1985.

54. Malone, T. F,, and Roederer, J.G. (eds.), Global

Change, The Proceeding of a Symposium spon-sored by the International Council of ScientificUnions (ICSU) during its 20th General Assem-bly in Ottawa, Canada on Dec. 25, 1984 (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1985),

55. McGowan, V, F., and Skerman, V.B. D. (eds.),World Directory of Collections of Micro-orga-nisms (Brisbane, Australia: World Data Center,1982).

56. Mooney, P. R., “The Law of the Seed, ” Devel-opment Dialogue 1(2), 1983.

57. Moulton, W., “Constraints to International Ex-change of Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1985.

58, National Council on Gene Resources, Anadro-mous Salmonid Genetic Resources: An Assess-ment and Plan for California, prepared for Cali-fornia Gene Resources Program, 1982.

59. National Research Council, UNESCO ScienceProgram: Impacts of U.S. Withdrawal and Sug-gestions for Alternative Interim Arrangements,A Preliminary Assessment (Washington DC: Na-tional Academy Press, 1984).

60. Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD), 1984 State of the Envi-ronment Report (Paris: 1985),

61. Perrin, R. K., Kunnings, K. A., and Ihnen, L, A,,Some Effects of the U.S. Plant Variety Protec-tion Act of 1970, Economics Research ReportNo. 46 (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Uni-versity, Department of Economics and Business,1983). In: Bliss, 1985.

62. Perry, J, S,, “Managing the World Environment, ”Environment 28(1):10-15, 37-40, January/Febru-ary 1986.

63. Plucknett, et al,, “Crop Germplasm Conserva-tion and Developing Countries, ” Science 22o:163-169, Apr. 8, 1983.

64. Porter, J. R,, “The World View of Culture Col-lections,” The Role of Culture Collections in theEra of Molecu)ar Biology, R.R. Colwell (cd.)(Washington, DC: American Society for Micro-biology, 1976]. In: Halliday and Baker, 1985.

65. Rubinoff, I., “The Preservation of TropicalMoist Forests: A Plan for the South, ” unpub-lished, 1984.

66. Simon, J., “Disappearing Species, Deforestation,and Data,” New Scientist, May 15, 1986, pp.60-63.

67. Stiles, S., “Biotechnology: Revolution or Evo-lution for Agriculture?” Diversity 8:29-30, win-ter 1986.

68, Sun, M,, “The Global Fight Over Plant Genes, ”Science 231:445-447, Jan. 31, 1986.

69. Sweatman, I. M,, “The World Conservation

Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally ● 2 8 1

Bank, ” Project of the International WildernessI,eadership Foundation, 1986.

70. Tooze, W., “S~~dS of Dis[;ord, ” ~arron ‘s, July30, 1984.

71. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cul-

72

tural Organization, “Action Plan for BiosphereReserves, IVat[lre and Resources XX(4):1 1-22,1984.

IJnitd N’ations Educational Scientific, and Cul-tural Organization, International Co-ordinatingCouncil for the Programme on Man and the Bio-sphere, Ninth Session, MAB/Icc-9/coNF.4,Paris, Oct. 23, 1986.

73. United Nations Environment Programme, Reg-ister of International Treaties and Other Agree-ments in the Field of the Environment (Nairobi,Kenya: 1984), In: Lausche, 1985,

74. United Nations Environment Programme, Glo-hal Resources Information Database (Nairobi:UNEP/GEMS, 1985].

75. United Nations Environment Pro,qramme, “UNEPand Protected Areas—Review of Joint Activities

76,

Carried Out by CJNEP and FAO, IUCN and theUNESCO MAB Program me 1973 -1982,” paperpresented at the World National Parks Congress,Bali, Indonesia, Oct. 11-22, 1982 (Nairobi: 1982).

. United Nations Conference on the Human Envi-ronment, “Declaration on the Human Environ-merit, ” Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, Sept.16-23, 1972, pp. 25476-25479. In: Lausche, 1985.

77. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological

78

DiversitJ in the united States, OTA-BP-F-38(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, February 1986).Walter, S. M., and Birks, H., “Botanic Gardensand Conservation, ” WWF Plants Campaign-Plant pac No. 5 (Gland, Switzerland: WorldWildlife Fund, 1984).

79. Williams, J. T., “A Decade of Crop Genetic Re-sources Research. ” In: J.H. W. Holden and I.T.Williams, Crop Genetic Resources: Conseri~a-tion and Et~aluation (Boston: George Allen & Un-win, 1984),

80, Williams, S. B,, “Protection of Plant Varietiesand Parts as Intellectual Property, ” Science225:18-23, July 6, 1984.

81. Witt, S. C,, Biotechnology and Genetic Di~~ersit}~

82<

83<

84,

(San Francisco: California Agricultural Lan(fsProject, 1985).Witt, S. C., “FAO Still Debating Germplasm Is-sues, ” Di~ersitJ (8):24w25, winter 1986.Wood, H. W., Jr., “The United Nations WorldCharter for Nature: The Developing Nations’Initiative To Establish Protections for the Envi-ronment ,“ Environmental Lawr Quarter]J 12(4):977-998, 1985.World Resources Institute, Tropical Forests; ACaZl for Action, Report of an International TaskForce convened by the World Resources Insti-tute, The World Bank, and the United NationsDevelopment Programme (Washington DC:1985).

Chapter 11

Biological Diversity andDevelopment Assistance

CONTENTSPage

Highlights .o. Q*a***, *o** .*oo*** **ee*o* o*. *@*************e********** 285Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● ***,*..,**********.******************.*** 285Integration of Economic Development and Biological Diversity

Maintenance * . , * * * . * o * . . # . c * o * . O * * * * * . * * * * * * o * a * * O * @ o * * * * . * * * * a 0 * 287U.S. Response ● .*.,,**.*.**************.* ● ***.*,**,**************** 289Implementation of U.S. Initiatives: The Agency for International

Development * . * * . * * * 6 * . * . * * o # e * * * . * . . * * . * * . * * * @ * . . * * o * . * * * * * * * * * a 291The Role of Multilateral Development Banks b e************************* 294Promotion of Capacity and Initiatives in Developing Countries . ..........296 ~ÿ

Building Public Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Establishing an Information Base . . . . . . . . . .Building Institutional Support . . . . . . . . . . . . .Promoting Planning and Management. . . . . .Increasing Technical Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . .Increasing Direct Economic Benefits of Wild

Chapter

Table No.

11 ‘References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..$ ● ● . ● * ● , . * ● ● ● ● ● . . . ● ● ● ● .296● .* , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .298● * * ● ● ● ● .0 ● ● * , ● ● . ● . ● . . . ● ..299● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● . ● ● ● ● ● ● 300. . . 0 . . . . , , . , , . . . . . . , 0 . 0 . . 302Species Q * 4. * ● s ● ● . ● . ● ● . ● . ● 303. . . ., . . * . . . . . . * * *.*,**.** 305

11-1. Country Environmental Profiles Undertaken or Supported bythe Agency for International Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..293

B o x e sBox NO. Page

11-A. U.S. Stake in Maintaining Biological Diversity in DevelopingCountries *., *o. **69 **o* 0*. ..*. .. ***@Q*.***********"***'""*"** 286

11-B, Amendments to Foreign Assistance Act Concerning InternationalEnvironmental Protection ● ..**,..**************@*************** 290

Chapter 11

Biological Diversity andDevelopment Assistance

HIGHLIGHTS

The United States has a stake in maintaining biological diversity in developingcountries. Many of these nations are in regions where biological systems arehighly diverse, pressures that degrade diversity are most pronounced, and theability to forestall a reduction in diversity is least well developed.With recent amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act and earmarking of finds,the United States has defined maintaining biological diversity as an importantobjective in U.S. development assistance. It is unclear, however, whether theAgency for International Development (the principle U.S. development assis-tance agency) can effectively promote conservation of biological diversity.Development assistance can help improve the capacity of developing coun-tries to maintain diversity by 1) building public support; 2) establishing an in-formation base; 3) building institutional support; 4) promoting planning andmanagement; 5) increasing technical capacity; and 6) increasing the direct eco-nomic benefits from sustainable use of biological resources.Multilateral development banks strongly influence the nature of resource de-velopment in developing countries. Recent congressional pressures to encouragethese banks to place greater emphasis on environmental implications of theiractivities, including threats to biological diversity, have met with some suc-cess. Continued monitoring of progress in this area is necessary to enhanceprogress made to date.

INTRODUCTION

Concern about the loss of biological diver- The United States has a stake in maintainingsity is acute for developing countries for sev- biological diversity, particularly in developingeral reasons. First, the level of diversity is countries, The rationale for assisting develop-greater in developing countries particularly in ingtropical locations, than it is in industrial coun-tries. Second, biological diversity is less well- 1.documented in developing countries. Third,conversions of natural ecosystems to human-modified landscapes are more pronounced and 2.likely to accelerate in developing countries dueto the combined pressures of population growthand poverty. Fina]]y, developing countries 3.characteristically lack both the technical andfinancial resources to address these issues.

countries rests on the following:

recognition of the substantial benefits ofa diversity of plants, animals, and micro-organisms;evidence that degradation of ecosystemscan undermine U.S. support of economicdevelopment efforts; andesthetic and ethical motivations to avoidirreversible loss of unique life forms (seebox 11-A).

285

. .—.

Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 287

INTEGRATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANDBIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE

Interests and activities of development agen-cies and conservation organizations havemerged in recent years, in light of the chang-ing perspectives of these two groups, His-torically, conservation organizations and de-velopment agencies planned their effortsindependently in developing countries (64).Conservation groups focused almost exclu-sively on natural areas, promoting protectionfrom human exploitation and preservation ofparticular wild species and their habitats. Incontrast, development organizations focusedon raising the standard of living in both ruraland urban areas and concentrated on the ma-jor agricultural species.

Increasingly, development assistance agen-cies and developing country governments areestablishing policies that recognize the impor-tance of environmental factors in developmentstrategies. These policies stem from a growingawareness in development planning of the costsof ignoring environmental factors. The greaterreliance of developing-country economies ontheir natural resource base—soils, fisheries, andforests—underlies this growing appreciation forsustainability in development initiatives.

Planning began to include environmentalconsiderations in cost-benefit and similar anal-yses during the 1970s. The emphasis was onmitigating side effects, such as pollution andsalinization. By the late 1970s, developmentagencies began to include components to sus-tain the resource base that affected a project.Watershed protection above irrigation systemsreceived funding, for instance, Developmentassistance in the early 1980s supported projectsto deal directly with the problems associatedwith natural resource degradation, such as fuel-wood shortages in arid regions.

Although maintaining biological diversity hasnot become an objective of assistance projects,these steps led toward development that gen-erally caused less resource degradation andthus generally benefited diversity maintenance,In the 1983 Amendment to the Foreign Assis-

tance Act (described in the next section), Con-gress directed the Agency for International De-velopment (AID) to support projects that havemaintenance of biological diversity as a spe-cific objective, such as establishing protectedareas and controlling poaching.

Conservation organizations, in turn, realizedthat their traditional emphasis on establishingparks and protected areas would be insufficientto protect biological diversity and began tobroaden their approach. These groups have in-creasingly realized that failure to account forthe needs of rural people jeopardizes the long-term success of conservation projects.

A clear manifestation of conservationists’ ef-forts to reorient their activities is the develop-ment of the World Conservation Strategy(WCS). This document links conservation withdevelopment and provides policy guidelines fordetermining development priorities that securesustainable use of resources (20). The WCS hasthree principal objectives: 1) the maintenanceof essential ecological processes, 2) the preser-vation of genetic diversity, and 3) the sustaina-ble use of species and ecosystems. The docu-ment is used to increase dialog on the interestsand approaches of the development and con-servation communities. It has been only par-tially successful, however. The WCS has beeneffective in narrowing the gap of conservationand development interests in policy documents,but on a practical basis this gap remains.

Part of the problem with linking developmentand conservation lies in the failure to identifycommon criteria and benefits. Conservationactivities generally justify projects by biologi-cal and esthetic criteria. For example, conser-vation organizations would draw attention tothe Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus) of NewZealand because it is the last remaining spe-cies of an entire order of reptiles (32). Uniqueor spectacular habitats are also given specialattention. Conservation organizations also fo-cus on spectacular species of birds or mammals,largely in response to the esthetic interests ofcontributors,

288 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Development initiatives, on the other hand,are directed by economic criteria. Internal ratesof return and similar economic analyses, forexample, are important steps in justifying par-ticular projects. This emphasis can be detrimen-tal for biological diversity because many valuesassociated with maintaining diversity are dif-ficult to measure (see ch. 2) and thus are un-dervalued in development project decisions(28). The standard economic approach may beunable to account for the loss of biologicaldiversity, where time horizons are long, bene-fits are diffuse, and losses are irreversible (37),The problem is particularly acute for weakenedeconomies where overexploiting renewable re-sources to meet immediate needs often under-mines the chances for long-term sustainabilityof resources.

Lack of institutional overlap also presentsproblems in defining common ground amongdevelopment and conservation interests.Responsibilities for natural resources are gen-erally split among agencies (e. g., agriculture,forestry, and wildlife). Despite efforts by devel-oping countries to establish offices responsi-ble for broader environmental issues, the agen-cies are frequently unable to add conservationcomponents to development activities, let aloneto compete with other agencies for financialor administrative support.

Another management problem that can hin-der efforts to protect a particular habitat or spe-cies is the imbalance between the meansdevoted to conservation enforcement and themarket value of the protected resource. The sal-aries of officials assigned to enforce conserva-tion measures can be extremely low comparedto the worth of the resources they are guard-ing. Perhaps a more difficult dilemma is try-ing to dissuade local populations from ex-ploiting or degrading protected areas whensubsistence requirements and lack of alterna-tives compel them to do so.

This problem raises a central question indefining the role of development assistance inmaintaining biological diversity. Should devel-opment assistance support diversity mainte-nance if such initiatives have adverse impacts

on the people it is intended to help? Currentlegislation (discussed later in this chapter)stresses the beneficial aspects of maintainingdiversity in overall development. But somediversity maintenance projects can conflictwith local development interests. For instance,conflict can arise by denying access to re-sources on protected lands. Wildlife conserva-tion efforts in proximity to agricultural landsmay also threaten crops, domestic livestock,and even humans (9).

In examining the issue of possible conflictsbetween development and diversity mainte-nance, it is perhaps useful to define two ap-proaches to maintaining diversity. First is thesymptomatic approach. This is the approachtypically undertaken by environmental groupsand is often directed at protecting a particularspecies and its habitat. Because of the focusednature of this approach, needed interventions,usually involving strict protective measures, areoften easy to define. However, such a programcan be costly and difficult to implement, espe-cially if initiated only after threats reach a crit-ical point. Problematic from a development per-spective is the case where strict protectivemeasures impinge on the interests of local pop-ulations.

Alternatively, there is a curative approach tothreats to diversity. This approach attempts toaddress the root causes of the threats to diver-sity. It generally involves a much broader ar-ray of initiatives and is less focused on diver-sity per se. It emphasizes the human elementof the conservation equation.

The greatest threats to diversity in develop-ing countries stems less from the impacts ofdevelopment than from a lack of development.Addressing the root causes of threats to diver-sity will therefore need to emphasize the avail-ability of opportunities for individuals in de-veloping countries to enhance their quality oflife. This is the approach generally taken by de-velopment assistance agencies in their effortsto elevate standards of living by creating em-ployment opportunities and increasing accessto education, health care, and family planning.

Both approaches will be necessary in meet-ing the challenges of diversity maintenance,Within the context of U.S. interests to promotediversity maintenance through the channels ofdevelopment assistance, it is important to stressareas of overlap between these two approaches,That is, emphasis should be placed on promot-ing the type of projects that, on the one hand,promote opportunities for local populationsand, on the other hand, maintain the diversitywithin biological systems.

This approach is based on the propositionthat the best way to maintain diversity withina development initiative is to use that diversity,Examples abound of efforts to capitalize ondiversity maintenance in areas ranging fromtourism to biological resource development (9).This utilitarian approach should be approachedwith caution, however. It is important to en-sure that initiatives will be environmentally,economically, and institutionally sustainableover the long term. Identifying possibilities formultiple uses of an area or biological resourceshould be stressed. Further, it is important toensure that the benefits of such interventionsactually accrue to the people affected,

A consensus exists that long-term conserva-tion must have a base of support at the nationallevel and account for the interests and par-

_—

Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . 289

ticipation of local populations. It seems reason-able, therefore, to stress these criteria in de-velopment assistance projects supportingbiological diversity. These criteria provide con-sistency in U.S. interests in conservation anddevelopment and promote projects most likelyto succeed. Cases will arise in which the par-ticular focus of protection inevitably conflictswith local demands. Resolving such conflictsis the responsibility of local or national gov-ernments, although foreign assistance can beuseful, especially in providing resources to fa-cilitate or compensate for a particular interven-tion. Whether such support should be consid-ered under particular development assistanceor through other channels is not clear,

The greatest opportunities, however, lie intaking a more forward-looking and anticipatoryapproach by helping countries define strategiesand policies to preempt such conflicts. Supportfor planning, management, and inventory ofdiversity, promoting in-country expertise, andconstituencies to support diversity mainte-nance initiatives help reduce the incidence ofconflict between development and diversitymaintenance. In the final analysis, the successof U.S. support for maintaining diversity in de-veloping countries will depend on success inpromoting the capacity in the developing coun-tries themselves.

After nearly a decade of legislative and ●

administrative concern about the role of U.S.foreign assistance in environmental protection(see box 11-B), the case for U.S. action to con-serve diversity in developing countries was rec-ognized in Section 119 of the Foreign Assis-tance Act (FAA), added by Congress as part ofthe International Environment Protection Act ●

of 1983 (Public Law 180-64). This amendmentincludes the following:

directs the Administrator of AID, in con-sultation with the heads of other appropri-ate government agencies, to deveIop a U.S.strategy including specific policies andprograms to protect and conserve biologi-cal diversity in developing countries (Sec.119(c)); andrequires the President to report annuallyto Congress on the implementation of Sec-tion 119 (Sec. l19(d)).

authorizes the President to furnish assis- Section 119 signals Congress’ belief that U.S.tance to countries in protecting and main- development assistance should specifically ini-taining wildlife habitats and in developing tiate projects traditionally undertaken by con-sound wildlife management and plant con- servation organizations. In effect, AID has beenservation programs (Sec. l19(b)); directed to deal not only with the foundations

290 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Box 11-Ih-Amamdmamm w I%m#gn AtMstamca Am Cwmming

fkmgreasionalcmmern w i t htal proteetim has Wmmwd markedly overthe last decade. U.% foreign aasi~tqnco @qpmns bqym iwmgpomting mwkmmental concerns inthe lata 1970a when a mriaa of to b Foreign Assistance Aat defined the Agency fbrInternational Dtwekqmwnt% [AID) mandate in the area of emdronment and natural reimurcas, ‘I%esaarnendmentd gave sptwific emphasis to promoting efforts to hah tropical deforestation, a major threatto conserving biokgical diversity.

● 1977:

● 1978:

● 1078/7$:

● 1$81:

● 1988:

addrwmAdded rww Section 118 on “R@ronrnent and Natural Resources,” authorizing AIDto fortify “the capacity of less dtwdqed countries to protect and manage their environ-ment and natural resources” and to “maintain and where possible restore the land,vegetation, water, wildlife, and other resourcw upon which depend economic growthand well-being, especially that of the poor.” ~Amended Section 118, requiring AID to carry out country studies in the developingworld to identifi natural resource problems and institutional mechanisms to solve them.Amended Section 103 to emphasiza formtry assistance, acknowledging that deforesta-tion, with its attendant specias loss, constituted an impediment to meeting basic hu-man naeds in devekqh~ cmmtrif3s.Amended Section 118, maktng AID’s environmental review regulations part of the act,and added a mbmctkm [d], #xpressing that “CQngrms is particularly concerned aboutthe continuiq and aecsbating alteration, destruction, and loss of tropical forests indeveloping countries.” Instructs the Presickmt to take them concerns into account informulating policies and programs r&ting to bilatwal and multilateral assistance andto private sector activities in the developing world.Added Section 119, directing AID in consultation with other Federal agencies to de-velop a U.S. strat~gy on conserving biological diversity in developing countries.Redesignated Se&on 11$ as Section 117 with the new Section 118 addressing tropicalforest issues.Amended Section 119, whi~h among other things earmarked money for biological diver-sity projects.

SOURCE: Adapted from B. Rich and S. Schwartzmani ‘The Role of Development Assistance in Maintaining Biological Diversity k$ftu inDeveloping Countries,” (3TA commissioned paper, 19S5.

of the threats but also with some of the conse-quences.

The U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of Bio-logical Diversity: An Interagency Task ForceReport to Congress was delivered to Congressin February 1985, in response to Section 119.This report was followed by an annual report,Progress in Conserving Biological Diversity inDeveloping Countries FY1985, which outlinesimplementation of Section 119 a year later.

The strategy has been criticized for lack ofcommitment to action, even though it contains67 recommendations. Its most concrete aspectis allocation of responsibilities among agencies,

but this is done without any indication of fund-ing mechanisms. Some critics have questionedwhether the strategy advances a cohesive planand whether U.S. Government agencies are sig-nificantly increasing their allocation of re-sources to address this issue (54,58). Severe bud-get constraints undoubtedly limit the degree towhich new programs can be put forward. It istherefore critical for agencies to establish clearpriorities and to indicate which actions needto be taken and how much they will cost.

AID drafted an Action Plan on ConservingBiological Diversity in Developing Countries,to apply the general recommendations to spe-cific agency programs and policies (51). It pro-

— — —

Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . 291

poses specific actions based on strategy rec-ommendations and assigns them a priority ofnear-term (within the next two fiscal years) orlong-term (requiring additional or redirectedresources). However, it is clear that initiativesare determined by funding restrictions ratherthan by critical needs.

Another difficult y with the draft action planis reflected in responses from various AID mis-sions. Reviews of the draft express skepticismthat specific initiatives can be implemented atthe mission level, based solely on the broad,generalized directions it contains. Recent con-gressional earmarking of the AID budget tosupport diversity projects further emphasizes

the need to develop a more refined strategy foridentifying priority projects.

Despite the criticisms of AID’s draft actionplan, it represents the agency’s effort to iden-tify its responsibilities for about half of the 67recommendations contained in the strategy.Other Interagency Task Force members haveyet to identify how their resources and exper-tise could be applied to the strategy. Develop-ment of action plans by other Federal agenciesmay be a useful way to identify strengths andopportunities within each agency, to identifyareas for cooperation, and to provide a way toexamine agency commitments more effectively.

IMPLEMENTATION OF U.S. INITIATIVES: THE AGENCY FORINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Overall, AID has developed an extensive setof guidelines and procedures for programs toincorporate concerns for the environment. Tothis extent, it deserves high marks comparedwith other development assistance agencies,both bilateral and multilateral. Less evident,however, are indications that these proceduresare being consistently implemented, Criticsquestion AID’s incorporation of environmentalassessments of project development at a stagewhen modifications can be easily made (67),

Several factors limit AID’s implementationof biological diversity initiatives in developingcountries, including a belief by the agency thatit 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 issueis seen as one among many priorities (e. g.,women in development, child welfare, and soon) identified in the Foreign Assistance Act,Although such mandates have been partiallyeffective, their numbers, the frequency ofchanges, and the lack of priority among them

may hamper efficient management of agencyresources (16,53,60).

AID has been forced to allocate declining re-sources in response to various congressionalmandates. It is unlikely that programs to safe-guard diversity can compete successfully foran increased share of the AID budget. Reviewsof AID’s implementation of environmentalprojects provide reason to be skeptical (16,41).

Because diversity conservation is related tomany factors (e. g., poverty, population pres-sure, pollution, and agricultural policies), AIDbelieves its obligations are largely addressedby conventional assistance projects (41), For in-stance, the February 1985 task force report toCongress identified 253 projects as having aconservation component (62). Few of these,however, are the types of projects identified inSection 119. Most involve more indirect con-tributions, such as reducing destructive pres-sures on habitats.

These indirect initiatives are critical, ofcourse. Without them, the long-term prospectsfor biological diversity would be dismal. per-haps projects identified in Section 119 shouldbe viewed as supplemental measures or as at-tempts to designate important conservation

292 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

areas while they can still be easily protected.One concern, however, is that Section 119, asthe central piece of legislation addressing con-cerns for maintaining diversity in developingcountries, may define biological diversity, andthe initiatives to conserve it too narrowly.

Congress has expressed dissatisfaction withthe level of funding AID has directed to meet-ing the provisions of Section 119 by earmark-ing $2.5 million for diversity projects in fiscalyear 1987. This amount represents the onlyspecified funding for environmental projectscontained in the FAA. That this appropriationis intended to account for diversity on threecontinents, however, stresses the need to allo-cate this funding judiciously. Also of concernis the impact of this earmarking on support forother conservation initiatives, such as those inSections 117 and 118 of FAA that lack any spe-cific funding provisions.

Yet simply allocating new funds for diversityprojects may not be an adequate response. Ifprojects are proposed to meet a spending tar-get without allocations based on an establishedset of priorities, efforts may be inefficient oreven counterproductive.

The agency’s commitments to biologicaldiversity projects and to acting on environ-mental concerns have been eroded by theGramm-Rudman-Hollings Act (70). Overall, 4.3percent of AID’s 1986 budget was sequestered,but the Office of Forestry, Natural Resources,and the Environment (FNR) had its budget cut25 percent (26). Such reductions indicate whereagency priorities lie and add credence to claimsthat despite a commitment to environmentalconcerns, commitment in the form of resourceallocation lags.

It should also be noted, however, that the twomajor funding sources (the Agricultural, Ru-ral Development, and Nutrition account andthe Selected Development Activities account)that support most environmental projects alsosuffered disproportionate cuts—15.5 and 20.6percent (50). These reductions reflect congres-sional, not AID, appropriations.

One proposed way to increase the emphasisand visibility of environmentally related issuesis to elevate FNR to a bureau (10). Because manyof the funding allocation decisions are madeat the bureau level, this change in status mayincrease 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 overseasmissions to draw on, Several functional ac-counts (e. g., Agriculture, Rural Development,and Nutrition; and Population and Health) al-ready exist. Establishing an additional accountwill likely be seen as further constraining AID’sflexibility. It would, however, place resourcesbehind congressional concerns for biologicaldiversity and the environment and natural re-sources generally, as outlined in Section 119as well as Sections 117 and 118.

Another approach would seek to incorporatebiological diversity concerns into AID devel-opment activities at different levels of theagency ranging from general policy documentsat the agency level to more strategic efforts atthe regional bureau and missions levels. AIDcould prepare a policy determination (PD) doc-ument on biological diversity that would serveas 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 wouldrequire that projects be reviewed and evaluatedby the Bureau of Program and Policy Coordi-nation for consistency with the objectives ofthe PD. Because of the increase in bureaucraticprovisions this would create, the formulationof a PD on diversity would probably not be wellreceived within AID.

The three regional bureaus (i.e., Africa, Asiaand Near East, and Latin America and theCaribbean) could also prepare documents that

Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 293

identify important biological diversity initia-tives in their regions. The Asia and Near EastBureau, in fact, has already prepared such adocument. But the lack of agency commitmentand the hesitancy of the bureau to redirectscarce funds have reduced the document’s util-ity thus far. The Africa Bureau is currently com-pleting a natural resources management planthat includes an assessment of regional priori-ties for biological diversity maintenance.

The development of such reports for each re-gional bureau is considered an effective wayto identify priorities for projects, especiallygiven the earmarking of funds. A network ofspecialists and information sources already ex-ists to help identify priority areas. For exam-ple, committees of the International Union forthe Conservation of Nature and Natural Re-sources (I UC N), and especially its Conserva-tion Monitoring Center in Cambridge, England,are major sources of such information.

AID country-level environmental profiles canalso identify priorities for diversity projects.The agency has completed 50 preliminaryPhase I profiles and 17 in-depth Phase II pro-files (see table 11-1), AID has also supported“state of the environment” reports in five coun-tries, which are similar to environmental pro-files but generally prepared within the coun-try by a local group (18).

The most important focus of biological diver-sity strategies is at the mission level, whereprojects are implemented. Congress has alreadymandated that Country Development Strategy

Table 11-1 .—Count~ Environmental ProfilesUndertaken or Supported by the Agency

for International Development

State of thePhase I Phase II environment

Areas with ~rofiles profile profile report

AsidNear East/NorthAfrica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1 2

Latin America/Caribbean . 14 14 2Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . 21 2 1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . 50 17 5SOURCE International Institute for Enwronment and Development, Environmen-

tal Planning and Management Project, “Country Environmental Pro-ftles, Natural Resource Assessments and Other Reports on the Stateof the Environment “ Washington, DC, May 1986

Statements and other country-level documentsprepared by AID address diversity concerns.Most missions, however, lack the expertise oradequate access to expertise needed to addressthis provision of Section 119 as amended.

AID has recently developed a concept paperto explore the desirability of establishing adiversity project within AID’s Bureau of Sci-ence and Technology. Benefits of such a projectinclude centralizing access to funding and per-haps expertise on biological diversity. The pre-liminary nature of the concept paper, however,makes more critical assessment premature.

In response to AID funding cuts, staff cuts,and a move to cut management units, conser-vation groups have proposed several ways toloosen up money for biological diversity proj-ects (2,6). Of particular interest are calls forgreater use of Public Law 480 funds for con-servation projects. This option has both prece-dence (52) and the potential to increase activi-ties in this area. It would enable a relativelysmall dollar amount to be supplemented withlarger amounts of foreign currency. The useof excess foreign currencies by the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (discussed later in thischapter) provides further opportunities.

Matching grants provided to conservationorganizations offers another cost-effective wayto promote projects. AID matching grants toWorld Wildlife Fund-U.S. for its Wildlands andHuman Needs Projects and to The Nature Con-servancy International for its network of Con-servation Data Centers are good examples ofsuch public/private cost-sharing initiatives.

Another constraint to implementing Section119 is the lack of adequately trained personnelin environmental sciences within AID (6,10,67).Although AID designates an environmental of-ficer at each mission, the person may have lit-tle background in environmentally related is-sues. The duties of an environmental officerare included with numerous other duties; fewAID personnel are full-time environmentalofficers.

The agency could recruit personnel with envi-ronmental science backgrounds and provide

294 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

further training to officers to address this prob-lem. Developing-country professionals couldalso be enlisted as environmental officerswithin the missions. This action would be con-sistent with recent agency emphasis on reduc-ing the U.S. presence in AID missions for eco-nomic as well as security reasons.

Taking advantage of expertise that existswithin other U.S. agencies (e.g., National ParkService, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nation-al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Smithsonian Institution, and Peace Corps)could also significantly enhance the effective-ness of development assistance. The agency al-ready has a Resource Services Support Agree-ment with the U.S. Department of Agricultureto provide forestry expertise and services. Suchmechanisms can be used to establish a formalagreement with agencies such as the Depart-ment of the Interior to provide AID missionswith access to conservation expertise, In addi-tion, other agencies such as the Peace Corpsare already supporting some projects in the field

that focus on biological diversity, Increased col-laboration between AID and the Peace Corpscan be mutually beneficial.

Section 119 states the following:

. . . whenever feasible, the objectives of this sec-tion shall be accomplished through projectsmanaged by appropriate private and voluntaryorganizations, or international, regional, or na-tional nongovernmental organizations INGOs]that are active in the region or country wherethe project is located.

A number of NGOs are already working withAID in developing capacity to maintain diver-sity in developing countries. These include im-portant initiatives in the areas of conservationdata centers, of supporting development of na-tional conservation strategies, and of imple-menting field projects. AID is also using a pri-vate NGO to maintain a listing of environmentalmanagement experts. Such partnership couldcontinue to be encouraged by Congress throughoversight hearings, for instance.

Multilateral development banks (MDBs) arethe largest providers of development assistanceand have considerable influence on develop-ment policy and financing. In this capacity,they are uniquely situated to influence environ-mental aspects of development (40). In 1983,the World Bank, the Inter-American Develop-ment Bank, the African Development Bank, andthe Asian Development Bank in 1983 loanedat least $20 billion to fund projects in develop-ing countries—nearly three times the amountcommitted by the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment, the largest bilateral agency.Funds loaned by MDBs are supplemented bylarger amounts from governments of recipientcountries, and many projects receive cofinanc-ing from other development agencies and pri-vate banks. For every dollar loaned by theWorld Bank, for example, more than 2 addi-tional dollars are raised from other sources (41).

Many countries modify their developmentpolicies in response to MDB suggestions and

pressures. An important element is the devel-oping-country sector work of the MDBs-policydocuments produced as background materialto help identify priorities in lending.

MDB’s influence on policy can be the singlemost important influence in many countries onthe development model adopted (41). Becauseagricultural, rural development, and energy pol-icies can have profound effects on habitats,diversity in developing countries can be sig-nificantly affected by MDB policies.

The most immediate effect of MDBs on main-taining biological diversity may be support forcreating protected areas. The World Bank hasbeen the leader among development banks inthis area—the bank has financed the protectionof 59,000 square kilometers in 17 countries. Ithas funded entire conservation projects—forinstance, a wildlife reserve and tourism projectin Kenya. More often, it has included conser-vation components in larger projects—for in-

Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 295.

stance, a protected area in conjunction withan irrigation project in Indonesia. In this case,the designated area protects tropical forest andwildlife while providing key watershed man-agement services. Even conservation compo-nents that represent a small fraction of aproject’s total cost can play a substantial rolein preserving diversity.

The performance of MDBs in preserving di-versity depends on their more general environ-mental policies and the degree to which thesepolicies are implemented. In this regard, thebanks have issued statements emphasizing theneed for sound environmental managementprojects.

The World Bank, the Inter-American Devel-opment Bank, the Asian Development Bank,and six other multilateral in 1980 signed a“Declaration of Environmental Policies andProcedures Relating to Economic Develop-merit. ” As a result, these organizations formedthe Committee of International DevelopmentInstitutions on the Environment (CIDIE), un-der the auspices of the United Nations Envi-ronment Programme (UNEP). CIDIE has metfive times since 1980 to exchange informationon progress and plans of MDBs for improvingtheir environmental performance. Under theterms of agreement, the agencies will performsystematic environmental analyses of activities,fund programs and projects designed to solveenvironmental problems, manage resourcessustainably, and provide support for improvingenvironmental policymaking institutions andtheir capacity to implement environmental con-trols in developing countries.

A study prepared by the International Insti-tute for Environment and Development for thefourth CIDIE meeting found, however, that thecommitment of MDBs to sound environmentalmanagement in development projects was noteffectively translated into action. The studycame to the following conclusions:

The fact that we found so little evidence ofthe application of existing guidelines suggeststhat either they have been tried and found use-less, or that agencies have not made sufficientresources and incentives available to sustain

their use. We suggest that some agencies neverput some guidelines into operation becausetheir function is to improve public relations.. . . In many cases, staff do not use guidelinesbecause agencies do not require their use, norprovide appropriate training and resources,nor establish any institutional penalties for fail-ing to use them (16).

A number of congressional hearings havebrought to light evidence of serious ecologicalproblems resulting from projects supported byMDBs (54,55,56,57). Through testimony pre-sented at these hearings, several categories ofprojects were identified that may directly con-tribute to large-scale environmental destruc-tion. Categories cited as problematic includedlarge-scale cattle ranching (especially in thetropics), hydroelectric power projects and ir-rigation systems, and resettlement projects (41).Evidence of low economic returns and highenvironmental costs associated with a numberof these projects suggest that greater scrutinyof environmental impacts should be applied be-fore MDBs provide financing.

Following these hearings, the House Subcom-mittee on International Development Institu-tions and Finance issued a series of recommen-dations to the U.S. Treasury Department, ineffect proposing a U.S. environmental policyfor MDBs (41). These recommendations werelargely supported by the Treasury Department,the lead Federal agency for U.S. participationin these organizations. Included were calls forincreased environmental staffing and manda-tory procedures for project review, and for theU.S. executive directors of the MDBs to try tomodify or oppose projects that would erode thenatural resource base. Recommendations alsoemphasized the needs for institution-buildingand training in conservation, improved man-agement of protected areas, involvement of in-digenous peoples in development planning, andwithdrawal of support from projects that causeextensive damage to habitats in species-richareas.

Because U.S. influence in MDBs has tradi-tionally been strong, a concerted effort fromthe U.S. executive directors no doubt could im-prove MDB environmental performance and

296 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

make significant contributions to maintainingbiological diversity. Emergence of a WildlandsManagement Policy at the World Bank may,in part, reflect congressional and public atten-tion on the subject. The recently approved pol-icy sets guidelines for the management of nat-ural areas in bank projects. These includeavoiding conversion of wildlands of specialconcern, giving preference to using alreadyconverted lands, compensating for the loss ofwildlands by setting aside similar areas, andpreserving relevant wildland areas.

executive directors is likely to be needed, suchas in efforts to enlist greater environmental ex-pertise within the banks. Language containedin the fiscal year 1986 appropriations bill clearlyreflects congressional interest on this subject(21).

Consideration could also be given to promot-ing the approach to diversity maintenance em-bodied in the recent World Bank policy. To thisend, U.S. representatives could be encouragedto establish a similar approach within CIDIE.

To maintain momentum, however, continuedcongressional oversight and input from U.S.

PROMOTION OF CAPACITY AND INITIATIVES INDEVELOPING COUNTRIES

A large number of initiatives at the interna-tional level have addressed various aspects ofdiversity maintenance in developing countries(see ch. 10). These range from internationalmeetings to treaties and conventions such asthe Convention on International Trade in En-dangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.Such initiatives can be important in raisingawareness of the issue and of national respon-sibilities. They can effectively set standards,monitor progress, serve as promotional work,and establish legal norms (8). An internationalperspective also enables interested parties todefine global priorities. However, translatingthese initiatives into concrete activities requiresthat they be implemented and supported at thenational and local levels, underlining the im-portance of developing national capacities andconstituencies to address loss of diversity.

The responsibility for maintaining biologicaldiversity within a country’s borders ultimatelyfalls on national governments. Yet it can be ar-gued that national governments have respon-sibilities to the international community. Avoid-ing loss of genetic resources that may meet theneeds of future generations and maintainingdiversity because it represents the biologicalheritage of the planet are commonly heard argu-ments in this regard,

These arguments may be insufficient or un-convincing for many developing countries,especially when national resources would haveto be devoted to maintaining diversity, yet thebenefits would accrue outside their borders. Inother cases, a country may acknowledge its na-tional interests in maintaining diversity but lackthe resources—both financial and technical—to stem the loss,

Six priority areas where U.S. bilateral assis-tance could promote abilities and initiatives indeveloping countries have been identified:building public support, establishing an infor-mation base, building institutional support,promoting planning and management, increas-ing technical capacity, and increasing eco-nomic benefits derived from wild species, Al-though described separately, these areas aremutually reinforcing.

Building Public Support

Creating a favorable climate of public opin-ion is critical to the success of conservation pro-grams, Developing countries commonly lackan organized base of citizen support; in the fewcases where support has existed, in Ecuadorfor example, it has been a key element in ef-forts to launch programs.

Ch. 11-Biologica/ Diversity and Development Assistance 297

A study of poor farmers in Costa Rica foundthat:

. . . farmers could not comprehend the conceptof “untouchable” forest reserves, The valuesof outdoor recreation, wildlife, and biologicaldiversity may be seen by wealthy policy makers

but they are generally alien to poor farmersstruggling for survival (45).

Consequently, efforts to protect habitats maydepend on demonstrating to rural populationsthat they will benefit from such activities andon soliciting their support in project design andimplementation (36).

Benefits to those in rural areas can be in theform of actual financial compensation, as inthe Amboseli game reserve in Kenya. Here,Masai pastoralists participated in designing aconservation program, and they now benefitfinancially from the arrangement through tour-ist revenues and through employment oppor-tunities (63). Alternatively, local support canbe solicited by convincing people of the impor-tance of maintaining diversity. In Malaysia, forexample, public support was marshaled to pro-tect the Batu caves from quarrying by pointingout that the durian, a highly valued fruit crop,depends on cave-nesting bats for pollination(36),

The opening of the Kuna Indian Udirbi Trop-ical Forest Reserve, a 5,000-acre park on Pana-ma’s Atlantic coast, resulted from integratinglocal peoples’ desire to protect a forested areaof cultural and religious importance with theestablishment of income-generating facilitiesfor visiting scientists and naturalists. Theproject is unusual because it was initiated bythe Kuna themselves and had unanimous sup-port. A number of organizations (including theCentro Agronomic Tropical de Investigationy Ensenanze, the Smithsonian Tropical Re-search Institute, AID, the Inter-American Foun-dation, and the World wildlife Fund-U. S.) haveprovided technical and financial support, al-though both the benefits and managementresponsibilities are being directed toward theKuna (41,69),

Emphasis on environmental education isanother strategy for building public support

(36). A major constraint at all school levels isthe shortage of appropriate teaching materialsin local languages (67). Furthermore, most text-books use examples drawn from temperatezone ecosystems, which can be difficult for stu-dents in the tropics to understand. Developmentof teaching materials could help remedy this.

In Costa Rica, the World Wildlife Fund’s con-servation and education program, working withthe Ministry of Education and educators andconservationists from local universities, devel-oped educational material in Spanish for ele-mentary school ecology courses. The materialwas tested by 70 teachers in 11 schools, reach-ing 2,000 students in 1982. The success of theprogram led to its adoption by the Ministry ofEducation and to the distribution of materialsto all public elementary schools in the countryin 1984. World Wildlife Fund expanded the pro-gram into Colombia and Honduras in 1984 andto Brazil and Guatemala in 1985 (4).

Mobilizing public support through mass in-formation campaigns has also been successfulin developing countries. In Malaysia, for ex-ample, numerous private voluntary and non-governmental organizations, such as the

credit G

An educat ion pro jec t in Costa Rica funded by the Wor ldWi ld l i fe Fund a l lows e lementary schoo l s tudents to s tudyecology with textbooks in their native language. Above, sixthgraders study relationships between different plant speciesThe program, begun in 1982, has been expanded to Colombia,

Honduras, Guatemala, and Brazil.

298 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Malayan Nature Society, the Friends of theEarth, and the Consumers’ Association ofPenang, conduct information programs to de-velop public understanding (1),

In a number of campaigns, flagship speciesare identified. These are species with high es-thetic appeal that are often endemic to a coun-try, and consequently capable of generatingpublic interest and pride in the nation’s biota.For instance, the yellow-tailed woolly monkey—Peru’s largest and most endangered primate—is the centerpiece of a campaign to protect itscloud forest habitat in a project begun in 1984by the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. in conjunc-tion with the Natural History Museum of Limaand the Peruvian Conservation Foundation (69).Although this approach has been criticized forfocusing inordinate attention on large mam-mals at the expense of other endangered taxa,it has been effective in rallying public supportaround certain species, promoting publicawareness and in the process protecting otherendangered species through habitat preser-vation.

Support for indigenous private and voluntaryorganizations has also been identified as an im-portant component of building public support.Bolstering such organizations can create relia-ble recipients and managers of conservationfunding with the potential of becoming self-supporting, a national constituency for exert-ing pressure on decisionmakers, public aware-ness for biological diversity, and a grassrootscapacity to respond quickly and flexibly wheregovernments cannot or will not (13,59). Moni-toring development projects for undesirableenvironmental impacts is another importantrole for these groups.

Experience has shown, however, that this ap-proach has certain constraints (18,59,60). Theseinclude saturating particular groups with fund-ing and distorting the natural growth of thesesmall organizations. AID, as a large agency usu-ally dealing with large amounts of money, maybe reluctant to initiate contact with many smallorganizations to promote small-scale projects.These concerns can be addressed by workingmore closely with umbrella nongovernmental

organizations (e. g., the Environmental LiaisonCentre in Nairobi) or through American groupsthat have local counterparts or affiliates in de-veloping countries. Another option is to haveagencies with more experience working at thegrassroots level (e.g., the Peace Corps or theInter-American Foundation) take a lead in thisarea.

Establishing an Information Base

Conducting an inventory and monitoring thebiota are two key steps that facilitate correc-tive action in situations where human activitythreatens diversity (5). An inventory can com-bine a traditional biological survey with themost modern technology such as remote sens-ing. It might also simply involve pulling to-gether information on the status, distribution,and threats to major ecosystems and speciesto determine conservation priorities and affectland-use decisions.

Monitoring biological diversity refers to sur-veillance of the distribution and abundance offlora and fauna. The purpose is to detect ad-verse impacts on species or habitats, assess theextent to which human activities are responsi-ble, and then promote corrective measureswherever possible (5).

Although nationally instituted programs toconduct inventories and monitor biologicaldiversity are rare, a few examples do serve asmodels. The Mexican National Research Insti-tute for Biological Resources (INIREB, from thefull title in Spanish), for instance, prepares aninventory of plant and animal resources, studiesthreatened and endangered species, establishesreserves and protects habitats of ecological imp-ortance, develops alternative land-use strate-gies, and trains professionals in conservation-oriented fields. The range of activities under-taken by INIREB indicates the balanced ap-proach of this organization.

Promoting national or regional databases tomonitor biological diversity is an effective wayto synthesize information and help define re-search and conservation priorities, A numberof international organizations have developed

Ch. 11-Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . 299

databases of use to governments, assistanceagencies, and conservation organizations, Still,promoting in-country capacity for such activi-ties is an important goal, First, these databasescan provide a finer evacuation (i. e., of higherresolution), defining local priorities within aregional context, than is possible with infor-mation covering larger areas. Second, the proc-ess can foster in-country expertise and bolsterenvironmental effectiveness.

A major initiative to develop country-levelConservation Data Centers (CDCS) in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean is currently beingundertaken by The Nature Conservancy Inter-national (TNCI). CDCS are modeled on the StateHeritage Programs begun 15 years ago in theUnited States. To date, six CDCS have beenestablished in partnership with local institu-tions, with plans to expand this to 35 programsby the end of the decade, In terms of bolster-ing national capacity, the strengths of CDC pro-grams lie in their employment of scientists (azoologist, a botanist, an ecologist, and a datahandler); their emphasis on institutionalizingthe system; and their pressure to have local col-laborating agencies adopt operational fundingafter 3 to 5 years [13).

The CDC programs devote little attention,however, to public education components. Fur-thermore, although the programs assemble ex-isting information difficult for foreign institu-tions (e.g., from world museums and herbaria),they do little to provide new information in aregion where at least five-sixths of the organ-isms are unknown (38). Overall these programsare very useful in identifying areas of conser-vation interest. Accordingly, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service has contracted with TNC1 todevelop databases on distribution of naturalplant communities and to identify areas of highendemism and diversity in Latin America (25).

In lieu of formal CDCS, which could take con-siderable time, resources, and effort to dissem-inate broadly, some developing countries couldbenefit from more modest systems (35). A sim-ple computer in the office in a ministry oruniversity could record existing studies andrepresent a major improvement in national ca-pacity,

Inventorying and monitoring biological re-sources are also important in maintaininggenetic diversity among domesticated species.The rate at which farmers are replacing tradi-tional, genetically diverse crop varieties withmore uniform, high-yielding varieties is the sub-ject of much concern in industrial and devel-oping countries. Considerable effort to collectand store germplasm has already been madefor major crop varieties, with less done for mi-nor crops and wild relatives.

Efforts have been made to collect data, in-cluding prototypes for national databases, onthreatened breeds of livestock in developingcountries (12). But, information on genotypeloss is inadequate to focus initiatives, USDAcould provide assistance in this area throughincreased support to the FAO and the Interna-tional Board for Plant Genetic Resources, forexample, to heIp develop abilities to monitorlosses of livestock and crop genetic resources,

BuildIng lnstitutional Support

The greatest obstacles to addressing the lossof diversity are less technical than economicand political. Consequently, building institu-tional capacity—in both the public and privatesectors—is of paramount importance. However,institution-building through development assis-tance is a difficult process that requires bothlong-term commitment and a stronp apprecia-tion of national sovereignty.

Concern about the environment is a relativelynew addition to the political agendas of devel-oping countries—for many, it dates to the 1972U.N. Conference on the Human Environmentheld in Stockholm, Sweden. At that time, muchof the attention on environmental problems indeveloping count ries was generated from out-side, notably from industrial countries. Mostlacked a national constituency among govern-ment agencies, scientists, environmentalgroups, or the general public that perceived athreat stemming from degradation of the envi-ronment {17),

A great deal has changed since then. TheStockholm Conference accentuated pollutionproblems and the need for industrial standard

300 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

setting—concerns most developing countrygovernments felt were industrial country prob-lems (23). Since then, environmental concernshave broadened to emphasize conservation ofnatural resources. Developing countries are onaverage six times more dependent on a produc-tive resource base—soils, fisheries, andforests—which provides rationale for greaterdeveloping country concerns in this area (43).

Discussions on environmental issues are nowbeing initiated by developing countries. Thenumber of environmental agencies has in-creased since 1972 from about one dozen to 110(43). However, most agencies have been ineffec-tive in addressing environmental concerns.This ineffectiveness is due to the constraintsdiscussed earlier, including a lack of person-nel, training, and resources; an inability to com-pete with established interests; and a lack oflegal authority.

Encouraging the development of institutionalcapacity is not easy, but U.S. development assis-tance agencies have the experience and the le-gal mandate to help in the process. Initiativesto enhance the stature, effectiveness, and re-sources of agencies responsible for conserva-tion have been identified (10). These initiativesinclude requiring developing country officialsto submit comments on environmental and nat-ural resource aspects of U.S. development assis-tance projects and soliciting greater input fromministries in AID’s development of countryenvironmental profiles and natural resourceassessments (10).

The process of infusing an awareness of bio-logical resources in overall development plan-ning was an objective in an AID-supported nat-ural resources profile undertaken by the ThaiDevelopment Research Institute—a nationalpolicy analysis group (22). The process is im-portant because it involves identification ofneeds and responsibilities of the 24 agenciesin Thailand responsible for natural resources.Ultimately, the profile should be incorporatedinto the country’s 5-year development plan.

An environmental profile of Paraguay illus-trates the importance of the process, as muchas the product, for infusing awareness of bio-

logical diversity throughout a country’s insti-tutions (66). This AID-supported project, car-ried out by the National Planning Secretariatof the Presidency, involved some two dozenParaguayan scientists, technicians, and otherspecialists. The emphases on increasing reli-ance on national scientists and policy makers,on a broad intersectoral approach, and on sup-port from the highest levels of government arekeys to meeting the objectives of building in-stitutions.

Promoting Planning andManagementf

As pressures on natural resources in devel-oping countries increase, the need to integrateconservation and development interests will be-come more critical. Planning and managementstrategies should be included in resource de-velopment initiatives—from habitat protectiononsite to germplasm storage offsite—and theseinitiatives should consider wild species as wellas domesticates.

Developing a national strategy to conservebiological diversity should account for themixed objectives for maintaining the array ofspecies, and the mixed status of these groups(29). A biological continuum of ecosystems, spe-cies, populations, and varieties fills variousneeds, and various management programs andtechniques are appropriate. Consequently,management objectives and technologies andthe links between them should be taken intoaccount, as well as the most urgent problemsto address (29).

One activity that addresses this problem isthe development of national conservation strat-egies (NCSS), which are general policy state-ments on the role of conservation in develop-ment planning (19). AID began support of anNCS for Nepal in fiscal year 1985 through theInternational Union for the Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources (IUCN), and it iscontinuing to assist in the preparation or im-plementation of similar strategies for Sri Lanka,the Philippines, and Zimbabwe (52). Althoughthe general nature of these documents may limittheir usefulness in implementing specific proj-

Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 301

ects, they can be important vehicles for present-ing the case for maintaining biological diver-sity (evidenced by the NCS for Zambia) (44).

The lack of management plans for specificprotected areas has been identified as a majorproblem in almost all developing countries.without them, most areas suffer from inap-propriate development, sporadic and inconsist-ent management, and lack of clearly definedmanagement objectives, ways to develop suchplans have been proposed and are being appliedto six major protected areas: Amboseli, Kenya;Simen Mountains, Ethiopia; Sapo, Liberia;Khao, Thailand; Sinharaja, Sri Lanka; and Am-boro, Bolivia (44). A country may also analyzeits existing parks and protected areas to developplans for an orderly allocation of natural areas(44). Although few examples of such plans ex-ist, methods for doing this analysis have alsobeen developed. Systems are currently in placein Brazil, Indonesia, and Dominica (44).

In situ genebanks have received some atten-tion as a way to conserve gene pools of wildeconomic plants (see ch. 5). The strategy hasparticular relevance for developing countries,where most of the ancestral stock of currenteconomic species occurs. General guidelinesfor managing such units have been developed(34). Sri Lanka (for wild medicinal plants), In-dia (for citrus and sugarcane), and Mexico (forteosinte) have either prepared or are develop-ing plans for in situ genebanks. Efforts are un-der way to expand this strategy to tropical SouthAmerica (35).

Maintaining diversity through traditionalparks and protected areas is becoming difficultfor some nations for economic and political rea-sons, and it is likely to become less commonin the future. Setting aside land for a single usecan often be an economic impossibility. Somenations, particularly small countries and is-lands, do not have the large, undisturbed tractsof land. The trend is toward integrating reservesas part of overall development plans, ratherthan adding them later as areas separate fromdevelopment.

Few approaches, however, have consideredthe role of human activities in ecological proc-

esses affecting protected areas (see ch. 5 for fur-ther discussion). Strategies for conservingdiversity are starting to consider this, Conser-vationists are beginning to promote strategiesthat surround protected areas with zones ofcompatible land use (such as the UNESCO bio-sphere reserve program) and to encourage theuse of regional plans to manage resources (suchas the Organization of American States’ in-tegrated regional development planning).

The potential of botanic gardens and zoolog-ical gardens as a management tool in develop-ing countries is unclear, but it could be en-hanced through links with other institutionsand with existing international networks (seech. 10) (24). These institutions occupy a uniqueposition because of their links between onsiteand offsite efforts. One example proving suc-cessful is the Rio de Janeiro Primate Center thatis involved with the captive breeding and rein-troduction of the golden lion tamarin (69).

Concern over loss of agriculturally importantresources suggests a need to devote more at-tention to better management of germplasm col-lection, storage, and use in developing coun-tries, preliminary studies have been conductedon the feasibility of enhancing national pro-grams in animal germplasm maintenance. Anumber of obstacles have been identified: tech-nical constraints, problems of isolation ofbreeds, disease control, funding sources forlong-term facilities, and political concerns, suchas where to locate genebanks and who ownsthem (15).

As mentioned earlier, several regional insti-tutions have already identified threatenedbreeds of livestock and maintained data onthem. This work is also a starting point for en-hancing regional capacities to develop offsitestorage facilities. These institutions, whichcould benefit from financial or technical sup-port, include the Inter-African Bureau for Ani-mal Resources in Nairobi, Kenya; InternationalLivestock Centre for Africa in Addis Ababa,Ethiopia; Asociacion Latinoamericana deProduction Animal in Maracay, Venezuela;and the Society for the Advancement of Breed-ing Research in Asia and Oceania in Kuala Lam-pur, Malaysia (39).

302 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity— .—

The number of crop genetic resource pro-grams in developing countries has increaseddramatically over the last decade. In part, thisincrease reflects an awareness of the impor-tance of collecting, maintaining, and evaluat-ing plant germplasm as a prerequisite to meet-ing future food requirements. Much of thechange is also credited to the InternationalBoard for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR),which has played a catalytic role in encourag-ing and supporting national genebanks.

Ten years ago, only a handful of genebankcollections existed, primarily in industrial coun-tries. As of 1985, 72 countries—45 of them inthe developing world—had long- or medium-term germplasm storage facilities in operationor under construction (33). IBPGR currently hasagreements with 31 countries (25 of them de-veloping ones) to serve as international basecollections for long-term storage of plant germ-plasm, As the network of long-term collectionsapproaches its goal of 50, covering 40 majorcrops before the end of the century, greater at-tention will be focused on bolstering medium-term collections, 100 of which have alreadybeen identified. Facilitating medium-term col-lections is particularly important for those de-veloping countries where the costs and tech-nical requirements make the establishment oflong-term facilities impractical.

The operation and effectiveness of variousnational plant germplasm programs is uneven.Particularly disconcerting has been the failureof some national programs to respond to anIBPGR Seed Storage Advisory Committeerecommendation to rectify inadequacies andimprove scientific standards at existing facil-ities (65).

Increasing TechnicaI Capacity

The availability of trained personnel isanother constraint to conservation. The prob-lem has been studied intensively in the LatinAmerican region and in Africa since the mid-1970s (11,31,46,47,48,68). However, neither gov-ernments nor international or bilateral devel-opment assistance agencies have come forwardwith sufficient funding to meet the needs out-lined in these studies.

For a total of 50 developing countries, thereare only six technical colleges established tomeet regional training needs for protected areamanagers: at Bariloche in Argentina, the Cen-tro Agronomic Tropical de Investigation y En-senanze in Costa Rica, the Ecole de Fauna inCameroon, the College of African Wildlife Man-agement in Tanzania, the Wildlife Institute ofIndia in Dehra Dun, and the School of Conser-vation Management in Indonesia at Bogor (44).Most of these colleges need external support,and all could be encouraged to augment bio-logical diversity concerns in their curricula.

The efforts of several U.S. Federal agenciesto provide training, technical assistance, anddistribution of technical information hold po-tential for increasing technical capacity in de-veloping countries. Those involved include theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), NationalPark Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service, theSmithsonian Institution, and National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, Activitieshave been outlined in several documents (e.g.,ref. 61). For example, congressional legislationto implement the Western Hemisphere Conven-tion directs FWS to devote attention to person-nel development in Latin America. This devel-opment has been accomplished through severalinitiatives, with special emphasis on trainingwildlife biologists, where possible, through in-country workshops. The Foreign Service Cur-rency Program allows FWS to provide train-ing in Egypt, India, and Pakistan, Authorizedin Section 8(a) of the Endangered Species Act,this program allows excess foreign currenciesto be used toward conserving threatened or en-dangered species in those countries (25).

AID and other government agencies have de-veloped cooperative arrangements with severalU.S. universities, other scientific institutions(e.g., botanic and zoological institutions), andprivate conservation organizations. These ar-rangements provide avenues to direct assis-tance funding toward increasing technical ca-pacity and training of country personnel.

The University of Michigan, through fund-ing from Federal agencies (e. g., NPS), has in-ternational seminars that provide training inareas such as park management, forest man-

Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance w 303

agement, and coastal-marine management.FWS has undertaken several projects withWorld Wildlife Fund-U.S. to promote expertisein species and habitat conservation. TheUniversity of Florida, in conjunction with a pro-gram offered by the National Zoo’s Conserva-tion and Research Center in Front Royal, VA,provides hands-on research and training todeveloping-country students (4).

U.S. development assistance could promotetechnical training through national and re-gional germplasm conservation and storageprograms. Although most of the support fortraining currently comes from internationalorganizations, principally the IBPGR and theFood and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO), USDA could enhanceits activities in this area through the NationalPlant Germplasm System and the Forest Serv-ice, The thrust of these U.S. agency efforts, how-ever, may be better directed at identifying areaswhere assistance could be channeled throughexisting training programs.

Specific training on conserving animal re-sources has been organized through FAO andUNEP. A 2-week course (taught in English) isoffered through the University of VeterinaryScience in Budapest, Hungary. The primarygoal of this course is to provide developing-country participants with an overview of thepresent state of theory and practice (3). Al-though this type of training usefully draws at-tention to the importance of animal genetic re-sources, conservation strategies will depend ona commitment by national governments toavoid haphazard crossing of indigenous breedsand to monitor the most endangered ones (15).

Training and management are also criticalfor operating plant germplasm storage facilities,A l-year graduate program in conservation anduse of plant resources at the University of Bir-mingham in England has provided training tomore than 100 developing-country scientists(14). Some graduates now direct genetic re-sources programs in their home countries,IBPGR has also established a training program(taught in French) at Gembloux, Belgium, anda training program to be taught in Spanish isunder consideration (14). Some 500 developing-

Photo ” Board Resources

Genetic resources conservation requires a cadre of qualifiedpersonnel. The University of Birmingham in England has aninternational postgraduate program In genetic conservation.

country scientists have benefited from IBPGR-supported courses on plant genetic resourcemanagement and from internship programs atinternational agricultural research centers. Inaddition, IBPGR has helped incorporate rele-vant courses in universities in several devel-oping countries (65). Despite these advances,training in genetic resource conservation anduse still needs increased attention.

Increasing Direct Econmic BenefitsOf Wild Species

One of the most forceful arguments for theneed to maintain biological diversity has beenthe potential that wild species hold to improvethe ‘quality of human life. The examples of

304 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

perennial corn and rosy periwinkle (an anti-Ieukemia drug) are commonly cited in the liter-ature on this subject. For the most part, how-ever, this rationale has been expounded by sci-entific, conservation, and political groups inindustrial countries, where motivations as wellas technologies to exploit genetic resources arecomparatively well-developed.

The point has been less forcefully argued oracted on in developing countries. The reasonmay be because these countries have been un-able to capitalize on their biological resources;the products and profits from them—for man yreasons, including differences in levels of tech-nology, research facilities, and interest—accrue

elsewhere. Given that the greatest diversity ofpotentially important organisms is located indeveloping countries (e.g., centers of diversityof crop species and moist tropical forests assources of medicinal products), enhancing theincentives for developing countries is criticallyimportant.

Various mechanisms exist to promote iden-tification and development of biological re-sources in developing countries. Supporting re-search by developing-country scientists, suchas through the AID Program in Science andTechnology Cooperation (49), offers opportu-nities not only to promote development of in-digenous biological resources but also to culti-vate scientif ic expertise and supporting

credit: Nations/photo by S Stokes

Crocodile farm in Papua New Guinea has potential to providedirect economic benefits and encourages protection

of biological resources.

Ptrofo credit: 154002, S

To reduce dependence on tea, rubber, and coconut exports, Lanka is promoting the of

minor export crops such as citronella.

—.

Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 305

institutions as well. Ethnobotanical surveys andresearch represent another promising avenuefor encouraging greater recognition of the im-portance and opportunities of maintaining bio-logical diversity. Wildlife-based tourism andother wildlife utilization enterprises offer fur-ther possibilities. However, these should be ap-proached with some caution to ensure that ben-efits actually accrue to the country and accountfor the interests of local populations (9).

Loss of agricultural genetic resources in de-veloping countries is a pronounced concern.Addressing it will depend on enhancing capac-ity in national agricultural programs and in-creasing awareness of the potential of germ-plasm to contribute to development needs.Continued U.S. support for International Agri-cultural Research Centers, especially the Inter-national Board for Plant Genetic Resources,serves an important role in this regard. Bilateralprograms through the U.S. Department of Agri-culture, such as the one that currently existswith Mexico, could also be promoted, Account-ing for the unique contributions of traditionalagricultural systems will also need special at-tention, Ongoing research provides strong evi-dence on the importance and potential of thesehigh diversity, low input systems in address-ing the particular needs and limitations of mostdeveloping-country agriculturalists (42) ,Greater support for research in investigating

CHAPTER 1

1. Aiken, S, R., and Leigh, C. H,, “On the Declin-

2,

3

4.

ing Fauna of Peninsular Malaysia in the Post-Colonial Period,” Arnbio 14(1):15-22, 1985.Baldi, P., Spivy-Weber, F., and Chapnick, B.,Foreign Assistance Funding Alternatives(Washington, DC: National Audubon Society,1986).Bodo, I., “Report on the FAO/UNEP TrainingCourses on Animal Genetic Resources Conser-vation and Management, ” Animal Genetic Re-sources Conservation by Management, DataBanks, and Training (Rome: Food and Agri-culture Organization of the United Nations,1984).Cohn, J., “Creating a Conservation Ethic, ”Americas, November-December 1985.

and improving indigenous agricultural systemsis seen as a high priority for development assis-tance. Increasing attention is also being ad-dressed at incorporating traditional agroeco-systems within biosphere reserves programs(30).

The prospects and promises of biotechnol-ogy have prompted a few developing countriesto place a premium on developing their capac-ities in this field. Although biotechnology’s con-tributions to biological diversity maintenanceis mixed, the incentives it may provide devel-oping countries to protect and develop theirgenetic resources argues for supporting devel-oping-country expertise. Access to technicalprocedures, however, is generally restricted tocountries with well-developed capabilities. Alarge number of developing countries could ap-ply these technologies to exploit genetic re-sources if access to information, training, andtechnology were improved. Microbiological Re-search Centers, otherwise known as MIRCENS(see ch. 10), place a strong emphasis on train-ing developing-country scientists, The recentlycreated International Center for Genetic Engi-neering and Biotechnology, established by theUnited Nations Industrial Development Orga-nization, also has as its main function the dis-semination of these technologies to developingcountries.

REFERENCE$

5.

6,

7.

8.

9.

Collins, M., “International Inventory and Mon-itoring for the Maintenance of BiologicalDiversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Conservation Foundation, “Third World Prog-ress Is Painfully Slow, ” Conservation Founda-tion Letter (Washington, DC: 1986).Dasmann, R. F., “Ecological Principles for Eco-nomic Development: Ten Years Later, ” paperpresented to IUCN 16th technical meeting, Ma-drid, Spain, Nov. 5-14. 1984.Dias, C., president, International Center forLaw in Development, New York, personalcommunications, May 1986.Eltringham, S. K., VViZdlife Resources and Eco-nomic Development (New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1984).

306 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

10. Environment and EnergV StudV Institute Task

11

Force, “A Congressional”Agenda for ImprovedResource and Environmental Management inthe Third World: Helping Developing Coun-tries Help Themselves, ” Washington, DC,1985.Fahrenkrog, E., Fired Report: Study for theEstablishm-ent of an Inter-_American -TrainingCenter for Management and Operations Per-sonnel of National Parks and Similar Areas(Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund, 1978).In: Saunier and Meganck, 1985.

12. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Animal Genetic ResourcesConservation by Management, Data Banks,and Training (Rome: FAO, 1984).

13. Goebel, M., The Nature Conservancy Interna-tional, Arlington, VA, personal communica-tions, June 1986.

14. Hawkes, J. G,, Plant Genetic Resources, CGIARStudy Paper No. 3 (Washington, DC: WorldBank, 1985).

15. Hodges, J., “Annual Genetics Resources in theDeveloping World: Goals, Strategies, Manage-ment and Current Status, ” Proceedings ofThird World Congress on Genetics Applied toLivestock Production, Lincoln, NE, vol. 10, July16-22, 1986,

16. Horberry, J., “Accountability of DevelopmentAssistance Agencies: The Case of Environ-mental Policy,” Eco]ogy Law Quarter]y 23:817-869, 1986.

17. Howard-Clinton, E. G., “The Emerging Con-

18

19.

cepts of Environmental Issues in Africa, n Envi-ronmental Management 8(3):187-190, 1984.International Institute for Environment andDevelopment, “Environmental Planning andManagement Project, Country EnvironmentalProfiles, Natural Resource Assessment andOther Reports on the State of the Environ-ment,” Washington, DC, May 1986,International Union for Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources, Conservation forDevelopment Center, National ConservationStrategies: A Framework for Sustainable De-velopment (Gland, Switzerland: 1984).

20. International Union for Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources/United NationsEnvironment Programme/WorId WildlifeFund, World Conservation Strategy (Gland,Switzerland: IUCN, 1980).

21. Kasten, Sen. R. W,, “Development Banks: Sub-sidizing Third World Pollution, ” The Washing-ton Quarterly, summer 1986, pp. 109-114.

22,

23,

24.

25.

26,

27.

28.

29.

300

31.

32.

33.

34.

Kux, M., U.S. Agency for International Devel-opment, Rosslyn, VA, personal communica-tions, June 1986.Lausche, B., World Wildlife Fund-U. S., Wash-ington, DC, personaI communications, June1986,Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,Botanical Gardens, and Similar Institutions inthe Maintenance of Biological Diversity,” OTAcommissioned paper, 1985.Mason, L., “InternationaI Assistance Programsof the Department of the Interior, Forest Serv-ice, and Advisory Council on Historic Preser-vation,” U.S. Congress, House Committee onInterior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee onPublic Lands, Hearings, Oct. 8, 1985.McPherson, M. P,, administrator of Agency forInternational Development, letter to Congress-man Gus Yatron, chairman, U.S. Congress,House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcom-mittee on Human Rights and InternationalOrganizations, Mar. 21, 1986a.McPherson, M. P., Agency for InternationalDevelopment Oversight Hearing, Apr. 21,1986, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,Washington, DC, 1986b,Mueller-Dombois, D., Karawinata, K., andHandley, L. L., “Conservation of Species andHabitats: A Major Responsibility in Develop-ment Planning. ” In: Carpenter, R. (cd.), Natu-ral Systems for Development: What PlannersNeed to Know (New York: Macmillan Publish-ing Co., 1983).Namkoong, G., “Conservation of BiologicalDiversity by In-situ and Ex-situ Methods,”OTA commissioned paper, 1986.Oldfield, M. L., and Alcorn, J. B,, “Conservationof Traditional Agroecosystems: A Reevalua-tion,” Bioscience, March 1987.Organization of American States, Final Report:Technical Meeting on Education and Train-ing for the Administration of National Parks,Wildlife Reserves and Other Protected Areas,Regional Scientific Technological, Develop-ment Program, Sept. 25-29, 1978, Merida, Ven-ezuela, 1978. In: Saunier and Meganck, 1985.Orians, G., and Kunin, W., “An Ecological Per-spective on the Valuation of Biological Diver-sity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Plucknett, D,, Smith, N., Williams, J. T., andAnishetty, N. M., Gene Banks and The World’sFood (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, forthcoming).Prescott-Allen, R., “Management of In Situ

Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance ● 307

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

42a.

43.

44

45,

46.

47.

——

Gene Banks, ” Proceedings of the 24th Work-ing Session of CNPRA, Madrid, Spain, 1984.In: Thorsell, 1985.Prescott-Allen, R., consultant, British Colum-bia, Canada, personal communications, May1986,Rambo, T., “Socioeconomic Considerationsfor the In-Situ Maintenance of BiologicalDiversity in Developing Countries, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1985.Randall, A., “Human Preferences, Economics,and Preservation of Species, ” The Preserva-tion of Species: The Value of Biological Diver-sity, B .G. Norton (cd. ) (Princeton, NJ: Prince-ton University Press, 1986).Raven, P., Missouri Botanical Gardens, St,Louis, MO, personal communications, June1986.Rendel, J., Animal Genetic Resources DataBanks (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion of the United Nations, 1984).Rich, B., “The Multilateral DevelopmentBanks, Environmental Policy and the UnitedStates, ” Eco]ogy Law Quarterly, spring 1985.Rich, B., and Schwartzman, S., “The Role ofDevelopment Assistance in Maintaining Bio-logical Diversity In-Situ in Developing Coun-tries, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985,Richards, P., Indigenous Agricultural Revolu-tion (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985).Saunier, R., and Meganck, R., “Compatibilityof Development and the In-Situ Maintenanceof Biological Diversity in Developing Coun-tries, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.Talbot, L., “Helping Developing CountriesHelp Themselves: Toward a CongressionalAgenda for Improved Resource and Environ-mental Management in the Third World, ”working paper (Washington, DC: World Re-sources Institute, 1985).Thorsell, J., “The Role of Protected Areas inMaintaining Biological Diversity in TropicalDeveloping Countries, ” OTA commissionedpaper, 1985,Thrupp, A,, “The Peasant View of Conserva-tion, ” Ceres 14(4):31-34, 1981.United Nations Environment Programme, Pro-jet de Programme d’Action pour l’Educationet la Formation en Matiere d’Environnementen Afrique, UN EP/W. G. 87/2., 1983. In: Sau-nier and Meganck, 1985.United Nations Environment Programme, RedRegional de Instituciones para la Formaci6nAmbiental, Informe de Actividades de 1982-

48

49.

50.

51%

52<

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

1983 y Sugerencias de Programaci6n para1984, UNEP/I.G, 47/4, 1984. In: Saunier andMeganck, 1985.United Nations Environment Programme, Fi-nal Report, Fourth Inter-Governmental Re-gional Meeting on the Environment in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, Cancb, Mexico,UN EP/l. G. 57/8, 1985. In: Saunier andMeganck, 1985.U.S. Agency for International Development,The Office of the Science Advisor, Develop-ment Through Innovative Research (Washing-ton, DC: 1985).U.S. Agency for International Development,Congressional Presentation Fiscal Year 1987:Main Volume (Washington, DC: 1986).U.S. Agency for International Development,“Draft AID Action Plan on Conserving Biologi-cal Diversity in Developing Countries, ” pre-pared by Bureau of Science and Technology,Office of Forestry, Environment, and NaturalResources, Washington, DC, January 1986.U.S. Agency for International Development,“Progress in Conserving Biological Diversityin Developing Countries FY1985, ” Washing-ton, DC, February 1986.U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Serv-ice, “U.S. Foreign Assistance in an Era ofDeclining Resources: Issues for Congress in1986, ” prepared by L,Q. Newels, CRS Rpt. No.86-95F, Washington, DC, 1986.U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Com-mittee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee onHuman Rights and International Organiza-tions, U.S. Policy on Biological Diversity (hear-ings on June 6, 1985) (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1985).U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Envi-ronmental Impact of Multilateral DevelopmentBank-Funded Projects: Hearing before the Sub-committee on International Development In-stitutions and Finance of the House Commit-tee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs,98th Cong., 1st sess,, 1983.U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, DraftRecommendations on the Multilateral Devel-opment Banks and the Environment: Hearingbefore the Subcommittee on International De-velopment Institutions and Finance of theHouse Committee on Banking, Finance, andUrban Affairs, 98th Cong., Zd sess., 1984.U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,Tropical Forest Development Projects—Statusof En vironmen tal and Amicultural Research:

308 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Hearing before the Subcommittee on NaturalResources, Agriculture Research and Environ-ment of the House Committee on Science andTechnology, 98th Cong., 2d sess., 1984.

58. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on ForeignRelations, Hearings: Issues on BiologicalDiversity and Tropical Deforestation, Mar. 19,1986 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, 1986).

59, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-

60,

61,

62,

63,

ment, Grassroots Conservation of BiologicalDiversity in the United States—Background Pa-per #1, OTA-13P-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, February 1986).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Continuing the Commitment: A SpecialReport on the Sahel, OTA-F-308 [Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August1986).U.S. Department of State, Conserving Interna-tional Wildlife Resources: The United StatesResponse (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1984),U.S. Interagency Task Force, U.S. Strategy onthe Conservation of Biological Diversity: AnInteragency Task Force Report to Congress(Washington, DC: Agency for International De-velopment, 1985).Western, D., “Amboseli National Park: HumanValues and the Conservation of a Savanna Eco-system,” National Parks, Conservation, andDeve]oDment. Droceedines of the World Con-

64.

65.

66,

67,

68.

69,

70.

gress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, Oct.11-22, 1982, J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller (eds.)(Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress, 1984),Western, D., “Conservation-Based Rural De-velopment, ” Sustaining Tomorrow: A Strategyfor World Conservation and Development, F.R.Thibodeau and H.H. Field (eds.) (Hanover, NH:University Press of New England, 1984).Williams, J. T,, “A Decade of Crop Genetic Re-sources Research, ” Crop Genetic Resources:Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holdenand J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: George Al-len & Unwin, 1984).Winterbottom, R., International Institute forEnvironment and Development, Washington,DC, personal communications, June 1986.World Resources Institute, Recommendationsfor a United States Strategy To Conserve Bio-logical Diversity in Developing Countries(Washington, DC: 1984).World Wildlife Fund, Strategy for Training inNatural Resources and Environment (Wash-ington, DC: 1980).World Wildlife Fund-U. S., Annual Report 1984[Washington, DC: WWF, 1984),Yatron, G., chairman, U.S. Congress, HouseCommittee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommitteeon Human Rights and International Organiza-tions, letter to M. Peter McPherson, adminis-trator, Agency for International Development,lan. 29. 1986.

Appendixes

Appendix A

Glossary of Acronyms

AAZPA —American Association of ZoologicalParks and Aquariums

AID —U.S. Agency for International Devel-opment

AIDS —acquired immune deficiency syndromeAMBC —American Minor Breeds ConservancyAPHIS —Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (USDA)ARS –Agricultural Research Service (USDA)ATCC —American Type Culture CollectionBGCCB —Botanical Gardens Conservation Co-

ordinating BodyCACS –Crop Advisory Committees (USDA]CAMCORE—The Central America and Mexico

CAST

CDCsCDSS

CEQCGIAR

CIAT

CIDIE

CIMMYT

CIP

CITES

CMC

CPCCRGO

CSRS

DNADOEECG

ELISAEPAESF

Coniferous Resources Cooperative—Council for Agricultural Science and

Technology–Conservation Data Centers (TNCI)—Country Development Strategy

Statements—Council for Environmental Quality—Consultative Group on International

Agricultural Research—Centro International de Agricultural

Tropical (CGIAR, Colombia)—Committee of International Develop-

ment Institutions on the Environment—Centro International de Mejoramiento

de Maiz y Trigo (CGIAR, Mexico)—Centro International de la Papa

(CGIAR, Peru)—Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Floraand Fauna

—Conservation Monitoring Center(IUCN)

—Center for Plant Conservation—Competitive Research Grants Office

(USDA)—Cooperative State Research Service

(USDA)–deoxyribonucleic acid—U.S. Department of Energy–Ecosystem Conservation Group (FAO,

UNEP, UNESCO, and IUCN)—enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–Economic Support Funds (AID)

FAA —Foreign Assistance ActFAO —Food and Agriculture Organisation

(UN.)FNR —Forestry, Natural Resources, and the

Environment Office (AID)FWS —Fish and Wildlife Service (Depart-

ment of the Interior)FWS/ESO —Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered

GAO

GEMS

GISGRID

GRIN

HPLC

IARCs

IBPGR

ICBP

IITA

IMSIPPC

IRDP

IRRI

ISISIUCN

IUPOV

MAB

MARCMDBs

Species Office (Department of the In-terior)

–General Accounting Office (U.S.Congress)

–Global Environment Monitoring Sys-tem (UNEP)

—Geographic Information Systems—Global Resources Information Data-

base (GEMS, UNEP)—Germplasm Resources Information

Network (NPGS,USDA)—high-performance liquid chroma-

tography—International Agricultural Research

Centers—International Board for Plant Genetic

Resources—International Council for Bird Pres-

ervation—International Institute of Tropical

Agriculture (CGIAR, Nigeria)—Institute of Museum Services—International Plant Protection Con-

vention—Integrated Regional Development

Planning (OAS)—International Rice Research Institute

(CGIAR, Philippines)—International Species Inventory System—International Union for the Conser-

vation of Nature and Natural Resources—International Union for the Protec-

tion of New Varieties of Plants—Man in the Biosphere Program

(UNESCO)–Meat Animal Research Center [USDA]—Multilateral Development Banks

MI RCENS —Microbiological Resource CentersNAS —National Academy of SciencesNCS —National Conservation Strategy

311

312 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

NGONMFS

NMRNOAA

NPGS

NPS

NRRL

NSFNSSL

OASOECD

OTA

PASA

PBRPDPNV

—nongovernmental organization—National Marine Fisheries Service

(Department of Commerce)—nuclear magnetic resonance—National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (Department ofCommerce)

—National Plant Germplasm System(USDA)

—National Park Service (Department ofthe Interior)

—Northern Regional Research Labora-tory (USDA)

—National Science Foundation—National Seed Storage Laboratory

(NPGS, USDA)—Organization of American States—Organisation for Economic Cooper-

ation and Development—Office of Technology Assessment

(U.S. Congress)—Participating Agency Service

Agreement—plant breeders’ rights–Policy Determination (USAID)—potential natural vegetation

PVPAR&DRFLP

RNARNARPIS

RSSASAFSCMU

SCSSMCRA

SSPSTNCTNCIUNUNEP

UNESCO

USDAW c s

—Plant Variety Protection Act—Research and Development—restriction fragment length polymor-

phisms—Research Natural Area—ribonucleic acid—Regional Plant Introduction Station

(USDA)—Resource Services Support Agreements—Society of American Foresters—Species Conservation Monitoring Unit

(IUCN)–Soil Conservation Service (USDA)—Surface Mining Control and Recla-

mation Act–Species Survival Plans (AAZPA)—The Nature Conservancy—The Nature Conservancy International—United Nations—United Nations Environment

Programme—United Nations Educational, Scien-

tific, and Cultural Organization—U.S. Department of Agriculture—World Conservation Strategy

Appendix B

Glossary of Terms

Artificial insemination: A breeding technique,commonly used in domestic animals, in whichsemen is introduced into the female reproduc-tive tract by artificial means.

Biochemical analysis: The analysis of proteins orDNA using various techniques, including elec-trophoretic testing and restriction fragment lengthpolymorphism (RFLP) analysis. These techniquesare useful methods for assessing plant diversityand have also been used to identify many strainsof micro-organisms.

Biogeography: A branch of geography that dealswith the geographical distribution of animals andplants.

Biological diversity: The variety and variabilityamong living organisms and the ecological com-plexes in which they occur.

Biologically unique species: A species that is theonly representative of an entire genus or family,

Biosphere reserves: Established under UNESCO’sMan in the Biosphere (MAB) Program, biospherereserves are a series of protected areas linkedthrough a global network, intended to demon-strate the relationship between conservation anddevelopment,

Biota: The living organisms of a region.Biotechnology: Techniques that use living organ-

isms or substances from organisms to make ormodify a product, The most recent advances inbiotechnology involve the use of recombinantDNA techniques and other sophisticated tools toharness and manipulate genetic materials.

Breed: A group of animals or plants related by de-scent from common ancestors and visibly simi-lar in most characteristics. Taxonomically, a spe-cies can have numerous breeds.

Breeding line: Genetic lines of particular signifi-cance to plant or animal breeders that providethe basis for modern varieties,

Buffer zones: Areas on the edge of protected areasthat have land use controls and allow only activ-ities compatible with protection of the core area,such as research, environmental education, rec-reation, and tourism.

Captive breeding: The propagation or preservationof animals outside their natural habitat, involv-ing control by humans of the animals chosen toconstitute a population and of mating choiceswithin that population.

Centers of diversity: The regions where most ofthe major crop species were originally domesti-cated and developed. These regions may coin-cide with centers of origin.

Chromatography: A chemical analysis techniquewhereby an extract of compounds is separatedby allowing it to migrate over or through anadsorbent (such as clay or paper) so that the com-pounds are distinguished as separate layers.

Clonal propagation: The multiplication of an organ-ism by asexual means such that all progeny aregenetically identical. In plants, it is commonlyachieved through use of cuttings or in vitro cul-ture. For animals, embryo splitting is a methodof clonal propagation.

Community: A group of ecologically related popu-lations of various species of organisms occurringin a particular place and time.

Critical habitats: A technical classification of areasin the United States that refers to habitats essen-tial for the conservation of endangered or threat-ened species. The term may be used to designateportions of habitat areas, the entire area, or evenareas outside the current range of the species.

Cryogenic storage: The preservation of seeds, se-men, embryos, or micro-organisms at extremelylow temperatures, below – 130

0 C. At these tem-peratures, water is absent, molecular kineticenergy is low, diffusion is virtually nil, and stor-age potential is expected to be extremely long.

Cryopreservation: See cryogenic storage.Cultivar: International term denoting certain cul-

tivated plants that are clearly distinguishablefrom others by one or more characteristics andthat when reproduced retain their distinguish-ing characteristics, In the United States, “vari-ety” is considered to be synonymous with culti-var (derived from “cultivated variety”).

Cutting: A plant piece (stem, leaf, or root) removedfrom a parent plant that is capable of developinginto a new plant.

Cycad: Any of an order of gymnosperm of the fam-ily cycadaceae. Cycads are tropical plants thatresemble palms but reproduce by means of sper-matozoids.

Database: An organized collection of data that canbe used for analysis.

DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid. The nucleic acid inchromosomes that codes for genetic information.

313

314 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

The molecule is double stranded, with an exter-nal “backbone” formed by a chain of alternatingphosphate and sugar (deoxyribose) units and aninternal ladder-like structure formed by nucleo-tide base-pairs held together by hydrogen bonds.

Domestication: The adaptation of an animal orplant to life in intimate association with and tothe advantage of man.

Ecology: A branch of science concerned with theinterrelationship of organisms and their envi-ronment.

Ecosystem: An ecological community together withits physical environment, considered as a unit.

Ecosystem diversity: The variety of ecosystems thatoccurs within a larger landscape, ranging frombiome (the largest ecological unit) to microhabitat.

Electrophoresis: Application of an electric field toa mixture of charged particles in a solution forthe purpose of separating (e. g., mixture of pro-teins) as they migrate through a porous support-ing medium of filter paper, cellulose acetate, orgel.

Embryo transfer: An animal breeding techniquein which viable and healthy embryos are artifi-cially transferred to recipient animals for nor-mal gestation and delivery.

Endangered species: A technical definition usedfor classification in the United States referringto a species that is in danger of extinction through-out all or a significant portion of its range. TheInternational Union for the Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources (IUCN) definition,used outside the United States, defines speciesas endangered if the factors causing their vul-nerability or decline continue to operate.

Endemism: The occurrence of a species in a par-ticular locality or region.

Equilibrium theory: A theory of island biogeogra-phy maintaining that greater numbers of speciesare found on larger islands because the popula-tions on smaller islands are more vulnerable toextinction. This theory can also be applied to ter-restrial analogs such as forest patches in agricul-tural or suburban areas or nature reserves whereit has become known as “insular ecology. ”

Exotic species: An organism that exists in the freestate in an area but is not native to that area. Alsorefers to animals from outside the country inwhich they are held in captive or free-rangingpopulations.

Ex-situ: Pertaining to study or maintenance of anorganism or groups of organisms away from theplace where they naturally occur. Commonly

associated with collections of plants and animalsin storage facilities, botanic gardens, or zoos.

Extinct species: As defined by the IUCN, extincttaxa are species or other taxa that are no longerknown to exist in the wild after repeated searchof their type of locality and other locations wherethey were known or likely to have occurred.

Extinction: Disappearance of a taxonomic groupof organisms from existence in all regions.

Fauna: Organisms of the animal kingdom.Feral: A domesticated species that has adapted to

existence in the wild state but remains distinctfrom other wild species. Examples are the wildhorses and burros of the West and the wild goatsand pigs of Hawaii.

Flora: Organisms of the plant kingdom.Gamete: The sperm or unfertilized egg of animals

that transmit the parental genetic information tooffspring. In plants, functionally equivalent struc-tures are found in pollen and ovules.

Gene: A chemical unit of hereditary informationthat can be passed from one generation to another.

Gene-pool: The collection of genes in an interbreed-ing population.

Genetic diversity: The variety of genes within a par-ticular species, variety, or breed.

Genetic drift: A cumulative process involving thechance loss of some genes and the disproportion-ate replication of others over successive genera-tions in a small population, so that the frequen-cies of genes in the population is altered. Theprocess can lead to a population that differs ge-netically and in appearance from the originalpopulation.

Genotype: The genetic constitution of an organism,as distinguished from its physical appearance.

Genus: A category of biological classification rank-ing between the family and the species, compris-ing structurally or phylogenetically related spe-cies or an isolated species exhibiting unusualdifferentiation.

Germplasm: Imprecise term generally used to re-fer to the genetic information of an organism orgroup of organisms.

Grow-out (growing-out): The process of growinga plant for the purpose of producing fresh viableseed to evaluate its varietal characteristics.

Habitat: The place or type of site where an organ-ism naturally occurs.

Hybrid: An offspring of a cross between two ge-netically unlike individuals,

Inbreeding: Mating of close relatives resulting inincreased genetic uniformity in the offspring.

App. B—Glossary of Terms 315— .

In-situ: Maintenance or study of organisms withinan organism’s native environment.

In-situ gene banks: Protected areas designated spe-cifically to protect genetic variability of particu-lar species.

Interspecies: Between different species.Intrinsic value: The value of creatures and plants

independent of human recognition and estima-tion of their worth,

Inventory: onsite collection of data on natural re-sources and their properties.

In vitro: (Literally “in glass”). The growing of cells,tissues, or organs in plastic vessels under sterileconditions on an artificially prepared medium.

Isoenzyme (Isozyne): The protein product of an in-dividual gene and one of a group of such prod-ucts with differing chemical structures but simi-lar enzymatic function.

Landrace: Primitive or antique varieties usuallyassociated with traditional agriculture. Oftenhighly adapted to local conditions.

Living collections: A management system involv-ing the use of off site methods such as zoologicalparks, botanic gardens, arboretums, and captivebreeding programs to protect and maintain bio-logical diversity in plants, animals, and micro-organisms.

Micro-organisms: In practice, a diverse classifica-tion of all those organisms not classed as plantsor animals, usually minute microscopic or sub-microscopic and found in nearly all environ-ments, Examples are bacteria, cyanobacteria(blue-green algae), mycoplasma, protozoa, fungi(including yeasts), and viruses.

Minor breed: A livestock breed not generally foundin commercial production.

Modeling: The use of mathematical and computer-based simulations as a planning technique in thedevelopment of protected areas.

Morphology: A branch of biology that deals withform and structure of organisms.

Multiple use: An onsite management strategy thatencourages an optimum mix of several uses ona parcel of land or water or by creating a mosaicof land or water parcels, each with a designateduse within a larger geographic area.

Native: A plant or animal indigenous to a particu-lar locality.

Offsite: Propagation and preservation of plant, ani-mal, and micro-organism species outside theirnatural habitat.

Onsite: Preservation of species in their natural envi-ronment.

Open-pollinated: Plants that are pollinated by phys-ical or biological agents (e.g., wind, insects) andwithout human intervention or control.

Orthodox seeds: Seeds that are able to withstandthe reductions in moisture and temperature nec-essary for long-term storage and remain viable.

Pathogen: A specific causative agent of disease.Phenotype: The observable appearance of an organ-

ism, as determined by environmental and geneticinfluences (in contrast to genotype).

Phytochemical: Chemicals found naturally inplants.

Population: A group consisting of individuals ofone species that are found in a distinct portionof the species range and that interbreed withsome regularity and therefore have a commonset of genetic characteristics.

Predator: An animal that obtains its food primar-ily by killing and consuming other animals.

Protected areas: Areas usually established by offi-cial acts designating that the uses of these par-ticular sites will be restricted to those compati-ble with natural ecological conditions, in orderto conserve ecosystem diversity and to protectand study species or areas of special cultural orbiological significance.

Provinciality effect: Increased diversity of speciesbecause of geographical isolation.

Recalcitrant seeds: Seeds that cannot survive thereductions in moisture content or lowering oftemperature necessary for long-term storage.

Recombinant DNA technology: Techniques involv-ing modifications of an organism by incorpora-tion of DNA fragments from other organismsusing molecular biology techniques.

Restoration: The re-creation of entire communitiesof organisms closely modeled on communitiesthat occur naturally. It is closely linked to recla-mation.

Riparian: Related to, living, or located on the bankof a natural watercourse, usually a river, some-times a lake or tidewater.

Serological testing: Immunologic testing of bloodserum for the presence of infectious foreign dis-ease agents.

Somaclonal variations: Structural, physiological,or biochemical changes in a tissue, organ, orplant that arise during the process of in vitroculture.

Species: A taxonomic category ranking immedi-ately below genus and including closely related,morphologically similar individuals that actuallyor potentially interbreed.

316 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Species diversity: The number and variety of spe-cies found in a given area in a region.

Species richness: Areas with many species, espe-cially the equatorial regions.

Spectroscopy: Any of several methods of chemicalanalysis that identify or classify compoundsbased on examination of their spectral properties.

Stochastic: Models, processes, or procedures thatare based on elements of chance or probability.

Subspecies: A distinct form or race of a species.Taxon: A taxonomic group or entity (pi. taxa).Taxonomy: A hierarchical system of classification

of organisms that reflects the totality of similari-ties and differences.

Threatened species: A U.S. technical classificationreferring to a species that is likely to become en-dangered within the foreseeable future, through-

out all or a significant portion of its range. Thesespecies are defined as vulnerable taxa outside theUnited States by the IUCN.

Tissue culture: A technique in which portions ofa plant or animal are grown on an artificial cul-ture medium in an organized (e.g., as plantlets)or unorganized (e. g., as callus) state. (See also invitro culture.)

Variety: See cultivar.Wild relative: Plant species that are taxonomically

related to crop species and serve as potentialsources for genes in breeding of new varietiesof those crops.

Wild species: Organisms captive or living in thewild that have not been subject to breeding toalter them from their native state.

Wildlife: Living, nondomesticated animals.

Appendix C

Participants of Technical Workgroup

Five technical workgroups comprised of preeminent biological, physical, and social scientists fromthe public and private sectors provided input and reviewed much of the technical information for thisstudy. OTA greatly appreciates the time and effort of each member of these workgroups.

Gardner M. Brown, Jr. Margery L. OldfieldDepartment of Economics Department of ZoologyUniversity of Washington University of TexasSeattle, WA Austin, TX

Holmes Rolston, 111Malcolm McPherson Department of PhilosophyHarvard Institute for International Development Colorado State UniversityCambridge, MA Fort Collins, CO

Robert HannemanDepartment of HorticultureUniversity of WisconsinMadison, WI

Thomas OrtonDNA Plant Technology Corp.Watsonville, CA

Robert StevensonAmerican Type Culture CollectionRockville, MD

Jack KloppenburgDepartment of Rural SociologyUniversity of WisconsinMadison, WI

Jake HallidayBattelle-Kettering Research LabYellow Springs, OH

Gary NabhanDesert Botanical GardenPhoenix, AZ

Betsy DresserDirector of ResearchCincinnati Wildlife Research FederationCincinnati, OH

Keith GregoryUSDA/ARSU.S. Meat Animal Research CenterClay Center, NE

David NetterDepartment of Animal ScienceVirginia Polytechnic InstituteBlacksburg, VA

Warren FooteInternational Sheep and Goat InstituteUtah State UniversityLogan, UT

Ulysses SealVA Medical CenterMinneapolis, MN

Dale SchwindamanUSDA/APHISVeterinary ServicesHyattsville, MD

377

318 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Robert Jenkins Hal SalwasserThe Nature Conservancy US Forest ServiceArIington, VA Washington, DC

Bruce Jones Dan TarIockUSDI/FWS Chicago Kent College of LawOffice of Endangered Species Chicago, ILArlington, VA Nancy FosterOrie Loucks NOAA/Marine SanctuariesHolcomb Research Institute Washington, DCButler UniversityIndianapolis, IN

N A T U R A L

Raymond Dasmann

ECOSYSTEMS- INTERNATIONAL

Kathy ParkerDepartment of Environmental Studies Office of Technology AssessmentUniversity of California Washington, DCSanta Cruz, CA Daniel SimberloffBarbara Lausche Department of ZoologyWorld Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation Florida State UniversityWashington, DC Tallahassee, FL

Gene NamkoongDepartment of GeneticsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, NC

——.——

Appendix D

Grassroots Workshop Participants

George FellNatural Lands InstituteRockford, IL

Elizabeth HensonAmerican Minor Breeds ConservancyPittsboro, NC

Hans NeuhauserThe Georgia Conservancy, Inc.Savannah, GA

Edward SchmittBrookfield ZooBrookfield, IL

Jonathan A. ShawBok Tower GardensLake Wales, FL

Kent WheallySeed Savers ExchangeDecorah, IA

319

Appendix E

Commissioned Papers and Authors

This report was possible because of the valuable information and analyses contained in the backgroundreports commissioned by OTA. These papers were reviewed and critiqued by the advisory panel, work-groups, and outside reviewers. The papers are available in a separate six-part volume through the NationalTechnical Information Service, l

VALUES

Papers Author(s)

An Economic Perspective of the Valuation of Alan RandallBiological Diversity University of Kentucky

Values and Biological Diversity

An Ecological Perspective on the Valuation ofBiological Diversity

Impact of Changing Technologies on theValuation of Genetic Resources (Ist draft only)

Critical Assessment of the Value of andConcern for the Maintenance of BiologicalDiversity

Bryan G, NortonNew College of the University of South Florida

Gordon Orians and William KuninUniversity of WashingtonLawrence A. RiggsGenrecMalcolm F. McPhersonHarvard Institute for International Development

Status and Trends of Wild Plants

Status and Trends of Agricultural Crop Species

Diversity and Distribution of Wild Plants

New Technologies and the Enhancement ofPlant Germ Plasm Diversity

Plant Germplasm Storage Technologies

Technologies To Evaluate and CharacterizePlant Germplasm

Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices

Assessment of Market Institutional FactorsAffecting the Plant Breeding System

Historical Analysis of Genetic ResourcesValuation

Technologies To Maintain Microbial Diversity

Hugh SyngeConservation Monitoring Center

Christine Prescott-AllenPADATA, Inc.

Marshall Crosby and Peter H. RavenMissouri Botanical Garden

Tom J. OrtonDNA Plant Technology Corp.

Leigh Towill, Eric E, Roos,and Phillip C. Stanwood

National Seed Storage Laboratory

Norm F. Weeden and David A. YoungCornell UniversityRobert P. KahnUSDA-APHIS-PPQ

Frederick A. BlissUniversity of WisconsinJean Pierre Ber]an-University Daix MarsailleRichard Lowentin-Harvard University

Jake Halliday and Dwight D. BakerBattelle-Kettering

IThe National Technical information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., ATTN: Sales Department, Springfield VA 22161 (703) 487-4650.

320

App. E—Commissioned Papers and Authors . 321

Status and Trends of Wild Animal Diversity

Status and Trends of Domesticated Animals

Technologies To Maintain Animal Germplasm(draft form)

Concepts and Strategies To Maintain Domesticand Wild Animal Germplasm

Management of Animal Disease Agents andVectors Potentially Hazardous for AnimalGermplasm Resources

Constraints to International Exchange ofAnimal Germplasm

Nate FlesnessISIS—Minnesota ZooHank A. Fitzhugh, WiIl Getz, and F.H. BakerWinrock InternationalBetsy Dresser—Cincinatti Wildlife FederationStan Liebo—Real Vista InternationalDavid R. Notter—Virginia Polytechnic InstituteThorn J. Foose—Minneapolis ZooWerner P. HeuscheleSan Diego Zoo

William M. MoultonConsultant

Status and Trends of U.S. Natural Ecosystems

Geographic Information Systems As A Tool ToAssist in the Preservation of BiologicalDiversity

Planning and Management Techniques forNTatural Systems

A Science of Refuge Design and Management

Assessment of Application of Species ViabilityTheories

Diversity of Marine/Coastal Ecosystems

Federal Laws and Policies Pertaining to theMaintenance of Biological Diversity onFederal and Private Lands

Mandates to Federal Agencies To ConductBiological Inventories

Ecological Restoration As A Strategy forConserving Biological Diversity

David CrumpackerUniversity of ColoradoDuane MarbleSUNY–Buffalo

Herman H. ShugartUniversity of VirginiaDaniel SimberloffFlorida State UniversityMark L. ShafferU.S. Agency for International Development

Maurice P. Lynch and Carleton RayCoastal Environment Associates, Inc,Michael BeanEnvironmental Defense Fund

Lynn CornCongressional Research ServiceBill Jordan—University of Wisconsin ArboretumEdith Allen—Utah State UniversityRob Peters—WWF/Conservation Foundation

Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems Jeremy HarrisonWorldwide Conservation Monitoring Center

International Inventory and Monitoring for the N, Mark CollinsMaintenance of Biological Diversity Conservation Monitoring Center

The Role of protected Areas in Maintaining James W. ThorsellBiological Diversity in Tropical Developing IUCNCountries

322 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Role of Traditional Agriculture in PreservingBiological Diversity

Compatibility of Development and the In-SituMaintenance of Biological Diversity inDeveloping Countries

The Role of Development Assistance inMaintaining Biological Diversity In-Situ inDeveloping Countries

Socioeconomic Considerations for the In-SituMaintenance of Biological Diversity inDeveloping Countries

Conservation of Biological Diversity by In-Situand Ex-Situ Methods

International Institutional/Legal Frameworks forEx-Situ Conservation of Biological Diversity

International Laws and Associated Programsfor In-Situ Conservation of Wild Species

International Laws and Associated Programsfor Conservation of Biological Diversity—Joint Options for Congress

Living Collections (Plants and Animals)

Technologies to Maintain Tree GermplasmDiversity

Causes of Loss of Biological Diversity

Gene WilkenColorado State University

Richard Saunier and Richard MeganckOrganization of American States

Bruce Rich and Stephen SchwartzmanEnvironmental Defense Fund

Terry RamboEast-West Center

Gene NamkoongNorth Carolina State University

John BartonInternational Technology DevelopmentBarbara LauscheWorld Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation

Barton/Lausche

Grenville Lucas and S. OldfieldKew GardensFrank T. BonnerUS Forest Service

Norman MyersConsultant

GRASSROOTS

Role of Grassroots Activities in the Maintenanceof Biological Diversity: Living Plants Collectionof North American Genetic Resources

Report on Grass Roots Genetic ConservationEfforts

An Assessment of the Conservation of AnimalGenetic Diversity at the Grassroots level

Grassroots Groups Concerned with In-SituPreservation of Biological Diversity in the U.S.

Gary Nabhan and Kevin DahlNative Seeds Search

Cary FowlerRural Advancement Fund

Elizabeth HensonAmerican Minor Breeds Conservancy

Elliott A. NorseEcological Society of America

Index

Index

Action Plan on Conservin,g Biological Diversity’ inDeveloping Countries, 29, 290-291

Africa, 2.5, 125, 302agricultural development in, 122biological diversity in, 39, 41, 49diversity loss in, 75, 79NGOs in, 14threatened species in, 75

African Development Bank, 294Agency for International Development, U.S. (AID],

27, 243-244Action Plan on Conserving Biological Diversity in

Developing Countries, 29, 290-291Biden-Pell grants’ use by, 15biological diversity funding for, 27, 28-29, 31-32breed resource assessment by, 160Bureau of Program and Policy Coordination, 29,

292Bureau of Science and Technology, 29, 293development assistance and, 289-294, 297, 298, 302,

304, 290environmental expertise in, 29-31, 293-294natural resource assessments development by, 300Office of Forestry, Natural Resources, and the En-

vironment of, 292preservation approach to conservation and, 122,

129resource degradation observations by, 67-68

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 222, 233Agricultural Research Service (ARS), 222, 233, 235,

242budget of, 238funding by, 16, 195, 196, 236germplasm conservation by, 19interpretation of Research and Marketing Act by,

10-11Plant Protection and Quarantine facilities of, 177

Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Actof 1954, proposed amending of, 31-32

Agriculturebreeding, 52-53, 138-139, 144, 149-156, 229, 156diversity loss caused by, 5, 66, 75-77, 78-79, 82-83,

94diversity loss’ effect on, 4, 67, 76-78, 94diversity maintenance’s value to, 4, 37, 47-48, 49-53economics of biological diversity to, 49-50, 76genetic diversity for, 121-122, 159-161, 305micro-organisms’ use in, 206offsite maintenance progams for, 169-171, 186,

232-241, 174preservation approach to conservation in, 123research for, 187, 192-195, 196, 305

agroecosystems, 67, 79maintaining, 90, 94

Alaska, 46, 47Amboseli game reserve (Kenya), 297American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquar-

iums (AAZPA], 241, 274

American Minor Breeds Conservanc\r (Ahl13C), 143,239

American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), 210, 211,

244

Angola, 80Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (A PHI S),

146, 147, 161, 196, 244-245Antarctica, 117, 172Arctic, 46, 50Argentina

personnel training in, 302seed storage in, 172

Arizona, 46agricultural diversity in, 122diversity loss in, 66, 67protected area in, 115

Army Corps of Engineers, U. S., 232wetlands value estimate by, 5, 40-41

Arnold Arboretum (Harvard University), 173, 184,237

artificial insemination (A. I.), 152organizations, 240

Asia, 25, 47, 80agricultural breeding in, 53, 160domestic animal monitoring in, 143quarantine facilities in, 147

Asian Development Bank, 24development assistance funding by, 294-295

Assessing Biological Diversiy in the United States:Data Considerations, 127

Association Latinoamericana de Production Animal(Venezuela), 143, 301

Audubon Society, 119Australia, 74, 125azonal ecosystems, 103, 111

Bangladesh, 74Battelle-Kettering Laboratory (Ohio), 209, 244Belgium, 303Biden-Pell matching grants, 15biological resources, components of diveristy in, 38biosphere reserves, cluster concept for, 225-226, 118biotechnology, 4

in developing countries, 305micro-organisms’ use in, 209, 206plant improvement through, 191-194, 196seed collection and, 185-187

Birmingham, University of (UK], 303Black Mesa (Arizona), 46Bolivia, 301Bonn Convention, 256Borlaug, Norman, 292Botanical Gardens Conservation Coordinating 130dy

(BGCCB), 173, 273Botanic Garden Conservation Strategy, 273Botswana, 50, 51, 54Brazil

conservation education in, 297N()’[’}1 f)dge numtwrs dpi)f,drl IIH I n Ifall[ \ arc r(~frrri n~ to i nformdt it)]) mcnt ](Irl(Yl ]11 thf, boke~

325

326 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

deforestation in, 75, 106management technology in, 94threatened species list in, 71

breedingfunding technologies for, 158, 159, 160-162, 235,

236programs for animal diversity, 52-53, 138-139, 144,

149-156, 229, 156programs for plants, 191-194, 235, 236, 192species criteria for, 241

breeds, report’s definition of, 139Brookfield Zoo (Chicago), 129Budapest Treaty, 262Bureau of Land Management, U.S. (BLM)

onsite maintenance and, 115, 117-118, 128, 227onsite restoration by, 231Resource Management Plan of, 114

Bureau of Program and Policy Coordination, 29, 292Bureau of Science and Technology, 293Burma, 47

California, 47agricultural breeding in, 53biological diversity in, 49, 50diversity loss in, 66, 67threatened species in, 70

California at Davis, University of, 45, 175, 236California Desert Conservation Area, 117-118California Gene Resources Conservation Program,

236California, University of, 44Canada, 12, 47

diversity loss in, 5, 81diversity management strategy in, 117onsite management plans in, 115

Carolina Bird Club, 231Cary Arboretum (New York), 232Center for Environmental Education, 14Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), 173, 184

data collection by, 238NSSI. and, 19offsite maintenance by, 196wild plant maintenance by, 237-238

Center for Restoration Ecology (Wisconsin), 232Central African Republic, 80Central America, 25Central America and Mexico Coniferous Resources

Cooperative (CAMCORE), 175, 184Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigaciones y En-

senanza (Costa Rica), 122, 297, 302Centro International de Mejoramiento de Ma{z y

Trigo (CIMMYT), 122Centro International de la Papa (CIP), 184, 186, 187,

188Chad, 80Charles River (Massachusetts), 5, 40-41Chesapeake Bay, 64, 71Chile, 71China, 125

diversity loss in, 63-64, 156

College of African Wildlife Management (Tanzania),302

Colombia, 75conservation education in, 297plant collection in, 186

Colorado, 46Commission on Ecology, 122-23Committee on International Development Institutions

on the Environment (CIDIE), 24, 295, 296Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, 25, 26Competitive Research Grants Office (CRGO), 17, 195,

196Connecticut, University of, 240Conservation Biology, 129Conservation Data Centers (CDCS)

for developing countries, 299development assistance projects by, 293

Conservation Monitoring Center (CMC), 112, 268-69,273

data collection by, 124, 125, 127, 293Conservation Needs Inventory, 66Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research (CGIAR), 270Consumers’ Association of Penang (Malaysia), 298Convention Concerning the Protection of the World

Cultural and Natural Heritage, 255, 266-68Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species

of Wild Animals, 256Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES], 22,23, 255, 296, 286

Convention on the Law of the Sea, 256Convention on Wetlands of International Importance

Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 255conventions

global, 255-56, 258regional, 256, 258

Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS), 233, 235Costa Rica

conservation education in, 297ecosystem restoration in, 120

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology,144-45

Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), 12Coweeta Hydrological Station, 118crop advisory committees (CACs), 195, 235-36cryogenic storage

for animal diversity maintenance, 139-42, 144-45,148-49, 158-59, 274

of micro-organisms, 210-11for plant collections, 171-73, 182-84, 187, 194-95

of seeds, 169, 171-72, 172-73cryopreservation. See cryogenic storage

data collectionbiogeographic systems of, 103, 104, 111for breed assessment, 160coordinating, 15, 20-22, 95-96, 126-127for diversity maintenance, 124, 268-269, 298-299enhancing, 19-22, 95-96

forforforforforforfor

—

microbial diversity, 212-213onsite maintenance programs, 115, 123-127, 130plant collecting, 175plant storage technologies, 180, 189-190policy formation, 95-96population models, 108-109reproductive biology, 158-159

socioeconomic, 127on threatened species, 68-75, 77-78, 83for wild plant species, 237-238

Declaration on the Human Environment, 2,57deforest at ion

causes of, 8 1of developing countries, 3-5, 27-28, 67, 73-75, 80,

106diversity loss caused by, 73-74historically, 63-64

Department of Agriculture, [J, S. (USDA), 294, 299Agricultural Research Servrice, 10-11, 16, 19, 177,

195, 196, 210, 222, 233, 236, 238, 242Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of,

146, 147, 161, 196, 244-245bilateral programs and, 305breed resource assessment by, 160Competitive Research Grants Office, 17, 195, 196development assistance and, 303funding plant storage technology by, 194-195germplasm maintenance by, 239germp]asm quarantine and, 146, 147germp]asm transfer and, 146, 147, 161, 162microbial research by, 239National Plant Germplasm System, 8onsite restoration by, 232plant diversity maintenance by, 191, 232, 233plant importation and, 177, 196RSSA between AID and, 30Soil Conservation Service of, 121, 231, 237

Department of Commerce, 111Department of Education, U. S., 14Department of Energy, U.S. (DOE), 213, 118Department of the Interior, 30, 294Desert Fishes Council, 231desertification, 69developing countries, 12

agricultural breeding in, 53biotechnology’s use in, 305data collection for biological diversity in, 298-299deforestation in, 3-5, 27-28, 67, 73-75, 80, 81, 306diversity loss in, 27-32, 285economic benefits of wild species in, 303-305genetic resources of, 260-262, 305MDBs and, 294-296onsite technology for, 129preservation approach to conservation in, 122promotion of biological diversity projects in,

296-305protected areas in, 109U.S. state in maintaining biological diversity in,

2 8 6

Index ● 3 2 7

developmentagricultural, 121-122conservation as, 122-123, 264effect of, on diversity maintenance systems, 78-7{],

102insular ecology and, 106

development assistance, 31-32diversitl maintenance and, 287-289funding, 291-293, 294-296, 298, 302genetic conservation and, 78multilateral development banks and, 294-296reports of constraints on, 69

diversity loss, 67biological concepts involving, 65causes of, 3-5, 63-64, 71, 73-74, 75-82, 127through crossbreeding, 162in domestic animals, 240-241extent of, 3-5, 82-83historically, 63-64, 66, 68, 75

diversity maintenance, 273-275breed replacement for, 139conserving, 8-22, 221-246, 253-278esthetic and ethical Values of, 37, 46-49, 54federal mandates affecting, 222-224funding, 29, 31-32improvements needed for, 245-246, 275-278integration of economic development and, 287-289international initiatives for, 22-26interventions encouraging, 6-8, 89-96linkages of management systerns for, 8-13, 18-19,

30-32, 92-96

management systems for, 6-8, 89-96micro-organism, 205-213patent law and, 260-262, 261personnel training for, 302-303private sector’s contribution to, 16, 17, 30-31, 227,

228, 230-232, 236-238, 239-240, 245program coordination for, 8-13, 18-19, 30-32, 89,

92-96, 115, 120, 278promoting planning and management for, 300-302public support for, 13, 54-55, 230, 241, 296-298value of maintaining, 4-5, 37-54for wild plants, 237-238

Dominican Republic, 79

Earthwatch, 268East Germany, 113, 156Ecole de Fauna [Cameroon), 302economics

of biological diversity, 4-5, 8, 39-41, 48, 49, 50,53-54

data on, 127of diversity loss, 76, 80, 81-82of diversity maintenance systems, 4-5, 102, 105,

111, 114of diversity management systems, 7, 89-90, 90-91,

92of ecosystem restoration, 120, 121of microbial diversity, 208, 210, 211, 212, 244

N()”l’li Page numbers a p p e a r i n g In ]t,il]( s ,ir(, referrl ng tI) I nf(]rnl~tlon n)ent]oned In th(> I)(]\[>\

328 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

of offsite animal maintenance, 144of offsite plant collection technologies, 172-173, 195of offsite seed storage technologies, 183, 195of onsite maintenance programs, 229, 232of preservation conservation, 123of U.S. development assistance, 288, 291-292of worldwide network of protected areas, 111

ecosystemapproach for protected areas, 111-112azonal, 103, 111benefits from, diversity, 37, 38, 39-41, 43-44, 46,

48-49, 49-50, 53-54diversity loss, 64-65diversity maintenance, 3, 19, 224-228onsite, maintenance, 89-90restoration, 119-121scales of, diversity, 39status of, diversity, 66-68

Ecosystem Conservation Group (ECG), 269Ecuador, 296edge effect, 107embryo transfer, 7, 15, 94, 152-155, 153Endangered Species Act of 1973, 11, 228-229, 286,

302coordinating onsite maintenance under, 10, 11, 112,

222proposed amending of, 18-19threatened species definition of, 7’o

Endangered Species Office (ESO), 68, 115, 228-229Endangered Species Program, 11, 246

funding for, 18habitat protection and, 228-229

endemism, 104, 112, 299England, See United KingdomEnvironmental Education Act of 1974, 14Environmental Law Center, 268Environmental Liaison Center (Kenya), 298Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 71

microbial research by, 213onsite restoration by, 232

enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (E LISA), 146-147Ethiopia, 25, 80, 301Europe, 151

breed resource categorization in, 160captive breeding in, 156diversity loss in, 79threatened species lists in, 70

Export Administration Act, proposed amending of,26

Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves, 226Federal Register, 228, 229Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List, 68,

115Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. (FWS), 68, 228-229,

241, 294, 299, 303data collection by, 125, 126diversity management strategy of, 116ecosystem diversity protection by, 227Endangered Species Office, 68, 115, 228-229

Endangered Species Program of, 11, 18endangered species protection and, 228-229, 230Foreign Service Currency Program and, 293, 302Habitat Evaluation Procedure of, 114National Fish Hatchery of, 241onsite maintenance technology and, 128onsite restoration by, 232RSSA between AID and, 30species documentation by, 68wetlands inventories by, 66

Florida, 50, 119-120, 129Florida, University of, 129, 303Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 25, 67-68,

124, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263, 264, 269, 274, 278breed resource assessment by, 160data collection by, 299development assistance and, 303domestic animal breed monitoring by, 143

Food for Peace Program, 31-32Food Security Act of 1985, 232Ford Foundation, 270Foreign Assistance Act of 1983 (FAA), 27, 222, 289

amendment to, 287, 289, 291, 292, 290proposed restructuring of, 28

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources ResearchAct, 232

Forest Service, U. S., 117, 222, 302database integration and, 125development assistance and, 303diversity management strategy by, 117, 118ecosystem diversity protection by, 227germplasm maintenance by, 237onsite maintenance technology and, 115, 128onsite restoration by, 231Renewable Resources Evaluation of, 103species protection by, 47

Frankia culture collection, 244freeze drying. See lyophilizationFresh Water Game and Fish Commission (Florida),

230Friends of the Earth, 298

Gaines wheat, 192Galapagos Islands, 53General Accounting Office (GAO), 32, 233-235genetic drift

inbreeding and, 150preventing, 150-156

geneticsbenefits of diversity in, 37-38, 41, 45, 47-48, 49,

51-54diversity in, for agriculture, 121-122diversity loss and, 65-66diversity of, in protected areas, 108, 112-113ecological-evolutionary, 105evolution and diversity in, 41status of diversity and, 75-78

Geographic Information Systems (GIS), 125germplasm

collection programs, 121-122

—Index ● 3 2 9

constraints on international exchange of, 24-26international] transfer of, 145-147, 152, 161-162,

177-178, 244-245storage, 7, !31, 94

Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN),190, 191

Database Management Unit, 233, 235Glacier National Park, 227Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS),

124, 268Global Resource Information Database (GRID), 124,

125, 127, 268Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emer-

gency Deficit Control Act, 23, 292Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 118Green Revolution, 53, 192Guanacaste National Park (Costa Rica), 120Guatemala

conservation education in, 297teosinte habitat in, 122

Haiti, 79, 80Harris Poll, 13, 55Hawaii

biological diversity in, 44Hawaii, University of, 243-244H.J. Andrews Experimental Ecological Reserve, 43Honduras, 69

conservation education in, 297teosinte habitat in, 122

Idaho, 115Illinois, 66Illinois River, 41Imperial Zoological Museum (Soviet Union), 156India, 47

deforestation in, 74in-situ conservation in, 113protected areas in, 110resource degradation in, 79, 69threatened species lists in, 71

Indiana, 66Indonesia, 295industry

as constituency for diversity maintenance, 13diversity loss’ effect on, 4diversity maintenance importance to, 37germplasm maintenance by, 236-238micro-organisms’ use in, 206

in-situ genebanks, 112-113, 301Institute of Museum Services ([MS)

diversity maintenance research by, 16-17funding seed storage facilities by, 195

institutionsdiversity maintenance by, 7-8, 94-96linkages between, 8-13, 18-19, 30-32, 94-96, 225-226,

293-294, 297-298, 299-300insular ecology, 105-106Integrated Regional Development Planning (IRPD],

123

Inter-African Bureau of Animal Resources (Kenya),143, 301

Inter-American Development Bank, 24, 294-295Inter-American Foundation, 297International Agricultural Research Centers (IA RCS),

191, 270, 305International Board for Animal Genetic Resources

(IBAGR), proposed establishment of, 19International Board on Domestic Animal Resour(;es,

proposal for, 162International Board for Plant Genetic Resources

(IBPGR), 19, 23, 233, 235, 269-273, 277-278conservation training program by, 303crop diversity reports by, 77data collection by, 299germplasm exchange and, 25national genebanks and, 302, 303plant collection strategies by, 173U.S. support of, 305

International Cell Research Organization, 275International Center for Genetic Engineering and

Biotechnology, 305International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT),

186International Council for Bird Preser\ration (ICBP),

124, 263, 267, 269International Council for Research in Agroforestry’,

122International Council for Scientific Unions, 263, 266International Environment Protection Act of 1983,

289International Institute for Environment and Develop-

ment, 295International Institute for Tropical Agriculture

(IITA), 186International Livestock Centre for Africa, 143, 273,

301International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

(CIMMYT), 270International Meteorological organization, 256International Plant Protection Convention (I PPC), 262International Rice Research Institute (I RRI), 270

IR36 development by, 53, 169-171International Security and Development Cooperation

Act of 1980, 14-15International Sheep and Goat Institute, 240International Species Inventory System (ISIS), 140,

151, 241-242, 274International Union for the Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources (I UCN), 257, 263, 264,267-269, 273-277, 300

Botanic Gardens Conservation Coordinating Body,173

Commission on Ecology, 122-123Conservation for Development Center, 268Conservation Monitoring Center, 112, 268, 293data collection by, 21, 83, 124, 125, 293ecosystem conservation by, 129protected area categorization by, 110-111, 112Species Conservation Monitoring Unit, 68, 69, 142threatened species definition of, 70

N’()’I’E: Page numhcrs appearing III ltall(, s arc referring to i nform~tlon mentinnc(] in the hexes.

330 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

International Union for the Protection of New Varie-ties of Plants (IUPOV), 260-262

in-vitro culture, 7, 15, 94for animal diversity maintenance, 155for offsite plant collections, 172, 172, 177, 186,

192-193, 194Iowa, 66Ireland, 139Izaak Walton League of America, 231

Japan, 15, 47

Kafue National Park (Zambia), 44Kansas, University of, 242Kenya, 46, 49, 301

diversity project, in, 294protected areas in, 109

Keystone Centergermplasm exchange and, 26

Kingman Resource Area (Arizona), 115Kiribati, 109Kobuk Valley (Alaska), 46Kuna Indian Udirbi Tropical Forest Reserve (Pana-

ma), 297

Lacey Act of 1900, amendments to, 23, 255Land and Water Conservation Fund

data collection and, 2Irefuges funded by, 230

Latin America, 22, 25, 302biological diversity in, 75breed resource categorization in, 160Conservation Data Centers in, 299quarantine facilities in, 147

legislationdiversity maintenance, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 23, 26, 27-28,

31-32, 254-262, 223, 258international, 254-262, 258plant patenting, 25U. S., 222, 228, 230,233, 223, 261

Liberia, 301Longleaf-Slash Pine Forest, 41lyophilization, 210, 212

Madagascar, 71Malayan Nature Society, 71, 298Malaysia, 47, 50, 71, 81

development assistance to, 297, 298Man in the Biosphere Program (MAB), 30, 128-129,

225, 264-266database of, 21diversity maintenance strategy of, 118onsite maintenance as goal of, 225protected areas and, 107, 112U.S. support for, 22, 23

Marine Sanctuary Program, 111Massachusetts, 5, 40-41Mauritania, 69Meat Animal Research Center (MARC), 239Mesa Verde (Colorado), 46

Mexican National Research Institute for BiologicalResources (INIREB), 298

Mexicobilateral program in, 305diversity loss in, 80diversity management strategy in, 118-119in situ genebank for, 301teosinte habitat in, 122

Michigan, University of, 302Microbiological Resource Center (Hawaii), 244Microbiological Resource Centers, 213, 275, 305micro-organisms

collections of, 242-244cultures of, 211-212, 213diversity maintenance for, 205-213, 275, 206identification of, 209isolation of, 7, 91, 208-209, 213storage methods for, 209-212

Minnesota, 14, 46, 200, 241Minnesota, University of, 242modeling

data collection for, 108-109for plant collecting, 173-175for protected areas, 107, 108-109, 114of species-area relationships, 71-74

Mongolia, 119, 156Montana State University, 129Montevideo Botanic Gardens, 273Morrocoy National Park (Venezuela), 49Moscow Botanic Gardens, 273Mount Everest, 46Mount Kenya, 46Mount Taishan (China), 46Mozambique, 80multilateral development banks (MDBs), 23-24,

294-296

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 26, 160National Agricultural Library, 160National Audubon Society, 231National Biological Diversity Act, proposal for, 11-12National Board for Domestic Animal Resources,

proposal for, 162national clonal repository (Oregon), 235National Conservation Education Act, proposal for,

14National Conservation Strategy (NCS), 12, 115, 300National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 12, 80-81,

127National Forest Management Act of 1976, 11, 222,

226, 231-232National Forest System, 225, 231-232National Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act of

1965, 17National Heritage Data Centers, 21National Institutes of Health (NIH], 213National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 228-229National Microbial Resource Network, proposed crea-

tion of, 212-213National Natural Landmarks, 227

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,111, 294, 302

National Park Service (NPS], U. S., 30, 302Boundary Model of, 114database integration by, 125diversity maintenance as objective in, 226-227diversity management strategy of, 117, 118ecosystem restoration by, 119environmental expertise in, 294onsite maintenance technology by, 128onsite restoration by, 232threats from areas adjacent to, 224

National Plant Genetic Resources Board, 233, 235National Plant Germplasm Committee, 233, 235National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), 8, 18, 19,

222, 232-237, 246, 303clonal repositories, 186, 187, 188diversity assessment by, 188, 189evolution of, 174Germplasm Resources Information Network, 190,

191seed storage by, 180technology development by, 195

National Sanctuaries Program, 115National Science Foundation [NSF), 16

Division of Biotic Systems and Resources, 16experimental ecological areas and, 226offsite maintenance research and, 159offsite management training by, 158research and, 16, 129-130, 196, 213

National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL), 19, 233,246

facilities of, 236funding for, 18storage practices of, 180-181, 183

National Small Grains collection, U. S., 190, 233National Water Commission, 12National Wilderness Preservation System, 224

management strategy for, 117National Wildlife Refuge System, 224, 229-230National Wildlife Refuges, 226National Zoo (Washington, D.C.), 158National Zoo Conservation and Research Center [Vir-

ginia), 303Native Seeds/SEARCH, 122Natural History Museum of Lima, 298Navaho Nation, 230Nebraska, 151Neisseria Reference I.aboratory, 242Nepal, 47, 49

Department of Medicinal Plants in, 51national conservation strategy for, 300threatened species list in, 71

Nevada, 66New Hampshire, 66New Zealand, 287nongovernmental organizations (NGOS], 263-264,

267-268diversity maintenance programs of, 16, 17, 30-31international conservation operations of, 14-15

Index “ 331

linkages with AID by, 294, 298Nordic Gene Bank (Sweden, 172North America, 25, 41, 125, 151

agricultural breeding in, 52-53captive breeding in, 156data collection in, 124diversity loss in, 63threatened species in, 70

North American Fruit Explorers, 190Northern Regional Research Laboratory (NRRI,), 242,

244North Yemen, 80

Oak Ridge National Environmental Research Park,118

Oceaniabreed resource categorization in, 160diversity loss in, 80domestic animal monitoring in, 143threatened species lists in, 70

Office of Endangered Species, 237Office of Forestry, Natural Resources, and the En-

vironment (FNR), 292Office of Management and Budget, 267off site diversity maintenance

animal programs for, 238-242choosing strategies for, 138-142classification of plant collections for, 170-171facilities for, 1 5 8funding for, 158, 159, 160-162, 235-238, 242-244,

246improvements needed for, 157-162, 194-196international laws relating to, 259-262international programs for, 259-275micro-organism, 208, 213, 242-244objectives of, 137-138, 169-171plant programs for, 90-91, 173-178, 232-238population sampling strategies for, 142-145storing samples for, 91, 178-190, 194-195technology for, 6-8, 15-16, 90-91, 95, 137-162,

169-196using plants stored for, 190-194

Oklahoma, 227Olympic National Park, 43onsite diversity maintenance

data collection for, 123-127, 130for ecosystems, 89-90, 111-112, 128-129funding programs for, 229improvements needed for, 128-130international laws for, 255-259international programs for, 264-268management, 115-119micro-organism, 207-208, 206personnel development for, 130planning techniques, 113-116restoring, 231-232for species, 90technology for, 6, 15, 89-90, 95, 103-130, 224trade-offs involving, 113

Oregon, 47

332 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Oregon State University, 47Organization of American States (OAS), 122, 123,

129, 301orthodox seeds, 171, 183

Pakistan, 71, 69Panama, 122Paraguay, 300Participating Agency Service Agreements (PASAS), 30Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (Maryland), 241Peace Corps, 30-31, 294, 298Pennsylvania State University, 243Peru, 47, 298

plant collection in, 184species diversity in, 4, 68

Peruvian Conservation Foundation, 298pharmacology, 4

diversity maintenance’s value to, 37, 44-45micro-organisms’ use in, 206

Philippinesdeforestation in, 74national conservation strategy for, 300

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 237plant breeders’ rights (PBR) legislation, 260-262, 261plant collection

definitions relevant to offsite, 170-171for diversity maintenance, 7, 90-91of endangered wild species, 195-196funding, 270history of, I74importing samples for, 177-178, 196international, 270-273in vitro culture use in, 186, 192-193, 194objectives of, 169-171quarantine policies for, 175-178, 244-245, 262technologies for, 169, 171-173, 178-190, 194-195

Plant Genetics and Germplasm Institute, 233Plant Introduction Office, 233Plant Molecular Genetics Laboratory, 233Plant Patent Act of 1930, 261Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), 261policy

bases for forming biological diversity, 55data collection for, formation, 20, 95-96MDBs’ influence on developing countries, 294-295options available to Congress, 8-32quarantine, 175-178, 244-245, 262U. S., for diversity maintenance, 8-13, 222-224

politicseffect of, on diversity maintenance systems, 102,

105, 107, 114effect of, on diversity management systems, 7, 90,

91-92, 127potential natural vegetation (PNV), 66programs, diversity maintenance

animal, 238-242coordination for, 8-13, 18-19, 30-32, 89, 92-96funding, 229, 263international, 262-275linkages in, 278

offsite, 232-245onsite, U. S., 224-232

protected areasclassifying, 102-105, 111for coastal-marine ecosystems, 111, 115, 118-119,

224, 105criteria for selection of, 111-113designing, 102, 105-109“edge effect” on, 107establishing, 109-113genetic considerations for, 108models for, 107, 108-109, 114population dynamics in, 108-109restoration of, 119-121

Przewalski, N. M., 156Public Health Service, U. S., 242Public Land Law Review Commission, 12Puerto Rico, 230, 128

quarantine, of germplasm, 146-147, 152, 244-245

RAMSAR, 255Rare Breeds Survival Trust (United Kingdom), 49recalcitrant seeds, 171, 187, 195Redwood National Park, 232Regional Plant Introduction Stations (RPISS), 233research, 4, 305

biological diversity’s benefit to, 43-45ecosystem diversity maintenance, 225, 226, 266ecosystem restoration, 232funding, 16-17genetic diversity, 122, 185-187, 191-194, 196goal-oriented, 15-16, 95micro-organism, 208-209, 213, 242, 206multidisciplinary, 129-130plant germplasm, 187, 192-195, 196in population genetics, 159problems impeding, 15-16, 95-96on protected area design, 106-107resource management, 118socioeconomic, 127

Research and Marketing Act of 1946, 10Research Natural Area Program, 224-225Research Natural Areas (RNAs), 19

diversity maintenance coordination by, 226size of, 224

Resource Management Plan, 114Resource Services Support Agreements (RSSA), 30Rhode Island, 230Rhododendron Species Foundation, 237Rio de Janeiro Primate Center, 301Rockefeller Foundation, 270Royal Botanic Gardens (U.K.), 180, 273, 174

data collection by, 190in vitro storage by, 187

St. Helena (island), 94St. John (Virgin Islands), 118Salonga National Park (Zaire), 117San Lorenzo Canyon (Mexico), 118

Index ● 3 3 3—

Santa Rosa National Park (Costa Rica), 120School of Conservation Management (Indonesia), 302seed

collections, 188-189, 190-191storage, 7, 15, 94, 169, 171-172, 173

Seed Savers Exchange, 190, 236Selkirk Mountain Caribou Management Plan/Recov-

ery Plan, 115Serengeti national Park (Tanzania), 44serological procedures, 146-147, 177-178Smithsonian Institution, 302

Biological Diversity Program of, 30-31data collection by, 125environmental expertise in, 294wild plant maintenance by, 237

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, 297Society for the Advancement of Breeding Research in

Asia and Oceania (Malaysia], 301Society for the Advancement of Breeding Research-

ers, 143Society of American Foresters (SAF), 103Society for Conservation Biology, 16, 129Society Islands, 44Soil Conservation Service (SCS]

onsite restoration by, 231Plant Material Centers of, 121, 237

somaclonal variation, 192-193Somalia, 80somatic hybridization, 193-194South America

data collection ia, 123-124in situ genebanks in, 301threatened species in, 75

South Carolina, 230Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve, 118Soviet Union, 125

in-situ conservation in, 113threatened species list in, 70

Spain, 47, 110species

benefits of, diversity, 37, 38, 41, 44-45, 46-47, 49,50-51, 53-54

definitions of threatened, 70diversity maintenance, 90, 112, 228-231habitat protection, 228-231loss of, diversity, 41, 65oriental treaties, 257, 258status of, diversity, 68-75

Species Conservation Monitoring Unit (SCMU), 68,69, 142

Spucies Survival Plans (SSPS), 241, 242Sri I.anka, 67, 300, 301Stanford University, Center for Conservation Biology,

129State National Heritage Programs, 299

data collection by, 125, 228, 230workings of, 230-231

Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment,22, 257, 259-260, 264, 299

Sudan, 80, 69Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

(SMCRA), 120, 231Sweden, 125Switzerland. 139

Tanzania, 75Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources,

102technology

developing, for biological diversity, 5, 15-16, 94-96for microbial diversity maintenance, 208-212off site maintenance, 6-8, 15-16, 90-91, 95, 137-162,

169-196onsite maintenance, 6, 15, 89-90, 95, 101-130, 224plant storage, 189-190recombinant DNA, 195

Tennessee Valley Authority, 230Texas, 227Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 191Thai Development Research Institute, 300Thailand, 301The Nature Conservancy (TNC), 228

data collection by, 83ecosystem restoration by’, 119National Heritage Data Centers, 21, 22, 127objectives of, 228onsite maintenance and, 129species management and, 112State Natural Heritage Programs of, 125, 130, 228,

230The Nature Conservancy International (TNC1), 269

Conservation Data Centers of, 293, 299database of, 21, 124

Treasury Department, U. S., 295Trout Unlimited, 231

Udvardy biogeographic classification system, 111,129, 264

United Brands, 236-237United Kingdom, 12, 49, 68

agricultural breeding in, 53protected areas in, 110restoration project by, 156

United Nations Conference on the Human Environ-ment. See Stockholm Conference on the HumanEnvironment

United Nations Development Program me. 67-68United Nations Educational, S(; ientific, and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO], 244. 257, 263-270,275-276

biosphere reserve program of, 301database of, 124data coordination by, 127Man and the Biosphere Program of, 21, 22, 23, 30,

107, 112, 118, 128-129, 225, 264-266microbial database and, 213

[Jnited Nations Environment Programme (U N13P), 22,

\ ’ ( )’1 1., I](IRI, II(I III I)[,ri ,l[)[)[’(iring II I Ildl I( s ,1 I t’ I offII I I IIg III II I [I II 11)(1 t II )fl Illt’lltll)ll(’(i I [1 ttlt’ llo\l’\

334 ● Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

23, 24, 143, 244, 256, 257, 263-264, 267-270,274-275, 295

conservation training by, 303database of, 124Global Environment Monitoring System of (GEMS),

124United Nations Food and Agricultural Organizations

(FAO), 124, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263, 264, 269,274, 278

germplasm conservation and, 25resource degradation observations by, 67-68

United Nations Industrial Development Organiza-tions, 305

United Statesagricultural breeding in, 52-53animal breed monitoring in, 162assessing plant germplasm in, 191biological diversity in, 49-51data collection in, 125, 127data sharing in, 126, 127development assistance by, 289-294, 296-298diversity loss in, 66-67, 79, 94diversity maintenance in, 8-22, 114, 157, 221-246diversity management in, 117-118, 125ecosystem diversity program for, 128-129embryo transfer in, 153endangered species protection in, 7, 8, 11genetic diversity in, 4germplasm quarantine in, 146-147, 161, 244-245influence on MDBs, 24, 295-296National Parks and Forests in, 46, 48plant breeders’ rights legislation in, 260plant breeding in, 191, 192plant collections in, 184plant importation into, 177protected area design in, 107-108, 109, 110restoration project by, 156species diversity in, 68support for international conservation efforts, 22-24threatened species lists in, 70wetlands in, 40

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See Army Corps ofEngineers, U.S.

U.S. Geological Survey, 125U.S. Plant Introduction Stations, 180U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of Biological

Diversity, 14, 29, 290University of Veterinary Science (Hungary), 303Utah, 66, 121Utah State University, 240

Vavilov, N. I., 174Venezuela, 46, 49, 81Virgin Islands, 118V.I. National Park, 118Voyageurs Park (Minnesota), 46

Washington State, 115West Germany, 156wetlands

restoration of, 232value of, 4-5, 40

Weyerhaeuser Company, 237Wildlife Institute of India, 302Willamette National Forest, 43Wind Cave National Park (South Dakota), 41, 44Wisconsin, 14, 20, 232Wisconsin, University of, 232Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada), 117World Bank, 270

development assistance funding by, 294-296preservation approach to conservation and, 122,

129resource degradation observations by, 67-68wildland policy of, 24, 29Wildlife Management Policy of, 296

World Charter for Nature, 257-259World Conservation Strategy (WCS), 28, 257, 264, 287World Health Organization (WHO), 268, 275World Heritage Convention, 22, 23, 264World Heritage Program, 22, 255, 266-268, 276World Meteorological Organization, 268World Resources Institute, 276World Wildlife Fund (WWF) /U.S., 30, 257, 264, 267

conservation training by, 303database of, 124development assistance projects by, 293, 297-298ecosystem conservation and, 129Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems Project of,

106World Wildlife Fund/The Conservation Foundation.

See World Wildlife Fund/U.SWyoming, 241

Zaire, 117Zambezi Teak Forest, 41, 44Zambia, 41, 44, 51, 81

National Conservation Strategy of, 115, 301Zimbabwe, 300