National Academies Press: OpenBook

International Role of U.S. Geoscience (1987)

Chapter: SUMMARY OF NEEDS

« Previous: INTERNATIONAL GEOSCIENCE ACTIVITIES IN U.S. SCIENTIFIC INTERESTS
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY OF NEEDS." National Research Council. 1987. International Role of U.S. Geoscience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10213.
×
Page 97

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5. SUMMARY OF NEEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY OF NEEDS International geoscience activities are required and needed more than ever before to support U.S. economic interests by adequate use of geoscientists in U.S. international programs, and to advance our basic scientific knowledge. Our report emphasizes the breadth of international geoscience involvement in the advancement of American __ and societal interests. From consultation with geoscientists from government, industry, and academia, the committee has identified many areas where U.S. geoscience personnel are inadequately utilized, geoscience information is not economic fully exploited, and support for basic geoscience research can be improved. Some of the important areas that should be strengthened are as follows: 1. The use of international geoscience in development and implementation of foreign policy. (a) Develop procedures for routinely identifying geoscience contributions in policy issues. (b) Develop mechanisms for interagency coordination, policy review, and implementation. (c) Define new initiatives in foreign policy based on geoscience considerations. Inasmuch as this application involves foreign policy, the Department of State must play a key role in these efforts. Implementation will require enhanced funding for the recruitment of geoscience professionals by the Department of State. 2. The use of international geoscience in U.S. economic interests. (a) Improve competitive status abroad. (b) Improve flow and exchange of relevant geoscience information by scientific attache and regional resource officer programs. (In this connection the committee commends the Department of State's recent decision to provide more training for--and increase the responsibilities of--its regional resource officers.) 37

38 3. Expanded international support for basic geoscience by American researchers. (a) Increase our capacity for geoscience consultation and assistance through scientific exchange. (b) Provide more adequate support for existing and future science and technology agreements. (c) Become further involved and provide greater support for intergovernmental organizations and international scientific organizations. (d) Enhance expertise in global geoscience, and stimulate international research. A number of agencies are concerned, but a revival and an expansion of NSF, NASA, and ICSU activities are obviously needed here. Support for other international geoscience activities. (a) Develop new initiatives in Third World countries. (b) Facilitate publication and distribution of Third World maps, reports, and translations of geoscience data. (c) Develop a centralized inventory and coordination facility for: (i) map storage and availability inventory, (ii) a report library that includes, for example, papers in nonrefereed journals and open-file reports, (iii~data systems, including commodities and satellite information, and (iv) a roster of U.S. research and research workers involved in foreign projects. Strengthening some of the above-mentioned areas at a time of severe budget constraints without seriously damaging other important programs will require careful and skillful action. In some cases, substantial gains can be made without significant funding changes. For example, a post in a foreign country might be filled by someone with geological training rather than by a nonspecialist. An American geologist might be hired instead of a foreign geologist. A premises might be placed on foreign service as a step in a geological career in government agencies. In other cases' modest increments in funding might be used effectively and with great leverage. Finally, a small amount of money spent to bring American and foreign geoscientists together for planning sessions can stimulate substantial active bilateral or multilateral projects. RECOMMENDATIONS Having considered the importance of international geoscience programs in formulating and implementing some foreign policy issues, in advancing U.S. political, economic, and scientific interests abroad, and in providing information on world resources, programs, and institutions, the committee believes that support for international geoscience should be given higher priority in allocating funds and in developing and coordinating international geoscience activities of

39 federal agencies. Accordingly, the committee recommends that federal funding for international geoscience activities should be increased. The range of activities that should be strengthened and improved is so broad that no existing group or organization is equipped to advise, recommend, or implement all the necessary changes, which include strengthening geoscience assistance and cooperation; establishing and coordinating the flow of geological resource information from abroad to meet our scientific, economic, and political needs; and increasing support for basic geoscience research. We need a long-term mechanism for overseeing current and future needs. Therefore the committee recommends the establishment of an American Office of Global Geosciences. Such an office would be a small nongovernmental organization that would be concerned with geoscience activities on an international scale, and would be supported by both public and private funds. Important activities could include the following: (1) to identify the international interests of the United States that can be fostered and maintained through geoscience activities abroad and to help implement the specific types of activity required to do so; (2) to define mechanisms to strengthen and coordinate U.S. geoscience programs abroad; (3) to plan a centralized mechanism for systematically acquiring and inventorying geological maps, reports, and raw data on foreign geology and resources; and (4) to serve as a central office for international geoscience information and contacts to advance basic research. An office would be an efficient way to coordinate and focus efforts of the wide variety of international geoscience activities. Most important, it would provide daily attention to these matters rather than intermittent consideration by separate or ad hoc groups. Suggestions on the activities to be undertaken by the office should come, not only from the entire geoscience community, but from other interested parties as well. The areas that are listed here as needing strengthening are regarded as only examples of some of the contemporary issues that should come under the purview of the office. The issues will change constantly. Through constant monitoring of the international geoscience scene, the office could be prepared to make recommendations before crises develop and reaction to crises would be based on sufficient background information. The committee has determined that both governmental and nongovernmental interests abroad are so intimately involved with, and served by, international geoscience programs and activities, that support from both governmental and nongovernmental sources should be solicited in strengthening such programs and activities. Moreover the committee has had expressions of interest in support of the office from both petroleum and mining companies. To facilitate the planning of programs and activities that serve both governmental and nongovernmental groups and that will lead to support from both, the committee further recommends that the advisory group for the Office include both governmental and nongovernmental representation. Governmental agencies that would be especially concerned would include the Department of State, the Department of Interior (USGS and U.S.

40 Bureau of Mines), NASA, and the NSF. The Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Defense would also be concerned. Because of the urgency of the need to address the problems raised in the body of this report. the committee urges an immediate infusion of new funding for existing U.S. agencies concerned with the international aspects of the geosciences, especially earmarked for these functions. These agencies include the Office of International Programs and Division of Earth Sciences of the NSF, the International Mapping Office of the USGS, and the Earth Applications Section of NASA. Lesser roles involving international mineral resource evaluation the Bureau and development are played by the Department of State, DOE of Mines, and NOAA, but these programs, too, need direct augmentation of support. When established, the Office of Global Geosciences would draw support from the above agencies as well as from industrial and private sources. Initially, the Office should be inaugurated under the jurisdiction of an organization concerned about the global geoscience problems raised in this report, and dedicated to their amelioration or solution. Appropriate alternative configurations might include (1) a consortium of federal agencies (Bureau of Mines, USGS, NSF, NASA, DOE, etch (2) a working group of professional earth science societies (Society of Exploration Geophysicists, AAPG, GSA, AGU); (3) the AGI; or (4) a board or panel of the NRC (Board on Earth Sciences, Board on Mineral and Energy Resources) .

REFERENCES Agnew, A. F. 1983. International Minerals: A National Perspective. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., 164 pp. Arita, K. 1985. Japan's technical cooperation with developing countries. Journal of Japanese Trade and Industry, Mar./April, pp. 14-16. Brown, E. D. 1983. Deep-sea mining, the consequences of failure to agree at UNCLOS III. Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 7, No. 1, January, pp. 55-70, Graham and Trotman, London. Central Treaty Organization. 1959. Conference on minerals: Office of the U.S. Economic Coordinator for CENTO Affairs, U.S. Embassy, Airkara, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. Clark, A., C. Johnson, and P. Chinn. 1984. Assessment of cobalt-rich manganese crusts in the Hawaiian, Johnston, and Palmyra Islands' exclusive economic zones. Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 8, No. 2, April, pp. 163-174, Graham and Trotman, London. Congres International de Geologie 1880. Comptes rendus stenographique, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 313 pp. (1878~. Coordinating Committee for Joint Prospecting for Minerals Resources in Asian Offshore Areas (CCOP). 1980. International Decade of Ocean Exploration, Studies in East Asian Tectonics and Resources (SEATAR), in cooperation with the Intergovernmental Oceanography Commission, UNESCO (IOC): CCOP Project Office, Bangkok, 257 pp. Dorr, J. V. N., III. 1969. The physiographic, stratigraphic, and structural development of the Quadrilatero Ferrifero, Minas Gerais, Brazil. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 641-A, 110 pp. Eckel, E. B. 1982. The Geological Society of America; Life History of a Learned Society. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo. 167 pp. Eckes, A. E., Jr. 1979. The United States and the Global Struggle for Minerals. University of Texas Press, Austin, 353 pp. Ericksen, G. E., C. and P. A. Bernardo, and E. Ruiz. 1963. Development, organization, and operation of the Instituto de Investigaciones Geologicas of Chile, in Natural Resources, Vol. II of United States papers prepared for the United Nations Conference on the Application of Science and Technology for the Benefit of the Less Developed Areas. U.S. Goverment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., pp. 45-52. 41

42 Flipse, J. E. 1982. Ocean mining and minerals from the sea, in Yankee Mariner and Sea Power, America's Challenge of Ocean Space. Center for Study of the American Experience, Univ. of Southern California, Conference papers, March 1981, pp. 223-237. Greene, M. T. 1982. Geology in the Nineteenth Century. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 324 pp. International Economic Studies Institute. 1976. Raw Materials and Foreign Policy, Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. 416 pp. International Union of Geological Sciences. 1961. Circular letter 6. Jacobsen, H. S., C. T. Pierson, and others. 1969. Mineral investigations of northeast Thailand. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper, 618 pp. Khan, H. M., and J. A. Reinemund. 1963. A cooperative mineral exploration and development program in Pakistan. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper, pp. 71-89. Kursten, M. O. C. 1983. The role of metallic mineral resources for countries of the Third World. Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 71-79, Graham and Trotman, London. Kuroda, M. 1985. Japan's policy on economic cooperation, Journal of Japanese Trade and Industry, Mar./April 1985, pp. 10-13. Landsberg, H. H. 1964. Natural Resources for U.S. Growth Resources for the Future, Inc., Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md. 260 pp. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Advisory Council. 1986. Earth System Science: Overview. Report of the Earth System Sciences Committee. Washington, D.C., 47 pp. National Commission on Materials Policy. 1973. Material Needs and the Environment Today and Tomorrow: Final report of the Commission Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. National Research Council, Board on Earth Sciences. 1983. Opportunities for Research in the Geological Sciences. Report of an ad hoc committee. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 95 PP · National Research Council, Space Application Board. 1985. Remote Sensing from Space: A Program in Crisis. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 98 pp. National Research Council, U.S. Committee for an International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. 1986. Global Change in the Geosphere-Biosphere. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 91 PP ~ Netherlands Contact Commission of IGC. 1959. Proposal to reconsider the desirability of establishing an international geological union. Manuscript memorandum. August 9. Paley Commission. 1952. Resources for Freedom. Vol. 1, Foundations for Growth and Security. Report to the President by the President's Materials Policy Commission, 184 pp. Reinemund, J. A. 1984. Significance of the Circum-Pacific Map Project as a mechanism of geoscience cooperations and research, Geologische Jahrbach, Hannover', Vol. A75, pp. 11-26.

43 Reinemund, J. A., P. W. Guild, and W. O. Addicott. 1982. The Circum-Pacific Map Project: framework for international resources assessment, Transactions, Third Circum-Pacific Energy and Mineral Resources Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, August 22-26; Tulsa, Okla. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, pp. 677-694. Rowland, R. W., M. R. Good, and B. A. McGregor. 1983. The U.S. exclusive economic zone--a summary of its geology, exploration, and resource potential. U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 912, 29 pp. Schultz, G. C. 1984. Testimony before House Foreign Affairs Committee, 9 February 1984 (from U.S. Department of State Current Policy No. 548), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Steidle, E. 1952. Mineral forecast 2000 A.D. Penn. State College Bull. Vol. XLVI, No. 4, January 25, 152 pp. Taylor, G. C., Jr. 1976. Historical review of the international water resources program of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1940-70. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 911, 146 pp. U.S. Geological Survey. 1968. Bibliography of reports resulting from U.S. Geological Survey participation in the United States technical assistance program, 1940-67. U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 1263, 68 pp. U.S. Geological Survey. 1976. Bibliography of reports resulting from U.S. Geological Survey scientific and technical cooperation with other countries, 1975 to June 1980. U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep. 82-896, 114 pp. Wallerstein, M. B., ed. 1984. Scientific and Technical Cooperation Among Industrialized Countries--The role of the United States. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 259 pp. Wrather, W. E. 1952. Report of the chairman, U.S. delegation to the 19th International Geological Congress, Algiers, Manuscript report.

APPENDIXES

Appendix A THE VI EW FROM THE MOS COW MEETING by Linn Hoover The 27th International Geological Congress, held in the Soviet Union in August 1984, provided a clear reminder of the importance, if not the necessity, of international cooperation in research in the geological sciences. The broad scope of scientific papers, the variety of well-attended field excursions, and the exchange of scientific ideas and research results among more than 5,000 geologists from some 90 countries showed how much the geological sciences depend upon international cooperation to achieve further progress. For geology, unlike most other fields of science, the ultimate laboratory is the entire earth, and its practitioners need access to all parts of that laboratory at all times. The only way they can obtain it is through open and unfettered participation in research programs by all of the world's countries. In recent years, the record of worldwide research cooperation has been pretty good. The pattern was established by the International Geophysical Year, which demonstrated the great advantages accruing from an international program of planned research on clearly defined topics. The ICY set an example for similarly organized programs concerned exclusively with research on solid earth problems. We recall the Upper Mantle Project and the International Geodynamics Project as forerunners of the current International Lithosphere Program, and we can point to the International Geological Correlation Program, the international phase of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, and the International Hydrological Decade as other successful ventures in international scientific cooperation. Linn Hoover, a member of the Committee on Global and International Geology, died of a heart attack on February 8, 1985. The following article, written shortly before his death, summarizes his thoughts on the need for and value of international cooperation in the geological sciences. Originally published as an editorial in the February 1985 issue of Geology, it is reprinted here with the permission of the Geological Society of America as a tribute to Dr. Hoover's contributions to international scientific affairs. 47

48 Whether conducted under the auspices of an international nongovernmental body, sponsored by UNESCO, or organized as an intergovernmental scientific endeavor, these programs have all been characterized by an emphasis on science and not on politics, an openness in program planning, and freedom of travel for their participants. What is the outlook for international cooperation in geological research during the next decade? So far, it looks fairly promising, but some disturbing trends are becoming visible. One is the increasing difficulty of obtaining adequate financial support for international research programs. Costs continue to escalate, and government or private funding agencies look for ways to control this increase. The result is that, generally, international programs are drastically underfunded. Another problem is the tendency of some governments to discourage foreign scientific visitors, particularly geologists who want to 'snoop around." And then we are faced with the as yet unpredictable results of the anticipated United States withdrawal from UNESCO, which could have unfavorable repercussions on a broad range of international scientific programs. The ultimate effect of these and other potential dangers depends primarily on the collective wisdom of the scientists who design and conduct international collaborative research programs and the administrators, in and out of government, whose responsibility it is to see that such programs are adequately supported and are pursued free of political interference or pressure. We have all seen pictures of earth taken from space, and we cannot help but be impressed with the unity of the globe. Through plate tectonics, we have a better understanding of crustal dynamics and of how plate motions in one region can affect the geology of another. We know the need for basic geological research on a worldwide scale to solve problems of resource availability and mitigation of natural hazards. And through exciting new techniques of laser ranging and whole earth tomography, we are close to obtaining a fresh insight about crustal movement and related deep-earth structure. Progress in all these fields is contingent on unfettered international cooperation in geological research. We should all do our utmost to make certain that the political climate for such work remains cloudless. Linn Hoover Secretary-General, 28th International Geological Congress Deputy Chief, Office of International Geology U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.

Appendix B CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE ON GLOBAL AND INTERNATIONAL GEOLOGY Geology is a global science; our understanding of the processes that operate within the earth and of the evolution of the earth must come from a study of the entire globe. This means that no one country, such as the United States, can hope to develop in geology without significant international involvement. The development of geological concepts and the contribution of geology to our society have been and will continue to be dependent upon international research, cooperation, and exchange. Plate tectonics has revolutionized the earth sciences. We now can relate such features as earthquakes and volcanism to plate boundary activity, which can only be studied on a global scale; thus our predictive capabilities and hazard planning require international The natural resources of the earth are finite, and successful exploration, exploitation, apportionment, and predictive planning require a global data base. These are only a few of the reasons that the United States must strive for international scientific leadership in geology by academic, government, and industrial - scientists. The committee will be concerned with bilateral and multilateral international cooperative research projects, field research abroad by U.S. investigators, strengthening the U.S. data base on global geology, and support of participation in international congresses, commissions, symposia, and the general affairs of international societies. The committee will examine participation by U.S. scientists in all aspects of global and international geology. The committee should make recommendations on how our involvement in global and international earth sciences can be improved or strengthened. cooperation. October 9, 1981 49

Appendix C EVOLUTION AND IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THE GEOSCIENCES A Background Paper by John C. Crowell, William E. Benson, and John A. Reinemund GEOSCIENCE IS GLOBAL Our home is the earth. The welfare of all, including those living in the United States, requires that we understand this home, how it evolved, where its useful resources lie, and how we can nurture it for the benefit of people living today and tomorrow. As world population increases, so does competition for resources. It is imperative that we inventory these valuable substances that are contained within the earth's crust, both in our country and over the globe as a whole. Our commercial and industrial enterprise can thrive only if we understand the location and availability of raw materials, now and through the remind H"~"c The ennui c~1 and "v=1 action Of thence r=.cn~,rr-.~ mat ~_~11~O ~~_~— e ^~ C~,~IJ~ Cal ~ =~1 C4~ C ~ C~CL~_ ~ Van ~ __ _ ~_~~ ~ A&~ I_ be weighed in formulating foreign policy and in erecting a stance for U.S. industry in international commerce. For scientific, economic and policy reasons, therefore, the United States must improve its understanding of its resource bank. The earth is dynamic and active. _ Its crust is continually in slow motion, but from time to time these movements become violent, resulting ~ floods and landslides. Knowledge to help ameliorate such hazards must come from far-flung studies across the globe, across the full width of oceans and continents, wherever geological phenomena are active In earthquakes and tsunamis, or volcanic eruptions, or or geologic data are available Global research during the past few decades has brought new insight to the nature and history of our planet. ~ The outermost shells of the hard earth beneath our feet are broken into plates that move inexorably about. Mountains rise where plates collide. So the Himalayan Range stands high where the subcontinent of India has been pushed into and beneath the continent of Asia. Mid-ocean mountain ridges follow trends where plates move apart. And where plates slide sideways past each other, their margins are splintered and broken and are marked by irregular ranges, valleys, and basins. The San Andreas fault system of California is such a margin. Insight into the way the earth is structured today and the way its huge heat machine operates came about only as the result of worldwide studies. Of principal importance in providing data has been the Deep Sea Drilling Project, funded largely by the U.S. National Science Foundation. This project through drilling 50

51 and associated geophysical soundings proved that the ocean floors are created and move systematically. The plate tectonics concept and all its fruitful associated elucidations that go far to explain the nature of the physical world around us would not have been solidified without this worldwide research. THE IMPORTANCE OF GEOSCIENCE ON A GLOBAL SCALE Scientific Problems As large as it is, the United States including Alaska does not contain active examples of all tectonic styles that are manufactured by our mobile earth. So geologists need to travel to Japan and Indonesia to observe arcs of islands surmounted by volcanoes standing offshore from major continents. Collisional tectonics are best displayed today in the Himalayas. Yet, these and other types of structures have developed and then have been partly obliterated on our continent in the geologic past. Their eroded roots, including deposits of useful rocks and minerals, show that these activities once prevailed. To understand how the deposits formed, it is best to examine places where the processes responsible are in operation today. Geologic processes such as those involved in tectonic movements or in the formation of rocks and minerals at depth are extremely slow and operate in many different arenas. Scientists largely reconstruct processes by reasoning from their products, and many of these processes have long ceased producing at these sites for eons. Some have operated at depths of tens of kilometers over time intervals several hundreds of millions of years long. Only because the sites of these activities have been uplifted and then deeply eroded are the sites now in view. But there is a multiplicity of scenarios resulting from a multiplicity of processes operating in different intensities and in different sequences of events. Therefore the chances are highly unlikely that a complete decipherable sequence is preserved and visible at any one spot, and geologists must travel to many places to study earth problems. Surface geologic processes that today are active from the tropics to the poles have all affected the continental United States in the geologic past. For example, in studying climates of the remote past, geologists draw inferences from soils and sediments that are the products of the processes operating elsewhere today. Deep lateritic soils are preserved within the United States. They were formed during times long past; and we can observe this type of weathering and groundwater alteration today only in the tropics, in South America, for example, and so come to a better understanding of their origin. Studies in Antarctica and Greenland reveal much concerning glacial processes that have operated similarly in the geologic past and left their mark in ancient sedimentary deposits. Although it seems remarkable, the Death Valley region of California--now one of the hottest places within the United States--has an indisputable rock record of glaciation, showing that an icy and frigid climate prevailed

52 there about 600 million years ago. Geologists must examine climatic products no matter where they occur on the earth today in order to reconstruct the climates of the remote past. Through such studies, more will be learned of how the climate system works today and how it has worked in the past. In short, the scientific challenge to the geoscientist is to elucidate the history of the earth from the time of its beginning on down to the present, and even to hazard statements concerning its future. This challenge involves gathering data wherever the data are available. The record, however, of events during the approximately 4.5 billion years of the earth's history is at best piecemeal. Much of this record has been lost through erosion, metamorphism, and reconstitution of older rocks into younger. The record even harbors clues on the history of life through geologic time, the changes in geographies such as the shapes and positions of continents and seas, and changes in the rocks at depth. Geochemical and geophysical information is especially useful in this huge task. The record is so fragmented, however, that wherever useful shreds can be scrutinized, geologists, geophysicists, and geochemists must go to the places where the pieces remain. And many times these places lie across' the seas in remote regions or within the floors of distant oceans. Societal Activities Earthquakes and tsunamis are among the most devastating natural events. Fortunately these inflict their havoc infrequently within our homeland, but nearly every year a major earthquake takes place somewhere on our planet. To understand better the tectonic setting of these disastrous earthquakes, scientists need to go and study their consequences. Why do they occur where they do? What geological, geophysical, and geochemical events preceded them? Such information may help in forecasting them more satisfactorily in the future. On-site experience is desirable not only to advance the science of geology but also as an aid to engineering, social science, and economics as they are applied to coping with these events. We can learn about the stability of dams, tunnels, aqueducts, highways, bridges, canals, buildings, and homes during severe ground shaking or inundation by tsunamis. How severe are the social and economic disruptions? We should be able to learn from disasters abroad so as to prepare better for our own. And in the process we may provide scientific and engineering knowledge to help our neighbors in their recovery and rebuilding. Other kinds of natural disasters also lend themselves to analysis. Among these are volcanic eruptions, floods, landslides, sink-hole collapses, severe wave batterings, and ground subsidence due to fluid withdrawal. Observations made wherever and whenever such events occur can lead us to better understanding and to better planning. Defense preparedness alone demands that we evaluate the results of all these natural events. Severe earthquakes at home, for example, could completely disrupt our capability to defend not only the affected

53 areas but the rest of the country as well. Adequate preparedness plans must have sound geological information. The Scientists Themselves Science is a human activity. Geologists, geophysicists, and geochemists reap strong intellectual stimulation through discussions with their colleagues. They thrive on communication, and their productivity increases as the result of exchanges during scientific meetings. They need funding to support international travel so they can attend such meetings. In particular, field excursions to examine regions and mines and investigations in the company of local experts and foreign colleagues are especially rewarding. Work in progress and nascent concepts arrive at receptive ears long before they arrive at receptive eyes through the printed page. Such exchanges reveal very quickly whether U.S. scientists are leading or lagging. We have a feeling that they are beginning to lag. Participation in international meetings spreads goodwill and can become an effective force in easing international strains or in understanding why they exist. At such meetings an informal scene is set to drive home the concept that science is done for the benefit of all mankind and that understanding the earth and its resources and its fragility may help harrassed societies in struggling with their economic and social problems. Communication and friendship among scientists begins to break barriers between diverse cultures, and usually an attitude of mutual helpfulness grows automatically. This helpfulness can include participating in teaching at many educational levels, helping to solve engineering geological problems, or in resource development. Resources Society depends on mineral and energy resources won from the crust. No longer can our nation depend on such resources coming from the rocks of our homeland alone, but we are dependent on oil, manganese, chromium, tin, aluminum, and many other materials from overseas. These deposits require study by our geoscientists from many viewpoints. First, we need to understand their extent and value and for how long they can provide their materials to support our economy. Second, study of overseas deposits will reveal much concerning the geological processes responsible for their formation. Such information may tell us what to look for elsewhere in order to find similar deposits, including those so far undiscovered within our homeland. Third, investigations of unusual crustal areas where special geochemical activities have brought about the accumulation of mineral and energy deposits will aid in understanding how these processes operate. The processes are active at many depths and are influenced by many factors such as the composition of rocks in the vicinity and of the variety of fluids percolating slowly through rock pores and

54 fissures. By including the whole world as a laboratory, geologists have a chance to examine many types of crustal environments and types that have not been exposed in the rocks of the United States. As with all geologic processes, ore-forming processes have not been distributed evenly over the earth, and scientists must travel widely to study them. Foreign Policy Geoscientific factors have an impact on foreign policy. They do this whether the impacts are recognized or not, and it behooves the United States to evaluate them before they have critical consequences. Planning should consider worldwide resource availability and our competitive stance. Geoscientific considerations are important in regard to the Antarctic Treaty, the Law of the Sea, and the Nuclear Test Ban treaties. In addition, scientific research must precede international and national commitments pertaining to acid rain, the disposal of hazardous wastes, and the allocation of strategic minerals. The world's people recognize that energy resources--oil, gas, coal, and uranium--are unequally distributed. At home too few realize that the United States is now a "have-not" nation and that we import a substantial amount of our oil. The future welfare of the United States leans heavily on knowing where resources are, the size of the deposits, and what they can yield both now and through the improvement of technologies. But sound policy positions depend on sound science and satisfactory inventories. One of the best ways to increase our knowledge of the world inventory of resources is to stimulate scientific exchange programs of many sorts and to participate in international scientific programs. HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF U.S. GEOSCIENCE ACTIVITIES ABROAD Government Programs U.S. geologists first had a major role in U.S. government activities abroad during World War II. During the war years geologists carried out investigations of strategic minerals in many Latin American countries under a program sponsored by the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation, coordinated by the Department of State and the Foreign Economic Administration. U.S. geologists participated in terrain analyses, engineering studies, and hydrologic investigations to support military operations in both Europe and the Pacific. Geologists were also used extensively in the post-war occupation forces in Japan, South Korea, and the western Pacific Islands. In the 1950s and 1960s, geological activities were a major component of the U.S. foreign assistance program. During these decades, U.S. geologists helped to strengthen geoscience agencies and programs in more than 70 countries. Concurrently, U.S.-funded geoscience activities became a significant component of a number of

55 organizations, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Mines, National Science Foundation, and Smithsonian Institution. In some countries geological assistance and research programs during these years contributed directly toward the implementation of foreign policy; for example, geological assistance to Indonesia, which was interrupted during the regime, was one of the first programs reactivated when a new government was installed. Also, USGS assistance in geological mapping and resources studies in Saudi Arabia, which was initiated in the 1950s, was, and continues to be, a significant element in U.S. relations with the Saudi Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources. In the 1970s, the role of geology in the U.S. foreign assistance program declined substantially, owing to an AID policy of focusing on agriculture and other sectors. This policy has placed the United States far behind other aid-giving countries in the size and scope of foreign geological activities, has made it difficult for developing countries to have access to U.S. geological expertise and technology, and has resulted in a loss of U.S. contacts and influence among the geological and resources community in most developing countries. This, in turn, has decreased the opportunities for U.S. contractors and suppliers under the AID program. On the plus side, geological cooperation with other countries as an instrument of foreign policy initiatives become more widespread during this decade. Many intergovernmental science and technology agreements were negotiated to strengthen political relationships with other countries, including agreements with Brazil, China, Mexico, and Venezuela. These were supplemented by memoranda of understanding between U.S. agencies and their counterparts. The USGS, for example, currently has nearly 50 agreements with other countries, as shown in Appendix J. Unfortunately, no funding was specifically allocated for most of these agreements: because of this, the level of cooperative activity has been minimal and continuity has been uncertain. A happy exception to this is the cooperative science and technology agreement with Spain, which does provide funds under an agreement covering the use of military bases in that country. Cooperative agreements with Egypt, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, and Yugoslavia have in the past utilized U.S.-owned foreign currencies to meet operating costs in the cooperating countries, but these funds are now exhausted or in short supply. Through these four decades of changing policies toward geological assistance and cooperation, the United States has maintained a modest resource attache (regional resources officer) program in selected U.S. embassies. This program was an outgrowth of the strategic mineral studies abroad during World War II. Initially it consisted of a few professionals assigned to U.S. embassies from the U.S. Bureau of Mines. In 1975, it was reorganized and enlarged, and foreign service officers were assigned as resources officers. Despite fluctuating support and frequent changes of staff, the program has generally been an effective mechanism for obtaining information about resources and programs in those countries that have resources officers, although there are limitations due to the fact that these officers are not

56 geoscience professionals. Currently there are regional resources officers in 10 U.S. embassies and designated resources reporters in 9 other U.S. embassies. Perhaps the most significant aspect of this program is that it reflects a recognition, within the Department of State, of the importance of earth resources--along with geological and resources programs--in U.S. political relationships to other countries. However, the program is not, and never has been, adequate in scope and expertise to meet the U.S. need for resources information in support of mineral policy and national security considerations. Although U.S. policies of the 1970s toward use of geological programs have been continued with little change, two significant trends related to international geology have emerged. The first is positive; it involves increased support under the foreign assistance program for assistance in geologic and hydrologic hazard assessment, mitigation, and training. A number of regional and bilateral projects in earthquake monitoring and risk analysis have been developed, and a new program of geologic and hydrologic hazard training is now being developed jointly by the USGS and AID, although no funds are currently allocated to it. In addition, the United States has participated during the 1970s and 1980s in the International Hydrological Program, an ongoing multinational attack on water development problems, involving both basic science and applied research, and has entered into a number of bilateral technical assistance programs in hydrology. The second trend is negative and concerns the decline of U.S. leadership in international applications of remote sensing. This results from lack of sufficient official U.S. interest and support for remote sensing applications research, together with the uncertain future of U.S.-owned earth resources satellites and determined efforts by other countries to move into areas of research and training in remote sensing technology that were previously dominated by the United States. The U.S. role in remote sensing will be further weakened if the earth resources satellites are exclusively the property of private industry and access to the data becomes unduly expensive or restricted. Petroleum Activities During this same period (i.e., 1940-1975) the international energy sector changed substantially in its overall composition and in its relationships to the host countries in which it operates. Through the 1940s, foreign oil exploration and production were conducted by a relatively few major international companies under relatively simple concession terms that covered both exploration and production and that allowed title to the oil to reside with the operating company. The host countries received their share in the form of royalties and taxes. During the 1950s and 1960s, a number of independent oil companies appeared on the international oil scene, resulting in brisk competition for concession areas and a greater variation in the concession terms negotiated. During the same period, a number of national oil companies were organized to represent the energy interests of various countries,

57 and with different yardsticks on what concession terms were acceptable. As a result, general ground rules changed during the 1960s and 1970s to present-day terms in which most host governments stipulate a partnership or production sharing arrangement, with title to the oil produced residing with the host government. Modern exploration agreements, particularly in developing countries, commonly require technical training of personnel of the host country in all facets of the petroleum industry, and the trend is toward a larger and larger participation of nationals in the international oil scene. Minerals Industry Programs U.S. investment in foreign exploration and mine development has been an important segment of our nation's industrial growth since the days of the original thirteen colonies. Dependence on foreign sources of minerals because of economic attractiveness, domestic shortages, or other more complex factors has resulted in continual involvement of U.S. private groups with a variety of countries, commodities, and overseas organizations over the past 200 years. Although some foreign programs have been precipitated by worldwide or local reactionary efforts, such as the flocking to western Australia in the 1970s nickel boom and the current keen competition for Canadian gold deposits, most exploration efforts have been designed on an individual basis, applying the unique, differential concepts that exploration groups perceive that they possess. In the past 40 years, investment in foreign exploration and deposit development by domestic minerals organizations has varied with worldwide economical and political changes. Program emphasis has reacted to demand for particular minerals at the time and on projected requirements for specific time frames. This approach was evidenced by the exploration rush into uranium-rich provinces of Canada, Australia, and the United States in the 1950s through 1970s and the major emphasis on large-tonnage, enriched porphyry copper deposits in many regions of the world. Most of these exploration and mining efforts were based on geoscience generated to a large extent by the interested parties, as reliable available reports and maps were often inadequate. During the past two decades, there has been an increased involvement of private financial institutions in mineral deposit development throughout the world. Escalating capital costs, cyclical metal prices, and expanded control or project development by host governments have complicated the historical position of private U.S. mining companies as the discoverers, developers, and financiers of most major ore bodies. This shift from the mining sector to financial groups has resulted in the establishment of in-house capabilities by banks to evaluate critical technical factors in proposed minerals operations and engineering projects. Funding requirements often involve multimillion dollar transfers, and consequently, financial institutions must be comfortable that justification exists for such long-term commitments.

58 Geological data required to appraise an investment opportunity will vary with the project and include basic information regarding geological settings and known mineral occurrences. A thorough review of existing data and discussions with knowledgeable individuals is followed by on-site visits by technical representatives of the bank, such as geologists, engineers, and/or mineral economists. Consultants with particular expertise often supplement the bank's in-house capabilities. Many of the financing proposals involve developing Third World countries, and local geologic/mining consultants have proven to be essential contributors to project evaluations. A growing number of U.S. financial institutions have established internal personnel capable of evaluating mineral investment projects. "Money center banks" that currently have relatively large staffs specifically committed to mineral and energy appraisals include Bank of America, Bankers Trust, Chase Manhattan, Chemical, Citibank, Continental Illinois, First Chicago, Manufacturers Hanover, and Morgan (see Appendix F). Besides these major banks, some smaller financial institutions maintain resource-oriented staffs. The actual number of professional personnel involved in minerals/energy groups are adjusted to accommodate an individual bank's needs over a particular period of time. Changing emphasis related to specific mineral and energy commodities results in periodic shifts in staff sizes and direction, although the current trend is toward larger and more technically competent minerals/energy departments. This growing emphasis on internal review of mineral investment proposals is not restricted to domestic financial institutions. International lending agencies such as the World Bank, Inter-American Development Banks, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) also employ experienced geoscientists and individuals with a mineral background on per-manent and part-time bases to provide evaluation and recommendations regarding intermittent mineral development projects.

Appendix D A MORE GLOBAL TECH VIEW by Eugene B. Skolnikoff It is time we shed our parochial attitudes toward science and technology if we expect to remain the world's foremost technological nation. That seems paradoxical, but in fact, the spread of competence in science and technology now requires different attitudes toward international cooperation and interaction with others than are reflected in our current policies. We have come to assume that the long postwar dominance of the United States in science and technology is a natural consequence of our basic intelligence, or ingenuity, or unique economic system, or other flattering characteristic. Ironically, we continue to hold that view even while in some arenas we wonder how to confront the technological competition from abroad, and particularly from Japan. Policies and programs of the government, notably those involving control of export of technology, are debated as though other nations can do little in science and technology unless they learn it from us. In fact, the situation is different. Although the U.S. still has the broadest and deepest capability in science and technology we now face at least equal competition in most fields, and are in danger of falling behind in many. Nor is this new. The rise in competence in Europe, Japan, and the Soviet Union has been evident for years. The U.S. is poorly placed to do what other countries have long since learned is necessary: tapping the knowledge and experience of other countries through cooperative projects, student exchanges, science attaches, and similar measures, as a complement to domestic research and development (R&D). Many countries have large cadres deployed in the U.S. and elsewhere, primarily to stay abreast of rapidly moving technical fields. Funds for travel and study abroad for scientists and engineers are assumed by other countries to be natural components of R&D policy. International industrial cooperation and interaction are actively stimulated and supported. This article is reprinted by permission of the author from The Christian Science Monitor (March 8, 1984). Eugene B. Skolnikoff director of the Center for International Studies and a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, ~ ~ Massachusetts. 59

60 In the U.S., policies are almost reversed. Many programs for international cooperation in science and technology with industrialized nations that did exist before 1981 were canceled by this administration (in some cases raising questions of bad faith). International travel for scientists and engineers has been cut out or placed under even more scrutiny than normal in a government that tends to be prudishly skeptical of foreign travel by those not associated with a foreign r-' . arralrs agency. In broader, but related, areas the administration has advocated cuts in the Fulbright exchange program, while concern in the government for the serious deficiencies in education and research in foreign languages and international affairs continues to be negligible. This is not only a result of Reagan administration policies, although it has made the situation measurably worse. The previous administration attempted to build more international programs in science and technology but with only limited success, and with no lasting effect on the deeper problem of attitudes in the government or the Congress. Moreover, it is not only a problem for the government. Previous assumptions of the value of serious study and residence abroad as preparation for professional careers in science and engineering have given way to concern over early advancement, immediate economic return, and job security. Apparently there is also reduced interest in the cultural or intellectual rewards of foreign study. Industry is often better attuned to the importance of foreign developments, but it is only the larger, experienced companies that are normally in a position to monitor and interact with foreign laboratories and industry and to realize that effective competition with equals requires more rather than less interaction. Medium-size and small companies in most fields--those that are so critical to innovation in high technology--can rarely do that on their own. Even large companies are too often naive and ill-informed about the structure and operation of the scientific and technological enterprise in other countries. The much-vaunted American business school gives surprisingly little attention to preparing business leaders for participation in an international environment. For all the rhetoric about America's role in the world, the country is narrow in its policy for support of science and technology. International interactions of all kinds should be a necessary part of a strong policy for science and technology, not seen either as irrelevant or as a threat. The costs of the current attitudes may not have been of great importance in the past. In the new environment of high-quality and aggressive technological competence in other nations, the costs are likely to be very high indeed.

Appendix E STATEMENT ON SCIENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SETTING AS ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD AT ITS 238TH MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 16-17. 1982 The United States is at a critical point in its international scientific relationships: · American scientists no longer lead in every field of science and U.S. industry is significantly challenged in many areas of technology. · The global nature of many scientific problems, the resolution of which may significantly influence the future well-being of U.S. society, requires increased international cooperation and a coherent approach for successful study. · The increased scale and complexity of many modern scientific projects requires facilities and operations whose costs strongly suggest the utility of international coordination, sharing and, in some cases, cooperative funding. · Foreign policy considerations play an increasingly important role in the conduct of international scientific activities. · Science and technology are becoming increasingly interdependent, and the national security implications of technology transfer have led to increased discussion of the need for additional controls on the international scientific communication process itself. In view of the importance of these issues and their potential impact on the overall health of U.S. science, the National Science Board has addressed the broad topic of "Science in the International Setting." This statement expresses the Board's present policy and consolidates and extends a number of past Board actions on this subject. IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION Scientific interaction at the international level is an essential element in the continued vitality of science. Historically, the Nation has profited greatly from its positive stance of encouraging outstanding scientists from throughout the world to be aware of and participate in our scientific activities and encouraging U.S. 61

62 scientists to travel and interact closely with scientific projects in other nations. There are certain fields in which international cooperation and access are essential to the effective conduct of research because the scientific questions being addressed are inherently global in nature. Examples include research related to climatology, oceanography, space applications, health, population and resource studies, acid rain, carbon dioxide buildup and heating of the atmosphere. Many of these issues are of serious concern to the future well-being of our citizens, as well as to those of other nations. Many disciplines, such as plant sciences, anthropology, and the geophysical sciences, require access to scientific sites in foreign areas. The cost, scale, and complexity of scientific facilities in many disciplines, such as high energy physics and astronomy, provide strong incentives for nations to share in the planning, financing, and use of such facilities. The value of international scientific cooperation is by no means limited to the use of large facilities. Individual scientists in specialized fields often find international collaborative efforts to be of signal importance in facilitating the advancement of their fields. SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION WITH VARIOUS NATIONS The objective of maintaining the vigor of the U.S. research effort requires a broad, world-wide program of cooperation with outstanding scientists in many nations. Cooperation with the industrialized democracies, such as OECD members and our NATO allies, is clearly of great value to the economic well-being and industrial capability of our own Nation as well as theirs. These nations enjoy comparable levels of technical sophistication and the potential for sharing advanced, costly facilities. Since opportunities for interaction with these countries are readily available, the greatest latitude should be given to individual cooperation and exchanges independent of formal bilateral programs. However, the NSF should continue to participate in selected intergovernmental agreements that serve identifiable useful functions. Developing countries, many of which have a corps of highly qualified scientists, also offer significant opportunities for scientific cooperation, including unique possibilities for access to scientifically important territories and environments. Moreover, international scientific cooperation may offer economic, diplomatic and other policy benefits going beyond the immediate needs and interests of science per se. With many of these countries, bilateral agreements, including the provision for support and maintenance of continuity, are required to ensure the success of collaborative scientific activities. Since direct contact between the involved scientists is essential to ensure the effectiveness of the programs, the U.S. should continue to encourage an emphasis in its bilateral agreements on such scientist- to- scientist cooperation. There is also evidence of benefit for U.S. science from contacts

63 with scientists from communist countries. Opportunities for individual scientific cooperation, even in the presence of strained political relationships, keep open channels for communication and can lay foundations for enhanced cooperation should conditions become more propitious in the future. Exchanges with communist countries should be conducted so that commensurate benefits flow to both sides. The levels of scientific activity with these three classes of nations will vary in time as scientific opportunities change and in reflection of the evolution of our foreign relations. At any given time, these levels will reflect a balance between needs and opportunities for American science and the goals and requirements of foreign policy and national security. The Board concludes that because the international dimension is intrinsic to the nature of scientific research and because of the Foundation's role in the support of the Nation's foreign policy, the Director of the Foundation must play a significant role, in collaboration with the Department of State and the Executive Office of the President, in the development and implementation of the international science policy of the United States. The Board strongly supports the Director in that very important dimension of his responsibilities. So that the Board can take these policy considerations fully into account in its planning, the Board must keep abreast of international initiatives and U.S. foreign policy objectives that should be considered in formulating the Foundation's priorities and budget. MODALITIES FOR FACILITATING INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION Agencies such as the NSF, as well as universities and nongovernmental professional scientific organizations, will each have unique and important contributions to make toward the success of cooperative international scientific activities. The Foundation, by virtue of its fundamental and broad-based scientific program, should take the initiative, in cooperation with the Department of State and other agencies as appropriate, to bring together potential international partners to accomplish the necessary planning and implementation for international sharing or collaboration in fundamental science and engineering research. Under the auspices of the International Council of Scientific Unions, a number of multilateral scientific programs have been successfully carried out, often with the cooperation and assistance of intergovernmental organizations and member governments. The International Geophysical Year program (the 25th anniversary of which is being commemorated now) has offered a useful paradigm for subsequent efforts in the atmospheric, geophysical and ocean regimes. The foundation should use such multilateral channels when attractive opportunities arise. The role of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, NAE, TOM) as a congressionally chartered, yet private organization has enabled it to relate to many nongovernmental institutions throughout the United

64 States in cooperating with other countries. This is a source of strength of which the Foundation should take full advantage. The National Academy has an especially significant role to play in facilitating international scientific cooperation, both by virtue of serving as the U.S. representative in connection with various nongovernmental international scientific organizations, and through bonds of cooperation with similar academies in other countries. INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION Maintenance of a strong technological position is central to our national security and to our economic and commercial vitality. Technology leadership depends on a creative and vigorous science and engineering base which, in turn, benefits greatly from an effective international exchange of scientific and engineering information. Opportunities for exchange of novel ideas and rapid assimilation of new research results provided by contacts and conferences have long been important to the progress of science. These exchanges have served the Nation well in terms of contributing to rapid advances in basic research, innovation, application of research results, and development of state-of-the-art technology. Foreign students, teachers, and researchers working on American campuses are also an important resource, both for our universities and ultimately for our industry's success in foreign markets. As a result of the advanced state of development of the U.S. scientific enterprise, the U.S. has been particularly efficient in absorbing, understanding, and extending new ideas from all sources, foreign and domestic; and this in itself is becoming an increasingly vital component of the success of U.S. science and its contributions to technology and industrial strength. Advances in scientific knowledge are usually incremental and interdependent. They are facilitated by knowledge of other scientists' successes and failures, and by the criticism of one's peers--that is, by open discussion. Openness on the campuses of American colleges and universities is particularly central; for it is there that new research directions are frequently conceived, and there that the next generation of scientists is trained. Restrictions which diminish that openness are likely to have serious costs to science and, ultimately, to national security. Such costs should be carefully considered in all dimensions before implementing any actions that would compromise the traditional open environment that has served us so well in the past. In those special instances where universities choose to undertake proprietary or classified work, they may have to accept constraints on communication. CONCLUDING STATEMENT The nature of science requires that its international dimension be considered an organic aspect of the scientific enterprise. This

65 dimension must be actively provided for in all Foundation programs, from education and fellowships to the various disciplinary efforts in the natural sciences, social sciences, and engineering. Planning for new facilities and the setting of priorities for major scientific investigations and programs should be carried out with the full recognition of the priorities of other countries and in an environment which encourages complementarily or planned supplementation, cost sharing, and coherence of the various efforts of cooperating countries. National Science Foundation organization and management procedures should reflect these principles. The Board will continue its analysis of the subject of "Science in the International Setting" in connection with the preparation of the Sixteenth Board Report of this same title.

Appendix F LETTER TO G.A. BARBER LISTING BANKS WITH INTERESTS IN FOREIGN MINERALS July 25, 1983 Mr. G.A. Barber Anaconda Minerals Company Box 5300 Denver, CO 80217 Dear Art: Responding, finally to your request for comments concerning the National Academy of Sciences Committee on United States awareness of international geological developments, I would start by saying that the so-called "money center banks" that have their own professional staffs keep fairly well up to date on international developments because so many of the new mining projects now under way are located overseas. Tabulated below is a fairly complete list of the major, and minor, U.S. Banks which have organized minerals investment appraisal groups: Majors Bank of America Bankers Trust Chase Manhattan Chemical Citibank Continental Illinois First Chicago Manufacturers Hanover Morgan Others Colorado National Cracker First Bank of Minneapolis First City of Houston First Dallas Irving Trust Marine Midland Bank of New York Northwestern National Security Pacific In addition, several international banks, such as National Westminister -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ and Lloyds, have U.S. based mining groups. banks are well staffed technically and only an hour away. Chemical Bank has approximately 145 people in its Energy and Minerals Group. It is difficult to compare the size of our effort with others because many other banks are not organized on industry lines. Many use geographical or other organizational criteria and the absolute The Canadian 66

67 numbers are difficult to estimate. Consultants are routinely used by all Banks and in certain types of asset based lending outside consultants reports make up an integral part of the documentation. In a similar vein, foreign sources are commonly used as technical sources. Chemical Bank, for instance, has Energy and Mineral people in Houston, Denver, Calgary, London, Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Sydney, in addition to New York. With this network of offices we can effectively gather foreign source information. The tremendous use in capital costs for natural resource projects has necessitated a corresponding rise in the degree of study of the various aspects of the project. Once the basics are understood, then the project review can take place. Basically, this process focuses on the net present value of the cash flow and the ability of the project to provide that cash flow. Your final question regarding the World Bank is too far out of my world for me to give you anything meaningful. I hope these comments are helpful and don't hesitate to call if you need clarification. Best regards. Sincerely, William L. Cameron

Appendix G MI~SAJ~ INDUSTRY STATUS REPORT by G.A. Barber A summary of the status of the U.S. minerals industry's background on global and international geology can be addressed in three parts: . Minerals Industry Current International Geology Data Base · International Geology Data Base Deficiencies · Recommendations MINERALS INDUSTRY CURRENT INTERNATIONAL GEOLOGY DATA BASE Critical data regarding geology and mineral resources are acquired domestic minerals industry from both internal and outside The term 'data" refers to information including broad by the _ sources. geologic concepts, concentrations, resources ore deposit genesis, mineral commodity , and reserves; mineral exploration; and exploration techniques. These subjects represent the principal interests of mineral exploration groups. Internal data sources vary with the organization, and include one or more of the following: · Exploration/Scouting Offices · Mine Operation Staffs · Corporate Planning Units · Sales Offices · Affiliated/Subsidiary Company Contacts Sources of information outside company organizations are more extensive, and include: · Federal, state, and local government agencies, such as U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Mines · Academic institutions, through theses, research, and faculty/student consultants Note: Report was completed on June 24, 1983. 68

69 · Private consultants · Technical meetings, field trips, etc. · Libraries · Data banks · Financial institutions · Mine/Projects visits · Foreign sources, including publications, news services, and government agencies. Examples of available publications and the broad range of geology-related meetings are attached. INTERNATIONAL GEOLOGY DATA BASE DEFICIENCIES There are five principal concerns with respect to the dissemination of global/international geologic data within the U.S. minerals industry: · Timeliness in publishing announcements/descriptions of significant world-wide geologic events, concepts, etc. · Verification of reported data accuracy. · Incomplete data, particularly from COMECON countries and Third World nations. · Lack of a common depository for international data. · Distribution of pertinent geologic data to the U.S. public, as it relates to the general welfare of the nation, either directly or through news media. RECOMMENDATIONS These deficiencies could be rectified by establishing a central depository and distribution center within an existing, or to-be-established, U.S. agency with responsibility for: · Maintaining a continual exchange of pertinent geologic/mineral resource data with corresponding information sources in other countries through publications, correspondence, telex, telephone, personal visits, etc. · Screening and appraising data. · Promptly distributing pertinent reports to government, academic, private industry, and news media groups, with interpretive comments regarding the potential impact of particular geologic events/concepts/statistics on the U.S. public. · Assisting in organizing reliable geologic data sources in other countries. One of the basic problems that the U.S. minerals industry faces in contributing to a geologic data base is the perceived proprietary nature of some resource information. If a neutral depository did

70 exist, arrangements could be made for appropriate screening to avoidinclusion of sensitive information which a supplier wished to withhold from general distribution. Since geology is considered to be a "pure science," most pertinent international geologic data should be available without infringing on a company's concern regarding the competitive edge. There are a number of options as to which U.S. agency should assume this responsibility. These include the designation of a new unit within the proposed Department of International Trade and Industry which is expected to be established in the near future. The data accumulation/distribution center might be included within the existing U.S. Bureau of Mines or U.S. Geological Survey organizations. An inventory of processing capabilities in these agencies could be made immediately in preparation for recommending a depository. The status of the geologic/mineral resource data base in the U.S is embarrassing when one reviews publications, organizational charts, and reported capabilities of the numerous active agencies throughout the world, such as France's B.R.G.M., Atomic Energy Commission, and Uranium Research Center. Other major data sources exist in West Germany, England, Australia, and Canada. We obviously have a long way to go to catch up with these counterparts. .

Appendix H A PARTIAL SURVEY OF PRODUCTION AND AVAILABILITY OF FOREIGN GEOSCIENCE MAPS Compiled by D.M. Curtis 1. Who produces maps (other than agencies of foreign governments) U.S. U.S. or Bilateral/multilateral funding (USGS funded by other agencies): Saudi Arabia = 77% of total USGS international funding in 1982 ($17.7 million) Circum-Pacific Map project (non-government and multilateral) International Stratigic Mineral Inventory DOS Trade and Development Program--for 4 strategic minerals (Philippines, Peru, Morocco) (Maps? $$$?) DOS/AID Technical Assistance Programs Remote sensing for mapping: Egypt, Kenya, Bolivia Fossil fuels and geothermal: Morocco, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Jordan, Malawi, Costa Rica, Senegal South Pacific Hydrocarbon Resource Investigation (joint USGS/DOS/AID) East Africa Regional Remote Sensing Center Utilization Grants Program using Landsat data (for resource mapping, etc.~: Bolivia, Chile, Philippines NASA: satellite mapping programs in global geodynamics (gravity, magnetic maps soon) DOD: Defense Mapping Agency (no information) Circum-Pacific Map Project of Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Minerals, CCOP (Coordinating Committee for Offshore Prospecting): maps published by AAPG Other governmental and non-governmental agencies are engaged in making various types of geological maps, some of which include foreign areas Note: Landsat data are being used for geological mapping in many countries, such as Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Zaire. Maps for developing countries have limited availability because these countries have problems in compiling, editing, and publishing. 71

72 Foreign (international funding and/or administration by international agency) COMA - Commission for Geological Map of the World (JUGS; supported by BRGM; marketed by AAPG) ESCAP - Economic and Scientific Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN) SEATAR - Studies of SE Asia Tectonics and Resources (CCOP and ESCAP) IOC - Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (JUGS? ICSU??) Committee for General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO); Central Editorial Board oversees preparation and publication of Geological/Geophysical Atlases of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by USSR. Products expected beginning 1984. IGCP - International Geological Correlation Programme (JUGS and UNESCO); currently 15 IGCP projects (worldwide) will have maps as a product. Significant among these is #32, Stratigraphic Correlations between Basins of the ESCAP Region, which has already produced 3 volumes of the ESCAP Atlas of Stratigraphy and 12 map atlas sheets of sedimentary basins of the ESCAP region. UNESCO projects for regional development (i.e., Africa Project; possibly more) International Association of Hydrogeologists - workshop on hydrogeological maps of SE Asia (Do they make maps or compile lists?) ICL (Lithosphere project) will produce maps? Oceanographic Institutions and geological institutes worldwide DSDP - IPOD 2. Where are they? - Collections North America U.S. Geological Survey - has extensive collections of geological maps, worldwide Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division - has largest map collection in the world; domestic and foreign (except USSR); 3.7 million maps; 44,000 atlases; 8,000 reference works, 50,000 maps, and 800 atlases added annually; DOS foreign maps* are acquired by exchange or purchase collection includes extensive holdings of geological maps Geological Survey of Canada Also major university libraries, industry libraries, GSA, etc. Overseas BRGM (Bureau de Recherche Geologique et Minieres) Paris IGME (Instituto Geologico y Minero de Espana) Madrid Bundesanstalt fur Geowissenschaften und Rohstofte - Germany-Hanover and/or Forschungsgemeinschaft. . . .Bonn? *DOS, through its Interagency Map and Publication Acquisition Program collects about 60,000 foreign maps per year - about 10% geological. These are eventually deposited in the Library of Congress.

73 USSR Institute of Geological Sciences U.K. - London CIFEG (Center for Training and Exchanges in the Geosciences) Paris - cartographic library has been developed as part of the center Other national collections in industry and university libraries; and other institutes; etc. CGMW (Commission for Geologic Map of the World) Paris, BRGM 3. Means of locating and getting access (references, data banks) GEOREF/BRGM (automated data bases being merged) IGME (automated data base) Library of Congress (automated data base from 1968; older holdings readily accessed manually) Bibliographies; directories; lists IGCP Catalogue (of publications resulting from IGCP projects through 1979, many of which are maps; new Catalogue in preparation) CGMW - list of available maps from BRGM or AAPG Circum-Pacific Map Project - list of available maps from AAPG Dederick Court & Co. - geological references (maps and bibliographies summarized through 1980) GEOTIMES & EPISODES - listing of recently published maps Hall Bibliographic Guides to Maps and Atlases (annual) (also includes maps in non-map sources) Carrington & Stephenson Directory of Map Collections in U.S. and Canada [Note: International Directory is expected in 19843 Telberg Book Co. (foreign maps; catalogue available) 4. Examples of ongoing foreign initiatives with map products USSR - Tectonic map of the world Atlas of Geology/Geophysics of Atlantic and Pacific Oceans Japan - Revolving fund for mineral exploration; now part of UNDP; mineral maps Canada - International Development Research Center - work includes geological mapping in developing countries UK - Institute of Geological Sciences $5 million mapping program in Bolivia $2 million mapping program in Pakistan France - BRGM and IFP and French National Petroleum Co. do mapping in many parts of the world; many bilateral agreements. Note: Board on Earth Sciences Committee on Status of Geologic Mapping in U.S. does not cover foreign map collections.

Appendix I STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. PENDLEY. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY--ENERGY AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY JULY 28. 1981 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the implementation of P.L. 96-479, the "National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980." The 1980 Act sets this nation on a new and stronger course in the development of its minerals policy. Its provisions will help broaden and deepen our knowledge of minerals and materials, better coordinate mineral policy development with the organizations and agencies of the Executive Branch, and will provide greater awareness of the fundamental role minerals and materials play in the development of a vigorous economy and strong national defense. This committee should be commended for the lead role it took during the last session of Congress to make this legislation a reality. I wish to particularly compliment you, Mr. Chairman, for your perseverance and personal effort in the speedy and timely enactment of this legislation. I think the record is clear that the 1980 Act has the strong support of this Administration. The development of a comprehensive strategic material policy is one of the chief tasks and major challenges the President has placed before his Administration. We are working hard and, I believe, successfully in carrying out the mandate of the new law. Allow me first to describe the actions we have taken within the Department of the Interior to carry out our responsibilities under the Act. Then I would like to briefly describe the coordination of other related activities called for in the law that are being carried out elsewhere in the Executive Branch. The 1980 law requires the Secretary of the Interior to do three things: first, to improve the capacity of the Bureau of Mines to assess international minerals supplies; second, to increase the level of mining and metallurgy research by the Bureau in critical and strategic minerals; and third, to improve the availability and analysis of mineral data in Federal land use decision making. A report on our actions in carrying out these responsibilities is due to the Congress by October 21 of this year. First, to improve the Bureau's capacity to assess international minerals supplies, we are strongly supporting the Bureau's efforts to evaluate mineral properties located throughout the world and to develop worldwide supply availability curves based on mineral property evaluations. The worldwide engineering and cost evaluations of all 74

75 major mineral properties for the 23 most critical mineral commodities will be completed by the end of FY 1983 and worldwide supply availability curves based on these data should be completed by FY 1984. To improve the analysis of some foreign and domestic mineral data, we have proposed in the FY 1982 budget request that a mineral policy analysis office be established within the Bureau. This new office will be the focal point within the Bureau for addressing mineral policy issues and will serve as a mechanism for joint analytical efforts with other agencies. In addition, the Department initiated a review by the Office of Mineral and Policy Research Analysis regarding the various mineral data systems now in use in an attempt to ensure compatibility and utility and reduce duplication. Finally, the Bureau is now inventorying all mineral data systems within the Executive Branch, and is identifying the location, the currency, and the relevancy of the data systems for policy related analysis and decision-making. An interagency Minerals Information Coordinating Committee, chaired by the Bureau, is now carrying out this task. To fulfill the second requirement of the Act to increase the level of research related to critical and strategic minerals, we have revised the Bureau's 1982 budget request and moved $8.3 million from environmentally oriented research to other studies more directly related to improved recovery of and substitution for critical and strategic minerals. While operating under the very tight restraints necessitated by the need to curtail Federal spending generally, this re-direction of research will enable the Bureau to perform additional research involving the recovery of cobalt, chromium, manganese, nickel, zinc, tin, and titanium from domestic resources, and involving the development of substitutes for those materials that are, for the most part, imported. Third, to improve the availability and analysis of mineral data in Federal land use decision-making, Secretary Watt has directed the Department to take the steps necessary to improve decision-making relative to the utilization of our nation's lands. Adequate minerals information for balanced land use decisions, as essential as it is, is the most difficult part of the land planning process. The very history of mining is that new mineral deposits are often found where we had no previous hint of their existence. Discovery is often made only after repeated exploration efforts, sometimes spanning many years. While we can identify some areas of potential, we are never 100 percent sure. We simply do not know nor will we ever completely know where all of our mineral deposits lie. Neither can we easily predict the technological and economical--and sometimes political--circumstances that make mineral deposits mineable. Ironically, because most of our knowledge on the mineral character of public lands is largely the result of exploration and mining by the private sector, the availability of new information becomes a factor of decisions that affect the private sector's accessibility to such lands. A major step in the right direction, I believe, will be to re-examine the responsibility of government as to its management of the public lands to assure that minerals receive proper consideration. This process is now under way at Department of the Interior.

76 As I hope you can detect, Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Interior has made major progress in implementing the 1980 law--particularly when one considers the start-up time involved in the change of administrations. Our work is far from complete in carrying out the letter of the new law, but I believe we have demonstrated a compliance with the spirit of that law. In addition to these efforts within the Department and related activities mandated by the law for other agencies, the Cabinet Council of Natural Resources and the Environment has been given the responsibility for formulating a National Materials Policy by the President. In carrying out this responsibility, the Council has established a Strategic Materials Policy Working Group, I have the privilege to chair. The working group contains participants from eighteen different agencies and organizations and has divided its tasks into eight separate issue areas. One of the eight issue areas deals specifically with compliance with the provisions of the 1980 Act and coordination of the various actions called for by the law. The other seven issue areas under study by the working group, related directly to the 1980 Act, and are thus an essential part of our response. Mr. Trimble: I am Mr. Trimble from the Department of Defense. I have a prepared statement which I would like to enter into the record. Before commencing, I would make the observation that the Department of Defense generally does not buy basic raw materials. Rather, we do buy the finished product, many of which are extremely important to the defense of the country. We have a very high regard for the criticality of this matter of the shortage of materials and minerals. To support the important objective that has been set forth to improve our posture regarding materials and minerals, the Department of Defense is enthusiastically fulfilling its responsibilities under the act of 1980. The following are actions that we have taken or are taking. One, we have established a Department of Defense (DOD) team of senior professionals who are assigned to our industrial resources and our research and development offices to assume the responsibility of all tasks required to meet both the spirit and letter of the law. This team is working closely with the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and State, the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure that we have a coordinated Government-wide plan for the resolution of problems relating to minerals and materials. They are also working with the White House Council on Natural Resources and Environment in an effort to develop a unified position under Public Law 96-479. Two, we have tasked the Institute for Defense Analysis, a local not-for-profit studyhouse that works almost exclusively for the Department of Defense, to provide us with information on which we can assess our need for minerals, materials. We have asked for research and development, in which we can develop appraisals for policy options. Three, we have renewed and updated the charter and objectives of the Interagency Materials Availability Steering Committee which was established in 1974. Four, we are assessing, with the assistance of the military departments, the impact of import dependency on specific weapon

77 systems, subsystems, intermediate products, and structures. Five, we have completed a proposed DOD-wide research and development plan for satisfying DOD critical and strategic materials requirements. This plan proposes a long-range Department of Defense-wide material substitute research and development program to assess our most critical needs. This plan is currently under review by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and will be reviewed by the Interagency Materials Availability Steering Committee. Six, we conducted a DOD-wide metal matrix composites conference in May of this year and also conducted a Department of Defense-chaired OSTP committee on materials, rapid solidification technology working group conference in July. Both conferences addressed the potential of these material technologies for developing substitute materials. Seven, in May of this year we conducted a 3-day industry conference workshop in conjunction with the American Defense Preparedness Association and secured industrial inputs to our overall materials situation assessment. This completes the summary of the actions that we have taken, and I am pleased to say that we have noted in all cases, Mr. Chairman, great enthusiasm on the part of Government agencies and industry groups to attempt to help us resolve the problem of our materials shortages. We are also at this time identifying those sources of materials and processing sequences which need to be imported.

Appendix J U. S . GEOLOGICAL SURVEY INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS CURRENTLY IN FORCE l Counterpart Type of Country Agency Program Agreement Afghanistan Kabul University, Cooperative Efforts Memorandum of Seismological Center of the in Seismology Understanding Faculty of Engineering Bangladesh Geological Survey of Bangladesh (GSB) Accelerated Exploration for Contract Mineral Resources & Modernization Agreement Bolivia Academia National de Ciencias Global Seismic Data Acquisition Memorandum of de Bolivia - Observatorio System Understanding San Calixto Brazil Ministry of Mines and Energy SAT Coop. in Geological Sciences Memorandum of Department of the Interior and Earth Resources re: Mineral Understanding and Energy Canada Geological Survey of Canada, Scientific and Technical Memo Fondue of Dept. of Energy, Mines and Cooperation in Geological Understanding Resources Sciences Canada Canadian Centre for Remote Scientific and Technical Memorandum of Sensing, Dept. of Energy, Cooperation in Remote Understanding Mines and Resources Remote Sciences Chile Services Nacional de Geologia Technical Cooperation in Memorandum of y Mineria (SERNACLONIA) the Earth Sciences Understanding Circum- Agency for International Cooperative Earthquake & Tsunami Participating Pacific Development (AID) Potential, Circum-Pacific Agency Service Rep. Region Zones Agreement Columbia Inst. Nacional de Scientific and Technical Memorandum of Investigiciones Cooperation in the Earth Understanding Geologico Mineras, Min. de Sciences Minas y Energia Dominican Direccion General de Mineria e Cooperation in the Geological Memorandum of Republic Higrocarburos Sciences Understanding East Africa Region Regional Remote Sensing Facility Remote Sensing for Resource AID Assessment 78 Participating Agency Service

79 Counterpart Type of Country Agency Program Agreement E1 Salvador Centro de Investigaciones Cooperative Investigations in Memorandum of Geotechnicas, Ministerio de Earthquake Research Understanding Opras Publicas E1 Salvador Center for Geotechnical Coop.Invests. with CIG in EQ Participating Investigations (CIG) - AID Reduction & Engineering Geology Agency Service Agreement France Service Geologique National, Cooperation in the Field of Memorandum of Bureau de Recherches Geological Sciences Understanding Geologiques et Minieres France Ecole Nationale Superieure Cooperation in the Geological Memorandum of des Mines de Paris Sciences Understanding Germany/ Bundesanstalt fur Cooperation in the Geological Memorandum of Fed.Rep.of Geowissenschaften und Rohstofte Sciences Understanding Guatemala Central Am. Inst. for Workshop, Development of Minerals, Participating Industrial Tech. & Research Energy, Water Resources & Misc. Agency Service (CAIITR)/AID) of Geologic Hazards Agreement Guatemala Natl. Inst. of Seismology, Zonification and Seismic Risk Participating Vulcanology, Meteorology, in Guatemala Agency Service and Hydrology (INSIVUMEH)-AID Agreement Hungary Central Office of Geology Scientific and Technical Memorandum of Cooperation in the Earth Sciences Understanding Iceland National Research Council, Science and Technology in Memorandum of Ministry of Education Earth Sciences Understanding Indonesia, AID - Volcanological Survey Volcano Monitoring and Research Participating Rep. of of Indonesia in Indonesia Agency Service Agreement Israel, State of Earth Science Research Establish Station as Part of Administration of Israel (ESRA) Global Seismograph Network Memorandum of Understanding Italian Consiglio Nazionale Delle Cooperation in Earth Sciences Memorandum of Republic Ricerche (CNR) Understanding Italian Istituto Nazionale di Republic Geofisica (ING) Japan Regional Digital Seismic Studies The Geological Survey Cooperation in the field of of Japan Geological Sciences Memorandum of Understanding Memorandum of Understanding Jordan Natural Resources Authority of Systematic Assessment of Participating Jordan - AID Ground Water Resources of Agency Service Northern Jordan Agreement Jordan Natural Resources Authority Establishment of a Jordanian Participating Jordan - AID Seismic System Agency Service Agreement Jordan Natural Resources Authority of Scientific Cooperation in Memorandum of Jordan the Earth Sciences Understanding Kuwait Kuwait Institute for Cooperation in the Memorandum of Scientific Research Earth Sciences Understanding

80 Country Latin America Mexico Morocco, Kingdom of Peoples Rep. of China Counterpart Agency Centro Regional de Sismologia pare America del Sur (CERESIS) AID/OFDA Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas Bureau of Geology, Ministry of Energy and Mines State Seismological Bureau of PRO and (US) National Science Foundation Program Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in the Andean Region Cooperation in Geothermal and Related Volcanic Investigations Technical Cooperation in the Earth Sciences Scientific and Technical Cooperation in Earthquake Studies - II Type of Agreement Participating Agency Service Agreement Memorandum of Understanding Memorandum of Understanding Protocol Peoples Rep. Chinese Academy of Geological Scientific and Technical Protocol of China Sciences, Ministry of Geology Cooperation in the and Mineral Resources Earth Sciences Peoples Rep. Ministry of Water Conservancy Scientific and Technical Protocol of China Cooperation -in Surface Water Hydrology Peoples Rep. The National Bureau of Surveying Scientific and Technical Protocol of China and Mapping the PRC Cooperation in Surveying and Mapping Studies Peru Empresa Minera del Centro Scientific Cooperation in the Memorandum of del Peru (CENTROMIN) Earth Sciences Understanding Portugal Regional Government of the Azores Geothermal Project Participating Azores - AID Agency Service Agreement Saudia Ministry of Finance and Technical Assistance in Memorandum of Arabia National Economy Hydrology Understanding Senegal, Agency for International Groundwater Monitoring Republic of Development (AID) Participating Agency Service South Korea Korea Institute of Energy and Technical Cooperation in Memorandum of Resources (KIER) Earth Sciences Understanding Southeast Regional Governments in South- Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Participating Asia .East Asia - AID Program in Southeast Asia Agency Service Agreement Southeast Regional Governments in South- Upgrade of Seismic Network in Participating Asia East Asia - AID Southeast Asia Agency Service Agreement Turkey Ministry of Public Works and Global Accelerograph Program Memorandum of Resettlement - Middle East Understanding Technical University United Natural Environment Research Earth Resources and Memorandum of Kingdom Council Environmental Studies Understanding Venezuela Ministry of Energy and Mines Science and Technology in Memorandum (DGSMG) Earth Sciences Understanding

81 Counterpart Country Agency Program Type of Agreement Worldwide Regional Governments - AID Worldwide U.S. Department of State Technical Support in Conventional Energy Resources Identification Regional Resource Officer (RRO) Program Resources Support Services Agreement Memorandum of Understanding

Appendix K COOPERATIVE SCIENCE WITH HUNGARY United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey Reston, VA 22092 In Reply Refer To: Mail Stop 915 MEMORANDUM The record From: Paul Teleki Subject: Cooperative science with Hungary May 3, 1985 Detached as possible, I need to make a few points _ 5-year old USGS-Central Office of Geology of Hungary program. 2. 3. concerning the . _O In the 10 years that I have been with the Survey, it only cooperative science program that r~tllrn"~ t~ 1.~ is the , ~~ ~~ as much as we gave. Lately the benefits have shifted even more toward the Survey as specific field experiments the Survey could not afford were being set up. It is a program that interested the World Bank enough to approve USGS consultancy in petroleum exploration in Hungary, not an easy decision with private consultants milling around by the 100's. But consultanev Won ~ ~ rat =~= AT science. It is one of a very small number of programs where the State Department and the U.S. Ambassador recognized that the Survey contributed substantially toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. The annual out-of-pocket cost ($25-30K) is a piddling sum compared to the benefits received, and that this amount is equivalent to the purchase price of 2 NBI's surprises even me. ~ I,_, ~ A., ~ ~ ~~ ~ CLOG =~H£ ~ ~ ~ ~ VG 82

83 5. The 6. The monetary benefits: a. Five dedicated boreholes drilled to 1000-1500 m depth with oriented samples taken for magnetostratigraphic determinations, if done by the USGS: $10M (estimated). b. Computer software in graphics and in electromagnetics, if developed by the GS: $500K (estimated). c. Vertical seismic profiling field experiments and data, if done by the USGS: $750K (est.~. d. Borehole data (cores, samples, logs) for sedimentological and facies analysis, if drilled and logged by the GS: $800K (est.~. e. Data made available for control and development of interpretation techniques in electrical geophysical methods, if developed by the GS: at least $1M. f. Receipt of 800 km of high quality COP land seismic-reflection profiles, a $2M acquisition cost in the U.S. scientific benefits: a. Continental magnetostratigraphic data to update the polarity time scale known from marine DSDP and continental shelf sediments, data, and to develop a global magnetic reversal scale. b. Ability to test time-domain EM and IP systems and models for ore exploration, and a series of "firsts" in establishing the theoretical basis and demonstrating application to bauxite deposits, karst and water-bearing sediments. c. Seismic reflection profiles and borehole data provided to understand a unique (young, pull-apart), geological basin, one of the few in the world where seismic stratigraphic studies can reveal, in great detail, the mechanics of extensional faulting, map a complete progression of basin infilling, and understand petroleum reservoir properties in lacustrine continental settings. This can only help as an analog for U.S. basin studies. d. Oil samples from several wells analyzed jointly provided some of the first clues to migration and maturation of petroleum in a young basin with high geothermal gradients. e. An opportunity to study heavy mineral suites not existing in the U.S. f. Whereas the GS scientists have been working on vertical seismic profiling for about 10 years and extended the theory for it, and published extensively on this topic (a book by Balch and Lee), the only non-proprietary data available to test the VSP theory further was afforded to them by field experiments set up in Hungary. In addition, the GS never had any success with explosives as

84 g. h. 1. k. a seismic (sound) source, which the Hungarians solved. A place where an integrated basin analysis could be carried out-on account of a very high data density - nothing in the U.S. compares to this density in any basin. A willingness of Hungarian earth science institutes to run field programs with their staff and equipment) . ~ . . . . . . ~ spec~car~on or Input by Survey scientists (EM, I: ?, VSP, seismic reflection and refraction Profiles. drilling and coring). Where coal classification and quality studies, intercomparing U.S. and European classification schemes, can be compared and contrasted, replacing earlier studies with Poland. Where theoretical geophysics is on a world class level and has supplemented practical problems in mineral resources the GS had to solve domestically and on a reimbursable basis (Saud' Arabia) Technical achievements of each side complement one another and generate high benefits for both. ram ~ ~ 7 . Granted, money is in short supply. But the problems with the Hungarian co-op are symptomatic of deeper, more fundamental problems the USGS has with international activities. Whatever the raison d'etre, a vacuum is being left behind by the Survey in all parts of the world, that is quickly filled by the French, Canadians, Germans, Norwegians, British, Japanese, Soviets, and others. We are gradually working ourselves into a state of isolation. This will play into the hands of those governments who are encouraged by other powers to minimize foreign scientific visitors snooping around (paraphrasing Linn Hoover). But more importantly, we cannot keep a leading edge (if still any) in science and technology if we only talk to ourselves. I don't see how we can walk away from an integrated basin analysis program carefully structured over the years with the storehouse data raw samples and depositories backing it up, that we couldn't afford to collect in 10 or 20 years. T`7~ th ~ mt='r`at~ ^~a I Tori taxi Ice \` ~ 0~T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _; ~ a_

85 PUBLICATIONS, USGS-HUNGARIAN COOP PROGRAM Berczi, I. and R.L. Phillips, 1982, Preliminary sedimentological investigations of a characteristic Neo gene depression area in the Great Hungarian Plains-Southwest Hungary; Int. Assoc. of Sedim., abs. with program, p. 181. Pelton, W.H., W.R. Sill, and B.D. Smith, 1983, Interpretation of complex resistivity and dielectric data, Part I; Geophysical Trans., v. 29, no. 4, pp. 297-330, Pt. II, v. 30, no. 1, pp. 11-46. Berczi, I. and R.L. Phillips, in press, Preliminary sedimentological investigations in the Great Hungarian Plain, AAPG Memoir, p. 11, 12 figs. Gill. D. 1983. Assessment of undiscovered conventionally recoverable petroleum resources of the Pannonian Basin, USGS Open-File Rept. 16p. (corollary study the co-op program). Fisch, I., I. Koncz, R.E. Miller, in press, Estimation of kerogene type by time-temperature pyrolysis method; Proc. USGS-COG Conference, Oct. 1984 & USGS Open-File Rept. 88-291. Vero, L., B.D. Smith, W.L. Anderson, and J. Csorgei, in press, Comparison of interpretation methods for time-domain spectral induced polarization data; Proc. USGS-COG Conf., Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Kesmarky, I., in press, High resolution interval velocities; Proc. USGS-COG Conf; Oct. 1984 & USGS Open-File Report 85-291. (with contributions by J. Grow) Kakas, K., F. Frischknecht, J. Ujszaszi, W.L. Anderson and E. Prachser, in press, Transient electromagnetic soundings-development of interpretation methods and application to bauxite exploration, Proc. USGS-COG Conf. Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Phillips R.L., and I. Berczi, in press, Processes and depositional environments within Neogene deltaic-lacustrine sediments, Pannonian Basin, southeast Hungary, Pt. 1, Proc. USGS-COG Conf., Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Phillips R.L., and I. Berczi, submitted, Processes and depositional environments of Neogene deltaic/lacustrine sediments. Pannonian Basin, southeast Hungary; Part II; Core investigation summary, USGS Open-File Rept. 68p. Somos, L.G., D. Zubovic, and F.O. Simon, in press, Geochemical analysis of 12 Hungarian coal samples; Proc. USGS-COG Conf., Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Elston D.P., A. Jambor, M. Lantos, A. Ronai, and G. Hamor, in press, Magnetostratigraphic studies of Neogene deposits, Pannonian Basin; Proc. USGS-COG Conf. Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Clifton H.E., M. Bohn-Havas, and P. Mueller, in press, Contrasting types of nearshore sands and gravels from semi-protected Miocene coasts, northern Hungary; Proc. USGS-COG Conf., Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Clifton H.E., M. Bohn-Havas and P. Mueller, in press, Aggradational calcareous nearshore gravel in a Miocene transgressive setting, northern Hungary; SEPM Annual Midyear mtg., abs. Vol. 2. Clifton. H.E., K. Brezsnyanszky, and J. Haas, in press, Contrasts in

86 coarse-grained sediment gravity flows between the Cretaceous of northern Hungary and the Paleocene of central California. SEEM Annual Midyear mtg., abs. Vol. 2. Clifton H.E. K. Brezsnyanszky and J. Haas, in press Lithologic . . . . characteristics and paleogeographic significance of resedimented conglomerate of Late Cretaceous age in northern Hungary; Proc. USGS-COG Conf., Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Marton, E. and D. Elston, in press, Structural rotations from paleomagnetic directions of some Permo-Triassic red beds, Hungary; Proc. USGS-COG Conf., Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Hornung, P., R. Bowen K. Watson and J. Daniels, in press, Data base management and computer graphics; Proc. USGS-COG Conf., Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Grosz. A.E., F. Sikhegyi, and P.U. Fugedi, in press, Economic heavy minerals of the Danube River flood plain sediments and fluvio-lacustrine deposits of northwestern and central Hungary; Proc. USGS-COG Conf., Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Grosz A.E., A. Ronai, and R. Lopez 7 in press, Contribution to the determination of the Plio-Pleistocene boundary in sediments of the Basin; Proc. USGS-COG Conf., Oct. 1984, USGS 85-291. Rumpler, and R.L. Phillips, in press, Seismic the Pannonian Basin in Hungary; Proc. USGS-COG Conf., also AAPG Memoir (in press). Bardossy. 1985. Electrical Hungary; abs., 47th Ann. Mtg., European Assoc. Explor. Geophys., Budapest, Hungary. Draskovits, P., J. Hobot, L. Vero, and B.D. Smith, in press, Application of the induced polarization method for exploration of Quaternary sandy-shaley water-bearing formations; SEG Monograph on Induced Polarization Methods. Csaszar, G., H.E. Clifton and R. Hunter, in press, Details of a Pleistocene coastal succession, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California, Proc. USGS-COG Conf., Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291. Hunter R.E. H.E. Clifton N.T. Hall, G. Csaszar, B.M. Richmond and J.L. Chin. 1984. Pliocene and Pleistocene coastal and shelf deposits of the Merced Formation and associated beds, northwestern San Francisco Peninsula, California, in SEPM Field Trip Guidebook No. 3, 1984 midyear mtg., San Jose, CA, pp. 1-29. Great Hungarian Open-File Rept. 85-291. Mattick R.E., J. stratigraphy of ~ Oct. 1984, USGS Open-File Rept. 85-291, Smith B.D., L. Vero, J. Ujszaszi, and G. properties of karst bauxite deposits of

Appendix L PARTICIPATING AGENCY SERVICE AGREEMENT (PASA) BETWEEN THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 87

88 l _~ Impel ',5~1~ o am, tow, Yr.J '/a 3/~/83 ~ P - ~ ~~ of we'd - of. 12/31/84 J.~ [A TOY ~ As5IGNEO-_ 0~n of Fit EI CURRENT Y"R PASA PARTICtPATtN<; AGENCY SERVICE AGREEMENT B~ - =l AGE - R I~RNATlO~^L OBVELO~ ANT O.S. DEPARTMENT ~ ~1 ~ lOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURGES Geologic and Hydrologic Hazards Training Program 5 P~o~lG'~A', _ ~:~ a. Pace BOF-0000-P-IC-3064-01 8. a~m~/A`o~wo"~- WORLDWIDE/OFDA 9. 7~- ~ 10.Y_ _ 9~ GRANT a LOAN f~ t964 t~ FORWARD FUNDING I _ ~ ~ _ A. (t) Aool~ N~r (21 ^61~t ~r (33 ~an*;~ - C'TATIONS n— 1 1X103 S ~X—84—l Oi OO~NG45 07 43 03 9 3. fO R i9ART1 CIPATI N`; l I 13 In~ or C~ (2) C~ {~* o, _} (3) I._ Toml AG ENCY S 1 S 7, 600 S 3 63 . 7 S ~ 49~1~ 0 C ~ ED ~U ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ in.ti" or G`~*. t23 Che ~ ~— Oi_ ~ S 84,5;1 ~ S84.551 ° ~ _o~r | ~1, ~~ ,c~ ~ | ~;, c~.~g. i-~_~ 1 I31 N~ ~ ~_¢ IS7* ~ 600 S 468 ~ 301 ~ S60S ~ 901 lC:~L 35f ~t) S—~. Oiff~tl~ (2) ~rs ~o=es~n ~nctt~~~lrtg ~ = CO M PC ~ ENTS ~ F .~ S~fit' 9 - 3 i~ l `81oc~c B) S 20*385 SL65.400 57*'* C 37 i SLC-*.?2~* t2. Scs:~n ot ~u~ iu ~ary The purpose ar chis PASA ~mendacot between che U.S. Geatogical Survey (USGS) and A.~.D. is to conduct a gealogic and hydrologic hazards-trasniy progr~. and co prov~de OFDA assiscance in developing hezard abatement axpertsse worldwide co seve [ives and reduce economic losses in couneries where geologic and hydrologic hazards are prevalene. Thss a~endment funds services chrough December 31, 1984. All other eer~s and conditions of ehe agreemene, noe specifically changed by ehis doc~=ent, remain as prevsously negoeiated. t3. GOVERNING PQ0VISIONS; Pursuans to trte Gene—~ Agreemenr datea ·eor'~a=, :, 96' tetween AlO ~na:n. DeDar ~ent of Inter~or ttle ~q.nc~ nemea ~oove a-trees ~ orov,~e rile serv~ce' outl~nea ~n B!oex ,2 amot~fi" as nc - ~o b, Agoeno~x A, ~n'.~s otner - ,'. autr~or':ea tv A10, a~l serv~ce' see`' o. of 'J.S. or~q~n. ~ny aeoono~ce' t:~ ~ ttl~~ i3AS~. , , _ _ .. 14. S-~r" ,//~ ,NAM£ e~ C. ~r~e ~ aF"'cC .4ssistant Oirector for Pronra~s c^TE 2~' G~ /9~ - - ~ 5. A ooena ~c~ - ~ -?oe.`Jotx A SC-`P'- Of ~OR,C - ' APoo~otx 3 3UOGE, '~ ~^ME d<'~— . ~ 11la r~lT~_E;'8 C)HiEF. I NTERt~lAT'L 3` I NTERAGE?~; ~ 3i4Ai.C C)fr~C£ ~ ONTRAC'~lAbJAGc.\lE>JT AlO oArE . 'wx ~ ~ I ~ 6. ~690tlat~nq Cftiell~l '/ ~ ~10: C.~/SOO/~1~ =,_'-nn .i. Jun.an _ ~PP~:bJ~tX C - USE OF AlO P~i?sO~J~lEL~FAC:t~l~tES ~ ~PC.NOIX ~ SU8CChJ7RACTING i AiGc~CY :)01' SGS: r 2e 3enean ~ ~T~6R/Ref-~E~c£ ·'0oendix E - 3~" _ng ~ ~ 4~d ~ ~ - — ~S(^ ~.~r ~_- ;~; ___ _ - a~ .- .~

89 APPtHOt: ~ SCOPE 0' ~~x -,,,. 1 .~ 2 IlETW~ OH - ; .~ - Ct FOR INTE3~ATl0~AL ~ EYI. `~°~7 to U . S. Department of Int erior U. S. Geological Survey -~. 01 BOF-0000-P-IC-3064- ~7_ 1984 lI . Scope o f Work 1. Conduct ~ series of inceruceione1 ·eeinere and workabope ( including field tripe) over ~ f:~_cek period (March 5-30, 1984) at the U.S. G.olo~ica1 Survey Pedere1 Training Cenear in Bower, Colorado on the sub jecte of gealogice1 and hydrological hazards for not lea. then 30 foreign perticipanes from earehqual" and/or flood disseter-pro" developing countries. 2. Select and invite seminar participants ~ identified by USAIDa, OF0A and U.S.G.S. tachnica1 eels trinity co host countries. Review *11 appropriate applications and arrange all travel and per died for t rawness . 3. Select ant in~ricc distinguished foreign guest lecturers from each of three regions previously visited by the U.S.G.S. to. 4. Finalize agenda for seminar/workshop program a~ coordinate preparation of final instruct tonal material. and arrangements for lecture exercises, elides and reprint/publicat~ons distribucion. S. Coordinate and implement foreign and domestic chapel logistics and per diem distribution for all Lecturers consultants, and pereicipants. 6. Develop a past~disaster response to plan Co ass ist couneerpart experts in hocc countries co determine the nature of disaster evenes and probability of further aceiviCy. Provide guidelines for in~counery use in protecting life and property against d:sascers caused by floods, earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes arc. 7. Assist host countries in collecting the technical information needed co develop comprehensive disaster preparedness programs ant assist in pos ~ -d i ~ as ter sc iene i f Arc re sponse ac e svi e ies . 8. Publish training program preseneations, ir:seruce tonal materials concept, technical results and ocher substantive materials in a finer volume (i.e. U.S.G.S. Professional Paper) for worldwide public d s ~ peanut son . I I: . Bac Aground "Proposal A" (attached) included by reference in :his amendmenc. IV. Report ~ 1. Quarterly Progress reports are required ( ~ ix copies ) . 2. Final Report ( see No . 8 above ) is required in ( draft ) four months following completion of the training program. Final U.S.G.S. (and A. I.D. approved) Professional Paper co be published before complecson of the project.

go 21 ACERB SERVICE ~G LIT Mix ~ red CENT FOR INTO - 4TlO~AL OlYt FM - T to S~£ 0' ~~X V. Re let ionshipe U. S. Department of Interior U. S. Geological Sunrey I. — 0~166., - ^_~- _ - A" - a- _ 0~ - Ooo~P_rc 3064 1984 A,. The U.S Geological Survey will conduct the activity using U.S.G.S. pereanne1, and uni~craity specialists ~ appropriate. ~UD/OF1~ Al 1 coordinate wi ch the USt;S in conduce ing the program in Cooperat ion wits' t he LDCe and USAIDe . Cooperat ing Country Liaison Of fic is1 The U. S.C.S wi 11 coordinate in-country with couneerpare governmental agencies Ad institutions and all logistical arrangements imrolv,ed in the training course. C . Vl. Logistics AID Liaison Officials P au 1 F . Krumpe Program Officer, AID/OFDA, Pen. 1262A, N.S. Washington, O. C. 20S23 US<;S vi 1L sauce all internee tonal and domesc ic cranial arrangeacnts, including purchase of tickets, obtaining passports or ''rises as required, ant make all transportac ion arrangements for domest ic renta1 care for official travel as required. VII. Soec lal Peru ~ resents: . ';o international travel originating in :he C.S. should be undertaken without prior approval of AIDICFDA/',; and or CVJSC0/l;.~. Subcontracting authority is Ranted to O'SGS under i Is 0~ cont.ace~ng authority, and in accordance with A. I. ~ . '.~=ndbook 2 ~ . pages 1-21 and 1-21a, not co exceed SS5,000 as stipulated in the actac.ned budget. All training under this agreement shall be provided i: accordance Finn A. I.D. Handbook 10. ~~-

Appendix M FOURTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ RES OUR OF THE FEDERAL INSTITUTE FOR GEOSCIENCES AND NATURAL RESOURCES CEO-RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT . Examples from the Applied Geosciences 91

92 ~ o. ~~' 3 it 31 ~ 3, al ~ , I` al t5~ of. 7 use ~ UJ ~ w ~ ~ ~ . . . s 3 ~ ~ ~— : ~ ]: ~ ~ : S · : ~ ~ 0 00 ~ _ _ O O , ~ ~ 7 ~ o ~ =~ ) r e hi 3 1 1 i 3 = 1 ~ ~ i ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~

Appendix N INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR TRAINING AND GEOLOGICAL EXCHANGES (ICTGE) Centre International Pour la Formation et les Echanges Geologiques 103 Rue de Lile, 75007 PARIS, France At the closing of the 26th International Geological Congress held in Paris in July 1980, an idea was launched for the creation of a permanent center which, working together with the international organizations, would encourage and facilitate exchanges between institutions of all nationalities specializing in the Earth Sciences, and would provide assistance, in particular, for scientists and technicians with advanced training and study opportunities. The Earth Sciences contribute to the economic and social development of a nation via the exploitation and development of its mining resources. They also have a number of other important spheres of influence, in particular in the energy sector and that of territorial development. Geological studies are fundamental to the search for and the management of water resources. They are necessary for large-scale civil engineering projects and for environmental and impact studies, problems connected with urban expansion, etc. International cooperation implies that those countries that have an established tradition in the technologies corresponding to these activities have a duty to assist less industrialized nations, sharing with them the benefit of their experience. In order to do this, it is first necessary to find out the actual requirements of such countries, to study with them the consequences on a national or regional scale of new technological input, so that, in response to requests, efficient assistance may be provided for their development. Contacts established with the representative authorities responsible for international cooperation projects in the field o~ the Earth Sciences, have confirmed the concern of many countries--in particular those with developing industrialization--concerning scientific information, training opportunities and higher education Boor their executive staff. For practical considerations, the ICTGE--ar. internationally oriented organization under French jurisdiction--was created in August 1981 by the transformation of an already existing 'inundation. Administrative control of the Centre is assured by a Board of Directors of 24 members from various nations and belonging to a variety of organizations (including UNESCO). 93

94 An Upper Scientific and Technical Council, again of international composition, will be created to assist the Board of Directors. This body will propose the general principles to govern the orientation of the Centre and give advice on the ICTGE work program. Its members will be drawn from representatives of the international organizations and from persons with experience of international cooperation in the Earth Sciences. The objectives of the ICTGE as regards the Earth Sciences have been outlined as follows: · to promote the exchange of information between countries; · to encourage all initiatives for scientific and technical training within the countries concerned, or outside them where no suitable facilities are locally available; · to gather the requirements in geological information as expressed by these countries and to find with them the way of meeting these needs; · to involve all types of organizations and associations concerned by the Earth Sciences in this work. The new Centre is not to form a substitute for the organizations already participating in international cooperation of this sort, but to facilitate their contacts and make the best possible use of their initiatives. TRAINING The ICTGE must first make an accurate survey of the requirements in cooperation-training as expressed by the various countries and in particular by the developing countries. This will be balanced by a survey of all the opportunities offered for higher education and specialized training in the industrialized countries. The training to be undertaken will be of two main types: · group training programs inside the developing countries, usually intended for technicians, the coaching being provided by foreign teachers and engineers; · research work or specialized studies by engineers and scientists carried out in the countries possessing the corresponding technology. MEETING PLACE AND COMMtJNICATION GENTER The Centre will serve as a focal point for meetings and communication between engineers and scientists Atom throughout the world. This part of its functions will present a threefold complementary aspect, in close association with its role as a documentation center (see below): · welcome and information (scientific, technical and practical) at the head office;

95 · response to scientific and technical requests from various countries, often by channeling these requests towards the most suitable organizations; · publication of an information and liaison bulletin DOCUMENTATION CENTER . In this role the ICTGE will provide geological and mining information, together with macroeconomic data, particularly concerned with the developing countries of the world. For these purposes, the Centre will possess a library containing synthesis studies, monographs (thematic or regional), and the programs for bilateral and multilateral cooperation. It will be equipped with all the documentary and data processing means allowing it access to the international data banks. It will therefore be able to establish an information network with all the main documentary centers.

International Role of U.S. Geoscience Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!