PART 10
POLICIES TO PROTECT DIVERSITY



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity PART 10 POLICIES TO PROTECT DIVERSITY

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity Examples of documents that address global environmental problems, including the preservation of biodiversity.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity CHAPTER 44 PRESERVING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN THE TROPICAL FORESTS OF THE ASIAN REGION JOHN SPEARS Forestry Adviser, World Bank, Washington, D.C. A range of agriculture, forestry, fiscal, and other policy initiatives will be needed if the Asian Region is to preserve a significant proportion of its remaining 300 million hectares of biologically diverse tropical forests and to sustain a timber industry beyond the year 2000. These forests have been reduced by one-half since the turn of the century. To contain this forest encroachment effectively, a multidisciplinary approach and top-level political commitment will be needed. STATUS OF THE REGION’S CLOSED FORESTS Closed forests, i.e., tropical forests with a closed canopy as opposed to open grasslands savannah, cover 300 million hectares and account for about one-third of the land area of Asia. About 20% of the forest area has been logged over. Approximately 500 million cubic meters of fuelwood and 100 million cubic meters of industrial wood are produced each year. The forest industries of the Region annually generate more than US$5 billion in foreign-exchange earnings. Wood removals in most countries exceed the sustainable yield of the forests, and investment in forest management and reforestation is annually running less than one-third that needed to replace what is being cut. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO/UNEP, 1981), only 13% of the forest area is being managed for sustained yield. Annually, some 1.8 million hectares are being lost to agriculture. In some countries of the Region, such as Nepal and Bangladesh, virtually all the natural forests will disappear before year 2000 unless swift remedial action is taken.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity The principal causes of deforestation include the following: increasing population pressure and the need for additional land for cultivation; land ownership patterns that force peasant families and landless people into forests and marginal lands; commercial agriculture operations (particularly plantation agriculture for crops such as palm oil, rubber, and coconut); and commercial logging, which opens up previously inaccessible forests to cultivation and fuelwood harvesting at a rate far exceeding the regenerative capacity of the forests. SOLUTIONS TO DEFORESTATION Some of the solutions to deforestation will have to come from outside the forestry sector. The three key areas for intervention are: measures aimed at increasing agricultural productivity and providing the Region’s 100-million forest dwellers and people living adjacent to the forests with an alternative to further forest encroachment; intensification of forest management and creation of compensatory plantations of fast-growing species that can provide an alternative to continued exploitation of natural forests; and a vigorous forest-conservation policy that will set aside substantial areas of the remaining tropical forests as ecological reserves to be protected from all forms of encroachment. Intensification of Agricultural Productivity Support for land reform and land-titling programs that address the issues of inequitable land distribution and encourage a more permanent and sustainable agriculture could do much to relieve pressure on forest land. A government assistance program is under way in northern Thailand to achieve this. Intensification of perennial tree crop yields (mainly oil palm, rubber, and coconut) on plantations that cover some 20 million hectares in the Asian Region is receiving high priority in the agricultural development plans of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. While from one point of view it can be argued that the establishment of such plantations has contributed to deforestation, there are some positive aspects to this development. Malaysian experience, such as that in the Jengka Triangle, has demonstrated that well-managed agricultural tree crops can provide attractive income for settled families and help to reduce dependence on shifting agriculture. From an ecological viewpoint, such tree crops do a good job in protecting soil and water resources. A well-thought-out government land-use plan for that region carried out in the 1960s demarcated more favorable bottom lands for agriculture and set aside some 60% of the area as forest reserves. After some 20 years, the village population of the Jengka region remains relatively stable. Furthermore, the forests originally excluded from settlement have been protected and are still there today.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity Market constraints for commodities such as palm oil and rubber will curtail future expansion, and it seems unlikely that by the year 2000 such agricultural plantations could exceed 30 million hectares (10% of the remaining closed-forest area of the region). By contrast, the planting of perennial tree crops in settlement projects such as the Indonesia Transmigration program, in which there is a much higher degree of dependence on annual food cropping, are experiencing considerable problems. A high-priority area for the future is more intensive research and field-scale trials of new technologies for sustaining annual food cropping in the acid latosols (bleached red and yellow tropical soils) that underlie rain-forest lands. Particularly important are agroforestry techniques such as alley-cropping (a system of growing crops interspersed with lines of fast growing leguminous woody species), which can reduce dependence on artificial fertilizers, and zero tillage technology, which leads to the retention of organic matter in soil. Another high-priority area for research is the food-cropping potential of the thousands of unresearched plants that grow within the tropical rain forests. Such research could help to widen the range of food crops available for indigenous consumption. A good example is the winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus). Although this plant has been known for centuries to the forest tribes of New Guinea, it was hardly recognized elsewhere. Research has demonstrated that the plant has a nutritional value equivalent to soybean (40% protein and 17% edible oil). It is now being cultivated for food production in some 50 developing countries. Intensification of Forest Productivity and Reforestation Of the more than 200 potential timber species occurring in the natural forests of Asia, more than two-thirds are currently regarded as weed species of little commercial value. Intensive research and market promotion have done much to introduce some of the lesser known species to the market and could do much more. Between 1977 and 1981, for example, the utilization of lesser known species more than doubled in Peninsular Malaysia. They now account for 27% of the log intake of plywood/veneer mills. Investment in more intensive natural forest management and, in particular, the establishment of compensatory plantations of fast-growing tree species can also help to take the pressure off natural forests. Species such as Gmelina arborea, Albizzia falcataria, Leucaena spp., and, in appropriate locations, Eucalyptus and Pinus caribaea grow at 4 to 5 times the rate of slower-growing indigenous forest trees. Fuelwood crops mature in 10 years, and timber, in 20 to 25 years, compared with 60- to 80-year rotations more typical of the natural forest species. All the needs for industrial wood in the region by the year 2000 could in theory be supplied from fast-growing plantations covering about 25 million hectares, i.e., less than 10% of the remaining forest area. In the region as a whole, about 2 million hectares of fast-growing industrial plantations have been established. Burma, Indonesia, and India have substantial ongoing programs. Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand are preparing for an increased rate of planting. Support for social and agroforestry programs outside the forests can help to provide farmers and village communities with the fuelwood, poles, fodder, and

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity other forest products they need for their survival, thereby reducing the pressure on natural forests. Countries such as China, Korea, and India have been in the forefront of such programs. In the State of Gujarat in India, for example, schools and local farmers have played a lead role in the production of more than 600 million tree seedlings, which have been distributed in the last 5 years. A most promising area for increased support is research into technologies that have the potential for increasing productivity of the principal tree species being planted in the Region. Tree improvement and breeding programs can more than double the yield of natural forest trees. Pakistan, China, and India have achieved spectacular results with species of poplar. In the Philippines, a giant species of Leucaena produced more than 3 times the yield of indigenous stocks. Participation at a recent International Union of Forest Research Organization workshop identified 10 multipurpose species that will be given high priority in future tree improvement work. Forest Conservation Policies About 1.8 million hectares (some 6% of the Region’s forest) have already been set aside as national parks or nature reserves. This is nowhere near sufficient to ensure preservation of the unique germplasm and wildlife resources of the Region or the survival of the many endangered species. Nor is it sufficient to ensure that the natural forests of the Region continue to play a vital role in protecting soil and water resources on which downstream farmers depend for both irrigation and drinking water. According to a recent World Resources Institute study (WRI et al., 1985), some 50 million hectares of deforested watersheds in the Region are in urgent need of rehabilitation. Creation of interministerial land-use boards with enough political clout to direct future agricultural settlement away from threatened forest areas is a key policy issue for the future. Peninsular Malaysia has led the way. Achieving such effective coordination is frequently hampered by localized political and vested financial interests. It requires top-level political commitment to follow through on what are often unpopular decisions that restrain peoples’ access to forest lands and reduce the level of potential profit to timber enterprises. The introduction of improved mechanisms for consulting with forest-dwelling communities on land-use issues and forest reservation policies are a feature of government policy in northern Thailand. More specific measures need to be taken to involve local communities throughout the Region, especially to involve nongovernment organizations and environmental agencies in national land-use policy planning and in the implementation of development programs. Recent research by the Government of Indonesia with assistance from the International Institute for Environment and Development is moving in that direction. Considerable further strengthening of the agriculture, forestry, and national park administrations in the Region is required to enable them to intensify scientific inventory research in national parks and nature reserves, in order to develop parks as a tangible source of revenue and recreation outlet both for local and overseas tourists.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity POLICY REFORMS Raising political awareness and mobilizing sources of support for forest conservation and development will achieve little unless at the same time high priority is given to the fundamental policy reforms that are needed to ensure natural resource conservation. Among the more important needs for the immediate future are the following: Strong political commitment to land reform and redistribution policies by national governments of the Region, particularly in areas adjacent to threatened forest lands. Land consolidation and titling programs encourage a shift to more stable agriculture. Strong commitment by agricultural ministries to the diversion of a specific part of agricultural development plan resources to the development of intensified agriculture buffer zones around the most imminently threatened forest lands and to the rehabilitation of degraded watersheds. In India under the late Mrs. Ghandi’s leadership, steps were taken to increase the proportion of the agricultural budget devoted to rural afforestation and to upland watershed rehabilitation in the Himalayan range. The commitment of log-exporting countries to the raising of timber taxes to TABLE 44–1 Strategies for Relieving Pressure on Tropical Forests of the Asian Region Strategy Examples of World Bank Forestry Projects Applying This Strategy Reservation of discrete areas of tropical rain forests as ecological reserves or national parks using World Bank lending policy as a lever to encourage more systematic reservation policies. Indonesia, Dumoga Bone National Park Agriculture/buffer zone development that can provide shifting cultivators or small farmers with an alternative to forest encroachment. Malaysia, Jengka oil palm Allocation of land title or leasehold rights plus credits, submitted seedling, or other incentives to encourage people living in or adjacent to forest lands to take up cash crop tree farming. Philippines, smallholder tree farming Planting of fast-growing industrial plantation trees that can provide an alternative source of wood supply to the natural forest and thereby reduce pressure for opening up new logging concessions. Burma, Forestry Extraction and Management Involvement of local communities in natural forest management. Nepal, Terai Forest Development Social/agroforestry schemes to ensure farmers and local communities an adequate supply of fuelwood, fodder, poles, etc., and to reduce dependence on natural forests. India, Gujarat Forestry Strengthening of forest administrations, particularly in the area of resource conservation and protection. Sri Lanka Forest Development

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity something more in line with the timber’s real economic value. The introduction of fiscal and incentive policies that would encourage greater private sector participation in forest management and reforestation and the introduction of measures to ensure that a higher proportion of forest taxes and revenues are returned to forest management. In many of the countries of the Region, overly generous past timber concessions and fiscal incentives have encouraged wasteful timber exploitation and accelerated destruction of the forests. They encourage high grading of valuable species and discourage investment in reforestation. Adjustment of timber taxation and fiscal policies in most countries of the Region is an essential complementary measure in addition to direct investment in forest-development programs if currently extensive and wasteful harvesting are to be brought under control. ROLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES The development agencies, particularly within the Region of the Asian Development Bank, as well as United Nations Development Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank, and bilateral assistance agencies, have been supporting a range of initiatives covering some of the above topics. Examples of several forest conservation and development projects financed by the World Bank are given in Tables 44–1 and 44–2. Greater support is needed from the development agencies to set aside specific tracts of natural forests as protected areas or national parks as an integral part of their agriculture and forest lending policies. To date, the majority of such aid-agency schemes have been project-oriented, affecting one small part of the overall problem and often confined to a small geographic region. To play a more effective role in this area, the development agencies need to shift toward better-coordinated lending programs incorporating policy measures such as those cited above as a condition of their development aid support. REFERENCES FAO/UNEP (Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Program). 1981. Tropical Forests Resources Assessment Project: Tropical Africa, Tropical Asia, Tropical America. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 3 volumes. WRI (World Resources Institute), The World Bank, and United Nations Development Programme. 1985. Tropical Forests: A Call for Action. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. 3 vols.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity TABLE 44–2 Examples of World Bank-Financed Forestry/Agricultural Projects That Could Help to Relieve Pressure on Tropical Moist Forests Country Summary Project Description Year of Loan/Credit and Amount (US$) How the Project Has Relieved (or Was Intended to Relieve) Pressure on Tropical Forests and Reasons for Success Ranking of Effectiveness to Datea Comment Indonesia Setting aside and protecting 300,000 hectares of Dumoga Bone National Park as an integral component of an irrigation project. 1984; US$1 million (national park component only). This represents less than 2% of total cost. Reservation of an area of forest that will be protected and managed as national park. Government of Indonesia strongly supportive of reservation policies and committed to increasing area of protected reserves. 1 None Malaysia Involvement of about 9,000 families in an oil palm and rubber development in the Jengka Triangle. 1968; US$20 million Careful land-use planning prior to the project demarcated 60% of the forest area as permanent forest reserves and succeeded in channeling agricultural development to flatter terrain and higher potential soils. Use of a perennial agricultural tree crop (palm oil) provides effective soil and water protection. Oil palm has proved a profitable cash crop for settlers, and in first-phase development involving 1 Project design could have been improved by including provisions for scientific inventory of the resource area and evaluation of critical areas of unique wildlife or plant species that were deserving of special protection.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity Country Summary Project Description Year of Loan/Credit and Amount (US$) How the Project Has Relieved (or Was Intended to Relieve) Pressure on Tropical Forests and Reasons for Success Ranking of Effectiveness to Datea Comment   9,000 settlers, there has been less than a 2% turnover in settlement villages.     Philippines Smallholder tree farming. Involvement of some 8,000 smallholders in growing pulpwood and other forest products as a cash crop. 1973; US$10 million Government was prepared to consider giving security of land tenure to people formally regarded as illegal squatters on forest land. The local pulp mill guaranteed an attractive price for wood and provided seedlings and extension advice. The highly productive, intensive pulpwood tree farms have avoided the necessity of cutting an area of natural tropical forest 20 to 25 times larger to obtain the same yield. 2 A typhoon wiped out some of the plantations. (Replanting is in progress.) Replicability of this project is highly sensitive to transport distance from markets. Burma As an integral component of the teak harvesting project, financing of improved forest management and 1980; US$35 million Government is committed to a policy of forest protection and management. Technical package for teak 1 None

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity   replanting of some 15,000 hectares of teak plantations.   plantation establishment was well proven prior to project development. Planting rate has exceeded targets. Program is being expanded to a second phase.     Nepal As part of a community forestry project, handing over of some 8,000 hectares of government-controlled forest to local panchayats (village councils) for protection and management. 1980; US$17 million Local communities have responded to this initiative and are beginning to organize protection and management of forest lands. Some 7,000 hectares have been reforested. 2 Scale of operation so far completed is very small in relation to the magnitude of the problem. The entire program envisages at least 1.5 million hectares being handed over to local panchayats. India, Gujarat State As part of a social forestry program, involvement of local families and communities in restoration of forest cover on degraded forest land. The scheme was started in 1980. By 1982, some 18,000 hectares of degraded forest had been completed under this scheme. 1980; US$37 million Strong government commitment to the scheme. A flexible forest service, which has shifted more than 60% of its resources to promoting social forestry through a variety of farm forestry, village woodlots, and forest protection programs. Conditions of wood scarcity and rising prices for fuelwood and other products have made 1 None

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity The figures and the trends for biological diversity and tropical forest are discouraging. Yet change can come faster than we think. We will lose much more tropical forest and many more species because of the inexorable—yet reasonable—march of development (Prance and Elias, 1977; Raven, 1980). What we end up with at the beginning of the twenty-first century and beyond depends on the changes we make today. And fortunately, many of those changes already are under way. REFERENCES Asian Development Bank. 1980. Sector Paper on Forestry and Forest Industry. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. 112 pp. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1985. Tropical Forestry Action Plan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics, Rome. 159 pp. FAO/UNEP (Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Program). 1981. Tropical Forests Resources Assessment Project: Tropical Africa, Tropical Asia, Tropical America. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 3 volumes. Furtado, J.I. 1986. The future of tropical forests. Pp. 145–171 in N.Polunin, ed. Ecosystem Theory and Application. John Wiley & Sons, London. Guppy, N. 1984. Tropical deforestation: A global view. Foreign Affairs 62(4):929–965. Myers, N. 1980. Conversion of Tropical Moist Forests. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 205 pp. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1984. Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources. Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C. 344 pp. Prance, G.T., and T.S.Elias, eds. 1977. Extinction Is Forever: Threatened and Endangered Species of Plants in the Americas and Their Significance in Ecosystems Today and in the Future. Proceedings of a symposium held at the New York Botanical Garden, May 11–13, 1976, in commemoration of the Bicentennial of the United States of America. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, N.Y. 437 pp. Raven, P.H. 1980. Research Priorities in Tropical Biology. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 116 pp. Rubinoff, I. 1983. A strategy for preserving tropical forests. Pp. 465–476 in S.L.Sutton, T.C. Whitmore, and A.C.Shadwick, eds. Tropical Rain Forest: Ecology and Management. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston. Sommer, A. 1976. An attempt at an assessment of the world’s tropical moist forests. Unasylva 28(112–113):5–24. Thomas, E., and E.Garred. 1986. Deep pockets for doing good. Time (June 16) 127(24):51. Whitmore, T.C. 1984. Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East. Second edition, revised. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 353 pp. World Bank. 1978. Forestry, A Sector Policy Paper. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 65 pp. WRI (World Resources Institute), The World Bank, and United Nations Development Programme. 1985. Tropical Forests: A Call for Action. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. 3 vols. WRI (World Resources Institute) and IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development). 1986. World Resources 1986. Basic Books, New York.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity CHAPTER 46 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROTECTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY NYLE C.BRADY Senior Assistant Administrator for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. It has become clear that a significant proportion of the diversity of life on Earth could well be lost in the next half century. It is also clear that this loss could have serious negative impacts on society. The number of species currently available for use could be reduced by the loss of both wild germplasm and gene pools, and potential new genetic resources could be lost before their utility is discovered. Essential ecological services such as regulation of water quality and quantity, regeneration of plants and animals, cycling of nutrients, and buffering climate extremes could be impaired or lost altogether. Society should face this issue squarely and should make a concerted effort to minimize the projected loss of biological diversity. But how can this be done? More importantly, how can it be done in the developing nations of the world where there is competition between meeting the basic human needs of burgeoning populations and maintaining biological diversity? THE DEVELOPING COUNTRY Developing countries face severe challenges in dealing with biological diversity. It is difficult for them to focus on long-term needs when they are faced with pressing, immediate needs for food and fuelwood and some means for earning foreign exchange to buy essential products and pay existing, mounting debts. This is a particularly urgent problem for those developing nations located in the tropics where the level of biological diversity is the highest and the threats to its maintenance are the greatest. Possibly up to 50% of all species on Earth may be native to the 6 to 7% of the Earth’s land area that is covered by tropical moist forests

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987). Yet, at current rates of tropical deforestation and conversion, virtually all accessible primary tropical moist forest areas will be gone within 50 to 70 years. At the same time, many of the tropical developing countries are among the poorest on Earth, often with large and rapidly growing populations. These countries have become increasingly dependent on external assistance to address their food and economic development needs as well as to help them conserve their biological resources. Without increased attention to both, the global community stands to lose living resources of truly inestimable value. It is my conviction that biological diversity concerns cut across a wide range of sectors. Furthermore, sustained economic development requires the conservation of biological resources, and conversely, conservation of these resources in the developing world is dependent upon their ability to achieve sustained economic growth. The perspective of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Mission in Bangkok is illustrative of this point. In responding to our request for guidance from the field as to how the agency should address this concern, the mission replied: In Thailand, the principal threat to long-term maintenance of biological diversity and tropical forest resources is agricultural encroachment on already-designated conservation areas by nomadic hill tribe groups and landless lowland Thais. Overcoming this problem is fundamental to the long-term viability of much of Thailand’s biological resources, and will require concerted efforts in agricultural, rural, and economic development, as well as in reforestation and protected area management. For those situations where basic human needs must be met for conservation efforts to succeed, AID might be able to play a role both in conserving biological diversity and tropical forests and in fostering sustainable economic and social progress of the poor (U.S. Department of State, 1986). This, to me, epitomizes the dilemma that this group of international scientists must come to grips with if conservation efforts are to succeed on a global scale. In meeting this challenge, we are going to have to find ways to conserve more natural habitats, better manage those that already exist, ensure that development projects are ecologically sound, improve our methods of economic analysis of the costs and benefits of natural resource deteriorations and investments in natural resources conservation, and increase food and fuelwood production on land already cleared in order to reduce pressure on the remaining wild areas. HABITAT CONSERVATION—KEY TO THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION Although pollution and overexploitation are serious threats to many wild plant and animal species, the continuing loss of habitats, especially tropical forests, is the major cause of current and projected rates of species extinction. Consequently, habitat conservation is the key to the effective conservation of the world’s biological diversity. The utility or necessity of a species from the standpoint of humans is not necessarily a corollary of a species’ adaptability. Therefore, conserving biological diversity for human benefit means conserving sufficient natural habitat for those species incapable of surviving elsewhere.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity Habitat conservation can be addressed in two major ways. First, we can critically analyze why the habitat is changing and can identify steps to be taken to arrest these changes. For example, we must determine the human needs currently being met by those who slash and burn tropical forests, and we must find alternatives to this devastating practice. These alternatives must meet those human needs without destroying the natural habitat and, in turn, the biological resources that depend upon that habitat. Perhaps no other scientific achievement would make a greater contribution to the maintenance of biological diversity in the tropics than would the development of practicable alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture. The second way of enhancing biological diversity is to set aside specific areas in which the current habitat is to be maintained. The establishment and maintenance of conservation reserves, parks, and wildlife refuges are examples of this means of maintaining biological diversity. Actions necessary to ensure the success of these protected areas must be taken. But we and others in the industrialized nations must not underestimate the difficulty of doing so. Questions such as the following must be addressed: How much habitat and what kinds of habitats must be maintained? Who will establish and maintain such habitat areas and at what cost in both economic and human terms? Who will pay? THE NEED FOR A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO CONSERVATION Systematic conservation can be defined as the conscious maintenance of the full range of natural diversity, e.g., species, communities, habitats, and ecosystems on a representative basis. Because we lack full knowledge of the identity and number of all species, let alone their distribution and habitat requirements, efforts to achieve systematic conservation must necessarily focus on higher levels of organization such as the habitat or ecosystem. Although this is a much more tractable procedure than a species-based approach, it will nevertheless require both new research and a comprehensive synthesis of available information. Especially necessary are the review and integration of habitat classification systems and existing conservation area systems. It will also require the development of habitat size criteria to ensure the long-term security of those species each habitat type contains. Worldwide, there are currently some 3,500 major conservation areas totaling approximately 4.25 million square kilometers (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987). These conservation areas can be grouped into 10 broad classifications, ranging from strict nature reserves to multiple-use natural resource lands. Broadly speaking, these areas represent some 178 of the 193 biogeographical provinces recognized by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as a first approximation of the diversity of Earth’s major habitat types. Globally, therefore, the nations of the world already have made a significant investment of land for the maintenance of natural communities and the perpetuation of their biological diversity.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity But this current investment is not yet adequate. First, not all habitat types, even very broad ones such as the biogeographic provinces mentioned above, are represented in the current system, and these biogeographic provinces themselves are so coarse as to miss a great deal of diversity. Second, the size of the areas set aside for some habitat types may be inadequate. For example, of the 178 biogeographic provinces represented in the current system of conservation areas, 28 are represented by five or fewer individual units, for an aggregate area of 1,000 square kilometers or less (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987). There is growing concern that such a limited number of small conservation areas may not forestall the extinction of some species, particularly those that are large, wide-ranging, or especially susceptible to the chance variations in climatic and environmental factors. Third, conservation areas in many countries lack adequate management for many of the units. Without professional, trained staff, adequately equipped and operating under an explicit management plan, many of these areas represent an idea rather than reality. Nevertheless, there are hopeful signs. Since 1950, there has been a rapid increase in the number and extent of conservation areas worldwide. Eight of the nine countries reported to have set aside more than 10% of their land in protected areas are located in the developing world (Harrison et al., 1984). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service are receiving a growing number of requests for assistance in conservation-area establishment and management from developing countries. Also, the U.S. Peace Corps now has about 170 volunteers afield working on parks and protected-area projects at the request of developing country governments. All signs point to an increased awareness of the need for conserving natural systems for the potential resources they may contain, for the environmental services they provide, and for the educational and aesthetic needs they meet. Yet much remains to be done, and the development community can and should play a role. THE OBJECTIVES AND ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE The goal of U.S. development assistance programs is to help people of the developing countries enhance their human, social, and economic conditions. The conservation ethic, which implies the rational and sustained use of resources, seems to prosper in both traditional cultures and in the highly developed and successful industrialized nations. But most of the world’s people live in the developing nations, which are in transition between older traditional cultures and a more economically developed state. If the North American and Western European experiences are a guide for the future, the conservation ethic, especially as it relates to land use, is more likely to prosper in the developing nations as this transition progresses. In a very real sense, therefore, successful economic and social development can enhance conservation efforts in the developing world.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity However, conservation efforts need not wait until development is complete. But make no mistake, such efforts must be part of the framework of overall economic development to fully succeed. Protected areas will not survive in a human environment of futility and dire need. Poor peasants do not burn the forests just because they like to see fires. They need fuelwood, or they need cleared land and the wood ashes to help them produce food for their families. Only if they are provided with feasible alternatives to the wasteful slash-and-burn system will the world be able to protect the natural habitats and, in turn, to maintain biological diversity. Although the provision of such alternatives and better livelihoods for the world’s poorest people is a major contribution of development assistance to conservation efforts, more can and must be done. First, it is encumbent upon the development-assistance community to ensure that our policies, programs, and projects are environmentally and ecologically sound as well as economically feasible. USAID’s policy on natural resources and the environment and our environmental review procedures are designed to fulfill these requirements. Our policies and procedures are also designed to ensure that our program directions and our project review system adequately address the impacts of our assistance activities on endangered species and their critical habitats. The World Bank has recently adopted an operating policy on wildlands, which are discussed by Goodland in Chapter 49. Second, USAID is playing a lead role within the donor community in establishing a dialog with the governments of developing countries on the importance of wise natural resource management, including the conservation of biological diversity. As an initial step in this dialog, we have assisted some 23 developing countries in preparing country environmental or natural resource profiles. These profiles outline the current status of renewable natural resources and identify major environmental issues, information on the biological diversity resources of countries, existing conservation programs, and future needs. We plan to accelerate the preparation of environmental profiles in the remaining countries in which USAID has programs and to ensure that biological diversity is better addressed. USAID is also assisting several countries in the preparation of national conservation strategies that establish explicit conservation objectives, which can be integrated into overall economic development goals. This is a logical followup to the profiling effort and can lead to the identification of gaps in a national protected area system and of land use options (parks, multiple-use areas) that most realistically fit the country’s socioeconomic status. Without explicit plans and budgets, conservation efforts can be ineffective and development schemes can founder for lack of a thorough understanding of the environment and the resource base. For example, one government ministry may be planning a major hydroelectric project that happens to coincide with another ministry’s plans for the project area as a wildlife refuge. A third ministry may also be planning the sale of timber concessions in the same area. With proper interagency consultation, project design, and implementation, the dam could provide power, well-managed logging could produce timber, and the overall reservoir catchment area could be set aside to protect the reservoir’s watershed and help maintain the regional biota.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity USAID is supporting the development of a national conservation strategy for Nepal and has assisted in the process of planning and initiating conservation strategies in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe. Again, this process needs to be accelerated, and we are working to do this. Coupled with the integration of conservation and development is the need to develop or strengthen indigenous institutions within the developing countries that can assemble, analyze, and monitor data on plant and animal species, on land use, and on protected area systems. Both conservation and development agencies need the information and technical support that such institutions can provide on a continuing basis. The Nature Conservancy’s International Program has been working with several Latin American countries to develop Conservation Data Centers to meet this need. We believe their efforts are a good prototype for such institutions, and we are pleased to be assisting in supporting this program. Development assistance agencies can also assist conservation efforts directly through grant or loan support and through the regular and systematic incorporation of conservation components into development assistance projects. In Peru, for example, the Central Selva Resource Management Project was started in 1982 in the Palcazu valley of the high jungle. It is being funded by USAID and the Government of Peru at a total of $30 million over 6 years. Its purpose is to test and institutionalize a method to promote sustained productivity of the Palcazu watershed and build an institutional capability within the country to plan and implement integrated regional development. Covenants included in the loan agreement require that the Government of Peru designate a national park and a protected forest in the watershed and assign technical staff to the area. The project design was derived from an environmental and social assessment that classified land-use capability. The USAID mission concluded on the basis of these studies that production forestry held the greatest potential for development, that previous plans for extensive resettlement of people to increase food production were not feasible, and that major attention should be given to managing the area for the existing inhabitants, many of whom were native peoples (USAID, 1982). The project contains 10 components, two of which are of primary interest here: natural forest management for sustained yield and the establishment of protected areas. The forest management plan involves the testing of rotational, narrow clearcut areas based on new knowledge about gap-phase dynamics and the regeneration requirements of tropical forest canopy tree species. It is hoped that this will permit natural regeneration over 30-year cycles. Current estimates are that logging 1 to 2 hectares a year will generate an adequate annual family income from 80-hectare holdings (Hartshorn, 1985). The park and forest reserve areas were defined on the basis not only of land capability but also of their economic returns to downstream production forestry and agriculture. The project has also supported the work of an economic botanist to identify and store in local gene banks plant species of potential market value to the Palcazu people. The example demonstrates progress, but it also raises the issue of the duration of projects that deal with renewable natural resources. Three- to six-year time

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity frames appear inappropriate, given the severity of the problems, the time required before returns on investments may be realized, and the need to test new and sometimes risky technologies. Twenty-year projects or programs may be necessary, requiring that governments and lending agencies rethink existing policies and approaches. USAID is now designing 10-year projects—a significant breakthrough. An example is a new natural resources project in Panama, which has four components: watershed management, natural forest management, private industrial plantations, and farm woodlots. The project rationale is based on the need to protect the economic values of existing agriculture and commercial investments, including the Panama Canal, to maintain electricity and a water supply to major urban areas, to reduce dependence on wood imports, and to enhance employment. Because a principal rationale for conserving biological diversity is the need to conserve wild germplasm for improving agriculture, it is appropriate that development assistance also help in land acquisitions. For example, in the past decade or so, Costa Rica has undertaken an aggressive and comprehensive conservation area program. Last year, the Government of Costa Rica requested and received permission from the USAID Mission to use U.S.-controlled local currency generated by the sale of U.S. commodities (P.L. 480 Program) for the establishment of a new conservation area (the Zona Protectora) and the enhanced management of an existing area (Cano Negro). Also, USAID has and will continue to support the National Research Council in the National Academy of Sciences in its exploration of little-known or underutilized tropical plant and animal resources. Numerous publications have been produced on topics ranging from multipurpose tree species to butterfly and crocodile farming. USAID is assisting conservation efforts in a variety of other ways as well. These range from supporting U.S. Peace Corps Volunteer wildlife biologists who are conducting endangered species surveys in Burundi to the development of a management plan for Tarutao National Park in Thailand and the provision of technical assistance to and training of personnel of various host countries in parks and wildlife management. These types of assistance will continue and are likely to increase as more nations realize the importance of conserving the diversity of their living resources and seek our assistance in their own efforts. FUTURE DIRECTIONS We are witnessing a convergence of interests that could be a powerful force in the coming years—a growing consensus between the conservation community and the development institutions that maintenance of biological diversity and sound economic development are not only compatible but mutually interdependent. In the long run, economic growth is heavily dependent on the conservation of these resources. In turn, the conservation of these resources is not likely to take place, especially in the tropics, without quantum leaps in economic development. This means that we must work more closely together to promote both our goals. The support of U.S. environmental groups for foreign development assistance last fall

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity is strong evidence of this trend. This support will help stimulate our development efforts. USAID has been defining an action plan that has grown out of the Strategy on Biological Diversity submitted to Congress in 1985. Our draft action plan focuses on seven areas and is based on the critical assumption that in the final analysis, conservation of biological diversity in the developing countries is the responsibility of the governments and people in those countries (USAID, 1986). In summary, the major themes for action are: policy dialog and strengthening national policies; public awareness and education, building the capacity of indigenous environmental organizations; strengthening natural resource management institutions and training host-country people; research on ecosystem dynamics and inventories of plant and animal species; and natural resource management programs such as those in Peru and Panama. Our draft action plan builds on the USAID’s institutional strengths, which lie mainly in the area of technical assistance as opposed to large capital investment projects, and seeks innovative ways to increase or leverage our investments in the limited number of countries in which we work. I will be recommending the following actions to improve our approach: Priority countries should be identified in each of the three geographic regions (Africa, Asia and the Near East, and Latin America) in which USAID works. The guidance of the scientific and nongovernment communities represented here would be helpful in this process. Within the high-priority countries, the most responsive interventions should be identified and supported, interventions that could be any of the theme areas mentioned above. We should improve present methods of economic analysis to better address the real costs of natural resource depletion and the economic benefits of investments in maintaining ecosystem processes and conserving wildlands. (One of the most pressing practical needs is to back up investments in these areas by national governments and donor organizations. The economic costs of watershed deterioration and the loss of tropical forests and wildlife are subjects of wide speculation but have rarely been quantified in relation to national economic and development budgets. For example, rough estimates by some economists indicate that unsustainable forest depletions by major tropical hardwood exporting countries could be costing the countries more than they gain by the sale of the wood.) We should expand our research efforts to help us understand biological diversity and the means for maintaining it. Biological and physical science studies will be complemented by social science research, since after all, human activity is largely responsible for the loss of natural habitats.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity We should initiate an assessment of how best the International Agricultural Research Centers can play a role in ecosystems research in different biogeographic zones. We should intensify our efforts to develop alternatives to unsustainable agricultural practices, such as slash-and-burn agriculture, and to incorporate the use of multipurpose tree species in all agricultural projects to reduce pressure on natural habitats. The work under way by the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria on alley cropping (i.e., mixing trees with annual food crops in different ecological zones in Africa) is a prototype that could be adapted in other regions of the world. We should encourage and support expansion of the U.S. Peace Corps program on environmental education and protected area management and the greater use of P.L. 480 funding for conservation activities. We should use the experience we have gained to encourage and gain the cooperation of other development agencies with a view toward increased investment in conservation. Many of you are aware that the U.S. Congress is now considering earmarking funds in the USAID budget for biological diversity. While USAID, as a matter of principle, is opposed to all earmarking of funds, we understand and appreciate that this possible allocation of funds is a clear indication of the priority that the conservation community in the United States places on this problem. In response to these interests, we expect to initiate a matching grant program for on-the-ground conservation activities in priority countries. We will also strengthen USAID’s technical capabilities to provide overseas assistance for the design and implementation of these programs. The matching grant programs will attempt to use our funds to leverage investments by national, international, and nongovernment organizations and by developing country governments in programs related to wild plant and animal management and the inventory and assessment of biological diversity resources. The United States has a wealth of talent from which we will draw in our new endeavors to help improve conservation of biological diversity in our client countries. The Forum on BioDiversity was an important event. It was an important opportunity to refine our understanding and approaches to solving the problems and to heighten the awareness of the public and our political leaders concerning the importance of and threats to the great variety of life on this planet. This awareness is crucial to build support, both here and abroad, for safeguarding this diversity at a time when government expenditures for all activities are declining in most every country in the world. REFERENCES Harrison, J., K.Miller, and J.McNeely. 1984. The world coverage of protected areas: Development goals and environmental needs. Pp. 24–33 in J.McNeely and K.Miller, eds. National Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 391
BioDiversity Hartshorn, G.S. 1985. Sustained Yield Management of Natural Forests: A Synopsis of the Palcazu Development Project in the Peruvian Amazon. Tropical Science Center, San Jose, Costa Rica. Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity OTA-F-330. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 334 pp. USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development). 1982. Central Selva Resource Management (Peru) Project Paper No. 527–0240, Washington, D.C. 145 pp. USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development). 1986. Draft Action Plan on Conserving Biological Diversity in Developing Countries. Prepared by the Bureau for Science and Technology, Office of Forestry, Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C. 27 pp. U.S. Department of State. 1986. Comments on Biological Diversity Action Plan. Bangkok cable No. 23811. May 16, 1986.