Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120358017
label
Biodiversity [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120358017
contentType
document
title
Biodiversity [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120358017
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg1-002-013-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7752b91f0110f56e
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
2618
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Biodiversity [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
5
8
1
NOTE.
-
THIS DRAFT IS CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BY A COMMONWEALTH,
STATE AND TERRITORY ENVIRONMENT TASK FORCE.
-
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
AUSTRALIA
A National Strategy
for the
Conservation of Australia's
Biological Diversity
DRAFT
111
SEP 1992
The Biological Diversity Advisory Committee
WORLD RESOURCESINSTITUTE
1709 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, Telephone: 202-638-6300
Facsimile: 202-638-0036 Telex: 64414 WRIWASH Direct Dial: (202) 662-
March 10, 1993
Ms. Katie McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President
and Director, Office of Environmental Policy
Room 358
Old Executive Office Building
17th & Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington D.C. 20501
U. S. Biodiversity Commission
Dear Katie:
You may find my attached letter to Secretary Babbit of
interest. Also, the attached document, "Maintaining U. S.
Leadership in Biodiversity," may be helpful as you pull together
ideas on how the United States can sign and ratify the Biodiversity
Convention, and initiate further action at home.
Naturally, I remain available to collaborate in any way you
may deem of use.
Sincerely,
Kenton R. Miller
Program Director
Biological Resources and Institutions
Recycled Paper
WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
1709 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, Telephone: 202-638-6300
Facsimile: 202-638-0036 Telex: 64414 WRIWASH Direct Dial: (202) 662-
March 9, 1993
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt
Secretary of the Interior
Washington D.C.
United States Commission on Biodiversity
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Given your stated interest in biodiversity and the
establishment of a commission to assist you in addressing this
issue, I believe you will find the attached WRI paper of interest:
"Maintaining U. S. Leadership in Biodiversity Conservation". It
addresses: How can the United States prepare itself to work with
the community of nations vis-a-vis the new Biodiversity Convention,
and how can we get our own back yard in order? The proposal is a
four step process for developing a comprehensive U. S. Biodiversity
Strategy formulated through broad-based open dialogue and solid
scientific, technical and economic analysis.
WRI has had a long-standing research and policy analysis
program on biodiversity complimented by widespread collaboration
with partner groups in the U. S. and around the world. Through
this process we spear-headed, with IUCN and UNEP, the publication
of the Global Biodiversity Strategy in 1992. We assisted UNEP in
the intergovernmental negotiations for the Biodiversity Convention,
and continue to consult UNEP and the interim Convention Secretariat
on preparations for the forthcoming intergovernmental sessions.
In 1991, our North American Dialogue on Biodiversity, held in
Keystone, Colorado, brought together the federal and state
agencies, native communities, bioregional groups, NGOs, industry
and cattlemen, farmers and miners to debate the issues and options
for forging common perspectives and opportunities for cooperation.
This present proposal to you builds upon this experience and
similar work in which we are involved in other parts of the world.
I would very much like to meet with you to further explain
this proposal and discuss its potential with you, and to
collaborate with you in any way you deem productive and useful.
Sincerely,
Kenton R. Miller
Program Director,
Biological Resources and Institutions
Recycled Paper
World Resources Institute
MAINTAINING U.S. LEADERSHIP IN
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Introduction and Summary
The United States has historically been a leader in the conservation of biological
diversity (biodiversity) at local, national, and international levels. U.S. institutions -- public
and private -- have spearheaded efforts to discover biological resource values, to use them
sustainably, and to save endangered species and habitats. U.S. science and technology
have advanced biodiversity conservation overseas too. U.S. institutions took the lead in
developing the recently completed Global Biodiversity Strategy. Furthermore, in signing
AGENDA 21 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, the U.S. Government made
commitments to protect biodiversity at home while collaborating with other nations in sharing
conservation science and technology, and promoting the sustainable use of forests, oceans,
and other biological resources.
However, U.S. leadership is seriously challenged by three fundamental problems:
First, we in the United States do not yet have a comprehensive and integrated
Government policy on biodiversity -- that is, the United States Government has not
taken the initiative, in collaboration with the States, the private sector and the citizenry,
to ensure the protection, understanding, and sustainable use of our own biotic wealth,
even though our immediate and long-term livelihoods depend on it.
Second, actions and investments to protect the nation's biotic wealth must "move
upstream" -- that is, Government must collaborate with public and private forestry,
agriculture, fishing, grazing, urban development and other sectors that routinely
influence the state of our biotic wealth. Reauthorization and strengthening of the
Endangered Species Act is an urgent and central component of any U.S. biodiversity
strategy, but it should be implemented within a larger context that addresses root
causes of threat.
Third, by declining to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity at the Earth Summit
in Rio in June 1992, the United States has cast doubt upon the commitment of the
U.S. Government and the American people to the sustainable stewardship of Earth's
living resources, in stark contrast to our historic performance.
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Biodiversity Conservation
To help the United States reassert leadership at home and abroad in conserving the
world's biotic wealth, U.S. governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and
private individuals -- including scientists, resource managers, and policy analysts -- are putting
forward an array of options that warrant serious consideration by the U.S. Government. The
option spelled out here has its origins in the North American dialogue on biodiversity held at
Keystone, Colorado in 1991 that contributed to the development of the Global Biodiversity
Strategy. A wide-ranging group of NGOs and governmental and private individuals working
on the biodiversity effort have contributed to this document. It seeks to provide a framework
for preparing a comprehensive U.S. biodiversity program that will address urgent needs,
integrate conservation efforts, and promote longer-term investment and change.
The Administration should take four major actions during its first year:
First, sign the Convention on Biological Diversity right away to send a clear signal that
the United States will be fully involved in the process. Immediate signature will greatly
enhance the impact of U.S. participation in the Norway/UNEP expert conference on
biodiversity to take place in Trondheim, Norway, in May 1993.
Second, seek early ratification of the Convention so that U.S. delegations will
participate from positions of strength in future meetings -- for example, at the
Intergovernmental Committee on the Convention on Biodiversity to be held in
September 1993 in Geneva.
Third, to implement the Convention as soon as possible, convene a fixed-term national
commission to develop within one year a U.S. Biodiversity Strategy that will offer a
comprehensive and integrated plan of action to secure our nation's biotic wealth,
inventory and cover the gaps in current information and protection, help our scientists
and researchers discover the roles that our biota play in the livelihoods of Americans,
along with their potential current and future benefits, and make proposals for
sustainably using our plant and animal resources.
Fourth, at the end of that first year, sponsor a National White House Conference on
Biodiversity to publicize the U.S. Biodiversity Strategy and to launch a broad,
collaborative U.S. National Biodiversity Program by all public and private interests.
(Details on each of these four actions follow.)
2
World Resources Institute
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Biodiversity Conservation
Action 1: Sign the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Signature of the Convention should take place as a matter of urgency, so that the
United States can share leadership appropriately in the intergovernmental sessions currently
taking place and be well-positioned with a properly instructed and balanced delegation when
the Signatory/Party nations meet in late May (Norway) and September (Geneva) 1993.
To accomplish this, the White House should:
(a)
Immediately establish a White House Advisory Group on Biodiversity made up of
knowledgeable individuals drawn from the related departments of federal and state
government, industry, NGOs, and Congress to clarify components of the Convention
(such as North-South revenue sharing from genetic resources, intellectual property
rights, and financial mechanisms) that warrant specific interpretation by this
Government. The advisory group should also be consulted by the U.S. delegations to
the May and September Convention meetings to be prepared and briefed. The
delegations should include broad representation of biodiversity-related interests,
including NGOs, industry, and representatives of bioregional community programs;
(b)
On signing the Convention, annotate the interpretations of the Convention text that
this Government wishes to record and declare that the U.S. Government stands ready
to collaborate with other nations to clarify these components of the Convention.
Action 2: Ratify and Implement the Convention.
As of March 1993, 160 nations have signed the Convention, of which six of the
required 30 nations, including Canada and China, have already ratified. Ratification and
implementation of the Convention by the United States should follow without delay. U.S.
leadership in the ratifying and implementing the process will stimulate other nations to follow
and set the stage for good faith in continuing a productive negotiation of protocols and other
allied agreements.
To accomplish this, the White House should:
(a)
Guided by the Advisory Group, carry out necessary consultations with members of
Congress, federal and state agencies, NGOs, and private interests to build support for
early ratification;
3
World Resources Institute
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Biodiversity Conservation
(b)
Work with Congress to recommend legislation, policy changes, and actions to secure
the biological heritage of the United States and to make its benefits available now and
for generations to come.
Action 3: Develop a U.S. Biodiversity Strategy.
A U.S. Biodiversity Strategy will provide a plan of action to secure, inventory and study
our biodiversity and to move toward the sustainable management of our forests, grasslands,
wetlands, fisheries, wildlife, coastal zones, and agriculture. Most of the components of such a
plan are already being implemented by federal and state agencies, botanic and zoological
gardens, germplasm facilities, professional societies, universities, museums, NGO programs,
and bioregional projects in Yellowstone, the Adirondacks, and elsewhere. For example, the
Endangered Species Act is a key component of the Strategy; it needs to be strengthened and
reauthorized, and clearly linked to "upstream" policies to ensure that land and water
management practices reduce risks to our plant and animal life, etc.
Currently, these and allied activities and investments are not integrated, and a
comprehensive, efficient, and effective nation-wide program of public and private interests is
needed. Also lacking are policies and incentives necessary to promote collaboration among
federal and state agencies, the private sector, and communities.
The U.S. Strategy should show how the country's obligations can be met under the
Convention on Biological Diversity, while highlighting how advances in resource management
know-how and technologies can be used to significantly amplify the success and benefits of
biodiversity conservation and development at home and abroad.
To accomplish this, the White House should:
(a)
Immediately request the Advisory Group to consult with public and private
organizations and recommend the terms of reference for a U.S. Commission on
Biodiversity and propose its membership. The Commission should present the White
House with proposals, within 12 months, that address the U.S. needs and conform to
the reporting requirements of the Convention;
(b)
Establish the U.S. Commission on Biodiversity; the Advisory Group (3.a) will propose
details; Commission members will be appointed by the President for one-year terms
and should be the most informed and creative individuals representative of those with
substantial interests in the conservation of biodiversity (See Box 1.)
4
World Resources Institute
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Biodiversity Conservation
Box 1. Institutions From Which Members of the U.S. Commission on Biodiversity are
to be Drawn
Congressional committees working on biodiversity-related legislation;
Related federal and state agencies (parks, forests, wildlife, marine
sanctuaries, and fisheries, etc.);
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in policy and legislation
advocacy, and biodiversity management;
Museums, International Species Inventory System (ISIS), universities, botanic
gardens, ZOOS, germplasm banks, and organizations working on data bases,
collections and inventory;
Research and science institutions, and professional societies;
Environmental education and training institutions;
Public and private landowners;
Industry (forestry, agricultural, pharmaceutical, chemical, seed, biotechnology,
etc.);
Native American communities, and
Bioregional management groups and local citizen organizations.
The Mission of the Commission is to provide the Executive and Congress with a
comprehensive strategy for securing our nation's biotic wealth -- making sure it is
protected, that it is adequately inventoried, that our scientists and researchers will be
able to discover its roles in our lives and its potential benefits now and in the future,
and that we are using our plant and animal resources sustainably.
The Commission should develop the U.S. Biodiversity Strategy by following a Process
that draws on material from the task forces and regional dialogues. It should be
supported by a coordinating Secretariat (for example, the White House Office of
Environmental Policy appropriately linked to the Federal Departments associated with
the Convention, biodiversity, and biological resources).
5
World Resources Institute
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Biodiversity Conservation
A set of Task Forces should be convened by the Commission to develop reports on a
comprehensive range of biodiversity-related issues (See Box 2.) These task forces
should solicit input from and spur dialogue among farmers, ranchers, foresters,
industry, citizen groups, NGOs, scientific and professional societies, native American
communities, and other stakeholders. The Commission should review initial findings
through regional consultations with related constituencies and interests. The final
report of the Commission should be forwarded to the White House for approval and
publication (See Figure 1.)
Box 2. Proposed Task Forces of the U.S. Commission on Biodiversity.
Ethics
Biodiversity in American Welfare
Protected Areas
Ex-Situ Facilities
Research and Monitoring
Biodiversity Management Technologies
Human-Dominated Landscapes
(restoration, sustainability, etc.)
(forestry, agriculture, fisheries, etc.)
Native American Communities
Administration and Enforcement
Economics, Equity, and Finance
Mechanisms
Training and Education
Business and Industry
Culture and Arts
Bioregional Management Projects
One task force should compile a concise and clear overview on biodiversity in the
United States. (Most of this material already exists in an array of sources.) The report
would describe:
How species and habitats are faring -- current status, trends and threats;
What role parks, forests, refuges, farms, botanic gardens, zoos, aquaria, data
bases, collections, research centers, formal and popular education, restoration
and rescue projects, local and central germplasm banks, fisheries, and resource-
using industry will play in a comprehensive program;
How species, genetic resources, and habitats could be managed in ways that
don't endanger them;
6
World Resources Institute
Figure 1. The Process of Developing a U.S. Biodiversity Strategy:
White House Advisory Group
on Biodiversity
U.S. COMMISSION ON
BIODIVERSITY
White House
Office of
Environmental
Policy
Draft
U.S.
National
Biodiversity
Strategy
Task Forces (See Box 2)
and
REGIONAL
DIALOGUES
Existing Federal Agency Groups
Final
U.S.
National
Biodiversity
Strategy
U.S. National Biodiversity Program
Private Sector Federal Agencies
Congress State Agencies
NGOS Land Use Communities
Professionalles
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Biodiversity Conservation
Why rescue (Endangered Species Act) and restoration legislation and projects are
vital to any comprehensive program to cover those species, genetic resources,
and habitats that positive management methods fail to secure;
How these efforts can be linked to provide an integrated strategic package;
What key initiatives need support;
How the nation (and future generations) can be assured that the mission
statement will be met.
Other task forces should examine each element of a comprehensive national
biodiversity strategy. For their respective areas, each task force should determine:
What needs to be done to support and enhance ongoing programs and installed
capacity (to meet the mission statement)?
What new activities, cooperative arrangements, networking, integration,
institutions, revised policies, incentives, etc., are required?
What policy impediments need to be removed or modified?
Each task force should prepare a background paper, hold dialogue sessions with
related constituencies, and present a revised paper to the Commission within six
months.
The Commission -- supported by the Office of Environmental Policy and
associated Departments -- should integrate the proposals found in the task
force reports, and produce a draft Strategy summarizing the status and trends
of the nation's biodiversity along with proposals for action and investment
through private and public cooperation (to meet the mission statement).
c)
Hold a series of regional consultations around the country at which the draft
Strategy would be debated and amended; the Commission should submit its
revised findings, in the form of the U.S. National Biodiversity Strategy, to the
White House;
(d)
Publish the report in a an accessible format -- short and readable, and highly
illustrated. It should summarize the findings and recommendations of the various task
forces. In addition, a series of annexes could be published to make the more
technical analyses prepared by the task forces available to the public;
8
World Resources Institute
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Biodiversity Conservation
(e)
Finally, instruct the Commission to convert the Strategy into operational terms. The
U.S. National Biodiversity Program should promote collaborative implementation efforts
by state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, scientific and
professional societies, and business and industry. Interagency coordination --
especially the allocation of responsibilities for implementation by governmental
bureaus as outlined in the Program - will be vital to all phases of the work.
Action 4: Sponsor a National White House Conference on Biodiversity
A two-day conference and an additional one-day media event would provide the White
House, members of Congress, NGOs, industry and community leaders with a forum for
presenting and discussing the U.S. National Biodiversity Program with the nation, and
encourage potential partners to "buy-into" its implementation.
The first two days of the Conference should feature:
(a)
what we can do. Illustrated presentations and discussions by the key
constituencies, sharing how each depends upon the biotic wealth of this country and
what can be done through public/private cooperative efforts, careful investment, and
good policies and incentives to secure their livelihoods. The work of botanic gardens,
ZOOS and the new "bio-parks;" the bioregional management efforts (i.e., Yellowstone;
Adirondacks; Nature Conservancy's "Last Great Places;" Weyerhauser, community and
NGO work at Willapa Bay, Washington; etc.), "new forestry" in the Pacific Northwest;
the "gap analysis" and data base work of U.S. agencies, universities, and NGOs;
community seed banks in the Southwest, and our national seed bank facilities should
be considered along with proposals by the forest industry and agribusiness;
(b)
why we need international cooperation. Illustrations of how supplies of U.S.
foods, medicines, migratory birds and fish, etc., depend upon international
cooperation and why we need the Biodiversity Convention;
(c)
what industry, academia and others can do. Statements by industry, academia,
professional societies, native American communities, NGOs, and other constituencies
on what they can contribute to the Program;
(d)
what government initiatives are required to make it happen. A clear, joint
presentation, by members of Congress and the Executive, of the package of
proposals and related legislative initiatives and their costs and benefits.
9
World Resources Institute
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Biodiversity Conservation
The second day of the Conference should end with the White House presenting a U.S.
National Policy on Biodiversity.
On the third day, a media event would afford continuing press and TV coverage on
biodiversity at work around the country: on the farm, in forests and wetlands, on
fishing boats, in our parks, in industry, and in communities. Diversity would be linked
to livelihoods. It should be clear to Americans that our abilities to adapt to changing
economies, technologies and climates will depend greatly upon how we nurture the
our country's natural wealth.
References:
World Resources Institute, World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment
Programme. 1992. Global Biodiversity Strategy: Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and Use
Earth's Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably. WRI, IUCN, UNEP. Washington D. C.
Reid, Walter V. 1992. The United States Needs a National Biodiversity Policy. World
Resources Institute, Washington D. C.
For further information contact:
Kenton Miller, Program Director, Biological Resources and Institutions, or Walt Reid,
Vice President for Program, at the World Resources Institute, 1709 New York Ave.,
NW, Washington, D.C., 20006; telephone (202) 638-6300, fax (202) 638-0036.
10
World Resources Institute
UNITED STATES. AGENCY
DR. PETER R. JUTRO
-
-
U.S. EPA
PHONE: (202) 260-5937
RD-682
FAX:
(202) 260-6370
Washington, DC 20460 INTERNET: [email protected]
18:00 MAR 01, 1993 ID: EUP/OSTR WASH DC
II68-968 (202) :ON 731
#0834 PAGE: 1/2
Facsimile Cover Sheet
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Executive Office of the President
Washington, DC 20506
To: Trey Lindseth
From: 24DONA
Date: Monday, Mar 1, 1993 5:54 p.m
MESSAGE
Trey - Attached is final text of Ambassador Kanter's letter
on biodiversity. This draws heavily on language provided by
Eileen Claussen. We do not know whether Ambassador Kantor
has signed this yet. Gil Donahue, ext. 6864
CONTACT: If there are any problems receiving this fax, please
call (202) 395-3419.
18:01 MAR 01, 1993 ID: EOP/USTR WASH DC
TEL NO: (202) 395-3911
#0934 PAGE: 2/2
The Administration has not decided what steps to take with
regard to the Convention. We are currently reviewing the
provisions of the Convention, including those on intellectual
property, discussing problem areas with interested private sector
groups, and considering our options.
Global cooperation aimed at the conservation of biological
diversity is a high priority of the United States. Some of the
language in the Biodiversity Convention, particularly the
language on intellectual property rights, is vague and often
contradictory. While this is of concern to us, we are
investigating all avenues to seek resolution of our issues in the
interests of signing the Convention.
13:33
FEB
1993
ID:
EOP/OSTR
HSHM
DC
Congress
2/24
Ambassador Kantor is being asked to provide his views on the
Biodiversity Convention. In an effort to respond to this need,
we have prepared the following.
I would appreciate your comments on this text by noon, Thursday,
February 25. Thank you.
Gil Donahue, USTR, tel. 395-6864, fax 395-3911
The main problems with regard to intellectual property are
as follows:
The obligations on the part of developing countries to
protect intellectual property rights are vague;
There appear to be overly broad obligations on the part
of owners of technology in developed countries to make
the technology available on a concessional basis to
developing countries;
Based on the language in the Convention (Article 16,
paragraph 5), some countries may argue that technology
related to biodiversity should be subject to lower
levels of intellectual property protection than other
forms of intellectual property.
The relationship between the Convention and other
international agreements affecting intellectual
property is unclear.
There are many problems with the Convention in addition to
the intellectual property concerns that you raised. The
financing mechanism and the dispute settlement procedure are
cases in point.
The Administration has not decided what steps to take with
sector may not realize that he
CAN NOT give personal impressions
regard to the Convention. We are currently reviewing the
provisions of the Convention, discussing problem areas with
interested private sector groups, and considering our options.
of situations, etc.
Gil did get comments
Sincerely,
from kileen and
Michael Kantor
revised copy is with
Kantor, was asked by
personal comments the Biodi
Congressman (woman) to give
Carmen
Conv. Gil Donahue W/USTR was
told by Kan for to
work on this request.
He said that Kantor may have not made transition from private public
Facsimile Cover Sheet
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Executive Office of the President
Washington, DC 20506
To: Kathleen McGinty
From: 24DONA
Date: Wednesday, Feb 24, 1993 1:28 p.m
MESSAGE
Katie, Carmen asked me to make you aware of the request to P
rovide Administration views on the Convention. We would app
reciate your comments on the attached. Thank you. Gil Donah
ue
CONTACT: If there are any problems receiving this fax, please
call (202) 395-3419.
a = who has and for this
TIO: 395-3911
#0472 PAGE:
@PJL ENTER LANGUAGE = PCL
UNITED STATES
PROTECTION AGENCY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
NOTE
February 10, 1993
FROM:
Peter R. Jutro Peran
Senior Scientist and Director
Terrestrial Effects Research (RD-682)
TO:
Katy McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President
The White House
Katy,
Darrell Posey asked me to pass on to you the enclosed note.
He and I both attended one of the recent series of meetings that
were held in Nairobi as part of the UNEP biodiversity convention
process.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Katy,
d had the joy of being in Washington
fn The Inaugural wents - but did
not have the pleasure of seeing you
I know you are going to have an
sleepless nights NO doubt Bart
exciting time - with plenty 2
P.S. Excuse The - I'm in a small plane with Peter
what a great chance to do some
great Things - my congratulations
fatro flying from Lamn to Nairobi wish you were here!
and best wish
d leave Nainbi on February 1
after this meeting at UNEP. I
hope to continue to be an
"expert" - on the gef guidelines
panel. As you may have heard,
I am moving to Offord to work
with Sir Crispin Tickel environmental
policy group at greene college I'll
actually be at St. Anthony's -
Address:- DaRRell Posey
handwriting
St. Anthony's College
Oxford University
Oxford OX 2 65F
England
Thone: (44) (865) 59651
Fax:
310518
Please keep in truch - and please
let me law if I can he of help.
give Al my best wish and congrats
Abrason, Darl
To: Katy Mc ginty
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
122 C Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington. D.C. 20001-2109
(202) 628-1400
Board of Directors
Chair
Robert O. Blake*
Integrating the Environment into Global Security Policy
Vice Chair
Joan Z. Bernstein*
by Gareth Porter
Secretary-Treasurer
Robert Fri*
Lester R. Brown
One of the challenges facing the Clinton administration, as the first post-
Carleton D. Burtt
John H. Chafee
Cold War administration, is to integrate into global security policy the U.S.
Gerald Decker
Carol E. Dinkins
interest in environmental security. Environmental security means minimizing
S. David Freeman
threats to health and welfare caused by the degradation of the earth's life support
James M. Jeffords
Bruce W. Karrh
systems and natural resources.
C. Payne Lucas
President-elect Clinton's decision to create a National Economic Council
Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.
Bernice K. McIntyre*
as a counterpart to the National Security Council symbolizes his recognition that
Barbara A. Mikulski
economic security is at least as important to the United States today as military
Edmund S. Muskie*
Richard L. Ottinger*
security. The new administration should recognize further that environmental
Ruth Patrick
Charles S. Robb
security is a third major component of post-Cold War U.S. national security rather
John W. Rowe
than a marginal element.
Roger W. Sant*
John F. Seiberling
Environmental security is just as important to our well-being as a society
John J. Sheehan
as economic and military security and, in the longer run, is the basis for other
James Gustave Speth*
Victoria J. Tschinkel
kinds of security. Global warming, ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, population
Robert B. Wallace
growth and soil degradation could have major impacts on the health and
Donna W. Wise
Larry Young
livelihoods of Americans for generations to come. These global environmental
threats could result in increased skin cancer and blindness, greater severity of
Executive Director
illnesses, more respiratory problems, lower agricultural and fisheries productivity,
Ken Murphy
forest decline, and the inundation of coastal cities. They also could reduce world
food security, lead to much greater starvation worldwide and massively increase
*Executive Committee
political turmoil and migrations.
The American people already realize that they have a vital interest in
100%
Recycled
slowing global environmental degradation. The U.S. public has for several years
Paper
accepted the view that environmental threats are at least as serious as traditional
military threats. By 1990, almost three-quarters of those surveyed viewed
environmental problems as serious security threats -- exactly the same as the
proportion who viewed possession of nuclear weapons by developing countries
as a serious threat. In contrast, Middle Eastern conflicts and Soviet nuclear
weapons were viewed as serious security threats by only 51 and 43 percent of
respondents, respectively.¹
1
The following five initiatives are suggested as ways that the new administration could
make environmental security a central element of U.S. national security and bring the
organization of government into line with the higher priority being placed on that U.S. interest:
1.
Sign the biodiversity convention without delay.
Conserving the earth's biological diversity is a major U.S. security interest, because it is
essential to man's ability to combat threats to health and food security. The biodiversity
convention opened for signature at the Earth Summit is one of three major global environmental
conventions that are now the basis for future international cooperation to reverse global
environmental degradation. The agreement gives developing countries an economic incentive
for conserving biodiversity by putting genetic resources under the sovereign control of the states.
It also calls for taking initial steps toward a worldwide conservation regime.
The United States was the only country of significance to refuse to sign the biodiversity
convention at the Earth Summit. The Clinton administration could quickly reverse that "veto"
posture, which was costly to U.S. credibility in international environmental negotiations, by
announcing that it intends to sign the biodiversity agreement at an early date. That decision
would be a clear signal that the administration intends to play a more active and constructive
role in future global environmental cooperation. A U.S. refusal to sign the agreement would do
nothing to prevent the signatories from going ahead with a protocol on biotechnology regulation,
but U.S. participation in those discussions as a full party could influence their outcome.
The main argument against signing the biodiversity convention was that the provision
of the text on technology transfer would infringe on U.S. companies' patent rights and threaten
progress on intellectual property rights (IPR) in the Uruguay Round multilateral trade
negotiations. But as a recently published study by the Environmental and Energy Study
Institute (EESI) documents, that provision of the text contains the same strong language on
guarantees of IPR protection that the United States has insisted on putting into every bilateral
and multilateral trade agreement for years. And nothing else in the provision contradicts that
guarantee.
Other arguments against signing the agreement -- that it would force the United States
to make financial transfers to developing countries without its consent and that it would lead
to oppressive international regulation of the biotechnology industry -- are equally specious.
Since the procedures for decisionmaking by the "Conference of the Parties" to the convention
must be adopted by consensus, the United States and other donor countries will have a veto
over any question relating to financing. As for a protocol on biotechnology safety regulation,
the convention merely provides that international regulation of biotechnology should be the
subject of further consideration by the parties to the convention.
2
2.
Create a high-level coordinating mechanism for programs and policies related to
environmental security.
As the first post-Cold War administration takes office, it is widely recognized that the
executive branch can be better organized to respond to new global realities. This is particularly
true of the way the government is organized to deal with global environmental issues. As the
blue-ribbon commission assembled by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the
Institute for International Economics (IIE) has pointed out, "At present there is no single locus
within the Executive Branch for environmental issues in general, or for international
environmental issues in particular."
This critical deficiency requires significant institutional innovation in the Executive Office
of the President. It is not sufficient to assign responsibility for global environmental policy to
the Clinton administration's new National Economic Council or to the Domestic Policy Council,
as suggested by the Carnegie-IIE Commission.³ The National Economic Council will be
preoccupied with U.S. productivity and global competitiveness concerns. Any consideration of
the global environment will be constrained by these other priorities.
Assigning responsibility for the global environment to the Domestic Policy Council, on
the other hand, would tend to magnify the role of domestic economic interests, which often act
as veto groups on such issues. The Bush administration's placement of responsibility for
coordinating global warming and other international environmental negotiations under the
Domestic Policy Council gave control over the process to officials whose primary interest was
not the global environment. Adding staff and responsibility for the global environment to the
National Security Council (NSC) is desirable. As in the case of economic and domestic policy
councils, however, the NSC naturally gravitates toward other issues.
Without a policy coordination body paralleling the political-military and economic
components of national security, the global environment is certain to be slighted. The election
of Al Gore, one of the most knowledgeable and committed Members of Congress on the global
environment, as vice president provides the opportunity for the Clinton administration to
institutionalize high-level concern for environmental security in the Executive Office of the
President for the first time. The president should create, in effect, an Environmental Security
Council, to be chaired by the vice president, to coordinate and initiate policies bearing on the
state of the global environment as well as monitor their implementation. Council members
should include the heads of all departments and agencies whose policies and programs have a
significant impact on problems of the global environment and sustainable development,
including State, Agency for International Development (AID), Treasury, Commerce, Energy,
Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Council on Environmental Quality and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It also should include the president's advisers on
national security, domestic policy and science, as well as the special trade representative. The
council should have a small staff appointed by the chairman, to be supplemented by personnel
seconded from other agencies upon the chairman's request.
3
3.
Reorganize U.S. overseas development assistance around the objective of environmental
security.
U.S. bilateral assistance to help developing countries achieve sustainable development is
one of the most important instruments the United States has for pursuing its own environmental
security. Sustainable development has been defined by the Brundtland Commission as meeting
the needs of the present generation without diminishing the ability of future generations to meet
their needs. Many projects funded by AID contribute to sustainable development by helping
communities meet their basic human needs in ways that do not damage the environment and
helping countries contribute to global environmental protection. Reversing environmental
degradation at both local and global levels will depend on increasing the capacity of developing
countries to provide basic human needs for health, nutrition, livelihood and equitable access to
resources and to make their economies more energy efficient and ozone-safe.
But development assistance has suffered increasing erosion of political support and the
threat of further raids on its budget for other purposes. At present, Congress and the public
have a muddled image of "foreign aid," in part because of confusion in existing legislation and
in part because it has been saddled with political objectives having nothing to do with
sustainable development.
The new administration needs to advance a new, more compelling rationale for
development assistance and bring the organization of AID, as well as the legislation governing
the program, into line with that rationale. The new rationale must make it clear that
development assistance serves the larger U.S. interest in environmental security.
One way to dramatize the new mandate would be to base the U.S. development
assistance program for each recipient country on common environmental/sustainable
development objectives that are negotiated in a new bilateral "environmental security" agreement
with that country. Right now, the United States has bilateral environmental agreements with
only three aid recipient countries (India, Mexico and Nigeria). Such agreements could be based,
as much as possible, on the national sustainable development strategies of developing countries,
which identify their priority environmental problems and the measures needed to address them
over the next decade or longer.
These agreements should spell out the mutual commitment of the two countries not only
to reducing threats to the climate system, the ozone layer, the world's biological diversity, forests
and agricultural land, but also to meeting basic human needs. In short, new bilateral agreements
should clearly explain the linkage between human development goals and environmental
security goals.
Such agreements would help overcome the perception that development assistance is a
one-way giveaway program for political purposes that no longer serves a vital U.S. interest.
They would build on the popularity of global environmental protection as a foreign policy goal.
Opinion surveys by the Americans Talk Issues Foundation have shown that promoting
international cooperation to protect the environment has more support than any other definition
of a U.S. world role in the "new world order."⁴
4
AID should be reorganized and renamed to reflect the new mandate. Programs that are
not clearly related to environmental protection and sustainable development should be shifted
to other departments. Economic Support Fund (ESF) grants, for example, which help meet
special economic, political and/or security needs, as well as migration and refugee relief
assistance, should be shifted to the State Department.
Many in Congress are wary of separating the sustainable development core of the foreign
assistance bill from elements such as ESF that they believe garner votes from many Members
who would not otherwise support the bill. But while some votes may be lost by focusing the
rationale for foreign assistance on sustainable development, more will be gained, because the
new rationale will create a new groundswell of popular support for the program, where there
is now virtually none.
4.
Elevate environmental security issues in the State Department.
The State Department's present structure does not reflect the new importance to the
United States of the global environment. It continues to relegate environmental security to the
margins of the department. The most urgently needed organizational change is to create a new
Under Secretary of State whose mandate would make the global environment a priority for the
incumbent. It would be logical for issues such as human rights and refugee affairs to be
included in the mandate of the same under secretary. The title could then be "Under Secretary
for Environmental and Humanitarian Affairs." This under secretary should not be charged,
however, with issues such as promotion of democracy and countering terrorism, which would
be more appropriate to the mandate of the Under Secretary for Political Affairs and the Under
Secretary for International Security Affairs, respectively.
The Under Secretary for Environmental and Humanitarian Affairs should be the
representative of the State Department in the proposed high-level White House policy council
coordinating programs and policies dealing with the global environment. The under secretary
should be responsible primarily for multilateral environmental and sustainable development
negotiations, but the official also should assess the importance of U.S. environmental security
interests relative to other U.S. interests in bilateral relations with each country. The under
secretary should identify opportunities for the United States to use its influence with any of
these governments to advance environmental security interests. Also, the under secretary should
ensure that global environmental and sustainable development issues are included, where
appropriate, on the agenda for bilateral policy dialogues with key countries.
Finally, as recommended by the Carnegie-IIE commission, the Bureau of Oceans,
Environment and Scientific Affairs should be renamed the Bureau of Environmental Affairs, and
the Office of Commercial Fisheries should be placed either under the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative or in the State Department's own Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. 5 The
Bureau of Environmental Affairs should report to the new Under Secretary for Environmental
and Humanitarian Affairs.
5
5.
Link policies toward developing country debt and North-South trade with an
environmental security strategy.
U.S. policies toward North-South economic relations, including debt, finance and trade,
are major foreign policy decisions that bear on environmental security. The new administration
should consider policy initiatives on those issues that encourage developing countries to practice
sustainable development and actively participate in global environmental protection efforts,
while stimulating the global economy and increasing U.S. manufacturing employment through
increased exports.
Negative financial flows from developing countries to industrialized countries, mainly
because of heavy indebtedness, continue to prevent many developing countries from managing
their natural resources more sustainably. Heavily indebted and moderately indebted countries
tend to overexploit their natural resources in order to increase exports and reduce imports and
thus service their debts. Brazil, for example, carried out a large-scale shift in land use toward
production of soybeans and beef cattle for export, with the result that more forests were cleared
both directly by ranchers and indirectly by displaced farmers who had lost their land to big
soybean producers. Other countries, including Indonesia and the Ivory Coast, have increased
timber production to help pay their debts. Moreover, debtor countries have been forced to cut
their budgets severely as part of the adjustment lending conditionality and feel they cannot
afford to spend money on environmental protection.
Developing countries transferred an estimated $39 billion in capital to the industrialized
countries in 1989, all but $9 billion of which was accounted for by the 15 most heavily indebted
developing countries. And that net drain of financial resources will continue through the 1990s,
unless additional efforts are made to alter the trends. Under existing policies, current projections
are that negative financial transfers will drain $263 billion from developing countries during this
decade.
The debt problem is caused by forces beyond the control of developing countries. Real
interest rates on the variable rate loans they took out in the 1970s rose during the 1980s to twice
the historical average and nearly six times higher than in 1974-79, when developing countries
took on most of their debt obligations. Moreover, developing country debtor nations paid
interest rates that were 10 percent to 15 percent higher than those for industrialized countries,
because they were considered high-risk borrowers.
Meanwhile, the terms of trade -- the ratio of prices paid for manufactured imports to
those received for commodity exports -- turned sharply against the developing countries. In
two decades, commodity prices in relation to manufactured goods prices have declined by 45
percent for food crops, 25 percent for agricultural raw materials and 40 percent for minerals, ores
and metals. Agricultural export prices have been further depressed artificially by the subsidies
that industrialized countries provide to their agricultural exporters. Countries that are heavily
dependent on commodity exports must adjust to falling prices by increasing the volume of their
exports, thus depleting land, forests and other natural resources.
This disequilibrium in North-South trade represents a failure of the global economic
system. Industrialized countries agreed in 1980 to create a "common fund" to keep the prices
6
of commodities within a predetermined range by financing buffer stocks of international
commodity agreements. But only $400 million was committed to the fund by industrialized
countries, compared with the $6 billion developing countries estimated would be needed.
Finally, industrialized country protectionism toward manufactured and processed goods
imported from developing countries, which is substantially greater than the average for all
industrialized country imports, cost the developing countries an estimated 3 percent of their
collective gross national product (GNP) -- nearly twice as much as the total overseas
development assistance to those countries. Again, the imbalance in North-South trade limits
the ability of developing country economies to provide jobs and forces them to exploit their
natural resources more heavily.
The United States should propose that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) create a special working group of officials to re-examine the existing
policies of member countries toward debt and North-South finance and trade relations in light
of their negative impact on global sustainable development. Among the innovations that should
be explored by the working group are: (1) negotiating debt reduction agreements on a selective
basis with environmentally important countries, conditional on commitments to reform
management of natural resources to make it more sustainable; (2) establishing a compensatory
financing facility for commodity exporters that would be comprehensive and adequately funded;
(3) resuming access by developing countries to special drawing rights (SDRs), or IMF credits, to
be allocated to countries that carry out economic as well as sustainable development reforms;6
and (4) substantially reducing industrialized countries' barriers to developing country
manufactured and processed exports in return for raising environmental standards in the
developing countries.
All these proposals for reducing and ultimately eliminating the negative financial flows
and slow or negative rates of growth of the recent past have the double advantage of removing
existing financial disincentives for sustainable resource management while requiring
commitments to sustainable development policy reforms. It is in light of their potential for
supporting environmental security objectives that U.S. foreign policymakers should revisit such
proposals. Previous administrations explicitly opposed any linkage between debt and trade
policies and environmental goals. They argued that debt negotiations should focus solely on
financial and trade objectives. But we can no longer afford to divorce these international
economic policy issues from the global environment. The Clinton administration should explicitly
reverse that orientation and link in its policy these issues which are already linked in reality.
These initiatives also would help the United States expand its export markets.
Developing countries burdened by debt have adjusted in part by reducing their imports, thus
reducing export markets for the United States. The U.S. trade balance has suffered more from
the debt crisis than any other industrialized country competitor, because Latin America, where
most U.S. exports to the developing world have gone in the past, has been the region most
seriously affected. As a consequence of the debt crisis and recession in the developing countries,
the United States is estimated to have lost 1.6 million jobs from 1981 to 1986 alone.⁷
7
Endnotes
1.
Americans Talk Security, Serial National Surveys of Americans on Public Policy Issues,
Survey #13, February 19-March 2, 1990, p. 4.
2.
Memorandum to the President-Elect: Harnessing Process to Purpose (Washington, D.C.:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Institute for International Economics,
1992), p. 13.
3.
Ibid., p. 14.
4.
Americans Talk Issues Foundation, Serial National Surveys of Americans on Public Policy
Issues. Surveys #15 and 16, March 19-23 and June 23-July 1, 1991.
5.
Memorandum to the President-Elect, p. 14.
6.
Japanese Finance Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto proposed in 1991 that $20 billion in new
SDRs be made available to developing countries meeting certain conditions in order to
stimulate economic growth, but the United States opposed the idea. The Christian Science
Monitor, May 1, 1991.
7.
Statement by Richard Feinberg, Vice President, Overseas Development Council, before
the Subcommittee on International Debt of the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. March 9, 1987, pp. 6-7.
8
Katie -
I put together the attached
briefing material in the
usere for Dr. Gibbonn and thought
some of the documents might be
useful to you in your discussime if
you don't already have them -
Please undustand that my
"suggested actions" at the battom of
the issue paper were may my best
guess at what you might want to do
in the near future
n. May and
Issue:
Biodiversity: Future Actions
Background/Bush Administration:
1. US did not sign Biodiversity Convention at UNCED
2. Instead, the US made several commitments for national action on biodiversity
a.
US to establish its own national center for biodiversity information in the
near future (Status: Planned, Executive Order prepared, but not signed)
b.
US offered to host a meeting of international experts to advise nations on
such issues as data comparability and inventories
(Status: Workshop held January 11-15, 1993)
3. Immediately following the UNCED, OMB convened an interagency committee and
appointed Tom Lovejoy as chair to put these two proposals into effect.
A number of actions resulted from the many meetings of this interagency group:
Tab A
1.
"US Proposal: International Cooperation on Biodiversity
Surveys, Inventories and Data Organization" (describes a
plan to begin addressing biodiversity surveys, inventories and
data collection)
Tab B
2.
Decision Paper on the establishment of a National
Biodiversity Center through an Executive Order.
The options involve the institutional home for the center: (1)
MOA with Smithsonian and (2) Interagency Consortium
Tab C
3.
Draft of an Executive Order To Establish a National
Biodiversity Center - 2 versions: (1) Smithsonian option and
(2) Interagency Option
Tab D
3.
The planning and execution of an "International Workshop:
Biodiversity Survey, Inventory, and Data Management" in
Washington, D.C. January 11-15, 1993
The Executive Order was ready to be signed by President Bush in the last few days of
the Administration but was evidently stopped by OMB just prior to reaching the
President's desk. The Executive Order was never signed.
Possible Actions:
Tom Lovejoy is an intellectual and administrative leader in this initiative and could be
given the authority to lead an agressive planning effort for US future actions.
Clinton/Gore Administration could task Tom Lovejoy to lead the effort to prepare an
acceptable version of the Executive Order establishing the National Center on
Biodiversity which President Clinton could then sign.
U.S. PROPOSAL
02/04/93
15:38
202 786 2557
U.S. PROPOSAL:
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON BIODIVERSITY SURVEYS,
INVENTORIES AND DATA ORGANIZATION
Recognizing the importance of biodiversity conservation and wishing to promote
Implementation of biological diversity options contained in Agenda 21, the U.S.
Government proposes the following plan designed to begin addressing biodiversity
surveys, Inventories and data organization.
In particular, Agenda 21 suggests the development of "metholls and technologies
for the systematic sampling and evaluation of biological resources" and of
"methods and technologies for the conservation of biological diversity and the
sustainable use of biological resources."
The USG proposes the development of information resources and organization that
will provide information to enhance the abilities of governments to assess the
status of their biological resources in areas under their jurisdiction, In accordance
with international law, and consistent with the 1982 Convention on the Law of the
Sea. The Process will include:
1.
Development of International scientific cooperation to support effective
distribution of biodiversity information. This cooperation should foster
access to, and, where necessary, development of tools and methods to aid
in enumeration and evaluation of biological diversity (e.{}., methods that
assure compatibility and comparability of information generated; instruction
manuals). It should also include development of an international directory of
existing data bases pertaining to biodiversity and the creation of interactive
networks of existing databases.
2.
Analysis of various local, national. and regional approaches to undertaking
surveys and inventories (including rapid assessments), and Identification of
the types of Institutions and methods to aid in such endeavors. The goal Is
to bring together the collections, literature, trained people, data bases and
information available for scientific study, education, management of species
and habitats, and conservation of natural resources. These efforts will
provide the scientific information necessary to undertake the biodiversity
country studies suggested in Agenda 21.
To undertake these activities, we propose one or more sciplinary scientific
meetings, which would include UNEP, GEF, IUCN, and IUBS as they are already
active in this field. A first priority should be to analyze and develop appropriate
methods, and to disserninate them to interested parties. The United States will
offer to host the first meeting.
02/04/93
15:39
202 786 2557
003/013
For the purposes of this document, we define surveys to be studies of species 01
ecosystems that include geographic factors (such as location, range, distribution,
and condition), in addition to other relevant factors such as human settlement and
practices. We define inventories to be site intensive collection and identification of
species (i.e. study of biological communities in a particular place V3. a broad
geographical consideration). A special class of inventories are rapid assessment
programs, which gather a "snapshot" of 8 portion of the organisms present at a
site over a short time period, a technique strongly dependent on the experience
and competence of the members of the teams that perform such assessments.
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION
Data derived from survey and inventories, should be comparable and compatible
worldwide. Thus, the scientific meeting(s) should develop options that would:
1.
Improve the quality and utility of research data, including options that
would:
harmonize collection methods and techniques for data gathering and
reporting.
evaluate and, where necessary, develop statistical techniques to
determine such factors as the completeness of species collections at
Inventory sites.
lead to increased standardization of collection techniques, specimen
data, and biogeographic and taxonomic classification schemes.
2.
Ensure that data collection and research continue to address an appropriate
range of conservation concerns, including options that would:
facilitate incorporation of emerging concepts in biodiversity analysis.
provide an information base adequate for evaluation of the
effectiveness of conservation strategies.
improve the consideration of issues of diversity in the terrestrial,
marine, and aquatic environments.
2
02/04/93
15:40
202 786 2557
X
004/013
facilitate the incorporation of ethnobiclogical data with biological
information.
examine the potential for assessing the societal value of genetic
diversity.
3.
Evaluate Institutional issues related to data collection and management,
including options that would:
provide ways to link current blodiversity data bases, including the
development of interactive biodiversity computer networks.
designate existing organizations and/or programs as an international
clearinghouse for biodiversity information.
development of an international directory of existing databases
pertaining to blodiversity and an analysis of their contents.
develop consistent international and national guidelines for data
communication and public access to biodiversity data.
NATIONAL/REGIONAL SURVEYS & INVENTORIES
Surveys and inventories conducted at local, regional or national levels allow a
nation to determine the extent and degree of endangerment of its biological
resources, evaluate the potential value of those biological resources for social and
commercial uses, and provide a basis for development and management plans for
those resources. Existing local, national and regional approaches to biodiversity
assessment and conservation should be examined.
Especially needed are scientifically based criteria for establishing a priority order for
sites in need of such analyses.
Thus, the meeting(s) of experts should examine existing approaches, with the aim
of
1.
Strengthening of institutions which will engage in implementation of local,
national and cooperative regional biodiversity surveys and inventories,
including options that would:
3
02/04/93
15:40
202 786 2557
1
005/013
identify mechanisms that might be used to achieve specific national
regional, and local goals.
identify specialists throughout the world to be included in a network
of biodiversity experts.
identify training needs and assess the ability of Institutions or
organizations to provide such training.
facilitate dissemination of the results of national surveys and
inventories.
2.
Addressing areas of substantive scientific concern, including options that
would:
include ways to devote greater effort to priority areas for inventory.
identify areas which are appropriate candidates for rapid assessment.
evaluate the content and viability of existing ex sltu collections. Zoos,
aquaria, arboreta, seed banks, and other germplasm repositories can
help provide the raw materials for restoring previously disturbed
habitats, repopulating areas with new diversity, and ensuring the
viability of agricultural crops. Ex situ and in situ conservation needs
some coordination.
record the knowledge of indigenous and local peoples regarding the
uses and management of biodiversity.
November 30, 1992
4
DECISION PAPER
11/30/96 11:02:44;
OUP UHSIS FHX->
2023953719; Msy 055685 11 Pages Page 3
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PAUL GILMAN
DRAFT
FROM:
Scott Cameron
SUBJECT:
Decision on National Biodiversity Center
The interagency group established this summer has arrived at
options for the establishment by Executive Order of a National
Biodiversity Center. The idea of a Center was the subject of
several bills in the last Congress, and the President committ
to the administrative establishment of a Center during the U
conference in Rio.
General Characteristics of the Center Under Either Option
Establishment of a Center will not require building a new
facility, nor will the Center maintain a large natural science
staff. To the maximum extent possible, the Center will adopt or
adapt existing technologies and techniques and use existing
databases and hardware. Its information should be widely
accessible by computer to academia, state and local governments,
Federal agencies, and the public. Its services should be
provided at a reasonable cost consistent with OMB Circulars a-25
and A-130. It is possible that contractors might be used to
perform some of the Center's functions.
The Center will rely on scientists already involved in field
research to provide, maintain, and update as necessary the basic
biological information on biodiversity. Since it will rely on a
decentralized system of technical experts for its sceintific
support, it will need the ability to inform users of the
scientific quality of the information contained in the system.
It will periodically report to Federal, State, and local science
agencies and the public on information gaps that it would be
useful to fill.
The Center would be a cooperative effort between government
agencies and interested parties forming partnerships (e.g.,
government agencies, state and local governments, academic
institutions, environmental groups, industry associations. and
concerned citizens). Moreover, the involvement of U.S.
government agencies could facilitate adequate Executive Branch
and Congressional support and funding.
The Center would periodically serve as a catalyst for domestic
technical meetings on biodiversity Issues, providing logistical
and perhaps financial support. It would also be 5 resource to
the United States government in pursuing international
discussions and information sharing relative to biodiversity.
The interagency group working on the Center concept decided that
it would be counterproductive. if not technically impractical. to
specify at this point those technologies or other tools the
Center should use to accomplish its purposes. Instead. embedded
10 both options 1.5 di charge to the Center to prepare a plan for
11/30/92 11:03:21;
EOP OASIS FAX->
2023953719; Msg :055685 11 Pages Page 4
its own evolution, which would be submitted to OMB. The plan
would include benefits and costs of alternative courses of
development.
The Options
The options identified by the interagency group involve the
institutional home for the Center. A draft Executive Order has
been prepared (attached) for each option. The main pros and cons
of each option are presented below.
Option 1. MOA with Smithsonian
The Executive Order tells the heads of a number of Federal
agencies to negotiate an MOA with the Smithsonian that results in
the creation of a Center with a Board of Director composed of
Federal and non-Federal members. The Smithsonian would appoint
the non-Federal members, who would be in the minority.
Smithsonian would be the primary funding agency.
PRO:
Greater ability to directly involve non-Federal participants
in the work of the Center.
Greater freedom of action since the Smithsonian has more
administrative flexibility than typical Federal agencies.
Takes advantage of widespread consensus among potential non-
Federal parties that the Smithsonian will not over-emphasize
any single mission or agenda.
CON:
Less overt Executive Branch control over the Center's Board,
decisions, activities, and recommendations.
Option 2. Interagency Consortium
The Center is established as an interagency consortium, with a
non-Federla FACA advisory committee. It is funded through
Interior (although CEQ would prefer to see itself in this role,
were this option selected).
PRO:
Less interference from non-Federal entities.
Simpler funding and organizational arrangements.
Creater Executive Branch control over the Center.
CON:
FACA structure may be viewed as exclusionary by outsiders,
precluding full partnerships in governing the Center.
Policy-neutral character of the Center not as obvious to
outsiders.
11/38/92 11:03:51;
EOP BASIS FAX->
2023953719; Msg :055685 11 Pages Page
5
Cumbersome FACA structure to involve non-Federal entities.
Interagency rivalries more likely to surface.
Clearance Process
The agencies have been told that you will make a choice between
these options, perhaps in consultation with selected policy
officials in the agencies. So far, only CEQ has expressed a
strong preference (they like the Smithsonian MOA option). Once
an option is chosen, OMB's General Counsel has the responsibility
to run a clearance process on the Executive Order. Since this
may take a.s much as six weeks, it is imperative that you choose
an option promptly. The fact that we have already given OGC (Mac
Reed) a "heads up" about this EO, and that it has already
received considerable interagency staffing, should expedite
clearance.
Decision
Smithsonian MOA i
/
Interagency Consortium /
/
EXECUTIVE ORDER
11/30/96 11.04.19,
our UHSIS PHA->
2023953719; Msg:055685 11 Pages Page b
OPTION 1 -- MOA WITH THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER
Executive Order
National Biodiversity Center
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
statutes of the United States of America, and as President of the
United States of America, in order for our nation to better
understand and wisely manage the biological resources of the
United States, and in order to develop the information necessary
to cooperate more effectively with other nations in joint and
collective efforts to preserve and wisely manage our planet's
biological heritage, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose of this Executive Order. The Secretaries (
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, and State, t
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Director of the National Science Foundation are directed to
negotiate an agreement with the Smithsonian Institution, in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Management anc
Budget, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality,
the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, f
the prompt establishment of a National Biodiversity Center (th
Center), under the terms and conditions described in this
Executive Order.
Section 2. Purposes of the National Biodiversity Center.
The purposes of the Center shall be to:
(a) provide a mechanism for interested parties to access
scientific information on biodiversity within the United
States and its territories;
(b) promote the general adoption of standardized methods for the
collection and management of biodiversity information in
order to maximize the utility of scientific information;
(c) promote development of methods and systems that will enable
all interested patties to have access to reliable trend
information on biodiversity within the United States and its
territories;
(d) assess the extent of knowledge of biodiversity, such as the
presence or absence of natural history data, in the United
States and its territories;
(e) provide opportunities for experts to interact on technical
aspects of biodiversity questions; and
(f) provide the United States government with the capability to
exchange biodiversity information with other nations, and
similar centers which they establish, as well as other
interested international organizations.
Section ]. Board of Directors of the National Biodiversity
Center.
011/30/92 11:04:49;
EOP DASIS FAX->
2023953719; Msg 055685 11 Pages Page 7
(a) The Agreement described in Section 1 of this Order is to
include the establishment of a Board of Directors for the
Center, comprised of fifteen voting members. One such Board
member is to be selected by the head of each of the eight
Federal agencies directed in Section 1 to negotiate an
aggreement on the establishment of the Center. Each Board
member is expected to represent his or her agency, and
contribute its expertise to the work of the Center.
(b) The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is to
select a member of the Board. That individual shall serve
as the first Chairman of the Board of Directors. The
Chairman is to serve in that capacity for a one-year term,
and subsequently the Chairmanship is to annually rotate
among members of the Board as they may determine.
(c) The Secretary of the Smithsonian is to appoint the remaining
six members of the Board, assuring representation from state
governments, academia, non-profit research organizations,
private organizations that maintain large data bases
oriented toward biological resource inventories,
institutions maintaining biological collections, and
companies that develop products from biological resources.
(d) Board members may serve for a two-year term, may be re-
appointed, but may not serve more than two consecutive
terms. An individual who fills a vacancy is to be selected
by the same entity which appointed his or her predecessor.
(e) In addition to the fifteen voting members, the Chairman of
the Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy shall be ex officio
members of the Board of Directors.
4. Charge of the National Biodiversity Center.
Within one year of the consummation of the agreement described in
Section 1, the Center shall prepare and submit to the Office of
Management and Budget, a plan for its own organization and
operations which is designed to accomplish the purposes specified
in Section 2. The plan shall include a proposal, including cost
estimates, to develop a computerized inventory of biological
diversity information, including both computer-accessible and
manual databases and other sources of information, in a timely
manner. The plan shall also assess the technical issues,
benefits, and costs associated with the establishment of two
additional services which might be provided by the Center,
separately or in combination:
(a) an electronic gateway to a biodiversity computer network
that would allow communication with cooperating databases;
and
(b) primary direct access to a centralized database that might
or might not be actively managed by the Center itself, and
that might be adopted or borrowed from organizations
maintaining existing databases.
The plan may address any other matter the Board of Directors
considers appropriate.
5. Resources for the Nat enal Biodiversity Center.
11/30/92 11:05:27;
EUP UASIS FAX->
2023953719; Msg :055685 11 Pages Page H
The Smithsonian Institution will be the primary agency funding
the Center. Subject to routine budget formulation and
appropriations processes, other Federal agencies may contribute
funds or assign staff to the Center in order to accomplish the
purposes of this Executive Order.
6. Advisory role of the Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Federal agency representatives on the Board of Directors shall
take advantage of the expertise which can be provided by the
Federal Geographic Data Committee with respect to the databases
and Geographic Information Systems, as these may relate to the
purposes of the Center.
our UHSIS THA->
2023953719; 055685 11 Pages Page 9
Option 2 Interagency Consortium
PRELIMINARY DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER
Executive Order
National Biodiversity Center
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
statutes of the United States of America, and as President of the
United States of America, in order for our nation to better
understand and wisely manage the biological resources of the
United States, and in order to develop the information necessary
to more effectively cooperate with other nations in joint and
collective efforts to preserve and wisely manage our planet's
biological heritage, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose of this Executive Order.
There is hereby established an interagency National Biodiversity
Center (the Center), under the terms and conditions described in
this Executive Order.
Section 2. Purposes of the National Biodiversity Center.
The purposes of the Center shall be to:
(a) provide a mechanism for interested parties to access
scientific information on biodiversity within the United
States and its territories;
(b) promote the general adoption of standardized methods for the
collection and management of biodiversity information in
order to maximize the utility of scientific information;
(c) promote development of methods and systems that will enable
all interested parties to have access to reliable trend
information on biodiversity within the United States and its
territories;
(d) assess the extent of knowledge of biodiversity, such as the
presence or absence of natural history data, in the United
States and its territories;
(e) provide opportunities for experts to interact on technical
aspects of biodiversity questions; and
(f)
provide the United States government with the capability to
exchange biodiversity information with other nations, and
similar centers which they establish, as well as other
interested international organizations.
Center. Section 3. Board of Directors of the National Biodiversity
The Board of Directors for the Center shall be comprised of one
representative of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Energy, Interior, and State, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. the Board of Regents of the
Smithsonian Institution. and the Director of the National Science
Foundation. Board members may serve for e two-year term, may be
re-appointed, but may not serve more than two consecutive terms.
Individuals who fill vacancies are to be selected by the same
11/30/92 11:06:24;
EOP DASIS FAX->
2023953719; Msg :055685 11 Pages Page 10
entity individual which appointed his or her predecessor. The
Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy are to be
ex officio members of the Board. The representative of the
Secretary of Agriculture shall serve as the first Chairman of the
Board of Directors. The Chairman is to serve in that capacity
for a one-year term, and subsequently the Chairmanship is to
annually rotate among members of the Board as they may determine.
Section 4. Non-Federal Advisory Committee
The Board of Directors is to arrange the appointment, by June 1,
1993, of a nine member advisory committee including
representatives of academia, non-profit biological research
organizations, private organizations that maintain large data
bases oriented toward biological resource inventories,
institutions maintaining biological collections, the
environmental community, and companies that develop products from
biological resources. The advisory committee shall be selected
and operate in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.
5. Charge of the National Biodiversity Center.
Within one year of the consummation of the agreement described in
Section 1, the Center shall prepare and submit to the Office of
Management and Budget, a plan for its own organization and
operations which is designed to accomplish the purposes specified
in Section 2. The plan shall include a proposal, including cost
estimates, to develop a computerized inventory of biological
diversity information, including both computer-accessible and
manual databases and other sources of information, in a timely
manner. The plan shall also assess the technical issues,
benefits, and costs associated with the establishment of two
additional services which might be provided by the Center,
separately or in combination:
(a) an electronic gateway to a biodiversity computer network
that would allow communication with cooperating databases;
and
(b) primary direct access to a centralized database that might
or might not be actively managed by the Center itself, and
that might be adopted or borrowed from organizations
maintaining existing databases.
The plan may address any other matter the Board of Directors
considers appropriate.
5. Funding and Staffing.
Subject to routine budget formulation and appropriations
processes, the Department of the Interior will be the primary
funding agency for the Center. Other agencies may contribute
funds or assign staff to the Center in order to accomplish the
purposes of this Executive Order.
L. Advisory role of the Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Federal agency representatives on the Board of Directors shall
11/30/92 11:07:01:
EOP DASIS FAX->
2023953719; Msg :055685 11 Pages Page 11
take advantage of the expertise which can be provided by the
Federal Geographic Data Committee with respect to databases and
Geographic Information Systems, as these may relate to the
purposes of the Center.
WORKSHOP
02/04/93
15:41
202 786 2557
006/013
INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
BIODIVERSITY SURVEY, INVENTORY
AND DATA MANAGEMENT
Washington, DC
11-15 January 1993
Sponsored by:
The United States of America.
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Department of State
Environmental Protection Agency
National Science Foundation
and
The Smithsonian Institution
02/04/93 15:41 202 786 2557
007/013
AGENDA
All sessions will be held In the International Conference Suite, S. Dillen
Ripley Center. Smithsonian Institution, 1100 Jefferson Dr. SW, 3rd level,
Washington, DC
Monday: January 11, 1993
8:30am Registration
9:00am Welcoming remarks
Dr. Thomas E. Lovejoy
Assistant Secretary for
External Affairs
Smithsonian Institution
9:20am Conference Introduction
Dr. Peter R. Jutro
Senior Scientist
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
9:40am Coffee Break
TOPIC 1 PANEL PARTICIPANTS MEET DURING THE COFFEE BREAK
IN ROOM 3109 TO PLAN DISCUSSION SESSION.
10:00am Plenary Discussion for Topic 1: Consideration of uses and users in
data collection for inventories and surveys.
Questions to be addressed: What questions are to be
answered by national biodiversity surveys and inven-
tories? Who is asking the questions? Who are the users of
national inventories and surveys? Wha: questions do they
need answered, and at what level of detail? How will the
national data be used within the nation, ard by other na-
tions? What are the differences between the questions to
be answered at local, national, regional and global scales?
Monday: January 11, 1993
Bodiversity Survey. Invensory and Date Management
02/04/93 15:41 202 786 2557
1
008/013
3:00pm Clusters for Topic 2
Cluster 2-1 Setting priorities among taxonomic groups
(e.g., priority on mammals; indicator species; exhaustive
surveys). Room 3111
Cluster 2-2: Setting priorities among geographic areas
(e.g., nationwide; threatened areas; selected ecosystems).
Room 3035
Cluster 2-3: Sampling and other techniques as an alterna.
tive to intensive, site-specific inventories (e.g., intensive
at selected sites, extensive collection over broad areas).
Room 3113
Cluster 2-4: Setting priorities among users of national sur-
veys and inventories (e.g., land managers, researchers,
policy makers). Room 3109
5:00pm Adjourn meetings for the day.
6:30pm Bus departs from L'Enfant Plaza Hotel to the reception.
7:00pm Reception in the Amazonia Exhibition at the National Zoo for official
participants and observers. Refreshments and hors d'oeuvres will be
served.
If driving. enter through the Connecticut Ave entrance
Drive all the way down the hill to the "D lot" and park Signs
will direct you to Amazonia
9:00pm Bus departs from Amazonia for L'Enfant Plaza Hotel.
Monday: January 11, 1993
Biodiversity Survey, Inventor and Data Management
02/04/93 15:42
202 786 2557
J.
009/013
4:45pm Plenary Discussion for Topic 4: Consideration of scientific standards
in data collection and management for inventories and surveys.
Questions to be addressed: How to collect data? How to
ensure consistency of data? How to manage data? What is
needed to increase the scope and hasten development of
standard collection methods? What are appropriate roles
for inventory and survey efforts that are discipline-
specific, interdisciplinary and para-disciplinary
(parataxonomists, paraecologists) 1 What seeps are neces-
sary to develop a consensus regarding data formatting,
communication, or reporting (including standardization
of biogeographic and taxonomic classification schemes),
and associated hardware and software issues? How can
these sceps build upon current efforts, including taxon-
specific and center-based efforts?
5:45pm Adjourn meeting for the day.
Tuesday: January 12. 1993
Biodiversity Survey, Invenior, and Data Managemen
02/04/93 15:42
202 786 2557
$
010/013
Thursday: January 14, 1993
9:00am Plenary Discussion for Topic 5: Developing an international
framework for data collection and management for biodiversity
inventories and surveys.
Questions to be addressed: What types of inventories of
current collection and data bases are appropriate to
reduce unnecessary repetition of effort? How can current
data bases and centers be linked? How can new efforts be
structured 50 as to minimize linkage problems? What are
the requirements for physical specimen storage? What can
be done to improve dissemination of results? How do all
of these data and specimen management requirements af-
fect the data collection effort?
9:45am Coffee Break
10:00am Clusters for Topic 5
Cluster 5-1: Specimen storage requirements (physical re-
quirements, collection institutions). Room 3111
Cluster 5-2: Requirements of data bases, CIS systems, and
other information management and dissemination systems.
Room 303!
Cluster 5-3: Guidance on considering the user and uses of
the data. Room 3035
Cluster 5-4: Special quality control requirements.
Room 3113
12:00
Lunch (on your own)
1:30pm Plenary Summary for Topic 5
Cluster rapporteur reports to full group.
2:30pm Break
Thursday: January 14, 1993
Biodiversity Survey. Inventory and Data Management
02/04/93
15:43
202 786 2557
a
011/013
Friday: January 15, 1993
9:00am General Summary
Dr. Thomas E. Lovejoy
Assistant Secretary for
External Affairs
Smithsonian Institution
10:00am Coffee Break
10:30am REPORT PREPARATION
All break out rooms available.
12:00
Lunch (on your own)
1:30pm REPORT PREPARATION
5:00pm Adjournment
Friday: January 15, 1993
Biodiversicy Survey, Inventory and Data Management
Press Clippings