Introduction

The United States supports international conservation of wildlife and ecosystems through diplomatic efforts, foreign assistance, and other activities. At the diplomatic level, the United States works both multilaterally and bilaterally to set international conservation policy. The United States provides foreign assistance in the form of financial, programmatic, and technical support to address international conservation activities, such as species protection, habitat restoration, and forest recovery, among other priorities. Several federal departments and agencies administer these programs, including the U.S. Department of State (State), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (FS).

Congress has shaped U.S. policy and global activities related to conservation through its authorization and appropriation of foreign assistance resources, as well as through oversight activities. Several Members in the 117^th Congress have expressed interest in international conservation issues, especially with respect to biodiversity, environmental conservation, and illicit wildlife trade.¹ Some Members also maintain an active interest in international conservation treaties in which the United States takes part, such as the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (see the "Multilateral Treaties, Conventions, and Initiatives" section, below).

Congressional concerns over global conservation efforts escalated in the wake of a 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report asserting a significant loss of biodiversity due to human interactions with natural resources.² Reports of human rights violations by U.S. conservation aid implementers have also prompted congressional action. In addition, connections between the wildlife trade, ecosystem alterations, and the emergence of zoonotic diseases, such as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), have stimulated congressional interest in international conservation efforts.³

Congress provides international conservation funding through several annual appropriations measures, including the following:

• Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations (e.g., U.S. diplomatic activities, foreign assistance programs administered by State and USAID, and some programs implemented by Treasury and FWS);
• Department of the Interior (DOI) appropriations (the Multinational Species Conservation Fund and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund); and
• Department of Agriculture appropriations (FS international programs).

This report describes selected U.S. international conservation activities. (It does not represent a comprehensive list of all programs.) This report also identifies a number of issues for Congress, including funding levels, objectives and evaluations of international conservation programs, and potential unintended consequences of these programs. Table A-1, in the Appendix, provides funding information on the programs discussed in this report.

Selected Federal Activities by Department or Agency

The following section offers information on the various U.S. diplomatic and foreign assistance efforts focused on international conservation, organized by department and agency. These include State's role in various multilateral fora, USAID's administration of foreign assistance programs, Treasury's financial assistance and loan relief programs, and FWS's and FS's international programs.

U.S. Department of State

State focuses its conservation efforts at the policy and diplomatic levels. Foreign assistance program administration is largely conducted by USAID, except for certain wildlife trafficking programs focused on law enforcement.

Multilateral Treaties, Conventions, and Initiatives

State negotiates and participates in, on behalf of the United States, multilateral conservation treaties and conventions to which the United States is a party, including the following:

• CITES. A multilateral treaty established in 1975, CITES seeks to protect endangered and threatened species of animals and plants through the regulation of trade in those species. Although CITES is legally binding upon its parties, it does not supersede existing national laws and statutes and does not have enforcement authority. The United States was the first signatory to CITES and ratified the treaty in 1974.⁴
• Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar). Established in 1975, Ramsar aims to conserve wetlands using local, national, and international cooperation for sustainable development.⁵ The United States entered into this treaty in 1986.
• International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Operational in 1987, ITTO promotes the sustainability of tropical forests and the broadening of international trade in tropical timber harvested from sustainable and legal forests.⁶ The United States is a party to the organization as a consuming member (i.e., a member who consumes, and does not produce, tropical timbers).
• U.N. Forum on Forests (UNFF). Established in 2000 as a subsidiary of the U.N. Economic and Social Council, UNFF is an intergovernmental body that promotes conservation and sustainable development. Among other objectives, it aims to reverse global forest cover loss through sustainable forest management and strengthen the ability for sustainable forest management.⁷ UNFF is currently tasked with overseeing the first U.N. Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030.⁸

State also represents the United States with regard to those treaties and conventions to which the United States is not a party but which may affect U.S. activities overseas. For example, many foreign assistance programs seek to align activities with strategic plans developed pursuant to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).⁹ The CBD is a multilateral treaty with three main goals: (1) the conservation of biological diversity, (2) the sustainable use of biodiversity components, and (3) the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources. State participates as a nonvoting entity in the Conference of the Parties held by the CBD Secretariat because the United States has signed but not ratified the treaty.

State Department-Administered Foreign Assistance Programs

State Department-administered programs aim to strengthen regional and international partnerships to address wildlife poaching and trafficking, improve foreign countries' law enforcement capabilities, and tighten anti-trafficking legislation in foreign countries.¹⁰ State administers programs to combat wildlife trafficking in foreign countries through its Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL). INL carries out some capacity-building activities through wildlife trafficking courses at its International Law Enforcement Academies. State's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs also works to strengthen international cooperation on wildlife trafficking and conducts analyses to identify "focus countries" and "countries of concern," consistent with the Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-231).¹¹ State has also partnered with multilateral organizations, such as the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime and the World Bank, as well as numerous bilateral partners.

U.S. Agency for International Development

USAID administers environmental conservation programs in an effort to curb biodiversity loss, strengthen conservation efforts abroad, and combat wildlife trafficking, among other objectives. USAID conservation programs are largely authorized under Section 118 and Section 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195, as amended), which emphasize the importance of biodiversity efforts to preserve tropical forests and to protect endangered species, respectively. Congress provides funds for USAID biodiversity and conservation programs in annual SFOPS appropriations. Congress directs these funds toward three sectors, which account for the majority of international conservation programming: (1) biodiversity conservation, (2) wildlife poaching and trafficking, and (3) sustainable landscapes.¹² USAID draws on several foreign assistance accounts to meet these directives. Since FY2016, Congress has provided either level or increased funding for these three sectors each successive year (see Table 1).

Many biodiversity conservation and sustainable landscapes activities are similar in practice, even if their stated goals differ. Formally, sustainable landscapes programs prioritize reducing carbon emissions from land degradation, and biodiversity programs must explicitly set biodiversity as a program objective. USAID often combines objectives across sectors when designing and implementing its programs (e.g., a single mission may add a sustainable landscapes objective to a biodiversity effort.) A single program may also have latitude to designate the sector based on funding considerations (e.g., USAID Natural Resource Management projects may be designated as either sustainable landscapes or biodiversity programs).¹³ Details about the three sectors are provided below the text box, which gives an example of a cross-sector USAID program.

Biodiversity Conservation

According to USAID, the agency's biodiversity programs work "to conserve biodiversity, leverage private sector funds, fight conservation crime, and support sustainable fisheries."¹⁴ USAID cites five factors that drive its investment in biodiversity programs:

• approximately 1.6 billion people globally rely on forests for their livelihoods;
• biodiversity loss negatively affects global health and nutrition outcomes;
• industry related to environmental sectors may contribute to women's economic empowerment;
• biodiversity is critical to agricultural productivity; and
• environmental crime is linked to corruption, which reduces community safety and the opportunity for legal livelihoods.¹⁵

The USAID Biodiversity Policy, issued in 2015 alongside an implementation handbook, set out a tiered list of ecologically significant regions or countries at risk of degradation.¹⁶ USAID missions in 14 "Tier One Operating Units" (i.e., priority geographic areas) are required to integrate biodiversity as a major priority of their development strategies to be considered for funding (Figure 1); Tier Two missions are strongly encouraged, but not required, to undertake such programming.¹⁷ USAID has also developed a Biodiversity and Development Research Agenda and a Biodiversity Conservation Gateway. The gateway serves as a repository for the agency's policy and procedural guidance related to international conservation programs.¹⁸

Between FY2016 and FY2021, funding designated for biodiversity programs in annual SFOPS appropriations grew by more than 20% ($55 million). More than 50 countries implement biodiversity programs with USAID support,¹⁹ with nearly 61% of funding in FY2018 going to Tier One countries.²⁰ USAID in 2015 estimated that its activities consistently constituted approximately two-thirds of all U.S. foreign assistance for biodiversity.²¹ USAID also transfers funding to partner agencies, such as FWS, when those partners can address a programmatic need or at the direction of Congress. The agency maintains a "Biodiversity Code," which establishes guidelines for counting projects toward the congressional biodiversity funding directive, including that only projects with explicit biodiversity objectives may be counted.²²

Figure 1. Biodiversity Tier One Areas, by FY2019 Funding

Source: U.S. Agency for International Development, Report to Congress on Programs in Forestry and the Conservation of Biodiversity during Fiscal Year 2019: Results and Funding, December 6, 2020. "Areas" are a combination of regions and individual countries. For Papua New Guinea, USAID states that limited mission presence makes investments in the country inadvisable.

USAID's biodiversity program portfolio is organized under two core goals: (1) to conserve biodiversity in target areas and (2) to integrate biodiversity as an essential component of human development.²³ USAID has stated that its programs reflect this connection between protecting fragile habitats and promoting economic prosperity by addressing threats to biodiversity and underlying drivers of those threats, such as economic activities of nearby communities and national land management policies. USAID has linked livelihoods to conservation as a response to findings that past conservation efforts failed because they did not take into account nearby communities' livelihoods and priorities in program design.²⁴ USAID targets many of its activities at an expansive, "landscape" or "seascape" scale—such as an entire watershed, a transboundary fishery, or a protected area with its surrounding communities.²⁵ Often this expansive scale is meant to connect community stakeholders with vulnerable ecosystems. For example, USAID's Hariyo Ban Program in Nepal not only created new community-based anti-poaching units to protect biodiversity but also supported the creation of new ecotourism activities to create alternative livelihoods within those communities.²⁶ USAID maintains that it seeks input on program design and implementation from an array of stakeholders, particularly Indigenous communities. USAID support to the Partnership for Conservation of Amazon Biodiversity, for instance, includes what it characterizes as significant engagement in Indigenous-controlled lands; research has found these lands may be more likely to sustain forest cover as formally protected areas.²⁷ According to some stakeholders, Congress's addition of coral reefs to USAID's legislative mandate for conserving biodiversity under the Tropical Forest Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-440) may signal a new priority for biodiversity programs, as seascapes historically have received less USAID funding than tropical forests.²⁸

Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking

USAID considers wildlife poaching and trafficking a "sub-directive" under the biodiversity conservation sector. Further, USAID states that it is an issue for international development, as it counteracts efforts to end extreme poverty, impedes the rule of law, and hinders sustainable development programs that benefit from ecotourism.²⁹ Wildlife trafficking also threatens wildlife populations and the sustainability of community lands and may contribute to public health risks.³⁰ U.S. government efforts to combat wildlife poaching and trafficking are broad and multisectoral.³¹ SFOPS funds to combat wildlife poaching and trafficking grew by nearly 26% ($20.7 million) between FY2016 and FY2021.

USAID has noted that it seeks not only to preserve wildlife populations but also to combat transnational crime and preserve safe, sustainable ecotourism, among other priorities. USAID wildlife poaching and trafficking activities target areas where wildlife are poached, transit hubs, and high-demand markets for trafficked wildlife.

• In areas where wildlife are poached, USAID focuses on capacity building to enhance policies and processes to end wildlife trafficking and to train local rangers and scouts to counter wildlife trafficking with effective enforcement.
• Along prominent trafficking routes, USAID funds partnerships that seek to disrupt trafficking supply chains. For instance, the Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful Transport of Endangered Species partnership trains workers in the transport and logistics sector to identify and respond to wildlife trafficking, as well as to work to strengthen law enforcement and data analytics capacities.³²
• In high-demand markets for trafficked goods, USAID works to reduce demand through behavior change and community outreach campaigns. For example, USAID developed and published the Wildlife Consumer Behavior Change Toolkit with the wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC.³³ USAID has also launched specific campaigns, such as the "Beautiful Without Ivory" campaign in Thailand, which sought to reduce the acceptability of ivory accessories among female consumers.³⁴

Some USAID projects also seek to monitor and track the global wildlife trafficking trade. The Wildlife Trafficking Response, Assessment, and Priority Setting Project produces analyses of the wildlife trafficking trade by identifying trends to educate policymakers and strengthen their enforcement and investigation capabilities, including through increased forensic analysis of wildlife products.³⁵

Congress has addressed wildlife trafficking and poaching through appropriations. Under the FY2021 appropriation, P.L. 116-260, Congress mandated that no funds from Title IV of Division K (Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, International Security Assistance) can be used for training or other assistance for military units or personnel that the "Secretary of State determines has been credibly alleged to have participated in wildlife poaching or trafficking, unless the Secretary reports to the appropriate congressional committees that to do so is in the national security interest of the United States."³⁶

Sustainable Landscapes

USAID sustainable landscapes programming addresses the "sound management of land and forests [that] sustains livelihoods and strengthens resilience to natural hazards, protects water resources, and biodiversity, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and land management."³⁷ According to USAID, it supports 13 bilateral programs, 5 regional programs, and numerous global programs that address sustainable landscapes.³⁸ The programs are diverse in their objectives, but many address deforestation, seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public-private partnerships.

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Treasury addresses international biodiversity conservation through lending programs and technical assistance. Treasury works with intergovernmental organizations and foreign governments to provide financial assistance for a wide range of activities, including international conservation activities.³⁹ Treasury also works with other agencies, such as State, to implement some international conservation programs.

Global Environment Facility

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is a multilateral environmental trust fund supporting projects with global environmental benefits. Treasury administers U.S. participation in the GEF, but, as a multilateral assistance program, it is funded by Congress through annual SFOPS appropriations.⁴⁰ For FY2021, Congress provided $139.6 million for the trust fund under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2021 (P.L. 116-260). The GEF provides grants and other financing programs that support a variety of projects, such as Safeguarding Biodiversity from Invasive Alien Species in the Federated States of Micronesia,⁴¹ the restoration of degraded forests in Vanuatu,⁴² and efforts to conserve coastal wetlands in Chile.⁴³ The GEF states that its programs are approved by consensus of a council comprised of developed and developing member countries.⁴⁴

Tropical Forest Conservation Act

The Tropical Forest Conservation Act authorizes debt-for-nature transactions,⁴⁵ where a developing country's debt is exchanged for local funds to conserve tropical forests. Brazil, for example, committed to develop and fund programs intended to protect the country's tropical forests; in exchange, the United States canceled an equivalent level of debt and deposited interest from a portion of the debt into a Tropical Forest Fund for conservation grants to address forest conservation in Brazil.⁴⁶ Fourteen countries were beneficiaries of such agreements from 2000 to 2013.⁴⁷ Congress did not appropriate funding for debt-for-nature transactions from FY2014 to FY2019. In 2019, the act was amended by the Tropical Forest Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-440), which added coral reef ecosystems to the protections under the act and authorized $20.0 million in appropriations for FY2019 and FY2020. Congress appropriated $15 million to debt-for-nature exchanges in FY2020 and FY2021.⁴⁸ Reauthorization to extend the authorization for funding transactions under the act through FY2026 is under consideration by the 117^th Congress in both chambers (S. 335; H.R. 241).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior)

FWS administers international conservation funding through programs that focus on species and habitat conservation, both domestically and internationally, and has been authorized to administer a variety of funds for foreign conservation efforts.⁴⁹ Examples include the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. The FWS International Affairs program addresses international wildlife conservation and international wildlife trade. Various other programs address specific species or groups of species that are found internationally, as discussed below. Congress provides funding for FWS international conservation activities largely through annual Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. FWS also receives a funding transfer from USAID for biodiversity programming overseas (see text box entitled "Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE)," above).

International Affairs

FWS's International Affairs program is split into two subprograms: International Conservation and International Wildlife Trade. These subprograms provide technical and financial assistance to partner countries and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to address habitat conservation, species conservation, and wildlife trafficking. These programs are implemented in partnership with nonfederal stakeholders. FWS reports that from 1989 through 2018, it provided more than 4,200 grants for international conservation, totaling more than $322 million. This work was done with more than 700 partners (e.g., other donors, NGOs, and foundations) in developing countries, which, according to FWS, contributed more than $470 million in matching funds for grant projects.⁵⁰

The International Conservation subprogram focuses on regional and species conservation activities in foreign countries that are of importance to the United States.⁵¹ For example, the Wildlife Conservation Capacity Development in Central Africa program aims to develop and implement training and workforce capacity in Central Africa.⁵² Further, in a partnership with Gabon's National Parks Agency, FWS aims to create safeguards for multiple species, some endangered, by supporting efforts to guard and protect parks in Gabon.⁵³

FWS's International Wildlife Trade program is responsible for implementing CITES for the United States, issuing permits for listed species, and implementing other U.S. laws that address wildlife trade and wildlife trafficking, including the END Wildlife Trafficking Act (P.L. 114-231) and Executive Order 13773 on preventing international trafficking.⁵⁴ The United States is one of the world's largest importers of legally traded wildlife products.⁵⁵ FWS facilitates the legal wildlife trade, valued at more than $675.0 million per year, through issuing permits, conducting inspections, and monitoring. Further, FWS compiles and maintains trade records for U.S. imports and exports of wildlife.⁵⁶

FWS also works with governmental and nongovernmental entities in foreign countries through technical and financial assistance to prevent poaching, lower wildlife trafficking, and reduce demand for wildlife contraband. In 2016, FWS implemented the Combating Wildlife Trafficking grants program to address trafficking in species that might not otherwise receive the same level of attention as others. For example, FWS initiated a project in Sumatra to address wildlife trafficking and to conserve species such as the Sumatran tiger, helmeted hornbill, and Malay pangolin—according to some scientists, pangolins are the world's most trafficked species.⁵⁷ This project is significant, according to FWS, because these species are often poached and trafficked by the same criminal syndicates in the region.⁵⁸ FWS enforces laws that guard against wildlife trafficking through its Office of Law Enforcement, which is funded separately from these programs.⁵⁹

Multinational Species Conservation Fund

The MSCF provides technical and financial assistance to local communities, wildlife authorities, and NGOs in developing countries for conserving specific species, including African and Asian elephants, rhinoceroses, tigers, great apes, and marine turtles. The MSCF is separated into several sub-funds that support conservation efforts benefitting certain species, often in conjunction with efforts under CITES. The sub-funds provide grants to address habitat conservation, law enforcement, and technical assistance for conserving species under the MSCF. A summary of the funds is below.

• The African and Asian Elephant Conservation Fund provides funding for projects for research, conservation, and the management and protection of African and Asian elephants and their habitats. Appropriations are authorized for $5.0 million annually from FY2019 to FY2023.
• The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund approves grants for other nations and to CITES for programs assisting in direct and indirect conservation of rhinoceroses and tigers in Asia and Africa. Further, it prohibits the sale, import, and export of products derived from any rhinoceros and tiger species. Appropriations are authorized for $10.0 million annually from FY2019 to FY2023.
• The Great Ape Conservation Fund provides grants to foreign governments, the CITES Secretariat, and NGOs for the conservation of great apes and their habitats. Appropriations are authorized for $5.0 million annually from FY2019 to FY2023.
• The Marine Turtle Conservation Fund provides grants for the conservation of marine turtles and their nesting habitats. It is authorized to receive $5.0 million in annual appropriations from FY2019 to FY2023 for conservation efforts.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) provides grants for the conservation of hundreds of bird species that migrate among North America, South America, and the Caribbean.⁶⁰ The goal of the NMBCF is to foster and support initiatives that bolster cooperation internationally for the conservation of bird populations. The program provides matching grants for neotropical migratory bird conservation projects throughout the Western Hemisphere,⁶¹ with at least 75% of funding going to projects in foreign countries. Since 2002, the NMBCA has provided nearly $75.0 million in grants to support 628 projects in 36 countries. These projects have addressed 5 million acres of bird habitat and leveraged an additional $286.0 million for conservation, according to FWS.⁶²

U.S. Forest Service (Department of Agriculture)

The FS International Programs office promotes sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation internationally. The office has three main units: (1) Technical Cooperation, (2) Policy, and (3) Disaster Assistance Response. The office supports specific activities, including managing protected areas; protecting migratory species; engaging in landscape-level forest planning; providing fire management training; curbing invasive species; preventing illegal logging; promoting forest certification; reducing the impacts of forest use; and developing nontimber forest products. The office has activities and projects in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. In addition, USAID occasionally partners with FS under an interagency agreement to support sustainable landscape activities.

Issues for Congress

Congress may consider the following issues as it authorizes, appropriates funding for, and continues oversight of U.S. international conservation activities.

Level of Funding for International Conservation

A perennial debate about U.S. international conservation assistance is how much, if any, funding to provide—and implicitly, how to prioritize international conservation vis-à-vis other U.S. foreign aid and policy priorities. Recently, congressional concerns over global conservation efforts escalated in the wake of an IPBES report asserting a significant loss in biodiversity due to human interactions with natural resources.⁶³ The decline in biodiversity alleged in the IPBES report may raise questions about the efficacy and proper funding levels for biodiversity efforts.

In FY2019 and FY2020, Congress appropriated funds above the Trump Administration's request for biodiversity funding for USAID; in FY2021, Congress appropriated more than three times the Administration's request.⁶⁴ In addition, the Trump Administration proposed to eliminate the FS International Programs office to focus on several domestic forest activities, including improving conditions of forests and grasslands, enhancing rural economies, and reducing wildland fire risk.⁶⁵ Congress did not approve the Administration's request and provided $12.0 million for the FS International Programs for FY2020 and $15.4 million for FY2021.

Some critics of foreign assistance as a whole have asserted that the United States provides overseas development assistance to the detriment of domestic programs, and aid recipients or private entities should do more to advance international assistance goals.⁶⁶ This sentiment has also been applied to international conservation activities. For example, some observers assert that the United States should reduce conservation assistance funding and encourage recipient countries to increase their contributions to conservation within their countries.⁶⁷ Some policymakers propose a different perspective, arguing that recipient countries justifiably focus their domestic spending on other priorities, such as poverty alleviation, health care, and infrastructure, leaving few resources for conservation. They argue that wealthier countries, such as the United States, could fill in this shortage of funding for conservation—a key justification for debt-for-nature exchanges, which Congress has funded for tropical forests and coral reefs.⁶⁸ Results from a 2013 study support this position.⁶⁹ The study found that 40 of the most severely underfunded countries⁷⁰ for biodiversity conservation contain 32% of all threatened mammalian biodiversity. The authors argued that modest increases in international conservation assistance for these countries could lead to proportionally larger improvements in biodiversity.⁷¹

Advocates of U.S. international conservation funding often assert that preserving wildlife and ecosystems in developing countries benefits the American people by sustaining global public goods—for example, by preserving tropical forests that serve as natural carbon sinks; sustaining biodiversity resources that sequester zoonotic diseases or provide natural substances for pharmaceuticals; or protecting the intrinsic value of diverse species and ecosystems.⁷² However, some policymakers who advocate for reducing U.S. international conservation funding contend that some recipient countries may reduce their own conservation spending in light of funding gaps filled by international aid, resulting in a zero net benefit for conservation. To counter this possibility, some suggest establishing conditions or assurances that countries would not reduce domestic conservation budgets upon receiving conservation aid. These types of assurances are embedded in some U.S. domestic conservation programs, such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.⁷³

Questions about how international conservation might benefit the United States sometimes arise in congressional consideration of appropriations. Some policymakers contend there are few—if any—benefits from U.S. international conservation efforts, an assertion that has been supported by some academic and oversight studies.⁷⁴ For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2017 conducted an audit of U.S. overseas activities to combat wildlife trafficking and found that the results of such activities were unclear, in part because agencies administering the programs had not set performance targets for their respective efforts.⁷⁵ Other policymakers counter that U.S. investments may leverage funding from private sector firms and other entities within beneficiary countries to expand international conservation programs' scales, thereby increasing the potential benefits.⁷⁶ For example, in FY2018, according to USAID, a partnership between USAID and Coca-Cola, Natura, and the NGO Sitawi Finance for Good led to the conservation of freshwater fish in the Amazon and yielded economic benefits for 6,150 families in protected areas in the Brazilian state of Amazonas.⁷⁷

Some stakeholders might also contend that foreign assistance for some international conservation issues could address security or global health concerns.⁷⁸ For example, assistance for addressing international wildlife trafficking might deprive foreign armed groups of financing or lower imports of illegally traded wildlife into the United States and thus prevent the entry of zoonotic diseases that could be carried by illegally traded wildlife and wildlife products.⁷⁹ Some critics may counter that the United States could bolster national security and health in other, more direct ways.

Goals and Objectives of Foreign Conservation Assistance

Congress appropriates U.S. international conservation assistance funding to multiple federal departments and agencies, and funds are spread out over many different programs. There is no centralized plan or framework for distributing the funds or evaluating the success of all conservation assistance to foreign countries. Certain agencies focus their funding according to program goals and priorities, which range from protecting certain species (e.g., rhinoceroses and elephants) to restoring landscapes (e.g., tropical forests). In some cases, interagency international conservation efforts and criteria might not be aligned. For example, while USAID's Biodiversity Code establishes a set of criteria for implementing biodiversity programs, the sustainable landscapes sector under USAID programming does not appear to operate under similar criteria. In the absence of a holistic program or initiative, agencies might group existing programs or projects together to report progress toward an objective.

Some policymakers might contend that if all U.S. international conservation assistance were organized and spent according to a set of whole-of-government priorities or an overarching framework, this could lead to the development of conservation goals and focus U.S. funding toward achieving those goals. This could enable greater congressional oversight of conservation assistance and help measure progress on international conservation initiatives. An initiative under USAID discusses an intra-agency approach with USAID and six nongovernmental organizations. USAID's Global Conservation Project aims to conserve globally significant areas of biodiversity at multiple scales, from the community level to large landscapes and seascapes that cross political boundaries.⁸⁰ According to USAID, this is the only global conservation initiative within the agency.

Some other policymakers might oppose a holistic approach and argue that existing agency-led conservation programs should be guided by their specific legislative authorities. For example, several laws authorize international conservation activities with specific objectives that address certain species or landscapes. Policymakers might argue that these laws and programs reflect the will of constituents and that conservation is too broad to be addressed under one plan. They might argue that the effectiveness of addressing specific issues, such as wildlife trafficking, might be diluted under an overarching plan or agenda.

This issue is exemplified by debates over the scope of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act and debt-for-nature swaps. Some policymakers wanted to expand the use of debt-for-nature swaps under the law to all forest and ocean resources.⁸¹ Others argued for keeping the law focused on tropical forests, arguing that with limited funds, the most effective use of the law would be conserving tropical forests. Ultimately, the law was amended in 2019 to address tropical forests and coral reef ecosystems (see the "Tropical Forest Conservation Act" section, above).

Interagency Coordination

With international conservation assistance largely implemented by individual agencies, some have questioned whether interagency coordination is possible and effective. For example, in 2017, GAO found that although U.S. government efforts to reduce wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia were making some progress, "disagreement on roles and responsibilities" had proved challenging. To address these challenges, GAO recommended that State, DOI, and USAID each clarify their respective roles and responsibilities related to wildlife trafficking programs in Southeast Asia. Each agency agreed with, and reportedly implemented, the GAO recommendation.⁸²

Congress may seek to understand how U.S. government entities are coordinating their international conservation efforts and where there might be areas for greater efficiency and effectiveness. Some policymakers might propose an interagency task force to coordinate conservation activities in similar landscapes or countries. Further, some might contend that sharing expertise among agencies or pooling resources and efforts could increase the efficiency and effectiveness of implementing conservation programs. Other policymakers might argue that disrupting the status quo may be detrimental. They might point to existing coordination, such as FWS and State collaboration on addressing wildlife trafficking in foreign countries and the presence of FWS officers in certain U.S. embassies abroad to participate in international criminal investigations of wildlife trafficking and wildlife enforcement networks.

The outbreak of COVID-19 and the potential emergence of zoonotic diseases globally have stimulated these discussions. Some Members of Congress have introduced bills that direct interagency collaboration to identify zoonotic diseases and study factors that contribute to their emergence. For example, under S. 37 and H.R. 151 in the 117^th Congress, USAID would collaborate with other federal agencies to implement programs aimed at reducing the risks of emerging infectious diseases. These programs may include efforts to conserve biodiversity, improve food security, and minimize the human-wildlife interface by preventing the degradation and fragmentation of ecosystems, among other activities.

Alignment with Host Country Priorities and Length of Commitment

Congressional oversight of international conservation activities may include questions about whether federal programs and activities align with recipient countries' conservation priorities. Some stakeholders argue that foreign assistance programs meet their objectives only when they align with recipient countries' priorities.⁸³ For example, one study found that if the needs of the developing country were aligned with those of the conservation projects, then the probability of success would increase, as the developing country can implement policies that would support the project.⁸⁴ The same study argues that biodiversity conservation can have policy and project goals that may contradict a nation's poverty reduction goals. If the nation's poor were overhunting or converting larger tracts of biodiverse land to farmland, then biodiversity policies may not succeed, according to the study.⁸⁵

Some policymakers contend that successful international conservation initiatives are implemented through long-term rather than short-term efforts, implying that long-term commitments to conservation aid might be a better approach. For example, some point to long-term aid to Brazil for strengthening the structures for monitoring and managing reserves and forests as an effective use of aid. Some stakeholders might counter this approach by suggesting that short-term conservation actions are more effective when addressing dire environmental issues that emerge quickly. For example, conservation actions to prevent a species from going extinct or save an ecosystem from burning (e.g., forest fires in Australia) might be more effective if implemented by short-term rather than long-term efforts.

Congress might consider these findings when deliberating international conservation assistance. Members might view a holistic approach to conservation that would take into account development goals and aspirations by recipient countries and focus on long-term conservation initiatives. In contrast, Congress might focus on international conservation priorities that would focus on specific species or ecosystems that have broad constituent support, such as African elephant conservation or coral reefs.

Foreign Assistance for Conservation and Consequences for Human Rights

Human rights advocates and organizations representing Indigenous communities have periodically asserted that international conservation programs can result in forced displacement, in security force abuses against local communities, or both. For example, a 2019 news article alleged that people living near national parks in Nepal and near national parks in several central African countries were abused as a result of counter-poaching operations by local park rangers.⁸⁶ Allegations that Nepal park rangers had tortured and killed a suspected poacher near Chitwan Forest in 2006 were central to the article. Other reports of human rights abuses associated with conservation have surfaced throughout the world. For example, some observers allege human rights abuses by park rangers in Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park in the Republic of the Congo, and some Indigenous rights groups allege that this park's creation dispossessed local communities of their lands without consent. Local government officials have denied these allegations.⁸⁷

Some Members of Congress have expressed concern that U.S. international conservation aid has been used to fund organizations implicated in human rights violations. In response to the 2019 news article mentioned above, Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Eliot Engel called for an investigation into U.S. funding administered by FWS for the international conservation organizations that support anti-poaching efforts in Nepal.⁸⁸ Further, in response to these allegations, DOI stated that certain funding would be withheld until an internal review of the matter was complete.⁸⁹ Other donors (including the British and German parliaments) also have investigated alleged human rights abuses as a result of conservation projects.⁹⁰

GAO conducted an analysis of human rights abuse allegations in overseas conservation programs in 2020.⁹¹ GAO found that federal agencies vetted park rangers who received funding through the Leahy Process. The Leahy Process is guided by two laws that prohibit the United States from using certain funds to support foreign security forces when credible information shows the forces have committed a gross violation of human rights.⁹² The laws lay out a process for vetting recipients of aid that is conducted by the Department of State or Defense, where applicable. The respective agency assesses available information about the recipient's human rights records as part of this process.⁹³ GAO also found that U.S. agencies responded to allegations of human rights abuses in different ways. For example, GAO reported that USAID responded to allegations with more training on human rights issues for park rangers and conducted site visits to further understand allegations. DOI has put a hold on international conservation funding and is conducting more in-depth inquiries into human rights abuses, as discussed.

Congress responded to this issue in the explanatory statement for P.L. 116-260 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2021). Congress directed agencies to follow the House Report (116-444) accompanying H.R. 7608 with regard to funds made available for national parks and protected areas. The report states that agreements obligating funds shall include provisions that require

• information on the proposed project and its potential impacts is shared with local communities and the "free, prior, and informed consent of affected indigenous communities is obtained in accordance with international standards";
• the proposed project's potential effects on land or resource claims made by local communities or Indigenous peoples are considered and addressed in management plans;
• eco-guards, park rangers, and other law enforcement personnel authorized to protect biodiversity are trained and monitored; and
• mechanisms exist for victims of human rights violations and other misconduct.

Congress might consider evaluating these guidelines to determine if they are sufficient to address human rights concerns or if further oversight or legislation is needed to impose additional conditions on grant recipients. Congress also might consider whether these guidelines should be applicable to overseas assistance directed for all types of conservation.

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples

Areas of the world that are home to large concentrations of Indigenous peoples and low-income communities are often prone to the negative effects of climate change, biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, and other conservation-related challenges.⁹⁴ Congress might consider whether foreign assistance for conservation aids or hinders Indigenous and low-income communities in recipient countries. Some human rights advocates argue that efforts to conserve habitats or sustainably manage lands could force Indigenous peoples out of their ancestral homelands and deprive them of their livelihoods.⁹⁵ They argue that conservation assistance may not address or mitigate externalities that affect the livelihoods of these populations.⁹⁶ For example, international efforts to shut down wildlife markets to prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases and lower wildlife trafficking may have the unintended consequence of diminishing protein options for Indigenous or low-income people with little access to markets with meat from domesticated animals. Some conservation advocates counter that conservation assistance and activities can enhance the well-being of Indigenous people by involving them in securing the sustainability and longevity of natural habitats and lands and by protecting the ecosystems they depend on from destruction at the hands of local government, private sector initiatives, and themselves.⁹⁷

U.S. government entities involved in international conservation activities differ in their approaches to involving Indigenous peoples and other local communities as potential stakeholders in conservation efforts. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (recently reconstituted as the U.S. Development Finance Corporation), for instance, maintained a policy to attain "consent" of Indigenous peoples for programs; State and Treasury suggest the need for "consultation."⁹⁸ USAID, in its new policy on Indigenous peoples, encourages attaining free, prior, and informed consent as a "best practice" but also refers to the U.S. Announcement of Support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a "call for a process of meaningful consultation with [traditional] leaders, but not necessarily the agreement of those leaders, before the actions addressed in those consultations are taken."⁹⁹

Congress could seek to clarify the U.S. position on requirements for attaining the consent of Indigenous peoples in U.S. conservation programs, including by considering the establishment of a U.S. government position on the matter. For example, Congress might consider questions that would elucidate the requirement under P.L. 116-260 that asks for the "free, prior, and informed consent" of Indigenous communities affected by projects. Some questions might include what information should be passed to Indigenous communities, what form their consent should be in, and how to collaborate with the national government where Indigenous communities are located. Congress also could consider policy mechanisms to integrate conservation programs with the livelihoods of Indigenous peoples.

Appendix. Selected Appropriations for International Conservation Activities