    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                               NATURE IN CRISIS:
                        BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND ITS CAUSES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 4, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-24

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     36-504PDF            WASHINGTON : 2020

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois                Ranking Member
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             MO BROOKS, Alabama
    AMI BERA, California,                BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan              ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
    KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma                RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               PETE OLSON, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 JIM BAIRD, Indiana
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                   Rico
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                VACANCY
    KATIE HILL, California
    BEN McADAMS, Utah
    JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  June 4, 2019

                                                                       Page
    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     7
        Written statement............................................     8

    Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     9
        Written statement............................................    10

                                   Witnesses:

    Sir Robert Watson, Past Chair, Intergovernmental Science-Policy
      Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
        Oral Statement...............................................    12
        Written Statement............................................    14

    Dr. Kate Brauman, Coordinating Lead Author, IPBES Global
      Assessment; Lead Scientist, Global Water Assessment, University
      of Minnesota, Institute of the Environment
        Oral Statement...............................................    32
        Written Statement............................................    34

    Dr. James Porter, Josiah Meigs Distinguished Professor, Emeritus,
      University of Georgia, and Scientific Advisor, Chasing Coral
        Oral Statement...............................................    42
        Written Statement............................................    44

    Mr. Jeff Goodwin, Conservation Stewardship Lead and Agricultural
      Consultant, Nobel Research Institute
        Oral Statement...............................................    57
        Written Statement............................................    59

    Dr. Steven Monfort, Director of the Smithsonian National Zoo and
      Conservation Biology Institute
        Oral Statement...............................................    65
        Written Statement............................................    67

    Discussion.......................................................    77

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. James Porter, Josiah Meigs Distinguished Professor, Emeritus,
      University of Georgia, and Scientific Advisor, Chasing Coral...   110

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Statements submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
      House of Representatives.......................................   114

    Statement submitted by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   125
    Statement submitted by Representative Don Beyer, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   128

                               NATURE IN CRISIS:

                        BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND ITS CAUSES

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
    room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie
    Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. This hearing will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
    at any time. I want to say good morning, and welcome to today's
    Full Committee hearing, entitled, ``Nature in Crisis:
    Biodiversity Loss and its Causes''. I'd like to welcome our
    distinguished panel of witnesses, and thank all of you for
    joining us.
        Today we have the opportunity to discuss an issue that
    captivated the attention of the public and policymakers alike,
    namely the alarming loss in biodiversity that is occurring
    worldwide. As a matter of fact, I read a paper in France last
    week on this very subject. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy
    Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, or the IPBES,
    recently published a summary for policymakers (SPM) for its
    first ever global assessment report. This intergovernmental
    body, which is not a part of the United Nations, set out to
    assess the state of biodiversity, its ecosystems, and the
    essential services they provide to society. The global
    assessment was prepared in advance of the upcoming UN
    Convention on Biological Diversity scheduled for 2020. I'd like
    to note that while we are primarily discussing the findings of
    the summary for policymakers today, the draft chapters of the
    full report were recently made publicly available. The final
    report chapters will be released later this year, and they will
    not differ from the findings in the summary for policymakers
    that we are discussing this morning.
        The findings of IPBES laid out are too stark to ignore. The
    global assessment lays out the direct drivers of biodiversity
    loss in the following order, from the greatest to least impact.
    Changes in land and sea use, direct exploitation of organisms,
    climate change, pollution, and invasive species. Though there
    are many underlying causes for these direct drivers of change,
    it is very clear that humans have had an outsized impact on our
    surrounding environment. We've already discussed the impacts
    that our change in climate is having on our oceans at our
    Environmental Subcommittee hearing earlier this year, but
    climate change as a driver of biodiversity loss also impacts
    non-marine ecosystems. I look forward to hearing from each of
    our witnesses about the real-world impacts of all of the
    drivers of this biodiversity loss.
        Much of the reporting on the global assessment is focused
    on the devastating findings that almost one million species
    could potentially go extinct in the next few decades. But we
    would be remiss if we did not discuss what else the report lays
    out, especially its recommendations for potential solutions and
    pathways for addressing biodiversity loss. I hope today's
    conversation with our witnesses will provide an opportunity to
    further illuminate potential solutions we can utilize to
    address the dangers highlighted in the global assessment.
        Earlier this year, I introduced the Energy and Water
    Research Integration Act, with my friend and colleague Ranking
    Member Lucas, to address issues related to water conservation
    and use in the process of the Department of Energy's research,
    development, and demonstration activities. Cross-cutting
    initiatives, like this bill, are clear examples of the role
    that Congress, and especially this Committee, can play in
    developing science-based solutions to our most pressing issues.
        June is World Oceans Month, and this week in particular is
    Capitol Hill's Oceans Week, or CHOW. I'm delighted that we have
    Dr. Porter from the University of Georgia joining us today to
    discuss the impacts of the drivers of biodiversity loss laid
    out in the IPBES report on coral reefs, and the numerous
    ecosystem services they provide. Later today the Committee will
    be screening Chasing Coral, a film for which Dr. Porter was a
    scientific expert. The screening is free and open to the
    public, and I encourage everyone to come back and watch it.
    After the screening, Dr. Porter will host a question and answer
    session with the audience. I want to let everyone know that
    this Thursday, June 6, the Committee will be hosting an Ocean
    Exploration Expo to showcase ocean exploration technologies. I
    again encourage members of the public, and any of my
    colleagues, to join this Expo on Thursday. More important, more
    information is available on our website. I would also like to
    welcome back Sir Robert Watson, who previously testified before
    our Committee over 20 years ago.
        I am really looking forward to today's discussion to not
    only better understand the findings of the IPBES Global
    Assessment Report, but also identify knowledge gaps, understand
    how best to implement the transformative changes recommended,
    and determine our path forward with science-based solutions.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Good morning. I would like to welcome our distinguished
    panel of witnesses and thank them for joining us. Today we have
    the opportunity to discuss an issue that has captivated the
    attention of the public and policymakers alike, namely the
    alarming loss in biodiversity that is occurring world wide.
        The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
    Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, or IPBES, recently
    published a summary for policymakers for its first ever Global
    Assessment Report. This intergovernmental body, which is not a
    part of the United Nations, set out to assess ``the state of
    biodiversity, its ecosystems, and the essential services they
    provide to society.'' This Global Assessment was prepared in
    advance of the upcoming UN Convention on Biological Diversity
    scheduled for 2020.
        I would like to note that while we are primarily discussing
    the findings of the summary for policymakers today, the draft
    chapters of the full report were recently made publicly
    available. The final report chapters will be released later
    this year, and they will not differ from the findings in the
    summary for policymakers we are discussing this morning.
        The findings the IPBES laid out are too stark to ignore.
    The Global Assessment lays out five direct drivers of
    biodiversity loss in the following order from greatest to least
    impact (1) Changes in land and sea use (2) direct exploitation
    of organisms (3) climate change (4) pollution and (5) invasive
    species. Though there are many underlying causes for these
    direct drivers of change, it is very clear that humans have had
    an outsized impact on our surrounding environment.
        We have already discussed the impacts that a changing
    climate is having on our oceans at an Environment Subcommittee
    hearing earlier this year, but climate change as a driver of
    biodiversity loss also impacts non-marine ecosystems. I look
    forward to hearing from each of our witnesses about the real
    world impacts of all of the drivers of biodiversity loss.
        Much of the reporting on the Global Assessment has focused
    on the devastating finding that almost one million species
    could potentially go extinct in the next few decades. But, we
    would be remiss if we did not discuss what else this report
    lays out, especially its recommendations for potential
    solutions and pathways to addressing biodiversity loss. I hope
    today's conversation with our witnesses will provide an
    opportunity to further illuminate potential solutions we can
    utilize to address the dangers highlighted in the Global
    Assessment.
        Earlier this year I introduced the Energy-water nexus Act
    with my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Frank Lucas, to
    address issues related to water conservation and use in the
    process of the Department of Energy's research, development,
    and demonstration activities. Cross-cutting initiatives, like
    this bill, are clear examples of the role that Congress, and
    especially this Committee, can play in developing science-based
    solutions to our most pressing issues.
        June is world oceans month, and this week in particular is
    Capitol Hill Oceans Week, or CHOW. I am delighted that we have
    Dr. Porter from the University of Georgia joining us today to
    discuss the impacts of the drivers of biodiversity loss laid
    out in the IPBES report on coral reefs and the numerous
    ecosystems services they provide.
        Later today the Committee will be screening Chasing Coral,
    a film for which Dr. Porter was a scientific expert. This
    screening is free and open to the public and I encourage
    everyone to come back and watch the film. After the screening,
    Dr. Porter will host a question and answer session with the
    audience. I also want to let everyone know that this Thursday,
    June 6, the Committee will be hosting an Ocean Exploration Expo
    to showcase ocean exploration technologies. I again encourage
    members of the public, and any of my colleagues, to join this
    expo on Thursday. More information is available on our website.
    I would also like to welcome back Sir Robert Watson, who
    previously testified before our Committee over 20 years ago.
        I am really looking forward to today's discussion to not
    only better understand the findings in the IPBES Global
    Assessment report, but also identify to knowledge gaps,
    understand how best to implement the transformative changes
    recommended, and determine our path forward with science-based
    solutions.
        Thank you.

        Chairwoman Johnson. I now ask Mr. Lucas for his statement.
        Mr. Lucas. Madam Chair, thank you, and before starting my
    statement, I'd like to take a second to recognize one of our
    senior policy folks, Ben Traynham, who's sitting up here with
    us. This is his last hearing before he leaves D.C. and returns
    to Richmond, Virginia. Ben's moving home to practice law, to
    grow his family, with their second daughter due this fall. I
    want to thank Ben for his hard work. We'll miss that signature
    bowtie, even if it is kind of un-Western Oklahomish, and we
    wish you great success with your coming steps. So, thank you,
    Madam Chair, for indulging me on that courtesy.
        Now, Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing, and
    providing a platform to hold constructive dialog on this issue.
    I'm going to read it one time, and here ever after I'm going to
    refer to it as the report, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
    Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services' Global
    Assessment Report on Diversity in Ecosystems is a 1,700-page
    report that was just released yesterday morning. I'll be the
    first to admit to you that I have not read the complete report,
    and I admire any of my colleagues who have found time to do so.
    The purpose of this hearing is to examine the report's summary
    for policymakers. And while I welcome today's discussion, I'd
    be remiss if I didn't say maybe waiting a week or so, a little
    time to read it in full, and understanding of the process,
    would've been useful, but those conclusions will serve us
    nonetheless.
        With what is being said, I look forward to a productive
    discussion on how we can use innovation to combat the most
    pressing changes in global biodiversity. Biodiversity, or the
    variability of species in ecosystems, plays a significant role
    in all aspects of human wellbeing. It's particularly important
    to agricultural producers, who lead a system that feeds and
    clothes billions of people every day. The report ranks land and
    sea use at the top of their five biggest drivers of change in
    nature, and concludes that agricultural expansion is the most
    widespread form of land use change. This expansion of
    agricultural land is a direct result of the need to feed the
    growing population.
        The global population is on track to reach nearly 10
    billion people by 2050, and the UN Food and Agricultural
    Association estimates that global food production will need to
    double by that time. Now, that's why we must support innovation
    and research that will help make food production more efficient
    and environmentally beneficial. Increasing production, while
    eliminating waste of all kinds, including land waste, is a goal
    of any operation. The best way to accomplish this in
    agriculture is utilizing modern science and conservation
    principles, coupled with proven management practices.
        The United States has been the model of conservation
    through voluntary coordination and innovation, and we must
    continue to carry that torch. Following the immense soil
    erosion and drought of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s, Federal,
    State, and local governments partnered with producers to solve
    the disaster. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration
    initiated programs to conserve soil and restore the ecological
    balance of the Nation, with producers leading the way. These
    U.S. programs and institutions, that incentivize conservation,
    have been incredibly successful, and are still in effect today.
        We've also benefited from innovations like those of Nobel
    Peace Prize recipient Dr. Norman Borlaug, who developed
    varieties of semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat.
    This variety's introduction in India and Pakistan during the
    population boom of the 1960s is credited with starting the
    Green Revolution, and saving up to one billion people from
    starvation. There are even more exciting innovations on the
    horizon. Genetic engineering, gene editing, have the potential
    to produce plant varieties that require less land, less water,
    less fertilizer, while increasing biodiversity. This next
    generation of crop genetics are closer than we think, and
    current investments in research will pay unmeasurable dividends
    in the future.
        One of our witnesses today, Dr. Jeff Goodwin, will discuss
    efforts at the Nobel Research Institution to increase soil
    health and productivity through improved land management
    techniques. Mr. Goodwin will speak to voluntary agricultural
    conservation practices led by producers that should serve as a
    model for different industries. We've seen incredible success
    from these industry-led efforts without resorting to burdensome
    regulations.
        In closing, I'd like to remind my colleagues of this
    Committee's jurisdiction. This topic walks a fine line with the
    Natural Resources Committee, so I encourage my colleagues focus
    on research and innovation that can be used as solutions, not
    the doom and gloom of predicting what might happen in the
    future. Too often we are bogged down by the alarming negative
    headlines that stem from these reports. What I see is another
    opportunity to revolutionize. I see another opportunity for the
    United States to show yet again we're the best in the world at
    solving the daunting and complex problems we all face. I look
    forward to hearing more on technological innovations and
    environmental stewardship that looks to improve our critical
    biodiversity, while promoting economic growth. Thank you, Madam
    Chair, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

        Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding this hearing and
    providing a platform to hold constructive dialogue on this
    issue.
        The IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and
    Ecosystem Services is a 1,700-page report that was just
    released yesterday morning. I will be the first to admit I have
    not read the complete report and I admire any of my colleagues
    who found the time to do so. The purpose of this hearing is to
    examine the report's Summary for Policymakers.
        While I welcome today's discussion, I would be remiss if I
    didn't say that waiting a week or two for time to read the full
    report and understand the underlying process used to reach
    conclusions would serve us better.
        With that being said, I look forward to a productive
    discussion on how we can use innovation to combat the most
    pressing changes in global biodiversity.
        Biodiversity, or the variability of species and ecosystems,
    plays a significant role in all aspects of human well-being.
    It's particularly important to agricultural producers who lead
    a system that feeds and clothes billions of people every day.
        The IPBES report ranks land and sea use at the top of their
    five biggest drivers of change in nature and concludes that
    agricultural expansion is the most widespread form of land use
    change. This expansion of agricultural lands is a direct result
    of the need to feed the growing population.
        The global population is on track to reach nearly 10
    billion people by 2050, and the UN Food and Agriculture
    Association estimates that global food production will need to
    double by that time. That is why we must support innovation and
    research that will make food production more efficient and
    environmentally beneficial.
        Increasing production while eliminating waste of all kinds,
    including land waste, is the goal of any operation. The best
    way to accomplish this in agriculture is utilizing modern
    science and conservation principles coupled with proven
    management practices.
        The United States has been the model of conservation
    through voluntary coordination and innovation, and we must
    continue to carry that torch. Following the immense soil
    erosion and drought of the Dust Bowl, federal, state, and local
    governments partnered with producers to solve the disaster.
        President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration initiated
    programs to conserve soil and restore the ecological balance of
    the nation. With producers leading the way, these U.S. programs
    and institutions that incentivize conservation have been
    incredibly successful and are still in effect today.
        We have also benefited from innovations like those of Nobel
    Peace Prize recipient Dr. Norman Borlaug, who developed
    varieties of semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat.
    This variety's introduction to India and Pakistan during the
    population boom of the 1960s is credited with starting the
    Green Revolution and saving up to 1 billion people from
    starvation.
        There are even more exciting innovations on the horizon.
    Genetic engineering and gene editing have the potential to
    produce plant varieties that require less land, water, and
    fertilizer all while increasing biodiversity. This next
    generation of crop genetics are closer than we think and
    current investments in research will pay unmeasurable dividends
    in the future.
        One of our witnesses today, Mr. Jeff Goodwin, will discuss
    efforts at the Nobel Research Institute to increase soil health
    and productivity through improved land management techniques.
        Mr. Goodwin will speak to voluntary agricultural
    conservation practices led by producers that should serve as a
    model for different industries. We've seen incredible success
    from these industry-led efforts without resorting to burdensome
    regulations.
        In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues of this
    Committee's jurisdiction. This topic walks a fine line with the
    Natural Resources Committee, so I encourage my fellow Members
    to focus on research and innovation that can be used as
    solutions, not the doom and gloom of predicting what might
    happen in the future.
        Too often we are bogged down by the alarmingly negative
    headlines that stem from these reports. What I see is another
    opportunity to revolutionize. I see another opportunity for the
    United States to show yet again that we are the best in the
    world at solving the daunting and complex problems we all face.
        I look forward to hearing more on technology innovations
    and environmental stewardship that looks to improve our crucial
    biodiversity while promoting economic growth. Thank you Madam
    Chair and I yield the balance of my time.

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas. If
    there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point. At this time I'd like to introduce our witnesses.
        Sir Robert Watson served as the IPBES Chair from 2015 to
    2019. He is a leader in the field of environmental science, and
    has spent much of his distinguished career focusing on the
    impacts human activity has had on Earth. Currently, Dr. Watson
    is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of
    East Anglia in Norwich, England. He also serves as Director of
    Strategic Development of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change
    Research at the University.
        Dr. Kate Brauman is a coordinating lead author for the 2019
    IPBES Global Assessment. Dr. Brauman also served as a lead
    scientist for the Global Water Initiative at the University of
    Minnesota, Institute on the Environment.
        Dr. James Porter is an Emeritus Professor at the University
    of Georgia, Odum School of Ecology. Dr. Porter's research
    focuses on coral reef ecology and conservation, as well as
    marine life ecosystems.
        Mr. Jeff Goodwin is a conversation stewardship leader and a
    pasture and range consultant at the Nobel Research Institute
    based in Ardmore, Oklahoma. Prior to his current position, Mr.
    Goodwin worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
    Resources Conservation Service, for nearly 14 years.
        Last, we have Dr. Steven Monfort. Dr. Monfort is Director
    of the Smithsonian National Zoo and Conservation Biology
    Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Science and Public
    Policy, as well as a doctorate degree in veterinary medicine.
        Our witnesses should know that you each have 5 minutes for
    your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included
    in the record for the hearing. When all of you have completed
    your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each
    Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel.
        We will start with Dr. Watson.

                   TESTIMONY OF SIR DR. ROBERT WATSON,

              PAST CHAIR, INTERGOVERNMENTAL SCIENCE-POLICY

             PLATFORM ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

        Dr. Watson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Members of the
    Committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to provide this
    testimony, which is indeed based on the IPBES Global Assessment
    of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. As Madam Chair said,
    IPBES is an intergovernmental body, but it is independent of
    the United Nations. The assessment was prepared by 450
    scientists. We used 15,000 sources of information, and received
    15,000 comments during two rounds of expert and government peer
    review. The chapters and the SPM are now all available on the
    IPBES website.
        Biodiversity, which is critical to human wellbeing,
    provides food, as indeed has been mentioned already, fiber,
    water, energy, and medicines. It regulates our climate, our
    air, our water pollution, storm surges, floods, and
    pollination, and has significant cultural and social value.
    Biodiversity is currently being lost at a rate unprecedented in
    human history, primarily driven by changes in land and sea use,
    and direct exploitation of organisms, and, to a lesser extent,
    to date, by climate change, pollution, and invasive alien
    species. These all result from increases in the number of
    humans and per capita consumption, trade, technological
    innovations, and governance systems, local to global. These
    losses in biodiversity are undermining human wellbeing,
    especially the regulating and cultural services.
        While climate change has not been the dominant driver in
    the loss of biodiversity to date in most parts of the world, it
    is projected to become as important, or potentially more
    important, than other drivers of change in the coming decades.
    Climate change is already adversely affecting genetic
    variability, species richness, populations' composition and
    distributions, and the boundaries, structure, and functioning
    of ecosystems. These changes are evident and accelerating, in
    marine, terrestrial, and freshwater systems. Almost half of the
    threatened terrestrial mammals, and one-quarter of threatened
    birds, may already have been negatively affected by climate
    change. In turn, biodiversity can adversely affect the Earth's
    climate. For example, deforestation increases the atmospheric
    abundance of carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, therefore
    it's essential that we look at the issues of biodiversity and
    climate change together.
        In addition to transforming the way we produce and use
    energy, there are many nature-based approaches that can be used
    to adapt to, or mitigate, human-induced climate change. Large-
    scale reforestation, ecosystem restoration. However, it is
    important to recognize that some of the approaches that have
    been suggested to limit human-induced climate change, such as
    large-scale afforestation, and large-scale bioenergy, will
    adversely affect biodiversity, and food and water security, if
    natural vegetation, grasslands and forests, are replaced by
    monoculture bioenergy crops. So we have to think through very
    carefully how we use afforestation and bioenergy.
        Loss of biodiversity, just like human-induced climate, is
    not only an environmental issue, but it's an economic,
    development, social, security, moral, and ethical issue. The
    loss of biodiversity is projected to continue or worsen in many
    future scenarios. Business as usual is not an option if the
    world wants to conserve, and sustainably use biodiversity, and
    meet sustainable and societal goals, such as food and water
    security. Scenarios show that the impact of climate change is
    projected to intensify with the degree of warming. For
    instance, in a climate change risk assessment, 5 percent of
    species are at risk at 2 degree warming, rising to 16 percent
    with a 4.3 degree warming.
        Current and future projected trends in biodiversity will
    undermine many of the internationally agreed Aichi biodiversity
    targets. They will undermine the sustainable development goals,
    all 17 of them, and it will undermine the Paris agreement on
    climate change. And, in particular, it will threaten poverty,
    hunger, human health, water, cities, and life on land.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close my remarks.
    Madam Chair, apologies.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Watson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Now we'll have Dr.
    Brauman.

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. KATE BRAUMAN,

           COORDINATING LEAD AUTHOR, IPBES GLOBAL ASSESSMENT,

                LEAD SCIENTIST, GLOBAL WATER INITIATIVE,

         UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, INSTITUTE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

        Dr. Brauman. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Lucas, Members of
    the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    This testimony is based on the global assessment of the
    Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
    Ecosystem Services. As a coordinating lead author, I worked
    with a team of experts synthesizing existing published research
    on nature, and its very broad range of contributions to people.
    It is a big report. In short, people depend on nature. The
    deterioration of nature, species extinction, threatens the
    benefits that nature provides, from our basic food supply, to
    our very sense of selves. And most of these benefits, these
    ecosystem services, are not fully replaceable. Some of them are
    irreplaceable.
        What do I mean by ecosystem services? Many of the material
    goods on which we depend, including food, bioenergy, medicines,
    other materials, come directly from nature. In addition, nature
    underlies the production of those tangible goods, and, indeed,
    our very life support systems on Earth. Nature plays a critical
    role in cycling water, affecting climate, and protecting us
    from natural hazards.
        Nature offers more than this, however. Also critical to
    human wellbeing are the intangible benefits that it provides.
    Nature inspires science, technology, and art. It affects our
    mental health, and it provides a sense of place. Here in
    Washington, each spring the cherry blossoms bring joy and a
    sense of international connection, not to mention tourist
    dollars. In Minnesota, where I've made my home, our 10,000
    lakes, and our pride in the boundary waters, are part of our
    collective identity. Yet the Global Assessment establishes that
    nature is in decline, so most of those benefits are declining
    as well.
        There are five main causes: Changes in land and sea use,
    overutilization of plants and animals, climate change,
    pollution, and invasive species. Land use change has been the
    most important to date, largely because of its scale. Over the
    past 50 years, raw timber harvest has increased by 45 percent,
    and the value of agricultural crop production has increased
    nearly threefold. Let there be no mistake, our transformation
    of nature has been critical for both human nutrition and
    livelihoods, but we also must be clear-eyed about the impact.
    We have transformed the globe.
        Today, over one-third of the terrestrial land surface is
    used for cropping or livestock. Agriculture, alongside growing
    urban areas, and expanding infrastructure, has transformed
    forests, wetlands, and grasslands around the world. This has
    led to declines in many ecosystem services, particularly those
    that underpin the environmental processes, and those that
    provide intangible benefits. For example, when we drain farm
    fields, soils and plants can no longer hold water, and this
    could exacerbate flooding downstream. Some of this we've seen
    in the Midwest over the past several months. Excess fertilizer
    causes toxic algal blooms, like the one that shut down Toledo's
    water system in 2014, and causes dead zones in the Gulf of
    Mexico.
        These impacts are widespread and pervasive. In the Global
    Assessment, we evaluated 18 categories of nature's benefits.
    Globally, we find increases only in production of material
    goods, goods whose value we already recognize. The majority of
    nature's benefits are in decline, including processes affecting
    air, water, and climate, as well as non-tangible benefits, such
    as the diversity of life from which to learn. Overall, the
    expansion of food, feed, fiber, bioenergy, has occurred at the
    cost of many of these other benefits, and those burdens and
    benefits are often distributed unequally across space and time,
    and among different segments of society.
        Agriculture is an example not just as a driver of
    environmental change, it's also threatened by these,
    particularly in the face of a changing planet. Healthy soils
    are the basis of everything we grow, yet land degradation has
    reduced productivity on 23 percent of global terrestrial area.
    Bees are critically important to more than 75 percent of global
    food crop types, including fruit, vegetables, and many cash
    crops, yet they are also in decline, putting at risk as much as
    577 billion in annual global crop output. This signals a threat
    to our continued ability to grow food, and maintain productive
    agricultural systems.
        In addition, extinction threatens both wild and
    domesticated food plants and animals, posing a serious risk to
    global food security. Wild food relatives represent critical
    reservoirs of genes and traits that may provide resilience
    against future climate change, pests, and pathogens. Yet by
    2016, domestic breeds of mammals used for food and agriculture,
    close to 10 percent, are already extinct. Without soils, plants
    can be grown hydroponically. Coastal flooding can be managed by
    dykes and seawalls, but substitutes are frequently expensive,
    and they incur high future costs. They cannot be the entirety
    of our Plan B. Looking forward, we can promote solutions by
    working with nature, and those solutions exist. Continued
    research is necessary, but there is much that we can do today.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Brauman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Dr. Porter.

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES PORTER,

              JOSIAH MEIGS PROFESSOR OF ECOLOGY, EMERITUS,

             ODUM SCHOOL OF ECOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

        Dr. Porter. And if we could have the first slide, please?
    Thank you very much, Madam--Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member
    Lucas, and Members of the Committee for inviting me here. I'll
    make my introductory comments with a clip of film from Chasing
    Coral playing in the background.
        Coral reefs cover only 1 percent of the Earth's surface,
    and yet within that 1 percent are 25 percent of all marine
    plant and animal species. Coral reef generate $9.9 trillion per
    year in economic benefit for 500 million people that depend on
    them exclusively for their source of income, and for their
    protein. In addition to that, coral reefs generate $24 billion
    a year to Florida and Hawaii alone. And across coral reefs have
    generated amazing new drugs from the sea. A new drug from last
    year that reduces the risk of heart attack in elderly
    Americans, another drug that cures prostate cancer, and a third
    drug that is more powerful in killing the HIV virus than AZT.
    It is an amazing cornucopia.
        All of the ills that have been mentioned for other
    ecosystems apply to coral reefs, including exploitation, and
    also pollution of plastics, and invasive species, such as the
    lionfish, which is from the Indo-Pacific, is now in the
    Caribbean. But the key driver of diversity loss in the oceans
    is, in fact, climate change. The reason for this is that corals
    are only 2 degrees away from the high temperatures that kill
    them. The irony is that, of the warming heat that has been
    generated in the last 50 years, only 7 percent of that is in
    the air. The remaining 93 percent of the heat is in the oceans.
    The oceans have absorbed this heat. We know this because we
    have indeed measured it. If the oceans had not been the Earth's
    punching bag to take this heat, then the average temperature
    outside this room today would be 122 degrees Fahrenheit. That
    is the physics of what we are dealing with.
        I'm going to show you two examples from coral reefs. First,
    from Jamaica, this is a picture from 1976. This is what this
    reef looks like today. You have a right to ask, is that from
    the same place? I direct your attention to the boulder coral,
    with the distinctive eye-spot, the lower right hand corner.
    There it was before, here it is again. We are in the same
    place. Now let us look for--closer to home, the Florida Keys.
    In 1994, a coral reef off Key West. There it was before, and in
    2004, the corals are going, going, gone. It does not matter
    what place in the Florida Keys you go to, you get the same
    result.
        Seventy-five percent of all reefs in the Florida Keys have
    fewer species now than they did before. In the upper right hand
    coral--some coral species have gone extinct, and the branching
    and elk horn corals that you see in the lower right, once the
    commonest corals in the Caribbean, are now on the critically
    endangered species list. This Committee deals with species,
    but, on reefs, it's not just at the species level. The genus,
    the family, the order, the class, all are at risk. A recent
    paper in Science shows that 85 percent of the time that these
    higher taxa appeared on this planet, they did so on coral
    reefs, making them evolution's cradle, and also their museum.
    The cradle to evolve new forms, the museum to retain them.
        An example is from the class sponges. They have the miracle
    that they can secrete their skeleton either out of calcium,
    like you and me, or out of silicon glass. The last time a class
    of organisms on this planet went extinct was 500 million years
    ago, and within the next 50 years we can eliminate this class.
    We are not only trimming the leaves, the species, we are
    trimming the branches, the trunk, and the roots of the life on
    this planet.
        Climate change is the cause, and we are worried that in
    2040 we are going to see a loss of coral reefs worldwide as
    they bleach, and turn white, and die. But, if we were able to
    reduce the amount of greenhouse gases through all the kinds of
    technology's imaginable, we could take that 2040 away, and buy
    coral reefs at least 100 years in which they might be able to
    evolve thermal tolerance.
        Seventy-five percent of the living coral in Florida has
    died in the last 10 years. Sixty-six percent of all corals on
    the Barrier Reef died in the last 2 years from climate change.
    This Committee is about life on Earth. We can save the
    biodiversity of the planet, but we must begin now. Thank you
    for coming.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Porter follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Goodwin?

                       TESTIMONY OF JEFF GOODWIN,

                   CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP LEAD AND

           AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANT, NOBLE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

        Mr. Goodwin. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lewis,
    Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
    provide testimony on behalf of the Nobel Research Institute.
    The recently published Global Assessment of the
    Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
    Ecosystem Services discusses in depth the estimated projections
    and global biodiversity loss and the perceived negative impacts
    imposed by the agricultural industry. To the contrary, for more
    than a decade a movement has been taking place in the ag
    industry that is returning biodiversity to the land. A
    significant number of farmers and ranchers, producers, across
    the country, and around the world, are part of an agricultural
    revolution, a regenerative revolution, focused specifically on
    biological diversity, and building biologically active soils.
        This movement, however, was not born out of legislation, or
    regulatory requirement. It was born out of the recognition by
    innovative producers, who understood the adoption of
    ecologically and economically sustainable principles would
    enable them to remain on the land, producing the food and fiber
    needed for an ever-expanding population. Sixty years ago the
    agriculture industry operated on cheap fuel and fertilizer. Our
    industry, and our research, during that time focused on the
    chemical and physical characteristics of soil, with little to
    no consideration of the biological interactions. In recent
    years, prices for food and fertilizer have increased to the
    point that--become unsustainable for many operations. Many
    producers have had to make a choice, continue what they've
    always done, or work with nature to find a new solution.
        Born out of equal parts necessity and frustration,
    producers began to experiment with farming techniques that
    limited the use of inorganic fertilizer. They began to see that
    limiting or eliminating tillage reduced their fuel bill, and
    using the ageless practice of cover crops to keep their fields
    covered provided numerous benefits to the soil, like preventing
    erosion, like increasing the soil's water holding capacity,
    and, yes, increasing biodiversity. In essence, they built a
    foundation of principles that producers follow today to manage
    healthy soils.
        These soil health principles were set forth to achieve
    specific goals inherent to all soils. They mimic highly
    diverse, heterogeneous native rangelands by harnessing the
    power of biologic interactions between plants and soil
    microbes. These principles build soil aggregation, which
    further build soil structure, which increases water
    infiltration, and ultimately increases the soil's resilience.
    These principles provide innovative producers a path forward,
    and substantiate that the conventional farming practices of the
    last 60 years are not the only way. These principles were
    developed by producers, for producers. Principles like armoring
    the soil, keeping the soil covered. Soil cannot be built if
    it's moving. Optimizing or minimizing disturbances, increasing
    species diversity, keeping living roots in the ground as long
    as possible, and increase, and properly integrating livestock.
        In 1949 Aldo Leopold, considered by many to be the father
    of conservation theory and wildlife management, taught that
    land stewardship was not only rooted in conservation, but also
    involved an ethic of stewardship. He wrote that the individual
    is a member of a community of interdependent parts. The land
    ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to
    include soil, water, plants, animals, or, collectively, the
    land. Simply put, once we understand that humans are not
    separate from, but are part of, and depend on, the natural
    community, we develop an ethic to care for the community as a
    whole.
        For years those who oversee the use and protection of our
    soil, the producers, have been disparaged, and in many cases
    demonized, for the practices in which they engage. However, the
    reality is that those entrusted with the mantle of land steward
    embrace the same ethic taught by Mr. Leopold. Producers today
    are implementing principles that return biodiversity to the
    land. This stewardship cannot happen without those stewards on
    the land. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goodwin follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Dr. Monfort.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. STEVEN MONFORT,

              DIRECTOR OF THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL ZOO AND

                     CONSERVATION BIOLOGY INSTITUTE

        Dr. Monfort. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member
    Lucas, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is
    Steve Monfort, and I'm the Director of the Smithsonian's
    National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute. In addition to
    representing my zoo colleagues, I'm honored today to represent
    my Smithsonian partners from--Environmental Research Center,
    our Tropical Research Institute, and the National Museum of
    Natural History, and others united under Smithsonian's
    umbrella, called the Conservation Commons, which is an
    institution-wide effort designed to foster collaboration in
    tackling complex conservation problems.
        At the National Zoo you probably know that we care for and
    conserve some of the rarest species on Earth, but what may be
    less known to you is that the Smithsonian has been studying
    biodiversity for 170 years plus. Today, hundreds of Smithsonian
    scientists and scholars work across the spectrum of
    biodiversity and conservation science, from genomes to
    individuals and populations, to forests, watersheds, and
    fisheries, to understanding the impacts of infrastructure
    development, pandemic diseases, and human/animal conflict, work
    that is focused on understanding and sustaining a biodiverse
    planet, which we've been hearing is the very fabric of what we
    define as nature, and all of its vital contributions to people,
    and all life on Earth.
        As evidenced by our incredible new fossil hall, which I'm
    sure you'll all have a chance to see soon, our collections
    represent the best planetary record that humanity possess. They
    document long-term baselines, trends, and changes about the
    planet, biodiversity, and even human cultures. And what we've
    learned is this, it took 200,000 years for the human population
    to reach one billion people, but only 200 to reach nearly eight
    billion, and this has resulted in profound planetary change.
        The IPBES report essentially confirms what we have long
    known--humans have made things very tough for nature. And yet,
    as you've also heard, we're inextricably linked to, and
    connected, and dependent upon biodiversity, upon nature.
    Because, quite literally, and very simply, every breath that
    you take, every drop of water that you drink, every bite of
    food that you consume, is in one way dependent upon
    biodiversity and functioning ecosystems.
        Over the next decade we know that trillions of dollars are
    going to be invested in things like infrastructure development,
    and land conversion, to really--to support the livelihoods of a
    growing human population. But without better planning, proper
    planning, this development will continue to be a major driver
    of animal mortalities, of habitat fragmentation, species
    invasions, and the spread of pathogens that are responsible for
    global pandemic disease threats.
        The ongoing and real threats to biodiversity are clearly
    daunting, and yet, if we just bombard the public with messages
    of gloom and doom, absent any focus on solutions, we risk
    fostering a sense of--that nothing anyone does is going to make
    a difference. So, to counter this, in 2017 the Smithsonian
    launched Earth Optimism, which is a worldwide forum for sharing
    and curating stories of conservation success. Our next summit
    aims to reach a billion people around the world on the 50th
    anniversary of Earth Day, which will be in April 2020, and, of
    course, you're all invited to join us.
        In my own experience, increasing collaboration increases
    the chance of finding solutions, and I'd like to share two
    examples that I believe demonstrate that. The Scimitar Horned
    Oryx is a large, magnificent, desert-adapted antelope that once
    roamed widely across the entire Sahelian grasslands of North
    Africa, from Senegal to North Africa, like American bison,
    widely distributed. The species was declared extinct in the
    wild in the 1980s as a result of war and overhunting. And,
    fortunately, though, large populations of the species were
    maintained in human care, both in zoos and private collections
    worldwide, including at the Smithsonian.
        In 2010, the Smithsonian helped to convene a global network
    of stakeholders that included the governments of Abu Dhabi,
    which managed large populations of oryx in their own herds, and
    the government of Chad, which sought to restore the species to
    their historic rangelands. And so it was through this diverse
    partnership that, in 2016, I had the amazing opportunity to
    personally witness the first group of oryx to touch Chadian
    soil in more than 30 years. Reintroducing oryx back to Chad is
    really just the first step in restoring ecological balance in
    an entire Sahelian Grasslands ecosystem, upon which people
    depend for their livelihoods.
        Another great example comes from our Tropical Research
    Institute in Panama. As you know, the Panama Canal is a massive
    lifeline of global commerce, but large ships were routinely
    colliding with humpback whales, which was, of course,
    catastrophic for the animals, but also had the potential for
    disrupting global trade. Our scientists used GPS tracking
    devices to monitor the movements of these whales, and, through
    collaboration with the Panama Canal Authority, these data were
    used to re-establish new shipping lanes, which resulted in a 93
    percent reduction in ship/whale collisions.
        So win/win solutions for people and nature will require us
    to adopt new standards of practice that recognize that
    integrating conservation and science across multiple sectors
    into development practice is good for our economies, it's good
    for our families, and good for every global citizen, because we
    all have a stake, and will benefit from sustaining a biodiverse
    planet. Nature must have a place at the decisionmaking table,
    not as an interloper, but as an existential partner, if it is
    to fulfill its role in providing its incredible benefits to
    current and future human societies. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Monfort follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Let me thank all
    of our witness. And, before we begin our questioning, I'd like
    to present five documents for the record, letters from the
    Center for Biological Diversity, and the International Fund for
    Animal Welfare, and statements from Dr. Jacob Malcolm at
    Defenders of Wildlife, Dr. Bruce Stein at the National Wildlife
    Federation, and the National Resources Defense Council. All
    five documents highlight the shocking and frightening findings
    of the IPBES report. Further, the letters and statements call
    for aggressive science-based action to address this crisis. And
    so, without objection, I'm placing these five documents in the
    record. At this point we will begin our first round of
    questions, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Porter, we appreciate you being here today to talk
    about the corals as a case study in biodiversity. Your
    participation is especially timely, since World Reef Awareness
    Day was just this past Saturday. You mentioned in your
    testimony that corals are a marine medicine cabinet of sorts,
    that the unique organisms we find only in coral ecosystems are
    being used for new drugs that address deadly diseases. Can you
    talk a little bit more about the health innovations that have
    resulted from coral so far?
        Dr. Porter. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I can be
    quite specific about this. A new drug has just been discovered
    from tropical sea fans called prostaglandin. It's one of the
    most effective at curing breast cancer. And another drug has
    just been discovered from a strange marine creature called
    bryozoan, and that one has been used to cure prostate cancer.
        Coral reefs are the oldest environment on Earth, with 400
    million years of continuous evolution. And at that point in--
    with that kind of time, they have evolved chemicals to defend
    their own territories, and their own lives, and we humans are
    benefiting from 400 million years of their evolution. Thank
    you.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Well, thank you. Are these research
    activities supported by any Federal grant funding?
        Dr. Porter. Absolutely. All of the Federal agencies that
    have marine aspects to them are involved, the National Science
    Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency. National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also has sanctuaries
    program. And, in addition, funds coming from the Smithsonian
    have been key. I myself was a pre-doctoral fellow 50 years ago
    from the Smithsonian, thank you, and that started my career,
    they are education and research involved in all of those
    agencies. Their ocean missions must be supported.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Well, thank you. Now, the
    pharmaceutical innovators that are already experiencing
    challenges when they seek to develop new therapies due to the
    coral bleaching and death, could you explain some on that?
        Dr. Porter. Yes. Corals are a mixture of a plant and an
    animal. Fifteen percent of the weight of a coral is actually
    living algae, and this symbiosis is the basis of coral
    survival. When temperatures rise, the algae are no longer able
    to photosynthesize, and they leave the coral, and it starves.
    That's why temperature is so disastrous. We are involved in
    genetic research, and biochemical research, to understand that
    intimate linkage.
        We know that some corals, over the last 50 years, have
    developed a tolerance for higher temperatures. This is by the
    production of heat shock proteins. Those heat shock proteins
    may indeed help humans survive elevated temperatures. There's
    active research from all of those agencies on the resistance of
    corals to rising temperatures, but the scale of the problem--
    the whole world's oceans are involved--means that we should cut
    the problem off at its source as soon as we can. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Now, Dr. Watson and Dr.
    Brauman, your report says that biodiversity supports social and
    mental wellbeing in people, and that biodiversity loss is
    already having negative effects on our emotional health. Can
    you comment some on that, both of you?
        Dr. Watson. Yes, thank you. There's no question that people
    have mental wellbeing when they walk through a forest, when
    they walk by a river. We also found, in a separate study that I
    chaired in the United Kingdom, that if you looked at the price
    of housing that was close to a park, close to river, close to a
    forest, or woodlands, the price of houses went up quite
    considerably, basically. So there's lots of evidence that
    people feel good when they commune with nature, basically. And
    as we destroy our forests, we destroy our rivers, basically
    people lose out, and so mental wellbeing is indeed a crucial
    aspect of one of the benefits we all get from nature.
        Dr. Brauman. I'll add that there's really excellent growing
    research on child development and exposure to nature, that the
    complexities, and interesting parts of being in nature as a
    child are very important. The field of study and actually
    biophysical mental health response to nature exposure is
    growing, and is certainly an area that's very exciting, and in
    need of further research.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, my time has
    expired. Mr. Lucas.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Goodwin, one of the
    soil health management principles you mentioned is optimize
    disturbance. You and I both know, but many of our colleagues
    might not, that prescribed burns, grazing, herbicide
    applications are actually beneficial for land, if managed
    correctly. You even point out in your testimony that the Great
    Plains has lost some of its vast biodiversity because of
    limiting, or completely removing, fires and grazing. I guess my
    question is this, when talking about land use, can you explain
    why actively managing land is more beneficial to the
    environment and biodiversity than simply letting nature run its
    course?
        Mr. Goodwin. Yes, sir, and thank you for the question. I
    think it's important for us to understand the history behind
    how these ecosystems evolved. When we look at the Great Plains,
    or southern Great Plains in particular, those systems evolved
    for thousands of years. The plants, the soils, the animals, all
    of them evolved under two primary natural disturbances: Grazing
    (herbivory) and fire. Today our producers manage those two
    disturbances with prescription. They manage the timing, the
    intensity, the frequency, the duration of that grazing event,
    and that prescribed fire, to benefit habitat management for a
    number of species. For instance, the timing of a prescribed
    fire might increase--production for both game and non-game
    grassland bird species. And so understanding, really, the
    history behind it, plus also understanding that we need to
    educate policymakers, and the growing public, on the benefits
    of both grazing and fire in these systems.
        We used to have a fire culture in this country. We used to
    teach it in grade school. We don't do that anymore. I think we
    need to understand that--if we understand those two items, then
    we've moved a long way into the future to helping biodiversity
    within that system.
        Mr. Lucas. And, Mr. Goodwin, when talking about modern
    agricultural practices, you refer to this movement as being
    born out of innovation and economically stable practices. You
    say specifically that this is not born in a laboratory, or
    formed by regulatory requirements. There's a fine line between
    doing things for people and doing things to people. Congress
    struggles to walk that line sometimes. Why is it important that
    these practices you discussed in your testimony be driven by
    producers, and left unimpeded by regulation?
        Mr. Goodwin. I think, just like the diversity that this
    report is trying to protect, the agricultural landscape is just
    as diverse. We look across the U.S., we've got extremely
    diverse soils, we've got different climatic zones, we've got
    different production systems with different production
    capabilities. We even apply our practices differently,
    depending on the location. And so, in short, when we look at
    farms and ranches, no two are equal. Different soils, different
    plants, different associations. So these regenerative solutions
    that were built by principles, they were built on that
    producer's innate ability to be innovative, and doing things
    differently on their own, without being asked or forced to.
        So as we look at policies that establish a sort of blanket,
    or one-size-fits-all regulation, we would largely end up with
    unintended consequences, and ultimately limit our producers
    freedom to operate, and freedom to innovate.
        Mr. Lucas. Mr. Goodwin, neither you or I are old enough to
    have been in Oklahoma in the 1930s, in the Great Dust Bowl
    period, but in your testimony you say producers began to
    experiment with farming techniques based on equal parts of
    necessity and frustration. Can you elaborate on those
    frustrations, the lessons discussed, how we move forward, and
    compare where we are now on farms and ranches with where our
    ancestors would have been in the gut of the 1930's, the
    horrible part of the Dust Bowl, and that period?
        Mr. Goodwin. Certainly. The Dust Bowl was a terrible time.
    Families were decimated, so was the land. It was the formation
    of many organizations, mine included, as well as the Soil
    Conservation Service, as you well know. I think some of the
    frustrations we face is we need to keep in mind that farmers
    and ranchers--it's not Hollywood, it's a business. Some are
    large businesses, some are small businesses, and input costs
    over the last 60 years have increased to where those producers
    can't operate the way they once did. They're business owners,
    and they need to have that ability to look for compelling ways
    to stay innovative.
        Those are some of the ways that have led to those
    frustrations, and, really, to abandon--they've moved them
    toward abandoning tradition of the last 60 years, and looking
    for those compelling regenerative solutions that help them
    ecologically and economically, sustainably, provide that food
    source for the growing public.
        Mr. Lucas. So, essentially, whether it was for the right
    reason or the wrong reason, nonetheless producers out there
    have been compelled to adopt a better path?
        Mr. Goodwin. Most certainly.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you. Yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Bera.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Dr. Monfort, you
    talked a little bit about the impact of population, and I don't
    remember the exact numbers you gave, but, you know, clearly our
    population is rising at a much faster rate than, you know, when
    we look at history. My other Committee's the Foreign Affairs
    Committee, and we spend a lot of time thinking about the impact
    in sub-Saharan Africa, you know, kind of this youth bulge, and,
    you know, the number of people that are displaced right now not
    just by war, but by famine, by lack of water, et cetera. And,
    you know, if you could just maybe expand a little bit on, you
    know, we all understand the impact of climate change on loss of
    biodiversity, et cetera, but if you could maybe comment on the
    impact of, you know, population expansion?
        Dr. Monfort. Well, generally, you know, population
    expansion means an increased use of resources, or a wiser use
    of resources. You know, sort of referencing the question
    earlier, it had to do with, you know, whether we have protected
    areas, or national parks set aside, and allow them to remain
    intact, versus what goes on outside the park. And the truth is
    we live in functionally what you would describe as a landscape
    mosaic now, where virtually the entire globe is a variety of
    different land usages. And so we're really in a situation where
    we need to wisely be able to manage those resources.
        If you go back to the example of the oryx, these are
    nomadic peoples that are using a grassland--a rangeland system,
    grazing camels and other livestock, and reintroducing oryx is
    really an effort to introduce land management practices that
    will allow sustainable use of the ephemeral grasses that will
    support livelihoods of the people there. So oftentimes it's
    really about--it is absolutely about better management, better
    land stewardship, and creating win/wins with the people who
    depend on biodiversity for their survival.
        Mr. Bera. So, as a life scientist--I'm a physician by
    training--I agree with everything that you're saying. Now, I'm
    going to do a town hall on Thursday evening, and I'm going to
    have to explain to my constituents why this is incredibly
    important. So if each of you could give me a way to put into
    words that, you know, that mom or dad or who's trying to pay
    their mortgage, that's trying to get their kids to soccer
    practice, would take the urgency of, you know, why this is an
    impact. Maybe starting with Dr. Watson, how I would explain it
    in a sentence or two to my constituents?
        Dr. Watson. To answer your first question, sir, it's a
    combination of an increase in population, and a wealthier
    population, has led to an increase in per capita consumption,
    and so we need to deal with both of those issues.
        But biodiversity fundamentally is not just an environmental
    issue. Nature has economic value, which we should take account
    of in our accounting systems. It also has development value,
    food, water, energy security, human health. It also is a moral
    issue, we shouldn't destroy nature, and there's a social issue,
    as you've heard, that the most disadvantaged of poor people are
    most adversely affected. So there's multiple reasons we should
    care about both climate change and biodiversity.
        Mr. Bera. Right. Dr. Brauman?
        Dr. Brauman. From the very food we eat, to the way we
    define ourselves, and our sense of place, nature is an
    incredibly integral part of all of our lives. And when we
    destroy nature, we really undermine all of those life support
    systems on which we depend.
        Mr. Bera. Great. Dr. Porter?
        Dr. Porter. Yes. Ninety-four countries, half of all nations
    on Earth, have coral reefs within their boundaries. If we
    destroy their source of income, and protein, and livelihood,
    they will be the climate refugees that will move all over the
    world, and make this place more conflictual.
        Mr. Bera. Right. Mr. Goodwin?
        Mr. Goodwin. Yes. I mean, I think it's just important to
    recognize that nature is important, and we need to do a better
    job of telling the story of the good things that are happening
    out on the landscape as well.
        Mr. Bera. Great. And Dr. Monfort.
        Dr. Monfort. Yes. Some of these have been said, but
    ultimately it's about health, and prosperity and security are
    sort of fundamental policy issues, but if anyone enjoys being
    in nature, hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, any sort of
    recreation, they should care about biodiversity.
        Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you, and I'll yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Marshall?
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you so much. I'm one of those people
    that enjoy being out in nature, and I've always believed that
    the solutions that rely in sound conservation practices and
    innovation. I'm a big fan of Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants
    Forever, Quail Unlimited, the National Wild Turkey Federation,
    just to name a few that I've been involved with, and the key to
    all these programs are re-establishing habitat, that we, as
    hunter and fishermen, know that habitat is absolutely the key
    to success, and great stories I could share, particularly what
    Ducks Unlimited has done to re-establish some of the wetlands
    areas through North America. Mr. Goodwin, do you have any
    relationships with any of those organizations? I'm kind of
    shooting from the hip here.
        Mr. Goodwin. Well, I mean, I'm certainly a hunter and a
    fisherman, enjoy the outdoors, and I'm on the Board of
    Directors for the Society for Range Management, that promotes
    habitat management across all of the rangeland. So did you--
    specifically would you like me to address a question?
        Mr. Marshall. Not yet. I'll give you a follow up question
    here. One of the big investigations I went on several years ago
    was trying to understand the lesser prey chicken, what's kind
    of happened to its population, and something that might impact
    part of their rangeland is down in Oklahoma as well. And what I
    discovered is the best place in the country at re-establishing
    that habitat actually went back to the way nature was hundreds
    of years ago, in that we had buffalo ranging through the Great
    Plains. They didn't stay in one field, they ranged up and down,
    north to south, in the season.
        So there was grazing practices, and, guess what, there was
    also natural occurring fires. And the people that are
    replicating those, establishing that habitat, a little bit of
    rain is what's really brought back the prairie chicken
    population. So maybe just give you a little bit more rope to
    talk about how important it is, maybe tie in some weather
    reports, national weather reports, how we use those to
    prescribe fire practices, and how we're using that for even
    endangered species, like the lesser prairie chicken.
        Mr. Goodwin. Thank you, sir. Yes, and so--when we look at
    how we manage landscapes from a rangeland perspective, habitat
    is always in our mind. I mean, this is habitat for numerous
    terrestrial species, and so I want to look at those management
    practices that we apply to that landscape. Certainly fire and
    grazing are important to those, and they're not necessarily
    just practices. They're ecological processes that helped meld--
    and helped those processes, and that ecology, evolve.
        Specifically, with the lesser prairie chicken, yes, they
    like those heterogeneous landscapes, so they have their booming
    grounds. And managing the timing, frequency, intensity, and
    duration of grazing and fires, how we help that species evolve
    and sustain itself. And so certainly--and with respect to NOAA
    (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and
    prescribed fire, yes, most certainly we use those data every
    day. When we employ--or implement a prescribed fire, it's by
    prescription. We prescribe the weather conditions. We prescribe
    all of the conditions that--of which we burn, and we ask for a
    site-specific spot weather forecast. Those data are absolutely
    invaluable to us, not only form a perspective of planning, but
    also safety. It helps us document the pre- and post-burn
    conditions, and, most importantly, it helps us make management
    decisions on the ground.
        Mr. Marshall. Exactly. I've done quite a bit of that
    pasture burning myself. I've often suggested I should sell
    tickets to let people help me, but that wind report is
    especially important.
        Dr. Porter, you were referring to some biopharmaceuticals,
    and their use of coral. One of the great things about people in
    the hunting and fishing realm is that we always work just as
    hard to leave it better than we found it, and want to go back
    and work with the habitat to help it be better. What's
    happening in the world with Big Pharma, whoever's, you know,
    accessing some of these coral medicines? What are they doing to
    help refurbish the reefs?
        Dr. Porter. Yes, they have been very active in that. For
    coral reefs, there is an entire program called bioprospecting,
    in which animals from coral reefs are being investigated. It
    turns out the sponges are especially good at giving us new
    compounds. They have been an ally. I have also worked with
    Trouts Unlimited exactly for the same reason. They are a force
    in conservation, and they should be supported. Thank you.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you so much. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you so much. Mr. Lamb.
        Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Goodwin, I
    wanted to ask you about some of your research into cover crops,
    and where you've seen success out where you are. The climate of
    where I come from, in Western Pennsylvania, is probably pretty
    different from where you're conducting research. We're seeing
    an increase in particularly early-season storms, rain storms,
    very intense, so dealing with a lot of water. Are there crops
    you've seen in your research that have been especially
    effective at increasing the biodiversity of the soil when it
    comes to kind of a wetter environment?
        Mr. Goodwin. Well, Oklahoma and the Southern Great Plains
    aren't necessarily known to be a wet environment, although I'd
    argue this year it's pretty wet.
        Mr. Lamb. Um-hum.
        Mr. Goodwin. So, you know, I think when we step back, and
    we look at how we design cover crop mixes, we certainly test
    the soil. We want to understand what condition that soil is in,
    and so--and then we tailor cover crop mixes to help us balance
    carbon and nitrogen ratios to increase not only the species
    diversity, but--in above ground, you know, biomass, but also
    rooting structures.
        Mr. Lamb. Right.
        Mr. Goodwin. We don't want just tap rooted perennials. We
    want fibrous root systems, and all those, and those all help us
    increase soil structure with--it helps us to increase
    infiltration. We don't have any control over how much rain we
    get, but we certainly have control over how much we keep, and
    how much infiltrates into the soil, and recharges aquifers.
        Mr. Lamb. So are there certain species that help with that,
    with the more deeply rooted systems that you're looking for,
    or----
        Mr. Goodwin. Yes. I mean, we've got forage species, like
    forage collards, and nitro-radishes, and those sort of species
    that wildlife do use. They provide flowers for pollinators, and
    they also have deep taproots that help leave--or help that
    integration to where we can get infiltration further into the
    soil profile.
        Mr. Lamb. And I'm aware that there is some research going
    on more widely about whether we can develop new forms of cover
    crops that will more efficiently store carbon, and sequester
    carbon at a higher rate than some of the existing ones. Is your
    organization involved in any of that research, or are you
    familiar with it? Are you seeing any success in that area?
        Mr. Goodwin. We are. Nobel Research Institute's keenly
    involved and interested in understanding how we can use cover
    crops in specific areas. They're a tool. It's not a silver
    bullet. Certainly, when we look back, and look at how we want
    to manage for soil health, they're one piece of the pie. Just
    because I plant cover crops doesn't mean I'm increasing my soil
    health. I have to manage that crop specifically. But, yes,
    we're most certainly interested in understanding, again, how
    that root dynamic adds to carbon sequestration, how do we
    increase the root's ability to increase the productivity of
    that plant, but also, how does it attract the diversity of
    microbes. We learn more and more that more of the organic
    carbon in the soil is actually microbial bodies, as well as
    decomposed organic material. So--yes, sir.
        Mr. Lamb. Thank you. And, Dr. Brauman, I saw you nodding
    your head, so if you want to jump in--I'm just curious about
    specific research efforts that maybe we could look at to try to
    help further along--that maybe involve new species of cover
    crops, or rediscovered species. Are you familiar with that at
    all?
        Dr. Brauman. Absolutely. There's really interesting
    research going on at the University of Minnesota, and I would
    be happy to submit some information about that for the record.
    One of the things that they've been working on are actually
    perennial cover crops and perennial food crops. So these are in
    development, but what we're starting to see are crops that are
    sort of on the verge of coming to market, like perennial wheat
    grasses. What that means is that there's not actually a bare
    period on the soil at all, and especially with these wet
    springs, which, in the climate forecast, we see much wetter
    springs in the middle part of the country, as well as drier
    falls, and so having those crops on the ground is really
    important.
        Nice research at the University of Minnesota. We're seeing
    really nice cold weather research, which is relevant to Western
    Pennsylvania, as well as Minnesota, where what we want to make
    sure is that we don't see, for example, fall applications of
    fertilizer. Instead, the fertilizer goes on after crops are in
    the ground, and in multiple iterations so that, when we have
    wet springs like this, it doesn't all just roll right off the
    ground.
        Mr. Lamb. I see. I read something about a variety of
    mustard plant that people were trying to create out in
    California. Are you familiar with that, Mr. Goodwin? Have you--
    --
        Mr. Goodwin. Not----
        Mr. Lamb. I think it was a genetically engineered new plant
    that they thought would add carbon at a higher rate. Just a
    last technical question, if we ever got to the point where,
    say, we decided we wanted to try to compensate farmers for
    growing a certain type of cover crop because it increased, you
    know, it took carbon out of the atmosphere, is that a
    technically possible thing to measure? Can you measure how much
    a farmer has contributed with the crop they use? Go ahead, Dr.
    Brauman.
        Dr. Brauman. Absolutely, and there's research going on at
    the University of Minnesota on exactly this issue right now.
    And it's going to be critical--I'm not sure what the situation
    is for rangeland in Oklahoma, but in Minnesota, sowing cover
    crops is expensive, and lots of farmers can't afford to do it
    unless there's a way to monetize that somehow. It's just an
    extra cost on their shoulders, when it's a benefit to all of us
    to do it. And so looking for incentives and payments is going
    to be critical.
        Mr. Lamb. Great. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Baird.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Goodwin, I know, and
    you mentioned, the importance of the land to farmers. And, you
    know, the scientists at the colleges of agriculture and
    agriculture extension programs are constantly developing
    innovations, and looking for better ways to produce more food
    on less land and water, so one of the things that I see is the
    new technology, and the equipment that we have today, we're
    able to more specifically place some of the things that are
    important to growing a crop, and universities, and the
    agrobusiness, as well as the extension program, are constantly
    looking for ways to improve on that. So I guess my question is
    would you care to comment on how important that aspect of this
    research in protecting biodiversity?
        Mr. Goodwin. You know, I think there's always room for
    technology. We can--anytime that any of us say that we don't
    have room for improvement, it's a foolish statement. And so
    certainly we always look for technological solutions, if there
    are. I think, in this case, that there's certainly room for
    technological solutions, like new sensor technologies, to help
    us understand the ecological dynamics that we can't see.
        I also think that we need to step back at times and say
    technology's not always the solution, that we need to work with
    Mother Nature, and help understand that we can apply these
    ecologically beneficial practices, and still feed the planet.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Dr. Brauman, you discussed the
    importance of biodiversity in agriculture. Are there any other
    crops, besides soybeans, for example, like the work that's
    being done at Purdue--they are internationally renowned for the
    work on genetic structures of crop plants like soybeans. So are
    there any other crops, besides soybeans, that are lacking in
    biodiversity, and in a need of innovative research?
        Dr. Brauman. I can't speak to the specific crops where
    there's great potential, but what I do know is that there are
    many crops where this kind of development could be incredibly
    beneficial. Soybeans had a huge development in the mid century
    of last century to get them to the productivity point that
    they're at today, and they're continuing to do that work. We
    know that, with almost all of the crops we grow, any time we
    can do innovation, and that ranges from reducing drought
    sensitivity, to better utilizing nutrients, to simply being
    better sighted in the places where we're growing them, that we
    are able to grow food more efficiently with less inputs, and
    that's always a benefit.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. Back to you, Mr. Goodwin. You noted
    that the Nobel Research Institute (NRI) conducts independent
    agricultural research similar to our land grant universities.
    So how does the NRI disseminate its research to the broader
    agricultural industry?
        Mr. Goodwin. We provide consultation services directly to
    farmers and ranchers in the southern Great Plains, so we work
    directly with those producers in an inter-disciplinary approach
    to provide conservation recommendations based on their goals
    and objectives, and we also have an extensive educational
    program. We have thousands of people a year come to the
    Institute to learn by seeing what exactly we're doing, and how
    we implement those practices on the 15,000 acres that we own
    and operate as an Institute. We also certainly publish in
    popular and scientific journals. Thank you.
        Mr. Baird. One last quick question. Do you feel this works
    well for small farmers as well as large agrobusiness, and so
    on?
        Mr. Goodwin. I think there's a regenerative solution for
    all size operations. I don't think size is a limiting factor.
    The limiting factor is, do we think we can do it, and the
    answer is yes.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Stevens.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
    expert witnesses for joining for today's panel, and
    congratulations on the recent report. Certainly quite timely
    for us, as the Committee on Science convenes to make its mark
    on how we can protect our biodiversity.
        We recently had a hearing in the Subcommittee for Research
    and Tech on plastics and recycling technologies. I continue to
    hear from municipalities in my district, suburban Michigan,
    around the challenges that they're having recycling due to the
    lack of infrastructure. And, Dr. Brauman, you, in your
    testimony, referenced plastics pollution, that it's increased
    tenfold since the 1980s. And I'd like you to just talk a little
    bit about the urgency that we have in the country to invest in
    infrastructure to handle the waste that we produce with
    plastics, and, you know, maybe talk a little bit too about the
    timeframe that we have in making these investments to revive
    some of our biodiversity in this country.
        Dr. Brauman. Thank you. There's been a huge increase in
    plastics, and indeed in all kinds of waste, from food waste to
    waste that does not biodegrade, like plastics, in the United
    States, and around the world. We see this increase in
    consumption very clearly in the report. And what that's done is
    create waste that we then have to do something with, and the
    need to be able to recycle and reuse these waste products, as
    well as to simply produce less of them, is critical.
        We know that, particularly in the oceans, there's a huge
    problem with plastic waste, and that there's little that we're
    able to do about it once it's in the oceans, and so stopping it
    before it gets there is something that is incredibly important.
        Ms. Stevens. In the oceans and in our food.
        Dr. Brauman. Yes. Plastic microbeads is actually a fairly
    good example of things that people have begun to take out of
    products, at least in the United States, and so it's clear that
    we can do something about this when we want to. We are,
    however, seeing lots of these things everywhere, all around the
    world, and so making sure that we can reduce consumption,
    reduce waste, and then also manage waste in better ways is
    critical, and the sooner we do it, the less we're going to have
    to clean up later.
        Ms. Stevens. Yes. Great. And--yes, did you want to chime
    in, Dr. Porter?
        Dr. Porter. Yes, thank you.
        Ms. Stevens. Yes, please.
        Dr. Porter. The estimate now is that by 2050 there will be
    more plastic in the ocean than fish.
        Ms. Stevens. Yes. Great data point. Thank you. We're not
    doing it right in the hearing on biodiversity loss and causes
    if we're not talking about invasive species. I'm also not doing
    my duty as a Michigander without talking about Asian carp that
    has created huge problems in the marine ecosystems in the
    Mississippi River and in Illinois. There's been a long campaign
    to build the infrastructure to keep Asian carp out of Lake
    Michigan. Currently there is a $778 million plan to stop the
    spread of Asian carp to the Great Lakes. The leading edge of
    the carp population is really, at this point, only 47 miles
    from Lake Michigan.
        And, Dr. Watson, if I could turn to you on this, in your
    testimony you referenced that invasive species, such as Asian
    carp, will likely exacerbate some of these trends that are
    continuing to negatively impact biodiversity. Where do you
    believe the Federal Government could rightly partner at the
    State and local level in investing to make the biggest impact
    in combating invasive species?
        Dr. Watson. Yes. As our report said, alien invasive species
    are one of the five direct drivers of loss of biodiversity. And
    indeed, especially in freshwater systems, such as you've
    mentioned, one has to take care. The real challenge is to
    prevent alien invasive species entering our system in the first
    place. Once you get these species, it's very hard, in many
    cases, to get rid of them, basically. So I'm not sure what can
    be done with respect to Asian carp to be honest, our report
    didn't deal at the subnational level with approaches to dealing
    with alien invasive species, although Kate may have some better
    ideas.
        Dr. Brauman. Yes. I will say that in Minnesota, we've
    actually--the northern--the uppermost lock and dam on the
    Mississippi River is now permanently closed, and so that was,
    obviously, work that was done with the Army Corps of Engineers
    in large part to make sure that invasive carp don't actually
    get above that part of the river. But I absolutely agree with
    Dr. Watson, we at least know the problems we're facing with the
    invasive species that are in the country already, and there's
    no reason to think that future invasive species won't be worse,
    and so doing a better job keeping those invasive species out is
    going to be critical.
        Ms. Stevens. It's like a bad horror movie with the carp.
    Dr. Monfort, I know you were raising----
        Dr. Monfort. Yes----
        Ms. Stevens [continuing]. Your hand, and we actually wanted
    to get you in on this----
        Dr. Monfort. OK. Sure. I just----
        Ms. Stevens [continuing]. Reference the Smithsonian, and
    all sorts----
        Dr. Monfort. Right.
        Ms. Stevens [continuing]. Of great programs, so----
        Dr. Monfort. Well, one of the ultimate invasive species has
    been the chytrid fungus, which is responsible for a global
    decline in amphibians, and--so studying the origin of these
    invasions, and tracking them, and understanding how they
    function is something also that we need to do a better job
    with.
        At the Smithsonian, though, we work with the Coast Guard
    and--on marine invasive species, and we have the National
    Ballast Information Clearinghouse System, which is a system
    that samples ballast water from all ships that are coming into
    our ports, and we've monitored 550 species of marine and
    estuarine invertebrates and algae, for example. So this is an
    example of how you can go about being proactive in monitoring
    and tracking these organisms and how they're moving.
        Ms. Stevens. Fabulous, thank you. I yield back the
    remainder of my time.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Babin.
        Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
    everyone, for being here. Appreciate your testimony. Dr.
    Brauman, I would like to ask you first, I have the honor of
    serving as the Ranking Member on the Space Subcommittee, as
    well as getting to represent Johnson Space Center, and I've
    seen many examples of NASA's collaborations with private
    partners to foster innovation and technological growth, from
    remote sensing robotics to GPS and technologies for growing
    crops in space, NASA's space exploration and Earth science
    efforts have yielded remarkable benefits for farms and economic
    activities and industries. Do you see more collaborative
    opportunities like these to address the issues that we're
    discussing today of biodiversity?
        Dr. Brauman. Absolutely. I have actually received a grant
    from NASA last year to run a series of workshops where we
    brought practitioners, as well as researchers, together to look
    at better ways to use Earth observations as we assess and do
    management based on ecosystem services, and it's clear that
    there's a tremendous opportunity. One of the things that's also
    very clear is that, in addition to more basic research, we need
    to be supporting a lot of the background systems that make the
    kind of information that NASA is developing more accessible to
    more people. So, if you're an expert, if this is what you do
    for a living, it's easy to grab their data and do----
        Mr. Babin. Right.
        Dr. Brauman [continuing]. Informative things. But it's hard
    if you're not.
        Mr. Babin. Great. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Goodwin,
    the threat of pollution on biodiversity in ecosystems is a
    global issue, and a solution is reliant on the participation of
    other countries, as well as us. How can we ensure that other
    countries, big polluters like China and India, are taking the
    steps toward cleaner solutions, and that the financial burden
    of tackling global pollution isn't solely on the backs of the
    American taxpayer?
        Mr. Goodwin. I'd have to say that's out of my wheelhouse. I
    could speak to the benefits and the good things that our
    producers here in the United States are doing, but I'm not your
    guy for China.
        Mr. Babin. OK. But you catch my drift though, right? Well,
    I'll ask you another one. You mentioned in your testimony many
    different practices that have increased soil health and
    productivity. Similarly to my second question, do you see any
    other countries adopting similar measures? Now, that may be out
    of your wheelhouse too. And how can we make sure that these
    other countries are taking steps forward in these areas as
    well, and that the U.S. is not the only party making these
    strides?
        Mr. Goodwin. Well, certainly, for soil health management
    strategies, this revolution is not solely performed in the
    United States. There are producers, ag producers, all around
    the world, implementing these principles. And if we focus on
    the key core soil health building principles--when we look at
    habitat, and we look at diversity, often we look at it from the
    top down, and I would submit we need to look at it from the
    bottom up. We need to----
        Mr. Babin. Right.
        Mr. Goodwin [continuing]. Fix the foundation. Increase the
    soil health, increase the plant communities. Those plant
    communities provide the habitat for those wildlife species.
    Those principles work whether you're in Nairobi, Kenya or in
    Muskogee, Oklahoma.
        Mr. Babin. Do you believe it should be the role of the
    American taxpayer, through taxes and regulations, to be
    responsible for solving these issues, and do you believe
    through private partner relationships we can foster innovation
    and efficiency?
        Mr. Goodwin. I most certainly think there's opportunity for
    partnerships. I do think it's the role of each individual
    producer to have the ability and the freedom to operate their
    producer--or their private property as they need to, and more
    and more producers are seeing that these ecologically focused
    principles are benefiting us in both ways, both economically
    and ecologically.
        Mr. Babin. But is it the American taxpayers' job to solve
    the problems on global issues?
        Mr. Goodwin. No, sir.
        Mr. Babin. OK.
        Mr. Goodwin. It is not.
        Mr. Babin. All right. And then also, my last question, I
    represent southeast Texas, which is home to a lot of ag, and it
    just so happens that my district is, unfortunately, also in a
    flood prone region with hurricanes. This has created a lot of
    issues with harvesting and crop production. Can you elaborate a
    little bit on how some of these new practices could help
    protect crops and soil during inclement weather and floods?
        Mr. Goodwin. Well, certainly, if we look at the--again,
    those foundational principles, the first one is keeping the
    ground covered. We don't want those erosive losses providing
    further sediment downstream any more than anybody else does.
        Mr. Babin. Right.
        Mr. Goodwin. And so, yes, the principles help us build the
    ability and the capacity for those soils to hold water back.
    And so we're going to fix these ecological problems with
    principles, not just applying practices on the landscape. We
    have to rethink how we look at it, and look at our practices as
    a set of tools, and implement those where they need be locally.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you. My time has expired, Madam Chair.
    Thank you very much.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Tonko.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Dr. Watson and Dr.
    Brauman, I would like to pause to get a better picture of how
    the IPBES conclusions were reached, and what the scientific
    process looks like in practice. Who wrote this report?
        Dr. Watson. Thank you. First of all, governments around the
    world scoped the report. In other words, they worked with the
    science community to say, what were the big scientific policy
    issues that needed to be addressed? We then had governments and
    the scientific community nominate experts to write the report.
    Within IPBES we have a multi-disciplinary expert panel and the
    bureau. I used to chair the bureau. We then selected scientists
    from around the world, 150-145, to be precise--who wrote the
    report. Another 300 scientists around the world helped these
    145. Very strong peer review.
        We sent out our report to experts and governments around
    the world twice, and we received 15,000 comments on our report.
    We responded to all 15,000 comments, and then effectively the
    governments around the world accept the large report, the 1,700
    pages, and then, with the academic community, the lead authors
    and the co-chairs, we then negotiated the summary for
    policymakers, the 30-page document, between governments,
    including the U.S. Government. Over 100 governments
    participated in Paris, and the lead experts, such as Kate and
    others. So it's a very open process, incredibly transparent. We
    published the comments, we will publish all the responses, and
    it's probably one of the most heavily peer-reviewed documents
    you will ever find.
        Mr. Tonko. OK. And, Dr. Brauman, do you concur with----
        Dr. Brauman. Absolutely.
        Mr. Tonko. OK. And were any of the authors paid by industry
    to represent a particular point of view in their participation
    in the report?
        Dr. Watson. No. Everybody that participates in IPBES,
    whether they come from academia, such as Kate, whether they
    come from a government, or a government laboratory, or an NGO
    (nongovernmental organization), or the private sector, it's
    absolutely essential they participate in their individual
    capacity. IPBES has a Conflict of Interest Committee, and we
    scrutinize every single person that is either an author, a co-
    author, a review editor, to make sure there is no conflict of
    interest. I used to chair such the panel.
        Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, I thank you both. As someone who
    deeply respects the scientific process, I'm concerned by some
    of the attacks on the IPBES conclusions. Recently, during the
    Natural Resources Committee hearing, some people didn't like
    the results, and seemed to try to poke holes in the process to
    get rid of conclusions that didn't suit them. However, anyone
    who wants to dig deeper can see that this was a rigorous and
    respectable process. As a Committee, we should play the role of
    helping to distinguish between false attacks on science and
    real instances of violations of scientific integrity. There are
    real examples where science is being suppressed, distorted, or
    indeed censored, and scientists are being harassed or
    retaliated against.
        I introduced the Scientific Integrity Act to ensure that
    every agency that funds science has strong scientific integrity
    policies in place. I invite all Members who care about
    scientific integrity to join me in that effort. I also am
    equally committed to standing up for good, rigorous, peer-
    reviewed science. It was recently reported that the Trump
    Administration is working to change the scope of the National
    Climate Assessment by cutting off review to 2040. The existing
    review looks out to 2100 and beyond.
        We know that climate impacts have great effect on
    biodiversity, and we know that, if left unaddressed, climate
    impacts will get worse in the decades to come. With that in
    mind, will this new 2040 cutoff limit our understanding of the
    actual loss of biodiversity?
        Dr. Watson. Yes, without any question. There is a need to
    look at all plausible futures, out to probably 2100. Climate
    change is accelerating, and, even with the Paris agreement to
    try and limit climate change, much of the climate change will
    still occur after 2040, not only affecting biodiversity, but
    affecting food security, water security, human health, et
    cetera. So to try and limit a projection to only 2040 does not
    make good scientific sense, and it will absolutely harm
    informed, evidence-based policymaking.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And Dr. Brauman?
        Dr. Brauman. I'll also note that much of the infrastructure
    that we build, and indeed many of the decisions we make, we
    certainly hope are going to last beyond something like 2040.
    And so, building those to design specifications that take into
    account what the world is most likely to look like in the
    future is critical.
        Mr. Tonko. So I thank you both for your response to that,
    and--sure, Dr. Porter.
        Dr. Porter. For coral reefs, the 2040 does not change the
    assessment at all. All of the things that I've described will
    occur before 2040.
        Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you very much. With that I yield back,
    Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Posey.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Among its many concerns,
    the IPBES report specifically lists a conversion of undeveloped
    land into farmland as something that we should be particularly
    concerned about. Obviously we need to continue to feed billions
    and billions of people, and American agriculture producers lead
    the world in growing more on less land than ever before. As the
    world leader in food production, it's not clear to me that we
    should be concerned about land being converted to farmland. My
    concern has been, in this country, as well as other parts of
    the world, we are devoting an increasing amount of land and
    resources to non-food crops, such as ethanol. Simply put,
    should we be growing corn for food rather than fuel?
        Dr. Brauman. That's a great question. I can tell you what
    we know about production, and what we know about production is
    that, globally, we actually produce more than enough calories
    to feed the world today, and yet there are people that go
    hungry. And this is very much because we are diverting food
    crops to non-food uses, or to feed. It's beyond the scope of
    this report to say the decisions that we should make, but we
    certainly can talk about what the implications of the decisions
    that we are making, or that we might make, are, and what we
    clearly see is that it's the increase in consumption,
    particularly increasing consumption of meat, that is really
    driving much of this expansion of farmland at this point,
    because we do have plenty of farmland, and we do grow crops
    very efficiently here in the United States.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you. Dr. Watson, I see you writing like
    crazy.
        Dr. Watson. Yes. I think the challenge is, in many
    developing countries, to improve the yield per hectare. In many
    parts of Africa, they're still only getting a ton of produce
    per hectare, where they should easily be able to get three,
    four, five tons with more agroecological practices, appropriate
    use of fertilizers, et cetera.
        So, to feed the world, we don't actually have to double
    food production in the next 30 to 40 years, we have to double
    the availability of food. We waste 40 percent of all food
    that's produced in both developed and developing countries--so
    if we can reduce food waste, it moves us in the right
    direction, and if we can get rural development in most
    developing countries, educate the women, who are more often the
    farmers in developing--make sure they've got some good
    microfinancing, we could actually not expand our farmland, but
    increase the productivity of the land and, indeed, copy some of
    the practices that are common here in the United States.
        Mr. Posey. Mr. Goodwin?
        Mr. Goodwin. Well, I think there's certainly common ground
    in some of these areas when we talk about land use change, but
    I'd also say that we already have provisions for some of those
    in the Farm Bill, with the sodbuster provisions, to reduce some
    of those activities. But I'd also encourage you that those
    acres--the rangeland acres are extremely important. They're
    extremely important at producing habitat, and we graze those
    with an animal that has the ability to utilize a food source
    that we can't. We don't eat grass, it does, and it converts
    that into a very wholesome protein that we do consume. And so
    we've utilized that grazing as a tool to benefit habitat for
    both the cow and the wildlife species. So--thank you.
        Mr. Posey. Yes. Again, should we be growing corn for food,
    rather than fuel? Dr. Porter?
        Dr. Porter. No.
        Mr. Posey. You think we should be doing it for fuel?
        Dr. Porter. When we grow corn, I think it needs to be for
    food. I think there are other ways to address biofuels without
    converting corn to it.
        Mr. Posey. Good. Thank you. Dr. Monfort, care to weigh in?
        Dr. Monfort. No. I don't have an opinion on corn.
        Mr. Posey. OK.
        Dr. Monfort. Thank you.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I see my time has
    expired.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. McNerney.
        Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair, and I thank the witnesses.
    Pretty alarming testimony, folks. But first of all, I'd like to
    introduce a foster graduate that is tailing me today, and today
    this is Foster Day, so Erica Hickey, would you please stand up?
    And we're having a lot of foster youth with the Blue Ribbons
    today. Please given them some consideration today.
        Dr. Brauman, one pathway of achieving transformative change
    is addressing biodiversity loss by improving freshwater
    management, protection, and connectivity. California has long
    been a leader in energy and technology, and now we want to
    apply that innovation to water modernization in our water
    systems. The report says that biodiversity is central to water
    quality and security. Can you expand on that?
        Dr. Brauman. Absolutely. So the bottom line for that is
    that what we put on the landscape ends up in our freshwater,
    and so having biodiverse watersheds, with functioning
    ecosystems where we're seeing filtration of water, and
    regulation of water, as it gets into waterways is critical.
    Once freshwater is in these rivers, and lakes, and streams,
    then we also see cycling of nutrients, and lots of other
    different kinds of potential contaminants by both the plants
    and animals that are in the freshwater systems themselves. So,
    altogether, what we see is that these freshwater systems are
    much healthier when we have active flora and fauna.
        Mr. McNerney. I've seen demonstrations in Seattle of road
    runoff going into systems, and if it just was allowed to sit
    for a while, it refreshes itself, and fish can live in it. If
    it's immediate, the fish die, so I think that's a good point.
        Dr. Watson, your report says that the biodiversity and
    conditions that support it also play a role in regulating
    climate. Would you just say a few words about that?
        Dr. Watson. Well, yes, there's no question about it. If we
    can keep carbon in a both above and below ground biomass, it
    effectively stops it getting into the atmosphere. So one of the
    real challenges is how can we restore degraded ecosystems, how
    can we reforest degraded ecosystems, and how can we add forest
    systems with native vegetation? And so if we can manage our
    land properly, including the soil organic matter, we can
    actually keep the carbon, or much of the carbon, in soils and
    in vegetation, rather than in the atmosphere, where it causes
    human-induced climate change. So there's no question
    whatsoever, our ecosystems play a key role in managing at least
    the fluxes of carbon dioxide.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, following up on that a little bit, Mr.
    Goodwin, I'm intrigued by what I'd call carbon farming. Could
    you describe what that would be, and how it could be
    profitable?
        Mr. Goodwin. Well, I think when we look at CO2,
    or carbon, most of us think about CO2. There's
    CO2 in the atmosphere and the terrestrial
    vegetation, but there's more in the soil than in both of those
    combined. And, as a producer, that's where we have our greatest
    impact. And the term carbon farming is about increasing the
    organic matter in the soil. And as we increase the organic
    matter of our soils, we also get these other soil dynamic
    properties that benefit us from an ecological/functional
    perspective. And so that's where we gain our inputs, is within
    the production systems that we currently operate.
        Mr. McNerney. Can it be profitable, in your opinion?
        Mr. Goodwin. Most certainly.
        Mr. McNerney. So that's a great tool in our fight against
    climate change, is absorbing carbon into the soils?
        Mr. Goodwin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. McNerney. Dr. Monfort, what chances are there of
    coordinating infrastructure investment and biodiversity
    planning?
        Dr. Monfort. Well, in terms of biodiversity in the future,
    it's absolutely essential that there be better coordination
    across different sectors that have an impact on the
    environment. Too often what ends up happening are conservation
    organizations and wildlife departments within governments will
    talk to one another, but other sectors that are often,
    especially in the developing world, much more influential or
    powerful, are not at the table. So, I mean, if you're trying to
    manage a system, or implement a new policy, and you only have,
    you know, the poorest wildlife department present, and not the
    Transportation Ministry, and the Health Ministry, and the
    economic advisors and so on present, it's unlikely you're going
    to have good policy come from that.
        So solutions really are possible. In our case, we work with
    oil and gas sector, for example, on doing biodiversity
    assessments before, during, and after linear pipeline
    developments, for example. We work with land owners who work--
    we have a whole program on working land and seascapes where we
    have our--our scientists are working with large landowners, and
    trying to understand how can they make money and sustain native
    biodiversity on their soil, for example, on their property. And
    a third example involves sustaining wildlife in human care.
    Zoos simply don't have enough room, and so we work with, in
    Texas, for example, large ranches that private landowners are
    partnered together in something called conservation centers for
    species survival. So we recognize that conservation success
    will only be achieved when you bring in the stakeholders that
    control most of the resources, and that's governments and
    private sector entities.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the witnesses
    for being here today. It's great to hear about the
    interconnectivity and role that biodiversity plays in our
    global environment. I was particularly interested to hear about
    the positive impact that biodiversity has on our economy,
    encouraging job growth in a variety of fields. One great
    example happens in my backyard, and that's with respect to the
    Great Lakes in northeast Ohio. Besides holding 18 percent of
    the world's freshwater supply, the Great Lakes support more
    than 1.5 million jobs, and generate $62 billion in wages, much
    of which is northeast Ohio-based. Great Lakes have produced a
    $7 billion economic activity return on investment, and it's
    important for us, as Congress, to continue to invest into
    resources like the Great Lakes to reduce biodiversity loss.
        Dr. Watson, in your testimony you discussed the
    interconnectivity of biodiversity, and how best practices need
    to be incentivized worldwide to enact transformative change.
    Can you discuss how countries can undertake this task while
    also maintaining steady economic production? For instance, in
    agriculture, how can farmers overhaul their current process
    while still maintaining profitability?
        Dr. Watson. Yes. The first thing that we say is we need to
    be very multi-sectoral. In other words, you can't look at
    agriculture in isolation of energy, transportation, water, et
    cetera. So in any government, if we really want sustainable
    production and use of biodiversity, we need to make sure we get
    all sectors involved, and all ministers involved. Having
    finance ministers involved in setting policies that are multi-
    sectoral. We need to also make sure we get all stakeholders
    involved. In other words, not just governments, not just the
    private sector, not just NGOs, but everyone together. We need
    polycentric governance at all scales.
        There is actually no doubt agriculture throughout the world
    can be much more sustainable. We don't need to extensify. We
    need to use good agroecological processes, and so there is
    increased productivity. In my opinion, we can feed the world
    and save biodiversity, and feed the world in a cost effective
    way. As I mentioned earlier, reducing food waste is just one
    factor, but it's basically more than a productivity issue in
    developing counties, it's rural development. How do you allow
    the farmer there to develop a productive farm, and actually get
    their produce to market? So you need roads, you need
    infrastructure, you need microfinancing.
        But the transformative change also says we need to look at
    our economic structure. GDP is a good measure of economic
    growth, but it's not a good measure of sustainable economic
    growth. The World Bank, and many others, talk about the four
    factors of wealth: Natural capital, human capital, social
    capital, and built capital. We need to start to bring into our
    decisionmaking the value of nature in our decisionmaking, and
    complement the use of GDP.
        Also we need to look, to be quite honest, at some of the
    large subsidies throughout the world--agricultural, energy, and
    transportation--that are often very, very harmful to
    biodiversity. So we need to look at how do you have incentives
    for sustainable production, and try and eliminate many of these
    harmful subsidies.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Got you. And then following up, your
    testimony, you suggest that South America, Asia, and Africa are
    in the most danger of being affected by biodiversity loss. Can
    you elaborate on why this is, and whether current policies in
    North America and European countries have been more effective
    in combating biodiversity loss? And I realize we're talking
    about two totally different economies, right? Or three----
        Dr. Watson. Actually, even North America and Europe have
    not been as successful as we would hope in trying to protect
    biodiversity. Every country in the world signed up to the so-
    called--Aichi Targets. There's 20 of them. What we found in our
    analysis is we're making progress on about four of them. Some
    of them we've even gone backward in the last 10 years, since
    the agreement in Japan. The trouble is the loss of biodiversity
    is the reason that can most affect certain people in developing
    countries, poor people are more dependent on biodiversity,
    nature, than we are in, say, North America and Europe, and so
    many poor people are quite vulnerable to loss of forests, loss
    of wetlands, loss of grasslands, et cetera.
        Mr. Gonzalez. And then I guess my final question quickly,
    with the 30 seconds I have, a lot of what you're referring to
    is happening overseas, outside of our borders. What can we, as
    the U.S. Government, or what should we be thinking about?
        Dr. Watson. Well, through our aid policies, we can
    certainly work with developing countries, transfer of
    knowledge, projects that show how you can be sustainable. So
    U.S. aid could play a very key role in showing how you could
    have sustainable agriculture, sustainable energy. All of that
    would go a long way to making a more sustainable world, and
    protect biodiversity.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Fletcher.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Johnson, and
    Ranking Member Lucas, for holding this hearing. Thank you to
    the witnesses for your testimony. It has been really
    interesting. I have jotted down numerous things to share, and I
    do want to follow up on a couple of questions, but first I have
    a document that I do want to introduce for the record. The
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership has prepared a
    statement that outlines what biodiversity loss, climate change,
    and habitat fragmentation means for hunters and anglers, and I
    ask unanimous consent to enter the TRCP statement into the
    record. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and that may be a place to
    start.
        Dr. Monfort, we've heard a fair bit today about some of the
    challenges that wildlife is facing, including disease, invasive
    species, habitat loss. What resources do you think would be
    most helpful to Federal and State wildlife managers who are
    trying to confront the magnitude and complexity of the threat?
        Dr. Monfort. Well, I think knowledge is something that
    needs to be shared, and, as we learn about new approaches and
    techniques, we need to make sure that we're sharing those. I
    mentioned the Virginia Working Landscapes Program that we work
    in Northern Virginia. Basically, we don't have all the answers
    at the Smithsonian, but we know that together, collectively, we
    manage property. Out in our Front Royal facility, for example,
    we have 3,200 acres, so we're a large land owner and manager.
    We're trying to learn from each other by sharing knowledge
    about what works and why, and how we can take things to scale.
    This is sort of the theme of our Earth Optimism idea, how can
    we learn from one another to do better, and to find solutions?
        And so in a case like that we serve as sort of the
    intellectual hub. We bring the community together, and we share
    experiences, and we provide access to external advisors and
    partners, much like an extension agent might provide. So I
    think basically boots on the ground, working with people in the
    communities--in the areas that you're trying to affect change
    is really important, whether it's here in the U.S., or abroad.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Terrific, thanks. Another topic that we've
    covered this morning that I'm particularly interested in,
    because I'm from Houston, so represent a lot of folks down in
    Houston, where we're dealing with, of course, many of the
    impacts of climate change, in terms of our weather, in terms of
    storms, and also as we're confronting our energy future and
    what it looks like, so we're particularly interested in climate
    and climate change, and the topic of carbon sequestration is
    really important. It's one of the things that I think people
    are looking to. And so I think, Mr. Goodwin, this came up in
    questions to you about carbon sequestration, and also sort of
    carbon farming. And I think it also came to you, Dr. Brauman,
    about is this something we can measure?
        So we've heard some innovative and interesting ideas in my
    district about coming up with a market-based sort of carbon
    sequestration system that would use, for example, existing
    wetlands, or preserving native prairie, and I'd love to get
    your thoughts on some of those kinds of options; how we could
    measure it, and how we could move from where we are to having a
    real market-based system that would support that kind of
    preservation, and increase biodiversity.
        Dr. Brauman. So there actually are lots of really exciting
    models for this. Some of them are called payments for ecosystem
    services, and they really involve two parts, so one of them is
    really being able to measure what's the benefit. And there's
    lots of things we know. I work with the Natural Capital
    Project. We're doing lots of cool work really quantifying the
    stuff, and looking at where on the landscape it is. It's
    something that we need to do more of, but it's something that
    we know enough to start now.
        The other piece that's really important is having the
    institutional infrastructure to actually make a payment to
    receive things, and there's really neat models that are
    beginning to develop everything from water funds, which are
    becoming more common all around the world. There's some
    actually here in the United States, where water users are
    paying upstream residents to manage their lands in different
    ways to improve water. And what's really great about the
    ecosystem services framework is that it lets us plug into a lot
    of these existing market-based mechanisms.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Terrific, thank you. Mr. Goodwin, do you
    want to weigh in?
        Mr. Goodwin. Yes, absolutely. Certainly I think there's
    opportunities for us to look at solutions for incentivizing
    carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services. The fact is,
    for thousands of years, producers have been compensated for two
    ecosystem services, food and fiber, yet they're producing clean
    water, they're sequestering carbon. I think it's an opportunity
    for us to not look at the moral sense, but just provide an
    opportunity for market-based solutions. Not Federal regulation,
    but instances like the Ecosystem Market Consortium that's
    currently being put together. They brought together NGOs, they
    brought together large corporations to find solutions that are
    providing soil carbon water quality and water quantity
    solutions for farmers and ranchers.
        The problem with the measurement is it's expensive, and so
    we've look at spectral solutions, like looking at mid-near--
    mid-vis spectroscopy. So we have to find ways to--and
    technology's going to help us move in that direction to limit
    the MRV costs, and--so that we could have more of that money
    not going back to a middle man, but going back to the producer.
        Mrs. Fletcher. All right. Thank you. I see my time has
    expired. I thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Casten.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you, Chair Johnson. Thank you so much to
    the panel for being here today. So I often say that climate
    change is the existential threat to our species, and the IPBES
    report makes it clear that our species is not particularly
    unique in the sense of that risk, other than the fact that we
    think we're unique. With 25 percent of the species at risk, I
    think we delude ourselves if we think we are not a part of that
    ecosystem and impacted by it.
        Dr. Brauman, I think you said that a 2 degree temperature
    rise, about 5 percent of the species are at risk, if I was
    noting that down? Or is that Dr. Watson? OK. I realize this is
    imprecise, but can I extrapolate from that that about 20
    percent of the species loss you see is attributable to climate
    change, or is that too sloppy an estimate?
        Dr. Watson. I think that problem is all of these drivers,
    whether it's land use change, pollution, over-exploitation they
    all interact with each other, and so climate change is one of
    the threats. It changes species composition, populations. It
    threatens extinction. It moves the boundaries. So we know that
    climate change, while it has not been the biggest driver in
    most systems today, is an increasing driver, so this is why we
    argue that you have to look at both climate change and loss of
    biodiversity together----
        Mr. Casten. Yes.
        Dr. Watson [continuing]. And recognize what are the
    policies, practices, and technologies that can be win/win for
    both biodiversity and climate--and not win/lose, because there
    are some tradeoffs.
        Mr. Casten. Well, hear hear on that. Let me sort of try to
    ask the question from a different direction. On the select
    Committee on Climate Crisis, we had a panel 2 weeks ago, and I
    asked them, if we eliminated all CO2 tomorrow, how
    much sea level rise is baked in, and the answer was 2 feet. If
    we eliminated all CO2 emissions tomorrow, how much
    species loss is baked in?
        Dr. Watson. To be honest, I can't give you an answer, but
    we'll try and find an answer for you and submit it to the
    record. I'll talk to some of the people that will have done
    some----
        Mr. Casten. OK.
        Dr. Watson [continuing]. Type of modeling.
        Mr. Casten. OK. And I'm all for the win/win, and I agree
    that that's a lot easier, but I want us to be realistic about
    what we're looking at here going forward, and the consequences.
        Mr. Goodwin, I really appreciate all your testimony on
    agriculture. I come from the energy industry, and I think, in
    some ways, the energy industry is easy to decarbonize. I think
    agriculture is much harder, and I appreciate the good work
    you're doing to get that done. Can you help me understand,
    what's the range of reasonable carbon reductions we can expect
    from agriculture? You know, if you look at arable acres of
    land, or whatever the unit, how many tons per acre can we
    realistically expect to reduce if we implement all the best
    practices you've got in mind?
        Mr. Goodwin. Well, I think we start with one farm at a
    time. I think a lot of times we take this global look, and try
    to solve the problem globally, when these issues are going to
    be solved locally. So we start at one farm at a time. And so
    the key here is to stop making farms on ranches, or employing
    these practices that provide a source and turning them into a
    sink, right?
        Mr. Casten. So I totally agree with that. I ask the
    question because, as we think about what type of research
    programs we're going to fund, what types of measures, I'm
    trying to understand, as my old head of engineering used to
    say, is it bigger than a breadbox, or is it smaller than a
    breadbox? What is the potential--and I don't know, Dr. Brauman,
    if you want to comment on this, because I know you talked about
    some of this research with perennial crops, how much carbon
    potential are we talking about that we could sequester in the
    ag sector? I think we know that number for other sectors. I'm
    not seeing a really good estimate for what that is in the ag
    sector.
        Dr. Brauman. I think there has been some work done on this,
    and I don't have that number on me, but I will certainly find
    it and submit it for the----
        Mr. Casten. OK.
        Dr. Brauman [continuing]. Record. What we do know is that
    nature is really the only sink for carbon. A lot of that is in
    the ocean. Some of it's biochemical processes, but it's also
    about ocean algae, and then what we do on the landscape, which
    is, you know, growing trees and growing roots, is really the
    only other place that carbon goes. So in terms of research, and
    the need to better quantify those numbers, and also find ways
    to improve them, is critical.
        Mr. Casten. OK. So I've heard, and I don't know if this is
    true, I've heard estimates around one to two tons per hectare,
    but I don't know that that number includes reduced fertilizer
    inputs, where there's so much CO2, which brings me
    back to Mr. Goodwin. When you look at farms that have taken
    this one farm at a time approach, presumably they've got fewer
    inputs, they're getting maybe another, you know, another crop
    per season out of the land, what is the economic value to that
    farmer? Is this purely charitable, or does the farmer save
    money from reduced inputs or higher yields as they go through
    these practices?
        Mr. Goodwin. Certainly they have increased economic
    opportunities to decrease the input. A penny saved is a penny
    earned, right? So if we're not applying those inputs, we've
    saving money. We've got examples of producers that we work with
    that are out-yielding their current county cohorts, and their
    county averages, with limited-to-reduced fertility, and
    providing sequestered carbon. And that one to two ton number is
    not out of the question. Certainly not out of the question for
    a majority of the farms in the United States.
        Mr. Casten. Well, I see I'm over my time, but I'm delighted
    that you ended with that, and I swear I didn't set this up. We
    started and ended with a win/win. Let's stay focused on it.
    Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Hill.
        Ms. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just reading a UC
    Santa Barbara Study last week that quantifies the effects of
    political lobbying on the likelihood of climate policy
    enactment. It finds that $700 million in total lobbying by
    corporations around the Waxman-Markey Bill reduced the bill's
    chances by 13 percentage points, from 55 percent to 42 percent,
    representing $60 billion in expected climate damages due to the
    lowered chance of enacting U.S. climate policy. The money isn't
    the only cost, of course. Human health and wellbeing are also
    heavy costs, such as loss of life, and destruction through
    natural disasters like wildfires.
        Last year we saw a number of shocking fires in my home
    State of California. Two days after election day last November,
    the Woolsey fire ignited and burned in Los Angeles and Ventura
    Counties. It destroyed 1,643 structures, killed 3 people, and
    prompted the evacuation of more than 295,000 people. Throughout
    California, communities remain devastated and are trying to
    rebuild today. There's no question that one of the key
    biodiversity drivers, climate change, is enabling more intense
    wildfires in the west. While a certain measure of wildfire is
    ``good'' for wild areas, so long as people and property can
    remain safe, in California we're seeing regions staying so dry
    for so long that it's clear that they are not bouncing back.
        Dr. Watson and Dr. Brauman, can you talk a little bit about
    the relationship between biodiversity and wildfires, and how a
    changing climate can impact that relationship?
        Dr. Brauman. The interaction between biodiversity and
    wildfires is incredibly complex, and part of the reason is
    because many of the responses take place over long, but varying
    timescales. And so the heterogeneity in landscapes that fires
    produce is great for biodiversity in the long term. We see
    forest stands, and also grasslands of different ages, with
    different species. There are many species, especially in
    California, that actually only regenerate with fire. They need
    the heat in order for the seedlings to grow.
        We also see, in the short term, that there's often
    devastating effects to biodiversity, both in terms of the
    vegetation, but also the animals who are either killed or
    displaced, and that it can take a very long time for some of
    that to come back. And one of the reasons that connectivity,
    thinking about infrastructure, and really thinking about all of
    these drivers together, is important is that if those animals,
    if pollen, and seeds, and seedlings have somewhere to go, then
    the impacts are much less. But if there's only one forest, and
    it's hemmed in in certain ways, then there's not, and so the
    impacts can be much greater.
        And the other thing that we see is that, with the dryness,
    and with decreased and--fires, and therefore higher fire
    intensity, that the impacts are bigger, the impacts are longer,
    and it's not just on biodiversity, but that's when we start to
    see really nasty flooding, really bad for water sources, all
    kind of problems. And so, you know, understanding--putting the
    time and money in to understand these complex systems and
    manage them better is critical.
        Ms. Hill. Dr. Watson, do you have anything to add?
        Dr. Watson. Not so much on the wildfires, but your first
    point about vested interests, one thing that we pointed out in
    our report, and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change) points out in their's, is that effective actions to
    have the sort of transformational changes that we need, both to
    limit climate change and to save biodiversity, there will be
    some key vested interests that will fight against removing some
    of these perverse subsidies, against payment for ecosystem
    services. And so we have to recognize also the power
    asymmetries between different lobby groups. So your first point
    is a really crucial one that we brought up in our document,
    that we need to deal with power symmetries, we need to deal
    with vested interests, and get everybody on board to see that,
    in the long term, it's in everybody's best interest to deal
    with climate change, and to deal with a loss of biodiversity.
        Ms. Hill. Absolutely. Should we be addressing wildfires
    differently than the past given your comments about
    biodiversity, and how, you know, it's important--in terms of
    burn areas are important? And also what types--you mentioned
    the research, that we need to put in the money to understand
    this, but what types of research are needed, and how do we need
    to be thinking about funding it?
        Dr. Brauman. So there's been a really great evolution in
    fire management as we have learned more. It's been very
    responsive to how we understand this, and I am confident that
    we will continue to evolve our management strategies as we
    learn more, and so, yes, there will need to be changes.
    Certainly smaller controlled burns--actually, very similar to
    the kind of grassland controlled burns that Mr. Goodwin was
    talking about, are very likely to be important.
        Understanding some of the more subtle processes that
    happen, so things related to soil processes, water, as well as
    the really kind of big species and big trees issues I think are
    going to be something that's quite important to understand,
    especially as these ecosystems regenerate, and we want them to
    keep delivering the services that are important for us.
        Ms. Hill. Thank you so much. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Foster.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and Ranking
    Member Lucas, and all of our panelists for joining us. I'd like
    to bring up, I guess for not the first time here, the issue of
    Asian carp, which is very local to my issue. You know, Asian
    carp have already wreaked environmental havoc up and down the
    Mississippi River watershed, and it's currently threatening the
    Great Lakes, and every river connected to them. The last line
    of defense, actually, is in my district, near the Brandon Road
    Lock and Dam near Joliet, Illinois. The U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers has finalized and approved a proposal of about $778
    million which calls for measures such as an engineered channel
    with an acoustic air bubble curtain and an electric barrier.
    There's currently a temporary electric barrier in place, which
    is the best we have.
        But not only is this barrier designed to prevent the
    catastrophic introduction of Asian carp into the Great Lakes,
    but it's also intended to continue to allow for commercial
    navigation, which is why it is complicated. And it's now up to
    Congress to authorize funding for the Army Corps to go ahead
    with this plan, and, you know, in fact, the WRDA (Water
    Resources Development Act) bill that supports this funding is
    coming up for a vote this week in the U.S. Congress, and I hope
    that my Republican and Democratic colleagues come together to
    vote for the WRDA bill to prevent this catastrophe.
        I guess you're already on the record as saying Asian carp
    are highly destructive. So one of my questions is sort of the
    longer-term research, and dealing with invasive species. There
    are ideas out there like gene drives, like the release of
    sterilized males, which, you know, have been successful in some
    species. What is your take on that? Are these technologies just
    ultimately too dangerous to pursue? Are they things that we
    have to pursue because of the problem with invasive species?
        Dr. Brauman. So I'm lucky enough to live further up the
    Mississippi, where we actually closed one of the locks and dams
    to keep the invasive carp out. What's clear is that addressing
    issues of invasive species, once they've already arrived, is
    always going to be expensive and painful, so the very first
    thing we need to be paying attention to is managing better to
    make sure that the invasions and the introductions don't happen
    in the first place.
        Mr. Foster. Right. Or we could just send--in the case of
    Asian carp, just send the bill for all of this to Arkansas,
    which, in their wisdom, introduced this into ponds that
    flooded.
        Dr. Brauman. In terms of the specifics of the right way to
    address this, there's a lot of them, and I'm not familiar with
    the specifics of those, except to say that these kinds of
    responses are always going to be riskier than simply not
    introducing these species in the first place. There are a wide
    range of different kinds of responses. Asian carp are not
    considered invasive in Asia, and in part because people like to
    eat them. So, as we change public perceptions, there's all
    kinds of possibilities out there. But I, again, would really
    reinforce that being more strategic about making sure that we
    don't have these kinds of invasions is going to be important.
        Mr. Foster. Yes. Dr. Watson?
        Dr. Watson. Just in mind a comment I'm not at all an expert
    on Asian carp, but the next assessment, one of the next big
    IPBES reports will be on invasive alien species. There will be
    a whole assessment which will come out in about 2, 2-1/2 years
    specifically looking at the whole issue of alien invasive
    species.
        Mr. Foster. And I hope you also look at countermeasures,
    and research into countermeasures----
        Dr. Watson. Yes.
        Mr. Foster [continuing]. Because these things are obviously
    double-edged swords, but----
        Dr. Watson. Yes.
        Mr. Foster [continuing]. You know, potentially great and
    very dangerous. I'd also like to bring up the long-term future
    of land use for farming. You know, I'm not sure I'm completely
    on board with the narrative that, you know, there's this ever
    increasing demand for food and crop land. You know, the
    population's projected to hit the peak around I think 2070, or
    sometime like that, and decrease afterwards. Yields on crops
    like corn have been doubling every 20 years, so that, you know,
    if you'd only need a certain amount of crop, that will cut by a
    factor of two the amount of land you need. There are
    technologies like artificial meat, where, you know, in
    principle these Impossible Whoppers that are now going to be
    nationwide at the end of this year, use up I think about one-
    sixteenth the land per hamburger. And so, you know, it may be
    that actually, you know, the need for land dedicated to farming
    will actually peak even earlier than the population, and start
    declining. I was just wondering if you have, you know, is there
    anyone who does those sort of projections, and looks at the
    economic impacts of that?
        Dr. Brauman. There are projections along these lines in the
    IPBES report. We actually looked at a number of scenarios, and
    some of those involve sustainable futures that include a
    combination of on-the-ground technologies, as well as reduction
    in per capita consumption. And so, yes, you're absolutely
    right, there's lots of potential for not needing to expand
    farmland as we both change our diets, and also as we increase
    yields in places where there's lots of opportunity for
    increasing yields.
        Mr. Foster. Yes. And, like I say, I haven't even mentioned,
    you know, these factory farms, in the sense of, you know,
    growing crops under grow lights, where you can get six crops a
    year, and don't have the shipping cost to the cities. And it'd
    be nice to have a forward look at what agriculture looks like
    100 years from now so we know what technologies to invest in.
    And I think I'm over time, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Foster. Mr. Beyer.
        Mr. Beyer. Madam Chair, and Ranking Member Lucas, thank you
    very much. This is fascinating, especially in light of the UN's
    report on the accelerated loss of biodiversity. I am very
    grateful and impressed by the very clear, direct drivers which
    showed up in a couple of your reports, that changes in land and
    sea use, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change,
    pollution, and invasion of alien species. And it's very clear
    that we're destroying the core of our livelihood--food, health,
    and economy--and that we're in grave danger.
        As a Member of Congress, I'm always struggling for what is
    it that we can do, what are our direct pieces. Let me quote the
    wonderful physicist, David Park, who said, ``physics is as much
    a creative mind as it is a body of knowledge. It is the
    imperative, simplify.'' To sort of simplify, let me lay out
    four things. First, on carbon, we know, and I think this
    Congress will grapple with carbon pricing, some way to make
    carbon much more expensive, and stimulate everything else,
    including changes in our behavior. And there are some really
    good bills. Jerry McNerney, who was up here, has the lead on
    one of the ones on carbon sequestration. And, once again, there
    are dozens of experiments around the world right now on taking
    carbon out of the air, out of the water, out of smokestacks.
        I was proud to introduce the Wildlife Corridors
    Conservation Act last week, with Senator Udall and Congressman
    Vern Buchanan, to ensure it's really to incentivize State and
    local governments to create corridors so that native wildlife,
    including fish, animals, plants, butterflies, continue to
    migrate, adapt, thrive in the face of increasing threats, just
    to give these species a fighting chance, and it's a critical
    step forward.
        So those are a couple of concrete things, and, by the way,
    I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to submit a statement
    from the Wildlands Network on habitat connectivity, without
    objection. But Dr.----
        Chairwoman Johnson. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Dr. Watson, Dr. E.O. Wilson, who
    shows up at some of these, in reacting to Dr. Monfort's notion
    that we're going to build 15 million new miles of roads by
    2050, has talked about half Earth. In fact, his last book is
    that we should devote half of the terrestrial planet to half
    Earth. What do you think, and what's the way forward? How do
    we, as Members of Congress, begin to make that happen?
        Dr. Watson. Yes. We didn't address that directly. We did
    talk about protected areas. To me, the half Earth concept, I
    think we'd have to define what you mean by it. People live all
    over the world today, so the question is how do you integrate
    people into a protected area? What we did say is that while
    we've got a lot of protected areas, much of the key
    biodiversity is not inside our protected areas. Second, many of
    the protected areas are not well managed, and third, none of
    the protected area designs take into account climate change as
    species move, and as boundaries of ecosystems move.
        What we pointed out was, yes, we should focus on protected
    areas, with appropriate design and corridors, but we also have
    to recognize that much of biodiversity will always lie outside
    of protected areas, and therefore we have to integrate
    biodiversity concerns into agriculture, timber, transportation,
    forestry, et cetera. So it's a combination of how do we do
    multi-sectoral planning, recognize you don't only think about
    the economics of a project, or a technology, you think about
    the implications for biodiversity. So, yes, I think it makes
    sense to expand the protected areas, both marine and
    terrestrial, but at the same time, I don't think that you can
    rely on protected areas alone to really do the job.
        Mr. Beyer. OK. Great. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Monfort. May I make a comment on that?
        Mr. Beyer. Yes, please, Dr. Monfort.
        Dr. Monfort. Well, first of all, this is the Science
    Committee, so I'd like to make a plug for science, and the
    Smithsonian is a knowledge institution. And I would point out
    that we know very little about biodiversity, and how much there
    is that exists, and how it's distributed in space and time, and
    we're discovering new species all the time--the Natural History
    Museum, every year they discover between 3 to 400 new species
    every year. There are thousands of species sitting, waiting to
    be identified, for example, so we know that there's great
    diversity, but we need to know more.
        We don't even know where organisms move. Most organisms
    that we're trying to save, or we're talking about with
    biodiversity, we don't even know where they go throughout their
    life cycle. So we need fundamental knowledge----
        Mr. Beyer. OK.
        Dr. Monfort [continuing]. To be able to make good
    decisions.
        Mr. Beyer. All right. Thank you very much. Dr. Brauman, I
    noticed that you had the Ph.D. in interdisciplinary program and
    environment and resources. And picking up what Dr. Monfort said
    about 200,000 years to get to 1 billion people, and 200 more to
    get to 8 billion, there's incredibly little conversation on
    Capitol Hill about population, whether it peaks out at 2070 or
    not. How do we begin to have a responsible conversation on what
    the carrying capacity of the planet is, especially as it
    relates not just to water, not just to land, but to
    biodiversity?
        Dr. Brauman. What's critical about the idea of carrying
    capacity is the question of what does per capita consumption
    look like? And, with animals that we study, it's not so hard to
    figure out how much they need to eat, but with people, it turns
    out that you don't actually drink very much water every day,
    and yet the amount of water that people need is bigger than
    that, and varies widely around the world. And so it's almost
    impossible to have a conversation about carrying capacity
    without talking about consumption and per capital consumption.
        Mr. Beyer. All right. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I
    yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Wexton.
        Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
    members of the panel for coming out today. I have really
    enjoyed your testimony, and, although I'm a little bit fearful
    and frightened about our future, I also feel some optimism
    about our prospects.
        Dr. Monfort, you'll have to excuse me, because I do have to
    take a moment to engage in a little bit of fangirl action for
    the National Zoo, and the Conservation Biology Institute. I
    represent northern Virginia here in Congress, and I am also the
    mother of 2 kids who are now 14 and 16 years old, but both of
    them attended zoo camps. We have spent literally thousands of
    hours, I think, at the National Zoo in one way or another, and
    we always look forward to that Saturday in fall when we could
    go to Front Royal and check out the Conservation Biology
    Institute. What you guys have done with the breeding programs
    for the scimitar horned oryx and the Przewalski's wild horses
    is amazing. Although I know you're limited by the genetic stock
    that you have, what you have managed to do with those
    populations is incredible.
        But I would also note that, while the brush-tailed bettong
    are very adorable, I would be remiss if I didn't use my
    opportunity to be speaking with you to express my
    disappointment that the Smithsonian no longer--and the National
    Zoo no longer houses or breeds the black-and-rufous giant
    elephant shrew. Those were always a fan favorite, and they
    certainly were mine, but I thank you for everything that you
    have done, and for your testimony here today.
        Dr. Porter, I want to thank you for your passion. It was
    clear in your presentation how passionately you feel about
    this, and I was really glad to hear it, because I have a
    brother who was a non-commissioned officer in the NOAA Corps,
    so I was glad to see that you participate in some of those NOAA
    research voyages, and my siblings and I area all SCUBA divers.
    I think my first checkout dive was about 28 or 29 years ago,
    and just in that period of time, what I have seen, in terms of
    the degradation, and the damage to the Caribbean corals, is
    really frightening and disappointing to me, because I want to
    be able to take my kids on SCUBA diving trips someday and show
    them the beauty of the undersea world, and those reefs, and I'm
    not sure they're going to be there.
        So you spoke a lot about the increase in temperature as
    being the biggest threat, and that----
        Dr. Porter. Yes.
        Ms. Wexton [continuing]. Clearly that's the case, but can
    you speak a little bit about ocean acidification? Because
    that's something this Committee is working on at this time, and
    may be able to hopefully have some good results. I think Ms.
    Bonamici is back, and she has taken the lead on that. So if you
    can speak a little bit about acidification, and the impacts
    that that has as well?
        Dr. Porter. Thank you. CO2 has two impacts on
    the ocean. One is to serve as a blanket to raise its
    temperature, the other is to dissolve into the ocean and
    acidify it, because CO2 causes water to be acidic.
    And I focused on CO2's problem with temperature
    because that's the first one that's going to get coral reefs,
    but the second one is exactly what you said, ocean
    acidification.
        We have a technical term for these two problems in coral
    reef ecology. They're called the evil twins, and we're worried
    about both researches going on, thank you for understanding
    that, and further research on ocean acidification, which is
    done by all these agencies, is extremely important. Thank you.
        Ms. Wexton. Thank you. Now, my district starts just outside
    of Washington, D.C., but it does go out pretty far west, into
    some pretty rural agricultural communities. And I recently met
    with some farmers in my district, some of whom are starting to
    implement no till and cover crops to improve their soil quality
    and soil health. Many of them were also doing this for the
    first time, so that tells me that there is a new understanding
    of the need for this, and a desire among agricultural producers
    to do it. But we don't talk about soil health really just--writ
    large the same way that we talk about clean air or clean water,
    but it's just as important, in my mind.
        So, in general, Mr. Goodwin, do you think soil carbon
    health has gotten the right amount of attention in the past,
    and, if not, what can we do to increase the attention on it?
        Mr. Goodwin. I don't. I certainly think any time we can
    talk about ecology, and any time we can talk about how carbon
    works in a system--most people hear CO2, they're
    afraid of it, but carbon is the actual driver in most
    ecological systems. That's what plants feed on. And so we have
    to do a better job of telling our story, most certainly,
    because those producers that are making those changes, they
    have to believe in it, and when they do believe in it, it takes
    about 3 years to change practices. To change that practice, I
    mean, we're talking about changing equipment, everything. And
    so, once that has been made, in my 20 years of working with
    producers on the ground, I have yet to meet one producer that's
    made this significant change, has been successful, and then has
    gone back to conventional ways.
        Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much. And so it's an issue of
    convincing them that it's best for them, and for best
    practices, but then also maybe providing some incentives to
    make it possible for them to make that transition? Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Goodwin. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Wexton. OK. Thank you very much. I see my time has
    expired, so I'll yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Bonamici.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Johnson, and
    Ranking Member Lucas. I'm happy to be able to join you from the
    Education Committee. The findings of the IPBES Global
    Assessment are stark. We know that the health of our ecosystems
    is rapidly deteriorating, and we don't want to get to the point
    where the consequences will be irreversible. And I'm glad that
    the report recognizes the multi-coordinated approach to this,
    and all the drivers of biodiversity loss. I see it as, you
    know, not only the need to reduce pollution control, invasive
    species, address the climate crisis, sustainably use our land
    and water, protect natural habitats--really going to take all
    of that together.
        Dr. Watson, you recently told National Geographic that your
    biggest personal concern is the state of the oceans. As to co-
    chair of the House Oceans Caucus, I wanted to call attention to
    this statement as we recognize National Ocean Month, and
    Capitol Hill Ocean Week. Our oceans are often left out of the
    equation when we're responding to the climate crisis, but
    they're home to most of the life on the planet, and our
    response to the biodiversity crisis has to put our oceans at
    the forefront of the solution.
        So in your testimony you mentioned that climate change is
    projected to become as important, or more important, than other
    drivers of biodiversity loss in the coming decades. Oceans are
    absorbing more than 90 percent of excess heat trapped in the
    atmosphere from greenhouse gas emissions, and, of course,
    causing harmful algal blooms, which produce acid that's harmful
    to shellfish, like our Oregon Dungeness crab, also may be
    poisonous to humans, as we know. And as halves decompose, they
    create the hypoxic dead zones, where marine life cannot
    survive. So last Congress we authorized the Harmful Algal
    Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act, but hypoxia and
    harmful algal blooms are often conflated at the Federal level,
    so I'm working on legislation to address these issues
    separately. So is there a need or opportunity for dedicated
    Federal funding for hypoxia mitigation strategies to protect
    marine species, and what should Congress be doing to support
    those efforts?
        Dr. Watson. The answer's basically yes to your question,
    the reason I say that the oceans are a concern, although, I'm
    concerned about all ecosystems. The concern about the oceans at
    the moment is we probably spend less attention on the oceans.
    The plastics in the oceans, we've got to stop it. Most of the
    plastic is coming from Southeast Asia and the big rivers in
    Southeast Asia, so we have to worry about the plastics and
    ocean acidification and the overfishing throughout many parts
    of the world. The U.S. actually is probably one of the better
    countries in the world in managing fisheries, but in most parts
    of the world we're fishing further from shore, deeper into the
    ocean, smaller and smaller fish, so we have a problem of
    overexploitation.
        Coral reefs, as you've already heard from Dr. Porter, are
    unbelievably sensitive, not only to climate change,
    temperature, and ocean acidification at 1.5+ C, and we're
    already at one to 1.1, maybe 10 to 30 percent of corals could
    survive. At 2+ C, probably only 1 percent of corals could
    survive. And, to be honest, a projection that I made, and
    actually been supported by much better studies than mine, is
    we're on a pathway to 3 to 3-1/2 or 4+ C. The Paris agreement,
    which wants us to limit it to 2+ C, and even more, 1.5, we're
    not on a pathway to 1.5 or 2. We're on a pathway of 3 to 4.
        Ms. Bonamici. I'm going to try to get another question in
    to follow up on what you mentioned about plastics. Every minute
    the equivalent of a garbage truck full of plastic is dumped
    into the oceans, according to the UN. It's astounding, eight
    million tons a year. So I want to talk a little bit about
    microplastics, and I think this was brought up earlier, but to
    follow up, we're finding pieces of microplastic in marine life,
    blocking digestive tracts, altering growth, and in some cases
    killing animals and marine organisms. We don't know how long it
    takes for plastic to completely biodegrade. The estimates are,
    like, 450 years to never. I thank the Committee for getting rid
    of the plastic bottles. We have cups, we have reusable water
    bottles, it's a step.
        But you're talking about many of the priorities of the
    bipartisan Oceans Caucus with the fishing and plastics. But I'm
    working with Senators Whitehouse and Sullivan, and
    Representative Young, the Oceans Caucus co-chair, on Save Our
    Seas 2.0 Act to take further steps to address marine debris.
    You're right, a lot of it comes from other places, but it is a
    global problem. The assessment found that marine plastic
    pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, affecting at least
    267 species, 86 percent of marine turtles, and 44 percent of
    sea birds, and 43 percent of marine mammals. So what do we
    currently know about the effects of microplastics on our
    ecosystem, and what research do we need in the future? Looks
    like Dr. Porter wants to answer----
        Dr. Porter. Yes.
        Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. That one.
        Dr. Porter. We know very little, which is unfortunate, but
    we do know that the microplastic particles, after there has
    been some degradation, are, in fact, more dangerous than the
    large particles that draw everyone's attention.
        Ms. Bonamici. Right.
        Dr. Porter. As I mentioned earlier, it is estimated that by
    2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. I thank
    you for your service on the Oceans Committee.
        Ms. Bonamici. Well, thank you. And I see my time has
    expired. I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. That's the end of
    our witnesses, but before we close this hearing I want to thank
    all of our witnesses for testifying today. You're a superb
    group.
        The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
    statements from Members, or any additional questions the
    Committee may ask the witnesses. Our witnesses are now excused,
    and our Committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Dr. James Porter

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

          Statements submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Statement submitted by Representative Lizzie Fletcher

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Statement submitted by Representative Don Beyer

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]