[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MANAGING OUR OCEAN AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN A DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT:
PRIORITIES FOR THE NEW ADMINISTRATION AND THE 111\TH\ CONGRESS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS,
OCEANS AND WILDLIFE
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-756 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS, OCEANS AND WILDLIFE
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Jeff Flake, Arizona
Samoa Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey John Fleming, Louisiana
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Islands Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Diana DeGette, Colorado officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, March 3, 2009........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina, Prepared statement of......... 3
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, Prepared statement of....................... 71
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Baughman, John, Member, Sporting Conservation Council........ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 72
Jackson, William J., Ph.D., Deputy Director General,
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)...... 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Kareiva, Peter, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, The Nature
Conservancy................................................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 73
Nutter, Franklin W., President, Reinsurance Association of
America.................................................... 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Pomponi, Shirley A., Ph.D., Executive Director, Harbor Branch
Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University....... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Rothschild, Brian J., Ph.D., Montgomery Charter Professor of
Marine Science, School for Marine Science and Technology,
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth...................... 58
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Thompson, Barton H., Jr., Perry L. McCarty Director, Woods
Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, and
Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural Resources Law,
Stanford University........................................ 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Trandahl, Jeff, Executive Director, National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, on behalf of Mark Rockefeller,
Chairman, Board of Directors, National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, Oral statement of.............................. 4
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 75
Additional materials supplied:
Rockefeller, Mark F., Chairman, Board of Directors, National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 6
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``MANAGING OUR OCEAN AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN A
DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT: PRIORITIES FOR THE NEW ADMINISTRATION AND THE
111\TH\ CONGRESS.''
----------
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, the Hon. Madeleine
Z. Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo, Kildee, Sablan,
Christensen, Capps, Kratovil, Pierluisi, Wittman and Hastings.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Good morning everyone. The oversight hearing
by the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife
will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony
concerning ocean and wildlife conservation priorities for the
new Administration and the 111th Congress.
Under Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairwoman and the Ranking
Minority Member will make opening statements.
We begin the 111th Congress during a period of great
uncertainty for our nation. The United States faces an economic
crisis that has led to the loss of more than 3 million jobs,
frozen credit markets, and resulted in large Federal and state
budget deficits.
Ever-increasing energy demands are driving efforts to
rapidly develop new and existing energy sources, while the
threat of climate change has great potential to affect
virtually every aspect of our society.
These realities are presenting new challenges to how we
manage and conserve our natural resources. Spending freezes and
budget cuts, in many states and the territories, have led to a
reduction in, and the cancellation of, conservation projects
for fish and wildlife habitat restoration.
Charitable giving from private endowments and foundations
and corporations has also declined, further straining the
capabilities of public-private conservation partnerships
dependent on non-Federal sources of funding.
In addition to this, the push for new energy development
and energy conservation has created unanticipated trade-offs
for conventional fish and wildlife conservation.
Wind energy is just one example. As we seek to develop
green wind farms, we still have little understanding of how
wind turbines, installed on an industrial scale, might impact
migratory bird populations that the Federal Government invests
millions of dollars annually to conserve. At the same time,
climate change is causing shifts in migration and habitats of
many species that we are only just beginning to understand.
The dynamic nature of this period of time directly
challenges our conventional approaches to the conservation of
fish and wildlife habitat, and to the maintenance of healthy
ecosystems. In fact, the dynamic nature of our time suggests
the need for a new conservation paradigm, and new information
and management tools to effectively conserve fish and wildlife
habitat over the long term, and across an uncertain landscape
in the 21st century.
We need specific practical and constructive recommendations
and priorities if we are to develop a new framework to support
science-based and information-driven adaptive management of our
fish and wildlife resources, both on land and in the ocean.
So, I look forward to hearing from our invited witnesses,
who are presently engaged in a variety of innovative approaches
to address these needs. And I also look forward to engaging my
colleagues in a broader dialogue to determine how we might
shape a more effective, adaptive, and cooperative conservation
model for the time that we live in.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
We begin the 111th Congress during a period of great uncertainty
for our Nation. The United States faces an economic crisis that has led
to the loss of more than three million jobs, frozen credit markets, and
resulted in large federal and state budget deficits.
Ever-increasing energy demands are driving efforts to rapidly
develop new and existing energy sources, while the threat of climate
change has catastrophic potential to affect virtually every aspect of
our society.
These realities are presenting new challenges to how we manage and
conserve our natural resources. Spending freezes and budget cuts in
many states and the territories have led to a reduction in and the
cancellation of conservation projects for fish and wildlife habitat
restoration. Charitable giving from private endowments, foundations and
corporations has also declined, further straining the capabilities of
public-private conservation partnerships dependent on non-Federal
sources of funding.
In addition, the push for new energy development and energy
conservation has created unanticipated trade-offs for conventional fish
and wildlife conservation.
Wind energy is just one example. As we seek to develop ``green''
wind farms, we still have little understanding of how wind turbines
installed on an industrial scale might impact migratory bird
populations that the Federal Government invests millions of dollars
annually to conserve.
At the same time, climate change is causing shifts in migration and
habitats of many species that we are only just beginning to understand.
The dynamic nature of this period of time directly challenges our
conventional approaches to the conservation of fish and wildlife
habitat and to the maintenance of healthy ecosystems. In fact, the
dynamic nature of our time suggests the need for a new conservation
paradigm and new information and management tools to effectively
conserve fish and wildlife habitat over the long-term and across an
uncertain landscape in the 21st Century.
We need specific, practical, and constructive recommendations and
priorities if we are to develop a new framework to support science-
based and information-driven adaptive management of our fish and
wildlife resources, both on land and in the ocean.
I look forward to hearing from our invited witnesses who are
presently engaged in a variety of innovative approaches to address
these needs. I also look forward to engaging my colleagues in a broader
dialogue to determine how we might shape a more effective, adaptive and
cooperative conservation model for the times we live in.
______
Ms. Bordallo. And now, as Chairwoman, I recognize Mr.
Hastings, the Ranking Republican Member of the Natural
Resources Committee, for any statement that he may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Well, thank you very much, Madame Chairman.
And I have to say that I am here in place of the Ranking Member
of this Subcommittee, Henry Brown, who is delayed because of
the weather. And so I will just simply ask unanimous consent
that Mr. Brown's full statement appear in the record, and we
will go to the panel.
Ms. Bordallo. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican,
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. As our new President has frequently
reminded us, the American people are tired of partisan politics and
want bipartisan solutions to the serious problems facing our country.
Today's hearing offers us an excellent opportunity to engage in
bipartisanship because there are no Republican or Democratic fish,
marine turtles, white tail deer or neotropical migratory birds.
It is my hope that during the next two years, we will try to work
together to craft bipartisan solutions. Let me suggest some areas of
potential agreement. First, we can work together to ensure through
oversight hearings that the $280 million appropriated to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the $830 million appropriated to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the stimulus package is
wisely spent.
The money for the Service was allocated to undertake backlog
maintenance projects, to replace old or outdated equipment, improve
wildlife conservation and to improve access for the American people to
our 548 national wildlife refuges and 70 national fish hatcheries. The
funding for NOAA was directed toward habitat restoration, hydrographic
survey backlog and for construction and vessel maintenance activities.
Each agency will also receive additional funding in the Omnibus
appropriations bill. It is very important that this Subcommittee
oversee how these funds are being spent.
Second, we can work together to reauthorize the Sikes Act which
provides valuable fish and wildlife habitat to thousands of species who
reside on our 400 military installations. This law, which was first
enacted nearly 50 years ago, has been a huge wildlife conservation
success story.
Third, it is my hope that we can work together on the plethora of
ocean-specific legislation coming before the subcommittee this
Congress. Many of the bills that moved out of the Subcommittee last
Congress may have been referred to as bipartisan based on the list of
cosponsors, but many of the bills that were approved by this
Subcommittee were not bipartisan with respect to the legislative
language included in the bill.
Finally, I look forward to our collective efforts to extend the
Marine Turtle Conservation Act, the Great Ape Conservation Act and the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act at the earliest
opportunity. These three landmark conservation laws have financed
nearly 700 projects that have literally stopped several of these
species from sliding towards extinction. Nevertheless, there is more
work to be done and these laws must be reauthorized this year.
Thank you Madame Chairwoman, I look forward to hearing from out
witnesses today.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I would also like to, I would like to
recognize other Members who are here with us. Lois Capps from
the State of California, Donna Christensen from the Virgin
Islands, and Mr. Kratovil, Mr. Kratovil. I welcome you to our
Subcommittee meeting today.
And I thank Mr. Hastings. And I would now like to recognize
our first panel of witnesses, who are already seated. Mr. Jeff
Trandahl, Executive Director of the National Fish and Wildlife
Federation; Dr. Peter Kareiva, Chief Scientist and Director of
Science, the Nature Conservancy; Mr. Barton Thompson, Jr., Mr.
Thompson is the Perry L. McCarty Director of the Woods
Institute for the Environment and the Robert E. Paradise
Professor of Natural Resources Law at Stanford University; and
finally, Mr. John Baughman, Member of the Sporting Conservation
Council.
Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to our hearing. I will
begin now with the first of the panel. And as we begin, I would
note for all the witnesses that the red timing light on the
table will indicate when five minutes have passed, and your
time has concluded. We would appreciate your cooperation in
complying with these limits, and be assured that your full
written statement will be submitted for the hearing record.
And now, Mr. Trandahl, thank you for joining us today, and
please begin.
STATEMENT OF JEFF TRANDAHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
Mr. Trandahl. Madame Chairwoman, Mr. Hastings, and Members
of the Committee. I am Jeff Trandahl, the Executive Director of
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. And I have to first
start by apologizing.
Mark Rockefeller, the Chair of our board, was delayed
because of the storm in New York and not able to appear. So, I
am appearing on his behalf.
I will summarize some of his statement, and then be
available, obviously at the end, for questions, or at the end
of the panel for questions.
As we approach this year, the Foundation was created 25
years ago. And it was created specifically to generate private
dollars to match with Federal seed monies on conservation
projects of mutual interest between the Federal Government and
the private sector.
In its history, we have managed more than $500 million in
grant dollars, and have leveraged an impact of over $1.5
billion on the ground.
Ms. Bordallo. Excuse me, could you move just a little
closer to the mic, please?
Mr. Trandahl. Sure thing.
Ms. Bordallo. Bring it closer. Thank you.
Mr. Trandahl. There you go. In its history it has managed
more than $500 million, and has leveraged a total impact of
$1.5 billion. The source of these leverage funds have come from
corporate, individuals, state, and other non-Federal sources.
As we all know, these have been especially difficult and
challenging times. While the last few years have provided a
very positive trend related to increased environmental
awareness and giving, the entire landscape has changed in the
last six months.
Nationally, philanthropic giving has taken a sudden dip,
and environmental giving is expected to lose resources as
funders begin to respond to human-need programs, such as
shelters and food banks.
With this unanticipated and rapid decline in the economy,
and also major changes in the political environment, I believe
the way to increase conservation funding from private sources,
corporate and individual, is to do two things in particular.
One, provide clear prioritization of Federal goals and
objectives. And two, create incentives to maintain and increase
environmental giving by promoting the partner of private and
Federal resources around common goals.
First I need to say that I believe strongly that there are
many immediate and high-priority conservation needs. And more
importantly, I strongly believe there is a significant
financial giving capacity that can still be harnessed from the
corporate community and other philanthropic funders if the
right actions are taken, even in this difficult economy.
As the Subcommittee knows well, the Federal Government
continues to be the largest funder of conservation work
throughout the United States. Congress and the Federal
Government oversee much of that funding directly, and other
funds are distributed to state fish and wildlife agencies
through Federal programs, such as Pittman-Robertson.
The Federal dollars divided among several different
agencies cover hundreds, if not thousands, of different
priorities. This investment has significant public benefits and
positive impacts on land, sea, and air.
That said, Federal agency expenditures on conservation are
also so broad and diverse, it is incredibly difficult to
comprehend exactly what the Federal government's overall goal
is for such spending.
What are the Federal conservation priorities? For example,
many Federal statutes require agencies to treat all issues
equally, rather than encouraging agencies around conservation
partners to prioritize their efforts around achieving
achievable conservation outcomes.
Moreover, across Federal agencies, even within individual
agencies, there are differing conservation goals and
objectives.
For private funders, these competing priorities cause
confusion, and sometimes lead to inaction. Major private
funders in conservation tend to be focused on many of the same
funding priorities as the Federal government. However, often
the programs are not operated as a single effort.
While funders in conservation tend to gravitate toward, not
away from, the Federal government, largely because of
leveraging opportunities, it is my experience that the Federal
agencies are either not equipped, not interested, or otherwise
constrained from working with private funders.
Federal Government lacks the necessary culture for
partnership. Why?
Our experience is that private funders are generally
seeking public partners to leverage their funds, ensure a
strong scientific basis for their investments, identify
strategic priorities, and provide appropriate oversight to
ensure a project achieves the anticipated results once the
funding has been initiated.
The Federal government is an attractive partner because it
has financial resources; but more importantly, it has the
ability to provide planning, science, strategy, and certainty
of completion.
As Executive Director of the Foundation, I oversee an
entity that was created by Congress to specifically fund and
find those partnerships. While the Foundation continues to
experience a period of growth and success, we still are not
able to maximize fully the Federal partnerships that are out
there.
I will submit the rest of my statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mark Rockefeller, Chairman,
Board of Directors, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
submitted by Mr. Trandahl follows:]
Statement of Mark F. Rockefeller, Chairman, Board of Directors,
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Madame Chairwoman, Congressman Brown and Members of the
Subcommittee ``
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to appear today to
discuss the current trends in conservation and environmental work
throughout the United States and what can be done at the federal level,
in particular, to encourage the expansion of private funding.
As we all know, these have been especially difficult and
challenging times. While the last few years have provided a very
positive trend related to increased environmental awareness and
giving--the entire landscape has changed in the last six months.
Overall philanthropic giving has taken a sudden dip and environmental
giving is expected to lose resources as funders begin to respond to
more ``human need'' related programs (such as shelters, food banks,
etc.).
With the unanticipated and rapid decline in the economy and also
major changes in the political climate, I believe the way to increase
conservation funding from private sources (corporate, individual, and
foundations) is to:
1. Provide clear prioritization of federal goals and objectives;
and
2. Create incentives to maintain and increase environmental giving
by promoting the partnering of private and federal resources around
common goals.
First, I need to say that I believe strongly that there are many
immediate and high-priority conservation needs. And, more importantly,
I strongly believe there is significant financial giving capacity that
can be harnessed from the corporate community and other philanthropic
funders if the right actions are taken, even in this difficult economy.
As this Subcommittee knows well, the Federal Government continues
to be the largest funder of conservation work throughout the United
States. Congress and the Federal Government oversee much of that
funding directly and other funds are distributed to state fish and
wildlife agencies through federal programs such as the Pittman-
Robertson Act.
The federal dollars are divided among several different agencies
and cover hundreds (if not thousands) of different priorities. This
investment has significant public benefits and positive impacts--on
land, in the sea, and in the air. As a conservationist and father, I
strongly support these efforts.
That said, federal agency expenditures on conservation are also so
broad and diverse, it is incredibly difficult to comprehend exactly
what the Federal Government's overall goal is for such spending. What
are the federal conservation priorities?
For example, many federal statutes require agencies to treat all
issues equally rather than encouraging agencies and conservation
partners to prioritize their efforts around achieving measurable
conservation outcomes. Moreover, across federal agencies--and even
within individual agencies--there are differing conservation goals and
objectives. For private funders, these competing priorities cause
confusion and lead to inaction.
State Wildlife Action Plans have helped to establish priorities at
the state level; however, many of these plans are still quite broad and
don't adequately address conservation issues that cross state
boundaries (e.g., conservation of habitat for migratory species).
Major private funders in conservation tend to be focused on many of
the same funding priorities of the Federal Government. However, often
the programs are not operated as a single effort. While funders in
conservation tend to gravitate towards (not away from) the Federal
Government (largely because of leveraging opportunities), it is my
experience that the federal agencies are either not equipped, not
interested, or otherwise constrained from working with private funders.
Federal Government lacks the necessary culture of ``partnerships.''
Why?
Our experience is that private funders are generally seeking public
partners to leverage their funds, ensure a strong scientific-basis for
their investments, identify strategic priorities, and provide
appropriate oversight to ensure a project achieves the anticipated
results once funding has been initiated.
The Federal Government is an attractive partner because it has
financial resources, but most importantly, it has the ability to
provide planning, science, strategy and certainty of completion.
As Chairman of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), I
oversee an entity that was specifically created by Congress to promote
and fund public-private partnerships. What started as a small
experiment to leverage federal funding for conservation through public-
private partnerships has grown into a highly successful, major catalyst
for conservation action. Since our inception 25 years ago, NFWF has
successfully leveraged nearly $500 million in federal funds into over
$1.5 billion in on-the-ground and in-the-water conservation.
A few recent successes exemplify how NFWF has been able to
establish partnerships among corporations and federal agencies with
great success. For example, NFWF and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently established a partnership
with Covanta Energy, a waste-to-energy company located in the U.S., and
Schnitzer Steel, to pilot a program, Fishing for Energy, through which
fishermen dispose of derelict gear, free of charge, that Covanta in
turn burns to create energy. And the results have been extraordinary;
in one year, the partnership has collected and disposed of over 122
tons of derelict fishing gear from 10 gear collection ports in the
Northeastern United States. Each ton of debris burned produces enough
electricity to power one home for 25 days. That is enough recycled
energy to run a U.S. home for eight years!
In 2008, NFWF also announced a landmark partnership with
ArcelorMittal--the world's largest steel company--to address the ever
increasing pressure on the freshwater ecosystems of the Great Lakes.
The pooled resources of ArcelorMittal and several federal agencies has
facilitated unprecedented coordination of partners and resources to
support projects including habitat improvements for the endangered
piping plover in Michigan, stream corridor restoration in Illinois,
invasive species removal in Wisconsin, and wetland restoration in New
York. With the President's FY 2010 budget request including significant
increases for Great Lakes restoration, the future for partnerships in
the region is very bright.
While we continue to experience a period of growth and success in
bringing new funds to wildlife conservation, we still continue to fail
to fully maximize the potential. Even NFWF (an organization uniquely
positioned and experienced at working with agencies) finds it difficult
to convince agencies to partner with us in order to leverage existing
federal funds with private dollars. Too often, federal agencies opt
instead to do their work alone and only with federal funds.
I am not opposed to the Federal Government as the single funder of
certain efforts--but as an avid conservationist and businessman, I want
to see all potential funds (both public and private) captured and put
on the ground during this time of great environmental need.
We believe there are several untapped opportunities to establish
new partnerships that will expand the base of funding for conservation.
Our own experience this past year working with USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) illustrates some of this potential. Through
the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program, NRCS awards
approximately $20 million annually to support projects that advance
innovative practices and technology to improve stewardship on working
farms and ranches. This program is highly attractive to private funders
as it is geared to ensuring that America maximizes food production
while enhancing environmental protection goals such as minimizing soil
and nutrient runoff, improving wildlife habitat, and reducing water and
energy consumption.
NFWF reached out to several corporations and private foundations
who share an interest in these issues. Based on our initial inquiries,
we were able to identify 6-10 private funders who were excited about
the opportunity to work with NRCS and NFWF to leverage funds and expand
the pool of financial resources to address the high demand for this
program.
We believe there are other existing federal programs that offer
similar opportunities to generate partnerships with interested
corporations and private foundations. It is critical for the federal
government to take full advantage of these partnership opportunities if
we want to achieve measurable progress in restoring healthy populations
of fish and wildlife and their habitats.
I was very pleased to see in recent days statements from Secretary
Salazar regarding his efforts to define a set of conservation
priorities under an initiative dubbed ``America's Treasures.'' While
this initiative has yet to take shape and definition, I am very hopeful
about this opportunity.
As you may be aware, NFWF is scheduled for reauthorization this
coming year. I offer the opportunity to use our reauthorization as a
mechanism for this Subcommittee to consider changes that will
facilitate the kind of effective public private partnerships we have
described today.
I believe efforts to clarify, inspire and focus potential private
support will be very beneficial.
I appreciate your allowing me this time before the Committee. I am
available at the appropriate time to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you again.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Trandahl, for the valuable
contribution of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to
conservation, and for all of the work to develop and implement
innovative public-private partnerships. And your complete
statement will be entered into the record.
To the persons who are standing, you could be seated up
here around the table, if you would like.
Voice. Right here?
Ms. Bordallo. Right here. Some day you may be able to sit
up there.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. I now recognize Dr. Kareiva from the Nature
Conservancy to testify for five minutes.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF PETER KAREIVA, Ph.D.,
CHIEF SCIENTIST, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Kareiva. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for this
opportunity.
The Nature Conservancy, as many of you may know, is the
world's largest conservation organization. And just one
dimension of that is we own and manage over 1400 private nature
sanctuaries. That is a tremendous investment.
And much of my job is geared toward providing scientific
tools and decision support for how to protect that investment
and other natural assets.
And I just want to draw attention to a couple of examples
of these decision-making tools and support. My written
testimony goes into much greater detail.
Let us start with the coastline. Seventy percent of the
world's population lives along the coast, and an equal
percentage of the world's economic activity is in coastal areas
or in delta areas. And these are areas that are at risk from
rising sea level, more extreme storms, and are getting heavily
battered. They are vulnerable. They also are sites of important
habitats and nursing grounds for fisheries.
So, the suite of tools that we develop for these marine
coastlines are to identify what is vulnerable, identify what is
valuable, and very clearly map some of the options and provide
some guidance to the decisions that are before us.
We have two examples of where we have played this out. One
is in the Florida panhandle, where we map wildlife, we map
offshore habitat that could reduce storm surge. We also
actually map vulnerable human communities. And that helps us
establish priorities for actions that would protect nature and
people.
And we don't do any of this alone. A big partner in this is
NOAA and universities.
Another example is the Long Island Sound, where we detail
some of the consequences of sea level rise, and look at
different adaptation strategies, different ways of responding
to that threat, and make clear the choices before us.
So, we don't just do maps of shoreline. The second tool I
want to turn your attention to is what is called the Natural
Capital Project. And this is a partnership where we rely on
cutting-edge science from Stanford University--and I like to
think that we do the cutting-edge implementation of that
science. And again, it is maps, and again, it is decision
support; but it is maps not just of the shoreline, it is maps
of land and water use and infrastructure and energy
development.
And what we do is we economically value ecosystem services.
Things like climate regulation, carbon sequestration, clean
water, timber, agriculture, recreation. We map the landscape,
we map alternative uses of the landscape, and translate it into
cost-benefit analysis. And this has proven to be a very
valuable tool to have when you see the consequences of the
choices that are between us, and to deal with those trade-offs
you mentioned in your opening remarks.
We have applied it in several countries around the world,
and are just beginning to apply these tools in the United
States.
And let me end by making one sort of general point about
these tools. And this is more from my personal experience,
working with these mapping techniques, and working in real
places.
In these times, with water creeping up, storms being more
severe, heat stress, and many of the other stresses we face,
you know, it is hard not to feel enormous anxiety, I guess you
would say.
But we have options. When you look at these maps, what you
see is we do have options. The landscape isn't totally filled.
There is more than one thing we could do. And it is my personal
experience that often the best option is investing in natural
ecosystems. It is the most cost-effective and durable option,
in many cases.
Not always. Not always, for sure. For sure, sometimes are
engineering solutions and alternative solutions. But using
these mapping techniques, looking at what is valuable, what is
vulnerable, and what our options are, I think we could have a
very affective investment strategy for our natural resources
that benefit both the natural ecosystems and our economies, and
people's safety.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kareiva follows:]
Statement of Dr. Peter Kareiva, Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy
I am Peter Kareiva, the Chief Scientist for The Nature Conservancy
(TNC). Prior to taking a position at The Conservancy, I served as
Director of Conservation Biology Division at the Northwest Fisheries
Science lab in Seattle, which is part of NOAA. Prior to working for
NOAA, I was a Professor at University of Washington and had pursued a
twenty year career of research in conservation, agriculture, and
resource management. I have dedicated my scientific career to using
rigorous but practical analysis and synthesis of environmental
information in order to effectively manage and use our lands and
waters. I am here today to talk about the information needs for
resource management in an uncertain world facing climate change and
potential ecosystem degradation. I also want to describe some new
decision-support tools and planning tools that have the potential to
guide future human impacts in a way that provides a sustainable future
for people and our natural assets.
The Nature Conservancy's on-the-ground conservation work is carried
out in all 50 states and in 32 foreign countries and is supported by
approximately one million individual members. The Nature Conservancy
has protected more than 117 million acres of land and 5,000 miles of
river around the world. Our work also includes more than 100 marine
conservation projects in 21 countries and in 22 U.S. states. The
Conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 reserves throughout
the United States--the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in
the world. We use science to protect our investments, to manage our
lands, and to make sure our natural assets will sustainably contribute
to both biodiversity protection and to meeting human needs. To achieve
our goals we routinely partner with government agencies, with other
land trusts, with universities, and with private enterprise. As climate
change has begun to show its impacts on lands and waters, and as the
human footprint grows, we have found our responsibility increasingly
challenging. It is my job as Chief Scientist to provide technical
guidance and leadership so that the Conservancy is able to make smart
decisions about marine, freshwater, and terrestrial conservation and
management. There are two lessons we have learned as we seek to make
sure that people and nature emerge as winners in the face of the many
different and interacting threats to the environment.
1. First, we need to invest in data collection, information
systems and performance measures that allow us to engage in adaptive
management, which is a fancy phrase that means ``learn by doing in as
efficient a way as possible''. There is nothing more essential to
institutional, national, and environmental survival than learning and
improving.
2. Second, we need to create and provide easy access to decision-
support tools that can clarify for the public and decision makers the
tradeoffs inherent in different options. Honest assessments of
tradeoffs will promote informed decisions that in some cases might mean
sacrifices to certain stakeholders, but in other cases could actually
be win-win's for all involved. Particularly needed are tools that help
people to see the economic value of natural assets so that people do
not make foolhardy decisions that at first glance seem like a good
investment, but upon rigorous analysis turn out to be bad ideas.
I will focus in this testimony on concrete examples of tools and
approaches that represent The Conservancy's experience at synthesizing
information for adaptive management and developing decision support
tools. We initiated development of many of these approaches before the
impact of climate change was evident, but now feel a sense of urgency
to improve our approaches given the rapid change and the uncertainty
that the world faces.
Marine Regional Assessments
Over the last 10 years, the Conservancy has worked with a wide
range of stakeholders and partners to complete marine regional
assessments in nearly all U.S. waters and many waters internationally.
Through these assessments, we have integrated databases and developed
maps of the distributions of marine ecosystems, habitats, species, and
human uses for most of the United States. This information, when used
as part of a stake-holder process, provides a foundation to identify
priority areas for conservation, restoration, and management. Examples
of how these integrated data sets have been used range from helping to
identify marine protected areas and no-trawl areas in California to
developing comprehensive fish and wildlife management plans in Oregon
and Florida to partnering with NOAA to assess priority sites for
restoration throughout the country. We have also used regional planning
information to provide guidance on energy siting decisions. We have
shared these data and approaches through workshops, scientific
publications, reports, and websites. Over the last several years, we
have we have worked with partners to expand our conservation decision-
support tools to directly address fishery, coastal hazard, and energy
objectives jointly with conservation objectives. Examples of these
approaches and current products are available at www.marineebm.org. The
key to these mapping tools is identifying a smart mix of fishing,
resource extraction, and nature protection.
Developing Multi-Objective Marine Management Approaches: Adapting to
Protect Human and Natural Communities
One cannot promote fisheries over all other alternatives, just as
one cannot just promote only conservation. The world is not that
simple. Instead resource managers must move from single objective plans
and management (e.g., just conservation or just fish production)
towards approaches that look at the trade-offs among multiple
objectives and services. The aim is to identify solutions that minimize
conflicts and maximize benefits among these multiple objectives and
services. The Conservancy and partners have been developing approaches
for combining fisheries, hazard mitigation, energy siting, and
conservation objectives together into common frameworks.
One of the areas where there are real opportunities for identifying
win-win solutions for human and natural communities is in building
approaches that combine hazard mitigation and biodiversity conservation
in coastal zones. The goal here is to restore coastal ecosystems to
preserve infrastructure and protect human communities. Coastlines have
always been dynamic, but are now more so than ever because of changing
storm patterns and sea level rise, placing human and natural
communities at greater risk. The costs of these hazards to human and
natural communities are increasing as coastal development continues and
natural buffers, such as coastal wetlands and dunes, are lost.
Despite a growing awareness of the reality of these hazards,
communities and local decision makers still have little access to
information on likely changes in storm and flooding risk or tools to
visualize the potential impacts and identify alternative scenarios. As
a consequence, communities are unable to integrate sea level rise and
coastal hazard risk into decision-making regarding natural resource
protection and land use management. This information is needed to
protect human communities from the dramatic changes that are underway.
The Conservancy has contributed to the development of two different
examples of tools and approaches that can help address these services
and objectives jointly in the Florida panhandle (www.marineebm.org/
32.htm) and a more advanced and developing decision support tool for
the southern shores of Long Island (http://www.coastalresilience.org).
The salt marshes, sea-grass beds and oyster reefs of Florida's Gulf
Coast harbor manatees, sea turtles, piping plovers and many other
threatened species, as well as serving as nurseries for economically
important shrimp, crab and red snapper. These habitats also provide
protection from storm surges that accompany hurricanes. Yet strategies
to defend and restore coastal ecosystems--which could simultaneously
assist people and expand habitats for threatened and economically
valuable species--have largely been ignored in favor of engineering
projects (diking, building levees, and hardening the coastline) that
accelerate erosion and habitat loss. Working with scientists from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, TNC recently combined
maps of critical habitats and threatened species in the Florida
Panhandle with maps of anticipated storm surges and of human
communities most physically and socio-economically vulnerable to storm
damage. By overlaying these data sets, they were able to identify areas
in which restoration should simultaneously protect the most vulnerable
human populations as well as many of the area's most important species.
On the south shore of Long Island, we have developed an interactive
web mapping tool to explore flooding scenarios from sea level rise and
storm surge for the south shore of Long Island, New York. The aim of
the project is to support evidence-based decision making to better
understand the risks to human and natural communities from climate
change and to inform management options. The website (http://
www.coastalresilience.org) presents IPCC climate scenarios for flooding
from sea level rise and storms and identifies some of their ecological,
social, and economic impacts using models developed by NOAA and FEMA.
We have incorporated management options such as the creation of buffers
into the map server and there will be a full policy options report (and
web summary) from the Pace University Land Use Law Center forthcoming.
This interactive web-tool includes a set of alternative future
scenarios that will help decision-makers keep the environment and
public safety in mind as sea levels rise and coastal hazards increase.
A wide range of partners across academia, government, and non profits
are directly included in this effort. The partners include TNC, NOAA,
NASA-Goddard, Association of State Floodplain managers (running FEMA
models), University of California Santa Barbara, and University of
Southern Mississippi, among others. There is a compelling need to
expand this approach to the entire U.S. coastline. This is crucial to
environmental protection and environmental justice.
Marine mapping and spatial planning: Key Points & Advice
The Conservancy has worked on marine regional plans for more than
10 years and with partners--including NOAA, EPA, USFWS, and many state
agencies (e.g., Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)--has completed more than 15
regional plans around the U.S. and internationally. You cannot manage
marine habitats and ecosystems if you don't know where they are and for
most coastal ecosystems, decent maps of even habitat distribution do
not exist. In New York, the maps that are currently used for statewide
salt marsh management are from 1974. In the Gulf of Mexico, the
distribution of oyster reefs was better document in the 1880s than it
is today. The technology for mapping habitats nearshore is becoming
quick and cheap and a concerted investment in this sort of mapping will
have a high payoff. There is not a lot of sense in having comprehensive
spatial management tools if the base of information does not exist.
In addition to the need for multi-objective plans described
earlier, a second key element for the future of marine spatial
management is in interactive decision support. We at TNC think the
future is not in the prioritization tools per se but in our ability to
examine alternative management scenarios interactively with
stakeholders. The interactive decision support shown at www.marinemap
and www.coastalresilience.org are two examples of useful approaches for
the future. There is no one right answer to how to jointly manage the
needs of natural and human communities. Interactive and scenario based
tools allow stakeholders to examine alternatives and identify
approaches.
There is no common database(s) or clearinghouse for marine
information to be used in decision making. There does not need to be
just one common framework and database for marine information, but a
common framework would serve us all well. For example, we support the
efforts to develop a multipurpose marine cadastre.
Methods and tools that help us manage freshwater systems for people and
nature
Human alterations to natural stream and river flow patterns take a
serious toll on the plants, animals, and freshwater ecosystems that
people depend on. Environmental flows are the amount and timing of
water flows required to maintain healthy freshwater ecosystems and
their benefits to human communities. A well-managed water resource is
appropriately allocated to people's immediate needs and to
environmental flows. Conservancy scientists have pioneered the field of
environmental flows and developed tools that help water managers
understand how much water a river needs in each season as well as
across years to support important ecological functions and
biodiversity. We have developed Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration, a
software program that provides useful information for those trying to
understand the hydrologic impacts of human activities or trying to
develop environmental flow recommendations for water managers. We have
also collaborated with the U.S. Army Corps on Engineers on a software
program called the Regime Prescription Tool (HEC-RPT) to assist in the
development of ecologically sustainable recommendations for dam
operations.
We are also developing specific tools that assess the effect of
land use changes on freshwater ecosystems. In particular, Water for
Tomorrow, a web-based tool being developed in partnership with IBM,
will provide a modeling and visualization platform to allow users to
assess the water and sediment yields of a landscape from current and
projected scenarios of land cover. This project is set to conclude in
April of 2010, resulting in a free-standing and broadly accessible
product.
From The Conservancy's perspective, society is at a crossroads in
water management and freshwater conservation. If society chooses to
continue as it has, the health of our freshwater ecosystems will
continue to decline at an alarming rate. But we can choose a different
path, one which addresses human and ecosystem needs for water, one in
which critical water quantity patterns are protected along with water
quality. Capitalizing upon this opportunity, The Conservancy is
contributing to the development of two certification programs that will
promote sustainable water use, dam planning and operations, and
catalyze the engagement of corporate leaders, water utilities and the
hydropower industry. Please go to http://
allianceforwaterstewardship.org/ for more information about one of
these efforts.
Valuing Natural Capital in order to make smart decision about
development, infrastructure, and land or water use
Long ago The Conservancy realized that the world is not divided
into pro-environment and anti-environment. Rather, everyone seeks a
better world and the trick is to have tools that help us see the
consequences of our decisions with as complete a cost-benefit analysis
as possible. As a partnership with Stanford University and World
Wildlife Fund, we have developed spatially explicit mapping and
valuation tools, called InVEST (see http://
www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html). The motivation for this
approach is simple: relative to other forms of capital, assets embodied
in ecosystems are often poorly understood, scarcely monitored, and
undergoing rapid degradation. Often the benefits that natural
ecosystems deliver to humans are recognized only upon their loss. For
example, Hurricane Katrina brought broader recognition of the
importance of coastal ecosystems in dissipating the energy of large
waves that occur during storms. Natural capital and the ``ecosystem
services'' that flow from nature are typically undervalued--by
governments, businesses, and the public--if indeed they are considered
at all.
Two fundamental changes need to occur to replicate, scale up, and
sustain the pioneering efforts underway to give ecosystem services
weight in decisions. First, the science of ``ecosystem services'' (the
delivery of benefits from natural ecosystems to humans) needs to be
advanced rapidly. In promising a return on investments in nature, the
scientific community needs to deliver knowledge and tools to quantify
and forecast this return. Second, ecosystem services must be explicitly
and systematically integrated into decision-making by individuals,
corporations and governments. Without these advances, the value of
nature will remain little more than an interesting idea captured in
small, scattered, and idiosyncratic efforts.
The tool we have been developing (InVEST) is a suite of models that
uses land use and land cover patterns to estimate levels and economic
values of ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, and market
value of commodities provided by the landscape. Examples of the
ecosystem services and commodity production that InVEST can model
include water quality, water provision for irrigation and hydropower,
storm peak mitigation, soil conservation, carbon sequestration,
pollination, cultural and spiritual values, recreation and tourism,
timber and non-timber forest products, agricultural products, and
residential property value. InVEST can be run at different levels of
complexity, making it sensitive to data availability and an
understanding of system dynamics. Results can be reported in either
biophysical or monetary terms, depending on the needs of decision-
makers and availability of data. We have been applying InVEST in
Hawaii, California, Washington State, China, and Colombia. This
approach has already proven to be influential with decision-makers and
has brought a common currency to bear on discussions among private
enterprise, government, and environmental groups regarding development
projects and land use.
Synthesis and Presentation of Environmental and Resource Information
When you work internationally as I do, you quickly realize we in
the USA have the best data and best information on soils, topography,
land cover, stream flows, climate data and so forth anywhere in the
world. We could also have the best data on ecological processes and
biodiversity with modest increases in investment. But we do not get the
full benefit of our information advantage. Information on something as
critical as climate change, past and future, is not readily accessible
to decision makers or land and water-use planners. It is for this
reason that TNC scientists have begun to develop a tool called
``Climatewizard'' (see www.climatewiz.org) that allows one to pick any
state in the USA or any country in the world and get records of past
temperature and precipitation trends as well as future projections
under different scenarios.
There is so much environmental and ecological information out
there, that decision-makers and the public get overwhelmed. For that
matter, even scientific experts can be overwhelmed. There are two tiers
of information and data synthesis needed. One tier concerns the simple
tools The Conservancy has been using. Importantly, one must understand
the limitations and biases of those tools. For that reason serious
scientific research aimed at modeling and synthesis across disparate
datasets (such a population distribution, wealth, climate
vulnerability, freshwater flows, and biodiversity) are essential. Much
of The Conservancy's success at developing practical tools is due to a
``hidden'' support base of analysis by researchers at universities, and
especially the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
(see http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/). The nation desperately needs centers
such as NCEAS. NCEAS has supported resource management and conservation
around the world through its synthesis of environmental data and
development of prototype models that resource management institutions
can then tailor to everyday practical decisions.
We live in a time of rapid population growth, dramatic climate
disruption, economic stress, and critical resource decisions. In spite
of these challenges we still have many options. In the United States we
have vast areas of intact ecosystems and some of the world's cleanest
rivers. Energy development, coastal development, infrastructure
development, agriculture and forestry can be done smartly in a way that
gives us a sustainable future. But this will happen only with science-
based decision-support tools, easy access to wide-ranging datasets,
institutions that support synthesis and analysis, and monitoring of the
environment in critically vulnerable regions. By combining climate
change models with models of ecosystem services and human vulnerability
it is possible to pinpoint sentinel sites for the monitoring of our
national well-being. While The Conservancy can help develop practical
tools, we cannot collect the early-warning data that the nation needs.
We encourage the nation to invest in sentinel sites that track changes
in our most vulnerable ecosystems. To do otherwise would be
irresponsible. Moreover, as we develop the information systems and
decision-support models, we can lead the world ``other nations are
hungry for the tools that we are developing.
Access to data and easy-to use decision support tools are the keys
to smart choices about our future. We know how to do this--we need only
to invest in expanding these efforts.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Kareiva. Your work
in developing important applied tools is very encouraging.
And our next witness that will speak to us is Mr. Thompson
from Stanford University. Mr. Thompson, the floor is yours.
Please begin.
STATEMENT OF BARTON H. THOMPSON, JR., PERRY L. McCARTY
DIRECTOR, WOODS INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, STANFORD
UNIVERSITY, AND ROBERT E. PARADISE PROFESSOR OF NATURAL
RESOURCES LAW, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL
Mr. Thompson. Madame Chair and Members of the Committee,
thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today.
There are multiple challenges that are currently facing our
efforts for oceans and wildlife. Climate change, competition
from a growing set of land uses, including alternative energy
development, reduced funding levels; all of these will require
a shift in the character of the agencies that are responsible
for the management of our oceans and land, and the laws that
are underpinning them.
Today, separate agencies often manage separate sectors,
sometimes with minimal coordination. In the oceans area, for
example, one agency will manage the marine reserves, another
agency will manage oil and gas development. We have something
in the nature of 20 different agencies that are responsible for
management in the Federal oceans, and additional ones on the
state side.
Today, most agencies focus on current needs and demands,
and don't necessarily have to plan ahead for future challenges.
In administering some laws, such as the Endangered Species Act,
Federal agencies are inevitably crisis-driven.
Today, conservation statutes generally do not admit trade-
offs among species.
Today, managerial actions are largely static. Today,
management decisions tend to focus on relatively small, and
sometimes isolated, areas, not on broad ecological regions.
Today, the funding that agencies have to undertake their
responsibilities is often inadequate.
The nature of the new challenges that are facing
conservation efforts will require change.
In the future, agencies with overlapping geographical
jurisdictions will need to coordinate, both to minimize
conflicts between competing uses, and also to maximize
protection.
In the future, agencies will need to be more proactive in
anticipating the impacts of climate change, and also competing
uses.
In the future, conservation agencies may need to engage in
triage, and recognize that some species inevitably will
disappear.
In the future, planning will need to be more comprehensive,
and in particular, focused on the creation of an integrated
network of reserves.
In the future, agencies will need to make greater use of
adaptive management. And unfortunately, in the future, agencies
will have to accomplish even more, with actually fewer
resources.
These changes may, in some cases, require modification of
existing laws, or the adoption of new laws.
In your letter of invitation to me, you asked for my views
on the priorities for creating new legal frameworks.
Thankfully, current laws provide significant discretion to
existing agencies to accomplish many of the things that they
need to do in the face of the challenges that you are
examining. However, there are probably two priority areas that
you may wish to review.
The first is to see whether or not there is currently
adequate authorization for the creation of integrated networks
of reserves on both land and water, that are climate-aware.
The second area would be to examine current laws to see
whether or not there exists an adequate system at the moment
for coordinating among the multiple Federal agencies with
responsibilities over activities on Federal lands and oceans,
and for proactive planning on how to utilize such lands.
There is reason, I think, for optimism. You already have a
sizable number of laws that provide a foundation for agencies
to do again what they will need to do in the future to address
climate change, a growing number of competing uses, and reduced
funding. As you will hear from the other witnesses, there are
emerging tools to manage these various challenges.
With that, I will submit my written testimony, and look
forward to your questions.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Statement of Barton H. Thompson, Jr., Perry L. McCarty Director, Woods
Institute for the Environment, Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural
Resources Law, Stanford University
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
inviting me to testify before you today on this important subject. My
name is Barton Thompson. I am one of the two directors of Stanford
University's Woods Institute for the Environment, which brings together
over 300 faculty members at the university to help develop practical
solutions to sustainability challenges. I am also a professor of law at
Stanford University and have extensive experience with many of the laws
under your jurisdiction. I serve on the board of several land trusts
and foundations supporting land and marine conservation. I am
testifying today in my individual capacity.
My testimony will focus on the institutional needs for protecting
ocean and wildlife resources in the face of climate change and other
emerging challenges. In particular, what types of governmental
institutions, programs, and processes will be needed for effective
protection?
The good news is that current Congressional legislation already
provides many of the management tools and much of the authority and
discretion that the government will need to address climate change and
other emerging challenges in the coming decades. Many key federal
agencies, moreover, have already begun to use their authority to
develop programs and strategies for addressing the challenges. The
United States Geological Survey, for example, has created the National
Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center to project climate impacts,
help federal agencies develop effective adaptation strategies, and
collaborate in developing new tools. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
has developed a draft Climate Change Strategic Plan for the 21st
Century, in which it commits to developing a National Fish and Wildlife
Adaptation Strategy.
To provide effective protection, however, the federal government
will need to (1) adopt new management approaches focused on creating
effective networks of land and ocean reserves and on adapting over time
to climate change; (2) collect, analyze, and use information regarding
the state of, and trends in, land and marine species and ecosystems in
the face of climate change; and (3) coordinate and collaborate more
actively among themselves and with state managers, conservation
organizations, private landowners, and other local stakeholders.
Resource managers may also need to establish priorities in attempting
to conserve species, recognizing that some species will be more
difficult than others to protect in the future. These additional steps
may require new authorizing and guiding legislation and almost
certainly will require new resources. Given the increased conservation
effort that is likely to be required in the future, all levels of
government will want to look for new ways of reducing the cost of
conservation efforts (e.g., by finding ways of conserving species on
farms, ranches, and other ``working landscapes'' that also produce an
economic profit) and identify new potential funding sources (e.g., by
turning to those who benefit from the ecosystem services often provided
by effective conservation).
I. Emerging Challenges
In prior sessions of Congress, the Subcommittee has already heard
testimony on the emerging challenges to protection of fish and wildlife
resources and ecological services. A quick overview of these challenges
is important, however, because they form the basis for determining what
institutional changes may be necessary.
The potential pressures from climate change head the list of
challenges. No matter what mitigation measures the United States
chooses to adopt, the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
have substantial lag time and are predicted to impact fish and wildlife
for decades to come through changes in temperature, water availability,
wildfires, sea level, ocean acidification, and pests. Scientists
predict that, in North America, temperature rise will shift the range
of many species northward and to higher altitudes. A growing number of
studies indicate that recent temperature rises have already begun to
affect the ranges and migration patterns of species in the United
States and globally. Scientific studies also suggest that ocean fish
populations will be affected both by continuing increases in water
temperature and decreases in recovery periods as extreme events occur
more frequently.
One of the most troubling aspects of climate change for managers of
fish and wildlife is the high level of uncertainty involved.
Uncertainty regarding the level of climate change that will occur is
compounded by uncertainty regarding the impact of that change on
ecosystems and the fish and wildlife that inhabit them. Many scientists
believe that the nation is facing a ``no analog'' future for fish and
wildlife: current ecosystems will disassemble as species try to adjust
to climate change, and then reform into new assemblies.
Land and ocean ecosystems also face new competing interests.
Important efforts at energy development, in particular, may create new
pressures on fish and wildlife. Both the new administration and the
111th Congress have announced that alternative energy development will
be a priority. Land managers will need to coordinate projects to
develop solar, wind, geothermal, and other energy sources with
potentially conflicting conservation objectives. Ocean managers will
need to coordinate protection of fish and ocean ecosystems with
increased interest in liquefied natural gas facilities, renewable
energy projects involving wave and tidal energy, and coastal
aquaculture, as well as potentially with new oil and gas operations.
Government agencies and private conservation organizations,
moreover, will need to protect ocean and wildlife resources in the face
of more limited resources. State managers are already facing reduced
conservation budgets both because of reduced tax revenues and a fall-
off in new bond measures that have historically supported conservation
efforts in many states. Private conservation organizations are affected
not only by these same revenue declines, but also by a reduction in
private donations.
II. Ensuring that Institutions Are Up to the Challenges
Existing laws and institutions designed to protect fish and
wildlife will remain central to addressing the challenges outlined
above. One of the most important steps in helping species adapt to
climate change, for example, will be to reduce the other stresses that
the species face--e.g., habitat loss and fragmentation, over-
utilization, pollution, and invasive species. Reducing these other
stresses can increase natural resistance and resilience to climate
change. A limited number of studies also suggest that climate change
can exacerbate other stresses. Changes in water flows, for example,
might worsen the impact of water pollution. To the degree that current
programs to address non-climate stresses are successful, therefore, the
affected species are more likely to survive climate change. And because
many of these stresses are local and discrete, they will often be
easier to address than climate change.
In looking beyond current programs, however, eight considerations
are important in designing new institutions, programs, and tools. It is
important to emphasize that, because the need to adapt to climate
change is a new challenge, there is little experience upon which to
directly draw in divining best practices for ocean and wildlife
management. Scientific studies of how species respond to climate
impacts and experience with similar challenges, however, can provide
useful initial guidance.
1. Proactively Incorporate Climate Considerations into Management
Programs and Plans
First, government conservation managers should use the best
information available regarding the potential future impacts of climate
change on ecosystems and species to proactively seek to protect those
ecosystems and species. Many of the nation's current laws are focused
on ``crisis management,'' protecting species that are already in
trouble from immediate threats, rather than anticipating and avoiding
future problems. Where management takes place in a crisis setting,
management agencies generally have only limited options, and conflicts
with various stakeholders are more likely. To the extent the government
can identify at an early stage climate-vulnerable species, the habitat
that they may need to survive, and steps that can reduce the impact of
climate change on the species, the government is likely to be more
effective in protecting the species and to avoid the need either to
ultimately list the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or
engage in other forms of crisis management.
Once a species is listed under the ESA, the Act appears to give the
Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) significant authority to proactively address
climate-related threats to the species. Section 4(a)(ii), for example,
appears to allow these agencies to designate as ``critical habitat''
areas that will be essential future habitat for the species in light of
climate change, even though the areas are not currently occupied by the
species. Under the recent decision in NRDC v. Kempthorne, 506 F.Supp.2d
322 (E.D.Cal. 2007), the agencies must also consider the effects of
climate change in jeopardy consultations (at least where the effects
are ``reasonably certain to occur'' and ``reasonably expected'' to
jeopardize the relevant species). In evaluating the adequacy of habitat
conservation plans (HCPs) under section 10, the agencies would appear
to be authorized to require that the HCPs address ``reasonably
foreseeable'' risks from climate change.
The regulatory provisions of the ESA, however, were not designed to
address uncertain future threats such as climate change and therefore
are not sufficient to provide the type of proactive management that is
likely to be needed. First, the ESA covers only species that are
already endangered or threatened (i.e., are already at a crisis stage).
Second, many provisions of the Act can be used only awkwardly, at best,
to provide proactive management. Section 9, for example, applies only
to land modifications that pose proximate and foreseeable harm to
endangered species, making it very difficult to regulate land uses that
pose threats to likely future habitat or to important corridors.
Finally, even where the ESA permits some degree of proactive management
as described above, the level of uncertainty involved in predicting the
future range and needs of listed species may frequently make it
impossible to meet the Act's standards.
Although federal laws would appear to provide the Fish & Wildlife
Service and NOAA with the authority to proactively manage federal areas
under their jurisdiction for the risks of climate change, neither
agency has historically engaged in such planning. The National Wildlife
Refuge System, for example, lacks a system-level proactive planning
program for climate change. The management of federal marine reserves
also does not currently incorporate projected impacts from climate
change. Both agencies, however, have begun to consider how to
incorporate climate change into their missions.
The federal government might consider several proactive steps in
addressing climate change. First, in establishing new land or ocean
reserves, the government could consider what areas will be most
important in light of likely climate impacts. New refuges might focus
on what scientists often refer to as ``refugia,'' which are areas that
will probably be less affected by climate change and therefore safe
havens for climate-sensitive migrants or sources of ``seeds'' that can
be transplanted elsewhere. For example, marine protected areas might
focus on areas where upwelling reduces thermal stress. New refuges
might also focus on establishing current or future havens for species
that are likely to be most vulnerable in other locations to climate
change impacts.
Second, governmental agencies could incorporate climate change
projections into their management plans for existing reserves. As
mentioned earlier, the Fish & Wildlife Service has already begun to
examine this option. Finally, the national government could develop new
incentive systems and other programs to encourage the conservation of
private lands that are likely to be essential for the future survival
of species in the face of climate change, either as refugia or as the
destination of migrating species.
2. Consider ``Resilience,'' ``Replication,'' and ``Connectivity.'' in
the Creation and Management of Reserves
A related goal in establishing new reserves or conservation
programs, and in managing existing ones, should be to maximize the
probability that the reserves will protect species over the long run in
the face of climate change. In discussing what types of reserve system
are likely to do so, scientists often talk in terms of ``resilience,''
``replication,'' and ``connectivity.'' Resilience refers to the ability
of an ecosystem or species to resist shocks or surprises and to
revitalize or repair itself if damaged. Scientists believe that
ecosystems with high biodiversity will more easily recover from climate
impacts. As mentioned earlier, reserves that are not under other
stresses are also likely to be more resilient to climate change.
Replication emphasizes the importance of creating a reserve system that
includes multiple examples of key species or ecosystem so that, if
species die out in one area, the species might still survive in another
and provide a long-term source for recolonization. Finally,
``connectivity'' emphasizes the importance of providing connections
between reserves both so that species can move from one reserve to
another in response to climate change and so that species that survive
in one area can naturally recolonize another.
A variety of governmental agencies and private conservation groups
around the world are already utilizing these concepts to design reserve
systems that are more likely to resist or recover from climate impacts.
In the Florida Keys, for example, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has
created a Florida Reef Resilience Program to try to enhance the
probability that coral reefs will survive climate change and other
impacts. TNC is growing multiple coral genotypes at different locations
along the reef and studying their survival. This in-place experiment
will provide important knowledge about the genetic and geographic
determinants of reef resilience and provide the basis for the
selection, creation, and management of more resilient reserves in the
face of climate change. The Australian government has adopted a Climate
Change Action Plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park that also
focuses on protecting those areas with high resilience (as determined
by such factors as water quality, coral cover, community composition,
larval supply, recruitment success). In their work in the Australian
Central Desert, TNC and the Australian Wildlife Conservancy are focused
on creating connections between protected lands in order to maximize
the probability of successful migration of species when necessary for
survival.
These experiences, along with scientific studies, suggest again a
number of considerations for improving the effectiveness of
conservation laws and practice in the United States. First, focus on
the creation of networks of effective protected areas, rather than on
the creation of a portfolio of separate sites. The nation's current
system of wildlife refuges, for example, largely consists of a number
of separate sites that are often small, located in altered landscapes
(and thus subject to significant external stresses), and incompletely
representing imperiled species. The system would likely be more
effective in the face of climate change if it consisted of a network of
interrelated, resilient reserves. To the degree possible, the network
would replicate critical ecosystems and species and would be connected
by corridors permitting species to migrate northward or upward in
response to climate change. Where possible, the network would include
reserves along climate gradients, in order to ensure effective
migration in response to climate change.
Creation of a network of marine protected areas would also be
valuable in protecting the oceans against the impacts of climate
change. In an ideal world, the network would protect a full range of
habitat and community types, and include areas of apparent resilience
(e.g., reefs that still have high coral cover). The network would also
ensure that the individual reserves were connected by taking into
account currents, larval dispersal, and the movement of adults. Much
like a diverse stock portfolio can reduce financial risk in normal
economic conditions (albeit not today), such a network would also
reduce risk to marine ecosystems and species from climate change.
A number of governments have created or are developing effective
systems of marine reserves. The Australian government has created a
network of marine reserves as part of its Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park. In the United States, California is currently developing a system
of marine reserves in an even larger geographic areas, the state's
entire coastline, under its Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA).
Current laws in the United States would appear to provide adequate
authority for the creation of such reserves. In practice, however,
absent legislative directive, most reserves have been established on an
individual basis rather than as part of a more comprehensive and
strategic network. California's creation of a network of marine
reserves has been advanced by (1) explicit legislation calling for the
creation of such reserves (the MLPA), (2) the establishment of
deadlines for the creation of such reserves, and (3) the creation of an
institutional structure, including science advisory teams and regional
stakeholder groups, to advice in the design and selection of the
reserves.
Second, to the extent possible, reserves should minimize stresses
on protected species from outside activities. Where practical, wildlife
reserves should be surrounded by buffer zones that minimize stress from
adjacent land uses. Wildlife refuges should also have adequate water
supplies. Many refuges today have only limited jurisdiction or
authority over needed water. For this reason, the Fish & Wildlife
Service's draft strategic plan emphasizes the need to work with other
governmental agencies and water users to ensure water resources of
adequate quantity and quality. Marine reserves also can benefit from
buffer areas. Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park provides for
buffering, and a new proposal in California would ``zone'' the coastal
waters in part to ensure that uses adjacent to marine protected areas
are compatible with the protection.
3. Provide for Flexibility and Adaptation
The uncertainty surrounding the impact of climate change on oceans
and wildlife calls for flexibility and adaptive management in response
to climate change over time. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is
effective in part, for example, because the flexibility of its
management plans have permitted adjustments in the face of new
information. The marine park has established a variety of tools to
which it can turn as soon as new information becomes available showing
the need for the tools, ensuring that managers can respond rapidly and
responsively to ongoing changes.
Many of the existing conservation laws in the United States would
seem to allow for, or in some cases explicitly call for, flexibility
and adaptive management in the face of climate change. Section 7 of the
ESA, for example, provides that agencies must reinitiate consultations
if ``new information reveals effects of the action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent nor
previously considered.'' The laws governing the National Wildlife
Refuge System would appear to give the Fish and Wildlife Service
substantial latitude to manage the system adaptively.
In practice, however, adaptive management is only infrequently
utilized. In some situations, the law does not provide adequate
flexibility. Some wildlife refuges established by presidential
proclamation, for example, have very specific purposes that limit
flexibility. Section 7 of the ESA provides for reinitiations of
consultation only where the affected federal agency has retained
discretion over the covered action. In the case of private land trusts,
federal tax laws require the creation of perpetual conservation
easements that may be difficult to modify in response to climate
change. In other cases, both the flexibility and authority needed to
engage in adaptive management might exist but there is no requirement
that it be utilized. Even where section 7 of the ESA provides for the
reinitiation of consultations in the face of relevant new information,
for example, there is no affirmative obligation to seek out new
information.
A number of practical considerations often discourage the use of
adaptive management where it is not required. First, the flexibility of
adaptive management can conflict with the degree of certainty that is
often demanded both (1) by private landowners and other commercial
interests whose actions may be affected by management changes, and (2)
by conservationists seeking to ensure protection. As a result, property
owners and other commercial stakeholders often oppose the use of
adaptive management and have no incentive to provide new information
that might lead to the adoption of new management measures. As
illustrated by the recent decision in NRDC v. Kempthorne, courts may
worry that adaptive management measures are too open ended and
insufficiently certain to provide effective management. Efforts such as
the Fish & Wildlife Service's ``no surprises'' policy can reduce
uncertainty for property owners but, in the view of some environmental
organizations, only at the cost of threatening to undermine the
agency's use of its adaptive discretion. Second, the legal focus on
``final agency action'' may also indirectly discourage agencies from
engaging in adaptive management. NEPA, the Administrative Procedure
Act, and specific conservation laws all emphasize finality, and the
process required to develop a final agency action may tend to lock such
actions into place.
Limited resources also restrict the use of adaptive management.
Most conservation agencies have little funding and other resources
available to engage in monitoring and the development of iterative
actions. Management agencies also often lack the metrics needed to
implement adaptive management.
The effective use of adaptive management to address climate change
may therefore require explicit Congressional directive and support. New
incentive systems may also need to be created to reduce stakeholder
opposition to climate change. Some studies, for example, have urged the
creation of economic incentives to encourage permittees under section
10 of the ESA to provide information regarding species on their
property that could call for adaptive measures.
4. Develop & Use Adequate Information & Science
In order to implement the above approaches, governmental agencies
need significant new science and information, including:
Models that can predict, at regional and local levels,
the likely impacts of climate change on fish and wildlife. Such models
are critical to proactive management, the creation of effective reserve
networks, and identifying adaptive measures.
Baseline data on current ranges and distributions of
species. This data is again important in all of the approaches
described above.
Monitoring of ecosystems and species over time. Important
data can include ranges, distributions, abundance, changes in
phenology, arrival and departure times of migrants, flowering dates for
plants, and emergence dates for insects. Such monitoring data is
critical to effective adaptive management and to determining what
management approaches are likely to work in the future. Such data can
also be used to help inform the public and relevant stakeholders about
the impacts that climate change is having on oceans and wildlife.
Governmental agencies and other conservation groups also can benefit
from more robust and comprehensive exchanges of information regarding
the effectiveness of various measures to address climate change.
Significant work is still needed on all of these fronts. The
National Research Council, for example, has concluded that climate
change predictions are still relatively poor at both the regional and
local scales. Few conservation agencies have either substantial
baseline data or monitoring programs. Studies of HCPs, for example,
have concluded that few HCPs have well-developed and statistically-
valid monitoring programs. (Due to cost and for the reasons discussed
in the last section, moreover, land owners oppose significant
monitoring requirements.) Although the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act requires the Fish & Wildlife Service to monitor the
status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge, the
service's budget has not kept up with the needed work. While a large
percentage of refuges have presence information regarding relevant bird
species, for example, many have no information regarding seasonal
presence or abundance.
Effective management in the face of climate change could therefore
benefit from support for several new scientific efforts. First is the
development of new models of regional and local impacts from climate
change that could aid in the development of simulation maps and other
tools for predicting ecological changes in response to climate change.
Second is an inventory of the existing ranges and abundances of at-risk
species in order to establish a baseline against which management
actions can be planned and evaluated. Third are nationally coordinated
monitoring systems that can be used by management agencies to gauge the
success of management measures and decide on needed adaptive measures.
The Fish & Wildlife Service in its draft strategic plan calls
explicitly for a National Biological Inventory and Monitoring
Partnership. The final effort is a national interagency climate-change
information network that can exchange information on successful and
unsuccessful management efforts.
Efforts to collect new information can build off of existing
efforts, such as NOAA's Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrated Observing
System (CREIOS) and the USGS's National Phenology Network. In many
cases, efforts to inventory and monitor species may be able to enlist
community volunteers. A privately-supported example is the Reef Check
program that uses community volunteers to collect coral reef monitoring
data to supplement scientific and governmental data.
5. Integrate Across Institutions & Geographic Areas
Climate change and other emerging challenges to the effective
management of oceans and wildlife are likely to require greater
management integration across geographic areas and management
institutions. As discussed earlier, addressing climate change may
require large networks of protected areas, including corridors for
moving between areas. Existing governmental reserves tend to be
relatively small and, on land, embedded in a matrix of private land
ownership. Such fragmentation restricts the ability of the government
to address changing dynamics. Even if we started from scratch to create
reserve networks, moreover, no single agency or private conservation
group would be likely by itself to be able to create an optimal
network. And today coordination among agencies may be more practical
and efficient than significant expansion of individual reserve systems.
Other groups also frequently have control over potential external
stresses. Water supplies for national wildlife refuges, for example,
are often under the control of water agencies such as the Army Corps of
Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation, rather than the Fish & Wildlife
Service.
A number of groups, ranging from the Fish & Wildlife Service to the
Western Governors' Association, have therefore called for national and
regional task forces or partnerships to help bring together national,
state, and local agencies, as well as private conservation groups and
landowners, to address climate change on a more comprehensive basis.
Although agencies and other groups probably have the authority to enter
into such partnerships already, Congress might be able to help promote
and speed the formation of such partnerships through explicit
legislation and funding. Conservation partnerships could have multiple
purposes, including coordinating conservation actions, building
essential connectivity among reserves, reducing local stresses, and
protecting needed water resources. Such partnerships can build on
existing partnership or funding programs (such as the Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program or the State Wildlife Grants program), although
Congress might wish to rationalize these programs into a more
integrated system rather than simply building haphazardly on top of
existing programs.
Greater integration among agencies can also help in addressing the
increasing conflicts between energy and conservation uses both on land
and in the oceans. Different agencies have authority over various
commercial uses of land and oceans and over conservation efforts. These
differing agencies also tend to have conflicting missions, policies,
and programs, and they are used to having sole responsibility over the
activities under their jurisdiction. Effective coordination of
activities is therefore often exceptionally difficult.
A recent study of conflicts in the use of California's territorial
waters examined a variety of options for resolving such conflicts among
state agencies and creating an effective system for managing competing
ocean activities. (See Deborah A. Sivas & Margaret R. Caldwell, A New
Vision for California Ocean Governance: Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based
Marine Zoning, 27 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 209 (2008).) The least radical
option was to legislatively create a common set of management
principles that all agencies would need to consider and follow in
carrying out their management responsibilities. At the more radical end
of the spectrum, the legislature could create a master management plan
to be implemented by a single agency. Intermediate options would allow
existing agencies to maintain their current management jurisdictions
but subject them to varying levels of oversight and review by a
``master agency.'' The study ultimately concluded that a balance was
needed between protection of existing jurisdictions (given the
significant expertise that existing agencies have developed over time)
and the need for establishing a coordinated management regime among the
agencies.
6. Be Willing to Consider the Necessity of Triage
Scientific discussions have begun to suggest that triage might be
needed in protecting oceans and wildlife in an age of climate change.
Some species may not be able to adjust to climate change. For example,
species such as the Devil's Hole pupfish, which lives in a single cave
in Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Nevada, may not be able to
adjust to change. Climate change, moreover, may quickly overburden the
abilities of conservation agencies to respond.
Some governmental agencies have already begun to prioritize actions
based on the chances of success. In a recent report, for example, the
Tahoe National Forest stated that it has decided not to engage in some
projects that might not succeed due to climate change--e.g., trying to
restore salmon in rivers that are not likely to provide suitable future
habitat.
Most conservation laws, however, including the ESA, appear to
demand action in the face of jeopardy and do not appear to allow for
consideration of feasibility. Agencies, moreover, have little
experience with explicit tradeoffs. Congress, therefore, may need to
provide guidance to federal agencies on how to deal with species that
cannot be effectively protected or protected only with great difficulty
in a time of limited resources. Should resources be spent, for example,
under the ESA in developing recovery plans for non-recoverable species?
One policy option for dealing with this issue would be to focus
attention on ecosystem-based management rather than on single species
and seek to support long-term species diversity.
7. Seek Methods for Reducing Costs
Given the sizable task of trying to protect oceans and wildlife in
the face of climate change, governmental agencies at all level will
need to find methods of reducing the costs of conservation measures.
Land conservation managers, for example, might where possible consider
the feasibility of carrying out management measures (such as the
creation of corridors) on farms, ranches, and other working landscapes
before seeking to establish non-use reserves. Allowing the use of land
while promoting conservation can reduce the costs of the conservation.
Conservation agencies might similarly look to relatively liberal
easements (with consequently lower price tags) where appropriate before
considering fee acquisitions of property. In all of these cases,
federal agencies would seem to have the general authority to consider
lower cost options, although agency culture or specific Congressional
mandates might present an obstacle.
8. Look for New Funding Sources
Finally, governmental agencies at all levels, as well as private
conservation organizations, could obviously benefit from new funding
sources. As earlier discussion suggests, conservation in the face of
climate change is likely to be expensive. One potential source of
funding could be ecosystem service markets in which the beneficiaries
of ecosystem services help pay for conservation measures that protect
those services. Existing ecosystem service markets tend to be
relatively small and localized (with the exception of the emerging
carbon sequestration market), and the degree to which more significant
markets will arise is questionable.
Efforts to quantify and value ecosystem service markets, however,
can be helpful here. The Natural Capital Project (a collaboration among
Stanford, The Nature Conservancy, and WWF) is one of several groups
developing tools that can help in this quantification and valuation.
Congress can help facilitate such markets through provisions such as
section 2709 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which
has led to the creation of the government-wide Conservation and Land
Management Environmental Services Board. Even where markets for
ecosystem services do not arise, the ability to quantify and value the
services flowing from conservation may help local and state governments
justify continued financial support of critical conservation
measures.DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. And I now
recognize Mr. Baughman to testify.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BAUGHMAN, MEMBER,
SPORTING CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Mr. Baughman. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, Mr. Hastings,
Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify
today.
I am John Baughman, a biologist by training, former
Director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, former
Executive Director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies here in Washington. I am currently on the Sporting
Conservation Council, which is a FACA committee that advises
both the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture on sportsmen's
issues, including wildlife conservation.
Over the past year I have been involved in three parallel,
but independent, efforts to formulate recommendations on fish
and wildlife conservation for the new Administration and
Congress.
The first is in my role with Sporting Conservation Council,
where we developed a series of white papers on eight of the
biggest conservation issues of our time. Those are contained in
a report entitled, ``Strengthening America's Hunting Heritage
and Wildlife Conservation in the 21st Century.''
The second effort worked with the American Wildlife
Conservation Partners--that is a consortium of 42 conservation
organizations--to revise their recommendations for the Obama
Administration. They are in a report entitled, ``Wildlife for
the 21st Century, Volume Three.''
And the third effort, the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies also came up with recommendations for the new
Administration and Congress. These represent the collective
opinions of those agencies legally charged with the stewardship
responsibility for the nation's fish and wildlife resources.
All of those are contained in reports that accompanied my
written testimony to the staff.
While these efforts were independent, the recommendations
were strikingly similar. And I have characterized the really
big issues identified in all three. These are my
characterizations.
One is global climate change. Two is maintenance of fish
and wildlife habitat. Three, invasive species and diseases.
Four, the disconnect between Americans and nature. And the
fifth, a lack of reasonable assured funding.
Given the short time for oral testimony, I will highlight
just a few of the challenges and opportunities.
Global climate change, certainly other entities will work
on the causes and solutions to global climate change. The
challenges for fish and wildlife conservation will be
maintenance of functional ecosystems, lessening impacts of a
warmer world on at-risk species, and developing and
implementing wildlife and habitat monitoring systems that are
sensitive enough to allow us to identify and react to emerging
impacts.
Challenges to maintenance of fish and wildlife habitats
include, but certainly aren't limited to, urban sprawl,
increasing frequency of catastrophic fire, poorly managed land-
use practices such as agriculture and timbering, conversions
from native habitat to agriculture, from agriculture to urban
and suburban landscapes, impacts of energy development. And all
of these are exacerbated by, and in addition to, the impacts of
global climate change and invasives.
Invasive species and diseases. The most important challenge
is to stop the spread of invasives. But even more challenging
will be the methods to control, manage, and/or eradicate
invasives once they are introduced.
The disconnect between Americans and nature. We are raising
a generation of Americans whose only link to nature comes from
a TV screen or computer monitor. It is not surprising that
childhood obesity is epidemic. Those who don't comprehend and
understand the link between habitat and animals, man and
nature, aren't likely to support the political and on-the-
ground processes that ensure perpetuation of these resources.
Lack of reasonable assured funding. The challenges are
twofold: less money available, lots more to do. At the turn of
the last century, wildlife conservation was setting regulations
for law enforcement and stalking fish. And we had adequate
resources from the revenues from hunters and anglers, and
appropriations from Congress for national programs.
Now we have preserving biodiversity, recovering species at
risk. We have conservation education. We have solving human-
wildlife conflicts, controlling wildlife/human/livestock
diseases, and so forth.
Failure to act on any of these challenges will mean less
wildlife, less and more fragmented habitat, more threatened and
endangered species, along with regulatory and cost burdens; an
unhealthier country, and greater long-term costs.
Our opportunities under global climate change, I would say
comprehensive legislation that addresses emissions of
greenhouse gases also generates revenues to drive the programs
to identifying remedy impacts.
Maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat, opportunity to
work on the really big issues, through landscape scale
initiatives, such as North American Water Fowl Management Plan,
conservation features of the Farm Bill, National Fish Habitat
Action Plan, Healthy Lands Initiative.
Invasive species, diseases, we need to secure comprehensive
legislation to address importation, possession, and management
of invasives. Disconnect between Americans and nature, to
support existing and create new programs and partnerships that
encourage adults and children to participate in wildlife- and
nature-based outdoor recreation.
Lack of reasonable assured funding. We need to improve the
sustainability of traditional funding, while working with
state, Federal, and private partners to develop new sources of
funding.
In conclusion, there are dozens of excellent
recommendations in the three reports I mentioned. The new
Administration and Congress can make the needle move; that is,
make measurable on-the-ground differences in conservation of
fish and wildlife resources if we seize a few big opportunities
under each of my categories.
But we have to do things a little different than we did in
the 20th century. First, we need to address issues on a much
larger landscape scale. Second, we need to work together
better. Virtually all conservation needs to be delivered via
partnerships. Third, we need to spend dollars more efficiently.
Virtually all conservation dollars need to be leveraged. And
fourth, when contributions from hunters, anglers, and Federal
appropriations are no longer adequate as a primary source for
funding conservation of all species for all Americans in the
21st century, new streams of adequate assured funding have to
be developed.
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baughman follows:]
Statement of John Baughman, Member of the
Sporting Conservation Council
Thank you Madame Chairwoman. I am John Baughman, a member of the
Sporting Conservation Council (SCC), which is an officially sanctioned
FACA committee that advises both the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture on issues important to America's sportsmen and women--
including those issues related to conservation of our wildlife
resources. I am a biologist by training and have spent over 30 years as
a wildlife conservation professional including 6 years as Director of
the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and 4 years as Executive Director
of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) which is an
organization of the state and federal agencies charged with management
of North America's fish and wildlife resources. At present I work for
AFWA, from my home in Cody, Wyoming, as a liaison between state and
federal agencies, industry, and non-profit organizations on energy
development and wildlife conservation issues.
Our topic today is especially timely given the new Congress, the
change in administrations, and the mega-issues of world population
growth, global climate change, invasive species and diseases, a
faltering economy, changing demographics and social values, and a
growing list of tasks and problems to be addressed with a shrinking
supply of money and personnel resources.
Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to be involved to
some degree in three efforts that have analyzed the wildlife
conservation issues of our time and made recommendations for
maintaining our fish and wildlife resources in the future. The first
effort was the Sporting Conservation Council's role in responding to
Executive Order 13443, ``Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife
Conservation.'' In cooperation with the Council on Environmental
Quality, the Department of Agriculture and Interior, the American
Wildlife Conservation Partners, other conservation organizations, and
state wildlife agencies; the SCC produced a series of white papers and
recommendations on eight topics related to wildlife conservation and
our nation's hunting heritage. Those white papers are contained in a
report entitled ``Strengthening America's Hunting Heritage and Wildlife
Conservation in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities'' which
accompanies my written testimony.
The second effort was working with the American Wildlife
Conservation Partners (AWCP) to update their recommendations for the
incoming administration. The AWCP is a consortium of 42 conservation
organizations with a common goal to safeguard America's wildlife
resources and the interests of sportsmen and sportswomen. Beginning in
2000, and then preceding each presidential election thereafter, the
AWCP has prepared a series of recommendations related to the most
important issues facing wildlife conservation and America's sporting
traditions. The revised recommendations, ``Wildlife for the 21st
Century: III'' which were presented to President Obama, also accompany
this testimony.
Finally, the AFWA also prepared a series of recommendations for the
Obama administration. These recommendations represent the collective
opinion of those agencies legally charged with the stewardship
responsibilities for our nation's fish and wildlife resources. Their
recommendations accompany this testimony in a report entitled,
``Furthering Conservation in the Public Trust: A National Fish &
Wildlife Agenda.''
The purpose of all three efforts--to define and analyze today's
fish and wildlife conservation issues and produce actionable
recommendations to ensure the future health and sustainability of these
resources--is squarely on target with the purpose of this hearing. For
a more in-depth discussion of the subject we are addressing I highly
recommend that members of the committee and their staffs peruse these
documents. Even though these three efforts were independent, the
similarities between their recommendations are striking. The reports
identify literally scores of issues, challenges, and opportunities, but
I would categorize the really big issues--common to all three--as
follows:
1. Global climate change.
2. Maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat.
3. Invasive species and diseases.
4. Disconnect between Americans and nature.
5. Lack of reasonable, assured funding.
Challenges:
Global Climate Change
While others work on the causes of and solutions for global climate
change, the biggest challenges in managing aquatic and terrestrial
habitats and wildlife will be in conserving functional ecosystems,
lessening impacts of a warmer world on at-risk species, and developing
and implementing wildlife and habitat monitoring systems with
sufficient sensitivity to identify the emerging impacts of climate
change so adaptive management strategies can be employed. Failure to
meet these challenges will mean greater loss of habitat and wildlife
populations, more species becoming jeopardized or even extinct, and far
more resources spent on recovery of individual species than would have
been needed to take early preventative actions.
Maintenance of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Healthy, sustainable ecosystems and wildlife populations depend on
a healthy, somewhat stable, and resilient habitat base. Major
challenges to our ability to sustain fish and wildlife habitat include,
but certainly aren't limited to, urban sprawl, increasing frequency of
catastrophic wildfire, poorly managed agricultural practices, impacts
from domestic energy development, conversion of native habitat to
agriculture and conversion of agriculture to urban/suburban landscapes,
and all of these are compounded by and in addition to changes in
habitat due to climate changes and invasive species. Failure to react
adequately to these challenges will result in habitat loss and
fragmentation, and the net effect will be fewer animals and more
species at-risk.
Invasive Species and Diseases
Invasive species and diseases cause challenges on a number of
fronts such as maintaining wildlife habitat; protecting human,
wildlife, and livestock health; safeguarding the economic viability of
agricultural and timber operations, etc. Perhaps the biggest challenges
for Congress, the Administration, and all of us will be first and
foremost developing and implementing better systems to prevent the
spread of invasive species and diseases, and secondly, though even more
challenging, developing and implementing programs to manage, control,
and eliminate invasive species and diseases once they are introduced.
Disconnect Between Americans and Nature
As American society becomes more urban and opportunities for fish
and wildlife-related recreation diminish, our citizens become more and
more disenfranchised from nature. People who don't understand the
uniqueness and success of the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation have little reason to actively support its continuance.
Those who don't comprehend the link between habitat and wildlife aren't
likely to participate in and support political and on-the-ground
processes that ensure perpetuation of these resources. America is
raising an entire generation whose only link to the out-of-doors is
through a TV screen or computer monitor, and it is not surprising that
child obesity is epidemic. The challenge is to increase our nation's
understanding and appreciation of nature and their participation in
hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-related recreation. To maintain
the public's support and participation, there is also a challenge to
ensure access to opportunities for quality recreational experiences.
Lack of Reasonable, Assured Funding
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was founded on a
user-pays concept where the cost of fish and wildlife conservation was
almost exclusively funded by hunters and anglers through their purchase
of licenses, permits, and stamps and taxes on their equipment and
supplies along with federal appropriations for national programs (e.g.
wildlife refuges, interstate law enforcement, national fish hatchery
system). This method of funding worked well for much of the 20th
Century when wildlife conservation meant establishing regulations, law
enforcement, and raising and stocking fish and wildlife to establish
and supplement natural populations. The challenges now in providing
adequate funding for fish and wildlife conservation are two-fold: 1)
less money available, 2) lots more to do. Hunters and anglers who once
provided most of the funding for all fish and wildlife conservation are
declining as a percentage of the population nation-wide, and with the
national economy and federal budget priorities, federal appropriations
for fish and wildlife conservation have less flexibility and purchasing
power than 30 years ago. Fish and wildlife conservation still includes
establishing regulations, law enforcement, and stocking fish and
wildlife, but it also includes major additional programs to manage and
conserve all wildlife resources for all citizens (e.g. environmental
protection, maintaining biodiversity, species at-risk recovery,
conservation education, watchable wildlife programs, managing human/
wildlife conflicts, wildlife/livestock/human disease control, etc.).
Opportunities:
As mentioned earlier in my testimony, there are literally scores of
opportunities identified in the reports from the SCC, the AWCP, and the
AFWA. I will highlight of few of the most important opportunities, i.e.
things that can actually make a significant on-the-ground difference
under each of my five major categories.
Global Climate Change
1. Enact comprehensive climate change legislation that regulates
greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Dedicate a portion of the revenue from carbon credits or other
cap-and-trade protocols to state and federal programs that identify and
remediate the impacts of global climate change.
Maintenance of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
1. Ensure continuance of meaningful conservation features in
future Farm Bills.
2. Support delivery of habitat conservation through landscape-
level conservation initiatives based on strong federal, state,
corporate, private partnerships and highly leveraged federal dollars
(e.g. North American Waterfowl management Plan, National Fish Habitat
Action Plan, Health Lands Initiative).
3. Support tax credits and other incentives to encourage private
landowners to voluntarily preserve habitat and incorporate conservation
practices.
4. Support legislative and administrative changes in federal
energy development processes to better balance the needs of domestic
energy development with conservation of fish and wildlife resources,
and develop the appropriate capacity to run these processes with
federal, state, and industry funding from rents, royalties, receipts,
and income.
5. Incorporate state and regional wildlife plans (e.g. State
Wildlife Action Plans, Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy, Mule Deer
Conservation Plan) into federal land use planning processes.
6. Develop and implement landscape-level programs to treat at-risk
forest, grassland, and wetland habitats.
Invasive Species and Diseases
Secure comprehensive legislation to address importation,
possession, and management of invasive species (including pathogens and
regulation of ballast water).
Disconnect Between Americans and Nature
1. Support existing and create new programs to encourage children
and adults to participate in fish, wildlife, and nature-based outdoor
recreation.
2. Develop federal training programs designed to give in-coming
employees an understanding of wildlife conservation and the North
American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
3. Develop and support programs that enhance access to public and
private lands for fish, wildlife, and nature-based recreation including
incentive-based programs to encourage private landowners to voluntarily
provide public access.
4. Include natural resource agencies in any forthcoming ``No Child
Left Inside'' legislation.
5. Improve and revise the Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 to
create a Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation-like entity to
promote hunting, shooting, and wildlife related outdoor recreation.
Lack of Reasonable, Assured Funding
1. Stabilize traditional funding (i.e. hunter and angler user fees
and federal appropriations).
2. Encourage comprehensive evaluation of the Wildlife and Sport
Fish Trust Funds by state, federal, industry, and sportsmen
representatives with a goal to simplify and modernize the processes for
collecting revenue and to sustain and expand funding over time.
3. Create additional sources of funding for conservation of all
species and their habitats (e.g. carbon credit revenue, OCS revenue,
income from new energy development).
4. Provide incentives to encourage states and private entities to
develop new sources of funding.
Summary and Conclusions:
Most of the big issues we face in managing our ocean and wildlife
resources in this dynamic environment can be included under one or more
of my five categories: Global Climate Change, Maintenance of Fish and
Wildlife Habitat, Invasive Species and Diseases, the Disconnect between
Americans and Nature, the Lack of Reasonable and Assured Funding. If
the new Congress and Administration dedicate themselves to seizing a
few of the very top priority opportunities for each of these categories
we will have ``moved the needle'' in making a real difference in
conservation of these resources. If we are going to continue to be
successful we will have to do a few things differently from the way we
operated over the past 100 years: 1) we have to address issues at a
much larger landscape-level scale, 2) we (federal and state
governments, industry, tribes, NGOs, private individuals) have to work
together much better, everything should be done in partnership, 3) all
conservation dollars need to be leveraged, and 4) contributions from
hunters and anglers and federal appropriations are not adequate, and
probably not appropriate, as the primary source to fund wildlife
conservation in America for the 21st Century; new streams of adequate
assured funding must be developed. Leadership from Congress and the new
Administration will be essential.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Baughman. And I want
to commend all of our witnesses; they stayed within the time
limit. Congratulations.
Your entire written statement will be included in the
record.
I will now recognize the Members of the committee for any
questions they may wish to ask the witnesses, alternating
between the Majority and the Minority, and allowing five
minutes for each Member. However, should the Members need more
time, we will have a second round of questions.
I will begin with myself. And I have just one question,
three parts of it, to Mr. Trandahl.
You have testified that Congress should provide clear
priorities of Federal conservation goals and objectives in
order to increase conservation funding from private sources.
Now, how does NFWF establish its own conservation
priorities?
Mr. Trandahl. Great question. We have within our staff a
scientific group. And we have identified what we call keystone
objectives. In forming those keystone objectives, we are
working alongside with the Federal agencies, as well as the
conservation community, to identify through a scientific
process where we believe we can move the needle on particular
species or particular habitats, based upon the financial
contributions we can invest into those areas.
So, it is called the keystone process. And I can submit for
the record a very detailed explanation of it.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. I would like to have that entered
into the record.
Mr. Trandahl. OK.
Ms. Bordallo. And the second part of the question, how can
the goal-setting process of NFWF and the Federal government be
made mutually reinforcing?
Mr. Trandahl. I believe it is a matter of really getting a
spirit within the Federal agencies to really pursue
partnerships through the Foundation, or with other partners, in
order to bring together those private and public dollars. As
well as everyone, science and wildlife plans and everything
else.
We are not short on planning, and we are not short on
science. We are short on coordination, in my opinion.
Ms. Bordallo. And then the third question along the same
lines. How would Federal priorities improve the availability of
funding from private sources?
Mr. Trandahl. What has happened is many private donors are
very interested in partnering with the Federal government. I
will use a real-life example here, just the last couple months.
We have been working with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, which is an agency of the USDA, on a
program that is called Conservation Innovative Grants, which is
a $20 million-a-year grant program.
I have been trying for two years to get them to move it
into the Foundation, so one, we could administer the grants
much more efficiently; but more importantly, we could then turn
and try to leverage it up with the corporate community.
And in just gauging corporate interest in leveraging
against that $20 million, we have had seven different companies
come forward and say yes, we would want to do that, if you are
able to do it.
Now, we are still pursuing, and hopefully we will be able
to bring that into the agency.
The thing to realize is the values within an agency aren't
necessarily to partner. Partnerships cause complication and
more work. And the idea of bringing in more money is not
necessarily enough of an incentive for agencies to enter into
it.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Trandahl.
I have another question, just one more, for Dr. Kareiva.
And again, Dr. Kareiva, while the Nature Conservancy has
developed some impressive tools for marine mapping and
planning, your testimony provided examples of data gaps that
limit the ability of decision makers to use adaptive management
strategies.
Now, is this patchwork of data the critical limitation on
adaptive management? In other words, why isn't adaptive
management used more often?
Mr. Kareiva. I will also speak for NOAA, where I worked for
the fisheries and fisheries management, as well, where that was
a struggle.
Certainly there are data gaps. In the marine system, part
of it is we don't have good maps yet for the whole coastline
for the habitats and the resources. So, the data is a
limitation.
I would say the other two limitations are strong incentives
to the agencies to engage in it. We talk about it a lot, but
you really need sort of strong administrative incentives.
Performance, have your performance based in your agency job
onto the extent to which you do adapted management.
And the third thing is that adaptive management is new, and
you need some tools to help people. You need, some of the tools
that we develop at the Nature Conservancy are meant to
synthesize that information, and present it in a way that
doesn't overwhelm you with the complexity of the program.
And if you have those tools, I think people will be much
more amenable to doing it. If we make it easy for them.
Incentivize and make it easy.
Ms. Bordallo. Another part of the question. Do tools and
technology exist to effectively fill the critical data gaps?
And can this be done in a cost-efficient manner?
Mr. Kareiva. Prototypes of all the tools and data do exist.
With, I hesitate to give a timeframe, but in a relatively short
timeframe, you know, two to five years, we could fill the data
gaps and get the tools up to easy implementation. And really,
on your desk, anybody could use them in a very cost-effective
manner.
Most of the hard work has been done. Most of the early
investment, and a lot of the hard work and research have been
done.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Doctor. And now I would
like to invite the person standing in the back to please come
and be seated around the lower table here.
And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Hastings, for any questions he may have.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. I just
have a couple of questions here.
Mr. Trandahl, you were--and it is good to see you.
Mr. Trandahl. Good to see you.
Mr. Hastings. You had mentioned the private and the public
partnerships several times in your testimony, and in response
to the Chairman's, Chairwoman's remarks.
Give me your assessment of the President's proposed budget
that limits tax deductibility of those earning more than
$250,000.
Mr. Trandahl. Yes, I expect to be going over to the Ways
and Means Committee at some point.
Yes, as people are probably familiar, in the President's
sort of outline of a request, there is an idea of limiting
individuals who earn more than $250,000 a year, limiting their
tax deductibility to nonprofits.
And I personally would have great hesitation and
disappointment if that were adopted as a concept. And from the
Foundation's perspective, it would be disastrous.
We rely on major gifts--obviously corporate as well as
Federal dollars. And my average individual contribution is well
in excess of $100,000 a year; it is not five dollars a year.
And you know, we are working the very high end of the
economy in order to generate tens of millions of dollars back
into conservation, that is then, in turn, matched on the
ground.
So, it would have a very negative impact. And I have spent
my entire weekend actually putting together all the empirical
data to kind of show exactly what it would do for us, but as
well for others.
Mr. Hastings. I thank you for that. We are not the Ways and
Means Committee, but I felt it was worth, worth at least
asking.
Mr. Trandahl. I appreciate it. And I should just mention,
as well. This committee, last Congress, expanded our board from
25 to 30, which I have to say had exactly the impact that we
were hoping for with the committee, which would be a dramatic
increase, again, in the individual giving for the Foundation.
Which it did. It has had more than a million-dollar impact.
Mr. Hastings. Good, thank you. Mr. Thompson, I want to ask
a very broad question, because this is a hearing on climate
change, yet we haven't talked about what climate change is, and
how one looks ahead of it.
My understanding is that most of the predictions are based
on modeling data. And I want to put this--and I want you to
respond to that--but I want to put it in real-world terms.
Because I was here last Thursday, and I flew back to my home in
Washington. And I listened to the weather report for this
weekend. And they said it was going to cool down.
There was absolutely no prediction, when I left on
Thursday, that you were going to have all of this snow here.
And I come back, and I see that low records were set here
during the week.
So, my question to you is, based on the data long term, how
can we have any confidence, when we can't predict what, just
this last week we didn't predict how cold it was going to be
this weekend?
Mr. Thompson. So, Mr. Hastings, this is a very important
question. Because of the difficulties of predicting exactly
what the impacts of climate change will be on our oceans and
wildlife in the future, our first priority should clearly be to
protect the fish and wildlife today.
But we also have to recognize that climate change may very
well impact those fish and wildlife in the future. Scientists
are already beginning to see what they believe is an impact on
the fish and wildlife today.
And so that would suggest two things. First of all, that we
be as adaptive as possible, recognizing that we are not that
good at the moment at predicting into the future--so that as we
begin to see change, we can adjust to those changes.
And then second of all, we do know the general nature of
impacts in the future. We know, for example, that species are
likely to move, that they are likely, in the United States, to
move north to higher altitudes. And therefore, in thinking
about the reserves that we are setting aside, and the
coordination between Federal actions, state actions, and the
actions of organizations like the Nature Conservancy, we need
to be providing for that opportunity of movement.
Mr. Hastings. Madame Chairman, I see my time is about out.
My question was more, how can we have confidence--because we
are going to be potentially making huge decisions here that is
going to cost individuals and taxpayers millions, if not
billions, of dollars. And yet we are doing it, what appears to
be on something that is not extremely solid data.
Madame Chairman, I have other questions, and I will wait
for the second round. And maybe, Mr. Thompson, I would ask you
to rethink that. I understand the impact that probably
everybody feels on climate change. After all, history, long
before humans were here, climate change had an effect on the
species in the world, so I think that is self-evident.
The question is, how do we make these determinations based
on good data. And I guess that is what the question is. But
thank you very much. And thank you for your indulgence, Madame
Chairman.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Hastings from
the State of Washington.
I would like to just introduce a few new Members that have
come in. We have Mr. Sablan from the Northern Marianas, and we
have Mr. Pierluisi from Puerto Rico, and Mr. Wittman, State of
Virginia.
And now I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from
California, Lois Capps.
Ms. Capps. Thank you, Madame Chair. And may I say at the
outset, congratulations on this hearing. The topics and the
esteemed testifiers managing our oceans and wildlife resources,
this is very valuable to have as we confront the 111th Congress
and our new Administration. And with the goal of establishing
some priorities.
I would like to turn to Dr. Kareiva, if I could, please.
And I commend you, as an organization amongst many who have
worked very closely to set aside millions of acres of land and
water as habitat for plants, birds, fish, other animals.
You have been working in Morro Bay in my Congressional
district, dealing with marine protection. And by the way, you
have also been working on that endangered group, the fishing
community, through sustainable fishing that you partnered with
the Environmental Defense, a very novel, and I think very
worthwhile, approach, which actually touches on some of the
things we are talking about here.
I would like to ask if you could describe for us what a
failure to act on climate change--a little different take on it
from the previous question--what a failure to act or delay to
action would mean for the ability of existing marine protected
areas and wildlife preserves, to protect wildlife and sensitive
ecosystems.
Mr. Kareiva. First I would like to say----
Ms. Capps. And as you are thinking of your answer, let me,
I can maybe focus it a little more specifically.
How would climate change impact the national marine
sanctuaries, for example? I have two sanctuaries in my
district, the Channel Islands and Monterey Bay, the tip of
Monterey Bay Sanctuary.
As you know, national marine sanctuaries are set up to be
some of the best examples of ecosystem-based management. They
will be affected by climate change. Maybe that is a good way to
approach this question.
Mr. Kareiva. So, first I want to correct sort of a
misimpression. We actually have very good data and science
about climate change.
We don't about weather. There is a distinction between
weather and climate change. Weather is what happened, you know,
here in D.C. the last couple days. Climate change is long-term
trends and expectations.
So, in any given year, any given day, any given week, you
might be surprised. But it is the long-term averages we are
doing on climate change.
Ms. Capps. Yes.
Mr. Kareiva. So, turning to the marine protected areas, and
just the marine resources in general, it is quickly becoming
evident that our marine systems are some of our most
vulnerable. And they are vulnerable for a number of reasons.
They are vulnerable in coral reefs because rising sea
surface temperatures stresses and kills the coral. They are
vulnerable because they change currents and up-welling
patterns; and thus, they change the fisheries that we harvest.
And they are vulnerable because some species shift their, their
distributions. And in fact, it has been noticed along the
California coast that species will shift their distributions.
As a result of that, if we have a marine protected area set
up in one place for a suite of species we are trying to manage,
and as a result of climate change the physical conditions are
altered, that place will no longer provide the protection for
those species.
So, it is going to be a challenge to management in that we
won't just be able to rely on fixed marine protected areas. We
are going to need much more sophisticated management, like
zoning and some of the innovative techniques we have.
But we already have good data showing shifts in
distributions, showing stresses in offshore habitats, that are
tightly linked to climate change in the last 30 years.
And there will be surprises, for sure. And we will be
surprised. But I think we know generally, strategically how to
approach the problem.
Ms. Capps. Thank you. Another justification for having
these areas, because of the data that you are able to collect
in an intensive way.
Mr. Kareiva. That is right, we do monitor those places.
Ms. Capps. I want to talk about sanctuaries. I happen to--
this is a little self-serving question for me. I am Co-Chair of
our newly formed caucus on National Marine Sanctuaries. The
other Co-Chair is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I represent a specific
district, she represents a district in Florida.
The sanctuaries are applying the principles of ecosystem-
based management, I understand, to manage their diverse set of
natural resources and ecosystem services. Maybe you would talk
about this a little bit, as a follow-up to the previous
question.
And more specifically, how are sanctuaries using ecosystem-
based management to meet the growing threat of climate change?
And what they do then is important for its own sake, but
clearly because of their status; but also as an example and a
model for other areas.
Mr. Kareiva. So, ecosystem-based management is jargon for,
I guess you would say trying to achieve many purposes with one
sanctuary. And balancing those purposes using the best science.
And in doing that in a very transparent way, so it is also
clear to the stakeholders that are involved.
So, early on in the history of marine protected areas, it
might have been thought they were just for biodiversity, or
just for one species. No longer is that the case. You look at
the entire ecosystem, and the many services they provide.
So, shoreline ecosystems, as an example, they provide
fisheries for commercial fisheries; they provide sport fishing;
they provide recreation. They can provide habitats that reduce
storm surge, and protect human communities.
See, we would look at all those natural assets, and you
would look at the economics in the stakeholder zone. That is
what ecosystem-based management is, looking at the many
different interests in the sanctuaries.
The other thing, for the Federal ones that have been set
up, that is especially valuable, is they are well-monitored. We
have invested money into collecting information. And I think of
them as probably our best sentinels for climate change.
We have too few places in the world where we are collecting
comprehensive information, and we will be able to see, before
it is too late, what is going on. So, they also serve that
purpose, although maybe that isn't what they were originally
set up for.
Ms. Capps. Thank you very much. I have used my time. But
Madame Chair, that, of course, prompts with me a follow-up, an
additional question, what kind of resources. Do we have enough
resources, if this is indeed that critical, for advice to the
new Administration and to our 111th Congress? Do we need
additional resources for the kind of information that you are
going to be able to supply?
But I will yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. We will have a second round. I thank the
gentlelady from California.
I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I would like to
begin by yielding to the Ranking Member, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Baughman, I want to ask you a question real briefly. In
your oral testimony you talked about regulating greenhouse
emissions. Could you elaborate on what your recommendations
would be on that?
Mr. Baughman. Well, I think if you look at my testimony,
part of it is that there are other people working on the
emissions of greenhouse gases, other than the wildlife
conservation community. I think our bigger task is reacting to
those impacts on the communities, and maintaining those
functional ecosystems.
I am not an expert on it, but certainly some of these
carbon-trading protocols, carbon credits, I think those are the
most--I think there is promise in some of those protocols.
There is always the devil in the details, things that have to
be worked out.
You mentioned the tremendous costs of some of those. We
need to look at the tremendous benefits of some of those
protocols, too. There is always someone paying things,
receiving money. There is a money end of it, but there is also
the behaviors-and-outcomes end of that equation, too. And we
need to look at the whole picture, to where whatever protocols
are adopted, those things balance. And the net is a positive
effect for the country.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much. I yield back to my
friend.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. Mr. Baughman, you have had over 30
years of experience in the area of wildlife conservation. Can
you tell us what you believe the overall impact of climate
change is having on our wildlife?
Mr. Baughman. Well, I am most directly, of course, familiar
with the West, the Rocky Mountain West. And certainly the last
15 years has been warmer and drier than any situation we have
witnessed. And in fact, I think the records document, it just
has been warmer and drier than any period in the last 500
years.
And we have seen species decrease in abundance. We have
seen entire habitats devastated, trying to manage through
drought for 15 years. Our systems of timbering, our systems of
public land, they just break down. They were never, they were
never meant to operate that way, and we have not adopted
behaviorally or economically to some of those systems. And some
of the net results the whole country is looking at are species
like sage grouse becoming listed as threatened and endangered,
and the impacts that would have. I think the Northern Spotted
Owl would pale in comparison. Our mule deer are in jeopardy.
All of these high grassland step species are at risk.
But in the whole country, there are just species and, and
habitats that evolved in much wetter, cooler times. And things
are moving, things are changing, like some of the other
speakers talked about. Things are disappearing.
Mr. Hastings. Now, you spoke earlier about making sure we
get our children out from behind televisions and computer
screens, and I couldn't agree with you more. I think it is high
time that our youth be as acquainted as they can with our
outdoor environment.
I wanted to sort of pick your brain about, how do you think
we can best achieve that? I think there has to be an
understanding from top to bottom about, obviously about the
issue of climate change; but also how that affects our natural
environments. And we have to have, I think, people plugged in
from top to bottom, as far as the spectrum of age.
So, if you could give us your thoughts about how we can
make sure we can fully engage folks, and that includes our
youth.
Mr. Baughman. Well, certainly there are some really good
programs out there. And there are some really good programs
emerging.
Congress, the Administration doesn't have to do everything,
but it would be nice for them to be partners in these efforts.
And I think the most important needs, and probably the biggest
successes, we have is one, developing some national
conservation environmental education standards, that there are
some concepts and principles that every child, every citizen of
America understands. We don't have that.
And the second is concentrating on opportunities as this
country becomes more urban, and we get more kids with that
computer monitor and TV screen. And access becomes tougher, not
only the legal access to public and private lands, but just the
difficulties of getting out of the beltway to find a place to
recreate.
We have to focus on, again through partnerships, on
developing those opportunities that people know about, and they
are easy to take advantage of.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, gentleman. I would now like to
recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Mrs.
Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Madame Chair. And thank you
for holding this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses today.
I would like to begin by welcoming our former Clerk of the
House, Jeff Trandahl, who is now representing, is now the
Executive Director of the National Wildlife Foundation.
Before I ask a question, and I will ask this inside of a
question, I have a concurrent resolution, too. I don't know if
you are familiar with it. I know we are talking today about
specific legislative changes and administrative changes that
are needed. But this would express a sense of Congress that the
Fish and Wildlife Service in particular should incorporate
consideration of global warming and sea level rise into
comprehensive conservation plans for coastal national wildlife
refuges, and for other purposes.
And Madame Chair, we are working with your staff to move
this through the committee. But is that something that the
panelists would support? At least as a beginning step, getting
the Congress to recognize--and we could expand it to include,
you know, all planning, if you so recommend.
Mr. Trandahl, you focus a lot on the need for clear and
synchronized goals, one reason being that it is a barrier to
you felt the kind of public-private partnerships you are
charged to create. And Mr. Thompson, I think you also
referenced the same concern.
I can understand, within agencies, the need for consistent
and clear goals. But across different agencies with somewhat
different missions and different oversight, I am not sure if
that can be done successfully.
Are there some key overarching areas that you would want to
suggest, that the Park Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife could
have clearer goals that are synchronized with each other?
Mr. Trandahl. OK. First, Donna, it is always great seeing
you. I prefer to see you in the Virgin Islands, though.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Trandahl. First, I want to start and say I do think
that the need of coordination among the agencies is incredibly
important. And it is going to take leadership from one agency
in particular, which I think the Department of the Interior is
the agency that should lead it.
The good news, to me, and the optimism is, Secretary
Salazar spent a lot of time, the last couple weeks in
particular, talking about his America's Treasures concept. Of
which he is talking about exactly the same thing: creating a
priority list of habitats, ecosystems, actions that are
potentially, should become Federal priorities, and agencies
should look at those priorities to try to do a better job in
working with one another.
An example I would give just right off the top is invasive
species. A lot of money is spent at USDA, a lot of money is
spent at the Department of the Interior to deal with invasive
species. But I have yet to see the Department of Transportation
do anything.
Yet how do they get there? Well, they normally arrive
through a transportation system: a highway, a plane, a boat.
And if we were able to coordinate better, and get the agency
sort of at the front end of the problem involved, I think we
would find ourselves in a much more successful position down
the road. And hopefully save money, instead of just trying to
manage through a problem.
Mrs. Christensen. And I was thinking just under Interior. I
wasn't even thinking about the departments outside.
Mr. Trandahl. OK.
Mrs. Christensen. But we are actually employing the same,
trying to get the same kind of coordination on healthcare
issues.
Mr. Trandahl. Right, right.
Mrs. Christensen. Because there are many ways that other
agencies, other than the HHS, can collaborate and coordinate,
and within the department also, to address those issues.
Dr. Kareiva, as you know, the Nature Conservancy has been
doing a lot of work in the Virgin Islands. I wanted to talk a
little bit about the multi-objective marine management
approaches that you talked about.
Your remarks referenced the utility of such techniques in
places such as Long Island and Florida. But what about in a
smaller community like ours, or Culebra, which my colleague,
Mr. Pierluisi, represents, and where I understand you may be
partnering with an organization shortly, where single objective
approaches such as coral farming or small-scale community
conservation projects have been quite successful. Are these
approaches transferrable to smaller communities like ours, and
can they support what are sometimes unique and often cultural
concerns?
Mr. Kareiva. For sure they can. To be honest, probably----
[Electronic interference.]
Mr. Kareiva.--there is support then for doing the research
and development.
But as we get better at the tools, of course, what they
really are about is balancing competing needs, and making clear
the tradeoffs and the consequences of decisions.
So, instead of making a decision yes/no, the decision is,
what is your full suite of options to meet everybody's needs.
And those needs for sure include cultural values, impact on
family structure. In some of the Pacific Islands we worked on,
paying attention to role of women in the community, impact on
family structure, and household surveys. What are the
consequences for household satisfaction.
And I think you will see these tools in a second generation
being widely used across scales, not just for Long Island, and
not just for Florida. I think it is a general, it is common
sense. It is really a common-sense vision, supported by science
and transparent presentation of information.
Mrs. Christensen. I think my time is up. Thank you for your
responses. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from Virgin Islands.
Now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Wittman
from Virginia.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I would like to
go back to Mr. Baughman again, and talk a little bit about the
President's budget submission. As you know, he has set aside
some dollars for wildlife adaptation. And of that, it
designates 31 percent of those dollars will go to the states.
In considering that states have primacy over wildlife
resources in their state, would it be more judicious if the
split were 50/50, rather than 31 percent going to the states,
as far as utility in getting dollars down to make meaningful
impacts on wildlife adaptation?
Mr. Baughman. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Baughman. You know, I am really not familiar with that,
so I wouldn't be, I would be out of my league to comment right
now without doing a little homework on that.
But in general, the conservation programs are developed and
run more efficiently. And like most forms of government, the
more local we get in the delivery. And so I would certainly
favor that.
But there are certainly roles for the Federal dollars,
private dollars, state dollars. And there are programs where
all those entities kind of take a lead, and do it very well.
And we just need to segregate and figure out who is best at
doing what.
But on all programs, as long as we are working together,
maybe the end outcome isn't going to be that different where it
goes.
Mr. Wittman. Any other panel members have a comment on how
funding should take place under wildlife adaptation?
[No response.]
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
I have a couple of questions before we go into any further
questions from the Members.
For Mr. Thompson, this has to do with climate change and
adaptive management. How will incorporating climate change
projections into programs and plans enhance our ability to
manage ocean and wildlife resources?
Mr. Thompson. So, Madame Chair, I think there are two
important issues here.
The first one is the importance of immigrating what we
already know about the likely impacts of climate change into
the current management plans. That would suggest that we need,
for example, a network of reserves, on both the marine side and
the land side, that permit species to adjust over time.
As Dr. Kareiva mentioned earlier, given the likely impact
of climate change, fixed reserves that are relatively isolated
will not be as effective as they were in the past. So, we need
a broader network of reserves.
In California, for example, under the Marine Life
Protection Act, we are currently setting up reserves along the
entire California coast which are immigrated, and are likely to
be far more effective in addressing climate change.
The second aspect, though, is in addition to taking climate
change into account in our current plans, we also have to
always be ready in the future to adjust our management efforts
to take into account the new information and the surprises that
will come along.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Thompson, a second part of the question.
What lessons can be learned and applied at a Federal level from
California's Marine Life Protection Act?
Mr. Thompson. So, there are several lessons that I think
can be learned from the Marine Life Protection Act.
The first one is the importance of having a very explicit
directive to establish a set of marine reserves. The second is
to establish a process for setting up those marine reserves
which are effective.
When California first started implementing its Marine Life
Protection Act, for example, the agencies did not fully consult
with the stakeholders; and as a result, it wasn't that
effective of a process.
Today we have a process where, first of all, the state is
going region by region, and looking to see what the set of
marine reserves should look like in each of those areas. And it
has set up a very clear process that involves a scientific
advisory committee and a stakeholders group and a blue ribbon
task force. So then, each of those regions help to shape what
those reserves are going to look like.
And then finally, there are a clear set of deadlines by
which action is actually supposed to be taken.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. I also have, for Mr. Baughman, you
recommend that the Congress take action to screen and prevent
the introduction of invasive species.
Now, does the Sporting Conservation Council support my
legislation, H.R. 669, which would address that particular gap?
Mr. Baughman. I have not read the legislation, and I know
that counsel has not done a thorough analysis of it. But
certainly the concepts we would support.
And as you know, perhaps better than I do, that is a tough,
tough challenge to, first, control the spread of those
invasives around this planet; and then even tougher, to try to
control things once we have them. It is just an overwhelming,
overwhelming task with challenges that are just mind-boggling.
How to address some of these things once they are introduced.
But yes. Again, the devil is also in the detail. I think
there is still some work, as there always is in Congress, to be
done before a fine piece of legislation goes out the door.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, I suggest you read the bill, and give
us your comments.
Mr. Thompson. So noted.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. The Chair wishes to welcome Mr.
Kildee from Michigan, who has entered. And just in time for our
second panel.
Are there any other questions of--gentlelady from Virgin
Islands, do you have any other questions?
Then I wish to thank the witnesses for being with us this
morning, and would like to welcome the second panel of
witnesses.
[Pause.]
Ms. Bordallo. For anyone who is standing in the back of the
room, please come forward and be seated here in the lower level
here. There are many chairs.
As Chairwoman, I now recognize our second panel of
witnesses. Dr. Shirley Pomponi, Executive Director of the
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute; Dr. William Jackson,
Deputy Director General, the International Union of
Conservation of Nature; Mr. Franklin Nutter, President of the
Reinsurance Association of America; and Dr. Brian Rothschild,
Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine Science, Professor,
School of Marine Science and Technology at the University of
Massachusetts at Dartmouth.
As a reminder to the second panel of witnesses, I would
note for all of you that the red timing light on the table will
indicate when five minutes have passed, and your time has
concluded.
However, a reminder that your full written statement will
be submitted for the hearing record.
And now I would like to begin with the first witness of the
second panel, Dr. Pomponi. Please begin.
STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY A. POMPONI, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE, FLORIDA ATLANTIC
UNIVERSITY
Ms. Pomponi. Good morning, Chairwoman Bordallo and Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Shirley Pomponi, and I am the
Director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida
Atlantic University.
Today I am providing my perspective as a career
oceanographer, Chair of the board of trustees of the Consortium
for Ocean Leadership, and Chair of the Ocean Studies Board of
the National Research Council.
The ocean covers two thirds of our planet. It is the
driving force behind the climate and weather. It provides
oxygen, food, recreation, and highways for commerce, and
significantly contributes to our nation's economic regime.
As we have come to better appreciate the complexity of
marine ecosystems, we have developed new approaches to ocean
management that seek to balance the human uses of coastal and
ocean environments, while maintaining the integrity of marine
ecosystems.
I am going to highlight five priority areas for managing
our ocean resources.
First, ecosystem-based management, about which we have
heard quite a bit this morning already. This recognizes the
complex interactions of the entire ecosystem, rather than just
a single fishery.
The many aspects of human interactions with the oceans are
also taken into consideration in resource management decisions.
Although not a new concept, we have not made significant
progress toward realizing ecosystem-based management in our
current regulatory regimes.
Marine protected areas are an essential component of
ecosystem-based management that could provide some insurance
against over-harvesting.
In addition to committing to the establishment of marine
protected areas, we must also ensure that there is continuing
support for science to monitor their effectiveness.
Second, in the ongoing debates about climate change and how
to mitigate and adapt to its effects, the role of the ocean and
the impact of climate change are often overlooked. One example
is sequestration of carbon dioxide. While the processes by
which the ocean absorbs CO2 are well understood, the
impact of a more acidic ocean on critical ocean ecosystems like
coral reefs is not known.
I want to thank this committee for its leadership in
passing the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring
Act last year.
As the committee considers climate change and energy
legislation, I ask you to include provisions for funding to
support research and monitoring activities to better understand
the effect of climate change on the ocean.
Third, the ocean plays an important role in human health.
Harmful algal blooms produce toxins that not only affect fish
and marine mammals, but also humans who eat fish or shellfish,
or simply visit a beach during a bloom.
A renewed emphasis on research into the mechanisms of
transmission of water-borne pathogens and toxins and the
effects of climate and weather patterns on ocean and human
health would provide public health officials with the tools and
information that they need to prevent human exposure to
illness, both in coastal communities and hundreds of miles
inland.
Fourth. By integrating existing ocean observing and
monitoring systems and expanding the system to incorporate new
sources of data, we can combine information from regional
systems into one national integrated ocean observing system,
and provide multiple scales of information to a variety of end
users; from ship captains to coastal resource managers, to
recreational fishers and public health officials.
A critical need is to expand and sustain the basic
components of the integrated observing system, including a
national commitment to a program of satellite observations from
space, coupled with an investment in our academic research
fleet, to support simultaneous in situ observations. A robust
integrated ocean observing system will fundamentally alter our
ability to understand, conserve, and manage our ocean
resources, and will enable ocean forecasting, ecosystem-based
management, and adaptive management during the next decade.
Fifth. I would like to emphasize the need for continued
coordination among the 25 Federal agencies that conduct or fund
ocean research. A coordinated mechanism for inter-agency OMB
budget reviews would ensure that inter-agency priorities are
included in budget planning for individual agencies. A
comprehensive inter-agency review as part of the annual budget
process would help ensure that the full suite of ocean research
priorities is addressed.
In conclusion, we have drawn down our ocean assets. We now
need to reinvest in, and recommit to, the health of our ocean
planet. The oceans are finite, and cannot indefinitely
withstand the stresses of overfishing, climate change, and
pollution.
New technologies to map, explore, and observe the ocean
will enable us to achieve ecosystem-based and adaptive
management, restore the health of the ocean, and indeed, our
planet.
Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee, I
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you; and on
behalf of the ocean science community, I look forward to
working with you to provide the science to conserve our ocean
planet for future generations.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pomponi follows:]
Statement of Shirley A. Pomponi, Ph.D., Executive Director,
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University
Good morning Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and members
of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to be invited to testify before
this committee on ocean research priorities for the 111th Congress and
the new administration. My name is Shirley Pomponi. I am the Executive
Director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic
University. Today I am providing my perspective as a career
oceanographer, science advisor to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Consortium for Ocean Research,
and Chair of the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council.
Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Ocean Studies
Board have provided recommendations on issues ranging from the
management of fisheries and protected marine species, the prevention of
oil and other ocean pollutants, the ocean's role in climate change, and
preparedness for coastal hazards such as hurricanes and tsunamis.
Clearly, there is a need to improve our understanding of the oceans to
inform decision making on these and a suite of other issues affecting
society and imperiling our oceans.
I appreciate the opportunity to share with you what we have learned
about data needs as well as methods and tools to manage living natural
resources within an adaptable, ecosystem-based management regime. I
will highlight five areas: ecosystem-based management, climate change,
oceans and human health, ocean observing, and interagency cooperation.
I will underscore some recommendations from recent Ocean Studies Board
reports, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report ``An Ocean
Blueprint for the 21st Century,'' and the Ocean Research Priority Plan
and Implementation Strategy (ORPPIS) developed by the Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST), Charting the
Course for Ocean Science in the United States: Research Priorities for
the Next Decade. The Ocean Studies Board has prepared a set of
booklets, the Ocean Science Series, which present overviews of key
findings and recommendations from National Research Council reports on
selected topics including: Oceans and Human Health, Coastal Hazards,
Pollution in the Ocean, Marine Ecosystems and Fisheries, and Ocean
Exploration (forthcoming). The booklets are available at: http://
dels.nas.edu/osb/ocean--science--index.shtml.
INTRODUCTION
The ocean covers two-thirds of the planet, holds 97% of the Earth's
water, and 97% of the biosphere. The ocean is the driving force behind
climate, weather, and planetary chemistry; it generates more than half
of the oxygen in the atmosphere; and it absorbs approximately one-third
of the carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere from the burning of
fossil fuel. The ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes are critical to our
survival and the long-term vitality of the United States: they provide
food, recreation, and highways for commerce, thereby contributing
significantly to our nation's economic engine. As an example, our
commercial marine fishing industry contributed $35.1 billion to the
2006 U.S. Gross National Product. More than 40 million people around
the world depend on fishing or fish farming for their livelihood--a
number that has more than tripled since 1970. The vast majority of
these people are working in developing countries, where fishing and
aquaculture constitute the economic backbone of most coastal areas.
Their efforts now bring in more than 141 million tons of seafood per
year, supplying a primary source of protein to more than one billion
people.
But the ocean provides more than fish--it contains a dazzling
diversity of life and a seemingly endless bounty of marine resources.
Coral reefs draw tourists to support growing ecotourism industries.
Marine organisms are the source of thousands of unique chemicals with
the potential to treat human diseases. Some are already clinically
available. Coastal communities have deep cultural ties to the ocean and
depend on it for their livelihood.
But consider this sobering fact: despite the vastness of the ocean,
it is not limitless. Ocean resources are under intense pressure to
satisfy the expanding demand due to population growth and
globalization. Globally, 75% of 441 different stocks of fish are fully
exploited, overexploited, or depleted; invasive species have disrupted
marine food webs; an increasing number of species are in danger of
extinction as a result of human activities; and point and non-point
pollution and marine debris are polluting our oceans at an alarming
rate. Changes such as habitat loss and degradation are significant
threats to marine life while climate change has the potential to modify
entire marine ecosystems. The ocean's ability to continue to sustain
the multibillion dollar industries it supports is increasingly
uncertain.
As scientists have come to better appreciate the complexity of
marine ecosystems, we have developed new approaches to ocean management
that seek to balance the human uses of coastal and ocean environments
while maintaining the integrity of the marine ecosystem. Scientific
research on how these ecosystems function and react to physical,
chemical and biological changes has helped inform policy decisions that
promote the sustainable use of marine resources; however, we need
sustained investments in research and strategic, long-term planning to
ensure that future generations will have an opportunity to experience
and enjoy the ocean and its many resources.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
The concept of ecosystem-based management has been around for some
time, yet we have not made significant strides toward realizing
ecosystem-based management in our current regulatory and management
regimes. In this approach, the many aspects of human interactions with
the oceans--fishing, shipping, water quality, extraction and transport
of oil, gas and renewable energy resources, and invasive species, among
others--are taken into consideration as a whole in fishery management
decisions. Recognizing that human activities often have rippling
effects on marine ecosystems, ecosystem-based management takes a big-
picture approach to using and conserving marine resources.
Although fisheries management is not its only application,
ecosystem-based management represents a new approach to harvesting
marine resources. Rather than focusing on single species, it emphasizes
fisheries management practices that take into account food web and
multispecies interactions. Ecosystem-based management recognizes the
complex interactions among fished species, their predators and prey,
and other aspects of the marine environment. Two reports of the
National Research Council--Sustaining Marine Fisheries (1999) and
Dynamic Changes in Marine Ecosystems (2006)--conclude that an
ecosystem-based approach would improve the prospects for long-term
sustainability of marine fisheries. Integrating information about
predator-prey relationships, food webs, habitats, and the effects of
climate variation, ocean circulation patterns, chemistry, seafloor
terrain and fish distributions should enhance attempts to improve
fisheries management.
The National Research Council report Understanding Marine
Biodiversity (1994) recognized that the human interactions can lead to
transformations in ecosystem structure and function and that this
transformation is manifested in changes to marine biodiversity. This
report, which called for a national marine biodiversity research
initiative, led to the Census of Marine Life (CoML), a global network
of researchers in more than 80 nations engaged in a 10-year scientific
initiative to assess and explain the diversity, distribution, and
abundance of life in the ocean. From the work of CoML, we have learned
that preserving natural marine biodiversity is critical to maintaining
marine ecosystem functions and services, including fisheries, water
quality, recreation, and shoreline protection. We need management
systems that conserve marine biodiversity; doing so will increase the
chance that ecosystems can adapt and recover following natural or
human-caused disturbances. If we use conservation of marine
biodiversity as a primary aim of ecosystem-based management, we will
automatically conserve many of the myriad interconnections among
species and their environment, we will generate a cost-effective way to
coordinate diverse agency goals, manage trade-offs in providing
ecosystem services, and ensure maximum ecosystem function and
resilience.
Marine protected areas are an essential component of an ecosystem-
based approach to management, as indicated by the National Research
Council report on Marine Protected Areas (2001). Marine protected areas
could provide some insurance against over-harvesting, provide an
effective way to assess ecosystem structure and functions, and protect
vulnerable habitats, such as coral reefs. In addition to committing to
the establishment of marine protected areas, we must also ensure that
there is continuing support for science to monitor their effectiveness,
which will allow us to refine and improve the process for identifying
and conserving important marine habitats.
To effectively use ecosystem-based strategies, we must improve our
understanding of the effects of commercial and recreational fishing on
marine ecosystems; in particular, we need greater knowledge of trophic
effects and species interactions, indicators of ecosystem regime
shifts, and baseline abundance data for non-target species and
organisms that comprise the lower trophic levels of marine ecosystems.
Only then can we develop accurate ecosystem models to propose
alternative policy and management scenarios.
CLIMATE CHANGE
In the ongoing debates about climate change and how to mitigate and
adapt to its effects, the role of the ocean and the impact of climate
change on the ocean are often overlooked. The National Research Council
addressed this issue in several reports. Abrupt Climate Change:
Inevitable Surprises (2002) highlights how the ocean exerts a profound
influence on climate through its ability to transport heat from one
location to another and its capacity to store carbon. Because water has
enormous heat capacity, the ocean typically stores 10-100 times more
heat than equivalent land surfaces. Changes in ocean circulation, and
especially the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic, have
been implicated in abrupt climate change of the past.
Today, a question of great societal relevance is whether the North
Atlantic circulation, including the Gulf Stream, will remain stable
under the climatic changes and global warming that are expected to
continue for the next few centuries. It was predicted that as the
Greenland Ice Sheet melted, the influx of fresh, cold water could
shutdown the ocean conveyer belt that delivers warm water (and weather)
to northern Europe. A shutdown of this circulation would not induce a
new ice age, but it was hypothesized that it would cause major changes
in climate and in the ocean's circulation, upwelling and sinking
regions, distribution of sea ice and sea level. Surprisingly, after
seeing a predicted slow-down in this process, last year the conveyer
belt strengthened, which suggests that something is happening that we
scientists have not predicted.
In areas of the Arctic and Antarctic, the loss of sea ice has
broader implications. For example, as air and water temperature rose,
sea ice in Alaska has declined; populations of commercially important
fish, seabirds, seals, walrus, sea otters, and other species depend on
plankton blooms that are regulated by the extent and location of sea
ice in the spring. As sea ice retreats, species composition of the
blooms changes, reducing the amount of food reaching benthic organisms
which in turn feed other portions of the Arctic food web. Our ability
to fully understand the ramification of these changes or predict their
impact on protected species or commercial fisheries is sorely lacking.
The future amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as
carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, will depend on the ocean's
ability to absorb these gases in open-ocean and coastal systems. The
ocean absorbs approximately one-third of the CO2 emitted to
the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. However, this valuable
service comes at a steep ecological cost--the acidification of the
ocean. Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States:
Research Priorities for the Next Decade, notes that a more acidic ocean
will threatening a wide range of marine organisms from plankton and
shellfish to massive coral reefs--further altering ecosystems and their
processes. While the process by which ocean waters absorb
CO2 are well understood, the level at which the ocean loses
this buffering capacity is not well known nor are the implications for
ocean food webs and commercial fisheries that depend on shell-forming
organisms. I want to thank this committee for its foresight and
leadership in passing the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and
Monitoring Act last year; this is a good first step. As the committee
considers climate change and energy legislation, I urge you to include
provisions that will provide the necessary funding to support research
and monitoring activities to better understand the effect of climate
change on the ocean.
OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH
The ocean is a source of health hazards, harboring toxins and
disease-causing agents that can present serious threats to human
health. For example, the phytoplankton that cause harmful algal blooms
produce toxins that not only affect fish and marine mammals, but also
humans who eat affected fish or shellfish, or in some cases, simply
visit a beach during a bloom. To prevent disease outbreaks and improve
public health, we need to develop more effective threat detection and
monitoring systems, and conduct basic research to better understand of
the causes and epidemiology of ocean-related health threats.
Environmental changes can affect the dynamics of waterborne
diseases. When sea-surface temperatures increase, pathogens can become
more concentrated in seawater, threatening to contaminate seafood and
drinking water supplies in coastal communities. When sea levels rise,
low-lying areas can become inundated with contaminated water. Adaptive
management practices can recognize these environmental clues, such as
higher sea-surface temperature or a rise in sea level, and enable
public health officials to take action to help prevent our citizens
from being exposed to waterborne diseases.
The ocean is also a key source of plants, animals, and microbes
that are beginning to yield new and potent drugs for the treatment of
human disease, as well as new products for use in biotechnology. More
than 20,000 chemicals with pharmaceutical potential have been isolated
from marine organisms since the 1980s, several of these are currently
in the drug development pipeline, and a few are already clinically
available. One example is Prialt--a drug developed from the venom of a
fish-killing cone snail, and which is being used to treat chronic pain
associated with diseases like cancer and AIDS. Another example is
Yondelis--a cancer drug developed from a chemical discovered in sea
squirts that grow on mangrove roots in Florida.
Ocean research will enable us to develop effective ways of
protecting communities from harmful toxins, such as those produced by
harmful algal blooms, and dangerous pathogens, and to fuel discoveries
of marine-derived medicines, biomedical research probes, and other
products that improve public health and well-being. Now more than ever
we need a renewed emphasis on research into the mechanisms of disease
transmission and the effects of climate and weather patterns on ocean
and human health. Only then can we equip public health systems with the
tools and information they need to prevent human exposure to illness,
both in coastal communities and hundreds of miles inland.
OCEAN OBSERVING
The capability to adaptively describe and forecast the state of the
ocean is necessary to predict climate change and large scale phenomena
such as El Nino and La Nina events, as well as local phenomena, from
hurricanes and tsunamis to human health hazards. A report issued by the
National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Ocean Science
and Technology listed the ``capability to forecast key ocean-influenced
processes and phenomena'' and ``deploying an ocean-observing system''
as two of its three central elements of science and technology that
will ``provide the U.S. with the knowledge and means to redefine our
relationship with the ocean for the better''.
By measuring physical, biological and chemical water properties,
integrated ocean observing systems provide the scientific data
necessary to support ecosystem-based management and develop adaptive
strategies to better manage our ocean resources. Models are invaluable
tools that combine oceanographic data from observing systems with
scientific theory to recreate past conditions, provide real-time
observations and enable predictions of future impacts to the ocean.
Output from models are used by harbor pilots to navigate vessels safely
into port, to forecast the transport of harmful algal blooms near
coastal cities, and to predict how increasing levels of carbon dioxide
in our atmosphere will affect the acidity of the ocean.
An Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) is a central
recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and serves as the
U.S. contribution to the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). The IOOS
combines information from many sensor types at multiple scales, from
global to national to regional to local. By integrating and enhancing
existing ocean observing and monitoring systems already in place, and
expanding the system to incorporate new sources of data, we can
aggregate information from regional systems into one national IOOS and
provide multiple scales of information useful to a variety of end-
users. The data need to be managed and relayed through an integrated
communications system that allows feedback from end-users to keep the
system relevant to their needs. Although IOOS is still in its infancy,
it promises to be a powerful tool for end-users. IOOS end-users make
decisions affecting or affected by the ocean, from ship captains to
coastal resource managers to climate scientists, recreational
fishermen, and surfers.
A critical need is to expand and sustain components of the IOOS, in
particular, ocean observations from space. NASA's earth observations
have improved warning, monitoring, and recovery support from national
disasters, such as hurricanes and floods; they provide more timely
detection of tropical storms, resulting in much improved evacuation
decisions; and they improve wildfire detection and El Nino forecasting.
Satellite missions to observe sea surface height and ocean color are
experimental, with no path for transition to true operational status.
Declarations in the National Research Council's Decadal Survey call for
a renewal of the national commitment to a program of Earth
observations. One key recommendation of the survey tasked NOAA with
restoring measurements of ocean vector winds and sea-surface
temperatures to planned Earth observing missions: the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and the
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOES-R).
Sustained measurements from Earth observing systems such as these
provide the long-term record necessary to make sound policy decisions
regarding our oceans.
While ocean data from space are important, satellite remote sensing
can only provide information a few meters deep into the ocean. It is,
therefore, critical that we continue to invest in our academic research
fleet, buoys, floats, underwater vehicles, and sensors to expand our
ability to measure biological, chemical and physical properties, and to
integrate remote sensing from space with in situ measurements in the
ocean. A robust, integrated ocean observing system should be able to
describe the actual state of the ocean as well as provide data to
predict changes in ocean ecosystems. This information will
fundamentally alter our ability to understand, conserve, and manage our
ocean resources.
Full development and sustained funding to support the operational
costs of this ocean observing system are important: they will enable
the promise of ocean forecasting, ecosystem-based management, and
adaptive management during the next decade.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
In 2007, the JSOST released the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and
Implementation Strategy: Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the
United States: Research Priorities for the Next Decade. The plan
represents the first coordinated national research planning effort
involving all federal agencies that support ocean science. I would like
to emphasize one of the overarching recommendations from this report:
the need for continued coordination among the federal ocean agencies.
Ocean research activities are spread across the 25 federal agencies
that comprise the JSOST. This poses a serious challenge for
coordination, collaboration and integration of projects for
implementing ocean research priorities. A central program office,
similar to that of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
(NOPP), should be established to coordinate and manage projects to
serve the broader ocean sciences community. NOPP has been effective in
facilitating interagency collaboration on a wide variety of topics,
including ocean observing system development, and biological and
chemical sensor development and commercialization. Under the Ocean
Action Plan (OAP), the NOPP program office has been instrumental in
ensuring the effective coordination, collaboration, and integration of
the Inter-agency Working Group on Ocean Partnerships, the Inter-agency
Working Group on Facilities, and the Ocean Research and Resources
Advisory Panel as a subset of the various interagency working groups
established under the OAP.
Transparency in agency budget requests to specify how funds will be
used to support the interagency research priorities would ensure
accountability and encourage participation among all federal ocean
agencies. However, OMB budget reviews are performed largely per agency,
presenting an administrative barrier to assessment of progress that can
be more effectively accomplished through interagency coordination, such
as those envisioned in the ORPPIS. A more coordinated mechanism will be
required to ensure that the interagency priorities are included in
budget planning for individual agencies. A comprehensive interagency
review, as part of the annual budget process, would help ensure that
the full suite of research priorities is addressed. Agency budget
reviews should be coordinated to ensure that interagency priorities are
included in the plans of each individual agency within the JSOST.
CONCLUSION
The ocean is the reason that Earth is inhabitable: it sustains all
life. Yet, we have taken the ocean for granted, often looking to outer
space and distant planets rather than inner space, the ocean's depths
and the vast species diversity--diversity that feeds a planet and holds
the cures to diseases that have plagued humankind. We must recognize
that the oceans are finite and cannot indefinitely withstand stresses
of overfishing, climate change, and pollution.
We have drawn down the assets of the ocean, but now more than ever
we need to re-invest in and recommit to the health of our ocean planet.
We have explored only five percent of the ocean and we protect only
eight-tenths of one percent of it. We need to understand society's
impact on the ocean and the ocean's impact on society to ensure a
clean, healthy ocean. We need new technologies to map, explore, and
observe the ocean--technologies that will enable us to achieve
ecosystem-based and adaptive management, restore the health of the
ocean and unlock its secrets. Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member
Brown, and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity
to testify before you, and on behalf of the ocean science community, I
look forward to working with you to provide the science to conserve our
ocean planet for future generations.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, thank you very much, Dr. Pomponi,
for your testimony. And also thank you for the many dedicated
years working to advance marine science.
And I now recognize Dr. Jackson from the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature to testify for five
minutes. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM JACKSON, Ph.D., DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL,
IUCN-USA MULTILATERAL OFFICE
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and Members of
the Subcommittee.
Madame Chairwoman, you began your opening statement by
talking about the financial crisis. I think this crisis has
provided us with a very stark reminder of how the loss of
assets can affect our livelihoods, but also undermine our
capacity to make choices.
It is shown that early warning signals often go unheeded
until a crisis is upon us; and that when we do have a collapse,
it can be very rapid and very far-reaching.
I think if we compare the financial crisis with the state
of our natural resources, we see some alarming similarities.
For many years we have been told that our forests, our rivers,
and our oceans are stressed, and unfortunately we tend to
ignore these early warning signals. Just look at how 70 percent
of the world's fisheries are depleted or over-exploited. Yet in
some areas, fishing industry continues to intensify their
efforts, opening up new species and new areas.
The IUCN red list of threatened species tells us that
nearly 40 percent of the animals and plants that we have
assessed globally are threatened with extinction. And we know
that since 1900, the world has lost about half of its wetlands,
and about 60 percent of coral reefs could be lost by 2030.
Having the right information is the key to the
Subcommittee; acting on that information, even more important.
The consequences of ecosystem degradation have far-reaching
impacts on human well-being. Climate change, for example, has
global reach; but poor countries are more, or are least able to
cope with this. This, in turn, will have a major impact on
human security issues through food and water scarcity, and
through ensuring migration.
When fisherpeople stop fishing because there is no fish
left, and they start using their boats to ferry refugees, you
know we have reached another tipping point.
Technology is critical in reversing climate change, but we
must be careful not to put all of our eggs in the technology
basket. Some technologies will definitely work, others won't.
Some will be economic, others won't.
But whether we talk about climate change mitigation or
adaptation, conserving natural resources is a safety net that
we should never lose. While climate change rightly dominates
the headlines today, ecosystem degradation will do so tomorrow
if we don't act now. Economies can recover, whilst biodiversity
is irreversible.
Biodiversity can do for the planet what a healthy immune
system can do for us as individuals. It helps us to adapt to
change, but if it doesn't function properly, it makes us more
vulnerable.
We have many years, and thousands of years indeed, of
experience in using nature to help us to grow our food, to
provide us with clean water and medicines, and to protect us
from natural hazard. We know that investing in ecosystems can
yield multiple benefits at the same time.
For example, in a fight against climate change, restoring
forest ecosystems, not only stores large amounts of carbon, but
can directly improve the resilience of poor people's
livelihoods, and therefore reduce impacts.
We know enough about marine ecosystems to create far more
effective national and international management mechanisms to
halt the decline and maintain resilience, so that they can have
a better chance of coping with climate change.
The bottom line, we need to act urgently on the existing
knowledge we have, while increasing, at the same time,
understanding of natural processes.
What is it that you can do as lawmakers? The first answer,
to me, is fairly obvious, and the one that fits within your
Administration's stated intentions. You can invest in
knowledge, you can support research.
This committee has a special interest in oceans. Your
support for time-series data on fisheries, pollution, and
climate variability to allow us to better understand the
impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems is essential. We
need to understand processes, such as acidification and
interaction between oceans and the climate system. Research
itself is not enough.
The U.S. has traditionally shown leadership in ocean
resource management, and I encourage you to renew that
leadership role. This is particularly important for the Arctic.
The U.S. also needs to send strong messages into the
international multi-lateral system, and particularly the U.N.
Convention on the law of the sea and the upcoming climate
negotiations.
Most importantly, you can perhaps do a lot by integrating,
in the committee's own thinking, the idea of investing in
nature as infrastructure. Perhaps that is part of your new
paradigm.
In short, we have to make biodiversity integral to every
project in every piece of legislation you work on. The U.S. can
lead by example in making these necessary interventions. The
International Union of the Conservation of Nature stands ready
to help you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
Statement of Dr. William J. Jackson, Deputy Director General,
International Union for Conservation of Nature--IUCN
The challenge
Conserving Nature--our life support system
While the global economic crisis certainly warrants the political
attention it is receiving, another crisis is escalating, the effects of
which could far outstrip the current financial losses: the global
decline of the earth's natural capital.
Healthy biodiversity and ecosystems are the true foundation of all
economies, yet they are under attack by the same economic forces that
ultimately depend on them. Economies can eventually recover, but the
loss of biodiversity is irreversible and the impacts of ecosystem
degradation are likely to undermine economic recovery.
Biodiversity affects nearly every aspect of human well-being and
development. Ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and river basins, if
allowed to function naturally, provide streams of benefits to people.
These ``ecosystem services'' include food, timber and medicines,
regular supplies of fresh water, maintaining a healthy climate,
pollinating crops, preventing soil erosion and controlling diseases.
Healthy ecosystems minimize the impacts of extreme natural events and
allow affected communities to recover more quickly. The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity study put an average price tag of US$ 33
trillion a year on these fundamental services which are largely taken
for granted because they are free. That is nearly twice the value of
the global GNP of US$18 trillion. Society as a whole--individual,
households, businesses, and governments--depends on ecosystem services
but has become so far removed from nature that most people, including
policy makers, are unaware of this dependence.
Biodiversity supports much of the energy systems, especially in
developing countries where firewood and charcoal are by far the most
important sources of energy used for cooking and heating. Biofuels are
becoming increasingly important in providing energy security,
potentially helping to address the problems of climate change, and
providing new sources of income to poor farmers. Biodiversity also
provides an effective way to store the carbon produced by burning
fossil fuels. Millions of tons of carbon are absorbed every year by
plankton, soils and forests.
Human health depends on healthy biodiversity. More than half of our
modern pharmaceuticals originated from wild plants or animals while
medicinal plants continue to provide the main source of health care in
many developing countries. In the U.S. alone, the turnover for drugs
derived from genetic resources was between US$ 75 billion and US$ 150
billion in 1997. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the
demand for medicinal plants is likely to increase from the current
US$14 billion a year to US$5 trillion in 2050.
Some 40% of world trade is based on biological products or
processes including fisheries, timber and food products. The increasing
dependence of many countries on imports of food and other biological
resources underlines the important contribution biodiversity makes to
economies.
Biodiversity is linked to national security. Conflicts over water,
fisheries and other shared resources are increasing in many parts of
the world and natural resources help feed some conflicts. Civil
conflicts are being fought in tropical forests and illegal harvesting
of timber and other natural resources provides income that enables
insurgent groups to purchase arms or corrupt governments to finance
repression. Better resource management can contribute to peaceful
relationships among nations. The massive movement of people competing
for shrinking natural resources in the face of climate change will
further destabilize fragile States.
How many warnings are needed?
Despite the growing knowledge of how nature provides societies'
life support systems, environmental degradation is rampant. The world
is not reacting to the alarm bells that have been ringing with ever
greater urgency for many years.
Almost 40% of the world's species assessed through the IUCN Red
List are threatened with extinction; 70% of the world's fisheries are
depleted or over-exploited and still, fishing industries intensify
their efforts, plundering new species and new areas. The collapse of
the cod fishery in Canada is a stark reminder of the impacts of
unsustainable harvest on people and economies. The first sale value of
marine fisheries was globally valued at US$ 70 billion in 2002, while
local scale fishing provides a critical source of protein for the poor.
Nearly every aspect of human development is unsustainable. Demand
for fresh water exceeds supply in more and more countries, leading in
some cases to conflict over dwindling resources. Through burgeoning
levels of waste and industrial pollution, air and water quality
continues to decrease, even if the problem may seem far away from
Washington, as the ``workshop of the world'' has moved to East Asia.
Consumption increases but the world seems unwilling to recognize, let
alone to invest, in maintaining natural capital.
Climate change is altering weather patterns and contributing to the
increasing frequency and strength of extreme weather events. What was
the impact of hurricane Katrina on the U.S. economy? What was the cost
of reconstruction associated with the massive fires in California last
summer? What will be the cost of losing cultural heritage from
inundation of Pacific islands? What will be the cost of technology to
try to maintain liveable conditions as temperate areas become hotter?
In their bid to stimulate economic recovery and create new
employment, governments around the world are using public financial
resources to invest in infrastructure such as roads and airports. In
many cases, these investments could further damage the environment.
Infrastructure spending should address issues of waste and energy
efficiency and the potential impacts on ecosystems.
Nature can be viewed as a 'trust fund'. There is a choice to spend
it all now, use the current stock sustainably (at its current rate of
return) or increase future opportunities through investment. There is
no ``natural reserve bank'' or ``natural treasury'' which will bail the
world out of the environmental debt crisis. The necessary actions will
not be easy or quick, but the longer we wait, the harder it will be to
climb out. As Sir Nicholas Stern has shown with respect to climate
change, every year that serious action is postponed results in more
unavoidable damage and increased costs of adaptation.
The opportunity
The current economic meltdown can become a catalyst for a new and
very real, green economy. It offers an unprecedented opportunity to
rethink the global economic model. The U.S., with a renewed commitment
and energy to make its contribution once again towards a better world,
is ideally placed to lead by example, in putting environmental
restoration at the heart of economic recovery and biodiversity
conservation at the forefront of efforts to halt climate change.
Many governments still worry that if they set tough standards to
control carbon emissions, their industry and agriculture will become
uncompetitive, a fear that leads to a foot-dragging ``you go first''
attitude that is blocking progress. A positive intervention by the U.S.
could provide the vital impetus that moves the current climate
negotiations beyond the national interests which lie at the heart of
the current impasse. The logjam should not be difficult to break if the
U.S. helps industrialized countries agree on the principle of equitable
entitlement to the planet's common resources. Caps on emissions and
sharing of energy-efficient technologies are in everyone's interests,
rich and poor.
U.S. corporations have invented remarkable products that have been
the source of material well-being for hundreds of millions around the
world, but for too long have used unsustainable production systems.
Methods of production and consumption must change, but that does not
mean going back to the Stone Age. An average citizen of Switzerland,
whose per capita GDP is higher than that of the U.S., emits one third
of the CO2 of an American. And in other societies and
cultures, a full and happy life can be had for one third of what the
Swiss consume.
Climate change, which is triggering environmental, social and
economic disruptions, should be elevated as a top priority. But
conservation of biodiversity needs just as much attention, and just as
urgently. The U.S. interests in conserving its natural resources and
achieving energy independence, clearly align with the global common
good in every sphere: in the oceans, by halting the rapid decline of
fish stocks and increasing acidification; on land, by regenerating the
health of our soils, forests and rivers; and in the atmosphere by
reducing the massive emission of pollutants from our wasteful
industries, construction, agriculture and transport.
Conservation of nature and natural resources is often perceived as
an obstacle to development when in reality, conserving forests,
watersheds and coastlines can bring enormous savings to national
governments. Investing in green infrastructure secures the continuous
flow of ecosystem services and is far cheaper than traditional ``built
infrastructure'' such as flood barriers and water filtration plants.
Green infrastructure = green jobs
The concept of green infrastructure, which originated in the U.S.,
highlights the importance of the natural environment in decisions about
land use and emphasizes the ``life support'' functions provided by the
natural environment. Examples include clean water and healthy soils,
functions such as recreation and providing shade and shelter in and
around urban areas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
extended the concept to the management of storm water runoff at the
local level through the use of natural systems or engineered systems
that mimic natural systems. At a larger scale, the preservation and
restoration of ecosystems such as forests, floodplains and wetlands are
critical components of green storm water infrastructure.
Millions of new jobs could be created by ``greening'' development.
Last week, the German government announced that strong growth in
Germany's renewable energy sector along with increased state spending
for environment protection could help shorten the country's worst post-
war recession. The number of jobs in renewable energies will triple by
2020 and hit 900,000 by 2030.
Putting nature at the centre of the fight against climate change
For several years, the world has been investing in technology and
engineering to fight climate change. Technology is a vitally important
part of efforts to tackle climate change, but we must be careful not to
put all of our eggs in a ``techno-fix'' basket. Some technologies will
work; others won't; others will be economically unviable. And yet,
whether for mitigation or adaptation measures to climate change,
conserving nature is the safety net we should never lose.
A well managed reef in the Indian Ocean or the Caribbean will be
more resistant to rising temperatures and will help to keep fisheries
healthy. The key role played by forests and other ecosystems like
peatlands in absorbing CO2 and therefore, in reducing
emissions is well known. Greater support should therefore be given to
the REDD protocol (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Degradation) being put in place through the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and a financial mechanism in
which conserving biodiversity allows countries to reduce their
emissions. Properly applied, initiatives like REDD can produce better
managed forests that deliver goods for people. A well-managed forest in
Ghana brings benefits to the people living in the area, but it also
helps to regulate the climate for the rest of the planet. This type of
approach makes sense from both a development perspective and an
environmental one.
The U.S. has a clear role to play in promoting international
cooperation to achieve conservation goals. It is one of only five
countries that has not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD). IUCN recommends that the U.S. ratifies the CBD, possibly as part
of a package of widely-accepted treaties such as the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Migratory
Species.
IUCN also wishes to see an increased U.S. Federal role in
conserving biodiversity and maintaining or increasing the ability of
ecosystems to mitigate and adapt to climate change. IUCN urges the U.S.
to strengthen its environmental policies and practices by fully
implementing and enforcing existing laws such as the National
Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act and the
Endangered Species Act.
The way forward
The knowledge and the tools are at our disposal to restore the
global environment and create a world that uses its natural resources
sustainably. There are still some gaps in knowledge that must be filled
but the problems are identified and so are the solutions.
The first step is to acknowledge the magnitude of our ecological
debts. Clear standards and accounting rules are needed for measuring
and reporting the depreciation of natural capital, at all levels from
individual businesses to entire countries. Recent advances in
technology, including remote sensing and internet connectivity, make
this kind of measurement and reporting easier than ever before.
The next steps will be harder. In short, there is a need to rebuild
our natural capital stocks. This will require wide-ranging reform of
public policy, starting with reductions in ``perverse'' subsidies, such
as the US$ 300 billion per year that the world's governments hand out
to the petroleum industry. Subsidies to agriculture, forestry, mining,
road-building also need to be reformed to create clear economic
mechanisms that reward nature conservation and penalize environmental
destruction.
Conserving biodiversity and ecosystems must be done by addressing
the underlying forces that are eroding them, particularly development
and consumption. For conservation to be successful, a flexible approach
is needed, diagnosing first and adapting specific solutions in changing
contexts. Policy makers at all levels must better integrate sound
science and demonstrated practice into their decisions.
Years of experience ``on the ground'' have shown us the need to
root conservation at the local level. It is only by working with
communities, by giving them the knowledge and empowering them to use
the tools available to them, that any conservation work will be
possible. Influencing governance arrangements simultaneously from the
local to global level is key to effecting wider change and building
public support for environmental protection.
Harnessing the power of the private sector
Businesses and consumers must start to pay the real economic value
for ecosystem goods and services. Following the UK-led Review of the
Economics of Climate Change, IUCN is working with its partners on The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study which will provide tools
for the true value of nature's services to be accounted for in decision
making and integrated into national economic measures.
The priority should be to engage the business sectors in which
change is most important and urgent, due to the scale of their negative
impacts on the environment and social equity. These include ``large
footprint'' industries such as mining, oil and gas, construction,
automobile and energy which have a large impact on biodiversity through
their operations. On the other hand, biodiversity-dependent industries
such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, food retailing and
aquaculture must all be encouraged to reduce their negative impacts.
Given the vast amounts of capital that financial services, banks,
and insurance companies control, the leveraging potential for projects
that conserve rather than damage biodiversity is enormous. The
development of green enterprises whose activities generate conservation
benefits should be encouraged. These include renewable energy,
sustainable and organic agriculture, nature-based tourism and ethical
trade.
The business case for conserving nature is strong and getting
stronger. A recent report published by IUCN and Shell International
Limited calls for policy reforms to increase the commercial rewards for
conserving biodiversity, increased penalties for biodiversity loss and
better information on the biodiversity performance of business. A key
challenge facing all businesses wanting to become more sustainable in
their practices is the lack of accepted indicators to measure positive
and negative contributions to biodiversity conservation. Markets for
organic agriculture and sustainably-harvested timber are growing at
double-digit rates. Another major area of growth is the demand for
climate mitigation services such as the protection of forests and
wetlands to absorb carbon dioxide. Bioprospecting--the search for new
compounds, genes and organisms in the wild--is also a biodiversity
business on the rise.
Paying a true price
Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes reward those whose land
provides these services with subsidies or market payments from those
who benefit from them. It is an innovative approach to sustainable
financing for conservation and highlights the critical importance of
natural capital to the global economy.
In the U.S., companies or individuals can buy environmental credits
from Wetland Mitigation Banks to pay for degradation of wetland
ecosystems due to agriculture or development activities. More than 400
banks had been approved by September 2005, almost three quarters of
them sponsored by private entities, while in 2006 the trade of wetland
bank credits reached US$ 350 million.
In France, the Vittel mineral water company (Nestle Waters) was
concerned about nitrate contamination caused by agricultural
intensification so it began to pay farmers within its catchment to make
their practices more sustainable. A key element of success was that
Vittel gained the farmers' trust and maintained their income levels by
providing them with sufficiently large payments. It also financed any
required technological changes, meaning that farmers were not out of
pocket. The company worked with farmers to identify suitable
alternative practices and mutually-acceptable incentives.
The tools for environmental management are increasingly
sophisticated and do not require massive increases in public spending.
Market-based approaches such as tradable permits for sulphur dioxide,
wetland mitigation banking, feed-in tariffs for renewable energy, waste
deposit schemes and resource user fees, have shown that businesses will
reduce their ecological footprint and invest in environmental
protection, if the right incentives are put in place.
Leading the way in restoring our oceans
The oceans drive weather patterns, generate 70% of atmospheric
oxygen, absorb most of the planet's carbon dioxide, are the ultimate
reservoir for replenishment of fresh water to land and contain a wealth
of biodiversity that keeps the earth's ecosystem services functioning.
Marine ecosystems such as wetlands, coral reefs, mangroves and sea
grass beds provide food and livelihood for millions of people and can
protect communities from extreme weather events.
However as with the terrestrial environment, our oceans face a
barrage of threats, one of the biggest being over-exploitation of
marine resources. Oil spills, agricultural run-off, harmful chemical
and medical substances and plastic debris are just part of a long list
of pollutants generated by modern society that end up in the sea.
The U.S. has the largest ocean area under its jurisdiction of any
country and has traditionally been a leader in global ocean diplomacy.
It now has the opportunity to renew its stewardship of ocean resources
and resume its leadership in international marine affairs.
Marine ecosystems often extend across political or jurisdictional
boundaries. It therefore follows that they must be managed using a
broader framework. For larger systems, for example at the level of a
sea or significant portion of it, such agreements might take the form
of ``regional ocean management agreements.'' Smaller spaces might
require agreement among States or provinces, such as the case of
Chesapeake Bay.
The goal of applying the ecosystem approach to marine management by
2010 is incorporated in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation of the
World Summit on Sustainable Development, adopted in 2002. Establishing
this goal represented a culmination of global thinking developed in
various international processes including the UN Food and Agricultural
Guidelines on Marine Ecosystems and extensive work by the Conference of
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Governments have
collectively recognized the need to consider the full range of
activities and processes affecting marine ecosystems in making
decisions about the nature and extent of human activities.
Achievement of this goal is not an easy task. Progress, however,
has been steady and widespread. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) members and the Arctic Council have taken important collective
steps. The Global Environment Facility, the World Bank, participating
countries and other donors are funding 16 large marine ecosystem
projects in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe at a multi-
year level of US$1.8 billion. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration has adopted ecosystem-based management as
one of its principal strategic goals.
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are an important tool in implementing
the ecosystem approach. When effectively designed and managed these
areas can deliver many ecological and socio-economic benefits as well
as build the resilience of marine ecosystems in the face of increasing
global pressures such as climate change.
Improved coordination and implementation of land-based pollution
programs, in alignment with other sectoral policies, and oil spill
prevention measures are required to avoid nutrient overload and
hazardous impacts. We need to improve fisheries management if we are to
sustain healthy fish stocks and economically-viable fishing industries.
Destructive fishing practices must be eliminated and bycatch
drastically reduced. The development, strengthening and implementation
of international and national policies are also needed to address
declines in vulnerable and declining marine species.
Despite the role of the oceans and coasts play in supporting our
economic well-being, they remain poorly understood. Core funding for
ocean science and research is necessary to expand our knowledge and
allow us to continually adapt our management strategies for maximum
effectiveness. Traditional approaches to coastal and marine management
should be re-assessed and vulnerability studies need to consider new
demands on marine ecosystems and their productivity.
In the last few years, the importance of marine biological
resources that exist beyond the limits of national jurisdiction--the
high seas--as well as on the threats to these important resources have
increasingly been highlighted. There is a need to capitalize on this
growing awareness and find ways to reduce the multiple threats to
marine biodiversity in these areas in ways that are consistent with
international law. Broadest possible participation in the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would ease this process.
Working together
There are many other important steps needed to boost biodiversity
conservation at the international level. There is a need to make all
data on biodiversity and ecosystems easily accessible to all who need
it, including industry. This means solving data proprietary issues. All
relevant institutions need to be encouraged to share their data, even
though they may have invested significant resources in compiling the
information. A sustainable, self-financing, business model for open
access needs to be developed and implemented. Financial support must be
provided to developing countries, which arguably have the greatest need
for access to biodiversity data.
The world is looking to the U.S. with great expectations in
relation to the environment. Of course, one nation alone cannot change
the world but it can have an enormous influence. Much is possible, but
only by mustering the political will at all levels to face and confront
environmental challenges. The environmental community is heartened by
the positive steps taken in the early days of the new U.S.
Administration, particularly towards putting science at the foundation
of policy development and natural resource management. IUCN, like other
science-based conservation organizations, stands ready to help the U.S.
and other nations achieve the ambitious but achievable goal of global
sustainability.
IUCN--International Union for Conservation of Nature
1,000 organizations and 10,000 experts solving our planet's greatest
challenges
In addition to the U.S. State Department, IUCN has six U.S.
government agency members including the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Working on behalf of more than 1,000 member
organizations, both government and non governmental, IUCN is a unique
environmental democracy operating at all levels from the villages of
Central Africa to the United Nations' General Assembly. By mobilizing
knowledge and expertise from all regions of the world, IUCN's powerful
machinery is best able to convert policy into practice, allowing key
decisions at higher levels to be informed by field information and
expertise, and in turn, applying policy lessons at the ground level.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Dr. Jackson. And I am very
encouraged by your testimony, and congratulate your
organization for developing important products that deliver
critical data to decision makers on the ground.
And now I would like to recognize Mr. Nutter. It is a
pleasure to welcome you this morning, and you can proceed.
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN W. NUTTER, PRESIDENT, REINSURANCE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Nutter. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. It is a
pleasure to be here before the committee today and offer our
perspective on managing risk by promoting the conservation of
our natural resources, and through risk mitigation efforts
along our densely populated coastlines.
In simple terms, reinsurance is the insurance of insurance
companies. One of its primary functions is to provide transfer
for insurers for major natural catastrophe risk.
For example, in 2005, with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and
Wilma, nearly 61 percent of all the insured losses paid by the
insurance industry were transferred to the reinsurance market.
The insurance industry's financial interest is
interdependent with climate and weather. It is the risk of
natural events that drives the demand for insurance coverages;
yet, if not properly managed, can threaten the financial health
of an insurer if it is over-exposed in high-risk areas.
As has been mentioned by several witnesses, the insured
property along our coastlines has risen dramatically. One study
estimated that it has nearly doubled every decade. And at the
end of 2007, our estimates are that the privately insured
property values along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts totaled
nearly $9 trillion. And of course, economic losses associated
with natural catastrophes has risen dramatically.
With 30 percent of the U.S. population living in coastal
counties that are exposed to extreme events, global climate
change will only increase this exposure and potential losses.
Congress should help people living in hurricane-prone
coastal areas to take proactive mitigation steps to protect
their property, rather than encourage further development in
these high-risk environmentally sensitive locales, by creating
taxpayer-funded programs to subsidize insurance.
Our organization has partnered with other diverse interest
groups to create the Americans for Smart Natural Catastrophe
Policy to promote environmentally responsible, fiscally sound
approaches to natural catastrophe policy, in the interest of
public safety. I have listed a number of our partners in this,
including the National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers,
Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, Republicans for
Environmental Protection, the Sierra Club, and, most recently,
the Nature Conservancy as part of that coalition.
And it stands for the following principles: that we should
build smart, according to the most modern building standards
and codes reflecting exposure to natural catastrophe disasters
and cost-effective loss-reduction measures; promote risk
avoidance and proactive mitigation measures; protect both the
public and ecosystems that provide natural buffers to storms,
renewed efforts should be made to preserve coastal areas
consistent with effective state and Federal laws; and also to
provide, to ensure, based upon risk, private and public
property, insurance should be established based upon risk
exposure.
While our coalition members have different priorities, we
all agree that certain actions being considered by Congress may
have a detrimental impact on oceans, coastal systems, and
wildlife. Our coalition opposed proposals to expand the
National Flood Insurance Program to include wind-power
coverage, largely because it would overwhelm a program that is
already $18 billion in debt, and encourage further development
in unsafe or environmentally sensitive areas.
There are many steps that we can take to mitigate losses
and protect our oceans, coastal and wildlife resources. Among
them include incorporating climate change and risk assessment
and risk mitigation that is translated to local levels,
particularly for the mapping of flood, shoreline, and
inundation areas.
We should require risk-based land-use planning and the
integration of natural hazards into land-use planning. We
should design infrastructure to consider natural hazards and
climate change.
Our organization is also part of a building code coalition
whose goal is to enact legislation to amend the Stafford Act,
by encouraging states to adopt nationally recognized model
building codes for residential and commercial structures.
During this year's consideration of the economic stimulus
package, our coalition supported an increase in funding to
FEMA's pre-disaster-mitigation program to provide funds to
states for community-based hazard-mitigation activities. We
also advocated for efforts to ensure that infrastructure
projects funded through Federal appropriations consider and
incorporate measures to reduce the risk of potential impacts of
natural disasters.
Our coalition supports the Coastal Barrier Resources
System, which prevents structures proposed for construction in
undeveloped environmentally pristine areas from purchasing
Federal flood insurance. The Coastal Zone Management Act could
provide a tool, essentially a climate adaptation tool, to
ensure states are planning for potential risks posed by the
impacts of climate change.
If blended with state mitigation plans already required by
the Stafford Act and approved by FEMA, the combination provides
states with the planning tools they need to develop and
implement a climate adaptation policy.
Last, I would like to commend the committee for recognizing
the importance of risk mitigation to conservation of our ocean,
coastal ecosystems, and wildlife resources in an increasingly
dynamic and unpredictable environment. Clearly, all
stakeholders must work together to make sure that we have
environmentally sound and fiscally responsible policy that will
ultimately reduce costs borne by the Federal and state
governments, insurers, and American taxpayers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nutter follows:]
Statement of Franklin W. Nutter, President,
Reinsurance Association of America
My name is Frank Nutter and I am President of the Reinsurance
Association of America (RAA). The RAA is a national trade association
of property and casualty reinsurers doing business in the U.S. Its
membership is diverse, and includes reinsurance underwriters and
intermediaries licensed in the U.S. and those that conduct business on
a cross-border basis. It is a pleasure to appear before you today at
this hearing on ``Managing Ocean and Wildlife Resources in a Dynamic
Environment.'' In particular, I will address the reinsurance
perspective on managing risk by promoting the conservation of our
natural resources and through risk mitigation efforts along our densely
populated coastlines.
U.S. Reinsurance Market's Interest in Oceans and Wildlife Resources
First, let me provide a brief background on reinsurance. In simple
terms, reinsurance is insurance for insurance companies. Reinsurance is
critical to the insurance marketplace because it reduces the volatility
experienced by insurers and improves insurers' financial performance
and security. It is widely recognized that reinsurance performs at
least four primary functions in the marketplace: to limit liability on
specific risks; to stabilize loss experience; to provide transfer for
insurers of major natural and man-made catastrophe risk; and to
increase insurance capacity. I cannot emphasize enough the important
role that reinsurance plays in the insurance marketplace. Reinsurers
have assisted in the recovery from every major U.S. catastrophe over
the past century. By way of example, 60% of the losses related to the
events of September 11 were absorbed by the global reinsurance industry
and 61% of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005 were ultimately
borne by reinsurers.
Reinsurers have a keen interest in managing risk as a means to
reduce economic loss. The insurance industry's financial interest is
inter-dependent with climate and weather. It is the risk of natural
events that drives the demand for insurance coverage, yet if not
properly managed, can threaten the financial health of an insurer if it
is over-exposed in high risk areas. An insurance company's financial
viability rests on its ability to estimate the economic consequences of
future events.
Increasing Exposure to our Nation's Coastlines and Wildlife Resources
According to AIR Worldwide, a catastrophe modeling firm, insured
property values along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts have doubled every
decade. At year-end 2007, Gulf and Atlantic coast insured property
values equaled $9 trillion. Globally, the economic losses due to
extreme weather have also risen dramatically over time: 1950-59--$53B;
1906-69--$93B; 1970-79--$162B; 1980-89--$263B; 1990-99--$778B; 2000-
2008--$620B. 1 Interestingly, between 1970 and 2004, storms
and floods accounted for 90% of those losses. In 2005, Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma resulted in $87B in insured losses and an
additional $20B of losses due to flood that were ultimately covered by
the National Flood Insurance Program. Since 2001, nine out of the top
20 costliest natural disasters have occurred in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data from Munich Reinsurance Company
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two principal socio-economic factors driving these
increased losses--the degree of urbanization and value at risk (i.e.,
higher property values in higher risk areas). 2 With 30% of
the U.S. population living in coastal counties that are exposed to
extreme events--such as hurricanes and storm surge--global climate
change will only increase this exposure and potential losses because of
its affects on the intensity and frequency of extreme atmospheric
events and storm surge. According to Dr. Dennis Miletti, author of
``Disasters by Design,'' ``we are putting more property of greater
value in harms way.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2 The Wharton School
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation Works to Save our Coastlines and Wildlife
Congress should help people living in hurricane-prone coastal areas
take proactive mitigation steps to protect their property, rather than
encourage further development in these high-risk, environmentally-
sensitive locales by creating taxpayer-funded programs to subsidize
homeowners' insurance. The RAA has partnered with other diverse
interest groups to create the Americans for Smart Natural Catastrophe
Policy Coalition to promote environmentally-responsible, fiscally-sound
approaches to natural catastrophe policy in the interest of public
safety. Our environmental allies and coalition partners are
particularly interested in protecting our oceans, coastal ecosystems,
and wildlife. They include American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife,
Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife
Federation, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Association of
Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, American Consumer Institute, Americans
for Prosperity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Council for Citizens
Against Government Waste, and the National Association of Professional
Insurance Agents. The Coalition's guiding principles are as follows:
Principles for Natural Disaster Mitigation and Assistance
Build Smart: Properties in coastal areas and other high-
hazard areas should be built, replaced or repaired according to the
most modern building standards and codes reflecting exposure to natural
disasters and effective loss-reduction measures. Based on the
continuing scientific assessment of the effects and consequences of a
changing climate, property and infrastructure development in coastal
and other high-hazard areas have placed people in harm's way and
property at significant risk of loss from natural catastrophic events.
Encourage Safety: Government incentives should promote
risk-avoidance and proactive mitigation measures to protect the public
from a broad range of natural disasters, including wind, flood,
wildfires and earthquakes.
Use Nature: To protect both the public and ecosystems
that provide natural ``buffers'' to storms, renewed efforts should be
made to preserve coastal areas consistent with effective state and
federal laws, using uniform, objective standards.
Insure Based On Risk: Private and public property
insurance premiums should be established on the basis of risk exposure,
including catastrophic risk, subject to state law that risk premiums
should be neither excessive nor inadequate.
Assume Responsibility: Responsibility for state insurance
and reinsurance programs that pool natural disaster risks should remain
with those states which have established such programs, rather than
shifting the financing to the federal government through such means as
federal loans or reinsurance.
Target Government Assistance: Programs should focus on
people and not on insurance companies:
Extend tax credits, loans and grants for measures designed
to protect the property from natural disasters--rather than for
programs designed to support artificially low insurance rates.
Provide means-based assistance, focused on low and fixed
income residents--rather than wealthy individuals with expensive beach
front or vacation homes.
Discourage development in coastal areas and other high-
risk areas--federal assistance should not subsidize new property
development in coastal areas vulnerable to catastrophic storms, or
other high-risk areas.
While Coalition members have differing priorities, we all agree
that certain actions being considered by Congress will have a
detrimental impact on oceans, coastal ecosystems, and wildlife. During
the last Congress, proposals to expand the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) to include wind damage were considered in both the House
and Senate. We believe adding wind as a covered peril would:
1. Overwhelm the NFIP. The program already has an $18 billion
deficit and is struggling to resolve flood claims, manage fraud arising
from Hurricane Katrina payouts, and prevent insolvency. Adding wind
insurance will distract from the program's mission and substantially
undermine efforts to stabilize the program.
2. Encourage further development in unsafe or environmentally
sensitive areas. Supporting wind insurance that encourages unwise
construction in high risk areas sends the wrong message to communities
regarding the environmental impact and danger of living in hazard-prone
coastal areas and floodplains--areas that may be increasingly
vulnerable given the potential impacts of climate change.
3. Cost taxpayers billions. Experience with the NFIP shows, and
the American Academy of Actuaries confirms, that adding federally-
backed wind insurance will not be actuarially sound despite language
the contrary. Taxpayers nationwide will be left to pay the cost of wind
damage, which would more than triple the government's exposure under
NFIP.
4. Discourage the provision of wind insurance by the private
market.
Similar problems apply to the creation of new federal natural
catastrophe programs that would require the federal government to
provide loans intended to bail out state natural disaster catastrophe
funds or require the federal government to provide government
reinsurance for a state's property and casualty insurance program.
Positive Steps to Protect Our Coastlines and Wildlife
There are many steps we can take to mitigate losses and protect our
ocean, coastal and wildlife resources. Among them:
1. Incorporating climate change in risk assessments and risk
mitigation. The scientific community should be encouraged to translate
the localized impacts of climate change for planning purposes--flood,
shoreline and inundation maps should reflect local climate change
impact assessment, including scenario assessments.
2. Requiring risk-based land use planning. This would include the
integration of natural hazards into land use planning with goal of
protecting development and wildlife from extreme weather and erosion.
3. Designing infrastructure to consider natural hazards and
climate change.
4. Strengthening ecosystems as part of risk mitigation strategies.
Coastal wetlands, barrier islands and natural coastal vegetation serve
as buffers from ocean-driven extreme events. Make them part of an
adaptation strategy.
5. Insisting that insurance for properties in coastal zones be
risk-based as a means to set more appropriate risk-based costs for
building in environmentally sensitive or high risk areas, such as along
our nation's coastlines.
Additional Considerations
The RAA is also part of the Building Code Coalition whose goal is
to enact legislation to amend the Stafford Act. This legislation would
enhance existing mitigation programs by encouraging states to adopt
nationally-recognized model building codes for residential and
commercial structures. With billions of dollars paid by the federal
government and the private sector for disaster relief and rebuilding of
communities, legislation that would enhance FEMA's ability to ``prepare
for, prevent, respond to and recover from disasters'' is critically
important.
There are several other statutes that are not traditional areas of
expertise of the insurance industry where there may be opportunities to
adopt legislative changes and move them closer to implementation. For
example, during this year's consideration of the economic stimulus
package, many members of our Coalition supported an increase in funding
to FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program. This program provides
funds to states for community-based hazard mitigation activities
identified in a State Mitigation Plan such as increasing building
elevations, flood-proofing, improving the survivability of existing and
new buildings, and relocating willing sellers from natural disaster
prone areas. In addition, we advocated for an effort to ensure that
infrastructure projects funded through federal appropriations consider,
and incorporate measures to reduce, the risks of the potential impacts
of natural disasters, such as windstorms and floods, particularly in
light of the anticipated effects of global climate change. Our
Coalition also supported a tax credit proposal that would have provided
homeowners with a credit of up to $1500 for actions taken to make their
homes more structurally sound to protect them against risks posed by
natural disasters.
Hazard mitigation programs are well-established as a cost-effective
means to reduce the impact of natural disasters. For example, in 2007,
the Congressional Budget Office found that projects funded through the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation program between 2004 and June 2007 resulted in
a reduction of future disaster spending of approximately three dollars
for every dollar spent on these projects. Similarly, in 2005, a
Congressionally-mandated study by the Multihazard Mitigation Council
(an advisory body of the National Institute of Building Sciences)
concluded that cost-effective mitigation saves an average of four
dollars for every dollar spent.
Land-use planning, largely the purview of local governments, is
also key to reducing development in environmentally-sensitive, high-
risk coastal areas. Our Coalition supports the Coastal Barrier
Resources System which prevents structures proposed for construction in
undeveloped, environmentally-pristine areas from purchasing federal
flood insurance. The Coastal Zone Management Act could provide a tool--
essentially a climate adaptation tool--to ensure states are planning
for the potential risks posed by the impacts of climate change. If
blended with the State Hazard Mitigation Plans already required by the
Stafford Act and approved by FEMA, the combination provides states with
the planning tools they need to develop and implement a climate
adaptation plan.
Conclusion
I would like to commend the Committee for recognizing the
importance of risk management to the conservation of our ocean, coastal
ecosystems, and wildlife resources in an increasingly dynamic and
unpredictable environment. Clearly all stakeholders must work together
to ensure environmentally-sound and fiscally responsible policy that
will ultimately reduce the costs borne by federal and state
governments, insurers/reinsurers, and the American taxpayers, as well
as save lives, protect habitats, and ensure our coastal areas thrive
for generations to come.
Thank you.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Nutter. I will now
recognize Dr. Rothschild to testify. Please begin.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN ROTHSCHILD, Ph.D., MONTGOMERY CHARTER
PROFESSOR OF MARINE SCIENCE, SCHOOL FOR MARINE SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Rothschild. Thank you, Madame Chairman, committee. I
have been asked to address information products, services, and
tools to address conservation, and to protect and conserve the
ocean.
In the early 1900s, conservation was a concept. At the time
many people thought our natural resources were unlimited. This
suppressed actions that would have prevented irreversible
effects of human activity that we see today.
Clearly, the global human population explosion, consequent
saturation of the atmosphere and ocean with pollutants, and
mismanagement of resources, places conservation beyond a mere
concept. Conservation is now an imperative.
The conservation imperative requires action. This is easy
to say, but difficult to implement.
The difficulty arises from the fact that we do not have the
budget resources to address the total array of conservation
problems. As a result, we have to focus on the problems that
are most critical. We have to ask the right questions. It is
not so easy to conduct the concrete analysis required to
identify the most critical questions.
We have to produce the concrete quantitative analysis
necessary to ensure that we are making the best program
investments.
Let us take an example from fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens
Act has a number of goals. One is to eliminate overfishing; two
is to fully utilize optimal yield; and three is to take account
of economic and social fabric of fishing communities.
To take these goals seriously and efficiently balance them,
we need to fill in serious and material shortfalls in our
information base. For example, standard fishing conservation
management practices only account for being able to manage one
species at a time. We don't have the techniques to manage the
interaction between two species, let alone a whole ecosystem.
The techniques do not account for changes in physical
environment. Something as simple as water temperature is not
accommodated in fishery management.
Fishery management techniques do not presently account for
ecosystems, and, as a consequence, can't really deal with
issues of climate change. The fishery management techniques
that are used don't take into account economics even, and
sociology, even though these are well-known components of
fishing.
And finally, there is not an end-to-end systems engineering
approach to ensuring coordinated and coherent cost-effective
management of the entire process.
In my view, we need a three-year effort to retool fishery
management. The effort would be initiated with the creation of
three centers that focus on our greatest shortfalls in science,
engineering, and technology.
The first center would be a national center for ocean
ecosystem research, which would focus, organize, and program an
in-depth understanding of ocean ecosystems, particularly as
they relate to fisheries and the waste-sink capacity of the
ocean in an environment that is changing because of the
climate.
The second national center for fishery management systems
would develop a systems engineering approach to fishery
management, including the end-to-end balancing of data
acquisition, control rules for management, and dissemination of
information to managers, legislators, and the fishermen.
And finally, a national center for fishing engineering
would focus on the green issues of improving the efficiency of
fishing gear, separating good fish from bad fish, big fish from
little fish, reducing by-catch, and improving fuel utilization,
and less influence of bottom-tending gear on the bottom
organisms.
I see the creation of these centers by using existing
resources and personnel. The answers to the questions that are
posed essentially relate to creating a capability. That is what
these three centers are intended to do, is to create a
capability which does not presently exist to address the most
critical conservation issues, using our fishery resources as a
model.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rothschild follows:]
Statement of Brian J. Rothschild, Montgomery Charter Professor
of Marine Science, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
The Subcommittee recognizing ``that the conservation of our ocean
and wildlife resources will be `...impacted by a host of challenges,
including climate change, energy development, the economic downturn,
and federal budget deficits','' has asked my views ``regarding: 1) the
information, product, and service needs necessary to address
conservation in a dynamic era; and 2) new tools, which Congress may
consider...to protect and conserve...ecologically healthy oceans.''
In the global and national context, the substantial environmental
challenges that we face are intertwined with the ever-increasing human
population and consequent food and water shortages; growing limitations
in waste-management options; and declining societal welfare. The
concentration of population into cities located on coasts or large
waterways continues unabated. The differences in priorities between the
rich and the poor are significant challenges to any comprehensive
approach to coastal and ocean conservation.
In addressing these issues, we have sometimes arrived at simplistic
definitions and approaches that are potentially ineffective in solving
the problem. These simplistic approaches are evident in terms of both
what we know and what we do not know and in terms of the conceptual
underpinnings for policy.
For example, while everyone knows that climate change is affecting
the ocean, many think that the effect is limited to sea-level rise and
increased ocean temperatures. However, the increased heat has
significant influence on ocean stability and hence on nutrient cycling
and ocean productivity, affecting at the fundamental productivity and
organization of the ocean ecosystem.
With regard to conceptual underpinnings, when we think of the
challenges facing our ocean resources, we naturally think of
``conservation.'' In the early 1900s, society became aware of the need
to conserve our natural resources. At that time, ``conservation'' was
an important concept. While, at that time, some had the prescience to
understand its importance, others perceived resources to be virtually
limitless and suppressed actions that would have prevented the
irreversible effects of human activity that we observe today.
But, conservation is no longer a concept, it is an imperative.
Taking into account the involvement of a burgeoning global population,
a growing scarcity of many resources, and the complex character of
global environmental change requires establishing the conservation
imperative. An imperative requires action! And it is obvious that plans
for action need to be constructed in the context of shrinking budgets
and the need to preserve and even create employment.
How do we address the conservation imperative in time of scarce
possibly shrinking budget resources?
In a time of shrinking budgets, we have to ask the right questions
to ensure that we focus our resources on the most important problems.
As an approach, we might start by listing all of the perceived
conservation issues that concern us. We would find some issues would be
relatively easy to identify. Other issues would be extremely
complicated. Some of the complicated issues would be oversimplified to
the extent that their supposed solutions would not result in the
intended effect and, in fact, some of the unintended consequences might
be negative.
In addition, we would almost certainly find that the magnitude of
the total perceived required effort would far exceed resources needed
to address the issues. (Let us not forget that some environmental
issues are global in scope.)
The actions implied by the conservation imperative require us to
select the most important conservation programs given a fixed budget.
What are the smart choices? Are some remedies simplistic? Can we make
everything pristine? How do we factor in sustainability and balance the
political realities of resource use?
At the end of the day, we need a concrete quantitative analysis to
assure us that we are asking the right questions. Without such
analysis, how can we be sure that the budget and personnel are
appropriately allocated? As important, are we organized to maximize our
capability to address the right questions in a cost effective way?
Let's examine the specific case of the conservation and management
of fish stocks. The conservation of fish stocks is governed by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. This legislation requires that management strike
a balance among competing goals: 1) eliminating overfishing, 2) fully
utilizing optimum yield, 3) taking into account the economic and social
fabric of fishing communities, and 4) utilizing the best available
science in the process.
In the context of the conservation imperative in this particular
application, we do not have the tools to address the balance among
controlling fishing, obtaining the optimum or maximum yield, and
balancing the needs of society.
The core science equations used in fishery management are not
realistic. The ocean environment drives variations in fish stock
abundance, yet it is not included in the core science equations. Many
fisheries catch many species at the same time, yet the core equations
are only capable of dealing with a single species at a time (not two
species and certainly not entire ecosystems). The population dynamics
of fish populations are dependent upon the ecosystem within which they
live, yet ecosystems are poorly understood. In particular, the
component of the ecosystem that drives fish recruitment--the dynamics
of the plankton and their interaction with physical forcing--is in
particular even less understood. Despite the fact that there is
considerable information on fishery economics, that information and
associated body of theory is almost never used in fishery management.
Existing data on fisheries is dependent to a significant degree on
results from research survey vessels. Because these vessels are very
expensive to operate, it is difficult to assemble frequent relatively
real time data. The reliance on survey vessels meets some needs but
suppresses obtaining data from fishing vessels. Data from fishing
vessels satisfies the need to know how effective each fishing vessel
is, a critical need in management, and provides basic data.
The nature of the core science equations, the data necessary to
fuel the core equations, and the flow of information comprise a system.
This system has neither been specified nor analyzed in the context of a
systems engineering problem. Experience shows that managing without
using a systems context is very expensive. Adopting a systems approach
would improve the quality of management without increasing costs.
At stake is the fact that the legal requirement of the MSA, to
balance the competing goals of suppressing overfishing, attaining
optimum yield, and taking into account the economic and social needs of
fishing communities are poorly addressed.
So, how do we develop the capability to address the conservation
imperative in fisheries? We need to develop a critical-mass effort in
three essential areas. To do this we need to develop a sending-a-man-
to-the-moon approach. We need to focus many existing efforts in three
national research centers.
There needs to be a National Center for Ocean Ecosystems Research
(NCOER). Virtually every fundamental problem that relates to our
resources--fisheries and the waste-sink capacity of the ocean--can be
found in the structure and functioning of the ocean ecosystem. The
NCOER would focus on critical problems in our understanding of
ecosystems, particularly the role of the plankton as it affects fish
population dynamics. It is important to recognize that understanding
ecosystems is also critically important to understanding the very
important role plankton play in driving the ocean and atmospheric
component of global change. A particular issue of concern is the
interaction among species of fish, recruitment dynamics, and scenarios
that result from a changing climate--the linkages we need to forecast
our nation's fisheries resources, and other species of concern. This
would address critical components of the identification of conservation
imperatives.
There needs to be a National Center for Fishery Management Systems
(NCFMS) applying a systems engineering approach to the technical
requirements of fishery management. This center needs to focus on the
requirements for fishery management and the alternative approaches to
meet these requirements. NCFMS would develop the procedures for
development of end-to-end fishery management systems facilitating
sampling theoretic data collection; efficient and focused use of simple
fishery control rules; and rapid information reports to managers and
various user groups. The focus would be on developing simpler, more
cost-effective techniques that effectively sample the catch and provide
advice on optimum yield--a critical aspect of the conservation
imperative.
There needs to be a National Center for Fisheries Engineering
(NCFE). NCFE would focus on the improvement of fishing gear and fishing
strategies to reduce by-catch and fuel consumption. New net systems and
ways of sensing fish from fishing boats would be a priority with the
thought-in-mind that these would do a better job in saving fuel and
separating wanted fish from unwanted fish--both conservation
imperatives. Much of the work in this Center would be undertaken in
collaborative programs with the fishing industry--a possible target for
stimulus funding.
To respond to the second question posed by the subcommittee
concerning new conservation tools, I think that the most productive
effort is to take an end-to-end systems approach to fisheries
management. This has essentially not been done, and because of this, we
are not sure whether we are asking the right questions or being cost-
effective in our approach to management.
A priority focus establishing the three Centers would involve a
refocusing and retargeting of existing personnel and budget resources.
In the short term, we could continue to manage fish under the existing
system. I envision after a three-year carefully phased effort, the
three Centers would arrive at an innovative approach to fishery
management, effectively providing new and more cost-effective
conservation tools. This approach would not only enable a much clearer
public perception of our nation's fishery resource management process,
but also achieve solid definable results in balancing overfishing,
optimum yield, and the economic needs of communities.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Dr. Rothschild. And I will now
recognize Members for any questions that they may wish to ask.
And this will alternate between the Majority and the Minority
Members.
I will begin with a few questions for Dr. Pomponi.
Your testimony outlined several areas of research that need
further study to make adaptive management more effective, and
enhance our ability to predict impacts of climate change.
Can you prioritize these research needs?
Ms. Pomponi. Probably the greatest need--well, in fact the
greatest need would be to get a better understanding of kind of
the baseline data.
But I think the greatest, to enable us to do that, I think
we are going to have to develop the infrastructure, put the
infrastructure in place. We have already got part of that in
place, in terms of our observing systems; but I think being
able to establish a regional approach that is integrated across
many regions, to be able to provide the data so that we can
effectively communicate among regions and convert those data
into information that can be used by resource managers, I think
is going to be probably the greatest priority.
Ms. Bordallo. So, improving the infrastructure on the
current infrastructure?
Ms. Pomponi. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Now, how will these critical
research programs facilitate better decision making with regard
to the threats of sea-level rise and ocean acidification?
Ms. Pomponi. I think if we are going to adapt, we need to
know what we are adapting to. And as I mentioned, that requires
data and models and predictions.
If what we expect is going to happen in terms of sea-level
rise occurs, there will be habitat loss; there will be shifting
ecosystems. That is going to affect not only our natural
resources; it is going to affect our infrastructure, our
coastal infrastructure, public health, national security.
We need to reduce those uncertainties in our predictions in
terms of sea-level rise. We need to reduce the uncertainties
into what marine life is going to survive in a warmer and more
acidic ocean environment.
So, that is the type of information that we need to provide
to better formulate our predictive models, and be able to
provide more information, so that we can manage to these,
adaptively manage to these changes in the environment.
Ms. Bordallo. And Doctor, what new technologies are on the
horizon that will enable better ocean management?
Ms. Pomponi. I think there are some exciting new biological
and genomic sensors that are going to help us, tags that we can
put on, on larger animals. More sophisticated molecular tools
that help us to understand what is actually living in the ocean
environment. From an engineering standpoint, gliders that
enable us to assess the environment on a more comprehensive
scale, on a broader scale.
I think that it is important for us to maintain the
continuity of our remote sensing data. So, satellite
observations from space are going to be extremely important to
continue that, to make a commitment to continue that.
And I think probably even most important out of this is
that we need to make sure we can get the agencies to coordinate
acquisition of data, the management of data, and the
dissemination of those data to our end users. I think more than
anything else, I mean, we have information, we have data. We
need to be able to coordinate that.
Ms. Bordallo. We have to share it.
Ms. Pomponi. Yes, and share it. Get it back in a usable
format to the users.
Ms. Bordallo. What are your immediate and long-term
infrastructure needs, and how can we reduce the costs?
Ms. Pomponi. Probably the more immediate ones are getting
the ocean-observing system in place, and making sure that we
have an integrated system across the United States. It is going
to be costly, it really is.
And so the key here is going to be, I think, to engage
private partnerships, to get private partnerships involved; and
to make sure that we are making best advantage, making optimal
use of the existing facilities, so that we truly are
integrating them.
But I would be remiss if I didn't say that I think we need
to make a commitment to our academic research fleet. That is,
we really do need to improve our research vessels that are
going to be able to go out and service ocean observatories,
take other additional measurements, and be able to integrate
what we are finding, what we are learning from our satellite
observations with what we are learning in situ in the ocean.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Doctor. And now I would
like to recognize our Ranking Member here, Mr. Wittman from the
State of Virginia.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
Dr. Jackson and Dr. Pomponi, I just wanted to point out I
appreciate your advocacy of the ecosystem approach in marine
management. I think that sort of holistic approach is
extraordinarily valuable.
It has been, though, it seems somewhat difficult to the
U.S., because of things like the Endangered Species Act and
Marine Mammal Protection Act, that elevate protection of
certain species at higher levels than others.
And with that in mind, can you comment about how you see
the U.S. approach to an ecosystem paradigm or framework in
managing our marine resources? How can we do that, based on
these existing Acts that sort of create a tiered approach to
this ecosystems management?
Ms. Pomponi. If I may go first? I think the key to that is
going to be to get the agencies that are responsible for these,
these regulatory policies to work together. I mean, we are
dealing with a situation right now where we are trying to come
up with a plan for environmental management prior to putting in
some offshore renewable energy prototypes.
And it really does involve working with a variety of
agencies to make sure that we are taking care of, you know, we
are addressing each of these regulatory policies. I think that
is probably, it might be a Pollyanna approach, but it is the
simplest approach. And it is one actually that is working right
now, I think.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, I think I will just add very simply to
that. I think that the ecosystem approach could provide you a
tool to focus the efforts of multiple government agencies and
non-governmental organizations on a single, a single objective,
if you like, for a sub-region.
It also enables trade-offs to be made. And we have heard
that this morning in the Subcommittee. First to identify what
those trade-offs could be, and for decision makers and
yourselves to understand what is the consequence of those
trade-offs, including with predicted species, and make better
informed decisions.
So, this may not necessarily require a substantially
increased investment; it is just refocusing where the
investment goes.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. Mr. Nutter, you say that programs
should focus on people, and not insurance companies; and that
measures should be designed to protect the property, not
support artificially low insurance rates.
Can you tell me, does this type of program exist today? And
if so, where? And can you tell us where it has been successful,
and maybe give us some examples of its application?
Mr. Nutter. Certainly. Let me start with where it exists
today, and that is inappropriate, it would seem to us. The
National Flood Insurance Program, which is a FEMA-run program,
has somewhere between 25 percent and 30 percent of its insured
policies are subsidized. In other words, they are not based
upon true actuarial risk. It is an example of really
encouraging and facilitating development in coastal areas.
Insurance is regulated at the state level, so I think the
answer to your question is that some states have done a good
job in finding that balance between consumer protection of
insurance rates, and finding a risk-based rate.
The state that has the most difficult time with this is
really Florida, largely because it is so exposed to extreme
natural events. It is very heavily populated, mostly, say that
80 percent of the people who live in Florida are exposed to
hurricanes. And they have struggled with finding the balance
between actuarially sound insurance rates that send a clear
message about what the risk is, and making certain that
insurance is available to people.
Mr. Wittman. Mr. Rothschild, one last question. In your
testimony you refer to simplistic definitions and approaches
that have been potentially ineffective in solving the problems
that we face in our marine environments.
Can you give some examples of what definitions and
approaches you mean? And maybe some effective ways with which
to deal with these concepts.
Mr. Rothschild. Well, one simplistic approach is the
concept that we can rebuild fishery stocks in a 10-year time
period. And empirical observations show that sometimes fishery
stocks take many more years than that 10 years, or a shorter
period of time.
And the approach to dealing with this really relates to
having a better understanding of the dynamics of ecosystems.
And I propose that we have a national center to study those
components of ecosystems.
It is very difficult to have an ecosystem approach to
management in fisheries when the most sensitive aspect of fish
population dynamics is recruitment. And that is a problem--in
other words, the number of young fish that are born each year.
And that is a problem that is unsolved.
Mr. Wittman. Dr. Rothschild, thank you. I think that is
very insightful. I think sometimes there is a tendency to
oversimplify issues that we all know are extraordinarily
complex, and all inter-related as to the ecosystem and other
aspects of what we deal with.
So, I think that holistic approach in trying to go away
from some of the more simplistic ways to say well, it is as
simple as A produces B, is where we need to go. And I
appreciate your insights there.
Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Wittman. And
now I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Dr. Jackson, how does IUCN envision the Federal government
fully implementing and enforcing existing laws, such as the
National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest
Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, thank you. I will just say that I am not
expert on the U.S.; my expertise is in international work.
But I think coming from that perspective, there are many
eyes on the U.S., particularly on the excellent legislation
that has been put in place over many years. And it is, I think
I mentioned in my testimony about leadership of the U.S.
And I think a key thing here is the implementation that was
in my statement, the implementation of that legislation, if
fully followed, will solve many of the environmental problems
we have had, particularly on an ecosystem-based level.
But more than that, it shows international leadership that
these things can be done, they should be done, and they can be
done economically by investing in good legislation and in good
implementation of that.
This morning we heard also about the need for more
integration across those various pieces of legislation, across
the various agencies. So, I think the comment in my statement
was more keep up the good work, and take it forward; rather
than shy away from the economic crisis, and go backwards.
Mr. Kildee. Let me ask you this. This is kind of a general
problem we find in government.
We have good laws, like NEPA and the National Forest
Management Act and the Endangered Species Act. Those are
authorization bills, and authorization bills are somewhat like
a get-well card. You know, if I have a friend who is ill, I
will send my friend a get-well card that expresses how I value
my friend, how I feel about my friend.
What my friend really needs is the healthcare card. That is
the appropriation.
Is there a difference, do you see a difference, a
significant difference, between our sentiment expressed--and
thank God they are, and I supported all of these things--in the
authorization bills, and the actual health card bill, the
appropriations to make sure these Acts actually carry out their
purposes?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, definitely a difference. I think if we
don't follow up with investment in the legislation, in the
ability of agencies to implement those things, then it does
remain as a get-well card.
To me this is an issue of decision making. If you
understand the degree of dependency we have on natural----
[Electronic interference.]
Mr. Jackson.--is that sufficient for what you get in turn?
Internationally, a recent study showed that we get somewhere
around $33 trillion a year from ecosystem services, comparing
that to gross national product globally of $16 trillion a year.
But if you look at the investment in economic issues versus
environmental issues, I think we are fundamentally failing to
understand where our dependency lies as human beings.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madame
Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Kildee.
And now I would like to recognize the gentleman from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. And I am
very happy that you continue to give some attention to the
issues that are very important to the area we represent. I come
from the Northern Mariana Islands, a part of Micronesia.
And I am very pleased with the commitments or the attention
that the oceans and climate change has been, are being given,
because frankly, whether it involves that we are concerned
about the polar bears in the Arctic or whether we are concerned
about the inhabitants of an island in the Kiribas, climate
change are indeed affecting these people and these mammals,
these species.
Dr. Pomponi, obviously despite that sometimes governments
give their departments, their patients healthcare cards,
sometimes patients compete for attention from doctors.
So, the testimony highlighted the need for continued
coordination among Federal ocean agencies. And that problem was
highlighted in the report of the Commission on Ocean Policy.
But can you tell us, please tell us how the lack of
coordination has affected your own work through time?
Ms. Pomponi. I think that the fact that there are
multiple--you know what, I will give you one good example. I
thought of actually just one example.
One is that my own work involves marine natural products
drug discovery. It is discovery of novel compounds from marine
organisms that can be used to treat diseases, like cancer.
The National Science Foundation doesn't fund drug
discovery, and the National Institutes of Health doesn't fund
kind of ocean-related work. So, that type of research often
falls between the cracks.
So, that is one example that I can give you from my own
personal experience. And so, for example, when you go to the
National Science--and there has been an approach to address
that, and that is the establishment of these ocean, the centers
for oceans and human health, that have been joint ventures
between the National Science Foundation and the National
Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences.
There are just a few of those. And the funding for those
programs has dwindled. It has been drastically reduced. But
that is an example of where going to a single agency is not, is
not effective, but efforts have been made to collaborate among
two or more agencies, to provide the necessary resources to
address ocean and human health issues.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Doctor. Now we really need that
health card.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sablan. Dr. Jackson, in your submitted, your written
testimony, you have said that the ocean drives weather patterns
and so many other things. But I agree with you that marine
ecosystems often extend across political jurisdictional
boundaries.
And so my question is, implementing existing law and
accurate valuations for understanding that this Subcommittee on
Insular and Ocean and Wildlife had oversight responsibility for
certain agencies under NOAA or the Department of the Interior.
What would be the focus of policy reforms to increase the
commercial rewards for conserving biodiversity, and increased
penalties for biodiversity laws?
Mr. Jackson. I am not sure if I am qualified to answer that
question. In fact, I don't think I can talk about national
legislation to that extent. I am sorry.
Mr. Sablan. All right. So, my other question is how do you
envision regional ocean management agreements governing the
range of activities and process currently affecting marine
ecosystems?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. I think you mentioned before that the,
many of these marine ecosystems cross political jurisdictions,
not just internationally, cross internationally. And an area of
substantial weakness at the moment in international law is, it
relates to the high seas, particularly to the U.N. Floor of the
seas.
I think that you could show considerable leadership here in
engaging in these issues, at least from the agencies'
perspective, with research into understanding the opportunities
and constraints of improving that. We talked before about the
ecosystem approach, applying that to the international high
seas.
It is something that is not impossible for several
governments to come together, perhaps also with the private
sector, the fishing industry, with the conservation community,
to look at how can this be done in an effective manner, to
yield longer-term benefits, both in terms of in biodiversity,
but also in terms of economics of making those fisheries more
sustainable. This is particularly important for island
communities that are heavily dependent on those fisheries.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from the Commonwealth
of the Northern Marianas, Mr. Sablan.
I would like to recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands, Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Madame Chair. I just have
maybe a few questions. But I would just like to point out that
this afternoon at Salt River in the Virgin Islands is a meeting
on the Joint Institute for Caribbean Marine Studies, a marine
research and education center that the University of the Virgin
Islands is collaborating with several other universities. And
we have been working on it for years. So, hopefully, we will be
able to contribute to the kinds of research that we are
discussing today, and do it in the right way.
It started out as a reef research center. So, the fact that
it has gone from reef to marine, I think we are heading in the
right direction. We are not just focusing on one, one entity in
the oceans.
Mr. Nutter, we live on, I represent the U.S. Virgin
Islands. We can't move from our coastal areas or get out of the
way of the hurricanes.
And I have been here 12 years, and we have not been able to
really pass any good legislation to provide for disaster
insurance and windstorm insurance. I believe early on there was
one, H.R. 2 it might have been, that was around for several
years, where states were required to put together an entity to
provide reinsurance.
You seem to not want the Federal government to do it. But
do you have any opinions about that approach? Or is there some
kind of regional approach where risk could be spread? We would
look at that, but it seems like no matter where you are, you
are subject to some kind of a disaster.
So, if you can understand what I am asking.
Mr. Nutter. I think I do, and I appreciate the frustration
of dealing with a very high-risk area that has hurricane
exposure, has lived through many difficult time periods.
Mrs. Christensen. And is experiencing some of the effects
of climate change.
Mr. Nutter. Absolutely. Certainly the companies that we
represent, the reinsurance companies, do in fact provide a
risk-spreading mechanism for insurers that provide insurance to
homeowners in a variety of areas. I am not as familiar with the
Virgin Islands perhaps as I should be to answer your question.
But it seems no question that, that a solution clearly is
hazard mitigation, to see that the Federal government does
provide sufficient funding for the Virgin Islands and states to
give people against their taxes, for instance, for providing
mitigation against natural hazards--shutters, improved roofs,
those kinds of things--so that people survive these natural
disasters.
And those kinds of efforts would seem to me to go a long
way toward moderating the cost of insurance and the
availability of insurance in particularly high-risk areas like
that.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, we have done some of those things.
We haven't gotten tax credits for them. And our insurance costs
didn't go down commensurate to the fact that we did apply new
building codes, new roofing standards, and so forth. But thank
you for your answer.
Dr. Pomponi, I have listened, and I went through your
testimony last night on ecosystem-based management. And
obviously it brings together all of the ecosystem and managing,
the marine resources. And as I understand it, it also
coordinates activities between those entities that impact
adversely or positively on the marine environment.
But in my district, and I suspect others, it is the fishing
community that bears the brunt of any restrictions or attempts
to address for any, the reduced fish resources of marine
resources, or adversely impacted marine resources.
So, in your experience, how have we been able to address
points toward non-point-source pollution and development, and
their impact on our marine resources. Because we haven't been
able to do it successfully.
Ms. Pomponi. And in my experience, we are not doing it
successfully in many other areas, as well. So, it is not only
the Virgin Islands.
By the way, the reason I am a marine scientist today is
because of an experience I had in the Virgin Islands when I was
in college, so that is what led to me going into this field.
Mrs. Christensen. Great.
Ms. Pomponi. I think that in general, any group that is
targeted--let me give you an example. In the state of Florida,
non-point-source pollution that is attributed to nutrients
coming in from septic tanks has been a very great cause of
concern.
And so, you know, what has happened in our state is that
there is legislation that has been passed that is going to
reduce that, both point and non-point-source pollution from
nutrients, sewage going into our coastal environments.
But it is a balancing act for each of these. I know that
the fisheries are often targeted. And I think that when we
start looking at establishment of these marine protected areas
or habitat areas or particular concerns, we have to be really
careful in terms of saying OK, which areas are ones where
fishing can occur, or which areas are ones where bottom-
trawling should definitely not ever occur.
So, it just requires more detailed information about the
environment itself, about the actual impacts of the
environment, and being able to show that there is a true cause-
and-effect relationship.
Does that sort of answer your question?
Mrs. Christensen. I think it begins to get to it. I think,
you know, sometimes it is just politics that gets in the way.
Ms. Pomponi. The public, yes, the political will.
Mrs. Christensen. Yes, and the need for development. And I
listened to Nature Conservancy, you know, talk about trying to
bring some balance. But sometimes in a small community, that
balance is very difficult to achieve.
Thank you, Madame Chair. I don't have any other questions.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands. And I just have a couple of wrap-up questions here.
First, for Mr. Nutter. In a recent chartered Insurance
Institute report, the CEO writes, and I quote, ``In reality,
climate change is here now. And it is as much opportunity as
risk for those who are wise enough to adapt early on.''
So, how can the government help the insurance and
reinsurance industries adapt and create opportunities in these
times? And how can the government provide better climate-change
information, so the reinsurance industry can reduce or mitigate
for risk? At what scale is this information needed?
Mr. Nutter. That is a very good question, and I think the
scale is really the answer to your overall question.
Climate science that is being pursued by the National
Science Foundation, the University Center for Atmospheric
Research, and other climate researchers really need to localize
as much of the climate information as possible, in order to do
financial planning for the insurance industry or local planning
for local governments in dealing with infrastructure--bridges,
levees, roads, that sort of thing that localize climate
information--would make a huge difference in helping everyone
assess the risk, both to storm surge, to increase in intensity
or severity of storms, as well as increased precipitation.
So, I think the answer to your question is that if we could
set a priority that we need to have localized impacts of
climate change, as best we can get it, that would make a large
difference in how we assess the risk, and how we manage the
risk.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, thank you very much. And Mr.
Nutter, in your opinion, if we do a better job of recognizing
and mitigating the risk of natural hazards in the coastal zone,
can we expect to see more and better opportunities for fish and
wildlife conservation as a collateral benefit?
Mr. Nutter. It is a question for me? Certainly, the
coalition that we are working with that involves a number of
environmental groups, the Consumer Federation of America, a
number of taxpayer groups, is really seeking to find that
balance between proper land-use management that preserves
coastal ecosystems that can be used as buffers for extreme
weather events, as well as to allow the development that Mrs.
Christensen was talking about, to find that balance.
So, absolutely. Trying to find that coordination between
preserving coastal areas that provide habitat, as well as
provide protection for people, would be the best long-term
solution to providing local land-use planning and financial
management.
Ms. Bordallo. Dr. Rothschild, did you want to comment on
that?
Mr. Rothschild. I didn't have anything to add.
Ms. Bordallo. You just agree, right?
Mr. Rothschild. Yes, right.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I have one that, well, this takes
me home.
Dr. Jackson, I am particularly interested in the section of
your testimony that discusses mitigation banking in the context
of wetlands. So, I would appreciate your thoughts on how
mitigation banking might be utilized in Guam.
Could the principals underlying the development of wetland
mitigation banks be employed to mitigate any adverse ecological
impacts of the current military buildup?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. I think the simple answer is yes, I think
they could be. There have been, the early development of them,
which was pioneered here in the United States, has been very
promising.
I think you have to keep in mind they are a tool, a tool
that needs to be used with other regulatory mechanisms, not
just to be based on financial mechanisms. But they are a very
promising tool. The user-pay system I think is the basic
principle behind it, and the precautionary principle behind
that again.
So, I think for Guam, yes, they could be. You know that you
have also the environmental challenges, invasive species being
a particular one. And we also know how that was introduced,
some of those species introduced into Guam via the military.
And I think that that principle of wetland banking or
biodiversity banking could certainly be applied more generally,
which would help with mitigation efforts, but also help with a
broader understanding of if you have to make a change, then who
is responsible and who should pay.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor.
Do you have any questions, our Ranking Member? Mr. Kildee?
[No response.]
Ms. Bordallo. I want to thank the witnesses on the second
panel for their participation in the hearing today. It was
certainly very informative. And Members of the Subcommittee may
have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will
ask you to respond to these in writing.
The hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these
responses.
And if there is no further business before the
Subcommittee, the Chairwoman again thanks the Members of the
Subcommittee and our witnesses for their participation here
this morning.
And the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Capps follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for holding this hearing today to
explore how we might better manage the oceans and our wildlife
resources as we move forward in the 111th Congress and in working with
the new Administration.
Thank you also to our witnesses who have traveled to testify before
us today.
I represent a district that spans more than 200 miles of coastline,
and includes two national marine sanctuaries, a national forest, a
national estuary program, two national monuments, and a national park.
The well-being of my district depends almost entirely on the health of
our oceans and the welfare of our natural resources.
Our country is in the midst of a financial crisis and we face
difficult choices. However, we cannot let these challenges deter us
from investing in our future.
One of the best ways to invest is by protecting some of our
nation's biggest economic drivers--our oceans and our coasts.
We need to reauthorize the National Marine Sanctuary Act. Our
national marine sanctuaries are some of our nation's greatest
treasures.
We need to make sure that our Sanctuary Office has the tools to
employ adaptive, ecosystem-based management that ensures that all the
ecosystem services our Sanctuaries provide--from tourism to sustainable
fisheries--remain intact.
I look forward to delving into this legislation in the coming
months.
It is also crucial that we reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management
Act, and include in it the tools we need to mitigate global warming and
adapt to our changing environment. In the coming weeks, I will
introduce two bills to begin to address these issues.
The first is the ``Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act'',
which will provide grants to states to survey the coastline to identify
areas suitable for renewable energy development.
The second is the ``Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act'',
which will provide assistance to coastal states to voluntarily develop
climate change adaptation plans.
These two policies will help our nation on its path to energy
independence, and assist us as we prepare for an uncertain future on a
warming planet.
We also need to continue to invest in the Coastal and Estuarine
Land Conservation Program (CELCP). CELCP provides states with matching
funds to purchase significant coastal and estuarine lands.
For example, in my congressional district I've worked
collaboratively with environmental groups, willing sellers, and the
State to conserve lands and waters around Morro Bay, on the Gaviota
Coast, and near the Piedras Blancas Light Station.
These projects have offered numerous benefits to local communities
by preserving water quality, natural areas for wildlife and birds, and
outdoor recreation opportunities--thereby protecting for the future the
very things we love about the coasts.
This hearing could not come at a more opportune time. As we move
forward as a new Congress and with a new Administration, I look forward
to working together to better manage the oceans and our wildlife
resources.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by John Baughman,
Member, Sporting Conservation Council
Questions from Ranking Republican Member Henry E. Brown, Jr., SC
A. North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
Mr. Baughman, thank you your excellent testimony and references to
the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Notwithstanding the durable success and accomplishments of the North
American Model, in your opinion, under the present ``user-pays-
user benefits'' system of financing conservation, can we
maintain funding for existing programs let alone take on new
initiatives?
We cannot meet the needs of existing programs and take on new
initiatives without doing something to increase revenue for federal and
state programs. We could expand the user-pays concept to more
adequately provide for conservation of all species and all forms of
wildlife-related recreation and enjoyment by increasing the categories
of outdoor equipment that are subject to a federal excise tax (e.g.
binoculars, sleeping bags, backpacks, hiking boots, bird seed, outdoor
guidebooks, etc.). This has been suggested and congressionally pursued
in the past, but it met resistance due to the complicated taxing and
collection mechanisms and the political unpopularity of supporting any
new tax. Other user fees such as permits for general access to federal
and state lands, permits for certain wildlife viewing areas, etc. could
be implemented, but again it results in a complicated system of
collecting and administering lots of small pots of money, and the
public eventually pushes back when subjected to the inconvenience of
lots of small user fees. A more logical approach would be to dedicate a
small portion of federal and state revenues for conservation of fish,
wildlife, and their habitats, so that in affect, all Americans are
sharing in the costs of conservation. The revenues need to be
dedicated, so they don't drop to zero every time there is a war or
healthcare crisis. Revenue from new Outer Continental Shelf or new
onshore energy production, or revenue from trading carbon credits have
been proposed as reasonable sources.
Are there specific strategies you might be able to recommend to
broaden the number of user groups that might pay into a system
of wildlife conservation to diversify and increase available
sources of funding?
See the above item. My suggestion is to pursue reasonable,
sustainable funding from a portion of the rents, royalties and/or other
receipts from new energy production, or a portion of any income
received due to carbon trading protocols established by future climate
change legislation. Every state should also have a significant,
sustainable stream of state generated funding to support conservation
within their borders. Congress could provide incentives to encourage
states to generate this funding that would compliment--not substitute
for--federal revenue.
B. Clarification of Landscape Conservation Recommendation
Mr. Baughman, in your statement you recommend that the Congress
authorize and the Administration implement landscape-level
programs to treat at-risk forest, grassland, and wetland
habitats?
Can you please explain what you mean by ``at risk'' habitats?
Habitats, just like species (e.g. Threatened and Endangered
species) can be at risk; in fact, habitat degradation is one of the
most common causes of jeopardy to species at risk. In the West, the
sagebrush-steppe ecosystem is at risk due to effects of long-term
drought, over-grazing, and invasive species--particularly cheat grass
which results in a more frequent fire cycle that can completely
eliminate sagebrush over vast areas. As the sagebrush disappears, sage
grouse, sagebrush sparrows, and mule deer disappear too.
Would the migratory bird Joint Ventures be a model that might serve as
a template for these broader ``landscape'' initiatives?
The migratory bird Joint Ventures are excellent examples of
``landscape'' initiatives, as are the efforts that are being supported
by the Healthy Lands Initiative. All of these efforts treat the causes,
rather than the symptoms, of habitat loss over wide areas, and they
deliver conservation through partnerships and highly leveraged funds.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Peter Kareiva,
Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy
Questions from Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo
Dr. Kareiva, please respond to the following questions regarding
decision support tools and valuing ecosystem services.
1. What is the biggest limiting factor in getting ecosystem services
valued appropriately when making decisions?
At this moment in time there are two limiting factors. The first is
simply that most decision-processes in the USA do not build in any sort
of comprehensive ecosystem service valuation, and most decision-makers
are not yet aware of this approach. That is changing.
The second big limitation is that we lack easy-to-use tools that
can help public institutions do these valuations in a scientifically
credible manner using widely available land or coastal marine
management data. A major goal of the Natural Capital Project is to
develop these tools and to make sure they are consistent, transparent
and scientifically credible. It will likely be 2-5 years before the
tools have been sufficiently developed, and easy-to-use web interfaces
allow non-specialists to begin using the tools in routine planning
exercises.
2. If the decision-support tools you discuss lead to a decision to
halt a development project, won't that mean fewer jobs for
public works?
First, one of the greatest values of decision support tools that
rely on maps of ecosystem services is that they generally do not lead
to prohibitive decisions such as ``no development'', but instead
provide guidance about where to move the development or how to do the
development differently to reduce degradation of ecosystem services.
Unlike prescriptive regulations, ecosystem service analyses point to
options.
Second, thoughtful valuation of ecosystem services will often lead
to a new kind of development project--development projects that restore
or build up ecosystem services. Examples of these include reforestation
on steep slopes, floodplain restoration, planting out oysters to
rebuild oyster reefs and so on. These all are labor intensive.
Lastly, we should not forget that ecosystem service valuation can
reveal that a development project that might produce jobs in one place,
could reduce jobs elsewhere because of undesirable ecosystem impacts.
Thus ecosystem service assessments should provide a more complete
``jobs analysis'' than decisions that do not take into account impacts
on ecosystem services that are often felt downstream, offshore, or
twenty years later.
3. How close are we to realizing your vision of a network of tools
that can accurately assess threats to our most vulnerable
ecosystems?
As I mentioned above we are 2-5 years from having a portfolio of
web-based tools that could be widely and easily applied. At this point
in time the tools require a team of PhD scientists to do the analyses.
Frankly how fast it happens depends on the resources available to the
Natural Capital Project and to scientists doing studies that connect
land use and coastal marine activities to ecosystem services.
4. What policy frameworks could Congress propose to ensure these tools
are explicitly and systematically integrated into decision-
making by individuals, corporations and governments?
There are many options for this. One possibility is to use the
existing EIS framework, and require an ecosystem services assessment as
part of that EIS process. Ecosystem service assessments could also be
required of U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Projects. Some have argued that
we should institutionalize ecosystem service assessments as a routine
component of policy analyses concerning everything from energy options
to transportation systems. This is being experimented with in some
states. Secondly, for those cases where the private sector requires
licenses or some sort of ``approval'', ecosystem service assessments
could be required.
Finally, it may be fruitful to include ecosystem service valuations
into national accounts of productivity or well-being. Some countries,
such as China are even experimenting with identifying certain counties
as especially important because of their ecosystem services, and to
then track the ``productivity'' of these counties in terms of both
traditional metrics of economic production ``but also an accounting of
the value of the ecosystem services. In that way, if a county achieves
economic development at the cost of degraded ecosystem services, that
degradation could be subtracted from its more traditionally reported
productivity. Similarly, Canada is constructing a ``well-being index''
that will be used as an alternative measure to GDP to gauge the well-
being of Canadians. It includes, among other things, a measure of
ecosystem health--using the same ideas that have inspired China to
embrace a more thorough accounting, whereby a degradation of ecosystem
health counts negatively toward the overall human-well being index.
In general, consideration should be given to applying these tools
explicitly and systematically as new legislation is developed. For
example as we grapple with the adaptation provisions of climate change
legislation, care should be taken to require that these tools be used
to ensure that ecosystem service assessments are an integral part of
both domestic and international adaptation programs. The same could be
said of legislation governing the development of new energy sources.
5. Can decision support tools and accurate ecosystem service
valuations provide short-term economic benefits, in addition to
long-range sustainability benefits?
Of course they can. Imagine a big infrastructure or energy project
that is conducted without any ecosystem service assessment. Then that
project will either proceed or not, and if it proceeds it will produce
the jobs and economic benefits directly related to the project. Now
imagine the same project that has been evaluated using an ecosystem
service assessment and has been found to produce some negative impacts
that need mitigation action. Then the very same project produces its
original job and economic benefits, but now also has a mitigation
component that represents additional jobs. In some ecosystems, habitat
restoration and mitigation can also enhance fisheries productivity,
increase recreation opportunities, and even enhance water quality and
human health.
In a climate stressed world, natural ecosystems can be especially
beneficial in a way that would be revealed by a careful ecosystem
service valuation. As a result of climate change it is already evident
that heat waves are more common and more severe. These heat waves
actually are a significant source of mortality in cities, which because
of all the concrete and lack of vegetation can act as heat sinks with
temperatures as much as 10 degrees higher than nearby rural landscapes.
An ecosystem service assessment of climate mitigation could lead to
investment in more green space in cities, and ultimately a cooling
effect that reduced the health costs of urban heat overloads--which
preferentially put children and the elderly at risk.
6. What are the key actions that the federal government can take to
bring decision support tools to decision makers?
There are two major steps the federal government could take. First
they could invest in research at universities, and federal agencies and
in NGO's that is aimed at testing and validating these tools in an
experimental manner. Second they could offer incentives to private
industry and to public institutions that perform ecosystem service
assessments of alternative options--those incentives could be more
streamlined approval processes and expedited support for development
projects that have used ecosystem service valuations in their project
design.
7. How can the United States be a leader in implementing these mapping
and decision-support tools?
Through its great universities, and some pioneering initiatives
surrounding ecosystem services on the part of the USDA and EPA, the
U.S. is already the world leader in the development of ecosystem
service assessments. However other countries such as Australia and
China are farther ahead in terms of requiring ecosystem service
assessments as a prelude to their public planning or infrastructure
decisions. The U.S. needs to invest heavily in applying ecosystem
service assessments to real-life decisions as soon as possible, and
then to evaluate the quality of decisions made when ecosystem services
are considered compared to when ecosystem services are not considered.
If the U.S. combined such experimentation with its already vanguard
research, it would truly lead the world in land-use, infrastructure,
and development decision-making.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Jeff Trandahl,
Executive Director, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Questions from Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo
Please respond to the following questions.
Question 1: Mr. Trandahl, you have testified that Congress should
provide clear prioritization of federal conservation goals and
objectives in order to increase conservation funding from
private sources.
How would federal prioritization improve the availability of funding
from private sources?
There are un-tapped funding resources for conservation in the
private funding community. Private funders are seeking leveraging
opportunities and enthusiasm by the federal government to invest in
conservation priorities through collaborative public-private
partnerships. A new set of federal priorities for conservation,
implemented as a single effort, would catalyze private resources for
conservation.
Administrative and/or legislative language that recommends and
encourages agencies to pool federal resources and combine them with
funding from the private sector is needed. Incentives for agencies to
pool funds in a simple fashion have been nearly nonexistent.
Encouraging Federal agencies and Departments to pool funds and work
together would help administrative hurdles and should reduce overall
cost by limiting total overhead and result in greater conservation
outcomes.
Question 2: Can you help us to better understand why NFWF still finds
it difficult to convince federal agencies to partner with you?
If it is a cultural issue, as you describe, what can be done to
promote a more constructive culture?
Federal conservation priorities and associated performance measures
are needed to incentivize public-private partnerships within the
agencies. Under the current structure, program implementation favors
retention of FTE's and federal resources without regard for the
potential benefits of establishing meaningful partnerships for the
strongest conservation outcomes. As stated above, the agencies need
specific motivation (via performance measures, statutory requirements
or otherwise) to work together and partner with the corporate,
foundation and non-profits.
Agencies tend to maintain control and direct oversight of grant
programs and other conservation initiatives, regardless of the
potential efficiency or effectiveness gained through multi-sector
partnerships. Current measures, i.e. acres/miles restored, do not
accurately measure whether or not conservation opportunities have been
fully maximized. Similarly, assessing matching funds provided by
grantees only provides part of the actual ``matching'' funds that are
available. To promote a more constructive culture, agency performance
could be measured according to how well their program funds are
leveraged with (1) other federal agencies (2) states (3) corporations
and private foundations (4) non-profit organizations (5) individuals.
Question 3: What incentives, especially non-monetary incentives, are
most effective in encouraging responsible stewardship of
natural resources and in engaging private individuals and
entities in promoting such stewardship? Can you think of any
examples to show the marked success or failure of incentive
approaches?
Safe Harbor agreements are an effective method to motivate
landowners to protect wildlife habitats. When faced with a legal
threat, private entities are likely to avoid conservation
opportunities. Another frustration is multi-layered bureaucracy and
roadblocks which delay progress. Assurances for individuals or groups
who are meeting and/or exceeding federal requirements that new
requirements will not be put into place after the fact would ensure
responsible stewardship of natural resources.
Question 4: Could you please be more specific about the other untapped
opportunities you reference to establish new partnerships to
expand the base of funding for conservation?
As stated in our testimony, the Foundation is currently working
with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to
implement the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program. NRCS awards
approximately $20 million annually to support projects that advance
innovative practices and technology to improve stewardship on working
farms and ranches. This program is highly attractive to private funders
as it is geared to ensuring that America maximizes food production
while enhancing environmental protection goals such as minimizing soil
and nutrient runoff, improving wildlife habitat, and reducing water and
energy consumption.
Based on our initial inquiries, we were able to identify 6-10
private funders who were excited about the opportunity to work with
NRCS and NFWF to leverage funds and expand the pool of financial
resources to address the high demand for this program.
Similarly, we believe there are other existing federal programs
that offer opportunities to generate partnerships within the federal
government and private corporations/foundations. There are multiple
invasive species programs that involve various federal agencies and
both public and private lands. Rather than creating more new programs
that cannot be funded, Congress and the Administration should consider
a single, inter-agency program that would be attractive to private
partners and leverage significant funds to ensure meaningful
conservation outcomes. New programs and potential federal funding for
climate change adaptation and mitigation of energy development offer
similar opportunities for public-private partnerships. It is critical
for the federal government to take full advantage of these partnership
opportunities if we want to achieve measurable progress in restoring
healthy populations of fish and wildlife and their habitats.
Question 5: Can habitat be managed in a way that respects private
ownership? If so, how?
Since the majority of land in the U.S. is privately owned, it is
absolutely essential to manage habitat in a way that respects private
ownership. The key to private lands conservation has been partnering,
identifying common interests, and respecting the landowners' business
and conservation goals. Many of the Foundation's grant programs are
focused on providing incentives for private landowners to restore and
conserve habitat for wildlife. One example is our Columbia Basin Water
Transactions Program, a partnership with Bonneville Power
Administration, which has successfully created a voluntary marketplace
for private landowners to restore in-stream flows for imperiled salmon,
steelhead, resident trout and other wildlife species. Through program
partners like the Idaho Department of Water Resources, landowners have
the opportunity to sell, lease, and/or conserve water while maintaining
the traditional agricultural uses of their land.
Question 6: How will the downturn in the economy affect the Foundation
and its ability to find private/corporate partners?
To date, the downturn in the economy has not had a significant
impact on the ability of the Foundation to maintain our private/
corporate partners. More than ever, our private partners are attracted
to the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with the federal government and
the non-profit community to invest in on-the-ground conservation. Our
annual appropriations and discretionary cooperative agreements with the
federal agencies are essential to our private partnerships. The federal
funds provide a base for the Foundation to generate private funding
interests in national conservation priorities.
To ensure success in both private and public investments, we are
incorporating monitoring and evaluation into our programs in order to
measure progress, promote adaptive management, demonstrate results, and
continuously learn from our grant-making.