CLIMATE 

INFORMATION

A National System 

Could Help Federal, 

State, Local, and 

Private Sector 

Decision Makers Use 

Climate Information

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2015

GAO-16-37

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-37, a report to 

congressional requesters

November 2015

CLIMATE INFORMATION

A National System Could Help Federal, State, Local, 

and Private Sector Decision Makers Use Climate 

Information

Why GAO Did This Study

Over the last decade, the federal 

government incurred over $300 billion 

in costs due to extreme weather and 

fire, according to the President’s 2016 

budget request. Costs are expected to 

grow as rare events become more 

common and intense due to climate 

change, according to the National 

Academies. State, local, and private 

sector decision makers also drive fiscal 

exposures, as they are responsible for 

infrastructure paid for with federal 

funds or eligible for disaster aid. GAO’s 

2015 High-Risk update prioritized 

improving federal efforts to provide the 

best available climate information and 

technical assistance to help decision 

makers use the information to build 

resilience in up front.

This report examines (1) the extent to 

which federal efforts meet the climate 

information needs of decision makers; 

(2) examples of how other countries 

organized climate information systems;

(3) whether and how federal efforts 

could be improved; and (4) the 

strengths and limitations of different 

options to provide climate information. 

GAO analyzed reports; reviewed 

systems in three other countries; and 

interviewed stakeholders with 

knowledge of climate information.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Executive 

Office of the President (EOP) direct a 

federal entity to develop a set of 

authoritative climate change 

projections and observations and 

create a national climate information 

system with defined roles for federal

agencies and nonfederal entities. 

Relevant EOP entities provided only

technical comments, which GAO 

incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

Many federal efforts are under way, but the climate information needs of federal, 

state, local, and private sector decision makers are not being fully met, according 

to recent GAO reports, National Academies and other studies, and interviews 

with stakeholders. The November 2013 Executive Order 13653 on Preparing the 

United States for the Impacts of Climate Change calls on certain federal 

agencies to work together to provide authoritative information on climate 

preparedness and resilience. However, the federal government’s own climate 

data—composed of observational records from satellites and weather stations 

and projections from climate models—are fragmented across individual agencies 

that use the information in different ways to meet their missions. GAO’s February 

2015 High-Risk update found that federal, state, local, and private sector 

decision makers may be unaware that climate information exists or be unable to 

use what is available.

Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have well-established

climate information systems, although each country’s system is organized 

somewhat differently. In each, the government provides direction and funding, 

and entities within and outside the government provide technical assistance to 

help decision makers understand how to use climate information in planning. 

Federal climate information efforts could be improved by incorporating key 

organizational and data elements, according to GAO reports, studies by the 

National Academies and other organizations, site visits to three countries with 

climate information systems, and interviews with stakeholders. Specifically, the 

key elements are (1) a focused and accountable organization, (2) authoritative 

data that define the best available information for decision makers, and (3) 

technical assistance to help decision makers access, translate, and use climate 

information in planning. Authoritative locally-focused information is crucial 

because it defines a common starting point for decision makers, and most 

decisions are made at the local level. 

Options to provide climate information and technical assistance to decision 

makers have strengths and limitations, according to studies, international site 

visits, and interviews with stakeholders. For example, a new federal agency 

would have a focused mission but could face turf conflicts with existing programs 

at other agencies. On the other hand, a national climate information system could 

be developed that would incorporate the best features and address the 

limitations of these options. Similar to the programs in Germany, the 

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, a national system to provide climate 

information to U.S. decision makers could have roles for federal and nonfederal 

entities. Based on GAO’s review of systems in other countries, studies, and 

interviews with stakeholders, a key federal role in a national climate information 

system would be to provide authoritative data and quality assurance guidelines 

for how to use the data. A nonfederal entity would be better positioned to provide 

on-the-ground technical assistance and facilitate connections between decision 

makers and intermediaries with expertise. View GAO-16-37. For more information, 

contact J. Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841 or 

gomezj@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Letter 1

Background 6

Many Federal Efforts Are Under Way, but the Climate Information 

Needs of Federal, State, Local, and Private Sector Decision 

Makers Are Not Being Fully Met 10

Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom Have 

Organized Climate Information Systems 19

U.S. Federal Climate Information Efforts Could Be Improved by 

Incorporating Key Organizational and Data Elements 28

Options to Provide Climate Information to U.S. Decision Makers 

Have Strengths and Limitations 32

Conclusions 46

Recommendations for Executive Action 47

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 47

Appendix I GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 48

Table

Table 1: The Strengths and Limitations of Options to Provide 

Climate Information to U.S. Decision Makers 33

Figures

Figure 1: Selected Coordination Mechanisms for Federal Climate 

Change Activities 14

Figure 2: Germany’s Climate Information System as of February 

2015 21

Figure 3: The Netherlands’ Climate Information System as of 

February 2015 24

Figure 4: The United Kingdom’s Climate Information System for 

Adaptation as of February 2015 27

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Abbreviations

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CRS Congressional Research Service

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

FFRDC federally funded research and development center

ISO International Organization for Standardization

KNMI Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

SGCR Subcommittee on Global Change Research

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGCRP United States Global Change Research Program

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 23, 2015

The Honorable Maria Cantwell

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Frank Pallone

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Matthew Cartwright

House of Representatives

Over the last decade, the federal government has incurred more than 

$300 billion in direct costs due to extreme weather and fire events, 

including costs to federal programs for domestic disaster response and 

relief ($176 billion), flood insurance ($24 billion), crop insurance ($61 

billion), and wildland fire management ($34 billion), according to the 

President’s 2016 budget request.1 Costs are expected to increase as 

previously rare events become more common and intense due to climate 

change, according to the National Academies and the United States 

Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).2 While it is not possible to 

identify the portion of these costs incurred as a result of climate change, 

costs for these federal programs have been increasing and can be 

 1

Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2015).

2

See, for example, Jerry M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, eds., 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, 

USGCRP (Washington, D.C.: May 2014). USGCRP coordinates and integrates the 

activities of 13 federal agencies that conduct research on changes in the global 

environment and their implications for society. USGCRP began as a presidential initiative 

in 1989 and was codified in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-

606, § 103 (1990)). USGCRP-participating agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Energy, the Interior, Health and Human Services, State, and 

Transportation; the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National 

Science Foundation, and the Smithsonian Institution. See also, for example, National 

Research Council, Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, America’s 

Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

expected to continue to increase as the impacts of climate change 

intensify, according to the President’s 2016 budget request.

State, local, and private sector decision makers can drive federal climaterelated fiscal exposures, as they are responsible for planning, 

constructing, and maintaining certain types of vulnerable infrastructure, 

such as roads and bridges, paid for partly with federal funds, insured by 

federal programs, or eligible for federal disaster assistance.3 For 

example, the federal government annually provides billions of dollars 

through various mechanisms for infrastructure projects that state and 

local governments prioritize, supervise, and own. Specifically, state and 

local governments control zoning decisions and make decisions about 

how to build roads and bridges, which are vulnerable to extreme weather 

events.

As a result of the significant risks posed by climate change and the 

nation’s fiscal condition, in February 2013, we added Limiting the Federal 

Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change 

Risks to our list of areas at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and

mismanagement, or most in need of transformation.4 As a result of the 

significant long-term impacts of climate change, in our 2015 High-Risk 

update, we found areas where government-wide improvement is needed 

to reduce fiscal exposure, including the federal government’s role as the 

provider of data and technical assistance to federal, state, local, and 

private sector decision makers responsible for managing the impacts of 

climate change on their activities. Specifically identified under this area for 

improvement in our 2015 High-Risk update are federal efforts to provide 

technical assistance to federal, state, local, and private sector decision 

makers. We reported that these efforts can be addressed by providing (1) 

the best available climate information for decision makers, such as 

observed and projected temperatures for a geographic area, and (2) 

 3

Fiscal exposures are responsibilities, programs, and activities that may either legally 

commit the federal government to future spending or create the expectation for future 

spending. Fiscal exposures vary widely as to source, extent of the government’s legal 

commitment, and magnitude. See GAO, Fiscal Exposures: Improving Cost Recognition in 

the Federal Budget, GAO-14-28 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2013).

4

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2013). 

Click here for specific information on Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure 

by Better Managing Climate Change Risks available in the 2015 high-risk update—GAO, 

High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015).
Page 3 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

assistance for translating climate data into what officials need to make 

decisions.

The federal government recognizes the need to account for climate 

change risks in its planning and programs and has begun calling on 

agencies to take certain actions. For example, Executive Order 13653, 

issued in November 2013, directs certain federal agencies to work 

together to provide authoritative, easily accessible, and usable 

information and decision-support tools on climate preparedness and 

resilience.5 In addition, USGCRP’s 2012-2021 strategic plan for climate 

change science, released in April 2012, identifies enhanced information 

management and sharing as a strategic objective.6

In this context, you asked us to review federal efforts to provide decision 

makers with the climate information they need for planning purposes. 

Specifically, this report examines (1) the extent to which federal efforts 

meet the climate information needs of federal, state, local, and private 

sector decision makers; (2) examples of how, if at all, other countries 

have organized systems to meet the climate information needs of 

decision makers; (3) whether and how U.S. federal efforts to provide 

climate information could be improved; and (4) what options exist to 

provide climate information to U.S. decision makers, and the strengths 

and limitations of each option.

To address these four objectives, we reviewed reports and studies, 

interviewed knowledgeable stakeholders, and visited selected sites in the 

United States and three other countries involved in providing climate 

information. First, we reviewed our reports related to climate change and 

reports and studies by the National Research Council, the National 

Academy of Public Administration, USGCRP, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Congressional Research 

 5

The National Academies define resilience as the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, 

recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events. See, for example, The 

National Academies, Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and 

Disasters; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Disaster Resilience: A 

National Imperative (Washington, D.C.: 2012). Click here for more information on the 

November 2013 Executive Order 13653 on Preparing the United States for the Impacts of 

Climate Change, and other federal climate change resilience efforts.

6

USGCRP, National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021: A Strategic Plan for the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program (Washington, D.C.: April 2012).
Page 4 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Service, and the Congressional Budget Office. We also searched various 

databases for studies from 2000 to 2014, focusing on peer reviewed 

journals, trade and industry journals, government reports, and 

publications from research organizations, advocacy groups, and think 

tanks. In all, we identified and reviewed over 60 relevant reports and 

studies.

Second, we interviewed a nonprobability sample of over 40 U.S. 

stakeholders, including current and former federal officials, local decision 

makers, researchers, and consultants. We selected this nonprobability 

sample of stakeholders based on whether they (1) participated in drafting 

or reviewing National Research Council and other federal reports related 

to climate information, and thus having relevant knowledge and expertise; 

(2) were identified by other knowledgeable stakeholders we interviewed; 

or (3) held positions at Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), USGCRP, or NOAA 

because these are key federal agencies that provide climate information 

to decision makers. Because we selected a nonprobability sample of 

stakeholders to interview, we cannot generalize their views to all 

stakeholders with relevant knowledge and expertise.

Third, we visited entities in the United States that develop, provide, or 

archive climate information. These entities were (1) the National 

Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, which is a 

federally funded research and development center (FFRDC)7 that works 

to enhance research, tools, and assistance in interpreting and using 

climate-related information; (2) the University Corporation for Atmospheric 

Research, which operates the National Corporation for Atmospheric 

Research; (3) the program office of the NOAA National Integrated 

Drought Information System, also in Boulder, Colorado, which has a goal 

of improving the nation’s capacity to manage drought-related risks by 

providing those affected with information and tools; and (4) the NOAA 

National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, which 

 7

FFRDCs are privately owned but government-funded entities that have long-term 

contractual relationships with one or more federal agencies to perform research and 

development and related tasks. Click here to access the National Science Foundation’s 

master government list of FFRDCs.
Page 5 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

maintains the world’s largest data archive and provides climatological 

services and data to various sectors of the U.S. economy.8

Fourth, we visited a nonprobability sample of three countries with systems 

to coordinate the development, archiving, and use of climate information 

by decision makers—Germany, the Netherlands, and the United 

Kingdom—to understand how their systems were organized and key 

characteristics of each.9 We selected these countries because they were 

recognized in our literature review and by stakeholders as having wellestablished systems to coordinate the development, archiving, and use of 

climate information by decision makers. In the interest of efficiency, we 

did not review every global example of a country with a well-established 

system. During our international site visits, we gathered information 

through interviews with government officials and international 

stakeholders knowledgeable about the systems, observed some projects 

that used climate information in planning, and reviewed related 

documents. Descriptions of the systems in Germany, the Netherlands, 

and the United Kingdom and graphical depictions of how these systems 

are organized were reviewed for accuracy and completeness by 

government officials in these countries. We did not evaluate the 

effectiveness of these countries’ systems.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2014 to November 2015 

in accordance with the generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 8

Click here for more information about the National Center for Atmospheric Research and 

the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. Click here for more information 

about the NOAA National Integrated Drought Information System. NOAA’s National 

Climatic Data Center has merged with other NOAA data centers into the National Centers 

for Environmental Information. Click here for more information about the NOAA National 

Centers for Environmental Information.

9

The findings from these site visits are not generalizable to countries we did not visit. 
Page 6 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

The federal government is using a risk-management strategy for reducing 

its fiscal exposure to climate change that involves providing technical 

assistance to state, local, and private sector decision makers. Decision 

makers from all levels of government and the private sector use different 

types of climate information in their planning processes to reduce the 

potential impacts of climate change.

Climate-related technical assistance for adaptation—adjustments to 

natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate 

change—is a part of a risk-management strategy to help protect 

vulnerable infrastructure and communities that might be affected by 

changes in the climate.10 Such assistance includes, for example, raising 

river or coastal dikes to protect infrastructure from sea level rise, building 

higher bridges, and increasing the capacity of storm water systems. One 

way to reduce the potential impacts of climate change is to build the best 

available climate information into existing federal, state, local, and private 

sector planning processes. As discussed in our February 2015 High-Risk 

update, a key role for the federal government is to provide technical 

assistance to decision makers to help them translate available climaterelated data into the information they need for such planning processes.11

The President’s June 2013 Climate Action Plan and November 2013 

Executive Order 13653 drew attention to the need for improved technical 

assistance. For example, the executive order directs numerous federal 

agencies, supported by USGCRP, to work together to develop and 

provide authoritative, easily accessible, usable, and timely data, 

information, and decision-support tools on climate preparedness and 

resilience.12

Risk management is not a new concept, and it is used extensively almost 

anywhere decision makers are faced with incomplete information or 

unpredictable outcomes that may have negative impacts. Broadly 

defined, risk management is a strategic process for helping decision 

makers assess risk, allocate finite resources, and take action under 

 10When discussing climate change, the term adaptation is synonymous with enhancing 

resilience.

11GAO-15-290. Click here for specific information on Limiting the Federal Government’s 

Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks.

1278 Fed. Reg. 66,819 (Nov. 6, 2013). 

Background

Climate-Related Technical 

Assistance for Adaptation 

Efforts Is Part of a Risk 

Management Strategy to 

Reduce Federal Fiscal 

Exposure
Page 7 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

conditions of uncertainty. The International Organization for 

Standardization standards on risk management recommend that 

organizations such as federal agencies develop, implement, and 

continuously improve a framework for integrating risk management into 

their overall planning, management, reporting processes, and policies.13

For risk management to be effective, these standards state that an 

organization should comply at all levels with the following principles:

• Risk management is not a stand-alone activity that is separate 

from the main activities and processes of the organization. Risk 

management is part of the responsibilities of management and is an 

integral part of all organizational processes, including strategic 

planning and all project and change management processes.

• Risk management is part of decision making. Risk management 

helps decision makers make informed choices, prioritize actions, and 

distinguish among alternatives.

• Risk management explicitly addresses uncertainty. Risk 

management explicitly takes account of uncertainty, the nature of that 

uncertainty, and how it can be addressed.

• Risk management is based on the best available information. The 

inputs to the process of managing risk are based on information 

sources such as historical data, experience, stakeholder feedback, 

observation, forecasts, and expert judgment. However, decision 

makers should inform themselves of, and should take into account, 

any limitations of the data or modeling used or the possibility of 

divergence among experts.

As summarized by a 2011 World Meteorological Organization report on 

climate information, reducing the risks and realizing the opportunities of 

climate change require making good decisions based on reliable and 

 13International Organization for Standardization, ISO 31000 Risk Management—Principles 

and Guidelines (2009). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a 

worldwide federation of national standards bodies. ISO 31000:2009 Risk management –

Principles and guidelines is available here. Please also note that the risk assessment 

standard in GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (the “Green 

Book” AIMD-00-21.3.1) state, among other things, that federal agencies are to assess the 

risks they face from both external and internal sources and that management should 

identify, analyze, and respond to relevant risks associated with achieving agency 

objectives—including changes in external environmental conditions.
Page 8 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

appropriate information about past, present, and future climate, as well as 

properly integrating that information into the decision-making process.14

The report also states that appropriate use of climate information can help 

individuals make more informed short- and medium-term decisions 

relating to their livelihoods and can help organizations and businesses 

reduce uncertainty in the long term. Governments also need to choose 

adaptation measures that reduce vulnerability to climate change, 

according to the report.

Decision makers from all levels of government and the private sector use 

different types of climate information in their planning processes to reduce 

the potential impacts of climate change. The climate information needs of 

decision makers are diverse, and the effective use of climate information 

depends on the circumstances of the decision maker, as stated in the 

2011 World Meteorological Organization report on climate information.15

To be useful, climate information must be tailored to meet the needs of 

each decision maker, such as an engineer responsible for building a 

bridge in a specific location, a county planner responsible for managing 

development over a larger region, or a federal official managing a 

national-scale program. Further complicating matters, decision makers 

need climate information at different timescales corresponding to the 

short, medium, or long-term nature of their planning processes. The 2011 

World Meteorological Organization report stated that decision makers 

need access to expert advice and support to help them select and 

properly apply climate information.

According to a 2010 National Research Council report on making 

informed decisions about climate change16 and our October 2009 report 

on climate change adaptation,17 most decision makers need a basic set of 

 14World Meteorological Organization, Climate Knowledge for Action: A Global Framework 

for Climate Services, WMO-No. 1065 (Geneva, Switzerland: 2011). 

15World Meteorological Organization, Climate Knowledge for Action: A Global Framework 

for Climate Services.

16National Research Council, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Informing Effective 

Decisions and Actions Related to Climate Change, Informing an Effective Response to 

Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

17GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions, GAO-10-113 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009).

Decision Makers Use 

Different Types of Climate 

Information
Page 9 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

information to understand and make choices about how to adapt to 

climate change. This set of information includes the following:

• Information and analysis about observed climate conditions. This 

includes information on, for example, temperature, precipitation, 

drought, storms, and sea level rise and how they may be changing in 

the local area. This type of information can be most easily conveyed 

by graphs and maps with some statistics on trends, variability, and 

data reliability.

• Information about observed climate impacts and vulnerabilities.

Decision makers will need site-specific and relevant baselines of 

environmental, social, and economic impacts and vulnerabilities 

resulting from observed changes in the climate against which past 

and current decisions can be monitored, evaluated, and modified over 

time.

• Projections of what climate change may mean for the local area. 

This includes, for example, projections based on easily 

understandable best- and worst-case scenarios with confidence and 

probability estimates and examples of potential climate impacts. The 

projections may need to be downscaled from complex global-scale 

climate models to provide climate information at a geographic scale 

relevant to decision makers.18 Then, the information would need to be 

translated into impacts at the local level, such as how increased 

stream flow for a particular river may increase flooding.

• Information on the economic and health impacts of climate 

change. Observed and projected local impacts must be translated 

into costs and benefits, since this information is needed for many 

decision-making processes.

Agencies across the federal government collect and manage many types 

of climate information, including observational records from satellites and 

weather monitoring stations on temperature and precipitation, among 

 18According to a 2012 National Research Council report on climate models, the 

fundamental science of greenhouse gas-induced climate change is simple and 

compelling. However, genuine and important uncertainties remain, such as how clouds 

affect the climate system, and these uncertainties need to be considered in developing 

scientifically based strategies for societal response to climate change—especially those 

related to “downscaled” climate information. For more information, see National Research 

Council, A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 
Page 10 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

other things; projections from complex climate models; and other tools to 

make this information more meaningful to decision makers. For example, 

over 750 federal climate-related datasets were publicly accessible 

through the www.data.gov/climate web portal as of August 2015.19 The 

term “climate information system” means a systematic approach for 

coordinating the development, archiving, and use of such climate 

information by decision makers, with defined roles for federal agencies 

and nonfederal entities such as academic institutions. A climate 

information system coherently organizes different types of climate 

information and facilitates technical assistance to help decision makers 

understand how to integrate climate information into their planning 

processes.

Many federal efforts are under way, as the federal government has begun 

to address the climate information needs of decision makers through 

various agency activities and government-wide efforts. Coordination is 

evident, but these efforts are fragmented and do not fully meet the needs 

of federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers, according to 

our reports, various studies, and interviews with stakeholders.

 19The 2013 Federal Open Data Policy directs federal agencies to make newly-generated 

government data available in open, machine-readable formats, while continuing to ensure 

privacy and security. Data.gov was created to serve this purpose, and 

www.data.gov/climate provides climate data and resources related to coastal flooding, 

food resilience, water, ecosystem vulnerability, human health, energy infrastructure, and 

transportation.

Many Federal Efforts 

Are Under Way, but 

the Climate 

Information Needs of 

Federal, State, Local, 

and Private Sector 

Decision Makers Are 

Not Being Fully Met
Page 11 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Many federal climate information efforts are under way, including 

individual agency activities and government-wide efforts. On February 23, 

2015, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that since 

2009, federal initiatives have generally increased the priority, number of 

participants, and specificity of products and actions aimed at climate 

change adaptation.20 For example, as of December 2014, almost 40 

federal departments and agencies produced climate change adaptation 

plans and metrics to evaluate adaptation performance, according to this 

CRS report.21 Our February 2015 High-Risk update also shows how the 

President’s June 2013 Climate Action Plan and various executive orders, 

task forces, and strategic planning documents have identified climate 

change as a priority.22

Some agencies have been focusing on how to help their clients 

understand climate risks and adaptation planning.23 For example, since 

2006, NOAA’s National Integrated Drought Information System has 

incorporated climate information into drought forecasts to help federal, 

state, local, and private sector decision makers—such as municipal water 

supply managers—understand the risk and impact of droughts.24 Other 

agency efforts, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Climate 

Hubs, the Department of the Interior’s Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives and Climate Science Centers, and NOAA’s Regional 

Integrated Sciences and Assessments program also are designed to help 

 20CRS, Climate Change Adaptation by Federal Agencies: An Analysis of Plans and Issues 

for Congress, Publ. No. R43915 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2015).

21In response to the November 2013 Executive Order 13653 on Preparing the United 

States for the Impacts of Climate Change, agencies created or updated climate change 

adaptation plans that describe how the agency will consider the need to improve climate 

resilience, including determining whether infrastructure such as roads are built to 

withstand projected heat extremes. Click here to access agency climate change 

adaptation plans submitted in October 2014.

22GAO-15-290. Click here for specific information on Limiting the Federal Government’s 

Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks. More information on the June 

2013 Climate Action Plan can be found here.

23Congressional Research Service, Climate Change Adaptation by Federal Agencies: An 

Analysis of Plans and Issues for Congress, Publ. No. R43915 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 

2015). This report provides detailed descriptions of agency activities related to adaptation 

and climate information.

24Click here for information on NOAA’s National Integrated Drought Information System.

Many Federal Climate 

Information Efforts Are 

Under Way
Page 12 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

decision makers account for climate information in existing planning 

processes.25

• USDA Climate Hubs: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

established regional Climate Hubs to deliver science-based 

knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers, and forest 

landowners to support decision making related to climate change.26

• Interior’s Landscape Conservation Cooperatives: The Department 

of the Interior developed a network of collaborative Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives composed of federal, state, local, and 

tribal governments; nongovernmental organizations; universities; and 

interested public and private organizations to, among other things, 

develop and provide the science and technical expertise needed to 

apply climate data in natural resources decision making, such as 

conservation strategies for sensitive habitats.27

• Interior’s Climate Science Centers: Climate Science Centers 

partner with natural and cultural resource managers to provide 

science that helps fish, wildlife, ecosystems, and the communities 

they support adapt to climate change by, among other things, 

providing climate, water, and ecosystem modeling to decision makers. 

National coordination and management for the Climate Science 

Centers is provided by the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Climate 

Change and Wildlife Science Center.28

• NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments 

program: NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments 

program supports research teams at academic institutions that work 

 25The 2015 CRS climate adaptation report provides descriptions of programs related to 

climate information. See Congressional Research Service, Climate Change Adaptation by 

Federal Agencies: An Analysis of Plans and Issues for Congress, Publ. No. R43915. 

Several recent GAO reports also describe these programs. See, for example, GAO, 

Climate Change: USDA’s Ongoing Efforts Can Be Enhanced with Better Metrics and More 

Relevant Information for Farmers, GAO-14-755 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 16, 2014). See 

also GAO, Climate Change: Various Adaptation Efforts Are Under Way at Key Natural 

Resource Management Agencies, GAO-13-253 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2013).

26Click here for more information on USDA Climate Hubs.

27Click here for more information on Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.

28Click here for more information on Climate Science Centers.
Page 13 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

with public and private decision makers—including local, regional, and 

state governments; federal agencies; tribal governments; and the 

business community—to among other things, enhance the use of 

climate information in decision making.29

Further, entities within the Executive Office of the President, such as CEQ 

and OSTP, have led specific government-wide climate information efforts 

such as the Climate Resilience Toolkit, the Climate Data Initiative, and 

USGCRP’s May 2014 Third National Climate Assessment.30 These efforts 

show how federal agencies have made some progress on better 

organizing within and across agencies. For example—in response to the 

2013 President’s Climate Action Plan and Executive Order 13653—

federal agencies led by OSTP and CEQ created the Climate Resilience 

Toolkit in 2014, which is a website designed to provide scientific tools, 

information, and expertise to help people manage their climate-related 

risks and opportunities and improve their resilience to extreme events. In 

addition, USGCRP’s May 2014 National Climate Assessment 

summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and 

in the future. A team of several hundred experts guided by a 60-member 

federal advisory committee produced the report, which was extensively 

reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a 

panel of the National Academy of Sciences. In addition, a large 

stakeholder network was developed in support of the May 2014 National 

Climate Assessment, and many of the stakeholders involved found the 

process and product very useful, according to federal officials.

Figure 1 shows selected coordination mechanisms for federal climate 

change activities, and reflects the complex system of interagency 

councils, committees, and working groups that currently coordinate the 

climate-related activities of individual agencies. The dashed boxes in 

figure 1 reflect government-wide activities related to climate information.

 29Click here to learn about the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments program.

30CEQ coordinates federal environmental efforts and the development of environmental 

policies and initiatives. OSTP was established by statute in 1976 to serve as a source of 

scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major 

policies, plans, and programs of the federal government, among other things. The Climate 

Resilience Toolkit is accessible here. Click here to access the Climate Data Initiative, a 

web portal that provides access to federal climate-related statistics and information to help 

companies, communities, and citizens understand and prepare for the impacts of climate 

change, such as coastal flooding and sea-level rise. Click here for more information on the 

Third National Climate Assessment. 
Page 14 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Figure 1: Selected Coordination Mechanisms for Federal Climate Change Activities

Note: The dashed boxes reflect government-wide programs and activities related to climate 

information
Page 15 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Current federal efforts are fragmented and do not fully meet the climate 

information needs of federal, state, local, and private sector decision 

makers, according to our recent reports; studies from the National 

Academies and other organizations; and interviews with knowledgeable 

stakeholders. According to several officials who coordinate federal 

climate information efforts, the climate information needs of decision 

makers are not being fully met because of the lack of a mandate for 

climate information services.

Current federal climate information efforts are fragmented, according to 

our recent reports, various studies, and interviews with knowledgeable 

stakeholders. As we reported in our February 2015 High-Risk update, 

federal climate information efforts have begun to focus on providing 

technical assistance to federal, state, local, and private sector decision 

makers so they can make more informed choices about how to manage 

the risk posed by potential climate impacts.31 However, our 2015 HighRisk update—based on our recent work—found that climate information 

exists in an uncoordinated confederation of networks and institutions. The 

federal government’s climate information—composed of observational 

records from satellites and weather monitoring stations, projections from 

complex climate models, and other tools—is fragmented across many 

individual agencies that use the information in different ways to meet their 

respective missions. That climate information is found across various 

agencies is not surprising and is expected given the far-ranging climate 

information needs of decision makers, according to federal officials. They

said that federal agencies are doing exactly what they are supposed to be 

doing consistent with their missions and, while there is fragmentation, 

there is also coordination and collaboration within and across agencies.

A November 2014 report by the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task 

Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience identified “silos” among 

and within federal agencies as a barrier to climate resilient planning.32

 31GAO-15-290.

32The Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience was established by Executive 

Order 13653 on Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change and was 

composed of 26 governors, mayors, county officials, and tribal leaders from across the 

United States. The task force was created to provide recommendations to the President 

and an interagency council on how the federal government can support state, local, and 

tribal resilience to climate change, among other things. Silos among and within federal 

agencies, as referenced in the task force’s report, include systems and processes that 

operates in isolation from others. Click here for more information on the task force.

Current Federal Efforts Are 

Fragmented and Do Not 

Fully Meet the Climate

Information Needs of 

Federal, State, Local, and 

Private Sector Decision 

Makers

Current Federal Climate 

Information Efforts Are 

Fragmented
Page 16 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Stakeholders we interviewed similarly noted the need to reduce 

fragmentation of federal climate information efforts. For example, 

according to stakeholders from the climate modeling community, decision 

makers are vastly underserved by the current ad hoc collection of federal 

climate information services. Further, another stakeholder with 

experience managing federal climate information programs stated that the 

federal government’s current efforts are uncoordinated and inefficient and 

that federal agencies have created their own climate programs. According 

to this stakeholder, these programs are uncoordinated, operate as 

separate information systems, and fail to share information and learn from 

each other, partly because of turf battles between them. We found in our 

February 2015 High-Risk update that existing federal actions and 

strategies do not clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and working 

relationships among federal, state, local, and private sector entities, or 

how such efforts will be funded, staffed, and sustained over time.33

According to our recent reports, other studies, and interviews with 

knowledgeable stakeholders, the climate information needs of federal, 

state, local, and private sector decision makers are not being fully met, 

which hinders their planning efforts. The International Organization for 

Standardization standards on risk management recommend that 

organizations such as federal agencies develop, implement, and 

continuously improve a framework for integrating risk management into 

their overall planning, management, reporting processes, and policies.34

They also state that risk management is based on the best available 

information. However, as we found in our February 2015 High-Risk 

update, federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers may be 

unaware that climate information exists or unable to use what is available, 

making it harder to justify the current costs of incorporating climate 

change into planning efforts for less certain future benefits.35 For 

 33GAO-15-290.

34International Organization for Standardization, ISO 31000 Risk Management—Principles 

and Guidelines (2009).

35GAO-15-290. This statement in our February 2015 High-Risk update is supported by 

many of our climate-related reports focused on topics as varied as federally managed land 

and water resources (GAO-13-253); Department of Defense facilities [GAO, Climate 

Change Adaptation: DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning and Processes to Better 

Account for Potential Impacts, GAO-14-446 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2014)]; and 

infrastructure such as roads and bridges that are primarily managed by state and local 

officials [GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support 

Local Infrastructure Decision Makers, GAO-13-242 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2013)]. 

The Climate Information Needs 

of Decision Makers Are Not 

Being Fully Met
Page 17 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

example, in September 2014, we found that USDA has made few efforts 

to quantify the costs and returns of actions that could help farmers make 

both short- and long-term decisions in the face of a changing climate.36

Without information that is readily accessible to farmers, they may be 

reluctant to take action to become more resilient to climate change. We 

recommended that USDA develop and provide readily accessible 

information to farmers on the farm-level economic costs and returns of 

taking certain actions in response to climate change. USDA concurred 

with this recommendation and continues to make progress. For example, 

in July 2015, USDA announced the Climate Hubs Tool Shed—an online, 

searchable database of tools designed to assist these farmers and others 

in adapting their lands to the impacts of climate change and other risks.37

Further, the participants in our July 21, 2015, Comptroller General’s 

Forum on Preparing for Climate-Related Risks: Lessons from the Private 

Sector stated that the absence of consistent, authoritative climate 

information made it hard for private sector entities to consider climate 

information in planning.38 For example, one participant stated that there is 

a climate information gap at the regional level, and businesses should not 

be responsible for making scientific determinations about what climate 

information to use.

Various studies we reviewed and stakeholders we interviewed also show 

how the climate information needs of decision makers are not being met.

For example, a 2012 National Research Council study on climate models 

reported that decision makers need to find and work with someone with 

the ability to access climate data and interpret it in the context of a 

specific decision maker’s need.39 In many cases, according to the 2011 

World Meteorological Organization report on climate information, the

knowledge exists to help decision makers but is not converted into 

 36GAO-14-755. 

37Click here to for more information about the Climate Hubs Tool Shed.

38GAO, Highlights of a Forum: Preparing for Climate-Related Risks: Lessons from the 

Private Sector, GAO-16-126SP. (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 2015). The forum brought 

together private sector representatives, federal officials, subject matter experts, and other 

stakeholders such as a local official.

39National Research Council, A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling

(Washington, D.C.: 2012).
Page 18 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

services they can access and use.40 For example, according to one 

stakeholder we interviewed from academia, the federal government does 

an excellent job collecting climate observations and archiving quality 

climate data, but it does not communicate or translate this information in 

ways useful for decision makers. As a result, according to this 

stakeholder, decision makers do not understand how climate information 

is relevant to them and do not know how to incorporate it into their 

planning efforts. Federal officials responsible for coordinating 

government-wide climate information efforts told us that the federal 

government does not know what information decision makers want or 

need, and decision makers generally do not know what information is 

available or what information they need to account for climate change in 

their planning.

According to several officials who coordinate federal climate information 

efforts, the climate information needs of decision makers are not being 

fully met because of the lack of a mandate for climate information 

services. Further, according to certain federal officials, agency climate 

programs were created to meet individual agency missions and are not 

necessarily focused on the needs of other decision makers. Federal 

efforts only recently transitioned to creating government-wide 

infrastructure for providing climate information to decision makers, 

according to these officials. They said that, in the current federal 

structure, the provision of climate information is an inherently interagency 

activity that relies on the cooperation and shared resources of many 

agencies, but interagency coordination is weak by design with an 

inconsistent mandate to use specific climate information in federal 

decision making. Significant changes to this model would require 

structural changes in the way that the government operates.

 40World Meteorological Organization, Climate Knowledge for Action: A Global Framework 

for Climate Services.
Page 19 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have organized 

systems to meet the climate information needs of decision makers, 

according to documents we reviewed and officials we interviewed from 

these countries.41 In each climate information system we selected, the 

government provides direction and funding, and entities within and 

outside the government help translate climate information to meet 

decision makers’ needs, although each system is organized differently. 

The following descriptions of the climate information systems in Germany, 

the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom were based on our review of 

government documents describing these programs and discussions with 

government officials.42

Germany’s climate information system involves entities both within and 

outside of the German government, according to documents we reviewed 

and German officials we interviewed in February 2015. Within the 

German government, the Interministerial Working Group on Adaptation to

Climate Change (see fig. 2), headed by the Ministry for the Environment,

develops and implements Germany’s strategy to adapt to the effects of 

climate change—known as the German Adaptation Strategy.43 The 

strategy describes how the German government is to work with the 

country’s state governments and nongovernment groups to identify both

climate risks and appropriate actions to address them. Within the Ministry 

for the Environment, an office called KomPass advises the German 

government on climate and adaptation policy.44 Specifically, KomPass 

41We recognize that Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (UK) are 

different from the United States in geographic size, population, ecological diversity, range 

of climate, and government structure. The United States may be different in many ways, 

but Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom provide insight into how to 

organize climate information systems at a national scale.

42The descriptions and accompanying figures were reviewed for accuracy and 

completeness by officials in these countries. Officials in Germany, the Netherlands, and 

the United Kingdom told us, however, that some organizational changes have occurred or 

soon will be taking place. When sufficient information was available, we described 

changes to these systems in footnotes. In some cases, however, sufficient information 

was not available before publication of this report. 

43The full name for the Ministry for the Environment is the Federal Ministry for the 

Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. Click here for more 

information about the German Adaptation Strategy. 

44The full name for KomPass is The Competence Centre on Climate Impacts and 

Adaptation. Click here for more information about KomPass.

Germany, the 

Netherlands, and the 

United Kingdom Have 

Organized Climate 

Information Systems

Germany
Page 20 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

evaluates what is known about Germany’s vulnerability to climate change, 

as well as the risks and opportunities climate change presents. KomPass 

also assists decision makers by evaluating the costs and benefits of 

potential adaptation strategies in Germany and sharing this information 

with them. The Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Research also 

play key roles, according to German officials.45 The Ministry of Transport 

provides funding for the National Meteorological Service of Germany, 

which operates observation networks and provides climate information 

and climate projection data to research institutes and those who help 

decision makers understand the information, according to German 

officials.46 In addition, according to documents we reviewed and German 

officials, the National Meteorological Service’s regional climate offices 

help state governments develop adaptation plans and serve as channels 

of information to decision makers relevant to the regional offices’ area of 

responsibility.47

 45The full names for these ministries are the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital 

Infrastructure and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

46Click here for more information about the National Meteorological Service of Germany’s 

observation networks and climate information.

47German officials told us the National Meteorological Service of Germany plans to 

announce the National Climate Service Network in late 2015. According to one official, this 

network will consist of federal agencies and state governments which will provide climate 

information and services.
Page 21 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Figure 2: Germany’s Climate Information System as of February 2015

Note: Some entity names have been shortened in this figure due to space constraints. For the full 

names of these entities, see the corresponding text describing Germany’s climate information system.
Page 22 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

The Ministry of Research provides funding to nongovernment climate 

adaptation research institutes, according to documents we reviewed and 

interviews with German officials. For example, the Max Planck Institute 

for Meteorology develops global climate models and climate projections 

that are also used to develop regional-level climate projections, and the 

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research conducts modeling and 

data analysis to assess socioeconomic effects of climate change.48 In 

addition, the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres has 

four regional climate offices that work with decision makers to understand 

their needs and assist them in using the climate information.49 Each of the 

regional climate offices focuses on different regions and specific climate 

issues or impacts. For example, Helmholtz’s North German Climate 

Office focuses on changes in storms, storm surges, ocean waves, and 

coastal climate impacts.

In addition, the publicly funded Climate Service Center 2.0—a scientific 

organization of the Helmholtz Association—conducts applied research 

and development and offers products and advisory services to decision 

makers in government and the private sector to address their needs in 

adapting to climate change, according to documents we reviewed and 

German officials we interviewed.50 The center also offers training courses 

for decision makers on how to use climate information, provides 

guidelines on modeling, and evaluates climate information portals for 

reliability and usefulness, according to German officials.

Like Germany, the Netherlands’ climate information system involves 

entities within and outside of the government, but fewer entities are 

involved, according to documents we reviewed and government officials 

we interviewed in February 2015. Within the government, the Netherlands 

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment is the lead agency on 

climate change adaptation (see fig. 3). It develops and implements the 

 48Click here for more information about the modeling efforts of the Max Planck Institute for 

Meteorology. Click here for more information about the modeling efforts of the Potsdam 

Institute for Climate Impact Research. 

49Click here for more information about the regional climate offices of the Helmholtz 

Association. 

50In July 2015, Climate Service Center 2.0 was renamed as Climate Service Center 

Germany. Click here for more information about the Climate Service Center Germany. 

The Netherlands
Page 23 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

National Adaptation Strategy, which describes the government’s priorities 

in adapting to the effects of climate change. The ministry provides funding 

to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the Royal 

Netherlands Meteorological Institute, called KNMI. The Environmental 

Assessment Agency advises the ministry on climate and adaptation policy 

by identifying and evaluating risks facing the Netherlands due to climate 

change. KNMI conducts climate observations and modeling, and 

develops authoritative projections and scenarios for the climate 

information system. The most recent version of these scenarios is called 

KNMI’14.51 These projections are considered the authoritative source of 

climate information in the Netherlands, according to documents we 

reviewed and Dutch officials we interviewed. The projections are also 

used by other government agencies, by organizations that translate 

climate information for decision makers, and by decision makers directly, 

according to these documents and officials. In addition, KNMI operates a 

help line that decision makers can use to ask questions about climate 

change, according to Dutch officials.

 51Click here for more information about KNMI’14. 
Page 24 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Figure 3: The Netherlands’ Climate Information System as of February 2015
Page 25 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Outside the government, the Climate Adaptation Services Foundation, a 

foundation composed of research institutions, consultants, and an 

alliance of spatial planning organizations, and its predecessor, the 

Knowledge for Climate Research Programme, have facilitated 

connections between decision makers and its members, according to

documents and officials.52 Climate Adaptation Services also offers 

products and services to decision makers, such as the Spatial Adaptation 

Knowledge Portal, which explains the effects of climate change, 

describes guiding principles in incorporating climate change into policy 

development, and showcases how others in the Netherlands are adapting 

to climate change.53 Climate Adaptation Services receives some funding 

from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, as well as funding 

from decision makers who use its services, although Dutch officials told 

us that changes to the system are under way.

The United Kingdom’s climate information system involves entities within 

and outside government, according to documents we reviewed and 

United Kingdom officials we interviewed in February 2015. The 

government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

(DEFRA) in England—together with the devolved administrations in 

Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland—are responsible for leading 

climate adaptation efforts in the United Kingdom, such as funding the 

United Kingdom climate information system for adaptation, setting 

priorities for adaptation, and coordinating with other government and 

nongovernment partners (see fig.4). As required by statute every 5 years, 

the department publishes an assessment of climate change impacts 

across the United Kingdom—the Climate Change Risk Assessment—to 

help determine the United Kingdom’s priorities for climate change 

 52The Knowledge for Climate Research Programme was established by the Dutch 

government to operate from 2007 through 2014. The objective of this program was to 

convert general knowledge about the effects of climate change into specific knowledge 

relevant to decision makers. Climate Adaptation Services is its successor and, according 

to government officials, seeks to maintain similar services and networks of intermediaries, 

but with more limited funding. Click here for more information about the Knowledge for 

Climate Research Programme. Click here for more information about the Climate 

Adaptation Services Foundation.

53Click here for more information about the Spatial Adaptation Knowledge Portal.

The United Kingdom
Page 26 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

adaptation, according to these documents and officials.54 The policies, 

actions, and timelines to address these priorities are described in the 

National Adaptation Programme, which is also published every 5 years.55

In addition, the statute requires the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the 

Committee on Climate Change to advise the department on the 

preparation of the Climate Change Risk Assessment, as well as to assess 

the progress made toward implementing the National Adaptation 

Programme every two years.56 As a result, according to United Kingdom 

officials, the Adaptation Sub-Committee provides independent oversight 

of the climate information system. Also, the Met Office Hadley Centre—a 

government-funded climate science and services center—conducts 

climate observations and modeling, and develops authoritative 

projections for future climate scenarios.57 The most recent version of 

these projections is called the UK Climate Projections 2009 or UKCP09.58

These projections are considered the authoritative source of climate 

information in the United Kingdom and are used across the United 

Kingdom by government agencies, organizations that translate the 

information to meet decision makers’ needs, and decision makers 

themselves, according to documents we reviewed and officials we 

interviewed.

 54In 2008, the Parliament of the United Kingdom (UK) enacted the Climate Change Act, 

which sets up a framework for the UK to ensure steps are taken toward adapting to the 

impact of climate change, among other things. Click here for more information on the UK 

Climate Change Act of 2008. Click here for more information about the Climate Change 

Risk Assessment. 

55Click here for more information about the National Adaptation Programme. According to 

a United Kingdom official, the National Adaptation Programme covers each country of the 

United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland—except where 

relevant policies are devolved to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

56Click here for the Adaptation Sub-Committee’s most recent report to the UK Parliament 

on progress in addressing the United Kingdom’s priorities for climate change adaptation. 

57Click here for more information about the Met Office Hadley Centre. 

58UKCP09 provides future climate projections for land and marine regions, as well as 

observed (past) climate data for the UK. It can be used to help decision makers assess 

their climate risks and plan how to adapt to a changing climate. Click here for more 

information about the UKCP09. 
Page 27 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Figure 4: The United Kingdom’s Climate Information System for Adaptation as of February 2015

Note: The government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England—together 

with the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland—are responsible for 

leading climate adaptation efforts, such as funding the United Kingdom climate information system for 

adaptation, setting priorities for adaptation, and coordinating with other government and 

nongovernment partners. As an entity sponsored by the department, the Environment Agency only 

covers England; there are similar entities in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
Page 28 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Another government entity—the Environment Agency’s Climate Ready 

Support Service—leads the efforts to assist decision makers in using

climate information to adapt to the effects of climate change in England.59

It mainly works through intermediaries outside the government, such as 

nonprofit organizations, consultants, universities, and trade and 

professional associations to translate climate information for decision 

makers, according to government officials. For example, the Environment 

Agency partially funds Climate UK, a network of regionally based 

nonprofits that help decision makers at the regional and local level 

incorporate climate information into their planning and connect with 

intermediaries.60 In addition, the Climate Ready Support Service supports 

the Local Government Association, which works with local authorities on 

adapting to climate change.61 Also, outside the government are the 

research councils, such as the Natural Environment Research Council, 

that support climate modeling efforts by collaborating with the Met Office 

Hadley Centre.62

U.S. federal climate information efforts could be improved by 

incorporating key organizational and data elements, according to our 

reports on adaptation and interagency collaboration, National Academies 

and other studies, observations from site visits to other countries with 

climate information systems, and interviews with U.S. and international 

stakeholders. Specifically, the key organizational and data elements that 

could improve federal climate information efforts are (1) a focused and 

accountable organization, (2) authoritative data, and (3) technical 

assistance.

 59Click here for more information about the Environment Agency. 

60Click here for more information about Climate UK. 

61Click here for more information about the Local Government Association’s efforts related 

to climate change. 

62There are seven UK research councils. Each receives funding from the government’s 

science budget, which is administered through the Department for Business, Innovation 

and Skills. In addition, some research councils also receive funding from other 

government departments, commercialization of research, and other research funders, 

according to their website. These councils are responsible for investing the funding they 

receive in research and training activities in various fields, including engineering and 

physical sciences and medical and life sciences. Click here for more information about the 

research councils.

U.S. Federal Climate 

Information Efforts 

Could Be Improved 

by Incorporating Key 

Organizational and 

Data Elements
Page 29 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

A focused and accountable organization that engages in key practices of 

collaboration would improve federal climate information efforts, according 

to our reports on adaptation and interagency collaboration, National 

Academies and other studies, observations from site visits to other 

countries with climate information systems, and interviews with U.S. and 

international stakeholders. Collaboration between entities is necessary to 

address complex, high-risk challenges like climate change.63 In October 

2005, we found key practices to enhance and sustain interagency 

collaboration include agreeing on roles and responsibilities and 

establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies.64 In addition, in 

September 2012, we found that such interagency efforts benefit from 

clearly defined short-term and long-term outcomes, common terminology 

and definitions, agreement on how the effort will be funded and staffed, 

and committed leadership.65 Other reports also cited the importance of 

collaboration. For example, the President’s State, Local, and Tribal 

Leader’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience stated in 

2014 that coordination among and within federal agencies is vital to 

ensure that decision makers can navigate federal climate information 

products and resources.66 In addition, federal officials and stakeholders 

we interviewed in the United States and the three countries we visited told 

us that any successful collaboration on climate information between 

federal and nonfederal entities required well-defined and clear roles and 

responsibilities.

Further, our October 2005 collaboration report states that agencies must 

have a clear and compelling rationale to work together to overcome 

significant differences in agency missions, cultures, and established ways 

of doing business.67 According to this report, the compelling rationale for 

agencies to collaborate can be imposed externally by law or directive or 

 63GAO, Managing for Results: OMB Should Strengthen Reviews of Cross-Agency Goals, 

GAO-14-526 (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2014).

64GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

65GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012); 

GAO-06-15.

66The State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and 

Resilience, Recommendations to the President (Washington, D.C.: November 2014).

67GAO-06-15.

A Focused and 

Accountable Organization
Page 30 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

can come from the agencies’ own perceptions of the benefits they can 

obtain from working together. Federal officials we interviewed who are 

responsible for coordinating federal climate information programs stated 

that they need a mandate that allows agencies and partner organizations 

to perform the functions necessary to improve federal efforts. The reason, 

these officials said, is that agencies have other missions and, in some 

cases, are precluded from participating in climate change efforts. Some 

officials in the United Kingdom stated that people will act if they have a 

specific duty to manage climate change risk. Similarly, government 

pressure for action is the backbone of Germany’s climate information 

system, according to some German officials.

Authoritative climate data—a periodically updated set of observed and 

projected best available climate data for use by decision makers—would 

improve federal climate information efforts, according to National 

Research Council studies and other reports, international climate 

information systems, and interviews with stakeholders. Decision makers 

need consistent, geographically specific, and accessible information and 

tools to identify climate risks and support resilience planning in their 

communities, according to a November 2014 report by the State, Local, 

and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and 

Resilience.68 According to domestic and international stakeholders we 

interviewed, authoritative data are crucial because they define a common 

starting point for decision makers. However, stakeholders said that a 

single source of information may not be necessary, as a minimum level of 

certification, a “seal of approval,” could be applied to multiple data 

sources that meet certain criteria. Further, according to OSTP staff, 

centralized data are only part of the answer; there needs to be user 

demand for such information, and translation of those data for myriad 

different end users, among other factors. These staff also said that 

observations and projections are tools, and solely coordinating access to 

these tools will not, by itself, resolve the issue at hand.

Various reports we reviewed and stakeholders we interviewed also 

emphasized that improved federal efforts should provide authoritative 

locally-focused information because most decisions are made at the local 

 68The State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and 

Resilience, Recommendations to the President (Washington, D.C.: November 2014).

Authoritative Data
Page 31 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

level. These reports and stakeholders consistently said that locallyfocused information makes climate change real to decision makers where 

they live and work. For example, one stakeholder said that decision 

makers want to know about the effects of climate change in their local 

area, as well as the local area of their businesses and customers. 

German officials echoed this point, stating that locally-focused information 

helps the public and political leaders realize what climate change means 

for them where they live. However, CEQ and OSTP staff and other 

stakeholders cautioned that locally-focused climate projections need to be 

presented in the necessary regional, national, and global context. 

According to OSTP staff, in some cases, it may not be possible to 

realistically project future conditions at the local scale due to inherent 

limitations in the ability to understand and simulate global systems at the 

local level. United Kingdom officials also stated that locally-focused 

information is not necessary for many decisions, and the appropriate 

geographic scale varies depending upon the hazard and decision under 

consideration.

Clearly organized technical assistance would improve federal climate 

information efforts by helping different types of decision makers—ranging 

from those who can define their needs to those who have limited 

experience using climate information—access, translate, and use climate 

information, according to one of our recent reports, National Academies 

studies, other reports, and interviews with stakeholders. In April 2013, we 

found that local decision makers need assistance from experts to help 

them translate available climate data into locally relevant information.69 In 

addition, the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force stated that the 

greatest need is often not the creation of new data or information, but 

assistance and tools for decision makers to navigate the wide array of 

resources already available. Federal officials, domestic stakeholders, and 

officials we interviewed in the three countries we visited told us that 

expecting decision makers to interpret and use complicated data 

themselves is insufficient and ineffective. For example, several 

stakeholders said that decision makers are unable to use climate data 

without significant translation and support. In addition, federal officials told 

us that there is no substitute for face-to-face communication with 

providers of technical assistance. This type of technical assistance is 

 69GAO-13-242.

Technical Assistance
Page 32 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

labor- and resource-intensive with a significant formal role for nonfederal 

institutions, according to federal officials, and is most effective when 

sustained and iterative in nature—not just scientists handing data and 

information to decision makers.

Various options exist for providing climate information to U.S. decision 

makers, and these options have strengths and limitations, according to 

our reports, other studies, interviews with officials from countries with 

climate information systems, and interviews with knowledgeable 

stakeholders. According to a 2010 National Research Council report, 

successful adaptation to climate change involves federal, state, and local 

governments; the private sector; nongovernmental organizations and 

community groups; and others.70 The report said that the challenge is 

creating a framework where all of the parties work together, taking 

advantage of the strengths of each and ensuring that they do not get in 

each other’s way. According to a different National Research Council 

report, a formal system is critical to longevity and success because such 

activities are more effective when well-established organizations build 

trust among information users over time.71 Studies we reviewed and 

interviews we conducted with stakeholders identified six options to 

provide climate information to decision makers: (1) a new federal agency, 

(2) a single existing agency, (3) a nonprofit or FFRDC, (4) a strengthened 

USGCRP, (5) a strengthened OSTP or new entity within the Executive 

Office of the President, and (6) a federally coordinated network of 

regional organizations. A national climate information system with defined 

roles for federal agencies and nonfederal entities could emphasize the 

strengths and deemphasize the limitations of these different options. 

Table 1 presents a summary of the strengths and limitations of these 

options, each of which is discussed in more detail below.

 70National Research Council, Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, 

America’s Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, 

D.C.: 2010).

71National Research Council, Panel on Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related 

Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing 

Decisions in a Changing Climate (Washington, D.C.: 2009).

Options to Provide 

Climate Information to 

U.S. Decision Makers 

Have Strengths and 

Limitations
Page 33 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Table 1: The Strengths and Limitations of Options to Provide Climate Information to U.S. Decision Makers

Government-wide option Strengths Limitations

New federal agency • Focused mission

• Consolidates expertise

• Turf conflicts with existing agencies

• Disrupts existing relationships

Single existing federal agency • Employs existing relationships

• Uses existing organizational functions

• Turf conflicts with other agencies

• No single agency has all necessary 

expertise

• Tension between existing and new 

mission

Nonprofit/federally funded research and 

development center (FFRDC)a

• Nimble and flexible

• Can obtain funding from federal and 

nonfederal sources

• Inability to coordinate federal activities

• Information may not be perceived as 

authoritative

• Inability to participate in federal budget 

discussions

Strengthened United States Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP)

• Employs existing relationships

• Uses existing coordination mechanisms

• Turf conflicts with agencies

• Few links to on-the-ground decision 

makers

Strengthened Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) or new entity 

within the Executive Office of the 

President

• Ability to coordinate federal activities

• Agencies have short-term incentive to 

cooperate

• Lacks long-term continuity

• Lacks operational capabilities

Federally coordinated network of regional 

organizations 

• Capable of engaging a broad range of 

decision makers

• Inconsistent use of available data and 

tools

• Information may not be perceived as 

authoritative

Source: GAO review of National Academies and other studies and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders. | GAO-16-37

a

FFRDCs are privately owned but government-funded entities, operated by contractors or other 

nongovernmental organizations, that have long-term contractual relationships with one or more 

federal agencies to perform research and development and related tasks.

A new federal climate information agency would have strengths and 

limitations, according various studies, interviews with officials from 

countries with climate information systems, and interviews with 

knowledgeable stakeholders. Strengths of a new agency include a 

focused mission and consolidated expertise gathered from agencies 

across the federal government. One stakeholder noted that a new agency 

would have authority, a direct mandate, and clarity of mission. Other 

stakeholders said a new agency would be less likely to be pulled in 

multiple directions, could create a unified culture, and would be relatively 

easy to manage.

Limitations identified by stakeholders include the potential for “turf”

conflicts with existing agencies, as many climate information efforts are 

New Federal Agency
Page 34 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

currently under way across the federal government, and consolidated 

expertise would disrupt existing relationships. First, several stakeholders 

said that they believed that a new climate information agency would result 

in serious turf battles with existing agencies. For example, according to 

one stakeholder, a new agency would not be successful because existing 

agencies would resist losing their programs. Second, a new climate 

information agency would disrupt existing relationships, according to 

various reports reviewed and stakeholders interviewed. According to the 

2010 National Research Council report, it is necessary to build upon 

existing relationships because no single government agency or 

centralized unit could perform all the functions required of a climate 

information system.72 In support of this view, one stakeholder stated that 

establishing a new federal agency is unrealistic because the new agency 

would have to develop new relationships with decision makers.

Experiences in other countries with climate information systems provide 

insight about the merits of developing a new climate information agency. 

None of the climate information systems we reviewed—that is, those of 

Germany, the Netherlands, or the United Kingdom—relies upon a single 

new or existing national agency to provide the entire spectrum of climate 

information and translation services. For example, in the United Kingdom, 

climate information activities for adaptation are coordinated among four 

government entities and a range of nongovernment entities. Similarly, 

multiple government entities have roles in the climate information systems 

of Germany and the Netherlands.

A federal climate information system led by a single existing agency 

would also have strengths and limitations, according to various studies, 

interviews with officials from countries with climate information systems, 

and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders. Strengths of this option 

are similar to those for developing a new federal agency, with one key 

difference—the ability to build on existing relationships instead of starting 

over. As with a new agency, relying on an existing agency to provide 

decision makers with climate information would involve a single point of 

contact. According to a 2010 National Academy of Public Administration 

report, it would be extremely valuable to have one federal agency 

 72National Research Council, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Informing Effective 

Decisions and Actions Related to Climate Change, Informing an Effective Response to 

Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2010).

Single Existing Federal 

Agency
Page 35 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

designated to aggregate climate information and provide the best 

available science to support public policy decision making.73 One 

stakeholder with experience coordinating federal climate information 

efforts stated that a single existing agency would have an established 

organizational structure, resources, and relationships with federal and 

nonfederal entities. Another stakeholder said that relying on an existing 

agency would allow the agency to hit the ground running and start up 

quickly compared with starting a new agency.

The limitations of having an existing agency lead a federal climate 

information system are similar to the limitations of developing a new 

agency—especially turf conflicts with existing agencies. In addition, no 

single agency has all the necessary expertise. For example, according to 

a stakeholder with experience coordinating federal climate information 

efforts, a single agency would not have the breadth of expertise and 

knowledge needed for a functional climate information system. Further 

complicating matters, according to this stakeholder, every agency wants 

to lead, and no agency wants to support. A related limitation is that an 

existing agency would already have a mandate to do other tasks. It would 

have to balance its old mandate with its new one—which probably would 

not go well, according to certain federal officials who coordinate federal 

climate information programs.

Experiences in other countries and a recent attempt by NOAA to establish 

a climate information system provide insights into the feasibility of having 

a single agency lead U.S. efforts. None of the climate information 

systems we reviewed in other countries relies on a single new or existing 

government agency to provide the entire spectrum of climate information 

and technical assistance. And, in 2011, NOAA attempted, through the 

budget process, to organize a Climate Service to coordinate federal 

climate information functions. Stakeholders we spoke with generally cited 

this effort as illustrative of the limitations of relying on a single existing 

federal agency to lead a climate information system in the United 

States.74

 73Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration, Building Strong for Tomorrow: 

NOAA Climate Service, a report prepared for Congress, the Department of Commerce, 

and NOAA (Sept. 13, 2010).

74Click here for more information about NOAA’s 2011 effort to develop a Climate Service. 
Page 36 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

The option of having a nonprofit or FFRDC lead a federal climate 

information system would also have strengths and limitations, according 

to various studies, interviews with officials from countries with climate 

information systems, and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders. 

For example, a strength identified by a NOAA report describing options to 

organize federal climate information was that a nonprofit could operate 

without the burden of complex rules and regulations.75 A stakeholder with 

experience coordinating federal climate information programs said that 

getting this activity out of the federal government would allow a climate 

information system to be nimble and efficient. Another strength identified 

by stakeholders is that nonprofits can be funded with both federal and 

nonfederal dollars. Specifically, according to one stakeholder, a nonprofit 

would be able to spend federal and nonfederal funds and address new 

challenges as they arise, while the federal government has limited 

flexibility for spending its funds.

The nonprofit option also has limitations, according to stakeholders we 

interviewed, including its inability to coordinate federal activities and the 

inability to participate in federal budget discussions.76 According to staff 

from the Executive Office of the President, a nonprofit option may not 

have adequate authority to deliver climate information in an authoritative 

and coordinated way to decision makers. For example, it would lose the 

“federal government stamp,” which means it would be seen as less 

authoritative, according to these staff. Further, one stakeholder noted that 

a nonprofit would struggle to get federal agencies and other organizations 

to cooperate because it would lack the authority to require them to do so. 

Also, several stakeholders said nonprofit staff would be excluded from 

federal budget discussions, meaning agencies would not have an 

incentive to work with them, and they would not be able to advocate for 

federal funding.

Climate information systems in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United 

Kingdom have components similar to U.S. nonprofits or FFRDCs. 

However, nonprofits in these countries do not play a lead role in any of 

these systems and primarily perform a technical assistance or facilitator 

 75NOAA Science Advisory Board, Options for Developing a National Climate Service 

(Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2009).

76Federal officials cautioned that funding from private nonfederal entities could influence 

the priorities and emphasis of an FFRDC.

Nonprofit or FFRDC
Page 37 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

role within a larger system. For example, Climate UK—a network of 

regionally based nonprofits—helps decision makers at the regional and 

local level incorporate climate information into their planning and connect 

with intermediaries such as private sector contractors with climate 

information expertise. Climate UK is partially supported by the UK 

Environment Agency and partially supported by other, nongovernment 

funds, but it does not play a lead role in the United Kingdom’s climate 

information system.

A strengthened USGCRP—the interagency body that coordinates the 

climate science activities of 13 agencies—with independent funding and 

additional authority for its National Coordination Office to lead a U.S. 

climate information system would have strengths and limitations, 

according to various studies, interviews with officials from countries with 

climate information systems, and interviews with knowledgeable 

stakeholders.77 The strengths are that it employs existing relationships 

with other federal agencies and nonfederal entities and uses established 

federal coordination mechanisms. As stated by one stakeholder with 

extensive experience coordinating federal climate information efforts, 

having a strengthened USGCRP lead a climate information system is by 

far the easiest option to implement because the program has experience 

and existing networks with state and other nonfederal stakeholders. Other 

stakeholders noted that USGCRP has a history of convening agencies, 

has close connections with the Executive Office of the President, and can 

participate in budget discussions.

A strengthened USGCRP National Coordination Office would also have 

limitations, primarily related to turf conflicts with agencies and few links to 

decision makers. For example, according to several stakeholders, some 

agencies see USGCRP as an operation they do not own, and 

strengthening USGCRP would be very difficult because of funding and 

territorial conflicts between member agencies. In addition, USGCRP has 

historically been a research—not operational—organization, according to 

stakeholders we interviewed. For example, according to one agency 

 77USGCRP is steered by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) of the 

National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment, Natural 

Resources, and Sustainability, and overseen by the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy. The SGCR coordinates interagency activities through the USGCRP 

National Coordination Office and interagency working groups.

Strengthened USGCRP
Page 38 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

official, it is difficult for the USGCRP National Coordination Office to be 

the main point of contact for a climate information system because it has 

not historically focused on providing information directly to decision 

makers.

Climate information systems in other countries provide few insights as to 

whether a strengthened USGCRP could lead a U.S. climate information 

system. Germany has an interministerial working group composed of 

several federal ministries, but none of the international systems we 

reviewed supports an organization like USGCRP.

Strengthening OSTP or creating a new entity within the Executive Office 

of the President to lead a U.S. climate information system would have 

strengths and limitations, according to various studies, interviews with 

officials from countries with climate information systems, and interviews 

with knowledgeable stakeholders. The primary strength of this option is 

that it is housed within the Executive Office of the President. For example, 

according to one academic stakeholder, a strengthened OSTP would 

provide political power and authority to a climate information system.78

Other stakeholders said this option would be directly connected to the 

President, would provide a strategic vision, and could ensure the vision’s 

implementation.

Key limitations of a strengthened OSTP or new entity within the Executive 

Office of the President are the lack of long-term continuity and operational 

capabilities, according to stakeholders we interviewed. One stakeholder 

with extensive experience coordinating federal climate information 

activities said a strengthened OSTP is the worst option because it is too 

political, and changes in administrations could disrupt the continuity 

needed to build a sustainable system. A stakeholder from academia said 

this is the most worrisome option because it could lack long-term 

continuity and be vulnerable to disruption or dismantlement. A 

strengthened OSTP or new entity within the Executive Office of the 

President also would lack operational capabilities, according to several 

 78According to federal officials, it is not clear why an entity within the Executive Office of 

the President would automatically confer greater authority on a set of scientific information 

products than an institution with a scientific mission rather than policy-focused one. They 

said that scientific authority may be lost in such an arrangement due to perceptions of 

political influence.

Strengthened OSTP or 

New Entity within the 

Executive Office of the 

President
Page 39 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

stakeholders. For example, one private sector stakeholder stated that

OSTP staff are not with the office long enough to be effective at running 

long-term projects. Another stakeholder also cited low staff numbers and 

high turnover that make an Executive Office of the President option 

unsuitable for a large effort like a climate information system.

Climate information systems in other countries provide few insights as to 

whether a strengthened OSTP or new Executive Office of the President 

entity could lead a U.S. climate information system. Climate information 

systems in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom generally 

divide tasks among specific agencies or nongovernment entities and do 

not consolidate power in a single executive-level entity.

Using the federal government to periodically convene and finance a 

network of nonfederal regional organizations to provide climate 

information to decision makers also would have strengths and limitations, 

according to various studies, interviews with officials from countries with 

climate information systems, and interviews with knowledgeable 

stakeholders. This option, according to the 2010 National Research 

Council report, is an intermediate approach, with decentralized planning 

and actions, but a significant role for the federal government as a catalyst 

and coordinator, providing information and technical resources at a 

national level.79 A key strength of this approach is the ability to connect 

and actively engage a broad range of decision makers, according to a 

2009 report by the NOAA Science Advisory Board.80 For example, 

according to one stakeholder, this option could more easily present 

climate information in an appropriate context for decision makers because 

providers of technical assistance at the regional level would be more 

aware of and responsive to decision makers’ needs.

Limitations of the federally coordinated network of regional organizations 

option include potentially inconsistent use of climate information. 

Specifically, decision makers in different regions may use climate 

 79National Research Council, Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, 

America’s Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, 

D.C.: 2010).

80NOAA Science Advisory Board, Options for Developing a National Climate Service 

(Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2009).

Federally Coordinated 

Network of Regional 

Organizations
Page 40 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

information of varying quality because of the decentralized nature of this 

type of system, according to various documents and stakeholders we 

interviewed. For example, according to the 2009 NOAA Science Advisory 

Board report, the voice and vision of a federally coordinated network may 

not be coherent if regionally distributed.81 Further, according to this report, 

climate information provided through distributed partners may not be 

viewed as authoritative.

Climate information systems in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United 

Kingdom all rely on some elements of a federally coordinated network of 

regional organizations, employing multiple entities to provide and 

translate climate information to different decision makers. However, 

Germany’s climate information system most closely resembles the 

federated option described here because of the sheer number of regional 

climate information providers. As described by one German official, the 

best description of the German system is a confederation of partners 

designed to convince decision makers to take action and facilitate 

implementation. Germany’s system is very decentralized with a national 

framework and heterogeneous local implementation, according to this 

official. Several German officials stated that Germany’s decentralized 

structure enhances the ability for scientists to communicate with local 

decision makers, and another said that the resulting competition is often 

positive, but others said it resulted in overlapping roles, coordination 

problems, competition, and decision-maker confusion.

A national climate information system with defined roles for federal 

agencies and nonfederal entities could incorporate the best features and 

address the limitations of different options to provide climate information 

to decision makers, according to various studies we reviewed and 

interviews we conducted with knowledgeable stakeholders. These studies 

and stakeholders generally recognized the need to combine elements of 

the different options to provide climate information to decision makers—

as each has relative advantages—and they called for a national climate 

information system with (1) federal leadership, (2) authoritative federal 

data and federal quality assurance guidelines, and (3) nonfederal 

technical assistance.

 81NOAA Science Advisory Board, Options for Developing a National Climate Service.

A National Climate 

Information System Could 

Incorporate the Best 

Features and Address the 

Limitations of Different 

Options
Page 41 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

Federal leadership for climate information could emphasize the ability of 

the strengthened OSTP option to coordinate federal activities while 

deemphasizing the lack of such ability and potential for turf conflicts 

evident in many of the other options. Based on our review of studies, 

international climate information systems, and interviews with 

stakeholders, the main approaches for motivating decision makers to use 

climate information are statutory requirements and strategic plans—

distinctly federal actions. With respect to statutory requirements, officials 

within the Executive Office of the President said that a mandate is 

necessary for a climate information system to be successful because 

certain agencies would not otherwise be able to participate in climate 

information activities due to laws authorizing or funding their work. 

Likewise, some German and United Kingdom officials said that strong 

leadership and a mandate are necessary to make a climate information 

system happen. A specific law requiring various actions related to climate 

change—the Climate Change Act of 2008— facilitated the creation of the 

United Kingdom’s climate information system and provided the 

justification to sustain it over time, according to United Kingdom officials.

Strategic plans can motivate decision makers to use climate information. 

In 2009, we recommended that the appropriate entities within the 

Executive Office of the President, in consultation with relevant federal 

agencies, state and local governments, and key congressional 

committees of jurisdiction, develop a strategic plan to guide the nation’s 

efforts to adapt to climate change.82 This plan would include the 

establishment of clear roles, responsibilities, and working relationships 

among federal, state, and local governments. Similarly, in 2010, the 

National Research Council recommended that the Executive Branch 

initiate development of a collaborative national adaptation strategy, which 

might take the form of a national adaptation plan.83 As of October 2015, 

the federal government had yet to develop a strategic plan for adaptation 

or a national adaptation strategy. In comparison, the climate information 

systems in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom all have 

national climate adaptation plans that describe government-wide climate 

information for adaptation priorities. For example, according to certain 

 82GAO-10-113.

83National Research Council, Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, 

America’s Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, 

D.C.: 2010).

Federal Leadership
Page 42 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

German officials, the German National Adaptation Strategy provides a 

framework and clear forward-looking goals for the German climate 

information system. The German National Adaptation Strategy 

emphasizes how using climate information in planning processes makes 

sense and saves money. According to German officials, this encourages 

decision makers to adapt by showing them why an action makes sense, 

instead of focusing solely on required actions.

Paired together, authoritative federal data and federal quality assurance 

guidelines emphasize the strengths of the New Federal Agency, Single 

Existing Agency, and Strengthened USGCRP and OSTP options by using 

existing coordination mechanisms and organizational functions and 

focusing on a specific mission while deemphasizing the limitations of 

inconsistent use of available data inherent in the Federally Coordinated 

Network of Regional Organizations option. The federal government 

should be responsible for maintaining the nation’s official climate records 

as part of a climate information system, according to the National 

Research Council.84 Certain federal, nonprofit, academic, and private 

sector stakeholders also identified this role for the federal government. 

For example, one stakeholder we interviewed said that the federal 

government is the only entity with sufficient resources to ensure the 

provision of a full suite of forecasting, modeling, observations, and other 

information. In addition, a federal role would increase the certainty that 

decision makers are using the best available information and eliminate a 

disincentive for action, according to stakeholders from a nonprofit entity 

that produces climate information. A stakeholder from academia noted 

that the federal government is good at developing and providing access 

to various types of climate information but does not do nearly as well 

integrating information into decision making. A private sector stakeholder 

was more specific, stating that the federal government should provide a 

range of acceptable scenarios—defined high, low, and medium 

scenarios—so decision makers can prepare accordingly depending upon 

their risk tolerance.

In 2009, we recommended that the federal government develop a 

national strategic plan to guide the nation’s effort to adapt to a changing 

climate that, among other things, identified mechanisms to incorporate 

 84National Research Council, A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Toward the Future

(Washington, D.C.: 2001).

Authoritative Federal Data and 

Federal Quality Assurance 

Guidelines
Page 43 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

climate information into federal, state, local, and private sector decision 

making.85 Further, in 2013, we recommended that a federal entity 

designated by the Executive Office of the President work with agencies to 

identify the best available climate-related information for infrastructure 

planning and to update this information over time for local infrastructure 

decision makers.86 Although the federal government has made progress, 

as of October 2015, the Executive Office of the President had not fully 

addressed these recommendations.87

The climate information systems in the Netherlands and United Kingdom 

rely on authoritative climate data provided by national-level agencies. For 

example, in the Netherlands, KNMI develops authoritative national, 

regional, and local-scale projections and scenarios that are used across 

the country, by other government agencies, and by organizations that 

translate climate information to something more useful for decision 

makers. Similarly, within the UK government, the Met Office Hadley 

Centre—a government-funded climate research center—develops 

authoritative national, regional, and local-scale projections and scenarios 

for the UK climate information system. Through UKCP09, the Met Office 

provides a single set of projections with High, Medium, and Low 

emissions scenarios so decision makers have the flexibility to use any 

scenario based on risk tolerance. Germany relies on several different 

regional models, reflecting its federated structure.

Federal quality assurance guidelines are also important to preserve the 

integrity of federal data in a national climate information system. To 

inform and be effective, a climate information system needs a clear set of 

principles to guide products and activities, according to the 2010 National 

Research Council report.88 The federal government should make 

developing quality assurance standards a priority to ensure that data 

used for providing climate services are reliable and that contractors and 

agencies are playing by the same rules, according to officials at a 

 85GAO-10-113.

86GAO-13-242. 

87GAO-15-290.

88National Research Council, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Informing Effective 

Decisions and Actions Related to Climate Change, Informing an Effective Response to 

Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
Page 44 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

nonprofit entity that produces and translates climate information. Another 

stakeholder stated that the primary climate information role of the federal 

government should be to develop observation systems to meet basic 

foundational research needs while maintaining rigorous data quality so 

nonfederal actors can provide services with more flexible mechanisms.

The climate information systems we reviewed in other countries generally 

do not have quality assurance guidelines for how decision makers use 

their authoritative climate data. However, officials we interviewed in the 

United Kingdom and Germany told us that they recognize the need to 

produce such guidelines. For example, United Kingdom officials said they 

recognized the need to develop a quality assurance process because the 

government could be blamed if a contractor misuses government data. 

Guidelines would help protect the integrity of government data by clearly 

stating acceptable procedures and methods for using government climate 

data. Another United Kingdom official noted that if you are to have a onestop-shop for climate services, quality assurance and quality control will 

have to be a key part of the system. German officials similarly noted the 

need to move toward standardized quality assurance and quality control 

processes to ensure the quality and consistency of climate information for 

decision makers.

A nonfederal entity would be better positioned to provide technical 

assistance in a national climate information system, according to various 

studies we reviewed and interviews we conducted with knowledgeable 

stakeholders. Nonfederal technical assistance would emphasize the 

strengths of many of the options by being nimble and flexible, employing 

existing relationships, and engaging a broad range of stakeholders. 

Nonfederal technical assistance would also minimize the limitations of no 

single agency having all necessary expertise, few links to on-the-ground 

decision makers, and turf battles between existing agencies.

The federal government cannot take on the climate services role, 

according to officials within the Executive Office of the President, because 

it does not have the resources to do the task, and there is no way that the 

federal government can work with every decision maker. The federal 

government also does not have the presence at the local level, or trust of 

communities, to play this direct role, according to these officials. Similarly, 

a stakeholder with experience coordinating federal climate information 

issues stated that the federal government has to be a part of whatever 

system is put in place—particularly from a leadership perspective—but 

there is a false assumption that the federal government should do it all 

and be all things to all people. It cannot, according to this stakeholder, 

Nonfederal Technical

Assistance
Page 45 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

because it is too hard to match the rigor required of the federal 

government with the flexibility needed to make the information relevant to 

decision makers.

A nonfederal entity would be better positioned to interact with existing 

networks of decision makers and to facilitate connections between 

decision makers and intermediaries with specialized expertise, according 

to various stakeholders. For example, according to some federal officials 

who manage climate information programs, a nonfederal organization to 

teach, promote, and transfer climate information would likely be more 

effective than government agencies. Officials within the Executive Office 

of the President made a similar point, noting that there needs to be an 

intermediary or intermediaries—for example, nonprofits, the private 

sector, or academic institutions—to perform the technical assistance role 

for the federal government. A nonfederal entity could facilitate 

connections between decision makers and intermediaries while 

employing existing networks of climate information expertise.

Opinions varied on how a nonfederal entity or entities could provide the 

technical assistance component of a U.S. national climate information 

system, but certain stakeholders we interviewed called for a central hub 

where decision makers could access technical assistance. Two of the 

other countries with climate information systems have central hubs. For 

example, the United Kingdom’s Climate Ready Support Service leads 

efforts to assist decision makers in using climate information. This service 

provides tools, information, and practical advice to help businesses and 

other organizations adapt to the effects of climate change and operates a 

help desk to answer questions from the public or decision makers about 

how to use climate information. A similar entity exists in the Netherlands 

with more of a role for academia. Germany’s system has multiple points 

of contact for decision makers, reflecting its federated structure. While 

climate information systems in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands 

have central hubs, these systems also interact with decision makers at 

multiple points by reflecting the value of existing networks and 

established decision-making processes.

Even if a nonfederal entity acts as the central hub for a national system, 

this does not preclude the federal government from providing technical 

assistance to decision makers. Programs like NOAA’s National Integrated 

Drought Information System already serve existing networks of decision 

makers and will provide key information resources however a national 

system is organized. Even if a nonfederal entity was designated as the 

central hub in a national system, federal efforts would remain part of the 
Page 46 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

larger network providing technical assistance to decision makers. In 

addition, according to several stakeholders, federal adaptation science 

programs could continue to provide support to federal and nonfederal 

technical assistance efforts, focusing on problems that affect all climate 

information users and providers such as how to evaluate the 

effectiveness of adaptation actions.

The federal government has begun to address its large and growing fiscal 

exposure to changes in the climate. These exposures are partly driven by 

state, local, and private sector decision makers responsible for planning, 

constructing, and maintaining certain types of vulnerable infrastructure 

paid for with federal funds, insured by federal programs, or eligible for 

federal disaster assistance. However, because federal climate information 

efforts are fragmented, these decision makers generally do not 

understand how to access and use the best available authoritative 

information they need to account for climate risk in planning processes, 

according to principles of risk management. Germany, the Netherlands, 

and the United Kingdom provide examples of how national climate 

information systems can be structured with defined roles for federal and 

nonfederal entities. Options to provide climate information to U.S. 

decision makers have strengths and limitations, according to various 

studies we reviewed and interviews we conducted with knowledgeable 

stakeholders. A national climate information system with defined roles for 

federal agencies and nonfederal entities could incorporate the best 

features and address the limitations of different options to provide climate 

information to decision makers. Specifically, a national climate information 

system with federal leadership, authoritative federal data and quality 

assurance guidelines, and a nonfederal provider of technical assistance

may make it easier for federal, state, local, and private sector decision 

makers to justify the costs of incorporating climate change information 

into planning efforts, thereby reducing long-term federal fiscal exposure.

Conclusions
Page 47 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

To help federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers access 

and use the best available climate information, we recommend that the 

Executive Office of the President designate a federal entity to take the 

following two actions:

• develop and periodically update a set of authoritative climate change 

observations and projections for use in federal decision making, which 

state, local, and private sector decision makers could also access to 

obtain the best available climate information; and

• create a national climate information system with defined roles for 

federal agencies and nonfederal entities with existing statutory 

authority.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the Director 

of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Managing 

Director (Acting Chair) of the Council on Environmental Quality. They did 

not provide official written comments, but did provide technical comments, 

which we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to the 

appropriate congressional committees; the Director of OSTP and the 

Managing Director (Acting Chair) of CEQ; and other interested parties. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix I.

J. Alfredo Gómez

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgements

Page 48 GAO-16-37 Climate Information

J. Alfredo Gomez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Janet Frisch (Assistant 

Director), Cheryl Arvidson, John Barrett, Christine Broderick, Frederick K. 

Childers, Christopher Currie, Cindy Gilbert, Kathryn Godfrey, Elias 

Harpst, Richard Johnson, Karen Keegan, Brian Lepore, Alison O’Neill, 

Susan Offutt, Diane Raynes, Patricia Roy, Dan Royer, Stephen Sanford, 

Jeanette Soares, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Joseph Dean Thompson, Chris 

Turner, and Sarah Veale made key contributions to this report.

Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgements

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements

(361576)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.