CLIMATE CHANGE

Selected 

Governments Have 

Approached 

Adaptation through 

Laws and Long-Term 

Plans

Report to the Honorable Matthew

Cartwright, House of Representatives

May 2016

GAO-16-454

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-454, a report to the 

Honorable Matthew Cartwright, House of 

Representatives

May 2016

CLIMATE CHANGE

Selected Governments Have Approached Adaptation 

through Laws and Long-Term Plans

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2013, GAO placed Limiting the 

Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure 

by Better Managing Climate Change 

Risks on its high-risk list because

climate risks and weather-related 

disasters present a financial risk to the 

federal government. The 2017 

President’s Budget estimated that the 

U.S. government incurred over 

$357 billion in direct costs because of

weather-related disasters in the last 

decade. The U.S. Global Change 

Research Program states that climate 

change and associated weatherrelated disasters may increase these 

costs. These impacts call attention to 

the federal government’s role as a 

leader in coordinating and informing 

government efforts. Enhancing 

resilience through hazard mitigation 

and climate change adaptation—for 

example, by building flood 

protections—may help reduce these 

costs. Other governments face similar 

risks and have developed strategies for 

enhancing resilience.

This report focuses on fiscal exposure

to climate-related risks and describes

(1) how selected governments have 

approached enhancing resilience to 

weather-related disasters through 

climate change adaptation and 

(2) steps the U.S. government has 

taken to enhance resilience through 

climate change adaptation. GAO 

reviewed literature and government 

documents; interviewed U.S. and other

government officials and stakeholders; 

and selected a nongeneralizable 

sample of four countries—Mexico, the 

Netherlands, the Philippines, the 

United Kingdom—and the European 

Union for further examination, based 

on criteria including stakeholder 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

Selected governments have approached enhancing resilience through climate 

change adaptation, and some have aligned adaptation with broader resilience

efforts (see figure). All five selected governments have enacted laws and 

developed long-term plans as a part of their approaches to climate change 

adaptation. These plans established frameworks for addressing climate risks. For 

example, the European Union and the Netherlands made long-term funding 

commitments for enhancing resilience, and the United Kingdom developed a 

system for monitoring and evaluating its climate change strategy. These laws 

and strategies have helped governments identify priority actions, facilitate 

consensus among stakeholders, provide reliable resources, and identify areas for 

improvement. The Philippines and the United Kingdom have also aligned their 

adaptation strategies with broader resilience strategies that address other risks,

such as terrorism and health pandemics. This alignment may provide co-benefits, 

such as infrastructure investments that protect against climate change impacts;

enhance resilience to all disasters; and create economic opportunities.

Relationship among Risks, Resilience, Hazard Mitigation, and Climate Change Adaptation

The United States has taken steps to enhance resilience through climate change 

adaptation and aligning climate change adaptation with broader resilience efforts.

Legislation has been introduced to enhance resilience to weather-related events. 

Specifically, in 2014 and 2015, a bill to enhance the federal government’s 

planning and preparation for extreme weather was introduced in Congress but 

not enacted. In addition, the President issued an executive order directing federal 

agencies to develop or update adaptation plans and establishing the Council on 

Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience. Further, the President’s Climate 

Action Plan sets strategic climate change adaptation priorities. The Executive 

Office of the President also collaborates with the Mitigation Framework 

Leadership Group, an intergovernmental coordinating body created to integrate 

federal efforts and incorporate risk management and hazard mitigation in all 

View GAO-16-454. For more information, planning, decision making, and development. 

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

gomezj@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-16-454 Climate Change

Letter 1

All Selected Governments Have Approached Climate Change 

Adaptation with Laws and Plans, and Some Have Aligned 

Adaptation with Broader Resilience 8

The United States Has Taken Steps to Enhance Resilience 

through Climate Change Adaptation and Aligning Adaptation 

with Broader Resilience 16

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 22

Appendix I Selected Steps the United States Has Taken to Enhance Resilience 24

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 26

Tables

Table 1: Billion-Dollar Disasters Affecting the United States, 2004-

2014 2

Table 2: Selected Governments’ Climate Change Adaptation 

Plans 10

Table 3: Selected U.S. Steps to Enhance Resilience 24

Figure

Figure 1: Relationships among Risks, Resilience, Hazard 

Mitigation, and Climate Change Adaptation 5

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-454 Climate Change

Abbreviations

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

Council Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience

EOP Executive Office of the President

EU European Union

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

MitFLG Mitigation Framework Leadership Group

NMF National Mitigation Framework

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

UK United Kingdom

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-16-454 Climate Change

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 12, 2016

The Honorable Matthew Cartwright

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Cartwright:

From 2004 through 2014, the United States experienced 86 weatherrelated disasters, including severe storms, flooding, and drought, with

damages exceeding $1 billion each, according to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. The President’s Fiscal Year 2017 

Budget estimated that the federal government has incurred over $357 

billion in direct costs for managing all of the extreme weather and fire

events in the last decade. The United States Global Change Research 

Program’s (USGCRP) 2014 National Climate Assessment found that as 

extreme weather events become more frequent and intense, they pose

increasing financial risks to the federal government.1 The assessment 

also found that climate change has already increased the number and 

strength of some these events, such as heat waves.2 Similarly, the 

National Academies reported greater confidence in the ability to attribute 

specific instances of certain kinds of extreme events, such as extreme 

heat or cold, drought, or heavy precipitation, to climate change.3 Table 1 

 

1

Jerry M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, eds., Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 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 the 

United States. 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)). The act 

requires USGCRP to periodically prepare a scientific assessment—known as the National 

Climate Assessment—which is an important resource for understanding and 

communicating climate change science and impacts in the United States.

2Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe, Third National Climate Assessment.

3The National Academies, Committee on Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change 

Attribution, Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change

(Washington, D.C.: 2016). According to this report, confidence in attribution depends on 

the type of event. Specifically, confidence in attribution analyses of specific extreme 

events is highest for extreme heat and cold events, followed by hydrological drought and 

heavy precipitation. There is little or no confidence in the attribution of severe convective 

storms and extratropical cyclones. Confidence in the attribution of specific events 

generally increases with increased understanding of the effect of climate change on the 

event type. Gaps in understanding and limitations in the historical data lead to differences 

in confidence in attribution of specific events among different event types.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

shows the number of weather-related disasters affecting the United 

States with damages exceeding $1 billion each for 2004 through 2014.

Table 1: Billion-Dollar Disasters Affecting the United States, 2004-2014

Dollars in billions

Disaster type Number of events Percentage of events Unadjusted lossesaPercentage of total losses Average costa

Drought 9 11 $80 14 $9

Flooding 9 11 24 4 3

Severe storm 43 50 96 17 2

Tropical cycloneb15 17 340 61 23

Wildfire 6 7 10 2 2

Winter stormc4 5 7 1 4

Total 86 101d$557 99c$6

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. | GAO-16-454

Notes:

a

Losses and costs are rounded to nearest billion dollars and are not adjusted for changes in the 

consumer price index over the fiscal period. There is uncertainty associated with disaster cost 

estimates. 

b

Tropical cyclones refer to hurricanes and typhoons. According to the National Academies, 

confidence in attribution depends on the type of event. Specifically, confidence in attribution analyses 

of specific extreme events is highest for extreme heat and cold events, followed by hydrological 

drought and heavy precipitation. There is little or no confidence in the attribution of severe convective 

storms and extratropical cyclones. Confidence in the attribution of specific events generally increases 

with increased understanding of the effect of climate change on the event type. Gaps in 

understanding and limitations in the historical data lead to differences in confidence in attribution of 

specific events among different event types. For more information, see The National Academies, 

Committee on Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change Attribution, Attribution of Extreme 

Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2016). 

c

The winter storm category includes both winter storms and freezes. 

dNumbers do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

In 2013, we placed Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by 

Better Managing Climate Change Risks on our high-risk list because of 

the financial risk that climate change and associated extreme weather 

events present to the federal government.4 Our high-risk list called 

attention to areas where government-wide improvement is needed to 

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

the leader of a strategic plan that coordinates federal efforts and informs 

 

4GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013). 

Our high-risk list identifies federal areas at risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement or that need transformation to address economy, efficiency, or 

effectiveness challenges.
Page 3 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

state, local, and private-sector action. In addition, our high-risk list notes 

that with the frequency of weather-related disasters increasing, disaster 

assistance is a key source of federal fiscal exposure.

The U.S. government coordinates federal disaster assistance and 

provides information, technical assistance, and financial support to 

federal, state, local, tribal, and private-sector stakeholders. The Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the primary federal agency 

responsible for disaster response and assistance. We have previously 

found that the federal government does not fully budget for the costs of 

such assistance,5in part because supplemental appropriations that occur 

outside of the annual appropriations process are largely used to fund this 

assistance.

6 For example, the federal budget generally does not account 

for disaster assistance provided in cases such as Hurricane Sandy—for 

which Congress provided about $60 billion in budget authority for such 

assistance in 2013.

7

In addition to direct disaster assistance, we have 

found that the national flood and crop insurance programs are major 

sources of fiscal exposure for the federal government.8 Floods and other 

weather-related disasters can cause or exacerbate damage to housing, 

crops, and other assets, resulting in potential increases in assistance and 

insurance claims and additional liabilities for the federal government.

 

5See GAO, Flood Insurance: Status of FEMA's Implementation of the Biggert-Waters Act, 

as Amended, GAO-15-178 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 2015); Disaster Resilience: 

Actions Are Underway, but Federal Fiscal Exposure Highlights the Need for Continued 

Attention to Longstanding Challenges, GAO-14-603T (Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2014); 

and Federal Disaster Assistance: Improved Criteria Needed to Assess a Jurisdiction's 

Capability to Respond and Recover on Its Own, GAO-12-838 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

12, 2012).

6Supplemental appropriations provide additional budget authority usually in cases where 

the need for funds is too urgent to be postponed until the enactment of the regular 

appropriations act.

7Specifically, a supplemental appropriation law provided about $50 billion in appropriated 

funds for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy, and another law 

temporarily increased the borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program, 

which makes federally backed flood insurance available to property owners in participating 

communities, by $9.7 billion. Pub. L. No. 113-2, 127 Stat. 4 (2013); Pub. L. No. 113-1, 127 

Stat. 3 (2013). 

8See GAO, Fiscal Exposures: Improving Cost Recognition in the Federal Budget, GAO14-28 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2013). Also, see GAO’s Federal Fiscal Outlook 

webpage: http://www.gao.gov/fiscal_outlook/federal_fiscal_outlook/overview#t=3. The 

term fiscal exposure refers to the responsibilities, programs, and activities that may either 

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

future spending. 
Page 4 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

The National Academies define resilience as the ability to prepare and 

plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse 

events.9In July 2015, we found that the emphasis on the post-disaster 

environment can create a reactionary approach where disasters 

determine when and for what purpose the federal government invests in 

disaster resilience and can limit states’ ability to plan and prioritize for 

maximum risk reduction.10 We and others have recommended building 

disaster resilience—by taking actions to mitigate vulnerabilities to the 

effects of severe weather and to adapt to the effects of climate change—

as one strategy to help to limit the nation’s fiscal exposure.

Our 2015 update to the high-risk list found that enhancing resilience to 

climate change could create up-front costs but could also reduce potential 

future damages from climate-related events.11 Two related sets of actions 

that can enhance resilience by reducing risk include hazard mitigation 

and climate change adaptation. Hazard mitigation refers to actions taken 

to reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the impacts of adverse 

events and applies to all hazards, including terrorism and natural hazards, 

such as health pandemics or weather-related disasters. For example, 

hazard mitigation activities may include activities such as increasing 

access to the flu vaccine, restoring wetlands and coastal areas to control 

erosion, or protecting critical facilities against power loss. Climate change 

adaptation involves adjustments to natural or human systems in response 

to actual or expected climate change, including increases in the 

frequency or severity of weather-related disasters.12 For example, climate 

change adaptation activities taken to reduce the damages from weatherrelated disasters may include the addition of permeable surfaces and 

“green roofs”—roofs partially or completely covered with vegetation—in 

 

9The National Academies, Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and 

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

A National Imperative (Washington, D.C.: 2012).

10GAO, Hurricane Sandy: An Investment Strategy Could Help the Federal Government 

Enhance National Resilience for Future Disasters, GAO-15-515 (Washington, D.C.: July 

30, 2015).

11GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015).

12Climate change adaptation involves actions related to the chronic effects of climate 

change and those related to hazardous events. For example, climate change adaptation 

includes raising river or coastal dikes to protect infrastructure from chronic climate change 

impacts, such as sea level rise; building higher bridges; and increasing the capacity of 

storm water systems.
Page 5 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

cities to absorb excess rainfall, provide insulation, and help lower urban 

air temperatures. Figure 1 shows the relationships among risks, 

resilience, hazard mitigation, and climate change adaptation.

Figure 1: Relationships among Risks, Resilience, Hazard Mitigation, and Climate Change Adaptation

Other governments face similar challenges in planning for and reducing 

fiscal exposure from weather-related disasters. For example, in 2015, the 

United Nations reported that estimates for the global costs of storms 

alone exceeded $1 trillion over the previous two decades.

13

You asked us to examine lessons learned from other governments in 

reducing fiscal exposure to climate change and weather-related disasters 

through climate change adaptation. This report describes (1) how 

selected governments have approached enhancing resilience to weather-

 

13Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters and United Nations Office for 

Disaster Risk Reduction, The Human Cost of Weather-Related Disasters 1995-2015 

(Geneva: 2015). 
Page 6 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

related disasters through climate change adaptation and (2) steps the 

U.S. government has taken to enhance resilience to weather-related 

disasters through climate change adaptation.

To address the first objective, we identified and interviewed 

representatives from 32 stakeholder groups involved in work related to 

climate change adaptation and enhancing resilience to weather-related 

disasters—including representatives from international organizations;

nongovernmental organizations; universities; and private companies,

such as reinsurance and consulting companies. We identified these 

stakeholder groups by reviewing relevant literature and using a snowball 

sampling method.14 We then asked representatives from these 

stakeholder groups to identify examples of governments that proactively 

enhance resilience to weather-related disasters. We also asked them to 

recommend relevant literature on this subject. We developed a list of 

governments most commonly cited by stakeholders or the literature and 

then applied a set of criteria to this list of governments. Our criteria were 

whether the government had a system for incorporating climate-related 

risks into disaster resilience efforts, was proactively addressing these 

risks, and had a strategy in place to enhance resilience through climate 

change adaptation; the frequency with which the country was cited in 

literature and stakeholder interviews as examples of leaders in climate 

change adaptation and disaster resilience; and time and resource 

considerations.

Based on these criteria, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of five of 

these governments for further examination: (1) the European Union (EU),

(2) Mexico, (3) the Netherlands, (4) the Philippines, and (5) the United 

Kingdom (UK).15 We gathered and analyzed documents and interviewed 

government officials regarding the selected governments’ approaches to 

enhancing resilience to weather-related disasters. Because this is a 

nongeneralizable sample, findings from governments we included cannot 

 

14In snowball sampling, the unit of analysis is a person. This methodology begins with an 

initial list of people to interview. When interviewed, each of the initially identified people is 

asked to refer the interviewer to additional cognizant persons. The group of referred cases 

(or “snowball”) grows larger and then narrows as a group of individuals who are most 

frequently identified, along with those initially identified, become the pool of potential 

interviewees. 

15The EU is a politico-economic union of 28 separate countries. The Netherlands and the 

UK are members of the EU, but we list them separately because we also reviewed efforts 

that their governments undertook independently from those taken by the EU.
Page 7 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

be generalized to other governments we did not include in our review but 

can provide illustrative examples. Specifically, our review of these 

governments’ climate change strategies and related actions gave us 

insight into how such actions could be successfully applied to help 

increase disaster resilience.

To address the second objective, we interviewed officials from FEMA, the 

lead federal agency for disaster assistance. These officials helped us 

identify other federal entities involved in enhancing resilience to weatherrelated disasters. We then interviewed officials from the Departments of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), State, and the Treasury; and

the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG), an 

intergovernmental coordinating body created to integrate federal efforts 

and promote a national cultural shift that incorporates risk management 

and hazard mitigation in all planning, decision making, and development. 

We also interviewed officials from the Executive Office of the President’s 

(EOP) Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), and USGCRP because of their involvement in 

crosscutting climate change issues.16 We also reviewed relevant 

documents, including executive orders, several agency adaptation plans, 

agency and intergovernmental documents, and literature on best 

practices, including our past reports on national strategies.17

We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to May 2016 in 

accordance with 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.

 

16CEQ coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and 

other entities within EOP in developing environmental initiatives. OSTP, among other 

things, is to provide the President and his senior staff with accurate, relevant, and timely 

scientific and technical advice on all matters of consequence and to ensure that the 

policies of the executive branch are informed by sound science.

17GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National 

Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).
Page 8 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

All of the governments in our review have approached enhancing 

resilience through climate change adaptation with laws and long-term 

plans. Some governments have also aligned government-wide climate 

change adaptation plans with broader disaster resilience efforts that 

attempt to protect against risks other than those related to climate 

change.18 

All five selected governments enacted laws as a part of their approaches 

to climate change adaptation, as follows:

 European Union. In 2013, the EU enacted the Union Civil Protection 

Mechanism legislation to strengthen the cooperation between the EU

and member states and facilitate coordination of civil protection in 

order to improve the effectiveness of systems for preventing, 

preparing for, and responding to natural and man-made disasters.19

According to EU officials, member states are to take climate change 

into account when preparing risk assessments required under the 

Civil Protection Mechanism.

 Mexico. Mexico’s General Law on Climate Change entered into force 

in 2012, making the federal government responsible for developing 

and implementing a national strategy and program for climate change 

and a system for monitoring and evaluating both.20

 

18We use “some countries” to refer to three or more countries.

19Decision No. 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17

December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, 2013 O.J. (L 347) 924.

20Ley General de Cambio Climático [L.G.C.C.] [General Climate Change Law], as 

amended, art. 7(III), Diario Oficial de la Federación [D.O.], 6 de Junio de 2012 (Mex.).

All Selected 

Governments Have 

Approached Climate 

Change Adaptation 

with Laws and Plans, 

and Some Have 

Aligned Adaptation 

with Broader 

Resilience 

All Selected Governments 

Have Approached 

Enhancing Resilience 

through Climate Change 

Adaptation by Enacting 

Laws and Developing 

Long-Term Plans
Page 9 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

 The Netherlands. The Delta Act, which entered into force in 2012, 

addressed fresh water supply management and flood protection in 

relation to expected climate change.21

 The Philippines. The Climate Change Act of 2009 established the

Climate Change Commission and tasked it with formulating the

Framework Strategy on Climate Change.22 In 2010, the commission 

issued a rule, in an administrative order, requiring it to formulate the

National Climate Action Plan in accordance with the framework. 

 United Kingdom. The UK Climate Change Act of 2008 requires the 

development of a national adaptation plan and the issuance of a 

report on the impacts of climate change every 5 years, among other 

things.23 In response, the UK developed its National Adaptation 

Programme.

All of the governments in our review also developed long-term 

government-wide climate change adaptation plans that established a 

framework for addressing climate risks. For example, Mexico’s plan 

established a framework to guide national action for 40 years. In another 

example, the Netherlands’ Climate Agenda established the government’s 

vision of climate change adaptation, its national and international 

approach to turning its vision into reality, and priority measures and 

actions to be taken, including actions through 2030. According to the 

2012 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, national 

systems are at the core of countries’ capacity to meet the challenges of 

observed and projected trends in exposure, vulnerability, and weather 

 

21Deltawet waterveiligheid en zoetwatervoorziening [Delta Act], 1 December 2011 (Neth.).

22An Act Mainstreaming Climate Change Into Government Policy Formulations, 

Establishing the Framework Strategy and Program on Climate Change, Creating for this 

Purpose the Climate Change Commission, and for Other Purposes, Rep. Act 9729, §§ 4, 

9(c) (2009) (Phil.).

23Climate Change Act, 2008, c. 27, §§ 56, 58 (U.K.).
Page 10 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

and climate extremes.24 Table 2 identifies the selected governments’ 

adaptation plans.25

Table 2: Selected Governments’ Climate Change Adaptation Plans

Government Adaptation plan Year published 

European Uniona EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change 2013

Mexico National Climate Change Strategy 10-20-40 Vision 2013

Netherlands Climate Agenda: Resilient, Prosperous and Green 2013

Philippines National Climate Action Plan 2011-2028 2010

United Kingdom National Adaptation Programme 2013

Source: GAO analysis of international documents. | GAO-16-454

Note: We selected these governments by first asking stakeholders knowledgeable about climate 

change adaptation and disaster resilience to identify examples of governments that proactively 

enhance resilience to weather-related disasters. We also asked them to recommend relevant 

literature on this subject. We then developed a list of governments most commonly cited by 

stakeholders or the literature and applied a set of criteria to this list of governments. Our criteria were 

whether the government had a system for incorporating climate-related risks into disaster resilience 

efforts, was proactively addressing these risks, and had a strategy in place to enhance resilience 

through climate change adaptation. 

a

The European Union is a politico-economic union of 28 separate governments. The Netherlands and 

the United Kingdom are members of the European Union, but we list them separately because we 

also reviewed efforts that their governments undertook independently from those taken by the 

European Union.

Coordination mechanisms. Some of the selected governments have 

established coordination mechanisms and facilitated knowledge sharing 

to implement their adaptation strategies. For example, in the Philippines, 

the Climate Change Commission coordinates across the national 

government to carry out the actions identified in the Philippines’ climate 

plan. According to commission officials, coordination facilitates consensus 

among different stakeholders in implementing climate change adaptation 

and disaster risk reduction initiatives.26 Governments may also facilitate 

 

24Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Managing the Risks of Extreme Events 

and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (New York: 2012). According to the 

report, effective national systems comprise multiple actors from national and subnational 

governments, the private sector, research bodies, and civil society, including communitybased organizations, playing differential but complementary roles to manage risk, 

according to their accepted functions and capacities.

25Some governments’ adaptation strategies are part of broader climate change initiatives. 

26Disaster risk reduction refers to the practice of reducing disaster risks through 

systematic efforts to analyze and reduce the causal factors of disasters. 
Page 11 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

coordination among different levels of government, as well as the private 

sector. For example, according to UK government officials, they built 

relationships with local government and private-sector stakeholders as 

part of their adaptation plan that allowed these stakeholders to invest in 

common resilience goals, such as building resilient infrastructure. To 

facilitate knowledge sharing, the EU established an online platform, 

Climate-ADAPT, 27 to enable information exchange on climate change 

data; adaptation strategies and related activities; and case studies on 

specific climate impacts, such as flooding or droughts, and adaptation 

sectors, such as biodiversity and disaster risk reduction. 

 

27For more information on Climate-ADAPT, see http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/. 
Page 12 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

Funding. Some of the selected governments have established budgets 

or dedicated funding mechanisms for enhancing resilience. For example, 

the EU has agreed to spend at least 20 percent of its budget for 2014 

through 2020 on emissions reduction and climate change adaptation. In 

another example, the Netherlands committed an average annual budget 

of €1.2 billion through 2028 for the Delta Programme, which focuses 

specifically on reducing flood risk, improving water quality, and 

implementing climate change adaptation activities in cities.28 The 

Philippines enacted a law establishing the People’s Survival Fund, a 

special fund to finance adaptation programs and projects for local 

governments and communities, based on the National Strategic

Framework.29 Projects in water resources management; land 

management; agriculture and fisheries; and a guarantee for risk 

insurance needs for farmers, agricultural workers, and others are among 

those eligible for funding. The law requires the Climate Change 

Commission to develop criteria to prioritize use of the fund based on 

specified factors, such as level of risk and vulnerability to climate change

and cost-effectiveness and sustainability of the proposal. Mexico’s federal 

government established FONDEN, a fund for supporting natural disaster 

relief and reconstruction to which the government allocates national funds 

annually. Since 2003, Mexico has also financed disaster risk reduction 

activities through FOPREDEN—a program specifically focused on natural 

disaster prevention—which has an annual budget of around $25 million. 

Officials in some countries emphasized the importance of long-term 

consistency in budgeting, which provides predictable, reliable resources 

for adaptation projects.

 

28Based on currency conversion rates applied May 10, 2016, €1.2 billion was 

approximately $1.4 billion. 

29An Act Establishing the People’s Survival Fund to provide long-term finance streams to 

enable the government to effectively address the problem of climate change, Amending 

for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9729, otherwise known as the Climate Change Act of 

2009, and for Other Purposes, Rep. Act No. 10174, § 13 (2012) (Phil.).

Funding: Financial Mechanisms to 

Manage Fiscal Exposure 

There are a number of different types of 

financial mechanisms governments can use 

to manage their fiscal exposure to weatherrelated disasters and secure financial 

resources to cover any risks that cannot be 

reduced. Governments can establish plans 

for budgeting and allocating national 

resources. Governments can also establish 

lines of contingent credit, the terms of 

which they settle upon with creditors (such 

as international banks) ahead of time, but 

which they access only if and when a 

disaster occurs. 

In some cases, creditors may require that 

governments invest in resilience to access 

credit. Governments can also transfer risk 

to a third party through insurance or 

alternative risk transfer instruments—those 

that transfer risk outside of the insurance 

markets. For example, catastrophe bonds

are high-yield debt instruments designed to 

raise money in case of a catastrophe, such 

as a hurricane, to transfer financial risk 

from governments to capital markets.

Catastrophe bonds have a measurable 

trigger, such as the economic value of 

damage inflicted, the intensity or severity of 

a storm, or mortality rates. The government 

issuing the bond may sell the bond to a 

variety of investors. If a natural disaster 

triggers the bond conditions, the 

government has access to the funds 

obtained through the bond sale to support 

response and recovery. If no event triggers 

the bond conditions before a specified time 

limit expires, the investors receive the funds 

and interest associated with the bond sale.

Governments can also obtain several 

different types of insurance, including (1) 

traditional insurance; (2) parametric 

insurance, in which payouts are triggered 

by predefined parameters, such as the wind

speed of a hurricane; and (3) reinsurance 

that protects insurers against losses. The 

cost of using these financial mechanisms

varies.

Source: GAO analysis of World Bank and Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority documents. | GAO-16-454
Page 13 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

Monitoring and evaluation. Some of the selected governments use 

monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to demonstrate progress and 

identify areas for improvement. For example, under the UK’s Climate 

Change Act of 2008, the Adaptation Subcommittee of the UK Committee 

on Climate Change regularly evaluates and reports on the progress made 

toward implementing the National Adaptation Programme.30 Incorporating 

lessons learned through its evaluation of the first National Adaptation 

Programme, the subcommittee identified climate risks and adaptation 

opportunities for addressing these risks, such as introducing a standard to 

reduce the risk of new homes overheating during heat events. The 

subcommittee is currently working with the UK government to incorporate 

this information into the second National Adaptation Programme, slated 

for release in 2018, according to UK officials.

In another example, the European Commission is assessing EU member 

states’ progress in preparing for the impacts of climate change as part of 

its adaptation approach. One of the EU’s climate change adaptation 

objectives is to propose action by member states through guidance and 

funding to help member states build adaptive capacity. The European 

Environment Agency, an agency of the EU that provides independent 

environmental information, has published a number of reports on 

adaptation policies and actions of member states. The European 

Commission is also developing a scoreboard to assess progress on the 

EU strategy and climate adaptation preparedness in member states. The 

European Commission plans to use the scoreboard to assess the level of 

preparation of member states and the EU as a whole in 2017. According 

to the EU adaptation strategy, if the commission finds adaptation actions 

insufficient, it will consider proposing a legally binding instrument to 

require additional action.

 

30Climate Change Act , 2008, c. 27, § 59 (U.K.).

Monitoring and Evaluation: International 

Auditing of Climate Adaptation

Governments around the world are 

considering how to address climate risks. 

Supreme audit institutions—national agencies 

responsible for auditing government revenue 

and spending—may play a major role in 

evaluating government activities, including 

those related to climate change adaptation. 

Audit institutions share a common 

responsibility to provide information about

their nations’ program implementation and 

performance. In 2010, 14 supreme audit 

institutions, including the United Kingdom’s, 

worked on a cooperative audit of their 

governments’ climate change-related policies 

and practices. They jointly reported that 

countries have initiatives under way, but that 

addressing climate change risks remains a 

formidable challenge. In another cooperative 

audit conducted by nine European supreme 

audit institutions, including the Netherlands’, 

auditors found that very few countries have 

implemented adaptation actions or assessed 

future climate change implications. 

Sources: International Organization of Supreme Audit 

Institutions Working Group on Environmental Auditing, 

Coordinated International Audit on Climate Change, Key 

Implications for Governments and their Auditors (Ottawa: 

November 2010), and European Organization of Supreme 

Audit Institutions Working Group on Environmental Auditing, 

Adaptation to Climate Change: Are Governments Prepared?

(Oslo: 2012). | GAO-16-454
Page 14 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

Related activities. In addition to government-wide climate change 

adaptation plans, some governments have related activities that support 

or complement them. For example, the Netherlands developed the Delta 

Programme as required by the Delta Act. The Delta Programme supports 

flood risk reduction actions, such as improving flood defenses.31 The 

government publishes an updated edition of the Delta Programme every 

year.

 

31Under the Delta Act, the Delta Programme must provide strategies for preventing and 

mitigating floods and water shortages. 

Related Activities: Room for the River

As part of the Netherlands’ Delta Programme, 

the Room for the River Programme includes 

measures in more than 30 locations to 

manage high water levels by creating space 

for rivers to flood. In the Netherlands, rivers lie 

wedged between progressively higher dikes

(banks or mounds of earth built to protect an 

area from flooding) and have to accommodate 

increasing discharges because of climate 

change. At the same time, subsidence of the 

land (i.e., moving down to a lower level) 

behind the dikes combined with frequent or 

intense rains increases flood vulnerability. The 

Room for the River Programme is creating 

additional water flow capacity through flood 

plain restoration and dike realignment, or by 

constructing a bypass, for example, along the

Ijssel River.

Inlet of the bypass (bottom), and the Ijssel 

River (top) with city of Kampen in background.

Source: Netherlands’ Delta Programme, Room for the River 

Programme. | GAO-16-454
Page 15 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

Some governments’ climate adaptation plans align with broader disaster 

resilience strategies that attempt to protect against risks other than those 

related to climate change. For example, the UK integrated climate change 

risks into its broader risk assessment of all hazards, the national risk 

assessment, which is meant to be the starting point for government-wide 

risk management. Further, the UK National Adaptation Programme aligns 

with broader risk management and preparedness efforts, according to UK 

officials. According to these officials, aligning climate adaptation with 

broader resilience efforts helps the government build resilience to all 

hazards, including terrorism, while reducing risks that are exacerbated by 

climate change.

The Philippines also aligned its national climate change adaption plan 

with its disaster risk reduction plan. The Philippines’ National Climate 

Change Action Plan states that climate change adaptation should 

complement disaster risk management to promote co-benefits and 

achieve efficiencies.32 The Philippines’ National Disaster Risk Reduction 

and Management Plan emphasized the need to strengthen the capacity 

of the national and local governments to reduce risks, including climate 

risks.33 Philippines officials stated that the government is linking its 

climate change and disaster management approaches through both 

policy and program development. For example, the Philippines 

established a policy and a system for identifying all climate-related 

national expenditures and developed guidance for local governments to 

incorporate climate and disaster risks into their land management plans, 

which direct land use and development. Further, the Philippines law that 

established the People’s Survival Fund states that the government has a 

policy to integrate disaster risk reduction and climate change programs 

and initiatives because effective disaster risk reduction and management 

enhances adaptive capacity.34

 

32Climate Change Commission, National Climate Change Action Plan 2011-2028 (Manila: 

Nov. 30, 2010).

33Office of Civil Defense, Department of National Defense, National Disaster Risk 

Reduction and Management Plan 2011-2028 (Philippines: December 2011).

34An Act Establishing the People’s Survival Fund to provide long-term finance streams to 

enable the government to effectively address the problem of climate change, Amending 

for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9729, otherwise known as the Climate Change Act of 

2009, and for Other Purposes, Rep. Act No. 10174, § 1 (2012) (Phil.).

Some Governments Align 

Climate Change 

Adaptation with Broader 

Disaster Resilience
Page 16 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

Lastly, the EU has taken steps to align climate change with broader 

disaster resilience. The Union Civil Protection Mechanism law states that 

an integrated approach to disaster management is increasingly important,

as future disasters will be more extreme and complex as a result of 

climate change. In addition, another EU law requires member states to 

assess flood risk, including the impacts of climate change on the 

occurrence of floods, and then use the assessment to develop flood maps 

and flood risk management plans.35 Further, according to EU officials, the 

EU’s Directorate General for Climate Action and Directorate General for 

Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, which is responsible for disaster 

management, collaborate on reducing the risks associated with weatherrelated disasters. In addition, the European Commission recently 

launched the Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre, which 

includes information and assessments on observed and projected 

weather and climate risks across the EU.

Legislation to enhance resilience to weather-related disasters has been 

introduced in the United States, and the United States has developed

climate change adaptation plans. The United States has also taken steps 

to align climate change adaptation with broader resilience efforts.

 

35Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 

on Assessment and Management of Flood Risks, 2007 O.J. (L 288) 27.

The United States 

Has Taken Steps to 

Enhance Resilience 

through Climate 

Change Adaptation 

and Aligning 

Adaptation with 

Broader Resilience
Page 17 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

In the United States, legislation to enhance resilience to weather-related 

disasters has been introduced in Congress but has not been enacted. In 

2014 and again in 2015, the Preparedness and Risk Management for 

Extreme Weather Patterns Assuring Resilience and Effectiveness Act 

was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to enhance the 

federal government’s planning and preparation for extreme weather, with 

the intent to increase resilience and mitigate the federal government’s 

financial risk from such weather, but the legislation has not been

enacted.36 Other legislation that would require the federal government to 

develop a national extreme weather resilience action plan has also been 

introduced but not enacted.37 However, legislation that would hamper

resilience also has been introduced in Congress. For example, a bill 

introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives would eliminate the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Resilience Fund.38 Laws with 

other purposes, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972—

enacted to balance the often competing demands for economic growth 

and development with the need to protect coastal resources—may result 

in climate adaptation planning.39 For example, the act created the

National Coastal Zone Management Program, a voluntary federal-state 

partnership that provides financial and technical assistance to states that 

participate. Program funding can be used by states for, among other 

things, planning for coastal zone management and reducing and 

managing development in coastal hazard areas.

The United States has also developed a number of climate change 

adaptation plans. In June 2013, the President issued the Climate Action 

Plan, which described the federal government’s existing and planned 

efforts to prepare for the impacts of climate change, such as flooding and 

severe storms, and set strategic priorities for the country. For example, 

the plan directs federal agencies to take appropriate actions to reduce 

risk to federal investments, specifically, to update their flood-risk reduction 

standards. Subsequently, an interagency effort resulted in an executive 

order establishing a federal flood risk management standard in January 

 

36H.R. 5314, 113th Cong. (2014). H.R. 3190, 114th Cong. (2015). 

37H.R. 2227, 114th Cong. (2015).

38H.R. 2111, 114th Cong. (2015).

39Pub. L. No. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280 (1972) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-

1466).

Legislation to Enhance 

Resilience Has Been 

Introduced, and the United 

States Has Developed 

Climate Change 

Adaptation Plans
Page 18 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

2015 and implementing guidelines being issued in October 2015.40 In 

November 2013, the President also issued Executive Order 13653, which

directed federal agencies to develop or update comprehensive adaptation 

plans describing how they would consider the need to improve climate 

change adaptation and resilience, among other things.41 As of 2014, 

almost 40 federal agencies developed adaptation plans. In addition, a 

number of crosscutting interagency plans have been developed to 

address challenges and improve resilience to climate impacts, for 

example, by informing freshwater resource management through 

activities such as strengthening data for understanding the impacts of 

climate change on water resources.

42

Coordination mechanisms. The United States has established 

interagency and intergovernmental groups to coordinate the 

government’s climate change adaptation efforts. In general, EOP entities 

coordinate climate change efforts across the federal government. For 

example, EOP entities co-chair the interagency Council on Climate 

Preparedness and Resilience (Council).

43 Executive Order 13653 tasked 

the Council with developing, recommending, and coordinating 

interagency efforts on, as well as tracking implementation of, priority 

federal government actions related to resilience, among other things. An 

intergovernmental group, the President’s State, Local, and Tribal Leaders 

Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, provided 

 

40Exec. Order No. 13690, 80 Fed. Reg. 6,425 (Feb. 4, 2015). 

41Exec. Order No. 13653, 78 Fed. Reg. 66,819 (Nov. 6, 2013).

42Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, National Action Plan: Priorities for 

Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate (Washington, D.C.: October

2011).

43The Council is co-chaired by the Chair of CEQ, the Director of OSTP, and the Assistant 

to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. In addition, the Council 

includes senior officials from federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs and the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Corporation for National and Community Service, the Council of Economic Advisers, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Domestic Policy Council, the General Services 

Administration, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, the National Economic Council, the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence, the Office of Management and Budget, the Small Business 

Administration, the United States Agency for International Development, the United States 

Trade Representative, and the White House Office of Public Engagement and 

Intergovernmental Affairs. 
Page 19 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

recommendations to the President and Council on how the federal 

government could support communities in building resilience, for 

example, through activities that create co-benefits, such as clean energy 

infrastructure investments that protect against climate change impacts, 

enhance resilience to all disasters, and create economic opportunities.44

Funding. The resilience portion of the President’s Climate Action Plan did 

not establish budget targets or specific financial strategies for enhancing 

resilience. Rather, the plan directed federal agencies to support climate 

resilient investments. For example, the plan highlighted HUD 

requirements for recipients of grants funded with supplemental 

appropriations to respond to Hurricane Sandy to take sea level rise into 

account in their projects and activities. Federal agencies have made other

climate resilience investments. HUD, for example, initiated the Rebuild by 

Design urban design competition and provided $930 million to fund 

projects to enhance disaster resilience in areas affected by Hurricane 

Sandy. One such project proposed building deployable walls attached to 

the underside of roads that can be used alongside roads during flood 

events in Manhattan. In another example, FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

Grant Program provides resources to assist states, local governments, 

territories, and tribes in their efforts to enhance disaster resilience by 

funding hazard mitigation measures before disasters occur.45 Activities 

eligible for grants include property acquisition, elevation, and retrofitting. 

By providing these grants, the program seeks to reduce overall risks while 

reducing reliance on federal funding during future disasters.

 

44President’s State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and 

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

45FEMA and HUD have a number of other programs available for states, localities, and 

individuals to recover from disasters that may enhance resilience. FEMA’s Hazard 

Mitigation Grant Program funds projects designed to enhance resilience by substantially 

reducing the risk of future damage resulting from a major disaster. HUD’s Community 

Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery is designed to address needs not met by 

other disaster recovery programs—including but not limited to disaster resilience 

initiatives—particularly for low- and moderate-income persons. Using the funds provided 

in the supplemental appropriation to respond to Hurricane Sandy, HUD launched the 

Rebuild by Design competition and later built on it, with the National Disaster Resilience 

Competition, which awarded $1 billion to eight states and five localities across the nation 

in January 2016. According to HUD officials, the National Disaster Resilience Competition 

went beyond the Rebuild by Design competition in several ways, including that it was 

national in scope, encouraged states and localities to develop resilience plans in the 

absence of the promise of HUD funding to implement the plans, and in the commitment by 

applicants to long-term resilience-enhancing actions.

Rebuild by Design: New Jersey’s “Resist, 

Delay, Store, and Discharge” Project

The Department of Housing and Urban 

Development awarded $230 million to the 

state of New Jersey for the “Resist, Delay, 

Store, and Discharge” Project in the 

community of Hoboken. The project consists 

of four integrated components: 

1. Resist: A combination of hard 

infrastructure (such as floodwalls and 

seawalls) and soft landscaping features 

(e.g., berms and or levees that could be 

used as parks) that act as barriers along 

the coast during storm surge events.

2. Delay: Policy recommendations, 

guidelines, and urban green infrastructure 

to slow stormwater runoff.

3. Store: Green and grey infrastructure 

improvements, such as green roofs that 

slow down and capture storm water and 

that will complement the efforts of 

Hoboken’s existing Green Infrastructure 

Strategic Plan.

4. Discharge: Enhancements to Hoboken’s 

storm water management system, 

including identifying and upgrading of 

existing storm water and sewer lines, 

outfalls, and pumping stations.

Source: OMA, Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: A 

Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy (New York: 2014). | 

GAO-16-454
Page 20 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

Monitoring and evaluation. The United States has begun monitoring 

and evaluating the government’s climate change adaptation efforts. 

Specifically, according to EOP officials, the Council is monitoring progress 

on the implementation of the President’s State, Local, and Tribal Leaders 

Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience recommendations 

and has issued a report highlighting progress made toward meeting 

them.46 In response to the President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders 

Task Force, the Council is supporting the efforts of the MitFLG47—an 

intergovernmental coordinating body created to integrate federal 

resilience efforts—to identify existing federal programmatic data sources 

which could be used as future indicators or metrics of community 

resilience. Additionally, the Council is developing a road map to outline 

key opportunities on climate preparedness, adaptation, and resilience 

beyond this administration. However, as of May 2016, these have not yet 

been developed. For more information on U.S. actions related to climate 

change adaptation and resilience, see appendix I.

 

46The White House, Progress Report: Highlighting Federal Actions Addressing the 

Recommendations of the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate 

Preparedness and Resilience (Washington, D.C.: July 2015).

47In this context, mitigation refers to disaster risk mitigation as a means to enhance 

resilience rather than climate change mitigation—efforts to reduce or prevent emission of 

greenhouse gases. The MitFLG membership includes senior officials from federal 

agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health

and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, 

Justice, and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, the General 

Services Administration, and the Small Business Administration. It also includes officials 

from relevant local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular areas.
Page 21 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

The United States has taken steps to align government-wide climate 

change adaptation with broader disaster resilience efforts that attempt to 

protect against risks other than those related to climate change. 

Specifically, EOP collaborates with MitFLG. MitFLG facilitates information 

exchange, coordinates policy implementation recommendations, and 

oversees the implementation of the National Mitigation Framework 

(NMF), the U.S. national strategy for resilience.48 The NMF addresses, in 

part, how the nation will develop, employ, and coordinate core hazard 

mitigation capabilities to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the 

impact of all disasters, including weather-related disasters.49 The NMF 

also links recovery and hazard mitigation to avoid repetitive losses 

resulting from rebuilding without hazard mitigation measures following 

disasters—for example, by elevating a property previously damaged by a 

flood in a flood-prone area to avoid similar damages from a future flood 

event.

50 EOP and MitFLG coordinate opportunities to integrate climate 

change adaptation with broader resilience efforts. For example, according 

to MitFLG and EOP officials, they worked together during the 

development of the guidelines for implementing the federal flood risk 

 

48The Department of Homeland Security developed the NMF in 2013 in response to the 

2011 Presidential Policy Directive 8 on National Preparedness aimed at strengthening the 

security and resilience of the United States through systematic preparation for threats that 

pose the greatest risk to the country’s security, including catastrophic natural disasters.

The directive tasks the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with other federal 

agencies and in consultation with others, with developing a national preparedness goal 

that among other things, defines the core capabilities necessary for preparedness and a 

national preparedness system. The national preparedness goal organizes these core 

capabilities into five mission areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and 

recovery.

49The NMF is to guide disaster resilience efforts of at least 13 federal agencies and 

departments, as well as relevant EOP entities. 

50In addition to the NMF, the National Disaster Recovery Framework provides guidance 

on building resilience to future disasters during the recovery process. Like the NMF, the 

National Disaster Recovery Framework was established in response to Presidential Policy 

Directive 8 on National Preparedness. It provides context for how a whole community 

works together to restore, redevelop, and revitalize its health, social, economic, natural,

and environmental fabric.

The United States Has 

Taken Steps to Align 

Climate Change 

Adaptation with Broader 

Resilience
Page 22 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

management standard. 51 Specifically, according to EOP officials, MitFLG 

consulted with EOP on developing both general policy as well as specific 

elements to comply with Executive Order 13690.

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Homeland 

Security, Housing and Urban Development, State, and the Treasury as 

well as the Executive Office of the President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality and Office of Science and Technology Policy and MitFLG for 

review and comment. They did not provide official written comments, but 

the Departments of Homeland Security and Housing and Urban 

Development, as well as the Executive Office of the President’s Council 

on Environmental Quality and Office of Science and Technology Policy 

did provide technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

The Departments of State and Treasury, as well as MitFLG, did not 

provide comments.

As agreed with your office, 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 Secretaries of Homeland 

Security, Housing and Urban Development, State, and the Treasury; the 

Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality; the Director of the Office 

of Science and Technology Policy; the Chair of MitFLG; and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any 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 

 

51In January 2015, Executive Order 13690 was issued establishing a federal flood risk 

management standard to increase resilience against flooding and ensure that projects 

federal agencies fund with taxpayer dollars last as long as intended. The fiscal year 2016 

appropriations act prohibits federal agencies from using appropriated funds in fiscal year 

2016 to implement this executive order except in certain circumstances. Specifically, until 

fiscal year 2017, appropriated funds can only be used to implement the executive order 

when, except with respect to the nongrant components of the National Flood Insurance 

Program, (1) acquiring, managing, or disposing of federal lands and facilities; (2) providing 

federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction or improvements; or (3) 

conducting federal activities or programs affecting land use.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 23 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

the last page of this report. GAO staff members who made significant 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

J. Alfredo Gómez

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Selected Steps the United States 

Has Taken to Enhance Resilience

Page 24 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

Table 3 describes selected steps the United States has taken to enhance 

resilience through climate change adaptation and broader resilience 

efforts.

Table 3: Selected U.S. Steps to Enhance Resilience

Selected step Description

Executive Order 13693 

(March 2015)

Revoked Executive Order 13514 (see below) and addressed federal leadership in 

sustainability with respect to energy, environmental water, fleet, buildings, and 

acquisition management to support preparations for the impacts of climate change.

Executive Order 13690 (January 2015) Established a federal flood risk management standard to increase resilience against 

flooding and ensure that projects federal agencies fund with taxpayer dollars last as long 

as intended. Among other things, this Executive Order directed agencies to have 

federally funded projects meet a certain elevation level, using approaches that are 

designed to recognize and incorporate future conditions rather than rely solely on 

existing data and information. Guidelines implementing this Executive Order were issued 

in October 2015 so federal agencies must update their regulations and procedures in 

response to the Executive Order. The fiscal year 2016 appropriations act prohibits 

federal agencies from using appropriated funds in fiscal year 2016 to implement this 

executive order except in certain circumstances.b

President’s State, Local, and Tribal 

Leaders Task Force on Climate 

Preparedness and Resilience

(November 2014)

Provided recommendations on how the federal government can respond to the needs of 

communities nationwide that are dealing with the impacts of climate change by removing 

barriers to resilient investments, modernizing federal grant and loan programs, and 

developing the information and tools they need to prepare, among other measures. 

Issued recommendations to the President and Council on Climate Preparedness and 

Resilience, including requiring consideration of climate change risks and vulnerabilities in 

all federal activities, maximizing opportunities that offer co-benefits, and strengthening 

coordination and partnerships across government entities. Ended 6 months after 

submitting its recommendations.

U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 

Third National Climate Assessmenta

(May 2014)

Assessed the science of climate change and its impacts across the United States. 

Described a number of barriers to effective adaptation, including policy and legal 

impediments, insufficient collaborative processes, and a lack of comprehensive 

evaluation metrics.

Executive Order 13653 (November 2013) Among other things, directed federal agencies to develop or update comprehensive 

adaptation plans describing how each agency will consider the need to improve climate 

adaptation and resilience. Terminated the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task 

Force and established the Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.

Council on Climate Preparedness and 

Resilience (Council)

(November 2013)

Established by Executive Order 13653, comprises more than 25 agencies. Among other 

things, was directed to coordinate interagency efforts on and track implementation of 

priority federal government actions related to climate preparedness and resilience and 

implement, as appropriate, recommendations of the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders 

Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.

Mitigation Framework Leadership Group 

(MitFLG)

(October 2013)

Established by the National Mitigation Framework and serves an intergovernmental 

coordinating body created to integrate federal efforts and promote a national cultural shift 

that incorporates risk management and hazard mitigation in all planning, decision 

making, and development. Is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the 

National Mitigation Framework.

Appendix I: Selected Steps the United States 

Has Taken to Enhance Resilience 
Appendix I: Selected Steps the United States 

Has Taken to Enhance Resilience

Page 25 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

Selected step Description

National Mitigation Framework (NMF)

(May 2013)

Established a common platform for coordinating and addressing how the nation 

manages risk through mitigation. Described mitigation roles and addressed how the 

nation will lessen the impact of disaster by developing, employing, and coordinating core 

mitigation capabilities to reduce loss of life and property. 

Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force 

(December 2012)

Established by the President, comprised officials from federal agencies and executive 

branch offices. Tasked with identifying and working to remove obstacles to resilient 

rebuilding while taking into account existing and future risks and promoting the long-term 

sustainability of communities and ecosystems in Hurricane Sandy-affected regions. 

Issued 69 recommendations to enhance disasters resilience, among other purposes.

Presidential Policy Directive 8: National 

Preparedness 

(March 2011)

Directed the development of a national preparedness goal that identifies the core 

capabilities necessary for preparedness and a national preparedness system. 

Executive Order 13514 (October 2009) Among other things, called for federal agencies to participate in the existing Interagency 

Climate Change Adaptation Task Force and directed the task force to develop federal 

recommendations for adapting to climate change impacts. Revoked by Executive Order 

13693 in March 2015.

Interagency Climate Change Adaptation 

Task Force (Spring 2009)

Before it was terminated by Executive Order 13653, chaired by the Council on 

Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and comprised more than 20 federal agencies 

and executive branch offices. In 2014, provided recommendations for elements that 

should be included in a national climate change adaptation strategy, including 

prioritization of risks, coordination, performance evaluation, and maximization of mutual 

benefits in related efforts, such as disaster preparedness. 

Source: GAO analysis of government-wide efforts to address climate change or enhance resilience. | GAO-16-454

Note: The government has taken a number of actions to enhance resilience in addition to those 

described here.

a

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has issued two previous assessments. The 

Global Change Research Act of 1990 requires that not less frequently than every 4 years, USGCRP 

prepare and submit to the President and Congress an assessment of the effects of global change on 

the natural environment and biological diversity, among other things.

bSpecifically, until fiscal year 2017, appropriated funds can only be used to implement the executive 

order when, except with respect to the nongrant components of the National Flood Insurance 

Program, (1) acquiring, managing, or disposing of federal lands and facilities; (2) providing federally 

undertaken, financed, or assisted construction or improvements; or (3) conducting federal activities or 

programs affecting land use.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 26 GAO-16-454 Climate Change

J. Alfredo Gómez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Mike Hix (Assistant Director), 

Christine Broderick, Alicia Cackley, Nicole Dery, Marissa Dondoe, Ellen 

Fried, Cindy Gilbert, Kathryn Godfrey, Matthew Hunter, Jessica Mausner, 

Tim Persons, Dan Royer, Stephen Sanford, Jeanette Soares, Kiki 

Theodoropoulos, and Joe Thompson made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361641)
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.