INTERNATIONAL 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

ASSESSMENTS

Federal Agencies 

Should Improve 

Reporting and 

Oversight of U.S. 

Funding 

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2011

GAO-12-43

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-43, a report to 

congressional requesters 

November 2011 

INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE

ASSESSMENTS 

Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and 

Oversight of U.S. Funding

Why GAO Did This Study

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) is a United 

Nations (UN) body that assesses 

scientific and other aspects of climate 

change. Interest in IPCC’s activities 

increased after the theft of e-mails 

among IPCC scientists was made 

public, and with the discovery of 

several errors in its 2007 set of reports. 

In 2010, the InterAcademy Council 

(IAC), a body representing the U.S. 

National Academy of Sciences and its 

international counterparts, 

recommended IPCC enhance its 

management and quality assurance

processes. IPCC is funded by the UN 

and member nations, including the 

United States through the Department 

of State. In addition, the U.S. National 

Science Foundation (NSF), on behalf 

of itself and the 12 other federal 

agencies that participate in the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP), supports IPCC activities.

GAO was asked to report on (1) U.S. 

financial support to IPCC from 2001 

through 2010, (2) conditions the United 

States places on its financial support to 

IPCC and how they help ensure these 

funds are spent accordingly, and (3) 

the IPCC quality assurance processes 

and IPCC’s steps to address related 

IAC recommendations. GAO reviewed 

documents and interviewed officials 

from federal agencies and IPCC.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that (1) State and 

NSF coordinate and inform Congress

annually with accurate and consistent 

information on U.S. funding for IPCC 

and (2) NSF conduct timely project

reviews as required by its cooperative 

agreement. State, NSF, and USGCRP 

generally concurred with these 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

The United States provided a total of $31.1 million (in constant 2010 dollars) to 

IPCC for fiscal years 2001 through 2010, with average annual funding of about 

$3.1 million. State provided $19 million for administrative and other expenses.

USGCRP agencies provided $12.1 million through NSF for a technical support 

unit that helps develop IPCC reports. GAO identified two key challenges with 

assembling the data on U.S. support for IPCC. First, the information was not 

available in budget documents or on the websites of the relevant federal 

agencies, and the agencies are generally not required to report this information

to Congress. Second, the funding data that GAO obtained from State and NSF 

were inconsistent with data that State had previously reported to the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce in June 2010. Regarding State funding, 

GAO determined that the information it provided to the committee incorrectly 

included about $3.5 million (in constant 2010 dollars) that was passed through 

the IPCC account but was not used for IPCC activities. Regarding the funding for 

the technical support unit, the information provided to the committee was

consistent for fiscal years 2001 through 2008. However, GAO determined that 

data for the last 2 fiscal years provided to the committee were incorrect because 

funding for fiscal year 2009 was incorrectly labeled as fiscal year 2010 funding.

The United States places conditions on the funding that NSF provides for the 

technical support unit on behalf of all USGCRP agencies, including a project 

review required in a 2010 NSF cooperative agreement to help inform budgeting 

for 2011. However, required oversight of that funding was not completed on time 

in fiscal year 2010 because NSF officials said it was redundant with ongoing 

strategic planning for 2012 to 2021. As a result, NSF and USGCRP agencies did 

not have additional information to help inform decisions about funding needs for 

fiscal year 2011. State has not placed conditions on IPCC’s funding because 

IPCC’s activities have not triggered such restrictions. According to State officials, 

IPCC does not engage in restricted activities that are tied to the State account 

providing the funding. State officials provide input and monitor IPCC Trust Fund

funding by approving annual IPCC budgets and reviewing audits. 

IPCC uses several quality assurance processes for its assessment reports, 

including an expert selection process for report authors and review editors, a 

report review process, and a review of the quality and validity of literature and 

data used to support its findings. IPCC has begun to take steps to implement 14 

of 15 IAC recommendations related to quality assurance, according to IPCC 

documents and officials. For example, IPCC changed its guidance to better 

specify the selection criteria for report authors and the roles and responsibilities 

of its leadership and author teams in response to IAC concerns regarding a lack 

of transparency in the report scoping and expert selection processes. In addition 

IPCC developed a draft conflict-of-interest policy to respond to IAC’s concerns 

regarding, among other things, the independence of IPCC participants. While 

IPCC is fully implementing 14 of the recommendations, it is partially

implementing 1 recommendation to enhance the scrutiny of non-peer-reviewed 

literature underlying its findings. According to IPCC officials, it will not identify 

each finding in the assessment report that was based on non-peer-reviewed 

literature, because there is no standardized way to differentiate between peerreviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. 

View GAO-12-43. For more information, 

contact David C. Trimble at (202) 512-3841 or 

trimbled@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Letter 1 

Background 4

U.S. Funding for IPCC Totaled About $31 Million for Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2010, but Financial Data Were Not Readily 

Available or Accurate 8

The United States Places Conditions on One of Two Funding 

Streams for IPCC, but Not All of the Oversight of That Funding 

Was Timely 11

IPCC Has Used Quality Assurance Processes and Is Improving 

Them in Response to Recommendations from IAC 13

Conclusions 18

Recommendations for Executive Action 19

Agency Comments and Third-Party Views 20

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22

Appendix II InterAcademy Council (IAC) Recommendations and 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Responses 24

Appendix III Comments from the Department of State 28

Appendix IV Comments from the National Science Foundation 31

Appendix V Comments from the United States Global Change Research Program 33

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 34

Tables

Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities of IPCC Member Nations and 

Participants 6

Table 2: U.S. Support for IPCC from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2010 9

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Table 3: Summary of IAC Recommendations Related to Quality 

Assurance and IPCC’s Implementation Status 16

Table 4: IAC Recommendations Related to Quality Assurance and 

IPCC’s Response 24

Table 5: IAC Recommendations Not Related to Quality Assurance 

and IPCC’s Response 26

Abbreviations

GCOS Global Climate Observing System

IAC InterAcademy Council 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

NSF National Science Foundation

State Department of State

UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

USGCRP United States Global Change Research Program

WMO World Meteorological Organization

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-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

November 17, 2011

The Honorable Fred Upton

Chairman

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Cliff Stearns

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Joe Barton

The Honorable Michael C. Burgess

House of Representatives

Each year, the United States provides financial and technical support to 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific body 

established by the United Nations to assess the scientific, environmental, 

and socioeconomic aspects of climate change. Interest in IPCC’s 

activities increased after the theft of internal e-mails from IPCC scientists 

was made public and errors were discovered in IPCC reports issued in 

2007. IPCC reports contain assessments of available scientific and 

technical knowledge relevant to climate change and have been 

instrumental in informing national and international climate policy. In 

addition, they have raised public awareness of climate change. IPCC 

plans to issue its next set of reports in 2014.1

IPCC receives funds from several sources such as the United Nations 

Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization 

The assessment reports 

cover (1) physical science; (2) impacts, efforts to adapt to climate change, 

and vulnerabilities; (3) efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change; 

and (4) a synthesis report.

 

1

IPCC publishes the results of the assessment in a set of four volumes. Since 1990, IPCC 

has published four sets of assessment reports, and the most recent set was published in 

2007. For purposes of our report, we refer to each set as an assessment report. In 

addition to the assessment reports, IPCC produces special reports, methodology papers, 

and technical papers related to climate change.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

(WMO), and IPCC member nations, including the United States, which 

provides funds through the Department of State (State).2 In addition, the 

United States hosts one of four technical support units that assist with the 

development of the assessment reports. The U.S. National Science 

Foundation (NSF) provides funding for this technical support unit at 

Stanford University, on behalf of itself and 12 other federal agencies 

participating in the United States Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP).3 NSF has a cooperative agreement with the University 

Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, to 

manage the unit’s day-to-day operations.4

In light of attention IPCC received after winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 

2007 and because of the internal e-mail thefts, the United Nations 

Secretary General and the IPCC Chairman asked the InterAcademy 

Council (IAC), a body representing the U.S. National Academy of 

Sciences and its international counterparts, to review the policies and 

procedures guiding IPCC’s assessment process. In October 2010, IAC 

reported that the overall structure of the IPCC assessment process 

appeared to be sound but stated that improvements were both possible 

and necessary for the assessment reports. IAC made 22 

recommendations to improve, among other things, IPCC’s management 

and quality assurance processes. We analyzed the IAC 

recommendations and determined that 15 of the 22 are related to helping 

ensure the quality of IPCC’s reports.

Within this context, you asked us to provide information on U.S. support 

for IPCC and measures IPCC is taking to ensure the quality of its work. 

Our objectives were to examine (1) financial support the United States 

has provided IPCC from fiscal years 2001 through 2010; (2) conditions 

 

2

IPCC information shows that 45 member nations provided funds to the organization at 

least once since it began in 1988. From calendar years 2006 through 2010, an average of 

26 nations provided funds.

3

USGCRP coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global 

environment and their implications for society. The 13 federal agencies that participate in 

USGCRP are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and 

Human Services, Interior, State, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection 

Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NSF; the Smithsonian 

Institution; and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

4

Founded in 1960, UCAR is a nonprofit consortium of North American member 

universities and other affiliated organizations.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

the United States places on its financial support to IPCC and how they 

help ensure these funds are spent accordingly; and (3) quality assurance 

processes IPCC has used in preparing its assessment reports and what 

steps, if any, IPCC is taking to address recommendations made by IAC to 

enhance the integrity of the assessment process and the accuracy of the 

reports produced.

To respond to the first objective, we obtained and reviewed documents 

from State, NSF, and USGCRP about the amount and type of U.S. 

support provided to IPCC. We also interviewed officials representing 

these agencies and IPCC. We assessed the reliability of budget data 

through discussions with cognizant agency officials and corroborated

those discussions with agency reports and budget documents. We 

determined the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To 

respond to the second objective, we reviewed relevant statutory 

requirements and obtained and analyzed relevant documents—including 

information on conditions placed on the funding, pledge letters State 

provides to IPCC, and NSF’s cooperative agreement with UCAR—and 

interviewed State, NSF, and USGCRP officials. We also performed 

limited testing of transactions at NSF to verify that its process for 

receiving funds from USGCRP agencies was adequate. Additionally, we 

reviewed internal controls and oversight mechanisms that the agencies 

said were used to ensure U.S. financial support was spent according to 

any relevant conditions.

To respond to the third objective, we reviewed the policies and 

procedures guiding IPCC’s assessment report process and the October 

2010 IAC report. We summarized the categories of IAC recommendations 

and focused our review on the 15 recommendations related to quality 

assurance and IPCC’s efforts to address those recommendations. We do 

not include in our review seven IAC recommendations related to IPCC’s 

management structure, communications strategy, and deadlines for 

review comments, which do not relate directly to quality assurance. We 

also reviewed a 2007 report from the National Research Council related 

to IPCC’s policies and procedures. We interviewed IPCC officials to better 

understand the application of those policies and procedures, including the 

internal controls in place to help ensure the quality of the reports. In 

addition, we interviewed officials from IPCC, IAC, and the National 

Academies concerning IPCC’s progress in implementing IAC’s 

recommendations for improving IPCC’s management structure and 

internal controls. We reviewed updates to IPCC’s policies and procedures 

made as a result of IAC’s recommendations and discussed these updates 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

with senior IPCC officials. Appendix I provides more information on our 

objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 through 

November 2011 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.

IPCC was established in 1988 by WMO and UNEP to assess the 

scientific basis for human-induced climate change, its likely impacts, and 

opportunities for adaptation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

IPCC’s assessment work is divided among three working groups: 

Working Group I assesses the physical scientific aspects of the climate 

system and climate change; Working Group II assesses scientific, 

socioeconomic, and technical information on the vulnerability of humans, 

ecological systems, and socioeconomic sectors to climate change and 

evaluates information on their adaptive capacity and adaptation practices 

and options; and Working Group III assesses scientific, technical, and 

socioeconomic information on options to mitigate climate change.5

IPCC’s major decision-making body is a plenary group of 194 government 

representatives from member nations of WMO and UNEP, known as the 

Panel. IPCC’s assessment process begins with scoping meetings, which 

establish the scope of the upcoming assessment. At these meetings, 

scientists, other identified climate experts, and the Panel discuss lessons 

learned from previous assessments and the needs that participating 

The 

results of the assessment are published in a set of four volumes: three 

working group reports and a synthesis report. Working group reports each 

include a technical summary, which details the scientific basis for the 

report’s findings, and a summary for policymakers, which synthesizes the 

findings from each technical summary. The synthesis report is a shorter 

document that integrates the overall findings in a less technical format. 

Since 1990, IPCC has published four sets of assessment reports, and the 

most recent assessment report was published in 2007.

 

5

In addition to the three working groups, the IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories provides guidelines for methodologies and practices for preparation of the 

inventories by member nations.

Background
 

Page 5 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

governments have for the upcoming assessment. The Panel also elects 

the IPCC chair, three IPCC vice-chairs, and co-chairs and vice-chairs for 

the three working groups. Together, these individuals form the IPCC 

Bureau, which oversees the organization and preparation of IPCC

products, including assessments, special reports, and technical papers. 

The activities of the Bureau are supported by the Secretariat, IPCC’s 

administrative body, which is responsible for planning, overseeing, and 

managing IPCC activities. The majority of IPCC’s work is undertaken by 

the scientists and experts who develop reports. For the current 

assessment report, over 800 scientists and experts volunteer to serve as 

coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and review editors. Additional 

experts contribute specific elements of chapters or review drafts of the 

reports. Table 1 describes IPCC participants’ roles and responsibilities.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities of IPCC Member Nations and Participants

IPCC position Role

Panel Composed of 194 representatives of member nations of WMO and UNEP, determines the IPCC 

structure, principles, procedures, work program, and budget; nominates and elects the IPCC chair 

and Bureau members (i.e., the IPCC chair, three IPCC vice-chairs, and co-chairs and vice-chairs for 

three working groups); agrees on the scope, outline, and work plan for an assessment report; 

nominates authors and reviewers; approves the summary for policymakers; and accepts the final 

assessment report.

Observer organizations Ninety-six United Nations bodies, intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental 

organizations that nominate authors and reviewers and, at the invitation of the IPCC Plenary, provide 

input on the scope of the assessment report.

IPCC Bureau Composed of 31 members including the IPCC chair, 3 IPCC vice-chairs, 7 working group co-chairs, 

18 working group vice-chairs, and 2 co-chairs of the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories; provides guidance and leads the author teams through preparation of the assessment 

report.

IPCC chair Plans, oversees, and guides all IPCC activities, including scoping and writing of the synthesis report; 

reports to the governing bodies of WMO, UNEP, and the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change; and speaks for the IPCC.

IPCC vice-chairs Perform the duties of the IPCC chair when absent and other duties as mutually agreed.

Working group co-chairs Lead the selection of authors and reviewers and the preparation, review, and finalization of their 

working group report.

Working group vice-chairs Assist the working group co-chairs; bring together regional research efforts and approaches, and 

stimulate networking on relevant regional issues.

Coordinating lead authors Ensure that major sections of the report are completed and conform to style standards and that crosscutting scientific or technical issues are addressed in a coherent manner.

Lead authors Synthesize material for their chapter in a consistent style and revise drafts in response to reviewer 

comments. 

Contributing authors Provide text, graphs, or data for incorporation into the report by lead authors.

Review editors Assist in identifying expert reviewers, ensure that review comments receive appropriate consideration 

by lead authors, and ensure that controversial issues are adequately reflected in the report.

Technical support units Each working group has a technical support unit to coordinate and administer its activities, including 

communicating with authors and reviewers, organizing author meetings, compiling and editing drafts, 

and coordinating the review process.

IPCC Secretariat Plans, oversees, and manages IPCC activities, including organizing sessions of the IPCC Plenary 

and Bureau; facilitating Bureau elections; assisting with travel of developing-country scientists; 

communicating with governments; managing the IPCC Trust Fund, budget, and website; paying 

expenses; and coordinating report publication and outreach.

Source: IPCC.

Once the Panel has approved the outline and work plan for the 

assessment report, the co-chair and vice-chair of each working group 

select coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and review editors from 

nominees provided by member governments, observer organizations, and 

members of the Bureau. Working groups can also recruit contributing 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

authors to provide technical assistance or information on specific topics 

for incorporation into the reports. Each working group has a technical 

support unit to coordinate and administer its activities, including compiling 

and editing drafts and coordinating the review process. These units play a 

leadership role, both in content for expert meetings and the assessment 

reports, as well as in management of the communications and 

implementation of IPCC activities. For IPCC’s 2014 assessment report, 

the technical support unit for Working Group II, which is funded by the 

United States, is located at the Carnegie Institution for Science at 

Stanford University. Switzerland and Germany provide support for 

Working Groups I and III, respectively, and the United Kingdom and the 

Netherlands supported technical support units in each of the two previous 

reporting cycles.

IPCC activities are supported by the IPCC Trust Fund, to which member 

governments provide voluntary contributions. Member governments 

provide further substantial support for IPCC activities, in particular 

through hosting technical support units, supporting the participation of 

experts in IPCC activities, organizing meetings, and contributing to report 

translations. WMO, UNEP, and the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change also provide financial support to IPCC. 

The Convention sets the overall framework for intergovernmental efforts 

to respond to the challenges posed by climate change.6

In response to increased scrutiny and criticism of the IPCC assessment 

reporting process, the United Nations Secretary General and the 

Chairman of the IPCC in 2010 requested that the IAC form a committee 

to conduct an independent review of IPCC’s policies and procedures 

used to generate assessment reports.7

 

6

The objective of the Convention is to achieve the stabilization of greenhouse gas 

concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic 

interference with the climate system. There are currently 195 parties to the Convention, 

which entered into force on March 21, 1994.

To conduct its review, the IAC 

committee conducted meetings throughout the world with scientists and 

IPCC officials and gathered input from experts with a variety of views on 

the IPCC assessment process through interviews and a widely distributed 

7

InterAcademy Council, Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Policies and 

Procedures of the IPCC (Alkmaar, The Netherlands: Bejo Druk & Print, October 2010).
 

Page 8 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

questionnaire.8 The IAC committee also relied on a 2007 National 

Research Council study on the characteristics of effective global 

assessments that included a case study on the IPCC assessment 

process.9 In addition, the IAC committee reviewed the management and 

administrative structure of IPCC, IPCC’s strategies for communicating 

with the media and public, and made recommendations for potential 

improvements. The review examined the procedures and processes used 

to carry out IPCC assessments, but it did not examine climate change 

science or the validity of its representation in the assessment reports.

The United States provided a total of $31.1 million (in constant 2010 

dollars) in financial support for IPCC activities from fiscal years 2001 

through 2010, using two funding streams, according to documents and 

senior officials from State and NSF. Average annual U.S. funding during 

this 10-year period was about $3.1 million. The State Department 

provides one of the two U.S. funding streams through its International 

Organizations and Programs Account, which provided $19 million to 

IPCC’s Trust Fund from fiscal years 2001 through 2010. According to 

IPCC documents, contributions to the Trust Fund support IPCC’s core 

staff in Geneva, Switzerland; participation among experts from developing 

nations; the organization of meetings; and the publication and translation 

of IPCC reports, among other activities.

In addition to the funding State provides to the IPCC Trust Fund, NSF and 

the 12 other USGCRP agencies provide the other U.S. funding stream, 

which supports the IPCC technical support unit at Stanford University 

using a complex funding mechanism. Specifically, all of the USGCRP 

agencies, including NSF, provide funding through NSF that, among other 

things, is used to support the IPCC technical support unit. To do so, NSF 

uses some of these funds to provide financial assistance to UCAR using 

a cooperative agreement, and UCAR administers the technical support 

unit’s budget, which covers the unit’s staff and equipment, in addition to 

 

8

The IAC’s questionnaire was sent to IPCC government representatives, scientific leaders 

of the 2007 assessment and upcoming 2014 assessment reports, critics and proponents 

of the IPCC assessment process, and organizations with an interest in the content of the 

assessment reports, such as scientific societies and nongovernmental organizations. The 

IAC received more than 400 responses.

9

National Research Council, Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned

(Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2007).

U.S. Funding for IPCC 

Totaled About $31 

Million for Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 

2010, but Financial 

Data Were Not 

Readily Available or 

Accurate
 

Page 9 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

other things.10

Table 2: U.S. Support for IPCC from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2010

The USGCRP agencies provided a total of $12.1 million 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2010. Overall U.S. support provided to 

IPCC from fiscal years 2001 through 2010 is shown in table 2.

Constant 2010 dollars in millionsa

Fiscal year

U.S. funding for 

IPCC activities

U.S. funding for

IPCC technical 

support unit Total

2001 $2.0 $0.0 $2.0

2002 2.5 0.0 2.5

2003 2.3 1.2 3.6

2004 1.9 1.7 3.7

2005 2.0 1.8 3.9

2006 1.8 1.8 3.6

2007 1.9 1.2 3.1

2008 1.3 0.5 1.8

2009 1.5 1.7 3.2

2010 1.7 2.1 3.9

Total $19.0 $12.1 $31.1

Source: GAO analysis of State and NSF data.

Note: Total does not sum due to rounding. 

a

A gross domestic product price index was used to adjust for inflation. 

We identified two key challenges assembling the data on U.S. support for 

IPCC. First, as of September 2011, the data were not available in budget 

documents or on the websites of the federal agencies that provide 

funding for IPCC activities, and these agencies are generally not required 

to report this information to Congress, which limits the transparency of 

U.S. spending on IPCC activities. Second, the funding data that State and 

NSF provided to us differed from data that State had previously reported 

 

10UCAR, based in Boulder, Colorado, is a nonprofit consortium of North American 

member universities that grant PhDs in the atmospheric and related sciences. Since 1994, 

it has supported USGCRP’s Integration and Coordination Office and other USGCRP 

activities. USGCRP activities and the IPCC technical support unit activities are all funded 

through the cooperative agreement NSF has with UCAR.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in June 2010.11

With respect to funding data for the IPCC Trust Fund from State, State 

provided us with data in January 2011 that were consistent with the 

information it reported to the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce and that was updated to include funding for fiscal year 2010. 

The data State provided to us showed total funding to the Trust Fund 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2010 was $22.7 million (in constant 2010 

dollars). However, in August 2011, we determined that the information 

State had provided to the committee was incorrect because it included 

about $3.5 million (in constant 2010 dollars) that State officials described 

as pass-through funding for the Global Climate Observing System 

(GCOS), a joint undertaking of several United Nations organizations and 

the International Council for Science.

 At 

that time, State reported on its contributions to the IPCC Trust Fund from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2009, and on funding that NSF provides to the 

technical support unit from fiscal years 2001 through 2010.

12

With respect to funding for the technical support unit, NSF updated the 

information that was previously provided to the House Committee on 

Energy and Commerce and provided us with this information in April 

2011. The information we received was consistent with the funding 

information provided to the committee for fiscal years 2001 through 2008. 

However, we determined in April 2011 that the data provided to the 

committee were incorrect for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 because of a 

timing issue. NSF officials said that that it had awarded the 2009 funding 

at the end of the fiscal year but that the funds could not be spent by 

State officials said that the GCOS 

funding was unrelated to core IPCC activities such as preparing 

assessment reports and agreed it should not be included as a core 

contribution to IPCC. Thus, State’s funding for IPCC activities, after 

adjusting for the pass-through funding, totaled $19 million (in constant 

2010 dollars) from fiscal years 2001 through 2010. According to IPCC 

data, these funds represented about 40 percent of contributions to the 

IPCC Trust Fund for the period.

 

11In June 2010, State provided information to the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce in response to the committee’s March 2010 request to IPCC for information 

regarding U.S. support of IPCC.

12GCOS is an internationally coordinated system of networks and observing systems for 

meeting national and international climate observations. Two of the United Nations 

organizations that co-sponsor it, WMO and UNEP, provide funds to IPCC.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

UCAR, which administers the technical support unit’s operations, until 

fiscal year 2010. According to NSF officials, because information provided 

to the committee for the technical support unit funding originated from 

UCAR, we determined the fiscal year 2009 funding was incorrectly 

labeled as fiscal year 2010 funding.

The United States places conditions on one of its two funding streams 

that financially support IPCC—the one provided by NSF on behalf of itself 

and the 12 other USGCRP agencies for the technical support unit—but a 

required annual project review to oversee that funding was not completed 

on time.

With regard to funding provided through NSF to UCAR for the technical 

support unit, the cooperative agreement contains several financial and 

administrative terms and conditions. For example, the current 

agreement—which took effect in fiscal year 2010—states that UCAR 

must obtain written approval from NSF before purchasing nonbudgeted 

services and equipment exceeding $100,000. The cooperative agreement 

also references the general financial and administrative terms and 

conditions found in NSF’s policies and procedures guide for awards and 

proposals.

To help ensure that IPCC technical support unit funds are spent 

accordingly, NSF monitors the funding. NSF reviews external audits of 

UCAR and also has an overall internal control process for receiving funds 

from other USGCRP agencies. For example, NSF assigns a unique 

program code to funds it receives from these agencies, which helps 

ensure the funds are used for the intended purposes.

In addition, NSF’s 2010 cooperative agreement requires an annual 

project review of UCAR’s efforts under the agreement, including its 

The United States 

Places Conditions on 

One of Two Funding 

Streams for IPCC, but 

Not All of the 

Oversight of That 

Funding Was Timely

NSF
 

Page 12 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

administration of the technical support unit’s budget.13 According to the 

cooperative agreement, the review of UCAR’s efforts is to be conducted 

at least once each year and the actual amount of support for fiscal year 

2011 was to be decided after the first annual review. NSF, however, did 

not conduct a required annual review for fiscal year 2010 and did not 

complete the review until September 2011 when it combined it with the 

agency’s fiscal year 2011 year review. NSF officials told us in April 2011 

that normally the review would have been conducted at the end of fiscal 

year 2010. However, the officials said that performing a review at that 

time would have been redundant because USGCRP was developing a 

new strategic plan for 2012 through 2021 and all aspects of its structure 

were being assessed. When we asked the officials how the strategic 

planning activities of USGCRP would relieve it of the requirement to 

perform the review, they said that the review would be conducted within 

the next several months. NSF and the other USGCRP agencies made 

their fiscal year 2011 funding decision prior to completion of the annual 

review, rather than after it, as called for in the cooperative agreement. 

NSF officials told us that NSF and the other USGCRP agencies instead 

based their funding decision on UCAR’s request for continued funding 

and the supporting documentation, which had been the process in 

previous years before the requirement for an annual project review.14

However, without the review, the agencies lacked additional information 

that could have enabled them to better evaluate UCAR’s progress and 

determine an appropriate funding level for the second year of the 

cooperative agreement that was based on results.

State has conditions for funding to international organizations, including 

IPCC. However, State officials said that the nature of IPCC’s activities 

has not triggered such restrictions. The officials said that the department 

supports IPCC through its International Organizations and Programs 

account and that, in accordance with statutory direction, it has restrictions 

 

13The cooperative agreement requires NSF to conduct the review in consultation with the 

other USGCRP agencies.

14According to USGCRP officials, this information included an annual project plan and 

information from the technical support unit.

State
 

Page 13 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

on nations and activities that are eligible for funding from this account.15

However, they noted that IPCC does not engage in any of the restricted 

activities. Nonetheless, State officials provide input and monitor the use of 

the IPCC Trust Fund. For example, State officials explained that they, 

along with other IPCC member governments, approve a detailed annual 

IPCC program and budget, normally following discussions with IPCC 

officials and other member countries on proposed expenditures. They 

also said that State reviews external audits of WMO, which cover IPCC’s 

Trust Fund, and determines if the reports have any findings related to 

IPCC. IPCC reported that since the organization’s inception in 1988, none 

of the findings from these external reports concerned the Trust Fund.16

IPCC has policies and procedures that seek to ensure the quality and 

integrity of its assessment reports. IPCC fully accepted 14 of the 15 IAC 

recommendations related to quality assurance and has begun taking 

steps to implement them. IPCC partially accepted the other 

recommendation and is taking steps to partially address it.

 

15For example, under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, State cannot provide funds 

from this account to international organizations to help pay the costs of developing or 

operating any volunteer programs related to the selection and training of volunteer 

manpower. However, because IPCC does not conduct such activities, State officials said 

the account funding restrictions did not apply. In addition, under section 307(a) of the act, 

none of the funds authorized to be appropriated from the account are available for the 

U.S. proportionate share for programs for Iran, Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Syria, or the 

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), or for projects whose purpose is to provide 

benefits to the PLO or entities associated with it. State officials said that they also 

implement this provision.

16We reviewed external audit reports for WMO from fiscal years 2001 through 2009. 

These reports, which were prepared by the Auditors General of either France or the 

United Kingdom, did not contain any audit findings related to the IPCC Trust Fund. In May 

2011, IPCC decided to begin having an external audit of just the IPCC Trust Fund, 

conducted by the Auditor General of the United Kingdom. The first audit will cover 

calendar year 2010.

IPCC Has Used 

Quality Assurance 

Processes and Is 

Improving Them in 

Response to 

Recommendations 

from IAC
 

Page 14 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

IPCC has written policies and procedures that document its quality 

assurance processes. According to IPCC officials and guidance, IPCC 

attempts to ensure the quality and integrity of its reports through (1) a 

multistep expert nomination and selection process for report authors and 

review editors, (2) its report review process, and (3) efforts to help ensure 

the quality and validity of literature and data underlying its reports.

According to IPCC policies and procedures, the expert selection process 

begins with nominations from the Panel’s member nations and other 

organizations. Working group co-chairs and vice-chairs then select 

experts from the list of nominations for three roles: coordinating lead 

authors, lead authors, and editors. Selection is based on a list of criteria, 

including expertise, geographic representation, and scientific views. 

Additional experts can be selected as coordinating lead authors or lead 

authors based on their publications, and working groups have the 

discretion to invite other experts, known as contributing authors, if their 

expertise is needed on a particular topic. Working groups also select two 

review editors for each chapter and technical summary of their respective 

working group reports. Each pair of review editors includes a member of 

the working group and an independent expert from the list of nominations 

mentioned above. For purposes of independence, the review editors are 

not involved in the preparation of any of the sections or chapters they 

edit, and IPCC aims to select review editors with a balance of scientific, 

technical, and socioeconomic views.

According to IPCC’s policies and procedures, the report review process 

has three guiding principles: (1) the best possible scientific and technical 

advice should be included to ensure assessment reports are 

comprehensive and represent the latest scientific, technical, and 

socioeconomic findings; (2) reports should be widely circulated, ensuring 

review and comment by a diverse set of independent experts from a 

range of developed and developing nations; and (3) the review process 

should be objective, open, and transparent. In addition to internal IPCC 

informal reviews, assessment reports go through two stages of formal, 

external review before they are finalized. First, working group co-chairs 

invite experts nominated by governments, member organizations, and 

other experts identified by IPCC participants to review the first draft. The 

reviewers include scientists with expertise on topics covered in the report, 

as well as those nominated to serve on the author teams or as review 

editors by governments or contributing organizations. According to IPCC 

guidance, working group lead authors, in consultation with the review 

editors, seek to ensure that each comment provided is properly 

addressed, and they are encouraged to organize meetings regarding key 

IPCC Has Policies and 

Procedures That Seek to 

Ensure the Quality and 

Integrity of Its Assessment 

Reports

Expert Nomination and 

Selection Process

Report Review Process
 

Page 15 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

points of contention when possible. After all comments have been 

addressed and the resulting changes are made, a second draft is 

prepared and submitted to the same reviewers for final review and 

comment. The draft is simultaneously circulated to governments for their 

review. Once the second set of comments has been addressed, a final 

draft is circulated to governments and the summary for policymakers 

section of the report is approved line by line in a meeting of the working 

group.

According to IPCC policies and procedures, to ensure the quality and 

validity of literature used to support findings in the final assessment 

reports, authors are expected to use peer-reviewed scientific, technical, 

and socioeconomic literature if available. When non-peer-reviewed 

literature is used, it is the responsibility of the report authors, review 

editors, and working group co-chairs to thoroughly review such literature 

before it is included in the final assessment report. Author teams are 

required to supply detailed information regarding a non-peer-reviewed 

document’s origins and information on the availability of underlying data 

supporting its findings. Working group co-chairs and the IPCC Secretariat 

collect and index the non-peer-reviewed sources from authors and make 

them available to expert reviewers upon request during the draft review 

process.

IAC’s review of IPCC’s policies and procedures concluded that IPCC’s 

assessment process had been successful overall but that improvements 

were necessary to meet future challenges resulting from the increased 

public scrutiny on climate change science and policy. See table 3 for a 

summary of the 15 IAC recommendations related to quality assurance 

and their implementation status, and appendix II for more details on IAC’s 

recommendations and IPCC’s response.

Efforts to Help Ensure Quality 

and Validity of Supporting 

Literature and Data

IPCC Has Begun to 

Strengthen Quality 

Assurance by Fully 

Implementing All but One 

of the InterAcademy 

Council Recommendations
 

Page 16 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Table 3: Summary of IAC Recommendations Related to Quality Assurance and IPCC’s Implementation Status

Category

Number of 

recommendations IAC recommendations to IPCC

Implementation 

status

Conflicts-of-interest 1 Develop and adopt a rigorous conflict-of-interest 

policy that applies to all individuals directly 

involved in the preparation of IPCC reports.

Implementing

Review process 2 Improve IPCC’s process for responding to 

reviewer comments and ensure that reviewer 

comments are adequately considered.

Implementing

Characterizing and 

communicating uncertaintiesa 6 Improve and standardize the treatment of 

uncertainty in IPCC’s assessment reports.

Implementing

Increasing transparency 4 Improve the transparency of the report scoping 

and expert selection process, and ensure the 

assessment process considers a wide range of 

views. 

Implementing

Engaging the best regional 

experts 

1 Ensure that the most qualified experts, both in 

and outside of the region, participate on the 

author teams for regional chapters of the 

Working Group II report.b

Implementing

Clarifying the use of unpublished 

and non-peer-reviewed sources 

1 Strengthen and enforce procedures for the use 

of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, 

including ensuring that unpublished and nonpeer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged 

in the report.

Partially 

Implementing

Source: GAO analysis of IAC and IPCC information.

a

According to IPCC documents, uncertainty is an expression of the degree to which a value (e.g., the 

future state of the climate system) is unknown. Uncertainty can result from lack of information or from 

disagreement about what is known or even knowable. It may have many types of sources, from 

quantifiable errors in the data to ambiguously defined concepts or terminology, or uncertain 

projections of human behavior. Uncertainty can therefore be represented by quantitative measures, 

for example, a range of values calculated by various models, or by qualitative statements reflecting 

the judgment of a team of experts. 

b

The Working Group II report assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic, and social 

aspects of the vulnerability (sensitivity and adaptability) to climate change of, and the negative and 

positive consequences for, ecological systems, socioeconomic sectors, and human health, with an 

emphasis on regional issues. 

According to IPCC officials and documents, to strengthen the quality 

assurance of its reports, IPCC plans to fully implement 14 of the 15 

recommendations and has begun to take the following actions:

• Developed and approved a conflict-of-interest policy to better ensure 

the independence of its participants and, when possible, avoid the 

appearance of bias, in response to a recommendation by the IAC. 

The draft policy defines the purpose and scope of the policy, defines 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

conflicts-of-interest as they apply to the IPCC, and provides an 

implementation plan.

• Changed its guidance to respond to two IAC recommendations to 

strengthen the report review process and improve its transparency. As 

a result of the changes, draft comments and IPCC responses will be 

available to the general public once the report has been published.

• Developed draft guidance on the consistent treatment of uncertainties 

for lead authors of the 2014 assessment report, its fifth, in response to 

six IAC recommendations to improve and standardize IPCC’s 

treatment of uncertainty in its assessment reports. A final draft was 

presented and approved at the 33rd Session of the IPCC Panel in 

May 2011.

• Changed its internal guidance to better specify the selection criteria 

and the roles and responsibilities of its leadership and author teams in 

response to four IAC recommendations to improve transparency and 

promote diverse participation in the report scoping, expert selection, 

and report drafting and review processes.

• Changed its expert selection criteria in response to an IAC 

recommendation to better ensure that the most qualified experts, both 

within and outside the geographic region in question, are selected as 

authors for the regional chapters of the Working Group II report.

According to IPCC documents and officials, IPCC is partially 

implementing one IAC recommendation to enhance the scrutiny of nonpeer-reviewed literature that supports findings in the final assessment 

reports. In response to the recommendation, IPCC is changing its internal 

guidance to clearly delineate the responsibilities of participants at every 

level of the IPCC process when using non-peer-reviewed literature to 

support report findings. The revised guidance makes participants 

responsible for ensuring the quality and validity of non-peer-reviewed 

sources and for improving transparency by making these sources 

available to the public. However, IPCC will not identify each finding in the 

assessment report that was supported by non-peer-reviewed literature, as 

recommended by the IAC.17

 

17The IAC committee that reviewed IPCC’s policies and procedures has disbanded and 

was not available to comment on IPCC’s response to this recommendation.

According to IPCC documents and officials, 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

there is no standardized way to differentiate between peer-reviewed and 

non-peer-reviewed sources. For example, there are non-peer-reviewed 

scientific reports by authoritative international institutes that have been 

thoroughly reviewed, and, conversely, there are articles published in 

peer-reviewed journals that have undergone less scrutiny than some nonpeer-reviewed literature. As a result, the distinction between peerreviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature is not always clear, and peer 

review may not be the most useful indicator of the quality of the 

underlying literature.

Changes in response to IAC’s recommendations have already been 

integrated into IPCC’s policies and procedures, but IPCC officials said 

that some of the changes will be more challenging to implement than 

others. For example, implementing a uniform conflict-of-interest policy 

across working groups will be challenging because of the different types 

of contributors that the IPCC relies on for the assessments. The IPCC 

relies primarily on participants who do not have financial interests in 

climate change policy, but some working groups must rely on experts 

from industries or interest groups, who often have such an interest.

Even with these challenges, IPCC officials told us they have begun to 

take steps to address IAC’s recommendations and expect 14 of the 

recommendations to be fully implemented by the beginning of the next 

reporting cycle, in 2014. Because IPCC is implementing the 

recommendations in the middle of an assessment reporting cycle, it may 

be difficult to determine if they have been successfully implemented until 

the end of the next reporting cycle. For example, the report scoping and 

expert selection processes for the fifth assessment report were initiated 

prior to the issuance of the IAC report. As a result, some changes to 

IPCC’s guidance improving the transparency of the report scoping and 

expert selection processes will not be applied until the beginning of the 

next reporting cycle.

The United States is a major contributor of funding for IPCC’s climate 

assessment reports. Funding data from State and NSF showed that U.S. 

funding for IPCC totaled $31.1 million from fiscal years 2001 through 

2010, with average annual funding of about $3.1 million during that period 

(in constant 2010 fiscal year dollars). However, these data were not 

readily available to congressional decision makers in budget documents 

or through other means, because federal agencies that support IPCC are 

generally not required to report to Congress on total spending for IPCC 

activities. This limits the transparency of U.S. spending on these 

Conclusions
 

Page 19 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

activities. In addition, funding data we obtained from State and NSF 

differed from information provided to the House Committee on Energy 

and Commerce in 2010. These differences stemmed from incorrect 

reporting of (1) funding that State provided to IPCC but that was not used 

for IPCC activities, and (2) funding that NSF awarded, on behalf of itself 

and the other USGCRP agencies, to UCAR for administering the 

technical support unit. Without data on U.S. funding for IPCC that are 

accurate, consistent, and transparent across the funding agencies, 

decision makers will not have critical data that could inform deliberations 

over funding for IPCC. Transparency is particularly important, given 

congressional interest in this spending and the complex mechanism used 

to fund the technical support unit. 

In addition, NSF places several conditions on the funding provided 

through it to UCAR to administer the IPCC technical support unit, 

including a requirement for an annual project review of UCAR’s efforts. 

However, NSF did not complete this review on time and did not have it 

completed prior to a funding decision that was made regarding UCAR’s 

activities for fiscal year 2011, as required by NSF’s cooperative 

agreement with UCAR. As a result, NSF lacked additional information that 

could have enabled it and the other USGCRP agencies to better evaluate 

UCAR’s progress and determine an appropriate funding level based on 

results.

We are making two recommendations to improve the availability of 

budget information and oversight of this funding.

• To better ensure that information on U.S. funding for IPCC is 

accurate, consistent, and transparent, we recommend that the 

Secretary of State coordinate with the NSF Director to determine a 

method for providing consolidated annual information to Congress on 

U.S. funding for IPCC activities.

• To improve the information available to USGCRP agencies for 

evaluating UCAR’s progress and determine an appropriate funding 

level based on results, we recommend that the NSF Director adhere 

to the provisions of NSF’s cooperative agreement with UCAR and 

ensure that timely annual project reviews are conducted.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 20 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

We provided a draft of this report to State, NSF, USGCRP, and IPCC for 

review and comment, and all four entities generally concurred with our 

recommendations. For our first recommendation that the Secretary of 

State coordinate with the NSF Director to determine a method for 

providing consolidated annual information to Congress on U.S. funding 

for IPCC activities, in its written comments, State agreed and said that 

based on our recommendation and NSF’s comments related to it, State 

would provide information on State’s contributions to IPCC activities 

through USGCRP’s annual report, Our Changing Planet. State did not 

comment on the second recommendation which involved NSF. State’s 

written comments are included in appendix III.

In its written comments, NSF said it concurred with the spirit of our 

recommendations and agreed that it was important for Congress to have 

information about U.S. support for IPCC that is accurate, consistent, and 

easily accessible. Concerning our first recommendation, NSF stated that 

including explicit IPCC funding information in USGCRP’s annual report to 

Congress, Our Changing Planet, would provide Congress and the public 

with this information and that NSF would coordinate with State and 

USGCRP to ensure this information is included in the report. For our 

second recommendation that the NSF Director adhere to the provisions of 

NSF’s cooperative agreement with UCAR and ensure that timely annual 

project reviews are conducted, NSF stated that given the long lead time 

required to effect timely interagency transfers of funds while also ensuring 

that project review findings inform future funding decisions, the annual 

review schedule, which had not been taken into account in the original 

cooperative agreement, has been adjusted. NSF also stated that it 

amended the cooperative agreement with UCAR so that the project 

review schedule now allows for any project review findings to be available 

for future funding decisions. NSF’s written comments are included in 

appendix IV.

In its written comments, USGCRP said it agreed with our overall 

recommendations. With regard to our first recommendation, USGCRP 

said it would coordinate with State, NSF, and the other USGCRP 

agencies to help provide annual reporting to Congress on U.S. funding for 

IPCC. USGCRP said it also believed that its annual report to Congress, 

Our Changing Planet, and USGCRP’s website 

(http://www.globalchange.gov) would be the most appropriate way to 

report U.S. funding for IPCC. USGCRP’s written comments are included 

in appendix V.

Agency Comments 

and Third-Party Views
 

Page 21 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

In an e-mail received on November 7, 2011, from the Deputy Secretary of 

IPCC, IPCC generally agreed with our findings and conclusions. In its email, IPCC stated, among other things, that the challenges posed by 

implementing some of the IAC recommendations did not get in the way of 

IPCC executing them expeditiously. For example, IPCC commented that 

revised procedures related to the IAC recommendations were approved 

by IPCC earlier this year and will be applied in their entirety. IPCC did not 

provide written comments for us to include in our report.

In addition, State and USGCRP provided technical comments and 

clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

the report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of State, the 

Directors of the U.S. National Science Foundation and the United States 

Global Change Research Program, the Deputy Secretary of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the appropriate 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@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 key contributions to this report

are listed in appendix VI.

David C. Trimble

Director, Natural Resources

 and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 22 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Our objectives were to examine (1) the financial support the United States 

has provided the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2010; (2) conditions the United States 

places on its financial support to IPCC and how they help ensure these 

funds are spent accordingly; and (3) quality assurance processes IPCC 

has used in preparing its assessment reports and what steps, if any, 

IPCC is taking to address recommendations made by the InterAcademy 

Council (IAC) to enhance the integrity of the assessment process and the 

accuracy of the reports produced.

To respond to the first objective, we obtained and reviewed documents 

from the Department of State (State), the U.S. National Science 

Foundation (NSF), and the United States Global Change Research 

Program (USGCRP) about the amount and type of U.S. support provided 

to IPCC. This included (1) pledge letters State sends to IPCC listing the 

amount of support State provided, along with IPCC’s acknowledgement of 

the funding; (2) prior information State provided in response to the March 

2010 House Committee on Energy and Commerce request related to 

U.S. funding for IPCC; (3) approved and funded budgets related to NSF’s 

funding for IPCC which involved the University Corporation for 

Atmospheric Research (UCAR); and (4) USGCRP correspondence 

related to IPCC funding for UCAR. We also interviewed State, NSF, and 

USGCRP officials about U.S. funding provided to IPCC. Additionally, we 

assessed the reliability of budget data through discussions with cognizant 

agency officials and corroborated those discussions with agency reports 

and budget documents. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable 

for our purposes.

To respond to the second objective, we reviewed relevant statutory 

requirements related to conditions that could be placed on U.S. financial 

support to IPCC. We also obtained and analyzed relevant documents, 

including (1) information on conditions on the funding; (2) pledge letters 

State provides to IPCC stating conditions on the funds provided; (3) 

NSF’s cooperative agreement with UCAR; (4) external audit reports of the 

World Meteorological Organization that included the IPCC Trust Fund; 

and (5) external audit reports of UCAR. We also interviewed State, NSF, 

and USGCRP officials regarding the internal controls and oversight 

mechanisms the agencies have to ensure U.S. funds are spent according 

to relevant conditions. We also performed limited testing of transactions 

at NSF to verify its process for receiving funds from USGCRP agencies 

was adequate for the transactions that we tested.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 23 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

To respond to the third objective, we reviewed the policies and procedures 

guiding IPCC’s assessment report process and the 2010 IAC report that 

recommended improvements in IPCC’s quality assurance framework. We 

focused our review on IPCC’s efforts to address recommendations related 

to quality assurance. We reviewed the IAC report and IPCC’s existing 

policies and procedures for preparing assessment reports, and identified 

the categories of IAC recommendations related to IPCC’s primary quality 

assurance processes including recommendations aimed at (1) developing 

a uniform conflict-of-interest policy; (2) strengthening the review process; 

(3) characterizing and communicating uncertainty in the assessment 

reports; (4) increasing transparency; (5) engaging the best regional 

experts; and (6) clarifying the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed 

sources.1

We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 through 

November 2011 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.

Seven recommendations related to IPCC’s management 

structure, communications strategy, and deadlines for review comments do 

not relate directly to quality assurance and were beyond the scope of our 

review. We also reviewed a 2007 report from the National Research 

Council related to IPCC’s policies and procedures. We interviewed IPCC 

officials to better understand the application of those policies and 

procedures, including the internal controls in place to assure the quality of 

the reports. In addition, we interviewed officials from IPCC, IAC, and the 

National Academies to determine IPCC’s progress in implementing IAC’s 

recommendations for improving IPCC’s management structure and internal 

controls. The IAC Committee that reviewed IPCC’s policies and procedures 

was not available for us to contact in an official capacity. According to the 

IAC Study Director for the review, the committee has completed their work 

and disbanded. We also reviewed updates to IPCC’s policies and 

procedures made as a result of IAC’s recommendations and discussed 

these updates with senior IPCC officials.

 

1

The IAC did not identify conflict-of-interest as a separate category of recommendations, 

but given its relevance to quality assurance and transparency, we chose to emphasize it 

for the purposes of this report.
Appendix II: InterAcademy Council (IAC) 

Recommendations and Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Responses 

Page 24 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Table 4: IAC Recommendations Related to Quality Assurance and IPCC’s Response

Category IAC recommendations IPCC responses

Conflicts-of-interest (1) The IPCC should develop and adopt a 

rigorous conflict-of-interest policy that applies 

to all individuals directly involved in the 

preparation of IPCC reports, including senior 

IPCC leadership (IPCC chair and vicechairs); authors with responsibilities for report 

content (i.e., working group co-chairs, 

coordinating lead authors, and lead authors), 

review editors, and technical staff directly 

involved in report preparation (e.g., staff of 

technical support units and the IPCC 

Secretariat). 

According to IPCC documents, IPCC is in the 

process of implementing a comprehensive 

conflict-of-interest policy. IPCC obtained input 

from multiple governments and multinational 

organizations to develop a policy catered to 

the specific needs of the IPCC. The draft 

defines the purpose and scope of the policy, 

conflicts-of-interest as they apply to the IPCC, 

and provides an implementation plan. The 

draft was submitted and approved at the 33rd 

Session of the IPCC.

Review process (2) The IPCC should encourage review editors 

to fully exercise their authority to ensure that 

reviewers’ comments are adequately 

considered by the authors and that genuine 

controversies are adequately reflected in the 

report.

(3) The IPCC should adopt a more targeted 

and effective process for responding to 

reviewer comments. In such a process, 

Review editors would prepare a written 

summary of the most significant issues raised 

by reviewers shortly after review comments 

have been received. Authors would be 

required to provide detailed written responses 

to the most significant review issues identified 

by the review editors, abbreviated responses 

to all noneditorial comments, and no written 

responses to editorial comments.

According to IPCC documents, IPCC made 

changes to its policies and procedures 

specifying that all written expert and 

government review comments and the 

responses by IPCC authors be made publicly 

available upon completion of the report. 

Further, review editors will be responsible for 

ensuring that all review comments are 

adequately addressed by the authors.

Characterizing and communicating 

uncertainties

(4) Each working group should use the 

qualitative level-of-understanding scale in its 

summary for policymakers and technical 

summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty 

guidance for the fourth assessment report. 

This scale may be supplemented by a 

quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.

(5) The confidence scale should not be used 

to assign subjective probabilities to ill-defined 

outcomes.

(6) Quantitative probabilities (as in the 

likelihood scale) should be used to describe 

the probability of well-defined outcomes only 

when there is sufficient evidence. Authors 

should indicate the basis for assigning a 

probability to an outcome or event (e.g., 

based on measurement, expert judgment, 

and/or model runs).

According to IPCC documents, in November 

2010, IPCC developed draft guidance notes 

for lead authors of the fifth assessment report 

on consistent treatment of uncertainties to 

implement the recommendations and to 

provide consistent guidance on uncertainties 

across working groups. A final draft was 

presented and approved at the 33rd Session 

of the IPCC.

Appendix II: InterAcademy Council (IAC) 

Recommendations and Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Responses
Appendix II: InterAcademy Council (IAC) 

Recommendations and Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Responses 

Page 25 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Category IAC recommendations IPCC responses

(7) The likelihood scale should be stated in 

terms of probabilities (numbers) in addition to 

words to improve understanding of 

uncertainty.

(8) Chapter lead authors should provide a 

traceable account of how they arrived at their 

ratings for level of scientific understanding and 

likelihood that an outcome will occur.

(9) Where practical, formal expert elicitation 

procedures should be used to obtain 

subjective probabilities for key results.

Increasing transparency (10) The IPCC should make the process and 

criteria for selecting participants for scoping 

meetings more transparent.

According to IPCC documents, IPCC 

amended its policies and procedures to clearly 

delineate the selection criteria for participants 

in scoping meetings. Bureau members from 

each working group will make selections using 

criteria including expertise, range of views, 

geographical representation, and gender 

balance. Bureau members report to the IPCC 

Panel detailing the selection process and 

providing a list of selected participants.

(11) The IPCC should develop and adopt 

formal qualifications and formally articulate the 

roles and responsibilities for all Bureau 

members, including the IPCC chair, to ensure 

that they have both the highest scholarly 

qualifications and proven leadership skills.

According to IPCC documents, IPCC drafted a 

“Terms of Reference” document defining the 

necessary qualifications of Bureau members, 

as well as the roles and responsibilities of 

Bureau members and the Bureau as a whole. 

The draft document was submitted and 

approved at the 33rd Session of the IPCC.

(12) The IPCC should establish a formal set of 

criteria and processes for selecting 

coordinating lead authors and lead authors.

According to IPCC documents, IPCC plans to 

enhance the implementation and transparency 

of the existing selection criteria. In addition, 

IPCC revised its policies and procedures to 

add additional selection criteria and to require 

working groups to report on the author 

selection process.

(13) Lead authors should explicitly document 

that a range of scientific viewpoints has been 

considered, and coordinating lead authors and 

review editors should satisfy themselves that 

due consideration was given to properly 

documented alternative views.

According to IPCC documents, IPCC adjusted 

its policies and procedures to better specify 

that it is the responsibility of authors to 

consider the full range of scientific views while 

drafting the report, even if they contradict one 

another. In addition, IPCC integrated a similar 

degree of specification into the guidance for 

author selection and the review process.

Engaging the best regional experts (14) The IPCC should make every effort to 

engage local experts on the author teams of 

the regional chapters of the Working Group II 

report, but should also engage experts from 

countries outside of the region when they can 

provide an essential contribution to the 

assessment. 

According to IPCC documents, Working 

Group II writing teams have already integrated 

the recommendation into their criteria for lead 

author selection for the fifth assessment 

report. In addition, IPCC made changes to its 

guidance on selection criteria that are 

verbatim from IAC’s recommendation.
Appendix II: InterAcademy Council (IAC) 

Recommendations and Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Responses 

Page 26 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Category IAC recommendations IPCC responses

Clarifying the use of unpublished 

and non-peer-reviewed sources

(15) The IPCC should strengthen and enforce 

its procedure for the use of unpublished and 

non-peer-reviewed literature, including 

providing more specific guidance on how to 

evaluate such information, adding guidelines 

on what types of literature are unacceptable, 

and ensuring that unpublished and non-peerreviewed literature is appropriately flagged in 

the report.

According to IPCC documents, IPCC agreed 

with the recommendation but decided that it 

wouldn’t be feasible to flag all unpublished 

and non-peer-reviewed literature in the 

assessment reports. Specifically, IPCC said 

that the distinction between “peer-reviewed” 

and “non-peer-reviewed” is not always clear, 

and that flagging thousands of titles could lead 

to the risk of misjudgments. However, IPCC 

changed its internal guidance on the use of 

non-peer-reviewed sources to clearly 

delineate the responsibilities of participants at 

every level of the IPCC to ensure the quality 

and validity of those sources, and to promote 

transparency by making the sources available 

to the general public.

Source: GAO analysis of IAC and IPCC information.

Table 5: IAC Recommendations Not Related to Quality Assurance and IPCC’s Response

Category IAC recommendations IPCC responses

Modernizing the management 

structure 

(1) The IPCC should establish an Executive 

Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary 

sessions. The membership of the committee 

should include the IPCC chair, the working 

group co-chairs, the senior member of the 

Secretariat, and three independent members 

who include individuals from outside of the 

climate community. Members would be elected 

by the Plenary and serve until their successors 

are in place.

According to IPCC documents and officials, 

IPCC has established an Executive 

Committee. The IPCC chair, vice-chairs, and 

the co-chairs of IPCC Working Groups I, II, 

and III and the Task Force on Inventories 

serve as voting members. Advisory members 

include the Head of Secretariat and the heads 

of the technical support units.

(2) The IPCC should elect an executive director 

to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day 

operations of the organization. The term of this

senior scientist should be limited to the time 

frame of one assessment.

According to IPCC documents, IPCC, citing 

inconsistencies with United Nations policy and 

the potential for overlap with other senior 

posts in the Secretariat, is not planning to 

create an executive director position. Instead, 

the roles and responsibilities of the secretary 

will be expanded to emphasize external 

relations and internal and external 

communication. In addition, the secretary 

position will continue to be an appointed 

position that will be reviewed by the Executive 

Committee on a biannual basis.

(3) The IPCC should redefine the 

responsibilities of key Secretariat positions both 

to improve efficiency and to allow for any future 

senior appointments.

According to IPCC documents, IPCC began 

reviewing the functions of the Secretariat in 

2008. However, the draft terms of reference 

detailing the roles and responsibilities of 

senior Secretariat positions are still being 

reviewed and will be submitted for 

consideration at the 34th Session of the IPCC 

in November 2011.
Appendix II: InterAcademy Council (IAC) 

Recommendations and Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Responses 

Page 27 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Category IAC recommendations IPCC responses

(4) The term of the IPCC chair should be limited 

to the time frame of one assessment.

(5) The terms of the working group co-chairs 

should be limited to the time frame of one 

assessment. 

According to IPCC documents, IPCC changed 

its policies and procedures to limit the term of 

the chair and co-chairs to one reporting cycle, 

with the provision that the IPCC Panel has the 

right to extend the tenure of individuals in 

certain cases. To ensure a smooth transition, 

the new IPCC chair will be elected 6 months 

to a year before the sitting chair leaves office.

Developing an effective 

communications strategy

(6) The IPCC should complete and implement a 

communications strategy that emphasizes 

transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, 

relevance to stakeholders, and that includes 

guidelines about who can speak on behalf of 

IPCC and how to represent the organization 

appropriately.

According to IPCC documents, IPCC is in the 

process of recruiting a senior communications 

manager who will report directly to the head of 

the Secretariat. The Secretariat will work with 

the Executive Committee to develop a 

comprehensive communications strategy that 

reflects the expectations of the Panel for 

outreach and media communications. The 

Executive Committee will ultimately be 

responsible for ensuring that IPCC’s 

communications are appropriate and that the 

strategy meets the Panel’s requirements. 

IPCC has developed some guiding principles 

to serve as an outline for the strategy which 

will be written and submitted to the Panel at 

the 34th Session of the IPCC in November 

2011.

Expediting approval of the summary 

for policymakers

(7) The IPCC should revise its process for the 

approval of the Summary for Policymakers so 

that governments provide written comments 

prior to the Plenary.

According to IPCC documents, IPCC practice 

already allowed participating governments to 

provide written comments prior to the Plenary 

session, but IPCC amended its policies and 

procedures to clarify that written comments 

should be submitted prior to the session.

Source: GAO analysis of IAC and IPCC information.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 28 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of State
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 29 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 30 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments
Appendix IV: Comments from the National 

Science Foundation

Page 31 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Appendix IV: Comments from the National 

Science Foundation
Appendix IV: Comments from the National 

Science Foundation

Page 32 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments
Appendix V: Comments from the United States 

Global Change Research Program 

Page 33 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

Appendix V: Comments from the United 

States Global Change Research Program
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 34 GAO-12-43 Climate Change Assessments

David C. Trimble, (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Michael Hix (Assistant 

Director), Cindy Gilbert, Tim Guinane, Jackson Hufnagle, Richard 

Johnson, Micah McMillan, Kirk Menard, Ben Shouse, John B. 

Stephenson, and Kiki Theodoropoulos made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361247)
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 (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 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. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@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