Climate Change Adaptation: Aligning Funding with Strategic Priorities
Published: 2011-07-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: A 2009 assessment by the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) found that many types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and regional droughts, have become more frequent and intense during the past 40 to 50 years. According to the assessment, changes in extreme weather and climate events will affect many aspects of society and the natural environment, such as infrastructure. In addition, the Department of Defense found that climate change may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on militaries around the world. According to the National Academies, USGCRP, and others, greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue altering the climate system into the future regardless of emissions control efforts. Therefore, adaptation--defined as adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate change--is an important part of the response to climate change. This testimony addresses (1) the actions federal, state, and local authorities are taking to adapt to climate change; (2) the challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in their efforts to adapt and actions federal agencies could take to help address these challenges; and (3) the extent to which federal funding for adaptation and other climate change activities is consistently tracked and reported and aligned with strategic priorities. The information in this testimony is based on prior work, largely on GAO's recent reports on climate change adaptation and federal climate change funding.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal, state, and local authorities are beginning to take steps to adapt to climate change. Federal agencies are beginning to respond to climate change systematically through an Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force formed to recommend key components for inclusion in a national adaptation strategy. Individual agencies are also beginning to consider adaptation actions. For example, in May 2009, the Chief of Naval Operations created Task Force Climate Change to address the naval implications of a changing Arctic and global environment. Some state and local government authorities were beginning to plan for and respond to climate change impacts, GAO reported in 2009. For example, the state of Maryland had a strategy for reducing vulnerability to climate change, which focused on protecting habitat and infrastructure from future risks associated with sea level rise and coastal storms. In another example, King County, Washington, established a countywide flood control zone district to upgrade flood protection facilities and increase the county's resilience to future flooding, among other things. Federal, state, and local officials face numerous challenges in their efforts to adapt to climate change, and further federal action could help them make more informed decisions. These challenges include a focus of available attention and resources on more immediate needs and insufficient site-specific data--such as local projections of expected climate changes. The lack of such data makes it hard to understand the impacts of climate change and thus hard for officials to justify the cost of adaptation efforts, since future benefits are potentially less certain than current costs. GAO's October 2009 report identified potential federal actions for improving adaptation efforts, including actions to provide and interpret site-specific information, which could help officials understand the impacts of climate change at a scale that would enable them to respond. In a May 2008 report on the economics of policy options to address climate change, GAO identified actions Congress and federal agencies could take, such as reforming insurance subsidy programs in areas vulnerable to hurricanes or flooding. Funding for adaptation and other federal climate change activities could be better tracked, reported, and aligned with strategic priorities. GAO's report on federal climate change funding suggests that methods for defining and reporting such funding are not consistently interpreted and applied across the federal government. GAO also identified two key factors that complicate efforts to align funding with priorities. First, officials across a broad range of federal agencies lack a shared understanding of priorities, partly due to the multiple, often inconsistent messages articulated in different policy documents, such as strategic plans. Second, existing mechanisms intended to align funding with governmentwide priorities are nonbinding and limited when in conflict with agencies' own priorities. Federal officials who responded to a Web-based questionnaire, available literature, and stakeholders involved in climate change funding identified several ways to better align federal climate change funding with strategic priorities. These include a governmentwide strategic planning process that promotes a shared understanding among agencies of strategic priorities by articulating what they are expected to do within the overall federal response to climate change.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the extent to which federal long- term budget planning contemplates changes in the frequency and  severity of weather events that may occur as a result of changes in the  climate. A 2009 assessment by the United States Global Change  Research Program (USGCRP) found that many types of extreme weather  events, such as heat waves and regional droughts, have become more  frequent and intense during the past 40 to 50 years and that changes in  these kinds of extreme weather and climate events are among the most  serious challenges to our nation in coping with a changing climate.  According to the assessment, changes in extreme weather and climate  events will affect human health, water supply, agriculture, coastal areas,  and many other aspects of society and the natural environment. “while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of  instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries  around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for  defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both  within the United States and overseas.”
In recent years, climate change adaptation—defined as adjustments to  natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate  change—has begun to receive more attention because the greenhouse  gases already in the atmosphere are expected to continue altering the  climate system into the future, regardless of efforts to control emissions.  According to the National Research Council, however, individuals and  institutions whose futures will be affected by climate change are  unprepared both conceptually and practically for meeting the challenges  and opportunities it presents. In this context, adapting to climate change  requires making policy and management decisions that cut across  traditional economic sectors, jurisdictional boundaries, and levels of  government. We have previously reported that when agencies do not  collaborate well when addressing a complicated, interdisciplinary issue  like climate change, they may carry out programs in a fragmented,  uncoordinated way, resulting in a patchwork of programs that can limit the  overall effectiveness of the federal effort.
My testimony today addresses (1) the actions federal, state, and local  authorities are taking to adapt to climate change; (2) the challenges that  federal, state, and local officials face in their efforts to adapt and actions  federal agencies could take to help address these challenges; and (3) the  extent to which federal funding for adaptation and other climate change  activities is consistently tracked and reported and aligned with strategic  priorities. The information in this testimony is based on prior work, largely  on our recent reports on climate change adaptation and federal climate  change funding. Additional information on our scope and methodology is  available in each issued product. All of the work on which this statement  is based was performed in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Federal, State, and Local Authorities Are Beginning to Take Steps to Adapt to Climate Change
paragraphs: Our October 2009 report on climate change adaptation found no  coordinated national approach to adaptation, but our May 2011 report on  climate change funding cited indications that federal agencies were  beginning to respond to climate change more systematically. About the  same time as the issuance of our October 2009 report, Executive Order  13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic  Performance called for federal agencies to participate actively in the  Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The task force,  which began meeting in Spring 2009, is co-chaired by the Council on  Environmental Quality (CEQ), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA), and the Office of Science and Technology Policy  (OSTP), and includes representatives from more than 20 federal  agencies and executive branch offices. The task force was formed to  develop federal recommendations for adapting to climate change impacts  both domestically and internationally and to recommend key components  to include in a national strategy.
On October 14, 2010, the task force released its interagency report  outlining recommendations to the President for how federal policies and  programs can better prepare the United States to respond to the impacts  of climate change. The report recommends that the federal government  implement actions to expand and strengthen the nation’s capacity to  better understand, prepare for, and respond to climate change. These  recommended actions include making adaptation a standard part of  agency planning to ensure that resources are invested wisely and  services and operations remain effective in a changing climate. According  to CEQ officials, the task force will continue to meet as an interagency  forum for discussing the federal government’s adaptation approach and to  support and monitor the implementation of recommended actions in the  progress report. The task force is due to release another report in  October 2011 that documents progress toward implementing its  recommendations and provides additional recommendations for refining  the federal approach to adaptation, as appropriate, according to CEQ  officials.
Individual agencies are also beginning to consider adaptation actions. For  example, in May 2009, the Chief of Naval Operations created Task Force  Climate Change to address the naval implications of a changing Arctic  and global environment. The Task Force was created to make  recommendations to Navy leadership regarding policy, investment, and  action, and to lead public discussion. In addition, the U.S. Department of  the Interior issued an order in September 2009 designed to address the  impacts of climate change on the nation’s water, land, and other natural  and cultural resources. Among other things, the order requires each  bureau and office in the department to consider and analyze potential  climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning exercises,  setting priorities for scientific research and investigations, developing  multi-year management plans, and making major decisions regarding  potential use of resources. In another example, according to NOAA, its  Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program supports  climate change research to meet the needs of decision makers and policy  planners at the national, regional, and local levels.
In October 2009, we reported that some state and local authorities were  beginning to plan for and respond to climate change impacts. We visited  three U. S. sites in doing the work for that report—New York City; King  County, Washington; and the state of Maryland—where state and local  officials were taking such steps. We have not evaluated the progress of  these initiatives since the issuance our 2009 report.    New York City: New York City’s adaptation efforts stemmed from a  growing recognition of the vulnerability of the city’s infrastructure to  natural disasters, such as the severe flooding in 2007 that led to  widespread subway closures. At the time of our October 2009 report,  New York City’s adaptation efforts typically had been implemented as  facilities were upgraded or as funding became available. For example,  the city’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which  manages water and wastewater infrastructure, had begun to address  flood risks to its wastewater treatment facilities. These and other  efforts are described in DEP’s 2008 Climate Change Program  Assessment and Action Plan. Many of New York City’s wastewater  treatment plants, such as Tallman Island, are vulnerable to sea level  rise and flooding from storm surges because they are located in the  floodplain next to the bodies of water into which they discharge. In  response to this threat, DEP planned to, in the course of scheduled  renovations, raise sensitive electrical equipment, such as pumps and  motors, to higher levels to protect them from flood damage.    King County, Washington: According to officials from the King County  Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP), the county took  steps to adapt to climate change because its leadership was highly  aware of climate impacts on the county. For example, in November  2006, the county experienced severe winter storms that caused a  series of levees to crack. The levees had long needed repair, but the  storm damage helped increase support for the establishment of a  countywide flood control zone district, funded by a dedicated property  tax. The flood control zone district planned to use the funds, in part,  to upgrade flood protection facilities to increase the county’s resilience  to future flooding. In addition to more severe winter storms, the county  expected that climate change would lead to sea level rise; reduced  snowpack; and summertime extreme weather such as heat waves  and drought, which can lead to power shortages because hydropower  is an important source of power in the region. The University of  Washington Climate Impacts Group, funded by NOAA’s RISA  program, has had a long-standing relationship with county officials  and worked closely with them to provide regionally specific climate  change data and modeling, such as a 2009 assessment of climate  impacts in Washington, as well as decision-making tools.    Maryland: Maryland officials took a number of steps to formalize their  response to climate change effects. An executive order in 2007  established the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, which  released the Maryland Climate Action Plan in 2008. As part of this  effort, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) chaired  an Adaptation and Response Working Group, which issued a report  on sea level rise and coastal storms. The 2008 Maryland Climate  Action Plan calls for future adaptation strategy development to cover  other sectors, such as agriculture and human health. Additionally,  Maryland provided guidance to coastal counties to assist them with  incorporating the effects of climate change into their planning  documents. For example, DNR funded guidance documents to three  coastal counties—Dorchester, Somerset, and Worcester Counties— on how to address sea level rise and other coastal hazards in their  local ordinances and planning efforts.
section_title: Government Officials Face Numerous Challenges When Considering Adaptation Efforts, and Further Federal Action Could Help Them Make More Informed Decisions
paragraphs: In our prior work, we found that the challenges faced by federal, state,  and local officials in their efforts to adapt to climate change fell into  several categories:    Focusing on immediate needs. Available attention and resources  were focused on more immediate needs, making it difficult for  adaptation efforts to compete for limited funds. For example, several  federal, state, and local officials who responded to a questionnaire we  prepared for our October 2009 report on adaptation noted how difficult  it is to convince managers of the need to plan for long-term adaptation  when they are responsible for more urgent concerns that have short  decision-making time frames. One federal official explained that “it all  comes down to resource prioritization. Election and budget cycles  complicate long-term planning such as adaptation will require. Without  clear top-down leadership setting this as a priority, projects with  benefits beyond the budget cycle tend to get raided to pay current- year bills to deliver results in this political cycle.”
Insufficient site-specific data. Without sufficient site-specific data, such  as local projections of expected changes, it is hard to predict the  impacts of climate change and thus hard for officials to justify the  current costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less certain future  benefits. This is similar to what we found in past work on climate  change on federal lands. Specifically, our August 2007 report  demonstrated that land managers did not have sufficient site-specific  information to plan for and manage the effects of climate change on the  federal resources they oversee. In particular, the managers lacked  computational models for local projections of expected changes. For  example, at the time of our review, officials at the Florida Keys National  Marine Sanctuary said that they did not have adequate modeling and  scientific information to enable managers to predict the effects of  climate change on a small scale, such as that occurring within the  sanctuary. Without such modeling and information, most of the  managers’ options for dealing with climate change were limited to  reacting to already-observed effects on their units, making it difficult to  plan for future changes. Furthermore, these resource managers said  that they generally lacked detailed inventories and monitoring systems  to provide them with an adequate baseline understanding of the plant  and animal species that existed on the resources they manage. Without  such information, it is difficult to determine whether observed changes  are within the normal range of variability.    Lack of clear roles and responsibilities. Adaptation efforts are  constrained by a lack of clear roles and responsibilities among  federal, state, and local agencies. Of particular note, about 70 percent  (124 of 178) of the federal, state, and local officials who responded to  a questionnaire we prepared for our October 2009 report on  adaptation rated the “lack of clear roles and responsibilities for  addressing adaptation across all levels of government” as very or  extremely challenging. For example, according to one respondent,  “there is a power struggle between agencies and levels of  government…Everyone wants to take the lead rather than working  together in a collaborative and cohesive way.”
These challenges make it harder for officials to justify the current costs of  adaptation efforts for potentially less certain future benefits. A 2009 report  by the National Research Council discusses how officials are struggling to  make decisions based on future climate scenarios instead of past climate  conditions. According to the report, requested by the Environmental  Protection Agency and NOAA, usual practices and decision rules (for  building bridges, implementing zoning rules, using private motor vehicles,  and so on) assume a stationary climate—a continuation of past climate  conditions, including similar patterns of variation and the same  probabilities of extreme events. According to the National Research  Council report, that assumption, which is fundamental to the ways people  and organizations make their choices, is no longer valid; Climate change  will create a novel and dynamic decision environment.
We reached similar conclusions in a March 2007 report that highlighted  how historical information may no longer be a reliable guide for decision  making. We reported on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s  (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, which insures properties  against flooding, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)  Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which insures crops against drought  or other weather disasters. Among other things, the report contrasted the  experience of private and public insurers. We found that many major  private insurers were proactively incorporating some near-term elements  of climate change into their risk management practices. In addition, other  private insurers were approaching climate change at a strategic level by  publishing reports outlining the potential industry-wide impacts and  strategies to proactively address the issue.
In contrast, we noted that the agencies responsible for the nation’s two key  federal insurance programs had done little to develop the kind of information  needed to understand their programs’ long-term exposure to climate change  for a variety of reasons. As a FEMA official explained, the National Flood  Insurance Program is designed to assess and insure against current—not  future—risks. Unlike the private sector, neither this program nor the Federal  Crop Insurance Corporation had analyzed the potential impacts of an  increase in the frequency or severity of weather-related events on their  operations over the near- or long-term. The proactive view of private insurers  in our 2007 report was echoed on March 17, 2009, by the National  Association of Insurance Commissioners, which adopted a mandatory  requirement that insurance companies disclose to regulators the financial  risks they face from climate change, as well as actions the companies are  taking to respond to those risks. We have not studied the progress of these  specific programs in managing the nation’s long-term exposure to climate  change since the issuance of our 2007 report.
Based on information obtained from studies, visits to sites pursuing  adaptation efforts, and responses to a Web-based questionnaire sent to  federal, state, and local officials knowledgeable about adaptation, our  October 2009 report identified three categories of potential federal actions  for addressing challenges to adaptation efforts:    First, training and education efforts could increase awareness among  government officials and the public about the impacts of climate  change and available adaptation strategies. A variety of programs are  trying to accomplish this goal, such as the Chesapeake Bay National  Estuarine Research Reserve (partially funded by NOAA), which  provides education and training on climate change to the public and  local officials in Maryland.    Second, actions to provide and interpret site-specific information could  help officials understand the impacts of climate change at a scale that  would enable them to respond. About 80 percent of the respondents  to our Web-based questionnaire rated the “development of state and  local climate change impact and vulnerability assessments” as very or  extremely useful.    Third, Congress and federal agencies could encourage adaptation by  clarifying roles and responsibilities. About 71 percent of the  respondents to our Web-based questionnaire rated the development  of a national adaptation strategy as very or extremely useful.  Furthermore, officials we spoke with and officials who responded to  our questionnaire said that a coordinated federal response would also  demonstrate a federal commitment to adaptation. Importantly, our  October 2009 report recommended that within the Executive Office of  the President the appropriate entities, such as CEQ, develop a  national adaptation plan that includes setting priorities for federal,  state, and local agencies. CEQ generally agreed with our  recommendation.
Some of our other recent climate change-related reports offer additional  examples of the types of actions federal agencies and the Congress  could take to assist states and communities in their efforts to adapt. Our  August 2007 report, for example, recommended that certain agencies  develop guidance advising managers on how to address the effects of  climate change on the resources they manage. Furthermore, our May  2008 report on the economics of policy options to address climate change  identified actions Congress and federal agencies could take, such as  reforming insurance subsidy programs in areas vulnerable to hurricanes  or flooding.
section_title: Funding for Adaptation and Other Federal Climate Change Activities Could be Better Tracked, Reported, and Aligned with Strategic Priorities
paragraphs: Our May 2011 report on federal climate change funding found that   (1) agencies do not consistently interpret methods for defining and  reporting the funding of climate change activities, (2) key factors  complicate efforts to align such funding with strategic priorities, and   (3) options are available to better align federal funding with strategic  priorities, including governmentwide strategic planning. Any effective  federal climate change adaptation strategy will need to ensure that  federal funds are properly tracked and that funding decisions are aligned  with strategic priorities. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the issue,  such alignment is a challenge as formidable as it is necessary to address.
In our report, we identified three methods for defining and reporting  climate change funding, foremost of which is guidance contained in  OMB’s Circular A-11. The circular directs agencies to report funding that  meet certain criteria in three broad categories—research, technology, and  international assistance. According to OMB staff, Circular A-11 is the  primary method for defining and reporting long-standing “cross-cuts” of  funding for climate change activities. Interagency groups, such as  USGCRP have collaborated in the past with OMB to clarify the definitions  in Circular A-11, according to comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP.
Our work suggests that existing methods for defining and reporting  climate change funding are not consistently interpreted and applied  across the federal government. Specifically, for our May 2011 report, we  sent a Web-based questionnaire to key federal officials involved in  defining and reporting climate change funding, developing strategic  priorities, or aligning funding with strategic priorities. Most of these  respondents indicated that their agencies consistently applied methods  for defining and reporting climate change funding. Far fewer respondents  indicated that methods for defining and reporting climate change funding  were applied consistently across the federal government. Some  respondents, for example, noted that other agencies use their own  interpretation of definitions, resulting in inconsistent accounting across the  government. Respondents generally identified key reasons agencies may  interpret and apply existing methods differently, including difficulty  determining which programs are related to climate change. In  comments to our May 2011 report, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP noted that  consistency likely varies by method of reporting, with Circular A-11 being  the most consistent and other methods being less so.
In addition, our work identified two key factors that complicate efforts to  align federal climate change funding with strategic priorities across the  federal government. First, federal officials lack a shared understanding of  priorities, partly due to the multiple, often inconsistent messages  articulated in different sources, such as strategic plans. Our review of  these sources found that there is not currently a consolidated set of  strategic priorities that integrates climate change programs and activities  across the federal government. As we stated in our May 2011 report, in  the absence of clear, overarching priorities, federal officials are left with  many different sources that present climate change priorities in a more  fragmented way. The multiple sources for communicating priorities across  the climate change enterprise may result in conflicting messages and  confusion.
The second key factor that complicates efforts to align federal funding  with priorities is that existing mechanisms intended to do so are  nonbinding, according to respondents, available literature, and  stakeholders. For example, some respondents noted that the interagency  policy process does not control agency budgets and that agencies with  their own budget authority may pay little attention to federal strategic  priorities. In other words, federal strategic priorities set through an  interagency process may not be reflected in budget decisions for  individual agencies.
As OSTP officials acknowledged to us, “The major challenge is the need  to connect climate science programs with broader inter- and intra-agency  climate efforts.” In comments to our report, OSTP stated that while  significant progress is being made in linking the climate science-related  efforts, individual agencies still want to advance initiatives that promote or  serve their agency missions. This, according to OSTP, yields a broader  challenge of tying climate-related efforts (science, mitigation, and  adaptation) together into a coherent governmentwide strategy.
Our May 2011 report identified several ways to better align federal climate  change funding with strategic priorities, including: (1) options to improve  the tracking and reporting of climate change funding, (2) options to  enhance how strategic climate change priorities are set, (3) the  establishment of formal coordination mechanisms, and (4) continuing  efforts to link related climate change activities across the federal  government. Specific options are discussed in detail in our May 2011  report and include a governmentwide strategic planning process that  promotes a shared understanding among agencies of strategic priorities  by articulating what they are expected to do within the overall federal  response to climate change. Also discussed in detail is an integrated  budget review process that better aligns these priorities with funding  decisions through a more consistent method of reporting and reviewing  climate change funding.
Federal entities are beginning to implement some of these options. For  example, there has been some recent progress on linking related federal  climate change programs, according to OSTP. Specifically, OSTP stated  that the science portion of the CEQ, NOAA, and OSTP-led Climate  Change Adaptation Task Force is being integrated within USGCRP.  OSTP also stated that it is working to create an interagency body that will  bring together agencies that provide climate services to allow for better  links between climate services and other federal climate-related activities.
To further improve the coordination and effectiveness of federal climate  change programs and activities, we recommended in our May 2011 report  that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President,  in consultation with Congress, clearly establish federal strategic climate  change priorities and assess the effectiveness of current practices for  defining and reporting related funding.
Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Moran, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy  to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the  Subcommittee may have.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgements
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact David Trimble  at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the  last page of this statement. Steve Elstein, Cindy Gilbert, Ben Shouse,  Jeanette Soares, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and J. Dean Thompson also  made key contributions to this statement.
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.