Climate Information: A National System Could Help Federal, State, Local, and Private Sector Decision Makers Use Climate Information
Published: 2015-11-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Over the last decade, the federal government incurred over $300 billion in costs due to extreme weather and fire, according to the President's 2016 budget request. Costs are expected to grow as rare events become more common and intense due to climate change, according to the National Academies. State, local, and private sector decision makers also drive fiscal exposures, as they are responsible for infrastructure paid for with federal funds or eligible for disaster aid. GAO's 2015 High-Risk update prioritized improving federal efforts to provide the best available climate information and technical assistance to help decision makers use the information to build resilience in up front.
This report examines (1) the extent to which federal efforts meet the climate information needs of decision makers; (2) examples of how other countries organized climate information systems; (3) whether and how federal efforts could be improved; and (4) the strengths and limitations of different options to provide climate information. GAO analyzed reports; reviewed systems in three other countries; and interviewed stakeholders with knowledge of climate information.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Many federal efforts are under way, but the climate information needs of federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers are not being fully met, according to recent GAO reports, National Academies and other studies, and interviews with stakeholders. The November 2013 Executive Order 13653 on Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change calls on certain federal agencies to work together to provide authoritative information on climate preparedness and resilience. However, the federal government's own climate data—composed of observational records from satellites and weather stations and projections from climate models—are fragmented across individual agencies that use the information in different ways to meet their missions. GAO's February 2015 High-Risk update found that federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers may be unaware that climate information exists or be unable to use what is available.
Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have well-established climate information systems, although each country's system is organized somewhat differently. In each, the government provides direction and funding, and entities within and outside the government provide technical assistance to help decision makers understand how to use climate information in planning.
Federal climate information efforts could be improved by incorporating key organizational and data elements, according to GAO reports, studies by the National Academies and other organizations, site visits to three countries with climate information systems, and interviews with stakeholders. Specifically, the key elements are (1) a focused and accountable organization, (2) authoritative data that define the best available information for decision makers, and (3) technical assistance to help decision makers access, translate, and use climate information in planning. Authoritative locally-focused information is crucial because it defines a common starting point for decision makers, and most decisions are made at the local level.
Options to provide climate information and technical assistance to decision makers have strengths and limitations, according to studies, international site visits, and interviews with stakeholders. For example, a new federal agency would have a focused mission but could face turf conflicts with existing programs at other agencies. On the other hand, a national climate information system could be developed that would incorporate the best features and address the limitations of these options. Similar to the programs in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, a national system to provide climate information to U.S. decision makers could have roles for federal and nonfederal entities. Based on GAO's review of systems in other countries, studies, and interviews with stakeholders, a key federal role in a national climate information system would be to provide authoritative data and quality assurance guidelines for how to use the data. A nonfederal entity would be better positioned to provide on-the-ground technical assistance and facilitate connections between decision makers and intermediaries with expertise.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Executive Office of the President (EOP) direct a federal entity to develop a set of authoritative climate change projections and observations and create a national climate information system with defined roles for federal agencies and nonfederal entities. Relevant EOP entities provided only technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over the last decade, the federal government has incurred more than  $300 billion in direct costs due to extreme weather and fire events,  including costs to federal programs for domestic disaster response and  relief ($176 billion), flood insurance ($24 billion), crop insurance ($61  billion), and wildland fire management ($34 billion), according to the  President’s 2016 budget request. Costs are expected to increase as  previously rare events become more common and intense due to climate  change, according to the National Academies and the United States  Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). While it is not possible to  identify the portion of these costs incurred as a result of climate change,  costs for these federal programs have been increasing and can be  expected to continue to increase as the impacts of climate change  intensify, according to the President’s 2016 budget request.
State, local, and private sector decision makers can drive federal climate- related fiscal exposures, as they are responsible for planning,  constructing, and maintaining certain types of vulnerable infrastructure,  such as roads and bridges, paid for partly with federal funds, insured by  federal programs, or eligible for federal disaster assistance. For  example, the federal government annually provides billions of dollars  through various mechanisms for infrastructure projects that state and  local governments prioritize, supervise, and own. Specifically, state and  local governments control zoning decisions and make decisions about  how to build roads and bridges, which are vulnerable to extreme weather  events.
As a result of the significant risks posed by climate change and the  nation’s fiscal condition, in February 2013, we added Limiting the Federal  Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change  Risks to our list of areas at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and  mismanagement, or most in need of transformation. As a result of the  significant long-term impacts of climate change, in our 2015 High-Risk  update, we found areas where government-wide improvement is needed  to reduce fiscal exposure, including the federal government’s role as the  provider of data and technical assistance to federal, state, local, and  private sector decision makers responsible for managing the impacts of  climate change on their activities. Specifically identified under this area for  improvement in our 2015 High-Risk update are federal efforts to provide  technical assistance to federal, state, local, and private sector decision  makers. We reported that these efforts can be addressed by providing (1)  the best available climate information for decision makers, such as  observed and projected temperatures for a geographic area, and (2)  assistance for translating climate data into what officials need to make  decisions.
The federal government recognizes the need to account for climate  change risks in its planning and programs and has begun calling on  agencies to take certain actions. For example, Executive Order 13653,  issued in November 2013, directs certain federal agencies to work  together to provide authoritative, easily accessible, and usable  information and decision-support tools on climate preparedness and  resilience. In addition, USGCRP’s 2012-2021 strategic plan for climate  change science, released in April 2012, identifies enhanced information  management and sharing as a strategic objective.
In this context, you asked us to review federal efforts to provide decision  makers with the climate information they need for planning purposes.  Specifically, this report examines (1) the extent to which federal efforts  meet the climate information needs of federal, state, local, and private  sector decision makers; (2) examples of how, if at all, other countries  have organized systems to meet the climate information needs of  decision makers; (3) whether and how U.S. federal efforts to provide  climate information could be improved; and (4) what options exist to  provide climate information to U.S. decision makers, and the strengths  and limitations of each option.
To address these four objectives, we reviewed reports and studies,  interviewed knowledgeable stakeholders, and visited selected sites in the  United States and three other countries involved in providing climate  information. First, we reviewed our reports related to climate change and  reports and studies by the National Research Council, the National  Academy of Public Administration, USGCRP, the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Congressional Research  Service, and the Congressional Budget Office. We also searched various  databases for studies from 2000 to 2014, focusing on peer reviewed  journals, trade and industry journals, government reports, and  publications from research organizations, advocacy groups, and think  tanks. In all, we identified and reviewed over 60 relevant reports and  studies.
Second, we interviewed a nonprobability sample of over 40 U.S.  stakeholders, including current and former federal officials, local decision  makers, researchers, and consultants. We selected this nonprobability  sample of stakeholders based on whether they (1) participated in drafting  or reviewing National Research Council and other federal reports related  to climate information, and thus having relevant knowledge and expertise;  (2) were identified by other knowledgeable stakeholders we interviewed;  or (3) held positions at Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the  Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), USGCRP, or NOAA  because these are key federal agencies that provide climate information  to decision makers. Because we selected a nonprobability sample of  stakeholders to interview, we cannot generalize their views to all  stakeholders with relevant knowledge and expertise.
Third, we visited entities in the United States that develop, provide, or  archive climate information. These entities were (1) the National  Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, which is a  federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) that works  to enhance research, tools, and assistance in interpreting and using  climate-related information; (2) the University Corporation for Atmospheric  Research, which operates the National Corporation for Atmospheric  Research; (3) the program office of the NOAA National Integrated  Drought Information System, also in Boulder, Colorado, which has a goal  of improving the nation’s capacity to manage drought-related risks by  providing those affected with information and tools; and (4) the NOAA  National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, which  maintains the world’s largest data archive and provides climatological  services and data to various sectors of the U.S. economy.
Fourth, we visited a nonprobability sample of three countries with systems  to coordinate the development, archiving, and use of climate information  by decision makers—Germany, the Netherlands, and the United  Kingdom—to understand how their systems were organized and key  characteristics of each. We selected these countries because they were  recognized in our literature review and by stakeholders as having well- established systems to coordinate the development, archiving, and use of  climate information by decision makers. In the interest of efficiency, we  did not review every global example of a country with a well-established  system. During our international site visits, we gathered information  through interviews with government officials and international  stakeholders knowledgeable about the systems, observed some projects  that used climate information in planning, and reviewed related  documents. Descriptions of the systems in Germany, the Netherlands,  and the United Kingdom and graphical depictions of how these systems  are organized were reviewed for accuracy and completeness by  government officials in these countries. We did not evaluate the  effectiveness of these countries’ systems.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2014 to November 2015  in accordance with the generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The federal government is using a risk-management strategy for reducing  its fiscal exposure to climate change that involves providing technical  assistance to state, local, and private sector decision makers. Decision  makers from all levels of government and the private sector use different  types of climate information in their planning processes to reduce the  potential impacts of climate change.
subsections: section_title: Climate-Related Technical Assistance for Adaptation Efforts Is Part of a Risk Management Strategy to Reduce Federal Fiscal Exposure
paragraphs: Climate-related technical assistance for adaptation—adjustments to  natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate  change—is a part of a risk-management strategy to help protect  vulnerable infrastructure and communities that might be affected by  changes in the climate. Such assistance includes, for example, raising  river or coastal dikes to protect infrastructure from sea level rise, building  higher bridges, and increasing the capacity of storm water systems. One  way to reduce the potential impacts of climate change is to build the best  available climate information into existing federal, state, local, and private  sector planning processes. As discussed in our February 2015 High-Risk  update, a key role for the federal government is to provide technical  assistance to decision makers to help them translate available climate- related data into the information they need for such planning processes.  The President’s June 2013 Climate Action Plan and November 2013  Executive Order 13653 drew attention to the need for improved technical  assistance. For example, the executive order directs numerous federal  agencies, supported by USGCRP, to work together to develop and  provide authoritative, easily accessible, usable, and timely data,  information, and decision-support tools on climate preparedness and  resilience.
Risk management is not a new concept, and it is used extensively almost  anywhere decision makers are faced with incomplete information or  unpredictable outcomes that may have negative impacts. Broadly  defined, risk management is a strategic process for helping decision  makers assess risk, allocate finite resources, and take action under  conditions of uncertainty. The International Organization for  Standardization standards on risk management recommend that  organizations such as federal agencies develop, implement, and  continuously improve a framework for integrating risk management into  their overall planning, management, reporting processes, and policies.  For risk management to be effective, these standards state that an  organization should comply at all levels with the following principles:
Risk management is not a stand-alone activity that is separate  from the main activities and processes of the organization. Risk  management is part of the responsibilities of management and is an  integral part of all organizational processes, including strategic  planning and all project and change management processes.
Risk management is part of decision making. Risk management  helps decision makers make informed choices, prioritize actions, and  distinguish among alternatives.
Risk management explicitly addresses uncertainty. Risk  management explicitly takes account of uncertainty, the nature of that  uncertainty, and how it can be addressed.
Risk management is based on the best available information. The  inputs to the process of managing risk are based on information  sources such as historical data, experience, stakeholder feedback,  observation, forecasts, and expert judgment. However, decision  makers should inform themselves of, and should take into account,  any limitations of the data or modeling used or the possibility of  divergence among experts.
As summarized by a 2011 World Meteorological Organization report on  climate information, reducing the risks and realizing the opportunities of  climate change require making good decisions based on reliable and  appropriate information about past, present, and future climate, as well as  properly integrating that information into the decision-making process.  The report also states that appropriate use of climate information can help  individuals make more informed short- and medium-term decisions  relating to their livelihoods and can help organizations and businesses  reduce uncertainty in the long term. Governments also need to choose  adaptation measures that reduce vulnerability to climate change,  according to the report.
section_title: Decision Makers Use Different Types of Climate Information
paragraphs: Decision makers from all levels of government and the private sector use  different types of climate information in their planning processes to reduce  the potential impacts of climate change. The climate information needs of  decision makers are diverse, and the effective use of climate information  depends on the circumstances of the decision maker, as stated in the  2011 World Meteorological Organization report on climate information.  To be useful, climate information must be tailored to meet the needs of  each decision maker, such as an engineer responsible for building a  bridge in a specific location, a county planner responsible for managing  development over a larger region, or a federal official managing a  national-scale program. Further complicating matters, decision makers  need climate information at different timescales corresponding to the  short, medium, or long-term nature of their planning processes. The 2011  World Meteorological Organization report stated that decision makers  need access to expert advice and support to help them select and  properly apply climate information.
According to a 2010 National Research Council report on making  informed decisions about climate change and our October 2009 report  on climate change adaptation, most decision makers need a basic set of  information to understand and make choices about how to adapt to  climate change. This set of information includes the following:  Information and analysis about observed climate conditions. This  includes information on, for example, temperature, precipitation,  drought, storms, and sea level rise and how they may be changing in  the local area. This type of information can be most easily conveyed  by graphs and maps with some statistics on trends, variability, and  data reliability.
Information about observed climate impacts and vulnerabilities.  Decision makers will need site-specific and relevant baselines of  environmental, social, and economic impacts and vulnerabilities  resulting from observed changes in the climate against which past  and current decisions can be monitored, evaluated, and modified over  time.
Projections of what climate change may mean for the local area.
This includes, for example, projections based on easily  understandable best- and worst-case scenarios with confidence and  probability estimates and examples of potential climate impacts. The  projections may need to be downscaled from complex global-scale  climate models to provide climate information at a geographic scale  relevant to decision makers. Then, the information would need to be  translated into impacts at the local level, such as how increased  stream flow for a particular river may increase flooding.
Information on the economic and health impacts of climate  change. Observed and projected local impacts must be translated  into costs and benefits, since this information is needed for many  decision-making processes.
Agencies across the federal government collect and manage many types  of climate information, including observational records from satellites and  weather monitoring stations on temperature and precipitation, among  other things; projections from complex climate models; and other tools to  make this information more meaningful to decision makers. For example,  over 750 federal climate-related datasets were publicly accessible  through the www.data.gov/climate web portal as of August 2015. The  term “climate information system” means a systematic approach for  coordinating the development, archiving, and use of such climate  information by decision makers, with defined roles for federal agencies  and nonfederal entities such as academic institutions. A climate  information system coherently organizes different types of climate  information and facilitates technical assistance to help decision makers  understand how to integrate climate information into their planning  processes.
section_title: Many Federal Efforts Are Under Way, but the Climate Information Needs of Federal, State, Local, and Private Sector Decision Makers Are Not Being Fully Met
paragraphs: Many federal efforts are under way, as the federal government has begun  to address the climate information needs of decision makers through  various agency activities and government-wide efforts. Coordination is  evident, but these efforts are fragmented and do not fully meet the needs  of federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers, according to  our reports, various studies, and interviews with stakeholders.
subsections: section_title: Many Federal Climate Information Efforts Are Under Way
paragraphs: Many federal climate information efforts are under way, including  individual agency activities and government-wide efforts. On February 23,  2015, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that since  2009, federal initiatives have generally increased the priority, number of  participants, and specificity of products and actions aimed at climate  change adaptation. For example, as of December 2014, almost 40  federal departments and agencies produced climate change adaptation  plans and metrics to evaluate adaptation performance, according to this  CRS report. Our February 2015 High-Risk update also shows how the  President’s June 2013 Climate Action Plan and various executive orders,  task forces, and strategic planning documents have identified climate  change as a priority.
Some agencies have been focusing on how to help their clients  understand climate risks and adaptation planning. For example, since  2006, NOAA’s National Integrated Drought Information System has  incorporated climate information into drought forecasts to help federal,  state, local, and private sector decision makers—such as municipal water  supply managers—understand the risk and impact of droughts. Other  agency efforts, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Climate  Hubs, the Department of the Interior’s Landscape Conservation  Cooperatives and Climate Science Centers, and NOAA’s Regional  Integrated Sciences and Assessments program also are designed to help  decision makers account for climate information in existing planning  processes.
USDA Climate Hubs: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)  established regional Climate Hubs to deliver science-based  knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers, and forest  landowners to support decision making related to climate change.
Interior’s Landscape Conservation Cooperatives: The Department  of the Interior developed a network of collaborative Landscape  Conservation Cooperatives composed of federal, state, local, and  tribal governments; nongovernmental organizations; universities; and  interested public and private organizations to, among other things,  develop and provide the science and technical expertise needed to  apply climate data in natural resources decision making, such as  conservation strategies for sensitive habitats.
Interior’s Climate Science Centers: Climate Science Centers  partner with natural and cultural resource managers to provide  science that helps fish, wildlife, ecosystems, and the communities  they support adapt to climate change by, among other things,  providing climate, water, and ecosystem modeling to decision makers.  National coordination and management for the Climate Science  Centers is provided by the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Climate  Change and Wildlife Science Center.
NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments  program: NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments  program supports research teams at academic institutions that work  with public and private decision makers—including local, regional, and  state governments; federal agencies; tribal governments; and the  business community—to among other things, enhance the use of  climate information in decision making.
Further, entities within the Executive Office of the President, such as CEQ  and OSTP, have led specific government-wide climate information efforts  such as the Climate Resilience Toolkit, the Climate Data Initiative, and  USGCRP’s May 2014 Third National Climate Assessment. These efforts  show how federal agencies have made some progress on better  organizing within and across agencies. For example—in response to the  2013 President’s Climate Action Plan and Executive Order 13653— federal agencies led by OSTP and CEQ created the Climate Resilience  Toolkit in 2014, which is a website designed to provide scientific tools,  information, and expertise to help people manage their climate-related  risks and opportunities and improve their resilience to extreme events. In  addition, USGCRP’s May 2014 National Climate Assessment  summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and  in the future. A team of several hundred experts guided by a 60-member  federal advisory committee produced the report, which was extensively  reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a  panel of the National Academy of Sciences. In addition, a large  stakeholder network was developed in support of the May 2014 National  Climate Assessment, and many of the stakeholders involved found the  process and product very useful, according to federal officials.
Figure 1 shows selected coordination mechanisms for federal climate  change activities, and reflects the complex system of interagency  councils, committees, and working groups that currently coordinate the  climate-related activities of individual agencies. The dashed boxes in  figure 1 reflect government-wide activities related to climate information.
section_title: Current Federal Efforts Are Fragmented and Do Not Fully Meet the Climate Information Needs of Federal, State, Local, and Private Sector Decision Makers
paragraphs: Current federal efforts are fragmented and do not fully meet the climate  information needs of federal, state, local, and private sector decision  makers, according to our recent reports; studies from the National  Academies and other organizations; and interviews with knowledgeable  stakeholders. According to several officials who coordinate federal  climate information efforts, the climate information needs of decision  makers are not being fully met because of the lack of a mandate for  climate information services.
subsections: section_title: Current Federal Climate Information Efforts Are Fragmented
paragraphs: Current federal climate information efforts are fragmented, according to  our recent reports, various studies, and interviews with knowledgeable  stakeholders. As we reported in our February 2015 High-Risk update,  federal climate information efforts have begun to focus on providing  technical assistance to federal, state, local, and private sector decision  makers so they can make more informed choices about how to manage  the risk posed by potential climate impacts. However, our 2015 High- Risk update—based on our recent work—found that climate information  exists in an uncoordinated confederation of networks and institutions. The  federal government’s climate information—composed of observational  records from satellites and weather monitoring stations, projections from  complex climate models, and other tools—is fragmented across many  individual agencies that use the information in different ways to meet their  respective missions. That climate information is found across various  agencies is not surprising and is expected given the far-ranging climate  information needs of decision makers, according to federal officials. They  said that federal agencies are doing exactly what they are supposed to be  doing consistent with their missions and, while there is fragmentation,  there is also coordination and collaboration within and across agencies.
A November 2014 report by the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task  Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience identified “silos” among  and within federal agencies as a barrier to climate resilient planning.
Stakeholders we interviewed similarly noted the need to reduce  fragmentation of federal climate information efforts. For example,  according to stakeholders from the climate modeling community, decision  makers are vastly underserved by the current ad hoc collection of federal  climate information services. Further, another stakeholder with  experience managing federal climate information programs stated that the  federal government’s current efforts are uncoordinated and inefficient and  that federal agencies have created their own climate programs. According  to this stakeholder, these programs are uncoordinated, operate as  separate information systems, and fail to share information and learn from  each other, partly because of turf battles between them. We found in our  February 2015 High-Risk update that existing federal actions and  strategies do not clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and working  relationships among federal, state, local, and private sector entities, or  how such efforts will be funded, staffed, and sustained over time.
section_title: The Climate Information Needs of Decision Makers Are Not Being Fully Met
paragraphs: According to our recent reports, other studies, and interviews with  knowledgeable stakeholders, the climate information needs of federal,  state, local, and private sector decision makers are not being fully met,  which hinders their planning efforts. The International Organization for  Standardization standards on risk management recommend that  organizations such as federal agencies develop, implement, and  continuously improve a framework for integrating risk management into  their overall planning, management, reporting processes, and policies.  They also state that risk management is based on the best available  information. However, as we found in our February 2015 High-Risk  update, federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers may be  unaware that climate information exists or unable to use what is available,  making it harder to justify the current costs of incorporating climate  change into planning efforts for less certain future benefits. For  example, in September 2014, we found that USDA has made few efforts  to quantify the costs and returns of actions that could help farmers make  both short- and long-term decisions in the face of a changing climate.  Without information that is readily accessible to farmers, they may be  reluctant to take action to become more resilient to climate change. We  recommended that USDA develop and provide readily accessible  information to farmers on the farm-level economic costs and returns of  taking certain actions in response to climate change. USDA concurred  with this recommendation and continues to make progress. For example,  in July 2015, USDA announced the Climate Hubs Tool Shed—an online,  searchable database of tools designed to assist these farmers and others  in adapting their lands to the impacts of climate change and other risks.  Further, the participants in our July 21, 2015, Comptroller General’s  Forum on Preparing for Climate-Related Risks: Lessons from the Private  Sector stated that the absence of consistent, authoritative climate  information made it hard for private sector entities to consider climate  information in planning. For example, one participant stated that there is  a climate information gap at the regional level, and businesses should not  be responsible for making scientific determinations about what climate  information to use.
Various studies we reviewed and stakeholders we interviewed also show  how the climate information needs of decision makers are not being met.  For example, a 2012 National Research Council study on climate models  reported that decision makers need to find and work with someone with  the ability to access climate data and interpret it in the context of a  specific decision maker’s need. In many cases, according to the 2011  World Meteorological Organization report on climate information, the  knowledge exists to help decision makers but is not converted into  services they can access and use. For example, according to one  stakeholder we interviewed from academia, the federal government does  an excellent job collecting climate observations and archiving quality  climate data, but it does not communicate or translate this information in  ways useful for decision makers. As a result, according to this  stakeholder, decision makers do not understand how climate information  is relevant to them and do not know how to incorporate it into their  planning efforts. Federal officials responsible for coordinating  government-wide climate information efforts told us that the federal  government does not know what information decision makers want or  need, and decision makers generally do not know what information is  available or what information they need to account for climate change in  their planning.
According to several officials who coordinate federal climate information  efforts, the climate information needs of decision makers are not being  fully met because of the lack of a mandate for climate information  services. Further, according to certain federal officials, agency climate  programs were created to meet individual agency missions and are not  necessarily focused on the needs of other decision makers. Federal  efforts only recently transitioned to creating government-wide  infrastructure for providing climate information to decision makers,  according to these officials. They said that, in the current federal  structure, the provision of climate information is an inherently interagency  activity that relies on the cooperation and shared resources of many  agencies, but interagency coordination is weak by design with an  inconsistent mandate to use specific climate information in federal  decision making. Significant changes to this model would require  structural changes in the way that the government operates.
section_title: Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom Have Organized Climate Information Systems
paragraphs: Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have organized  systems to meet the climate information needs of decision makers,  according to documents we reviewed and officials we interviewed from  these countries. In each climate information system we selected, the  government provides direction and funding, and entities within and  outside the government help translate climate information to meet  decision makers’ needs, although each system is organized differently.  The following descriptions of the climate information systems in Germany,  the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom were based on our review of  government documents describing these programs and discussions with  government officials.
subsections: section_title: Germany
paragraphs: Germany’s climate information system involves entities both within and  outside of the German government, according to documents we reviewed  and German officials we interviewed in February 2015. Within the  German government, the Interministerial Working Group on Adaptation to  Climate Change (see fig. 2), headed by the Ministry for the Environment,  develops and implements Germany’s strategy to adapt to the effects of  climate change—known as the German Adaptation Strategy. The  strategy describes how the German government is to work with the  country’s state governments and nongovernment groups to identify both  climate risks and appropriate actions to address them. Within the Ministry  for the Environment, an office called KomPass advises the German  government on climate and adaptation policy. Specifically, KomPass  evaluates what is known about Germany’s vulnerability to climate change,  as well as the risks and opportunities climate change presents. KomPass  also assists decision makers by evaluating the costs and benefits of  potential adaptation strategies in Germany and sharing this information  with them. The Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Research also  play key roles, according to German officials. The Ministry of Transport  provides funding for the National Meteorological Service of Germany,  which operates observation networks and provides climate information  and climate projection data to research institutes and those who help  decision makers understand the information, according to German  officials. In addition, according to documents we reviewed and German  officials, the National Meteorological Service’s regional climate offices  help state governments develop adaptation plans and serve as channels  of information to decision makers relevant to the regional offices’ area of  responsibility.
The Ministry of Research provides funding to nongovernment climate  adaptation research institutes, according to documents we reviewed and  interviews with German officials. For example, the Max Planck Institute  for Meteorology develops global climate models and climate projections  that are also used to develop regional-level climate projections, and the  Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research conducts modeling and  data analysis to assess socioeconomic effects of climate change. In  addition, the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres has  four regional climate offices that work with decision makers to understand  their needs and assist them in using the climate information. Each of the  regional climate offices focuses on different regions and specific climate  issues or impacts. For example, Helmholtz’s North German Climate  Office focuses on changes in storms, storm surges, ocean waves, and  coastal climate impacts.
In addition, the publicly funded Climate Service Center 2.0—a scientific  organization of the Helmholtz Association—conducts applied research  and development and offers products and advisory services to decision  makers in government and the private sector to address their needs in  adapting to climate change, according to documents we reviewed and  German officials we interviewed. The center also offers training courses  for decision makers on how to use climate information, provides  guidelines on modeling, and evaluates climate information portals for  reliability and usefulness, according to German officials.
section_title: The Netherlands
paragraphs: Like Germany, the Netherlands’ climate information system involves  entities within and outside of the government, but fewer entities are  involved, according to documents we reviewed and government officials  we interviewed in February 2015. Within the government, the Netherlands  Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment is the lead agency on  climate change adaptation (see fig. 3). It develops and implements the  National Adaptation Strategy, which describes the government’s priorities  in adapting to the effects of climate change. The ministry provides funding  to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the Royal  Netherlands Meteorological Institute, called KNMI. The Environmental  Assessment Agency advises the ministry on climate and adaptation policy  by identifying and evaluating risks facing the Netherlands due to climate  change. KNMI conducts climate observations and modeling, and  develops authoritative projections and scenarios for the climate  information system. The most recent version of these scenarios is called  KNMI’14. These projections are considered the authoritative source of  climate information in the Netherlands, according to documents we  reviewed and Dutch officials we interviewed. The projections are also  used by other government agencies, by organizations that translate  climate information for decision makers, and by decision makers directly,  according to these documents and officials. In addition, KNMI operates a  help line that decision makers can use to ask questions about climate  change, according to Dutch officials.
Outside the government, the Climate Adaptation Services Foundation, a  foundation composed of research institutions, consultants, and an  alliance of spatial planning organizations, and its predecessor, the  Knowledge for Climate Research Programme, have facilitated  connections between decision makers and its members, according to  documents and officials. Climate Adaptation Services also offers  products and services to decision makers, such as the Spatial Adaptation  Knowledge Portal, which explains the effects of climate change,  describes guiding principles in incorporating climate change into policy  development, and showcases how others in the Netherlands are adapting  to climate change. Climate Adaptation Services receives some funding  from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, as well as funding  from decision makers who use its services, although Dutch officials told  us that changes to the system are under way.
section_title: The United Kingdom
paragraphs: The United Kingdom’s climate information system involves entities within  and outside government, according to documents we reviewed and  United Kingdom officials we interviewed in February 2015. The  government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs  (DEFRA) in England—together with the devolved administrations in  Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland—are responsible for leading  climate adaptation efforts in the United Kingdom, such as funding the  United Kingdom climate information system for adaptation, setting  priorities for adaptation, and coordinating with other government and  nongovernment partners (see fig.4). As required by statute every 5 years,  the department publishes an assessment of climate change impacts  across the United Kingdom—the Climate Change Risk Assessment—to  help determine the United Kingdom’s priorities for climate change  adaptation, according to these documents and officials. The policies,  actions, and timelines to address these priorities are described in the  National Adaptation Programme, which is also published every 5 years.  In addition, the statute requires the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the  Committee on Climate Change to advise the department on the  preparation of the Climate Change Risk Assessment, as well as to assess  the progress made toward implementing the National Adaptation  Programme every two years. As a result, according to United Kingdom  officials, the Adaptation Sub-Committee provides independent oversight  of the climate information system. Also, the Met Office Hadley Centre—a  government-funded climate science and services center—conducts  climate observations and modeling, and develops authoritative  projections for future climate scenarios. The most recent version of  these projections is called the UK Climate Projections 2009 or UKCP09.  These projections are considered the authoritative source of climate  information in the United Kingdom and are used across the United  Kingdom by government agencies, organizations that translate the  information to meet decision makers’ needs, and decision makers  themselves, according to documents we reviewed and officials we  interviewed.
Another government entity—the Environment Agency’s Climate Ready  Support Service—leads the efforts to assist decision makers in using  climate information to adapt to the effects of climate change in England.  It mainly works through intermediaries outside the government, such as  nonprofit organizations, consultants, universities, and trade and  professional associations to translate climate information for decision  makers, according to government officials. For example, the Environment  Agency partially funds Climate UK, a network of regionally based  nonprofits that help decision makers at the regional and local level  incorporate climate information into their planning and connect with  intermediaries. In addition, the Climate Ready Support Service supports  the Local Government Association, which works with local authorities on  adapting to climate change. Also, outside the government are the  research councils, such as the Natural Environment Research Council,  that support climate modeling efforts by collaborating with the Met Office  Hadley Centre.
section_title: U.S. Federal Climate Information Efforts Could Be Improved by Incorporating Key Organizational and Data Elements
paragraphs: U.S. federal climate information efforts could be improved by  incorporating key organizational and data elements, according to our  reports on adaptation and interagency collaboration, National Academies  and other studies, observations from site visits to other countries with  climate information systems, and interviews with U.S. and international  stakeholders. Specifically, the key organizational and data elements that  could improve federal climate information efforts are (1) a focused and  accountable organization, (2) authoritative data, and (3) technical  assistance.
subsections: section_title: A Focused and Accountable Organization
paragraphs: A focused and accountable organization that engages in key practices of  collaboration would improve federal climate information efforts, according  to our reports on adaptation and interagency collaboration, National  Academies and other studies, observations from site visits to other  countries with climate information systems, and interviews with U.S. and  international stakeholders. Collaboration between entities is necessary to  address complex, high-risk challenges like climate change. In October  2005, we found key practices to enhance and sustain interagency  collaboration include agreeing on roles and responsibilities and  establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies. In addition, in  September 2012, we found that such interagency efforts benefit from  clearly defined short-term and long-term outcomes, common terminology  and definitions, agreement on how the effort will be funded and staffed,  and committed leadership. Other reports also cited the importance of  collaboration. For example, the President’s State, Local, and Tribal  Leader’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience stated in  2014 that coordination among and within federal agencies is vital to  ensure that decision makers can navigate federal climate information  products and resources. In addition, federal officials and stakeholders  we interviewed in the United States and the three countries we visited told  us that any successful collaboration on climate information between  federal and nonfederal entities required well-defined and clear roles and  responsibilities.
Further, our October 2005 collaboration report states that agencies must  have a clear and compelling rationale to work together to overcome  significant differences in agency missions, cultures, and established ways  of doing business. According to this report, the compelling rationale for  agencies to collaborate can be imposed externally by law or directive or  can come from the agencies’ own perceptions of the benefits they can  obtain from working together. Federal officials we interviewed who are  responsible for coordinating federal climate information programs stated  that they need a mandate that allows agencies and partner organizations  to perform the functions necessary to improve federal efforts. The reason,  these officials said, is that agencies have other missions and, in some  cases, are precluded from participating in climate change efforts. Some  officials in the United Kingdom stated that people will act if they have a  specific duty to manage climate change risk. Similarly, government  pressure for action is the backbone of Germany’s climate information  system, according to some German officials.
section_title: Authoritative Data
paragraphs: Authoritative climate data—a periodically updated set of observed and  projected best available climate data for use by decision makers—would  improve federal climate information efforts, according to National  Research Council studies and other reports, international climate  information systems, and interviews with stakeholders. Decision makers  need consistent, geographically specific, and accessible information and  tools to identify climate risks and support resilience planning in their  communities, according to a November 2014 report by the State, Local,  and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and  Resilience. According to domestic and international stakeholders we  interviewed, authoritative data are crucial because they define a common  starting point for decision makers. However, stakeholders said that a  single source of information may not be necessary, as a minimum level of  certification, a “seal of approval,” could be applied to multiple data  sources that meet certain criteria. Further, according to OSTP staff,  centralized data are only part of the answer; there needs to be user  demand for such information, and translation of those data for myriad  different end users, among other factors. These staff also said that  observations and projections are tools, and solely coordinating access to  these tools will not, by itself, resolve the issue at hand.
Various reports we reviewed and stakeholders we interviewed also  emphasized that improved federal efforts should provide authoritative  locally-focused information because most decisions are made at the local  level. These reports and stakeholders consistently said that locally- focused information makes climate change real to decision makers where  they live and work. For example, one stakeholder said that decision  makers want to know about the effects of climate change in their local  area, as well as the local area of their businesses and customers.  German officials echoed this point, stating that locally-focused information  helps the public and political leaders realize what climate change means  for them where they live. However, CEQ and OSTP staff and other  stakeholders cautioned that locally-focused climate projections need to be  presented in the necessary regional, national, and global context.  According to OSTP staff, in some cases, it may not be possible to  realistically project future conditions at the local scale due to inherent  limitations in the ability to understand and simulate global systems at the  local level. United Kingdom officials also stated that locally-focused  information is not necessary for many decisions, and the appropriate  geographic scale varies depending upon the hazard and decision under  consideration.
section_title: Technical Assistance
paragraphs: Clearly organized technical assistance would improve federal climate  information efforts by helping different types of decision makers—ranging  from those who can define their needs to those who have limited  experience using climate information—access, translate, and use climate  information, according to one of our recent reports, National Academies  studies, other reports, and interviews with stakeholders. In April 2013, we  found that local decision makers need assistance from experts to help  them translate available climate data into locally relevant information. In  addition, the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force stated that the  greatest need is often not the creation of new data or information, but  assistance and tools for decision makers to navigate the wide array of  resources already available. Federal officials, domestic stakeholders, and  officials we interviewed in the three countries we visited told us that  expecting decision makers to interpret and use complicated data  themselves is insufficient and ineffective. For example, several  stakeholders said that decision makers are unable to use climate data  without significant translation and support. In addition, federal officials told  us that there is no substitute for face-to-face communication with  providers of technical assistance. This type of technical assistance is  labor- and resource-intensive with a significant formal role for nonfederal  institutions, according to federal officials, and is most effective when  sustained and iterative in nature—not just scientists handing data and  information to decision makers.
section_title: Options to Provide Climate Information to U.S. Decision Makers Have Strengths and Limitations
paragraphs: Various options exist for providing climate information to U.S. decision  makers, and these options have strengths and limitations, according to  our reports, other studies, interviews with officials from countries with  climate information systems, and interviews with knowledgeable  stakeholders. According to a 2010 National Research Council report,  successful adaptation to climate change involves federal, state, and local  governments; the private sector; nongovernmental organizations and  community groups; and others. The report said that the challenge is  creating a framework where all of the parties work together, taking  advantage of the strengths of each and ensuring that they do not get in  each other’s way. According to a different National Research Council  report, a formal system is critical to longevity and success because such  activities are more effective when well-established organizations build  trust among information users over time. Studies we reviewed and  interviews we conducted with stakeholders identified six options to  provide climate information to decision makers: (1) a new federal agency,  (2) a single existing agency, (3) a nonprofit or FFRDC, (4) a strengthened  USGCRP, (5) a strengthened OSTP or new entity within the Executive  Office of the President, and (6) a federally coordinated network of  regional organizations. A national climate information system with defined  roles for federal agencies and nonfederal entities could emphasize the  strengths and deemphasize the limitations of these different options.  Table 1 presents a summary of the strengths and limitations of these  options, each of which is discussed in more detail below.
subsections: section_title: New Federal Agency
paragraphs: A new federal climate information agency would have strengths and  limitations, according various studies, interviews with officials from  countries with climate information systems, and interviews with  knowledgeable stakeholders. Strengths of a new agency include a  focused mission and consolidated expertise gathered from agencies  across the federal government. One stakeholder noted that a new agency  would have authority, a direct mandate, and clarity of mission. Other  stakeholders said a new agency would be less likely to be pulled in  multiple directions, could create a unified culture, and would be relatively  easy to manage.
Limitations identified by stakeholders include the potential for “turf”  conflicts with existing agencies, as many climate information efforts are  currently under way across the federal government, and consolidated  expertise would disrupt existing relationships. First, several stakeholders  said that they believed that a new climate information agency would result  in serious turf battles with existing agencies. For example, according to  one stakeholder, a new agency would not be successful because existing  agencies would resist losing their programs. Second, a new climate  information agency would disrupt existing relationships, according to  various reports reviewed and stakeholders interviewed. According to the  2010 National Research Council report, it is necessary to build upon  existing relationships because no single government agency or  centralized unit could perform all the functions required of a climate  information system. In support of this view, one stakeholder stated that  establishing a new federal agency is unrealistic because the new agency  would have to develop new relationships with decision makers.
Experiences in other countries with climate information systems provide  insight about the merits of developing a new climate information agency.  None of the climate information systems we reviewed—that is, those of  Germany, the Netherlands, or the United Kingdom—relies upon a single  new or existing national agency to provide the entire spectrum of climate  information and translation services. For example, in the United Kingdom,  climate information activities for adaptation are coordinated among four  government entities and a range of nongovernment entities. Similarly,  multiple government entities have roles in the climate information systems  of Germany and the Netherlands.
section_title: Single Existing Federal Agency
paragraphs: A federal climate information system led by a single existing agency  would also have strengths and limitations, according to various studies,  interviews with officials from countries with climate information systems,  and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders. Strengths of this option  are similar to those for developing a new federal agency, with one key  difference—the ability to build on existing relationships instead of starting  over. As with a new agency, relying on an existing agency to provide  decision makers with climate information would involve a single point of  contact. According to a 2010 National Academy of Public Administration  report, it would be extremely valuable to have one federal agency  designated to aggregate climate information and provide the best  available science to support public policy decision making. One  stakeholder with experience coordinating federal climate information  efforts stated that a single existing agency would have an established  organizational structure, resources, and relationships with federal and  nonfederal entities. Another stakeholder said that relying on an existing  agency would allow the agency to hit the ground running and start up  quickly compared with starting a new agency.
The limitations of having an existing agency lead a federal climate  information system are similar to the limitations of developing a new  agency—especially turf conflicts with existing agencies. In addition, no  single agency has all the necessary expertise. For example, according to  a stakeholder with experience coordinating federal climate information  efforts, a single agency would not have the breadth of expertise and  knowledge needed for a functional climate information system. Further  complicating matters, according to this stakeholder, every agency wants  to lead, and no agency wants to support. A related limitation is that an  existing agency would already have a mandate to do other tasks. It would  have to balance its old mandate with its new one—which probably would  not go well, according to certain federal officials who coordinate federal  climate information programs.
Experiences in other countries and a recent attempt by NOAA to establish  a climate information system provide insights into the feasibility of having  a single agency lead U.S. efforts. None of the climate information  systems we reviewed in other countries relies on a single new or existing  government agency to provide the entire spectrum of climate information  and technical assistance. And, in 2011, NOAA attempted, through the  budget process, to organize a Climate Service to coordinate federal  climate information functions. Stakeholders we spoke with generally cited  this effort as illustrative of the limitations of relying on a single existing  federal agency to lead a climate information system in the United  States.
section_title: Nonprofit or FFRDC
paragraphs: The option of having a nonprofit or FFRDC lead a federal climate  information system would also have strengths and limitations, according  to various studies, interviews with officials from countries with climate  information systems, and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders.  For example, a strength identified by a NOAA report describing options to  organize federal climate information was that a nonprofit could operate  without the burden of complex rules and regulations. A stakeholder with  experience coordinating federal climate information programs said that  getting this activity out of the federal government would allow a climate  information system to be nimble and efficient. Another strength identified  by stakeholders is that nonprofits can be funded with both federal and  nonfederal dollars. Specifically, according to one stakeholder, a nonprofit  would be able to spend federal and nonfederal funds and address new  challenges as they arise, while the federal government has limited  flexibility for spending its funds.
The nonprofit option also has limitations, according to stakeholders we  interviewed, including its inability to coordinate federal activities and the  inability to participate in federal budget discussions. According to staff  from the Executive Office of the President, a nonprofit option may not  have adequate authority to deliver climate information in an authoritative  and coordinated way to decision makers. For example, it would lose the  “federal government stamp,” which means it would be seen as less  authoritative, according to these staff. Further, one stakeholder noted that  a nonprofit would struggle to get federal agencies and other organizations  to cooperate because it would lack the authority to require them to do so.  Also, several stakeholders said nonprofit staff would be excluded from  federal budget discussions, meaning agencies would not have an  incentive to work with them, and they would not be able to advocate for  federal funding.
Climate information systems in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United  Kingdom have components similar to U.S. nonprofits or FFRDCs.  However, nonprofits in these countries do not play a lead role in any of  these systems and primarily perform a technical assistance or facilitator  role within a larger system. For example, Climate UK—a network of  regionally based nonprofits—helps decision makers at the regional and  local level incorporate climate information into their planning and connect  with intermediaries such as private sector contractors with climate  information expertise. Climate UK is partially supported by the UK  Environment Agency and partially supported by other, nongovernment  funds, but it does not play a lead role in the United Kingdom’s climate  information system.
section_title: Strengthened USGCRP
paragraphs: A strengthened USGCRP—the interagency body that coordinates the  climate science activities of 13 agencies—with independent funding and  additional authority for its National Coordination Office to lead a U.S.  climate information system would have strengths and limitations,  according to various studies, interviews with officials from countries with  climate information systems, and interviews with knowledgeable  stakeholders. The strengths are that it employs existing relationships  with other federal agencies and nonfederal entities and uses established  federal coordination mechanisms. As stated by one stakeholder with  extensive experience coordinating federal climate information efforts,  having a strengthened USGCRP lead a climate information system is by  far the easiest option to implement because the program has experience  and existing networks with state and other nonfederal stakeholders. Other  stakeholders noted that USGCRP has a history of convening agencies,  has close connections with the Executive Office of the President, and can  participate in budget discussions.
A strengthened USGCRP National Coordination Office would also have  limitations, primarily related to turf conflicts with agencies and few links to  decision makers. For example, according to several stakeholders, some  agencies see USGCRP as an operation they do not own, and  strengthening USGCRP would be very difficult because of funding and  territorial conflicts between member agencies. In addition, USGCRP has  historically been a research—not operational—organization, according to  stakeholders we interviewed. For example, according to one agency  official, it is difficult for the USGCRP National Coordination Office to be  the main point of contact for a climate information system because it has  not historically focused on providing information directly to decision  makers.
Climate information systems in other countries provide few insights as to  whether a strengthened USGCRP could lead a U.S. climate information  system. Germany has an interministerial working group composed of  several federal ministries, but none of the international systems we  reviewed supports an organization like USGCRP.
section_title: Strengthened OSTP or New Entity within the Executive Office of the President
paragraphs: Strengthening OSTP or creating a new entity within the Executive Office  of the President to lead a U.S. climate information system would have  strengths and limitations, according to various studies, interviews with  officials from countries with climate information systems, and interviews  with knowledgeable stakeholders. The primary strength of this option is  that it is housed within the Executive Office of the President. For example,  according to one academic stakeholder, a strengthened OSTP would  provide political power and authority to a climate information system.  Other stakeholders said this option would be directly connected to the  President, would provide a strategic vision, and could ensure the vision’s  implementation.
Key limitations of a strengthened OSTP or new entity within the Executive  Office of the President are the lack of long-term continuity and operational  capabilities, according to stakeholders we interviewed. One stakeholder  with extensive experience coordinating federal climate information  activities said a strengthened OSTP is the worst option because it is too  political, and changes in administrations could disrupt the continuity  needed to build a sustainable system. A stakeholder from academia said  this is the most worrisome option because it could lack long-term  continuity and be vulnerable to disruption or dismantlement. A  strengthened OSTP or new entity within the Executive Office of the  President also would lack operational capabilities, according to several  stakeholders. For example, one private sector stakeholder stated that  OSTP staff are not with the office long enough to be effective at running  long-term projects. Another stakeholder also cited low staff numbers and  high turnover that make an Executive Office of the President option  unsuitable for a large effort like a climate information system.
Climate information systems in other countries provide few insights as to  whether a strengthened OSTP or new Executive Office of the President  entity could lead a U.S. climate information system. Climate information  systems in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom generally  divide tasks among specific agencies or nongovernment entities and do  not consolidate power in a single executive-level entity.
section_title: Federally Coordinated Network of Regional Organizations
paragraphs: Using the federal government to periodically convene and finance a  network of nonfederal regional organizations to provide climate  information to decision makers also would have strengths and limitations,  according to various studies, interviews with officials from countries with  climate information systems, and interviews with knowledgeable  stakeholders. This option, according to the 2010 National Research  Council report, is an intermediate approach, with decentralized planning  and actions, but a significant role for the federal government as a catalyst  and coordinator, providing information and technical resources at a  national level. A key strength of this approach is the ability to connect  and actively engage a broad range of decision makers, according to a  2009 report by the NOAA Science Advisory Board. For example,  according to one stakeholder, this option could more easily present  climate information in an appropriate context for decision makers because  providers of technical assistance at the regional level would be more  aware of and responsive to decision makers’ needs.
Limitations of the federally coordinated network of regional organizations  option include potentially inconsistent use of climate information.  Specifically, decision makers in different regions may use climate  information of varying quality because of the decentralized nature of this  type of system, according to various documents and stakeholders we  interviewed. For example, according to the 2009 NOAA Science Advisory  Board report, the voice and vision of a federally coordinated network may  not be coherent if regionally distributed. Further, according to this report,  climate information provided through distributed partners may not be  viewed as authoritative.
Climate information systems in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United  Kingdom all rely on some elements of a federally coordinated network of  regional organizations, employing multiple entities to provide and  translate climate information to different decision makers. However,  Germany’s climate information system most closely resembles the  federated option described here because of the sheer number of regional  climate information providers. As described by one German official, the  best description of the German system is a confederation of partners  designed to convince decision makers to take action and facilitate  implementation. Germany’s system is very decentralized with a national  framework and heterogeneous local implementation, according to this  official. Several German officials stated that Germany’s decentralized  structure enhances the ability for scientists to communicate with local  decision makers, and another said that the resulting competition is often  positive, but others said it resulted in overlapping roles, coordination  problems, competition, and decision-maker confusion.
section_title: A National Climate Information System Could Incorporate the Best Features and Address the Limitations of Different Options
paragraphs: A national climate information system with defined roles for federal  agencies and nonfederal entities could incorporate the best features and  address the limitations of different options to provide climate information  to decision makers, according to various studies we reviewed and  interviews we conducted with knowledgeable stakeholders. These studies  and stakeholders generally recognized the need to combine elements of  the different options to provide climate information to decision makers— as each has relative advantages—and they called for a national climate  information system with (1) federal leadership, (2) authoritative federal  data and federal quality assurance guidelines, and (3) nonfederal  technical assistance.
subsections: section_title: Federal Leadership
paragraphs: Federal leadership for climate information could emphasize the ability of  the strengthened OSTP option to coordinate federal activities while  deemphasizing the lack of such ability and potential for turf conflicts  evident in many of the other options. Based on our review of studies,  international climate information systems, and interviews with  stakeholders, the main approaches for motivating decision makers to use  climate information are statutory requirements and strategic plans— distinctly federal actions. With respect to statutory requirements, officials  within the Executive Office of the President said that a mandate is  necessary for a climate information system to be successful because  certain agencies would not otherwise be able to participate in climate  information activities due to laws authorizing or funding their work.  Likewise, some German and United Kingdom officials said that strong  leadership and a mandate are necessary to make a climate information  system happen. A specific law requiring various actions related to climate  change—the Climate Change Act of 2008— facilitated the creation of the  United Kingdom’s climate information system and provided the  justification to sustain it over time, according to United Kingdom officials.
Strategic plans can motivate decision makers to use climate information.  In 2009, we recommended that the appropriate entities within the  Executive Office of the President, in consultation with relevant federal  agencies, state and local governments, and key congressional  committees of jurisdiction, develop a strategic plan to guide the nation’s  efforts to adapt to climate change. This plan would include the  establishment of clear roles, responsibilities, and working relationships  among federal, state, and local governments. Similarly, in 2010, the  National Research Council recommended that the Executive Branch  initiate development of a collaborative national adaptation strategy, which  might take the form of a national adaptation plan. As of October 2015,  the federal government had yet to develop a strategic plan for adaptation  or a national adaptation strategy. In comparison, the climate information  systems in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom all have  national climate adaptation plans that describe government-wide climate  information for adaptation priorities. For example, according to certain  German officials, the German National Adaptation Strategy provides a  framework and clear forward-looking goals for the German climate  information system. The German National Adaptation Strategy  emphasizes how using climate information in planning processes makes  sense and saves money. According to German officials, this encourages  decision makers to adapt by showing them why an action makes sense,  instead of focusing solely on required actions.
section_title: Authoritative Federal Data and Federal Quality Assurance Guidelines
paragraphs: Paired together, authoritative federal data and federal quality assurance  guidelines emphasize the strengths of the New Federal Agency, Single  Existing Agency, and Strengthened USGCRP and OSTP options by using  existing coordination mechanisms and organizational functions and  focusing on a specific mission while deemphasizing the limitations of  inconsistent use of available data inherent in the Federally Coordinated  Network of Regional Organizations option. The federal government  should be responsible for maintaining the nation’s official climate records  as part of a climate information system, according to the National  Research Council. Certain federal, nonprofit, academic, and private  sector stakeholders also identified this role for the federal government.  For example, one stakeholder we interviewed said that the federal  government is the only entity with sufficient resources to ensure the  provision of a full suite of forecasting, modeling, observations, and other  information. In addition, a federal role would increase the certainty that  decision makers are using the best available information and eliminate a  disincentive for action, according to stakeholders from a nonprofit entity  that produces climate information. A stakeholder from academia noted  that the federal government is good at developing and providing access  to various types of climate information but does not do nearly as well  integrating information into decision making. A private sector stakeholder  was more specific, stating that the federal government should provide a  range of acceptable scenarios—defined high, low, and medium  scenarios—so decision makers can prepare accordingly depending upon  their risk tolerance.
In 2009, we recommended that the federal government develop a  national strategic plan to guide the nation’s effort to adapt to a changing  climate that, among other things, identified mechanisms to incorporate  climate information into federal, state, local, and private sector decision  making. Further, in 2013, we recommended that a federal entity  designated by the Executive Office of the President work with agencies to  identify the best available climate-related information for infrastructure  planning and to update this information over time for local infrastructure  decision makers. Although the federal government has made progress,  as of October 2015, the Executive Office of the President had not fully  addressed these recommendations.
The climate information systems in the Netherlands and United Kingdom  rely on authoritative climate data provided by national-level agencies. For  example, in the Netherlands, KNMI develops authoritative national,  regional, and local-scale projections and scenarios that are used across  the country, by other government agencies, and by organizations that  translate climate information to something more useful for decision  makers. Similarly, within the UK government, the Met Office Hadley  Centre—a government-funded climate research center—develops  authoritative national, regional, and local-scale projections and scenarios  for the UK climate information system. Through UKCP09, the Met Office  provides a single set of projections with High, Medium, and Low  emissions scenarios so decision makers have the flexibility to use any  scenario based on risk tolerance. Germany relies on several different  regional models, reflecting its federated structure.
Federal quality assurance guidelines are also important to preserve the  integrity of federal data in a national climate information system. To  inform and be effective, a climate information system needs a clear set of  principles to guide products and activities, according to the 2010 National  Research Council report. The federal government should make  developing quality assurance standards a priority to ensure that data  used for providing climate services are reliable and that contractors and  agencies are playing by the same rules, according to officials at a  nonprofit entity that produces and translates climate information. Another  stakeholder stated that the primary climate information role of the federal  government should be to develop observation systems to meet basic  foundational research needs while maintaining rigorous data quality so  nonfederal actors can provide services with more flexible mechanisms.
The climate information systems we reviewed in other countries generally  do not have quality assurance guidelines for how decision makers use  their authoritative climate data. However, officials we interviewed in the  United Kingdom and Germany told us that they recognize the need to  produce such guidelines. For example, United Kingdom officials said they  recognized the need to develop a quality assurance process because the  government could be blamed if a contractor misuses government data.  Guidelines would help protect the integrity of government data by clearly  stating acceptable procedures and methods for using government climate  data. Another United Kingdom official noted that if you are to have a one- stop-shop for climate services, quality assurance and quality control will  have to be a key part of the system. German officials similarly noted the  need to move toward standardized quality assurance and quality control  processes to ensure the quality and consistency of climate information for  decision makers.
section_title: Nonfederal Technical Assistance
paragraphs: A nonfederal entity would be better positioned to provide technical  assistance in a national climate information system, according to various  studies we reviewed and interviews we conducted with knowledgeable  stakeholders. Nonfederal technical assistance would emphasize the  strengths of many of the options by being nimble and flexible, employing  existing relationships, and engaging a broad range of stakeholders.  Nonfederal technical assistance would also minimize the limitations of no  single agency having all necessary expertise, few links to on-the-ground  decision makers, and turf battles between existing agencies.
The federal government cannot take on the climate services role,  according to officials within the Executive Office of the President, because  it does not have the resources to do the task, and there is no way that the  federal government can work with every decision maker. The federal  government also does not have the presence at the local level, or trust of  communities, to play this direct role, according to these officials. Similarly,  a stakeholder with experience coordinating federal climate information  issues stated that the federal government has to be a part of whatever  system is put in place—particularly from a leadership perspective—but  there is a false assumption that the federal government should do it all  and be all things to all people. It cannot, according to this stakeholder,  because it is too hard to match the rigor required of the federal  government with the flexibility needed to make the information relevant to  decision makers.
A nonfederal entity would be better positioned to interact with existing  networks of decision makers and to facilitate connections between  decision makers and intermediaries with specialized expertise, according  to various stakeholders. For example, according to some federal officials  who manage climate information programs, a nonfederal organization to  teach, promote, and transfer climate information would likely be more  effective than government agencies. Officials within the Executive Office  of the President made a similar point, noting that there needs to be an  intermediary or intermediaries—for example, nonprofits, the private  sector, or academic institutions—to perform the technical assistance role  for the federal government. A nonfederal entity could facilitate  connections between decision makers and intermediaries while  employing existing networks of climate information expertise.
Opinions varied on how a nonfederal entity or entities could provide the  technical assistance component of a U.S. national climate information  system, but certain stakeholders we interviewed called for a central hub  where decision makers could access technical assistance. Two of the  other countries with climate information systems have central hubs. For  example, the United Kingdom’s Climate Ready Support Service leads  efforts to assist decision makers in using climate information. This service  provides tools, information, and practical advice to help businesses and  other organizations adapt to the effects of climate change and operates a  help desk to answer questions from the public or decision makers about  how to use climate information. A similar entity exists in the Netherlands  with more of a role for academia. Germany’s system has multiple points  of contact for decision makers, reflecting its federated structure. While  climate information systems in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands  have central hubs, these systems also interact with decision makers at  multiple points by reflecting the value of existing networks and  established decision-making processes.
Even if a nonfederal entity acts as the central hub for a national system,  this does not preclude the federal government from providing technical  assistance to decision makers. Programs like NOAA’s National Integrated  Drought Information System already serve existing networks of decision  makers and will provide key information resources however a national  system is organized. Even if a nonfederal entity was designated as the  central hub in a national system, federal efforts would remain part of the  larger network providing technical assistance to decision makers. In  addition, according to several stakeholders, federal adaptation science  programs could continue to provide support to federal and nonfederal  technical assistance efforts, focusing on problems that affect all climate  information users and providers such as how to evaluate the  effectiveness of adaptation actions.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The federal government has begun to address its large and growing fiscal  exposure to changes in the climate. These exposures are partly driven by  state, local, and private sector decision makers responsible for planning,  constructing, and maintaining certain types of vulnerable infrastructure  paid for with federal funds, insured by federal programs, or eligible for  federal disaster assistance. However, because federal climate information  efforts are fragmented, these decision makers generally do not  understand how to access and use the best available authoritative  information they need to account for climate risk in planning processes,  according to principles of risk management. Germany, the Netherlands,  and the United Kingdom provide examples of how national climate  information systems can be structured with defined roles for federal and  nonfederal entities. Options to provide climate information to U.S.  decision makers have strengths and limitations, according to various  studies we reviewed and interviews we conducted with knowledgeable  stakeholders. A national climate information system with defined roles for  federal agencies and nonfederal entities could incorporate the best  features and address the limitations of different options to provide climate  information to decision makers. Specifically, a national climate information  system with federal leadership, authoritative federal data and quality  assurance guidelines, and a nonfederal provider of technical assistance  may make it easier for federal, state, local, and private sector decision  makers to justify the costs of incorporating climate change information  into planning efforts, thereby reducing long-term federal fiscal exposure.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers access  and use the best available climate information, we recommend that the  Executive Office of the President designate a federal entity to take the  following two actions: develop and periodically update a set of authoritative climate change  observations and projections for use in federal decision making, which  state, local, and private sector decision makers could also access to  obtain the best available climate information; and  create a national climate information system with defined roles for  federal agencies and nonfederal entities with existing statutory  authority.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the Director  of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Managing  Director (Acting Chair) of the Council on Environmental Quality. They did  not provide official written comments, but did provide technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to the  appropriate congressional committees; the Director of OSTP and the  Managing Director (Acting Chair) of CEQ; and other interested parties. In  addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made contributions to this  report are listed in appendix I.
section_title: Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Janet Frisch (Assistant  Director), Cheryl Arvidson, John Barrett, Christine Broderick, Frederick K.  Childers, Christopher Currie, Cindy Gilbert, Kathryn Godfrey, Elias  Harpst, Richard Johnson, Karen Keegan, Brian Lepore, Alison O’Neill,  Susan Offutt, Diane Raynes, Patricia Roy, Dan Royer, Stephen Sanford,  Jeanette Soares, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Joseph Dean Thompson, Chris  Turner, and Sarah Veale made key contributions to this report.