Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions
Published: 2011-05-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Climate change poses risks to many environmental and economic systems, including agriculture, infrastructure, and ecosystems. Federal law has periodically required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to report on federal climate change funding. GAO was asked to examine (1) federal funding for climate change activities and how these activities are organized; (2) the extent to which methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are interpreted consistently across the federal government; (3) federal climate change strategic priorities, and the extent to which funding is aligned with these priorities; and (4) what options, if any, are available to better align federal climate change funding with strategic priorities. GAO analyzed OMB funding reports and responses to a Web-based questionnaire sent to federal officials, reviewed available literature, and interviewed stakeholders.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, and is organized in a complex, crosscutting system. OMB reports funding in four categories: technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Over this period, technology funding, the largest category, increased from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion and increased as a share of total funding. OMB also reported $26.1 billion as funding for climate change programs and activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and tax expenditures to encourage emissions reductions, with $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses in 2010. Many federal entities manage related activities, including interagency programs that coordinate agency actions. Questionnaire responses suggest that methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are not interpreted consistently across the federal government. Respondents identified three methods for defining and reporting climate change funding, foremost of which is guidance contained in OMB Circular A-11. While most said their own organization consistently applied these methods internally, far fewer said that they were applied consistently across the government. Some, for example, noted that other agencies use their own interpretation of definitions, resulting in inconsistent accounting across the government, because of several factors, such as the difficulty in distinguishing between programs related and unrelated to climate change. Respondents, literature, and stakeholders identified two key factors that complicate efforts to align funding with priorities. First, notwithstanding existing coordinating mechanisms, questionnaire results indicated that federal officials do not have a shared understanding of strategic priorities. This is in part due to inconsistent messages articulated in strategic plans and other policy documents. A 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis had similarly found no "overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs." Second, respondents indicated that since mechanisms for aligning funding with priorities are nonbinding, they are limited when in conflict with agencies' own priorities. Questionnaire respondents also identified options to better align funding with strategic priorities. Such options included (1) 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 and (2) 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. However, without further improvement in how federal climate change funding is defined and reported, strategic priorities are set, and funding is aligned with priorities, it will be difficult for the public and Congress to fully understand how climate change funds are accounted for and how they are spent. Among GAO's recommendations are that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), in consultation with Congress, clearly establish federal strategic climate change priorities and assess the effectiveness of current practices for defining and reporting related funding. Relevant EOP entities did not provide official written comments, but instead provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue that poses risks to many  existing environmental and economic systems, including agriculture,  infrastructure, ecosystems, and human health. A 2009 assessment by the  United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) found that  climate-related changes—such as rising temperature and sea level—will  combine with pollution, population growth, urbanization, and other social,  economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from  any of these factors alone. Funding for climate change activities is spread  across the federal government. According to the Office of Management  and Budget’s (OMB) June 2010 Federal Climate Change Expenditures  Report to Congress, 9 of the 15 cabinet-level executive departments, along  with 7 other federal agencies, received funding for climate change  activities in fiscal year 2010. In addition, entities within the Executive  Office of the President (EOP) such as the Office of Science and  Technology Policy (OSTP) and federal interagency coordinating bodies  like USGCRP work together to ensure federal climate change activities are  guided by the latest climate science.
Several recent reports have found shortcomings in federal efforts to  account for and organize climate change programs and activities. For  example, in 2008 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that  the packaging of mostly existing programs into a federal climate change  strategy has resulted in a lack of a unifying mission across the federal  government. This finding is reinforced by two of our recent reports—a  2010 report on environmental satellites used for measuring variations in  climate over time and a 2009 report on climate change adaptation—which  showed that certain federal climate-related activities were not well  coordinated across the government. We have found in the past 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.
In this context, you asked us to review federal climate change activities.  Our objectives were to examine (1) federal funding for climate change  activities and how these activities are organized; (2) the extent to which  methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are interpreted  consistently across the federal government; (3) federal strategic climate  change priorities, and the extent to which funding is aligned with these  priorities; and (4) what options, if any, are available to better align federal  climate change funding with strategic priorities.
To address these objectives, we analyzed climate change funding data and  tax expenditures presented in OMB’s reports to Congress on federal  climate change expenditures, reviewed other relevant reports, and  interviewed stakeholders knowledgeable about federal funding for climate  change programs and activities. To identify relevant reports and  stakeholders, we reviewed our prior climate change work and conducted a  literature search and review. Using this information, we developed a Web- based questionnaire to gather information and opinions of key federal  officials involved in defining and reporting climate change funding,  developing strategic priorities, or aligning funding with strategic priorities.
We worked with federal officials within EOP, interagency coordinating  programs, and individual agencies to pretest the questionnaire; the final  list of questionnaire recipients included 106 federal officials. Of these  officials, 73 responded to the questionnaire, for a response rate of about 69  percent. Not all officials responded to all questions. Given our  methodology, we may not have identified every person who has  knowledge of or experience with the topics we covered. However, we  believe we were able to reach many of the relevant federal officials  because we worked with EOP and interagency coordinating bodies to  identify the federal officials to whom we sent the questionnaire. We did  not conduct statistical analyses because the sample of respondents was  not a representative sample. We analyzed questionnaire responses to  group similar responses together into overall themes, and used specific  responses as illustrative examples throughout the report.
The term “funding” in this report refers to budget authority, or the  authority provided by federal law to enter into financial obligations that  will result in outlays involving federal government funds, as reported by  OMB in its reports. We use the term “account” to describe the budget  accounts, line items, programs, and activities presented in OMB reports.  Unless otherwise stated, we report funding in nominal terms (not adjusted  for inflation), and all years refer to fiscal years. Unless otherwise specified,  figures represent actual funding (not estimates), with the exception of  1993, 1994, and 2010, where we present estimated funding because actual  data are not available. “Respondents” in this report refers to federal  officials who completed the Web-based questionnaire. “Stakeholders”  refers to other individuals we interviewed who have experience with  federal funding for climate change programs and activities. Appendix I  provides a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to May 2011 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In August 2005, we issued a report on federal climate change funding for  1993 through 2004, as reported by OMB. Specifically, we reported on how  (1) total funding and funding by category changed and whether funding  data were comparable over time and (2) funding by agency changed and  whether funding data were comparable over time. We found, among other  things, that it was unclear whether funding changed as much as OMB  reported because modifications in the format and content of OMB reports  limited the comparability of funding data over time. For example, OMB  reported that it expanded the definitions of some accounts to include  more activities, but did not specify how it changed the definitions. We  were also unable to compare climate-related tax expenditures over time  because OMB reported data on proposed, but not on existing tax  expenditures.
Based on these findings, we recommended that OMB (1) use the same  format for presenting data from year-to-year, to the extent that it could do  so and remain in compliance with reporting requirements; (2) explain  changes in report content or format when they are introduced; (3) include  information on existing climate-related tax expenditures in its reports; and  (4) use the same criteria for determining which tax expenditures to  include as it uses for determining which accounts to include. Presenting  tax expenditures alongside the related spending programs is a first step in  providing a useful and accurate picture of the extent of federal support for  climate change.
In its April 2006 Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to  Congress—the first following our August 2005 report—OMB responded to  our recommendations about report consistency and tax expenditures.  The report stated that “to address GAO’s recommendations, reporting  changes have been noted in table footnotes throughout this report and a  summary table of climate funding from 2003 through 2007 has been  provided.” The report also included existing tax expenditures that could  contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. OMB’s most recent  reports generally have kept the same structures, categories, definitions,  and format as in past years and more clearly label funding data.
section_title: Federal Funding for Climate Change Activities Increased Substantially from 2003 through 2010, and Reflects a Complex, Crosscutting System
paragraphs: Funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from  $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010. In recent years, both funding  provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009  (Recovery Act) and energy-related tax expenditures (some established in  the Recovery Act) contributed significantly to the overall level of federal  resources focused on climate change. Many federal entities manage  climate change programs and activities, including those within EOP, and  interagency committees and programs that coordinate the actions of  individual agencies, reflecting a complex, crosscutting system.
subsections: section_title: Funding Increased Significantly from 2003 through 2010, as Reported by OMB
paragraphs: From 2003 through 2010, total federal funding for climate change activities  reported by OMB increased from $4.6 billion to $8.8 billion (91 percent, or  62 percent after adjusting for inflation). Tax expenditures and funding  provided in the Recovery Act are not included in this total to maintain  consistency with our 2005 report on climate change funding. In annual  reports and testimony before Congress, OMB reported climate change  funding for 1993 through 2010 using four categories:    Technology, which includes the research, development, and deployment of  technologies and processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or  increase energy efficiency. For example, according to OMB’s reports on  climate change expenditures, the activities counted in the technology  category have the effect of stimulating the development and use of certain  energy technologies, including renewable, low-carbon fossil, and nuclear  technologies.
Science, which includes research, modeling, and monitoring to better  understand climate change; efforts to assess vulnerability to climate  impacts; and programs to provide climate information to policymakers  and the public. USGCRP also reports annually on funding for climate  change science.
International assistance, which helps developing countries to address  climate change by, for example, providing funds for energy efficiency  programs.
Wildlife adaptation funding, which summarizes certain activities at the  Department of the Interior designed to promote adaptation—adjustments  to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate  change. This category was described by OMB as an interim category in its  June 2010 report because the Administration is developing criteria to  systematically account for a broader suite of adaptation programs.
As shown in figure 1, technology funding increased as a share of total  federal climate change funding from 2003 through 2010 (from 56 to 63  percent), continuing the trend observed in our 2005 report on climate  change funding.
From 2003 through 2010, total technology funding increased from $2.56  billion to $5.5 billion (115 percent, or 83 percent after adjusting for  inflation), according to OMB. Increases for Department of Energy (DOE)  activities were the principal drivers of the growth in funding for  technology activities, as they accounted for 80 percent of all technology  activities in 2010. Increases within DOE programming were concentrated  in the energy efficiency and renewable energy account.
In comparison, total funding for climate change science programs and  activities remained relatively flat, and funding for international activities  only recently increased substantially. Specifically, OMB reported that  funding for climate change science activities and programs increased from  about $1.77 billion in 2003 to $2.12 billion in 2010 (20 percent, or 2 percent  after adjusting for inflation). Funding for international assistance activities  decreased from $270 million in 2003 to $227 million in 2008 (15.9 percent  or 27 percent after adjusting for inflation), but then increased significantly  in both 2009 and 2010. Specifically, international assistance funding  increased to $373 million in 2009, and increased further to $1.08 billion in  2010 (an increase of 376 percent over 2008 totals), according to OMB.
OMB’s June 2010 report introduced several changes in report content and  format. Specifically, OMB reported $65 million in funding for the interim  category of wildlife adaptation activities. Appendixes III, IV, and V present  climate change funding by category, agency, and account, as reported by  OMB.
section_title: Funding for Climate Change Programs in the Recovery Act
paragraphs: OMB reported $26.1 billion as funding for climate change programs and  activities in the Recovery Act, dwarfing the $8.8 billion reported for similar  activities in 2010. About 98 percent of this funding was for climate change  technology projects, while the remainder was for science activities. We  examined climate-related Recovery Act funding in several reports,  including a review of DOE programs for innovative energy projects to help  mitigate climate change. Figure 2 shows the four largest categories of  funding for climate change programs in the Recovery Act, as reported by  OMB.
Recovery Act funding is presented separately in appendix V and is  generally not included in summary tables cited in this report to maintain  comparability with our 2005 report.
section_title: As Reported by OMB, Estimated Revenue Loss from Energy-Related Tax Expenditures Approached the Amount of Funding for Climate Change Programs and Activities in 2010
paragraphs: OMB also reports tax expenditures related to climate change, which are  federal income tax provisions that grant preferential tax treatment to  encourage emission reductions by, for example, providing tax incentives  to promote the use of renewable energy. In 2010, OMB listed 11 tax  expenditures and energy grants with revenue losses totaling $7.23 billion,  approaching the reported funding of $8.8 billion for climate change  programs and activities. This sum includes $3.1 billion for energy grants in  lieu of technology and investment tax credits available under the Recovery  Act. Figure 3 illustrates selected tax expenditure categories in 2010, as  reported by OMB.
The estimated revenue loss of $7.23 billion in 2010 from energy tax  provisions that may reduce greenhouse gases is over 12 times the $580  million reported by OMB for 2003. Reported revenue loss from tax  expenditures increased steadily from 2006 through 2008, averaging about  $1.5 billion. Tax expenditures reported by OMB then jumped substantially  to $2.92 billion in 2009 and $7.23 billion in 2010, reflecting, in part, certain  grants authorized in the Recovery Act. Climate-related tax expenditures  are presented separately in appendix VI and are generally not included in  summary tables cited in this report to maintain comparability with our  2005 report.
section_title: Federal Climate Change Programs Are Organized in a Complex, Crosscutting System
paragraphs: As illustrated in figure 4, climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue,  where many federal entities manage related programs and activities. These  include organizations within the EOP (colored blue), interagency  committees (colored white), and interagency programs (colored green)  that coordinate the actions of individual agencies. A September 2010  report by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), which  was prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA) and Congress, referred to this set of federal activities as the  federal “climate change enterprise.”
The text that follows describes the roles of the entities involved in this  enterprise.
subsections: section_title: Executive Office of the President
paragraphs: Four entities within EOP—represented by the blue boxes in figure 4— provide high-level policy direction for federal climate change programs  and activities: OMB, OSTP, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),  and the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy (OECC). These  entities lead several new interagency initiatives—including formal and  informal task forces and working groups discussed later in this report— and participate in other committees, programs, and activities. For  example, OMB is closely involved with budgetary decision making at  USGCRP, the interagency body that coordinates federal climate change  science research.
section_title: Interagency Committees and Programs
paragraphs: The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)—represented,  along with subordinate committees, as the white boxes in figure 4— coordinates science and technology policy across the federal government.  NSTC is composed of four primary committees, including the Committee  on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS), which  coordinates federal research and development related to environment,  natural resources, and sustainability. CENRS is composed of several  subcommittees, one of which—the Subcommittee on Global Change  Research—serves as the interagency governing body for USGCRP.
USGCRP and the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP)—the green  boxes in figure 4—coordinate federal climate change programs and  activities at the agency level. Thirteen departments and agencies  participate in USGCRP, and 12 participate in CCTP. CCTP and USGCRP  coordinate through joint membership, according to technical comments  from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP.
USGCRP, which began as a presidential initiative in 1989, was codified by  the Global Change Research Act of 1990. USGCRP coordinates and  integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their  implications for society, and is led by an interagency governing body, the  CENRS Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR). The SGCR,  facilitated by a national coordination office, provides overall strategic  direction and is responsible for developing and implementing an  integrated interagency program. The leadership structure for USGCRP  falls within the SGCR, and includes a Chair and three vice-chairs: a Vice- Chair for Strategic Planning and Research, a Vice-Chair for Adaptation  Science, and a Vice-Chair for Integrated Observations staffed by officials  from different agencies. The committee leadership and agency  representatives oversee and direct the program, including setting top-level  goals and coordinating investments. CEQ, OMB, and OSTP noted in  technical comments that OSTP provides overall leadership and direction  by administering the NSTC and its committees.
CCTP was created in 2002 and subsequently codified in the Energy Policy  Act of 2005. Its primary purpose is to assist in the interagency  coordination of climate change technology research, development,  demonstration, and deployment to reduce greenhouse gas intensity. It  provides strategic direction for climate change technology elements of the  overall federal research and development portfolio, and facilitates the  coordinated planning, programming, budgeting, and implementation of the  technology development and deployment aspects of U.S. climate change  policy. CCTP is managed by a DOE-led steering group composed of senior- level officials from each participating federal agency. This group provides  a venue for agencies to raise and resolve issues regarding CCTP and its  functions as a facilitating and coordinating body. The steering group  assists in developing agency budget proposals and conveying information  to agencies.
section_title: Congressional Committees
paragraphs: Not represented in figure 4 are congressional committees, which play a  role in providing funding and oversight for climate change programs and  activities. The size and scope of funding for federal agencies is determined  through the federal budget process, which begins with budget formulation,  then moves through the congressional budget process that includes  consideration of appropriations legislation, budget execution and control,  and finally audit and evaluation. Appropriations bills are developed by  the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and their  subcommittees. Each subcommittee has jurisdiction over specific federal  agencies or programs. For example, as a result of its interagency  composition, activities of USGCRP participating agencies are usually  funded by different appropriations bills that originate in nine separate  committees.
section_title: Questionnaire Responses Suggest That Agencies Do Not Consistently Interpret Methods for Defining and Reporting Climate Change Funding
paragraphs: Methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are not  interpreted consistently across the federal government, according to  questionnaire responses, available literature, and stakeholders. In  responding to our questionnaire, federal officials identified three main  methods for defining and reporting climate change funding, including  formal guidance from OMB. Notwithstanding these efforts, questionnaire  responses suggest that agencies do not consistently define and report  climate change funding. While most respondents indicated that their own  organization consistently interpreted and applied methods for defining and  reporting climate change funding, far fewer said that other agencies across  the federal government did so. Certain factors identified by respondents  help to explain this limitation, including the difficulty in distinguishing  between programs related and not related to climate change.
subsections: section_title: Respondents Identified Three Main Methods for Defining and Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding
paragraphs: In responding to our questionnaire, federal officials identified three main  methods for defining and reporting climate change funding. According to  OMB staff, each of these methods has different levels of formality and  oversight. First and foremost, agencies rely on guidance provided by OMB  through Circular A-11, which describes how agencies are to report funding  to OMB. The circular directs agencies to report funding that meet certain  criteria in three broad categories—research, technology, and international  assistance. Budget data requested by OMB are reported by agencies through  its Web-based MAX Information System (MAX) using the criteria specified  in Circular A-11. According to OMB staff, Circular A-11 is the primary  methodology 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 technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP.
Second, some respondents identified guidance from interagency programs  as another method for defining climate change funding. For example, in its  2006 strategic plan, CCTP developed a list of classification criteria for how  to report climate change technology funding. According to a high-ranking  CCTP official, this list was negotiated between its constituent agencies,  and contains guidance about how to report funding. Similarly, USGCRP  developed definitions to help agencies report research funding in  categories related to its strategic research objectives. USGCRP has the  sole responsibility for developing the definitions for more detailed science  research categories, although the total spending reported by each agency  should be consistent with the official figures released in the federal  climate change expenditures report, according to technical comments  from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP. These EOP entities also commented that  funding analyses conducted by interagency programs are reviewed prior to  release by OMB. Some agencies have also developed operational  definitions of climate change programs within their purviews, according to  several respondents. In technical comments, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP noted  that such definitions help agencies ensure consistency over time in how  they interpret criteria.
Third, entities within EOP or interagency programs may informally ask  agencies to provide information on programs as part of periodic “data  calls,” according to several respondents. In technical comments, CEQ,  OMB, and OSTP stated that data calls are most commonly used to collect  information from agencies for analyses internal to EOP, but also for  unique or new reporting needs. For example, USGCRP recently completed  a data call in support of our September 2010 report on geoengineering.  The data call requested agencies to report federal funding for programs or  activities that research deliberate, large-scale interventions in the earth’s  climate system to diminish climate change or its impacts, and it requested  descriptions of specific geoengineering approaches that fit this definition.  Similarly, OMB sent a recent data call asking agencies to report on  programs or activities related to climate change adaptation.
Respondents identified two key strengths of current methods for defining  and reporting climate change funding. The first was the use of stable  processes, which enable an agency to compare its own climate change- related funding data over time, according to many respondents. As one  stated, “we have a standardized process that accompanies the budget  development process to collect climate change funding information.…Our  agencies and offices are familiar with the process and are able to compile  information relatively quickly.” Another respondent noted that the  strengths of current methods include a well-documented, systematic  approach to budgeting that is based on solid requirements. The existence  of a recurring process means that reporting can remain consistent across  administrations, according to several respondents. According to OSTP,  “there is a great deal of continuity in agencies’ reporting of climate change  programs and also continuity for most definitions of climate  change…Most agencies’ climate programs are ongoing, so it is relatively  straightforward to report them year after year and also straightforward to  review agencies’ data every year.” In addition, some respondents noted  that such continuity is useful in describing trends and can help inform  Congress about priority federal activities.
Attention from high-level entities such as OMB is the second strength of  current methods for defining and reporting climate change funding,  according to several respondents. According to OSTP, climate change  funding data may be reviewed three times each year for consistency and  accuracy: in the OMB Circular A-11 process, the process for developing  OMB’s climate change expenditures report to Congress, and the USGCRP  process for reporting climate science funding to Congress. For the latter  two reports, the data are presented in enough detail to allow for program- by-program review and comparisons with agency budgets, according to  OSTP.
section_title: Questionnaire Responses Suggest That Methods Are Not Consistently Interpreted and Applied across the Federal Government
paragraphs: Notwithstanding current methods, questionnaire responses suggest that  methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are not  consistently interpreted and applied across the federal government. While  agencies generally exhibit continuity in how they assemble and report  their own federal climate change funding data, methods for defining such  funding are not consistent across the federal government, according to  questionnaire responses. Respondents identified several factors that help  to explain this inconsistency, including the number and complexity of  climate-related programs managed by different agencies and the difficulty  in distinguishing between programs related and not related to climate  change. In technical comments, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP noted that  consistency likely varies by method of reporting, with the USGCRP  crosscut (as defined by Circular A-11) being the most consistent and  “unique” data calls being less so.
subsections: section_title: Respondents Indicated That Agencies Interpret and Apply Existing Methods Differently
paragraphs: Respondents indicated that agencies do not consistently interpret existing  methods for defining and reporting climate change funding across the  federal government. Most respondents said that their agencies consistently  applied methods for defining and reporting climate change funding.
However, far fewer respondents indicated that methods for defining and  reporting climate change funding were applied consistently across the  federal government.
Several respondents indicated and stakeholders said that federal agencies  use their own interpretation of definitions to account for climate-related  activities, resulting in an inconsistent accounting of these activities across  the federal government. For example, according to one respondent,  “agencies self-define their contributions, some use inclusive definitions …  while others use restrictive definitions … and yet others do not report any  investment. This makes it difficult to get a true picture of … investment in  climate change.” The respondent also indicated that differing definitions  do not “allow agency-to-agency comparisons since some agencies report  apples while others report oranges.” Another respondent stated, “to the  best of my knowledge, nobody actually oversees a process for ensuring  that the different agencies use similar methodologies for reporting.” The  issue of consistency also arises when federal departments collect climate  change funding data from agencies within the department. For example,  according to one respondent, “we have found inconsistencies within our  own Department from year to year because of individual agency  interpretations of the guidance. This has required significant discussion  and even re-submissions to try to ensure consistency.”
According to technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, “despite the  existence of common definitions, agencies must rely on their own  interpretations. This leaves the perception, if not the reality, of  inconsistencies in how agencies report climate change funding.”  According to OSTP, while reporting within agencies may be more or less  consistent, there is not always a mechanism in place to ensure consistent  reporting across agencies for each of the three methods for defining and  reporting federal climate change funding. Such inconsistency is more  applicable to data reported through interagency programs and unique data  calls, according to CEQ, OMB, and OSTP. These EOP entities also said that  respondents located within an agency may not have the proper vantage  point to evaluate the internal processes in other agencies.
OMB staff told us that spending occurs at the subaccount level and that it  must therefore rely in part on the agency to properly interpret the  definitions. OMB staff stated that they are very responsive to instances  where they learn agencies are over- or under-reporting official figures and  were interested in specific examples of where there were inconsistencies  in their various procedures. If there is a known inconsistency, OMB’s  procedure is to address it by discussing with the agency and clarifying  Circular A-11 or relevant budget data request.
section_title: Respondents Identified Key Reasons Agencies May Interpret and Apply Existing Methods Differently
paragraphs: According to respondents, the following reasons may help explain why  agencies could use different interpretations of the existing methods for  defining and reporting climate change funding:  Size and complexity of the federal climate change enterprise. The overall  scale of the federal climate change enterprise makes it difficult for  officials to be aware of the whole range of programs and activities,  according to respondents, available literature, and stakeholders. As noted  by one respondent, instances have arisen where agency program staff are  unaware or have not included funding data for certain programs to OMB,  leading to confusion over how an agency’s budget numbers were  determined. According to OMB staff, some programs may not be reported  as climate-related because agency officials may not have identified them in  their budget reviews. For example, a high-level OMB staff member we  interviewed told us that “reports may not be consistent if agencies don’t  report things they should. OMB tries to be consistent over time, but is  dependent upon agency submissions.”
Related to the current methods for defining and reporting funding is the  practice of aggregating funding for multiple programs or activities without  clear explanation. For example, one respondent said that it sometimes  makes the accounting easier to lump non-climate-change activities in with  climate change. Similarly, another federal official stated that the primary  challenge associated with tracking climate change technology funding is  that many programs can be included in a given appropriation line item.  According to a 2008 CRS report, “because of the aggregation of funding  information that is publicly available, understanding the specific uses of  climate change funds can be challenging. The levels of funding for specific  activities are often unreported or unclear.”
Difficulty determining which programs are related to climate change.  Determining “where to draw the line” between programs and activities  related and not related to climate change is a limitation of current methods  for defining and reporting funding, according to respondents, available  literature, and stakeholders. Some respondents noted that it is difficult to  make the distinction between what programs should and should not be  counted as funding for climate change. Part of the difficulty lies in where  to draw the line between “direct” programs and activities—for which  climate change is a primary purpose—and “indirect” funding—which  includes those programs that have a different primary purpose but support  climate change goals. The distinction is difficult to make, in part, because  the primary purpose of direct funding may be to provide coherence to the  disparate aims of the indirect programs, according to one stakeholder. “The biggest limitation… is separating what activities are explicitly ‘climate change’ vs.  broader environmental activities which have impact on our knowledge of climate  change. Our work relating to climate change frequently also relates to other  environmental concerns—such as biodiversity patterns and loss, environmental  dynamics and systems. Teasing out the ‘climate’ elements…is never easy or simple.”
Indeed, such challenges of definition render the tallies of certain types of  climate change programs somewhat arbitrary, according to a 2010 report  by the Congressional Budget Office. CRS raised similar concerns in a  2008 report, noting that “inconsistencies are likely across years due to  changes in the scopes of what is considered for ‘climate change.’” Such  inconsistencies make it harder for Congress and the public to fully  understand how climate change funds are accounted for and how they are  spent.
According to OSTP, if agencies reported all the investments in global  change research (a much broader scope than climate), then the process  would be more difficult, but possibly more comprehensive than the  current approach. OSTP added that the programs, and even the agencies,  that are involved in climate issues are expanding rapidly as adaptation and  mitigation activities are included, which makes definitional issues and  reporting challenges even more difficult.
These views echo a long-standing definitional problem, identified as early  as 1993 by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in a  report on climate change. At that time, according to the report, climate- related projects were categorized as focused (directly related to global  change) or contributing (justified on a basis other than global change but  having the potential to contribute to the global change knowledge base).  According to OTA, there were no standardized criteria for classifying  contributing research, and each agency used its own system, making it  harder to track overall climate change funding. Further highlighting the  difficulty of defining climate change programs, a DOE official told us that  “it can be difficult to distinguish between programs with direct climate  change benefits and indirect benefits, especially for crosscutting items like  basic research. If CCTP only reported those programs that were  exclusively climate change-oriented, the number of programs and amount  of funding reported would shrink dramatically. Many programs, such as  wind energy and energy efficiency, have easily identified climate change  co-benefits. However, there may be other programs with climate change  co-benefits that are more difficult to identify, such as clean coal  technology.”
Difficulty reconciling reporting categories with changing priorities.  Some respondents noted that it is difficult to use standardized reporting  categories when priorities change. For example, one respondent said the  current methods are not flexible and do not allow for the inclusion of  climate change activities that are very relevant but are happening outside  of what is traditionally considered part of the climate change budget.  Another respondent reported this was the case with adaptation activities,  but also noted that agencies are in the process of developing definitions  and reporting methods for the crosscutting, nontraditional category. One  federal official we spoke with noted that, because of historical inertia, the  current reporting process may not fit well with changing priorities. This  official stated that “it is hard to change the reporting categories used in  USGCRP’s Our Changing Planet reports even though they no longer make  any sense. It is risky to change such categories because people will ask  questions about why the change was made.”
According to several respondents, a recent proliferation of unique budget  data inquiries have made it more difficult to consistently track and report  funding data. According to one respondent, “too many different entities  are requesting similar, but different information related to climate  change.” Another respondent said, “the way that we collect data and  maybe even the data that we collect may inhibit our flexibilities in  responding to the varying and increasing calls for information from  outside entities. For example, our process may be designed to respond to  OMB requests for information but may not directly respond to requests  from other entities if the information requested is different.” In technical  comments, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP noted that respondents are likely  referencing the difficulty in responding to unique data calls, not that the  data calls undermine the effectiveness of long-standing crosscuts.
Agency support for USGCRP. According to OSTP, each agency pays its  share of USGCRP’s budget, which is determined by the amount of climate  change research funding it reports. Hence, the more climate research  funding an agency reports, the higher its assessment for supporting the  USGCRP office and other joint responsibilities. According to technical  comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, this assessment was 0.35 percent  in fiscal year 2010. Several stakeholders who were formerly involved in  federal climate change funding decisions said that distributing the cost of  funding USGCRP in this way provides an incentive for agencies to be  cautious in how they report climate change activities. Some respondents  echoed this concern. In certain situations, agencies may report  conservatively to, for example, pay a lower assessment. In other instances,  agencies may take the opposite approach. For example, according to one  stakeholder, some agencies over-report their climate change activities  because they see an opportunity to take credit for leadership.
OMB staff acknowledged this may be the perception, but disagreed that  agencies could manipulate official climate spending figures. According to  technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, it is questionable  whether official numbers can be manipulated in this way because OMB  reviews annual variations to ensure that criteria are being consistently  applied over time. More likely, respondents are referring to informal data  calls conducted by EOP and interagency committees, according to the  technical comments.
section_title: Respondents, Available Literature, and Stakeholders Identified Two Key Factors That Complicate Efforts to Align Climate Change Funding with Federal Strategic Priorities
paragraphs: Respondents, available literature, and stakeholders identified several  existing mechanisms intended to align climate change funding with  strategic priorities. These sources identified two key factors that  complicate these efforts: (1) the lack of a shared understanding of federal  strategic priorities among federal officials and (2) the fact that existing  mechanisms that could help align agency funding with priorities are  nonbinding, limiting their effectiveness where they conflict with agency  responsibilities and priorities.
subsections: section_title: Existing Mechanisms Intended to Align Funding with Priorities
paragraphs: Respondents identified existing mechanisms intended to help align climate  change funding with priorities. Several said that the budget development  process aligns agencies’ climate change funding with federal strategic  priorities. For example, one said that funding is closely aligned with  strategic priorities through the annual budget process, the research and  development priority setting process, and interagency coordination  meetings. Many also said that current interagency processes harness a  broad array of stakeholders, and that their participation leads to stronger  alignment of funding and priorities, both across the federal government  and within their organizations.
OMB, OSTP, and CEQ use executive-level guidance memoranda to define  climate change priorities within the overall federal budget. The Directors  of OMB and OSTP described climate change priorities within the science  and technology budget in a July 21, 2010, memorandum for the heads of  executive departments and agencies titled Science and Technology  Priorities for the FY 2012 Budget. The memorandum instructs agencies  to explain in their budget submissions how they will redirect available  resources, as appropriate, from lower-priority areas to science and  technology activities that address six challenges. One of the six challenges  identified in the memorandum is “understanding, adapting to, and  mitigating the impacts of global climate change.” Specifically, agencies are  requested to identify the activities in their budgets that support two  priority areas—the National Climate Assessment (described in more detail  in app. VII) and the monitoring, reporting, and verifying of greenhouse gas  emissions. OMB and OSTP also issued supplemental guidance on climate  change science collaboration on August 13, 2010.
The Directors of OMB and OSTP issued a similar memorandum for the  fiscal year 2011 budget on August 4, 2009. According to OSTP,  overarching climate change priorities are also discussed by OECC policy  committees and through discussions convened by the Assistant to the  President for Energy and Climate Change. “the USGCRP and to a lesser extent the CCTP have responsibility for priority setting  on climate change science. USGCRP is overseen by OSTP and the NSTC. The Council  on Environmental Quality is responsible for coordinating federal environmental efforts  across agencies and EOP offices, including development of policy and initiatives.
Congress has responsibility for developing and enacting legislation including budget  legislation that may include specific national, regional or state initiatives that may be  conducted through federal agencies. National Academies / National Research Council  is tasked with producing independent reports on successes and challenges to keep the  process moving forward and identify obstructions to achieving strategic goals.”
Many other respondents also noted the collaborative nature of climate  change priority setting within the federal government. According to OSTP,  “priorities listed in memos and documents that describe Administration  policy … are set by multiple iterations of discussions among EOP offices  and the USGCRP principals. These reflect a broad process of Science and  Technology priority setting, along with budget discussions, within the  National Science and Technology Council…, in particular the Committee  for Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability, of which the  Subcommittee on Global Change Research is a part.”
Several respondents noted that USGCRP recently launched a new strategic  planning process, in part to improve how climate change priorities are set.  For example, one respondent stated that “the USGCRP is undergoing a  strategic realignment to become an integrated, end-to-end program. A  strategic planning process has been initiated recently.” Additional  respondents noted that the program is at a turning point, having just  launched a new planning process with greater emphasis on providing  information and guidance for decision makers. CEQ, OMB, and OSTP  technical comments noted that USGCRP also recently launched a new  national climate assessment designed to engage stakeholders in a process  that builds on science, data, and information to help decision-making for  analysis and mitigation.
section_title: Questionnaire Responses Indicated That Federal Officials Lack a Shared Understanding of Priorities
paragraphs: Despite existing coordination mechanisms, federal officials across the  climate change enterprise lack a shared understanding of priorities,  according to questionnaire responses, available literature, and  stakeholders. This is partly due to the multiple, often inconsistent  messages articulated in different forums and in different policy  documents. 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.
When asked what the priorities across the federal government were, the  respondents who answered the question provided a wide range of  answers. While the broad category with the most responses was  “adaptation,” a number of other categories—such as priorities listed in the  USGCRP and CCTP strategic plans—were almost as frequently cited.  Other responses included a new focus on providing climate change  information to decision makers. For example, according to one  respondent, “a recent emphasis seems to be connecting the use of [climate  change] science to meet end-user needs….As a result, ‘science translation’  has become a new priority as well as advancing impact assessment and  adaptation models and tools.” Only a few respondents suggested that there  was an absence of strategic priorities, with one stating, “I’d argue that  there are not , or perhaps few, strategic priorities across government.  Agencies have their own internal missions and priorities; I’ve seen little  willingness or ability to shift those priorities and programming decisions  to meet overall strategic interests, even following transition to a new  Administration.”
These results are supported by a 2008 CRS analysis, which states “there  has not been an overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the  programs funded or the priorities among programs. U.S. federal policy on  climate change has been a coalescence of separate goals—evolved  distinctly for science, technology, energy production, foreign assistance,  and trade—not a single, integrated strategy. The current federal effort  largely has been built ‘bottom up’ from a variety of existing programs,  Presidential initiatives, and Congressionally-directed activities. Choices  tend to be based on departmental missions and the degree of support for  the input activities.”
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.
Through our review of questionnaire responses, available literature, and  interviews with stakeholders, we found that federal strategic climate  change priorities are presented in six general sources: (1) strategic plans  for interagency programs and agencies, (2) executive-level guidance  memoranda, (3) the development of new interagency initiatives, (4)  regulations and guidance memoranda, (5) international commitments, and  (6) testimony of federal executives before Congress. Each of these sources  is discussed in more detail in appendix VII.
The multiple sources for communicating priorities across the climate  change enterprise may result in conflicting messages and confusion. Our  review found multiple plans with different scopes, goals, and time frames.  While OSTP and OMB most recently directed agencies to focus on  activities in their budgets that support the national assessment and  monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions, the 2003 USGCRP strategic plan  and its 2008 revision generally focus federal research on different  priorities, mostly related to reducing scientific uncertainty about climate  changes. CCTP’s 2006 strategic plan similarly focuses federal resources  on different priorities, including capturing and sequestering carbon  dioxide. While these strategic plans were created for different purposes  and times, and are not mutually exclusive, they—and the programs  charged with implementing the plans—represent the operational link  between EOP and agencies. According to a high-ranking OMB staff  member we interviewed, “to the extent that OMB receives direction from  the administration, it will implement the president’s priorities. If that  doesn’t happen, OMB will take the existing strategic plans as direction.”
Several respondents said there is no single lead to direct and coordinate  federal climate change efforts, which nearly matches an observation from  our 1990 report that “the President has not designated any individual or  agency to assume overall leadership or management responsibility for  global climate change.” For example, according to one respondent, there  is “no single lead person to direct and coordinate all the efforts.” Another  respondent said “without clear direction and leadership by the White  House, it is very difficult for the agencies to set strategic priorities.”  According to one stakeholder, “there are many willing partners in the  federal government, but there is a small bottleneck at the top. Agencies  want to take action but don’t know who is in charge of administration  policies.”
The lack of a shared understanding of strategic priorities combined with  the crosscutting nature of the federal climate change enterprise is likely to  complicate efforts to align funding with priorities. Our past work on  interagency collaboration has shown that collaborating 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. This requires agency staff working across agency lines  to define and articulate the common outcome or purpose they are seeking  to achieve that is consistent with their respective agency goals and  mission. Without a clear common purpose, it is more difficult for agencies  to define roles and responsibilities within the complex climate change  enterprise previously illustrated in figure 4. Agreeing on roles and  responsibilities—clarifying who will do what—and committed leadership  by those involved in the collaborative effort are necessary to overcome  barriers to working across agencies.
section_title: Existing Mechanisms Intended to Align Funding with Priorities Are Nonbinding, Limiting Their Effectiveness Where They Conflict With Agency Responsibilities and Priorities
paragraphs: Existing mechanisms intended to align funding with strategic priorities are  nonbinding, according to respondents, available literature, and  stakeholders. For example, one respondent said that existing  “coordination mechanisms are non-binding. It is difficult to reconcile the  different missions of the agencies without strong commitment from each  agency.” Another respondent stated, “Undertaking interagency projects in  climate change is extremely challenging. The system is not designed to  encourage interagency activity…Each agency has its own processes,  deadlines, and requirements.” Other 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.
Several federal officials we interviewed said that interagency coordinating  programs like USGCRP generally do not have direct control over agency  budgets. A high-ranking USGCRP official told us that “USGCRP does not  control any resources. It doesn’t do anything but put out reports. Program  office staff help different agencies collaborate, but it doesn’t amount to  prioritization.” Similarly, a high-ranking CCTP official told us that every  constituent agency of CCTP has control over its own budget; CCTP has no  authority to direct funding for climate change technology programs.  According to a 2009 National Research Council (NRC) report, the absence  of centralized budget authority limits the ability of the USGCRP to  influence the priorities of participating agencies or implement new  research directions that fall outside or across agency missions. The  current approach for integration is likely to continue as long as strategic  decision making is decoupled from agency budgetary processes or while  USGCRP has no budgetary authority, according to observations in a 2008  USGCRP expert roundtable discussion.
Several respondents observed that the number of staff available to  coordinate governmentwide climate change programs is currently limited,  which may also make it more difficult to align funding with priorities. For  example, according to one respondent, USGCRP has a small number of  staff, which limits the effectiveness of coordination efforts. Another  respondent stated that the current model of a very small USGCRP staff  office is not effective. A 2008 CRS report noted that “one potentially  important element in the success of programs is the expertise of federal  officials in these programs, and whether federal policies enhance or hinder  the recruitment, development and effective use of personnel. Barriers to  job mobility of federal personnel across programs and departments also  likely discourage development, interaction and collaboration across  agencies and disciplines.” When provided with this information, a  USGCRP official stated that “the USGCRP staff is very well qualified to do  their job. This issue is not about qualification but about the lack of  empowerment and respect from Federal Agencies.”
Nonbinding mechanisms for aligning funding with priorities have limited  effectiveness where they conflict with agency responsibilities and  priorities, according to certain stakeholders and respondents who  commented on the subject. According to them, funding is not aligned well  with new priorities across the federal government because there is a  reluctance to make room in existing budgets for new work or because  most funding is pre-committed to existing programs, limiting the capacity  to make major new funding commitments. For example, according to one  respondent, “agency mission requirements can take precedence, and this  can limit the effectiveness of responding to strategic priorities. This  becomes increasingly the case when going from the highest leadership  levels down into lower levels of the organization.” Another respondent  stated that her agency, “like all the agencies, has a very difficult time  changing agency priorities and strongly resists stopping any current  programs.” As noted by a different respondent, agencies generally have to  stop doing existing good things to do new good things, even when existing  programs have not completed their objectives.
section_title: Respondents Suggested Options for Better Aligning Federal Climate Change Funding with Strategic Priorities
paragraphs: Respondents, stakeholders, and available literature identified several ways  to better align federal climate change funding with strategic priorities.  They suggested (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. Federal entities reported that  they are already taking steps to implement several of these options.
subsections: section_title: Options to Improve the Tracking and Reporting of Climate Change Funding
paragraphs: Respondents identified two key options to improve how climate change  funding is tracked and reported, a key element in improving how funding  is aligned with priorities: an integrated budget review process that  provides a more centralized and predictable approach for collecting and  reviewing climate change funding, and enhanced guidance on how to  define and report funding. In technical comments, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP  stated that they are already taking steps to implement these options.
subsections: section_title: An Integrated Budget Review Process
paragraphs: Many respondents called for a more coordinated, centralized approach to  reporting and reviewing climate change funding—referred to by some as an  integrated budget review process. Such a process could address the  limitations of current methods for defining and reporting climate change  funding, such as the difficulty in distinguishing between programs related  and not related to climate change. Several respondents stated that requests  for climate change funding data should come from one source to increase  the efficiency and consistency of reporting. According to one respondent, “if  possible, it would be great if one organization (OMB) were the sole entity  that requested information from Departments. That would help to ensure  consistency and the use of common definitions and terms.” Another  respondent added that “a more formal request—with better guidance on  what should be reported—coming from OMB … might impose more  discipline and accuracy on the process.” Other respondents noted that a  more interactive relationship with OMB would help provide consistency in  climate change funding reports. As we said earlier, OMB’s MAX A-11 data  entry system provides a centralized collection point for agencies to enter  climate change budget data specified in OMB Circular A-11. “Prepare for a joint budget hearing in late September in which agencies, through their  USGCRP Principals, articulate their climate change science request to OMB, OSTP,  and other Executive Offices, including CEQ, and other USGCRP agencies. Agencies  should coordinate prior to the meeting in order to present FY 2012 climate change  science initiatives in appropriate detail, recognizing the relative size of agency  investments to the National Climate Assessment and overall climate change science  budget. Agencies should also address how their FY 2012 activities will build upon  efforts by partner agencies while minimizing overlap and duplication.”
OSTP cautioned, however, that there are inherent limitations in the system  because priorities that span the federal government, by definition, involve  multiple agency budgets. Communication is critical, and it is useful to have  OMB, OSTP, and USGCRP talking to each other about priorities in the  process of strategic planning and budget decisions, according to OSTP. “USGCRP held a series of interagency meetings to develop the crosscut climate  change science budget before sending it to OMB for review. At the meetings, each of  the 13 agencies that were part of USGCRP had to prove their climate related activities  were linked to the goals of the program. The integrated budget review process  challenged people to match the priorities of the program in order to obtain funding.
The review process was challenging, and probed the ‘readiness’ and relevance of  individual programs before they received funding. The integrated budget reflected the  best set of priorities at the time. An integrated budget review hasn’t happened in 12  years.”
Other stakeholders and sources said an integrated budget review would be  useful because, in the past, such a system engaged agencies in the  interagency process and fostered agreement on priorities.
OMB staff cautioned that there are trade-offs with a more formal process  such as an integrated budget review, noting that “formality only works with  a limited number of topics because it requires a great deal of effort … . Over  time, the process didn’t work out very well because large meetings with  high level officials are hard to schedule and take a lot of time.” In addition,  past integrated budget reviews focused solely on climate change science  programs and activities because USGCRP was the only interagency program  in existence. It is not clear how—or if—formal budget review processes  could be applied more comprehensively across the climate change  enterprise.
section_title: Additional Guidance from the Executive Office of the President on Defining and Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding
paragraphs: Many respondents reported wanting additional guidance from OMB,  OSTP, or USGCRP about how to define and report climate change funding.  As stated by one respondent, “Interactive discussions between responsible  parties from OSTP, OMB, and  with the purpose of defining the  true scope of funding for climate change would be very useful. Since areas  of climate research change annually, this would be an ongoing process.”  Another respondent asked for a review and revision by OMB of all climate  change reporting requirements to better define the categories and what  information is needed. One approach could be to reach agreement with  congressional appropriators on a set of definitions and criteria for climate  change programs that could be used for several years, according to one  respondent. In any case, several respondents noted that guidance needs to  clearly articulate what is and is not considered to be climate change  funding.
section_title: Options to Enhance How Strategic Climate Change Priorities Are Set
paragraphs: As we have previously reported, enhanced priority setting processes can  encourage agency collaboration by defining and articulating a common  outcome, reinforcing accountability for collaborative efforts through plans  and reports, and establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to  achieve the outcome. Respondents, available literature, and stakeholders  identified several options for enhancing the process of setting federal  climate change priorities, including (1) using a governmentwide strategic  planning process, and (2) developing a clear leadership and coordination  structure.
subsections: section_title: A Governmentwide Strategic Planning Process
paragraphs: According to questionnaire respondents, available literature, and  stakeholders, a governmentwide strategic planning process could enhance  how strategic priorities are set by articulating what individual agencies are  expected to do within the overall federal response to climate change.  Some respondents noted the need to expand planning beyond individual  elements—such as science or technology—and to develop a truly  crosscutting climate change strategic plan. For example, according to one  respondent, “there is a need now to go to the next level and coordinate  across disciplinary areas in order to address the urgent challenges related  to climate variability and change.” Other respondents said that developing  a more detailed and actionable list of priorities through existing planning  processes would be helpful.
A number of federal climate-related strategic planning processes are under  way or have been recommended. For example, USGCRP is undertaking a  strategic planning process to ensure the alignment of Administration  priorities, NRC guidance, and agency programs and budgets, according to  CEQ, OMB, and OSTP technical comments. In addition, a 2010 NAPA  report recommended that the President empower a senior interagency  group—led at the White House and convened at the Deputy Secretary or  Secretary level—to provide the President annually with a strategic plan for  management of federal climate research and service delivery.
As OSTP acknowledged to us, “The major challenge is the need to connect  climate science programs with broader inter- and intra-agency climate  efforts.” 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.
section_title: A Clear Leadership and Coordination Structure
paragraphs: Some respondents noted that it would be helpful to clearly identify a lead  person or organization responsible for developing and integrating strategic  climate change priorities across the government. According to several  respondents, developing federal strategic climate change priorities would  be easier if there was a clear leadership and coordination structure  responsible for setting governmentwide climate change priorities. They  cited a particular need to integrate policy, science, mitigation, adaptation,  technology and the other aspects of the federal climate change enterprise  into a single structure for setting priorities. One official stated that this  would require “a real commitment to a full-time leader with staff and  adequate resources to work closely with all of the Federal Agencies,  USGCRP, OMB and the Hill in developing a strongly coordinated global  change crosscut that has consistent goals and objectives with well-defined  and linked performance measures, as well as the requisite authorities to  make (or at least propose) changes to programs and budgets in order to  better meet the measures and achieve the overall strategic goals and  objectives.”
Several respondents specifically cited the need to integrate USGCRP’s  focus on science with CCTP’s focus on technology. As stated by one  respondent, “until now, there has been a general disconnect between  USGCRP and CCTP—we should connect the science and technology  programs much more closely.” According to OSTP, the USGCRP’s  strategic planning process will incorporate better mechanisms for linking  with the CCTP. It maintains that in this way, climate technology plans,  policies, and projections developed by CCTP can be integrated with those  of the climate science and adaptation groups.
Several respondents did note that developing an overarching framework  for setting priorities would be challenging. One respondent cautioned that  the mix of technology, economics, and policy expertise cannot be found  completely in one agency or EOP entity. As stated by another respondent,  “This is bigger than any single agency. Therefore, no single agency can be  put in charge.” Several respondents expressed a similar sentiment.
section_title: The Establishment of Formal Coordination Mechanisms
paragraphs: Respondents noted that the establishment of formal coordination  mechanisms—such as executive-level memoranda that specify how  agencies are to work together—could improve how federal climate change  funding aligns with strategic priorities. Many respondents called for  improved coordination to better align funding with priorities. Several  identified related options, including formally identifying a single contact  point for coordinating climate change funding within each agency and  defining the role of this contact within interagency structures. For  example, one respondent stated, “In each agency there needs to be a  formal internal process that links budget (CFO) to strategy (Policy),  reporting to the agency Head or Deputy…. Each agency team, in turn,  needs to be linked to an interagency coordinating body that champions  strategic planning, strengthens data and tools for decision-making, shares  information with agencies, educates new managers and appointees, and  presents integrated reports on status and progress toward goals.” In  addition, several stakeholders we interviewed described how, in the early  days of USGCRP, formal “terms of reference” defined who did what and  the relationships between federal agencies and the EOP. The terms of  reference included specific milestones of what would be produced by  when, goals, roles, and responsibilities for each agency that was part of  USGCRP.
A 2010 NAPA report noted that the development of a senior-level federal  interagency coordination mechanism with a broad mandate would be  enormously valuable, not only to coordinate federal climate research and  service delivery, but also to potentially coordinate other climate  initiatives. In its report, NAPA recognized that the same senior  interagency group needed to coordinate federal climate research and  service delivery ideally could be configured to support the overarching  executive branch climate policy agenda, which, according to the report,  would likely bring beneficial synergy and focus to decision making.
Another approach for aligning funding with priorities that enjoyed success  in the past, according to the results of a 2008 USGCRP expert roundtable  discussion, was OMB’s past practice of favoring interagency priorities over  individual agency priorities when collectively reviewing climate science  budget decisions. The roundtable discussion emphasized that there needs  to be a “carrot” (a flexible pool of funding to encourage agency  participation) and “stick” (a penalty for not addressing interagency  priorities) to enhance agency implementation of interagency program  priorities. According to our interviews with stakeholders, past USGCRP  funding decisions vetted by an integrated budget review process, were  enforced by what was known as “fencing.” Once agencies signed off on  their contribution to the USGCRP during budget negotiations with OMB,  funding became “fenced off.” Therefore, once an agency committed funds  it was not allowed to “change its mind,” as OMB would not allow it to  reprogram the funds for other purposes elsewhere in its budget. In other  words, once the priorities were set through the budget review process,  they were locked in through “fencing.”
A different idea to improve the coordination of climate change programs  suggested by several reports we reviewed was to provide USGCRP with a  central budget to allocate to its member agencies, or the authority to  redirect agency funding to interagency priorities. A 2009 NRC report stated  that an increased discretionary budget for the USGCRP director, sufficient  to carry out interagency efforts such as workshops would provide  flexibility and seed money for objectives that are of higher priority to the  program than to any participating agency. However, certain respondents  warned that giving budget authority to USGCRP was not practical, noting  that the discretion that agencies have is appropriate because many climate  change activities also serve other functions. Furthermore, according to the  testimony of a former director of OSTP, “it is a reality that central  budgeting for an interagency effort like  or CCTP is  incompatible with the Federal budget structures and processes.”
EOP offices have begun taking steps to improve coordination. For  example, a July 2010 memorandum from OMB and OSTP to department  and agency heads detailing certain climate-related priorities states that “in  requesting funds for large-scale  projects  involving significant interagency or international collaboration, agencies  should identify: the lead organization for the collaboration; the unique  capabilities brought to the collaboration by each partnering organization;  and the specific roles and responsibilities for each organization. Agencies  should coordinate with partner Federal agencies to formulate budget  requests for interagency collaborations.”
section_title: Continuing Efforts to Link Related Climate Change Activities
paragraphs: Efforts to link related climate change activities across the federal  government could better align climate change funding with priorities,  according to respondents, available literature, and stakeholders. For  example, developing a small number of tools that can serve all agencies  would improve the government’s overall effectiveness, according to one  respondent. An area of possible linkage frequently mentioned by  respondents includes efforts to coordinate climate services across the  federal government. According to NOAA, a climate service could provide a  single source for climate data, information, and decision support services  to help individuals, businesses, communities, and governments make  smart choices in anticipation of future climate changes. Several  stakeholders noted that this service could better focus climate efforts to  achieve federal strategic priorities. The 2010 NAPA report discusses the  factors needed for a NOAA Climate Service to succeed—such as the  designation of a lead federal agency to be the day-to-day integrator of the  overall federal effort regarding climate science and services—and makes  recommendations on how to achieve those factors. Also in 2010, the  NSTC’s CENRS established the Roundtable on Climate Information and  Services in recognition of the fact—stated in testimony and in National  Research Council reports—that no single agency possesses all the  information and capabilities of climate services delivery, according to  technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP.
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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Climate change has proven to be among the most challenging  environmental issues currently being addressed by the federal  government. Our work on similarly complex and interdisciplinary issues  underscores the importance of close interagency coordination and  collaboration to ensure that funds are properly accounted for and are  spent so that they have their intended effect. This work also emphasizes  that having agencies agree on roles and responsibilities—clarifying who  will do what—is necessary to overcome barriers to working across  agencies.
The responses of federal officials to our Web-based questionnaire,  together with other information gathered for this review, suggest that  various issues may be limiting the effectiveness of the climate change  enterprise. The questionnaire responses provide the unfiltered views of  the federal officials who work directly on these issues and represent a  range of vantage points on federal efforts. We worked with CCTP, CEQ,  OMB, OSTP, and USGCRP to identify the officials most knowledgeable  about governmentwide efforts to align funding with priorities, including  respondents from entities within EOP, interagency coordinating programs,  and individual agencies. Among the key issues identified by questionnaire  responses, available literature, and interviews with stakeholders are that  (1) methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are not  interpreted consistently across the federal government, and (2) federal  officials do not have a shared understanding of strategic priorities.
The Administration has recognized the need for improvement, and has  taken steps to both begin to augment the reporting of climate change  funding and to better align funding with priorities. That said, officials  responding to our questionnaire provided additional options that may  further improve how agencies, interagency bodies, and entities within EOP  define and report federal climate change funding, set strategic priorities,  and align funding with priorities. Without further improvement in these  areas, it will be difficult for Congress and the public to fully understand  how climate change funds are accounted for and how they are spent.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the coordination and effectiveness of federal climate change  programs and activities, we recommend that the appropriate entities within  the Executive Office of the President, including the Council on  Environmental Quality, Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Office  and Management and Budget, and Office of Science and Technology Policy,  in consultation with Congress, work together with relevant federal agencies  and interagency coordinating bodies to take the following two actions:    Clearly establish federal strategic climate change priorities, including the  roles and responsibilities of the key federal entities, taking into  consideration the full range of activities within the federal climate change  enterprise.
Assess the effectiveness of current practices for defining and reporting  federal climate change funding and aligning funding with priorities, and  make improvements to such practices as needed for Congress and the  public to fully understand how climate change funds are spent.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Chair of CEQ,  the Director of OMB, and the Director of OSTP. They did not provide  official written comments to include in our report. Instead, they provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Chair of CEQ, the Director of OMB, and the  Director of OSTP, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will  be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix X.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines (1) federal funding for climate change activities and  how these activities are organized; (2) the extent to which methods for  defining and reporting climate change funding are interpreted consistently  across the federal government; (3) federal strategic climate change  priorities, and the extent to which funding is aligned with these priorities;  and (4) options, if any, available to better align federal climate change  funding with strategic priorities.
To collect information for these objectives, we analyzed climate change  funding data and tax expenditures presented in Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) reports, reviewed other relevant reports, and interviewed  stakeholders knowledgeable about federal climate change funding  programs and activities. To identify relevant reports, we reviewed our  prior climate change work and conducted a literature search and review  with the assistance of a technical librarian. To identify stakeholders, we  reviewed our prior climate change work and relevant reports to identify  individuals with specific knowledge of federal climate change funding. The  stakeholders we interviewed were formerly involved with climate change  funding decisions within the federal government.
Using information we gathered through our literature review and initial  interviews with stakeholders, we developed a Web-based questionnaire to  gather information and opinions of key federal officials involved in  defining and reporting climate change funding, developing strategic  climate change priorities, or aligning funding with strategic priorities. We  designed the questionnaire to collect information through open-ended  questions, organized in different sections to allow respondents to answer  the questions most in line with their knowledge and experience, and to  skip sections with which they were less familiar. The questionnaire was  divided into five sections: (1) background, where we asked for a range of  descriptive information about the respondents; (2) defining and reporting  federal climate change funding; (3) setting federal strategic climate change  priorities; (4) aligning federal climate change funding with strategic  priorities; and (5) conclusion, where we asked for additional comments.
After we drafted the questionnaire, we asked for comments from select  federal officials involved with climate change issues within the Executive  Office of the President, interagency coordinating programs, and individual  agencies. We conducted pretests with these officials to check that (1) the  questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) terminology was used  correctly, (3) the questionnaire did not place an undue burden on agency  officials, (4) the information could feasibly be obtained, and (5) the  questionnaire was comprehensive and unbiased. We made changes to the  content and format of the questionnaire based on the feedback we  received. A copy of the Web-based questionnaire is included in   appendix IX.
To identify questionnaire respondents, we requested and received lists of  knowledgeable officials from the Council on Environmental Quality  (CEQ), Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), OMB, Office of  Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and United States Global Change  Research Program (USGCRP). On July 26, 2010, we sent an e-mail  notifying 147 officials of their opportunity to participate in the  questionnaire and described the topics that the questionnaire would cover.  We asked these recipients to notify us if they were not the appropriate  person to fill out the questionnaire, and to tell us who might be  appropriate, if possible. Based on these responses, we removed 11 officials  from our list of potential respondents and added 3. Consequently, we  invited a nonprobability sample of 139 officials to complete our Web-based  questionnaire. We later removed an additional 33 officials from the  respondent list because we learned, through follow up phone calls or e- mails, that certain individuals were either not knowledgeable or not  available (e.g., no longer federal employees). The final list of potential  respondents included 106 federal officials.
We administered a Web-based questionnaire that was accessible through a  secure server. On August 6, 2010, we sent an e-mail announcement to  notify the respondents that the questionnaire was available online, and  they were given unique passwords and usernames. We sent a follow-up e- mail message on August 27, 2010, to those who had not yet responded.  Then we contacted all remaining nonrespondents by telephone, starting on  September 7, 2010. The questionnaire was available online until September  24, 2010.
Of the 106 officials who were asked to participate, 73 responded to the  questionnaire, for a response rate of about 69 percent. Not all officials  responded to all questions. The officials who responded hold a variety of  positions within the federal government and represent a diverse array of  disciplines. For example, when respondents were asked to best describe  their positions within the federal government, 7 responded “budget-  oriented,” 9 responded “policy-oriented,” 15 responded “both budget- and  policy-oriented,” 19 responded “program manager,” 7 responded  “scientist,” and the rest did not answer or responded “other.” Respondents  were from entities within the Executive Office of the President,  interagency coordinating programs, and individual agencies. Given our  methodology, we may not have identified every person who has  knowledge of or experience with the topics we covered; however, we do  believe we were able to reach many of the relevant federal officials  because we worked with CCTP, CEQ, OMB, OSTP, and USGCRP to  identify potential participants.
We asked several OSTP officials to respond individually to the  questionnaire, but OSTP elected to provide a single formal response. OSTP  officials stated that their collective response was the subject of lively  internal debate and that they believed that questionnaire responses from  individual federal officials that had not been vetted by agency  management deserved less weight. Throughout this report we attribute  information from this formal collective response directly to OSTP using  phrases such as “according to OSTP” or “OSTP stated.”
The questionnaire presented in appendix IX asked a series of open-ended  questions. As already noted, not all officials responded to all questions. We  analyzed questionnaire responses by developing and testing a coding  structure and coding the interviews using qualitative analysis software. We  used this software to help us group similar responses together into overall  themes to assist in the writing process. We did not use the software for  statistical analysis because the sample of respondents was not a  representative sample.
We used specific responses as illustrative examples throughout the report,  and employed a simple scale to describe the extent to which respondents  made statements related to a theme or other topic discussed in the report.  Descriptors are in relation to the total number of respondents who  commented on a particular theme or topic, which varied by the theme or  topic. We use “several,” “certain,” and “some” interchangeably to mean  three or more, but fewer than one-third. We use “many” to mean more than  one-third, and “most” to mean more than half of the relevant respondents.  If, in the report, we make a general statement like “respondents said…”,  then the text following the statement will provide additional details. To  make the report more readable and less confusing, we do not include the  numbers of respondents who commented on particular themes.
We received and incorporated comments from federal entities. On  December 17, 2010, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP submitted consolidated  technical comments. We accounted for these comments in our draft  report. We also incorporated technical comments submitted from CEQ,  OMB, and OSTP on April 27, 2011.
The term “funding” in this report reflects budget authority, or the authority  provided by federal law to enter into financial obligations that will result  in outlays of federal government funds, as reported by OMB. Unless  otherwise stated, we report funding in nominal terms (not adjusted for  inflation), and all years refer to fiscal years. Totals and percentages may  not add due to rounding. When we adjusted for inflation, we used a fiscal  year chain weighted gross domestic product price index composed of  averages of quarterly indexes from the U.S. Department of Commerce,  Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts,  table 1.1.4. Unless otherwise specified, figures represent actual funding  (not estimates), with the exception of 1993, 1994, and 2010, where we  present estimated funding because actual data are not available.
For the purposes of this report, the term “agency” includes cabinet-level  departments and other agencies, and we use the term “account” to  describe the budget accounts, line items, programs, and activities  presented in OMB reports. When we refer to respondents in this report, we  mean federal officials who completed the questionnaire. Stakeholders  refers to other individuals we interviewed who are experienced with  federal funding for climate change programs and activities. HTML links to  Web sites in this document are not maintained over time.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to May 2011 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: OMB Reports and Other Sources of Climate Change Funding Information
paragraphs: Congress periodically included provisions in appropriations laws requiring  OMB to report funding for climate change programs and activities. As a  result, OMB published several Federal Climate Change Expenditures  Reports to Congress. Table 1 provides links to reports available on OMB’s  Web site, along with selected information about each report.
USGCRP program also reports funding for climate change science  programs and activities in its annual reports to Congress. In addition, both  the Congressional Budget Office and Congressional Research Service  recently reported on climate change funding.
section_title: Appendix III: Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB, 1993-2010
paragraphs: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009)) a expenditures are not included in this table to maintain comparability with our 2005 report. See app about the Recovery Act and appendix VI for more information about tax expenditures.
OMB did not publicly report climate change funding for these years because the annual appropriatio reporting requirement. OMB provided data for these years directly to GAO.
Wildlife adaptation funding is an interim category while the Administration develops criteria to syst broader suite of adaptation programs.
section_title: Appendix IV: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB, 1993-2010
paragraphs: Totals may not add due to rounding.
OMB did not publicly report climate change funding for these years because the annual appropriations laws did not include a  reporting requirement. OMB provided data for these years directly to GAO.  .71 billion as presented by OMB and reported in this appendix does not match the total of $.771  billion presented in appendixes III and V. In its June 2010 report that presented these data, OMB noted that totals may not add  due to rounding and subtraction of double-counts.
section_title: Appendix V: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts, 1993-2010
paragraphs: Appendix V: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts, 1993-2010  2010  ARRA2010  ARRA,400  2010  ARRA2010  ARRA$19 $1,009 $1,095 $1,176 $1,637 $2,555  $2,$2,$2,79$3,4 5 $4,196 $5,36 $5,504 $25,499  $299 2010  ARRA2010  ARRA$45  $1,03  $1,23  $1,106 $1,056 $1,251 $1,694 $1,793 $1,675 $1,637 $2,555  $2,$2,$2,79$3,4 5 $4,196 $5,36 $5,504 $25,499  2 52010  ARRA0 4 $1,306  $1,444  $1,760  $1,654 $1,656 $1,677 $1,657 $1,67 $1,72$1,667 $1,725  $1,03 $1,660 $1,4$1,25 $1,32 $2,023 $2,122 $641  $1,306  $1,444  $1,760  $1,654 $1,656 $1,677 $1,657 $1,67 $1,72$1,667 $1,766  $1,976 $1,64 $1,691 $1,25 $1,32 $2,023 $2,122 $641  2010  ARRA$323 $1,003 $373 $1,0$2,352  $2,66  $3,271  $2,952 $2,76 $3,114 $3,535 $3,511 $3,603 $3,522 $4,54  $5,090 $5,269 $5,76 $5,49$6,255 $7,72 $,771 $26,140  Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value for the account for that year.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Italics indicate that the number does not add to the section total because it is already counted elsewhere in the table.
Climate-related tax expenditures are not included in this table to maintain comparability with our 2005 report, Climate Change:  Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and more Complete, GAO-05-461. Climate-related tax  expenditures are presented separately in appendix VI.
OMB did not publicly report climate change funding for these years because the annual appropriations laws did not include a  reporting requirement. OMB provided data for these years directly to GAO.
Funding for this account has been added since our 2005 report, Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding  Should Be Clearer and more Complete, GAO-05-461.
OMB identified funding for this account as mandatory under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 200 (Pub. L. No. 110- 24 (200)).
OMB presented funding of less than $500,000 for this account.
OMB did not distinguish between indirect and direct technology funding for this year.
GEF funding as presented by OMB for each year represents the portion of total GEF funding that is related to climate change.
Wildlife adaptation funding is an interim category while the Administration develops criteria to systematically account for a  broader suite of adaptation programs.
section_title: Appendix VI: Climate Change Tax Expenditures as Reported by OMB, 2003-2010
paragraphs: Appendix VI: Climate Change Tax  Expenditures as Reported by OMB, 2003-2010  Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value for the account for that year.
Estimates of revenue loss from coal provisions have been removed from the tax expenditure  estimate in the budget. In previous years, the Energy Investment Credit was contained within the New  Technology Credit.
In previous years, the Energy Investment Credit was contained within the New Technology Credit.  The Energy Investment Credit also includes the business installation of fuel cells, which was an  independent entry in tables from previous years. Estimates of revenue loss from the micro-turbine  provision have been removed from the tax expenditure estimate in the budget.
section_title: Appendix VII: Source Documents Articulating Federal Strategic Climate Change Priorities
paragraphs: Our review of questionnaire responses, available literature, and interviews  with stakeholders found that federal climate change priorities are  presented in six general sources, including (1) strategic plans for  interagency programs and agencies, (2) executive level guidance  memoranda, (3) the development of new interagency initiatives, (4)  regulations and guidance memoranda, and (5) international commitments,  and (6) testimony of federal executives before Congress.
subsections: section_title: Strategic Plans
paragraphs: Two interagency programs that coordinate federal climate change  activities have strategic plans with explicit goals. In its 2003 strategic plan,  USGCRP identifies five strategic goals to focus and orient research in the  program: (1) improve knowledge of the Earth’s past and present climate  and environment, including its natural variability, and improve  understanding of the causes of observed variability and change;   (2) improve quantification of the forces bringing about changes in the  Earth’s climate and related systems; (3) reduce uncertainty in projections  of how the Earth’s climate and related systems may change in the future;  (4) understand the sensitivity and adaptability of different natural and  managed ecosystems and human systems to climate and related global  changes; and (5) explore the uses and identify the limits of evolving  knowledge to manage risks and opportunities related to climate variability  and change. OMB’s June 2010 report to Congress on climate change  funding provides a slightly different interpretation of the USGCRP  strategic plan, with an increased emphasis on providing useable  information for decision makers.
The USGCRP strategic plan includes a range of approaches to work  toward these goals. The plan also spells out criteria for establishing  funding priorities. For example, the USGCRP strategic plan states that  programs with good track records of past performance will be favored for  continued investment to the extent that timetables and metrics for  evaluating future progress are provided. USGCRP’s strategic plan was  revised in 2008, but the overall goals were not altered. USGCRP has  kicked off a strategic planning process that will yield a new research plan  in 2011 and a full strategic plan in 2013, according to OSTP.
USGCRP utilizes reports and discussions conducted by the National  Academies as a source of input to its planning. According to OSTP, the  National Academies has been very valuable in advising the U.S.  government on strategic priorities as well as specific programmatic  directions. Most recently, the America’s Climate Choices suite of studies,  which were supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA), has proven very helpful guiding the strategic  direction for a variety of activities currently under way, according to  OSTP.
In its September 2006 strategic plan, CCTP sets six strategic goals to, in  part, enable the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations at a level  that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference. These goals  are (1) reduce emissions from energy end use and infrastructure; (2)  reduce emissions from the energy supply; (3) capture and sequester  carbon dioxide; (4) reduce emissions of noncarbon dioxide greenhouse  gases; (5) improve capabilities to measure and monitor greenhouse gas  emissions; and (6) bolster basic science contributions to technology  development. CCTP’s strategic plan also includes a list of core approaches  and federal programs that contribute to achieving these goals. The plan  also includes a prioritization process with planning principles and  investment criteria to, for example, maximize expected return on  investment. CCTP’s strategic plan has not been revised, but a CCTP  official stated that the priorities established in its 2006 strategic plan  remain essentially unchanged, with the exception of an increased focus on  geoengineering and adaptation.
Individual agencies are also including climate change in their strategic  plans. For example, U.S. Department of Agriculture’s fiscal year 2010–2015  strategic plan includes a strategic goal to ensure national forests are  conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change while  enhancing water resources. Similarly, sections of the U.S. Department of  the Interior’s proposed fiscal year 2011-2016 strategic plan relate to  climate change adaptation activities. Further, within the Department of the  Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a strategic plan for  responding to climate change. Other agencies are undertaking similar  efforts.
section_title: Executive Level Guidance Memoranda
paragraphs: Executive level guidance memoranda are a mechanism for OMB and OSTP  to define climate change priorities within the overall federal budget. The  Directors of OMB and OSTP described climate change priorities within the  science and technology budget in a July 21, 2010, memorandum for the  heads of executive departments and agencies titled Science and  Technology Priorities for the FY 2012 Budget. The memorandum  instructs agencies to explain in their budget submissions how they will  redirect available resources, as appropriate, from lower-priority areas to  science and technology activities that address six challenges. One of the  six challenges identified in the memorandum is “understanding, adapting  to, and mitigating the impacts of global climate change.” Specifically,  agencies are requested to identify the activities in their budgets that  support two priority areas—the National Assessment (described in more  detail below) and the monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions. OMB and  OSTP also issued supplemental guidance on climate change science  collaboration on August 13, 2010.
The Directors of OMB and OSTP issued a similar memorandum for the  fiscal year 2011 budget on August 4, 2009. One of the four key challenges  identified in that memorandum was promoting innovative energy  technologies to reduce dependence on energy imports and mitigate the  impact of climate change while creating green jobs and new businesses.
section_title: Development of New Interagency Initiatives
paragraphs: Several new formal and informal interagency task forces and working  groups managed by entities within the Executive Office of the President  also demonstrate current climate change priorities. These include efforts to  implement a 2009 Executive Order on federal sustainability, the Climate  Change Adaptation Task Force, an Interagency Task Force on Carbon  Capture and Storage, the creation of a recurring national climate  assessment process, the development of a NOAA climate service, and other  formal and informal efforts. According to OSTP, overarching climate-related  policy directions are coordinated in part by the “Green Cabinet.”
subsections: section_title: Federal Agency Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans
paragraphs: The October 5, 2009, Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in  Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance set sustainability  goals and targets, such as greenhouse gas emissions reductions and energy  efficiency improvements, for federal agencies to meet. The Executive  Order requires all federal agencies to (1) annually submit a comprehensive  inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and (2) prepare a strategic  sustainability performance plan that includes, among other things, a  greenhouse gas reduction target for fiscal year 2020 and several water  consumption and waste reduction targets. Agencies are to integrate  sustainability performance plans into their strategic planning and budget  processes. CEQ released guidance on Federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting  and Accounting on October 6, 2010. The guidance establishes methods for  calculating and reporting greenhouse gas emissions associated with  federal agency operations. The White House released federal agency  Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans on September 9, 2010.
section_title: Climate Change Adaptation Task Force
paragraphs: Executive Order 13514 also called for federal agencies to participate  actively in the already existing Interagency Climate Change Adaptation  Task Force. The task force, which began meeting in Spring 2009, is co- chaired by CEQ, NOAA, and 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,  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. It will  prepare 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.
Related to the efforts of the Adaptation Task Force, OMB is beginning to  account for federal climate change adaptation expenditures. In its June  2010 report to Congress, OMB summarized certain activities at the  Department of the Interior designed to promote wildlife adaptation, and  noted that it is working to develop criteria to systematically account for a  broader suite of adaptation programs.
section_title: Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force
paragraphs: The Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage was  established on February 3, 2010, to develop a comprehensive and  coordinated federal strategy to speed the commercial development and  deployment of clean coal technologies. The task force, co-chaired by the  Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, was  charged with proposing a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread,  cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage within 10 years,  with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online  by 2016. The task force issued its report on August 12, 2010. The report  concludes that carbon capture and storage can play an important role in  domestic greenhouse gas emissions reductions while preserving the  option of using abundant domestic fossil energy resources. However,  widespread cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage will  occur only if the technology is commercially available at economically  competitive prices and supportive national policy frameworks are in place.  The task force’s recommendations include specific actions to help  overcome remaining barriers to deployment.
section_title: National Climate Assessment
paragraphs: The Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates that USGCRP prepare  an assessment periodically, but at least every 4 years, which analyzes the  effects of global change on the natural environment and biological  diversity, among other things. According to an OSTP official, the next  assessment mandated by the act will be released in 2013. To meet this  deadline, OSTP is leading an interagency effort under the auspices of  USGCRP to establish a recurring National Climate Assessment. According  to an OSTP official, this effort is coordinated through the Interagency  National Climate Assessment Task Force, which represents 18 agencies  and departments.
OSTP is working with agencies and USGCRP to develop the scope and plan  for the assessment. According to a September 7, 2010 Federal Register notice,  the National Climate Assessment to be released in 2013 is envisioned as a  comprehensive assessment of climate change, impacts, vulnerabilities and  response strategies within a context of how communities and the nation as a  whole create sustainable and environmentally sound development paths.  The notice states that the primary vision of the National Climate Assessment  is a continuing, inclusive national process that (1) synthesizes relevant  science and information; (2) increases understanding of what is known and  not known; (3) identifies needs for information related to preparing for  climate variability and change and reducing climate impacts and vulnerability;  (4) evaluates progress of adaptation and mitigation activities; (5) informs  science priorities; (6) builds assessment capacity in regions and sectors; and  (7) builds societal understanding and skilled use of assessment findings.
section_title: NOAA Climate Service
paragraphs: In an announcement on February 8, 2010, the Department of Commerce  proposed establishing a NOAA climate service. Though not established,  planning information is available on the NOAA climate service Web site,  including draft vision and strategic framework documents. According to  NOAA, such a climate service would provide a single, reliable, and  authoritative source for climate data, information, and decision-support  services to help individuals, businesses, communities, and governments  make smart choices in anticipation of a climate changed future. A NOAA  climate service would provide a one-stop shop for users across the nation,  according to NOAA, and would also bring together many of the agency’s  existing climate assets including research labs, climate observing systems,  modeling facilities, and monitoring systems.
section_title: Other Formal and Informal Interagency Task Forces and Working Groups
paragraphs: According to CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, there are other climate-related formal  and informal interagency task forces and working groups within the  federal government. These groups include    National Ocean Council: Executive Order 13547 regarding Stewardship of  the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes established a national policy to  ensure the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean,  coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, among other things. The order also  created a National Ocean Council to ensure that federal agency decisions  and actions affecting the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes will be guided by  articulated stewardship principles and national priority objectives.
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+):  In December 2010, the U.S. government released its strategy to reduce  emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and increase carbon  sequestration by forests in developing countries. This governmentwide  strategy outlines how the United States will allocate and invest the $1 billion  dedicated for REDD+ announced at the 2009 meeting of the parties to the  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen.
Recovery through Retrofit: According to CEQ, they facilitated a broad  interagency process to propose federal action that would expand green  job opportunities in the United States and boost energy savings by  improving home energy efficiency. The resulting report released in  October 2009 builds on investments made in the Recovery Act to expand  the home energy efficiency and retrofit market.
Regulations and Guidance  While Congress has not passed comprehensive legislation intended to  reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are several ongoing federal efforts  to develop regulations and guidance related to climate change. These  include, but are not limited to, (1) Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) regulations under the Clean Air Act, (2) EPA greenhouse gas  reporting rules, and (3) draft CEQ guidance to agencies on the  consideration of greenhouse gases when fulfilling the requirements of the  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA has the statutory authority to  regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under the  Clean Air Act because greenhouse gases meet the act’s definition of an air  pollutant. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that EPA must regulate  greenhouse gas emissions as an air pollutant if EPA finds them to be an  endangerment to public health or welfare. In response to this case, EPA  issued a finding that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and  hydrofluorocarbon emissions from new motor vehicles are contributing to  air pollution, which is endangering public health and welfare. Based on  this endangerment finding, EPA issued a final rule establishing greenhouse  gas emissions standards for new light-duty motor vehicles on May 7,  2010. Under EPA’s current interpretation of the Clean Air Act,  greenhouse gas emissions from certain stationary sources will be subject  to regulation under the act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration  provisions beginning in 2011 as a result of this final rule.
However, in May 2010, EPA issued a final rule that would only impose the  Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V  permitting provisions on a select number of stationary sources, including  coal-fired power plants, beginning in 2011. Under this rule, if a coal-fired  power plant is built or an existing plant makes a major modification—a  physical or operational change that would result in a significant net  increase in emissions—the plant would need to obtain a Prevention of  Significant Deterioration permit from the appropriate regulatory authority  that implements the best available control technology for greenhouse gas  emissions.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 directed EPA to issue a  regulation requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions  above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy. In accordance  with the direction in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the  act, EPA issued the regulation under its Clean Air Act authority on  October 30, 2009. The regulation requires certain facilities that directly  emit greenhouse gases and upstream suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial  greenhouse gases, as well as manufacturers of vehicles and engines, to  report their annual greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, facilities that  emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse  gas emissions per year and most upstream suppliers and vehicle and  engine manufacturers are required to report their emissions. The  regulation includes provisions to ensure the accuracy of emissions data  through monitoring, recordkeeping, and verification requirements.
On February 18, 2010, CEQ proposed changes to how federal agencies  implement the NEPA, in conjunction with its fortieth anniversary. CEQ  released for public comment draft guidance on how federal agencies  should analyze the environmental effects of greenhouse gas emissions and  climate change when they describe the environmental effects of a  proposed action under NEPA. The draft guidance advises agencies that a  quantitative and qualitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from  a proposed action that would be reasonably anticipated to cause direct  emissions of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent or more may  provide meaningful information to decision makers and the public. Once  the agency determines that an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions or  climate change issues is appropriate, the draft guidance further instructs  the agency to identify alternative actions that are both adapted to  anticipated climate change impacts and mitigate the emissions that cause  climate change.
section_title: International Commitments
paragraphs: The December 2009 Copenhagen Accord, a nonbinding political  agreement, articulated a collective commitment by developed countries to  provide new and additional resources approaching $30 billion between  2010 and 2012 to support developing countries’ mitigation and adaptation  efforts, according to a November 2010 statement by the Department of  State. In accordance with the accord, the current Administration proposed  that the United States would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the range  of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 in conformity with anticipated  energy and climate legislation. According to an April 2010 Department of  State fact sheet, federal agencies are working with international partners  to provide “fast start” climate finance approaching $30 billion during the  period of 2010 to 2012 to help meet the adaptation and mitigation needs of  developing countries. Programs identified as priorities include reducing  emissions from deforestation and degradation and efforts to deploy clean  energy technologies in developing countries.
section_title: Congressional Testimony
paragraphs: Two 2009 testimonies by Dr. John P. Holdren, Director of OSTP, provide a  governmentwide view of climate change programs and priorities in the  current Administration. In a July 30, 2009, testimony, Dr. Holdren  emphasized three areas needing comprehensive and coordinated  treatment from USGCRP: (1) adaptation research to increase knowledge  about the abilities of communities, regions, and sectors to adapt to a  changing climate; (2) integrated assessment of how regional and local  climate impacts are experienced in different ways in different places  across the country and across different economic sectors; and (3) climate  services and coordinated information to assist decision making across  public and private sectors, such as providing local planners with  information on likely changes in precipitation amounts and flooding  rains. Similarly, in a December 2, 2009, testimony, Dr. Holdren stated,  “Besides enhancing research and modeling of the physical climate system,  four areas of particular need for more comprehensive and coordinated  treatment from USGCRP are Earth observations, adaptation research,  integrated assessment, and climate services.”
section_title: Appendix VIII: Supplement on How Federal Climate Activities Are Coordinated, Provided by CEQ, OMB, and OSTP in Technical Comments
paragraphs: In technical comments, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP submitted table 3 to display  how climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue, where many federal  entities manage related program and activities.  According to CEQ, OMB,  and OSTP, this supplement provides a high-level representation of how  informal processes and ad hoc meetings play a key role in setting climate  priorities in addition to the formal processes described in figure 4 in the  body of this report.
section_title: Appendix IX: GAO Climate Change Funding Web-Based Questionnaire
paragraphs: This appendix presents the text of the Web-based questionnaire that we  developed to gather information and opinions of key federal officials  involved in defining and reporting climate change funding, developing  strategic climate change priorities, or aligning funding with strategic  priorities. Several hyperlinks to additional information embedded within  the questionnaire are not reproduced in this appendix.
subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent,  nonpartisan congressional agency, is studying federal funding for climate  change programs and activities at the request of Representative Edward  Markey, Chairman of both the House Select Committee on Energy  Independence and Global Warming and the Subcommittee on Energy and  Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce. Through this web- based questionnaire, GAO is seeking insights from key federal officials,  such as you, to the following questions:  1.  To what extent do federal agencies use a consistent methodology for  defining and reporting climate change funding?  2.  What are federal strategic climate change priorities, and to what extent  is funding aligned with these priorities?  3.  What options, if any, are available to better align federal climate  change funding with strategic priorities?
Your responses to the questionnaire will help GAO explain to Congress  how federal climate change funding is tracked and directed toward goals.  This information may assist Congress as it considers climate change policy  options.
This questionnaire is divided into five sections: (I) Background, (II)  Defining and Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding, (III) Setting  Federal Strategic Climate Change Priorities, (IV) Aligning Federal Climate  Change Funding with Strategic Priorities, and (V) Conclusion. Sections II,  III, and IV begin with questions asking about your familiarity with the  section topics. Because your experience and knowledge about these  topics differ from that of other respondents, the questionnaire allows you  to only answer questions that are related to topics with which you are  most familiar.
section_title: Timing
paragraphs: The questionnaire can be filled out in as little as 30 minutes, but may take  longer depending on the amount of information you would like to share in  response to open-ended questions. We understand that there are great  demands on your time, but your response is critical to help us provide  information to Congress.
section_title: Your Responses
paragraphs: Please respond to the questions to the best of your knowledge and  experience without consulting others. Our report to Congress will not  associate your name with your responses or list you as a respondent. Your  responses will be combined with those of the other respondents and  summarized in our report to Congress.
Navigation, Exiting and Printing the Survey  To save and exit: you can complete the questionnaire in one or multiple  sessions. To end a session, or upon completion of the questionnaire, click  on the “Save and Exit” button at the bottom of the screen. Always use the  “Save and exit” button to close the questionnaire. If you do not use this  button, You will lose all the responses entered on the last screen that you  viewed. To paste your responses from another document: select the text  you would like to paste, copy it, click on the question text box, and type  “Ctrl” and “V” to paste the text in the box. To learn more about navigating,  exiting, and printing the survey, please click here.
To get help: Should you have any questions, please click here.
section_title: Abbreviations
section_title: Key Terms
paragraphs: Approaches for aligning climate change funding with priorities means  systems utilized to clearly define how funding will be used to achieve  goals. These could include formal strategic plans or memos or other  guidance issued through the budget process.
Climate Change Funding - Click here for some basic information on how  the Office of Management and Budget presents climate change funding in  its reports to Congress.
Definitions may include OMB Circular A-11, which describes the types of  programs that agencies should report to OMB as part of the Climate  Change Technology Program (CCTP), United States Global Change  Research Program (USGCRP), and climate change international  assistance. Definitions may also include more specific guidance such as  the Climate Change Technology Program Classification Criteria found in  CCTP’s 2006 Strategic Plan.
Method means practices or procedures used to define and report climate  change funding.
Organization means federal agencies, sub-agencies, or departments,  Executive Office of the President entities such as CEQ, and crosscutting  programs such as USGCRP.
Reporting refers to how funding information makes its way from the  program level through federal agencies to OMB. Reporting can take place  at several stages in the budget process and may involve systems such as  OMB’s MAX.
section_title: I. Background
paragraphs: 1.  Please provide your name, title, and organization.  2.  Which best describes the location of your position within the federal  government?    Executive Office of the President, such as OMB, OSTP, and CEQ    Crosscutting program, such as USGCRP and CCTP    Agency, subagency, or department    Multiple (please explain)    Other (please explain)
If you chose ‘multiple’, please explain:  If you chose ‘other’, please explain:  3.  Which best describes your position?    Both budget and policy oriented    Other (please explain)
If you chose ‘other’, please explain:  4.  Within the last fiscal year, approximately what percentage of your  work time was spent on tasks directly or indirectly related to climate  change?
section_title: II. Defining and Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding
paragraphs: In the following questions, we ask about how funding for climate change  programs and activities is defined and reported within your organization  and across the federal government.  5.  Do you have sufficient knowledge or experience to answer the  following questions about the methods employed by your organization  to define and report climate change funding? (Before responding,  please scroll down to review questions 6 to 11)    Yes (Go to question 6)    No (Click here to skip to question 12.)    Not applicable (Click here to skip to question 12.)  6.  How does your organization define and report climate change funding?  (Please be specific about any definitions, guidance, or any other  methods you refer to in your response)  7.  To what extent does your organization consistently define and report  climate change funding from year to year?  8.  To what extent are current methods for defining and reporting climate  change funding applied consistently within your organization?  9.  What are the strengths of current methods employed by your  organization to define and report climate change funding, if any?  10.  What are the limitations of current methods employed by your  organization to define and report climate change funding, if any?  11.  If you identified limitations with current methods in question 10,  how might they be addressed?  12.  Do you have sufficient knowledge or experience to answer the  following questions about the methods employed to define and report  climate change funding across the federal government? (Before  responding, please scroll down to review questions 13 to 17).    Yes (Go to question 13)    No (Click here to skip to question 18.)  13.  To what extent is climate change funding defined and reported  consistently across the federal government from year to year?  14.  To what extent do officials across the federal government consistently  apply current methods for defining and reporting climate change  funding? Please be specific about which methods you are referring to  in your responses.  15.  What are the strengths of current methods for defining and reporting  climate change funding across the federal government, if any? Please  be specific about which methods you are referring to in your  responses.  16.  What are the limitations of current methods for defining and reporting  climate change funding across the federal government, if any? Please  be specific about which methods you are referring to in your  responses.  17.  If you identified limitations with current methods in question 16,  how might they be addressed?
section_title: III. Setting Federal Strategic Climate Change Priorities
paragraphs: In the following questions, we ask about how strategic priorities for  climate change programs and activities are set across the federal  government.  18.  Do you have sufficient knowledge or experience to answer the  following questions about how the federal government sets strategic  climate change priorities? (Before responding, please scroll down to  review questions 19 – 24).    Yes (Go to question 19)    No (Click here to skip to question 25.)  19.  What are the current strategic climate change priorities across the  federal government?  20.  What are the current processes for setting strategic climate change  priorities across the federal government?  21.  What are the strengths of the current processes for setting strategic  climate change priorities across the federal government, if any?  22.  What are the limitations of the current processes for setting strategic  climate change priorities across the federal government, if any?  23.  If you identified limitations with the current processes for setting  priorities in question 22, how might they be addressed?  24.  If you identified limitations with the current processes for setting  priorities in question 22, who within the federal government should  take the lead on addressing them? Please explain your rationale.
section_title: IV. Aligning Funding With Federal Strategic Climate Change Priorities
paragraphs: In the following questions, we ask about how funding for climate change  programs and activities is aligned with federal strategic priorities within  your organization and across the federal government.  25.  Do you have sufficient knowledge or experience to answer the  following questions about how your organization aligns its climate  change funding with federal strategic priorities? (Before responding,  please scroll down to review questions 26 - 29)    Yes (Go to question 26)    No (Click here to skip to question 30.)    Not applicable (Click here to skip to question 30.).  26.  To what extent does your organization’s planning and funding reflect  strategic priorities across the federal government?  27.  What are the strengths of your organization’s current approaches for  aligning its climate change funding with federal strategic priorities?  28.  What are the limitations of your organization’s current approaches for  aligning its climate change funding with federal strategic priorities?  29.  If you identified limitations with your organization’s approaches in  question 28, how might they be addressed?  30.  Do you have sufficient knowledge or experience to answer the  following questions about how climate change funding is aligned with  strategic priorities across the federal government? (Before responding,  please scroll down to review questions 31 - 35)    Yes (go to question 31)    No (Click here to skip to question 36.)  31.  To what extent is climate change funding aligned with strategic  priorities across the federal government?  32.  What are the strengths of current approaches for aligning climate  change funding with strategic priorities across the federal government,  if any?  33.  What are the limitations of current approaches for aligning climate  change funding with strategic priorities across the federal government,  if any?  34.  If you identified limitations in question 33, how might they be  addressed?  35.  If you identified limitations in question 33, who within the federal  government should take the lead on addressing them? Please  explain your rationale.
section_title: V. Conclusion
paragraphs: Please share any additional comments.
section_title: Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Steven Elstein (Assistant  Director), Kendall Childers, Jeremy Cluchey, Holly Dye, Cindy Gilbert,  Carol Henn, Helen Hsing, Richard Johnson, Perry Lusk, Steven Putansu,  Ben Shouse, Jena Sinkfield, Jeanette Soares, Ardith Spence, John  Stephenson, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Joe Dean Thompson, Lisa Van Arsdale,  and Raj Verma made key contributions to this report.