Climate Change Adaptation: Federal Efforts to Provide Information Could Help Government Decision Making
Published: 2011-11-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
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. According to the National Academies, USGCRP, and others, greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue altering the climate system into the future, regardless of emissions control efforts. Therefore, adaptation--defined as adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate change--is an important part of the response to climate change. This testimony addresses (1) the data challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in their efforts to adapt to a changing climate, (2) the actions federal agencies could take to help address these challenges, and (3) federal climate change strategic planning efforts. The information in this testimony is based on prior work, largely on GAO's recent reports on climate change adaptation (GAO-10-113) and federal climate change funding (GAO-11-317). These reports are based on, among other things, analysis of studies, site visits to areas pursuing adaptation efforts, and responses to a web-based questionnaire sent to federal, state, and local officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As GAO reported in October 2009, challenges from insufficient site-specific data--such as local projections--make it hard for federal, state, and local officials to predict the impacts of climate change, and thus hard to justify the current costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less certain future benefits. Based on responses from a diverse array of federal, state, and local officials knowledgeable about adaptation, related challenges generally fit into two main categories: (1) translating climate data--such as projected temperature and precipitation changes--into information that officials need to make decisions and (2) the difficulty in justifying the current costs of adaptation with limited information about future benefits. Federal actions to provide and interpret site-specific information would help address data challenges associated with adaptation efforts, based on responses to GAO's web-based questionnaire sent to federal, state, and local officials and other materials analyzed for its October 2009 report. In addition to several potential federal actions identified as useful by respondents to GAO's questionnaire, including the development of state and local climate change vulnerability assessments, GAO's 2009 report also contained information about the creation of a federal climate service. Specifically, about 61 percent (107 of 176) of respondents rated the "creation of a federal service to consolidate and deliver climate information to decision makers to inform adaptation efforts" as very or extremely useful. Respondents offered a range of potential strengths and weaknesses for such a service. For example, several respondents stated that a climate service would help consolidate information and provide a single information resource for local officials. However, some respondents to GAO's questionnaire voiced skepticism about whether it was feasible to consolidate climate information, and others stated that such a service would be too rigid and may get bogged down in lengthy review processes. GAO has not made recommendations regarding the creation of a climate service within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or any other agency or interagency body. Federal strategic planning efforts could be improved for many aspects of the climate change enterprise. For example, GAO's October 2009 report on climate change adaptation concluded that, to be effective, related federal efforts must be coordinated and directed toward a common goal. This report recommended the development of a strategic plan to guide the nation's efforts to adapt to a changing climate, including the identification of mechanisms to increase the capacity of federal, state, and local agencies to incorporate information about current and potential climate change impacts into government decision making. Some actions have subsequently been taken to improve federal adaptation efforts, but GAO's May 2011 report on climate change funding found that federal officials do not have a shared understanding of strategic governmentwide priorities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss federal efforts to provide climate  data and services to decision makers. 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. According to the National Academies, USGCRP, and  others, greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue altering  the climate system into the future, regardless of emissions control efforts.  Therefore, adaptation—defined as adjustments to natural or human  systems in response to actual or expected climate change—is an  important part of the response to climate change.
Many federal entities manage climate change programs and activities.  According to the Office of Management and Budget’s June 2010 Federal  Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress, 9 of the 15 cabinet- level 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, such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and federal interagency coordinating bodies,  like  USGCRP, work together to ensure federal climate change activities are  guided by the latest climate science. A September 2010 report by the  National Academy of Public Administration, 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.”
Federal climate programs are shifting their focus to adaptation and  climate services. Our October 2009 report on climate change adaptation  found no coordinated national approach to adaptation, but our May 2011  report on climate change funding cited indications that federal agencies  were beginning to respond to climate change more systematically. About  the same time as the issuance of our October 2009 report, Executive  Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and  Economic Performance called for federal agencies to participate actively  in the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The task  force, which began meeting in Spring 2009, is co-chaired by the  President’s Council on Environmental Quality, NOAA, and the Office of  Science and Technology Policy 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. In addition, USGCRP  recently launched a national climate assessment designed to engage  stakeholders in a process that builds on science, data, and information to  help decision making. Individual agencies are also beginning to consider  adaptation actions. For example, in May 2009, the Chief of Naval  Operations created Task Force Climate Change to address the naval  implications of a changing Arctic and global environment.
My testimony today addresses (1) the data challenges that federal, state,  and local officials face in their efforts to adapt to a changing climate, (2)  the actions federal agencies could take to help address these challenges,  and (3) federal climate change strategic planning efforts. The information  in this testimony is based on prior work, largely on our recent reports on  climate change adaptation and federal climate change funding. Our work  was based on, among other things, analysis of studies; site visits to areas  pursuing adaptation efforts; responses to a web-based questionnaire sent  to federal, state, and local officials knowledgeable about adaptation; and  interviews with such officials. A detailed description of our scope and  methodology is available in each issued product. All of the work on which  this statement is based was performed in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: A Lack of Site- Specific Data, Such as Local Projections of Expected Changes, Can Challenge the Ability of Officials to Manage the Effects of Climate Change
paragraphs: As we reported in October 2009, insufficient site-specific data, such as  local projections of expected changes, make it hard for federal, state, and  local officials to predict the impacts of climate change, and thus hard for  these officials to justify the current costs of adaptation efforts for  potentially less certain future benefits. Based on the responses by a  diverse array of federal, state, and local officials knowledgeable about  adaptation to a web-based questionnaire designed for that report, related  challenges generally fit into two main categories: (1) translating climate  data—such as projected temperature and precipitation changes—into  information that officials need to make decisions and (2) difficulty in  justifying the current costs of adaptation with limited information about  future benefits.
The process of providing useful information to officials making decisions  about adaptation can be summarized by the following:
First, data from global-scale models must be “downscaled” to provide  climate information at a geographic scale relevant to decision makers.  About 74 percent (133 of 179) of the officials who responded to our  questionnaire rated “availability of climate information at relevant  scale (i.e., downscaled regional and local information)” as very or  extremely challenging.
Second, the downscaled climate information must be translated into  impacts at the local level, such as increased stream flow. Some  respondents and officials interviewed for our October 2009 report said  that it is challenging to link predicted temperature and precipitation  changes to specific impacts. For example, one federal official said that  “we often lack fundamental information on how ecological  systems/species respond to non-climate change related  anthropogenic stresses, let alone how they will respond to climate  change.”
Third, local impacts must be translated into costs and benefits, since  this information is required for many decision making processes.  Almost 70 percent (126 of 180) of the respondents to our  questionnaire rated “understanding the costs and benefits of  adaptation efforts” as very or extremely challenging. As noted by one  local government respondent, it is important to understand the costs  and benefits of adaptation efforts so they can be evaluated relative to  other priorities.
Fourth, decision makers need baseline monitoring data to evaluate  adaptation actions over time. Nearly 62 percent (113 of 181) of the  respondents to our questionnaire rated the “lack of baseline  monitoring data to enable evaluation of adaptation actions (i.e.,  inability to detect change)” as very or extremely challenging.
These challenges make it difficult for officials to justify the current costs of  adaptation efforts for potentially less certain future benefits. A 2009 report  by the National Research Council (NRC) discusses how officials are  struggling to make decisions based on future climate scenarios instead of  past climate conditions. According to the report, requested by the  Environmental Protection Agency and NOAA, usual practices and  decision rules (e.g. for building bridges, implementing zoning rules, using  private motor vehicles) assume a stationary climate—a continuation of  past climate conditions, including similar patterns of variation and the  same probabilities of extreme events. According to the NRC report, that  assumption, which is fundamental to the ways people and organizations  make their choices, is no longer valid.
section_title: Federal Actions to Provide and Interpret Site-Specific Information Would Help Officials Understand the Impacts of Climate Change and Available Adaptation Strategies
paragraphs: Federal actions to provide and interpret site-specific information would  help address challenges associated with adaptation efforts, based on our  analysis of responses to the web-based questionnaire and other materials  analyzed for our October 2009 report. The report discussed several  potential federal actions that federal, state, and local officials identified as  useful to inform adaptation decision making.  These included state and  local climate change impact and vulnerability assessments and the  development of processes and tools to access, interpret, and apply  climate information. In that report, we also obtained information regarding  the creation of a climate service—a federal service to consolidate and  deliver climate information to decision makers to inform adaptation efforts.
About 61 percent (107 of 176) of the federal, state, and local officials who  responded to the web-based questionnaire developed for our October  2009 adaptation report rated the “creation of a federal service to  consolidate and deliver climate information to decision makers to inform  adaptation efforts” as very or extremely useful. Respondents offered a  range of potential strengths and weaknesses for such a service. Several  said that a climate service would help consolidate information and provide  a single-information resource for local officials, and others said that it  would be an improvement over the current ad hoc system. A climate  service would avoid duplication and establish an agreed set of climate  information with uniform methodologies, benchmarks, and metrics for  decision making, according to some officials. According to one federal  official, consolidating scientific, modeling, and analytical expertise and  capacity could increase efficiency. Similarly, some officials noted that with  such consolidation of information, individual agencies, states, and local  governments would not have to spend money obtaining climate data for  their adaptation efforts. Others said that it would be advantageous to work  from one source of information instead of different sources of varying  quality. Some officials said that a climate service would demonstrate a  federal commitment to adaptation and provide a credible voice and  guidance to decision makers. In an announcement on February 8, 2010,  the Department of Commerce proposed establishing a NOAA climate  service. Though not yet established, information is available on the NOAA  climate service website, including draft vision and strategic framework  documents. According to NOAA documents, 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 September 2010 report by  the National Academy of Public Administration 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.
Other respondents to our questionnaire, however, were less enthusiastic  about the creation of a climate service. Some voiced skepticism about  whether it was feasible to consolidate climate information, and others said  that such a system would be too rigid and may get bogged down in  lengthy review processes. Furthermore, certain officials stated that  building such capacity may not be the most effective place to focus  federal efforts because the information needs of decision makers vary so  much by jurisdiction. Several officials noted that climate change is an  issue that requires a multidisciplinary response, and a single federal  service may not be able to supply all of the necessary expertise. For  example, one federal official stated that the information needs of Bureau  of Reclamation water managers are quite different from the needs of  Bureau of Land Management rangeland managers, which are different  from the needs of all other resource management agencies and  programs. The official stated that it seems highly unlikely that a single  federal service could effectively identify and address the diverse needs of  multiple agencies. Several respondents also said that having one  preeminent source for climate change information and modeling could  stifle contrary ideas and alternative viewpoints. Moreover, several officials  who responded to our questionnaire were concerned that a climate  service could divert attention and resources from current adaptation  efforts by reinventing duplicative processes without making use of  existing structures. The 2009 NRC report on informing decisions in a  changing climate recommends that the federal government’s adaptation  efforts should be undertaken through a new integrated interagency  initiative with both service and research elements but that such an  initiative should not be centralized in a single agency. Doing so,  according to this report, would disrupt existing relationships between  agencies and their constituencies and formalize a separation between the  emerging science of climate response and fundamental research on  climate and the associated biological, social, and economic phenomena.  Furthermore, the report states that a climate service located in a single  agency and modeled on the weather service would by itself be less than  fully effective for meeting the national needs for climate-related decision  support. The NRC report also notes that such a climate service would not  be user-driven and so would likely fall short in providing needed  information, identifying and meeting critical decision support research  needs, and adapting adequately to changing information needs.
We have not made recommendations regarding the creation of a climate  service within NOAA or any other agency or interagency body, although  the provision of climate data and services will be an important  consideration in future governmentwide strategic planning efforts,  particularly in an era of declining budgets.
section_title: Federal Climate Change Strategic Planning Efforts Could Be Improved
paragraphs: Federal strategic planning efforts could be improved for many aspects of  the climate change enterprise. Our October 2009 report on climate  change adaptation concluded that, to be effective, related federal efforts  must be coordinated and directed toward a common goal. This report  recommended the development of a strategic plan to guide the nation’s  efforts to adapt to a changing climate, including the identification of  mechanisms to increase the capacity of federal, state, and local agencies  to incorporate information about current and potential climate change  impacts into government decision making. Some actions have  subsequently been taken to improve federal adaptation efforts, but our  May 2011 report on climate change funding found that federal officials do  not have a shared understanding of strategic governmentwide priorities.  This report recommended, among other things, the clear establishment of  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. In other  reports, we also noted the need for improved coordination of climate- related activities. For example, our April 2010 report on environmental  satellites concluded that gaps in satellite coverage, which could occur as  soon as 2015, are expected to affect the continuity of important climate  and space weather measurements. In that report, we stated that,  despite repeated calls for interagency strategies for the long-term  provision of environmental data from satellites (both for climate and space  weather purposes), our nation still lacks such plans.
Of particular importance in adaptation are planning decisions involving  physical infrastructure projects, which require large capital investments  and which, by virtue of their anticipated lifespan, will have to be resilient  to changes in climate for many decades. The long lead time and long life  of large infrastructure investments require such decisions to be made well  before climate change effects are discernable. Our ongoing work for the  Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on  Oversight and Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure will  explore this issue by reviewing the extent to which federal, state, and  local authorities consider the potential effects of climate change when  making infrastructure investment decisions.
Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Snowe, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy  to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the  Subcommittee may have.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgements
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact David Trimble  at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the  last page of this statement. Barb Patterson, Anne Hobson, Richard  Johnson, Ben Shouse, Jeanette Soares, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and  Joseph Dean “Joey” Thompson also made key contributions to this  statement.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.