While the U.S. government’s spending to address international environmental issues and concerns has increased significantly in recent decades, it is not a simple matter to precisely quantify this spending or to identify that portion of the spending attributable to or in some way related to the international agreements to which the United States has become a party. In large part, this is due to the fact that the United States has long been a leader in identifying and attempting to deal with environmental problems that have national, regional, and global significance. Often the United States has taken action in the absence of international accords, while at the same time seeking to mobilize other members of the world community to address such problems in a concerted manner. As a result, many federal agencies established and administer environmental programs under legislative mandates and presidential directives that predate or have no direct connection with particular international agreements. Because spending on these programs would likely occur even in the absence of international environmental accords, agency officials and others tend to view these programs as being related to and supporting these international agreements only indirectly and incidentally. One result of this view is that there is generally no mechanism within these agencies or elsewhere in the federal government for systematically tracking agencies’ spending—other than voluntary or assessed contributions—that relates to and supports the objectives of particular international environmental agreements. Consequently, there is no body of readily available statistical information concerning such spending, either on an agency-by-agency or on a governmentwide basis. Such statistics must be generated, instead, on an ad hoc basis, relying on historical program spending data and the judgment of officials with knowledge of the ways in which their agencies’ program activities relate to and support the objectives of particular international environmental accords. The total spending, exclusive of salaries and overhead, for the five agencies and 12 international environmental agreements covered by our survey amounted to $975.2 million during fiscal years 1993-95. The largest share of the funding support for the 12 agreements covered was related directly or indirectly to the objectives and concerns of the United Nations (U.N.) Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Framework Convention). This share accounted for approximately 71 percent of the total spending. The Framework Convention was followed by the Convention on Biological Diversity, which represented approximately 20 percent of the total spending, and by the International Tropical Timber Agreement, which represented approximately 5 percent of the total. The remaining nine agreements together accounted for only about 4 percent of the total spending. (App. III shows the spending on the 12 agreements covered by our review and describes the general problem addressed by each agreement.) The great majority of the five agencies’ spending in connection with these agreements was devoted to the agencies’ specific programs and projects, which accounted for about 98 percent of the spending. These include scientific research programs and projects that only indirectly and incidentally support one or more of the agreements. Information exchanges and training, the second largest purpose category, accounted for about 2 percent of the total spending. All other purpose categories combined—including sponsorship of conferences, travel to attend meetings and conferences, environmental research not included in specific programs and projects, and other nonspecified uses—accounted for less than 1 percent of the total spending. (App. IV gives a complete breakdown of the total spending by purpose.) The five federal agencies covered by our review exhibited significant differences in spending, both in the total amounts and in the purposes for which the money was spent. They also differed with regard to the agreements the spending supported or to which it related in some way. In large measure, these differences are explained by the differing roles, missions, and activities of the agencies, including whether their spending was primarily for activities carried out within the agency itself or in the form of grants and contracts for activities largely performed outside the agency. (App. V compares the agencies’ spending by international agreement, while app. VI compares the agencies’ spending by major purpose.) The State Department is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the U.S. government’s activities in the international environmental arena. During fiscal years 1993-95, the State Department reported that it spent a total of $886,024 in connection with the international environmental agreements covered by our survey. The largest share of the Department’s funding, about 47 percent, related most closely to the objectives and concerns of the Framework Convention. The State Department expended these funds principally for specific projects and programs, which accounted for about 45 percent of the reported expenditures. USAID is the principal foreign development assistance agency of the U.S. government. In fiscal years 1993-95, USAID obligated a total of $593.54 million in support of the objectives of the agreements covered by our review. The largest portion of this amount, about 56 percent, directly or indirectly supported the objectives of the Framework Convention. USAID reported that the predominant share of its spending, about 99 percent, went for specific projects and programs. DOE is a major participant in the multiagency U.S. Global Change Research Program, the objective of which is the improved prediction of global change, including climate change, as a basis for sustainable development. DOE reported that it obligated a total of $300.12 million in fiscal years 1993-95 in connection with the agreements covered by our review. Nearly all of this amount, approximately 98 percent, was for scientific research programs and projects that in indirect ways relate to the concerns and objectives addressed by the Framework Convention. DOE’s documents show that most of these research activities were carried out by the universities, research institutes, and national laboratories that are the primary recipients of DOE’s grants and contracts. EPA is the federal government’s chief technical and regulatory agency for environmental matters. Its expertise causes it to play an important role in international, as well as domestic, environmental activities and programs. In the 3-year period covered by our review, EPA reported that it spent a total of $77.7 million in direct or indirect support of the objectives and concerns of the environmental agreements that were our focus. The largest portion of this spending, 80 percent, was most closely related to the concerns and objectives of the Framework Convention. With respect to the general purposes for which EPA spent these funds, the largest single share, about 85 percent, went for specific projects and programs. The Department of Commerce, largely through its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, conducts a variety of research and data-gathering activities aimed at providing policymakers with the environmental information needed to make decisions. Conserving and managing the nation’s coastal and marine resources is also part of the Department’s mission. In fiscal years 1993-95, Commerce’s agencies spent a total of $3.03 million in direct or indirect support of the environmental agreements covered by our survey. Commerce devoted the greatest shares of its spending to direct or indirect support of the Protocol of l978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships (MARPOL Convention) and the Whaling Convention—about 63 percent and 27 percent, respectively. The single largest portion of these expenditures, 40 percent, was devoted to environmental research. The U.S. government’s spending to address transboundary environmental concerns is not limited to direct spending by federal executive branch agencies. The U.S. government’s financial contributions to UNEP and U.S. funding of the World Bank, regional development banks, and other multilateral financial institutions also support an increasingly significant worldwide investment in programs, projects, and other activities having largely environmental objectives or exhibiting important environmental components. UNEP was established in 1972 by the U.N. General Assembly, following the recommendations of the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, to provide a mechanism for international cooperation in matters relating to the environment and to serve as a catalyst, coordinator, and stimulator of environmental action. The broad objectives of UNEP are to maintain a constant watch on the changing “state of the environment” and to promote action plans or projects leading to environmentally sound development. UNEP’s specific environmental priorities currently include (1) the sustainable management and use of natural resources—atmosphere (climate change, ozone depletion, transboundary air pollution), water (freshwater and coastal and marine waters), biodiversity and land (agriculture, deforestation, and desertification); (2) sustainable production and consumption patterns (cleaner production processes, energy efficiency, environmentally sound technologies); (3) a better environment for human health and well-being (toxic chemical and hazardous waste management, urban environment, environmental emergencies); and (4) global trends and the environment (impact of trade; environmental economics; and environmental law, assessment, and information). An Environment Fund, which receives voluntary contributions from the United States and other U.N. member states, is used to finance or partially finance the initiatives of UNEP and cooperative projects with other U.N. bodies, other international organizations, national governments, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, a number of trust funds established for specific purposes (several of them as a result of treaties or conventions negotiated under UNEP’s auspices) also receive contributions from U.N. member nations. During 1992-95, the United States contributed a total of $74.61 million to UNEP’s Environment Fund to help support a variety of environmental programs and activities ranging from performing environmental assessments to enhancing environmental awareness, assisting in the development of environmental law, building institutional capacities, and fostering technical and regional cooperation. This amount constituted approximately 23 percent of all nations’ support for UNEP’s environmental programs in this period. (See app. VII for a more complete accounting of U.S. participation in UNEP’s environmental programs.) During 1992-95, the United States contributed a total of $7.09 million to the special purpose trust funds administered by UNEP. This amount was slightly more than 11 percent of all nations’ contributions to these trust funds. (See app. VIII for a list of these trust funds and U.S. contributions.) Financing of environmental projects, particularly in developing countries, is also made possible by loans, grants, and other assistance provided by multilateral development banks and affiliated international financial institutions supported by the United States and other governments. In fiscal years 1993-95, the U.S. government provided the World Bank, regional development banks—such as the Inter-American Development Bank—and a variety of other international financial institutions with over $4.7 billion to finance an array of development projects around the world. The World Bank received approximately 70 percent of this amount. (See app. IX for a list of the recipients of this U.S financial support.) While only a minority of the projects funded by these entities could be classified as primarily environmental in nature, a significant proportion of their projects—for example, those pertaining to agriculture and rural development, infrastructure and urban development, and public health— often exhibit an important environmental component or dimension. The World Bank, in a recent “green accounting” of its lending portfolio in the 3 years following the Rio Earth Summit, reported that almost 10 percent—some $6.5 billion—of its cumulative portfolio was devoted to projects with environmental objectives. These have included emergency assistance to Russia to contain and clean up a massive oil spill near the Arctic Circle, support for pollution control and abatement in India, protection of the Baltic Sea from ecological degradation in Latvia, and improvement of solid waste collection and disposal in Lebanon. The funding of environmental activities and projects in the developing world, in particular as they relate to the global environment, is also the mission of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), another international financial institution. Established in 1991 as a pilot program and restructured and refinanced in 1994 through a 4-year replenishment of just over $2 billion of its core trust fund, GEF provides developing countries with grants and low-interest loans for projects and activities that aim to protect the global environment and thereby promote environmentally sound and sustainable development. GEF grants and other forms of funding are available for projects and other activities that address climate change, biological diversity, international waters, and depletion of the ozone layer. Activities addressing land degradation—primarily desertification and deforestation—as they relate to these four focal areas are also eligible for GEF funding. In fiscal years 1993-95, the U.S. government provided a total of $120 million toward its agreed-upon share of GEF’s trust fund replenishment (set at $430 million) to support the institution’s activities (see app. IX). We provided the Departments of State, Commerce, Energy, and the Treasury; the Environmental Protection Agency; the United States Agency for International Development; and the United Nations Environment Program with a draft of this report for their review and comment. All of these agencies and organizations offered minor technical or editorial corrections, which we have incorporated in the report as appropriate. USAID and DOE commented that only a small fraction of their reported spending had a reasonably close and direct relationship to the agreements covered by our review. The bulk of their spending, they stressed, had only an indirect and incidental relationship to these agreements. USAID noted that its reported spending included $15 million obligated to the Montreal Protocol as a result of an earmark on the agency’s appropriation and several thousand dollars to train officials of newly independent states on the compliance procedures of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The remainder of USAID’s spending was reported primarily because the agency considers the environment to be a key element of economic development. USAID noted that it began including the environment as an integral part of its development programs 20 years ago, long before many of the accords covered by our review were conceived, and would be funding these environment-related programs as a basic part of its mandate even if the accords did not exist. DOE commented, similarly, that only about $2.2 million of its reported spending had a reasonably direct relationship with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. This amount represents the funds that DOE’s grantees and contractors spent on activities related to assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which provides technical advice to the Framework Convention. The remainder of the $300.1 million, DOE noted, represents funding for scientific research that relates to the Framework Convention and other international environmental agreements only indirectly and incidentally. We have added language throughout the report, as appropriate, to make it clear that the spending reported by the agencies that were part of our review includes both expenditures that relate directly to the concerns and objectives of the 12 agreements covered and expenditures that have a much more indirect and incidental relationship to these agreements. We also note that much of the agencies’ spending is legislatively or presidentially mandated and would take place even in the absence of international environmental agreements. These qualifications and caveats, in our estimation, minimize the potential for misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the data contained in our report. (See apps. X and XI for State’s and Commerce’s general concerns about the data contained in this report.) We conducted our review from November 1995 through September 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time we will send copies to the Secretaries of State, Commerce, Energy, and the Treasury; the Administrators of USAID and EPA; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be made available to others on request. Please call me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix XII. The Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, requested that we determine or identify the overall level of federal funding for international environmental activities, including specific programs, treaty negotiations, information exchanges, conferences, and research. Specifically, he asked us to identify the (1) funding of international environmental programs and activities by federal agencies and (2) federal financial support for the environmental programs and activities of specialized agencies of the United Nations and multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank, regional development banks, and the Global Environment Facility. In subsequent discussions with the requester’s office, it was agreed that the scope of the work should be narrowed from a governmentwide survey of spending related to more than 170 international agreements to a more feasible review of spending by a smaller group of agencies in connection with a select number of agreements. It was agreed that we would determine the spending—exclusive of assessed and voluntary contributions, which were the subject of a separate GAO review requested by the Chairman—of a sample group of five federal agencies in connection with 12 selected international environmental agreements and that we would obtain expenditure data for the 3 most recent fiscal years for which such data were available (fiscal years 1993 through 1995). It was agreed, furthermore, that the agencies would be requested to provide us with spending data whether or not their spending directly resulted from the United States’ having become a party to a particular international environmental agreement, as long as the spending was generally supportive of the purposes and objectives of the agreement in question. Finally, it was agreed that we would obtain limited data on contributions to the United Nations Environment Program, the World Bank and other multilateral development banks, and the Global Environment Facility. After consultations and discussions with representatives of a number of executive branch agencies, we judgmentally selected five agencies from which to gather environmental spending data. These agencies—the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Commerce—were selected on the basis of such considerations as the Committee’s interest and jurisdiction (the Department of State and USAID), the nature of the agencies’ roles, missions and activities, the magnitude and importance of their environmental programs, and our assessment of the agencies’ ability to respond in a timely manner to our requests for data. Similarly, on the basis of discussions with knowledgeable agency officials, consultations with experts on international environmental matters, and prior GAO work dealing with international environmental agreements, we judgmentally selected 12 agreements in connection with which agencies’ spending data would be sought. (See app. III for a list and description of these agreements.) We used a data collection instrument, in combination with interviews of agency officials and reviews of agencies’ documents, to collect the financial and programmatic information for this report. While we asked the agencies to provide us with data on actual expenditures as opposed to obligations, two agencies—DOE and USAID—said that they would have difficulty doing this in the time frame stipulated and provided us with spending data in the form of obligations instead. Significant amounts of funds were appropriated to one department or agency but spent by another. To avoid double counting, we asked agencies surveyed not to report obligation and expenditure information for funds transferred to other agencies. In instances in which funds were transferred between agencies, the figures in our report show obligations and expenditures as reported by the agency that received the funds. We did not verify the accuracy and completeness of the information provided to us. By federal statute, the Department of State has been assigned the role of coordinating and overseeing the U.S. government’s activities in the international environmental arena. Under section 504 of the Foreign Relations Act of Fiscal Year 1979 (P.L. 95-426), as amended, the Secretary of State is given primary coordination and oversight responsibility for all major science or science and technology agreements and activities between the United States and foreign countries, international organizations, or commissions of which the United States and one or more countries are members. The Department’s role includes recognition, support, assessment, and continuing review of international environment, science, and technology matters to maximize the benefits and minimize the adverse consequences of such matters in the conduct of the nation’s foreign relations. While cooperative international environment, science, and technology activities principally originate in and are implemented by other executive branch departments and agencies of the U.S. government (many of which make significantly greater expenditures for such purposes than does the State Department), they are subject to the Department’s oversight and coordination to ensure consistency with overall U.S. foreign policy. This oversight and coordination responsibility rests primarily with the Department’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, which ensures that the U.S. government’s international environment, science, and technology interests and activities are integrated into U.S. foreign policy and that they receive appropriate consideration, focus, and emphasis in foreign policy deliberations and conclusions. The Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, assisted by other bureaus and offices, manages the interagency process for authorization to negotiate and conclude cooperation agreements. Under the auspices of the National Security Council, the Bureau chairs a series of Interagency Working Groups to oversee policy deliberations in the fields of oceans, the environment, and science and technology. It also oversees the interagency U.S. Climate Change Country Studies Program, which provides developing countries and countries with economies in transition with financial and technical assistance to address the threat of global climate change. Recently, the Secretary of State elevated the priority of environmental considerations to the highest level within the Department, instructing top officials to integrate environmental and natural resource issues into their planning and daily activities both within the United States and in operations abroad. Asserting that “America’s national interests are inextricably linked with the quality of the earth’s environment” and that “worldwide environmental decay threatens U.S. national prosperity,” the Secretary pledged that the administration would seek further reductions in greenhouse gases (emissions that contribute to global warming) and push for Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity and an international agreement known as the Law of the Sea Treaty. As the nation’s principal foreign development assistance agency, USAID provides less-developed nations with substantial funding, primarily in the form of grants and contracts, to assist them in achieving economic growth and at the same time addressing environmental and other practices that impede development. The recipients of USAID’s funding may include other U.S. government agencies, foreign government ministries, international multilateral organizations and programs, nongovernmental organizations, private corporations, expert consultants, universities, and private voluntary groups, among others. Since USAID is primarily a conduit of funding to others, most of the programs and activities it supports are actually implemented outside the agency by nonagency personnel. In recent years, USAID has fundamentally redefined its mission and long-term objectives. Created in 1961 to respond to the threat of communism and to help poorer nations develop and progress, USAID has approached the challenge of development more directly since the end of the Cold War, unconstrained by considerations of superpower competition. In so doing, it has articulated a strategic vision that embraces the concept of sustainable development as a defining principle of its mission. This concept, which was endorsed by the world community at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Development in Rio (the “Earth Summit”) has been defined, in the simplest terms, as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In 1994, USAID published a document, Strategies For Sustainable Development, that articulated the agency’s long-term objectives, specified their relevance to U.S. interests, described how the objectives would be pursued, and identified implementing mechanisms as well as standards for measuring success. Recognizing the threats that pollution, environmental degradation, resource depletion, and unsustainable population growth posed for international peace, stability, and the economic and political interests of Americans and others, the document placed considerable emphasis on strategies for linking development assistance and protection of the environment. In this major area of emphasis, USAID announced that it would pursue two strategic goals: (1) reducing long-term threats to the global environment, particularly the loss of biodiversity and climate change, and (2) promoting sustainable economic growth locally, nationally, and regionally by addressing environmental, economic, and developmental practices that impede development and are unsustainable. In pursuing an integrated approach to environmental issues, USAID said that it would focus on programs that involve, among other things, energy efficiency improvements, expanded use of renewable energy technologies, and limiting deforestation and the burning of forests and agricultural lands; promoting innovative approaches to the conservation and sustainable use of the planet’s biological diversity at the genetic, species, and ecosystem levels; improving agricultural, industrial, and natural resource management practices that play a central role in environmental degradation; strengthening public policies and institutional capacities to protect the supporting, as resources permit, applied research on key environmental issues, technology transfer, scientific exchanges, the development of human resources, and public education on issues affecting the environment. DOE is a major participant in the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which has as its objective the improved prediction of global change, including climate change, as a basis for sustainable development. Mandated since 1990 by the Global Change Research Act (P.L. 101-606), this multiagency research program focuses on the scientific study of the Earth system and its components, including the oceans, the continents, snow cover and sea ice, and the atmosphere. The program is under the overall direction of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, which defines national goals for federal investments in environmental and natural resource research and development and provides leadership for the strategic planning for, the coordination of, and the ranking of environmental research and assessment objectives across all federal agencies. Global change research is aimed at improving capabilities for documenting and assessing potential short- and long-term changes in the Earth system and the implications of these changes on climate, surface ultraviolet radiation, land cover, the health of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and the future availability of resources such as water and food. Global change research assists in the development of improved predictions of extreme events such as floods, droughts, and heat waves, thereby allowing actions to reduce the vulnerability of people and property to natural disasters. The research is organized around a framework of observing and documenting change, understanding processes and consequences, predicting future changes, and assessing options for dealing with change. The large quantities of data generated through these activities require the design and implementation of a sophisticated data- and information-management system to make global change data readily accessible to researchers worldwide. DOE’s Global Change Research Program supports policy needs for scientific information and analyses on greenhouse gases, climate change, and biological effects related to climate change. It also supports the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486) and the scientific contribution to international negotiations on climate and provides DOE with the scientific and basic economic tools to evaluate legislative proposals to combat global warming. DOE’s program addresses chiefly the impacts of energy production and use on the global Earth system, primarily through studies of climate response, and includes research in climate modeling, carbon sources and collectors, impacts on vegetation and ecosystems, critical data needs for global change research and early detection of climatic change, and funding for educating and training scientists and researchers in global change. DOE’s program also supports research on technologies and strategies to mitigate the increases in carbon dioxide and other energy-related greenhouse gases, and plays a major role in implementing the President’s Climate Change Action Plan on reducing greenhouse emissions through changes in energy supply and improvements in energy efficiency and conservation. In addition, DOE conducts research related to energy issues, including studies of chemical processes in the atmosphere related to energy production and use; atmospheric studies of the lower atmospheric boundary layer; solid Earth processes related to the formation of energy resources and possible changes in surface interactions; long-term solar interaction with the Earth; basic research in plant and microbial biology; technologies to reduce or replace carbon-based fuels for energy production; and international environmental policy studies. Consistent with its key role in the Global Change Research Program, virtually all of the more than $300 million spent by DOE in fiscal years 1993-95 in connection with the 12 agreements covered by our survey was related in some way to the concerns and objectives addressed by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. EPA is the nation’s chief technical and regulatory agency for environmental matters. As such, it plays a major role not only in domestic environmental protection activities but in international environmental programs and activities as well. For example, the agency is an important participant in international efforts to address such global environmental concerns as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, marine and coastal pollution, and loss of biological diversity. EPA’s international programs also serve important U.S. economic, foreign policy, and security interests. EPA’s environmental expertise qualifies the agency to support U.S. negotiations with foreign governments on international environmental agreements such as the Montreal Protocol, the Environmental Side Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the recent agreement under the London Convention to ban the disposal of radioactive and industrial wastes at sea. EPA’s international cooperative programs allow the United States to benefit from scientific and technical breakthroughs and regulatory innovations achieved in other countries, while cooperation on the development of international environmental standards helps eliminate unnecessary barriers to trade. EPA’s capacity-building programs help other, less-advanced nations develop the institutional and human resources capability to deal with their own environmental protection needs while, at the same time, opening commercial opportunities for U.S. businesses. EPA’s Office of International Activities serves as the focal point and catalyst for the agency’s international agenda, providing leadership and coordination on behalf of EPA’s Administrator. This office works with other EPA headquarters program offices, with EPA’s regions and laboratories, and with other federal agencies, international organizations, and foreign governments to mobilize the scientific and technical expertise available throughout the agency in support of U.S. environmental objectives overseas. For example, EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation works closely with the State Department to implement U.S. responsibilities under the Montreal Protocol, including providing resources for the Montreal Protocol’s Multilateral Facilitation Fund, which financially assists developing countries to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance provides nations that seek to build an institutional capacity with technical assistance to develop and implement environmental assessment, enforcement, and compliance techniques. The agency’s Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation supports international efforts to address biodiversity concerns, contributing to work on the economic aspects of biodiversity and the economic incentives for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The office also supports international efforts to assess and improve environmental performance and establish credible measures of environmental quality. The agency’s Office of Research and Development conducts collaborative research with the Peoples’ Republic of China to quantify the effects of air pollutants on children’s lung function, thereby strengthening epidemiological information on the relationship between air pollution and respiratory health. The Department of Commerce is an umbrella organization housing a diverse assortment of agencies, including the Patent and Trademark Office, the International Trade Administration, the Economics and Statistics Administration, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institute for Standards and Technology. The Department’s broad mission is to serve and promote the nation’s international trade, economic growth, and technological advancement. It does this through programs that, among other things, offer assistance and information to increase the international economic competitiveness of American business, seek to prevent unfair foreign trade competition, provide business and government planners with social and economic statistics and analyses, improve the understanding of the Earth’s physical environment and oceanic resources, and provide research and support for the increased use of scientific, engineering, and technological development. The environmental activities and expenditures of the Department are largely carried out by its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), encompassing the National Weather Service, the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, the National Ocean Service, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Climate and Global Change Program, the Coastal Ocean Program, and the Data and Information Program. NOAA’s activities implement two primary missions: (a) environmental assessment and prediction and (b) environmental stewardship. NOAA’s environmental assessment and prediction goals are to advance short-term weather warning and forecast services, implement seasonal to interannual climate forecasts, predict and assess decadal to centennial change, and promote safe navigation. NOAA’s environmental stewardship goals are to build sustainable fisheries, recover protected species, and sustain healthy coastal ecosystems. These goals are implemented through NOAA’s historic mission and activities to explore, map, and chart the global ocean and its living resources; protect and provide for rational use of living marine resources and their habitats, including protecting marine mammals and endangered species; conduct research and development aimed at providing alternatives to ocean dumping; provide leadership in promoting sound management of the nation’s coastal zone; describe, monitor, and predict conditions in the atmosphere, oceans, Sun, and space environments; issue warnings against impending destructive natural events; assess the consequences of inadvertent environmental modification over several scales of time; and manage and disseminate long-term environmental information. NOAA provides satellite observations of the environment by operating a national environmental satellite system and conducts an integrated program of research and services relating to the lower and upper atmosphere, space environment, and Earth to increase the understanding of the geophysical environment. In addition, it acquires, stores, and disseminates worldwide environmental data through a system of meteorological, oceanographic, geodetic, and seismological data centers. Embracing the concept of sustainable development that has gained currency since the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the “Earth Summit”), NOAA has articulated a strategic vision for the period from 1995 through 2005 in which societal and economic decisions are coupled strongly with a comprehensive understanding of the environment. In accordance with this vision, NOAA has interpreted its mission as describing and predicting changes in the Earth’s environment to provide the environmental information needed to inform policy decisions and conserving and managing the nation’s coastal and marine resources to ensure sustainable economic opportunities. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) A variety of environmental issues of concern to the parties (U.S., Canada, and Mexico) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Marine pollution caused by ships Air pollution and acid rain Generation, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes $975,225,792($974,608,792 plus $617,000) (Table notes on next page) Commerce Dept. Total spending related to agreement objectives $593,540,000($592,923,000 plus $617,000) Commerce Dept. USAID officials commented that the agency spent a total of $58,000 during fiscal years 1993-95 on travel directly related to the agreements covered by our review, primarily to ensure that the agency’s programs were not compromised and to leverage additional resources from other donors for USAID-initiated sustainable development programs. The balance of USAID reported travel expenditures ($559,000), according to these officials, was for the purpose of sending USAID project managers on site visits to design, oversee, and evaluate the specific projects and programs reported by the agency in connection with the 12 agreements covered by our review. West and Central African Region $2,626,343 (25,000) Totals, fiscal years 1993-95 For fiscal year 1993, the Congress appropriated $30 million for the Global Environment Facility. At the end of the fiscal year, however, this amount was transferred, in accordance with the law, to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to support activities associated with GEF and the Global Warming Initiative. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter dated September 12, 1996. 1. We believe that the wording of our report and the many caveats and qualifications contained in footnotes to the accompanying appendixes minimize the possibility that readers might draw erroneous conclusions about the agencies’ spending related to transboundary environmental concerns or about U.S. international environmental policy. Because the requester of our review specified that we should identify spending generally supportive of the purposes and objectives of the 12 treaties included in our review, we did not structure our methodology to distinquish among direct, indirect, and incidental categories of spending—a task that would have greatly increased the difficulty of our work and the resources and time required to perform it. 2. As noted above, we believe that the wording of our report, particularly the discussion in the Background section and the many caveats and qualifications found elsewhere in connection with the data reported by the agencies that responded to our survey, minimizes the possibilities for misunderstanding and misinterpretation. For example, we make it clear that the U.S. government’s identification of particular environmental problems and its decision to take action to confront such problems has led to the creation of many governmental programs completely independent of international environmental agreements. We also note that the U.S. government has often been in the forefront in urging other nations to join with it in taking concerted action to deal with transboundary environmental concerns—appeals which have led to the negotiation and conclusion of a large number of international environmental agreements to which the U.S. and other nations are parties. 3. We have added language to our report clarifying that the data reported relate only to direct expenditures, not to voluntary or assessed contributions to international organizations and programs. The latter were the subject of a separate GAO review requested by the Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The following are GAO’s comments on the letter from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, dated September 9, 1996. 1. The data discrepancies referred to have been corrected. 2. Our purpose in citing differences in the agencies’ spending and in noting possible reasons for these difference was to highlight what is evident from the data, not to sound a cautionary note regarding interagency comparisons. However, as NOAA correctly states, varying interpretations of our request for spending data by the five agencies and different decisions taken by these agencies regarding which spending to report provide yet another possible explanation for the differences in spending reported by agencies responding to our survey. Edward Kratzer, Assistant Director Ralph Lowry, Evaluator-in-Charge Denise Dias, Senior Evaluator The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed federal funding for international environmental activities, focusing on: (1) the level of funding related to 12 prominent international environmental agreements for fiscal years (FY) 1993 through 1995; (2) funding provided by the Departments of State and Commerce, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Agency for International Development (AID), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and (3) federal financial support for the environmental programs and activities of the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, and other multilateral financial institutions. GAO found that; (1) in fiscal years (FY) 1993 through 1995, the Departments of State and Commerce, DOE, AID and EPA spent a combined total of $975.2 million in support of programs and activities related to the 12 international environmental agreements that were covered by GAO's review; (2) the greatest share of this spending, about 71 percent of the total, was related to the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; (3) the next largest shares of the spending, about 20 percent and 5 percent, respectively, related to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Tropical Timber Agreement; (4) AID accounted for the largest single share, 61 percent of the total spending by the five federal agencies, followed by DOE, which contributed nearly 31 percent of the agencies' spending; (5) the spending by both agencies was primarily related to fulfilling the individual missions of those agencies, and was devoted principally to funding specific projects and programs; (6) in both cases, this spending related more closely to the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change than to the other international environmental agreements covered by GAO's review; (7) the U.S. government's financial support for the international environmental programs and activities of nonfederal agencies consisted primarily of financial support for the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and for the activities of the World Bank and other multilateral financial institutions, including the Global Environment Facility; (8) from 1992 through 1995, the United States contributed a total of $74.61 million to UNEP's Environment Fund, which represented about 23 percent of all nations' contributions to the fund during that period; (9) from 1992 through 1995, the United States also contributed a total of $7.09 million to the special purpose trust funds administered by UNEP, which was approximately 11 percent of all nations' contributions to these funds in that period; (10) in FY 1993 through 1995, the United States provided a total of $4.73 billion to support the overall activities of multilateral development banks and other international financial institutions; (11) while it is not possible to determine precisely what percentage of this amount went for environmental projects, the World Bank, which received approximately 70 percent of this funding, recently reported that almost 10 percent of its investment portfolio was devoted to projects with primarily environmental objectives; and (12) another recipient of funds for environmental purposes was the Global Environment Facility, which in the same period received U.S. contributions totaling $120 million to provide developing countries with grants and loans, at favorable terms, for projects and activities designed to protect the global environment.