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.