Climate Change Adaptation
Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions Gao ID: GAO-10-113 October 7, 2009Changes in the climate attributable to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases may have significant impacts in the United States and the world. For example, climate change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels. 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. GAO was asked to examine (1) what actions federal, state, local, and international authorities are taking to adapt to a changing climate; (2) the challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in their efforts to adapt; and (3) actions that Congress and federal agencies could take to help address these challenges. We also discuss our prior work on similarly complex, interdisciplinary issues. This report is based on analysis of studies, site visits to areas pursuing adaptation efforts, and responses to a Web-based questionnaire sent to federal, state, and local officials.
While available information indicates that many governments have not yet begun to adapt to climate change, some federal, state, local, and international authorities have started to act. For example, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments program supports research to meet the adaptation-related information needs of local decision makers. In another example, the state of Maryland's strategy for reducing vulnerability to climate change focuses on protecting habitat and infrastructure from future risks associated with sea level rise and coastal storms. Other GAO discussions with officials from New York City; King County, Washington; and the United Kingdom show how some governments have started to adapt to current and projected impacts in their jurisdictions. The challenges faced by federal, state, and local officials in their efforts to adapt fell into three categories, based on GAO's analysis of questionnaire results, site visits, and available studies. First, competing priorities make it difficult to pursue adaptation efforts when there may be more immediate needs for attention and resources. For example, about 71 percent (128 of 180) of the officials who responded to our questionnaire rated "non-adaptation activities are higher priorities" as very or extremely challenging. Second, a lack of site-specific data, such as local projections of expected changes, can reduce the ability of officials to manage the effects of climate change. For example, King County officials noted that they are not sure how to translate climate data into effects on salmon recovery. Third, adaptation efforts are constrained by a lack of clear roles and responsibilities among federal, state, and local agencies. Of particular note, about 70 percent (124 of 178) of the respondents rated the "lack of clear roles and responsibilities for addressing adaptation across all levels of government" as very or extremely challenging. GAO's analysis also found that potential federal actions for addressing challenges to adaptation efforts fell into three areas. First, training and education efforts could increase awareness among government officials and the public about the impacts of climate change and available adaptation strategies. Second, actions to provide and interpret site-specific information would help officials understand the impacts of climate change at a scale that would enable them to respond. For instance, about 80 percent (147 of 183) of the respondents rated the "development of state and local climate change impact and vulnerability assessments" as very or extremely useful. Third, Congress and federal agencies could encourage adaptation by clarifying roles and responsibilities. About 71 percent (129 of 181) of the respondents rated the development of a national adaptation strategy as very or extremely useful. Climate change is a complex, interdisciplinary issue with the potential to affect every sector and level of government operations. Our past work on crosscutting issues suggests that governmentwide strategic planning--with the commitment of top leaders--can integrate activities that span a wide array of federal, state, and local entities.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-10-113, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-113
entitled 'Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could
Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions' which was
released on October 22, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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.
Report to the Chairman, Select Committee on Energy Independence and
Global Warming, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2009:
Climate Change Adaptation:
Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More
Informed Decisions:
Climate Change Adaptation:
GAO-10-113:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-10-
113], a report to the Chairman, Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Changes in the climate attributable to increased concentrations of
greenhouse gases may have significant impacts in the United States and
the world. For example, climate change could threaten coastal areas
with rising sea levels. 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.
GAO was asked to examine (1) what actions federal, state, local, and
international authorities are taking to adapt to a changing climate;
(2) the challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in
their efforts to adapt; and (3) actions that Congress and federal
agencies could take to help address these challenges. We also discuss
our prior work on similarly complex, interdisciplinary issues. This
report is based on analysis of studies, site visits to areas pursuing
adaptation efforts, and responses to a Web-based questionnaire sent to
federal, state, and local officials.
What GAO Found:
While available information indicates that many governments have not
yet begun to adapt to climate change, some federal, state, local, and
international authorities have started to act. For example, the U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s Regional Integrated
Sciences and Assessments program supports research to meet the
adaptation-related information needs of local decision makers. In
another example, the state of Maryland‘s strategy for reducing
vulnerability to climate change focuses on protecting habitat and
infrastructure from future risks associated with sea level rise and
coastal storms. Other GAO discussions with officials from New York
City; King County, Washington; and the United Kingdom show how some
governments have started to adapt to current and projected impacts in
their jurisdictions.
The challenges faced by federal, state, and local officials in their
efforts to adapt fell into three categories, based on GAO‘s analysis of
questionnaire results, site visits, and available studies. First,
competing priorities make it difficult to pursue adaptation efforts
when there may be more immediate needs for attention and resources. For
example, about 71 percent (128 of 180) of the officials who responded
to our questionnaire rated ’non-adaptation activities are higher
priorities“ as very or extremely challenging. Second, a lack of site-
specific data, such as local projections of expected changes, can
reduce the ability of officials to manage the effects of climate
change. For example, King County officials noted that they are not sure
how to translate climate data into effects on salmon recovery. Third,
adaptation efforts are constrained by a lack of clear roles and
responsibilities among federal, state, and local agencies. Of
particular note, about 70 percent (124 of 178) of the respondents rated
the ’lack of clear roles and responsibilities for addressing adaptation
across all levels of government“ as very or extremely challenging.
GAO‘s analysis also found that potential federal actions for addressing
challenges to adaptation efforts fell into three areas. First, training
and education efforts could increase awareness among government
officials and the public about the impacts of climate change and
available adaptation strategies. Second, actions to provide and
interpret site-specific information would help officials understand the
impacts of climate change at a scale that would enable them to respond.
For instance, about 80 percent (147 of 183) of the respondents rated
the ’development of state and local climate change impact and
vulnerability assessments“ as very or extremely useful. Third, Congress
and federal agencies could encourage adaptation by clarifying roles and
responsibilities. About 71 percent (129 of 181) of the respondents
rated the development of a national adaptation strategy as very or
extremely useful.
Climate change is a complex, interdisciplinary issue with the potential
to affect every sector and level of government operations. Our past
work on crosscutting issues suggests that governmentwide strategic
planning”with the commitment of top leaders”can integrate activities
that span a wide array of federal, state, and local entities.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that within the Executive Office of the President the
appropriate entities, such as the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), develop a national adaptation plan that includes setting
priorities for federal, state, and local agencies. CEQ generally agreed
with our recommendations.
View GAO-10-113 or key components. To view the e-supplement online,
click on [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-114SP]. For
more information, contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Federal, State, Local, and International Efforts to Adapt to Climate
Change:
Federal, State, and Local Officials Face Numerous Challenges When
Considering Climate Change Adaptation Efforts:
Federal Efforts to Increase Awareness, Provide Relevant Information,
and Define Responsibilities Could Help Government Officials Make
Decisions about Adaptation:
Governmentwide Planning and Collaboration Could Assist Adaptation
Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix III: Information on Selected Federal Efforts to Adapt to a
Changing Climate:
Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and Local Officials' Responses
to Web-Based Questionnaire:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Current and Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the United
States:
Table 2: Percentage of Challenges Related to Awareness and Priorities
Rated as Very or Extremely Challenging:
Table 3: Percentage of Challenges Related to Information Rated as Very
or Extremely Challenging:
Table 4: Percentage of Challenges Related to the Structure and
Operation of the Federal Government Rated as Very or Extremely
Challenging:
Table 5: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to
Awareness and Priorities Rated as Very or Extremely Useful:
Table 6: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to
Information Rated as Very or Extremely Useful:
Table 7: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to
the Structure and Operation of the Federal Government Rated as Very or
Extremely Useful:
Table 8: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to Awareness and
Priorities:
Table 9: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to Information:
Table 10: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to the Structure
and Operation of the Federal Government:
Table 11: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions
Related to Awareness and Priorities:
Table 12: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions
Related to Information:
Table 13: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions
Related to the Structure and Operation of the Federal Government:
Figures:
Figure 1: Tallman Island Water Pollution Control Plant, Queens, New
York City:
Figure 2: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Green Roofs
at Five Borough Technical Services Facility:
Figure 3: Rain Garden in King County, Washington:
Figure 4: A Living Shoreline, Annapolis, Maryland:
Figure 5: Salt Marsh in Somerset County, Maryland:
Figure 6: The Thames Barrier, London, United Kingdom:
Abbreviations:
CDC: enters for Disease Control and Prevention:
CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality:
CIG: Climate Impacts Group:
DEFRA: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
DEP: Department of Environmental Protection:
DNR: Department of Natural Resources:
DNRP: Department of Natural Resources and Parks:
DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation:
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
GCM: General Circulation Model:
Interior: U.S. Department of the Interior:
NAPA: National Adaptation Programme of Action:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NIH: National Institutes of Health:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
NPCC: New York City Panel on Climate Change:
NRC: National Research Council:
RISA: Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments:
UKCIP: United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USGCRP: U.S. Global Change Research Program:
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 7, 2009:
The Honorable Edward Markey:
Chairman:
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Changes in the earth's climate attributable to increased concentrations
of greenhouse gases may have significant environmental and economic
impacts in the United States and internationally.[Footnote 1] Among
other potential impacts, climate change could threaten coastal areas
with rising sea levels, alter agricultural productivity, and increase
the intensity and frequency of floods and tropical storms. Federal,
state, and local agencies are tasked with a wide array of
responsibilities, such as managing natural resources, that will be
affected by a changing climate. Furthermore, climate change has
implications for the fiscal health of the federal government, affecting
federal crop and flood insurance programs, and placing new stresses on
infrastructure. The effects of increases in atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases and temperature on ecosystems are expected to vary
across regions (see table 1).
Table 1: Current and Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the United
States:
Category: Temperature;
Current and projected impacts: * U.S. average temperature has risen
more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years and is projected
to rise more in the future--how much more depends primarily on the
amount of heat-trapping gases emitted globally and how sensitive the
climate is to those emissions.
Category: Precipitation;
Current and projected impacts: * Precipitation has increased an average
of about 5 percent over the past 50 years. Projections of future
precipitation generally indicate that northern areas will become wetter
and southern areas, particularly in the West, will become drier.
Category: Precipitation;
Current and projected impacts: * The amount of rain falling in the
heaviest downpours has increased approximately 20 percent on average in
the past century, and this trend is very likely to continue, with the
largest increases in the wettest places.
Category: Extreme weather events;
Current and projected impacts: * Many types of extreme weather events,
such as heat waves and regional droughts, have become more frequent and
intense during the past 40 to 50 years.
Category: Storms;
Current and projected impacts: * The destructive energy of Atlantic
hurricanes has increased in recent decades. The intensity of these
storms is likely to increase in this century.
Category: Storms;
Current and projected impacts: * In the eastern Pacific, the strongest
hurricanes have become stronger since the 1980s, even while the total
number of storms has decreased.
Category: Storms;
Current and projected impacts: * Cold season storm tracks are shifting
northward, and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and
more frequent.
Category: Sea levels;
Current and projected impacts: * Sea level has risen along most of the
U.S. coast over the last 50 years and will likely rise more in the
future.
Category: Sea levels;
Current and projected impacts: * Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly
and this decline is very likely to continue.
Source: Adapted from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Global
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2009.
[End of table]
Proposed responses to climate change include reducing greenhouse gas
emissions through regulation, promoting low-emissions technologies, and
adapting to the possible impacts by planning and improving protective
infrastructure. Thus far, federal government attention and resources
have been focused on emissions reduction options, climate science
research, and technology investment. In recent years, however, climate
change adaptation--adjustments to natural or human systems in response
to actual or expected climate change--has begun to receive more
attention because the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere are
expected to continue altering the climate system into the future,
regardless of efforts to control emissions.
Policymakers are increasingly viewing adaptation as a risk-management
strategy to protect vulnerable sectors and communities that might be
affected by changes in the climate. As the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President
stated in a 2009 testimony, we can invest in countless ways to reduce
our vulnerability to the changes in climate that we do not succeed in
avoiding, for example by breeding heat-and drought-resistant crop
strains, bolstering our defenses against tropical diseases, improving
the efficiency of our water use, and starting to manage our coastal
zones with sea level rise in mind.[Footnote 2] Furthermore, certain
natural resource adaptation activities--such as efforts to build large,
connected landscapes--will become more important as native species
attempt to migrate or otherwise adapt to climate change. While it may
be costly to raise river or coastal dikes to protect communities and
resources from sea level rise, build higher bridges, or improve storm
water systems, there is a growing recognition, in the United States and
elsewhere, that the cost of inaction could be greater.
According to a recent report by the National Research Council (NRC),
however, individuals and institutions whose futures will be affected by
climate change are unprepared both conceptually and practically for
meeting the challenges and opportunities it presents. Many usual
practices and decision rules (for building bridges, implementing zoning
rules, using private motor vehicles, and so on) assume a stationary
climate--a continuation of past climate conditions, including similar
patterns of variation and the same probabilities of extreme events.
According to NRC, that assumption, fundamental to the ways people and
organizations make their choices, is no longer valid.
Adapting to climate change requires making policy and management
decisions that cut across traditional economic sectors, agencies,
jurisdictional boundaries, and levels of government. The authorities
and expertise necessary to facilitate adaptation activities are spread
among many agencies. Recent proposed legislation considers
governmentwide adaptation strategies, including the development of a
National Climate Service to inform the public through the sustained
production and delivery of authoritative, timely, and useful
information about the impacts of climate change on local, state,
regional, tribal, national, and global scales.[Footnote 3] For example,
the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which passed the
House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, contains provisions related
to climate change adaptation, including the development of federal and
state natural resource agency adaptation plans and the establishment of
a natural resources climate change adaptation fund.
In this context, our review (1) determines what actions, if any,
federal, state, local, and international authorities are taking to
adapt to a changing climate; (2) identifies the challenges, if any,
that federal, state, and local officials reported facing in their
efforts to adapt; and (3) identifies actions that Congress and federal
agencies could take to help address these challenges. We also provide
information about our prior work on similarly complex,
interdisciplinary issues.
To determine the actions federal, state, local, and international
authorities are taking to adapt to a changing climate, we obtained
summaries of adaptation-related efforts from a broad range of federal
agencies and visited four sites where government officials are taking
actions to adapt.[Footnote 4] We chose these sites because they were
frequently mentioned in the background literature and scoping
interviews as examples of locations that are implementing climate
change adaptation and which may offer particularly useful insights into
the types of actions governments can take to plan for climate change
impacts. The four sites were New York City; King County, Washington;
the state of Maryland; and the United Kingdom. Our selected sites are
not representative of all adaptation efforts taking place; however,
they include a variety of responses to climate change effects across
different levels of government. We included an international site visit
to examine how other countries are also starting to adapt. We gathered
information during and after site visits through observation of
adaptation efforts, interviews with officials and stakeholders, and a
review of documents provided by these officials.
To describe challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in
their efforts to adapt and the actions that Congress and federal
agencies could take to help address these challenges, we reviewed
available studies and asked knowledgeable stakeholders about challenges
that federal, state, and local officials may face in adaptation
efforts. Using this information, we compiled lists of potential
challenges and potential actions the federal government could take to
address them and developed a Web-based questionnaire to gather
officials' views on these challenges and actions. We designed the
questionnaire to collect aggregate information through a range of
closed-ended questions, as well as illustrative examples through open-
ended responses. Within the questionnaire, we organized questions about
challenges and actions into groups related to the following: (1)
awareness and priorities, (2) information, and (3) the structure and
operation of the federal government. We worked with organizations that
represent federal, state, and local officials to select a
nonprobability sample of 274 officials knowledgeable about adaptation,
of which 187 completed the questionnaire, for a response rate of
approximately 68 percent.[Footnote 5] The federal, state, and local
officials who responded represent a diverse array of disciplines,
including planners, scientists, and public health professionals. A more
detailed description of our scope and methodology is available in
appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to October 2009
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.
Federal, State, Local, and International Efforts to Adapt to Climate
Change:
While federal agencies are beginning to recognize the need to adapt to
climate change, there is a general lack of strategic coordination
across agencies, and most efforts to adapt to potential climate change
impacts are preliminary. However, some states and localities have begun
to make progress on adaptation independently and through partnerships
with other entities, such as academic institutions. The subjects of our
site visits in the United States--New York City; King County,
Washington; and Maryland--have all taken steps to plan for climate
change and have begun to implement adaptive measures in sectors such as
natural resource management and infrastructure. Their on-the-ground
experiences can help inform the federal approach to adaptation, which
is now primarily focused on assessing projected climate impacts and
exploring adaptation options. In addition, certain nations have taken
action to adapt to climate change. Our detailed examination of the
United Kingdom provides an example of a country where central and local
government entities are working together to address climate change
impacts.
Many Federal Agencies Are Beginning to Take Steps to Adapt to Climate
Change:
Although there is no coordinated national approach to adaptation,
several federal agencies report that they have begun to take action
with current and planned adaptation activities. These activities are
largely ad hoc and fall into several categories, including (1)
information for decision making, (2) federal land and natural resource
management, (3) infrastructure design and operation, (4) public health
research, (5) national security preparation, (6) international
assistance to developing countries, and (7) governmentwide adaptation
strategies. We provide information on selected federal efforts to adapt
to climate change, submitted to us by federal agencies, in a supplement
to this report (see GAO-10-114SP).
Information for decision making: A range of preliminary adaptation-
related activities are reported to be under way at different agencies,
including efforts to provide relevant climate information to help
decision makers plan for future climate impacts. For example, two
programs managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) help policymakers and managers obtain the information they need
to adapt to a changing climate. NOAA's Regional Integrated Sciences and
Assessments (RISA) program supports climate change research to meet the
needs of decision makers and policy planners at the national, regional,
and local levels. Similarly, NOAA's Sectoral Applications Research
Program is designed to help decision makers in different sectors, such
as coastal resource managers, use climate information to respond to and
plan for climate variability and change, among other goals.
Other agencies--including the National Science Foundation, the
Department of the Interior (Interior), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
and the Department of Energy--also manage programs to provide climate
information to decision makers. For example, the National Science
Foundation supports the scientific research needed to help authorities
and the public plan adaptation activities and address any challenges
that arise. Similarly, Interior's newly formed Energy and Climate
Change Task Force is working to ensure that climate change impact data
collection and analysis are better integrated and disseminated, that
data gaps are identified and filled, and that the translation of
science into adaptive management techniques is geared to the needs of
land, water, and wildlife managers as they develop adaptation
strategies in response to climate change-induced impacts on landscapes.
Another example of information sharing is EPA's Climate Ready Estuaries
program, which provides a toolkit to coastal communities and
participants in its National Estuary Program on how to monitor climate
change and where to find data. In addition, NASA's Applied Sciences
Program is working in 31 states and with a number of federal agencies
to help officials use NASA's climate data to make adaptation decisions.
For example, NASA forecasts stream temperatures for NOAA managers
responsible for managing chinook salmon populations in the Sacramento
River and predicts water flow regimes and subsequent fire risk in
Yosemite National Park. DOE's Integrated Assessment Research Program
supports research on models and tools for integrated analysis of both
the drivers and consequences of climate change. DOE's supercomputing
resources provide the capability to assess impacts and vulnerabilities
to temperature change, anticipate extreme events, and predict risk from
climate change effects (e.g., water availability) on a regional and
local basis to better inform decision makers.
Federal land and natural resource management: Several federal agencies
have reported beginning to consider measures that would strengthen the
resilience of natural resources in the face of climate change. For
example, on September 14, 2009, Interior issued an order designed to
address the impacts of climate change on the nation's water, land, and
other natural and cultural resources.[Footnote 6] The Interior order,
among other things, designated eight regional Climate Change Response
Centers. According to Interior, these centers will synthesize existing
climate change impact data and management strategies, help resource
managers put them into action on the ground, and engage the public
through education initiatives. Similarly, several federal agencies
recently released draft reports required by Presidential Executive
Order that describe strategies for protecting and restoring the
Chesapeake Bay, including addressing the impacts of climate change on
the bay.[Footnote 7] In addition, the U.S. Forest Service reported that
it devotes about $9 million to adaptation research and has developed a
strategic framework that recognizes the need to enhance the capacity of
forests and grasslands to adapt. The Chief of the Forest Service
recently testified that dealing with climate change risks and
uncertainties will need to be a more prominent part of the Forest
Service's management decision processes.[Footnote 8]
Certain agencies have also identified specific adaptation strategies
and tools for natural resource managers. For example, Interior provided
a number of adaptation-related policy options for land managers in
reports produced for its Climate Change Task Force, a past effort that
has since been expanded upon to reflect new priorities.[Footnote 9]
Similarly, a recent U.S. Climate Change Science Program report provided
a preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive
ecosystems and resources on federally owned and managed lands.[Footnote
10] In addition, the Department of Defense's Legacy Resource Management
Program is working with other agencies to develop a guidance manual
that will summarize available natural resource vulnerability assessment
tools.
In some instances, federal agencies have begun to help implement
adaptation actions. A recent Congressional Research Service
presentation highlighted two case studies on federal lands in which
federal agencies assisted with adaptation efforts. The first is a
habitat restoration project supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to adapt to sea level rise in the Albemarle Peninsula,
North Carolina. The second focuses on increasing landscape diversity
and managing biodiversity in Washington's Olympic National Forest, the
site of a Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. The
project involved work with the Federal Highway Administration to
protect watersheds and roads.[Footnote 11] In addition, the Department
of Energy reported that it has assessed major water availability issues
related to energy production and use, such as electrical generation and
fuels production, and identified approaches that could reduce
freshwater use in the energy sector, and opportunities for further
research and development to address questions that decision makers will
need to resolve to effectively manage the energy and water availability
issues.
Infrastructure design and operation: A number of federal agencies are
beginning to recognize that they must account for climate change
impacts when building and repairing man-made infrastructure, since such
impacts have implications beyond the natural environment.[Footnote 12]
Many adaptation efforts related to infrastructure are at the planning
stages to date. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
adaptation initiatives include leading a team of water managers to
evaluate how climate change considerations can be incorporated into
activities related to water resources. These managers are also
participating in an interagency group (Climate Change and Water Working
Group) which held workshops in California in spring 2007. At these
workshops, water managers from federal (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA), state, local, and private agencies and
organizations recommended more flexible reservoir operations, better
use of forecasts, and more monitoring of real-time conditions in the
watersheds. A draft report of long-term needs identified by the team
was undergoing agency review in August and September 2009. In addition,
EPA recently issued a guide entitled Smart Growth for Coastal and
Waterfront Communities to help communities address challenges such as
potential sea level rise and other climate-related hazards.[Footnote
13]
Within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway
Administration also formed a multidisciplinary internal working group
to coordinate infrastructure policy and program activities,
specifically to address climate change effects on transportation. Both
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and DOT are reviewing the impacts of
sea level rise on infrastructure. DOT found that a 2-foot sea level
rise would affect 64 percent of the Gulf Coast's port facilities, while
a 4-foot rise would affect nearly three-quarters of port
facilities.[Footnote 14] In addition, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is
currently conducting a study on the impact of climate change on the
National Flood Insurance Program, as we recommended in a 2007 GAO
report.[Footnote 15] The Department of Energy is also working to
protect critical infrastructure--such as the national laboratories and
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--by using climate impact assessments
and developing guidance for management decisions that account for
climate change.
Public health research: Federal agencies responsible for public health
matters are starting to support modeling and research efforts to assess
climate change impacts on their programs and issue areas. Currently,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Climate Change
program is engaged in a number of adaptation initiatives that address
various populations' vulnerability to the adverse health effects of
heat waves. For example, CDC helped develop a Web-based modeling tool
to assist local and regional governments to prepare for heat waves and
an extreme heat media toolkit for cities.
In addition, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed a working
group on Climate Change and Health, which aims to identify research
needs and priorities and involve the biomedical research community in
discussions of the health effects of climate change. Recently, NIH
developed an initiative called the NIH Challenge Grants in Health and
Science Research, which supports research on predictive climate change
models and facilitates public health planning. Of particular interest
to NIH are studies that quantify the current impacts of climate on a
variety of communicable or noncommunicable diseases or studies that
project the impacts of different climate and socioeconomic scenarios on
health.
EPA is also taking steps to ensure that public health needs are met in
the context of climate change. For example, EPA helped produce an
analysis that examined potential impacts of climate change on human
society, opportunities for adaptation, and associated recommendations
for addressing data gaps and research goals.[Footnote 16] In addition,
EPA is working with agencies such as CDC, NIH, and NOAA to support the
public health communities' efforts to develop strategies for adapting
to climate change.
National security preparation: Federal agencies are beginning to study
the potential consequences of climate change on national security. For
example, the Department of Defense's ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review
is examining the capabilities of the armed forces to respond to the
consequences of climate change--in particular, preparedness for natural
disasters from extreme weather events, as is required by Section 951 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.[Footnote
17] This act also requires the department to develop guidance for
military planners to assess the risk of projected climate change,
update defense plans based on these assessments, and develop the
capabilities needed to reduce future impacts. In October 2008, the Air
Force participated in a Colloquium on National Security Implications of
Climate Change sponsored by the U.S. Joint Forces Command. In addition,
the Navy recently sponsored a Naval Studies Board study on the National
Security Implications of Climate Change on U.S. Naval forces (Navy,
Marine Corps, and Coast Guard), to be completed in late 2010. This
study is intended to help the Navy develop future robust climate change
adaptation strategies.
International assistance to developing countries: Some federal agencies
are supporting preliminary adaptation planning efforts internationally.
For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
funds climate change activities related to agriculture, water, forest,
and coastal zone management in partner developing countries. To inform
such activities, USAID produced two documents, an adaptation guidance
manual and a coastal zone adaptation manual, which provide climate
change tools and other information to planners in the developing
world.[Footnote 18] In addition, USAID works with NASA to provide
developing countries with climate change data to help support
adaptation activities. For example, the two agencies use SERVIR, a high-
tech regional satellite visualization and monitoring system for Central
America, to provide a climate change scenario database, climate change
maps indicating impacts on Central America's biodiversity, a fire and
smoke mapping and warning system, red tide alerts, and weather alerts.
The U.S. Department of State's and NOAA's climate efforts also sustain
adaptation initiatives worldwide. NOAA is supporting USAID programs in
Asia, Latin America, and Africa by using a science-based approach to
enhance governments' abilities to understand, anticipate, and manage
climate risk. In addition, Interior's International Technical
Assistance Program, funded through interagency agreements with USAID
and the U.S. Department of State, provides training and technical
assistance to developing countries.[Footnote 19]
Governmentwide adaptation strategies: Currently, no single entity is
coordinating climate change adaptation efforts across the federal
government and there is a general lack of strategic coordination.
However, several federal entities are beginning to develop
governmentwide strategies to adapt to climate change. For example, the
President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is leading a new
initiative to coordinate the federal response to climate change in
conjunction with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, NOAA, and
other agencies. Similarly, the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP), which coordinates and integrates federal research on climate
change, has developed a series of "building blocks" that outline
options for future climate change work, including science to inform
adaptation. The adaptation building block includes support and guidance
for federal, regional, and local efforts to prepare for and respond to
climate change, including characterizing the need for adaptation and
developing, implementing, and evaluating adaptation approaches.
Certain State and Local Governments Are Developing and Implementing
Climate Change Adaptation Measures:
Many government authorities at the state and local levels have not yet
begun to adapt to climate change. According to a recent NRC report, the
response of governments at all levels, businesses and industries, and
civil society is only starting, and much is still to be learned about
the institutional, technological, and economic shifts that have
begun.[Footnote 20] Some states have not yet started to consider
mitigation or adaptation; others have developed plans but have not yet
begun to implement them. However, certain governments are beginning to
plan for the effects of climate change and to implement climate change
adaptation measures. For example, California recently issued a draft
climate adaptation strategy, which directs the state government to
prepare for rising sea levels, increased wildfires, and other expected
changes.[Footnote 21] A general review of state and local government
adaptation planning efforts is available in two recent reports issued
by nongovernment research groups.[Footnote 22]
We visited three U.S. sites--New York City; King County, Washington;
and the state of Maryland--where government officials have begun to
plan for and respond to climate change impacts. The three locations are
all addressing climate change adaptation to various extents. New York
City is in the planning phases for its citywide efforts, although
individual departments have begun to implement specific actions, such
as purchasing land in New York City's watershed to improve the quality
of its water supply. King County, Washington has, among other things,
completed and begun to implement a comprehensive climate change plan,
which includes an adaptation component. Maryland has released the first
phase of its adaptation strategy, which is focused on sea level rise
and coastal storms, reflecting sectors of immediate concern.
Our analysis of these sites suggests three major factors have led these
governments to act. First, natural disasters such as floods, heat
waves, droughts, or hurricanes raised public awareness of the costs of
potential climate change impacts. Second, leaders in all three sites
used legislation, executive orders, local ordinances, or action plans
to focus attention and resources on climate change adaptation. Finally,
each of the governments had access to relevant site-specific
information to provide a basis for planning and management efforts.
This site-specific information arose from partnerships that decision
makers at all three sites formed with local universities and other
government and nongovernment entities.
The following summaries describe the key factors that motivated these
governments to act, the policies and laws that guide adaptation
activities at each location, the programs and initiatives that are in
place to address climate effects, the sources of site-specific
information, and any partnerships that have assisted with adaptation
activities.
New York City, New York:
New York City's adaptation efforts stemmed from a growing recognition
of the vulnerability of the city's infrastructure to natural disasters,
such as the severe flooding in 2007 that led to widespread subway
closures. The development of PlaNYC--a plan to accommodate a projected
population growth of 1 million people, reduce citywide carbon emissions
by 30 percent, and make New York City a greener, more sustainable city
by 2030--also pushed city officials to think about the future,
including the need for climate change adaptation. New York City's
extensive coastline and dense urban infrastructure makes it vulnerable
to sea level rise; flooding; and other extreme weather, including
heatwaves, which could become more common as a result of climate
change.
City officials took several steps to formalize a response to climate
change. In 2008, the Mayor convened the New York City Panel on Climate
Change (NPCC) to provide localized climate change projections and
decision tools. The Mayor also invited public agencies and private
companies to be part of the New York City Climate Change Adaptation
Task Force, a public-private group charged with assessing climate
effects on critical infrastructure and developing adaptation strategies
to reduce these risks. The Office of Long-Term Planning and
Sustainability, established by a local law in 2008, provides oversight
of the city's adaptation efforts, which are part of PlaNYC.[Footnote
23] In addition to citywide efforts, a number of municipal and regional
agencies have begun to address climate change adaptation in their
operations.
To date, New York City's adaptation efforts typically have been
implemented as facilities are upgraded or as funding becomes available.
For example, the city's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),
which manages water and wastewater infrastructure, has begun to address
flood risks to its wastewater treatment facilities. These and other
efforts are described in DEP's 2008 Climate Change Program Assessment
and Action Plan.[Footnote 24] Many of New York City's wastewater
treatment plants, such as Tallman Island (see fig. 1) are vulnerable to
sea level rise and flooding from storm surges because they are located
in the floodplain next to the waterbodies into which they discharge. In
response to this threat, DEP is, in the course of scheduled
renovations, raising sensitive electrical equipment, such as pumps and
motors, to higher levels to protect them from flood damage.
Figure 1: Tallman Island Water Pollution Control Plant, Queens, New
York City:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Source: GAO.
The Tallman Island Water Pollution Control Plant, located on the bank
of the East River, is vulnerable to flooding due to storm surges and
sea level rise.
[End of figure]
Other municipal departments are implementing climate change adaptation
measures as well. For example, the Department of Parks and Recreation
launched a pilot project in its Five Borough Technical Services
Facility to experiment with different types of green roofs--vegetated
plots on rooftops that absorb rainwater and moderate the effects of
heatwaves (see fig. 2). According to an official at the Department of
Parks and Recreation, the department plans to install green roofs in
some of its recreation facilities in the next few years, since these
facilities will be replacing their roofs. Green roofs are part of a
suite of measures the city is exploring to control stormwater at the
source (the location where the rain falls), rather than pipe it
elsewhere. This can help reduce the need for more infrastructure
investments in preparation for more intense rainstorms--investments
that can be very costly and that are not always feasible in the space
available under the city streets.
Figure 2: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Green Roofs
at Five Borough Technical Services Facility:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Source: GAO.
Sedum (left) and native plants (right) are used in the green roof at
the Five Borough Technical Services Facility.
[End of figure]
New York City's adaptation efforts have benefited from officials'
access to site-specific information, starting with the publication of a
2001 report for USGCRP, which provided a scientific assessment of
climate change effects in the New York City metropolitan
region.[Footnote 25] More recently, the city, through the financial
support of the Rockefeller Foundation, created NPCC. According to its
co-chairs, NPCC is charged with completing several decision-support
documents, which will provide decision makers with information about
local climate effects.[Footnote 26] In addition, the Mayor convened the
New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force to prepare a risk-
based assessment of how climate change would affect the communication,
energy, water and waste, transportation, and policy sectors, as well as
the urban ecosystem and parks, and prioritize potential response
strategies. Members of the task force, several of whom represent
private industries, explained that they agreed to participate in the
task force because the Mayor made this issue a priority. They noted
that events such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005; the power outage in
August 2003, which affected New York City as well as other locations in
the United States and Canada; and the 2007 subway flooding raised their
awareness about the effects of climate change on their operations.
New York City partners with other state and local governments to share
knowledge and implement climate change adaptation efforts. It is a
charter member of the C40, a coalition of large cities around the world
committed to addressing climate change. City agencies also share
information with counterparts in other locations about specific
concerns. For example, DEP shares information about addressing water-
related climate change effects with the state of California and the
Water Utility Climate Alliance, a national coalition of water and
wastewater utilities. DEP coordinates with other state and local
governments to address climate change effects on its watershed, which
is located outside of city limits. Similarly, transportation agencies
that serve New York City, such as the Metropolitan Transit Authority
and New Jersey Transit, cross local and state boundaries and require
coordination on a regional scale, which New York City addresses through
its multijurisdictional task force. City officials and members of NPCC
stated that a coherent federal response would further facilitate the
development of common objectives across local and state jurisdictions.
King County, Washington:
According to officials from the King County Department of Natural
Resources and Parks (DNRP), the county took steps to adapt to climate
change because its leadership was highly aware of climate impacts on
the county and championed the need to take action. The county
commissioned an internal study in 2005 that included each department's
projection of its operations in 2050, which focused attention on the
need to prepare for future climate changes. The county also sponsored a
conference in 2005 that brought together scientists, local and state
officials, the private sector, and the public to discuss the impacts of
climate change.[Footnote 27] This conference served to educate the
public and officials and spur action.
Officials from DNRP noted that recent weather events increased the
urgency of certain adaptive actions. For example, in November 2006, the
county experienced severe winter storms that caused a series of levees
to crack. The levees had long needed repair, but the storm damage
helped increase support for the establishment of a countywide flood
control zone district, funded by a dedicated property tax.[Footnote 28]
The flood control zone district will use the funds, in part, to upgrade
flood protection facilities, which will increase the county's
resilience to future flooding. In addition to more severe winter
storms, the county expects that climate change will lead to sea level
rise; reduced snowpack; and summertime extreme weather such as heat
waves and drought, which can lead to power shortages because hydropower
is an important source of power in the region.
The county's first formal step toward adaptation was a climate change
plan developed in 2007.[Footnote 29] The county executive also issued
several executive orders that call for, among other things, the
evaluation of climate impacts in the State Environmental Policy Act
reviews conducted by county departments and the consideration of global
warming adaptation in county operations, such as transportation, waste
and wastewater infrastructure, and land use planning.[Footnote 30] For
example, King County officials told us that during the construction of
the Brightwater wastewater treatment plant, DNRP's Wastewater Treatment
Division added a pipeline that could convey approximately 7 million
gallons per day of reclaimed water to industrial and agricultural users
upon completion in 2011. They also said that additional reclaimed water
could be made available in the future as the need arises. The division
is also addressing the effects of sea level rise by, for example,
increasing the elevation of vulnerable facilities during design and
installing flaps to prevent backflow into its pipelines. Additionally,
in 2008, the county incorporated consideration of climate change into
the revision of its Comprehensive Plan, which guides land use decisions
throughout the county.[Footnote 31]
King County officials told us that each county department convened
internal teams that identify climate change initiatives and report to
the King County Executive Action Group on Climate Change on their
progress. For example, the county's Department of Transportation Road
Services Division started a Climate Change Team in 2008, which
identified several initiatives in response to projections for more
intense storms, including investigating new approaches to stormwater
treatment. Specifically, the Road Services Division is piloting a
roadside rain garden, which captures and filters rainwater using
vegetation and certain types of soil, to determine whether more of such
installations could improve the onsite management of stormwater runoff,
as compared to a traditional engineering approach, which would pipe the
water to a pond or holding vault and then discharge it to an offsite
waterbody (see fig. 3). Alongside the rain garden, a permeable concrete
sidewalk will absorb additional rain that would normally flow off a
traditional impervious sidewalk into adjacent property. The rain garden
and permeable sidewalk are considered examples of "low-impact
development," which are expected to help the county adapt to increased
rainfall by reducing peak surface water flows from road surfaces by
about 33 percent. The Road Services Division is also implementing other
measures that could improve its response to storms, such as installing
larger culverts, improving its ability to detect hazardous road
conditions (for example, due to flooding), and communicating those
conditions to maintenance staff and the general public.
Figure 3: Rain Garden in King County, Washington:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Source: King County Department of Transportation Road Services
Division.
This rain garden, which is under construction, treats roadway runoff
using natural vegetation and certain types of soil.
[End of figure]
County officials receive information on climate change effects from a
number of sources. The University of Washington Climate Impacts Group
(CIG), funded by NOAA's RISA program, has had a long-standing
relationship with county officials and works closely with them to
provide regionally specific climate change data and modeling, such as a
2009 assessment of climate impacts in Washington, as well as decision-
making tools.[Footnote 32] For example, the CIG Web site provides a
Climate Change Streamflow Scenario Tool, which allows water planners in
the Columbia River basin to compare historical records with climate
change scenarios. Similarly, according to its faculty, the Washington
State University Extension Office works with the county and CIG to
provide climate change information to the agricultural and forestry
sectors, both of which will be increasingly affected by insect
infestation due to increases in temperatures. The university's
Extension Office also provides direct technical assistance to
landowners affected by these impacts. King County officials, according
to the director of DNRP, also share information about climate change
adaptation with other localities through several partnership efforts,
including the Center for Clean Air Policy Urban Leaders Adaptation
Initiative.
Maryland:
The Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
told us that Maryland began to work on climate change adaptation
because of the state's vulnerability to coastal flooding due to sea
level rise and severe storms. The Maryland coastline is particularly
vulnerable due to a combination of global sea level rise and local land
subsidence, or sinking, among other factors. It has already experienced
a sea level rise of about 1 foot in the last 100 years, which led to
the disappearance of 13 Chesapeake Bay islands. According to a recent
state report, a 2-to 3-foot sea level rise could submerge thousands of
acres of tidal wetlands; low-lying lands; and Smith Island in the
Chesapeake Bay.[Footnote 33] These ongoing concerns, along with
widespread flooding caused by Hurricane Isabel in 2003, have increased
awareness of climate change effects in the state.
Maryland officials have taken a number of steps to formalize their
response to climate change effects. An executive order in 2007
established the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, which released
the Maryland Climate Action Plan in 2008.[Footnote 34] As part of this
effort, DNR chaired an Adaptation and Response Working Group, which
issued a report on sea level rise and coastal storms.[Footnote 35] The
2008 Maryland Climate Action Plan calls for future adaptation strategy
development to cover other sectors such as agriculture and human
health.
Maryland also enacted several legislative measures that address coastal
concerns, including the Living Shoreline Protection Act of 2008, which
generally requires the use of nonstructural shoreline stabilization
measures instead of "hard" structures such as bulkheads and retaining
walls (see fig. 4).[Footnote 36] According to a Maryland official, as
sea level rises there will be a greater need for shore protection.
Living shorelines provide such protection, while also maintaining
coastal processes and providing aquatic habitat. The Chesapeake and
Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area Protection law was also amended to,
among other things, require the state to update the maps used to
determine the boundary of the critical areas at least once every 12
years.[Footnote 37] Previously, the critical areas were based on a map
drawn in 1972 that did not reflect changes caused by sea level rise or
other coastal erosion processes.
Figure 4: A Living Shoreline, Annapolis, Maryland:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Source: GAO.
This living shoreline uses marsh plants and other natural features to
protect the shore from erosion.
[End of figure]
According to officials from DNR, the department is modifying several
existing programs to ensure that the state is taking the effects of
climate change into account. For example, an official from DNR told us
that it is incorporating climate change into its ranking criteria for
state land conservation. Specifically, this official said that DNR
plans to prioritize coastal habitat for potential acquisition according
to its suitability for marsh migration, among other factors.
Additionally, Maryland is providing guidance to coastal counties to
assist them with incorporating the effects of climate change into their
planning documents. For example, DNR funded guidance documents to three
coastal counties, Dorchester, Somerset, and Worcester Counties, on how
to address sea level rise and other coastal hazards in their local
ordinances and planning efforts.[Footnote 38] Furthermore, in spring
2009, DNR officials participated in a public Somerset County sea level
rise workshop designed to raise the awareness of county residents.
Officials discussed what sea level rise projections could mean to the
county, including the inundation of some of its coastal infrastructure
and salt marsh habitat (see fig. 5), and described some of the state
initiatives to address these effects. Finally, officials with the DNR
Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division told us they are
considering expanding their monitoring of sentinel sites--pristine
streams where changing conditions can help detect localized impacts of
climate change.
Figure 5: Salt Marsh in Somerset County, Maryland:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Source: GAO.
Salt marshes in Somerset County provide important habitat to migrating
waterfowl and other species;they are at risk of inundation due to sea
level rise.
[End of figure]
Maryland draws on local universities, federal agencies, and others to
access information relevant to climate change. For example, in 2008,
scientists from the University of Maryland chaired and participated in
the Scientific and Technical Working Group of the Maryland Commission
on Climate Change. Faculty from the University of Maryland also provide
technical information to the state government and legislature on an
ongoing basis. Maryland receives grants and additional technical
assistance from the federal government and collaborates with federal
agencies and local universities to collect and disseminate data
relevant to climate change adaptation. Specifically, Maryland used
local, state, and federal resources to map its coastline using Light
Detection and Ranging technology and has made this information, as well
as a number of tools that can be used by the public and decision
makers, readily available in the Maryland Shorelines Online Web
site.[Footnote 39] For example, an interactive mapping application
called Shoreline Changes Online allows users to access historic
shoreline data to determine erosion trends.[Footnote 40]
Some Countries Have Begun to Adapt to Climate Change:
Limited adaptation efforts are also taking root in other countries
around the world. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's Fourth Assessment Report found that some adaptation measures
are being implemented in both developing and developed countries, but
that many of these measures are in the preliminary stages.[Footnote 41]
As in the case of the state and local efforts described earlier, some
of these adaptation efforts have been triggered by the recognition that
current weather extremes and seasonal changes will become more frequent
in the future. For example, recognizing the hazards of rising
temperatures, efforts are under way in Nepal to drain the expanding
Tsho Rolpa glacial lake to reduce flood risk. Similarly, in response to
reduced snow cover and glacial retreat, the winter tourism industry in
the European Alpine region has implemented a number of measures, such
as building reservoirs to support artificial snowmaking.
A number of countries have begun to assess their vulnerability to
climate change impacts and formulate national responses. For example,
Canada issued a report in 2008 that discusses the current and future
risks and opportunities that climate change presents, primarily from a
regional perspective.[Footnote 42] Australia recently issued guidance
to local governments about expected climate change projections,
impacts, and potential responses.[Footnote 43] In addition, under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, least-developed
countries can receive funding to develop National Adaptation Programmes
of Action (NAPA)--38 NAPAs had been completed as of October 2008. The
NAPAs communicate the country's priority activities addressing the
urgent and immediate needs and concerns relating to adaptation to the
adverse effects of climate change.
In order to provide an in-depth example of a climate change adaptation
effort outside of the United States, we selected the United Kingdom as
a case study to better understand some of the actions that government
officials can take to adapt to climate change. We selected the United
Kingdom because it has initiated a coordinated climate change
adaptation response at the national, regional, and local levels.
Over the past decade, the issuance of prominent reports and the fallout
from major weather events created awareness among government officials
of the need for the United Kingdom to adapt to inevitable changes to
the nation's climate. For example, in 2002, the London Climate Change
Partnership, a stakeholder-led group coordinated by the Greater London
Authority, issued a report called London's Warming, which detailed the
expected impacts of climate change and the key challenges to addressing
it.[Footnote 44] In addition, the 2006 Stern Review of the economics of
climate change helped accelerate the national government's efforts to
adapt.[Footnote 45] These and other reports show that the United
Kingdom could experience a variety of climate change effects in the
future, including dry summers, wet winters, coastal erosion, and sea
level rise.
In fact, the United Kingdom is already experiencing severe weather
events. For example, in 2006, a dry period brought about water
restrictions in London. The following year, large-scale flooding in the
United Kingdom highlighted the need to respond to climate change and
led to the Pitt Review, which examined resilience to flooding in the
United Kingdom.[Footnote 46] In addition, the nation's insurance
sector, which currently offers comprehensive flood insurance coverage,
has raised concerns about the growing flood risk and asked for
government action.
In response to these concerns, the United Kingdom enacted national
climate change legislation in 2008.[Footnote 47] The law requires the
British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to
report periodically to Parliament with a risk assessment of the current
and predicted impacts of climate change and to propose programs and
policies for climate change adaptation. The law also authorizes the
national government to require certain public authorities, such as
water companies, to report on their assessment of the current and
predicted impact of climate change in relation to the authority's
functions as well as their proposals and policies for adapting to
climate change. According to Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) officials, the government department responsible for
leading action on adaptation, an independent expert subcommittee of the
Committee on Climate Change is to provide technical advice and oversee
these efforts. The United Kingdom is also working with the European
Union to incorporate climate change into its decisions and policies.
In the United Kingdom, different levels of government report working
together to ensure that climate change considerations are incorporated
into decision making. For example, the Government Office for London
chairs the national government's Local and Regional Adaptation
Partnership Board, which aims to facilitate climate change adaptation
at local and regional levels by highlighting best practices and
encouraging information sharing among local and regional officials.
According to DEFRA officials, the primary role of the national
government is to provide information, raise awareness, and encourage
others to take action, not dictate how to adapt. In response to the
United Kingdom's 2008 Climate Change Act, DEFRA officials said they are
preparing a national risk assessment and conducting economic analyses
to quantify the costs and benefits of adaptive actions. DEFRA officials
said that these steps are to assist adaptation efforts undertaken by
the national government, local government officials, and the private
sector.
Adaptation activities are driven in part by the use of national
performance measures, which affect local funding, and national
government programs, according to DEFRA officials. The national
government recently introduced a national adaptation indicator, which
measures how well local governments are adapting to climate change
risk. Performance measured by this and other indicators is the basis
for national grants to local governments. Individual government
agencies are also developing and implementing their own plans to
address climate change effects. For example, the Environment Agency,
which is responsible for environmental protection in England and Wales,
as well as flood defense and water resource management, has initiatives
in place to reduce water use to increase resilience to drought. It is
also addressing flood risk, most notably with the Thames Barrier, a
series of flood gates that protect London from North Sea storms (see
fig. 6).
Figure 6: The Thames Barrier, London, United Kingdom:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Source: GAO.
Bottom: Thames Barrier piers (the gates are underwater between the
piers); top: a Thames Barrier gate rotated out of the water.
[End of figure]
Text Box:
The Thames Barrier is a flood control system designed by the Greater
London Council to respond to severe floods in 1953. The Thames Estuary
2100 plan, which was released for public comment on March 31, 2009, was
undertaken to determine whether London‘s flood control infrastructure,
including the Thames Barrier, can continue to protect London given the
projections for sea level rise and expected development. The
Environment Agency, which operates the barrier, relied on models of sea
level rise to determine that continuation of current operations with
some marginal improve-ments, such as using the barrier‘s gates‘ ability
to ’over-rotate,“ combined with other measures throughout the
floodplain, would be sufficient at this time. The plan includes a
monitoring component and a schedule to take further action later this
century.
The United Kingdom's climate change initiatives are built around
locally relevant information generated centrally by two primary
sources. The United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP), a
primarily publicly funded program housed in Oxford University,
generates stakeholder-centered climate change decision-making tools and
facilitates responses to climate change. UKCIP works with national,
regional, and local users of climate data to increase awareness and
encourage actions. For example, Hampshire County, in southern England,
used climate scenarios generated by UKCIP to complete a test of the
county's sensitivity to weather and other emergency scenarios. The Met
Office Hadley Centre, a government-funded climate research center,
generates climate science information and develops models. According to
a United Kingdom official, the Met Office Hadley Centre generated the
bulk of the science for the UK Climate Projections 2009, while UKCIP,
among others, provided user guidance and training to facilitate the use
of these data.[Footnote 48]
Regional and international partnerships have also played a significant
role in providing guidance to further climate change adaptation efforts
in the United Kingdom. For example, Government Office for London
officials told us that the Three Regions Climate Change Group (which
includes the East of England, South East of England, and London) has
set up a group to promote retrofitting of existing homes. The group
produced a report, which provided a checklist for developers, case
studies, a good practices guide, and a breakdown of the costs
involved.[Footnote 49] On an international scale, Greater London
Authority officials stated that they are working with cities such as
Tokyo, Toronto, and New York City to share knowledge about climate
change adaptation. In addition, a Hampshire County Council official
told us about the county's participation in the European Spatial
Planning--Adapting to Climate Events project, which provided policy
guidance and decision-making tools to governments from several
countries on incorporating adaptation into planning decisions.
Federal, State, and Local Officials Face Numerous Challenges When
Considering Climate Change Adaptation Efforts:
The challenges faced by federal, state, and local officials in their
efforts to adapt fell into three categories, based on our analysis of
questionnaire results, site visits, and available studies. First,
available attention and resources are focused on more immediate needs,
making it difficult for adaptation efforts to compete for limited
funds. Second, insufficient site-specific data, such as local
projections of expected changes, makes it hard to predict the impacts
of climate change, and thus hard for officials to justify the current
costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less certain future
benefits. Third, adaptation efforts are constrained by a lack of clear
roles and responsibilities among federal, state, and local agencies.
Competing Priorities Make It Difficult to Use Limited Funds on
Adaptation Efforts:
Competing priorities limit the ability of officials to respond to the
impacts of climate change, based on our analysis of Web-based
questionnaire results, site visits, and available studies. We asked
federal, state, and local officials to rate specific challenges related
to awareness and priorities as part of our questionnaire. Table 2
presents the percentage of federal, state, and local respondents who
rated these challenges as very or extremely challenging in our
questionnaire. Appendix III includes a more detailed summary of
federal, state, and local officials' responses to the questionnaire.
Table 2: Percentage of Challenges Related to Awareness and Priorities
Rated as Very or Extremely Challenging:
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of funding for
adaptation efforts;
Total responses[A]: 179;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 83.8.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Non-adaptation
activities are higher priorities;
Total responses[A]: 180;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 71.1.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of clear
priorities for allocating resources for adaptation activities;
Total responses[A]: 181;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 70.2.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of public
awareness or knowledge of adaptation;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 61.4.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of a specific
mandate to address climate change adaptation;
Total responses[A]: 182;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 57.7.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of awareness or
knowledge of adaptation among government officials;
Total responses[A]: 182;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 57.7.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of clarity about
what activities are considered adaptation;
Total responses[A]: 181;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 55.2.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Difficult to define
adaptation goals and performance metrics;
Total responses[A]: 181;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 55.8.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of qualified staff
to work on adaptation efforts;
Total responses[A]: 181;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 50.3.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all
challenging through (5) extremely challenging, out of the 187
respondents that completed the questionnaire.
[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating
each challenge as (4) very challenging or (5) extremely challenging
divided by the total number of numerical ratings submitted by officials
for (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging.
[End of table]
The highest rated challenge identified by respondents was an overall
lack of funding for adaptation efforts. This problem is coupled with
the competing priorities of more immediate concerns.
Lack of funding: The government officials who responded to our
questionnaire identified the lack of funding for adaptation efforts as
both the top challenge related to awareness and priorities and the top
overall challenge explored in our questionnaire. Several respondents
wrote that lack of funding limited their ability to identify and
respond to the impacts of climate change, with one noting, for example,
that "we have the tools, but we just need the funding and leadership to
act." A state official similarly said that "we need a large and
dedicated funding source for adaptation. It's going to take 5 to 10
years of funding to get a body of information that will help planning
in the long run. We need to start doing that planning and research
now." Several studies also suggested that it will be difficult, if not
impossible, for any agency to approach the tasks associated with
adaptation without permanent, dedicated funding. For example, a recent
federal report on adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems
and resources stated that a lack of sufficient resources may pose a
significant barrier to adaptation efforts.[Footnote 50]
Officials also cited lack of funding as a challenge during our site
visits. For example, King County officials said that they do not have
resources budgeted directly for addressing climate change. Instead, the
county tries to meet its adaptation goals by shifting staff and
reprioritizing goals. The county officials said it was difficult to
take action without dedicated funding because some adaptation options
are perceived to be very expensive, and that if available funding
cannot support the consideration of adaptation options then the old
ways of doing business would remain the norm.
Competing priorities: Respondents' concerns over an overall lack of
funding for adaptation efforts was further substantiated, and perhaps
explained, by their ratings of challenges related to the priority of
adaptation relative to other concerns. Specifically, about 71 percent
(128 of 180) of the respondents rated the challenge "non-adaptation
activities are higher priorities" as very or extremely challenging. The
responses of federal, state, and local respondents differed for this
challenge. Specifically, about 79 percent (37 of 47) of state officials
and nearly 76 percent (44 of 58) of local officials who responded to
the question rated "non-adaptation activities are higher priorities" as
very or extremely challenging, compared with about 61 percent (44 of
72) of the responding federal officials.[Footnote 51]
Several federal, state, and local officials noted in their narrative
comments in our questionnaire how difficult it is to convince managers
of the need to plan for long-term adaptation when they are responsible
for more urgent concerns that have short-term decision-making time
frames. One federal official explained that "it all comes down to
resource prioritization. Election and budget cycles complicate long-
term planning such as adaptation will require. Without clear top-down
leadership setting this as a priority, projects with benefits beyond
the budget cycle tend to get raided to pay current-year bills to
deliver results in this political cycle." Several other officials who
responded to our questionnaire expressed similar sentiments. A recent
NRC report similarly concluded that, in some cases, decision makers do
not prioritize adaptation because they do not recognize the link to
climate change in the day-to-day decisions that they make.[Footnote 52]
Our August 2007 report on climate change on federal lands shows how
climate change impacts compete for the attention of decision makers
with more immediate priorities.[Footnote 53] This report found that
resource management agencies did not, at that time, make climate change
a priority, nor did their agencies' strategic plans specifically
address climate change. Resource managers explained that they had a
wide range of responsibilities and that without their management
designating climate change as a priority, they focused first on near-
term priorities.
Our questionnaire results and site visits demonstrate that public
awareness can play an important role in the prioritization of
adaptation efforts. About 61 percent (113 of 184) of the officials who
responded to our questionnaire rated "lack of public awareness or
knowledge of adaptation" as either very or extremely challenging. The
need to adapt to climate change is a complicated issue to communicate
with the public because the impacts vary by location and may occur well
into the future. For example, officials in Maryland told us that, while
the public may be aware that climate change will affect the polar ice
cap, people do not realize that it will also affect Maryland. New York
City officials said that it is easier to engage the public once climate
change effects are translated into specific concerns, such as subway
flooding. They said the term climate change adaptation can seem too
abstract to the public.
Lack of Site-Specific Information Limits Adaptation Efforts:
As summarized in table 3 and corroborated by our site visits and
available studies, a lack of site-specific information--including
information about the future benefits of adaptation activities--limits
the ability of officials to respond to the impacts of climate change.
See appendix III for a more detailed summary of federal, state, and
local officials' responses to our Web-based questionnaire.
Table 3: Percentage of Challenges Related to Information Rated as Very
or Extremely Challenging:
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Justifying the current
costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less certain future
benefits;
Total responses[A]: 179;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 79.3.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Size and complexity of
future climate change impacts;
Total responses[A]: 180;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 76.7.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Translating available
climate information (e.g., projected temperature, precipitation) into
impacts at the local level (e.g., increased stream flow);
Total responses[A]: 182;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 74.7.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Availability of climate
information at relevant scale (i.e., downscaled regional and local
information);
Total responses[A]: 179;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 74.3.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Understanding the costs
and benefits of adaptation efforts;
Total responses[A]: 180;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 70.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of information
about thresholds (i.e., limits beyond which recovery is impossible or
difficult);
Total responses[A]: 175;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 64.6.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Making management and
policy decisions with uncertainty about future effects of climate
change;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 64.1.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of baseline
monitoring data to enable evaluation of adaptation actions (i.e.,
inability to detect change);
Total responses[A]: 181;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 62.4.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of certainty about
the timing of climate change impacts;
Total responses[A]: 180;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 57.2.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Accessibility and
usability of available information on climate impacts and adaptation;
Total responses[A]: 182;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 53.3.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Size and complexity of
current climate change impacts;
Total responses[A]: 179;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 48.6.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all
challenging through (5) extremely challenging, out of the 187
respondents that completed the questionnaire.
[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating
each challenge as (4) very challenging or (5) extremely challenging
divided by the total number of numerical ratings submitted by officials
for (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging.
[End of table]
These challenges generally fit into two main categories: (1) the
difficulty in justifying the current costs of adaptation with limited
information about future benefits and (2) translating climate data--
such as projected temperature and precipitation changes--into
information that officials need to make decisions.
Justifying current costs with limited information about future
benefits: Respondents rated "justifying the current costs of adaptation
efforts for potentially less certain future benefits" as the greatest
challenge related to information and as the second greatest of all the
challenges we asked about. They rated the "size and complexity of
future climate change impacts" as the second greatest challenge related
to information.[Footnote 54] These concerns are not new. In fact, a
1993 report on climate change adaptation by the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment posed the following question within its overall
discussion of the issue: "why adopt a policy today to adapt to a
climate change effect that may not occur, for which there is
significant uncertainty about impacts, and for which benefits of the
anticipatory measure may not be seen for decades?"[Footnote 55] Several
officials shared similar reactions in written responses to our
questionnaire. For example, one local official asked, "How do we
justify added expenses in a period of limited resources when the
benefits are not clear?"
While the costs of policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change may
be considerable, it is difficult to estimate the costs of inaction--
costs which could be much greater, according to a recent NRC
report.[Footnote 56] This report cites the long time horizon associated
with climate change, coupled with deep uncertainties associated with
forecasts and projections, among other issues, as aspects of climate
change that are challenging for decision making. Several officials who
responded to our questionnaire noted similar concerns. For example, one
federal official stated that decision makers needed to confront "the
reality that the future will not echo the past and that we will forever
be managing under future uncertainty."
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.[Footnote
57] The long lead time and long life of large infrastructure
investments require such decisions to be made well before climate
change effects are discernable. For example, the United Kingdom
Environment Agency's Thames 2100 Plan, which was released for
consultation in April 2009, maps out necessary maintenance and
operations needs for the Thames Barrier until 2070, at which point
major changes will be required. Since constructing flood gates is a
long-term process (the current barrier was finished 30 years after
officials first identified a need for it), officials said they need the
information now, even if the threat will not materialize until later.
Translating climate data into site-specific information: The process of
providing useful information to officials making decisions about
adaptation can be summarized in several steps.
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. In addition, according to one federal
respondent, "until we better understand what the impacts of climate
change will be at spatial (and temporal) scales below what the General
Circulation Models predict for the global scale, it will be difficult
to identify specific adaptation strategies that respond to specific
impacts."[Footnote 58]
Our August 2007 report on climate change on federal lands demonstrated
that resource managers did not have sufficient site-specific
information to plan for and manage the effects of climate change on the
federal resources they oversee.[Footnote 59] In particular, the
managers lacked computational models for local projections of expected
changes. For example, at that time, officials at the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary said that they lacked adequate modeling and
scientific information to enable managers to predict change on a small
scale, such as that occurring within the sanctuary. Without such
models, the managers' options were limited to reacting to already-
observed effects.
Second, climate information must be translated into impacts at the
local level, such as increased stream flow. About 75 percent (136 of
182) of the respondents rated "translating available climate
information (e.g., projected temperature, precipitation) into impacts
at the local level (e.g., increased stream flow)" as very or extremely
challenging. Some respondents and officials interviewed during our site
visits said that it is challenging to link predicted temperature and
precipitation changes to specific impacts. For example, one federal
respondent 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." Such predictions may not easily or directly match the
information needs that could inform management decisions. For example,
Maryland officials told us they do not have information linking climate
model information, such as temperature and precipitation changes, to
biological impacts, such as changes to tidal marshes. Similarly, King
County officials said they are not sure how to translate climate change
information into effects on salmon recovery efforts. Specifically, they
said that there is incomplete information about how climate change may
affect stream temperatures, stream flows, and other factors important
to salmon recovery.
However, multiple respondents said that it was not necessary to have
specific, detailed, downscaled modeling to manage for adaptation in the
short term. For example, one federal respondent said that although
modeling projections will get better over time, there will always be
elements of uncertainty in how systems and species will react to
climate change. Interestingly, federal, state, and local respondents
perceived the challenges posed by site-specific information needs
differently. About 85 percent (60 of 71) of the federal officials that
responded to the question rated "translating available climate
information into impacts at the local level" as very or extremely
challenging, compared to around 75 percent (35 of 47) of the state
officials and around 66 percent (40 of 59) of the local officials who
responded.
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. In addition, a
federal respondent said that tradeoffs between costs and benefits are
an important component to making decisions under uncertainty.
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, one of the lower
ratings for this category of challenges. As summarized by a recent NRC
report, officials will need site-specific and relevant baselines of
environmental, social, and economic information against which past and
current decisions can be monitored, assessed, and changed.[Footnote 60]
Future decision-making success will be judged on how quickly and
effectively numerous ongoing decisions can be adjusted to changing
circumstances. For example, according to Maryland officials, the state
lacks baseline data on certain key Chesapeake Bay species such as blue
crab and striped bass, so it will be difficult to determine how climate
change will affect them or if proposed adaptation measures were
successful. Similarly, our August 2007 report on climate change on
federal lands showed that resource managers generally lacked detailed
inventories and monitoring systems to provide them with an adequate
baseline understanding of the plant and animal species that existed on
the resources they manage.[Footnote 61] Without such information, it
was difficult for managers to determine whether observed changes were
within the normal range of variability.
Adaptation Efforts Are Constrained by a Lack of Clear Roles and
Responsibilities:
A lack of clear roles and responsibilities for addressing adaptation
across all levels of government limits adaptation efforts, based on our
analysis of federal, state, and local officials' responses to our Web-
based questionnaire, site visits, and relevant studies. Table 4
presents respondents' views on how challenging different aspects of the
structure and operation of the federal government are to adaptation
efforts. See appendix III for a more detailed summary of federal,
state, and local officials' responses to our Web-based questionnaire.
Table 4: Percentage of Challenges Related to the Structure and
Operation of the Federal Government Rated as Very or Extremely
Challenging:
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of clear roles and
responsibilities for addressing adaptation across all levels of
government (i.e., adaptation is everyone's problem but nobody's direct
responsibility);
Total responses[A]: 178;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 69.7.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: The authority and
capability to adapt is spread among many federal agencies (i.e.,
institutional fragmentation);
Total responses[A]: 176;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 58.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Lack of federal
guidance or policies on how to make decisions related to adaptation;
Total responses[A]: 176;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 52.3.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Existing federal
policies, programs, or practices that hinder adaptation efforts;
Total responses[A]: 150;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 42.7.
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?: Federal statutory,
regulatory, or other legal constraints on adaptation efforts;
Total responses[A]: 152;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely challenging[B]: 36.2.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all
challenging through (5) extremely challenging, out of the 187
respondents that completed the questionnaire.
[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating
each challenge as (4) very challenging or (5) extremely challenging
divided by the total number of numerical ratings submitted by officials
for (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging.
[End of table]
These challenges are summarized in two general categories: (1) lack of
clear roles and responsibilities and (2) federal activities that
constrain adaptation efforts.
Lack of clear roles and responsibilities: "A lack of clear roles and
responsibilities for addressing adaptation across all levels of
government (i.e., adaptation is everyone's problem but nobody's direct
responsibility)" was identified by respondents as the greatest
challenge related to the structure and operation of the federal
government. Several respondents elaborated on their rating. For
example, according to one state official, "there is a power struggle
between agencies and levels of government rather than a lack of clear
roles. Everyone wants to take the lead rather than working together in
a collaborative and cohesive way." One local official said he "can't
emphasize enough how the lack of coordination between agencies at the
federal (and state) level severely complicates our abilities at the
local level." Several respondents also noted that there is no element
within the federal government charged with facilitating a collaborative
response. Our questionnaire results show that local and state
respondents consider the lack of clear roles and responsibilities to be
a greater challenge than do federal respondents. Specifically, about 80
percent (48 of 60) of local officials and about 67 percent (31 of 46)
of state officials who responded to the question rated the lack of
clear roles and responsibilities as either very or extremely
challenging, compared with about 61 percent (42 of 69) of the
responding federal officials.
This lack of coordination and "institutional fragmentation" are serious
challenges to adaptation efforts because clear roles are necessary for
a large-scale response to climate change. As stated by one local
government respondent, agencies "have numerous, overlapping
jurisdictions and authorities, many of which have different (sometimes
competing) mandates. If left to plan independently, they'll either do
no adaptation planning or, if they do, likely come up with very
different (and potentially conflicting) adaptation priorities." A
recent NRC report comes to similar conclusions, noting that
collaboration among agencies can be impeded by different enabling laws,
opposing missions, or incompatible budgetary rules.[Footnote 62] Such
barriers--whether formalized or implicit--can lead to disconnects,
conflicts, and turf battles rather than productive cooperation,
according to this report.
About 52 percent (92 of 176) of the respondents to our questionnaire
rated the "lack of federal guidance or policies on how to make
decisions related to adaptation" as very or extremely challenging.
Their views echo our August 2007 report, which noted that federal
resource managers were constrained by limited guidance about whether or
how to address climate change and, therefore, were uncertain about what
actions, if any, they should take.[Footnote 63] In general, resource
managers from all of the agencies we reviewed for that report said that
they needed specific guidance to incorporate climate change into their
management actions and planning efforts. For example, officials from
several federal land and water resource management agencies said that
guidance would help resolve differences in their agencies about how to
interpret broad resource management authorities with respect to climate
change and give them an imperative to take action.
A recent federal report on adaptation options for climate-sensitive
ecosystems and resources reinforced these points.[Footnote 64] It noted
that, as resource managers become aware of climate change and the
challenges it poses, a major limitation is lack of guidance on what
steps to take, especially guidance that is commensurate with agency
cultures and the practical experiences that managers have accumulated
from years of dealing with other stresses, such as droughts and fires.
Our questionnaire results indicate that local government respondents
consider the lack of federal guidance to be a greater challenge than
state or federal respondents. Specifically, about 65 percent (39 of 60)
of local officials who responded to the question rated the "lack of
federal guidance or policies on how to make decisions related to
adaptation" as either very or extremely challenging, compared to about
41 percent (19 of 46) of state officials and nearly 49 percent (33 of
67) of the federal officials that responded.
Federal activities that constrain adaptation efforts: Another challenge
related to the structure and operation of the federal government is the
existence of federal policies, programs, or practices that hinder
adaptation efforts. While not the top challenge in the category,
"existing federal policies, programs, or practices that hinder
adaptation efforts"--which was rated as very or extremely challenging
by about 43 percent (64 of 150) of the officials who responded to our
questionnaire--is an important issue, as indicated by a wealth of
related written comments submitted by respondents, comments from
officials at our site visits, and a number of related studies.
Our work shows how, at least in some instances, federal programs may
limit adaptation efforts. Our 2007 climate change-related report on
FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which insures
crops against drought or other weather disasters, contrasted the
experience of public and private insurers.[Footnote 65] We found that
many major private insurers were incorporating some near-term elements
of climate change into their risk management practices. In addition, we
found that some private insurers were approaching climate change at a
strategic level by publishing reports outlining the potential
industrywide impacts and strategies to proactively address the issue.
In contrast, our report noted that the agencies responsible for the
nation's key federal insurance programs had done little to develop the
kind of information needed to understand their programs' long-term
exposure to climate change for a variety of reasons. As a FEMA official
explained in that report, the National Flood Insurance Program is
designed to assess and insure against current--not future--risks.
Unlike the private sector, neither this program nor the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation had analyzed the potential impacts of an increase
in the frequency or severity of weather-related events on their
operations. At our site visit, Maryland officials told us that FEMA's
outdated delineation of floodplains, as well as its failure to consider
changes in floodplain boundaries due to sea level rise, is allowing
development in areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise in Maryland
because local governments rely on its maps for planning purposes. Both
FEMA and USDA have taken recent steps to address these concerns and
have committed to study these issues further and report to Congress,
with USDA estimating completion by December 31, 2009.[Footnote 66]
Officials who responded to our questionnaire also identified several
federal laws that hinder climate change efforts. A state official noted
that many federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean
Water Act, and the Clean Air Act were passed before recognition of the
effects of climate change. A federal official stated that federal
environmental laws may need to be amended to provide greater authority
for agencies to practice adaptive management.[Footnote 67] The official
noted that federal laws promoting development may also warrant re-
examination to the extent they provide incentives that run counter to
prudent land and resource planning in the climate change context.
One federal respondent stated that federal laws, regulations, and
policies assume that long-term climate is stable and that species,
ecosystems, and water resources can be managed to maintain the status
quo or to restore them to prior conditions. This official observed that
these objectives may no longer be achievable as climate change
intensifies in the coming decades. A state official similarly noted
that because of the effects of climate change, maintenance of the
resource management status quo in any given area may no longer be
possible. Part of the problem may lie in the inherent tension between
the order of legal frameworks and the relative chaos of natural
systems, which one legal commentator explained as follows: "Lawyers
like rules. We like enforceable rules. We want our rules to be optimal,
tidy, and timeless—. Collaborative ecosystem management, by contrast,
is often messy, elaborate, cumbersome, ad hoc, and defiantly
unconventional."[Footnote 68] Several officials who responded to our
questionnaire expressed similar concerns related to climate change
adaptation. For example, one federal official stated that existing laws
"were built for the status quo, but we now must re-engineer the entire
legal framework to deal with the ongoing, perpetual, and rapid change.
A systems view is essential in order to manage change optimally."
Federal Efforts to Increase Awareness, Provide Relevant Information,
and Define Responsibilities Could Help Government Officials Make
Decisions about Adaptation:
Potential federal actions for addressing challenges to adaptation
efforts fall into three areas, based on our analysis of questionnaire
results, site visits, and available studies: (1) federal training and
education initiatives that could increase awareness among government
officials and the public about the impacts of climate change and
available adaptation strategies; (2) actions to provide and interpret
site-specific information that could help officials understand the
impacts of climate change at a scale that would enable them to respond;
and (3) steps Congress and federal agencies could take to encourage
adaptation by setting priorities and re-evaluating programs that hinder
adaptation efforts.
Federal Training and Education Initiatives Would Assist Adaptation
Efforts:
Federal training and education initiatives would assist adaptation
efforts, based on our analysis of our Web-based questionnaire, site
visits, and relevant studies. Table 5 presents potential federal
government actions related to awareness and priorities as rated by
federal, state, and local officials who responded to our questionnaire.
See appendix III for a more detailed summary of federal, state, and
local officials' responses to our Web-based questionnaire.
Table 5: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to
Awareness and Priorities Rated as Very or Extremely Useful:
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Development of regional or local educational workshops for relevant
officials that are tailored to their responsibilities;
Total responses[A]: 182;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 74.7.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Development of lists of "no regrets" actions (i.e., actions in which
the benefits exceed the costs under all future climate scenarios);
Total responses[A]: 181;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 73.5.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Development of a list of potential climate change adaptation policy
options;
Total responses[A]: 181;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 71.3.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Creation of a campaign to educate the public about climate change
adaptation;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 70.1.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Training of relevant officials on adaptation issues;
Total responses[A]: 182;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 69.8.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Creation of a recurring stakeholder forum to explore the interaction of
climate science and adaptation practice;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 64.7.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Prioritization of potential climate change adaptation options;
Total responses[A]: 183;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 61.7.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all
useful through (5) extremely useful, out of the 187 respondents that
completed the questionnaire.
[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating
each potential action as (4) very useful or (5) extremely useful
divided by the total numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1)
not at all useful through (5) extremely useful.
[End of table]
We present these potential federal actions in three general categories:
(1) training programs that could help government officials to develop
more effective and better coordinated adaptation programs; (2)
development of specific policy options for government officials; and
(3) public education efforts to increase the public's understanding of
climate change issues and the need to begin investing in preparatory
measures.
Training for government officials: Training efforts could help
officials collaborate and share insights for developing and
implementing adaptation initiatives. Respondents rated the "development
of regional or local educational workshops for relevant officials that
are tailored to their responsibilities" as the most useful potential
federal government action related to awareness and priorities.
According to one federal official, "it is clear that training and
communication may be the two biggest hurdles we face. We have the
capabilities to adapt and to forecast scenarios of change and potential
impacts of alternative adaptation options. We lack the will to exercise
this capacity. The lack of that will is traceable to ignorance,
sometimes willfully maintained." This respondent calls for "a massive
educational process—designed and implemented all the way from the top-
end strategic thinkers down to the ranks of tactical implementers of
change and adaptation options." Training on how to make decisions with
uncertainty would be particularly useful for frontline actors, such as
city and county governments. For example, Maryland held an interactive
summit on building "coast-smart communities," which brought together
federal, state, and local officials involved with planning decisions in
coastal areas. The summit employed role-playing to introduce
participants to critical issues faced by coastal communities as a
result of climate change. In addition, New York City DEP officials
noted that their membership in the Water Utility Climate Alliance
provided them with an important way to exchange information with water
managers from across the nation.
Several respondents said that the federal government could play an
important role in training officials at all levels of government. For
example, one state official said that "because so many of us are only
in the early stages of becoming aware of this issue, I think that a
well organized training where many people would be learning the same
thing and in the same way is important." However, a different state
official questioned whether federal training would be effective for
state and local officials, explaining that federal officials may not
have enough knowledge about specific state and local challenges. The
official thought that a better option may be to hold regional
conferences with diverse groups of federal, state, and local officials
so that those who are not up to speed can observe and learn from those
who are. Interestingly, about 84 percent (38 of 45) of the state
officials and nearly 75 percent (53 of 71) of the federal officials who
responded to the question rated the "development of regional or local
educational workshops for relevant officials that are tailored to their
responsibilities" as very or extremely useful, compared to about 67
percent (42 of 63) of the local officials that responded.
Development of lists of policy options for government officials: The
development of lists of "no regrets" actions--actions in which the
benefits exceed the costs under all future climate scenarios--and other
potential adaptation policy options could inform officials about
efforts that make sense to pursue today and are "worth doing anyway."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines a "no regrets"
policy as one that would generate net social and economic benefits
irrespective of whether or not anthropogenic climate change occurs.
Such policies could include energy conservation and efficiency programs
or the construction of green roofs in urban areas to absorb rainwater
and moderate the effects of heat waves.
About 73 percent (133 of 181) of the officials who responded to our
questionnaire rated the "development of lists of 'no regrets' actions
(i.e., actions in which the benefits exceed the costs under all future
climate scenarios)" as either very or extremely useful. The costs of no
regrets strategies may be easier to defend, and proposing such
strategies could be a way to initiate discussions of additional
adaptation efforts. Likewise, about 71 percent (129 of 181) of
respondents rated the "development of a list of potential climate
change adaptation policy options" as either very or extremely useful.
However, several respondents questioned whether national lists of
adaptation options would be useful, noting that adaptation is
inherently local or regional in nature. For example, one federal
official said that "it is unclear that it would be possible to develop
a list of actions that truly is no regrets for all scenarios, all
places, and all interested parties." This view suggests that adaptation
options--"no regrets" or otherwise--may vary based on the climate
impacts observed or projected for different geographic areas. As stated
by one local official, "a national list would need to collect options
from all regions across many sectors to be useful."
Regarding the prioritization of potential adaptation policy options,
about 62 percent (113 of 183) of the respondents rated the
"prioritization of potential climate change adaptation options" as very
or extremely useful, the lowest-rated potential action related to
awareness and priorities. Several respondents were adamant that
prioritization should occur at the local level because of the
variability of local impacts, and others said that federal agencies
should assist such efforts, but not direct them. According to one state
official respondent, federal efforts "should recognize and meet the
needs of states and local governments. They should not—dictate policy."
Interestingly, local officials who responded to our questionnaire rated
prioritization of policy options as more useful than federal or state
officials. Specifically, about 75 percent (47 of 63) of the local
officials who responded to the question said that federal
prioritization of potential climate change adaptation options would be
very or extremely useful, compared to nearly 57 percent (40 of 70) and
about 51 percent (24 of 47) of federal and state officials,
respectively.
Public education: About 70 percent (129 of 184) of the respondents
rated the "creation of a campaign to educate the public about climate
change adaptation" as very or extremely useful. A variety of federal,
state, and local programs are trying to fill this void, at least in
areas of the country that are actively addressing adaptation issues.
For example, the Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
(partially funded by NOAA) provides education and training on climate
change to the public and local officials in Maryland. Maryland state
officials recently provided local officials and the public in Somerset
County information on the effects of sea level rise during a workshop.
The workshop highlighted the need to incorporate information about sea
level rise in the county's land use plans, given that it is expected to
inundate a significant part of the county. In addition, the University
of Washington's Climate Impacts Group (CIG)--a program funded under
NOAA's Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment program--has been
interacting with the public about climate change issues, including
adaptation, for over 10 years, according to officials we interviewed as
part of our site visit to King County, Washington. Considerable local
media coverage of environmental issues has also assisted with public
awareness in King County.
Federal Actions to Provide and Interpret Site-Specific Information
Would Help Officials Implement Adaptation Efforts:
Federal actions to provide and interpret site-specific information
would help address challenges associated with adaptation efforts, based
on our analysis of our Web-based questionnaire, site visits, and
relevant studies. Table 6 presents potential federal government actions
related to information as rated by federal, state, and local officials
who responded to our questionnaire. See appendix III for a more
detailed summary of federal, state, and local officials' responses to
our Web-based questionnaire.
Table 6: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to
Information Rated as Very or Extremely Useful:
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Development of state and local climate change impact and vulnerability
assessments;
Total responses[A]: 183;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 80.3.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Identification and sharing of best practices;
Total responses[A]: 157[C];
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 80.3.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Development of processes and tools to help officials access, interpret,
and apply available climate information;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 80.0.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Development of regional climate change impact and vulnerability
assessments;
Total responses[A]: 182;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 77.5.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Creation of a federal service to consolidate and deliver climate
information to decision makers to inform adaptation efforts;
Total responses[A]: 176;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 60.8.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Development of an interactive stakeholder forum for information
sharing;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 56.5.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all
useful through (5) extremely useful, out of the 187 respondents that
completed the questionnaire.
[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating
each potential action as (4) very useful or (5) extremely useful
divided by the total numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1)
not at all useful through (5) extremely useful.
[C] As previously noted, 187 respondents completed our questionnaire
overall. While the number of responses for each individual question
generally ranged from 183 to 186, only 159 respondents answered this
question. See appendix III for more details.
[End of table]
We discuss these potential federal actions below in three general
categories: (1) the development of regional, state, and local climate
change impact and vulnerability assessments; (2) the development of
processes and tools to access, interpret, and apply climate
information; and (3) the creation of a federal service to consolidate
and deliver climate information to decision makers to inform adaptation
efforts.
Developing impact and vulnerability assessments: Respondents rated the
"development of state and local climate change impact and vulnerability
assessments" as the most useful action the federal government could
take related to information. The development of regional assessments
was also rated as similarly useful by respondents. Such assessments
allow officials to build adaptation strategies based on the best
available knowledge about regional or local changes and how those
changes may affect natural and human systems. Nearly 94 percent (43 of
46) of the state officials and about 83 percent (52 of 63) of the local
officials who responded to the question rated the development of state
and local climate change impact and vulnerability assessments as either
very or extremely useful, compared to about 69 percent (49 of 71) of
federal officials.
Officials at all of the sites we visited reported relying on impact and
vulnerability assessments to drive policy development and focus on the
most urgent adaptation needs. For example, King County officials told
us that regional climate modeling information provided by CIG was used
to conduct a vulnerability assessment of wastewater treatment
facilities in the county. In addition, Maryland officials said that the
state's coastal adaptation initiative relied on localized impact and
vulnerability information provided by the Maryland Commission on
Climate Change's Scientific and Technical Working Group, a stakeholder
working group consisting of scientists and other relevant stakeholders.
Development of processes and tools to help officials use information:
About 80 percent (148 of 185) of respondents rated the "development of
processes and tools to help access, interpret, and apply available
climate information" as very or extremely useful. Even with available
regional and local climate data, officials will need tools to interpret
what the data mean for decision making. For example, CIG told us of the
strong need for Web-based decision-making tools to translate climate
impacts into information relevant for decision makers. King County's
Department of Natural Resources and Parks has developed a tool that
uses data generated by CIG to help wastewater facilities model flooding
due to sea level rise and storms. United Kingdom officials noted that
the Climate Impacts Programme provides similar tools to assist decision
makers in the United Kingdom.
The identification and sharing of best practices from other
jurisdictions could also help meet the information needs of decision
makers. Around 80 percent (126 of 157) of respondents rated the
"identification and sharing of best practices" as very or extremely
important. Best practices refer to the processes, practices, and
systems identified in organizations that performed exceptionally well
and are widely recognized as improving performance and efficiency in
specific areas. Based on a range of our prior work, we have found that
successfully identifying and applying best practices can reduce
expenses and improve organizational efficiency. Several officials who
responded to our questionnaire said that learning the best practices of
others could be useful in efforts to develop adaptation programs.
Federal climate service: 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. According to two pending bills in Congress
that would establish a National Climate Service within NOAA, its
purpose would be to advance understanding of climate variability and
change at the global, national, and regional levels and support the
development of adaptation and response plans by federal agencies and
state, local, and tribal governments.
Respondents offered a range of potential strengths and weaknesses for
such a service. Several said that a National 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. Some officials similarly 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. Importantly, some officials said that a National
Climate Service would demonstrate a federal commitment to adaptation
and provide a credible voice and guidance to decision makers.
Other respondents, however, were less enthusiastic. 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 said 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 said 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. Finally, several officials who responded to our
questionnaire were concerned that a National Climate Service could
divert attention and resources from current adaptation efforts by
reinventing duplicative processes without making use of existing
structures.
A recent NRC report 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.[Footnote 69]
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 National
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 needs for research for and on decision support,
and adapting adequately to changing information needs.
Congress and Federal Agencies Could Encourage Adaptation Efforts by
Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities:
Federal actions to clarify the roles and responsibilities for
government agencies could encourage adaptation efforts, based on our
analysis of questionnaire results, site visits, and available studies.
Table 7 presents potential federal actions related to the structure and
operation of the federal government, as rated by the federal, state,
and local officials who responded to our Web-based questionnaire. See
appendix III for a more detailed summary of federal, state, and local
officials' responses to our Web-based questionnaire.
Table 7: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to
the Structure and Operation of the Federal Government Rated as Very or
Extremely Useful:
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Development of a national adaptation fund to provide a consistent
funding stream for adaptation activities;
Total responses[A]: 179; Percentage who rated as very or extremely
useful[B]: 84.4.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Development of a national adaptation strategy that defines federal
government priorities and responsibilities; Total responses[A]: 181;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 71.3.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Review of existing programs to identify and modify policies and
practices that hinder adaptation efforts; Total responses[A]: 180;
Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 67.8.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Issuance of guidance, policies, or procedures on how to incorporate
adaptation into existing policy and management processes; Total
responses[A]: 180; Percentage who rated as very or extremely useful[B]:
65.6.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Development of a climate change extension service to help share and
explain available information; Total responses[A]: 181; Percentage who
rated as very or extremely useful[B]: 59.1.
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?:
Creation of a centralized government structure to coordinate adaptation
funding; Total responses[A]: 166; Percentage who rated as very or
extremely useful[B]: 53.6.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question using numerical ratings, ranging from (1) not at all
useful through (5) extremely useful, out of the 187 respondents that
completed the questionnaire.
[B] The percentage column represents the number of officials rating
each potential action as (4) very useful or (5) extremely useful
divided by the total numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1)
not at all useful through (5) extremely useful.
[End of table]
As discussed below, these potential federal actions can be grouped into
three areas: (1) new national adaptation initiatives, (2) review of
programs that hinder adaptation efforts, and (3) guidance for how to
incorporate adaptation into existing decision-making processes.
New national adaptation initiatives: Our questionnaire results
identified the "development of a national adaptation fund to provide a
consistent funding stream for adaptation activities" as the most useful
federal action related to the structure and operation of the federal
government. This result is not surprising, given that lack of funding
was identified as the greatest challenge to adaptation efforts. One
local official said that "funding for local governments is absolutely
required. Local budgets are tight and require external stimulus for any
hope of adaptation strategies to be implemented." Several state
respondents noted that none of the other potential policy options are
maximally useful unless there is also consistent funding available to
implement them. Overall, about 98 percent (45 of 46) of state officials
and nearly 88 percent (56 of 64) of the local officials who responded
to the question rated the development of a national adaptation fund to
provide a consistent funding stream for adaptation activities as very
or extremely useful, compared to about 71 percent (47 of 66) of federal
officials.
About 71 percent (129 of 181) of the officials who responded to our
questionnaire rated the "development of a national adaptation strategy
that defines federal government priorities and responsibilities" as
very or extremely useful. As noted by a federal official who responded
to our questionnaire, the cost of responding to a changing climate will
be paid one way or another--either through ad hoc responses to
emergencies or through a coordinated effort at the federal level guided
by the best foresight and planning afforded by the current science.
According to this official, a strategic approach may cost less than
reactive policies in the long term and could be more effective.
Officials we spoke with at our site visits and officials who responded
to our questionnaire said that a coordinated federal response would
also demonstrate a federal commitment to adaptation.
About 59 percent (107 of 181) of respondents rated the "development of
a climate change extension service to help share and explain available
information" as very or extremely useful. A climate change extension
service could operate in the same way as USDA's Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, with land grant
universities and networks of local or regional offices staffed by
experts providing useful, practical, and research-based information to
agricultural producers, among others.[Footnote 70] Such a service could
be responsible for educating private citizens, city planners, and
others at the local level whose responsibilities are climate sensitive.
For example, Maryland Forest Service officials noted that the Maryland
Cooperative Extension Service provides training and information on the
significance of climate change. Several respondents cautioned that
whatever is done at the federal level should be consistently and
adequately funded.
About 54 percent (89 of 166) of respondents rated as very or extremely
useful the "creation of a centralized government structure to
coordinate adaptation funding." While some cautioned that such a
structure could limit the flexibility of existing federal, state, and
local programs, others said that there was a need for more coordinated
funding. Support for the idea, however, varied by level of government.
Specifically, about 73 percent of the local (41 of 56) and almost 55
percent of the state (23 of 42) officials that responded to this
question rated the "creation of a centralized federal government
structure to coordinate adaptation funding" as either very or extremely
useful, compared to only about 35 percent of the federal (23 of 65)
respondents.
Reviewing programs that hinder adaptation: About 68 percent (122 of
180) of the respondents said it would be very or extremely useful to
systematically review the kind of programs, policies, and practices
discussed earlier in this report that may hinder adaptation efforts.
Nearly 75 percent (46 of 61) of the local officials and about 70
percent (32 of 46) of the state officials who responded to the question
rated the "review of existing programs to identify and modify policies
and practices that hinder adaptation efforts" as very or extremely
useful, compared to about 59 percent (41 of 70) of federal officials.
One state official urged a review of both programs and laws, stating
that "entrenched practices must be adapted to new realities." Our May
2008 report on the economics of climate change also identified actions
that could assist officials in their efforts to adapt to climate
change.[Footnote 71] Some of the economists surveyed for that report
suggested reforming insurance subsidy programs in areas vulnerable to
natural disasters like hurricanes or flooding. Several noted that a
clear federal role exists for certain sectors, such as water resource
management, which could require additional resources for infrastructure
development, research, and managing federal lands.
Federal, state, and local respondents also pointed to a number of
federal laws as assisting adaptation efforts. For example, multiple
officials cited the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which
established a federal interagency research program to assist the United
States and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to
human-induced and natural processes of global change. Officials from
the New York City Panel on Climate Change credited the 2001 Metro East
Coast report issued for USGCRP with increasing awareness of regional
climate change effects, which led to local government
response.[Footnote 72] Multiple officials also said that the National
Environmental Policy Act could assist adaptation efforts by
incorporating climate change adaptation into the assessment process.
According to CEQ officials, the federal government could provide
adaptation information under the National Environmental Policy Act
provision that directs all federal agencies to make available to
states, counties, municipalities, and others advice and information
useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the
environment. According to certain officials, the Coastal Zone
Management Act, which is administered by NOAA, could encourage
adaptation to climate change at the state and local levels by allowing
states and territories to develop specific coastal climate change plans
or strategies. The state of Maryland is already using Coastal Zone
Management Act programs to assess and respond to the risk of sea level
rise and coastal hazards.
Guidance on how to consider adaptation in existing processes: Nearly 66
percent (118 of 180) of respondents rated the "issuance of guidance,
policies, or procedures on how to incorporate adaptation into existing
policy and management processes" as very or extremely useful. A federal
respondent added that adapting to climate change means integrating
adaptation strategies into the programs that are already ongoing and
will rely upon the networks and institutions that already exist. These
sentiments were echoed in a recent report, which suggested that the
experience of deliberately incorporating climate adaptation into
projects can be very helpful in developing a more systematic approach
to adaptation planning and can serve as a kind of project-based policy
development.[Footnote 73] Furthermore, this report notes that leading
programs integrate climate change adaptation into overarching policy
documents such as official plans or policies. In the same vein, King
County officials told us they work to "routinize" climate change into
planning decisions and have incorporated climate change into the
county's comprehensive plan. This plan, among other things, states that
"King County should consider projected impacts of climate change,
including more severe winter flooding, when updating disaster
preparedness, levee investment, and land use plans, as well as
development regulations."[Footnote 74] Several respondents cautioned
that federal guidance related to adaptation should be flexible enough
to allow state and local governments to adapt their own approaches.
Governmentwide Planning and Collaboration Could Assist Adaptation
Efforts:
Climate change is a complex, interdisciplinary issue with the potential
to affect every sector and level of government operations. Strategic
planning is a way to respond to this governmentwide problem on a
governmentwide scale. Our past work on crosscutting issues suggests
that governmentwide strategic planning can integrate activities that
span a wide array of federal, state, and local entities.[Footnote 75]
Strategic planning can also provide a comprehensive framework for
considering organizational changes, making resource decisions, and
holding officials accountable for achieving real and sustainable
results.
As this report and others demonstrate, some communities and federal
lands are already seeing the effects of climate change, and governments
are beginning to respond.[Footnote 76] However, as this report also
illustrates, the federal government's emerging adaptation activities
are carried out in an ad hoc manner and are not well coordinated across
federal agencies, let alone state and local governments. Officials who
responded to our questionnaire at all levels of government said that
they face a range of challenges when considering adaptation efforts,
including competing priorities, lack of site-specific data, and lack of
clear roles and responsibilities. These officials also identified a
number of potential federal actions that they thought could help
address these challenges.
Multiple federal agencies, as well as state and local governments, will
have to work together to address these challenges and implement new
initiatives. Yet, our past work on collaboration among federal agencies
suggests that they will face a range of barriers in doing so.[Footnote
77] Agency missions may not be mutually reinforcing or may even
conflict with each other, making consensus on strategies and priorities
difficult. Incompatible procedures, processes, data, and computer
systems also hinder collaboration. The resulting patchwork of programs
and actions can waste scarce funds and limit the overall effectiveness
of the federal effort. In addition, many federal programs were designed
decades ago to address earlier challenges, informed by the conditions,
technologies, management models, and organizational structures of past
eras.[Footnote 78] Based on our prior work, key practices that can help
agencies enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts
include[Footnote 79]
* defining and articulating a common outcome;
* agreeing on roles and responsibilities;
* establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to
operate across agency boundaries;
* identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources; and:
* developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results.
As we have previously reported, perhaps the single most important
element of successful management improvement initiatives is the
demonstrated commitment of top leaders to change.[Footnote 80] Top
leadership involvement and clear lines of accountability are critical
to overcoming natural resistance to change, marshalling needed
resources, and building and maintaining the commitment to new ways of
doing business.
Conclusions:
A key question for decision makers in both Congress and the
administration is whether to start adapting now or to wait until the
effects of climate change are more obvious and widespread. Given the
complexity and potential magnitude of climate change and the lead time
needed to adapt, preparing for these impacts now may reduce the need
for far more costly steps in the decades to come.
Adaptation, however, will require making policy and management
decisions that cut across traditional sectors, issues, and
jurisdictional boundaries. It will mean developing new approaches to
match new realities. Old ways of doing business--such as making
decisions based on the assumed continuation of past climate conditions-
-will not work in a world affected by climate change.
Certain state and local authorities on the "front lines" of early
adaptation efforts understand this new reality and are beginning to
take action. Our analysis of these efforts, responses to our
questionnaire, and available studies revealed that federal, state, and
local officials face numerous challenges when considering adaptation
efforts. To be effective, federal efforts to address these challenges
must be coordinated and directed toward a common goal.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office
of the President, such as the Council on Environmental Quality and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with relevant
federal agencies, state and local governments, and key congressional
committees of jurisdiction, develop a national strategic plan that will
guide the nation's efforts to adapt to a changing climate. The plan
should, among other things, (1) define federal priorities related to
adaptation; (2) clarify roles, responsibilities, and working
relationships among federal, state, and local governments; (3) identify
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; (4) address how
resources will be made available to implement the plan; and (5) build
on and integrate ongoing federal planning efforts related to
adaptation.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), within the Executive Office of the President, for review
and comment. CEQ circulated the report to the climate change adaptation
interagency committee--including representatives from more than 12
agencies--for review and comment. In written comments, CEQ's Deputy
Associate Director for Climate Change Adaptation generally agreed with
the recommendations of the report, noting that leadership and
coordination is necessary within the federal government to ensure an
effective and appropriate adaptation response and that such
coordination would help to catalyze regional, state, and local
activities. These comments are reproduced in appendix IV. CEQ also
provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
With regard to the report's findings, the Deputy Associate Director
stated that CEQ had three main areas of concern. First, CEQ expressed
concern that the relative inexperience of the federal government on
adaptation combined with the methodology used in this report may
produce misleading results. Specifically, the Deputy Associate Director
stated that the report documents the relatively low level of activity
within the federal government on adaptation, suggesting that most
federal government respondents must be relatively inexperienced with
adaptation issues. The Deputy Associate Director further stated that
this relative federal inexperience may call some of our findings into
question, citing as an example that the variability and local nature of
adaptation makes a federally produced list of "no regrets" actions very
difficult and possibly of limited utility. CEQ noted that, while the
questionnaire results are an accurate reflection of the respondents'
thinking, they do not necessarily paint the best roadmap for federal
government action.
We do not agree with the characterization of federal officials as less
experienced with adaptation issues than their state and local
counterparts. As noted in the report scope and methodology (see app.
I), we administered a Web-based questionnaire to a nonprobability
sample of 274 federal, state, and local officials who were identified
by their organizations to be knowledgeable about climate change
adaptation. The officials who responded represent a diverse array of
disciplines, including planners, scientists, and public health
professionals. In general, the information we collected with the
questionnaire suggests that the federal, state, and local officials who
responded spend similar amounts of time on adaptation-related issues.
We found that, in several instances, the state and local officials who
were knowledgeable about adaptation worked very closely with their
federal counterparts. Furthermore, regarding CEQ's specific example of
federally produced "no regrets" lists, as we point out in this report,
we agree that adaptation actions need to reflect local realities.
However, questionnaire results were never intended to provide a roadmap
specifically for federal activities but instead to describe the views
of federal, state, and local officials on the potential federal actions
(previously cited in available literature) that would be most useful to
them. This information could be helpful when developing a strategy, but
was not intended to be the strategy. We acknowledge that efforts to
pursue these actions would often be collaborative, involving state and
local entities.
Second, CEQ expressed concern that the report confuses the issue of
cost-benefit analysis and scientific uncertainty, noting that the
report identifies "justifying current costs with limited information
about future benefits" as a challenge to adaptation policy, although
the discussion of this challenge focuses on the scientific uncertainty
inherent in climate projections as the main stumbling block for cost-
benefit analysis. The Deputy Associate Director also noted that this
section of the report did not include other challenges identified in
the questionnaire, such as "understanding costs and benefits" of
adaptive actions, or the challenge of prioritizing adaptation against
other near-term actions and that cost-benefit analysis is a separate
concern to scientific uncertainty.
Although we recognize CEQ's concern about this section of the report,
we note that the report describes the link between scientific
uncertainty and cost-benefit analysis and that the report describes
many challenges other than scientific uncertainty. Uncertainty,
scientific or otherwise, is generally incorporated into cost-benefit
analysis as a best practice. We also note that the challenges and
potential federal actions described in this report are closely related.
As described in the subsequent section, for example, 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.
Finally, CEQ expressed concern that the report does not focus enough on
implementation challenges, stating that the report does not analyze the
primary barriers or challenges to implementation, or make any
recommendations on implementing adaptation. The Deputy Associate
Director acknowledged that planning is critical, but that it does not
guarantee implementation and that implementation challenges are neither
discussed nor developed in the report.
We agree that planning does not guarantee implementation and note that
many of the challenges explored in this report relate to
implementation. However, wide-scale implementation of adaptive actions
before deriving a reasoned plan strikes us as "putting the cart before
the horse." Without adequate planning at the federal level to chart a
roadmap that, among other things, defines a common outcome and sets
roles and responsibilities, it will be more difficult for multiple
federal agencies, as well as state and local governments to work
together to devise, much less execute, an implementation strategy.
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 Chair of
the Council on Environmental Quality and other interested parties. The
report also will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@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 V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our review (1) determines what actions, if any, federal, state, local,
and international authorities are taking to adapt to a changing
climate; (2) identifies the challenges, if any, that federal, state,
and local officials reported facing in their efforts to adapt; and (3)
identifies actions that Congress and federal agencies could take to
help address these challenges. We also provide information about our
prior work on responding to similarly complex, interdisciplinary
issues.
To determine the actions federal authorities are taking to adapt to
climate change, we obtained summaries of current and planned adaptation-
related efforts from a broad range of federal agencies. Full summaries
from federal agencies are provided in a supplement to this report (see
GAO-10-114SP). We obtained these summaries from the federal agencies
with assistance from the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP),
formerly the United States Climate Change Science Program. USGCRP
coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global
environment and their implications for society. USGCRP collected
submissions from 12 of the 13 departments and agencies that participate
in its program (see app. II for more details).[Footnote 81]
We also obtained a summary of adaptation-related efforts from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, part of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, as a follow up to prior GAO work on climate change
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance
Program. Because the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is not part
of USGCRP, we solicited its submission directly.
Because we wanted to include current federal activities that the
agencies themselves consider to be related to adaptation, we did not
modify the content of these summaries, except to remove references to
specific individuals. We also did not independently confirm the
information in the summaries. In addition, because the request for
summaries was made to a select group of federal agencies, the
activities compiled in this report should not be considered a
comprehensive list of all recent and ongoing climate change adaptation
efforts across the federal government.
In addition to gathering summaries, we also conducted an Internet
search to identify other federal, state, or local organizations that
are taking action to adapt to a changing climate. This search also
helped to identify challenges agencies face in their efforts to adapt,
as well as actions the federal government could take, which are
relevant to our second and third objectives. We searched the Web sites
of relevant organizations and agencies, such as the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the
Coastal States Organization, and federal agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. We also conducted Internet searches using
relevant key words, such as "climate change" and "climate change
adaptation." We reviewed publicly available English-language documents
related to adaptation efforts in the United States and other countries
that we identified through our search.
To address our three objectives, we also conducted 13 open-ended
interviews with a select group of organizations and agencies that are
engaged in climate change adaptation activities. We selected them based
on their level of involvement in the issue of climate change
adaptation, as determined by (1) previous GAO work; (2) scoping
interviews (a "snowball" technique); and (3) our search of the
background literature. We attempted to speak with organizations that
are working on climate change adaptation, as well as those that
represent sectors affected by it. We generally focused on organizations
and sectors that are working on this issue on a national level (rather
than just in one city or region) and that have also worked closely with
state and local officials. The organizations included the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies, the H. John Heinz III Center for
Science, Economics, and the Environment, ICLEI--Local Governments for
Sustainability, and the Nature Conservancy, among others. In addition,
we spoke with two academics who had a long-standing involvement with
climate change issues at the national and international levels to
gather additional background information on the issue. Because we spoke
with a select group of organizations and individuals, we cannot
generalize our results to those we did not interview.
In addition to asking our interviewees about the actions they are
taking to address adaptation, we also asked them to identify other
relevant reports or studies we should include in our work and other
agencies or organizations that are engaged in adaptation activities
(part of our "snowball" technique). We also asked what actions they
thought the federal government and Congress could take to help in their
efforts.
To determine the actions federal, state, local, and international
authorities are taking to adapt to a changing climate, we also visited
four sites where government officials are taking actions to adapt. We
chose these sites because they were frequently mentioned in the
background literature and scoping interviews as examples of locations
that are implementing climate change adaptation and which may offer
particularly useful insights into the types of actions governments can
take to plan for climate change impacts. These sites are neither
comprehensive nor representative of all state and local climate change
adaptation efforts. They include New York City; King County,
Washington; the state of Maryland; and the United Kingdom, focusing on
the London region. We included an international site visit to examine
how other countries are starting to adapt, and we specifically selected
the United Kingdom because its climate change adaptation efforts were
mentioned frequently in the background literature and scoping
interviews and because it had already begun to implement these efforts
at the national, regional, and local levels. During our site visits, we
gathered information through interviews with officials and
stakeholders, observation of adaptation efforts, and reviewed related
documents. We also followed up with officials after our visits to
gather additional information.
To describe the challenges that federal, state, and local officials
face in their efforts to adapt and the potential actions that Congress
and federal agencies could take to help address these challenges, we
administered a Web-based questionnaire to a nonprobability sample of
274 federal, state, and local officials who were identified by their
organizations to be knowledgeable about adaptation. To identify
relevant potential respondents, we worked with organizations that
represent federal, state, and local officials. Specifically, we worked
with organizations such as USGCRP (federal), National Association of
Clean Air Agencies (state), and Conference of Mayors (local), among
others, and asked them to identify officials who are knowledgeable
about climate change adaptation. These officials were generally
identified through their involvement in climate change working groups
within these organizations, which indicated a level of interest and
knowledge of the issue. The officials were then contacted by their
organization to describe the purpose of our questionnaire and to ask if
they would participate. The names and e-mail addresses of those who
agreed were then provided to GAO. The federal, state, and local
officials who responded represent a diverse array of disciplines,
including planners, scientists, and public health professionals;
however, their responses cannot be generalized to officials who did not
complete our questionnaire.
To develop the questionnaire, information was compiled from background
literature and interviews we conducted with relevant organizations and
officials. Using this information, we developed lists of challenges and
potential actions the federal government could take to address them.
Using closed-ended questions, respondents were asked to rate several
challenges and actions on 5 point Likert scales (the closed-ended
questions are reproduced in app. III). We also included open-ended
questions to give respondents an opportunity to tell us about
challenges and potential federal actions that we did not ask about.
Lastly, we included additional open-ended questions to gather opinions
on a small number of related topics.
Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors.
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any questionnaire may
introduce errors, commonly known as nonsampling errors. For example,
difficulties in interpreting a particular question, sources of
information available to respondents, or analyzing data can introduce
unwanted variability in the results. We took steps to minimize such
nonsampling errors.
For example, social science survey specialists designed the
questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff who had subject matter
expertise. Then, we sent a draft of the questionnaire to several
federal, state, and local organizations for comment. In addition, we
pretested it with local, state, and federal 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, and (4) the questionnaire was comprehensive and
unbiased. Based on these steps, we made necessary corrections and edits
before it was administered. When we analyzed the data, an independent
analyst checked all computer programs. Since this was a Web-based
instrument, respondents entered their answers directly into the
electronic questionnaire, eliminating the need to key data into a
database, minimizing error.
We developed and administered a Web-based questionnaire accessible
through a secure server. When we completed the final questionnaire,
including content and form, we sent an e-mail announcement of the
questionnaire to our nonprobability sample of 274 federal, state, and
local officials on May 13, 2009. They were notified that the
questionnaire was available online and were given unique passwords and
usernames on May 28, 2009. We sent follow-up e-mail messages on June 4,
June 8, and June 12, 2009, to those who had not yet responded. Then we
contacted the remaining nonrespondents by telephone to encourage them
to complete the questionnaire online, starting on June 24, 2009. The
questionnaire was available online until July 10, 2009. Questionnaires
were completed by 187 officials, for a response rate of about 68
percent.[Footnote 82] The response rate by level of government is about
82 percent for federal officials (72 out of 88), about 90 percent for
state officials (47 out of 52), and about 50 percent (65 out of 131)
for local officials.[Footnote 83]
We presented our questionnaire results in six tables in our report,
which show the relative rankings of the challenges and potential
actions listed in our questionnaire based on the percentage of
respondents that rated them very or extremely challenging (for
challenges) or very or extremely useful (for potential actions). Both
the challenges and potential actions are organized into groups related
to the following: (1) awareness and priorities, (2) information, and
(3) the structure and operation of the federal government. Tables
showing more detailed summaries of federal, state, and local officials'
responses to the questionnaire are included in appendix III.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to October 2009
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Information on Selected Federal Efforts to Adapt to a
Changing Climate:
We obtained information from 13 selected federal departments and
agencies on their current and planned climate change adaptation
efforts. We present this information in a supplement to this report to
provide a more complete picture of the activities that federal agencies
consider to be related to climate change adaptation than has been
available publicly (see GAO-10-114SP). We obtained this information
directly from the agencies participating in the U.S. Global Change
Research Program.[Footnote 84]
Importantly, we did not modify the content of the agency submissions
(except to remove references to named individuals) or assess its
validity. In addition, because this information represents the efforts
of a selected group of federal agencies, the agency activities compiled
in the supplement should not be considered a comprehensive list of all
recent and ongoing climate change adaptation efforts across the federal
government. Any questions about the information presented in the
supplement should be directed to the agencies themselves.
See the following list for the departments and agencies included in the
supplement to this report:
U.S. Department of Agriculture:
* Agricultural Marketing Service:
* Agricultural Research Service:
* Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
* Economic Research Service:
* Farm Service Agency:
* Forest Service:
* Natural Resources Conservation Service:
U.S. Department of Commerce:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
U.S. Department of Defense:
* Office of the Secretary of Defense:
* Army:
* Navy:
* Air Force:
* Marine Corps:
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
U.S. Department of Energy:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
* National Institutes of Health:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
* Federal Emergency Management Agency:
U.S. Department of the Interior:
U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development:
U.S. Department of Transportation:
* Office of Transportation Policy:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
National Science Foundation:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and Local Officials' Responses
to Web-Based Questionnaire:
Table 8: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to Awareness and
Priorities:
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?:
Lack of funding for adaptation efforts;
(1) Not at all: 0;
(2) Slightly: 4;
(3) Moderately: 25;
(4) Very: 43;
(5) Extremely: 107;
Not applicable: 1;
Don't know/no response: 3;
Total responses[A]: 183;
Average[B]: 4.41.
Non-adaptation activities are higher priorities;
(1) Not at all: 4;
(2) Slightly: 15;
(3) Moderately: 33;
(4) Very: 62;
(5) Extremely: 66;
Not applicable: 5;
Don't know/no response: 1;
Total responses[A]: 186;
Average[B]: 3.95.
Lack of clear priorities for allocating resources for adaptation
activities;
(1) Not at all: 3;
(2) Slightly: 12;
(3) Moderately: 39;
(4) Very: 71;
(5) Extremely: 56;
Not applicable: 2;
Don't know/no response: 3;
Total responses[A]: 186;
Average[B]: 3.91.
Lack of public awareness or knowledge of adaptation;
(1) Not at all: 0;
(2) Slightly: 20;
(3) Moderately: 51;
(4) Very: 83;
(5) Extremely: 30;
Not applicable: 0;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 186;
Average[B]: 3.67.
Lack of awareness or knowledge of adaptation among government
officials;
(1) Not at all: 2;
(2) Slightly: 17;
(3) Moderately: 58;
(4) Very: 74;
(5) Extremely: 31;
Not applicable: 0;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 3.63.
Difficult to define adaptation goals and performance metrics;
(1) Not at all: 1;
(2) Slightly: 21;
(3) Moderately: 58;
(4) Very: 66;
(5) Extremely: 35;
Not applicable: 0;
Don't know/no response: 5;
Total responses[A]: 186;
Average[B]: 3.62.
Lack of qualified staff to work on adaptation efforts;
(1) Not at all: 5;
(2) Slightly: 25;
(3) Moderately: 60;
(4) Very: 44;
(5) Extremely: 47;
Not applicable: 0;
Don't know/no response: 5;
Total responses[A]: 186;
Average[B]: 3.57.
Lack of a specific mandate to address climate change adaptation;
(1) Not at all: 18;
(2) Slightly: 24;
(3) Moderately: 35;
(4) Very: 50;
(5) Extremely: 55;
Not applicable: 2;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 186;
Average[B]: 3.55.
Lack of clarity about what activities are considered adaptation;
(1) Not at all: 3;
(2) Slightly: 19;
(3) Moderately: 59;
(4) Very: 79;
(5) Extremely: 21;
Not applicable: 2;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.53.
[End of table]
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the
questionnaire.
[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings
submitted by officials for (1) not at all challenging through (5)
extremely challenging.
Table 9: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to Information:
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?:
Size and complexity of future climate change impacts;
(1) Not at all: 1;
(2) Slightly: 8;
(3) Moderately: 33;
(4) Very: 65;
(5) Extremely: 73;
Not applicable: 1;
Don't know/no response: 4;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 4.12.
Justifying the current costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less
certain future benefits;
(1) Not at all: 1;
(2) Slightly: 7;
(3) Moderately: 29;
(4) Very: 76;
(5) Extremely: 66;
Not applicable: 2;
Don't know/no response: 4;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 4.11.
Translating available climate information (e.g., projected temperature,
precipitation) into impacts at the local level (e.g., increased stream
flow);
(1) Not at all: 3;
(2) Slightly: 13;
(3) Moderately: 30;
(4) Very: 62;
(5) Extremely: 74;
Not applicable: 1;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 4.05.
Availability of climate information at relevant scale (i.e., downscaled
regional and local information);
(1) Not at all: 4;
(2) Slightly: 15;
(3) Moderately: 27;
(4) Very: 66;
(5) Extremely: 67;
Not applicable: 0;
Don't know/no response: 4;
Total responses[A]: 183;
Average[B]: 3.99.
Understanding the costs and benefits of adaptation efforts;
(1) Not at all: 0;
(2) Slightly: 5;
(3) Moderately: 49;
(4) Very: 78;
(5) Extremely: 48;
Not applicable: 2;
Don't know/no response: 3;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.94.
Making management and policy decisions with uncertainty about future
effects of climate change;
(1) Not at all: 2;
(2) Slightly: 14;
(3) Moderately: 50;
(4) Very: 68;
(5) Extremely: 50;
Not applicable: 0;
Don't know/no response: 1;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.82.
Lack of information about thresholds (i.e., limits beyond which
recovery is impossible or difficult);
(1) Not at all: 7;
(2) Slightly: 17;
(3) Moderately: 38;
(4) Very: 66;
(5) Extremely: 47;
Not applicable: 3;
Don't know/no response: 7;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.74.
Lack of baseline monitoring data to enable evaluation of adaptation
actions (i.e., inability to detect change);
(1) Not at all: 7;
(2) Slightly: 17;
(3) Moderately: 44;
(4) Very: 78;
(5) Extremely: 35;
Not applicable: 1;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 3.65.
Lack of certainty about the timing of climate change impacts;
(1) Not at all: 3;
(2) Slightly: 16;
(3) Moderately: 58;
(4) Very: 68;
(5) Extremely: 35;
Not applicable: 0;
Don't know/no response: 3;
Total responses[A]: 183;
Average[B]: 3.64.
Accessibility and usability of available information on climate impacts
and adaptation;
(1) Not at all: 6;
(2) Slightly: 25;
(3) Moderately: 54;
(4) Very: 64;
(5) Extremely: 33;
Not applicable: 0;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 3.51.
Size and complexity of current climate change impacts;
(1) Not at all: 6;
(2) Slightly: 22;
(3) Moderately: 64;
(4) Very: 56;
(5) Extremely: 31;
Not applicable: 1;
Don't know/no response: 4;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 3.47.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the
questionnaire.
[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings
submitted by officials for (1) not at all challenging through (5)
extremely challenging.
[End of table]
Table 10: All Officials' Rating of Challenges Related to the Structure
and Operation of the Federal Government:
How challenging are each of the following for officials when
considering climate change adaptation efforts?
Lack of clear roles and responsibilities for addressing adaptation
across all levels of government (i.e., adaptation is everyone's problem
but nobody's direct responsibility);
(1) Not at all: 4;
(2) Slightly: 16;
(3) Moderately: 34;
(4) Very: 54;
(5) Extremely: 70;
Not applicable: 2;
Don't know/no response: 5;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.96.
The authority and capability to adapt is spread among many federal
agencies (i.e., institutional fragmentation);
(1) Not at all: 4;
(2) Slightly: 23;
(3) Moderately: 47;
(4) Very: 66;
(5) Extremely: 36;
Not applicable: 2;
Don't know/no response: 7;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.61.
Lack of federal guidance or policies on how to make decisions related
to adaptation;
(1) Not at all: 11;
(2) Slightly: 22;
(3) Moderately: 51;
(4) Very: 53;
(5) Extremely: 39;
Not applicable: 3;
Don't know/no response: 6;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.49.
Existing federal policies, programs, or practices that hinder
adaptation efforts;
(1) Not at all: 8;
(2) Slightly: 31;
(3) Moderately: 47;
(4) Very: 30;
(5) Extremely: 34;
Not applicable: 3;
Don't know/no response: 31;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 3.34.
Federal statutory, regulatory, or other legal constraints on adaptation
efforts;
(1) Not at all: 14;
(2) Slightly: 33;
(3) Moderately: 50;
(4) Very: 29;
(5) Extremely: 26;
Not applicable: 4;
Don't know/no response: 29;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.13.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the
questionnaire.
[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings
submitted by officials for (1) not at all challenging through (5)
extremely challenging.
[End of table]
Table 11: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions
Related to Awareness and Priorities:
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?
Development of regional or local educational workshops for relevant
officials that are tailored to their responsibilities;
(1) Not at all: 3;
(2) Slightly: 7;
(3) Moderately: 36;
(4) Very: 64;
(5) Extremely: 72;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 4.07.
Development of lists of "no regrets" actions (i.e., actions in which
the benefits exceed the costs under all future climate scenarios);
(1) Not at all: 4;
(2) Slightly: 13;
(3) Moderately: 31;
(4) Very: 60;
(5) Extremely: 73;
Don't know/no response: 5;
Total responses[A]: 186;
Average[B]: 4.02.
Creation of a campaign to educate the public about climate change
adaptation;
(1) Not at all: 1;
(2) Slightly: 19;
(3) Moderately: 35;
(4) Very: 60;
(5) Extremely: 69;
Don't know/no response: 0;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 3.96.
Development of a list of potential climate change adaptation policy
options;
(1) Not at all: 2;
(2) Slightly: 12;
(3) Moderately: 38;
(4) Very: 73;
(5) Extremely: 56;
Don't know/no response: 4;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.93.
Training of relevant officials on adaptation issues;
(1) Not at all: 3;
(2) Slightly: 14;
(3) Moderately: 38;
(4) Very: 69;
(5) Extremely: 58;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 3.91.
Creation of a recurring stakeholder forum to explore the interaction of
climate science and adaptation practice;
(1) Not at all: 3;
(2) Slightly: 21;
(3) Moderately: 41;
(4) Very: 70;
(5) Extremely: 49;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 186;
Average[B]: 3.77.
Prioritization of potential climate change adaptation options;
(1) Not at all: 9;
(2) Slightly: 19;
(3) Moderately: 42;
(4) Very: 70;
(5) Extremely: 43;
Don't know/no response: 3;
Total responses[A]: 186;
Average[B]: 3.65.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the
questionnaire.
[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings
submitted by officials for (1) not at all useful through (5) extremely
useful.
[End of table]
Table 12: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions
Related to Information:
How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government
actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate?
Development of state and local climate change impact and vulnerability
assessments;
(1) Not at all: 2;
(2) Slightly: 9;
(3) Moderately: 25;
(4) Very: 56;
(5) Extremely: 91;
Don't know/no response: 1;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 4.23.
Development of regional climate change impact and vulnerability
assessments;
(1) Not at all: 0;
(2) Slightly: 5;
(3) Moderately: 36;
(4) Very: 60;
(5) Extremely: 81;
Don't know/no response: 3;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 4.19.
Development of processes and tools to help officials access, interpret,
and apply available climate information;
(1) Not at all: 0;
(2) Slightly: 7;
(3) Moderately: 30;
(4) Very: 72;
(5) Extremely: 76;
Don't know/no response: 0;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 4.17.
Identification and sharing of best practices;
(1) Not at all: 0;
(2) Slightly: 7;
(3) Moderately: 24;
(4) Very: 65;
(5) Extremely: 61;
Don't know/no response: 2;
Total responses[A]: 159[C];
Average[B]: 4.15.
Creation of a federal service to consolidate and deliver climate
information to decision makers to inform adaptation efforts;
(1) Not at all: 11;
(2) Slightly: 20;
(3) Moderately: 38;
(4) Very: 41;
(5) Extremely: 66;
Don't know/no response: 9;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.74.
Development of an interactive stakeholder forum for information
sharing;
(1) Not at all: 1;
(2) Slightly: 23;
(3) Moderately: 56;
(4) Very: 58;
(5) Extremely: 46;
Don't know/no response: 1;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.68.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the
questionnaire.
[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings
submitted by officials for (1) not at all useful through (5) extremely
useful.
[C] As previously noted, 187 respondents completed our questionnaire
overall. While the number of responses for each individual question
generally ranged from 183 to 186, only 159 respondents answered this
question.
[End of table]
Table 13: All Officials' Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions
Related to the Structure and Operation of the Federal Government:
Development of a national adaptation fund to provide a consistent
funding stream for adaptation activities;
(1) Not at all: 7;
(2) Slightly: 8;
(3) Moderately: 13;
(4) Very: 38;
(5) Extremely: 113;
Don't know/no response: 5;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 4.35.
Development of a national adaptation strategy that defines federal
government priorities and responsibilities;
(1) Not at all: 4;
(2) Slightly: 12;
(3) Moderately: 36;
(4) Very: 65;
(5) Extremely: 64;
Don't know/no response: 4;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.96.
Review of existing programs to identify and modify policies and
practices that hinder adaptation efforts;
(1) Not at all: 1;
(2) Slightly: 19;
(3) Moderately: 38;
(4) Very: 65;
(5) Extremely: 57;
Don't know/no response: 5;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.88.
Issuance of guidance, policies, or procedures on how to incorporate
adaptation into existing policy and management processes;
(1) Not at all: 2;
(2) Slightly: 15;
(3) Moderately: 45;
(4) Very: 78;
(5) Extremely: 40;
Don't know/no response: 4;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 3.77.
Development of a climate change extension service to help share and
explain available information;
(1) Not at all: 8;
(2) Slightly: 20;
(3) Moderately: 46;
(4) Very: 54;
(5) Extremely: 53;
Don't know/no response: 3;
Total responses[A]: 184;
Average[B]: 3.69.
Creation of a centralized government structure to coordinate adaptation
funding;
(1) Not at all: 24;
(2) Slightly: 20;
(3) Moderately: 33;
(4) Very: 44;
(5) Extremely: 45;
Don't know/no response: 19;
Total responses[A]: 185;
Average[B]: 3.40.
Source: GAO.
[A] The total column represents the number of officials who answered
each question out of the 187 respondents that completed the
questionnaire.
[B] The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings
submitted by officials for (1) not at all useful through (5) extremely
useful.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality:
Executive Office Of The President:
Council On Environmental Quality:
Washington, D.C. 20603:
John B. Stephenson:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street N.W.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Government
Accountability Office's report, "Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic
Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed
Decisions." We circulated the report to the Climate Change Adaptation
inter-agency committee for review and comment. The committee includes
representatives from more than twelve agencies. We have also provided
technical comments under separate cover.
We agree that adaptation is a critical area for federal government
activity and think this report is a timely review of the subject.
Overall, we agree with the main recommendation, that leadership and
coordination is necessary within the federal government to ensure an
effective and appropriate adaptation response. Further, we agree that
this will help to catalyze the local, state and regional activities
that are so critical to adaptation.
We have three main areas of concern with the report. First, we believe
that the relative inexperience of the federal government on adaptation
combined with the survey methodology used in this report may produce
misleading results. Second, we believe that the report confuses the
issue of cost/benefit analysis and scientific uncertainty. Third, we
think the overall report does not focus enough on implementation
challenges and recommendations.
Methodology:
The report uses a survey methodology to assess relative roles and tasks
for the federal government on adaptation. Survey respondents were
selected from both within and outside the federal government, and all
had experience with adaptation. However, the report also documents the
relatively low level of activity within the federal government on
adaptation, suggesting that most federal government respondents must be
relatively inexperienced with adaptation issues. This is reinforced by
the significant differences in some survey responses between
respondents within the federal government, and those with presumably
greater adaptation experience, outside of the federal government.
As a result, some of the survey findings appear to be questionable. For
example, the survey found that developing a list of no-regrets actions
would be a valuable product for the federal government to produce.
While no-regrets actions are a critical part of adaptation, the
variability and local nature of adaptation makes a federally produced
list of no-regrets actions very difficult and possibly of limited
utility. Therefore, while the survey results are an accurate reflection
of respondents thinking, they do not necessarily paint the best roadmap
for federal government action.
Cost/Benefit and Uncertainty:
The report identifies "justifying current costs with limited
information about future benefits" as a challenge to adaptation policy.
The discussion of this challenge focuses on the scientific uncertainty
inherent in climate projections as the main stumbling block for
cost/benefit analysis. The section does not include other challenges
identified in the survey, such as "understanding costs and benefits" of
adaptive actions, or the challenge of prioritizing adaptation against
other near-term actions. The survey written comments point out that
given the scientific uncertainty on impacts, cost/benefit analysis is
particularly important. In these cases, cost/benefit analysis is a
separate concern to scientific uncertainty.
Our interpretation of these survey responses is that while scientific
uncertainty is a concern and challenge for adaptation planning and
implementation, there is also difficulty doing cost/benefit analysis.
This difficulty could be addressed through providing decision-maker
tools, like scenario analyses, and tools that help to quantify the cost
and benefits of inaction and action.
Planning vs. Implementation:
The recommendation focuses on 4 components of a national strategic
adaptation plan: priorities, roles and responsibilities, information
and planning. These are critical elements of a national strategy on
adaptation, and respond to the main challenges identified in the
report.
However, the report does not analyze the primary barriers or challenges
to implementation, nor does make any recommendations on implementing
adaptation. Experience to date on adaptation suggests that planning is
critical, but that it does not guarantee implementation. Many of the
challenges described in the survey could apply equally to
implementation (e.g., public awareness) and some were specifically
focused on implementation (e.g., funding). But implementation
challenges are neither discussed nor developed in the report. Simply
fulfilling the recommendations on planning will not be sufficient to
help the US adapt to climate change.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this report prior to its
publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Maria Blair:
Deputy Associate Director for Climate Change Adaptation:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Steve Elstein (Assistant
Director), Charles Bausell, Keya Chateauneuf, Cindy Gilbert, William
Jenkins, Richard Johnson, Kirsten Lauber, Ty Mitchell, Benjamin Shouse,
Jeanette Soares, Ruth Solomon, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Joseph Thompson
made key contributions to this report. Camille Adebayo, Holly Dye, Anne
Johnson, Carol Kolarik, Jessica Lemke, Micah McMillan, Leah Probst,
Jena Sinkfield, and Cynthia Taylor also made important contributions.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Major greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4);
nitrous oxide (N2O); and synthetic gases such as hydrofluorocarbons
(HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
[2] Statement of Dr. John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and
Technology, Executive Office of the President before the Committee on
Agriculture, United States Senate (Washington, D.C., July 22, 2009).
[3] See, e.g., National Climate Service Act of 2009, H.R. 2306, 111th
Congress (2009); American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R.
2454, 111th Congress (2009); National Climate Service Act of 2009, H.R.
2407, 111th Congress (2009).
[4] Information on selected federal efforts to adapt to climate change
is provided in a supplement to this report (see GAO-10-114SP).
[5] Not all officials responded to every question.
[6] Secretarial Order No. 3289 (Sep. 14, 2009).
[7] The Executive Order required the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
U.S. Department of Defense, EPA, Interior, and the U.S. Department of
Commerce to submit draft reports. Draft reports are available at
[hyperlink, http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/].
[8] The Role of Federal Lands in Combating Climate Change: Hearing
Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of
the House Committee on Natural Resources, 111th Cong. 7-12 (2009)
(written statement of Abigail Kimbell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service).
Also, on January 16, 2009, the Forest Service issued guidance for
addressing climate change considerations in land management planning
and project implementation.
[9] For more information about Interior's Climate Change Task Force,
see [hyperlink, http://www.usgs.gov/global_change/doi_taskforce.asp].
[10] The Climate Change Science Program is now referred to as the
United States Global Change Research Program. For report citation, see
S.H. Julius, J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P.
Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott,
Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive
Ecosystems and Resources, Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment
Product 4.4 (SAP 4.4), a report for the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2008.
[11] M.L. Corn, R.W. Gorte, G. Siekaniec, M. Bryan, D. Cleaves, K.
O'Halloran, Global Climate Change and Federal Lands: Two Cases, a
presentation hosted by the Congressional Research Service, 2009.
[12] In technical comments to this report, Interior pointed out that
there are significant links between federal land and natural resource
management and infrastructure design and operation. According to
Interior, proper management of lands and natural resources can help
protect human infrastructure and can be an adaptation strategy for
human infrastructure in and of itself. For example, restoring coastal
wetlands can help protect human infrastructure against storm surges,
rising sea level, and erosion.
[13] EPA developed this guide in conjunction with NOAA, Rhode Island
Sea Grant, and the International City/County Management Association.
See [hyperlink, http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov/].
[14] M. J. Savonis, V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter (eds.), Impacts of
Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and
Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I, Synthesis and Assessment
Product 4.7 (SAP 4.4), a report for the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2008.
[15] GAO, Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private
Insurers in Coming Decades Are Potentially Significant, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-285] (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
16, 2007).
[16] J.L. Gamble (ed.), K.L. Ebi, F.G. Sussman, T.J. Wilbanks, Analyses
of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human
Systems, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6 (SAP 4.6), a report for
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global
Change Research, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 2008.
[17] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L.
No. 110-181, § 951, 122 Stat. 290 (2008).
[18] USAID, Adapting to Climate Variability and Change: A Guidance
Manual for Development Planning (August 2007) and Adapting to Coastal
Climate Change: A Guidebook for Development Planners (May 2009).
[19] In technical comments to this report, Interior also cited other
programs that can assist in international adaptation, including (1) the
Famine Early Warning System, which uses remote sensing to monitor
floods and droughts in Africa, the Americas, and Afghanistan (USGS);
(2) wildland fire cooperation with Mexico, Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand (Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, FWS, Bureau
of Indian Affairs); (3) integrated water resource management, dam
operations and safety, irrigation, flood control, water conservation in
arid ecosystems, and hydrologic monitoring in Africa, Asia, and the
Middle East (Bureau of Reclamation, USGS); (4) 30 sister park
relationships with 20 countries that facilitate technical exchange and
joint monitoring of protected ecosystems; (5) ecosystem monitoring,
conservation of migratory and shared species with Mexico and Canada
(FWS, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, USGS); and (6)
conservation grants for elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, great apes,
marine turtles, neotropical migratory birds, and waterfowl habitat
(FWS).
[20] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a
Changing Climate (Washington, D.C., 2009).
[21] California Natural Resources Agency, 2009 California Climate
Adaptation Strategy, Discussion Draft.
[22] See Terri L. Cruce, Adaptation Planning: What U.S. States and
Localities are Doing, a special report prepared for the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change, November 2007 (updated August 2009), available
at [hyperlink, http://www.pewclimate.org/working-papers/adaptation] and
The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment, A Survey of Climate Change Adaptation Planning
(Washington, D.C., 2007), available at [hyperlink,
http://www.heinzctr.org/publications/meeting_reports.shtml]. In
addition, see Susanne C. Moser, Good Morning, America! The Explosive
U.S. Awakening to the Need for Adaptation, a special report prepared at
the request of the NOAA Coastal Services Center and the California
Energy Commission, May 2009, available at [hyperlink,
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/publications/need-for-adaptation.pdf].
[23] Local Law No. 17 (2008) of City of New York, § 2.
[24] New York City Department of Environmental Protection Climate
Change Program, with contributions by Columbia University's Center for
Climate Systems Research and HydroQual Environmental Engineers &
Scientists, P.C., Report 1: Assessment and Action Plan--A Report Based
on the Ongoing Work of the DEP Climate Change Task Force (New York
City, N.Y., 2008).
[25] Columbia Earth Institute, Climate Change and a Global City: the
Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Metro East
Coast, a special report prepared at the request of the U.S. Global
Change Research Program, July 2001.
[26] The first of these documents has been released. See NPCC, Climate
Risk Information (New York City, N.Y., 2009).
[27] Lia Ossiander and Kevin Rennert, "Impacts of Climate Change on
Washington State: Summary of Plenary Sessions" (prepared for The Future
Ain't What it Used to Be: Planning for Climate Disruption conference in
2005, sponsored by King County, Seattle, Wash., October 2005).
[28] King County Ordinance 15728 (Apr. 25, 2007). The district is
funded by a countywide ad valorem property tax levy of 10 cents per
$1,000 assessed value.
[29] King County, 2007 Climate Plan (Seattle, Wash., 2007).
[30] See King County Exec. Order No. PUT 7-8 (Mar. 22, 2006) (Executive
Order on Land Use Strategies for Global Warming Preparedness); King
County Exec. Order No. PUT 7-7 (Mar. 22, 2006) (Executive Order on
Environmental Management Strategies for Global Warming Preparedness);
King County Exec. Order No. PUT 7-10-1 (Aug. 31, 2007) (Evaluation of
Climate Change Impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act).
[31] King County, King County Comprehensive Plan 2008 (October 2008).
[32] University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, The Washington
Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington's Future in a
Changing Climate (Seattle, Wash., 2009).
[33] Maryland Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Response
Working Group, Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland's
Vulnerability to Climate Change Phase I: Sea Level Rise and Coastal
Storms (Annapolis, Md., 2008).
[34] Maryland Commission on Climate Change, Climate Action Plan
(Annapolis, Md., 2008).
[35] Maryland Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Response
Working Group, Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland's
Vulnerability to Climate Change Phase I: Sea Level Rise and Coastal
Storms.
[36] 2008 Md. Laws 304, codified at Md. Envir. § 16-201.
[37] 2008 Md. Laws 119, codified at Md. Nat. Res. § 8-1807. Critical
areas are determined by local jurisdictions and approved by the
Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays,
but the initial planning area included all waters and lands under the
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coastal Bays and their tributaries and all
land and water areas within 1,000 feet beyond the landward boundaries
of state or private wetlands and heads of tides.
[38] Wanda Diane Cole, Maryland Eastern Shore Resource Conservation &
Development Council, Sea Level Rise: Technical Guidance for Dorchester
County, a special report prepared at the request of the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, March 2008; URS and RCQuinn
Consulting, Inc., Somerset County Maryland Rising Sea Level Guidance, a
special report prepared at the request of Somerset County, Maryland,
Annapolis, Md., 2008; and CSA International Inc., Sea Level Rise
Response Strategy Worcester County, Maryland, a special report prepared
at the request of Worcester County, Maryland Department of
Comprehensive Planning, September 2008.
[39] See [hyperlink, http://shorelines.dnr.state.md.us]. Maryland
Shorelines Online is a coastal hazards Web portal, centralizing
information and data on shoreline and coastal hazards management in
Maryland.
[40] See [hyperlink, http://shorelines.dnr.state.md.us/sc_online.asp].
[41] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007).
[42] Government of Canada, From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a
Changing Climate 2007 (Ottawa, Ontario, 2008).
[43] Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Climate Change
Adaptation Actions for Local Government (Canberra, Australia, 2009).
[44] London Climate Change Partnership. London's Warming: The Impacts
of Climate Change on London (London, United Kingdom, November 2002).
[45] Nicholas Stern, Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change
(October 2006).
[46] Michael Pitt, Pitt Review: Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods
(June 2008).
[47] Climate Change Act 2008, ch. 27 (Eng.)
[48] The UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) provide climate information
for the United Kingdom up to the end of this century. See [hyperlink,
http://ukcp09.defra.gov.uk/].
[49] Your Home in a Changing Climate: Retrofitting Existing Homes for
Climate Change Impacts, a special report prepared at the request of the
Three Regions Climate Change Group, February 2008.
[50] S.H. Julius, J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A.
Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M.
Scott, Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive
Ecosystems and Resources, Final Report, SAP 4.4.
[51] Differences by level of government (federal, state, and local)
that are reported are for illustrative purposes and may not be
statistically different. We present selected examples where the
difference between federal, state, or local responses is greater than
15 percent and the difference presents useful context for the overall
results. There were other differences by level of government that are
not presented in this report.
[52] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a
Changing Climate.
[53] GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for
Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-863] (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
7, 2007).
[54] About 77 percent of the officials who responded to our
questionnaire rated the "size and complexity of future climate change
impacts" as very or extremely challenging, whereas only about 49
percent of the officials rated the "size and complexity of current
climate change impacts" similarly.
[55] While noting that it may be appealing to delay adaptation actions
given uncertainty associated with where, when, and how much change will
occur, the report also states that delay may leave the nation poorly
prepared to deal with the changes that do occur and may increase the
possibility of impacts that are irreversible or otherwise very costly.
See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Preparing for an
Uncertain Climate--Volume I, OTA-O-567 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, October 1993).
[56] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a
Changing Climate.
[57] Government of Canada, From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a
Changing Climate 2007 (Ottawa, Ontario, 2008).
[58] A General Circulation Model (GCM) is a global, three-dimensional
computer model of the climate system which can be used to simulate
human-induced climate change. GCMs are highly complex and they
represent the effects of such factors as reflective and absorptive
properties of atmospheric water vapor, greenhouse gas concentrations,
clouds, annual and daily solar heating, ocean temperatures, and ice
boundaries. The most recent GCMs include global representations of the
atmosphere, oceans, and land surface.
[59] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-863].
[60] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a
Changing Climate.
[61] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-863].
[62] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a
Changing Climate.
[63] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-863].
[64] Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A.
Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M.
Scott, Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive
Ecosystems and Resources, Final Report, SAP 4.4.
[65] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-285].
[66] As mentioned, FEMA is currently conducting a study on the impact
of climate change on the National Flood Insurance Program, which will
be completed in March 2010. According to FEMA, this study will provide
policy options and recommendations regarding the effects of climate
change on the National Flood Insurance Program. At USDA, the Risk
Management Agency has contracted with a research group to provide a
technical report on climate change impacts on the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation and develop a program impact model. The
contractor has submitted preliminary results and the final report is
due by December of this year. Using information contained in the report
and other information, the Risk Management Agency will evaluate how it
can adapt the crop insurance program to accommodate potential climate
change scenarios.
[67] In 2004, NRC defined adaptive management as a process that
promotes flexible decision making in the face of uncertainties, as
outcomes from management actions and other events become better
understood. See GAO, Yellowstone Bison: Interagency Plan and Agencies'
Management Need Improvement to Better Address Bison-Cattle Brucellosis
Controversy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-291]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2008). Adaptive management can be used to
reduce the adverse effects of climate change on ecosystems. See C.
Parmesan and H. Galbraith, Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in
the U.S. (2004). However, significant challenges confront those wishing
to apply the technique to complex problems, such as addressing the
effects of climate change on land use designations in land management
plans prepared under the National Forest Management Act or the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. See R. Gregory et. al.,
"Deconstructing Adaptive Management: Criteria for Applications to
Environmental Management," Ecological Applications, vol. 16, no. 6
(December 2006). Indeed, adaptive management "may be most difficult to
implement in precisely those circumstances in which it is most needed."
Id.
[68] Karkkainen, "Collaborative Ecosystem Governance: Scale,
Complexity, and Dynamism," 21 Va. Envtl. L.J. 189, (2008): 243-35.
Karkkainen's advice to lawyers who are unsettled by this apparent
conflict is "let's get over it." Id. at 235.
[69] National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on
Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a
Changing Climate.
[70] See [hyperlink, http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/] for more
information about USDA's extension service.
[71] GAO, Climate Change: Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy
Options to Address Climate Change, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-605] (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2008).
[72] Columbia Earth Institute, Climate Change and a Global City: The
Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Metro East
Coast, a special report prepared at the request of the U.S. Global
Change Research Program, July 2001.
[73] The Clean Air Partnership, Cities Preparing for Climate Change: A
Study of Six Urban Regions (May 2007).
[74] King County, King County Comprehensive Plan 2008.
[75] GAO, A Call For Stewardship: Enhancing the Federal Government's
Ability to Address Key Fiscal and Other 21st Century Challenges, GAO-08-
93SP (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2007).
[76] GAO, Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on
Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-551] (Washington, D.C.: June
3, 2009), and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-
863].
[77] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct.
21, 2005), and Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency
Coordination, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-00-
106] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000).
[78] GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-325SP]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2005).
[79] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15].
[80] GAO, Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement
Initiatives, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-00-
26] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 1999).
[81] We did not receive a submission from the Smithsonian Institution.
[82] Not all officials responded to every question.
[83] Three officials from levels of government other than federal,
state, or local--such as a regional level--also responded to the
questionnaire.
[84] The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates and
integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and
their implications for society. We did not receive a submission from
the Smithsonian Institution. In addition to the agencies that
participate in USGCRP, we also obtained a summary of current and
planned adaptation-related efforts from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
because of prior GAO adaptation-related work on its National Flood
Insurance Program.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
