Reproduced, with permission, from:

THE U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Recognition that human activity could significantly alter the global environment grew during the 1970s and 1980s. Concerns focused particularly on the threat of climate change from increased emissions of greenhouse gases and the depletion of the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). In response to the potential risks of climate change and the uncertainties surrounding the science, the Federal Government launched a massive, multiagency research effort in 1989 "to observe, understand, and, ultimately, predict global changes and to determine the mechanisms influencing these changes" (9). In 1989, USGCRP was developed by the Committee on Earth Sciences (now the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences, CEES), an interagency group under FCCSET in the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (see fig. 3-1a and fig. 3-1b). USGCRP became the first Presidential Initiative, [6] indicating that it was to be a high priority program with strong administrative backing. In 1990, Congress passed the U.S. Global Change Research Act (P.L. 101-606), which codified USGCRP. In 1992, USGCRP became a National Research Program.[7] Between FY 1989 and FY 1993, the Government spent $3.7 billion on this effort. A new administration that asserts its commitment to taking action on climate change issues and a Congress with a large number of new members coincide with this 5-year benchmark and could change the direction and scope of the program for FY 1994. There is no official termination date for the program; however, program plans indicate that it will last at least 40 years (11).

Three 'activity streams," or program elements, defined the USGCRP mission between its inception and FY 1994:

. Documentation and analysis of Earth system changes, which include observation--using both ground- and space-based observation systems--and data management;

. Process Research to enhance the understanding of the physical, geological, chemical, biological, and social processes that influence Earth system behavior; and

. Integrated Modeling and Prediction of Earth system processes.

Each of these priorities is represented by a working group under the Subcommittee on Global Change Research under CEES. The chair of the subcommittee along with the chair of each of the working groups make up the principal body responsible for the planning, development, coordination, and review of USGCRP (7). In F Y 1994, a new activity stream, Assessment, was added.

USGCRP was originally envisioned as a complete global change research program, covering research on natural climate change, human induced climate change, impacts of climate and land-use change on the Earth system, and impacts of human activity on ecosystem health. The program has evolved in parallel with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and has drawn heavily from the panels work. [8] Consequently, the main focus of global change research under USGCRP has become climate change. Important global changes other than human-induced climate change, such as loss of biodiversity, changes in land use, and increases in industrial pollution, were determined to be beyond the scope of USGCRP and are addressed only to the extent that they interact with the climate system. This is reflected in the research priorities of the program's science elements.

To guide research, CEES identified and prioritized seven scientific research elements, or science elements.[9] In order of priority, the science elements are Climate and Hydrologic Systems, Biogeochemical Dynamics, Ecological Systems and Dynamics, Earth System History, Human Interactions, Solid Earth Processes, and Solar Influences (7). More-specific areas of research are prioritized under each of these seven research elements (see fig. 3-2). Several criteria, although not applied systematically, are used to evaluate projects under each research element, including: relevance and contribution to the overall goal of the program, scientific merit, ease or readiness of implementation, links to other agencies and international partners, cost, and agency approval.

New Developments

In 1992, CEES began developing a management plan for the program that would include the addition of Assessment as a fourth activity stream along with Documentation, Process Research, and Integrated Modeling and Prediction (see fig. 3-3). The primary function of the Assessment working group is to ''. . .document the state of scientific knowledge and address the implications of the science of global change for national and international policy-making activities over a broad spectrum of global and regional environmental issues" (8). The group will also help coordinate the scientific assessments of global change with related assessments on environmental impacts, technologies for adaptation and mitigation, risk assessment, and policy-response strategies (12). Although the FY 1994 budget proposal reflects these changes, it is unclear how much money agencies will allocate for assessment and how the assessments will be structured. The FY 1994 budget does not show Assessment separately but, rather, embeds it within the other three activity streams. Comprehensive assessments cannot be carried out without expanding the ecological and socioeconomic aspects of the program and incorporating impacts research into it. The FY 1994 budget does not reflect any significant expansion in these areas.

Nonetheless, the Administration has expressed interest in significantly broadening the program to include studies of environmental and socioeconomic impacts and of mitigation and adaptation strategies. 'The development of a successful assessment activity in the USGCRP will, I believe, go far toward demonstrating the Clinton-Gore administration's commitment not only to research but to effective action to manage this Nation's national and international environmental policy" (19). If this research materializes, it could then be integrated with research on Earth system processes to conduct integrated assessments. The expanded program should be reflected in the FY 1995 USGCRP budget.

To ensure progress in each of the activity streams, timetables and milestones have been included in each agency's USGCRP research program, although they have not appeared in any published document. These milestones, specified for both the near term (5 to 10 years) and the long term (10 to 30 years), "will guide program and budget development and serve as a critical element in evaluating program accomplishments and progress" (11). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) could hold research programs to these targets only if the milestones are clearly stated and easily measured and, therefore, enforceable. Representative George Brown, chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, has suggested building performance guidelines into authorizing legislation as well as mandates that would redirect or terminate programs that do not make sufficient progress toward stated goals (2).

The Interface Between Policy and Science

Research programs intended to be relevant to management and policy making often fail be cause of fundamental tensions among researchers, resource managers, and decisionmakers. These tensions are created because of conflicts in the time horizons of each group, differences between priority- or goal-setting processes, and differences in the agendas of extramural research organizations (e.g., universities, industries, and independent laboratories), mission-oriented agencies, and Congress.

The timetable for governmental decisions is driven primarily by the annual budget cycle and an election cycle that ranges between 2 and 6 years. Not surprisingly, policy makers funding global change research often have a shorter time horizon for "answers" than do researchers. This disparity leads to tension between Government officials, who are required to formulate annual budgets and make immediate decisions, and the scientific community, whose long-term research is dependent on continuous and reliable funding. When the questions of policy makers are not answered in one or even a few years, it may become more difficult to sell a program as relevant to policy needs. Mission-oriented agencies are repeatedly deflected by the "crisis-of-the-month" syndrome, which siphons resources away from long-term programs (37). The result may be annual budget fluctuations and/or rapidly shifting priorities--both of which are detrimental to the development of a sound scientific program. A balance between continuity in priorities and funding and flexibility in project direction is essential (3).

Tension arises between extramural research organizations and the Federal Government because of different research agendas. Universities and independent laboratories judge their scientists to a large extent on their ability to raise funds for research. Adherence to management- and policy-relevant goals is not seen as important unless it leads to more Federal funding.

Many scientists believe that the science must be "complete" before policy conclusions can be made safely. Policy makers, on the other hand, cannot afford the luxury of complete information. Decisions about reauthorizing environmental legislation and natural resource planning and management will continue to be made based on the best available information. "(I)f policy is to be effectual, then we must make policy while we continue to investigate the physical and societal effects of global warming. But this means that policy will also enter the feedback loop, influencing societal responses and physical effects" (30). Science need not proceed in a sequential fashion. Research on the climate system need not be "complete" before research on the ecological effects of climate change is undertaken nor does research on the ecological effects of climate change need to be "complete" before research on the societal impacts of and potential responses to climate change is initiated (45). If USGCRP is to address policy-relevant questions, a parallel approach to climate effects and response research is necessary.

In a narrow sense, USGCRP is policy-relevant if the most important policy concern is to gain a better understanding of Earth system processes in order to predict climate change. However, the major international assessments conducted by IPCC demonstrate that the key questions policy makers need to address move far beyond the narrow definition of "observe, document, and predict" global change, into the realm of issues related to adaptation and mitigation. As a result of focusing research funds on climate prediction, USGCRP is not addressing other key science issues or broad policy questions for the near term. For example, what plants and animals are sensitive to climate changes? How might biota and vegetation respond to changes in climate? What are the implications for forestry, agriculture, and natural areas? What mitigation strategies would slow climate change the most? How much would they cost? To whom? How might society respond to changes in climate and global ecosystems? What technologies should be developed? How will the effects of climate change interact with other global environmental changes? How important is climate change in the scheme of long-term environmental threats? How can natural resources be managed to minimize economic and ecological loss? These issues were largely excluded from USGCRP to keep it primarily driven by the earth sciences. Even if accurate regional climate predictions could be given. Today, land managers, planners, decisionmakers, and policy makers would not have all the information they need to guide their response (33). As originally envisioned in 1990, these issues were to be addressed under the CEES Working Group on Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies (MARS), which was abolished in 1992.

If USGCRP begins to address this broader set of questions, it will be moving closer to policy-relevant research. Some fear that a program driven by policy concerns will undermine or change the direction of science. Others maintain that the second set of policy-related questions can be addressed adequately by research driven by the earth sciences. Maintaining the long-term policy relevance of scientific research under USGCRP will require a formal and iterative assessment link that simultaneously transfers scientific research results in policy-relevant language to decisionmakers and policy concerns to the research community.

PRIORITIES AND BALANCE IN USGCRP

Budget

CEES designed USGCRP as a cohesive, integrated research program that would encompass the unique attributes of 11 Federal agencies, including 31 bureaus, but it did not assign a central management body (see table 3-1). The priority scheme set up by the three activity streams and the seven science elements is intended to guide budget decisions, and, to date, funding levels have followed these priority areas.

Since the program formally began in FY 1990, the USGCRP budget has grown from $660 million in its first year to $ 1.33 billion in FY 1993 (7, 9). The proposed budget for FY 1994 is $ 1.47 billion (8). The budget can be analyzed in terms of distribution across agencies, activity streams, and science elements (see figs 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6). In FY 1993, projects funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) comprised 69 percent of the program's budget ($921 million) while projects funded by the Department of the Interior (DOI), which contains most of the land-management agencies, comprised 3 percent of the program's budget ($38 million). For FY 1994, the requested budget for DOI's global change research program decreased to 2.3 percent of the total.

Of the activity streams, Documentation, including observation and data management, received 45 percent of the budget ($595 million) in FY 1993. Earth Process Research for understanding climate change received 46 percent of the budget ($610 million), and Integrated Model ing and Prediction received 9 percent of the budget ($121 million).[10]

Although USGCRP programs include projects on almost every aspect of climate change, the bulk of the funds is focused on answering scientific questions related to understanding the physics and chemistry underlying climate systems. Research on Climate and Hydrologic Systems and Biogeochemical Dynamics constituted about 71 percent of the program's FY 1993 budget ($937 million). Ecological Systems and Dynamics received 17 percent of the budget ($224 million). The remaining 12 percent of the budget ($165 million) was divided among the remaining four research elements: Earth System History, Human Interactions, Solid Earth Processes, and Solar Influences (8).

Projects are categorized as focused directly relating to global change--or contributing--justified on a basis other than global change but having the potential to contribute to the global change knowledge base (see fig. 3-7).[11] Even when both focused and contributing research are considered, 70 percent of all funds is targeted for projects in the first two priority research areas. There are no standardized criteria for classifying contributing research, and each agency uses its own system. Consequently, it is difficult to know precisely the extent of contributing research or to get a comprehensive picture of relevant research. Both focused and contributing programs are considered in a procedure called the "budget crosscut. " USGCRP is one of only a few Federal programs that uses a budget crosscut as a coordinating mechanism. This approach has been reasonably successful in facilitating cooperation and securing new funding for global change research. The USGCRP budget-crosscut process works as follows.

Each program within an agency submits new projects to the appropriate subworking group of CEES. This subworking group determines whether to recommend to the agency that the project be included in USGCRP (projects can be added later in the budget process, but this is the most likely step at which new projects are added).

Each agency that participates in USGCRP then develops its own GCRP budget, with some coordination between agencies for joint projects. These budgets are then submitted to CEES, which may continue to negotiate with the agencies. CEES submits one budget proposal incorporating programs from all participating agencies to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When the proposal reaches OMB, it is initially reviewed at one meeting by all of the budget examiners for the various agencies involved in USGCRP. Although one examiner takes the lead for USGCRP, the participation of the other examiners is critical because each must understand the purpose of the USGCRP projects that fall within his or her agency's budget. The USGCRP budget is returned to each agency when that agency's whole budget is returned. At that point, deliberations between OMB and the agencies proceed as normal. As agencies work to meet OMB-established budget targets, they look at modifying all projects--they can accept or reject OMB's recommendations and reprogram their global change budgets.[12] The final USGCRP budget is presented to Congress along with the annual Presidential Budget Request.[13] When the program first started, approximately 70 percent of the proposed budget consisted of research funds from already existing projects.

The USGCRP budget falls within the jurisdiction of several congressional authorization and appropriations committees and subcommittees (see table 3-2). With all of these committees reviewing components of the USGCRP budget, it is much more difficult for Congress to consider the USGCRP budget as a whole than it is for the executive branch to do so. Several members of Congress have complained about the fragmentation of congressional attention to the USGCRP budget, but no alternatives have been proposed. It might be useful for Congress to consider using an ad hoc appropriations subcommittee consisting of members from the committees with primary jurisdiction over elements of USGCRP to review the program's budget as a comprehensive unit. If two or three agencies are cooperating on a single project, but one agency does not receive funding for it, the entire project could be at risk.[l4] Large, interagency programs such as USGCRP will require innovative methods of funding if they are to succeed.

Satellite vs. Nonsatellite Measurements

NASA's Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) program accounts for over 60 percent of USGCRP focused funding (crossing several of the priority research areas). The core of the MTPE program is the development and maintenance of the Earth Observing System (EOS), an ambitious satellite program originally designed to provide data over a 15-year period related to the study of precipitation; ocean circulation; sources and sinks of greenhouse gases; changes in land use, land cover, hydrology, and ecology; changes in glaciers and ice sheets; ozone; and volcanic activity. Because of EOS's central role in NASA's USGCRP effort and the great expense of putting satellites in space, the USGCRP budget as a whole is heavily weighted toward satellite-based measurements.[l5]

EOS has suffered extensive restructuring over the past few years, which may jeopardize the quality of information gained from remaining EOS instruments. Some instruments that were supposed to have improved the understanding and observation of possible climate change impacts have been dropped or postponed. For example, the High Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (HIRIS), an instrument potentially capable of resolving some of the more subtle aspects of ecological change that cannot be detected by satellites today, was originally scheduled to be part of EOS, but was dropped during program restructuring (54). EOS began as a $30 billion program, but was scaled back to an $8 billion program (see box 3-A).[16]

Most participants at OTA's workshop "EOS and GCRP: Are We Asking and Answering the Right Questions?" agreed that had EOS been designed initially to be an $8 billion program, it likely would be different from the program we have today. All acknowledged that much good data will be collected and good science will be done through EOS, but that it will provide neither the continuous, multidecade data set necessary for ecosystem studies nor a true global monitoring network. Both these shortcomings are important to consider in future discussions about the science base of USGCRP. Many correlative measurements made with airbome platforms or groundbased instruments (that would verify and calibrate the satellite measurements and provide continuous coverage when satellites are not operating) were originally planned to be part of USGCRP but were not funded. Costs for such efforts could be a small percentage of the USGCRP budget--in the tens of millions of dollars each year.[l7]

The Landsat satellite monitoring program is of significant ecological interest because it is the primary source of data for detecting long-term ecological trends (18).[l8] Landsat satellites contain instruments that analyze multispectral data to obtain images of the Earth (see box 3-A). New technologies have allowed resolution to improve from about 100 feet (30 meters) [l9] to a few feet. Landsat data allow changes to be detected in vegetation type and cover, hydrologic patterns, extent of wetlands, land use, and soil moisture. It is the only satellite monitoring program that has a 20-year data set, despite several changes in ownership and new technology over the years that nearly resulted in its termination. The data are just now becoming relevant for ecological studies of changes in vegetation cover due to natural processes. Multidecade data sets are vital to global change research; however, consistency is extremely difficult because the average life of a satellite is only 5 years. A central element of an extended set of missions must be ensuring the compatibility of future satellite data with current data while accommodating new technologies. In addition, subsequent satellites must survive fiscal fluctuations.

Balance Among NASA and Other USGCRP Agencies

The question of balance between satellite and nonsatellite measurements is directly connected to the question of balance among participating USGCRP agencies. Currently, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the De]Department of Energy (DOE) control 80 percent of the focused research budget for USGCRP. Even when contributing programs are considered (e.g., those that are ongoing for other reasons), NASA, DOE, and NOAA control 60 percent of the USGCRP budget (see figs. 3-4 to 3-7). The lack of participation by agencies other than NASA has led to gaps in the overall program. For example, DOI, which manages approximately 500 million acres (200 million hectares)[20] of public land that could be affected by climate change, requested a decrease in USGCRP funding for both FY 1993 and FY 1994. This can be attributed partly to management agencies focusing their resources on what they perceive as more immediate management concerns.

Another dimension of the imbalance in agency participation is the historical attraction that Congress and the executive branch have had for space-based research. Federal agencies may correctly perceive that it is easier to get financial support for large, space-based projects than for lower-profile research such as monitoring (36, 55).

NASA's contribution dwarfs contributions from other agencies, but it is unclear how to bring more balance to the program to help fill the gaps and make the necessary links to other global change issues. Because USGCRP does not have a program budget, it would be difficult to redistribute funds across agencies; however, there might be opportunities to modify projects within agencies to help meet the needs of global change research.

ADAPTATION RESEARCH IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies program was created about the same time as USGCRP and operated as an independent working group under CEES. MARS was conceived to develop "a coordinated Federal research strategy for mitigation of, and adaptation to, global change and with assessment of economic, social and environmental effects of the proposed responses. " The program addressed four functions: mitigation, adaptation, economics, and social dynamics (5). MARS objectives under its adaptation program were to:

1. determine the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of human and other natural systems to global change, and the social, cultural, economic, and other constraints or impediments to implementation of adaptive measures and methods to reduce those constraints;

2. determine the mechanisms and timing required for current evaluation procedures and practices to be modified to meet society's needs to accommodate global change, given the uncertainties about the timing and magnitude of global change and its effects; and

3. identify, develop, demonstrate, and evaluate technologies and strategies to adapt to global change.

These objectives were to be directed toward water resources; natural systems; food, forestry, and fiber; and human systems. In a sense, MARS was charged with conducting all the research components missing from USGCRP.

However, MARS did not receive the administrative backing that USGCRP did and never developed an interagency research program on mitigation and adaptation research. By 1992, MARS, as a formal entity, ceased to exist. Under the CEES Subcommittee on Global Change, an informal, and later formal, Subcommittee on the Environment and Technology formed in 1992, which continues to address mitigation and adaptation issues, but in a much broader context. Although this subcommittee has no budgetary power, it is holding the door open for agencies with more interest in applied climate change research than in basic research, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Tennessee Valley Authority, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of the Interior, to redirect their funds to this end.

Although MARS provided a forum for agencies to discuss global change programs of mutual interest, it was unable to exercise any influence over project selection and funding. Consequently, MARS served primarily to identify existing agency programs and projects that addressed mitigation, adaptation, social dynamics, and economic issues either as a main focus or as a contributing element.

Research "Focused" on Adaptation

MARS classified only a handful of projects as focused on adaptation research, and funding for these projects totaled $8.18 million in FY 1992 (5) (see table 3-3A). These projects are not included in USGCRP per se because they do not conform to the USGCRP mission of "observe, understand, and predict."

Of the $8.18 million considered focused on adaptation research, NOAA spent $4.1 million, or close to 50 percent, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and EPA each spent $1.2 million, or 15 percent, each, and USDA spent $0.35 million, or 4 percent, of the total spent on adaptation research. DOI, the department that houses landmanagement agencies responsible for 500 million acres of public land, was conspicuously absent from the MARS list of agencies undertaking focused adaptation research.

Examples of focused adaptation research include: a $200,000 NSF program on the effects of climate change on coastal zones; a $1.1 million USDA program that seeks to simulate the effects of changing climate and management practices on organic matter, crop yields, and rangeland productivity; a $20,000 TVA program on regional climate scenarios; a $30,000 TVA program addressing the sensitivity of the TVA reservoir and power supply systems to extreme meteorology; a $250,000 Department of Defense (DOD) program that assesses the impacts of potential climate change on water resource management; and a $50,000 DOE program on regional impacts that seeks to develop a model designed to capture the essential climate-sensitive relationships within and between resource sectors (6).

Research that MARS classified as focused on economics received $1.0 million in FY 1992; no research was classified as focused on social dynamics.

Research "Contributing" to Adaptation

MARS identified research on the effects of climate change on natural and engineered systems and research on the potential impact on society of these changes as contributing to adaptation research. With the exception of NASA's component, the majority of USGCRP research under the science elements Ecological Systems and Dynamics and Human Interactions can be considered impacts research that is, how climate change effects plants, animals, and people. Ecological Systems and Dynamics research made up $224 million, or 17 percent, of the FY 1993 USGCRP budget, and Human Interactions research made up $22 million, or less than 2 percent of the USGCRP budget. NASA spent 66 percent of the total USGCRP Ecological Systems and Dynamics budget; however, Ecological Systems and Dynamics research represents only 16 percent of the agency's global change research budget (see table 3-4A). In addition, NASA's research in this area focuses primarily on ecological functions and characterizations, not effects of climate change on ecological systems. In contrast, USDA spends only 11 percent of the USGCRP Ecological Systems and Dynamics budget, which represents 53 percent of their global change research budget. DOI spends 3.5 percent of the USGCRP Ecological Systems and Dynamics budget, which represents 21 percent of their global change research budget (see table 3-4A). The agencies that one would expect to conduct the bulk of research on ecological systems and the effects of climate change on ecosystems--EPA and the land-management agencies of DOI and USDA--play only a minor role. The reasons are varied and complex, but include the higher capital costs of NASA projects and the reluctance of some agencies to actively support and participate in the program. Consequently, these agencies' contributions to USGCRP comprise projects that are in place for reasons other than climate change research, such as characterizing ground- and surface-water flows, maintaining weather data and monitoring ecosystem change.

Definitions of what encompasses Ecological Systems and Dynamics research become very important in the face of such disparate budget allocations among agencies. If the definition is not consistent across agencies, or if it is too broad, large gaps could potentially exist. For example, it is unclear how much large ecosystem research is being conducted--such as research on the use of corridors for the migration of plants and animals in response to global change or techniques for ecosystem transplantation. Are we clarifying rates at which various species in an ecosystem can migrate? Do we understand how to maintain ecosystems in place? Will pest ranges increase? Will fire hazards increase? Are our crop and tree varieties genetically diverse enough to cope with the range of potential changes? What agencies are addressing these questions, and is research adequate to find the answers to these questions? What questions under this research category does NASA attempt to answer compared with what questions USDA attempts to answer? NASA's contribution to the understanding of ecological systems comes largely from space-based measurements and observations, whereas the landmanagement agencies' contribution comes more from field research. Box 3-B highlights weaknesses in environmental research identified by the National Research Council (NRC).

Of the $22 million spent on Human Interactions, NSF spends 42 percent, which represents 7.5 percent of their global change research budget. Except for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which spends $5.41 million, or 100 percent, of its USGCRP budget on Human Interactions, the percent of agency USGCRP budgets allocated to Human Interactions ranges from 0 to 10 percent (see tables 3-3B and 3-4B). Although it is difficult to obtain reliable numbers, because social science research has many labels, it is doubtful that any Federal agency devotes as much as 1 percent of its total research budget to environmental social science (37).

Specific projects classified as contributing to adaptation include: a $4.7 million program at DOI's National Park Service (NPS) to improve the scientific basis of adaptive management of the types of ecosystem responses likely to be associated with climate and other global environmental changes; a $1.3 million program at DOI's Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to study the changes in hydrologic processes under scenarios of global climate change and to determine the potential impacts on snowpack, snowmelt, and runoff in the 17 Western States; a $1.5 million program at DOI's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to evaluate the sensitivity of water resources to climate variability and change across the United States; and a $150,000 DOE program to evaluate the existing social science knowledge base concerning energy and the analysis of the role of institutions in making decisions affecting climate change (6).

Very little of the effects research described above could also be considered research on the impacts of global change on human systems. USGCRP's new Economics Initiative does consider the impact of climate change on the economy, and several agencies support research in this area, including NSF, NOAA, and USDA (in its Economics Research Service). However, the economics component of USGCRP is not well integrated with the rest of the program.[2l]

CEES is aware of the absence of research on the impacts of climate change and has slightly expanded Earth Process Research, the second integrating priority, to include research to determine the impacts associated with predicted global changes (12). However, explicit recognition of the need for research on impacts of climate change is not yet reflected in the program structure.

6 Presidential Initiatives are programs of particular importance to the national interest. Aside from USGCRP, four other Presidential Initiatives exist: high-performance computing and communication, advanced materials and processing, biotechnology research, and mathematics and science education. The Administration uses FCCSET to coordinate interagency research in these areas.

7 FCCSET developed this category for continuing Presidential Initiatives that have reached maturity.

8 IPCC is an intergovernmental body sponsored jointly by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nation's Environmental Programme, The group was set up in 1988 to assess the scientific understanding of natural and human induced climate change, its impacts, and potential response strategies. IPCC is scheduled to produce another full assessment in 1995.

9 CEES (formerly CES) works closely with and has drawn heavily on the ongoing activities of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) of the World Meteorological Organization, the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU)), the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), and IPCC in designing the structure of USGCRP and in identifying the program's key scientific issues and research priorities.

10 Most of the funds for modeling and prediction go toward nonmodeling process research The major modeling groups have received only a small portion of these funds.

11 Unless specifically noted, budget figures refer to the focused budget.

12 During tbe first few years of the program, USGCRP required agencies to "fence off," or commit, their global change research budget requests to the program. They could not reprogram this money later if OMB cut overall agency funding further down the line.

13 The first two budget requests were long, detailed documents accompanied by executive summaries, but since FY 1992, only the two summaries have been published USGCRP staff determined that the information in the detailed budgets changes slowly and, therefore, needs to be published only every 5 years.

14 For example, at OTA's workshop "EOS and USGCRP Are We Asking and Answering the Right Questions?" (Feb. 25-26, 1993), participants cited programs such as the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE), Tropical Oceans Global Atmosphere (TOGA)), and the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS)(50). All three are interagency research programs where the success of the entire program depends on contributions from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Science Foundation However, in a recent budget cycle, NASA received more than it asked for these programs while NOAA and NSF received no money. Rather than let the programs die, NASA filled the financial gap left by inadequate funding for NOAA and NSF.

15 Although about 50 percent of NASA's USGCRP budget is classified as nonsatellite programs, most of these support data maintenance.

16 For more discussion of EOS, see references 49 and 50.

17 OTA's workshop "EOS and USGCRP: Are We Asking and Answering the Right Questions?" Washington, DC, Feb. 25-26, 1993.

18 Landsat receives approximately 25 percent of its budget from NASA and 75 percent from DOD. It is a part of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, but it is separate from EOS.

19 To convert feet to meters, multiply by 0.305.

20 To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

21 OTA's workshop "EOS and USGCRP: Are We Asking and Answering the Right Questions?" Washington, DC, Feb. 25-26, 1993.