Climate Adaptation Summit Explores Fed’s Role

What is the most efficient and accurate way for people who authorize climate-change, adaptation-related actions and budgets to obtain the information they need to make their decisions? In late May, about 150 high-ranking users and providers of climate adaptation information gathered in Washington D.C. to discuss options.  The meeting was convened at the direction of John Holdren, President Obama’s chief science advisor. Users were represented by representatives from such entities as state and municipal agencies, large water providers and power utilities, consultants, federal natural resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations. Providers were primarily represented by federal offices, agencies and research organizations involved in climate-change research, such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy, U.S. Global Change Research Program, NOAA, NCAR, UCAR, and universities.

Much of the discussion focused on three primary questions: 1) What incentives and barriers should be addressed to encourage and facilitate effective climate adaptation and vulnerability assessment? 2) What knowledge is needed by public and private decision makers to adapt to climate change and assess vulnerability? 3) Who should provide this knowledge and leadership, how should it be delivered, and how should the providers be organized? These issues were raised in hopes of identifying federal means to facilitate climate-change adaptation measures regardless of whether any climate-change legislation is passed.

While, not surprisingly, no clear answers emerged from the 3-day meeting, the extended breakout sessions provided valuable exchanges between providers and users about local and state successes and challenges, and the types and forms of data and information—interpretation of data—that  are needed. The federal government appears to be the logical entity to organize data acquisition, interpretation, quality control, and distribution, but the entities at that level need to better coordinate their efforts, and their support must be consistent, not subject to political support or retreat. From the decision-makers’ perspectives, if they are to successfully implement adaptation measures, there was less concern about who provides the data and information, and more emphasis on being able to obtain the data and information they need, when they need it. Furthermore, these users need the information to be presented in a manner that is defensible to boards of directors, municipal leaders, state legislators, and constituents.

One discussion focused on whether the federal government should take a leadership role in establishing a climate adaptation program with associated policy, or a more supportive role to bolster local/regional programs that are already underway. While each alternative had supporters among both providers and users, the preference clearly depends on specific circumstances.