Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 41
5
Process, Structure, and Implementation Issues
Although the last section of the Plan is labeled implementation, it offers much less detail
than previous Strategic Plans, which provided a clearer picture of how implementation would be
developed through program management and review – including explicit discussion of what
groups were making decisions, how the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of
Science and Technology Policy would collaborate in providing leadership, the role of interagency
programmatic working groups in prioritizing specific areas of research, and the role of the NRC
and other external bodies in providing external review and validation of the program. The current
Plan lacks transparency about such issues. The intent to move to a more integrated approach
across the sciences and to better link science producers and users makes it particularly important
to provide some insight into how decisions and coordination related to particular research areas
will be handled. (For instance, will the current configuration of USGCRP Interagency Working
Groups be discontinued? Will a different configuration of Working Groups be formed?)
The Committee understands that some of these details will be provided in a forthcoming
Implementation Plan. At present, however, we have only the draft Strategic Plan to comment on.
We suggest that the final Strategic Plan or the subsequent Implementation Plan should more fully
address the key implementation issues described below.
Governance structure. The Plan calls for a fundamental reorientation of the Program in
ways that will require new forms of interagency collaboration and the subordination of some
agency priorities to overarching, program-wide goals and national needs. The draft Plan needs to
suggest a governance structure that can make the proposed changes reality. This includes a need
to spell out the commitments of member agencies to carry out the parts of the Plan (both singly
and jointly with other agencies), and a need to discuss processes for priority setting (discussed
below) and criteria for phasing in various efforts over time.
To be effective, this governance structure needs to be a committed partnership among the
participating departments and agencies of the USGCRP, the relevant Administration offices
(including, at a minimum the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Domestic Policy Council), the
Global Change Research Sub-Committee representatives, and the USGCRP Office leadership. It
is not clear that this sort of broad-based partnership currently exists.
On a related note, it would be useful for the Plan to mention something about mechanisms
for interaction with Congress. This may include, for instance, describing how USGCRP
committees, working groups, staff, etc. will help meet Congressional requests for briefings and
updates on the Program; and discussing how the Program will seek opportunities for hearings,
staff briefings, and other means to keep the Congress as fully informed as possible (as appropriate
with respect to Administration policies).
Defining an appropriate, effective governance structure for the USGCRP is, of course, a
complex challenge. The Committee itself does not necessarily have the expertise to offer specific
41
OCR for page 42
recommendations in this regard (especially in the context of this very quick review process), but
we do suggest that this matter be given explicit consideration by an independent expert group.
Setting priorities. The Plan states commitments to many important new research
directions – for instance, to improve understanding of how natural and social conditions interact to
affect resilience and vulnerability; to develop methods for valuing ecosystem goods and services;
to improve characterization of uncertainty in ways that enable decision makers to evaluate options.
In fact, the Plan states directly that the USGCRP will pursue some important endeavor at least 177
times, not counting numerous additional commitments for action stated in textboxes throughout
the document. Yet the Plan gives no clear indication of an approach to prioritizing these
numerous commitments in a manner that will move beyond business-as-usual.
The Plan needs to identify what criteria and management structure will enable the Program
to prioritize across existing and new research. The three criteria listed at L.3547 -3551 are too
general to provide enough guidance to prioritize. (For instance, would such criteria help in
choosing between an existing project on aerosol-cloud interactions versus a new activity that
integrates social and natural science to support improved management of air quality and its
linkages to global change?)
More specific criteria for prioritization, such as those discussed in ACC Advancing the
Science report (NRC, 2010a; P.156-158) would be a step in the right direction. We particularly
note that report’s emphasis on criteria related to the value of science for informing decision
making. Consideration of decision makers’ needs might lead the Program to consider thematic
approaches to defining research goals (i.e., science to address choices about providing clean water,
sustaining marine ecosystems, providing better public health warnings, etc.).
Evaluation and updating. The Plan appropriately notes the value of using an adaptive
management approach to evaluate progress and update the Plan based on input from those using
research to inform decisions. However, it needs to be clearer about the specific questions the
Program will address and expected outcomes and milestones against which it could be evaluated
in the near-term (3-5 years). It should include specific mechanisms for periodic review and
updating of the Plan in light of changes in international circumstances, technological
developments, and budget appropriations, and in light of what is learned about what has and has
not worked well within the Program’s operations. The Plan would also be strengthened by
identifying steps to make the Program more resilient to the expected funding turbulence ahead.
Ideally, there should also be consideration of plans for assessing the USGCRP itself – not of the
science the Program produces, but of what has and has not worked well within the Program’s
operations (including consideration of the governance questions mentioned above). This sort of
assessment, which has not been done in the Program’s 20 year history, could help the USGCRP to
establish priorities and implementation strategies.
42
OCR for page 43
Key Messages:
The Strategic Plan and/or the Implementation Plan to follow should establish clear processes for
setting priorities and phasing in and out elements of the Program, especially in relation to the
planned broadening of its scope. The Program should employ iterative processes for periodically
evaluating and updating the Program and its priorities, including processes for consultation with
decision makers inside and outside the federal government, regarding the scientific knowledge
about global change that would provide the greatest value for them.
The USGCRP needs an overall governance structure with responsibility and resources to broaden
the Program in the directions outlined in the Plan, including the ability to compel reallocation of
funds to serve the Program’s overarching and long-term priorities. Without such a governance
structure, the likely evolution of the Program will be business as usual: a compilation of program
elements that derive from each member agency’s individual priorities.
43
