National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 4: Review of Decision Suppor tObjectives and Plans
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5: Concluding Comments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Update to the Strategic Plan Document. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23396.
×

Chapter 5: Concluding Comments

The draft Update to the Strategic Plan (USP) takes up the goals of the Strategic Plan in three sections: Goal 1, Goals 2-4, and international activities. The Committee observes that the grouping of Goals 2-4 is sensible, and that it points to a significant learning of the Program since 2012. What is being learned should be included in the Strategic Plan via the USP.

We see in the draft USP evidence of increasing tension between the need for answers to a broadening range of scientific questions and limited budgets and agency capabilities. Historically, the USGCRP was rooted in the physical sciences of climate dynamics. Advances along this line of science have generated new research questions and will no doubt continue to do so. These essential questions deserve attention and research funds. In particular, some of the observational and research initiatives of the Program have required long-term support, and it is a continuing challenge to balance long-term investments against emerging new demands.

Climate-related events, many of them anticipated by an increasingly sophisticated climate science, have brought additional scientific questions to the fore that have not previously been central to the USGCRP’s research portfolio and that also deserve attention and research funds. As evidenced in the draft USP, these include questions about the costs and benefits of various mitigation and adaptation options and how best to achieve their objectives; about the feasibility, costs, and benefits of options for climate intervention; about the multiple stresses a changing climate and other global changes put on ecological and socioeconomic systems; about ways to better inform decision making in the face of climate change and uncertainties about its specific future consequences; and about the processes of decision support and what makes some decision support tools and approaches more effective. These developments call for better engagement and integration of multiple additional branches of science into the USGCRP, particularly the social sciences. The need for answers to this broadening range of scientific questions is pressing against tight budgets and limited engagement of some of the relevant sciences within the research programs of most USGCRP agencies.

The draft USP deserves credit for identifying many increasingly pressing scientific needs and for proposing to address them. The Committee does note, however, that some of these needs have been identified in previous strategic planning documents, but the USGCRP budget has not reflected any major changes in emphasis. The budgetary trajectory of the USGCRP, with few and limited exceptions, is best described by the laws of inertia: Good intentions for change have gone largely unrealized. The increasing tension between the Program’s traditional research priorities and emerging scientific needs requires more explicit attention in the strategic planning process. Within a tight budget, tradeoffs will be required. We do not see the tough choices addressed in the draft USP.

The Committee also sees in the draft USP a growing and unresolved tension between the dual roles of the Program as it has evolved. One is its original, classical role as a coordinator of science programs on global change among the agencies. The other is

Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5: Concluding Comments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Update to the Strategic Plan Document. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23396.
×

the growing responsibility of the USGCRP to assure that boundaries are spanned between the research community and a wide variety of user groups both within the federal government and beyond. To an important degree the Program is playing a role as a boundary organization itself, one that is attempting to provide actionable science, for example in the National Climate Assessment. The Program needs also to catalyze research on the processes that foster successful boundary spanning. It is not surprising that these tensions are unresolved—the institutional experiment is playing out in real time. But the USP needs to be clear that this is one of the challenges that the USGCRP faces as it matures, and as the Nation faces both increased climate impacts and more and more urgent decisions about adaptation, mitigation, and perhaps in time climate intervention.

Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5: Concluding Comments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Update to the Strategic Plan Document. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23396.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5: Concluding Comments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Update to the Strategic Plan Document. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23396.
×
Page 52
Next: References »
Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Update to the Strategic Plan Document Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $42.00 Buy Ebook | $33.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Update to the Strategic Plan (USP) is a supplement to the Ten-Year Strategic Plan of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) completed in 2012. The Strategic Plan sets out a research program guiding thirteen federal agencies in accord with the Global Change Research Act of 1990. This report reviews whether USGCRP’s efforts to achieve its goals and objectives, as documented in the USP, are adequate and responsive to the Nation’s needs, whether the priorities for continued or increased emphasis are appropriate, and if the written document communicates effectively, all within a context of the history and trajectory of the Program.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!