Viewing page 180 of 218

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[image]]

EarthQuest
Winter 1988

Capitol Updates

Interagency Committee on Earth Sciences

The second meeting of the federal interagency Committee on Earth Sciences (CES), the first under the chairmanship of Dallas Peck of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), was held on 22 December 1987, at the Department of the Interior. The session was well attended, with high-level representation from all agencies and from other key parties including the National Climate Program Office.

Peck opened the meeting by introducing Richard Johnson, formerly of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, who will serve as vice-chairman of CES, and Raymond Watts, USGS, who will coordinate the staff support made up of agency representatives. Peck reviewed the committee's history, terms of reference (see EarthQuest, Vol. 1, Nos. 1 and 2), and highlighted the complex global change effort as a major challenge for the committee, calling attention to the numerous reports that now describe it.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) representative, Joseph Hezir, affirmed that the administration recognizes both the significance and the public's awareness of global change issues and noted that CES is in a position to contribute by bringing government resources to bear on these problems. A budget crosscut exercise, conducted by OMB in December to analyze the agencies' global change activities, had revealed a fiscal year (FY) 1987 total budget of $1.2 billion in overall earth science research, of which $57 million could be identified as bearing directly on global change issues. Corresponding figures for FY 1988 are $1.3 billion and $112 million. Similar increases to support global change activities are likely in the future, although the FY 1989 budget is still unclear. Agency budget requests for their respective contributions to the U.S. Global Change Program fared well in the president's budget request for FY 1989 - with the exception of the National Science Foundation. To put these figures in perspective, the overall increase for the federal budget for FY 1989 was 2%.

The budget cross cut of global change activities within the agencies was for OMB "an interesting experience" that demonstrated a lack of adequate knowledge within that office regarding the overall Global Change Program and particularly the degree to which present and planned agency programs reinforce each other. Because of unclear definitions, OMB found it difficult to make comparisons between agencies or to evaluate the integration and coordination of different agency programs that are related to global change issues. For want of other guidelines, OMB took Earth System Science: An Overview, the second report of the NASA Advisory Council's Earth System Sciences Committee (see EarthQuest, Vol. 1, Nos. 1 and 2), as a working definition of the U.S. Global Change Program. OMB sees a need to bring into sharper focus the relationships between agencies, the key scien-

tific issues, the program's goals and priorities, and the details of an implementation plan. CES can contribute greatly toward meeting these needs, although OMB will continue to evaluate budgets through normal interagency mechanisms. It was also felt that involvement of CES in annual budget exercises would detract from its ability to deal with the scientific issues.

Thomas Pyke, director of the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service of the NOAA, described efforts now under way to coordinate federal data management activities (see related story on page 11). Other programs were mentioned, such as the United National Environmental Programme Global Resource Information Database and the U.S.-USSR Bilateral Agreement for Protection of the Environment, overseen in the U.S. by the Environmental Protection Agency.

John Perry of the National Academy of Sciences then outlined the current status of national and international organization and planning for the International Goesphere-Biosphere Programme. He emphasized the need to take advantage of the achievements and momentum of the climate programs, and stressed that all concerned were determined to foster an atmosphere of openness, cooperation, and collegiality. In this connection, the CES network of agency focal points should be very useful.

William Graham, the president's science advisor, noted that the U.S. has the strongest science and technology effort in the world, one to which other countries aspire. One of its strengths is its variety, which stems from the diversity of mission agency interests and the necessity for each agency to conduct research in its area of interest. This diversity is an "undersold" virtue, he believes. Thus, Graham opposes moves to form a unified Department of Science and Technology. He noted, however, that the U.S. system places great responsibility for coordination on the agencies. Indeed, the surest way to prompt creation of a Department of Science and Technology would be a perceived lack of coordination. This major function of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET), of which CES is a part, is doubly important in periods of tight budgets. FCCSET maintains strong links with the National Security Council, the Domestic Policy Council, and other groups in the important task of building government-wide consensus. Graham felt, however, that there were too many FCCSET committees (now 29), and he was moving to abolish unneeded elements.

Robert Corell, assistant director of Geosciences at NSF, who had chaired a task force to examine the substructure of CES, outlined the roles and organization of two existing groups - the Subcommittee on Atmospheric Re-
(continued on page 13)


12