Skip to main content

Managing Adaptation: Developing a Learning Infrastructure in the United States’ Federal System

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Implementing Adaptation Strategies by Legal, Economic and Planning Instruments on Climate Change

Part of the book series: Environmental Protection in the European Union ((ENVPROTEC,volume 4))

  • 2198 Accesses

Abstract

Though there is much solid evidence that anthropogenic climate change has already had and will increasingly have substantial adverse effects on biota and ecological processes, the chief barrier to effective natural resource governance over the next few decades will likely be the exceptional uncertainty that accompanies attempts to adapt to the effects of climate change on natural systems. Consequently, the effective adaptation of natural resource management to climate change hinges on the development of a regulatory infrastructure that provides public and private actors the capacity to assess and manage uncertainty. This chapter briefly sketches the options originally considered for natural resource governance in the United States, their insufficiency in the key function of managing uncertainty, and how to build a more effective federal system for managing natural resources in preparation for climate change. Uncertainty underscores the value of regulatory experimentation and learning in a largely decentralized and overlapping federal system, and suggests a crucial role for national governments and international institutions of promoting agency learning and inter-jurisdictional information sharing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These include claims that fragmented and overlapping governance can result in an inefficient lack of finality, poor regulator accountability (Schapiro 2005), and the potential for inefficient over-regulation when ‘numerous regulators are confronted with a more particularized project or proposal with localized and discernible effects’ (Buzbee 2005, p. 349).

  2. 2.

    In fragmented regulatory contexts, a regulator has less incentive to act because credit will most likely be divided among all regulators (Buzbee 2003).

  3. 3.

    Though this bill was initially adopted by the House of Representatives, it was never adopted by the Senate.

  4. 4.

    In contrast, a less integrated structure might require each federal agency to develop an adaptation plan, but not require such plans to be consistent with a centralized adaptation strategy.

  5. 5.

    For example, such a case might exist if there is directly conflicting or redundant authority by regulators without a discernable difference in subject matter competence. In addition, ‘local research into health effects, safe exposure thresholds, and potential control strategies could be duplicative. Accordingly, such research may be conducted more efficiently at the federal level’ (Adler 2005, p. 148).

  6. 6.

    Evaluations of collaborative governance experiments have found that scarce information about ecological processes, management strategies, and agency performance contributes greatly to failure by collaborative experiments (Karkkainen 2008).

  7. 7.

    For a more detailed critique of the capacity of existing regulatory programs in the United States to engage in adaptive learning, see Camacho (2009).

  8. 8.

    ‘The complex scientific underpinnings of many environmental challenges favor allocation of research and information sharing functions to the federal government. Even if inter-jurisdictional competition is viewed as a good, one can embrace allocation of such information-gathering functions to federal actors’ (Buzbee 2005, p. 353).

  9. 9.

    The pilot program also designates six NEP estuaries for targeted technical support from EPA, and intermittently hosts workshops that assemble officials with jurisdiction over estuaries to discuss adaptation planning (Climate Ready Estuaries 2010).

  10. 10.

    For a more comprehensive delineation of such an inter-jurisdictional adaptive governance framework, see Camacho (2009, 2011).

References

  • Adelman DE, Engel KH (2007) Adaptive federalism: the case against reallocating environmental regulatory authority. Minn Law Rev 92:1796–1850

    Google Scholar 

  • Adelman DE, Engel KH (2009) Adaptive environmental federalism. In: Buzbee WW (ed) Preemption choice: the theory, law and reality of federalism’s core questions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 277–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler JA (2005) Jurisdictional mismatch in environmental federalism. New York Univ Environ Law J 14:130–178

    Google Scholar 

  • American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach E (1998) Getting agencies to work together: the practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzbee WW (2003) Recognizing the regulatory commons: a theory of regulatory gaps. Iowa Law Rev 89:1–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzbee WW (2005) The regulatory fragmentation continuum, westway and the challenges of regional growth. J Law Polit 23:323–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Camacho AE (2007) Can regulation evolve? Lessons from a study in maladaptive management. UCLA Law Rev 55:293–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Camacho AE (2009) Adapting governance to climate change: managing uncertainty through a learning infrastructure. Emory Law J 59:1–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Camacho AE (2011) A learning collaboratory: improving federal climate change adaptation planning. BYU Law Rev 2011:1821–1862

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson A (2009) Iterative federalism and climate change. Northwestern Univ Law Rev 103:1097–1160

    Google Scholar 

  • Climate Ready Estuaries (2010) Climate ready estuaries 2010 progress report. Environmental Protection Agency

    Google Scholar 

  • Climate Ready Estuaries, Coastal Toolkit (n.d.) Retrieved 28 Feb 2014, from United States Environmental Protection Agency website, http://www.epa.gov/cre/toolkit.html

  • Craig RK (2008) Climate change, regulatory fragmentation, and water triage. Univ Colorado Law Rev 79:825–927

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig RK (2010) ‘Stationarity is dead’ – long live transformation: five principles for climate change adaptation law. Harv Environ Law Rev 34:9–73

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMento J, Ingram J (2005) Science and environmental decision making: the potential role of environmental impact assessment in the pursuit of appropriate information. Nat Resour J 45:283–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel KH (2006) Harnessing the benefits of dynamic federalism in environmental law. Emory Law J 56:159–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber DA (2009) Climate adaptation and federalism: mapping the issues. San Diego J Clim Energ Law 1:259–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortney MD (2006) Devolving control over mildly contaminated property: the local cleanup program. Northwestern Univ Law Rev 100:1863–1906

    Google Scholar 

  • Geltman EG, Skroback AE (1998) Reinventing the EPA to conform with the new American environmentality. Columbia J Environ Law 23:1–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Ohlson D, Arvai J (2006) Deconstructing adaptive management: criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecol Appl 16:2411–2425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grumbine RE (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conservat Biol 8:27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, summary for policymakers

    Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen B (2004) New governance in legal thought and in the world: some splitting as antidote to overzealous lumping. Minn Law Rev 89:71–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen B (2008) Bottlenecks and baselines: tackling information deficits in environmental regulation. Tex Law Rev 86:1409–1444

    Google Scholar 

  • National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (2013) Draft National Climate Assessment

    Google Scholar 

  • National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (2008) Retrieved 2 Aug 2010, from United States Geological Survey website, http://nccw.usgs.gov/documents/NCCWS_factsheet.pdf

  • Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (2001) California Fish & Game Code, §§ 2800-2840

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell AJ (2006) The architecture of smart intelligence: structuring and overseeing agencies in the post-9/11 world. Calif Law Rev 94:1655–1744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2010) Adapting to climate change: a call for federal leadership

    Google Scholar 

  • Presidential Executive Order 13653 (2013) Preparing the United States for the impacts of climate change. White House, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl JB (2010) Climate change adaptation and the structural transformation of environmental law. Environ Law 40:363–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl JB, Salzman J (2010) Climate change, dead zones, and massive problems in the administrative state: guidelines for whittling away. Calif Law Rev 98:59–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Salkin PE (2010) Cooperative federalism and climate change: new meaning to ‘think globally – act locally’. Environ Law Rep News Anal 40:10562–10571

    Google Scholar 

  • Schapiro RA (1999) Polyphonic federalism: state constitutions in the federal courts. Calif Law Rev 87:1409–1468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schapiro RA (2005) Toward a theory of interactive federalism. Iowa Law Rev 91:243–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel JA (2009) Collaborative decision making on climate change in the federal government. Pace Environ Law Rev 27:257–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Staudinger MD, Grimm NB, Staudt A, Carter S, Stuart FS, Kareiva P, Ruckelshaus M, Stein BA (2012) Impacts of climate change on biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services: technical input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Climate Change Science Program (2008) Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4: preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Congressional Budget Office (2005) Uncertainty in analyzing climate change: policy implications

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2012) National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy

    Google Scholar 

  • United States General Accounting Office (2003) Great Lakes, an overall strategy and indicators for measuring progress are needed to better achieve restoration goals. Report no. GAO-03-515

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Global Change Research Program (2013) About the metadata access tool for climate and health, retrieved 20 June 2013 from United States Global Change Research Program website, http://match.globalchange.gov/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page

  • United States Government Accountability Office (2007) Climate change: agencies should develop guidance for addressing the effects on Federal land and water resources. Report no. GAO-07-863

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Government Accountability Office (2009) Strategic Federal planning could help government officials make more informed decisions. Report no. GAO-10-113

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Government Accountability Office (2011) Climate change: improvements needed to clarify national priorities and better align them with Federal funding decisions. Report no. GAO-11-317

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Government Accountability Office (2013) Climate change: various adaptation efforts are under way at key natural resource management agencies. Report no. GAO-13-253

    Google Scholar 

  • White House Council on Environmental Quality (2010) Progress report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: recommended actions in support of a national climate change adaptation strategy

    Google Scholar 

  • White House Council on Environmental Quality (2011a) Federal actions for a climate resilient nation: progress report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force

    Google Scholar 

  • White House Council on Environmental Quality (2011b) Instructions for implementing climate change adaptation planning in accordance with Executive Order 13514

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alejandro E. Camacho .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Camacho, A.E. (2014). Managing Adaptation: Developing a Learning Infrastructure in the United States’ Federal System. In: Albrecht, E., Schmidt, M., Mißler-Behr, M., Spyra, S. (eds) Implementing Adaptation Strategies by Legal, Economic and Planning Instruments on Climate Change. Environmental Protection in the European Union, vol 4. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77614-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics