Methodology and Context

Lippert, Tyler H.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-14560-6_4

Methodology and Context

Tyler H. Lippert PhD, JD²

Chapter
First Online: 12 May 2019

499 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses why a risk governance approach is appropriate for the problem of climate security risk, bringing together aspects of the preceding two chapters to illustrate how the nature of climate security risk favors the IRGC risk governance framework in particular. The global dimensions and deep uncertainties associated with climate security risk suggest that it provides an opportunity to test the framework against a problem that is worthy of the IRGC’s ambition level.

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

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 79.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 99.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Renn, “Risk Governance—Towards an Integrative Framework,” 11.
2.
Ibid., 22. Risk governance includes matters of institutional design and role, organizational capacity, stakeholder involvement, collaborative decision making, and political accountability.
3.
Jon Barnett and Stephen Dovers, “Environmental Security, Sustainability and Policy,” Pacifica Review: Peace, Security & Global Change 13, no. 2 (2001): 157–69.
4.
Read, “Embracing Uncertainty: Scenario Planning for Climate Change Security Challenges and Opportunities,” 25.
5.
Jay Gulledge, “Scientific Uncertainty and Security Risks of Climate Change,” in Proceedings on Climate & Energy: Imperatives for Future Naval Forces, 2010, 48.
6.
Read, “Embracing Uncertainty: Scenario Planning for Climate Change Security Challenges and Opportunities,” 24.
7.
Ibid., 54.
8.
Renn, “Risk Governance—Towards an Integrative Framework,” 11.
9.
Renn, “Risk Governance—Towards an Integrative Framework.”
10.
Ibid.
11.
Ibid., 19.
12.
Ortwin Renn and Katherine Walker, eds., Global Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008), 337.
13.
Renn, “Risk Governance—Towards an Integrative Framework,” 11.
14.
Read, “Embracing Uncertainty: Scenario Planning for Climate Change Security Challenges and Opportunities,” 11.
15.
Renn, “Risk Governance—Towards an Integrative Framework,” 12.
16.
Ibid., 13.
17.
Ibid.
18.
Ibid., 14.
19.
Ibid.
20.
Ibid., 15.
21.
Ibid.
22.
Ibid., 19.
23.
NATO, “Political Guidance on Ways to Improve NATO’s Involvement in Stabilisation and Reconstruction”; NATO, “Implementation of the Comprehensive Approach Action Plan and the Lisbon Summit Decisions on the Comprehensive Approach,” 2011.
24.
Scheffran and Battaglini, “Climate and Conflicts: The Security Risks of Global Warming,” S37.
25.
Renn, “Risk Governance—Towards an Integrative Framework.”
26.
Renn, “White Paper No. 1: Risk Governance—Towards and Integrative Approach,” 5.
27.
Ibid., 64.
28.
OECD, “Emerging Risks in the 21st Century, an Agenda for Action” (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2003).
29.
Ortwin Renn, “Acrylamide: Lessons for Risk Management and Communication,” Journal of Health Communication 8, no. 5 (2003): 435–41.
30.
Renn and Walker, Global Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice Using IRGC Framework.
31.
Joyce Tait, “Risk Governance of Genetically Modified Crops—European and American Perspectives,” in Global Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (Heidelberg: Springer, 2008), 133.
32.
Ibid.
33.
Ibid., 143.
34.
Ibid., 146.
35.
Ibid., 146, 147.
36.
Ibid., 146.
37.
Caroline Kuenzi and Jeff McNeely, “Nature-Based Tourism,” in Global Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework, ed. Ortwin Renn and Katherine Walker (Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008), 155–75.
38.
Ibid., 156.
39.
Ibid., 162.
40.
Ibid., 156.
41.
Andrew J. Knight et al., “Listeria in Raw Milk Soft Cheese: A Case Study of Risk Governance in the United States Using the IRGC Framework,” in Global Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework, ed. Ortwin Renn and Warren E. Walker (Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008), 179–215.
42.
Norio Okada, Hirokazu Tatano, and Alkiyoshi Takagi, “Nagara River Estuary Barrage Conflict,” in Global Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework, ed. Ortwin Renn and Katherine Walker (Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008), 221.
43.
Ibid., 224–25.
44.
Sabine Bonneck, “Acrylamide Risk Governance in Germany,” in Global Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework, ed. Ortwin Renn and Katherine Walker (Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008), 231–67.
45.
D. Warner North, “Energy Security for the Baltic Region,” in Global Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework, ed. Ortwin Renn and Katherine Walker (Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008), 275–87.
46.
Mihail Roco, Ortwin Renn, and Jager Alexander, “Nanotechnology Risk Governance,” in Global Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework, ed. Ortwin Renn and Katherine Walker (Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008), 301–25.
47.
Thus, the analysis is potentially just as useful for the future development and refinement of the framework as it is in helping NATO understand the dimensions of risk governance related to climate and security. As a result, this project will also contribute to the assessment of the framework’s “practicability,” an effort that followed the 2013 release of the white paper describing the prototype framework.
48.
Renn, “White Paper No. 1: Risk Governance—Towards and Integrative Approach.”
49.
International Risk Governance Council, “Risk Governance Deficits: An Analysis and Illustration of the Most Common Deficits in Risk Governance,” 4.
50.
The IPCC notes that “there are two main mechanisms at the international level that are purpose-built and dedicated to disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. These are the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in particular in its adaptation components.” I. Burton et al., “Managing the Risks: International Level and Integration Across Scales,” in Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , ed. C. B. Field et al. (Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 396.
51.
Other organizations in NATO’s Environmental Area of Interest include the following: European Defence Environmental Network (DEFNET), European Defence Agency (EDA), European Union Military Staff (EUMS). In 2004, NATO became an associate member of the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC); other members include the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Regional Environment Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC).
52.
Ibid., 396–97.
53.
Briggs, “Climate Security, Risk Assessment and Military Planning,” 1054.
54.
US Department of Defense, “Quadrennial Defense Review” (Washington, DC, 2010).
55.
Goodman, “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change,” 8.
56.
United States House of Representatives, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Washington, DC, 2008).
57.
Barack Obama, “National Security Strategy” (Washington, DC: The White House, 2010); Barack Obama, “National Security Strategy” (Washington, DC: The White House, 2015).
58.
US Department of Defense, “Quadrennial Defense Review,” 2010; US Department of Defense, “Quadrennial Defense Review” (Washington, DC, 2014).
59.
US Department of State, “Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR): Leading through Civilian Power,” 2010.
60.
Obama, “National Security Strategy,” 2015, 2.
61.
US Department of Defense, “Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense” (Washington, DC, 2019).
62.
US Department of Defense, “Quadrennial Defense Review,” 2014.
63.
US Department of Defense, “Quadrennial Defense Review,” 2010, 85. As noted in previous a previous citation from Michael Ruhle, the security consequences of climate change have been acknowledged by NATO officials, as well. In Europe, however, the European Union appears have taken the initiative and shown a more significant interest in the issue of climate change (as well as its potential security consequences). Betsy Hartmann has been critical of military involvement of the climate security issue. Betsy Hartmann, “Lines in the Shifting Sand: The Strategic Politics of Climate Change, Human Security and National Defense,” Rethinking Security in a Changing Climate (Oslo: University of Oslo, 2009); Hartmann, “Rethinking Climate Refugees and Climate Conflict: Rhetoric, Reality and the Politics of Policy Discourse.”
64.
Goodman, “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change,” 19.
65.
US Department of Defense, “DOD Directive 4715.21: Climate Change Adaptation and Resilence,” 2016.
66.
Defense Science Board, “Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security” (Washington, DC, 2011).
67.
National Intelligence Council, “North Africa: The Impact of Climate Change to 2030” (Washington, DC, 2009); National Intelligence Council, “North Africa: The Impact of Climate Change to 2030—Geopolitical Implications” (Washington, DC, 2009).
68.
Dennis C. Blair, “Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence” (Washington, DC: Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2009).
69.
Jamie Shea, “Why Does NATO’s New Strategic Concept Matter,” Atlantisch Perspectief 34, no. 8 (2010): 8–13.
70.
Paul Gallis, “NATO’s Decision-Making Procedure” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2003).
71.
Ibid.
72.
NATO ACT, “Framework for Future Alliance Operations Workshop #4 Final Report—Instability Situations in the Future Security Environment” (Budapest, 2014), 6–7.
73.
Gallis, “NATO’s Decision-Making Procedure.”
74.
International Risk Governance Council, “Risk Governance Deficits: An Analysis and Illustration of the Most Common Deficits in Risk Governance,” 21.
75.
NATO ACT, “Framework for Future Alliance Operations Workshop #1 Final Report—Leading NATO Military Transformation,” 9.
76.
In April 2014, NATO held a high level meeting in Paris entitled the “Transformation Seminar Conference.” While this event discussed NATO in the context of an increasingly volatile security environment, there was seemingly no discussion of climate issues, and little appetite for new roles. Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique, “NATO Transformation Seminar Conference Report, 7–9 April 2014” (Paris, 2014).
77.
UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, “Adapting Institutions to Climate Change.”
78.
Renn and Walker, Global Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice Using IRGC Framework.
79.
NATO, “Implementation of the Comprehensive Approach Action Plan and the Lisbon Summit Decisions on the Comprehensive Approach.”
80.
AWACS stands for Airborne Early Warning and Control.
81.
Page Wilson, “Between a Rock and a Cold Place? NATO and the Arctic” (E-International Relations, 2013).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Chicago, USA
Tyler H. Lippert PhD, JD

Authors

Tyler H. Lippert PhD, JD
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lippert, T.H. (2019). Methodology and Context. In: NATO, Climate Change, and International Security. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14560-6_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14560-6_4
Published: 12 May 2019
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14559-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14560-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics