Need to focus on decisionmakers real needs?
<p>
2011 Degrees of Risk_Defining a Risk Management Framework for Climate Security_Full Report</p>
<p>
Climate change is moving from the strategic phase of identifying the problem and possible
solutions, to the operational phase of programming specific investments in mitigation,
adaptation, resilience and contingency planning. Climate science drawn upon by the IPCC
process is mostly reliant on academic funding mechanisms, and is driven largely by academic
interests that are not focused on policy questions. While this produces high-quality,
independent research it does not necessarily supply the type or form of data most relevant
to policy makers and the decisions they face in the operational phase.288
Different decision makers in the policy and security community have different questions
they need answered in order to make informed and effective decisions. In many cases, the
form in which information is provided to them does not answer their specific questions.
While in some cases it will be possible to reconfigure existing data to meet their needs, it is
essential that the policy community begins feeding its information requirements into the
scientific community directly, so that they are directly met.289The US Navy is one of the first
forces to actively create a process for feeding its needs back into policy and science communities.
The US Navy Climate Change Roadmap commits the Navy to annually identifying
and proposing additional studies and research regarding the national security implications of
climate change on naval missions, force structure, and infrastructure.290</p>
<p>
In addition to the scientific analysis of climate change, decision makers need new socioeconomic
analysis to inform effective decisions.
Solutions to improve ‘decision-support’ systems include:
• Reinterpreting existing data to reflect the time and geographic scales security analysts,
planners and policy makers need.
• Developing new data that incorporate specific characteristics of vulnerable communities
and helps determine fragility or resilience in the face of anticipated climate impacts.
• Involving a range of policy makers, planners and security actors more actively in defining
the climate research and analysis that will help them make specific decisions.
• Creating well-designed and adequately resourced feedback loops to incorporate new
data and advancements in scientific understanding effectively, and support continual
refinement and validation of analyses, impact projections, and effective response</p>
<p>
These solutions will not develop spontaneously and will require new policies, new relationships
between the analytical and policy communities, and sustained financial resource
commitments.291 Priorities for spending should be informed by overview vulnerability assessments
and will require new data extraction tools that explore specific characteristics of
impacted communities, which will help determine their fragility or resilience in the face of
anticipated impacts. A core area for investment is in detailed bottom up monitoring of
environment, resource and conflict interactions in vulnerable areas and countries.
Additional information is necessary but not sufficient. Analysts also need new tools to use
this information to provide compelling investment cases for priority preventive actions,
especially given current financial constraints. Some models have been developed but these are
not yet widely used or understood in the military, diplomatic and development policy
communities. Both socioeconomic modeling and scenario analysis will be important
elements of informing decisions in this space.
Operationalizing risk management strategies in real security and development decisionmaking
will require investment in improved decision support systems, delivering more
relevant information and new decision-making tools.
291 Rogers
mechanisms.</p>