AN ANALYSIS OF MILITARY ENVIRONMENTALISM IN THREE CASE STUDIES: THE UNITED KINGDOM, AUSTRALIA, AND NEW ZEALAND

Abstract

This dissertation explored how and why military organizations go beyond the scope of statutory environmental laws by altering existing environmental policies, working in concert with others, or innovating new policies in their own self-interest, termed military environmentalism. I examined three case studies, the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (UK MOD), the Australian Defence Organization (ADO), and the New Zealand Military (NZM). I provide definitions of each organization in the case study chapters. I conducted a plausibility probe examination utilizing a most similar systems approach. I applied the advocacy coalition framework to examine how the three military organizations alter existing policy beliefs and created new policies. I examine the various actors that form a coalition to work with the military organizations. I distinguish two main mechanisms of policy change within the organization, policy learning and collaboration. I trace how these two mechanisms influence the uptake of new policy positions while accounting for other factors such as external shocks, various actors, an influential policy entrepreneur, and budgetary constraints. I also utilized diffusion of innovation theory to understand how policy ideas can spread among domestic and international organizations. While I acknowledge that both mechanisms of policy change may be present, one mechanism will have a greater influence on the uptake of policy change. I framed my dissertation around four primary research questions. Research question one, why does the military independently choose to pursue environmental policy change, to include altered implementation of existing statutory requirements, in its self-interest? Research question two, when is a military following governmental, legislative or executive, orders bearing on environmental protection? Research question three, who do militaries work with to create environmental policies? Research question four, how do budgetary constraints or opportunities influence a military organization's embrace of greater environmental stewardship? Research question one creates three hypotheses. Hypothesis one, A change in the military’s belief system marks the shift towards military environmentalism. If there is no change, then there is no environmental stewardship. Hypothesis two, a military organization's environmental posture is unlikely to change in the absence of significant perturbations external to the policy system. Hypothesis three, widely accepted scientific data and theory are catalysts of policy learning and a greater commitment to environmental stewardship. To examine each case study, I provided a 20-year advocacy coalition framework analysis. While the typical time frame for examination is 10 years, I do not think that it provides ample time to examine sustained policy belief changes across different external events and clashes between coalitions. I break my narrative down into time frames punctuated by key policy events. From here I provide an analysis that traces the main mechanisms of policy change and belief change over the twenty-year time frame. I then answer my research questions and provide evidence to support or not support my hypotheses. Overall, I find that military environmentalism occurred in the three case studies, albeit under certain conditions. These conditions include a stable coalition that can collaborate or provide new information to the military organization on environmental issues, a policy entrepreneur that provides leadership and direction within the coalition, a stable budget that allows for the uptake or expansion of environmental policies, and a sustained change in beliefs over time. In short, an environmental event occurs where the military organization is unprepared to handle the situation, and current policies do not provide an adequate solution. The organization reaches out to outside actors to help it understand what occurred and may occur in the future; as the organization begins to understand the issue it alters its current belief system on policy, the belief change leads to alteration, collaboration, or innovation in the form of new environmental policy.