On November 21st the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) and the Institute for Environmental Security (IES) brought together a group of experts on Environmental Security Assessments (ESA) to discuss with policy makers and practitioners. The workshop tried to give a comprehensive picture of the field and foster discussion about what the next steps could be in regard to ESAs.

The presentations illustrated the broad range of different assessments and tools that hide behind the term ESA. On one side, these include more comprehensive approaches that try to cover environmental security as a whole. Examples included the EnviroSecurity Assessments developed by IES and the Environmental Security Assessment Framework developed by the Foundation of Environmental Security & Sustainability (FESS). On the other side, more specialised methodologies exist, like two tools adelphi presented: 1) the Water, Crisis and Climate Change Assessment Framework (WACCAF) that is currently being developed as part of the EC’s Conflict Prevention Network and aims at understanding and solving water conflicts, and 2) the Guidance Notes on National Sustainable Development Strategies in Post-Conflict Countries that are being developed for UN DESA to help national governments link sustainable development and peacebuilding.

Military actors were a much-discussed user group of ESAs. The realisation that linkages between conflict and the environment should already be addressed during the planning stage brought the subject back on the political agenda during the last NATO summit. On the ground, the environment already plays a role for the military, as illustrated by a presentation on how NATO tries to minimise its environmental impacts in Bosnia-Herzegovina and another presentation of a tool for the Swedish Armed Forces that helps to assess the environmental vulnerability of peace operations.

At the end Jeffrey Stark of FESS outlined some important lessons learned in the application and development of ESAs by emphasising that toolkits and methodologies have to be flexible enough to adapt to complex and different conflicts. They should be understood as a methodology, but not as a straitjacket. (Lukas Ruettinger)

More information on the EnviroSecurity Assessments is available at http://www.envirosecurity.org/espa/methodology.php

The Environmental Security Assessment Framework is accessible at http://www.fess-global.org/ESAF.cfm

Published in: ECC-Newsletter, December 2010