Annex A
NATO CCMS Defence Related Pilot Studies 1980-2000 The Pilot Studies are presented in Alphabetical Order
Aircraft Noise in a Modern Society (Pilot Study 1985-1989)
Aircraft Noise in a Modern Society Follow Up Group (Pilot Study 1989-current) • Working Group on Helicopter Noise Predication Modelling (1992-1994) • Working Group on the Effects of Topography on Propagation of Noise in the Vicinity of Airfields (1991–1994) • Working Group on the Effects of Noise from Weapons and Sonic Booms, and the impact on Humans, Wildlife, Domestic Animals and Structures (1994-current)
Cross-border Environmental Problems emanating from Defence-related Installations and Activities • Phase I (1992-95) • Phase II (1995-98)
Defence Environmental Expectations (1990-1995) (Original title National Environmental Expectations and Requirements in NATO Countries)
Environment and Security in an International Context (1996-1999)
Environmental Aspects of Reusing Former Military Lands • Phase I (1994-96) • Phase II (1996-98)
Environmental Management Systems in the Military Sector (1996-2000)
Forms of Environmental Education in the Armed Forces and their impact on the creation of pro-environmental attitudes (2001+)
Promotion of Environmental Awareness in the Armed Forces (1987-1991)
Protection of Civil Populations from Toxic Material Spills during Movements of Military Goods (1992-2000)
Sustainable Building for Military Infrastructure (2000-current)
Use of Simulators as a means of reducing Environmental Impacts caused by Military Activities (1990-1995)
A-1 Each of the commentaries are arranged in sections as follows; Title – Location – Date – Chair(s) – Agenda - Participants – Comment - Report - Follow-up
Aircraft Noise in a Modern Society Original Phase May 1985 – Nov 1989
Pilot Nations – Germany, USA. Directors - Mr G. Vest (established when he was Deputy Assistant Secretary, US Air Force), Dr Heinz Gummlich (German Federal Ministry of the Environment).
Pilot Study Chair - Mr T.M.W. Moran (USA).
Participants Belgium, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, UK, USA
Agenda The study was set up in May 1985 under the joint leadership of the USA and Germany. Nine other nations initially supported the Pilot Study (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the UK). The study was the result of the desire of the Allied nations to grapple with the difficult problem of aircraft noise. There were few problems of peacetime military activity that prompted more adverse reaction, particularly in the more populous areas of Western Europe. It was strongly supported by the aeronautical industry on both sides of the Atlantic including Boeing, British Aerospace, Lockheed, General Electric, Messerchmidt-Bolkow-Blohm, Rolls Royce, Motoren und Turbinen Union, DFVLR, Bell Helicopters, McDonnell Douglas, Sikorsky and Westland Helicopters.
The PS agenda was to address three major issues through three sub-groups: Source Technology (possibilities for reducing noise at the source considering both engines and airframes), Receiver Technology (possibilities for reducing the nuisance on the ground) and Operations and Information (airspace management, education, public information).
Pilot Study Sub Group Work
The Source Technology Subgroup considered noise sources in terms of propulsive noise, rotor/rotorcraft, airframe and sonic boom noise. Propulsive noise was further investigated in terms of turbo-machinery, combustor and jet exhaust noise. The most dominant of these noises is the jet exhaust noise which is unfortunately the most difficult to suppress because it is primarily generated outside the airframe and therefore does not lend itself to control through sound absorption in the engine spaces as is generally the case with turbo-machinery or combustion noise. Airframe noise a major source of non-engine noise however it is dominated by engine noise. The study accepted that noise sources would continue to be an issue for future supersonic combat aircraft design because exhaust velocities are likely to be increased to achieve higher performance. This is in direct contrast to developments in subsonic civil aircraft where new turbofan engines are designed with noise reduction in line with international standards (ICAO, FAA etc). Civil technology can assist in noise reduction as shown with the use of a high-bypass-ratio engine for the
A-2 USAF KC-135 tanker aircraft (results are equivalent to a 98% reduction in the noise footprint).
Rotor noise from helicopters is produced as a result of complex links between numbers of sources mostly related to aerodynamic flow around rotor blades, although some helicopters have significant engine noise as well. The “blade-vortex interaction” (BVI) is the distinctive noise source most commonly associated with helicopter or rotorcraft operation. The tail rotor can provide additional noise primarily because of the mounting arrangement and the interaction of airflow around the aircraft fuselage. The subgroup noted that noise reduction was an element of survivability on the battlefield through reduced acoustic detection.
Sonic boom noise is a significant non-engine noise that has had a long history of research in order to reduce the problem. Some research suggests that aircraft design may reduce the noise but most reductions seem to relate to reduced speed and careful routing. Aircraft travelling at high subsonic speeds can produce sonic booms because air movements around the airframe can reach sonic speeds. The subgroup discovered that there was almost no detailed source noise data for aircraft operating at high sub-sonic speeds at low altitudes.
The Source Technology Subgroup recommended that member nations: • incorporate “design for noise” into all future engine and aircraft types, • apply civil noise reduction technology to fixed wing military aircraft where high performance is not necessarily critical (e.g. trainers, tankers, transports), • expand fundamental noise research for low-altitude high-speed flight, • continue to pursue advanced noise reduction technologies for both fixed and rotary wing, • continue building noise suppressed engine test facilities and “hush-houses” to reduce noise form engine ground run-up operations.
The Receiver Technology Subgroup considered noise effects, particularly on humans, concluding that although aircraft noise was disturbing and disruptive there was little evidence of physical harm to humans or animals, or well-constructed buildings. It discussed the need for land-use planning and compared national approaches to planning and noise exposure. Noise modelling indices were found to vary considerably between member nations, however a method for converting between national indices was established.
Many of the impacts of noise on humans come about because of the mismatch between aircraft operations and the land use of the affected environment. This is a problem for both civil and military aircraft operation near to airfields; however military aircraft have the additional problems associated with operational low level training. A newer problem was that associated with the noise impact of the use of helicopters. This impact was growing because of the increasing number of sorties, day and night operations, and because helicopter bases tend to be nearer to civil communities than fixed-wing aircraft bases.
The sub group work was made particularly difficult because although there are specific standards related to noise induced hearing loss, e.g. by ISO, and research findings have been reported by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN), little of this related to the NATO CCMS concerns. For
A-3 example, it is unclear at what level noise contributes to disease or other permanent health effects other than hearing loss in humans.
Human impacts investigated by the subgroup covered hearing, communication, performance and behaviour, extra-auditory effects, sleep disturbance, and general community annoyance. The conclusions were that there is no clear evidence that either living near an airfield or exposure to sonic booms at the level and frequency generated by the military would induce hearing loss. It is clear that noise may disrupt communication and affect performance and behaviour. A special problem may result from the startle effects from low altitude, high-speed flights. The subgroup found that no clear relationship existed between noise level and blood pressure. Furthermore, they quoted the U.S. National Academy of Sciences who stated in 1982 that “there is no conclusive evidence of detrimental effects of high intensity sound in higher mammals” but added that “until better information is available it would appear prudent to avoid exposure of long duration (several hours a day) to sounds of 90 dB sound pressure and above”. However it has been established that aircraft noise at certain levels will cause awakening from sleep but it was not clear to what extent this would lead to permanent health effects.
The original stimulus for the Pilot Study, the community response to noise, was studied. The subgroup conclusions reflected research that noted that annoyance is a complex issue and involves a combination of activities such as sleep, communication and recreation. The relationship between annoyance and noise levels has been established empirically through community response surveys. There were also criteria for the evaluation of exposure to sonic booms and helicopter noise. However there was no similar research into single noise events such as occur with low-level flying. There was also inadequate research into ground operations such as engine testing and aircraft movement on the ground. Research into the impact of aircraft noise on animals was almost wholly lacking except for anecdotal evidence from farming or conservation.
The effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on buildings have been the subject of numerous studies. The areas of interest have included building vibration, noise transmission into buildings, structural damage and secondary responses or rattle of objects within a building. Much of this work was done in the USA in response to concerns before the Concorde supersonic aircraft was brought into service. In general, buildings in good repair should not be structurally damaged at boom overpressures less than about 11 lb/ft (530 Pa). Current supersonic aircraft create overpressure levels of 1 to 5 lb/ft (48-240 Pa).
The Receiver Technology Subgroup recommended that member nations: • undertake long term research into the effects of aircraft noise on humans, animals and structures from a variety of military noise sources, • research the problem of low-frequency noise and vibration form ground operations, • research to develop improved land-use guidelines for aircraft noise, • research into noise modelling of airfields, helicopter operations and low altitude flying with particular attention to topography and surface impedance, • utilise and develop the International Bibliography on Aircraft Noise (IBAN).
The Operations and Information Subgroup studied the main causes of noise in flying and current mitigating procedures and concluded that there were few further
A-4 restrictions possible, without the risk of inadequate training for military missions. The Subgroup reviewed airspace usage to see if more could be done to alleviate demands on limited airspace, particularly with computerised airspace management systems. The issue of simulation training was reviewed and although simulators for high-speed low-level flight did not exist (at this stage) it considered that such simulators should be investigated. There was a need to provide the public with more information on the defence related needs for low-level flying.
Air Forces note that they are mitigating impacts of noise through operational training restrictions in particular by increasing the altitude, reducing speed and power settings over areas of particular sensitivity. Aircraft survivability in military operations is increased by flying at a very low level (below 250 feet), and major concerns were raised about the further erosion of pilot skills. Flight simulators were not yet good enough to replicate the conditions pilots would meet in high-speed low-level flight. However it was considered that more attention should be aid to the education and training of planning staff, aircrew and ground staff for the mitigation of the impact of noise. Aircraft taxiing and engine ground running during maintenance are being controlled whenever possible by limiting the numbers of aircraft involved or the use of remote parts of the airfield. Soundproof test facilities were becoming increasingly common.
The Operations and Information Subgroup recommended that member nations: • note the potential of computer-assisted airspace management systems, • investigate locations that could be made a available for flying training down to 250 feet, • share developments in high-fidelity simulators, • continue to educate planning staffs and aircrew on the effects of low flying on the public, • join with NATO in improving public information about the needs for military low flying.
The Pilot Study held a total of ten meetings, with more than this achieved by the sub- groups. It organised two international conferences, at Mittenwald (Germany) 22-24 September 1986 and at Williamsburg (Virginia, USA) 25-29 April 1988 (see CCMS Conference list for details).
Report Interim Reports AC/274-D/225 – C-M(87)41, and AC/274-D/239 – C-M (89)3 Final Report CCMS Report 185 (Nov 89). See also Mittenwald Conference CCMS Report 161,
Follow-up The Final Report suggested that although the work of the Pilot Study had been completed the establishment of a Follow-Up Group would allow their activities to continue. It would also provide a means by which the recommendations in the report could be followed up. A significant list of topics for continued and further research was appended. The follow-up group would maintain close links with the NATO’s Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD) to encourage co-ordinated activities and avoid duplication of effort. It is AGARD’s task to foster and improve the interchange of information relating to aerospace research and development between the NATO nations. AGARD also provides scientific and technical advice and assistance to the NATO Military Committee in the field of
A-5 aerospace research and development, with particular regard to military applications. This proposal was agreed in 1990, and led to further work in this field.
Aircraft Noise in a Modern Society Follow Up Group (Pilot Study) 1990 – current 2001.
Agenda - to provide an umbrella for further work relating to the study of military noise. See Working Group on Helicopter Noise and Working Group on Noise form Weapons and Sonic Booms (below).
Pilot Nations – USA and Canada, under the chairmanship of Gary D Vest, Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), USA.
Participants – see each group commentary for participation.
Working Group on Helicopter Noise Predication Modelling June 1992- Feb 1994
Public annoyance about helicopter noise around airports and military training areas created an urgent need for noise prediction modelling. In planning noise abatement helicopter operations, the need for helicopter noise prediction modelling is therefore evident. This WG was set up after the CCMS Symposium on Helicopter Noise Aspects of Rotary Wing Aircraft in Monterey, California USA, July 29- August 1 1991 (see CCMS Conferences) by the Aircraft Noise in a Modern Society Pilot Study Follow-up Group. The Chair was Mr H-D Marohn (Germany), the co-chair was Dr Paul Schomer (USA).
Agenda The aim of the Working Group was to collect and exchange information on helicopter noise and associated predictive noise models. The main topics studied were: • helicopter noise measurements, • sound propagation, • helicopter noise prediction models.
Participants The following NATO countries participated: Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, USA, UK. Switzerland also sent an active participant. The Working Group held six meetings between June 1992 and Feb 1994 and published a final report (NATO-CCMS series No 202).
Comment Helicopter noise, as received on the ground, differs from aircraft noise because helicopters tend to use lower altitudes and the sound has more low frequencies. The noise from helicopters spreads over long distances and grazes across the land surface. These factors made it necessary to investigate the effectiveness of more sophisticated noise models than those currently based on fixed wing aircraft, which had been adjusted for helicopter noise.
A-6 The most important components of helicopter noise come from the main rotor, tail rotor, transmission and gearbox and engine. There are four characteristic noises from the main rotor. The most significant noise is that known as Blade-Vortex Interaction (BVI) caused when a blade cuts through the vortices from the same or another blade. It is the noise most characteristically heard at take-off and landing. High-Speed Impulsive (HIS) noise is related to the way air flows around the tip of the rotor blade. It can be heard when the helicopter is in flight when it resembles a buzz saw. Rotational noise comes from harmonic variation caused by loads on the rotor blades. It is often low frequency and travels over relatively long distances. Finally, broadband noise is the result of random turbulence over the blades.
Helicopter noise appears to be highly directional and variable. For example, an observer typically hears more noise to the front and to the right hand side of a helicopter in flight. The BVI effect is heard as a helicopter descends but is usually absent during a climb. It is therefore necessary to build up a picture of a given helicopter and the way it behaves during take-off, climb, level flight, descent and landing as well as in the hover. In addition the loading of the machine will vary the noise produced.
The Working Group also discovered that there was a lack of specific data that can be used for helicopter noise modelling. Although manufacturers and the designers of airfields had made a large number of measurements there had been little standardisation of emission data. In addition the ISO standards for sound attenuation in air were dated 1975. With the assistance of the US Air Force the Working Group acquired an extensive set of measurements during a test campaign using helicopters and sensors in August 1993. These measurements were used to test a newly developed sound propagation algorithm (called SoundProp and LOOKUP). To be of value a model has to be able to predict the actual noise exposure at the receiver from one or more sources. NATO nations appeared to have a variety of different models for helicopter noise exposure, the Danish had DANSIM, the Netherlands their own Kostenunit-System, and the UK were developing AIRNOISE.
Helicopter noise models need at least three modules, the Input Module, the Helicopter Database and the Computation Module. The results of the test confirmed the validity of the model, especially for helicopter noise propagation. However there was a demonstrated demand for more research.
Report The WG published NATO-CCMS Report 202 (December 1994) and concluded that: • There is a need for a common helicopter noise database and concluded that the test plan developed during the study would be suitable for helicopter noise measurement. • The model developed, SoundProp, seemed appropriate for handling helicopter sound propagation in models. • There was a strong requirement for an easy-to-use helicopter noise exposure model. • There were still gaps in the modelling, including noise directivity and topographic influences. • Further work was needed on a noise exposure metric such to enable the comparison of helicopter noise influences with fixed-wing aircraft, ground operations or traffic noise.
A-7 • There was a need to develop a method to assess helicopter noise effects on animals.
Follow-up proposals The WG made recommendations for future study and collaboration, based on their conclusions. These were passed to the plenary of the Follow-Up Group of the Pilot Study on Aircraft Noise. They urged the Follow-Up Group to adopt as their priority work that would:
• Develop methods to establish and use helicopter directivity information in noise modelling. • Develop a “test case” with which to test helicopter noise modelling progams. • Complete a common database for helicopter noise source emissions. • Develop means to include topographic effects in noise models. • Exchange information on tools or modules that can be used in noise models. • Develop a method to relate community response to helicopter noise with respect to other noises. • Develop a method to assess helicopter noise effects on animals.
As a result of the success of this Working Group a Follow-Up Working Group on Helicopter Noise was established.
Working Group on the Effects of Topography on Propagation of Noise in the Vicinity of Airfields Aug 1991 – Jun 1994
Sponsor - Aircraft Noise Pilot Study Follow-Up Group
Chair – Jens-Jorgen Bugge (Norwegian Defence Construction Servise)
Agenda This Working Party was established after a meeting of the NATO CCMS Pilot Study on Aircraft Noise Follow-Up Group in Monterey, California, USA from July 29 – August 1st 1991. Effects of terrain on aircraft noise modelling had not at this stage, with few exceptions, been mathematically expressed. One of the goals for the Working Group was therefore to put forward methods to test and evaluate these. The aim of the Working Party was to study the topographical aspects of aircraft noise prediction and to: • Clarify how topography is being handled in aircraft noise calculations in member countries. • Develop routines which can be applicable to most member nations. • Give recommendations on how topography may be handled in aircraft noise calculations in the future.
The Working Group decided that they should concentrate on the following terrain effects: Slant Range Adjustment; Ground Attenuation for non-flat terrain and varying surface properties; and the effect of Noise Barriers. It was decided that meteorological effects were too great a topic to handle at this time and it was suggested that another Working Group handle this.
A-8 When the Working Group was established there were relevant ongoing projects being carried out by the following laboratories: • The Danish Acoustical Institute • SINTEF DELAB, Acoustics Research Centre, Norway • USAF Armstrong and Wyle Laboratories
Participants – Canada, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK, USA.
Comment The Working Group held only five meetings (NATO HQ in June 1992, Copenhagen in January 1993, Armstrong Laboratory USA in September 1993, Oslo in January 1994, Baltimore USA in May 1994).
Report – NATO CCMS Report 200 (June 1994)
Follow-up – the findings confirmed the importance of collaboration over noise issues and led to the establishment of the NATO CCMS Working Group on the Effects of Noise from Weapons and Sonic Booms, and the impact on Humans, Wildlife, Domestic Animals and Structures (May 1994).
Working Group on the Effects of Noise from Weapons and Sonic Booms, and the impact on Humans, Wildlife, Domestic Animals and Structures May 1994 - current 2001
Sponsor - Aircraft Noise Pilot Study Follow-Up Group
Agenda Improvements in conventional arms have led to noisier weapons firing at more distant targets than in the past. In many cases the training with these weapons, often with ranges to 30kms, has outgrown the land originally set aside for this training. To accommodate increased target distances the training area managers have to permit weapons to be fired closer to the boundary thus increasing noise levels in neighbouring communities. Requirement for night firing has further exacerbated the problem both because people tend to be more sensitive to sounds at night and because low-level noise travels to farther distances at night than day. Even when adjacent land is unoccupied wildlife biologists are concerned about adverse effects on the health of threatened or endangered species.
Early attempts by various NATO countries to regulate weapon noise exposure in local communities were hampered by insufficient research. In addition, work that was done tended to be carried out in isolation or buried in government reports or subject to security restrictions. The need for cooperation was raised by Norway at the NATO CCMS Symposium on Aircraft Noise Abatement Receiver Technology, Baltimore, Maryland USA 16-20 May 1994.
The study should only include the impacts of noise from shooting, from blast and from sonic booms. Noise from vehicles, aircraft and helicopters is excluded from this study.
A-9 Working Group Chair - Jens-Jorgen Bugge (Norway)
Participants – Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK, USA.
Comment The terms of reference of the Working Group included the following subject areas: • Review and evaluate the literature on: • Weapon measurements – emissions – metrics etc. * Acoustic modelling. * Noise effects on animals. * Noise effects on humans. * Noise effects on buildings. • Recommend research methodologies for research on the impact of weapon noise and sonic booms on wildlife, humans and structures. • Establish an international database/bibliography on findings, surveys and scientific research on these topics. • Conclude with a report and recommendations.
Working Group Meetings – held one or two each year from the inaugural in Maryland (May 1994).
Report – in draft early 2001. The Chapter headings of the draft report include: • Executive Summary. • Introduction – background – terms of reference etc. • Databases and literature on noise sources and emission data. • Literature on noise metrics and modelling, including propagation. • Literature on predicting annoyance. • Literature on effects of noise on animals. • Literature on noise effects on buildings. • Review of National Activities – Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, USA, UK • Regulations, Guidelines, constraints and procedures. • Current Status of the Study: * Recommended source database. * Current and required models. * Effects of noise on people. * Noise effects on animals. * Noise effects on structures. • Conclusions and recommendations for future work: * Need for a database structure to meet requirements for storing weapon noise source data efficiently. * Need for a standard method to measure the Sound Exposure Emissions and Imissions (sound at the receptor) from large and small calibre weapons. * Need to validate single event models. * Need for further annoyance and sleep disturbance research. * Need for further wildlife and domestic animal research.
A-10 * Need to quantify the impact of impulsive noise and sonic booms on thermal pane windows. * Need for guidelines on construction and renovation techniques that can be used to reduce impacts on structures for impulsive noise and sonic booms. * Need for guidelines on assessing the effects on structures, including prehistoric and historic structures form impulse noise and sonic booms. • References, definitions etc
Follow-up The recommendation suggest that there is need for follow-up work related to the gaps discovered in the research and noted above in particular for the database, standard methods of measurement, impacts of weather and topography on models, personal annoyance ratings, sleep disturbance and for a general protocol on noise effects on animals to ensure quality assurance on studies on threatened and endangered species. There was later a proposal for a NATO Charter on Environmental Noise and Public Education/Affairs.
Cross-border Environmental Problems emanating from Defence- related Installations and Activities (Phase I) Nov 1992-1995
Chair(s) Mr Sverre Stub (Ambassador, Norway) and Dr Jutta Schlimm (Environment Minister, Germany).
Agenda The objective of this pilot study, approved as part of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council's 1992 Work Plan was to develop a basis for international cooperation on surveying, assessing and preventing cross-border pollution emanating from defence- related installations and activities. The study contained two specific sub-topics relating to:
• Cross-border pollution from radioactive materials, primarily those affecting oceans and waterways, which was led by Dr Frode Fonnum (Chief Scientist, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment), and • Pollution from chemicals, which was led by Dr Hermann Maartens (Chief, Chemical Protection Directorate, German Science Institute for Protective Technologies).
The geographical areas covered included the following: the Barents and Kara Seas, the Baltic Region and the Black Sea, including the Danube catchments. While the study raised important issues with regard to military activities on land and the results of past actions, it was intentionally focused on the end-result of such a situation: pollution of the oceans and waterways. In accordance with this focus, efforts were concentrated on establishing a status for both chemical and radioactive pollution and the identification of future threats. Estimate effects and the level of risk involved in case there is total radioactive leakage after defined time intervals were examined and discussed, as well as potential future problems emanating from nuclear waste stored on land, in boats, the decommissioning of nuclear submarines during the next five
A-11 years, the consequences of nuclear submarine or ship accidents in arctic water and the necessary measures to be taken to prevent contamination.
The main conclusions were:
Radioactive Contamination: • The lack of proper storage facilities for radioactive materials is an urgent problem. • The amounts of radioactive waste resulting from future decommissioning will be much larger than the amounts previously handled. Specific plans are needed for individual sites and submarines/ship reactor compartments. • It was noted that decommissioning and the normal operation of submarines produces large amounts of liquid radioactive waste. There seemed to be a potential solution in joint Russian-USA-Norwegian collaboration. • Although the waste carried by ocean currents from EU facilities was small there was concern that increased reprocessing would result in increased discharges. • Radioactive contamination in the Danube and Black Sea is mainly non-military. • Special emphasis should be given to education and training of personnel responsible for planning and operating defence related nuclear facilities.
Chemical Contamination: • The risk assessment of sea-dumped chemical munitions concluded that this represent no acute danger to people or the marine environment. • Naval forces should strictly enforce already stringent regulations for the release of waste from ships. • A multinational Black Sea Commission was proposed to share information and warnings in case of spills from military or civil sources. • Although land based sites with buried chemical munitions only give rise to long- term impacts on the environment the process of remediation needed to be faster. • International standardisation for soil quality parameters was needed. • International cooperation through all phases of clean-up projects on military sites is beneficial. • Training on environmental awareness for military personnel is needed.
Participants Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russian Fed., Slovak Rep., Turkey, Ukraine, USA, Non-NATO country: Japan (observer)
Comment – This Phase was primarily concerned with opening the dialogue between the militaries of NATO and the NACC countries over the most pressing legacies of the Cold War.
Report – NATO CCMS Reports: 204 (Vol 1 Radioactive Contamination), 205 (Vol 2 Chemical Contamination), 206 (Summary).
Follow-up – the success of this cooperation led to Phase II and to further work in the Black Sea region to enable environmental collaboration.
A-12 Cross-border Environmental Problems emanating from Defence- related Installations and Activities (Phase II) 1995-1998
Chair – Mr Sverre Stub (Ambassador, Norway)
Agenda Under Phase II of this pilot study, four topics were examined:
• Subtopic 1: Hazardous materials and defence-related activities in the Arctic. • Subtopic 2: Radioactive contamination of rivers and transport through rivers, deltas and estuaries to the sea. • Subtopic 3: Management of defence-related radioactive waste. • Subtopic 4: Environmental risk assessments for two defence-related problems (nuclear powered submarines, defence related radioactive waste in Latvia).
The geographic area for this study was not specifically defined at the outset. In practice the study adopted the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) boundaries that lie between 60 degrees North and the Arctic Circle with some modifications. Eight countries were covered: Canada, Denmark (Greenland and Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and USA (Alaska).The river systems and seas covered by Phase II were the Ob, Lena, Yenisey and Mackenzie and the Arctic Seas; the Finnish rivers, the Bug River and the Baltic Sea; the Dneiper and Danube and the Black Sea; the Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean.
The final report of Phase II includes, among others, the following conclusions for
Subtopic 1 - the Arctic defence-related activities:
• That releases of hazardous wastes in the Arctic were locally rather than regionally significant and not a major source of contamination for the Arctic as a whole. • There were many hundreds of defence related facilities in the Arctic, mostly in Russia and the USA but most were less than 200ha in area. • With the exception of Russia the Arctic did not have significant military industry. • Uncontrolled dump-sites exist throughout the Arctic defence sites containing contaminants that are mainly fuels and oils, PCBs and heavy metals. • Prior to 1970 there was little environmental protection but the situation was now much improved.
Subtopic 2 noted the radio-nucleide levels in deposition, the water, and the fish in the catchments and the seas under study.
Subtopic 3 concentrated on the management of military radioactive substances, noting that many countries granted legal exemptions to the military for the handling of these materials. The main problem was the control of radioactive waste and nuclear fuel material that was now surplus. A glimmer of light was that the new Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, although not binding for military material, would probably influence defence-related waste management practices in time.
A-13 Subtopic 4, concerned with the two defence-related problems of non-defuelled, decommissioned submarines and radioactive waste in Latvia, went into detail on the risks of harmful releases and contamination.
The recommendations from Phase II were that:
• NATO militaries should evaluate absolute and relative risk-assessment methodologies to address the specific conditions in the Arctic environment. • Priority should be given to PCB releases and active or abandoned dumpsites in the Arctic. • Monitoring/investigation of river transport of radio-nucleides and effects on the environment should be carried out. • Before commencing a defence-related activity that involves the use of radioactive materials, the full life-cycle implications, including waste management and disposal, should be considered.
Participants Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, UK (observer), USA. Non-NATO country: Japan.
Comment Phase II was made possible because of the strong financial support of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. It benefited from a high level of participation and the excellent quality of the scientific assessment. There had been considerable concern in Norway about the potential harmful effects of the decommissioned nuclear submarines in the Russian Arctic, in particular. This study represented a major step forward in East- West cooperation on a thorny subject.
Report NATO CCMS Reports 223 (Summary Final Report), 224 (Hazardous materials in the Arctic), 225 (Radioactive contamination of rivers and seas), 226 (Management of defence related radioactive waste), 227 (Two case studies).
Follow-up – the report states that it considers the role of CCMS has been concluded and that other international organisations and national bodies should now continue with the work of promoting environmental protection in this field.
Defence Environmental Expectations (Original title National Environmental Expectations and Requirements in NATO Countries) 1990-1995
Chair(s) Mr Gary Vest (USA) and Mr John Garlick (MOD, UK), later Mr John Stuart (MOD, UK).
A-14 Agenda This pilot study has sought to remedy the scarcity of knowledge about national expectations and requirements relating to environmental behaviour. The study led the way in putting defence-related environmental issues on the NATO agenda and stimulated discussion and the generation of environmental consideration in many NATO bodies. It had many achievements; six significant ones are noted here:
• The NATO Environmental Policy Statement which was promulgated as a Senior Commanders' Guide by the Council by order of the NATO Secretary General Manfred Worner dated 13 October 1993 (Document C-M(93)71 refers) (Annex C). • Guidelines for the NATO Infrastructure Committee on environmental requirements for the NATO Infrastructure Programme. • This study also sought to create within CCMS a mechanism through which Alliance members could exchange information on national requirements and expectations and address environmental issues associated with military activities. This ultimately led to the establishment of the CCMS Clearing House for Environmental Technical Information. • An improvement in the recognition of the need for environmental training of military personnel. The NATO CCMS Principles of Environmental Training statement also attached to C-M(93)71 (Annex C). The NATO Training Group took up the topic of environmental training and this led to the establishment of the NATO Training Group’s Environmental Training Working Group and the courses in environmental protection at the NATO School SHAPE in Oberammergau, Bavaria. • Conference on Environmentally Sound Life Cycle Planning of Military Facilities and Training Areas, hosted by the MOD Norway and MOD Czech Republic 23-25 September 1992 in Dombas, Norway. This was the first NATO/NACC Conference on military environmental affairs and covered: • Planning of Military Facilities and Training Areas. • Operation and Management of Military Facilities and Training Areas. • Closure of Military Facilities and Training Areas. • International Symposium on the Environment and Defence, hosted by the MOD UK at Swansea University, 13-15 September 1995 (NATO CCMS Report 211). This was the first open symposium for military and non-military people held in the UK and covered the following topics: - Pollution Prevention and Legal Compliance. - Military Noise. - Information Technology in Land Management and Training. - Military Land Use Issues. - International Issues – reports from participants. - Environmental Assessment of Military Activities. - Conservation and Heritage Management. - Environmental Training in the Armed Forces.
Participants Belgium, Canada, France (observer), Germany, Greece (observer), Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, UK, USA, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, UK, Ukraine, USA.
Comment This Pilot Study was the first to get really involved with the NATO/NACC partnership. It had very wide participation from CEE countries thanks to generous sponsorship by
A-15 NATO and by many of the participating NATO nations. It stimulated many CCMS activities and influenced the NATO military, for example in the continued support of the NATO Training Group’s Environmental Training Working Group (ETWG) and the provision of guest lecturers for courses at the NATO School SHAPE.
Report NATO CCMS Report 199 (results of a survey of NATO Nations on topics of environmental concern). CCMS Report 211 (Seminar Report).
Environment and Security in an International Context 1996-1999
Chairs Dr Kurt Leitzmann (Ministry of the Environment, Germany), Mr Gary Vest (DOD USA)
Agenda The Pilot Study was set up after the NATO CCMS Round Table in Washington in 1995. These discussions clearly showed that the potential link between environmental stress and conflict was in general ill defined and poorly understood. The aim of the study was to prepare a report that summarised the relationship between environmental change and security at the regional, international and global level. The main goal was to enable decision makers to integrate environmental considerations into deliberations on security issues. The Pilot Study recognised the principle of sustainable development as an idea through which environmental, economic and social issues could be pursued in an integrated manner.
The pilot study's final product compiles existing state-of-the-art research on the relationship between environmental change and security. At the same time, a large part of the pilot study's work was dedicated to developing parameters for response mechanisms directed towards political stakeholders from different policy sectors. The focus of these responses is on reducing the potential incidence or escalation of conflict, thereby enhancing security at the earliest possible stage. The structure of the pilot study reflects this orientation towards practical action. Another characteristic of this pilot study, and something less familiar in military circles, is that it deals with a broad social science issue as it discusses innovative policy responses for dealing with environmental stress and its potential effects on security.
The final report consists of the following five chapters:
• NATO security context. This concluded that NATO was more likely to be confronted with non-traditional security threats in the future and to have to work in a variety of command structures. • Assessment of the links between environment and security. This looked at the consequences of environmental stress; political, economic, social and demographic and the contextual features that turned stress into conflict. A conceptual model of the relationship between environmental change and security was prepared. • Typology of environmental conflict cases. - Ethno-political conflicts where two or more ethnic groups share an eco-region or neighbouring ethnic groups have unequal access to resources.
A-16 - Migration conflicts. The report recognised that internal migration and cross- border migration could be associated with environmental change. - Demographically caused migration conflicts. Situations where population pressure has become acute and environmental conditions degraded. - International resource conflicts. These are characterised by a asymmetric dependence upon resources. The classic example is river basins where people who live lower down the river are progressively more vulnerable. - Environmental conflicts due to global environmental change. The long term consideration of reduced rainfall or seal level rise could work to the detriment of populations and trigger stress responses. • Integrated risk assessment. This was to establish guidelines for assessing and prioritising the potential impact of different types of environmental change on security. • Indicators, data and decision support systems. This chapter looked at the variety of indicators available ranging from physical parameter such as soil loss to economic factors such as food price rises and social indicators such as health.
The report came up with a number of key findings to assist in policy making. The issue was a complex one and the participants could not identify an easy solution or promote a quick fix. Seven categories of policy areas where actions could be undertaken in response to the impact of environmental stress were presented:
• Characterisation of environmental conditions that could be the root cause of the conflict. • Integrated assessment of an environmental issue. • Early warning. • Preventive diplomacy. • Permanent mechanisms for dispute resolution. • Crisis management. • Post-crisis management.
Participants Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Kyrgyztan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, UK, USA.
Comment This was an innovative topic for NATO CCMS Environmental Security discussions that had been used to more tangible issues, such as contaminated land, in the past. The policy areas provided a firm basis for future discussions and scenario building.
Report - CCMS Report 232
Follow Up The follow up is expected to be the province of NATO decision makers and organisations such as the OSCE and the United Nations through their operational arms such as UNEP.
A-17 Environmental Aspects of Reusing Former Military Lands (Phase( I) 1994-1996
Chairs: Dr Fritz Holwarth (Ministry of Environment, Germany) and Mr Gary Vest (DOD USA).
Agenda This study examined methods and formats for assessing the environmental characteristics of military lands for reuse including land selection criteria, types of contamination, risk assessment approaches and prioritisation methodologies. It also identified the most practical, expedient and cost-effective approaches to remediation of the most prevalent types of contamination at eight different types of military sites. The pilot study assessed economic, political, social, legal and other considerations affecting the level and extent of each nation's environmental activities. Distilling this information made it possible to identify areas in which a country's environmental efforts are well developed and areas in which a country might benefit from assistance. It assembled an extensive listing and description of international and national, and government and private sector, sources of financing to which individual nations might turn for assistance in financing their environmental projects. Moreover a plan and methodologies for assembling specific project proposals was created.
Participants Austria, Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Ukraine, UK, USA.
Comment This Pilot Study was promoted by the two nations who had most to offer the NACC/EAPC Partners. The USA had a wealth of experience in dealing with environmental aspects of clean up. Germany had recently acquired many areas despoiled by the military during the Cold War period and was willing to share its experience with others.
Report CCMS A-98 Technical Report (2 Vols) available from NATO Brussels.
Follow-up The USA funded research carried out by the Institute for Defence Analysis that led to the production of a document on the Sources of Financial Assistance for the Environmental Restoration of Former Military Land. This was aimed at assisting the CEE countries and classified sources from a wide range of government and non- governmental sources. The Pilot Study agreed to a Phase II.
Environmental Aspects of Reusing Former Military Lands (Phase( II) 1996-1998
Chairs: Dr Fritz Holwarth (Ministry of Environment, Germany) and Mr Gary Vest (DOD USA).
A-18 Agenda Phase II of this study developed five potentially viable project proposals for specific site restoration and reuse. The sites were:
• Ralsko, Czech Republic, • Amari, Estonia, • Liepaja, Latvia, • Klaipeda, Lithuania, • Borne-Sulinowo, Poland.
The pilot study also developed a Handbook on the Reuse of Former Military Lands, which may be applied to any site in any nation. This handbook is a reference tool that will need to be adapted to each nation's own needs and structure. This study has helped develop expertise in converting military sites to other uses. It has also helped foster better understanding of capacity building and problem-solving capabilities among and within all the participating nations.
Participants Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine, USA.
Comment The major value from this effort was the demonstration of cost-effective environmental remediation. This had relevance well beyond the military sector and linked to many non-military CCMS Pilot Studies and to NATO Science work. It benefited from the generous support of the USA and Germany.
Publications The publications from Phase II were produced by the participating nations and are not part of the NATO CCMS Report series.
Follow Up The follow up from this work is of interest to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and to many other technical and scientific bodies in the EU and beyond. There was also considerable commercial interest in the remediation of military land, as much of it has potential value for alternative uses.
Environmental Management Systems in the Military Sector 1996-2000
Chair(s) – Mr Cees Nagelhout (MOD Netherlands), Mr Patrick Meehan (DOD USA)
Agenda The objectives of this pilot study were to identify the possible implications of initiating and implementing Environmental Management Systems (EMS) in the military sector and to develop application guidelines, frameworks and models appropriate to the military sector. Two subgroups were first established with the following tasks:
• To exchange, review and evaluate experiences and expectations among countries regarding EMS.
A-19 • To identify, compare and evaluate standards for EMS that could be used in the military sector.
Based on the results of Subgroup 2, the pilot study group decided to use ISO 14001 as a framework for further work. Four new subgroups were then established to:
• Identify the benefits and resource requirements for implementation of EMS in the military sector. • Share information on environmental policies of participating countries. • Identify the unique characteristics of military organisations in relation to ISO 14001. • Identify the training requirements for EMS in the military sector.
The pilot study concluded that it is possible and desirable to implement environmental management systems in the military sector. EMS at the very least provides safeguards for top management that environmental legislation is respected. In addition, the ISO 14001 standard demands continual improvement of the environmental performance of the (military) organisation. This is unique to environmental management systems in general, but specially to the ISO 14001 standard. It ensures that the organisation is also capable of meeting the environmental challenges that lie ahead. Each Nation should remain free to decide if and how it implements environmental systems and standards. Those Nations willing to introduce a formal Environmental Management System within their Armed Forces are advised that NATO acknowledges the standard specification ISO 14001, which is a universally accepted standard.
The final Pilot Study Report is essentially a set of guidance notes for military organisations considering the implementation of EMS. It is 111 pages long and arranged in six chapters.
• The Forward gives an overview of EMS in the Military Sector and uses examples from Denmark, UK, Canada, the USA and the Czech Republic of ways in which NATO military are adopting formal Environmental Management Systems. • Chapter 1 provides the reader with an overview of the EMS process and emphasises the role of senior management using a Danish MOD example. • Chapter 2 deals with the Environmental Policy requirement within the EMS and provides examples of ways in which organisations can assess their policy needs. • Chapter 3 is on Planning and, with the use of explanatory annexes, outlines the four steps in planning an EMS 1. Determine baselines. 2. Develop objectives and targets. 3. Perform a gap analysis. 4. Develop action plans. • Chapter 4 covers implementation and is designed to help organisations implement the action plans prepared in the previous phase. It covers aspects related to staff training. • Chapter 5 deals with environmental monitoring, evaluating and reporting activities. It assists in the identification of non-conformance with the standard, and the topics of records and management reviews. Reporting activities includes internal and external aspects of reports and mentions the importance of style and content.
A-20 • Chapter 6 is a brief look at the registration issue. ISO 14001 allows organisations to self-declare their compliance with the standard and to proceed to a formal registration through a certification body. However it is pointed out that a rush to register could lead to a rushed implementation of the EMS, which would be of little benefit. • There is a useful Glossary of terms and a list of references at the back of the report.
Participants Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Rep., Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, UK, USA.
Comment The greatest contribution of this Pilot Study is probably the final report, which was authored through a consortium of NATO countries working by email. The professional editing was undertaken by Canada and the USA.
Report - CCMS Report No. 240
Follow-up The Pilot Study generated much interest and led to a Workshop in EMS in Switzerland from 22-26 Jan 2001.
Forms of Environmental Education in the Armed Forces and their impact on the creation of pro-environmental attitudes. 2001-current
Chair – Dr Anna Kalinowska (Ministry of Environment, Poland)
Agenda The new Pilot Study started with a meeting in Warsaw in March 2001 to establish its terms of reference. Its main premise is that environmental education is the most cost- effective form of pollution prevention and the Armed Forces, because they educate so many people, can have a significant role to play in developing pro-environmental attitudes. This can be particularly useful in countries with conscription because an entire age group of young men (and women in some cases) can gain attitudes that should last them into their adult lives. In addition, environmental knowledge gained during military service can be transferred into the civilian workplace to the benefit of employers and the government. The aim of the Pilot Study is to investigate these ideas and if they are proved correct, they could assist governments in their priorities for environmental education.
Participants – The preliminary meeting was primarily with Polish participants.
Comment – The Pilot Study has its first official meeting in Warsaw in October 2001.
A-21 Promotion of Environmental Awareness in the Armed Forces 1987-1991
Chair – Dr Ulrich Schneider (MOD Germany)
Agenda This Pilot Study followed on the successful work done by Aircraft Noise in a Modern Society and turned to consider the Ground Forces in particular. There was a general recognition that the Armed Forces, as an integral part of society, must conduct its activities in an environmentally sustainable manner. They must also share the responsibilities for protection of the environment and conserving the natural and cultural resource heritage for future generations. Therefore, a balance must be achieved between the military infrastructure requirements and training activities on the one hand, and justifiable interests of the population on the other. Consequently, it is necessary for Armed Forces to consider potential environmental consequences of their activities and conduct those activities in such a manner as to minimize negative environmental impacts within military mission constraints.
This study developed techniques for promoting environmental awareness in the Armed Forces of member nations. It reviewed present practices in the Armed Forces of member states and made proposals for improvement, where deemed necessary. A major accomplishment of the Pilot Study was the development of a statement of principles for the "Environmental Awareness and Protection in the Armed Forces". The Pilot Study Group also produced a film, which primarily addressed the field based soldier and showed the need to fulfil military tasks in accordance with the requirements of environmental protection in his or her daily duties.
Participants Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, UK, USA.
Comment – The initiative came from Germany because of the sensitivities of the population to the changing circumstances of the end of the Cold War. Military activity that was damaging to the environment could no longer be “swept under the carpet”. Although the actual products of the Pilot Study were relatively few, great strides were made in influencing NATO MODs of the need for environmental consideration and training.
Report - CCMS Report No. 188 (more of a working paper than a report).
Follow-up – The work of this group was carried forward to a meeting in London in November 1990 to establish a Pilot Study on National Environmental Expectations and Requirements in NATO Countries. However it soon became apparent that the scope was too small and the Pilot Study was renamed Defence Environmental Expectations and chaired by the USA and UK.
An important spin off from this Pilot Study was that when it was clear that it would not continue in its present form, the Canadian MOD hosted a meeting to continue the initiative for improving environmental training. As noted above, this led to the establishment of the NATO Training Groups’ Environmental Training Working Group (ETWG) which meets twice a year to collaborate over issues relating to training and land management.
A-22 Furthermore, it is considered that the issues raised at the CCMS sponsored Dombas Conference led to discussions that in time led to the setting up of the Pilot Study on the Re-Use of Former Military Lands.
Protection of Civil Populations from Toxic Material Spills during Movements of Military Goods 1992-2000
Chair - Canada
Agenda In the year preceding the initiation of the pilot study, an emergency measures conference was held in the Czech Republic, which focused on how former military units would undertake more significant roles in response to civil emergencies. During this meeting, several international modal programmes were presented:
• The European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, commonly referred to as ADR. • The Central Office of International Rail Transport's Agreement on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Rail, commonly referred to as RID. • The International Maritime Organisation's International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code). • The International Civil Aviation Organisation's Technical Instructions on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods (ICAO TI's). • The European Provisions Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterway (ADN).
A question however, remained unanswered: this was in what way do you make organisations and individuals comply with these procedures. The question was at the heart of the issue and invited a consideration of different forms of law, the content of the law, compliance programs, culture and resources. The question was ever present during the life of the pilot study. The meetings of this pilot study developed the ideas of:
§ How one can express values as a policy; § How policy can be turned into legislation; § How legislation can be supported by regulations and international standards, and § How compliance with these can be attained.
The point was made repeatedly during the sessions that prevention was more effective than response in protecting people, property and the environment.
Participants Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Ukraine, USA.
A-23 Comment Although this was nominally a military related Pilot Study, in practice it dealt with civilian regulations and with their adoption and compliance.
Report CCMS Report No. 234 and Emergency Response Guidebook (2000).
Follow Up Follow-up is likely to be handled by Ministries of Transportation and Emergency Planning.
Sustainable Building for Military Infrastructure 1999-current
Chairs – Mr Maarten Gijsbers (MOD Netherlands) and Mr Bob Gaudette (DND Canada)
Agenda This Pilot study started with a proposal for a short term as hoc project made in 1999 by the Ministry of Defence of the Netherlands and Department of National Defence Canada. The objectives of the project were to:
• Establish to what extent participating countries have developed and implemented policies on sustainable building. • Share experiences and successes in this field. • Demonstrate good examples of sustainable techniques in building projects. • Improve awareness of “green” design and assessment tools. • Establish a network of sustainable building experts. • And to make plans for future action.
The study started with a seminar in the Netherlands from 14-16 Mar 2000. There were technical presentations from a number of European and North American contributors.
The participants agreed that:
1. NATO/EAPC countries could work together to guide and improve environmental practices to foster sustainability. 2. Sustainable building requires early planning and particular management practices that promote improved environmental performance and reduce life cycle costs. 3. By assessing the environmental performance of building and lands and by sharing lessons learned participating countries can better understand the extent of sustainable activity now taking place and establish benchmarks for the future. 4. NATO CMS can play a role in supporting and coordinating Sustainable Building in the military sector. 5. In addition they noted the requirement for some initial actions: • The need for a glossary of common terms and parameters. • Identify the key elements of the sustainable building process. • Exchange information by a variety of methods e.g. case studies, implementation strategies, life cycle costs, a web site.
A-24 The conclusion from the participants was that there was sufficient material of interest to warrant a proposal to NATO CCMS Plenary for a Pilot Study in late 2000.
Participants Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, UK, USA, and Finland, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland.
Comment – This effort came about because of the enthusiasm of the two Chairs for the topic and their ability to engage NATO and EAPC/PfP countries in this topic.
Report – NATO-CCMS Report 246 - Sustainable Building for Military Infrastructure (August 2000)
Use of Simulators as a means of reducing Environmental Impacts caused by Military Activities. 1990-1995
Chair – Mr Cees Nagelhout (MOD Netherlands)
Agenda This pilot study was set up to investigate how much environmental benefit could be gained from the use of simulators. It identified the need for policy analysis management tools which would give procurement officers an insight into the environmental impacts of different types of weapons training activities and the role simulators could play in reducing these impacts.
Participants Belgium (observer), Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg (observer), Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal (observer), UK, USA.
Comment This was a useful series of technical discussions that helped to move the discussion of simulators and simulation forward so that the environmental benefits could be perceived by military planners as well as the benefits for military skills.
Report - CCMS Reports No. 210 (Pilot Study Final Report), 217 (Proceedings of the Seminar held 6-7 January 1997 at the NATO School SHAPE, Oberammergau, Germany).
Follow-up The seminar at the NATO School SHAPE was the immediate follow up for this Pilot Study. In practice there has been significant take up of simulation and simulators in the Armed Forces as they have been more and more constrained by national regulations or agreements with conservation and heritage bodies.
End of listing
A-25