Biodiversity loss is a significant global security threat. Considering NATO’s 2030 Climate Agenda and other environmental goals, military impacts on biodiversity in NATO member countries Military Training Areas (MTAs) should be critically assessed. Three policy options are considered: instruct national militaries to implement biodiversity training programs on MTAs, establish a multilateral working group, or integrate biodiversity concerns into the current NATO Environment Protection Working Group (EPWG). Integration with the EPWG seems the most viable solution as it uses existing structures to facilitate coordination and cooperation. This method means changing the EPWG’s mandate to include biodiversity issues and create a subunit to provide expertise, facilitate data collection, and ensure efficient fund allocation for sustainable MTA management.
Introduction
Human actions have led to a stark decline in global wildlife and biodiversity. As a result, several species have gone extinct or are in danger of doing so in the Euroepan Union (EU) and abroad. Biodiversity loss is fundamentally a global issue, making it difficult to contain without coordinated action, considering the relation between biodiversity and ecosystems is complex and often misunderstood.
Policymakers should prioritise addressing biodiversity loss, as it heightens climate change and poses significant threats to human life and security, for instance to food security. It can also affect military security, through weakening logistic support lines, reducing defence against invasive species and much for. For example, in Hawaii, the visibility of Marines, assigned to protect base borders, is limited by thick non-native mangrove.
The security threats caused by biodiversity loss have wisely been recognised by subject-matter experts. As such, for example, the EU recognised the need to build resilient systems protecting against future threats in its Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Supported by many EU Member States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) had already adopted its Military Principles and Policies for Environmental Protection back in 2003 and updated them in 2011, recognising the need for “a harmonisation of environmental principles and policies for all NATO-led military activities“. This is especially relevant considering the impact of military activities on biodiversity, both direct (e.g. vegetation crushed by vehicles) and indirect (e.g. illegal or unregulated activities like deforestation).
Problem Description
MTAs have a significant impact on biodiversity within NATO member countries. On one hand, they can act as protected zones, shielding areas from intensive agriculture and urban development. They can harbour high conservation value and support unique wildlife populations, as seen in the Lehnin MTA near Berlin, Germany, which is known for its high conservation value and biodiversity. It is home to a wolf pack, which was the first seen in Germany in nearly 100 years. It is also seen in Camp Pendleton in California, which is home to 19 federally listed species and several state species that are either threatened or endangered. Nevertheless, MTAs can be heavily detrimental for biodiversity due to their use for various military activities, including live-fire exercises, vehicle manoeuvres, and troop training, resulting in habitat destruction, fragmentation and disturbance.
This way, MTAs can be perceived either as untouched areas due to their enclosed nature, or as disrupted landscapes subjected to disturbances from diverse training exercises. This presents the paradox of military lands, also known as “ecological militarisation”. Typically, the central regions bear the brunt of military training activities, whereas the outskirts remain shielded from human interventions like urban development and intensive farming.
Balancing military training activities with biodiversity conservation efforts is, thus, a challenge. The nature of this problem lies in the inherent conflict between the need for realistic training exercises in MTAs and the preservation of natural habitats and wildlife within these areas. Moreover, there is a very big gap in the real data available concerning biodiversity in MTAs: security concerns and restricted access to these areas hinder the collection of comprehensive data and the monitoring of biodiversity, making it difficult to assess the full extent of environmental impacts.
Policy Options
Option 1: mandating national militaries to implement biodiversity training programs for military personnel on MTAs.
A first possible policy option is a requirement for NATO member countries to implement biodiversity training programs for military personnel training and/or living on MTAs. In this sense, educational initiatives created, supported and funded nationally, or with partner organisations such as the EU, would try to enhance the visibility of biodiversity considerations. Ideally, decisionmakers would keep this in mind while planning and holding training exercises and zoning MTAs.
The advantages of this approach are that it maintains sovereignty and autonomy of member countries over their MTAs, as these could address biodiversity concerns without strict rules from NATO and be more flexible in their approaches. It further avoids potential bureaucratic hurdles associated with increasing NATO involvement and, for some member countries, overlapping EU-NATO regulation.
The disadvantages, however, are based on the lack of serious coordination chosen with this approach, potentially leading to inefficiencies and duplication of efforts, for example the testing of a conservation curriculum by multiple member countries. Sincere and strong individual leadership and commitment from numerous national governments to address transboundary biodiversity issues would be necessary to overcome this obstacle, as demonstrated by the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Instead, fragmented efforts could lead to insufficient sincerity in implementation. Furthermore, educational initiatives, which already exist in a few member countries, may not be sufficient to address the complex challenges associated with balancing military training needs and biodiversity and do not further data collection or other more immediate concerns.
Option 2: Establishing a Multilateral Working Group.
Another policy option involves the creation of a new multilateral working group dedicated to addressing biodiversity concerns in MTAs, consisting of representatives from NATO member countries and relevant actors, such as conservation experts and representatives of other partner organisations such as the EU, and tasked with coordinating efforts to mitigate the environmental impact of military activities on biodiversity.
The advantages of this option are that it facilitates collaboration and information sharing among member countries, while allowing for a more comprehensive approach to addressing biodiversity concerns and providing a platform for sharing best practices and expertise in MTA management.
However, the main disadvantage is the possible resistance faced from member countries unwilling to cede control over MTA management decisions. Indeed, resistance to expand NATO’s mandate to include biodiversity conservation could come from member countries that are traditionally opposed to environmental security initiatives, as they may view these as secondary to other security priorities, both because of ideological and financial reasons. This option requires significant political will to establish and maintain and could trigger bureaucratic inefficiencies and delays in decision-making processes. This increased resistance may also lead to the Working Grop’s eventual findings and recommendations not being adopted and implemented, as it would suffer from reduced institutional legitimacy compared to other NATO Working Groups.
Option 3: Integration with NATO EPWG.
A last policy option entails integrating biodiversity concerns into the existing framework of the NATO Environmental Protection Working Group (EPWG), thereby creating a dedicated subunit focused on the impacts of military activities on biodiversity within MTAs. This approach leverages prevailing infrastructure and expertise to ensure efficient coordination and the sharing of best practices among NATO member countries and partners.
The advantage of this strategy lies in its cost-effectiveness and minimal administrative burden, due to the use of pre-existing structures. It promotes enhanced cooperation and underscores NATO’s dedication to environmental security.
However, the integration might face challenges in prioritising biodiversity within the broader environmental agenda of the EPWG. The success of this approach depends on the commitment of member countries to implement biodiversity-friendly practices in their MTAs, balancing NATO’s overarching goals with national sovereignty.
Integration into the NATO EPWG as the most feasible solution
After careful consideration of the policy options outlined above, integrating biodiversity concerns into the existing NATO EPWG emerges as the most viable and effective solution. This option capitalises on existing structures and expertise, minimising implementation costs and administrative burdens. For maximum effectiveness, all NATO Allies should unify under one strategy established by the NATO biodiversity workforce. The goal of the workforce would be to supervise and assert responsibility over the organisation’s member countries’ impact on biodiversity within their MTAs.
To facilitate the integration process, steps would need to be taken to amend the EPWG’s mandate and explicitly include biodiversity issues. Additionally, resources may need to be allocated to support the EPWG’s expanded mandate, including funding for research, monitoring, and capacity-building initiatives.
Concerns about bureaucratic inefficiencies and resistance from member countries unwilling to expand the EPWG’s scope may emerge. However, these challenges can be mitigated through proactive engagement with member countries, emphasising the benefits of integrated environmental protection efforts and the importance of addressing biodiversity concerns in MTAs for the long-term security and sustainability of member countries.
To operate successfully, it is crucial for the EPWG to work towards closing an important informational gap concerning the environmental values of current MTAs. The EPWG would have the responsibility to provide expert knowledge and information to member countries to determine adequate land management. By the creation of this body, data would be collected at minimum. This could be done in cooperation with the EU, which already helps Member States collect data on the sustainability of their armed forces and has thus built-up similar capacity. At best, real changes and accommodations could be done within MTAs: training exercises that involve live-fire scenarios or explosions could be simulated using virtual reality technology or artificial intelligence/computer-based simulations, providing realistic training environments to practise. This would reduce pollution, habitat disturbance, and the risk of environmental damage associated with live-fire exercises. Instead of using live ammunition, non-pyrotechnic training aid such as laser-based systems could be employed, replicating the effect of live-fire exercises and allowing soldiers to practise without causing real environmental damage or disturbing wildlife.
Lastly, the subunit would ensure the surveillance of the funds allocated. Sufficient funds can contribute to reduced environmental degradation and therefore less rehabilitation costs. Through coordinated measures, according to the World Bank, 5-10% of the budget could be saved compared to non-integrated management costs, while costs would only amount to about 1% of the budget if fully implemented. The subunit would act as a unifying force to support all NATO allies towards better land management.
In conclusion, integrating biodiversity concerns into the NATO EPWG stands out as the most effective and sustainable policy option. By amending its mandate to include biodiversity issues, the EPWG and NATO can enhance its commitment to environmental security, ensuring that military training activities coexist harmoniously with the preservation of natural habitats.
This publication was produced by the participants of the year-long Transatlantic Leaders Fellowship Programme by European Horizons. Their policy pitch on ‘Increasing biodiversity in NATO member countries’ national military training areas’ was selected as a winner of the Public Policy Consultation in Energy and Environment category. Their ideas were subsequently revised by TEPSA and are presented in this brief.
