Greening Foreign and Security Policy (GFSP): The Role of Europe

Organised by the Global Legistators Organisation for a Balance Environment (GLOBE-EU) and the Institute for Environmental Security (IES) to promote the better integration of environment, development and security policies in Europe and internationally.

Friday, October 13, 2006

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES

In addition to the individual discussion papers for each working group (listed above), project participants may also like to consider commenting on - or adding to - the list of draft discussion points that are contained in the paper titled the 'GFSP Paper on Cross-Cutting Issues'.

To read the paper, either follow the link 'GFSP Paper on Cross-Cutting Issues' or go to the 'Working Group Documents' section on the right side bar of this blog.

If you would like to comment or to add to the list of cross-cutting issues, click below: comments.

posted by Group D Coordinator: Nasser Yassin @ 11:22 am  

2 Comments:

  • At 3:58 pm, Blogger Michael Ryan said…

    Ron et al,

    On the last point about the potential for transatlantic approaches, I think that the best opportunities can be found in a bottom-up approach. In other words, what US and Canadian governmental, government-sponsored, or NGO-led activities are similar to, or are already working with, efforts in the EU or within EU member states? The EU and the US - EU relationship can be an excellent tool for helping others work together by providing resources (good offices, venues for meetings, public affairs support, recognition of efforts etc.), by providing a channel for coordination, but most of all by removing obstacles to closer cooperation. For example, the EP and the Congress can exchange information on worthwhile (and successful) approaches to a range of issues and they can be the vehicle by which the relevant actors get together to either deconflict, coordinate, or integrate their efforts. Let's build on success and reinforce the people who are actually out doing the right thing instead of over-regulating or over-politicizing their efforts. Keeping their overhead costs low and their bureaucratic entanglements to a minimum will ensure the bulk of their resources are directed at their programs.

    As a coordinating element, the EU and the USG can assist in the development of complementary approaches and mutually reinforcing efforts in the areas where we agree so as to ensure the most efficient (and effective) employment of our limited resources. High-level US-EU meetings are always looking for "deliverables" -- i.e. worthy projects or demonstrated success to which government resources can be contributed on behalf of taxpayers. As long as we ensure those resources don't come with unacceptable or burdensome strings attached, then we can ensure government involvement adds value.

    There are lots of examples in the military realm from demining and weapons collection / cantonement, to defense reform efforts in the Balkans that include good stewardship of the environment as a key element. NATO's assistance in cleaning up ex-Soviet bases in Central and Eastern Europe come to mind. US and EU member states' navies are working together to limit ocean noise while ensuring that their ability to protect our shores is not unnecessarily diminshed. A lot of these efforts suffer from a lack of factual exposure -- an area where goverments and parliaments can add a great deal of clarity.

    Thanks for the chance to comment,

     

  • At 9:52 am, Blogger Christopher Courtney said…

    Ron and team,
    I think we can start to answer at least one question from the crosscutting issues paper already.

    "Is there any realistic prospect of conducting any or all of the above on the basis of a transatlantic partnership and if so, how could this be achieved in practice?"

    The US Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) is looking for alternative fuels for US military jets in a new program called BioFuels. It will find companies which can produce 100 liters of biofuel that can replace the JP-8 standard military aviation fuel.

    According to the DARPA announcement, the Defense Department wants to "reduce the military's reliance on oil to power its aircraft, ground vehicles and non-nuclear ships" not to mention reducing the carbon emissions of military jets.

    DARPA plans on achieving 60 percent efficient conversion from crop oil to the bio-alternative JP-8 and hopes to hit 90 percent afterwards. Currently biodiesel fuels don't provide enough power and are too thick at low temperatures. JP-8 stands for "jet propellant" and is based on kerosene. It is not only used in aircraft, but also in M1 Abrams main battle tanks and on ships.

    Perhaps this is a project that both Europe and the US can work on together. Also, by "greening" the security sector in such a way, it can also serve open new doors to similar solutions for civilian transport.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home